OK, now what? Talk is cheap....

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner!

But they are. You can bet your money that there is a class action lawsuit against Contiental Airlines for that Buffalo Colgan Crash. Contract feeders are directly working for the mainline master and as such the likelihood of Continental being held responsible for that crash, at least partially, is great.

Colgan is deemed to be representing Continental Airlines in the eyes of the flying public. Colgan flies airplanes painted with Continental colors and logos, and their flights are advertised as Continental flights to the public.

Even if Continental is held not liable, the cost of defending such a massive lawsuit is extremely expensive. Mainline management is aware of it. Problem is most top management only last few years so they are only interested in short term profits and the cost of defending such a lawsuit is weighed against the savings made by farming out the mainline flying to the cheapest bidder. Continental management and their beancounters figure it still makes monetary sense to have Colgan fly those flights. In the Colgan Buffalo crash, that type of mentality has come back and bit them on their a**.

Anytime a contract feeder gets into an accident from now on, the public,more than ever, will demand a thorough investigation into whether the training and experience of the flight crew met the current professional mainline standards or whether they were negligent and subpar. In the Colgan crash, there is enough evidence to make a convincing argument that there was negligence on the part of Colgan and Continental Airlines will most likely be held accountable as well, at least partially.

The class-action lawsuit against CAL you mentioned is indeed in place, but the current mechanics of liability severely limit the potential success of that suit. While it's true that Continental has been held at least tangentially liable for 3407, they have successfully managed to deflect most of the blame toward the operator of the flight. The outcry that immediately followed 3407 regarding "name on plane/ticket" vs. actual operator has predictably died down, as public outrage is a perishable resource. It's now the status quo, and while people may still not like it, there is no legislation in place or in the works that would come close to DashDriver's elegant solution. The waters are muddy enough with rest rules, pay scales, etc. that the flying public has lost interest.

As long as the cost/benefit analysis at the highest levels of airline management still works out such that the financial benefits of outsourcing without oversight justify a Colgan crash or two, you won't see any change.

You seem to lack a basic understanding of how judicial system works in this country because Dashdriver's "elegant solution" as you called it cannot happen in the US without judicial precedence. We do not have France's Napoleonic code system where everything is spelled out black and white.

Our Tort and contract liability is one based on stare decisis. Meaning, as I have indicated, it can only come when a legal action such as the one against Continental prevails and sets a precedence for holding the mainline carrier liable for the actions of its contract feeder like Colgan. There have been numerous cases in the past that have held main party liable for the negligent actions of its subcontractor when that subcontractor was held out as representing the main party, such as in this case. I doubt Continental will be able to escape its share of the liability, however they maybe divided by the court.

As for your second point of cost benefit analysis, I have already pointed out that was the reason for mainline carriers to sell out scope to the cheapest bidder, however, this Colgan crash will have numerous legal and regulatory consequences which will force mainline management to reassess their strategy.