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

[swamt]

He's just a moron guys. He will never be satisfied period.  No matter what Delta is allowed or not allowed at LF.  He does not understand or comprehend the laws that rule the DAL LF airport...

 

[topDawg]

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. 

as it should be. 
 

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).

1) someone with LUV in your name.....bet you have a bias
2) who was there first....you or the airport? (if it  was the airport like i bet then its not Delta's fault you screwed up and thought it was a good idea to live next to an airport. People like you are big part of the problem in this country) 
if you were there before the airport then.......damn you old(and the above doesn't apply) 
 

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).   
 
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.
 

seems like those other guys could rule that congress did something illegal. Wasn't it Pelosi that said something along the line that she does what she wants and its up to the Supreme court to say its legal or not? 
 
while that isn't completely true, what I do know about the US government is the Supreme court could step in here and say its illegal. Congress doesn't have the final say(unless the Supreme Court says it wants nothing to do with it......then you would be correct) 
 
AFAIK no one has challenged this yet.  
 
 
 
 
and FWIW, I'm not WT. no need to sound so harsh....unless i am misreading your tone

 

[WorldTraveler]

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?

 
 DL strongly encouraged DAL to have common use gates instead of giving both gates to VX.

DAL chose not to.

whether legal based on the 5 party agreement or not, there would be little difficulty in convincing a judge or Congress that allowing DAL which could easily have as many daily seats as TPA to be carved up between 3 airlines with one of them having 80% of the gates and even more seats (the seats on UA's flights can fit on 3 WN 738s) is not only severely anticompetitive and against US antitrust laws but also a violation of US airport access laws whether the 5 party agreement incorporated it or not.

again, it was illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus at one time; those laws were thankfully overturned.

to think that just because something is in the law today makes it defensible is simply insupportable based on the US justice system.

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.

and you and I completely agree with this.

a few WN fan kids might want not to hear that but their company does not.

WN is smart enough to know that having a large operation in a city where they can have the majority of seats is fine but to not allow full competition from anyone who wants to come is a recipe for a lawsuit.

DL so far is operating just 5, not 6 flights as they originally said.

There is clearly a minimum level of service that DL is willing to accept and I suspect it is close to flight and seat parity with WN in the primary DL hub markets that WN serves from DAL. Only DL knows the threshold it is willing to accept as acceptable service before it pushes a lawsuit.

DAL should be accessible to any carrier that wants to serve it.

Were it not for AA's merger settlement, they should be allowed to serve DAL as they wish as well.

all of the current elements of the 5 party agreement other than maximum airport size are likely not defensible on antitrust grounds.

WN is smart enough to give DL a few crumbs to keep a case out of court.

further, if UA is operating 12 flights/day just to squat gates, the chances are high that they will not sustain it based on market performance. their schedules apparently also do not meet DAL gate usage requirements for a maximum of 60 minutes per flight/gate which DAL could and should enforce.

DL will remain at DAL or there is a very good chance a case will be filed.

WN has the most to lose if a case is filed and has the least to lose by giving DL a little bit of gate space while WN leans on DAL to fix the problem with where it should be fixed - UA.

 

[LD3]

This could be the end of SW....

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

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.   

 
Let him post away.
It is annoying to read all the BS, but the more he writes the more he makes a fool of himself.
 
 

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?

 
Do you really have to ask that? 
I don't think it is a  mystery as to how WT would rule.

 
 

whether legal based on the 5 party agreement or not, there would be little difficulty in convincing a judge or Congress that allowing DAL which could easily have as many daily seats as TPA to be carved up between 3 airlines with one of them having 80% of the gates and even more seats (the seats on UA's flights can fit on 3 WN 738s) is not only severely anticompetitive and against US antitrust laws but also a violation of US airport access laws whether the 5 party agreement incorporated it or not.

again, it was illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus at one time; those laws were thankfully overturned.

 
Oh here we go with the DAL is in the same league as TPA.
If you look at the 2013 numbers, TPA had about 8.3 million passenger boardings compared to just over 4 million for DAL.
 
And I can't believe you're attempting to equate DL's whining at DAL to civil rights. 
You're truly a piece of work.

 

[WorldTraveler]

the Wright Amendment restrictions just fell.

there is no public information regarding boardings since WN has been allowed to fly to all of the US.

Published schedules do show that DAL will see a dramatic increase in the number of seats which will put it right under TPA in the number of seats offered.

Gary Kelly said they will use every means possible to put as many seats as possible into the DAL local market.

WN knows that providing DL with the space to operate just a handful of domestic flights right now is enough to keep DL from taking the case to court.

WN is smart enough to realize that giving DL space for a few flights is nothing compared with the potential for losing gate space worth far more than that if a court rules that DAL's current leases even if they are legal under the 5 party agreement do not meet antitrust or airport access laws.

and even if they do, there is nothing that says that laws can't be changed to allow DL to grow well beyond its 5 current flights.

This could be the end of SW....

doubtful... but the size of their DAL operation could have to be reduced.

WN is thinking pragmatically about the situation - not in the black and white terms that some people here use

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

WN knows that providing DL with the space to operate just a handful of domestic flights right now is enough to keep DL from taking the case to court.

WN is smart enough to realize that giving DL space for a few flights is nothing compared with the potential for losing gate space worth far more than that if a court rules that DAL's current leases even if they are legal under the 5 party agreement do not meet antitrust or airport access laws.

and even if they do, there is nothing that says that laws can't be changed to allow DL to grow well beyond its 5 current flights.

 
Right.
Go ahead and you keep telling yourself that.

 

[AirLUVer]

as it should be. 
 

1) someone with LUV in your name.....bet you have a bias
2) who was there first....you or the airport? (if it  was the airport like i bet then its not Delta's fault you screwed up and thought it was a good idea to live next to an airport. People like you are big part of the problem in this country) 
if you were there before the airport then.......damn you old(and the above doesn't apply) 
 

I do not work for WN.
I bought my home prior to the repeal of the Wright Ammendment, And as a resident of theat neighborhood, I do not want the additional traffic on a road system system that was not designed for a non capped airport. Nor do I want flights every 3 minutes landing over my home and favorite bars and restaurants. I would press my congressman and senator for a slot restriction in lieu of a gate cap, if there is a push to open up DAL.

 

[WorldTraveler]

we'll see in a few months whether DL is still at DAL, and if not, whether a lawsuit has been filed - and that will say more about who has called this whole situation accurately or not.

I don't think WN is willing to risk losing enormous amounts just to keep DL from operating 5-6 flights/day.

and WN also knows that risk could also come if DAL's neighbors decide they aren't interested in the much greater amounts of noise which would require that the current agreement be required - again opening up leases which were thought to be 'solid'

WN wants the status quo as it now exists to be untouched.

DL wants to serve DAL.

the two will figure out how to allow each to achieve their own goals without killing the other. it will happen

 

[swamt]

I see you are still avoiding the question WT...

 

[WorldTraveler]

it's really not personal, swamt

It's about business and in the case of DAL, DL's intent to be able to serve airports that other carriers use will use to serve key DL markets.

Even if the law is on WN's side right now (and it is far from certain that the Wright Amendment and 5 party agreement is compatible with other federal laws including antitrust laws), it is still very possible that the very unique nature of DAL and the imbalance that now exists could raise enough red flags to force legal changes to bring DAL back in line with other US airports.

everything else is fluff.

 

[Hope777]

So WHY isnt VX and Branson coming to the aid of DL????  Arent they already in Bed Together in a round about way?

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, VX and Virgin Atlantic are separate companies and strong competitors.

Branson has worked hard to prove he doesn't control VX... thinking that he influences VX for the benefit of DL would make that defense much harder.

 

[Hope777]

Yup looking at the press release Branson does looked to be involved.....  LOL
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/virgin-america-today-launches-dallas-love-field-flights-to-new-york-laguardia-with-a-fare-sale.html/

 

[Hope777]

Nope not in Bed at all......