Carl;
What I see it that e-mail is a very carefully worded statement. They stated that the NMB "Ruling" and the RLA do not provide protections for this sort of thing, nor do they define what an Air Carrier is. They DID NOT state that the findings of the NMB that are though out the ruling, and the actions of RJET do not constitute an Air Carrier for RJET. It is very big difference. Smart too!

It does not mean they will, but it does mean that they were very careful in how they chose their words and that is good. Everything that was stated is factually correct. The Ruling (Decision) from the NMB has little to no bearing on if we can prove they are an "Air Carrier" as described under CFR Part 49 (which is referenced in this section of the PWA) It does not state that the findings within the ruling cannot be used to arrive at a petition for Air Carrier status though the court system. Make no mistake if gone though with, this will not just be a grievance process, it will be a court process too.

The lawyers will dutifully look at all of this, and like it or not, they will give us the legal answer. Intent is important, but so is/are past practices which will give a prescience. A ****er for sure, but a reality none the less. We live in a legal world plain and simple.