Delta to keep SEA-HND (with conditions)

[WorldTraveler]

yes, .gov is indeed fallible and can be challenged in court.

if you don't agree, may I suggest you return to civics class... they still teach the division of Federal powers in Texas.


FWAAA is right that he argued that DL is being given no operational slack whatsoever and that is precisely the reason why it won't take very long for a court to rule the DOT's restrictions are not reasonable.

Even if the DOT wants to argue that DL has to SCHEDULE the flight at least every day, they have never required that or even mandated it for any other route award.

EVER.

And the DOT does not have the legal power to make up new rules in a route case without providing notice of its intent to change the rules.

and the order is illegal because it is imposing a restriction on DL and SEA-HND which it is not imposing on any other route, even the other US-HND routes.

and the very reason why DL is fighting the DOT's order is because it doesn't want to be in a position of having accepted the DOT's restrictions and then having the route taken for them because HND is closed due to storms (it happens more than you think) or SEA has any number of other weather problems - or the usual operational airline problems occur.

Given that AA/US cxld 5.9% of all of its flights in Feb, I can absolutely assure you that AA not only cxld many int'l flights but they cxld flights in limited access markets where AA holds route authority which they did not fulfill.


feel free to argue whether the DOT or DL is right.

I'll go out on a not very far limb and say that the 365 day operation, use it or lose it provisions will be relaxed.

 

[jcw]

Big difference between cancelations due to weather etc when the route was scheduled and was going to be flown vs not scheduling anything for a quarter

Tough one

 

[WorldTraveler]

the DOT needs to spell that out clearly. I don't disagree if they actually clarify that point.

DL doesn't believe it is clear.

I said before that DL would have to have the phone number of a DOT official to be ready to call should any operational issue arise in order to get their blessing.

the DOT will back off. It is unreasonable and won't stand up in court if DL decides to push it.

 

[jcw]

Agree with the issue the only problem is its of their own making

They played with fire and got burned

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, DL did not.

the DOT issued the SEA-HND route authority with a 90 day dormancy clause in it. DL operated within those guidelines.

DL did not receive any other notice from the DOT saying it needed to operate the route more faithfully. To argue that DL got slapped on the hand before is factually incorrect.

The DOT went from a 90 day dormancy to 100% every day operation. as with everything, I am willing to see where it ends up but I will strongly bet the DOT will back off to something more reasonable.

 

[topDawg]

Agree with the issue the only problem is its of their own making

They played with fire and got burned

So you are playing with fire every time you follow the law? Do you drive at the speed limit? if so, you of playing with fire. 
 

DL's objection didn't happen in a vacuum. Someone at DL most likely conferred with DOT, and was told "yes, we really are going to count every unauthorized cancellation against you, regardless of the reason."

Is it really draconian? Nope.

DL is that employee that everyone knows who called in sick so many times that they wound up on a third step for attendance.

Is it unfair that they now have to bring in a doctor's note for every absence in the next two years, while everyone else gets trusted at face value?

No, it's not unfair at all. It's called the consequences of escalation.

DL's legal team has a job to do, but this really sits in Hauenstein's lap. Planning is the one who decided to no-op the flights and push the limits of the regulations. Legal just has to come up with a good argument for a bad situation.

No, Delta is the employee that takes all their vacation days and the company gets pissed at them for it. 
 
Again, Delta followed the precedent that has been set. They follow the rules and because the government doesn't like the rules they change them as they want. 
 
How anyone can support government actions like that is beyond me. 

 

[topDawg]

You are incorrect, you pompous blowhard.

Note how the Delta lawyers are arguing that the proposed order forces DL to fly the route 365 days a year without fail or else risk a default? The only part of my post not duplicated by the Delta lawyers in DL's objections was the part about the hot spare or cancelling a different SEA-Asia flight.
 

Now you're just making things up. So when the DOT used the word "perform," what they really meant was "schedule"? Looks like the DL lawyers agree with me, and not you. But of course we all know that you're smarter than everyone, including Delta's lawyers.
 
 
You are such a doofus. I post an observation (a correct one, I might add) about the unprecedented nature of the DOT's proposed restrictions on Delta and this one route and not only do you say I'm wrong (when I wasn't) but you then launch into a nonsensical rant about your perceptions of my motivations in posting my observation. You're just a charlatan.
 

You should probably call Delta's lawyers and let them know that you and the charlatan know better than they do what the DOT is demanding in this proposed order.

thats cute, all i can go by is what management tells us. 
I didn't say I knew better than anyone, don't be like WT and put words in peoples mouths. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

and the irony is that in your rush to say that I am putting words in people's mouths is that we agree on this issue.

DL followed the letter of the law, the DOT started a route case to change the letter of the law, they have now swung completely to the other side of the issue, and they, not DL will be the ones that will back off their position.

 

[eolesen]

Again, Delta followed the precedent that has been set. They follow the rules and because the government doesn't like the rules they change them as they want. 
 
How anyone can support government actions like that is beyond me.

You still don't get it, Dawg. It's not that the government didn't like the rules - they didn't like how DL was choosing to interpret them.

DL chose to play loose with the spirit & intent of the dormancy rules, and apply the most advantageous interpretation possible. DOT really had no choice but to box them in so tightly there was no wiggle room to be played a third time.

Also keep in mind there's probably a lot more to this story than what's out in the public realm. DOT's former chief counsel is now on DL's payroll, and apparently has been since before AA and HA cried foul. DL had plenty of back channel access to the DOT prior to the award being announced, and for the award to be as brutal as it was says that either DL didn't take the hints that were offered by DOT, or that DL's been as cocky in dealing with DOT staff as they came across in their objection. Maybe both.

Had DL requested a real dormancy waiver, they would have probably received it and not gone thru any of this. But they didn't. They made up their own interpretation, and pissed off the regulators in the process.

This isn't like labor law where you have to follow past practice and precedents. DL already tried and failed to make the case that DOT couldn't review a standing authority. I really don't think they want to try and challenge DOT's authority to place explicit conditions on DL that don't apply to anyone else.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, E, the DOT gave DL the standard route award requirements which have 90 day dormancy provisions in it.

the same ones that allowed AA to NOT operate its JFK-HND route for periods that were just as long if not longer than what DL did with SEA-HND.

The same ones that UA used to not operate more than one daily flight's worth of frequencies to Brazil and which the DOT refused to catch.

DL caught the DOT in its own hypocrisy, told them as such, and now the DOT is spinning trying to justify why it decided to pick on SEA-HND when it has let other routes operate outside of the dormancy requirements.

and DL absolutely DID prove that the DOT can't revoke a standing route authority because the DOT decided to change the operating requirements AFTER the authority was awarded.

How you can write when you write based on the outcome of what actually happened is beyond belief.

The DOT did impose restrictions but they are so tough they aren't realistic and they aren't defensible.


I'm happy to see where it ends up but I have a feeling that DL's threat of a lawsuit is enough for the DOT to back off and impose something less than 7/24/365 use it or lose it requirements.

 

[Hope777]

I dont see DL pushing back to hard against the DOT just yet.   Once the DOT rules on the DAL gate issue, then I see DL pushing the envelope a little more.

 

[jimntx]

E, don't you just love it when someone has the hubris to say that "we proved to the agency that controls our working lives that it is wrong."  Now, if that isn't a way to win friends and influence regulators, I don't know what is.  I guess it's more of the "my momma doesn't believe I shot my wife, therefore I am innocent even though the police found me standing over the body with a gun in my hand" legal philosophy.
 
All of this after the controlling agency has slapped DL's hand and told them they weren't playing by the rules.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I dont see DL pushing back to hard against the DOT just yet.   Once the DOT rules on the DAL gate issue, then I see DL pushing the envelope a little more.

DL doesn't have to suck up to the DOT based on trying to win favor in this case or any other.

DL can and has threatened to take legal action against DAL and not the DOT which is of the same mind that DL is in the DAL case based on LAW.

on the same basis of LAW, if DL believes it has a case against the DOT on the basis of a requirement that DL operated 365 days per year without exception, then DL can and will win the case because the DOT never said that was the intent of the route case and they have NEVER required that kind of performance of any other airline on any other route.

DL will pursue its strategic objectives based on law and not on a need to suck up to anyone in order to gain their favor in this or any other case.

 

[eolesen]

E, don't you just love it when someone has the hubris to say that "we proved to the agency that controls our working lives that it is wrong."  Now, if that isn't a way to win friends and influence regulators, I don't know what is.  I guess it's more of the "my momma doesn't believe I shot my wife, therefore I am innocent even though the police found me standing over the body with a gun in my hand" legal philosophy.
 
All of this after the controlling agency has slapped DL's hand and told them they weren't playing by the rules.

Yep. I also can't think of any airline who has sued the FAA or DOT and won. I keep hoping DL will try it just so we can see the outcome.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'd far rather the DOT would come to its senses and realize that 365 day operation is not reasonable but likely also not defensible if it even went to court.

but yeah, let the case to court if necessary.

let's keep in mind that every one who has been a naysayer of DL's efforts to fight the DOT here are also the same ones that have repeatedly argued that DL should thrown in the towel and quit fighting a losing battle at DAL... and yet DL is still there.

when you're right, you've got to believe in yourself and prove it others who will come to see the truth.