IMO, Skywest will pick up this flying. I have a feeling that Q400 statement that was pulled from the Skywest memo has some substance. Also, I highly doubt UAL will be giving any RAH subsidiary any more flying.
It is not a matter of giving RAH any more flying. It is UAL taking advantage of someone's existing operation and cutting their own risk and expenditures on parallel route structures. It just so happens in this HYPOTHETICAL scenario that an RAH subsidiary offers the parallel route structure.
What makes you think United will do anything intelligent regarding their choices in contract lift? They have cut Air Wisconsin and ACA, two of their best RJ operators. They continue to utilize Mesa despite years of operational problems (not a stab at the pilots, but rather the overall operational challenges). They utilize Colgan and Trans States, two more companies that have serious operational issues due to managerial shortcomings. They have had poorly executed shifts in ground operations in Chicago and Dulles. The list goes on and on.
Codesharing with a competitor is not unusual. Any codeshare requires you to direct money from your own pockets into another company's coffers. Delta codeshares with Midwest. United codeshares with US Airways. This list, too, goes on and on. Codeshares happen. UAL codesharing with RAH is the same as UAL codesharing with ANYONE else. What, in the eyes of management, would make codesharing with RAH any worse than codesharing with US Airways? We pilots have far more brand loyalty than our bosses. Codesharing hurts our job prospects, but it improves management's job longevity and standing in the eyes of the board. So tell me again why United would not codeshare with RAH?
For the record, i do not think UAL will actually code share with RAH. I was merely pointing it out as a valid option for UAL. Your post was grounded in poor logic, so I have merely tried to show you the fault I perceive in your argument.