That may be it, I do not know. RJET is totally different than AMR Eagle, as it is a code share agreement, and Mesa, was a different animal completely. I know that there are some issues with the definition of "Air Carrier" and the intent of what an air carrier is, and it never being a holding company and only a certificate holder. I think it has less to do with precedence than the issue of the definition. Saying that RJET is acting like an air carrier is true, but until we get DOT backing that a holding company is an "air carrier" as well as a holding company, the legal answer may leave us dead in the water.

I do not agree with it, but then again, I am not a lawyer and they are the ones that tell us what latitude the definition, as currently defined, can give us. I am sure a independent lawyer would tell you the same thing if he/she was not trying to just steal your money.

From what I gather it is not for a lack of desire, and the decision will be one that the reps make, not one they are told to make. If you have been to a MEC meeting with the "ALPA" lawyers present, you would quickly realize that they present legal opinions based on all information available to them. They then ask the Reps how they want to proceed. It is not underhanded or scheming in any level. It actually is downright boring and take the wind out of many arguments very quickly. These lawyers have been doing labor law for a very long time. They want to see us win, trust me.