No. And yet, yes.

SKYW's Pearl Harbor on the industry when they chose to willingly "deal management an ace" in an act of agressive predatory bargaining was one such example. Although it was technically done outside Section 6, the cause and effect, the before and the after, remain the same.

Then came the Republix Air Group, and that was Section 6. Throw the FO's under the bus, deal the same "ace" SkyWest did only on steroids (all the way up to 100 seaters they didn't even have for many years, all for cut rate rates) in a specific bid to win current and future RFP's. And they were quite successful, to the detriment of other ALPA regionals both in and out of Sec. 6. Although in Section 6, they were IBT and not ALPA, but to emphasise that point is splitting hairs and missing the broader point.

Other regionals, in Section 6 and in ALPA, have crafted and in many cases ratified CBA/PWA's within the lowest bidder RFP paradigm and along the lines of predatory bargaining (from the perspective of others...although each group probably considers each act more "preservational bargaining"...alas there is a chicken and egg paradigm in all this). In many cases, concessionary ALPA Sec. 6 CBA's were ratified even in the face of profitable companies and in many cases while embedded within a broad and growing regional sector.

The only reason that is possible in the first place, of course, are the (mostly) ALPA Sec. 6 shortcomings of the mainline CBA/PWA's, which not only "allowed" such race to the bottom bidding but set the stage to guarantee it would have to happen.

There is plenty of blame to go around, at the mainline and at the regional levels. Yet it will be up to the mainline MEC's and no one else to identify the core issues and then fix them, as well as deal with the heavy lifting in doing so (i.e. it will not be free).

Not that long ago at all, the vast majority of regionals were either all props, or prop operators with a few jets. Almost all of those jets were 50 seaters. and yet now half of mainline block hours (read: pilot jobs) are outsourced to regionals for perpetually depressed wages and working conditions and most regionals are mostly or all jets, with 70-76 seaters (and up?) rapidly becoming the new norm.

If the next generation of 100-120 seaters (etc) wind up being outsourced at the regionals, will it be "because" the regionals obtain that flying through Section 6? No. The mainline pilot groups will have to allow it first. Yet, yes. Because the regional pilot groups will have to agree to fly it not only cheaper than the mainline, but cheaper than other regionals. It won't matter if a given regional is ALPA, IBT, in-house or non-union, and it really won't even matter if they are in Section 6.

Not claiming I have all the answers or even trying to nit pick at your point. I know you were just pointing out a technicality, and I agree you are technically right. But, as you know, even looking at that technicality mandates a broader evaluation of how it even entered the discussion in the first place.