Agreed, but I was reiterating the author's (admittedly speculative) point here. It is interesting even if it's not conclusive; the incentive is at least there, if not the intention.

That said, I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. I'd call it shrewd business acumen. If the law permits you to reduce your costs using contracted third parties, you'll likely avail yourself of the opportunity when shareholders are demanding returns. It sounds sensational, but I think it's really quite mundane.

Conversely, it's common for contracting firms to include a clause requiring the subcontracting firm to indemnify the contractor. So United would be able to push it back onto Republic.

Indemnification wouldn't eliminate United's liability, it would just entitle United to sue Republic for reimbursement for whatever it had to pay. Which, given Republic's bankruptcy, puts United in the same problematic spot a victim would be in if they had to sue only Republic and United wasn't liable under repsondeat superior.

I also read this author's post about bankrupt airlines. I've always been aware of the subcontracted airlines (often I'd see two flight numbers rotating on the same screen or somewhere it would say X operated by Y) but I never stopped to think if I should check if one of those is actually bankrupt.

I don't fly within the US just because fuck the TSA (I'll take a train to Canada if I need to fly internationally), but I'm going to be more careful now about checking the subcontracted airline to make sure they're not in bankruptcy.

I don't think "X operated by Y" means subcontracted or that it implies that X is in bankruptcy. Companies do this all the time, one example is when you buy a multi-leg flight. They partner other airlines because they dont have a license to do one of the legs.

I might be completely wrong but thats what I always though, please correct me.

oh it doesn't, but in this particular case, Republic was contracted by United and they are bankrupt.

I was implying that if you see tickets and they're subcontracted to another airline, look up that airline and don't book if they're bankrupt.

Wouldn't that still leave United liable, and only obligate Republic to pay United for their loss?

Probably leaves United in a bad spot, considering Republic is bankrupt and United depends on them for services.

That clause is unlikely to hold against litigation on grounds that the paying customer was given the deliberate impression that he/she was entering into a contract agreement with United.

Unless of course the ticket contract with paying customers makes it a clause that United isn't responsible.