Being WO'd

[Sniper@YourFeet]

As I browse the regional forum, I find alot of regional pilots who fly for wholly owned carriers feel they are entitled to all of the flying being done under the branding of their parent company that isn't done by their parent company's pilots, with the general consensus being that the flying is 'ours' and is being 'farmed out'.

Are Commair pilots 'Commair pilots' or 'Delta pilots'?

And the same question to the flying. If US decides to run more RJ routes, should all the RJ routes be considered to be Peidmont, Allegheny, or PSA's?

Should American Mayflower Life Insurance feel that they got screwed if NBC decides to use Hartford for life insurance instead of them?

 

[blzr]

A good point, but sort of flawed. If, suppose, you were an employee of Mayflower, and you make money on insurance policies sold by Mayflower, and your management decided to use another companies sales force to sell Mayflower insurance and guess what... you get none of the profit. Soon, they do away with you and use the competators salesforce to do your job.

There are some at PDT and ALG that would rather see those new R.J's go to Comair or ASA instead of mesa. Comair and ASA are just as much a part of Airways as Mesa is. And Comair is a h3ll of alot more reliable that mesa.

Also giving flying to a contractor can be dangerous down the road... Example.. What if Mesa decided to get into the 737 market... They appraoch Airways management and say that can fly the same routs for 1/2 as much as Airways can. ..Again, see where this is going?? you could conceivably have an airline that ownes no aircraft, employs no pilots, F/a's, mechanics, etc..

Will management opt to give more and more of MidAtlantic flying to Mesa, Chitaqua, TSA, etc... I'll bet my war pention they will.

 

[Sniper@YourFeet]

What if Mesa decided to get into the 737 market... They appraoch Airways management and say that can fly the same routs for 1/2 as much as Airways can. ..Again, see where this is going?? you could conceivably have an airline that ownes no aircraft, employs no pilots, F/a's, mechanics, etc..

Is this any different that all of US Air's flying being done by Peidmont, Allegheny, or PSA instead of US Air or all of Delta's flying being done by Commair instead of Delta? So, instead of it being a shell company with the shell companies' routes contracted out to other companies they own, it's a shell company with everything contracted out to companies they don't own.

Obviously, WO pilots WANT all the flying done under the name of their parent company (as do carriers who fly under other's names). My question is, why should it be considered as theirs and not the shell company's to do with what it pleases? My understanding is the only reason AA pilots fly their routes is b/c their contract protects the flying they do for AMR (who actually owns the routes) from being given to someone else, be it Eagle, Allegheny, or Gulfstream.

What creates ownership of flying? If US Air Group owns the flying, then Allegheny, PSA, and Peidmont are merely contracted to do it by Group instead of US. Why must a company use their own employees and equipment to do a job?

Even the dreaded Mesa. What protects Mesa Air Group's flying from being done by UA pilots? Mesa Airline's contract (and UA's too!). Is a contract ownership, or merely an agreement to provide services?