Originally Posted by Beckles

Posted while I was typing my previous postid it ever occur to you that maybe I knew what I was talking about and maybe you should do one shred of research on your repeated claim?

By the way, that arrangement is not unique to XJT, from SkyWest's annual report:

Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1

Originally Posted by Ms. McElroy's Testimony

The first, prevalent among larger regional carriers operating regional jets, occurs when a major and regional airline enter into a “fee for departure” or “capacity buy” agreement where the major compensates the regional airline a predetermined rate for flying a specific schedule. Within this arrangement are mandatory standards for customer service, on-time performance and baggage handling requirements and incentives rewarding excellent performance.

A second arrangement, common to smaller, turboprop operators, occurs when major airlines pay regional airlines a portion of passenger ticket revenue. This is referred to as “pro-rate” or “shared revenue” flying.

While regional airlines with pro-rate agreements are most vulnerable to cost increases and the recent fuel cost crisis, it is important to note that fee-for departure carriers also suffer when fuel costs increase this dramatically. Even if the regional airline is compensated by the major airline for fuel costs, the majors must take those increased costs and the market’s profitability into consideration when route and capacity decisions are made. Major carriers have no choice but to eliminate regional routes that lose money for long periods, even if those routes contribute some connecting revenues to the mainline system. As you know, most of the major airlines are experiencing some of the most daunting challenges in the history of the industry. They cannot afford to continue unprofitable routes and when this service is discontinued, regional airlines and passengers in small communities suffer as well.

Originally Posted by Beckles

Again, and I already posted it, this is a complete misrepresentation of the relationship between CO and XJet in my opinion, here it is again since you apparently missed it in my previous post:

Originally Posted by TVCMH

It's incumbent upon airlines to make sure that an airport filed as an alternate has adequate facilities to accommodate pax in the event of a diversion.

Originally Posted by pptp

"Continental controls and is responsible for scheduling, pricing and managing seat inventories"

This says NOTHING about, and has NOTHING to do with, actual day to day operations.

Originally Posted by Beckles

Wow ... have you even read that? First, that document is almost four years old, so I certainly do not think it more accurately reflects XJT's current arrangement with CO than their 2008 annual report, a document less than one-year old. Regardless, here's the part that I believe matters for whatever case you think you're making:In other words, the regionals that bear the direct risk for fuel are "smaller, turboprop operators". ExpressJet is neither a small operator nor a turboprop operator.

Maybe I missed something else in that four year old testimony, please feel free to post it if I have.

Originally Posted by Beckles

So you believe that scheduling, pricing, and managing seat inventory has nothing to do with the day to day operations of an airline?

Originally Posted by Beckles

So you believe that scheduling, pricing, and managing seat inventory has nothing to do with the day to day operations of an airline?

Originally Posted by pptp

Thank you! Any company that hires a subcontractor does so with the explicit expectation that said subcontractor will conduct business in a professional and responsible manner without much or any supervision. That's the whole point of the concept. While I have conceded that he who hires the sub may have some liability, I still maintain that there's only so much the hirer can/should do to babysit the sub. That's supposedly why you hire particular subs, because they can be relied upon to act autonomously on a similar level as the hirer. When the sub goes awry, the hirer gets the shaft too since their name is on the subs work, but it isn't their fault that bad judgment was used.

Originally Posted by WBurcham

Something no one has mentioned here.... CO does not have flights to Rochester MN. The last arrival of the day is a 10pm NW flight from MSP. It could also have been that no one was still at the airport to handle the arrival.

Originally Posted by TVCMH

Situations like these make me wonder how many veteran travelers were on board. Based on the replies here and my personal experience I'd assume that an elite (myself included) would be more likely to find a "solution" or at least raise some media eyebrows after a few hours of confinement.

Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775

Two simple words cover this relationship: ostensible authority. Plenty of case law on this topic.

If I were corporate counsel for CO, I would advise that its beancounters set aside a sizable sum of money to cover the SIR; contact liability insurers; and be on the phone to XJ telling its counsel to be sure to read the contract for details about the indemnification agreement. Some plaintiffs' attorneys in Minnesota are going to make significant legal fees because of this outrageous conduct on the part of XJ and CO.

Originally Posted by WBurcham

I cannot see how the entire airport was emptied of ground crew & TSA staff 24 minutes after a 148 seat plane arrived.

Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1

There have been a number of similar incidents in the recent past, and few of them have gained much traction with the courts.

Originally Posted by MikeMpls

The Detroit snowstorm debacle of 1999 resulted in a class action lawsuit and a settlement of approx. $1,000 per passenger.