Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Does Mesa Qualify?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Lampshade

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2002
Posts
485
Does Mesa Qualify for feeder carrier status in United's new TA if they have CRJ-900's?

“Feeder Carrier” means a Domestic Air Carrier that, when engaged in code sharing with the Company:

a. Does not operate any aircraft that utilizes an engine with an
external propeller (“Turbo/Prop Aircraft”) other than
Turbo/Prop Aircraft that are certificated for seventy-eight (78)
or fewer seats and have a maximum permitted gross takeoff
weight of less than seventy-five thousand (75,000) pounds;
and

b. Does not operate any aircraft that utilizes a turbine-driven
engine without an external propeller (“Jet Aircraft”), other
than Small Jets.

“Small Jets” means (a) Jet Aircraft that are certificated in the
United States of America for seventy (70) or fewer seats and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight of less than eighty
thousand (80,000) pounds and

(b) up to eighteen (18) specific aircraft with certificated seating capacity in excess of seventy (70) seats operated by Feeder Carrier Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp.(“AWAC”).
 
Not a codeshare.

Unless there has been something new that no one knows about, Mesa has no codeshare agreements with United. So no, it wouldn't qualify as a feeder airline. If the agreement to operate dash 8's out of Denver qualifies as a code share, then those aircraft "engaged in codeshare" with United would only be the Dash 8's, so the CRJ 900's wouldn't qualify the entire company as a feeder carrier because they aren't operating under United.
 
I comes down to how you read it I guess. "does not operate any aircraft... " in paragraph b and the defintions of small jets portion is what I was curious about. This sounds like it is similiar to the delta scope agreement.
 
Yeah but,

In the lead in to those qualifications it says "when engaged in codesharing with the Company" those stipulations are in effect.

That's why lawyers always write this stuff in that vague language that can be interpreted both ways. It's called ensuring their job security.
 
Just like the lawters that wrote the "ironclad" SCOPE in Mesa's new Brothel work rules.

Mayday.
 
Just like lawyers write every contract for every airline in the country a$$hole. F*ck off Mayday.
 
depends on how bad United wants to save $1000 per departure on their codeshares I guess.
 
As a bottom feeder? Yes.
 
WileE said:
Just like lawyers write every contract for every airline in the country a$$hole. F*ck off Mayday.

Last time I checked, you guys were the only ones working for whore's wages....so I think its just your lawyer that sucks a$$!!

Get over it already and just come clean....you guys screwed up! :rolleyes:
 

Latest resources

Back
Top