Competition in the Skies: Is Delta the Problem, or the Solution?

[swamt]

Yea, good luck with that...

 

[eolesen]

With all that this congress has done in the last few years, I'm sure that getting DL gate space at DAL is at the top of their list. It should happen any day now...

 

[robbedagain]

E  that's cool  but   I think the order is just slightly out of order!  nbr 1   getting re elected
             
   nbr 7   DAL Love Field Gate Access    in about 100 yrs from now!!   LOL  

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Actually, E, #1 on that list should be modified to read:  "Love Field Access for  DL only"
 
Because afterall, haven't you read/heard that only DL can provide real competition to consumers as well as delivering max profits for shareholders at the same time.

 

[Kev3188]

I'm still looking very much forward to being on one of the very first 717 flights from DAL and will make very sure that swamt knows that WT is in the building.

I'm sure he'll be delighted.

Maybe you can swing on down to the ready room for a chat?

 

[LD3]

 
 
This case was always about DL serving DAL.  The two gates are not the issue.  There is undoubtedly some flexibility in DAL's gate usage including the supposed 16 dedicated gates that WN thinks are their own that there might be some agreement that allows common use. 
 
 

I would be very surprised if SW did not have a signatory agreement  for those 16 gates.. Even if they are not exclusive to SW, I am not sure the Feds could make SW change their schedule to allow other airlines gate usage. If that was allowable, why hasn't any other airline challenged US to give up gate space on D con in CLT? All but 3 gates on D are city owned and not exclusive to US, with the exception of B9 & LH, US has the other gates knotted up most of the day....I am not sure how many flights SW pushes out of DAL, but I would think those gates are humming most of the day...

 

[WorldTraveler]

and again the issue is that CLT has been able to accommodate the requests from other airlines for access to CLT. 

 

[LD3]

SW wasn't coming here until they bought FL....Frontier has limited service, it doesn't even make sense why thier here. Where's Spirit? Allegiant pulled limited service and went to Concord....But getting back to the topic, I do not believe SW was dumb enough to leave a stipulation in their lease agreement that the gates they use may be common use....

 

[eolesen]

But getting back to the topic, I do not believe SW was dumb enough to leave a stipulation in their lease agreement that the gates they use may be common use....

After Eastern went bankrupt and tied up gate space in dozens of airports, airport leases changed significantly, and one of the impacts of that is that many airports only allow preferential use.

As far as DAL is concerned, WN had no choice but to accept a preferential use agreement, since the City refuses to lease space under an exclusive use lease.

I finally found a copy of the scare resource provision from the 2005 Competition Plan, and it's unlikely that they've changed the language since the Compromise was codified:
 

1. All requests for airline facilities accommodation will be received by the Department of Aviation.

2. In the event the requesting airline has demonstrated to the Department of Aviation that it has contacted all airline lessees and has exhausted all reasonable efforts to secure accommodations, the Director shall notify all airline lessees in writing that if requesting airline is not accommodated within thirty (30) days from the receipt of notice, Director shall select one of the airline lessees to apply for the request for accommodation in a non-discriminatory manner.

3. At the end of said thirty (30) day period, if requesting airline has not been accommodated, Director may select a Lessee to accommodate requesting airline and, in that event, shall send written notice to Lessee to accommodate requesting airline within thirty (30) days from the receipt of said notice. Director shall include in such notice the reason or reasons why Lessee was selected. Lessee shall have ten (10) days after receipt of said notice to comment on or dispute such selection.

4. Unless Director rescinds such selection within said thirty (30) day period, Lessee shall accommodate requesting airline by sharing a portion of its Terminal Lease Area subject to the following conditions:

a. In case of a conflict of schedules of Lessee and the requesting airline, the Lessee shall have preferential use of its personnel and its Terminal Lease Area.

b Lessee agrees that if requested to accommodate another carrier pursuant to this paragraph, it will use its good faith efforts to effect such accommodation in a reasonable and equitable manner.

c. The Lessee may assess the requesting airline reasonable fees and charges under an appropriate contract for services rendered to, or subleased facilities shared with, requesting airline and which shall be based on Lessee's direct and indirect costs plus a reasonable allowance for administration. In the event of a dispute regarding these reasonable fees and charges or any other matter regarding this scarce resource provision, including but limited to Section 3, Subparagraph 4 a above, and upon the Director's receipt of written notice of such dispute(s), and, in good faith and in a non-discriminatory manner render a decision regarding the acceptable fees and charges, or any other matter regarding this scarce resource provision, including but not limited to Section 3 Subparagraph 4 a above, which shall be binding on the Lessee and the requesting airline.

The way I'm reading this, DL might be shoehorned into someone else's space, but they won't have a lease, and they won't have a lot of control over the times they're able to be accommodated.

 

[LD3]

With a tweak of the schedule  it would seem possible that the Lessee could make it very hard to make the gate times desirable for a competitor..

 

[WorldTraveler]

thank you, E.
 
I think this is precisely the principle that I have been saying for months that airports do have to accommodate carriers who want to provide service.  It also shows that the DOJ's principle of saying that the two gates are awarded to one carrier is itself not entirely accurate since no airport facility is truly the sole domain of any carrier in a highly sought-after airport. 
 
The reason why DL has not pulled or altered its service is because the good faith clause is mighty hard to interpret but it does mean that the chances that WN has complete control over its 16 gates is very slim.
 
Further, it is indeed possible that DL might not be able to operate the entire schedule exactly as it was released when the schedules were loaded but the chances are very high that DL can obtain enough space to operate its at other airports.  DL's use of large RJs and 717s makes it easier to fit in DL flights between other carrier schedules since the turn times can be quite fast, particularly if DL increases its staffing at DAL in order to facilitate permanent quick turns.
 
Finally, we are now just over 6 months away from the implementation of the revised WA rules and UA has yet to announce what it is doing.  I still see it as highly unlikely that UA, who is trying to get its finances in order, is willing to increase its service at DAL, esp. given that WN and/or VX have announced schedules on most routes that UA would serve. 

 

[eolesen]

You're over-reaching.

Airports have to make reasonable accommodation, but the fact remains that tenant airlines don't have to sacrifice existing services, and the tenants also set the rates for usage, not DL. There won't be a competitive bidding situation like you might find at a larger airport if the airlines are being forced to accommodate.

 

[WorldTraveler]

but the issue still remains that there has to be some level of accommodation which means the chances that DL can be told that there is no way they cannot be accommodated at DAL is basically between slim and none, esp. since DL has already released its proposed schedules while even WN has not.
 
For WN or VX to now come along and schedule their flights such that DL's schedules could not be accommodated would likely trigger a challenge to the good faith clause of the agreement which you cited.
 
The use of large RJs on some of the routes including for the overnights means that DL only needs 15-20 minutes of gate time per flight to load and dispatch a flight and even less for the overnight arrivals.   The majority of the rest of the schedule can easily be adjusted within DL's existing bank structure at its other hubs that the chances that DL can't serve the routes it says it intends to serve is slim to none. 
 
The reason why DL has not pulled its schedules is undoubtedly because they will continue to push the issue of access.
 
 
I am still very comfortable that DL will be at DAL with a robust schedule on Oct 14, 2014. 

 

[LD3]

 esp. since DL has already released its proposed schedules while even WN has not.
 
 

Maybe that was by design on SW part.....

 

[Kev3188]

The use of large RJs on some of the routes including for the overnights means that DL only needs 15-20 minutes of gate time per flight to load and dispatch a flight and even less for the overnight arrivals.

That's an unrealistic time frame, even in optimal conditions. It also is significantly less than DL's own Minimum Standard Ground Times (MGST's). I'm sure you know where to look those up, yes?

 
 

The majority of the rest of the schedule can easily be adjusted within DL's existing bank structure at its other hubs that the chances that DL can't serve the routes it says it intends to serve is slim to none.

Wouldn't that depend on what they actual schedule (or available times) actually are? Seems sort of assumptive to claim otherwise at this point. Depending on what hub we're talking about, I'm sure there'll be connectivity- even if it's sub-optimal- but I can also see the very real possibility of these flights arriving outside of (or between) banks....