Wouldn't that also imply, by extension, that the company is violating the A++ JV agreement (which it isn't) because they're two separate companies? There is no more revenue sharing or conflict with CAL's contract, because it's one holding company. Now that the holding company receives the profits from both the Colgan and Skywest flying, they would seem to move from "code share" to "complementary carrier" status in both contracts. It doesn't make sense that they should be able to say, on one hand, the A++ JV restrictions no longer apply because it's one company, not a joint venture, then turn around and claim the Skywest flying doesn't violate CALs contract, and the Colgan flying doesn't violate UALs contract because they're separate companies. Then again, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express, so I'll let the union lawyers argue their case.