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

[Kev3188]

So much for not arguing the law with a lawyer?

 

[WorldTraveler]

and yet you can't tell us not only why DL keeps pushing the issue of access to DAL if they stand no chance and why WN offered to accommodate DL.

If it is clear cut as you think it is, DL would have given up a long time ago.

You do realize that DAL is one of the very few airports in the top 100 airports in the US that doesn't have common use gates?

You do realize that DAL by next spring will have as many seats as PDX and just under TPA in terms of number of seats? And yet DAL, by the way the gate leases are written could leave DAL with just 3 airlines.

Even if you are right on what actually exists at DAL, you are incredibly obtuse if you don't think that DL would easily be able to convince legislators to change laws to require DAL to have common use gates.

WN recognizes the risk if you don't.

Everything WN has worked for at DAL could be tossed out the window if DL goes to court and succeeds in carving out common use gates.

as much as you want to believe DL is SOL, WN doesn't believe it and neither does DL.

So much for not arguing the law with a lawyer?

I was waiting for someone to say that.

you do realize that a law clerk of the US Supreme Court wrote an opinion that had to be revised after it was released - that simply happens very rarely.

I can assure you that FWAAA is nowhere close to the caliber of lawyer at the US Supreme Court.

and even if he is, it doesn't change the fact that the law can be changed and that is precisely the risk that WN knows full well exists.

 

[FWAAA]

It's as if he's repeatedly posting that trans-oceanic flights must be operated with 3-engine or 4-engine planes even after someone posts the ETOPS rules and shows him that he's incorrect.   

 

[WorldTraveler]

and you can't seem to grasp that the world is not black and white.

if it were, then DL would have walked away a long time ago and WN would not have even bothered to talk to DL, let alone let them use gates.

 

[Kev3188]

and yet you can't tell us not only why DL keeps pushing the issue of access to DAL if they stand no chance and why WN offered to accommodate DL.

Institutional hubris?

 

[WorldTraveler]

of course.

the notion apparently escapes you that DL would do something based on its intention to ensure that it is able to serve every market it wants to in accordance to the free market principles that govern US aviation.

 

[Kev3188]

It escapes you that sometimes the law's the law- even for Ma Delta...

If you wanna be mad, be pissed that they didn't see up better gate access years ago...

 

[WorldTraveler]

and it clearly escapes you that a whole lot of what was thought to be law no longer is.

I supposed it escapes you that there was a time when blacks had to sit at the back of the bus - and that was law?

I'm mad at nothing.

I'm just amazed at how many people are willing to argue for a point when they can't explain the most basic logical parts of the question - why is DL arguing the point if they are wrong and why has WN accommodated DL if it knew it was completely safe in saying no.

DL will be in DAL but I have no expectations that any one on this thread will admit that I was right all along.

 

[Kev3188]

Is "escape" the new "fail to grasp?"

 

[FWAAA]

WT: Here is a hypothetical: Suppose that Delta, Allegiant, Frontier and jetBlue all wanted to schedule about 20 daily departures from DAL. Further, suppose that WN has scheduled about 155 departures, and suppose that UA and VX both schedule 16-20 departures.

What would you propose DAL do to provide access at DAL? At any other airport, the obvious solution would be to build more gates. That's not possible at DAL, because Congress decreed that DAL shall have no more than 20 gates. Would you propose that DAL somehow take or confiscate eight of WN's 16 gates? That's not possible under the WN lease.

So you're the judge hearing the DL lawsuit. What remedy would you order to permit those four new entrants to fly their 80 daily departures?

 

[MAH4546]

Southwest likely gave in temporarily because it is afraid of an antitrust suit, and while its lawyers work out whether an antitrust suit would have merit/succeed, it is letting Delta stick around.
 
Hopefully an antitrust suit is filed and Love Field is open to all with gate restrictions eliminated. 

 

[jimntx]

FWAAA, you're just trying to confuse him with facts--and legal facts to boot.  This will not only not convince him, it will most assuredly annoy him; and, he will triple his Delta Uber Alles posts for several days.  Hope you're happy.  

 

[AirLUVer]

Southwest likely gave in temporarily because it is afraid of an antitrust suit, and while its lawyers work out whether an antitrust suit would have merit/succeed, it is letting Delta stick around.
 
Hopefully an antitrust suit is filed and Love Field is open to all with gate restrictions eliminated.

Ah, HELLno, DAL is limited and Wrightly so, it is surrounded on three of four sides by residential neighborhoods, has extremely limited street access (at least 1.5 miles to the nearest highway), and the flight paths go directly over lots of residential property that was purchased with the knowledge that there would be very limited growth at DAL (including my home).

 

[swamt]

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.

I was not talking to you.  Butt out...

 

[swamt]

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.

Still buttin I see.  Shut up and stay out of it...