The DOT's use of "unfair and deceptive practices" against Mesaba is thin at best!
In order for that to really apply per the regs; Mesaba would have to have been acting as a "commercial carrier" engaging in "Air Trans portation" per referrence#6 on Mesaba's consent order;
6 “ ‘Air transportation’ is the transportation of passengers or property by air as a common carrier between two places in the United States or between a place in the United States and a place outside of the United States or the transportation of mail by air. A ‘common carrier’ is a person or other entity that, for compensation or hire, holds out and/or provides to the public transportation by air between two points.”
Yes; Mesaba is an "Air Carrier", but by definition per the regs it was not it acting as one and was not engaging in "Air Transportation". The aircraft was not owned or operated by Mesaba; was not carrying passengers for ExpressJet or Continental, nor was there a contract between Mesaba and ExpressJet for ground handeling services. Mesaba is in no way resposible to Continental's passengers. Mesaba was voluntarily acting in a ground support operation only; which is not bound by Section 41712. If this were in the legal sytem it would hold it's weight in court.