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

[WorldTraveler]

since you quoted inside my post, I'm presuming the last sentence is yours.

Yes, DL knew what they were getting into.

DL has done a far better job of strategically thinking forward and out of the box than any other airline in the US.

and DL is led by a Texas born lawyer who was well aware of the WA and the issues of DAL long before he took the helm at DL.

it's the legend of Texas politics. People were talking about it this past weekend with no prompts at an event I attended.

 

[swamt]

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.

Great post thx.
 
WT this calls for another ITYS that I forgot about.  Remember when I told you that the gates that are being divested will indeed be going to, and only considered for Low Cost Carriers?  Remember that one??  It's all in there and I told you this and you fought me tooth and nail on it...

 

[WorldTraveler]

and ITYS that it violates federal law.

ITYS that DL would pursue legal action if they didn't get access to DAL and that is likely where this is going.

I'm not disagreeing what you said.

The story is not finished yet.

And WN has more to lose when a judge finally says that UA, WN, and the COD all acted against their federal requirements - which is where I expected this would end up.

again, you crow about WN at DAL w/o being able to admit that WN is where it is ONLY because of the time it spent fighting in court to serve DAL.

Don't think that other carriers aren't able to do the same thing.

 

[swamt]

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.

WRONG again Skippy!!!   They are not "required" to accommodated.  It merely says that the COD will "try" to accommodate airlines that do not currently "own" gates at LF.  They tried and they can't find any space post W/A...

 

[WorldTraveler]

sorry but the judge will explain it to you.
yes, as a recipient of federal funds, EVERY US airport is required to accommodate carriers.

They cannot keep up a no vacancy sign.

DAL can either find the space or it can lose federal funds.

Somehow DFW looks a lot more attractive for WN if it has to pay for the airport by itself.

 

[swamt]

and ITYS that it violates federal law.

ITYS that DL would pursue legal action if they didn't get access to DAL and that is likely where this is going.

I'm not disagreeing what you said.

The story is not finished yet.

And WN has more to lose when a judge finally says that UA, WN, and the COD all acted against their federal requirements - which is where I expected this would end up.

again, you crow about WN at DAL w/o being able to admit that WN is where it is ONLY because of the time it spent fighting in court to serve DAL.

Don't think that other carriers aren't able to do the same thing.

There you go already flipping.
Now you say that you have said they would file a suit, when you have just lately as well as way back claimed that you said they might file suit-flipper...
You have always disagreed with what I have been saying...
Never said the story is finished so don't try to go there with me...
It seems now you are dead set on a suit being filed since you have recently been to a gathering where they were dancing all around this DAL issue.  I'm sure they are, and I'm sure they will try to sue, but don't think it will end as you are suggesting, not even close.  If anything, Like I have said before, Delta will have to share a gate with UAL NOT with SWA.  But I still think this is out as UAL is fully utilizing there one gate and sub-leasing the other to SWA.  Now was this one done legally?  I do believe so, but I do not know for sure.  We will find out, howver, that would be the only gate Delta would be forced to share, unless UAL took back their lease to SWA and announced even more flights out of LF...

 

[Hope777]

Virgin tells Delta NO!
 
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/delta-asked-virgin-america-to-share-its-gate-virgin-said-no-thanks.html/

 

[WorldTraveler]

There you go already flipping.
Now you say that you have said they would file a suit, when you have just lately as well as way back claimed that you said they might file suit-flipper...
You have always disagreed with what I have been saying...
Never said the story is finished so don't try to go there with me...
It seems now you are dead set on a suit being filed since you have recently been to a gathering where they were dancing all around this DAL issue.  I'm sure they are, and I'm sure they will try to sue, but don't think it will end as you are suggesting, not even close.  If anything, Like I have said before, Delta will have to share a gate with UAL NOT with SWA.  But I still think this is out as UAL is fully utilizing there one gate and sub-leasing the other to SWA.  Now was this one done legally?  I do believe so, but I do not know for sure.  We will find out, howver, that would be the only gate Delta would be forced to share, unless UAL took back their lease to SWA and announced even more flights out of LF...

we've been thru this a million times before but it was... "would... if"... you and others conveniently have tried to eliminate parts of the sentence.

The case is likely to go to court where there is a very good chance that a judge will find that COD, UA, and WN have acted against federal laws.

WN has also admitted they are subleasing space from UA. If even on a space available basis, that is completely contrary to COD's statements that DL could not be accommodated.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

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

....

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.
 

 
You're WRONG to focus on DL being a new entrant carrier.
One doesn't have to be a lawyer to know that.
 
You're just re-peating sentences like a parrot without realizing what you're saying.
 
 

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

 
WRONG
Nowhere in the U.S. CFRs (title 49) does DL fit the definiton of a new entrant.
Look it up.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Virgin tells Delta NO!
 
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/delta-asked-virgin-america-to-share-its-gate-virgin-said-no-thanks.html/

Oh snap!

 

[WorldTraveler]

New entrant doesn't mean never served the airport.

and in the case of DAL, DL served it long before WN.

VX' decision perfectly closes the case that DL needs to show that the 3 incumbent carriers have hoarded gates among themselves, swapped them around and subleased them to each other, and then convinced the COD that they couldn't accommodate any other carrier.

They couldn't have made an easier legal case for DL to win.

IN fact, it's really an embarrassment that UA didn't even bother to throw enough of its own flights in on the day they said they couldn't accommodate DL.. but shows how poorly their own arguments about their gates being full really is.

It was not true and it won't take a judge any time to be convinced of it.

hope WN wasn't getting too comfortable with the notion of using those gates because the chances are real high that DL will be allowed to fly as much as it can fit into the open space that existed in schedules that were published at the time the COD told DL they could not be accommodated.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The case is likely to go to court where there is a very good chance that a judge will find that COD, UA, and WN have acted against federal laws.
 

and DL is led by a Texas born lawyer who was well aware of the WA and the issues of DAL long before he took the helm at DL.
 

 

ITYS that DL would pursue legal action if they didn't get access to DAL and that is likely where this is going.
 

 
Will DL and their hot-shot TX lawyer also mention to the court that the DOJ has already ruled that DL is not an appropriate divestiture candidate for DAL assetts? 
 
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/03/doj-says-delta-not-an-appropriate-divestiture-candidate-for-love-field-gates.html/
 
Finally, Delta’s claim that it will be improperly evicted due to the divestiture is similarly unavailing. Delta currently operates one gate under a sub-lease from American that is terminable on thirty-days’ notice. (Another airline, Seaport, sub-leases the other American gate.) But for the remedy, New American was likely to terminate the subleases and operate the gates itself,77an outcome that Delta surely recognizes given the competitive value of the gates once the Wright Amendment restrictions expire in October of this year. Delta, therefore, never had a contractual (or other) right or expectation that it would be able to remain at the American gate. The divestiture does not change this fact.
In the end, the thrust of Delta’s position is that its private interests in obtaining divestiture assets should trump the remedial goals of the proposed Final Judgment.
Yet, no third party has a right to demand that the Government exercise its discretion in approving divestiture buyers to better serve the private interests of that third party. While a court may inquire into the impact of the settlement on third parties, it “should not reject an otherwise adequate remedy simply because a third party claims it could be better treated.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 n.9.

 

[WNMECH]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ352/pdf/PLAW-109publ352.pdf
 
Its all in here.
Including caveats preventing the withholding of federal funds.
 
Also:
(2) FACILITIES.—Paragraph (1)(E)—
(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that
remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced
the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection
(a); and
(B shall not be construed to require the city of Dallas,
Texas—
(i) to construct additional gates beyond the 20
gates referred to in subsection (a); or
(ii) to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases
with air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity
to new entrants or to create common use gates, unless
such modification or elimination is implemented on
a nationwide basis.
 
 
 
Reading is fundamental but understanding takes intelligence.
 
WT keeps talking about Federal law but cant read how this Federal Law gives Love Field relief from some of those statutes.
 
The Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 was written to withstand this very type of legal challenge.
Delta and WT are pissing in the wind.
 
The Sensenbrenner amendment would have given strength to their argument, but it was stripped out in conference and did not make it into the final Law signed by the POTUS.

 

[Kev3188]

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.

Nice to see you trafficking in declarative statements for once.

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

 
 

You're WRONG to focus on DL being a new entrant carrier.

Agreed, but my guess is that the argument will be that it is/was DCI carriers (eg, EV) serving the airport on behalf of DL, and not Delta Air Lines proper.

 

[metopower]

For DL to file a law suit it will have to show harm. They would also have to show that it used all forms of remedy to salve the issue. By asking all parties for relief and receiving none the case is now ripe for the courts. On the 13 th DL will be harmed and therefore should seek relief . The wright amendnent is dead so now DAL is just another airport that other airlines can seek service.