Dallas asks U.S. court to solve gate fight at Love

[WNMECH]

I still haven't seen anything from WN but DAL's filing is nothing but a move of desperation in hoping a court will tell them explicitly what to do so they don't have to do what they know deep in their heart of hearts they have to do to keep from losing federal funds.

Wrong again.
They know exactly what to do and are asking the court to tell the DOT to quit making threats that the WARA says they cant make, and to butt out of Dallas City business.



CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the City requests that the Court find and
declare: 1) that the Federal Agencies have violated the APA and WARA and 2) the rights and
legal obligations of the City and the Airlines under WARA, related federal laws and regulations,
and Grant Assurances, and agreements of the interested parties, as requested above. The City
further requests that it be awarded its reasonable attorney fees, its costs, and such other relief as
the Court finds just

 

[WNMECH]

After reading the entire pleadings, it turns out that AA has asked for FOUR flights, not two (as the media mistakenly wrote), so perhaps two daily to LGA and DCA would be the ticket.
 

Agreed. After reading the pleadings, I have to commend the city attorneys for their filing. Aside from a couple of annoying typos (they happen), it provides a comprehensive review of the entire situation and the conflicting demands made of the COD by the DOT/FAA and the airlines.

Toward the end of the pleading, this appeared:


What the hell does that mean? Has Delta threatened to employ force to enable it to operate at an airport? That sounds awfully close to a terrorist threat to me. Airlines have no legal basis for employing "security" to enable them to prevail over the wishes of an airport operator or to enable them to occupy gates over which another airline asserts a superior claim. Anderson might wish to get another opinion by outside legal counsel before his airline commits a felony at Dallas Love Field.

Yes, the COD has made an in-depth and clear legal argument and point out all the holes in the "letters".



It is funny to see an airline believe they could use private security to take over gates that they have NO leases to.

 

[WorldTraveler]

wrong.

I read that too and laughed.

If they knew what had to do and could legally get by with doing it, they would have done it and there would be no consequences.

They and WN see only conflicts in the interpretation of the law because they can't get that WN can't have more than 16 gates and DAL still meet its federal airport access requirements.

WN has no protection or right to expect more than 16 gates. Everything above that is subject to loss of federal airport funds and setting DAL and WN up for antitrust action.

If you think the DOT is merely writing an opinion that DAL is free to accept or not, you and DAL need prayer of a very different kind.

it will be funny when the private security takes WN's junk and heaves it out the window when a federal judge orders that DL be allowed to remain and WN to vacate the gates.

The Alamo will look tame in comparison - and I did take Texas history in Texas schools.

 

[WNMECH]

Did you take any reading comprehension courses?

They are being attacked on all sides and face litigation unless a judge tells someone to back off.
They know who is wrong and are asking a judge to tell them to back off AND pay their legal fees to boot.

Are you sure you learned how the Alamo turned out for the people who made a stand there and refused to leave?

 

[Kev3188]

wrong.I read that too and laughed.If they knew what had to do and could legally get by with doing it, they would have done it and there would be no consequences.They and WN see only conflicts in the interpretation of the law because they can't get that WN can't have more than 16 gates and DAL still meet its federal airport access requirements.WN has no protection or right to expect more than 16 gates. Everything above that is subject to loss of federal airport funds and setting DAL and WN up for antitrust action.If you think the DOT is merely writing an opinion that DAL is free to accept or not, you and DAL need prayer of a very different kind.it will be funny when the private security takes WN's junk and heaves it out the window when a federal judge orders that DL be allowed to remain and WN to vacate the gates.The Alamo will look tame in comparison - and I did take Texas history in Texas schools.

Hyperbolic and inflammatory.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Compared to your employer hiring guards to protect its interests no.

And we haven't gotten to damages that DL might seek.. member the DOT mentioned antitrust just like I have?


This is not child's play and anyone who did not get how serious the DOT is in its letter is on laughing gas

 

[WNMECH]

This is not child's play and anyone who did not get how serious the DOT is in its letter is on laughing gas

wrong.

I read that too and laughed.

Methinks you are the one sniffing gas.

 

[eolesen]

Hyperbolic and inflammatory.

And that's different from every other post how?

It's why I stopped reading his whining. If only people would stop quoting and reacting, we'd have a much more enjoyable time here.

 

[WorldTraveler]

that is what you want to believe - except that I have been dead right and clearly wide awake for the past nearly 2 years that this topic has been discussed ad nauseum on here.

The only confusion that DAL has is because they can't accept that WN does not have any legal right to have more than 16 gates and any transactions above that or any actions that block any carrier's desire to expand above WN's 16 gates is neither legally protected but will result in punitive measures for DAL and WN if they refuse to comply. If DAL can't figure out that WN's "demands" to protect its "property rights" for the UA gates are not legally enforceable against other legal requirements, then the DOT honestly should consider federalizing the airport like DCA and IAD so that the feds call the shots.

Given that VX' CEO has even gone so far as to make statements saying they wouldn't cooperate to accommodate DL because of what they have experienced in other airports - none of which has involved DL - they could well stand subject to antitrust violations today.

The more DAL and WN delays and the more others talk about why they don't intend to accommodate DL, the bigger the bill they potentially create in damages that DL could claim.

WN has clearly been quiet because they realize they are in the crosshairs and they aren't going to further provide anything that could deepen the damages they might be responsible for.

Given that DAL is the one that is now playing stupid and can't figure out what to do, the damages will come to them. And I fully expect that the DOT will rule that DAL CANNOT pass on legal expenses to carriers and it will cost DAL in its budget, not in the budget of the airline tenants.

as for E not bothering to read and respond, this would be as good of a time as any to remind the board of how absolutely wrong he was about how WN would grow in ATL at DL's expense, how the refinery would be such a loss when it is delivery a couple hundred million dollars in profit per year, how wrong he has been on basic statistical performance data and on and on and on.

E has realized that his best course of action is to stay out of conversations which he has tried to insert himself into under the guise of his vast industry experience - and yet his track record of being wrong is so long it can't begin to be cataloged here.

E is in good company, though, on the DAL issue.

I have been about the only one that has been adamant about the fact that WN was wrong, DL would win, and that is precisely what is happening.

It is all a matter of the final paperwork and the schedule cuts for WN and schedule additions for DL.

 

[WNMECH]

Delta will probably need an injunction to stay past july 6.
They are now threatening to ask for one.
For now, just threatening.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/impatient-delta-threatens-lawsuit-in-the-face-of-city-inaction-over-dallas-love-field.html/

 

[WNMECH]

Here are some random quotes lately.



Customers who have booked Delta flights past July 6 may see changes to their plans and be routed through DFW if the Atlanta-based airline loses slots, creating short-term confusion, said Charlie Leocha, chairman of consumer advocacy group Travelers United.

"For Delta to schedule service when they don't even have a legitimate lease is just deceptive," he said.




Virgin America president and chief executive David Cush said Thursday that Southwest controls the gates and shouldn’t have to share them with Delta.

“My view of this is pretty clear: Southwest owns those gates,” Cush said at a breakfast meeting of the Dallas Regional Chamber. “They should be able to do whatever they want to with them without having Delta enlisting the government to do their bidding.”

 

[WorldTraveler]

DAL asked for one in their lawsuit so that they don't have to make the decision to tell WN "NO" on their own.

It was a given it would come to this point - and it will only further the case of why DL, not WN, has damages and legal expenses it can ask to be reimbursed when the court does rule that DAL has to accommodate DL and it will be from WN's gates.

It is precisely when anyone outside of the court to say that DL passengers are booking at risk that the damages add up.

WN and DAL can end the damages by providing the gates.

 

[WNMECH]

WN has clearly been quiet because they realize they are in the crosshairs and they aren't going to further provide anything that could deepen the damages they might be responsible for.

Given that DAL is the one that is now playing stupid and can't figure out what to do, the damages will come to them. And I fully expect that the DOT will rule that DAL CANNOT pass on legal expenses to carriers and it will cost DAL in its budget, not in the budget of the airline tenants.

WN isn't being quiet, they fired the first legal shot in this.



Now you are the one playing stupid.
Delta has NO gate lease agreements past july 6.
They have harmed themselves and their customers for selling seats on flights with no gates.
I may buy a ticket on one of these flights just to get in on the class action suit that Delta will face for this ridiculous, completely foreseen act of fraud by Delta management.
They cant hide behind the DOT on that move, pretending you have gates before anyone has ruled you do, is all on Delta.

 

[WorldTraveler]

can you show what WN has publicly said since the DOT's 2nd letter was released.

They have no gates because DAL and WN have refused to follow DOT guidance which has the force of cutting off funding because of non-compliance with the agreements that DAL and WN made with the federal government.

DL has the right to remain at DAL and they know it and they are undoubtedly very carefully watching bookings to catalog any damage that results from statements by others about their status at DAL.

DL released its own statement noting the DOT affirmed its right to be at DAL.

 

[WNMECH]

DAL asked for one in their lawsuit so that they don't have to make the decision to tell WN "NO" on their own.

I already proved you wrong on that claim in this post.
 
 

Wrong again.
They know exactly what to do and are asking the court to tell the DOT to quit making threats that the WARA says they cant make, and to butt out of Dallas City business.



CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the City requests that the Court find and
declare: 1) that the Federal Agencies have violated the APA and WARA and 2) the rights and
legal obligations of the City and the Airlines under WARA, related federal laws and regulations,
and Grant Assurances, and agreements of the interested parties, as requested above. The City
further requests that it be awarded its reasonable attorney fees, its costs, and such other relief as
the Court finds just

If the COD wanted to take gate space from WN, they would have asked for it in their filing.