Originally Posted by
Wheels up
No, they couldn't.
Agreed under the same certificate. Could they do it if both Eagles are divested with one owning the other and the owned airline feeding AA while the owning airline contracted with other airlines ala' RAH/CHQ?
Originally Posted by
eaglefly
Be VERY careful phrog.
I've learned this forum is primarily a mainline pilots forum when scope is the subject and if you make any comments in favor of these aircraft for your carrier, you'll be targeted and will end up in a bash fest. Chances are it will be perceived YOU are the cause and will face the discipline. Many of these pilots expect you to either shut up about it, or capitulate to their way of thinking. It appears there is no middle ground or room for difference of opinion. I've had my posts removed that were "murky" in violation of forum rules, while others have had posts remain that included direct insults and attacks that are supposedly violations, but apparently acceptable because of what can only be perceived as their approved target.
Thank you, Eaglefly. This is good information to know. I've seen oppressive environments before, but will give this one the benefit of the doubt until your words are proved or disproved.
My comments on scope are not intended to be flamebait nor are meant to irritate anyone. If that happens, then it's their problem. I'm simply stating market realities. Our industry has been evolving ever since the
Deregulation Act of 1978 and being in denial about it isn't going to change anything.
My experience has taught me that the best way to handle a problem is to face it and learn as much about it as possible before deciding upon a plan to deal with it. The same goes for deregulation, scope, cabotage and all the other problems facing our profession.
Wishing a problem would go away doesn't work. Let's hope the moderators of this forum also realize this truism.