taxi service in Chicago which provided taxi service to patrons traveling to or form Chicago’s Union Station in connection with their rail transportation trips was purely local in character in the absence of a contract or other arrangement for continuous or “through” transportation. Certain ICC decisions construe Yellow Cab as requiring that, in the absence of a through ticket, any “common arrangement” be solely between carriers and not with third persons, such as travel agents which may have put together a “package” including both the single-state ground and out of state air transportation involved. It is on such decisions that ALS relies. See Motor Transp. of Passengers Incidental to Air, 95 M.C.C. 526, 536 (1964); Kimball — Petition for Declaratory Order, 131 M.C.C. 908, 918 (1980) (<HOLDING>) CME maintains federal courts have long since
holding the only lawful interstate common arrangement or through ticketing  is an arrangement between a motor carrier and the air carrier recognizing a breachofduty action by an employee against a workers compensation carrier even though the carrier issued its policy to the employer holding that fedexs authority to operate as a motor carrier was irrelevant in determining whether fedex actually acted as a motor carrier holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier holding that a rule requiring an excess carrier to drop down upon the insolvency of the primary carrier would impermissibly shift the risk of the primary carrier to the excess carrier and would require insurance companies to scrutinize one anothers financial stability before issuing secondary policies