Originally Posted by
dera
You do not need common operational control for a single transportation system determination.
See eg. 22 NMB 331 (1995) and TWA/Ozark cases.
"[W]hether a combined schedule is published; how the carrier advertises its services; whether reservation systems are combined; whether tickets are issued on one carrier’s stock; if signs, logos and other publicly visible indicia have been changed to indicate only one carrier’s existence; whether personnel with public contact were held out as employees of one carrier; and whether the process of repainting planes and other equipment, to eliminate indications of separate existence, has been progressed"
At the moment, AA and its WOs would be an obvious single transportation system, even though there is no shared operational control between the carriers.
I’m trying to follow you here. Common operational control is not required. AA and it’s WOs have no shared operational control. Yet AA and it’s WOs are an obvious STS but they haven’t been declared so. Would this also apply for non-wholly owned like UAL and ComutAir?
That would seem to support that common operational control is required. Maybe we are arguing the definition of operational control? Maybe my use of the term operational control is not the correct term?
My point was that for there to be a single transportation system, you need more than just common ownership. You also require that one entity is calling the shots of all entities (what I was calling operational control), not acting independent of each other, each with their own departments (labor relations, marketing, scheduling, dispatch, payroll, etc).