Judge Rules That Delta can stay at Love field

[700UW]

Idiotic?

You stated no airline could run mainline planes into DAL, I clearly pointed out to you that AA ran mainline seat reduced F100s into DAL.

Is that clear for you or do you need a picture drawn with crayons?

 

[Kev3188]

Was there any particular reason why DL chose to pass in securing a lease (or leases) before now?

 

[FWAAA]

Major airlines were not allowed to .The only way for DL to fly to Atlanta was for a commuter airline to it. DL had a hub there but only AA was a hometown airline so their motive was to protect their home turf .If this situation had happened in atl then DL would have done the. Same as AA. Similar to why AT couldn't fly to dal prior to the merger and wn couldn't fly to atl from dal. Then the law changed.

Your post is incorrect.

Major airlines were allowed to fly from DAL to any domestic destination during the Wright Amendment provided the plane had no more than 56 seats. Delta could have flown 56-seat DC-9s from DAL to any city within range. Delta could have flown 50-seat RJs from DAL to any destination within range. Delta chose not to until 2009 when it began flying 50-seat RJs at DAL. Obviously, the majors chose to outsource their 50-seat flying to commuter carriers, but that did not prevent DL from obtaining gates during the 1979 to 2006 period.

 

[metopower]

Was there any particular reason why DL chose to pass in securing a lease (or leases) before now?

Yes.. Their commuter airline had gate access. It wasn't until after the demise of the wright amendment and wn attempt to secure ALL gates that this mess started by way of the usair-AA merger divestment. Then the ua- wn gate lease. Now you have a monopoly .

 

[Hope777]

Yes.. Their commuter airline had gate access. It wasn't until after the demise of the wright amendment and wn attempt to secure ALL gates that this mess started by way of the usair-AA merger divestment. Then the ua- wn gate lease. Now you have a monopoly .

So World Fruadster, WHY not Lease instead of Sub-Lease?

 

[metopower]

So World Fruadster, WHY not Lease instead of Sub-Lease?

What with the insults? It was probably a business decision. Grow up.

 

[FWAAA]

Was there any particular reason why DL chose to pass in securing a lease (or leases) before now?

Excellent question, the answer to which none of us will ever know. By not leasing a gate or two between the 1974 move to DFW and 2006 (when it became too late to lease gates), Delta saved a few dollars. IIRC, AA continued to lease space at DAL even when DFW opened and everyone agreed to move out of DAL (except, of course, for WN).

In 2009, when DL began RJ service to ATL and MEM, it was too late to lease space from DAL, as all 20 gates were already spoken for in 2006, so Delta subleased space from AA.

Had AA not agreed to relinquish its two gates in the merger, Delta's sublease would have been terminated by AA on or before October 14, 2014, so that AA could have begun to fly mainline planes from DAL.

If Delta is able to pull this off and stay at DAL, then its strategy will have really paid off, as it didn't incur any real estate costs at DAL between 1974 and 2009. Meanwhile, CO, AA and WN leased space at DAL for many years before that space could be used for full-capacity mainline flights to any domestic destination.  
 

Yes.. Their commuter airline had gate access. It wasn't until after the demise of the wright amendment and wn attempt to secure ALL gates that this mess started by way of the usair-AA merger divestment. Then the ua- wn gate lease. Now you have a monopoly .

Delta could have planned ahead but didn't. DL subleased space from AA from 2009 until 2013 which DL in turn provided to its regional partner for the flights to ATL and MEM.

 

[eolesen]

Yes.. Their commuter airline had gate access. It wasn't until after the demise of the wright amendment and wn attempt to secure ALL gates that this mess started by way of the usair-AA merger divestment. Then the ua- wn gate lease. Now you have a monopoly .

Yeah, not quite. People who rely on DL CorpComm for their facts are (still) claiming that WN took everything over, but the public record and court testimony shows otherwise.

DL was approached twice in the last 24-30 months by UA, after the AA-VX deal and before WN approached UA.

Both times, DL declined to take over a lease.

When you have the chance to obtain a lease (twice) and turn it down (twice), there really isn't much of an argument to be made that you're being excluded from having a presence.

That's public record, and it might be part of what ultimately seals DL's fate at DAL.

Oh, and the commuter airline that you say had gate access? DL was relying on a per-gate agreement with someone who was subleasing from UA. That's probably why DL was given more or less first right of refusal (twice).

There's no other way to frame this than DL screwing up their lease, and it wasn't anything under the table or that they could claim to being blindsided by.

 

[swamt]

Major airlines WERE allowed to fly to DAL, they just had to follow the restrictions.
AA reconfigured the F100 to less seats to meet the restrictions and drove Legend out.
So I hope you realize the F100 was a mainline AA aircraft.
So try again and don't let the facts get in your way.
Too much DL koolade?[/quote

I can't even follow your idiotic post. Maybe that is why the f100 was PARKED long before it was timed out. Not economical to fly those routes. I can't help it if the other airlines were not so stupid as to compete against wn with a mainline airplane.

 
 

Your post is incorrect.

Major airlines were allowed to fly from DAL to any domestic destination during the Wright Amendment provided the plane had no more than 56 seats. Delta could have flown 56-seat DC-9s from DAL to any city within range. Delta could have flown 50-seat RJs from DAL to any destination within range. Delta chose not to until 2009 when it began flying 50-seat RJs at DAL. Obviously, the majors chose to outsource their 50-seat flying to commuter carriers, but that did not prevent DL from obtaining gates during the 1979 to 2006 period.

Thx FWAAA, you beat me to it. I believe the 56 or less seat rule was the only restriction for non-stops beyond the W/A perimeter, hence why AA reconfigured down to 56 or less seats and filed all the suits to force Legend to spend so much money in the courts and go out of business.  I do not know the exact dates but once Legend went under, it was very shortly after that when AA stopped the 56 seaters out of DAL.
I too can't believe Delta never leased their own gates when they had the chances to. Another great time for them to do so was when SWA first kicked off the big W/A repeal fight which I believe started as far back as late 2003 early 2004 at a time when Delta was drastically cutting DFW flights by the hundreds and hundreds. They should have been a lot more pro-active during this time to prepare for any out come, but I honestly think Delta thought SWA had no chance on changing the W/A and made their decisions based on that, a very bad business decision.
 

Was there any particular reason why DL chose to pass in securing a lease (or leases) before now?

 
 

Excellent question, the answer to which none of us will ever know. By not leasing a gate or two between the 1974 move to DFW and 2006 (when it became too late to lease gates), Delta saved a few dollars. IIRC, AA continued to lease space at DAL even when DFW opened and everyone agreed to move out of DAL (except, of course, for WN).

In 2009, when DL began RJ service to ATL and MEM, it was too late to lease space from DAL, as all 20 gates were already spoken for in 2006, so Delta subleased space from AA.

Had AA not agreed to relinquish its two gates in the merger, Delta's sublease would have been terminated by AA on or before October 14, 2014, so that AA could have begun to fly mainline planes from DAL.

If Delta is able to pull this off and stay at DAL, then its strategy will have really paid off, as it didn't incur any real estate costs at DAL between 1974 and 2009. Meanwhile, CO, AA and WN leased space at DAL for many years before that space could be used for full-capacity mainline flights to any domestic destination.  
 

Delta could have planned ahead but didn't. DL subleased space from AA from 2009 until 2013 which DL in turn provided to its regional partner for the flights to ATL and MEM.

Even little ole Sea Port airlines was able to secure gates at DAL.  And I still can't believe that Delta did not jump on the 2 gates that UAL did in fact offer to UAL as well as SWA and Virgin, Delta simply responded that their (UAL's) sub-lease offer was too expensive so they passed, Virgin also passed at that time and SWA jump on them and agreed to the terms and this is why SWA now owns the extra 2 gates above the original 16.  Delta has had many, many chances to have gates at DAL, bad business decisions has now kept them from having any gates and it's ALL Delta's fault for missing out.  And now Delta wants to try and use back door moves to try and stay and whine and cry about it to get their round about way at DAL.  You snooze, you loose Delta now quit whining about it and go back to DFW...

 

[swamt]

Yeah, not quite. People who rely on DL CorpComm for their facts are (still) claiming that WN took everything over, but the public record and court testimony shows otherwise.

DL was approached twice in the last 24-30 months by UA, after the AA-VX deal and before WN approached UA.

Both times, DL declined to take over a lease.

When you have the chance to obtain a lease (twice) and turn it down (twice), there really isn't much of an argument to be made that you're being excluded from having a presence.

That's public record, and it might be part of what ultimately seals DL's fate at DAL.

Oh, and the commuter airline that you say had gate access? DL was relying on a per-gate agreement with someone who was subleasing from UA. That's probably why DL was given more or less first right of refusal (twice).

There's no other way to frame this than DL screwing up their lease, and it wasn't anything under the table or that they could claim to being blindsided by.

Bingo!  Delta was made the offer first, then the offer went over to Virgin (although it may have been done verbally)  and then SWA approached UAL after Delta rejected it twice as you already indicated, and Virgin also passed so SWA jumped on it.  It's all public record, and yes I too think your right that those 2 rejections as well as the time frame from 2003 thru 2005, and of coarse not to mention the time frame from 1979 and on.  Delta's 2 rejections were in fact after they knew the W/A restrictions were amended.  If Delta was smart they would get with other airlines that want in at DAL and visit exactly what this Judge has thrown out there about just removing the restrictions all together and open the gate limit back to the original 32 gates, it would be a win-win for everyone and more competition to help keep the fares low. At least this way even maybe one of the ULCC's could also move in at DAL...

 

[eolesen]

No, it won't be a win-win.

The only parties who win with going back to 32 gates are those parties who had nothing to lose when WARA was first passed ten years ago, and did nothing along the way.

It's still a loss for Lemmon Ave. Partners, who had to tear down their terminal. It's still a loss to AA, who invested millions in rehabbing the old BN Banjo terminal (where they had 6 gates) and paid leases for years on that terminal even though they weren't using it, because they knew the opening of DAL was coming.

It will also be a loss for the people living in the area who have been lied to for over 40 years about airport noise, and anyone living east of the airport who has to deal with the traffic.


This country wasn't built on rewarding apathy. Your plan seems to do just that.

 

[FWAAA]

If Delta was smart they would get with other airlines that want in at DAL and visit exactly what this Judge has thrown out there about just removing the restrictions all together and open the gate limit back to the original 32 gates, it would be a win-win for everyone and more competition to help keep the fares low. At least this way even maybe one of the ULCC's could also move in at DAL...

A federal judge writes the most obvious (and off-topic) observation in his opinion and you're posted about it repeatedly like it has a real possibility of happening. Think of it like a judge asked to decide a custody dispute of a single-child couple; telling them to have a second child so that each could have custody of one isn't what the dispute was about.

This judge was tasked with deciding whether DL was a trespasser and could be evicted, and after discussing that relevant issue, Judge Captain Obvious says "the politicians could fix all this." Duh.

The 20-gate limit probably won't last forever, but the judge's reference to a political solution in his opinion isn't going to result in any changes to the 20-gate cap.

 

[swamt]

I disagree some here.  When I say win-win for all I mean SWA could get more gates to expand (no not all--some) Virgin could get more gates and expand, Delta could get gates (a real lease all to themselves) and expand and add flights as they want to, AA could get gates and add flights, and maybe even others including ULCC's could start service out of DAL, United could even come back.  Win-win for the city with added revenue, income, jobs, passengers etc..  By adding more competition at DAL will help keep or even lower air fares even lower which will help DFW traffic increase as the fares over there will also go down.  Win-win for passengers using DAL including people that live near DAL as far as fares will go down as well as more options.  Probably not win-win so much as the noise is concerned for the close by residents, but they moved near by the whole time DAL has been an airfield so if they don't like the noise they can move away, but they won't, it's way too convenient of a location to live this close to downtown.  I don't feel sorry for anyone who complains about airport noises when it was their choice to move within 1/2 mile to a mile of the airport and even within blocks right into the flight path for landings and take offs.  There are new apartments just one block (maybe less) they are just across the street with full blown views of the entire airfield and there are only 2 streets between them and the flight path at which during take offs are at their loudest and these apartments are not cheap it has everything to do with convenience to DT and walking distances to shopping, eating, parks, lakes, entertainment, bars etc...  
Now one big negative, at least until the restructuring of all road ways around the airport are done, as well as mockingbird lane and other new routs planned to get to the airport are done, yes traffic will be congested for some time as well as the parking at the airport until all the added parking garages and parking lots are done, if I am not mistaken the parking issues are suppose to be resolved by 2017 or 2018 at the latest. The biggest change to traffic will be if the approval for Mockingbird Lane to go underground at the South end of the runways, the biggest headache for that is they already took the Dart train below ground (under Mockingbird lane) just West of Denton drive which is the intersection right at the South West corner of DAL airport, it will be tough to do and I would think very, very expensive. Sorry for rambling but wanted to give a good description on what is planned for the future around DAL, A lot of massive upgrades are coming, including cleaning up and up grading all real estate around DAL...

 

[swamt]

A federal judge writes the most obvious (and off-topic) observation in his opinion and you're posted about it repeatedly like it has a real possibility of happening. Think of it like a judge asked to decide a custody dispute of a single-child couple; telling them to have a second child so that each could have custody of one isn't what the dispute was about.

This judge was tasked with deciding whether DL was a trespasser and could be evicted, and after discussing that relevant issue, Judge Captain Obvious says "the politicians could fix all this." Duh.

The 20-gate limit probably won't last forever, but the judge's reference to a political solution in his opinion isn't going to result in any changes to the 20-gate cap.

Not saying it will happen just saying now might be the best time to start attacking it with help from others that want in since none of the 5 party participants are suppose to pursue changes...
Best time for Delta to react if they want more at DAL. But if not then so be it leave DAL the way it is which would mean no added flights for Delta...

 

[topDawg]

Yeah, not quite. People who rely on DL CorpComm for their facts are (still) claiming that WN took everything over, but the public record and court testimony shows otherwise.
 

UA offered the leases at a price that was to high for Delta. Expecting Delta to write and overpriced check to United for gate space is EXACTLY WHY this industry is such a dumpster fire most of the time. As a Delta investor, taking the employee side out, them walking makes me happy. 
 
 
and also why the only airline I have stock in currently is Delta. Oh and that isn't Delta corpcom, thats basic economics. I don't expect you to write a blank check to the bank to keep your house E. (and I also don't expect you to just move if they were to decide you have to pay an extra 500K just cause)