I almost feel stupid for responding to this....:erm:
Is that your metaphor for ALPA?
You're not alone.
I feel stupid for reading the whole thing expecting there to be a point.
Fly4Hire I have a scenario for you to consider,,,
and it's ugly:
The section you quoted is absolutely correct, but look VERY closely at the EXACT wording of the language. It doesn't say Pinnacle Airlines Inc, or Pinnacle Airlines Corp, just "Pinnacle Airlines" which, in legalese, could be construed to mean THE HOLDING COMPANY.
So what's to keep Pinnacle Airlines CORP (the holding company) from shuffling some of them over to Colgan? They'd still be operated by Pinnacle Airlines (the holding company), still be painted the same colors, still fly on Northwest routes, just with different pilots.
I bet you a C-note that Northwest wouldn't care, as long as they weren't operating for any other carrier's codeshare and, in this scenario, they wouldn't.
The ONLY thing that stops it is the Scope language in the Pinnacle contract and, again you have a legalese issue: what EXACTLY does "Operated by Pinnacle Airlines" mean? Is it the airline, or the holding company that is referenced in the contract?
Could an effective argument be made by the company that the contract was written between ALPA and Pinnacle Airlines, INC (the operating company) and, since the aircraft NEVER WERE leased to anyone EXCEPT the HOLDING company and now they're operated under a completely separate Certificate, operating offices, dispatch, mx, etc, it's not the same airline that ALPA signed with?
That's what I'm talking about when I say that I think this is what PT is going to try... and he might very well be successful. If so, times are about to get VERY tough at PCL and the Colgan pilots who are hired to fly these aircraft when they're transferred over will become the target of a VERY pissed off group of PCL pilots.
Welcome to the whipsaw.