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

[WorldTraveler]

your post is theoretical, FWAAA. just like so many that I have posted saying "if this, then this WOULD HAVE" happened.

DL did NOT terminate its service and continued it even after the WA restrictions ended. DL requested accommodation before WN announced its own schedules.

Federal law specifically says DL has a right to operate its own service at levels it proposed.

DAL has to accommodate DL and WN has to scale back its operation to 1. what is protected under the WARA and 2. what allows DAL to accommodate DL and 3. if that doesn't happen DAL will lose federal funds.

The DOT in the most recent letter made it clear what needs to happen and what it recommends.

If they have to tell DAL they are wrong and have violated federal airport access laws, then federal funds can be lost.

There is no conflict in managing all of the competing demands other than WN's desire to operate from more than 16 of DAL's gates.

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?

and you clearly do not understand that federal laws supersede property rights because the common good is at stake.

the DOT's airport access laws are specifically designed to ensure that federal airports are open to all who want to serve.

The reason why this case is an issue is because WN already controlled such a high percentage of gates at an airport that doesn't have anywhere near the space to accommodate the demand that could pass thru it.

WARA protects what WN had as of the 2006 and the end of the WA restrictions in Oct 2014.

There is no protection for DAL or WN because DL specifically met the guidelines for requesting service using space that was unused as of the date of DL's request, WN managed to obtain the UA gates despite DL's request, and WN has said on repeated occasions that they will fill the gates - after they obtain control over them.

If this were your personal building, you could do that.

It can't be done with an airport that receives federal funds.

The option is for DAL to become a private airport and for WN to pay 95% of the cost of operating the airport on its own. As long as it receives federal funds, it has to play by federal rules which do not give any priority over who holds ownership rights and instead is biased to maximizing competition and in giving carriers who don't have ownership/leaseholder status the ability to serve the airport.

 

[WNMECH]

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.

Nope. Not according to the WT theory of gate squatting.
Delta could have stayed there as long as they wanted with no lease agreement at all.
Then if AA asked for payment to stay a little longer, Delta could just say "no, that's too much, we won't pay"
Then Delta would threaten to sue the COD if they don't get their way.
They would also threaten to bring in a private security force (maybe Blackwater) to hold off AA if they tried to use their own legally leased gates.


Sound familiar?

 

[eolesen]

Yep, not sure how any court gets to tell a signatory carrier they don't have first right of refusal to their own leasehold...

DL had plenty of opportunity to pursue a lease and didn't.

Now, all the airlines who were prepared should be punished for having invested in DAL for the long term?

Redistribution of the wealth at any cost simply won't hold up in the courts.

 

[WNMECH]

I guess everyone who wanted to expand at Love, should have just announced flights and started selling tickets before they had valid leases.
Then they could just sue the COD for not being able to buy leases.

 

[AirLUVer]

I think everyone knows every one else's opinion on this.

None of those opinions count right now, just the Judges.

 

[WorldTraveler]

lots of people have opinions but few seem to understand the facts.

The issue, once again, is not anyone forcing DAL to do something it doesn't want to do.

This case is about whether DAL wants to meet US airport access rules or lose federal funding and be forced to operate DAL supported solely by local funds or on a private basis.

DAL clearly at WN's bidding wants everything to think that DAL is in a quandary between a dozen competing requirements but they simply are not.

If they want to receive federal airport funds, DAL has to make DAL available to all carriers that want to serve it, which just about by definition requires that WN cannot operate from more than 16 gates which is fully compatible with the WARA and every other document or law that governs DAL.

DAL is not willing to lose federal funding and the economics of DAL will become very unattractive for WN if they have to pay for the cost of operating the airport themselves.

but DAL does have a choice and no one is going to force them to give up space if they don't want to do so.

The choice is economic and the DOT will act with dollars; that is the most effective stick the federal government can use and that is the one that this case is about.

 

[700UW]

And you forget the WARA superceds DOT policy and WARA also is very specific to DAL and the other stuff doesn't apply.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, WARA does not supercede anything.

It is fully compatible with everything else that is at play. The only reason why DAL and you and WN's fankids here want to think there is a conflict is because they don't want to admit that WN has to live within the limits that WN agreed to in 2006.

The other stuff doesn't apply.

we'll put you down in the category "wrong to the finish" when the DOT tells DAL that they must accommodate DL and create the mechanisms to allow competitive carrier growth or lose federal funding.

for someone who is so quick to trash other people for speaking about subjects which they don't know, you are so far out of your league on this one that you aren't even in the ballpark... and you will be shown to be doing nothing but parroting WN's corporate bully tactics solely because they don't want to live within the 16 gate limit that they agreed to now that they know how much demand exists for their DAL flights.

The choice is and will be DAL's and they can bow to WN or WN can pay their bills.

I can assure you that VX won't stick around if DAL loses federal funding because the price of operating there will go thru the roof.

The economics of WN's DAL operation will look a lot different if they have to foot the bill that the feds help with at every other airport that has common use gates.

There is no conflict, WN knows it and is simply trying to gain as much space as they can before someone calls their bluff, but in the end the City of Dallas and WN will realize that federal laws do entitle the DOT to dictate the rules which include ample, long-term space for DL.

 

[700UW]

Even the city attorney who is part of the WARA disagree with you, they were part of the agreement, you nor DL were or are.

So where did you earn your law degree?

So show us how the DOT can violate Federal Law.

 

[FWAAA]

no, WARA does not supercede anything.

Yes, it does. That's what some of us have been saying repeatedly for several months now.

The lawyer at the DOT apparently disagrees, as do the DL lawyers and, of course, you.

On the other hand, the City's lawyers and WN's lawyers disagree with the group above.

Eventually, a federal judge will probably tell everyone which group is correct. And depending on who loses, federal appeals court judges will likely have to make some decisions.

 

[eolesen]

Pretty much there are two sides: DOT & DL, and everyone else.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Even the city attorney who is part of the WARA disagree with you, they were part of the agreement, you nor DL were or are.

So where did you earn your law degree?

So show us how the DOT can violate Federal Law.

 
 

Yes, it does. That's what some of us have been saying repeatedly for several months now.

The lawyer at the DOT apparently disagrees, as do the DL lawyers and, of course, you.

On the other hand, the City's lawyers and WN's lawyers disagree with the group above.

Eventually, a federal judge will probably tell everyone which group is correct. And depending on who loses, federal appeals court judges will likely have to make some decisions.

again, we are supposed to believe listening to you, WN, and the City of Dallas that the General Counsel of the DOT is ignorant of the laws involved here and have no idea about what is going on.....

or we can believe that the DOT actually is able to take a nationwide perspective while DAL and the COD is simply trying to protect WN's interests - which is what Delta said in the lawsuit it filed - that COD and DAL are engaged in collusion and antitrust - pretty heavy charges that carry some pretty severe penalties if proven to be true.
 

Pretty much there are two sides: DOT & DL, and everyone else.

and since DL is on the side of the federal agency that hands out the funds, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how this will end up....

either the City of Dallas decides it wants to operate a private airport or they make room for DL.

I'm waiting for the July 6 when WN refuses to allow the first DL arrival access to a gate, DAL refuses to intervene, and the DOT tells the TSA to go home and for DAL to cease passenger operations.

 

[700UW]

  I'm waiting for the July 6 when WN refuses to allow the first DL arrival access to a gate, DAL refuses to intervene, and the DOT tells the TSA to go home and for DAL to cease passenger operations.

The DOT isnt in charge of the TSA, you are truly clueless.
 
They fall under the Department of Homeland Security as of March 9, 2003.
 
Try again.
 
Keep up the lies and misinformation.

 

[WorldTraveler]

TSA is paid for by federal funds. If the DOT determines that DAL is no longer eligible funds for passenger operations, don't count on the TSA security checkpoints remaining open.

If you or anyone else doesn't think that the DOT is deadly serious about ensuring that DAL complies with the federal requirements IT agreed it and for which DOT can withhold funds if they aren't complied with, then you, WN, and DAL will be woefully surprised when they act.

This isn't a toothless little debate.

 

[700UW]

The DOT isnt in charge of the TSA, you are truly clueless.
 
They fall under the Department of Homeland Security as of March 9, 2003.
 
Try again.
 
Keep up the lies and misinformation.