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

[eolesen]

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.

What you're having a hard time getting thru your BMI impaired skull is that the timing of when anyone decided to announce their schedule is immaterial.

Even if UA decided to launch service with zero notice, there is no judge in the world who is going to rule (and have it upheld) that they don't have the right to do whatever they want to within the terms of their lease.

I'm fairly certain that the City knew this when they ruled as they did. Why would they knowingly act in a manner that would create a lawsuit? Can you explain that one, Skippy?


What UA, WN, and VX have done is in principle no different than DL choosing to fly HND once every two months to keep the route authority.

 

[Hope777]

http://www.dallascityhall.com/committee_briefings/briefings0414/TTRC_LoveFieldGateLeases_042814.pdf
 
Interesting That they Note the Delta has left Dallas Before..........  Obviously referring to Delta Closing the DFW Hub which hurt Dallas Competition.

 

[WorldTraveler]

http://www.dallascityhall.com/committee_briefings/briefings0414/TTRC_LoveFieldGateLeases_042814.pdf
 
Interesting That they Note the Delta has left Dallas Before..........  Obviously referring to Delta Closing the DFW Hub which hurt Dallas Competition.

DFW was and still is an open access airport.

What DL did with a hub doesn't have any legal relevance to what is happening at DAL today regardless if some here want to try and make it to be.

http://www.dallascityhall.com/committee_briefings/briefings0414/TTRC_LoveFieldGateLeases_042814.pdf
 
Interesting That they Note the Delta has left Dallas Before..........  Obviously referring to Delta Closing the DFW Hub which hurt Dallas Competition.

What you're having a hard time getting thru your BMI impaired skull is that the timing of when anyone decided to announce their schedule is immaterial.

Even if UA decided to launch service with zero notice, there is no judge in the world who is going to rule (and have it upheld) that they don't have the right to do whatever they want to within the terms of their lease.

I'm fairly certain that the City knew this when they ruled as they did. Why would they knowingly act in a manner that would create a lawsuit? Can you explain that one, Skippy?


What UA, WN, and VX have done is in principle no different than DL choosing to fly HND once every two months to keep the route authority.

wrong.

The requirements for int'l route authorities is that they be used at least every 90 days. DL is fulfilling that requirement.

UA, WN, and VX said no to DL and then turned around and leased gates to each other and increased flights above what they had previously scheduled in order to force DL out.

again, the case is likely heading to court. it is likely a judge will decide.

I still believe DL will be at DAL and that the COD will be forced to find space for at least 6 DL flights to ATL which will likely have to come not just from UA but from WN as well who is apparently using UA gates.

 

[blue collar]

What you're having a hard time getting thru your BMI impaired skull is that the timing of when anyone decided to announce their schedule is immaterial.

Even if UA decided to launch service with zero notice, there is no judge in the world who is going to rule (and have it upheld) that they don't have the right to do whatever they want to within the terms of their lease.

I'm fairly certain that the City knew this when they ruled as they did. Why would they knowingly act in a manner that would create a lawsuit? Can you explain that one, Skippy?


What UA, WN, and VX have done is in principle no different than DL choosing to fly HND once every two months to keep the route authority.

He is way off base to think that each airline would have to create their schedules - for the gates that they hold leases to - around DL's schedule. DL certainly put the cart before the horse by creating a flight schedule without securing the resources to operate said flights, and now it's everyone else's fault. I suspect that a judge would wonder why his time was being wasted hearing this 'case'. I can see it now- 'But, your Honor, WE made our schedule first!'

 

[WorldTraveler]

I didn't say they had to create schedules AROUND DL's.

I did say that if the law requires DL to be accommodated, then COD and tenant airlines have to do it and can't just pull the rug out from under them at whim and then turn around and sublease gates to each other.

the actions of UA, WN, and VX are clearly anti-competitive and contrary to federal law and it really won't take too much effort for any judge to see it.

 

[eolesen]

Exactly, Blue.

To be fair, WT may be entirely correct in his assumption that everyone else's schedules were created after DL tipped their hand. I'm willing to bet that may even have been the case with everyone except WN.

Regardless, it doesn't matter who announced first or last anywhere other than the Court of Public Opinion.

It's a fact that there's no statutory requirement for when an airline has to announce a schedule.

It's a fact that UA controls their leasehold at DAL.

It's a fact that DL didn't obtain an executed sublease after having been informed by AA that their sublease was being terminated.

It's emerging that UA had already determined a post-Wright schedule when DL came asking for space (something I said months ago that I expected they would do?)


A week of whining later, I'm still waiting to see what valid grounds DL has for a legal challenge. Being outsmarted isn't a strong enough argument.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I don't expect you or anyone here to get it.

DAL REQUIRES other airlines to be accommodated.

It doesn't matter when the schedules were announced and whether the gates were full and who had them.

It also doesn't change that UA is apparently subleasing gate space to WN after saying they can't accommodate DL and after adding their own additional flights which have longer ground time than DAL specifies - and which absolutely is enforceable.

The whole notion of "we'll accommodate new entrants as long as it is convenient for us as incumbent carriers is nowhere to be found in any federal regulation.

There is no need to debate it here. It is likely going to court. I doubt if COD, UA, WN, or VX to do anything now to accommodate DL short of a court order.

They all have calculated that it is worth a shot to try to keep DL out of the market and also know the risk they face if they lose.

That risk now potentially includes monetary damages which might actually allow DL to camp out rent free at DAL when they do get access - unless someone wants to write DL a check.

it is absolutely noteworthy that WN had to litigate its way into existence at DAL but everyone here seems to think that DL is not permitted to use the exact same process that WN has used to gain everything it has at DAL.

 

[WeAAsles]

Excuse me. I had my car parked in that space last week. Would you please move your vehicle so I can once again put my car there?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

DAL REQUIRES other airlines to be accommodated.

It doesn't matter when the schedules were announced and whether the gates were full and who had them.

It also doesn't change that UA is apparently subleasing gate space to WN after saying they can't accommodate DL and after adding their own additional flights which have longer ground time than DAL specifies - and which absolutely is enforceable.
 
 

The whole notion of "we'll accommodate new entrants as long as it is convenient for us as incumbent carriers is nowhere to be found in any federal regulation.
 

it is absolutely noteworthy that WN had to litigate its way into existence at DAL but everyone here seems to think that DL is not permitted to use the exact same process that WN has used to gain everything it has at DAL.

 
Obviously physics, or even logic are something you fail to grasp.  If there are no more gates, DL cannot be accomodated at DAL. 
So then DL is going to try to force a judge to tell UA as to which carrier they can subliease their gates to?  Incredible!
 
DL is not a new entrant.  I have no idea why you keep on regurgitating this nonsense.
 
 
And WNs court battles to literally get off the ground is in no way shape or form similar to DLs attempts to remain at DAL.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Excuse me. I had my car parked in that space last week. Would you please move your vehicle so I can once again put my car there?

 
BINGO
Although I think a more accurate statement would be along the lines of:  I had my car parked in your driveway last week (or in your assigned parking space if you live in an apartment) - would you please move it so I can park my car there again.

 

[WeAAsles]

 
BINGO
Although I think a more accurate statement would be along the lines of:  I had my car parked in your driveway last week (or in your assigned parking space if you live in an apartment) - would you please move it so I can park my car there again.

Even better. Sometimes you just have to try the simple approach to see if someone with a limited IQ can figure it out?

 

[WorldTraveler]

Obviously physics, or even logic are something you fail to grasp.  If there are no more gates, DL cannot be accomodated at DAL. 
So then DL is going to try to force a judge to tell UA as to which carrier they can subliease their gates to?  Incredible!
 
DL is not a new entrant.  I have no idea why you keep on regurgitating this nonsense.
 
 
And WNs court battles to literally get off the ground is in no way shape or form similar to DLs attempts to remain at DAL.

and you fail to grasp that how DAL decides to allocate its gates is irrelevant to its requirements to accommodate new entrant carriers.

You'll recall that when the two gates had to be divested from AA, DL argued that they should be common use and noted that DAL is one of a very few airports in the country that has NO common use gates.

WN clearly did not want common use gates because they could be used to accommodate new entrant carriers.

Quit focusing on the gates; the are not the issue and it won't matter in court.

DAL's responsibilities are to have facilities to accommodate new entrants and non-incumbent carriers.

DAL went thru a meaningless motion to tell UA to accommodate DL and then UA messed with its own schedule in violation of DAL's requirements and subleased gates to WN.

If DAL has no more control over its gates and cannot enforce federal law, then it becomes the court's responsibility to do it.
 
 

BINGO
Although I think a more accurate statement would be along the lines of:  I had my car parked in your driveway last week (or in your assigned parking space if you live in an apartment) - would you please move it so I can park my car there again.

if it is an assigned spot and there are no requirements that the apt. owner provide space for another tenant, then you are right.

that analogy doesn't work because it does not represent the situation at DAL where DAL is required to accommodate other carriers REGARDLESS of the gate leases it has signed.

It will be DAL's responsibility to force all carriers to accommodate DL which would mean if DL's operations are spread across all 20 gates, WN COULD face a higher burden for accommodating DL than if they had just let UA bear the burden on their own. or it may be that UA alone has to bear the burden of accommodating a non-gate holding airline.

either way, I can absolutely assure you that DL will prevail in arguing that DAL cannot lease out all of its gates and then selectively tell non-incumbent airlines that they can't be accommodated all the while allowing incumbent carriers to sublease gates to each other.

I don't expect you to agree with me. but that is ok. I won't be trying the case if and likely when it goes to court.

 

[robbedagain]

Except DL Is Not A New Entrant Carrier Period plain n simple Grasp that

 

[WorldTraveler]

if DL doesn't serve the airport, it is.

and I am very sure that DL knows under what grounds it can expect to gain access more so than you or 700.

 

[swamt]

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.
--Not quite there Skippy,  UA and SWA filled up the gates after W/A repeal not after Delta made the request to serve.  Don't even try to make it look like the way you just posted...

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.
--What Judge? There has been no filing to date.  SWA will not have to roll back their schedules, promice you that one Skippy.  Pretty sure everyone knew Delta might file suit not just you...

They all calculated that DL would just accept "no" and walk away.
--Once again you are making crap up as you go.  Nobody has accepted that Delta will just walk away-NOBODY, why do you keep doing this.  Show us where anyone has posted as you say...

DL knew what they were getting into when they asked for gates at DAL.
-- I beg to differ, I really don't think they knew what they were getting into, otherwise they would not be in the current situation they are in, now would they Skippy?