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

[AirLUVer]

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.

Again, if you READ the provided news links, and what has been posted. DL is only being accommodated until January by WN. In January WN will be fully using their gates, and will no longer have enough flex in their schedule to allow accommodation for DL's 5 flights.

At that point you May see another carrier that has more slack in their operation fit DL in, or DL could be shown the door again.

There could even be the possibility that they split DLs needs among two or even all three lease holding carriers, as VX will have a little slack in their schedule until March when they do their final two flight additions. And I believe that WN also has announced some flight additions for spring, but I am being too lazy to google them.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and once again I have repeatedly said that DL's position is that federal airport access laws are NOT trumped by existing gate leases.

IF DAL and WN were free to say NO to DL weeks ago, they are still free to do it now, and will be free to do it in 3 months.

DL will be accommodated at DAL because WN knows, exactly meto and I have said, that WN faces enormous legal risk if DL pushes the case to court. If WN faced no risk now or in the future, they would have said no and stuck to it.

DAL failed to provide language in their leases to accommodate non-lease holding airlines but they are not free to say no.

Everyone expected UA to accommodate DL because they had space; for whatever reason, DAL did not have language that required UA to accommodate DL or to keep their schedules such that DL can remain there. Or else UA is pushing the law itself such that it does not have to fully bear the brunt of giving up its gate space.

It is now up to DAL to figure out to force all carriers to accommodate not just DL but whoever else comes along. And the most fair thing is for all of the 3 leaseholding airlines to split responsibility but DAL didn't do that.

At some point, someone in Dallas will wake up and say that the city didn't know what they were doing when they tried to close the airport and they still don't know what they are doing.

 

[AirLUVer]

and once again I have repeatedly said that DL's position is that federal airport access laws are NOT trumped by existing gate leases.IF DAL and WN were free to say NO to DL weeks ago, they are still free to do it now, and will be free to do it in 3 months.DL will be accommodated at DAL because WN knows, exactly meto and I have said, that WN faces enormous legal risk if DL pushes the case to court. If WN faced no risk now or in the future, they would have said no and stuck to it.DAL failed to provide language in their leases to accommodate non-lease holding airlines but they are not free to say no.Everyone expected UA to accommodate DL because they had space; for whatever reason, DAL did not have language that required UA to accommodate DL or to keep their schedules such that DL can remain there. Or else UA is pushing the law itself such that it does not have to fully bear the brunt of giving up its gate space.It is now up to DAL to figure out to force all carriers to accommodate not just DL but whoever else comes along. And the most fair thing is for all of the 3 leaseholding airlines to split responsibility but DAL didn't do that.At some point, someone in Dallas will wake up and say that the city didn't know what they were doing when they tried to close the airport and they still don't know what they are doing.

and again there is a completely different FEDERAL LAW that covers flying at Love field and gate access there. That law firmly limits the gate leases and has clauses in regards to how non lease holders are accommodated, to which COD is in compliance with. Re-read the below from FEDERAL LAW S 3661 otherwise know as the Wright Amendment Reform Act

(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.

 

[WorldTraveler]

feel free to argue it before the judge if the case needs to go there. you also have cut and pasted only what you want to see. The conflict comes in reading other parts of the agreement which you didn't bother to cite because it shows the conflict.

If WN believed what you say they would have had no problem saying no.

to meto's point, they set the precedent of accommodation and it will be much harder if not impossible to argue that there is no room for another carrier at DAL.

Further, it is beyond rational to argue that the 30th busiest airport in the US should be restricted to 3 jet carriers.

DAL screwed up and the leaseholding carriers are the ones who will pay the price.

As the largest carrier and the one most likely to be impacted if the case goes to court, WN blinked.

instead of arguing points which we aren't going to agree on, how about we wait until there are new developments?

I said that to one of the WN mechanic boys and within days after DAL said DL could not be accommodated and within a couple days it came out that WN will be accommodating DL.

DL will not wait the first of January to have a solution. This time I am betting that they will seek a temporary restraining order to prevent being pushed out if DAL doesn't come up with a solution.

 

[swamt]

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.

There you go again WT, lying once again.  I NEVER said Delta won't be at LF post W/A,  NEVER!!!  You really need to get a clue.  I have said that Delta will have to share a gate with another airline IF (big IF here) Delta is allowed to stay at LF post W/A.  Nobody out here has stated that Delta wouldn't be at LF post W/A, only YOU claim that myself and others have stated it and your lying about it.  I have always said, "It would be funny if Delta was forced out of LF post W/A once Virgin took control of their new gates and there was no other room for Delta to "share" a gate."  And you decided to take this quote as I said they will not be there at all.  You n ow are trying to make it look like you said Delta would still be there post W/A.  Yes, you have stated this, but, it is ONLY temp for now until 1-6-15, and NO this does not give you the right to say "ITYS" yet.  SWA was gracious enough to "allow" Delta to remain so not to disrupt all those "Love Field" customers thru 1-6-15.  Now Delta will have a few months to prepare for the move of the flights to DFW or cancel them all together, however Delta decides.  I will add this as it will still affect Delta at LF.   What is Delta doing with the other flights that will not be at LF?  Delta has planned for 2 gates and sold tickets to run out of 2 gates (18 flights per day I think) what will happen to the other 9 flights by Delta as they are only getting 1 gate to use until 1-6-15 not 2?  Nobody seems to be talking about that.  Delta will not be able to run all flights that they sold tickets for at LF out of just 1 gate wondering what they are doing with those...

 

[swamt]

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.

Either United will fill the gate or SWA will start some new flights out of it in Jan as SWA is leasing this said gate from United.  So again, SWA has Delta on the puppet strings regarding this gate and as of now will be releasing the puppet strings come 1-6-15 and Delta will have to leave UNLESS, as you have stated, United could very well provide room for Delta and lease a gate to them. But I still agree with you, it will never come to be one of SWA's 16 gates--Never...

 

[swamt]

and again there is a completely different FEDERAL LAW that covers flying at Love field and gate access there. That law firmly limits the gate leases and has clauses in regards to how non lease holders are accommodated, to which COD is in compliance with. Re-read the below from FEDERAL LAW S 3661 otherwise know as the Wright Amendment Reform Act

(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.

Yes.  He is not understanding or comprehending that there are different guidelines that have to be followed here at LF relating to the DFW, and 5 party agreements.  He is also too stubborn to learn anything, he always has to be the one that knows it all and can never be wrong.  After 1-6-15 he will see what the final ruling at LF will be...

 

[swamt]

I will add this, as far as Delta staying temporarily, it will be fun to sit back and watch the fare wars go on between SWA-Virgin-AA-and for now Delta.:
 
Expect a Fare War Now That Southwest Can Spread the LUV

 

[WorldTraveler]

yet you still can't explain why WN blinked as they did.

They did it because there is an enormous legal risk to WN if DL pushes the case, WN is trying to diffuse the situation, but they have also set a precedent that they will have to follow.

If there was no reason for WN to allow DL be at DAL in January, there is no reason for them to have accommodated them today.

DL will be at DAL.

as for the fare war,

I have said all along that WN's growth is good for N. Texas consumers even if it will hurt AA.

DAL will be the 30th largest US airport in January based on number of seats; as much as some people want to think otherwise, WN will offer more than enough seats on more than enough flights to very successfully pull a significant number of AA customers away from DFW.

AA has no choice but to match WN's fares or watch an even larger number of passengers flee to DAL.

WN does have to establish itself in the longhaul domestic market from N. Texas but they also have a strong reputation so don't have to trash the market in order to pull passengers over.

I am all for DAL being used to the maximum extent that the residents of the airport permitted.

I am equally as certain that the views that WN and DAL can act outside of US antitrust and airport access laws will be proven wrong.

It is no more realistic to think that TPA or PDX (the airports above and below DAL in terms of number of seats as of Jan) could ever get by with limiting the number of jet airlines to 3 (and only 2 mainline carriers) and still receive federal funds.

WN fought for years to get into and expand DAL; DL will likely lead the push in fighting DAL as long as it takes to make sure that DL and other carriers are free to add whatever flights they want to add.

 

[metopower]

Robbed .. I think I was clear in my post. DL will be accommodated in some manner after that date. Some people do not understand how the law works I guess. You can site all the WA pages that you wish but it becomes a crap shoot the minute you walk into a court room. I do not imagine that WN or DAL would risk going to court and setting a precedent .

 

[robbedagain]

The way i read ur post is btwn now and jan 6 the after that is whereas i put my question to u nonetheless itll all be interesting to see what happens or occurs after jan 6

 

[eolesen]

WN didn't blink. They helped box DL in further.

UA just filed for 12x DAL-IAH so come January there will be one less argument for DL to haul into court.

 

[WorldTraveler]

again, if WN had no reason to help DL, they could have said no and when they say it doesn't matter.


You and a whole bunch of other people on here will find out that meto and I are right, WN knows that DAL has an obligation to accommodate DL, DAL screwed up by not providing any mechanism to accommodate non-lease holding airlines, DAL expected UAL to accommodate DL but UA doesn't want to get saddled with the burden alone, and it is now up to DAL to figure out a mechanism not only to accommodate DL but any other airline that comes along.


WN knows it has the biggest risk if DL decides to take it to court and WN is hoping that something will be worked out that keeps it out of court.

Not only does the 5 party agreement specifically not exempt DAL from following federal airport guidelines but it is beyond ludicrous for anyone to think that an airport larger than PDX and HOU in terms of seats offered and just under TPA can get by with allowing only 2 jet carriers.

BTW, UA didn't file for a flight addition; the increased schedule is for sale.

 

[metopower]

Hurt DL . You kidding that helped a lawsuit. Now they are damaged and someone will have to accomadate DL or any new entry airline. UA now shows that they have a need for that gate . Just more pressure for some kind of a deal.

 

[swamt]

WN didn't blink. They helped box DL in further.

UA just filed for 12x DAL-IAH so come January there will be one less argument for DL to haul into court.

But he don't see it that way.  Your right though, now they have 1 gate instead of 2 like they wanted.  They already had the 1 gate they were looking to get 2 but now are only offered the 1, looks to me that's half of what they wanted.  My question is, what will they be doing with the rest of the flights they sold post W/A?  Did they not sell for like 18 flights per day out of LF?  And now they only get 1 gate which can support up to 9 flights per day, just curious...