Judge sets dates for Dallas Love Field hearings

[WNMECH]

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 just cant admit that UAL does have protection for their preferential lease rights to those two gates.
They can sublease them to anyone they want as long as the COD approves that sublease.
WN has acquired those subleases and the approvals from the COD.

"Southwest acquired United’s preferential gate use interest at Love Field through a sublease to which the City consented on or about January 28, 2015."

1. Southwest, United, and American are sometimes collectively termed the “Signatory Airlines” because they have signed leases for Love Field.


 
 

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.

Delta isn't adding any flights because they don't hold any leases at Love Field.
They hold what is referred to as temporary licenses to operate 5 flights only not a sublease.
Those licenses expired July 6 and are only being extended because a judge doesn't want the situation to change till he can hear the case.



2. Gate use agreements are contractual licenses between air carriers that, unlike subleases, have not traditionally required the City’s consent at Love Field. The City is not a party either to the subleases or to the gate use agreements cited in this complaint.


 

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


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

I believe only one person here will be proven wrong.

 

[WorldTraveler]

in case you missed it, the COD itself is the one that is asking for clarification of the "conflicting" regulations AFTER it agreed to the UA-WN lease transfer which could have had the obvious effect of ending DL's ability to serve DAL.

If DAL was as certain of their rights, they wouldn't have asked for clarification of the "conflicts"

Further, the DOT specifically noted that DAL agreed multiple times since 2006 to the very airport access rules that people here specifically say do not apply to DAL. I'm not sure DAL has even said that it is not bound by DOT airport access/accommodation requirements. It simply says that they are conflicting.

Again, the only way that you and the COD can see a conflict is if you view the DOT 's general counsel as a bunch of idiots who have no idea what was involved with DAL - or if, as I have repeatedly noted, WN and DAL are willing to push the issue as long as there are no penalties involved.
in fact, it was precisely after the 2nd DOT letter that COD asked for legal clarification and it was then that DOT said that federal airports dollars can be withheld if an airport is found to have violated airport access requirements.

WN fell right into line when they talked to the judge in the case the first time with all of the other parties. It is very likely that WN's complete capitulation from its position that there was no space at DAL to finding space for DL until the case is resolved in just 24 hours came solely because the judge said that WN could face civil penalties and damages if they lose the case.

there is no conflict. WN is trying its best to dominate DAL, it has backed off at every turn when it has been found into a corner, DL is still there and will be, and all of the chest thumping about DAL being something off of a Christmas tree will face the reality of the day after Christmas when WN finds out that it isn't the only kid in town that got the newest toy and that it will have to share the first day of school with others who were just as excited.

Enjoy the glory of thinking that WN is free to dominate DAL to the exclusion of the competition even while whining about how much access it needed at DCA and LGA.

The glory is coming to an end. The judge will go through the formalities

Btw there were many people here who thumped their chest about what WN would do in ATL and yet WN has done nothing but cancel flights and markets from ATL since the acquisition

WN execs already realize that they made a major strategic mistake in how they approached DAL . Their fan base on here just hasn't figured it out yet.

 

[swamt]

You just cant admit that UAL does have protection for their preferential lease rights to those two gates.
They can sublease them to anyone they want as long as the COD approves that sublease.
WN has acquired those subleases and the approvals from the COD.

"Southwest acquired United’s preferential gate use interest at Love Field through a sublease to which the City consented on or about January 28, 2015."

1. Southwest, United, and American are sometimes collectively termed the “Signatory Airlines” because they have signed leases for Love Field.


 
 

Delta isn't adding any flights because they don't hold any leases at Love Field.
They hold what is referred to as temporary licenses to operate 5 flights only not a sublease.
Those licenses expired July 6 and are only being extended because a judge doesn't want the situation to change till he can hear the case.



2. Gate use agreements are contractual licenses between air carriers that, unlike subleases, have not traditionally required the City’s consent at Love Field. The City is not a party either to the subleases or to the gate use agreements cited in this complaint.


 

I believe only one person here will be proven wrong.

Looks like he still is not "getting it"...  WOW!  The ONLY person to be arguing this issue to go towards Delta's favor, I really don't think this will happen.  I bet WT will be present in the gallery at the court dates of Sept. 28 and 29.  he is so ate up with this crap. When will he get a clue? I bet about Sept. 30th...

 

[WNMECH]

The COD is not asking the judge for clarification of the letters. They only asked the DOT to clarify their first letter.
That brought the second letter that will be proven unlawful.
They have cited the law in their complaint and want a declaration that the DOT Letters are therefore unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, and in violation of WARA and the APA, and the Court should issue judgment so declaring.

The COD knows their legal responsibilities but is being threatened by all parties no matter what they do.
They are asking a judge to make declarations that support their interpretation of the prevailing law to cover them from suits or DOT interference.

Nowhere in their complaint do they ask for "clarification of the conflicts".

They are looking for legal cover from all sides, period.

Anyone can read it here.
http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/dallas-wants-federal-court-to-resolve-impossible-situation-over-love-field-gates.html/

 

[WorldTraveler]

The link which you said DOES NOT seek to overturn the laws which the DOT has said apply to WN and DAL but merely that DAL says they are confused about the apparent conflicts in each law and the summation of them.

The conflicts that exist are solely because DAL refused to convert any gates that come available to common use but instead want to provide them to WN which not only reduces competition but also violates the DOT airport access requirements that WN already agreed to.


WARA guarantees absolutely nothing to WN about acquiring additional gates beyond its 16 original gates nor does it provide any protection to WN to do so. What you, WN, and DAL want is for WN to be able to obtain every gate at DAL that has come available or could come available and then use property law instead of federal airport access laws as the justification for eliminating competition.

The court won't be it and the DOT will have no problem showing why those requirements have been used in every other airport in the country and why they apply to DAL as well. DL and the DOT is not telling COD that WN has to accommodate other carriers on the original 16 gates. The gates at issue are the exUA gates.

Further, the DOTspecifically noted that there are antitrust concerns which are at stake and which WN could easily be found in violation of because it blocked DL's access to additional gates - because of DAL's refusal to grant DL's accommodation request - and then started WN service in many of those same markets.

We can debate this until the judge rules but anyone that thinks that DAL is exempt from federal antitrust or airport access laws which DAL already acknowledged apply to them will be disappointed and wrong.

There is absolutely no way that a judge is going to allow WN to continue to acquire gatespace at DAL to obtain a higher level of gates than any other carrier has at any other carriers, esp. when there are carriers that have fulfilled the legal requirements to add service and WN was not fully utilizing its gates at the time DL's request was made.

The only conflict is because WN wants to dominate DAL and DAL can't seem to tell WN "NO " and yet everytime that WN or DAL has been threatened with a penalty for non-compliance, they quickly manage to get in compiance.

This whole case is nothing but a bullying attempt by WN and DAL to wear DL out and attempt to erode its bookings so that DL, like VX, will fail and there will be no other carriers.

Unlike smaller carriers, DL can see exactly what WN is doing and DL has and will stand up to WN and DAL, esp. since WN whined incessantly about needing access to DCA and LGA and managed to convince the DOJ to not allow legacy carriers to participate in those slot auctions -as well as at DAL.

DL knows the laws, has the DOT on its side, and WN will go whimpering back to its headquarters either with scissors to cut its own schedule in order to reliably fit within the space that WN has or continue operate an unreliable operation at DAL while DL wins the lucrative business passengers at DAL and those who have defected from AA at DFW will return where the operation is more reliable. A 20-25% difference in on-time between carriers at one airport is highly noticeable to customers and is more than enough to swing loyalty.

WN simply counted on being able to dominate DAL, is not able to now, will not be able to in the future, and they will have to figure out how to cut their size or invest a whole lot more resources in order to work within the space they have.

WN spent years fighting for the right to operate at DAL in the first place. It will stand as one of the great ironies of modern aviation that the only big 4 carrier that doesn't have a Texas hub will beat WN on its home turf by doing exactly what WN did to AA which has relegated itself to DFW and out of the DAL market. And DL, for its efforts, will end up as the largest carrier in each of the markets it serves from DAL and DFW and have the highest average fares to each of those markets, just as DL does from ORD and MDW to ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC.

 

[swamt]

Here's more from Cush who is now saying that airfares will rise at DAL.  I am assuming he is talking about his airline only...
 
Dallas airfares likely to rise a bit, exec says
 
He seems to think running 10 flights per gate is practically imposible.  At one time when we were doing all short hauls out of DAL I have seen sometimes 11 and 12 and maybe even more than that. Prior to W/A going away there was flights to and from DAL, SAT, HOU and AUS every single half hour thru-out the day.  When SWA goes to 180 per day and with Virgins 19 brings in in at 199. If I am not mistaken there is a cap on number of flights as well as gates.  I thought the cap on flights was higher than the average 10 flights per gate but I could be mistaken.
I also believe there will be some daily drama going on when SWA moves in all the new flights on Aug 9th and we will see some more news articles on it for a while as we wait for the final ruling to come.  Starting this coming up Sunday it will start to get very interesting and busy at DAL.  I know Delta has until Sept to remain at DAL but they better be able to move in and out of gates in a timely manner or they quite possibly will be violating the temp lease agreement.  Also with that said SWA will also have to move all aircraft in an efficient and timely manner to continue to accommodate Delta until the ruling is out.  We shall watch and see how this will turn out starting Sunday Aug 9th when SWA adds flights up to the 180 per day...

 

[WorldTraveler]

There is no cap on flights and the agreement is that DL will remain with its present schedule until a final legal decision is made.
Yes airfares will rise but if VX thought they would not see intense competition at DAL they simply did not plan correctly
Same thing for WN

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I find it very interesting that in this instance you have nothing but praise for the DOT.
 

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.

 
Surprisingly (or not) that was not the narrative here, where you more-or-less stated that the DOT are a bunch of fools:
 

Airlines say what they need to say to the DOT. What happens in real life is considerable different.

 
Oh, my!
That's quite the narratives you need to spin.
 
 

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.

 
Very impressive.
DL almost manages to operate on time a grand total of 5, that's   F I V E    flights daily.  Amazing!
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

it is indeed remarkable that DL can operate even five flights and do so with a far higher on-time despite having no gates that it can claim as its own - for now.

DAL was the one that said full usage for DAL gates is 10 flights/day. If other carriers who have better access can't manage to operate reliably and yet DL can, then those other carriers need to figure out what DL is managing to do.

Or maybe WN has learned that if they impede DL's operation or make statements that DL can't be accommodated and will be forced to leave and hurt DL's bookings, WN might be liable for damages to DL.

and if WN manages to box in VX' operation or whatever is happening to prevent VX from running an on-time operation, then VX needs to speak up. And if VX can manage to operate out of a congested airport like LGA but can't make it work at DAL, then they have to be asked if they have the right resources at DAL.

as for the DOT, I never said the DOT was fools. I said that carriers do say one thing even if it is accurate but not complete. AA did not tell the DOT that it intended to suspend its LAX-NRT service if it was awarded LAX-HND but AA will either bleed red ink or cxl NRT as was widely expected even if it wasn't declared and still hasn't been announced.

DL did not agree with the ruling that the DOT made regarding operational performance for the SEA-HND flight but DL complied with the restrictions and gave the frequency up. Further, DL gave back excess slots for Brazil service even though the process is meaningless since no one is asking for slots and Brazil moves to Open Skies. DL played by the rules the entire time it operated the SEA-HND flight, DOT changed the rules, AA will get a crack at LAX-HND amidst the most competitive environment in any US-Japan market, and DL is fully satisfying its requirements for its Japan markets.

WN and DAL will eventually realize that they too will have to comply with the DOT not only because they will continue to have to deal with them but the DOT holds the purse strings that will make or break the viability of DAL to have commercial service.

and as much as some want to believe that the DOT is clueless about the situation, they made clear that the way to resolve all of these supposedly conflicting requirements is for DAL to convert 2 gates to common use but WN doesn't want that to happen because it will have competition and it can't kick out competitors.

WN can either figure out how to operate 180 flights out of 16.5 gates - which is more than a stretch since they have 17.5 gates, far fewer flights, and an atrocious on-time - or they can pull back flights or option 3 is the DOT can pull federal funding for DAL.

Not terribly difficult to understand the choices WN has to make. It will be theirs and theirs alone to make when the judge rules that DL has a right to not only maintain its presence but expand to the level it requested as part of its accommodation process.

 

[WNMECH]

The link which you said DOES NOT seek to overturn the laws which the DOT has said apply to WN and DAL but merely that DAL says they are confused about the apparent conflicts in each law and the summation of them.

The conflicts that exist are solely because DAL refused to convert any gates that come available to common use but instead want to provide them to WN which not only reduces competition but also violates the DOT airport access requirements that WN already agreed to.


WARA guarantees absolutely nothing to WN about acquiring additional gates beyond its 16 original gates nor does it provide any protection to WN to do so. What you, WN, and DAL want is for WN to be able to obtain every gate at DAL that has come available or could come available and then use property law instead of federal airport access laws as the justification for eliminating competition.

The court won't be it and the DOT will have no problem showing why those requirements have been used in every other airport in the country and why they apply to DAL as well. DL and the DOT is not telling COD that WN has to accommodate other carriers on the original 16 gates. The gates at issue are the exUA gates.

Further, the DOTspecifically noted that there are antitrust concerns which are at stake and which WN could easily be found in violation of because it blocked DL's access to additional gates - because of DAL's refusal to grant DL's accommodation request - and then started WN service in many of those same markets.

We can debate this until the judge rules but anyone that thinks that DAL is exempt from federal antitrust or airport access laws which DAL already acknowledged apply to them will be disappointed and wrong.

There is absolutely no way that a judge is going to allow WN to continue to acquire gatespace at DAL to obtain a higher level of gates than any other carrier has at any other carriers, esp. when there are carriers that have fulfilled the legal requirements to add service and WN was not fully utilizing its gates at the time DL's request was made.

The only conflict is because WN wants to dominate DAL and DAL can't seem to tell WN "NO " and yet everytime that WN or DAL has been threatened with a penalty for non-compliance, they quickly manage to get in compiance.

This whole case is nothing but a bullying attempt by WN and DAL to wear DL out and attempt to erode its bookings so that DL, like VX, will fail and there will be no other carriers.

Unlike smaller carriers, DL can see exactly what WN is doing and DL has and will stand up to WN and DAL, esp. since WN whined incessantly about needing access to DCA and LGA and managed to convince the DOJ to not allow legacy carriers to participate in those slot auctions -as well as at DAL.

DL knows the laws, has the DOT on its side, and WN will go whimpering back to its headquarters either with scissors to cut its own schedule in order to reliably fit within the space that WN has or continue operate an unreliable operation at DAL while DL wins the lucrative business passengers at DAL and those who have defected from AA at DFW will return where the operation is more reliable. A 20-25% difference in on-time between carriers at one airport is highly noticeable to customers and is more than enough to swing loyalty.

WN simply counted on being able to dominate DAL, is not able to now, will not be able to in the future, and they will have to figure out how to cut their size or invest a whole lot more resources in order to work within the space they have.

WN spent years fighting for the right to operate at DAL in the first place. It will stand as one of the great ironies of modern aviation that the only big 4 carrier that doesn't have a Texas hub will beat WN on its home turf by doing exactly what WN did to AA which has relegated itself to DFW and out of the DAL market. And DL, for its efforts, will end up as the largest carrier in each of the markets it serves from DAL and DFW and have the highest average fares to each of those markets, just as DL does from ORD and MDW to ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC.

Try using the facts next time. I am now convinced you have reading comprehension problems.
Try reading the original complaint at the bottom of the page without your rose colored widget glasses this time.

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/dallas-wants-federal-court-to-resolve-impossible-situation-over-love-field-gates.html/

No where in this complaint does the COD say that it is confused. NOWHERE.
It says Delta is trying to claim that the letters hold more meaning than they do.
They claim the DOT is in conflict with the DOJ on the interpretation of the north Texas market.
They claim the DOT is violating the WARA and the APA.

The COD lays out the facts and contends a lot of things, but they do not claim to be confused on the law.
They opine that their interpretation of the law is most likely correct in their response to Delta and WN (in the link below) without ruling out the possibility of the judge seeing otherwise.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/city-we-expect-southwest-airlines-to-prevail-in-dallas-love-field-fight.html/
"there is a substantial likelihood that the Court will agree with the City’s construction of the applicable law."

You are absurd to claim they need to overturn access laws.
Of course they don't seek to overturn title 49, U.S. Code. They don't have to. The WARA and five party agreement provide clear protection from this section.
It is all spelled out in plain English in their complaint.
You don't have to make things up to make it more interesting, the facts are already very interesting.

 

[WNMECH]

It is guaranteed that WN will present in court, every delay and hiccup caused by the extension of Delta's temporary licenses.
There is NO WAY that they will go in there and say things ran just fine through Aug and Sept, with 185 flights on those 18 gates.
NO WAY.

And if Delta wants to go in there and claim they were impeded in any way, great.
That is just more evidence that any long term extension of those licenses, will not work.

 

[WorldTraveler]

whatever operational problems WN has experienced are inconsequential to the decision. WN can complain about DL's presence but the issue is simply whether DL has the right to remain and if they do, it is WN's responsibility to build its schedule to operate efficiently without respect to DL's presence and without creating any impediment to whatever DL is rightfully entitled to operate.

given that WN's system on-time performance lags AA and DL, it will be hard for WN to argue that there is much different with DAL that isn't happening elsewhere, including ATL and SLC, airports where both airlines directly compete and where DL consistenty have better on-time performance.

and whether DAL says they are confused or not, they did specifically say that cannot harmonize the apparently conflicting regulations. The DOT specifically said that the way to resolve the conflict and for DAL to meet its requirements to provide access is for DAL to convert to gates to common use. WN doesn't want that to happen and DAL is beholden to WN.

You, WN, and DAL can argue all you want that DAL is exempt from the DOT's airport access requirements but the DOT specifically acknowledged since 2006 that DAL does accept those requirements. NO judge is going to accept DAL's argument that it finds a conflict in what to do now and that it doesn't have to do what it said it would do previously.

The DOJ has made no statements that it is overriding the DOT's regulations and nowhere has it done anything that put the DOJ and the DOT in conflict. NOWHERE

I haven't claimed that the DOT's access requirements need to be overturned. They need to be complied with by DAL. Airport access requirements are the responsibility of the airport, not the airline. WN doesn't lose federal funding if the regulations are not followed. DAL can and will if the DOT decides that DAL will not compy with those regulations.

and once again there is nothing in WARA or any other document that gave WN the right to acquire additional gates above the 16 it had or provides them with protection should they do so.

DAL is simply dragging its feet in hopes that DL will decide it isn't worth their while to stay at DAL and that WN can fill up the schedule and keep it that way.

WN can do whatever it wants with its 16.5 gates - which is what they will have left after DL is granted the right to operate its full schedule under its accommodation request.

If WN can operate 180 flights and do so reliably, then WN can do whatever it wants. but it cannot argue that it built up its schedule first because in fact DL's accommodation request came when WN wasn't even operating its 16 gates to their full usage.

Further, WN cannot do anything to impede whatever DL is entitled to operate.

Not only do DAL's own statements of what it would comply with argue against what you have written but so do the laws which the judge will interpret and in which the DOT says there is no conflict other than that WN cannot dominate the airport which is what they want to do

 

[WNMECH]

The DOJ has made no statements that it is overriding the DOT's regulations and nowhere has it done anything that put the DOJ and the DOT in conflict. NOWHERE

NOWHERE huh,




52. In filed court pleadings and related instruments, DOJ has repeatedly stated on
behalf of the United States, and structured one or more agreed judgments to be consistent with its
position, that Love Field and DFW Airport comprised a single market for commercial passenger
air travel. The history underlying DFW Airport’s creation also supports that market definition.

64. Representatives of DOJ have told the City, consistent with DOJ’s litigation
position in the American-US Air merger controversy, that the relevant market for evaluating
competition among local air carriers is the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, including DFW
Airport, and not just any one airport such as Love Field. Representatives of DOT have
informally advised the City that DOT considers the relevant market for evaluating competition
for accommodation purposes to be only Love Field. The City informed DOT and DOJ of those
conflicting positions but has been unsuccessful in securing reconciliation of those conflicting
positions from DOT and DOJ. As stated above, DOT has not commented to the City on DOJ’s
position.
 
88. Examples of the conflicting interpretations, each of which is concrete and ripe,
start with who is entitled to be accommodated.  The accommodation provisions of the lease
provide that “a new entrant airline (Requesting Airline)” should be accommodated if the
accommodation does not unduly interfere with the Signatory Airline’s operating schedules. 
Delta asserts that it is a new entrant.  Southwest asserts that Delta is not a new entrant since it has
been continuously operating from Love Field since at least 2009 and that the term “new entrant”
is not limited to Love Field but must also include consideration of air carriers currently at DFW
Airport.  DOT has told the City to treat Delta as a new entrant.  DOT has rejected Southwest’s
contention (shared by DOJ) that DFW Airport and Love Field comprise a single competitive
market.

 

[WNMECH]

You, WN, and DAL can argue all you want that DAL is exempt from the DOT's airport access requirements but the DOT specifically acknowledged since 2006 that DAL does accept those requirements. NO judge is going to accept DAL's argument that it finds a conflict in what to do now and that it doesn't have to do what it said it would do previously.

The prevailing law covering love field access is the WARA.
No judge is going to ignore it as you and the DOT has.
 
 
 DOT can interfere with Signatory Airlines’
preferential gate rights under their leases but must act only on a nationwide basis, as required by
section 5(e)(2)(B(ii) of WARA. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

The DOJ has not given DAL any exemption to DOT competition requirements. They simply have not

There is no law that provides for any airport including DAL/DFW to provide access based on whether a carrier serves another in a region.
The DOJ made an interpretation without precedent. See how long that stands up in court.
Further, the DOJ's decision to allow only LCCs to bid on AA/US assets is completely against deregulation and will easily fall on appeal. Don't get too comfortable hiding behind the the DOJ and don't try to put words in their mouth that they did not say.