No sir. There is language within the W/A agreement that if any airline does not use the gates to their fullest, then YES, they would have to make room for other airlines within their gates to accomodate them. Now all of LF's airlines owning gates after Oct 13th will in fact use their gates to their fullest and there is no room for Delta to use any gates. End of story. United was going to be the airline to end up sharing the gates with Delta, BUT, United submitted their plan with the COD and now there is no room for Delta. I have said this from the very beginning that Delta will have to share gates with one of the other airlines, and if there was not any room, or gates to be shared they will have to leave LF. NOW it is all coming to light and Delta is just hating this fact. A big fat "ITYS" is in order here...commavia said:
City of Dallas tells Delta it can no longer fly out of Love Field
- Thread starter Kev3188
- Start date
- Status
Here's a little tease for WT. Looks like Delta is starting a "threat" campaign to try and remain at LF (not gonna happen folks) her it is:
Delta threatens legal action against city
Delta threatens legal action against city
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,374
As do I. DL can try to make a case for collusion, but it's much harder to prove than it is to accuse.commavia said:
Again, quoting from the competition plan out of context is great theater, but it has to be considered in association with the Scarce Resource provisions of the DAL master lease agreements.
There's an escalation process that forces a request for space to be considered, but if you read the PDF I attached earlier, you'll notice that it never goes beyond that point. You'll also notice that it explicitly says a leaseholder has preference -- that means they can't be forced to change their schedule in order to accommodate a new entrant.
Essentially, what UA did with their schedule is not illegal. It's certainly no more illegal than it was for DL to over-schedule LGA in order to create delays for other carriers, or for DL to hoard slots at LGA, JFK or DCA. Or, as already noted, to fly an international route in a non-Open Skies market once every 90 days in order to avoid a dormancy revocation.
In short, everyone's playing by the rules here. DL clearly doesn't like the rules, but that doesn't mean that they will be changed to suit DL anytime soon.
Chest thumping about undoing the Five Party agreement is laughable. Congress can't even pass a budget -- what makes anyone think that the guys from ATL will be able to lobby and successfully unravel a very contentious piece of compromise legislation? If they can't get the Texas delegation to agree to changes, it's safe to say nobody else (except perhaps a few reps from GA and maybe NY) will be willing to step into the mess.
swamt said:
Oh yeah, absolutely - I agree with you. It seems to all really hang on 4.b. of the Scarce Resource provisions attached earlier - has United made "good faith efforts to effect such accommodation in a reasonable and equitable manner?" Delta - I guess - thinks United should have to use its gate more intensively (no 90-minute turns on a 50-seat RJ and/or should not be able to sublease one of its gates, even temporarily, to incumbent Southwest).
The point I was trying to get across was that even if both of those suggestions are true - and I'm not fully convinced yet that they are - that is still a very simple "solution" from the perspective of United. United can end the sublease to Southwest in January, reduce turn-times to a more defendable, say, 45 minutes per turn, but add a few more frequencies (maybe even to more than just IAH) so that each gate is seeing, say, 7-8 United turns per day. And, of course, United can then schedule all of those turns at the best possible times, and then they can turn to Delta and say, "okay, yep, welcome to Love Field, feel free to bring in your 717s between 0900-1000, 1300-1400 and after 1900. In the scheme of things, if United wanted to push it, it doesn't seem like it would take a whole lot of extra work to even further strengthen their ability to block Delta - again, if United wants to.
eolesen said:
Yes. And to be clear - as I'm sure you know, but some others may need broken down and explained more thoroughly so as not to attract another 3-page missive - I was absolutely not ever suggesting that Southwest, United and the City are "colluding" in the sense of actively working together with any "paper trail" or anything similar. However, if they all happen to tacitly be working together - in the sense of merely all having common interests and moving separately, but in parallel, towards a goal that all three happen to prefer, I don't necessarily think that is illegal.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
you've repeatedly said that but DL obviously feels there is legal basis for it seeking access under that term, esp. since DL doesn't even serve DAL at all. if you want to take the thing all the way back, DL was at DAL long before WN was a gnat on Herb's nose.
not being able to serve the airport is the standard of access. There isn't another airport in the country which any airline has been told they cannot serve categorically because of their history or type of service they offer (legacy carrier). The DOJ made that decision, complicated an already messy situation, and locked out a carrier by limiting competition.
DL can and will successfully show that if it the DOJ has to resort to those measures to ensure competition, then it isn't competition at all - and it also isn't legal
so you're either lying that you were personally affected or you were.
so which is it? would you rather now say you are lying rather than admit that either you or your father or someone else pretty close worked for DL?
and accommodation does not allow one carrier to make a cursory effort to accommodate other carriers and then pull the carpet out from other them in order to return to the restricted access they had.
IF DL is right that UA is subleasing gates to WN and has scheduled ground times that exceed DAL's requirements for full gate use at 90 minutes per flight (on an RJ no less), then it will clearly be shown that the COD was negligent in protecting the interests of carriers that wish to serve the airport.
no, I told you months ago that this was all heading to court if DL couldn't gain access and you all thought it was a big joke.
DL is deadly serious about ensruing it has the right to compete fairly and that other carriers can't hide behind barriers that limit competition.
DL will push this case as far as necessary and I can assure that AA and WN's duopoly will be taken apart faster than a Corvette on I45.
the case isn't about collusion, E.
It is about access. the rules that the COD is playing by aren't the ones they agreed to and even then there are still serious legal questions whether the WA and its amendments violate federal access and competition laws.
DL isn't interested in getting tied up with undoing the WA and its revisions that have allowed WN to gain access to 80% plus of the gates at one airport with no possibility of access for new entrant carriers.
but I can assure you if DL has to go there to gain meaningful access to a major market in the US - and you can characterize DAL any way you want but it is a major market, then the case will head for court.
Further, it is AA who made the decision to merge with US and yet DL is paying the price for AA's merger.
The legal basis of the DOJ's case against the legacy carrier segment was incorrect and DL will fight whatever it has to in order to regain access to DAL.
Plain and simple.
EVERY airport that receives federal dollars must provide access to any carrier that desires to serve it and have a plan to do so.
COD gave lip service and then pulled the rug out from DL.
I can assure you that alone is the issue whether you want to try and make it other things or not.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,374
What you fail to recognize is that no airport can or will force a tenant airline to reduce its levels or standards of service to accommodate a non-tenant.
Period.
Federal housing laws require non-discrimination and equal access, too. They don't require a landlord to evict a legal, paying tenant to make room for someone else who wants to live in a certain neighborhood.
It appears that the City determined the Scarce Resource provision was applied to its full extent.
Everyone was polled, nobody had suitable available times, and section 3.4.A gets invoked, which is what I told you MONTHS ago would be the likely paragraph that would make or break DL's attempts to operate at DAL post-perimeter.
You want plane simple?
There's no room at the inn, and city ordinance prohibits sleeping in mangers.
Period.
Federal housing laws require non-discrimination and equal access, too. They don't require a landlord to evict a legal, paying tenant to make room for someone else who wants to live in a certain neighborhood.
It appears that the City determined the Scarce Resource provision was applied to its full extent.
Everyone was polled, nobody had suitable available times, and section 3.4.A gets invoked, which is what I told you MONTHS ago would be the likely paragraph that would make or break DL's attempts to operate at DAL post-perimeter.
You want plane simple?
There's no room at the inn, and city ordinance prohibits sleeping in mangers.
E,eolesen said:
I posted links to the Wright amendment reform act, the COD airport competition plan and the scarce resource provision, over a year ago.
He either can't read or can't see through his widget rimmed glasses.
He has never accepted the federal law that governs Love Field which is different from other airports.
Now on the matter of what United has done with their sub lease to WN and expanded ground times,I think it's pretty funny (although Delta and WT don't think so. But they shouldn't have been selling seats when they didn't have gates).
Delta might make dust up with that, but the Wright amendment reform act is not in jeopardy.
eolesen said:
E great post. WN Yes you did. I too wanted to point out that I also chuckled greatly when I read UAL was "sub-leasing" one of their gates to SWA. As stated the owner of the gates have first choice. Here's the article where I learned SWA is in fact using 21 gates by UAL leasing one of their 2 gates to SWA. Now that's just freakin hilarious!!!WNMECH said:
Delta threatens legal action against city
Here's the para on the sub-lease;
The new Love Field has 20 gates, 16 of which are being used by Southwest Airlines. Two others will be used by Virgin America beginning Oct. 13, and the final two are leased by United Airlines. United is subleasing one to Southwest and has told the city it will use the second to increase its flights to Houston next year.
Delta should have known better than to assume that something has taken place. I guess they have a bad habbit of assuming. They also assumed they would be flying from LF so they therefore sold illegal tickets to it's customers:
In his letter, Quinn said Delta was under the impression “as recently as last week” that the city “had notified United by letter that it must accommodate Delta on its gates."
Delta also said United was not playing fair with its second gate. While the airline is doubling its flights to Houston, it’s also going to “triple its aircraft ground times in an effort to preclude Delta from using its gates,” Quinn said.
Stop whining Delta, take your ball and go home and tell mommy about it...
In his letter, Quinn said Delta was under the impression “as recently as last week” that the city “had notified United by letter that it must accommodate Delta on its gates."
Delta also said United was not playing fair with its second gate. While the airline is doubling its flights to Houston, it’s also going to “triple its aircraft ground times in an effort to preclude Delta from using its gates,” Quinn said.
Stop whining Delta, take your ball and go home and tell mommy about it...
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
You wouldn't sound so stupid if you read and considered what eolesen wrote in post#86:
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57698-city-of-dallas-tells-delta-it-can-no-longer-fly-out-of-love-field/?p=1121303
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 3,341
How many times are you going to keep on repeating the nonsense that DL is a new entrant. It is not.WorldTraveler said:
BTW, have you all seen this article about LF? Here it is:
Good riddance to Wright amendment and Delta...
Good riddance to Wright amendment and Delta...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
