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

[blue collar]

They keep arguing that DAL must follow federal laws, which is EXACTLY what is exempting DAL from following certain guidelines. It's like arguing that airline employees should be under the NLRA, because it's a federal law even though the RLA is also federal law that exempts airline employees from the NLRA.

 

[AirLUVer]

It is like they have never heard the phrases "carve out" or "exemption", in the context of law.

 

[WorldTraveler]

 

They keep arguing that DAL must follow federal laws, which is EXACTLY what is exempting DAL from following certain guidelines. It's like arguing that airline employees should be under the NLRA, because it's a federal law even though the RLA is also federal law that exempts airline employees from the NLRA.

and you cannot grasp that there is NO EXEMPTION from federal access laws at DAL or any other airport.

if there were, then why did WN give gave space to DL? You can't answer that question because you won't admit that DL has a LEGAL right as does any other airline that wants to come to DAL as long as DAL receives federal funds.

The gate leases DO NOT exempt DAL from following federal airport access laws.

It will become apparent to you over time that you are wrong.

WN realizes it which is EXACTLY why they offered space to DL in the hopes that DAL will figure out a solution that does not put the full burden on any party including WN.

But DL will be at DAL as long as it wants and WN knows it.

too bad you have yet to figure it out.

 

[eolesen]

BTW, UA didn't file for a flight addition; the increased schedule is for sale.

 
I think I may understand how things work in the GDS world a little more intimately than you do. You can't sell inventory without filing a schedule, even at Delta...
 

The gate leases DO NOT exempt DAL from following federal airport access laws.

Maybe you can explain the part of Federal access laws which state that gates can be taken away from a leaseholder without their consent, or that a leaseholder can be told they can't use their leasehold when they want to.

Good luck with that, because it doesn't exist.

 

[WorldTraveler]

UA's increased flights are available for sale on their website just as they were yesterday.

the world doesn't live and die by GDSs.

And no one said that leaseholder property will be taken.

Federal law does say that all carriers to an airport have to be accommodated.

You'll recall that DL argued for common use gates at DAL but DAL shot it down; if they had done that, DL could have been satisfied and VX and DL would have had to share gates.


DAL will either have to come up with a way to accommodate with non-lease holding airlines.

and, it just might rock your socks, but DAL just might be forced to amend all of their leases to meet the federal requirements which they failed to incorporate in the leases in the first place.

 

[FWAAA]

Federal law does say that all carriers to an airport have to be accommodated.

In general, yes, it does. At DAL, on the other hand, there is specific federal law that blesses the current arrangement and excuses DAL from the usual requirements of federal law. It's been pointed out numerous times above in this thread.

DAL will either have to come up with a way to accommodate with non-lease holding airlines.

and, it just might rock your socks, but DAL just might be forced to amend all of their leases to meet the federal requirements which they failed to incorporate in the leases in the first place.

No, you're incorrect. The Wright Amendment Reform Act blesses the current gate lease arrangement and, on the subject of accommodating new entrants, specifically requires DAL to "honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases." Once that's been done, that's the end of the inquiry.

Sure, Delta can initiate litigation, but the language quoted above will be an absolute defense available to DAL and Southwest.

Are you seriously arguing that Congress had no power to specifically approve the anti-competitive arrangement at DAL?

I disagreed with the 2006 five party agreement and the reduction the number of gates from 32 down to 20. It's a travesty that WN is permitted to use 16 of those 20. But Congress approved that deal, and the President signed it. The anti-competitive arrangement is ok under federal law - it specifically was ok'd by Congress.

 

[swamt]

Let's all take a brake from the what will happen and what will not happen after 1-6-15.  Then we can all regain in the talks after we get the final ruling and call from the COD and what SWA as well as United will do with that little ole gate there at LF.  In the mean time here are some news articles reflecting on the current situations happening at LF.  Happy reading to all, and yes, WT I did include the ones that favor Delta a little with their cost and growth numbers:
 
Expect a Fare War Now That Southwest Can Spread the LUV
 
Southwest Airlines: THE Low-Cost Airline
 
Southwest looks for spark from expansion in Dallas
 
Southwest poised will increase flights in Dallas
 
Now remember these are all from Dallas area news media, sure you will have some in Atlanta with different views and please by all means post them if you have them as it would be interesting comparing the two different location news media points, I will read them.    Tomorrow will be the big day, SWA will have a huge party to bring it in and thru-out the day all over the Dallas area.  Heard Mr Branson is making a special trip as well.  Haven't heard anything about Delta or UAL CEO's making the trip in.  Wonder if Herb will be there, if so will he and Branson or Kelly and Branson end up doing something big for all the media to see and record.  Last time it ended up being an arm-wrestle competition, great sportsmanship by all, maybe something will come up for that little ole gate at LF between UAL and Delta or maybe SWA and Delta??   You never know, it's all about advertising and getting the word out.  Maybe this is why Delta hasn't filed anything yet.  Hmmmmmm...

 

[swamt]

In general, yes, it does. At DAL, on the other hand, there is specific federal law that blesses the current arrangement and excuses DAL from the usual requirements of federal law. It's been pointed out numerous times above in this thread.


No, you're incorrect. The Wright Amendment Reform Act blesses the current gate lease arrangement and, on the subject of accommodating new entrants, specifically requires DAL to "honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases." Once that's been done, that's the end of the inquiry.

Sure, Delta can initiate litigation, but the language quoted above will be an absolute defense available to DAL and Southwest.

Are you seriously arguing that Congress had no power to specifically approve the anti-competitive arrangement at DAL?

I disagreed with the 2006 five party agreement and the reduction the number of gates from 32 down to 20. It's a travesty that WN is permitted to use 16 of those 20. But Congress approved that deal, and the President signed it. The anti-competitive arrangement is ok under federal law - it specifically was ok'd by Congress.

To be fair I agree with two parts of your post.  Reducing the number of flights from 32-20.  Although I am happy about SWA having 16 of the 20, I was shocked we were allowed that many as well, just saying...

 

[blue collar]

In general, yes, it does. At DAL, on the other hand, there is specific federal law that blesses the current arrangement and excuses DAL from the usual requirements of federal law. It's been pointed out numerous times above in this thread.


No, you're incorrect. The Wright Amendment Reform Act blesses the current gate lease arrangement and, on the subject of accommodating new entrants, specifically requires DAL to "honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases." Once that's been done, that's the end of the inquiry.

Sure, Delta can initiate litigation, but the language quoted above will be an absolute defense available to DAL and Southwest.

Are you seriously arguing that Congress had no power to specifically approve the anti-competitive arrangement at DAL?

I disagreed with the 2006 five party agreement and the reduction the number of gates from 32 down to 20. It's a travesty that WN is permitted to use 16 of those 20. But Congress approved that deal, and the President signed it. The anti-competitive arrangement is ok under federal law - it specifically was ok'd by Congress.

You clearly must've missed all of WTs pontifications, which will come to pass since he tells the Whole Truth

 

[FWAAA]

To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that it's a travesty that Southwest was allowed to keep 80%; it's a travesty that any airline would be permitted to hold 80% of the gates at an airport limited (by federal law) to a mere 20 gates.
But that was the political price to be paid, and not only did the local politicians have their say, the federal politicians weighed in as well.

On a similar note, it's also a travesty that the El Toro Marine base in Orange County will never be a commercial airport, but I was on the losing side of that argument (voters in Orange County voted to make it a park instead).

 

[WorldTraveler]

and, again, what you can't answer is why WN gave DL access to ANY gates for ANY period of time if it doesn't believe it faces significant legal risk if DAL shuts the door and says NO.

WN said yes because they know they face enormous risk.

DL will be at DAL as long as it wants to

again, one can only shake their head at the WN employees and fans who fail to remember that WN fought for years to get the access to fly from DAL in the first place and yet they think that this case will be shut and closed by an airline forums member decision.

The 30th busiest airport in the US WILL NOT be restricted to two mainline jet carriers.

I can absolutely assure you of that.

 

[Hope777]

IMO, I think its high time for whomever DL gets the gates from(they are not theirs) they tell DL the times they can have the gate/gates.  In essence making Delta's Schedule.

 

[FWAAA]

and, again, what you can't answer is why WN gave DL access to ANY gates for ANY period of time if it doesn't believe it faces significant legal risk if DAL shuts the door and says NO.

WN said yes because they know they face enormous risk.

I don't know exactly why (unlike you I tend to admit when I'm uncertain and when I'm making stuff up) but I suspect it's because WN doesn't need 100% of the capacity until early January, when it plans to increase the number of flights. From what I gather, WN is not adding all of its new flights on the same day this week, but I may be mistaken.

DL will be at DAL as long as it wants to

The 30th busiest airport in the US WILL NOT be restricted to two mainline jet carriers.

I can absolutely assure you of that.

And yet Congress passed a federal law in 2006 that permits just three large airlines to hold all the gates and results, today, in WN, UA and VX holding all 20 gates.

I don't want to interfere with delusional fantasies, but it looks to me like the anti-competitive arrangement was passed by Congress and that Delta will have to get out its checkbook and pay WN, UA or VX if it wants some gate space at DAL. Everything is for sale if you offer enough money.

Delta could have leased gates at DAL had it been willing to pay rent all these years, just like AA did, no? Looks like poor planning by DL to not position itself at DAL so that it could be in position for the end of the WA limits.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you just said that Congress agreed to carve up between 3 carriers and now you say that DL could have been at DAL if they were willing to pay enough money. a little contradictory?

AA didn't sell its gates - it got kicked out by the feds.

And, you can tell me when the Wright Amendment was challenged by any airline OTHER than those in N. Texas. The WA and access to DAL has not been challenged by an outside carrier who could not obtain access to the airport.

As much as you want to argue otherwise, there is an enormous legal risk if DL points out as I do that just 2 large jet carriers are allowed to serve the 30th largest airport.

the reason why DL and no other carrier has challenged WA or DAL is because they were allowed to serve DAL under the same rules that WN has lived with.

Now that DAL is a nationwide airport and will be comparable to TPA in the number of seats, it is beyond belief to think that the courts or Congress will side with DAL as a protected airport from competition compared to every other airport in the country.

the reason why WN blinked is because they know the risk they face, are trying to get DAL to fix the access problem since UA won't, and will absolutely be willing to accommodate DL vs. allow the whole case to go to court where WN stands to lose a huge part of what they have fought for at DAL for years.

 

[FWAAA]

you just said that Congress agreed to carve up between 3 carriers and now you say that DL could have been at DAL if they were willing to pay enough money. a little contradictory?

I didn't post anything that's contradictory. Delta could have been a signatory to the five-party agreement in 2006 (would have been a six-party agreement) had it leased some space at the old DAL all those years like AA did. Further, DL had the last eight years to try to buy its way into DAL by paying WN or UA or AA (before the Justice Department made AA lease its gates to VX). But DL chose not to plan ahead and hasn't yet pulled out its checkbook.

AA didn't sell its gates - it got kicked out by the feds.

And, you can tell me when the Wright Amendment was challenged by any airline OTHER than those in N. Texas. The WA and access to DAL has not been challenged by an outside carrier who could not obtain access to the airport.

As much as you want to argue otherwise, there is an enormous legal risk if DL points out as I do that just 2 large jet carriers are allowed to serve the 30th largest airport.

Exactly what is the "legal risk" you repeatedly talk about? Who might DL sue and what would DL get if DL wins?

Yes, AA was forced to lease its gates to VX, but DL could have acquired those AA gates anytime prior to the AA/DOJ settlement agreement. Further, DL could have leased space at DAL over the past several decades if being at DAL was so important.