Posts 17 and 20 for starters....you basically said Colgan never codeshared for delta so it wasn't a violation of scope no matter who bought them. See the source of confusion now?

That's just it, Colgan never did any Pinnacle INC flying. The only flying Pinnacle INC does is Delta codeshare flying. Colgan does not operate, nor has ever operated as a Pinnacle flight under the Pinnacle/Delta ASA. If Pinnacle INC had branded flying Colgan could not operate any of those flights. If Pinnacle Corp had branded flying, both Colgan and Pinnacle Inc. can operate those flights. Your scope contract only exists between you and Pinnacle Inc.

We are talking about codeshare flying for a mainline for the sake of your codeshare argument and scope. Stop making it a Inc/Corp issue for this argument. We all know about Inc Corp this is strictly codeshare argument

You do realize that if Colgan had an ASA with Delta it still wouldn't be a violation of the Pinnacle scope contract. Colgan is not nor has ever operated a flight for NWA or Delta on behalf of Pinnacle Inc, or Pinnacle Corp for the sake of violating the 9E pilots scope contract. Thus the acquisition of Colgan is not, nor was it ever a violation of the Pinnacle pilots CBA. If it was, a grievance would have been filed and a judge would have ordered Pinnacle corp or inc to stop it. This has never happened.

You're talking not listening. This is not about Colgan, Inc or Corp. It is about your statement that there can be no violation of scope by any given airline so long as that airline flies for a different mainline partner. That is false.

And I'm asking you, where did you see me say this in any post. This thread
ONLY pertains to Pinnacle, Colgan, and Mesaba. All of my posts are only about them, nobody else. This is not a disscussion of scope in general, my original post was in response to yours. You said that Colgan was purchased to get around the Pinnacle scope contract, this is FALSE.

someone already did....I'm not the only one that read what you said that way.....

And why did XJ holdings purchase Big Sky? Every XJ guy I talked to at the time said it was to get around scope....then they got the parent letter restricting the size of Big Sky...

deleted/..................

No that's not the reason, and anyone that tells you this is technically incorrect. At the time Big Sky came around we were a very senior airline with limited growth opportunities. When Big Sky was purchased we believed that they were going to grow Big Sky using profits from Mesaba. We wanted those growth opportunities for ourselves, so we negotiated a scope contract with MAIR under the threat of strike. Thus the MAIR letter came about, if Big Sky had operated larger aircraft it would have been a violation of the MAIR scope letter and not the scope agreement we have with Mesaba.

Who cares. You guys are all a bunch of high school thugs. Mesabah, Mooney, IBPilot I am saying what a bunch of people are thinking.....SHUT UP! This thread is about SLI. Not which one of you knuckle heads knows more about scope. Nobody likes know-it-alls. None of this matters. SLI is going to be done and everybody is going to move on. 10 yrs from now nobody besides you is going to remember what happened here.