Originally Posted by
pptp
In a perfect world I guess CO could have a subset of SOCC that monitors all of their contract carriers but really, this would be a waste of resources and would defeat the whole purpose of hiring and relying on subs. They don't have the money for that anyway.
Back to the construction analogy, if I, as a project manager had to hire a subset of superintendents to oversee the subcontractor's superintendents, well...I might as well just hire the crew myself. It's a redundancy that isn't supposed to, and shouldn't have to be there. That's the whole reason we have subs.
There is a rule of thumb too, for every construction job, big or small, there's almost always one sub that is a pain in the rear. Every time. And trust that when selecting subs, you go through great pains to make sure they're reliable, but there's always that ONE, grrrrrr.
In construction, the GC is always responsible for the failings of the subs.
But this isn't a GC/Sub-contractor relationship. It's a marketing agreement. The operator is ExpressJet, marketed through CAL.
As such, CAL has no operational liability.
Of course, Continental could chose to stipulate requirements for such circumstances on the part of its regional operators, but until such requirements are made obligatory by law, it is highly unlikely that any mainline carrier will stipulate them because they will add to the cost of these contracts.
And, after all, the whole point of regional carriers is to keep costs as
brutally low as possible.