Originally Posted by
trooper
All very interesting.... and probably correct..
..yet it makes one wonder about the "general" FT view that when a regional subsidiary of a major airline screws up... it IS in fact appropriate to name/shame/blame the larger carrier...
Isn't this the same thing?
Good point. Probably because a franchise agreement and sub-contracting out are two perhaps different things. I am sure that it has something to do with contract language.
In addition, when the airline is sued, it is sued because of a failure to provide an appropriate service to a paying guest/patron -- in this case the plaintiff was an employee of a sub-contracting company, never having worked for Marriott.