Judge sets dates for Dallas Love Field hearings

[swamt]

And now this. Seaport is pulling out of DAL Love Field, date set for a Sept 1st.  They only have 2 flights a day out of DAL. Using a shared gate with Virgin, and they have to pull out a battery operated computer to operate their gate transactions 2 hours prior to each flight.  Now with this in mind will this help the gate issue at DAL? No. It will not. However with that said, It does look like Delta could very well get a little room to remain at DAL and they should try and work out a deal with Virgin in order to use their gate to operate 2 flights a day after the deadline of their temporary gate usage ends.  Pretty sure Virgin will use this time to add flights.  And after reading this article, it may be too much of a hassle for them to use the "shared gates" with Virgin.  BUT, then again, If they (Delta) is permitted to remain at DAL then I am positive that SWA would be able to let them share a gate with them and they too may find the issue of "sharing agate" is too much to deal with.  Getting more and more interesting by the day now...
  Forgot to add the article of Seaport pulling out---Here it is...
 
Dallas Love Field to lose service from one airline (the smallest one)

 

[WorldTraveler]

Accommodation is an airport requirement not something the airlines have to do among themselves. WN and DL are continuing with the status quo of the UA sublease but the accommodation requirements are what will be reviewed by the judge and what will decide the case. VX did not have space to accommodate DL at the time of DL's request while WN did

 

[swamt]

The COD once again thinks that SWA will prevail in the courts unless the Judge decides to pull a special case instance.  COD also says that this is a real estate/ lease issue and that SWA will more than likely prevail.  If Delta were to come out as the winner of these gates just think what this would start around the US airports.  Especially all the ones that have limits or restrictions.  You would see many suits to start flooding the courts just for a shot at a judge to rule in their favor to do what Delta is trying to do, become squatters and not be aloud to continue leasing.  Think of it this way.  A house owner leases out their house, they decide they are going to sell the house and retire.  At the end of current lease they notify the leasers that they were no longer going to lease to them at the end of current lease and they needed to find another place to go.  The leasers file a suit to stop from being kicked out, the leasers find out in court that they must leave at the end of their lease anyway and really all they accomplished was delays and extensions of the inevitable.  I am very confident that Delta's time at DAL is merely numbered.  This judge would have to pull a wild card of enormous proportions and give solid and legal reasons for it and I don't think he will risk that.  SWA knows it has done right as they were the very first ones who filed the suit before anyone else, then the COD also filed to also get a ruling then Delta finally jumped on board and started putting in briefs and getting involved.  To this day (I think) Delta still has not filed any suit what-so-ever as they claim they were going to do, it had been SWA and the COD that filed all the suits, NOT Delta.  Delta might want to start spending some time talking with Virgin real quick about taking Seaports spot on sharing a gate to keep some flights at DAL.  Pretty sure this will go SWA's direction when it's all said and done...

 

[FWAAA]

If Virgin America wants to share some space with Delta, then that's VX's call; but if VX says "we have no room," then VX doesn't have to do anything, nor can Delta or Dallas or the DoT do anything about it. VX is entitled to fully use its two gates leased from AA regardless of any DoT regulations or laws on airport access. VX is entitled to that special position due to its selection by the Justice Department in settling the AA/US merger antitrust action.

The DoT cannot (does not and will not) overrule the DoJ to force any accommodation of DL at the two AA/VX gates. If DL is able to leverage its pre-October 14 DAL service into perpetual gate space, then DL will be using one of the other 18 gates. Of course, that would end if VX gives up. But until VX surrenders, its two preferential use gates can be used exclusively by VX.

 

[WorldTraveler]

once again, let' remember that the judge will decide the case. we can all enjoy debating our position but someone else will get to make the decision.

I happen to agree completely with FWAAA. VX is in a protected status in this discussion although they don't appear that they are attempting to flaunt that position but rather they do not want to provide a basis for DL to claim rights to the gates. VX has used its gates close to full capacity - at least not enough to have space for what DL operates and wants to operate.

in many ways, the same can be said about WN's original 16 gates. There very well could be protection for WN's ORIGINAL 16 gates that existed at the time WARA was signed. The case likely will not even attempt to challenge the legality of WARA or whether WARA has priority over the DOJ's airport access laws.

The issue that is at the heart of the legal challenge is whether a carrier like UA can leave an airport, have its lease transferred to another carrier while another carrier - DL in this case - has a pending request with the airport to add service as well as to continue the service that DL operated under a valid lease with UA.

Unlike what some here believe, the intention of the DOT's airport access laws is to prevent a large carrier from obtaining space at an airport and driving out the competition. The irony is that the laws were orginally intended to protect low cost carriers and new entrants in legacy carrier hubs and major airports where there is little access for new entrants but where legacy carriers dominate the airport.

Unlike what some people think, DL was not squatting and these laws to not provide any mechanism for any airline to come into an airport and start flights without a valid lease.

However, once a lease has been granted and a carrier starts service, it is almost impossible for an airport to tell that carrier that it cannot continue to operate those flights because the space is being acquired by another carrier.

It is precisely to promote competition and to prevent WN from doing what it has done at WN - monopolizing gates to the exclusion of other carriers - that these rules exist. DL could not be making a case if WN was fully using its gates and if DAL had provided common use gates. In both cases, that didn't happen.

Further, in the second part of the issue, DOT regulations require that if a non-leaseholding airline wants to add flights and a leaseholding airline is not fully using its gates, the airport must accommodate the carrier requesting space. IN the case of DAL, WN acquired the two ex-UA gates with no announced schedule for those gates even while DL had an accommodation request in place with DAL to not only maintain its current flights but to add flights to DTW,MSP, and SLC. DOT regulations specifically state that a carrier cannot hold gates without an announced schedule. IN fact, WN did exactly what DL expected they would which was to announce schedules to the same cities DL wanted to serve even while telling DL that WN had no space - which is about as an aggregious violation of antitrust laws as there could be.

DL will very likely be accommodated not only for its existing ATL-DAL flights but will also be accommodated to add additional flights and the accommodation will be on the 2 ex-UA gates on the basis that WN had room in its schedule above what it had announced on both its original 16 gates but even more so on the ex-UA gates - and the accommodation will be on the ex-UA gates.

DAL could have resolved the issue if it had converted either the ex-UA or the AA gates to common use which the DOT recommended and DAL asked for. Since that didn't happen, DL found space that was unused and made an accommodation request at the appropriate time.

DAL and WN will not likely admit they were wrong but the judge will decide.

 

[700UW]

You still dont and probably ever will get it.

The WARA Exempts DAL from normal DOT regulations and other Federal Laws, its spelled out quite clear in the WARA.
 
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
WN wanted to get into LGA, they couldnt until someone gave up slots.  Just like LGA and DCA are treated different than other airports.

 

[WorldTraveler]

actually I do get it.

DAL is NOT exempt from other "normal" DOT regulations and other Federal laws including antitrust laws. WN has SOME exemptions regarding DAL but nowhere near what you or they think.

and most significantly, WN is not free to expand at DAL beyond its 16 gates that were protected under WARA WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH all Federal and airport access laws including antitrust laws.

WN and you wanted to believe that they had an unlimited get out of jail card that they could use at DAL to run competitors out of town and dominate the airport even while they ran through Washngton telling everyone how necessary they were to add competition and balance at DCA and LGA.

They were wrong. They are protected for 16 gates. They convined DAL that WN should be free to dominate an airport far beyond what any legacy carrier has at any other airport. No legacy carrier has 80% of the gates at any airport l et alone 90% as well as a license to keep the competition out.

WN doesn't have that at DAL but they have tried mightily to convince a whole lot of people including you that they did.

WN will be forced to comply with federal access laws on the 2 ex-UA gates which DAL should have converted to common use gates.

WN wll have to accommodate DL's operation and if WN has to trim its schedule to ensure DL's operational reliability, then WN will have to make the cuts.

WN vastly overstetpped its legal authority, DL knew what it had to do to remain at DAL, the DOT has sided with DL from the beginning of this case, and WN and DAL will learn to comply with federal law or pay for the cost of operating DAL without federal airport money - that is the way the system works. And neither DAL or WN is exempt from it.

The judge will not only decide but help you, WN and DAL see why those laws cannot be compromised

 

[700UW]

(E) to limit the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other Federal agency to enforce requirements of law and grant assurances (including subsections (a)(1), (a)(4), and (s) of section 47107 of title 49, United States Code) that impose obligations on Love Field to make its facilities available on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis to air carriers seeking to use such facilities, or to withhold grants or deny applications to applicants violating such obligations with respect to Love Field.
 
(2) FACILITIES- Paragraph (1)(E)--
(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a); and
(C) shall not be construed to require the city of Dallas, Texas--
(i) to construct additional gates beyond the 20 gates referred to in subsection (a); or
(ii) to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases with air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity to new entrants or to create common use gates, unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis
 
SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
The provisions of this Act shall apply to actions taken with respect to Love Field, Texas, or air transportation to or from Love Field, Texas, and shall have no application to any other airport (other than an airport owned or operated by the city of Dallas or the city of Fort Worth, or both).

 

[swamt]

If Virgin America wants to share some space with Delta, then that's VX's call; but if VX says "we have no room," then VX doesn't have to do anything, nor can Delta or Dallas or the DoT do anything about it. VX is entitled to fully use its two gates leased from AA regardless of any DoT regulations or laws on airport access. VX is entitled to that special position due to its selection by the Justice Department in settling the AA/US merger antitrust action.

The DoT cannot (does not and will not) overrule the DoJ to force any accommodation of DL at the two AA/VX gates. If DL is able to leverage its pre-October 14 DAL service into perpetual gate space, then DL will be using one of the other 18 gates. Of course, that would end if VX gives up. But until VX surrenders, its two preferential use gates can be used exclusively by VX.

Virgin is struggling at DAL Love Field with just 19 flights out of 2 gates.  They are having problems getting their planes off the ground on time at DAL.  There have been rumors that Virgin is going to cut back some flights to more like 7-8 flights per gate, however, I also think they are waiting to do so until after a ruling is made.  Hence; Delta gone? No prob, cut back to 7-8 flights with no worries. Or if by a long shot Delta is allowed to stay and SWA has to share a gate with Delta, then Virgin again could cut their flights to 7-8 with no worries.  But for now I see them leaving the flights until ruling is done.  I also don't see Virgin sharing as they are having trouble with their flights now with 2 gates and not sharing with anyone.  I was being a little sarcastic when I said Delta should go talk to Virgin, but it wouldn't be a bad idea before it is too late and they have to transfer all their flights over to DFW.  It was just a friendly suggestion.  Below is an article with Cush saying how difficult it is to run 19 flights out of 2 gates, and says he thinks 10 flights per gate is too much for them to handle...
 
Worse Than LaGuardia: Virgin America Scorns Dallas Air Delays

 

[swamt]

You still dont and probably ever will get it.
The WARA Exempts DAL from normal DOT regulations and other Federal Laws, its spelled out quite clear in the WARA.
 
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
WN wanted to get into LGA, they couldnt until someone gave up slots.  Just like LGA and DCA are treated different than other airports.

 
 

(E) to limit the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other Federal agency to enforce requirements of law and grant assurances (including subsections (a)(1), (a)(4), and (s) of section 47107 of title 49, United States Code) that impose obligations on Love Field to make its facilities available on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis to air carriers seeking to use such facilities, or to withhold grants or deny applications to applicants violating such obligations with respect to Love Field.
 
(2) FACILITIES- Paragraph (1)(E)--
(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a); and
(C) shall not be construed to require the city of Dallas, Texas--
(i) to construct additional gates beyond the 20 gates referred to in subsection (a); or
(ii) to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases with air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity to new entrants or to create common use gates, unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis
 
SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
The provisions of this Act shall apply to actions taken with respect to Love Field, Texas, or air transportation to or from Love Field, Texas, and shall have no application to any other airport (other than an airport owned or operated by the city of Dallas or the city of Fort Worth, or both).

All I have to do is read your postings to know what is going on.  Some of us out here as well as yourself have posted the WARA for him to read several times and you are correct he will never "get it".  He is merely in denile and doesn't want to accept that it is more than likely very ugly and bad news for Delta (and of course everyone was right out here except for him)  and he just could not deal with that and will go off the deep end again when/if Delta is kicked to the curb at Mockingbird and Cedar Springs Dr. with 5 pieces of luggage representing their 5 flights to ATL, on the cell phone calling Uber to rush them over to DFW airport...
 
And I quote:  “Even if it proves feasible and safe for Delta to operate five daily flights, the court likely will agree with Southwest that Southwest’s preferential gate rights under its lease give it the right to expand further in the future to recapture the gate slots that Delta now uses.”

 

[WorldTraveler]

first of all DE NILE is a river in Egypt. Denial is the word you were looking for and there is no spell check of the English language that can be used to justify that error.

DENIAL is refusing to recognize that the DOT Is not run by a bunch of stupid, ignorant people who have no clue about all of the laws that are at play.

And for the 16th jillion time, WN has NO legal protection for its activities at DAL above the 16 gates that it had at the time WARA was created.

You and others want to believe that WN has an unlimited, no expiration date get out of jail card which they can use to eliminate whatever competition that might exist. They simply do not and they also are not exempt from antitrust laws and enforcement of them.

You two can beat your chests as long as you want but there is ZERO chance that DL will be kicked out of DAL so that WN can occupy and use the exUA gates which were acquired after WARA and also with the full intention of starting WN flights to cities which DL had already announced they would serve. The antitrust case against WN for starting service to cities which DL said it would serve as part of its accommodation request would take any federal judge about 2 minutes to rule on.

and a judge will rule... and if the legal basis for kicking DL out was as clear as both of you have repeatedly made it out to be, then WN would have succeeded at what it wanted to do a long time ago and DL would indeed be out on the street. The mere fact that DL is still there and WN did a complete about face on its statements that DL would not be allowed to remain at DAL says that the judge took WN to the woodshed for a little education. and that education is not only not over but there are some people here would will be sent to the same woodshed.

WN has money at stake - a lot of it - so we can fully expect they will argue the point as long as they can without risking a fine which is precisely why they have backed off.

 

[700UW]

Where are those eight flights?

 

[WorldTraveler]

IOW.... you are losing one argument so you are trying to argue a different point as a distraction despite the fact that Kevin himself told you that DL very likely is not adding any flights until a final ruling is issued... but I can assure you that DL is not holding off unless it has been assured that its RIGHT to start those additional flights is preserved.

as for on-time, I have to say I was shocked at VX' comment about on-time at DAL - and they are indeed right.

IN checking DOT stats, though, what is clear is that only one jet airline is in the lead in on-time at DAL and DL does it by a very wide margin. For April and May, DL was above 90% while its less reliable competitors posted OT rates that are 20-25% not just for those two months but for multiple months.

IN fact, the argument that DL would suffer because of the operational restraints at DAL is completely opposite of what is happening. DL even with its uncertain gate situation outperforms WN and VX by a very wide margin. And even though WN has improved its on-time performance in other parts of its netwok, DAL has not improved much if at all.

So throwing stones at VX' OT performance should not be used because WN's OT Is as bad as or in some months the worst of the 3 jet carriers at DAL.

 

[700UW]

I am not arguing nor losing I posted the law you posted an opinion.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The judge will give his opinion and that is all that matters

If the case was as clear as you think, it wouldn't be in court and DL wouldn't still be at DAL and WN wouldn't have made such an about face after talking to the judge

WN and DAL simply do not have the freedom from regulations that exist elsewhere and even what they do have doesn't include the exUA gates which were not WN's in 2006.

The judge will decide and I strongly believe a lot of people here will be shown to be wrong

I can fully expect that WN will push the case as long as they can and as long as being wrong doesn't come with a penalty. DAL and WN have both backed off their positions when the risk of penalty is there if they are wrong

The reason why DL hasn't had to file suit is because the fear of penalty for DAL and WN is high enough that they aren't willing to risk penalty and have asked for a court to decide