Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
But what about the look at the definition of air carrier and pursue making a holdings company an STS blah blah. I heard they have decided not to do that, just trying to get verification that we won't try and pursue STS.
I agree as of right now our weak section 1 allows RAH to continue as is which also gives permission for Skywest, Trans States and all others of RAH like minds to pursue the holdings company scope violation loophole. Delta is subsidizing Frontier right now, that needs to end.
That's why it's sad that SWA management, SWAPA and SWA pilots get to share a mutual mission while we try to convince our union to stop allowing the company to replace us with our own competition. As long as DCI continues with RJs we will never get to share a mutual mission but rather simply fight bitterly for the jobs we already have.
If the same lawyer team that helped craft Section 1 now advises us that the language is weak, something is amiss....
Either:
- The original lawyers did a poor job
- The current lawyers aren't good enough to get results
- There is a lack of interest in pursuing legal action
I want to know which it is and why.
Cheers
George