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

[jcw]

Back to personal attacks

That's right DOJ said no to DL

They lost again

 

[swamt]

you still struggle with the English language.
 
I said DL WOULD file suit IF it could not gain access.
 
since they have achieved what the want outside of the courts, they have no reason to file.
 
don't kid yourself that they won't do so if necessary.

 
 

I said WOULD and IF.

you can't even fully write out the correct verbs.

DL is at DAL.

No you didn't sir.  Once again you change what you said months and years ago just hoping people have forgotten.  Not gonna work.  Just like over the subject of why SWA reduced flights in ATL.  You screamed that it was because SWA was scared to death of Delta and that Delta was running them out of ATL.  Then you go and admitted that SWA was reducing capacity in order to focus on the DAL expansion and other cities with it's A/C, which is what I was saying all along and you were constantly argueing with me.  This crap really gets old from you, you are just like a little 3 year old.  BTW like I told you before also, the current situation Delta has at LF is only temporary.  LUV how you always avoid the questions when you know you are in a pinch.  What are Delta's plans after their temporary gate is gone on 1-6-15?  

 

[WorldTraveler]

go back and find any full and complete post that says that DL would sue without conditions.

you won't find it.

I have always said that if DL did not achieve what it wanted, it would sue.

DL is at DAL and there are no indications that it will leave.

As of right now, DL has schedules for DAL to ATL loaded beyond the date when WN's gate sublease ends.

 

[jcw]

Another great strategy by DL they can't execute on a DAL strategy

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL is still selling seats at DAL.

that is a strategy they set out to do and one which AA/US mgmt. tried to prevent DL from doing with the antitrust settlement.

in contrast, AA cannot serve DAL based on its agreement with the Justice Dept.

 

[robbedagain]

jcw  he only has to attack the posters every dam time he is proven wrong  and he goes to great lengths to prove everyone else is wrong and that he is always right..    he sure has major issues  

 

[topDawg]

It is not up to the courts.  Delta has never filed a suit as WT has promised.  No courts are involved, as of yet.  SWA was simply being nice and "allowed" Delta to remain "temporarily" for a limited time until 1-6-15 when SWA will fully use the gate that they are now leasing to Delta. But you are correct that it is out of DL's hands...

key point. Delta is still playing nice...........for now. 

 

[blue collar]

Even if they took it to court, I don't see them winning anything. I hope it goes to court just so we can all see what will happen.

 

[topDawg]

Even if they took it to court, I don't see them winning anything. I hope it goes to court just so we can all see what will happen.

I don't know if they will or wont. I don't really see how its legal to push an airline out like what is happening at DAL. If Delta hadn't been flying to DAL I could see how it would be tough luck, but kicking an airline out doesn't seem logical. 
 
I couldn't imagine for example if ATL were to tell WN to leave so VX could their space. 

 

[blue collar]

I don't know if they will or wont. I don't really see how its legal to push an airline out like what is happening at DAL. If Delta hadn't been flying to DAL I could see how it would be tough luck, but kicking an airline out doesn't seem logical. 
 
I couldn't imagine for example if ATL were to tell WN to leave so VX could their space. 

Delta doesn't have any leases for the gates at DAL, that's why they were told tough luck. It's been discussed ad nauseum as to why they should or shouldn't be allowed there, that's why I say let it go to court so we'll all know.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Delta doesn't have any leases for the gates at DAL, that's why they were told tough luck. It's been discussed ad nauseum as to why they should or shouldn't be allowed there, that's why I say let it go to court so we'll all know.

it's also been discussed ad nauseum that US airports that receive federal funds are required to accommodate other carriers that wish to serve that airport.

despite what some people believe, DAL is not an exception from the rule that exists at every other US airport.

DL is selling seats beyond Jan 2015

 

[jcw]

I guess no airline in the world sold seats on flights they were not going to operate

I know this will crush your mind - DL sold flights to from MEM and CVG when they had no intention of flying the flights and had to rebook everyone who bought seats

Sorry dude just selling tickets does not mean it's worked out

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

"SECTION 1 - EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS

1.1. OBLIGATION AGAINST GRANTING EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS.

Most exclusive rights agreements violate the grant assurances contained in FAA grant agreements or similar obligations in surplus property conveyances. With few exceptions, an airport sponsor is prohibited from granting a right to a single operator for the provision of an aeronautical activity to the exclusion of others. See definition of exclusive right in Appendix 1. Accordingly, FAA policy prohibits the creation or continuance of exclusive rights agreements at obligated airports where the airport sponsor has received Federal airport development assistance for the airports improvement or development. This prohibition applies regardless of how the exclusive right was created, whether by express agreement or the imposition of unreasonable minimum standards and/or requirements (inadvertent or otherwise).

1.2. AGENCY POLICY.

The existence of an exclusive right to conduct any aeronautical activity at an airport limits the usefulness of the airport and deprives the public of the benefits that flow from competitive enterprise. The purpose of the exclusive rights provision as applied to civil aeronautics is to prevent monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade and to promote competition at federally- obligated airports. An exclusive rights violation occurs when the airport sponsor excludes others, either intentionally or unintentionally, from participating in an on-airport aeronautical activity. A prohibited exclusive right can be manifested by an express agreement, unreasonable minimum standards, or by any other means. Significant to understanding the exclusive rights policy, is the recognition that it is the impact of the activity, and not necessarily the airport sponsors intent, that constitutes an exclusive rights violation.

1.3. EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE.

The following paragraphs address exclusive rights violations and certain exceptions to the exclusive rights policy due to circumstances that make an exception necessary.

a. Exclusive Rights Violations

1. Restrictions Based on Safety and Efficiency. An airport sponsor can deny a prospective aeronautical service provider the right to engage in an on-airport aeronautical activity for reasons of safety and efficiency. A denial based on safety must be based on evidence demonstrating that airport safety will be compromised if the applicant is allowed to engage in the proposed aeronautical activity. Airport sponsors should carefully scrutinize the safety reasons for denying an aeronautical service provider the opportunity to engage in an aeronautical activity if the denial has the possible effect of limiting competition.

The FAA is the final authority in determining what, in fact, constitutes a compromise of safety. As such, an airport sponsor that is contemplating the denial of a proposed on-airport aeronautical activity is encouraged to contact the local Airports District Office (ADO) or the Regional Airports Office. Those offices will then seek assistance from FAA Flight Standards (FS) and Air Traffic (AT) to assess the reasonableness of the proposed action and whether unjust discrimination results from the proposed restrictions on aeronautical activities because of safety and efficiency. 3"

"f. Exclusive Right. A power, privilege, or other right excluding or debarring another from enjoying or exercising a like power, privilege, or right. An exclusive right can be conferred either by express agreement, by the imposition of unreasonable standards or requirements, or by any other means. Such a right conferred on one or more parties, but excluding others from enjoying or exercising a similar right or rights, would be an exclusive right."

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5190-6/150_5190_6.pdf

This will determine if there is an exclusive rights violation. It also depends on how the City policy is interpreted and what will take precedence in this case. I believe that Delta will have to file for an exclusive rights remedy first.


http://www.dallascityhall.com/committee_briefings/briefings0414/TTRC_LoveFieldGateLeases_042814.pdf

 

[Kev3188]

If Delta hadn't been flying to DAL I could see how it would be tough luck, but kicking an airline out doesn't seem logical. 
 

That's just it; Delta proper wasn't flying there- EV (or whatever DCI carrier) was. Even if you take the UAL lease piece out of the is, I can still see someone making this argument before the court.

 

[WorldTraveler]

they can try but it won't work.

DL bought the capacity from EV.

if that argument worked, DL would be out of DAL now.

they aren't.

DL is selling seats from DAL beyond Jan 6.

DL intends to be there.