Just a minor correction.
It was International Parcel Express (IPX) that UPS used to start the new UPS Airlines. IPX was a 50-50 joint venture with DHL created specifically to gain routes in Japan. The venture didn’t work out and UPS ended up buying out DHL’s share of IPX. Eventually it was renamed to UPS Airlines and the rest history.

Agree with the rest of your post.

___
...To expand its flight network, UPS opened a distribution facility in Anchorage in 1985. Similar to Louisville, Anchorage was chosen for its strategic geographical position, accessible to 90% of the industrialized world in less than 9½ hours flying distance.

In 1986, in an effort to obtain service rights to Japan, UPS entered into a joint venture with DHL, named International Parcel Express (IPX). IPX was rejected for use in Japan, leading UPS to purchase the DHL share of the joint venture in 1987. At the end of 1987, UPS ended the use of contract flights by Evergreen, Ryan, and Orion. Using the flight certificate intended for the IPX joint venture, the renamed UPS Airlines commenced operations in January 1988, adopting many flight crews from Orion Air...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines

 

You do not need common operational control for a single transportation system determination.
See eg. 22 NMB 331 (1995) and TWA/Ozark cases.

"[W]hether a combined schedule is published; how the carrier advertises its services; whether reservation systems are combined; whether tickets are issued on one carrier’s stock; if signs, logos and other publicly visible indicia have been changed to indicate only one carrier’s existence; whether personnel with public contact were held out as employees of one carrier; and whether the process of repainting planes and other equipment, to eliminate indications of separate existence, has been progressed"

At the moment, AA and its WOs would be an obvious single transportation system, even though there is no shared operational control between the carriers.

 

I’m trying to follow you here. Common operational control is not required. AA and it’s WOs have no shared operational control. Yet AA and it’s WOs are an obvious STS but they haven’t been declared so. Would this also apply for non-wholly owned like UAL and ComutAir?

That would seem to support that common operational control is required. Maybe we are arguing the definition of operational control? Maybe my use of the term operational control is not the correct term?

My point was that for there to be a single transportation system, you need more than just common ownership. You also require that one entity is calling the shots of all entities (what I was calling operational control), not acting independent of each other, each with their own departments (labor relations, marketing, scheduling, dispatch, payroll, etc).

 

Operational Control is a specific concept within Part 119 for certificate holders. Very much simplified, that is your SOC - the entity or persons who have the control to dispatch, cancel or delay flights. You do not need to share operational control to have a single transportation system. The NMB has done that determination before by looking at the carrier as a whole. The quote is from TWA/Ozark. In that case, the fact that the tickets were sold from common stock, uniforms were identical, and the carrier obviously tried to make it all seem like one single operation (just like AA and its WOs, or I would say United and CommutAir as well), would constitute a basis to determine it is in fact a single transportation system. The fact that WOs or CommutAir have their own operational control does not release them from that.

 

The established precedent applying today *appears* to require some common operational control. Skywest consolidated the ASA/XJT certs but kept them at arms length from Skywest Airlines, and everybody knew it was to avoid a common carrier petition which would have resulted in ALPA for the entire combined group.

This despite the fact that the three carriers overlapped as UAX/DCI in various places.

 

Yes, I got that. Operational control is not the right term to use. My comment to Johnnyjetprop was to add that it does require common decision making, for lack of a better term.

 

UPS had Ryan, Orion, Evergreen and I think one other. The single carrier wasn’t anything to do with Anti Trust. It was a pain in the ass for UPS. Tail numbers were assigned to specific carriers. If there was a mechanical say on an Orion assigned aircraft, they couldn’t use a Ryan assigned aircraft as a spare. From what I heard, it was a nightmare dispatching. Amazon is going to end up doing the same thing. Bring the airline in house as a single carrier.

 

The 757's
in Canada belong to and are operated by Morningstar. Flight training is in Memphis using their instructors

 

Minor correction
The aircraft belongs to FedEx but Morningstar maintains and operates them

 

as previously stated, "subcontractors" flying freight for the "big brand" is nothing new. In the PAX world this is basically what many regional airlines do.

The various FedEx painted Caravans, ATR's are an example.

Ameriflight is another. See "ECommerce boom" pic below