Delta to keep SEA-HND (with conditions)

[topDawg]

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.

No i get it complete. The DOT has a 90 day dormancy rule. Its very simple. Fly the route every 90 days or lose it.
 
Delta has done it with other routes, (LAX-CUN for example)
United has done it with other routes (LAX-MEX for example)
 
and no one gave the smallest of craps about it.
But Delta does it with a HND slot and AA magically wants it(after already trying and failing badly from HND once).
 
So what is the difference in the case than the others?  

 

[topDawg]

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.

I didn't list any examples. 
 
FWIW you are very good at putting words into people's mouths. Do it to me and Kev all the time. Maybe not this thread though.... 

 

[WorldTraveler]

so you're arguing just for the sake of arguing? It doesn't really matter to this conversation but you didn't want to miss the chance to throw dirt, right?

yeah, we agree. DL played by the same rules that the DOT has used and not enforced for years.

DL waited for the DOT to decide that SEA should once again get the award so it is clear they are arguing about the terms of operation - which are beyond reasonable.

the DOT will back off because they are wrong.

DL is right to fight because DL doesn't want to allow the few remaining route awards to be subject to these kind of influences.

 

[MAH4546]

No i get it complete. The DOT has a 90 day dormancy rule. Its very simple. Fly the route every 90 days or lose it.
 
Delta has done it with other routes, (LAX-CUN for example)
United has done it with other routes (LAX-MEX for example)
 
and no one gave the smallest of craps about it.
But Delta does it with a HND slot and AA magically wants it(after already trying and failing badly from HND once).
 
So what is the difference in the case than the others?

The difference is that somebody else wanted the route! How is that not blatantly clear?

 

[WorldTraveler]

wrong. DL petitioned the DOT multiple times for UA's Brazil frequencies which were unused. And there are many examples of Latin frequencies that have been tied up with limited service while competitors have been trying to get in.

The DOT simply does not have a justification for the restrictions it placed on DL.

 

[FWAAA]

What did the DOT do when DL petitioned to strip UA of those Brazilian frequencies?

In the DL filings in this HND case, the DL lawyers went on and on about how AA had played the same games with some of its limited-frequency awards, but I don't recall DL filing any petitions to strip AA of those awards.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I don't know if DL filed against AA but DL did against UA and the DOT did not open a case for UA's unused Brazil frequencies other than the 2 flights/week which DL used to start LAX-GRU and which were transferred to DTW and then supplemented with conversions of DL's GIG frequencies to the unlimited frequencies which allowed the restricted frequencies to be used to fill out the DTW-GRU schedule to daily. DL petitioned the DOT to strip UA of their unused frequencies which were later leased to US - and have since been abandoned. Brazil becomes an Open Skies market in about 6 months.

it doesn't matter if it was DL or anyone else, if the DOT has failed to be consistent in the past, it is hard to argue that they can now impose a zero tolerance policy on DL.

as much as some want to believe otherwise, there is nothing intrinsically special about HND.

 

[eolesen]

In the past, DL did petition for the DOT to revoke CO's authority when they didn't deliver as promised on a service level, but that was in 1998, DOT-OST-1998-3863:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-1998-3863-0171

CO agreed to temporarily let DL use the unused frequencies until CO was ready to provide daily service, and DOT ruled accordingly.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-1998-3863-0186

I didn't see anything where DL petitioned to have frequencies removed from UA, but Regulations.Gov's search capabilities leave a lot to be desired. Feel free to post a docket number if you have one.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you can read it in DL's case to the DOT. I doubt very seriously that DL would lie to them.

 

[topDawg]

The difference is that somebody else wanted the route! How is that not blatantly clear?

 
 
Delta wants AA's frequencies to GRU. Should the DOT strip them if they have a mechanical cancellation?   
 
(before someone says something stupid, the correct answer is no....) 
 

What did the DOT do when DL petitioned to strip UA of those Brazilian frequencies?

In the DL filings in this HND case, the DL lawyers went on and on about how AA had played the same games with some of its limited-frequency awards, but I don't recall DL filing any petitions to strip AA of those awards.

Are we talking about the two unused for many years Pan Am frequencies United had that Delta used to start LAX-GRU (then moved to DTW-GRU IIRC)?
 
because that isn't apples to apples. United wasn't using them for years and Delta asked for them. Delta didn't ask for them when United was using them every 90 days to keep them from going dormant.   (and United didn't even care when Delta got them) 

 

[topDawg]

In the past, DL did petition for the DOT to revoke CO's authority when they didn't deliver as promised on a service level, but that was in 1998, DOT-OST-1998-3863:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-1998-3863-0171

CO agreed to temporarily let DL use the unused frequencies until CO was ready to provide daily service, and DOT ruled accordingly.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-1998-3863-0186

I didn't see anything where DL petitioned to have frequencies removed from UA, but Regulations.Gov's search capabilities leave a lot to be desired. Feel free to post a docket number if you have one.

And you would support CO not being able to have a mechanical cancellation on said route then right?  

 

[eolesen]

The key difference is that CO wasn't trying to argue that someone else shouldn't be able to use those slots, and they were at least living up to more of the spirit of the authority in providing service four days a week, as opposed to one week every eight weeks....

CO wasn't going to use three of the seven slots they were awarded, so they relinquished them until they were in a position to resume, and they ultimately lost those three slots to DL.

DL, OTOH, has been arguing DOT doesn't have the right to decide how they were used. First, when they said that they shouldn't do a new route authority decision, and second, when they didn't like the terms that came down.

I did find the DL request -- it was in DOT-OST-2008-0270 --- there was no actual proceeding. DOT just acted because there were enough frequencies for all of the requests at hand.

UA surrendeded the frequencies, but I find it humorous that some people are now characterizing it as "DL demanded UA's unused frequencies be revoked" when what really happened is AA filed for one of the frequencies, and DL filed a request a week later, characterized as a "me too!" request...

What's more interesting... DL insisted that giving it LAX-GRU authority was in the public's interest. They flew the route from 2009-05 to 2009-08, went dormant (irony, eh?) from 16-Aug-2009 to 06-Oct-2009, and then withdrew entirely from the route on 29-Jul-2010. Three months later, they started up DTW-GRU, but using newly awarded slots.

Not exactly a compelling argument to quote a case where DL started up a route and then dropping it, eh?

 

[topDawg]

The key difference is that CO wasn't trying to argue that someone else shouldn't be able to use those slots, and they were at least living up to more of the spirit of the authority in providing service four days a week, as opposed to one week every eight weeks....

CO wasn't going to use three of the seven slots they were awarded, so they relinquished them until they were in a position to resume, and they ultimately lost those three slots to DL.

DL, OTOH, has been arguing DOT doesn't have the right to decide how they were used. First, when they said that they shouldn't do a new route authority decision, and second, when they didn't like the terms that came down.

I did find the DL request -- it was in DOT-OST-2008-0270

The key difference is that CO wasn't trying to argue that someone else shouldn't be able to use those slots, and they were at least living up to more of the spirit of the authority in providing service four days a week, as opposed to one week every eight weeks....

CO wasn't going to use three of the seven slots they were awarded, so they relinquished them until they were in a position to resume, and they ultimately lost those three slots to DL.

DL, OTOH, has been arguing DOT doesn't have the right to decide how they were used. First, when they said that they shouldn't do a new route authority decision, and second, when they didn't like the terms that came down.

I did find the DL request -- it was in DOT-OST-2008-0270

but that isn't what I asked, what I asked was would you support CO or any other airline having any authority pulled for a mechanical?

or just Delta with SEA-HND?

 

[eolesen]

but that isn't what I asked, what I asked was would you support CO or any other airline having any authority pulled for a mechanical?

or just Delta with SEA-HND?

If you can show where another airline was playing fast and loose with the dormancy provisions by only operating one week every eight weeks just to avoid losing an authority, then I'd support having the same harsh restrictions put in place.

It is no different to me than how FAA is more lenient with fines on airlines who don't rack up a lot of violations, and harsher on repeat offenders....

You and WT have been trying to make the case that DL's acted like any other airline who had frequencies which weren't being used as they were intended to. That's a huge falsehood. AA wasn't able to get results from their JFK-HND frequencies, so they relinquished them back the DOT. CO wasn't using frequencies to Brasil, and didn't object when DL asked for them. UA wasn't using frequencies, and didn't object when AA and DL asked for them.

Really, the only contemporary example I've ever seen with an airline being downright petulant with the DOT regarding an authority they held has been DL.

If you have examples other than the ones that have been debunked, bring 'em on.

 

[topDawg]

If you can show where another airline was playing fast and loose with the dormancy provisions by only operating one week every eight weeks just to avoid losing an authority, then I'd support having the same harsh restrictions put in place.

It is no different to me than how FAA is more lenient with fines on airlines who don't rack up a lot of violations, and harsher on repeat offenders....

You and WT have been trying to make the case that DL's acted like any other airline who had frequencies which weren't being used as they were intended to. That's a huge falsehood. AA wasn't able to get results from their JFK-HND frequencies, so they relinquished them back the DOT. CO wasn't using frequencies to Brasil, and didn't object when DL asked for them. UA wasn't using frequencies, and didn't object when AA and DL asked for them.

Really, the only contemporary example I've ever seen with an airline being downright petulant with the DOT regarding an authority they held has been DL.

If you have examples other than the ones that have been debunked, bring 'em on.

I have. 
Delta has done it with LAX-CUN and GDL for sure. 
United did it with LAX-MEX also. 
 
No one pulled an AA and asked for them though. 
 
 
and what you are saying is Delta should be punished because they followed the letter of the law, so you should get a speeding ticket even if you are going the speed limit right?