Actually, it is both exactly and entirely true. Running under an authority is an either/or proposition, no exceptions. You're either running under your own authority, or the authority of someone else. That's a statement that stands on its own, until you start to redefine and restate it by adding in limitations or variables, like "sometimes".
Like, if a carrier doesn't have a policy to cover a given situation, then that's a policy in and of itself. Granted, you are free to formulate your own policy to cover a situation the carrier doesn't cover, but that's only for as long as your own policy doesn't conflict with some other policy of the carrier. But you are still running under their authority, their policies, their constraints, even though those policies and constraints may seemingly or actually be non-existent.
You mean like when I said you can't have it both ways, and then you introduced a brand new variable not present in my statement in order to refute the meaning of my original statement?
Got it.
No disagreement there at all, especially since my original statement of, "In this business, Liberty depends on who's authority you are running under," means precisely that, that some carriers will give you more Liberty than will other carriers. You have a choice, you can remain totally free with your own authority and no carrier constraints, or you can choose to be chained and shackled under the authority of a carrier's constraints, whatever they may or may not be. But I promise you, you can't have it both ways where you are leased to a carrier and have no limitations or constraints of the same manner that having your own authority provides. Everything else is merely different degrees of freedom and is part of what goes into which carrier is the best fit for you.
For example, I don't particularly like some of the restrictions placed on me by Panther, but they make up for it in other ways, by and large, at least to the point where the limitations placed on me isn't a deal breaker.
