Originally Posted by
H46Bubba
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;
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.
They might not of been flying around but while they were operating the gates at the airport they also fall under the rules of an air carrier. The fact that they accepted the flight and then told them no when they got on the ground is where the problem lies. If they had already closed up shop for the night or even said no from the start then they wouldn't of been liable. However, when they said they would service the flight they then became accountable for unloading the passengers into the terminal as promised.