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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just cuz they "signed their way away" for what 10 yrs something cld change and they cld make a come back.
 
Seriously saying they will be larger than at an airport the DOJ is preventing to fly at is even more idiotic
uh, AA is the carrier that signed away its right to serve DAL.

The DOJ isn't preventing DL from flying to DAL. that is the whole point here.

DL has argued that it has the right to serve DAL and DAL has a requirement to provide DL with gate space even if DL isn't a primary leaseholder.
 
Did DL get any assets that AA had to divest?
 
That would be a big NO!
 
And the DOJ even told DL not to even bother and bid, so the only way DL is at DAL and can stay at DAL is at the mercy of the other airlines who actually own or lease the gates.
 
What's funny is that AA is probably making more money off the deal as a landlord than DL will as a carrier.

Using the excuse for "they only just started mainline" is a weak, weak, ploy, WT. You've maintained for eons about how DL has maintained a dominating position between the Metromess and DL's hubs, and how DAL was the preferred airport for the wealthy.

When the November stats finally get published, here's the relative seat share for all five carriers.

Code:
WN  89.10%
VX  7.15%
DL  2.35%
UA  1.33%
K5  0.09%
What's obvious is that VX may be larger in terms of boardings, but is operating at a horrendous load factors deficit compared to everyone else... I give it a year before they are back at DFW.
 
700UW said:
Did DL get any assets that AA had to divest?
 
That would be a big NO!
 
And the DOJ even told DL not to even bother and bid, so the only way DL is at DAL and can stay at DAL is at the mercy of the other airlines who actually own or lease the gates.
That is what I have been trying to tell him for months.
 
What's funny is that AA is probably making more money off the deal as a landlord than DL will as a carrier.

Using the excuse for "they only just started mainline" is a weak, weak, ploy, WT. You've maintained for eons about how DL has maintained a dominating position between the Metromess and DL's hubs, and how DAL was the preferred airport for the wealthy.

When the November stats finally get published, here's the relative seat share for all five carriers.


Code:
WN  89.10%
VX  7.15%
DL  2.35%
UA  1.33%
K5  0.09%
What's obvious is that VX may be larger in terms of boardings, but is operating at a horrendous load factors deficit compared to everyone else... I give it a year before they are back at DFW.
DL started DAL service first with large RJs in part because DAL opened to larger aircraft in the middle of Oct.

if you even looked at Nov stats, DL's boardings would be somewhat reflective of what its current size would be.

VX is trying to find a strategy and some clear air nationwide. AA and DL are all over them in LAX and UA is giving them little space in SFO. They are trying for DAL but WN isn't a pushover either.

I agree with you on that point.

and while so many here are hung up over who holds the leases at DAL, DL is operating more seats than UA.

and AA is not making money off of DL although they may well be off of VX - but we really have no idea what VX is paying, or do you?
 
Who ever said AA was making money off of DL?

No idea what VX is paying AA to sublease, but I'm sure "fair market rate" is well above what AA's costs are as a signatory leaseholder, and likewise for whatever UA is charging DL.

DL may be operating more seats, but the question still remains if it's profitable. Chances are high they're just diluting their DFW-ATL flights.
 
or its the simple fact none of us can comprehend nor grasp the facts...   remember he is the only one who seems to grasp it all bec it favors that wiget airliner.   :rolleyes: :D
 
eolesen said:
Who ever said AA was making money off of DL?

No idea what VX is paying AA to sublease, but I'm sure "fair market rate" is well above what AA's costs are as a signatory leaseholder, and likewise for whatever UA is charging DL.

DL may be operating more seats, but the question still remains if it's profitable. Chances are high they're just diluting their DFW-ATL flights.
100% correct E. I have said this long ago.  Just like Virgin is paying more for their gates due to the sublease, so is Delta for subleasing gates from UAL and/or SWA third party subleases. I said this back when the subleases were announced that any airline subleasing a gate at DAL LF from another carrier, that actually owns said gates will in fact pay alot more as all know the gates are limited as far as access is concerned.  I too believe Delta is operating at a bigger loss at LF than they would have, IF they would have won the 2 gates givin up by AA.  I also believe they could very possibly move their operations from LF to DFW, as others have said here.  Bottom line is VX is in fact paying more to lease said gates from AA than they would if they were the sole owners of the 2 gates.  As well, Delta is paying more for their one gate semi lease than they would if they were the direct owner and leasing from Dallas.  Great point E, but I tried and tried to explain this long ago, and WT said that it was never happening as I said it was, and it actually is.  Gee, wonder why...
 
You really have no factual information to support the notion that VX or DL are paying above market for.leases, that DL is diluting its DFW flights, or that they aren't profitable, do you?

All we know is that for years the WN fankids here have hoped they would dominate DAL while the AA kids have been convinced that DAL has no value compared to DFW.

In fact other airlines will make money at both DAL and DFW and WN will have to share

Radical concepts they are
 
"WN fankids"... "AA kids"
 
Way to talk down to people, WT.
 
What can we call you? A Delta fanatic? And are Delta fanatics only grown-ass men?
 
I'm 29 years old, and as you know, I'm not a fan, nor a boy. My paycheck has an airline name on it, yours hasn't in years.
 
If you aren't the very definition of a fankid, I don't know who is.
 
You remind me of someone I used to know who I constantly referred to as a "Debbie Delta"
 
no, fankids are those who make statements like what was made above that have no factual backing whatsoever.

where is the proof that DL will dilute its revenues at DAL from DFW?

where is the notion that AA will make more money renting space at DAL vs. flying there?

those kinds of statements without any kind of factual backing are the kinds of things fankids write in the hopes of soothing the pain that someone else has something of value that you have tried to convince yourself has no value.

case in point very similar to this was the endless posts that were made about how unvaluable US' LGA slot portfolio was; DL saw it differently, acquired 1/4 of LGA's slots and now has a hub. For years, US mgmt. was convinced that all those LGA slots were a waste and they convinced their employees of it.

Given that DL has managed to enter dozens of new markets using those slots and is gaining average fares as good as the incumbent carrier in those markets or comparable in markets where no nonstop service existed, it is impossible to argue that DL isn't making money - unless no one makes money at LGA>

No, DAL access is valuable. WN knew it. DL fought to be there. And now that DL is succeeding, I am not about to let a few people argue that "it really wasn't worth it and you're just wasting money trying to fly from there."
 
WorldTraveler said:
You really have no factual information to support the notion that VX or DL are paying above market for.leases, that DL is diluting its DFW flights, or that they aren't profitable, do you?
Whatever, WT. You've clearly never dealt with leases. I have, and there's no way anyone is paying less than market rates for that gate space.

But please, do continue to live in your fantasy that says DL is winning on every front.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top