City of Dallas still in talks with Delta about Love Field

[swamt]

Maybe I am mis reading here, but SWA only sub-leases 1 gate of the two that UAL owns.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

and WN is not operating enough flights to fill one gate with flights to the gate area.

As much as some people find it hard to accept, the chances are very high that UA will be right back to its 5-6 flights/day to IAH on RJs and nothing else, DL will be content to operate 5-6 flights/day to ATL on 717s and perhaps M80s at times, while WN can lease whatever is leftover and everyone will be happy as long as WN stays out of DTW and MSP.

by the time this 180 day gate renewal is up, we will have published DOT info that will show how each of the carriers at DAL are doing.

 

[Kev3188]

Yep, missed that. Good thing UA has two gates, eh?

Yep.

As for the rest of the table, you weren't kidding; those ground times for DL are either right at or very close to minimums. Not a lot of room for error...

 

[WorldTraveler]

You apparently forget that I said quite some time ago that DL would do what it had to do to work within a limited gate availability situation

You can also bet that when WN reaches the limits of its gates, it too will start playing by a different set of rules at DAL

 

[robbedagain]

just wait til the day comes when the pilot of an aircraft (UA or DL)says... we need Maintaince..  Thatll be a "fun day"

 

[WorldTraveler]

uh, despite what some here would have you believe, airlines do cooperate on providing services to each other - and make money doing it.

and WN is not the only maintenance provider at DAL either.

 

[Kev3188]

just wait til the day comes when the pilot of an aircraft (UA or DL)says... we need Maintaince..  Thatll be a "fun day"

Indeed. And it won't matter who either uses as an MTX vendor; the cascading effect will be a PITA...

 

[eolesen]

Indeed. And it won't matter who either uses as an MTX vendor; the cascading effect will be a PITA...

Yep. It'll be like a sorority house with only one toilet.

 

[jimntx]

uh, despite what some here would have you believe, airlines do cooperate on providing services to each other - and make money doing it.

and WN is not the only maintenance provider at DAL either.

No one but you said they don't cooperate.  The point is that if there is a broken airplane at THE UAL gate, an inbound DL flight will just have to wait on the tarmac.  Remember, the other UAL gate is already sub-leased to WN when UAL doesn't need it.  Oh, and just because they cooperate on repairs doesn't mean they will drop whatever they are doing and rush to fix a problem on a DL airplane.  You might very well have to wait in that instance also.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

 Oh, and just because they cooperate on repairs doesn't mean they will drop whatever they are doing and rush to fix a problem on a DL airplane.  You might very well have to wait in that instance also.

Yes they will ... ... ... or else DL will sue! 
Actually, just joking, don't you know that DL planes never have maintenance issues! 

 

[swamt]

Yep, missed that. Good thing UA has two gates, eh?

WN is still using one or both at different times of the day according to FlightStats.

 
 

Yep.

As for the rest of the table, you weren't kidding; those ground times for DL are either right at or very close to minimums. Not a lot of room for error...

 
 

just wait til the day comes when the pilot of an aircraft (UA or DL)says... we need Maintaince..  Thatll be a "fun day"

I see the Delta/UAL gate is busier than we thought.  According to this article UAL has 7 flights out of the gate, Delta has 5 for a grand total of 12.  I see future problems at this gate.  You guys are right on the maint issue as well.  If Delta does call for maint and that gate gets tied up for any extra period of time, there goes the rest of the days schedules, this will get interesting.
 
It's not that SWA is fully utilizing that gate at this time, but they will.  Besides, SWA told Delta it was a temp lease only until Jan 6th and now they are out of the SWA gate.  Now, by the skin of their teeth, Delta is temp leasing from UAL who is sharing their gate that they use for 7 flights per day.  This will be fun to watch...
 
Delta reaches deal with United over Dallas Love Field access

 

[WorldTraveler]

No one but you said they don't cooperate.  The point is that if there is a broken airplane at THE UAL gate, an inbound DL flight will just have to wait on the tarmac.  Remember, the other UAL gate is already sub-leased to WN when UAL doesn't need it.  Oh, and just because they cooperate on repairs doesn't mean they will drop whatever they are doing and rush to fix a problem on a DL airplane.  You might very well have to wait in that instance also.

IIRC, the DAL restrictions DO allow remote operations during IROPS but not on a scheduled basis.

And do you not think that there might be a clause in the contract that if UA does not provide gate access to a certain level as scheduled, DL is allowed to reduce their payment?

I know the concept of financial accountability is completely foreign to most of you here, but the very reason why DL runs as good of an operation as it does is because it has contracts that provide for financial accountability.

and even if you argue that UA has no incentive to sign such a clause, that is precisely the type of argument DL needs to argue that poor operations by leaseholders are just as effective as blocking a non-leaseholder.

but let's face it. this is just one more of the endless list of attempts that several of you have come up to try to convince us that DL will fail at DAL... but you really have no evidence that this is any more likely than any other reason you have thrown up on the table.

DL will be at DAL and will do fine... as hard as it is for some to admit.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

And do you not think that there might be a clause in the contract that if UA does not provide gate access to a certain level as scheduled, DL is allowed to reduce their payment?

I know the concept of financial accountability is completely foreign to most of you here, but the very reason why DL runs as good of an operation as it does is because it has contracts that provide for financial accountability.

and even if you argue that UA has no incentive to sign such a clause, that is precisely the type of argument DL needs to argue that poor operations by leaseholders are just as effective as blocking a non-leaseholder.

but let's face it. this is just one more of the endless list of attempts that several of you have come up to try to convince us that DL will fail at DAL... but you really have no evidence that this is any more likely than any other reason you have thrown up on the table.
 

 
I'm not going to argue whether DL will win or lose at DAL.
 
However, the bold italics  text in your post above is perhaps again another example of  one of your (better?) works of fiction.
I'm by no means a legal scholar, but if DL were to make this argument in court, this to me looks like a text-book case of a frivolous lawsuit?  Or am I mistaken?  Factual corrections / comments appreciated.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no it is not frivolous; if a carrier can be shown to INTENTIONALLY deteriorating their operation in order to keep a competitor out, it is absolutely the grounds for a lawsuit.

but I don't really want to even argue the point because there is absolutely no evidence that UA is doing it, wants to, or might even do it.

 

[DL2WN]

.