Originally Posted by forgot to bid

...If the MEC is saying what I hope they're saying, they want to use this ruling to go after the definition of "air carrier" such that from now on holding companies are seen as STS and thus preclude anyone from trying this RAH style ploy to do an end around scope.

If that's the case, you'd no longer have to fight each regional one at a time because you could, with a change in definition, automatically wipe RAH, American Eagle and anyone else who is tries this holding company ploy out of DCI for violating our scope.[/B]

And the last thing a DCI wants to lose is guaranteed profit. I believe the IBT knew this when they presented their case and thus made it so very specific about representation. And to me the NMB was toying with their ruling, "yeah, totally STS, in every account, but since you only asked about representation then we'll keep adding that caveat of "when it comes to class or craft." The NMB just put the ball on the T.