Branson wants to try and sway Dallas for DAL gates

[swamt]

WN, have you heard anything about SWA either sending letters for support or maybe they will speak at the meeting on Wed.?   
 
I told you guys this was going to get very interesting.  Notice how Delta first started selling tickets to try and lean the vote towards their favor, and VA has also started selling the tickets out of LF hoping that they would selected by the COD to be awarded the gates.  What is funny in all the articles is VA indicates the DOJ gave them the gates, when in fact the DOJ selected VA as a good candidate and only recomended, again just more tactics to try and sway the COD's up coming decision on the gates.  Notice how SWA hasn't sold any tickets for the new routes out LF from the 2 gates.  Once again it will be funny if/when Delta and VA has to refund all those ticket sales and or contact each and every customer and inform them they will have to travel into DFW in order to catch the flights you wanted out of Dallas LF.  Then if/when SWA wins the gates, they can stay with LF and caryy on as usual just on another airline, thank you very much...

 

[WNMECH]

I haven't heard of any heavy handed campaign from LUV or any petition drives , letter drives ect.
 
I find it interesting that Virgin claims Delta did not respect the process and announced ticket sales early, then did the exact same thing trying to go around the city of Dallas.
It is clear that WN is the only one following the process. It is, and always has been, up to the Dallas City Manager.
 
I also have not seen any, NOT ONE, DOJ statement that says WN is not eligible for these two gates.
 
Where is the DOJ?
 
It has yet to be proven that the DOJ would not approve of a gate lease to WN if the city of Dallas does so.

 

[WNMECH]

Hey little lady, want to party?
Remember,  checked bags don't fly free here. So only one free bag in the overhead.

 

[WorldTraveler]

No the DOJ did say that WN wasnt eligible to acquire gates but for very different reasons than DL


Problem is that airport access laws require US airports to accommodate new entrants

I am honestly not sure why it is so difficult to understand that if DL does not gain the two gates it has no access and then indeed is a new entrant.

Ironically if AA or WN or the city gave DL enough gates to operate the same number of flights as they have today DL would not be a new entrant.

But because the DOJ said access to DAL comes in groups of flights for two gates DL has every right to ask to be accommodated as a new entrant.
DL cannot be without a gate lease And ineligible to
petition as a new entrant.

 

[eolesen]

I've yet to see anything which says DL is being displaced from providing their current schedule.

Until then, they're not being denied access. They're just not getting any increased access.

As you know, there are no Federal guarantees that an airline is entitled to grow once they're accommodated.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL haw no lease. Remember you have bragged that they were just squatting on AA's lease...maybe not you personally but that sentiment has absolutely been raised

If DL has been guaranteed a certain number of flights plz let DL and DAL know since they aren't aware of it

 

[WNMECH]

No the DOJ did say that WN wasnt eligible to acquire gates but for very different reasons than DL
 

 Prove that.
Show me a statement from the DOJ that says WN in ineligible for these two gates and why.
 
Don't show a statement from AA saying they got a list with one name on it.
Don't show the city of Dallas or anyone else saying that the Virgin lease is acceptable.
Saying that one lease would meet their requirements does not say that a different lease with WN would not meet them too.
 
Neither of those are proof that the DOJ would not find a lease with WN on it as acceptable also.
 
Show the DOJ statement you claim as fact.
 
I have been following this closely and have only seen "he says, she says".
Nothing directly form the DOJ to rule out WN in their minds.
 
But it isn't up to them, it is the job of the Dallas City Manager and he will decide soon.
 
BTW, if this is just a routine matter as Virgin claims, would Branson be coming to Dallas?

 

[eolesen]

DL haw no lease. Remember you have bragged that they were just squatting on AA's lease...maybe not you personally but that sentiment has absolutely been raised

If DL has been guaranteed a certain number of flights plz let DL and DAL know since they aren't aware of it

DL has no lease, but they have a valid sub-lease. You have no evidence it has been canceled, nor do you have proof that DL won't be able to operate their current schedule.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I see both of you love to play both sides of the argument - except when the other side is contra what you want.

Yes, the DOJ did say that WN like DL was not eligible to bid on the two gates.

Of course the point I have been making for months is that the DOJ really doesn't have any say in the matter anyway; since AA can't stay at DAL, its gates have to be vacation and can be reassigned to anyone.

The problem is that the City of Dallas would be sued so fast that you couldn't even blink if they assigned any additional gates to WN while denying ANY other airline access to DAL that wanted it.

The DOJ may have stuck its nose into some things it knows little to know about but it does get the idea that any entity controlling 90% of the access to a public facility would NEVER fly and thus WN was eliminated from the competition, or in reality was never even a consideration.

The difference between WN and both Virgin and DL is that DL do have rights to demand access to DAL under federal airport access laws which DAL incorporated in the 2006 agreements and WN signed.

Virgin doesn't need to give AA anything to get that access and if other carriers want to come to DAL, then every other airline has to be accommodated. that is just the way the law works and the fact that DAL has no common use gates makes it impossible for DAL to accommodate new entrants to the market.

Again, E, if you think that DL has guaranteed access to DAL, then let them and DAL know and tell them how many flgihts they can fit in the amount of gate time that you think they have.

DL was subleasing from AA who is willing to assign its entire two gate lease to another carrier. DL has no lease after it is assigned and thus becomes a new entrant to the airport and able to ask for access under DAL's previously agreed to processes to provide access to new entrants.

It is precisely because DL has no lease at all that they can ask for the same 2 gates worth of flying that the DOJ says that Virgin could have as a new entrant to the market.

If Virgin can ask for that much space, then DL and any other carrier can do.

You both are deathly afraid that not just Delta but Virgin as well will be at DAL, that both WN and AA will have a whole lot more competition than they bargained for and that there will be even more growth at DFW as well.

The previously carefully scripted plan by both AA and WN to limit competition in N. Texas is falling apart in front of your eyes and the only losers are AA and WN themselves. The community will be stronger because of more competition and it will be impossible for AA, WN, or DAL to argue that fewer choices are better, esp. considering that DAL said they would welcome all newcomers to the market.

This IS going to be interesting but not for the gate selection process but for the competition that will far surpass what so many here, including you two, thought would occur.

 

[eolesen]

I'm not playing either side -- I'm just relaying the facts as they stand today. DL hasn't been given notice that their sublease has been canceled, otherwise they would have probably said something to that effect already.

If AA is successful in assigning its lease to another carrier, there are three scenarios: DL could try to have its sublease survive the assignment to the new carrier, they could work out a new sublease with whoever assumes the lease, or they could try to work out a sublease with someone else (which is limited to UA/OO or WN).

Either way, it's ultimately DL's responsibility to pursue a way of maintaining what they've proposed as a schedule currently out for sale.

The airport's obligations under Federal law is to ensure that other carriers have made a reasonable attempt at accommodation.

It's my opinion that another carrier will eventually offer them a sublease allowing their current schedule. It's unlikely that they'll secure a sublease to operate 22 flights a day.

If DL decides to reject subleasing terms offered to them (as VX did at ORD), then the airport has lived up to its obligations.

The precedent for that was set at LGB about a dozen years ago - AA tried to force the issue of not being able to expand to the degree they wanted to; all they wound up with was being accommodated with what they'd operated historically.

 

[WNMECH]

Yes, the DOJ did say that WN like DL was not eligible to bid on the two gates.

.

 
Really? Said it to who? When? Where?
 
I missed the link you have provided from the DOJ statement.
This is all well publicized. I am sure you can provide a link if it were true.
 
But it isn't true.
 
Put up or shut up.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, airports are not required to just try to accommodate other carriers. They are required to accommodate and DAL's 2006 agreement specifically says that if volunteers can't be found among DAL tenants to accommodate other carriers, then DAL will determine the accommodation itself.

The process is not a "we'll play matchmaker only until someone says no."

You have to prove that someone is willing to accommodate DL's requests and you have no evidence that has happened .

More significantly, why would any carrier choose to accommodate a carrier who could take up the better part of one gate anyway? why would UA agree to give up a gate in a sublease when it is possible that it could permanently lose the right to regain that space. The DAL 2006 agreement as well as other DAL documents say that DAL will convert any gates to common use. It is in the interest of no lease holder to sublease if they run the risk of losing the use of the gate altogether.

And why should DL accept a sublease for less than two gates worth of flying when Virgin or some other carrier can add two gates worth?

there is NO specification about how much a new entrant can expect to receive. In any other market, a new schedule would likely be up to a half dozen flights. It is specifically because the DOJ got involved in the case that the bar got raised to two gates worth of flying. DL is just as much in the right to ask for the same amount of gates as Virgin is.

The DAL 2006 agreement doesn't put limits and why should DL accept them.


the other WN mechanic,
You and your WN coworkers are free to selectively hear and read what you want but the bottom line is that WN won't be getting any new gates. The only real question is how many of its gates they will have to use to accommodate new entrants.

I still believe that the likely outcome by Oct 2014 will be that Virgin and Delta will both be operating around 20 flights/day alongside WN who will fill up their gates as fast as they can. Later, other carriers will see the success at DAL and will see that DL pushed its way into DAL and they will do the same.

me thinks that before long, WN will be petitioning to release its DAL limits as soon as it starts losing enough gates to new competitors and decides they might as well go for having either int'l flights at DAL or not be penalized for operating out of DFW.


I predict that it won't take many years before WN's share of gates is well less than the 80% it has now solely because other carriers will find out how successful DAL has been.

The real question will be whether AA can convince anyone that it should be allowed to return to DAL. It would be something if everyone else that wants gets into DAL, WN starts DFW service, but AA is still barred from serving DAL.

 

[WNMECH]

While I still believe Virgin will get the gates, there has been NO public statement made by them that disqualifies WN from getting these two gates.

You can dream up and hear whatever you think, but you cannot provide a link or prove your wrong assertion that WN has been ruled out by the DOJ.

They may provide a statement in the future to that effect, but to date have not weighed in publicly.

You have now made the claim more than once.
Prove it.
Where is the DOJ statement?
Just a link will do.

 

[xUT]

sorry, but money doesn't buy access to US airports at the expense of other carriers. That is just the way it works here in the USA ... may not be the case in other parts of the world.

WT you need a realty check.
Cash is 'KING' and it wouldn't be the first time that justice followed the check book and/or political influence.
B) xUT

 

[WorldTraveler]

The DOJ specifically said that Virgin America was the only airline that met the qualifications to gain the gates.

WN is not in the running to gain the gates. Period.

I know the US is corrupt but there really are all kinds of processes that do work in the US.

Some of the most corrupt countries in the world don't have processes as clearly laid out as airport access is in the US which makes it impossible to negate the process that has to take place.

Further, if you want to go down that road, I can absolutely assure you that AA, DL, and UA have far deeper checkbooks and will absolutely decimate the low fare carriers, all combined of which do not have as much revenue as even one of the big 3.

If you think justice is really for sale, then you don't even want to think about what will happen in favor of the big 3 if it really is.

Virgin and Delta will both be at DAL post Wright and WN will continue to lose gates at DAL as the market sees how successful the airport is.

WN will eventually win the right to fly from DFW at the loss of nothing at DAL but by that point, DAL will have been turned into an airport that WN has far less market share than they do now.