opinion: PER CURIAM.
  This case is similar in many respects to UNA Chapter, Flight Engineers’ International Association v. National Mediation Board, 1961, 111 U.S. App.D.C.-, 294 F.2d 905. This, too, is a suit against the National Mediation Board and its members to set aside a determination in a representation case. Here, the Board recognized the stewards and stewardesses of United Airlines as a craft or class. It made a like ruling as to similar employees of Braniff Airlines. Each group voted in elections in which no other group participated. What is complained of is that the Board allowed the Air Line Pilots Association (ALFA) to appear on the ballot. It won both elections. The plaintiff-appellant, the Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association, brought suit in the District Court, alleging that pilots perform some supervisory and managerial functions in regard to stewards and stewardesses, and hence that their union is ineligible to represent the persons whom they supervise. The short answer is that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., does not forbid this, expressly or by implication. The District Court rightly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction under Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 1943, 320 U.S. 297, 64 S.Ct. 95, 88 L.Ed. 61. Appellant’s reliance on Leedom v. Kyne, 1958, 358 U.S. 184, 79 S.Ct. 180, 3 L.Ed.2d 210, is misplaced, for the reasons given in our opinion in Flight Engineers.
  Nor is any constitutional question presented. The Mediation Board — ■ as distinguished from committees appointed by it — is not required to give a hearing to a protesting union. See Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, supra at page 304 of 320 U.S., at page 98 of 64 S.Ct. Appellant’s argument to the contrary is untenable. The complaint contains allegations that United and Braniff coerced the stewards and stewardesses into voting for ALP A. These allegations seem purely conclusory, and based largely if not wholly on the argument that pilots are part of management. This sort of claim does not create jurisdiction in the District Court to set aside the Board’s determination. See 2 Moore, Federal Practice para. 12.08, at 2244-45 (2d ed. 1960). If appellant’s charge of coercion has any substance, appellant can apply for the institution of a criminal prosecution. See Railway Labor Act, Section 2, Tenth, 45 U.S.C.A. § 152.
  Affirmed.
  . If in fact ALPA’s representation proves inadequate or discriminatory, persons aggrieved will not lack remedy. Cf. Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 1944, 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private organization or association", specifically "business, trade, professional, or union (BTPU)". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.