BUT, you were wrong. They only have 5 flights when you were bragging that they would have afull blown flight schedule out of 2 gates for up to and including 9-18 flights. So once again, what will happen to all the other flights they (Delta) sold out of LF? You still have ignored this question, again and again chiefy...WorldTraveler said:
City of Dallas tells Delta it can no longer fly out of Love Field
- Thread starter Kev3188
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #363
if that is what you want to believe, then you are truly naïve.
WN isn't doing anything out of generosity for a competitor, regardless of what they may say publicly.
WN isn't doing anything out of generosity for a competitor, regardless of what they may say publicly.
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,298
while they didn't have a true lease they still have had flights for a while. Forcing them out just cause is pretty questionable.blue collar said:
Of course I have never been able to figure out how WA is/was legal at all in the first place. I have a business degree and an A&P.....no law degree. So what do I know. *shrug*
thats a slippery slope for the city of Dallas if they go that route.Kev3188 said:
United would fall under the same rules.....
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #366
I'm with dawg on this.
"naïve" is believing that any company does something out of the goodness of their heart. they act in their own profit-related motives.
anyone can have another opinion.
the legal question remains how DAL can believe they have the right to not follow certain sections of the law, in this case, airport access.
there is nothing in the Wright Amendment that gives DAL or any of its tenant airlines a pass on federal airport access laws for non-leaseholders.
and it becomes increasingly difficult for DAL to argue that they can follow a set of rules which exclude carriers other than leaseholders when DAL is now from a flight standpoint no different from many other airports; it is certainly permissible for an airport to say they will allow int'l flights but none say "we have no room for other airlines"
"naïve" is believing that any company does something out of the goodness of their heart. they act in their own profit-related motives.
anyone can have another opinion.
the legal question remains how DAL can believe they have the right to not follow certain sections of the law, in this case, airport access.
there is nothing in the Wright Amendment that gives DAL or any of its tenant airlines a pass on federal airport access laws for non-leaseholders.
and it becomes increasingly difficult for DAL to argue that they can follow a set of rules which exclude carriers other than leaseholders when DAL is now from a flight standpoint no different from many other airports; it is certainly permissible for an airport to say they will allow int'l flights but none say "we have no room for other airlines"
jimntx
Veteran
Any number of cities have passed laws/ordinances/etc that prohibited commercial service from their "old" airport to protect the investment in their "new" airport. The catch that WN hooked onto was that when they first started flying, they flew only DAL-HOU and back. Therefore, they were not covered by Federal law other than FAA regulations which apply to all carriers regardless of route.topDawg said:
The Wright Amendment was passed by Congress either when (or in anticipation of) WN announced the plans to fly outside of Texas (therefore making interstate commerce laws applicable to them); and for the same reason as the original agreements between Dallas and Ft. Worth...to protect the HUGE investment (local and Federal) in DFW. It restricted WN to nonstop flights from DAL only to the 7 contiguous states to Texas. Thus, the humongous increase in the flights from HOU to other places as WN grew. (WN also "forced" the reopening of HOU to commercial service. Houston had a similar restriction on traffic out of HOU once IAH opened. But, at the time Houston's growth was a net increase of 1 person every 14 seconds, 24 hours/day, 7 days/week; so, it was hard to argue that the city couldn't support 2 airports.)
The courts have on more than one occasion ruled that the Wright Amendment is constitutional--including the amendments to the Amendment (no pun intended) that have occurred over the years resulting in DAL nonstop service to cities outside the original perimeter.
Aside from the gate shortage at DAL, the airport itself is located almost downtown in Dallas (less than 5 miles from city center), and regardless of direction, take-offs and landings are over heavily populated residential areas--including some of the priciest real estate in the entire U.S. The residents of these areas are not happy about the number of daily flights now. No telling what's going to happen in the near future. I see court actions coming--noise abatement, basic safety involving low flying a/c, etc. I'm not psychic like WT, but I would not be surprised if DAL ends up being a slot-restricted airport like LGA and DCA.
If Dallas had done as Denver did--i.e., demolish the old airport terminal and dig up the runways--we wouldn't be having this conversation today. And, if Denver had done as Dallas did, WN would be flying to the old airport and their customers wouldn't have to be driving to western Kansas like the customers of the rest of us.
Jim, I think your right about the noise issues. Not sure what the reaction from the hood will be. But as usual COD does listen to these civilians as they are mostly all rich as you know what. Remember the president of US has a home near by that he bought for 12 mill. That is not the top dollar home in the area. Without doing any homework can I guess it to be more like 35-45 million??? Just a guess. It is nice driving by these homes every single day to get to work. George W. also lives in this same area...jimntx said:Any number of cities have passed laws/ordinances/etc that prohibited commercial service from their "old" airport to protect the investment in their "new" airport. The catch that WN hooked onto was that when they first started flying, they flew only DAL-HOU and back. Therefore, they were not covered by Federal law other than FAA regulations which apply to all carriers regardless of route.
The Wright Amendment was passed by Congress either when (or in anticipation of) WN announced the plans to fly outside of Texas (therefore making interstate commerce laws applicable to them); and for the same reason as the original agreements between Dallas and Ft. Worth...to protect the HUGE investment (local and Federal) in DFW. It restricted WN to nonstop flights from DAL only to the 7 contiguous states to Texas. Thus, the humongous increase in the flights from HOU to other places as WN grew. (WN also "forced" the reopening of HOU to commercial service. Houston had a similar restriction on traffic out of HOU once IAH opened. But, at the time Houston's growth was a net increase of 1 person every 14 seconds, 24 hours/day, 7 days/week; so, it was hard to argue that the city couldn't support 2 airports.)
The courts have on more than one occasion ruled that the Wright Amendment is constitutional--including the amendments to the Amendment (no pun intended) that have occurred over the years resulting in DAL nonstop service to cities outside the original perimeter.
Aside from the gate shortage at DAL, the airport itself is located almost downtown in Dallas (less than 5 miles from city center), and regardless of direction, take-offs and landings are over heavily populated residential areas--including some of the priciest real estate in the entire U.S. The residents of these areas are not happy about the number of daily flights now. No telling what's going to happen in the near future. I see court actions coming--noise abatement, basic safety involving low flying a/c, etc. I'm not psychic like WT, but I would not be surprised if DAL ends up being a slot-restricted airport like LGA and DCA.
If Dallas had done as Denver did--i.e., demolish the old airport terminal and dig up the runways--we wouldn't be having this conversation today. And, if Denver had done as Dallas did, WN would be flying to the old airport and their customers wouldn't have to be driving to western Kansas like the customers of the rest of us.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #370
WN and DL are competitors. To believe that WN is acting in any way in this situation without considering that or by doing something for DL or its clients is simply not reality.
WN is acting solely to keep DL from pushing a legal issue that could significantly unravel everything that WN has worked for at DAL.
when you have evidence or even a strong theory to show that I am wrong and that WN is acting with other motives, I will absolutely admit it.
until then, the houses around DAL are not a part of the issue between DL and DAL. The Dallas community agreed to a 20 gate limit. If they want to impose slot restrictions to impose flight limits, they will have to go back and rework the whole agreement.
in the meantime, DAL has not been exempted from meeting federal airport access requirements. They wrote defective leases and will have to figure out how to enforce federal airport access laws - which DL intends to ensure are enforced to allow DL to continue to serve DAL.
WN is acting solely to keep DL from pushing a legal issue that could significantly unravel everything that WN has worked for at DAL.
when you have evidence or even a strong theory to show that I am wrong and that WN is acting with other motives, I will absolutely admit it.
until then, the houses around DAL are not a part of the issue between DL and DAL. The Dallas community agreed to a 20 gate limit. If they want to impose slot restrictions to impose flight limits, they will have to go back and rework the whole agreement.
in the meantime, DAL has not been exempted from meeting federal airport access requirements. They wrote defective leases and will have to figure out how to enforce federal airport access laws - which DL intends to ensure are enforced to allow DL to continue to serve DAL.
jimntx
Veteran
My favorite example of the amount of money in Highland Park occurred within the last 10 years. A couple paid $8 million for a Highland Park mansion as a tear down. Seems the wife liked the lot, but hated the house; so, she wanted to tear it down to build a more "suitable" residence.swamt said:
That kind of money has real clout at City Hall Dallas even though Highland Park is not legally in Dallas. It is it's own municipality.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #372
clout for what in relation to DAL?
the community agreed to a 20 gate limit that has no provisions for exempting DAL from federal airport access requirements.
If the community wants to ditch the whole agreement and start over (and no one is suggesting they will) then everything about what has been established up to this point is out the door.
DAL is and will be a 20 gate airport.
what needs to be made very clear is that it must serve any carrier that wants to come along.
what needs to be done, in my opinion, is to eliminate restrictions that prohibit WN from operating int'l flights.
Since AA agreed to stay out of DAL as part of the merger agreement, it is hard to argue they should be allowed to renege on that agreement but DAL should be allowed to operate to the fullest economic extent possible with the most amount of carriers that want to serve it.
the community agreed to a 20 gate limit that has no provisions for exempting DAL from federal airport access requirements.
If the community wants to ditch the whole agreement and start over (and no one is suggesting they will) then everything about what has been established up to this point is out the door.
DAL is and will be a 20 gate airport.
what needs to be made very clear is that it must serve any carrier that wants to come along.
what needs to be done, in my opinion, is to eliminate restrictions that prohibit WN from operating int'l flights.
Since AA agreed to stay out of DAL as part of the merger agreement, it is hard to argue they should be allowed to renege on that agreement but DAL should be allowed to operate to the fullest economic extent possible with the most amount of carriers that want to serve it.
The restrictions imposed by the Wright Amendement and the 5-party Agreement and law ending the WA restrictions would all be illegal as restraints of trade except for one thing: they were all enacted by Congress, and signed by the President, the same process as all other laws. Don't need a law degree for that one, as it was covered in high school civics/government class (and again for many students in Political Science 101).topDawg said:
Congress determines what's lawful and what's not lawful and unless they exceeded their Constitutional authority/power, it's the law. It's an anti-competitive law, to be sure, but Congress gets to define conduct that lawful and what's unlawful.
False. It's been pointed out to you numerous times, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Section 5(e)(2)( B) is that free pass.WorldTraveler said:
https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ352/PLAW-109publ352.pdf
Congress gave Dallas a free pass on the typical requirement. It's quoted above. All Dallas has to do is honor the Scarce Resource Provisions of the existing leases - that language was also enacted by Congress:
Federal law prohibits the construction of new gates in excess of 20 and federal law excuses Dallas from the typical rules on modifying preferential leases. So what, exactly, do you think Dallas has to do to comply with the typical federal law governing access for new entrants? Build more gates? Congress prohibited that. Modify existing leases? Congress said Dallas doesn't have to do that (unlike at every other airport).
I'm curious: Who would Delta sue and what would Delta claim?
Still making things up and posting false statements. In what way are the leases defective? How exactly would they "enforce federal airport access laws" that don't apply at Dallas Love Field?WorldTraveler said:
DAL has indeed been "exempted from meeting federal airport access requirements." That was the whole point of the 5-party agreement and why Congress enacted into federal law.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #374
save it for the judge.
there is nothing in the Wright Amendment or any other law that exempts any federal airport from meeting federal access requirements.
type away all you want but that is the issue and I continue to say that DL will push the case to court IF they cannot get access to gates as they want.
WN's reason for accommodating DL, in my opinion, is solely because they see legal risk that they want to avoid.
there is nothing in the Wright Amendment or any other law that exempts any federal airport from meeting federal access requirements.
type away all you want but that is the issue and I continue to say that DL will push the case to court IF they cannot get access to gates as they want.
WN's reason for accommodating DL, in my opinion, is solely because they see legal risk that they want to avoid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
