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

[WorldTraveler]

and reasonable would likely not allow for multiples more than the prevailing rate.

DL isn't about saving face.

again, it might be hard for you to admit it, but there was a legal basis for DL to serve DAL and it appears all the more that the means for that to happen is becoming clear.

 

[eolesen]

Again not hard for me to admit there was no basis to prevent DL from serving the airport.

What you don't acknowledge almost a year into this lecture of yours is that there was also no legal basis that would force UA, WN, AA or VX to sublease to DL at the expense of their own planned schedule.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and what you clearly don't understand is that DAL, not the airlines have the legal responsibility to accommodate non-tenant airlines... .which means that DAL can pretty much do what it has to do in order to require its tenant airlines to do what is necessary to meet federal law.

you can argue until your eyes turn black and blue, but DL is well on track to be at DAL well beyond the date when multiple people who predicted DL's departure had said.

Clearly some people's "theories" may not be as correct as they think they are.

 

[eolesen]

Certainly, DAL (the airport) has to comply with Federal law.

What you also fail to recognize is that Federal law gives DAL (the airport) the ability to tell DL there really is no room at the inn.

You've been entirely ignorant of the fact that DAL (the airport) is protected by an Act of Congress from the very sections of law you continuously quote as being the reason DL should be accommodated at DAL.

Congress can wrightfully exempt someone from an Act of Congress. And they did just that.

Instead of spending all this time as an armchair analyst, perhaps your time and efforts would be better spent taking a few courses in contract law or civics...

 

[swamt]

Again not hard for me to admit there was no basis to prevent DL from serving the airport.

What you don't acknowledge almost a year into this lecture of yours is that there was also no legal basis that would force UA, WN, AA or VX to sublease to DL at the expense of their own planned schedule.

BINGO!!!

 

[swamt]

Certainly, DAL (the airport) has to comply with Federal law.

What you also fail to recognize is that Federal law gives DAL (the airport) the ability to tell DL there really is no room at the inn.

You've been entirely ignorant of the fact that DAL (the airport) is protected by an Act of Congress from the very sections of law you continuously quote as being the reason DL should be accommodated at DAL.

Congress can wrightfully exempt someone from an Act of Congress. And they did just that.

Instead of spending all this time as an armchair analyst, perhaps your time and efforts would be better spent taking a few courses in contract law or civics...

BINGO again sir!!!

 

[WorldTraveler]

Certainly, DAL (the airport) has to comply with Federal law.

What you also fail to recognize is that Federal law gives DAL (the airport) the ability to tell DL there really is no room at the inn.

You've been entirely ignorant of the fact that DAL (the airport) is protected by an Act of Congress from the very sections of law you continuously quote as being the reason DL should be accommodated at DAL.

Congress can wrightfully exempt someone from an Act of Congress. And they did just that.

Instead of spending all this time as an armchair analyst, perhaps your time and efforts would be better spent taking a few courses in contract law or civics...

You THINK that is right....but the fact that DL has continually pushed the issue, is still at DAL, and clearly is on track to be there long time argues that your amateur interpretation of the Wright Amendment and its revisions may not be correct.

If DAL could have told DL that there was no room, they would have done it a long time ago. If WN would have continued to lease space from WN after 1/6/15, they would.

DL was accommodated at WN's gates despite WN using UA gates and DL is apparently going to use UA gates even though UA apparently tried to keep DL out because DAL, UA, and WN realize they really don't have any choice to say no to DL.

The interpretation you and others have repeatedly spouted doesn't explain the very real situation that has occurred and continues to occur which is that DL is and will be at DAL.

if your interpretation were accurate, DL would have been gone a long time ago.

 

[robbedagain]

I cannot imagine what his reaction would be like IF DL is not there beyond Jan 6 2015  and that day is just about 3 or 4 weeks away

 

[WorldTraveler]

if you can't imagine, it's probably because you haven't read what I have written.

I have said that I expect DL to push the matter to court; they wouldn't have gone as far as they did if they hadn't intended to go to court o protect their right to serve DAL.

The fact that DL made those threats and are still there despite multiple parties telling them that there was no room for DL tells me that DL is indeed right and those other parties are coming to realize it.

Perhaps DL is wrong but multiple parties have been willing to accommodate DL.

If DL is wrong, the theories that so many here have spouted don't square with the current reality.

 

[eolesen]

More correctly, multiple parties have been willing to take DL's money...

 

[WorldTraveler]

and WN's and UA's and VX' ... because DL isn't expecting to be able to gain access to real estate without paying...

just pay a reasonable lease to serve an airport which it believes it is entitled to serve regardless of whether it has dedicated gates or not.

the evidence increasingly seems to say I was right that DL would be at DAL.

the question at this point is whether DL might true to add service to other hubs if it does succeed in operating all of the ATL flights it wants.

 

[swamt]

More correctly, multiple parties have been willing to take DL's money...

LOL.  That one went right over his head, and you are correct on this one.  They did have to ante up some coin to make it work.  It is also still a temporary situation that Delta has for now.  With the recent UAL announcements, it does appear that there may be room for Delta but I am still not 100% sure.  The UAL reduction is the only way Delta will be able to stay, as it would then make room for Delta to stay. But, they will still be sharing a gate (1-gate) and with sharing a gate with UAL it will be kind of hard utilizing the gate to it's full potential by one owner when they have to share it...

 

[topDawg]

LOL.  That one went right over his head, and you are correct on this one.  They did have to ante up some coin to make it work.  It is also still a temporary situation that Delta has for now.  With the recent UAL announcements, it does appear that there may be room for Delta but I am still not 100% sure.  The UAL reduction is the only way Delta will be able to stay, as it would then make room for Delta to stay. But, they will still be sharing a gate (1-gate) and with sharing a gate with UAL it will be kind of hard utilizing the gate to it's full potential by one owner when they have to share it...

just enough to operate ATL-DAL 5-6 times a day is all Delta is really worried about atm....... 

 

[WorldTraveler]

when you consider that some people here including AA and US' CEO's (now one in the same) said that DL wouldn't be allowed to serve DAL, obviously DL is winning in its efforts to stay at DAL.

of course swamt isn't 100% sure because he didn't want to believe DL would be at DAL. My prediction is that his teeth will be falling out while he sits in a rocking share on Lake something in the middle of nowhere, Texas when DL decides it is told it has to leave DAL and DL agrees to the request.

 

[eolesen]

Did Parker really ever say that? I don't remember them saying anything public or private about who was going to get the gate sublease. Or is that just more projection?

And what's a rocking share?...