Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   Continental, Express Jet, and Mesaba (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/46026-continental-express-jet-mesaba.html)

ZDub 11-26-2009 07:42 PM


Originally Posted by The Stig (Post 716714)
Mesaba ground crew scum.

Wow. Really?

H46Bubba 11-27-2009 06:43 AM

The DOT's use of "unfair and deceptive practices" against Mesaba is thin at best!:rolleyes: In order for that to really apply per the regs; Mesaba would have to have been acting as a "commercial carrier" engaging in "Air Trans portation" per referrence#6 on Mesaba's consent order;

6 “ ‘Air transportation’ is the transportation of passengers or property by air as a common carrier between two places in the United States or between a place in the United States and a place outside of the United States or the transportation of mail by air. A ‘common carrier’ is a person or other entity that, for compensation or hire, holds out and/or provides to the public transportation by air between two points.”
Yes; Mesaba is an "Air Carrier", but by definition per the regs it was not it acting as one and was not engaging in "Air Transportation". The aircraft was not owned or operated by Mesaba; was not carrying passengers for ExpressJet or Continental, nor was there a contract between Mesaba and ExpressJet for ground handeling services. Mesaba is in no way resposible to Continental's passengers. Mesaba was voluntarily acting in a ground support operation only; which is not bound by Section 41712. If this were in the legal sytem it would hold it's weight in court.

iPilot 11-27-2009 07:10 AM


Originally Posted by H46Bubba (Post 717649)
The DOT's use of "unfair and deceptive practices" against Mesaba is thin at best!:rolleyes: In order for that to really apply per the regs; Mesaba would have to have been acting as a "commercial carrier" engaging in "Air Trans portation" per referrence#6 on Mesaba's consent order;

Yes; Mesaba is an "Air Carrier", but by definition per the regs it was not it acting as one and was not engaging in "Air Transportation". The aircraft was not owned or operated by Mesaba; was not carrying passengers for ExpressJet or Continental, nor was there a contract between Mesaba and ExpressJet for ground handeling services. Mesaba is in no way resposible to Continental's passengers. Mesaba was voluntarily acting in a ground support operation only; which is not bound by Section 41712. If this were in the legal sytem it would hold it's weight in court.

They might not of been flying around but while they were operating the gates at the airport they also fall under the rules of an air carrier. The fact that they accepted the flight and then told them no when they got on the ground is where the problem lies. If they had already closed up shop for the night or even said no from the start then they wouldn't of been liable. However, when they said they would service the flight they then became accountable for unloading the passengers into the terminal as promised.

H46Bubba 11-27-2009 08:10 AM


Originally Posted by iPilot (Post 717668)
They might not of been flying around but while they were operating the gates at the airport they also fall under the rules of an air carrier. The fact that they accepted the flight and then told them no when they got on the ground is where the problem lies. If they had already closed up shop for the night or even said no from the start then they wouldn't of been liable. However, when they said they would service the flight they then became accountable for unloading the passengers into the terminal as promised.

So DGS and Regional Elite would fall under Section 41712 as an "air carrier" when they're operating gates and performing ground hadling functions? Don't think so...and the DOT will tell you the same thing. If this happened yesterday I can bet you the only ones getting fined would be CO and Xjet.

Nevets 11-27-2009 09:13 AM


Originally Posted by H46Bubba (Post 717698)
So DGS and Regional Elite would fall under Section 41712 as an "air carrier" when they're operating gates and performing ground hadling functions? Don't think so...and the DOT will tell you the same thing. If this happened yesterday I can bet you the only ones getting fined would be CO and Xjet.

DGS and Regional Elite would probably have been fined under different regulations that pertain to them. Your argument is strictly a technical one and not one on the merits of the case. The fact of the matter is that all three air carriers made mistakes and so all three are being held accountable. In Mesaba's case, they were wrong to not allow passengers to deplane, (especially when they had accepted the responsibility to ground handle the flight).

LostInPA 11-27-2009 12:21 PM

Ridiculous....
 
The consumerist cheerleaders all seem to be having a field day over this one, while seeming to forget that these fines will be paid for by the passenger. Not like the money is going to come right out of Kellner's personal bank account or anything. Keep fining, and the passengers will keep paying through fare increases. Typical government non-solution.

ebl14 11-27-2009 01:44 PM


Originally Posted by LostInPA (Post 717777)
The consumerist cheerleaders all seem to be having a field day over this one, while seeming to forget that these fines will be paid for by the passenger. Not like the money is going to come right out of Kellner's personal bank account or anything. Keep fining, and the passengers will keep paying through fare increases. Typical government non-solution.

Incorrect, the monies will be taken out of future gains in crew contracts. Everyone knows the only way for the airlines to make more money is to stop overpaying these pilots! :mad:

NonRev4Life 11-27-2009 01:46 PM


Originally Posted by The Stig (Post 716714)
Mesaba ground crew scum.

coughtrollcough

jeeps 11-27-2009 02:32 PM


Originally Posted by The Stig (Post 716714)
Mesaba ground crew scum.


Constructive! Thanks.

jayray 11-27-2009 03:17 PM


Originally Posted by Nevets (Post 717717)
DGS and Regional Elite would probably have been fined under different regulations that pertain to them. Your argument is strictly a technical one and not one on the merits of the case. The fact of the matter is that all three air carriers made mistakes and so all three are being held accountable. In Mesaba's case, they were wrong to not allow passengers to deplane, (especially when they had accepted the responsibility to ground handle the flight).

Which means in the future no carrier will ever except responsibility for another carriers flight. They will just say no. Mesaba made no money from this flight yet was held liable for payments that amount to 3 yearly salaries of an FO. Think another airline will ever try to help out another airline again? Now where does XJet divert to? At which point does this become a safety issue? I think Mesaba should have been penalized but for some reason something doesn't seem quite right. Mesaba had nothing to gain from this situation and everything to lose.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:46 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands