If the multiple certificates are deemed to be of "Single Carrier" status, then yes, it may trigger some of our Section One Provisions. Currently they are one corporate entity with multiple carriers. They have been operating this way for some time. Think CQ, Shuttle America and Republic, now they just added MEH and Frontier. Of course it is all now called Frontier, instead of Republic Holdings, but the corporate structure has remained unaltered.

Here's another great bit on flying from Brian Regan. Frikking hilarious (and right on the money!). You'll laugh your ass off.

YouTube - Brian Regan on Flying

If they are found to have single carrier status (and how could they not???) will that put RAH in violation of our scope clause? Would the whole certificate shell game fall apart finally?

I remember when they first got the 170's and were operating them at Chautauqua they were violating American's scope and paying out something like $1M/month to the APA.

Anyone know the timeframe for determining their single carrier status?

Doesn't matter anyway. Any Single Carrier problems can be easily whisked away with a new LOA or MOU.

Chucking REP out of the system does not agree with the "New World Order", where its really about what's good for ALL ALPA carriers, rather than any one carrier.

Mark my words...

Nu

Neither Frontier or any RAH pilot group is ALPA, so that doesn't matter.

Nu;
It we all hope it is determined that they will achieve single carrier status. Tell me how you argue that the new entity is different than the old one?

There was language in the PWA (sans ACA days) that is no longer there. That language would have made the current and former corporate structure of RJET in violation the PWA Section One Single Carrier provisos.

I'm somebody! I got polled!

Even Oprah thought that sounded like passing the buck ...

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/me...rrah_scowl.png

Heyas ACL,

We DO all hope that they get their single carrier status. What WAS in the contract is not really relevant.

In any event, a SC determination may or may not produce a problem for DAL with regards to section 1.

1) First we need the ALPA types to determine whether or not such a entity DOES violate section 1.

2) If so, then THEY need to decide if they want to do anything about it

3) If they do decide what they want to do something about it, they need to decide what.

4) At any point, you can bet the company will disagree with ALPA's interpretation, and say "grieve it", which may lead to an ALPA cave-in on any number of levels.

5) Even if you get as far as a grievace settlement, lawsuit award or whatever, that leads to the removal of REP aircraft from the DAL property, no big deal, as the room in section 1 that is created by the removal of the REP jets will simply allow another carrier to step in with replacement jets, probably within days of the award.

So you see, given the past performance, a SC determination leading to aircraft removed from the property means nothing in the long run.

You could, of course, as as part of the grievance settlement to reduce the number of permitted airframes, but good luck with that. You couldn't get the MEC to buy off on that, let alone the company.

Nu

I'm not saying to not serve FC. I'm suggesting that they serve FC prior to coach boarding. And be quick about it. I've seen them block coach passengers at the cockpit door for a couple of minutes while they served FC. It is kind of demeaning and demoralizing to the coach passengers who actually see what is going on. Everyone in the jetway doesn't see what's going on.

Serve FC. But once coach passengers start to come down the jetway, throttle back and get people on. If someone in FC didn't get their drink in time, there's always going to be natural breaks in the passengers to serve them.