Originally Posted by
Blockoutblockin
This is an understandable reaction to a ruling. Remember, truth can boil down to credibility and reliability. If a committee chairman is perceived as lacking credibility, for whatever reason, then the testimony will be scrutinized. This has always been the case. You can go back to English common law from 500 years ago and find examples of this.
The "reel" question should be what is ALPA doing! My guess is they are busy representing themselves.
I agree with your post regarding testimony. In cases where there is conflicting testimony and no supporting evidence that is what the judge has to work with. In this case I feel the statistics were deferred by testimony. I would also expect ones testimony to be more reliable within their sphere of responsibility than outside it.
In the judge's defense the standards regarding an injunction are different than those for a finding of fault/damages (biased towards preventing irreparable harm). I can't speculate whether the ruling would be the same for the "end game".