Originally Posted by
DeadHead
While I think scope is paramount in the next contract, I think we need to get alot better about actually enforcing what's in the contract. I feel like we are always the side of that table that works/negotiates in good faith which is rarely ever reciprocated during tense contract negotiations.
Seems like the pilot group is always on the short end of the stick when contract interpretation comes up.
If I understand it correctly, as far as the Republic discussion goes, it does not violate our scope restrictions because Republic is considered a holding company and not considered as single-carrier status?
Point is that Republic Holdings is acting like the air carrier, not just their certificates. Per the definition we use in the PWA (CFR Part 49's definition of "Air Carrier), it can be deemed that there have been significant changes in the way Republic Holdings operates, and therefore the holding company has become the air carrier, and is the single transport system.
You can also deduce that the holding company has many of the HR functions, including pilot selection and hiring. They also direct their certificates to perform branded flying outside of a Capacity Purchase Agreement (CPA: Republic Airlines and CHQ are doing branded operations for Frontier; F9)