I didn't have a point, I was pointing out that in your previous posts you claim that Pinnacle Inc has no hand in the purchase of Mesaba but in your latest post you point that because Pinnacle bought Mesaba that the situation is different than in '97. If Pinnacle Inc didn't buy you then the purchasing situation is identical to '97.
Facts are that wholly owned Mesaba did not have a contract with Delta on any of their airframes. A new service agreement was negotiated between PNCL and DAL with the purchase (reference the SEC filings for full details). This situation was exactly the same as in 1997 when wholly owned Express I did not have a service agreement with NWA.
I don't get why the Mesaba pilots on this board have no clue as to what even happened in '97. If you weren't there and you don't know, just keep your trap shut. Your speculation only makes you more confused.
I do agree that it is completely different situation though and the LOA does not apply in any way other than highlighting what the Mesaba MEC thought was a "fair" integration years ago.
Flip back a post or two and you'll find your answer. You actually quoted it above.....can't you read?
How can this purchasing situation be identical to the '97 one if there wasn't one then and there certainly is a "purchasing situation" now?
...oh, you agree it's a completely different situation...wait, it's exactly the same...wait...huh?
Sorry I missed your answer before. Please see CptMurph's post about the fragmentation policy. Oh, and if all we needed was the fragmentation policy, why did we need the scope in our contract? And with all this flying getting moved around DCI carriers, why have pilots not moved from company to company?