I agree with ALPA's position, but using the Congress to pursue it is silly. We'd all look and smell cleaner if we left NW to their own plan, slightly opened the gate under Fifth Rules and Open Skies - and then let them flunk on their own. With a firm grip on the economics my friends, their model cannot 'fly' any longer than they can continue to pump in huge volumes of cash. The might sustain it for three months, perhaps a bit more of they open during the High Season, but they cannot do it year-round. Perhaps adding that one requirement, year round service at a certain level would be enough to send them packing. No, we cannot just 'outlaw' and airline or a business model that we - mostly our pilots and FAs - do not like. The way to rid ourselves of this annoyance is to allow them, hold them to the best of standards (or more?) year round and when they cannot (or will not) comply, yank their operating certificate. By convention and treaty we cannot really just refuse them. What we CAN do is hold them accountable for every rule and regulation in the substantial book and yank if they do not comply with every period and comma therein. I do not want them either, but we must follow the rules, just as we will ask them to do. It can work - and they cannot comply. I would not want to be their designated Primary Operations Inspector (or whatever the current term may be). Enforce ALL of the part 121 regulations, as well as those dealing with maintenance - ALL of them, and these folks will soon go away. Their business model simply won't 'fly' in the lower 48 states.
