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

[metopower]

This thread is ridiculous . It is easy to see it is just an anti WT rant and nothing to do with the subject. Nothing legal will happen until DL considers that they have been HARMED. That would be in January IF something were to be announced that would preclude DL from using DAL. Until then there really is nothing to write about. NOW that doesn't say that adding all kinds of tangents to this subject makes any sense either. I just wish that there were moderators on these threads.

 

[eolesen]

It's not anti-WT.  It's just poking hole after hole in his prognostications.
 
Yes, moderators would be helpful.  But they don't seem to care as much since Kevin sold the site.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, you have access to an airline's facilities. Your paycheck is not issued by an airline.


competing from DFW has nothing to do with it.

there is no basis for linking access to any two airports in any federal law.

DL didn't agree to anything, including to give up its right to serve any airport in the US that receives federal funds.

you'll be proven wrong... the best part is that you'll go down with a whole lot of other people.

but that's how it happened with the "WN will crush DL in ATL thread" now isn't it?

meto,
of course it is all anti-WT.

it is also a forum on which a lot of people make themselves out to be fools and then trash me when it is obvious they are wrong.

DL will be at DAL. You and I know it.

those who think otherwise may never admit it but it will happen and there are pages and pages from supposedly industry insiders that are proof that they know nothing on the subject.

just like the predictions of DL's demise at the hands of WN in ATL.

moderate what? stupidity of people who persist in writing stuff that is obviously not and never will be true?

DL will be at DAL.

WN will bend over backwards to keep the case out of court.

 

[Hope777]

you don't get a paycheck from an airline.

you are not in the airline industry.




maybe but probably not.

AA agreed to leave DAL in order to get its merger approved.

DL didn't agree to be shut out of DAL while others got in.

FWIW, I was against the AA/US merger provision that required AA to vacate DAL and have said so.
I am also against restricting int'l flying from DAL or from allowing any carrier to serve either DAL or DFW.

but AA and WN agreed to stay out of DAL and DFW respectively. No other carrier made similar choices.

Not at all correct.  AA agreed to give up Gate Space...Not leave DAL!  They have as much right as DL to try to obtain a Sub-Lease on gate space. 
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/11/12/justice-merger-american-us-airways/3506367/

 

[WorldTraveler]

let's see how well it goes over if AA tries to reenter DAL before their sentence is up

"The settlement also prohibits the merged company from reacquiring an ownership interest in the divested slots or gates during the term of the settlement."

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-us-airways-and-american-airlines-divest-facilities-seven-key

and regardless of what AA does or doesn't do, DL agreed to nothing that prevents its ability to serve DAL, just they can at any other federal airport. DAL has no provisions that allow exclusion of any carrier or takes away their responsibility to accommodate new entrant carriers.

same for B6, AS, HA....

 

[FWAAA]

and regardless of what AA does or doesn't do, DL agreed to nothing that prevents its ability to serve DAL, just they can at any other federal airport. DAL has no provisions that allow exclusion of any carrier or takes away their responsibility to accommodate new entrant carriers.

same for B6, AS, HA....

You've said this repeatedly but not explained what the airports must do under federal law. What, exactly, specifically, do you think federal law requires of "any other federal airport" in the way of access for new entrants?

 

[Hope777]

The Slots they gave up were are DCA & LGA !  Cities that they gave up TWO GATES each were BOS,ORD,DAL,LAX and MIA !
 
Dont let the FACTS confuse you !  So if AA wanted to, they like DL could TRY to obtain a sub lease on Gate Space to operate flights at DAL.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

it is actually pretty clear and yes I have said so.

new entrant carriers are required to be given gate space and the airport must have a plan filed with the FAA which says how they will do that.

DAL has a plan and for most airports it involves common use gates but DAL chose not to convert the two gates into common use.

Now DAL has to figure out how to meet its federal requirements for accommodation of non-tenant airlines.

They leaned on UA to shoulder the task, UA said no, WN stepped up to the plate for now, but DAL has to fix the problem. For now, UA still is not using its gates according to DAL's requirements but so far, DAL has not publicly told UA to make space available.

DAL is not exempt from federal airport access requirements and the fact that DAL has no common use gates is no excuse.

the 3 leaseholding airlines will have to divide up access between themselves.

DL will be at DAL or the case will go to court and then DL's 'ask' will grow but so will the number of carriers lined up with DL.

DAL and WN are taking the pragmatic approach of giving up a little to keep a much larger loss from occurring.

 

[eolesen]

new entrant carriers are required to be given gate space and the airport must have a plan filed with the FAA which says how they will do that.
 

You're wrong on so much, I hardly know where to start....
 
Airports can't deny access to an airline requesting space, provided there's space.  Again, it's the "no room at the inn" scenario.
 
The laws stop well short of where you're projecting the outcome, perhaps because it's so rare for an airport to not have any space available,
 
Specific to DAL, there's nothing in the competition plan which says that a tenant airline will be forced to cancel or rearrange their schedules to accommodate a new entrant.
 
Nothing. 
 
 

You've said this repeatedly but not explained what the airports must do under federal law. What, exactly, specifically, do you think federal law require of "any other federal airport" in the way of access for new entrants?

 
That's the point.  There is no such law which dictates how to handle an airport which is leased to capacity.  There's no law mandating common use facilities. There's no law mandating city owned gates.  WT is simply projecting what he thinks is the "Wright thing to do" and nothing more.  
 

no, you have access to an airline's facilities. Your paycheck is not issued by an airline.
 

 
Au contrare, Rachel.  My pay stub has an airline logo on it as well.  So do my business cards, just in case you wanted to continue to pretend to know more about where I work than I do....

 

[FWAAA]

DAL is not exempt from federal airport access requirements and the fact that DAL has no common use gates is no excuse.

No, this is the part where you're simply wrong. The Wright Amendment Reform Act exempts DAL from any requirements to accommodate new entrants other than applying the scarce resource provisions of the leases.

Your dozens of posts on this subject basically boil down to "There oughtta be a law." You tend to phrase your views incorrectly as "this is what the law requires" even though, as I pointed out above, you're incorrect.

I actually agree with you that the 5-party agreement and the WARA were bad policy and should never have been enacted. I'm generally pro-competition and anti-"NIMBY limits." If I were king, DAL would currently feature 80 gates and no limits. Problem is, the cities of Fort Worth and DFW airport would then be stuck with billions of dollars of bonds to repay and a half-empty albatross halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth.

My disagreements with you involve your incorrect posts that ignore the applicable federal law - the WARA. Your posts on this topic are as nonsensical as if you posted that the solar system revolves around the earth.

DAL has no obligation to do anything for DL or any other non-leaseholder other than to apply the scarce resource provisions. Since WN wasn't going to fully ramp up its schedule until January, it looks (to this outsider, at least) like the scarce resource provisions worked as intended.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and again, if DAL was full, then WN and DAL would have no problem telling DL they can't fly there.

because they can't.

you can argue about all the loopholes but they don't exist.

DAL is not allowed any more than any other airport to block access to airlines that want to serve it.

saying that "the inn is full" doesn't work.

it is DAL's responsibility to have a plan to accommodate DL.

that is exactly why DL is still there. not because WN is generous and not for any other reason.

DL does have the right to request service at DAL and B6 can come behind and make the same request as well.

the inn simply cannot hang out a "no vacancy" sign.

the fact that DL is there and will be there is all the proof that you two can harp on law all you want but DL will remain - because DAL knows they have a legal responsibility.

 

[eolesen]

All great, except that DAL -is- full for all intents and purposes (except DL's, of course).  
 
You can argue for the next six months that WN and UA aren't fully utilizing their leaseholds, yet there's nothing written or even implied in any governing document to assess what is considered "used" by the FAA, COD, or any other entity involved.  
 
UA's planning on running quasi-hourly service DAL-IAH starting in January, and while six flights a day out of each of their two gates might not sound productive enough for DL's purposes, I'm going to assume that DL's existing schedule won't fit inside the unallocated time.
 
I suspect the same is true over at WN and VX.
 
Again, for the reading impaired:  there's no room at the inn....

 

[WorldTraveler]

and for the cerebrally impaired, airports including DAL, cannot say that and receive federal funds.

DAL knows it.

you will figure it out in time.

 

[eolesen]

Not my problem to figure out, Rachel.  The laws as written are pretty clear, including the part where DAL is carved out:
 

(2) Facilities.--Paragraph (1)(E)--
(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has
reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a); and
( B) shall not be construed to require the city of Dallas, Texas--

(i) to construct additional gates beyond the 20 gates referred to in subsection (a); or
(ii) to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases with air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity to new entrants
or to create common use gates, unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis.

Laws don't get any less explicit than that, and there's really not much room for interpretation.

Nobody will be forced out of their leases to accommodate DL. Period.

DL's only hope rests in trying to force a change to the last sentence, which would be to require common use gates nationally and/or eliminate preferential use agreements.

And I don't see that happening until we have a Hugo Chavez wannabe who nationalizes the airports. Even DL wouldn't want that, because it would kill off some of the differentiation they're doing with gate appearance and automation.

 

[WorldTraveler]

"DL's only hope rests in trying to force a change to the last sentence, which would be to require common use gates nationally and/or eliminate preferential use agreements."

I said that pages ago.

thanks for tuning in.

and nowhere in that copy and paste exercise is there anything that says DAL is exempt from complying with federal airport access laws....

and what you and your cadre of button pushers can't answer is why WN bothered at all to accommodate DL for even a single flight.

gate appearance and automation? plz.

what computers do you think DL is using to work its flights from DL flights right now?

doesn't look like DL's passengers at DAL were the least bit impeded today in using a "borrowed" gate.