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

[WNMECH]

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.

 
The city of Dallas controls the gates at Love field not WN.

Everyone involved except you understand this.

Even the DOT.

"Ultimately, however, it is the City that must make a decision, and I urge you to do so in a reasonable and timely manner."


It is Delta who will be planning a quick jump to DFW to limit their damages to the customers they have defrauded.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, I do understand that COD controls the gates and has the responsibility to follow federal airport access laws. WN is responsible for the antitrust issues for scheduling its own flights on top of what DL said it would serve, knowing full well that by doing so they were blocking DL from access to those gates - and the DOT clearly said that is not permissible under airport access regulations and also has antitrust implications.

again, you and your employer are the ones that are hiding behind DAL who can't grasp that there is no legal protection for WN to operate more than 16 gates. There is no conflict in all of the demands that DAL is facing if WN operates ONLY from 16 gates.

and the DOJ did NOT tell WN that it had free reign to use all of the capacity of those gates because they SPECIFICALLY conditioned the UA gate transfer on the DL sublease which they and the DOT says cannot be a simple transitory move that does not allow carriers to plan long-term service, precisely the threat that the coalition you cited is doing and which is damaging to DL's financial performance at DAL.

So, it is very likely there will be an emergency injunction granted, the issue will not be resolved before Aug 1 when WN counted on using the gates, and it will WN which will have to cut schedules to permit DL to continue to operate its flights or the DOT will hold DAL in violation of the airport access requirements.

WN can drag the process out and use DAL as its proxy to do so but when it is clear that the DOT has said that DL has the right to have access to those gates, every day that DL is refused access EVEN TO THE GATESPACE IT WANTED TO USE FOR AN EXPANDED SCHEDULE WHICH IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY OEPRATE only increases the size of potential damages that DAL and WN will be liable for and WN's part will be because they are operating flights which DL specifically said it intended to operate and was unable to do so while WN announced them after DL's announcement and has operated them since the day the longhaul restrictions were lifted.

We're not going to solve this tonite or tomorrow. That's why it is going to court.

But WN is no closer to being blessed to dominate DAL with DAL's blessings as it has tried to do and has been served with very damning evidence from the DOT that exonerates DL's position and makes WN and DAL's all the more precarious and subject to legal damages.

I have been completely right about where this case would end up and I find no basis for your position to ever be considered acceptable.

 

[WNMECH]

Wrong.
The WN and the COD are hiding behind the WARA, the 5 party agreement, the Love Field Competition Plan and the Love Field lease agreements.
 
The COD sued the US govt. agencies because they are trying to overstep their bounds and coerce the COD into breaking the WARA, the 5 party agreement, the Love Field Competition Plan and the Love Field lease agreements.
 
You fail to grasp that UAL and WN have specific legal rights contained in those agreements that prevent the type of coercion that is being attempted.
 
All the while, you foolishly claim an airline with NO gate leases after july 6, has the right to squat and even expand that squatting as they wish.
Delta is the only one involved that is attempting illegal actions by selling those flights.
WN has legal leases to these gates right now and Delta has not been accommodated beyond July 6.
Delta signed a TEMP agreement, and they Know it.
 
The COD was intimately involved in crafting the WARA and the protections at Love. The DOT wont be pushing around this Texas city without a fight.
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

the WARA does NOT give WN any protection to operate beyond 16 gates.

It simply does not.

there are no legal rights to grow beyond what is legally protected and then claim conflict and confusion.

The courts will rule what is illegal. No one in any position with true legal authority has said that DL has violated any laws by selling seats. Not one.

Only quacks on here who make up their own laws and then act surprised when they are proven wrong over and over.

oh, and the fight has begun.

COD and WN will bow to the federal government or pay for the privilege of operating DAL as a private airport. That is the way it works in the US of A.

since DAL can be held liable for failing to comply with federal law, are you willing to admit that you were wrong when this case ends up with WN being forced to reduce its schedules in order to accommodate DL at least at the present size and perhaps even with more flights?

all the talk is meaningless... are you willing to admit you were wrong if this case goes in DL's favor? I am if it doesn't

 

[WNMECH]

Wrong again.
 
WN and UAL are protected as signatory airlines and also have the right to sub-lease their gates if the COD agrees to those leases.
The City has agreed to 18 gate leases for WN as long as they continue the temp agreement with Delta though July 6.
 
All legal.
 
Delta on the other hand is sticking their necks out on the opinion of what the DOT believes, with NO JUDICIAL REVIEW or legal weight to those views.
 
Even the DOT admits it cannot give gate space to Delta.
Only the City has the duty to comply with ALL the Laws that govern Love Field.
 
"As with other grant assurances, DOT reserves the right to pursue appropriate action if it were to determine that there has been a violation of the grant assurances. At this time, we have made no determination as to whether such a violation has occurred."

 

[WNMECH]

Are you willing to admit you were wrong if Delta doesn't get more than 5 flights at Love after it is all settled?
 
You have been claiming victory for two years while this is only being decided now.
 
This all started when you claimed WN would ( sorry, "might, may, or maybe")  have to give up some of its 16 gate space.
 
It has been documented over and over your changing positions on Love field.
 
 
You haven't said you were wrong, you just moved the goal post.
 
 
 
One of my favorites:
 
WorldTraveler

Posted 08 October 2014 - 04:02 PM

The idea that DAL and WN can hide behind a 20 gate limit to restrict the operation to 3 carriers with WN having 80% of them is beyond delusional.

 

[WorldTraveler]

uh, the case is about keeping even the 5 flights DL has... so I will admit I am wrong if DL is kicked out.

No one has offered to even give DL access for its 5 flights.

read the DOT letter again about signatory airlines.

btw, the DOT specifically said the baseline for what has to be considered for access for other carriers was WN's schedule at the time an accommodation request was made.

WN WAS NOT operating a full schedule for 16 gates at the time of DL's accommodation request.

If the two UA gates were not available, it is very possible that DAL could be forced to accommodate EVEN UP TO THE gates. but I don't think that will happen because the two gates are enough to apparently satisfy DL's intended plans.

and you do realize that last post you cited was made before UA left?


and your remembrance of what DAL and the DOJ agreed to regarding DL's sublease is completely lacking in accuracy.

If the DOT has determined a violation has occurred, funding would have to be cut. The reason why the DOT has been using opinions ALONG WITH threats of funding cuts is because they do not want to cut DAL's funds - but they will if they have to.

For you to think that they will tell DAL what to do after they have been deemed to have violated laws and not cut funds is precisely why you have been wrong about the process.

if the DOT says DAL is in violation of airport access requirements, it is too late to not cut funds.

did you say you would admit you are wrong if WN loses ANY PART of its 18 gates?

 

[WNMECH]

If Delta gets more than 5 flights, I will admit I was wrong.
 
Will you admit you were wrong if they don't?
 
You did say this:
 
 
"I still believe DL will be at DAL and that the COD will be forced to find space for at least 6 DL flights to ATL which will likely have to come not just from UA but from WN as well who is apparently using UA gates."

 

[WorldTraveler]

and that statement is at least six months old because UA notified of its intent to leave DAL months ago.

so you are conceding that DL should be given space to operate what it currently operates? Not one legal party to the case has conceded that much.

I give you credit for realizing that DL does have the right to be there for its 5 current flights.

whether 4, 5, or 6 flights/day, DL is operating mainline service roughly comparable in frequency to WN to ATL and nothing beyond that right now.

I still believe that DAL will be forced to give DL access to more than enough space for just its up to 6 ATL flights.

 

[WNMECH]

and you do realize that last post you cited was made before UA left?

So what?
You were still wrong.

 

[WNMECH]

and that statement is at least six months old because UA notified of its intent to leave DAL months ago.

so you are conceding that DL should be given space to operate what it currently operates? Not one legal party to the case has conceded that much.

I give you credit for realizing that DL does have the right to be there for its 5 current flights.

whether 4, 5, or 6 flights/day, DL is operating mainline service roughly comparable in frequency to WN to ATL and nothing beyond that right now.

I still believe that DAL will be forced to give DL access to more than enough space for just its up to 6 ATL flights.

Nice try but I don't concede that they have a right to 5 flights or that your legal arguments are sound.
You are a real piece of work after all the spinning and changing your positions over the past two years.
I believe COD and WN court filings are the correct interpretation of the laws for Love Field.
I just believe that there is a possibility that they may be allowed to keep 5 flights if a judge gives undue deference to the DOT's arguments. Anything can happen in court.
But if that event happened, I do not believe they will get any more than the 5 flights they have now.
I have always said the WARA would not be overturned and that WN would always retain sole rights to the 16 gates.
Now with the two new gates in play, I believe WN has legal right to them as well but recognize we are now not in the complete cover of the original WARA protections but they could cover WN and UAL's sublease. The COD makes a good case and can see where it could and should succeed.
 
Two years ago you argued WN could not monopolize 80% of Love field.
Now you admit that that is okay as long as Delta gets 4 flights a day.
 
Yes, some of the claims you made 6 months and 2 years ago were wrong.
And Yes, you still wont admit you were wrong.

 

[AirLUVer]

What would Delta have done if AA had not been forced to give up it's gate?

They were subleasing from AA, and AA had indicated that they would have re-entered the market if they had not been forced to divest.

This is like trying to evict a bad tenant that refuses to leave.

 

[WorldTraveler]

So what?
You were still wrong.

 only in whether it was 5 or 6 flights....the principle is what is at stake, not a single flight or two

and the reason why you are right about DL being allowed to keep at least 5 flights (or a mid single digit level of flights to ATL) but DAL won't do it because if they do, they are acknowledging that the DAL is right in even the slightest part and if DL and the DOT is right in any part, then DAL and WN have to acknowledge the DOT is right in EVERY part. WN is trying to protect its ability to build out DAL beyond what is protected by WARA and push antitrust limits and if they start giving up gatespace to anyone for any reason, then it could - and will - become a reverse path of shrinkage.
 

What would Delta have done if AA had not been forced to give up it's gate?

They were subleasing from AA, and AA had indicated that they would have re-entered the market if they had not been forced to divest.

This is like trying to evict a bad tenant that refuses to leave.

and what you and everyone else doesn't understand or chooses to ignore is that the DOT"s regulations are independent of who holds the lease and are specifically designed to NOT allow carriers to hoard slights and then not use them OR use them frivolously in order to keep competitors out.

DAL, as a recipient of federal airport dollars, MUST accommodate carriers that have served an airport and wish to stay, EVEN IF LEASES by other carriers CHANGE HANDS AND if another carrier wishes to expand and a lease holding carrier is not fully utilizing its gates, the AIRPORT has to accommodate the requesting carrier.

DL qualifies to retain space for its 5 flights (or 4 or 6) to ATL because it has continuously retained service AND it also qualifies to expand its service to the level it operated at its accommodation request BECAUSE THERE WAS OPEN GATE SPACE from UA, AA's, and WN"s gates at the time of DL's accommodation request.

WN chose to acquire additional gates beyond what it held at the time of DL's accommodation requests, fill those gates, and then say "we knew we would fill those gates and couldn't accommodate DL"

The DOT has specifically said that what WN did and DAL allowed is completely contrary to the DOT"s airport access laws which are designed to increase competition and not squash it.

The WARA is NOT a protection for WN to acquire gates above what it held at the time of 2006 which was also the same number it held at the time WA longhaul domestic restrictions ended in Oct 2014.

the DOT says that WN would have been required to accommodate a carrier EVEN ON ITS OWN 16 GATES because they were being used at the time of DL's accommodation request.

It is not necessary to argue the conflict between WN's WARA protections and DL's accommodation request because what DL wants can be accommodated on the 2 UA gates which on a combined basis were unused to the level of what DL sought

If the DOT tells DAL they have violated airport access laws, they have to withhold funds. There is a very specific reason why DOT has been speaking in generalities and opinions to avoid forcing a funding cut which they could do based ón DAL's unwillingness to apply DOT guidelines WHICH ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH WARA AND APPLY TO EVERY OTHER AIRPORT.

DL started the process of requesting accommodation before WN announced its own schedule and well before the longhaul domestic restrictions fell.

AA and UA"s gates at the time had space.

and the DOJ SPECIFICALLY agreed to the transfer of the UA gates to WN CONDITIONED UPON DL's sublease which they said had to be maintained in some form going forward, in full agreement with what DOT has said. They did not say that the exact sublease had to continue but that something that protected DL's right to remain at DAL be preserved. On that part there is no conflict between what DOT and DOJ said regarding the DAL gates.

There is no defensible reason why DL's request cannot be filled.

Since DL's request is the only one that predated WN's actual flight build out, it is not likely that any other carrier, including AA that decides to ask for accommodation now can be granted unless some other carrier - most likely VX reduces its own schedule because it can't profitably use the gates the two gates it holds - and precisely why the DOJ's logic was flawed in awarding the gates to a single carrier = esp an LCC - because they aren't equipped to add two gates worth of flying in another carrier's strength market.

I predict as I have before that DL will remain at DAL, DAL is trying to push the limits of being hit by the DOT with sanctions in the form of cuts to airport funds but will eventually comply, WN will be forced to reduce its schedule at least for DL's five flights and potentially a dozen or more to multiple destinations, and VX will eventually pull its schedule down and other carriers will enter DAL. It is doubtful that AA can legally argue to overturn the DOJ settlement agreement fast enough to add flights before other carriers can and that DAL will be forced to convert the 2 ex-UA gates back to common use with DL predominantly using them.

again the completely hypocrisy of what WN has done is that it argued to get slots at DCA and LGA which were being used by legacy carriers (AA/US) in the name of supposedly increasing competition but thinks it can ignore those very same principles to dominate an airport where a large chunk of the capacity wasn't even being used at the time DL requested gate space.

DL in part undoubtedly has pushed the case to make the legal point of airport access be codified and to show that WN cannot do something in one place and then hide behind another law which they want to believe gives them the right to ignore airport access laws which have worked all around the US and are part of the DOT's airport funding requirements and which DAL agreed to.

However, DL can make DFW and DAL work to the same destinations which is exactly what they have done at multiple other cities where other carriers have chosen only one airport in that city to focus their flying.

WN will figure out how to live within 16 gates and the damages that come to DL will be the ones that DAL and WN might be forced to pay.

 

[eolesen]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  This is a matter of property rights.
 
The FAA and DOT's role isn't to interpret leases or property rights.  They're to ensure aviation safety.
 
DOJ's role is to prevent anti-trust and ensure competition.
 
Which will have more weight on the access issue?

 

[FWAAA]

What would Delta have done if AA had not been forced to give up it's gate?

They were subleasing from AA, and AA had indicated that they would have re-entered the market if they had not been forced to divest.

This is like trying to evict a bad tenant that refuses to leave.

Exactly. Had it not agreed to give up its two gates at the demand of the DOJ, AA would have begun 20-24 daily nonstops like it flew against Legend (LGA, ORD, DCA, LAX, etc), and DL's sublease would have been terminated. At that point, DL would have had no gates from which to operate. The scarce resource provisions of the leases might have provided DL some room to operate, but not once WN and AA and XJet (UA) filled out their schedules.