City of Dallas tells Delta it can no longer fly out of Love Field

[eolesen]

RJs don't need 60 minute turns and neither does WN but that is the basis DAL gave them. Even with 60 minute turns, DL argues like I have that DAL can handle far more flights than WN loaded at first and even more than what exists for all carriers as currently scheduled.

WN is trying hard to come up with flights to fill the gates but I have a strong feeling that there will be a ruling that will say that WN will have to roll back its schedules to the schedule that existed for UA at least and perhaps WN after the DOJ ruled that Virgin should get gates.

Yeah, too bad that's not the way the lease agreements or Scarce Resource Provisions are written.

At the worst, WN's sublease of the UA gates might get reversed, but UA's ground times will stand. Just because you can turn an aircraft faster doesn't mean it fits the desired arrival time into the downline station.

Don't worry, if someone plays legal games, it wouldn't surprise me to see UA suddenly announce service to ORD, DEN, and EWR on the second gate. And legally, they can do that, brother.

 

[WorldTraveler]

but then COD is in violation of its requirements to provide access to other airlines.

tell me what other airport in the US has put up a "we are full and don't intend to accommodate anyone" sign.

that is precisely the issue.... you can't seem to get thru your head that is not permitted under federal law.

COD and every other airport is required to provide access to non-incumbent carriers.

DL, if it goes to trial, will have no problems proving that the COD's enforcement of its own written provisions dnot only didn't exist but fostered protection of assets at DAL to the exclusion of DL.


don't argue with me about why DAL is in the right.

I suspect a judge who is far more aware of ALL of the laws will be the one that wants to hear the arguments.


what is far more likely to happen is that UA WN and VX will be forced to use the schedules that they had published until the time they decided to kick DL out.

and WN will be forced to return to the original 16 gates.

 

[700UW]

Guess you conviently have forgotten about VX couldnt serve ORD because of lack of gates and no existing airlines was forced to give up gates or cut flights.
 
Precendence has already been set and I see you have a new qualifier "non-incumbent gateholders."

 

[WNMECH]

but then COD is in violation of its requirements to provide access to other airlines.

 

The COD isn't required to give access.
It is required:
 
To accommodate
new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce
resource provision of the existing Love Field leases.
 
http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/CompetitionPlan.pdf
 
Exhibit C.
 
 In the case of a conflict between schedules of Lessee and the requesting airline, the Lessee shall have preferential use of its personnel and its Terminal Lease Area.

 

[WNMECH]

I suspect a judge who is far more aware of ALL of the laws will be the one that wants to hear the arguments.


what is far more likely to happen is that UA WN and VX will be forced to use the schedules that they had published until the time they decided to kick DL out.

and WN will be forced to return to the original 16 gates.

 
 
 

World Traveler, on 05 Oct 2014 -4:02pm, said:
Tell me when the Wright Amendment was challenged by other airlines over THEIR access to DAL or DFW.

AA and WN fought plenty but the assumption ALWAYS was that the federal government would preserve the interests of non-Texas airlines.

UP until the AA/US merger, non-Texas airlines had no reason to get involved in the mess at DAL and DFW.

that might well be changing.

WN is trying to squat on as much of DAL as possible before they find that a judge rules that they overstepped their bounds.

There is no legal justification for saying that DAL told airlines to accommodate DL and then have them all decide to make deals among themselves to keep DL out.

You might find how well DL can put together NATIONWIDE support for reopening the whole Wright Amendment and everything related to it and strip WN of the gates it does have at DAL and the gates they have until every carrier that wants to serve DAL has the right to be accommodated.

The best laugh will come when AA, DL, and UA all serve DAL along with VX and WN is forced to split its N. Texas oprations between DFW and DAL or settle for the same size operation it had at the time WN's first schedules were published.



 

 
 
 
 
 
 
So I guess you are backing away from the claim you made earlier in a different thread about Delta reopening the Wright Amendment, stripping WN of gates and forcing them to DFW?

 

[swamt]

you don't understand the English language or else want to just argue but I have REPEATEDLY said that legal action WOULD come IF DL didn't get access to DAL.

Now that they have told DAL that, what I said months ago is exactly what is taking place.

No, Kev,
multiple tows aren't necessary if the operation is run right and gates are efficiently used.

RJs don't need 60 minute turns and neither does WN but that is the basis DAL gave them. Even with 60 minute turns, DL argues like I have that DAL can handle far more flights than WN loaded at first and even more than what exists for all carriers as currently scheduled.

WN is trying hard to come up with flights to fill the gates but I have a strong feeling that there will be a ruling that will say that WN will have to roll back its schedules to the schedule that existed for UA at least and perhaps WN after the DOJ ruled that Virgin should get gates.

2 Things you seem to not grasp.  1- Delta never owned any gates at LF once this recent announcement was made. 2- Delta has only "threatened" not filed any suits as of yet.  You are puting the cart before the horse.  It also does not change the fact that I told you that all this that has happened, is now happening.  ITYS WT...

 

[eolesen]

but then COD is in violation of its requirements to provide access to other airlines.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no obligation for any airport to have to provide access in excess of its constraints, be it slots, gates, or any other attribute which forces an airport to cap its operating capacity.

No.

Obligation.

Whatsoever.
 

tell me what other airport in the US has put up a "we are full and don't intend to accommodate anyone" sign.

Any of the slot controlled airports is a prime example, which includes LGA, DCA, ORD, SNA, and LGB.

HPN, and ISP have also turned away airlines in the past, mainly because the owning communities didn't want their airports to be too big.

I know that's a hard concept for you to understand, WT. Not every community wants an operation the size of ATL in their back yard, and they have the right to restrict it as they see fit.

 

[swamt]

 
 
 

World Traveler, on 05 Oct 2014 -4:02pm, said:
Tell me when the Wright Amendment was challenged by other airlines over THEIR access to DAL or DFW.

AA and WN fought plenty but the assumption ALWAYS was that the federal government would preserve the interests of non-Texas airlines.

UP until the AA/US merger, non-Texas airlines had no reason to get involved in the mess at DAL and DFW.

that might well be changing.

WN is trying to squat on as much of DAL as possible before they find that a judge rules that they overstepped their bounds.

There is no legal justification for saying that DAL told airlines to accommodate DL and then have them all decide to make deals among themselves to keep DL out.

You might find how well DL can put together NATIONWIDE support for reopening the whole Wright Amendment and everything related to it and strip WN of the gates it does have at DAL and the gates they have until every carrier that wants to serve DAL has the right to be accommodated.

The best laugh will come when AA, DL, and UA all serve DAL along with VX and WN is forced to split its N. Texas oprations between DFW and DAL or settle for the same size operation it had at the time WN's first schedules were published.



 

 
 
 
 
 
 
So I guess you are backing away from the claim you made earlier in a different thread about Delta reopening the Wright Amendment, stripping WN of gates and forcing them to DFW?

Yea, that is funny.  He always changes his tune to reflect what the final outcome actually becomes.  But, this time it is so bad that he is just spinning around in La La land.  Delta better focus on taking care of all those passengers that are being scrambled for the flights no longer allowed out of LF on Delta.  1 week after Mon. W/A is gone.  Don't know if there would be enough time to fix even if Delta really did file a suit...

 

[swamt]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no obligation for any airport to have to provide access in excess of its constraints, be it slots, gates, or any other attribute which forces an airport to cap its operating capacity.

No.

Obligation.

Whatsoever.
 

Any of the slot controlled airports is a prime example, which includes LGA, DCA, ORD, SNA, and LGB.

HPN, and ISP have also turned away airlines in the past, mainly because the owning communities didn't want their airports to be too big.

I know that's a hard concept for you to understand, WT. Not every community wants an operation the size of ATL in their back yard, and they have the right to restrict it as they see fit.

Bingo.  but he still will not grasp it...

 

[FWAAA]

Wasn't it jetBlue that couldn't get into ORD due to lack of available gates (and slots) for several years? Finally, the DOT stepped in with some new-entrant slots and B6 was able to obtain a gate or two. IIRC, it took several years.

 

[topDawg]

Guess you conviently have forgotten about VX couldnt serve ORD because of lack of gates and no existing airlines was forced to give up gates or cut flights.
 
Precendence has already been set and I see you have a new qualifier "non-incumbent gateholders."

Ah I don't believe that was completely true. 
Virgin could have gotten into ORD, but they would have had to park at Terminal 5. Virgin didn't want to have to park at the international terminal because it cost more to use the gates. 
 
The difference here is VX could have flow to ORD, they just wanted to play by their rules. Doesn't work that way.
 
WN had the same issue, they wanted the City of Atlanta to force DL or FL to give them gates for whatever/whenever they wanted. The city said no, we can fit you in on the CUTE gates on D or you can use E(international) WN balked at the idea.  
 

Wasn't it jetBlue that couldn't get into ORD due to lack of available gates (and slots) for several years? Finally, the DOT stepped in with some new-entrant slots and B6 was able to obtain a gate or two. IIRC, it took several years.

believe so. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

dawg is correct regarding VX at ORD. They were offered gates but in the int'l terminal.

both carriers were accommodated eventually.

in both cases, ORD was using all of the facilities at the time of the request.

DAL was not. UA and WN have tried to do all they can to fill up the gates AFTER DL made the request to serve the airport.

We'll let a judge decided, which is where I thought the case was going all along, but I will bet that the COD, UA, and/or WN will be told to roll back their schedules to allow DL to serve DAL.

They all calculated that DL would just accept "no" and walk away.

DL knew what they were getting into when they asked for gates at DAL.

 

[700UW]

The USA is a free market society the airline industry has been deregulated since 1978, I seriously doubt that WN or UA will be forced to cut flights to accommodate delta.

 

[WorldTraveler]

your first part is precisely why DAL is an issue.

DAL is NOT a free market airport even though it is part of a system that requires it.

let's see what a judge says but courts absolutely can require competitors to rollback service in order to accommodate competitors.

what markets will WN have to cut?

 

[Hope777]

Complaining about UAL adding flights is no different then DL claiming they were going to Upgrade some flights to B717 from ExpressJet.  Listen, this didnt happen overnight and Delta Corp and Legal Affairs had ample warning and should have tried working  out a solution.  They played the game and Lost!