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

[WorldTraveler]

There is a plan to accommodate non-lease holding airlines.
It is clearly laid out in the Wright Amendment Reform Act .
You and Delta just don't like it.
 
However it will be proven to you that it is the only process that will allow Delta to remain.
If they cant sublease space from UAL or VX and there is no more space for Delta, they will have to leave.

and you don't seem to grasp that filling up the gates by the 3 leaseholding airlines IS NOT an acceptable answer to federal laws. There isn't another airport in the country that has been able to keep non-lease holding airlines out as DAL is trying to do by filling up the gates.

DAL screwed up by not allowing an acceptable mechanism and they will have to figure out how to comply with federal laws which APPLY to all federally funded airports.

and it will become apparent to you as DL WILL STAY beyond Jan.

Given that WN blinked and DL is still there, you can start working on your weave and dodge explanations for why DL is accommodated esp. since you haven't been able to adequately explain why WN blinked this time.

 

[Kev3188]

and it will become apparent to you as DL WILL STAY beyond Jan.

Again, it's nice to see declarative statements from you. Whether it's correct or not, time'll tell.

Given that WN blinked and DL is still there, you can start working on your weave and dodge explanations for why DL is accommodated esp. since you haven't been able to adequately explain why WN blinked this time.

You got yours cooked up in case they're not able to stay?

 

[WorldTraveler]

sure...I'll be more than happy to admit I am wrong IF it happens....

but this case has been marked by one person after another trying to argue that what I said wouldn't take place when repeatedly exactly what I have said has taken place

For months, we heard people saying that DL wouldn't push the case legally. They threatened to do it, DAL and WN blinked. We are now talking about dates. Not the principle of whether DL will be there or not.

IF DAL and WN were in the right to say NO to DL, it doesn't matter they could have said it yesterday or 3 months from now.

DAL and WN blinked because they expected UA to accommodate DL, UA said no, and the responsibility still remains with DAL. As the party most likely to be impacted if DL pushes the case legally, WN blinked.

It is now up to DAL to come up with a plan that puts the responsibility on the appropriate carriers to share. given that UA is saying no based on its plan to increase flights AFTER DL asked for access, the court if necessary can argue who is responsible.

what I can assure you is that all 3 carriers will not be allowed to say NO and DAL will be let off the hook.

 

[robbedagain]

Face it wt u NEVER ADMIT when ur wrong u change ur flippin tunes to fit ur dl narratives period u claimed dl wld file suit then changed it to legal challenges regarding the aa/us merger u were flat out wrong now u were proven wrong by swamt and wn and u cant even grasp it. U cant assure us crap go grasp that and stop acting like a know it all company boy

 

[WorldTraveler]

I am not admitting I am wrong about DAL BECAUSE I AM NOT. and you can't admit that I am right

I said all along that DL would be at DAL or would fight for the right to do so.

DL got pushed far enough that it threatened legal action, and DAL and WN blinked.

They would clearly not have blinked if DL had no case.

I am right about what I have said whether you can see it or not - and I don't really care if you do or not.

I am loyal to the truth and not any person or organization.

 

[swamt]

WT is still up to his usual crap I see.  Way to stick with it WN.  His goal is for you to give up.  I have noticed that in every one of his confrontations.  He keeps this crap up until the other guy finally gives and stops responding or puts him on ignore OR he gets the mods to lock out the thread with his final post as if he gets the last word.  He will hate it when he has to eat crow at the end of all this, oh yea, he never mind, he never admits that kind of stuff...

 

[WorldTraveler]

nope.

I was the one who said earlier this week to wait until the case went to trial.

and then news came that WN was allowing DL to use a gate thru the end of the year.

You have yet to explain why WN would do anything for DL if there wasn't a legal risk.

You - not WNMech - are the one eating crow.

You said that DL wouldn't be at DAL post Wright. I said they would be and that is what is happening.

the reason why DL will stay at DAL is because all of the gate lease arguments you make DO NOT trump DAL's responsibility to accommodate non-gate leaseholders.

If that wasn't the case, WN would have had no problem telling DL to accept DAL"s word and get lost.

Since they didn't, I am a whole lot more right than you want to admit.

 

[WNMECH]

WT is still up to his usual crap I see.  Way to stick with it WN.  His goal is for you to give up.  I have noticed that in every one of his confrontations.  He keeps this crap up until the other guy finally gives and stops responding or puts him on ignore OR he gets the mods to lock out the thread with his final post as if he gets the last word.  He will hate it when he has to eat crow at the end of all this, oh yea, he never mind, he never admits that kind of stuff...

He doesn't even understand the process.
It is getting tiresome explaining it over and over while he just babbles the same BS.
I can't keep it up for the next 3 months.

And even then, Delta may acquire space from United by then and he will still think the Wright Amendment Reform Act is meaningless.
Unless Delta is sent packing, he will still claim victory even though the process is still being followed and the law is still intact.
I am starting to think he is just playing stupid to keep it lively.
I can't imagine someone just ignoring all the legal evidence I a have provided.

3 months is a long time to keep refuting his BS, so I will just wait till jan to see if United fills it gates.
If they don't, WT will never know the truth about the Law at Love Field.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and yet you still can't explain why WN would have offered DL anything if they had no responsibility to do so.

DAL and WN knew full well that DL is right about arguing that the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.

Get it thru your head.

the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.

the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.

the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.

the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.

the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.

the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.

the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.

If they did, WN would have offered DL nothing.

the mere fact that WN chose to accommodate DL shows full well that they know they run an enormous risk of having DL take the whole thing to court and having WN's grand plans for DAL all go up in smoke.

 

[blue collar]

If delta has the power to make a law to away, why wouldn't they just go to court and put the screws to wn? They must not believe their case is as rock solid as some here think.

 

[AirLUVer]

and yet you still can't explain why WN would have offered DL anything if they had no responsibility to do so.DAL and WN knew full well that DL is right about arguing that the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.Get it thru your head.the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.the leases at DAL that you keep hiding behind DO NOT absolve DAL from the responsibility to accommodate non-leasing airlines.If they did, WN would have offered DL nothing.the mere fact that WN chose to accommodate DL shows full well that they know they run an enormous risk of having DL take the whole thing to court and having WN's grand plans for DAL all go up in smoke.

Idiot, the scarce provision clause says that any airline not fully using their gates must make room for non lease holding airlines. Since WN will not be fully using their gates at full capacity until Their January schedule change, they HAVE to share a gate. In January WN and UA are planning a schedule change in which they will not have said unused capacity, so DL will have to find other arrangements again, or vacate the premises.

 

[metopower]

Some party had to make an accomidation for DL. Otherwise a lawsuit would be launched. Now that DL is not "harmed" there can be an accomidation without a precedence setting ruling. In the time being if an agreement can be reached allowing DL to have access to DAL without a precedence setting ruling all parties would be happy. That is why WN made their offer. WN has the most to lose if this goes to court that is why they did what they did. Going to court is always a crap shoot....why risk it if you can negotiate a favorable deal.  If it were to go to court and DAL and WN were to loss big  ..DL could get gates and slots to fly all the schedules that they had posted previously. However DL seems to be happy with one gate and flights to ATL at present. Going to court risks a home run verses letting them fly to ATL. If I'm in the legal dept. I know what my vote would be. Kick this down te road for now.

 

[robbedagain]

meto  what in your opin will occur after jan 6 when WN begins new service to Califor  

 

[WorldTraveler]

he just posted it which is what I have been saying. He has also said it several times since.

DL will be at DAL as long as it wants to because the totality of federal law on airport access on DL's side.

WN has too much at risk to let it go to trial. UA refused to be told the responsibility to accommodate DL was theirs despite the fact they weren't using their gates fully and are only gate squatting with their current schedule. DAL now has to figure out how to convince UA that their gate squatting scheme is costly and that WN now has to share responsibility if they can't convince UA to share their gates.

DAL has been a legal hot mess for decades and it appears it will continue to be.

 

[robbedagain]

again WT  you failed to GRASP my question to Meto.   I specifically asked him what will DL do from JAN 6 onwards when WN uses that shared gate w DL for the OAK and SFO service....   Comprehend and you may learn