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

[WorldTraveler]

I get that.

which is why a whole lot of issues that don't attract anywhere near the amount of interest are pushed thru Congress because they benefit a relatively small minority.

and it still comes down to that DL is content for now at operating just 5 flights per day..... less than 1/2 the capacity of one gate - or less than 5% of the gate capacity of DAL.

DAL and WN could choose to fight or they can accept that the PRINCIPLE of ensuring free access to every US airport is one that is not just applicable to DAL but which applies to all US airports.

If the EU and US can both agree that airport access for competitors is essential to maintain competition, then it is all the more difficult to argue that DAL should be able to exist by sidestepping the same requirements that exist everywhere else and where WN has 80% of the gates.

the bottom line remains that in my opinion, DAL and WN will not allow the case to go to court and DL will get what it wants which is to be able to compete in the key markets or hubs which are served by other carriers from DAL.

if that changes and DL is not allowed to do that and DL gives up, let me know

btw, good morning, Kev.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

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

 
I seriously doubt that the topic of DL access to Love Field is something that the Reps or Dems are polling or conducting focus group / town hall sessions about
 

the bottom line remains that in my opinion, DAL and WN will not allow the case to go to court and DL will get what it wants which is to be able to compete in the key markets or hubs which are served by other carriers from DAL.

 
I'm not a lawyer, but anyone with even a cursory knowledge or the WA would probably advise DAL/city of Dallas, WN, to not sweat it and even dare DL to sue.
 
Although I'm not from the "N.TX" or ATL area, I don't think that access to DAL gates for DL even makes the postscript on a list of burning local issues. 
You seem to be the only person capable of not only writing pointless diatribes about the issue but probably consuming a bottle of Valium or Xanax in  doing so.

 

[WorldTraveler]

so, the 5 party agreement was worthy enough of an entirely separate law but the notion that the same airport could be restricted to 3 airlines despite having as many seats as PDX and just under TPA is supposed to not be worthy of Congressional interest?

DL isn't asking just for access to DAL to the exclusion of everyone else.

DL is asking for DAL to provide the same level of access that exists at TPA, PDX, and dozens, no scores, no hundreds of other federally funded US airports.

There was never any intention stated or implied that DAL would be a limited access airport when the 5 party agreement was signed.

Because of the DOJ's decision and DAL's refusal to provide common use gates, that is exactly what has happened.

we can debate this issue until Jan 7, 2015 if you want but I stand by my belief that DAL and WN will accommodate DL's flights in the markets that are served to DL hubs by competitors from DAL or DL will push the issue.

it isn't an issue of DL. It is an issue about free market access to federally funded facilities.

and if DAL and WN want to believe they can get by with limiting access to an airport as large as what DAL will be by next summer, then I can absolutely assure you that Congress and the courts will easily side with DL to force DAL open to the same level of competitive access that exists at every other federally funded airport.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

DL is asking for DAL to provide the same level of access that exists at TPA, PDX, and dozens, no scores, no hundreds of other federally funded US airports.

There was never any intention stated or implied that DAL would be a limited access airport when the 5 party agreement was signed.
 

 
About half the number of passengers used DAL that used PDX or TPA.
Even if there is a 50% increase in passengers that use DAL with the elimination of some of the WA restrictions, it will barely make it into the top 30.
Your narrative that DAL is of the same significance as PDX and/or TPA is simple FALSE.
 
BTW:  I don't know how somebody with so much alleged knowledge in commercial aviation fails to grasp that the whole reason of the WA and the 5 party agreement is/was to make DAL a limited access airport.
 
IMHO, the more you write on the topic the more foolish you become.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you obviously can't get thru your head that what DAL did in the past is irrelevant given that there are no statistics available showing what has taken place SINCE the Wright Amendment restrictions fell.

what is relevant is the number of seats that are being offered for sale and on that comparison, DAL jumped way up in the list of airports.

the fool is the one who cannot accept that no one with any sense of understanding of the way the industry works or US competitive laws could ever accept that the way DAL operates is acceptable.

it isn't and you and your peers on here that continue to insist that DAL will be able to get by without accommodating carriers that want to serve it will be the ones that will be shown to be wrong.

 

[eolesen]

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

 
Uh, Legend?... 
 

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.

Yeah, I don't think so. Both the Wright Amendment and the 2006 5PA that was codified into law were done by the GOP-lead Texas Delegation. That didn't change Tuesday -- Texas is still GOP dominated. And there will be no changes made to the 2006 law without the consent of the Texas Delegation. That's how things work on local issues... the guys in Wyoming and Georgia don't get to dictate what happens to an airport in Texas any more than the guys in Illinois or Texas can dictate what happens with a second airport in Atlanta.
 

so, the 5 party agreement was worthy enough of an entirely separate law but the notion that the same airport could be restricted to 3 airlines despite having as many seats as PDX and just under TPA is supposed to not be worthy of Congressional interest?

DL isn't asking just for access to DAL to the exclusion of everyone else.

DL is asking for DAL to provide the same level of access that exists at TPA, PDX, and dozens, no scores, no hundreds of other federally funded US airports.

There was never any intention stated or implied that DAL would be a limited access airport when the 5 party agreement was signed.

Because of the DOJ's decision and DAL's refusal to provide common use gates, that is exactly what has happened.

Unless the airports are nationalized, it's ultimately the airport operator who determines what type of lease agreements it wants to engage in, not the FAA or DOT. The airport issued the bonds to build the facilities, and are the ones on the hook for paying for it if there are no users. Not the Feds.

DL isn't being refused the ability to use the Federally funded portions of DAL --- they can takeoff and land all they want to. They just have no rights to park their aircraft at the terminal. A terminal that wasn't Federally funded.

Again, keep in mind DL had no interest in DAL until the last year or so, despite having seven years to try and secure space. Had they approached AA before their bankruptcy, it could have been a settled issue.

But they didn't. A lack of planning on Hauenstein's part isn't worthy of an act of Congress to resolve.

 

[FWAAA]

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.

This statement betrays a complete detachment from reality.

How could anyone read the 5-party agreement and not conclude that it was intended to severely restrict competition?

Dallas and Southwest had approved a master plan to eventually demolish the old terminals and cap the new terminal at 32 gates. After significant negotiations and compromise, Dallas and Southwest came up with a plan to scrap the Wright Amendment limitations in exchange for a reduction in the terminal to just 20 gates, of which WN would have preferential use of 16 and AA would have use of two, leaving just two gates for others (Expressjet at the time).

Fort Worth, AA and the DFW Airport board got some of what they wanted - DAL would be smaller than the master plan had envisioned and there would be no international flights. So the parties entered into an agreement that in isolation would violate the Sherman Act. But the lawyers for Fort Worth, AA, DFW, Dallas and Southwest had a plan to solve that problem: In the legislation to cancel the WA limits, they would get Congress and the President to approve the anti-competitive agreement by memorializing most of it in federal law - the Wright Amdendment Reform Act.

Because Congress specifically approved it, the 5-party agreement doesn't violate the Sherman Act. A basic maxim of statutory construction holds that a specific statute like the WARA is not in conflict with a statute of more general applicability like the Sherman Act. As to the laws governing airport access, the WARA provides a specific exception, requiring DAL to observe and apply the Scarce Resource provision of the lease. It doesn't require DAL to do what airports generally must do to accommodate new entrants.

You have repeatedly said "but it hasn't been challenged" and thus, we have no idea whether it would survive judicial scrutiny. I've asked you on what basis anyone could challenge the WARA without response. One way would be to allege that it's unconstitutional - that Congress has no authority to restrict access to DAL the way they did. The US Constitution is a very brief and concise document - on which part would you hang your hat in arguing the unconstitutionality of the WARA?

 

[WorldTraveler]

and just two gates - 10% of DAL's capacity COULD have met the requirements of access by non-leaseholding airlines.

The Justice Dept's. actions with the AA/US merger are what very well tipped the 5 party agreement into what violates US law - on the basis of open access to federally funded airports and counter to anticompetitive practices.

The US simply does not operate on the basis of "you had to squat on airport gates" for years in order to be able to operate now. It just doesn't. To try to argue that DL will be SOL because they didn't while VX was given the green light because they fit an economic profile the DOJ wanted to see - and AA didn't in its backyard - simply won't fly.

and, again, this isn't about DL. It is about equal access at an airport that will be in the top 30 in the US in terms of seats offered.

it simply won't pass any kind of legal or logical test to argue that whatever law was written whether it intended to result in 3 carriers or not is acceptable by US legal standards today.

in the meantime, I continue to assert that DL will be accommodated at DAL to serve its hubs markets which are flown by other carriers and that DAL and WN aren't stupid enough to say no to DL and risk a legal challenge.

 

[topDawg]

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.  

okay 2/3s thanks for the correction. 

 

[eolesen]

Good luck with the challenge, WT. You can say it defies logic, but laws and logic don't always intersect. FWAAA has outlined the situation several times, and you seem to claim to know know better than Congress, the FAA, and the legal teams at WN, AA, DFW, and the Cities of Fort Worth & Dallas...

There's no Federal requirement which can force a leaseholder to cede space to every Johnnie Come Lately who decides they want access. Nor is there any obligation of an airport to accommodate an airline when all of the space is being used.

 

[swamt]

Good luck with the challenge, WT. You can say it defies logic, but laws and logic don't always intersect. FWAAA has outlined the situation several times, and you seem to claim to know know better than Congress, the FAA, and the legal teams at WN, AA, DFW, and the Cities of Fort Worth & Dallas...

There's no Federal requirement which can force a leaseholder to cede space to every Johnnie Come Lately who decides they want access. Nor is there any obligation of an airport to accommodate an airline when all of the space is being used.

I have been saying this for many, many months now.  Even when he is proven wrong he will continue to go on and on with his agenda.  I walked away for awhile and still see the same ole crap.  Can we not wait and see what happens around 1-6-15?  To this day he has still refused to answer why Delta has done NOTHING about the fact that they were selling up to 20 flights per day out of LF and using 2 gates, and now, post W/A they are only using and selling for 5 flights per day out of 1 little ole gate at LF.  Avoid, avoid, and avoid the questions that make Delta look bad.  Typical WT BS at it's best...

 

[WorldTraveler]

laws are not set in stone.

and no one can still prove that the WA or 5 party agreement was intended to shut every other carrier out of DAL except 3.

we can debate this - and it appears we will - until I am proven right that DL will be at DAL because DAL and WN don't want to reopen the case with a lawsuit or change in laws which very well could happen if DL is shut out.

all DL wants for now is to be able to fly competitively to the same markets that any other carrier flies to DL hubs from DAL.

feel free to say I am wrong when that happens.

 

[jcw]

laws are not set in stone when it comes to DL  just everyone else - it's called fantasy land

 

[WorldTraveler]

except that I never said this is all about DL - because it is not.

It is about equal and open access for all competitors.

The issue is not about DL - and WN and DAL know it.

any carrier could decide they want to start service at DAL; WN is hoping they can fill up the gates and then put up the "no vacancy" sign but there isn't an airport in the US where that has been done and talking about what is in the 5 party agreement doesn't change that there is nothing in it that says that other carriers will be turned away or that Congress ever expected that as an outcome.

 

[eolesen]

The old adage in retail was location, location, location.
 
JCP moved into the abandoned mall in the worst part of town, and got a killer deal on the space.  Two other retail tenants also moved in, and stayed there for years when the market wasn't as promising.
  
Then a new freeway got built with Federal funds, and the area gentrified.  Suddenly they were in the high rent district.
 
What grounds are there to argue that JCP and the other two retailers have to make room for Macy's?....
 
None.  
 
There's no discrimination taking place, just existing leaseholds are being honored.
 
DL can use the Federally funded runways and airway improvements all day long.  They just have no right to park at the City funded terminal.