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

[swamt]

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.

NO!  You go find it.  We all know what you said in the beginning.  Yes DL is at DAL for now.  It is temporary as I told you.  As you have read yourself the gate (single gate) being leased to DL by SWA is on a temporary basis until 1-6-15, then they will be in the exact same boat they were in before SWA was nice enough to "temp" lease them the one gate.  And since it is one gate instead of 2, you still have been dodging yet another question I have asked of you,  what is DL going to do with all those flights sold out of LF 18-20 flights now down to 9-10 due to oly having one gate?  What will they Do WT?  You have never answered this one.  And BTW;  SWA didn't change their schedule one bit in order for DL to remain at LF as you said they would have to.  Just another item you were wrong on once again.
Yea DL has schedules "loaded" for dates past 1-6-15.  And where did that get DL by "loading" and selling flights at LF post W/A?  Like I said before, DL can sell all the tickets for the flights all they want, after this said date.  It will a very different story if they will be able to provide those flights from LF.  They tried this once already, sold tickets for 18-20 flights,  now only have 1 gate and can only accommodate about hlf that if their lucky, 9-10.  So once again WT what is Delta doing abought all those flights previously planned for at DAL LF???  DAL is not going in Delta's favor what-so-ever, matter fact they are lucky they even have one gate temporarily.  Very lucky to even be at DAL LF, but we will all see where and how all this ends up after 1-6-15.  Maybe just maybe this could be one of the times to add more gates at DAL LF?  Yea right, not at this time...

 

[swamt]

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

And this was just proven in Oct when the W/A went away.  

 

[swamt]

"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

They will have to file something or they are gone after 1-6-15

 

[swamt]

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 in

 

[swamt]

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.

And how did it work out for selling the seats for post W/A?  Keep selling those tickets, but if DL is not granted space by the courts then they will have to leave...

 

[WorldTraveler]

uh, DL continued its service after the WA.

Today, DL has 5 flights/day from DAL, some of which are 717s, just as they will tomorrow.

a week from tomorrow, DL's schedule is all 717s, just as it is in January.

you seem really wrapped up trying to prove that DL will be leaving DAL.

they have defied your predictions before and they will again and again.

get used to seeing those 717s in Delta colors including at WN gates.

 

[Kev3188]

they can try but it won't work.

DL bought the capacity from EV.

When I get my JD I'll let you know. Still think it holds more water than we might think...

 

[FWAAA]

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.

And as has been pointed out to you numerous times, that's where you're simply wrong. Federal law, enacted by Congress in 2006, provides specific rules for Dallas Love Field on that subject, that apply nowhere else.

But what do I know? I don't possess multiple Doctorates in Divinity, nor have I ever worked for Delta Air Lines.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and since you apparently have your JD, you should understand that the concept of federal being challenged by other federal law might have some validity.

you and a whole bunch of people don't seem to want to be able to admit that the reason why WN gave up space at its own gates - which obviously is sending swamt completely over the edge as he has to look at DL aircraft at WN gates like I predicted might happen - is because they fear that DL might really have a case and the whole of the Wright Amendment could be torn up if DL is right.

instead of taking that risk, WN is trying to appease DL and force DAL to fix the problem with leases which do not provide accommodation of other carriers.


further, Kevin's point falls apart under the reality that UA doesn't operate its own flights and yet filed the schedules it is using to block DL's access to UA's gates at DAL.

let me know when DL is out of DAL and has been told by federal courts - all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary - that DAL is indeed exempt from federal law regarding airline access that applies at every other airport.

 

[jcw]

Remember every one there is the real world and fantasy island

 

[Kev3188]

further, Kevin's point falls apart under the reality that UA doesn't operate its own flights and yet filed the schedules it is using to block DL's access to UA's gates at DAL.

They're the leaseholders.

Two separate arguments anyway. The first & main one I see being made is the "tough luck" one for DL not securing a better leasehold before now.

My point was more to the "new entrant" one vs. Incumbency.

Who knows how it'll play out? And if we have (up to) 5 B717's in/out of there in the meantime, that's cool too...

 

[FWAAA]

and since you apparently have your JD, you should understand that the concept of federal being challenged by other federal law might have some validity.

Could you give us an example of a federal statute being invalidated by another federal statute? Doesn't have to be a perfect analogy - any example would do.

you and a whole bunch of people don't seem to want to be able to admit that the reason why WN gave up space at its own gates - which obviously is sending swamt completely over the edge as he has to look at DL aircraft at WN gates like I predicted might happen - is because they fear that DL might really have a case and the whole of the Wright Amendment could be torn up if DL is right.

Now you're just making things up, which is fairly typical of you. We have no evidence that WN executives or its legal team fears anything or that any fear was behind the decision to lease DL its excess gate capacity until early January.

Occam's Razor would tend to support the idea that WN leased DL its excess capacity simply as a natural application of the Scarce Resource provisions of the lease - exactly what the WA repeal statute (federal law) requires. We don't know why WN leased DL its excess capacity, but attributing it to fear on the part of WN is story-telling at its finest - which is, of course, your current avocation in Brazil.

Instead of that possible logical explanation, you concoct an outlandish fantasy - that WN is afraid that the 2006 federal law will somehow be "torn up."

instead of taking that risk, WN is trying to appease DL and force DAL to fix the problem with leases which do not provide accommodation of other carriers.

Do you have any proof or evidence to support the above? You may be right - but it's the height of arrogance to continually assert something as fact when there isn't any evidence.

I have no idea whether DL will continue to serve DAL, nor have I ever expressed an opinion or prediction about DL's future at DAL. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether DL is able to serve DAL, but I don't see any argument that the Wright Amendment Reform Act (WARA) is invalid. Had Congress not specifically enacted the various provisions about which you complain - I would agree that it violates the Sherman Act and would clearly be illegal. But that argument goes out the window with the Congressional enactment of the WARA.

 

[WorldTraveler]

They're the leaseholders.

Two separate arguments anyway. The first & main one I see being made is the "tough luck" one for DL not securing a better leasehold before now.

My point was more to the "new entrant" one vs. Incumbency.

Who knows how it'll play out? And if we have (up to) 5 B717's in/out of there in the meantime, that's cool too...

and yet federal airport laws specifically require US airports which receive federal funds to accommodate other carriers.

there is absolutely no other airport in the US that has said "we're full" and we cannot accommodate any other carriers so don't even try.

that is essentially the issue here.

I'm not going to try to argue with a lawyer about law, FWAAA.

I will say that no one has yet to put forth any reason why WN bothered to go to any effort at all to accommodate DL. If they were in the right in saying "NO" then they would have been in the right in the future.

further, WN wasn't the one that was asked to accommodate DL this fall... that was what UA was asked to do based on significantly less use of their gates.

I'll restate what I said before... it cannot be ruled out that WN has chosen to accommodate DL to avoid starting a legal case which could have significant implications for WN's entire operation at DAL.

DAL and the Wright Amendment is unlike any other airport in the US. It is very possible that a legal challenge could find that the whole notion that two companies could cooperate with federal and local authorities to limit each other's access to federal facilities and at the same time limit access for other carriers is against other federal laws, no matter whether you can see that possibility or not.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Could you give us an example of a federal statute being invalidated by another federal statute? Doesn't have to be a perfect analogy - any example would do.Now you're just making things up, which is fairly typical of you. We have no evidence that WN executives or its legal team fears anything or that any fear was behind the decision to lease DL its excess gate capacity until early January.Occam's Razor would tend to support the idea that WN leased DL its excess capacity simply as a natural application of the Scarce Resource provisions of the lease - exactly what the WA repeal statute (federal law) requires. We don't know why WN leased DL its excess capacity, but attributing it to fear on the part of WN is story-telling at its finest - which is, of course, your current avocation in Brazil.Instead of that possible logical explanation, you concoct an outlandish fantasy - that WN is afraid that the 2006 federal law will somehow be "torn up."Do you have any proof or evidence to support the above? You may be right - but it's the height of arrogance to continually assert something as fact when there isn't any evidence.I have no idea whether DL will continue to serve DAL, nor have I ever expressed an opinion or prediction about DL's future at DAL. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether DL is able to serve DAL, but I don't see any argument that the Wright Amendment Reform Act (WARA) is invalid. Had Congress not specifically enacted the various provisions about which you complain - I would agree that it violates the Sherman Act and would clearly be illegal. But that argument goes out the window with the Congressional enactment of the WARA.

Thank you for the cogent response. WT will continue bloviating about legal theories with zero citations of precedence or case law.

 

[WorldTraveler]

feel free to resort to character assassination since that seems to be the best you can contribute to the discussion.

how about instead you explain why WN offered its gates to DL when even DAL expected UA to accommodate DL based on UA's gate usage?

and how about also explain where in the Wright Amendment or the 2006 agreement, DAL is exempt from following federal airport access laws?

don't spend too much time looking because DAL and the federal government did not remove any obligations from DAL to meet federal airport requirements - and they didn't.

It is very likely that DL has made that legal reality abundantly clear, WN knows DL is right, and WN is not willing to take the risk of having the whole settlement overturned because of faulty leases by DAL.

when DL is pushed out of DAL and has no recourse, let me know.