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

[WorldTraveler]

the number of gates at DAL was known to be 20 for the last 8 years. No one sold gates and it is not likely any could have been bought. Everyone knew where this was going.

Again, DL moved to DFW like every other large jet carrier except WN when DFW was opened.

And, no, unlike AA, DL had no interest in suing WN to keep it from flying from DAL. The irony is that DL will be at DAL and AA won't.

Arguing "they could have bought their way in" won't work.

the fact that DL and other carriers cannot add any service at DAL will be found to be incompatible with US airport access and antitrust laws.

Again, if WN saw no risk, they would have said no to DL and not looked back.

They blinked because they see the risk. Saying "you could have done the same thing we did" doesn't work.

Airport access laws aren't about squatting on federal assets long enough to be "in" while keeping everyone else "out"

for someone who is supposedly a lawyer, you seem blissfully unaware that laws can be ruled to be illegal based on other laws.

THAT is precisely the fear that WN recognizes exists.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I didn't post anything that's contradictory. Delta could have been a signatory to the five-party agreement in 2006 (would have been a six-party agreement) had it leased some space at the old DAL all those years like AA did. Further, DL had the last eight years to try to buy its way into DAL by paying WN or UA or AA (before the Justice Department made AA lease its gates to VX). But DL chose not to plan ahead and hasn't yet pulled out its checkbook.Exactly what is the "legal risk" you repeatedly talk about? Who might DL sue and what would DL get if DL wins?Yes, AA was forced to lease its gates to VX, but DL could have acquired those AA gates anytime prior to the AA/DOJ settlement agreement. Further, DL could have leased space at DAL over the past several decades if being at DAL was so important.

You are using legal arguments with a delusional person. He lives in an alternate reality-based bubble where everyone else is always wrong. And if he is, it was because nobody understood what he said in the first place.

I am quite sure that Delta is more than happy to be done with him. I am willing to bet many people there would wish he would stop bothering them.

I know you are an attorney and are wise to the situation ahead of DAL. Delta may try and wage a legal battle, but to what end? What would they get? I think it was you who said they may end up with the solo gate from 0130-0330.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, he isn't using legal arguments.

If he were really a lawyer, he would know that laws can be overturned.

The 5 party agreement could very well be proven to be illegal based on anti-trust laws and airport access laws.

to argue that DAL is a special case but will be the 30th busiest airport in the nation is a little much.

LGA, ORD, SNA and dozens of other airports all have severe restraints including of facilities but they weren't exempt from anything.

And the key point which no one has answered is whether the Wright Amendment or any of its revisions has ever been challenged by an OUTSIDE airline that couldn't get in.

I don't think it has been.

I am rather certain that it will be challenged if DL is not given access and it is precisely that risk that WN is trying very hard to avoid.

Unlike the mental midgets here that resort to mocking someone who might have an opinion different fro their own, WN has lawyers who clearly realize there is a risk that someone else might be right and WN better make sure they don't lose everything they have fought for at DAL if that happens.

 

[robbedagain]

Clearly there is only one (1) mental midget and he is a dl cheerleader who can not take no for an answer

swamt it will be interesting to see what happens come jan 6 whether or not dl is there and if theyre not then oh well

 

[WorldTraveler]

no. Mental midgets are those who aren't able to see the world bigger than the way they want to see it.

specific to this topic, we have a dozen people, including you, who want to argue that the status quo is acceptable.

I have repeatedly said that perhaps the world isn't near as black and white as you want to make it out to be.

the Wright Amendment and the whole 5 party agreement could easily be overturned in a court that can see that the whole arrangement is uncompetitive and incompatible with US antitrust and federal access laws.

Remember that there isn't another airport in the US that is built on the same basis that DAL is.

Given that DAL is now open to serve all of the US (in a few hours), it is all the more difficult to argue that a law that has never been challenged from the perspective of outsiders who can't get in will be allowed to stand.

and if it falls, WN could be faced with having its 16 gate lease torn up, any carrier that wants to allowed to occupy space, AA might be allowed back into DAL - but that part might stand since AA agreed to it as part of its merger agreement - and DAL could be open to int'l flights.

either way, there is a huge amount of risk that WN realizes is there; they didn't keep pounding on the table telling DL that the 5 party agreement gives 3 airlines access to all of the gates and anyone else is out in the cold.

because of the risk of DAL being forced open like any other airport in the US is, WN offered up gates and is undoubtedly telling DAL to figure it out and keep DL happy.

the oh could well be that DL and UA as well as other airlines are at DAL but AA is not.

 

[blue collar]

Since when is UA not a jet carrier?

 

[WorldTraveler]

I said mainline jet carriers. UA is not operating mainline equipment at DAL.

 

[blue collar]

They aren't operating it now, but UA IS a mainline jet carrier. They can upgauge at any time they please.

 

[swamt]

To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that it's a travesty that Southwest was allowed to keep 80%; it's a travesty that any airline would be permitted to hold 80% of the gates at an airport limited (by federal law) to a mere 20 gates.
But that was the political price to be paid, and not only did the local politicians have their say, the federal politicians weighed in as well.

On a similar note, it's also a travesty that the El Toro Marine base in Orange County will never be a commercial airport, but I was on the losing side of that argument (voters in Orange County voted to make it a park instead).

Watch in the future about the total number of gates at LF.  Our CEO has already announced that that very well may get challenged in the future some time.  Also, I still think the international may also get challenged, but that will be at a lessor degree than the total amount of gates.  Stay tuned as this is only the first part of the repeal...

 

[swamt]

I didn't post anything that's contradictory. Delta could have been a signatory to the five-party agreement in 2006 (would have been a six-party agreement) had it leased some space at the old DAL all those years like AA did. Further, DL had the last eight years to try to buy its way into DAL by paying WN or UA or AA (before the Justice Department made AA lease its gates to VX). But DL chose not to plan ahead and hasn't yet pulled out its checkbook.


Exactly what is the "legal risk" you repeatedly talk about? Who might DL sue and what would DL get if DL wins?

Yes, AA was forced to lease its gates to VX, but DL could have acquired those AA gates anytime prior to the AA/DOJ settlement agreement. Further, DL could have leased space at DAL over the past several decades if being at DAL was so important.

You are correct.  It is called being asleep at the wheel.  However, maybe Delta thought the W/A was never going away.  Oh wait, they had 8 years knowing it was going away, never mind.  In stead of being pro-active they chose to sit there and ride it out, then threaten suits to try and wiggle their way in when they had 8 years to be pro-active, instead they chose not to be pro-active which is what I suggested Delta do many, many years ago...

 

[swamt]

Clearly there is only one (1) mental midget and he is a dl cheerleader who can not take no for an answer

swamt it will be interesting to see what happens come jan 6 whether or not dl is there and if theyre not then oh well

I do know for a fact that the very gate that SWA is allowing Delta to continue to use until 1-6-15 will not be allowed for Delta to use after such date as SWA will use this gate for California flights as well as overruns and weather delayed passengers being picked up and moved around.  I won't promise that Delta will be gone from LF after this date but they will be out of this gate that SWA is allowing them to use for now.  It is only a temporary fix for now, not perm. at this time...

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL will support WN in expanding DAL but DAL will have to ensure that non-lease holding gates allow for non-leaseholder growth BEFORE lease holders.

Further, I have repeatedly noted that I support the expansion of DAL to include int'l flights because the current setup is an unfair restraint of trade. There is no economic reason why WN cannot fly 737s to Mexico if the airport can physically handle them which it can.

DL might actually be one of WN's best advocates in helping make this plan happen which might be part of WN is trying to accommodate DL. the more WN grows at DAL and the more space DL has to expand there in addition to DFW, the more pressure is put on AA. The more WN can grow at DAL also gives WN less incentive to have a presence at ATL, also good for DL.

As much as you see DL and WN as always at ends with each other, DL might be helping WN achieve its goals.

at the same time, DL will be at DAL and WN has to put pressure on DAL to find a balanced solution for DL access.

 

[swamt]

Here read these:
Southwest Airlines: THE Low-Cost Airline
 
Southwest Airlines gets a boost from expiration of Wright Amendment
 
Southwest Airlines Celebrates Love Field's Freedom To Fly
 
Notice that the "final" decision has not been made yet.  Delta's future at LF is STILL up in the air after 1-6-15.  Nothing is final as far as accommodating Delta at LF.  It was a very good move by SWA to offer the one gate to Delta until the beginning of the year, shows just how well SWA was willing to work with Delta.  Also shows and proves WT wrong that SWA was all about getting Delta kicked out of LF.  The mere fact of SWA offering a helping hand to Delta to have them stay temporarily just shows too that SWA is never scared of a little competition especially from Delta.  Now, WT, Just what will Delta do about all those "other" flights that were sold post W/A?  Up to 18 flights per day cannot be accommodated from just one gate.  What will happen with all those flights?  You nor anyone else has been able to answer this question, why is that WT???

 

[WorldTraveler]

yet DL is still selling seats between DAL and ATL after 1/6/2015.

You have hearts tattooed on your backside if you think WN is being benevolent to DL. They are doing what they are doing solely because of the legal risk of having everything WN fought for at DAL coming apart at the seams.

 

[swamt]

yet DL is still selling seats between DAL and ATL after 1/6/2015.

You have hearts tattooed on your backside if you think WN is being benevolent to DL. They are doing what they are doing solely because of the legal risk of having everything WN fought for at DAL coming apart at the seams.

And you are STILL avoiding the question of how Delta will deal with the overload of flights sold and flights offered at LF.  Typical WT, very typical...