Originally Posted by
Check Essential
The legal answer is that it DOES violate our Section 1 but we have not enforced it in the past with AA Eagle at LAX and the lawyers claim that "past practices" will doom us in the System Board. They might be right. But now we'll never know.
Management's argument:
How to Win Past Practice Grievances, Chapter One
This whole thing is so underwhelming isn't it?
It's like a pilot who's run an aircraft off the end of the runway twice telling you how to fly your plane. It makes no sense to say these are the best lawyers in the business when they wrote our section 1, a colossal jewel of what not to do, and then don't even bother to enforce it anyways.
Who in the hell does ALPA have as lawyers?!?!?
If they don't try or win this redefine the definition of air carrier so as to beat back RAH then I sure as hell hope nobody has the gall to tell us to do anything but demand we go to court and have them fired.
BTW, my counter to the American Eagle/AMR thing would be to say AE was never Delta Connection carrier other than to serve as a codeshare in the same vein as Hawaiian. According to the 10K AE is a revenue proration agreement and DCI's are capacity purchase agreements, enough for me to say they have always operated different then RAH.