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

[FWAAA]

It is my belief that DL will be at DAL and that if there isn't an existing legal requirement for DL to be accommodated, there is no shortage of people in Congress who would easily see the anticompetitive and collusionary nature of the way DAL operates.

As I've said before, I DGAF whether DL flies from DAL next year, but don'tcha think that Congress saw the anticompetitive features of the 5-party agreement when Congress ratified it and enacted most of it into federal law in the Wright Amendment Reform Act in 2006?

I don't mean to precipitate a political argument, but IMO, the odds that Congress revisits DAL and agrees to rip up the 5-party agreement and gets the President's ok on that legislation are about Zero.

Dallas Love Field has been rife with anticompetitive and collusionary rules ever since DFW opened and Southwest refused to move to DFW. Congress has always been a party to that anticompetitive situation. In 2006, Congress ratified yet another anticompetitive and collusionary agreement concerning DAL.

 

[eolesen]

As I've said before, I DGAF whether DL flies from DAL next year, but don'tcha think that Congress saw the anticompetitive features of the 5-party agreement when Congress ratified it and enacted most of it into federal law in the Wright Amendment Reform Act in 2006?.
 

 
Agree. The whole point about the 5PA is that it's a compromise on a compromise.  Not everyone got what they wanted, but everyone was satisfied enough with the agreement to sign it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

As I've said before, I DGAF whether DL flies from DAL next year, but don'tcha think that Congress saw the anticompetitive features of the 5-party agreement when Congress ratified it and enacted most of it into federal law in the Wright Amendment Reform Act in 2006?

I don't mean to precipitate a political argument, but IMO, the odds that Congress revisits DAL and agrees to rip up the 5-party agreement and gets the President's ok on that legislation are about Zero.

Dallas Love Field has been rife with anticompetitive and collusionary rules ever since DFW opened and Southwest refused to move to DFW. Congress has always been a party to that anticompetitive situation. In 2006, Congress ratified yet another anticompetitive and collusionary agreement concerning DAL.

and when has it ever been challenged by a carrier other than AA or WN?

 

[topDawg]

As I've said before, I DGAF whether DL flies from DAL next year, but don'tcha think that Congress saw the anticompetitive features of the 5-party agreement when Congress ratified it and enacted most of it into federal law in the Wright Amendment Reform Act in 2006?

I don't mean to precipitate a political argument, but IMO, the odds that Congress revisits DAL and agrees to rip up the 5-party agreement and gets the President's ok on that legislation are about Zero.

Dallas Love Field has been rife with anticompetitive and collusionary rules ever since DFW opened and Southwest refused to move to DFW. Congress has always been a party to that anticompetitive situation. In 2006, Congress ratified yet another anticompetitive and collusionary agreement concerning DAL.

US Congress seeing things? 
 
Well that depends, could they read the bill before the vote or was it like Obamacare? 

 

[WorldTraveler]

with the change in power in Washington, it is far from certain what will happen. but the chances are very high that Washington will become more friendly to big business

if there was a Republican controlled DOJ, it isn't even likely the whole AA-US divestiture would have turned out the way it has.

 

[Kev3188]

What change?
 
When there's a real upheaval, be sure to let us know...

 

[WorldTraveler]

if you aren't sure what happened, perhaps it will be clear by the end of January ... but I expect you will see hints of what is changing long before.

and specific to DAL, you might well find out that the whole notion that DAL should be a protected playground for supposed LCCs to the exclusion of legacy carriers to the greatest extent possible might easily be challenged.

my challenge to you and everyone else is to let me know when DL is pushed out of DAL.

I don't believe it was going to happen before and I would bet that the changes in Washington will only serve to halt the insertion of government controls into the marketplace.

 

[Kev3188]

Oh, I saw last night's results- come January, it'll (literally) be business as usual in DC.
 

but the chances are very high that Washington will become more friendly to big business

As if it isn't now?

Like I said, let us know when a real upheaval occurs...

That said, regardless of who has a majority I have to agree with the other posters in that the current 5 party agreement won't be anywhere near the top of any list of things to tackle...

 

[WorldTraveler]

ObamaCare has hardly been friendly to business or consumers, Kevin. It has been the hallmark legislation of the Obama presidency.

neither have major economic issues such as oil drilling and transport and the environment.

interestingly, key issues like minimum wage increases won even in relatively "poor" states and without federal intervention.

Americans can make distinctions between what is good for themselves as a whole and going overboard with government control.

I don't want to see the environment destroyed or Americans underpaid.

but when the majority of Americans left polling places saying that government control has not helped the economy grow or ensure a brighter future for the next generation, then the idea that DAL which is operating the way it is because of a DOJ that practiced excessive government interference in the marketplace has to be called in question.

The chances that DAL can defend the limited access to competition became a whole lot harder by the time the votes were counted last night.

 

[topDawg]

Oh, I saw last night's results- come January, it'll (literally) be business as usual in DC.
 

As if it isn't now?

Like I said, let us know when a real upheaval occurs...

That said, regardless of who has a majority I have to agree with the other posters in that the current 5 party agreement won't be anywhere near the top of any list of things to tackle...

same game different people. 
 
 
but even then, a simple government 101 class tells us the president much sign a bill for it to become law. (or go to the senate again, but the GOP would need I believe its 3/4 of the senate) So Congress could name Richard Anderson everyone ruler and if Obama doesn't sign it then it doesn't mean jack. 
 
All last night did was promise us two more years of little to nothing getting done. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

which is the pessimistic way of looking at.

without turning this into a political discussion, both parties have the opportunity to work together to accomplish what is in their mutual best interests.

one party can easily argue that the other has done nothing but hinder progrsss = -and exit polls said many Americans believe that to be the case.

Americans are tired of excuses for gov't not working and both parties would pay a high price if they fail to accomplish what the American people want.

given that ObamaCare and increasing health care costs and reduction of services is a hot topic in the country, the President - who only has one voice - is very much the one on the defensive when nearly 2/3 of the Congress is saying something completely different.

and specific to DAL, it still doesn't change that the whole notion that one airport that will rank in the top 30 in terms of seats offered by next summer should be served by only 3 airlines is something that doesn't pass the logic test for impartial people of any party - and it is absolutely true that the vast majority of Americans and Congresspeople don't care one way or another.

Obama isn't going to sign any bill that solely deals with DAL but mandatory common use gates could easily be attached to a bill that he would have to sign.

DL even with the change in government would have no problem winning a case that if DAL isn't required to provide access to multiple airlines, they should be and legislation should be implemented to make it happen.

 

[WorldTraveler]

which is the pessimistic way of looking at.

without turning this into a political discussion, both parties have the opportunity to work together to accomplish what is in their mutual best interests.

one party can easily argue that the other has done nothing but hinder progrsss = -and exit polls said many Americans believe that to be the case.

Americans are tired of excuses for gov't not working and both parties would pay a high price if they fail to accomplish what the American people want.

given that ObamaCare and increasing health care costs and reduction of services is a hot topic in the country, the President - who only has one voice - is very much the one on the defensive when nearly 2/3 of the Congress is saying something completely different.

and specific to DAL, it still doesn't change that the whole notion that one airport that will rank in the top 30 in terms of seats offered by next summer should be served by only 3 airlines is something that doesn't pass the logic test for impartial people of any party - and it is absolutely true that the vast majority of Americans and Congresspeople don't care one way or another.

Obama isn't going to sign any bill that solely deals with DAL but mandatory common use gates could easily be attached to a bill that he would have to sign.

DL even with the change in government would have no problem winning a case that if DAL isn't required to provide access to multiple airlines, they should be and legislation should be implemented to make it happen.

 

[jimntx]

same game different people. 
 
 
but even then, a simple government 101 class tells us the president much sign a bill for it to become law. (or go to the senate again, but the GOP would need I believe its 3/4 of the senate) So Congress could name Richard Anderson everyone ruler and if Obama doesn't sign it then it doesn't mean jack. 
 
All last night did was promise us two more years of little to nothing getting done. 

FWIW, both the Senate AND the House of Representatives must have a 2/3 majority vote to override a Presidential veto.  In the history of the U.S., less than 10% of Presidential vetoes have ever been overridden.  End of Civics lesson.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

FWIW, both the Senate AND the House of Representatives must have a 2/3 majority vote to override a Presidential veto.  In the history of the U.S., less than 10% of Presidential vetoes have ever been overridden.  End of Civics lesson.  

correct... which is why gridlock exists.

btw, good morning, Jim.

within that reality, Americans want a government that works and the party that Americans believe is not fixing the problem is the one that is paying the price.

civics aside, the notion of DAL being restricted to 3 airlines was never a written or even implied reality of the WA or the 5 party agreement.

since that has become obvious reality - compounded by the DOJ's decision in the AA/US merger case, it will be increasingly hard for anyone to defend the current legal environment at DAL as acceptable within the framework of US airline access and antitrust laws.

 

[Kev3188]

 

which is the pessimistic way of looking at.

It's the realistic way of looking at it.

Americans are tired of excuses for gov't not working and both parties would pay a high price if they fail to accomplish what the American people want.

Right. And where exactly on that wish list do you think DAL is?

Here's a hint: towards the bottom, if it's even on there at all.