Airline Pilot Central Forums
Page 4 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   Pinnacle / Colgan Seniority List (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/57512-pinnacle-colgan-seniority-list.html)

Mesabah 03-07-2011 08:39 AM
Originally Posted by mooney (Post 959504)
re read what he wrote. it says leave out the INC/CORP semantics for the sole purpose of showing you it is not the codeshare that determins violation, it is where you get your assets/who purchases you as I said in my previous post.
No it's not.

mooney 03-07-2011 08:42 AM
Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 959506)
Colgan has never operated as a pinnacle flight in any capacity. PNCL holdings can buy any airline it wants and operate them separately from the other companies. Your scope contract prevents Colgan or any other airline from operating pinnacle airlines INC flights ONLY. In Mesaba's case in the past we had a scope contract with MAIR that prevented them from operating larger aircraft than 20 seats IIRC.
I really don't see how else to make you understand.....LEAVE OUT Pinnacle INC VS CORP for the purposes of this codeshare discussion. If Airline X buys airline Z and uses airline X's assets without merging the lists ets, it doesn't matter who airline Z codeshares with...you violated airline X's scope for the purposes of this discussion.

IBPilot 03-07-2011 08:46 AM
Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 959506)
Colgan has never operated as a pinnacle flight in any capacity. PNCL holdings can buy any airline it wants and operate them separately from the other companies. Your scope contract prevents Colgan or any other airline from operating pinnacle airlines INC flights ONLY. In Mesaba's case in the past we had a scope contract with MAIR that prevented them from operating larger aircraft than 20 seats IIRC.
you are correct on that....what you are failing to listen to us is in regards to codeshare which was your original argument....if Pinnacle INC buys and airline and that airline flies for Airtran, you agree that is a violation of Pinnacle Inc scope, no?

IBPilot 03-07-2011 08:50 AM
Do you even know what codeshare we are talking about?? it is between a regional and a mainline, not between a regional and a regional!

Mesabah 03-07-2011 08:51 AM
Originally Posted by mooney (Post 959512)
I really don't see how else to make you understand.....LEAVE OUT Pinnacle INC VS CORP for the purposes of this codeshare discussion. If Airline X buys airline Z and uses airline X's assets without merging the lists ets, it doesn't matter who airline Z codeshares with...you violated airline X's scope for the purposes of this discussion.
You are talking about something completely different than the relationship between Colgan and Pinnacle. I understand what you are talking about. You are saying that if Pinnacle INC bought an airline and started operating it as Pinnacle Inc, that would be a scope violation. That is correct, however in the case of Pinnacle vs Colgan both airlines were kept separate. This is not a violation of scope even if Pinnacle INC used its assets to form Pinnacle Holdings.

Mesabah 03-07-2011 08:52 AM
Originally Posted by IBPilot (Post 959515)
you are correct on that....what you are failing to listen to us is in regards to codeshare which was your original argument....if Pinnacle INC buys and airline and that airline flies for Airtran, you agree that is a violation of Pinnacle Inc scope, no?
Depending on the nature of the way the business is setup it may not be a violation of the scope contract.

IBPilot 03-07-2011 08:55 AM
Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 959519)
You are talking about something completely different than the relationship between Colgan and Pinnacle. I understand what you are talking about. You are saying that if Pinnacle INC bought an airline and started operating it as Pinnacle Inc, that would be a scope violation. That is correct, however in the case of Pinnacle vs Colgan both airlines were kept separate. This is not a violation of scope even if Pinnacle INC used its assets to form Pinnacle Holdings.
yes, but you had said that if Pinnacle inc bought an airline and used it as Pinnacle inc, they would not be in violation of codeshare if that other airline they bought was used as a feeder for CO/UA/insert non 'DL code here....that's what we are trying to make you see...if it was INC and run as COLGAN it would be in violation of scope even though Colgan doesn't feed DL...

IBPilot 03-07-2011 08:56 AM
this is a hopeless round an round argument someone else chime in

Mesabah 03-07-2011 08:57 AM
Originally Posted by IBPilot (Post 959523)
yes, but you had said that if Pinnacle inc bought an airline and used it as Pinnacle inc, they would not be in violation of codeshare if that other airline they bought was used as a feeder for CO/UA/insert non 'DL code here....that's what we are trying to make you see...if it was INC and run as COLGAN it would be in violation of scope even though Colgan doesn't feed DL...
Where in any of my posts did I say that?

mooney 03-07-2011 09:03 AM
Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 959519)
You are talking about something completely different than the relationship between Colgan and Pinnacle. I understand what you are talking about. You are saying that if Pinnacle INC bought an airline and started operating it as Pinnacle Inc, that would be a scope violation. That is correct, however in the case of Pinnacle vs Colgan both airlines were kept separate. This is not a violation of scope even if Pinnacle INC used its assets to form Pinnacle Holdings.
Our scope said"any flying performed by pinnacle Inc must be flown by pinnacle Inc seniority pilots". So if Inc buys an airline and keeps it separate as you said it is in direct violation of that since the other airline if separate would not be on the Inc seniority list...


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:18 AM.
Page 4 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


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