ZDub

Wow. Really?

H46Bubba

The DOT's use of "unfair and deceptive practices" against Mesaba is thin at best! In order for that to really apply per the regs; Mesaba would have to have been acting as a "commercial carrier" engaging in "Air Trans portation" per referrence#6 on Mesaba's consent order;
Yes; Mesaba is an "Air Carrier", but by definition per the regs it was not it acting as one and was not engaging in "Air Transportation". The aircraft was not owned or operated by Mesaba; was not carrying passengers for ExpressJet or Continental, nor was there a contract between Mesaba and ExpressJet for ground handeling services. Mesaba is in no way resposible to Continental's passengers. Mesaba was voluntarily acting in a ground support operation only; which is not bound by Section 41712. If this were in the legal sytem it would hold it's weight in court.

iPilot

They might not of been flying around but while they were operating the gates at the airport they also fall under the rules of an air carrier. The fact that they accepted the flight and then told them no when they got on the ground is where the problem lies. If they had already closed up shop for the night or even said no from the start then they wouldn't of been liable. However, when they said they would service the flight they then became accountable for unloading the passengers into the terminal as promised.

H46Bubba

So DGS and Regional Elite would fall under Section 41712 as an "air carrier" when they're operating gates and performing ground hadling functions? Don't think so...and the DOT will tell you the same thing. If this happened yesterday I can bet you the only ones getting fined would be CO and Xjet.

Nevets

DGS and Regional Elite would probably have been fined under different regulations that pertain to them. Your argument is strictly a technical one and not one on the merits of the case. The fact of the matter is that all three air carriers made mistakes and so all three are being held accountable. In Mesaba's case, they were wrong to not allow passengers to deplane, (especially when they had accepted the responsibility to ground handle the flight).

LostInPA

The consumerist cheerleaders all seem to be having a field day over this one, while seeming to forget that these fines will be paid for by the passenger. Not like the money is going to come right out of Kellner's personal bank account or anything. Keep fining, and the passengers will keep paying through fare increases. Typical government non-solution.

ebl14

Incorrect, the monies will be taken out of future gains in crew contracts. Everyone knows the only way for the airlines to make more money is to stop overpaying these pilots!

NonRev4Life

coughtrollcough

jeeps

Constructive! Thanks.

jayray

Which means in the future no carrier will ever except responsibility for another carriers flight. They will just say no. Mesaba made no money from this flight yet was held liable for payments that amount to 3 yearly salaries of an FO. Think another airline will ever try to help out another airline again? Now where does XJet divert to? At which point does this become a safety issue? I think Mesaba should have been penalized but for some reason something doesn't seem quite right. Mesaba had nothing to gain from this situation and everything to lose.