Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot

I’d love a codesharing ban but I know I won’t get it in TA2. I do think better scope is achievable.

From what has been said so far at the road shows and what has been addressed in the FAQ, we don’t have protections against “express” flying of any size aircraft done via CPA. When Art talks about codesharing having 99% of the profits going to the flying carrier he is talking about a regular codeshare where airline A flys their brand and brings some of airline Bs passengers.

They have said that CPAs fall into the codesharing language. Thus, nothing stopping Spirit from entering into a CPA with Skywest and having a bunch of MRJs (or even 737) painted yellow and saying Spirit but operated by Skywest in small letters.

So the question is, is that profitable? The legacies seem to think so and want as much of it as they can get and on the biggest plane they can get. The argument is made that we are not a hub and spoke system so the economics aren’t the same. I’d argue that FLL operates a lot like a hub and spoke. The deal is also as profitable as the terms and a CPA is not structured in the same way as a traditional codeshare agreement yet it’s categorized in the same paragraph in the contract.

Bob used Skywest at AirTran and Ted Christie comes from a regional airline and knows that business well.


The other issue was Flag of convenience. It was raised that no other airline has a ban on codesharing with Norwegian. Most of the other companies have actively lobbied the DOT and congress alongside Alpa against the model in the Deny NAI campaign. Spirit did not. And just because no one else has a ban in their contract why can we not be the first. If we are going to assume that codesharing is not profitable, fine but a ban should be in place on codesharing with ANY flag of convenience carrier. The model is a threat to the entire industry and any feed to it allowing it to grow should be choked off. Art says Spirit has no plans to codeshare with Norwegian. Are we taking their word for it?