Judge sets dates for Dallas Love Field hearings

Status
Not open for further replies.
WorldTraveler said:
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.
Click to expand...
What appeal is that?

And don't you get too comfortable hiding behind the DOT while you and Delta both keep trying to characterize the two letters as directives.
Even the DOT says that no violation of airport access laws has been determined and that it is up to the COD to decide what to do with the LOVE Field Gates.


"I note, as I have in the past, that it is the City's responsibility to decide how to act on Delta's requests. The City, of course, must make this decision in compliance with the grant assurances and its other legal obligations. DOT has expressed its views to the City on this subject and also given guidance about some aspects of those obligations. Ultimately, however, it is the City that must make a decision, and I urge you to do so in a reasonable and timely manner."
Sincerely yours,
Kathryn B. Thomson



The letters are an unlawful interference meant to coerce the COD to break the WARA, the five party agreement and the Love Field leases.
WN wont need an appeal to prove that.


85. In its latest communications with the City, Delta:
a. claims that the City must follow the First DOT Letter as a formal agency
directive;
h. argues that the First DOT Letter is a final and binding directive;
 
as has been noted before, if the DOT rules that an airport has violated airport access requirements, then there is a basis for withholding funds. The DOT has been VERY gracious in not making an assessment that could cost DAL its federal funds.

Again, the DOJ and DOT see no conflict in each other's regulations. Only DAL and WN see the conflict.

There is no attempt being made by anyone to force anyone to break any law. Ditch the conspiracy theories.

DAL is not exempt from following DOT's airport access regulations and they could fully satisfy every one of the laws if they converted gates to common use. WN doesn't want DAL to and DAL has chosen not to. But there is nothing in WARA that permits WN or any carrier to add gates or to choose not to honor airport access regulations.

The DOJ's assessment of a single market is not binding on the DOT's airport requirements and the DOJ has not tried to say it is. Antitrust enforcement frequently views a larger market than the specific airport level. Get back to us when you find something that the DOJ has said that NYC and WAS or combinations of airports in those regions are not also single markets and yet every airport in those regions has to comply with DOT's airport access requirements and they do.

The only conflict is that WN cannot be as large as it wants to at DAL and that the law fully allows DL to serve both airports and DL appears able and willing to do that, just as it does at MDW and ORD, even if none of the other big 4 - and perhaps an even larger definition than that - chooses to serve both airports. DL also operates its own metal from both JFK and EWR, the only US carrier that has its own int'l service from two airports in the same region.

There is no law that restricts service by carriers to airports in a region - except for WN at DAL/DFW. It is not DL's problem that WN signed an agreement that limits its ability to serve DFW without losing gates at DAL. It is also not DL's burden if WN is forced to only operate from 16.5 gates at DAL, a percentage of gates far larger than what any legacy carrier has at any of its large, dominant airports.

DLsimply has found a legal means by which it can serve both DAL and DFW despite DL having no leases and in the process will restrict WN's ability to operate as much as it might want to serve at DAL.

Sounds to me like DL has outsmarted WN in its hometown and is making WN pay for its arrogance in trotting into the DOJ and demanding access to DCA and LGA and convincing the DOJ to not allow legacy carriers to bid on AA assets, even if that ruling would never stand up in a court of law if it was tried.

Again, WN very likely will be accommodating DL not just for the flights to ATL which DL already operates but also for the additional flights listed in DL's accommodation request.

The judge will decide. I fully expect that you will see him use same of the same arguments I have made... just as was the case in debates with people on here regarding WN at ATL, the refinery, and other issues.

I do want to thank you for engaging in a respectful discussion despite our differences in opinion.
 
Wrong 100%, the WARA specifically bans the DOT or FAA to withhold funds for any reason and I have posted the exact portion of the law.
 
63. At the time of the First DOT Letter, Love Field was experiencing rapid changes in
is pattern of flight operations due mainly to reduction in the number of gates and initiation of
long-haul air service as WARA became effective. Attached to and incorporated into the First
DOT Letter by reference was a compendium of airport competition plan requirements, “Airport
Competition Plans; Highlights of Reported Actions to Reduce Barriers to Entry and Enhance
Competitive Access” (Nov. 2010). The First DOT Letter referred to the attachment as follows:
We are also enclosing a compendium of airport competition plan requirements and actions various airports have taken to facilitate entry and enhance competitive access. The compendium table focuses on airports that have developed procompetitive tools to accommodate requesting carriers in conformity with the competition plan requirements.

First DOT Letter at 2. None of the examples in the attachment included permanent
accommodation mandates for preferential use gates. None of the examples were for airports that
are prohibited by law from adding gates. None of the examples were for airports whose
dominant signatory carrier is prohibited by law from operating at a neighboring airport without
surrendering gates, nor for airports for which the associated city could not be required to “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,” as required by WARA. None of the examples included
airports for which a private agreement provided a safe harbor for deemed title 49 compliance as
does WARA for Love Field respecting Five Party Agreement performance.
 
 
 
The COD would have to break the law as written in WARA unless the DOT issues a nationwide directive that allows preferential use gates to be turned in to common use gates.
It is black and white in WARA.
It is no wonder you want to ignore the WARA. You don't like what it says.
 
The COD would have to break multiple laws to do what the DOT has expressed as "it's views", not directives.
It isn't a conspiracy theory, it is fact.
 
 
BTW, where are all these debates over WN at Atlanta?
I don't recall one, and I certainly don't remember being a part of one.
 
 
I am sure the judge will contact you so he can get your help and use your arguments against the COD.
 
"The judge will decide. I fully expect that you will see him use same of the same arguments I have made... just as was the case in debates with people on here regarding WN at ATL, the refinery, and other issues"
 
What judge used your arguments to settle claims about WN at ATL, the refinery, and other issues?
 
Get back to us when you find something that the DOJ has said that NYC and WAS or combinations of airports in those regions are not also single markets and yet every airport in those regions has to comply with DOT's airport access requirements and they do.
Click to expand...
Those airports didn't have congress enact the WARA to cover them.
 
once again, you and WN want us to believe that WN and DAL are exempt because WN signed an agreement that
1. limited the number of gates that DAL could have
2. limited WN's ability to add service at DFW unless it was willing to lose gates at DAL.

and you also fail to note that WN's 2 exUA gates are not protected in any way or by any regulation. WN wants us all to believe that its 2 exUA gates are the same as its original 16 gates. They simply are not. The exUA gates are subject to the exact same regulations as any other gates.

It is not DL or anyone else's problem that WN signed an agreement that now limits its ability to serve DFW even while demand for access to DAL has skyrocketed (as I predicted it would when it was opened to longhaul flights).

WN and DAL are still subject to the same regulations as any other airport regarding the two gates and the fact that no other airline has a similar situation is a testament to the fact that no other airline signed an agreement that would come back and bite them as WN is now finding the 5PA is doing.

I give you credit for sticking with your position. If you are really a mechanic, you know alot more than just how to fix planes.

but the arguments won't work. WN shot itself in the foot, DL found the loophole it needed to stay at DAL and to expand its operations, and DAL has no choice but to accommodate DL's request or lose federal funds.

The judge isn't going to rule for weeks, maybe months.

are you sure you want to keep posting multiple times per day? How about we agree to just a single response per day?

I don't expect you will change your position, it doesn't appear that the filings will be made public so we have little idea what is being said internally, but it is certain that one of us is going to be very wrong when the judge rules.

based on everything that has happened in this case and the fact that WN is the one that has capitulated from its statements that DL could not stay and WN would find no room for DL, it is a pretty good guess that WN will be the one that will be backtracking - again - when the judge rules, esp. since Gary acknowledged that there will need to be cooperation in working side by side.

again, good job at pulling documents and arguing your point.

I strongly suspect that the judge will shoot it all down because the central point is that DAL agreed to follow the DOT's airport access regulations and no judge is going to believe that a once-valid agreement can now be tossed out just because the value of DAL is now more evident than ever.

and the same thing can be said for WN and its obligations under the 5PA and other agreements it signed, as well as the limitations that those agreements have - which do not protect or guarantee any WN rights to add gates beyond what existed in 2006.
 
I do get it,swamt.

WN has managed to get a local government to buy its argument and tried to argue that two federal agencies disagree with each other even though neither one has said their is any conflict with what the other has said.

The chances that an airline and a local government are going to tell the federal government they are wrong is somewhere between slim and none.
 
actually, dawg, there are a couple new items to discuss because the contents of the court filings haven't been made public but there are tidbits here.

first, COD says that if DAL can fully handle WN's current schedule of 180 flights as well as DL's current flights, then there is little reason to argue that DL should be forced to leave. They are right but they are also looking for an out from the argument.

DL doesn't care if WN operates 240 flights/day from its gates as long as DL has the space to operate not only its current flights but also the 8 it asked for, which are confirmed again here with the dates that show that DL made its request before WN announced its schedule.

again, no one expected that WN would not fill its gates but DOT rules say that carriers cannot hold gates and fill up the schedules at a later date just to keep competitors out. DL knew the window in which it had to act to request additional flights and did so at the appropriate time - before WN announced its schedule.

"Delta has accused Southwest of boosting its schedule to keep Delta out. It said it asked Feb. 23 for the right to add eight more flights as of Aug. 15.

As of that date, “it was possible to accommodate an additional eight daily Delta flights at Love Field in light of the incumbent carriers’ then-current gate usage and without impacting their current or already announced, for-sale services,” Delta said in a filing last week. “Not coincidentally, on Feb. 26, 2015, Southwest first announced its intention to expand its flight schedule at Love Field to 180 daily flights as of Aug. 9, 2015.”

while some people want to turn this into a warring contest between two airlines that compete very efffectively against each other thruout the US, this issue is simply about DL gaining access to DAL which is exactly what it wants to do and based on every legal document that has been presented, has the right to do so.

The DOT and DOJ aren't in conflict with each other and it is only by trying to argue that they are that WN and DAL have tried to make a case to kick DL out.

The fact that DAL is now saying that "maybe it is possible to figure out out to keep all parties at DAL operating the flights they want" is indication that DAL knows that it needs to find a solution.

DL is not trying to reduce WN's operation as long as DL can operate its current and requested flights.

There is no other airline that come along and do the same thing again and DL can't add more flights. The 193 or 194 flights out of the 18 gates is all it will ever be. And if VX pulls back its operation as is expected, then WN and DL could easily spread their operation over VX' gates because it is doubtful that VX could argue - and the DOJ won't do it for them - that if VX doesn't use the space it has been given, it has to accommodate other carriers.

given that the DOJ made the AA gate transfer for 2 whole gates, they vastly limited the number of carriers that can successfully compete against WN at their HDQ hub. DL has the greatest ability to fill 2 gates worth of flying but it is only asking for 13 or 14 flights, depending on the number of "grandfathered" ATL flights that are counted (DL has operated 5 or 6 depending on the date).

This issue will blow over. DL will be at DAL and as long as WN can figure out how to work its 180 flights out of 16.5 gates, everyone will be happy.

and then I would also not be surprised if AA, DL, and WN all decide it is in their JOINT interests to argue for more gates at DAL with some of the new gates being made available for carriers other than WN, for AA to be able to return to DAL, for the limitation on int'l ops at DAL to be removed, and for the requirement that WN give up gates at DAL if it serves DFW be removed.

There is no risk to either DAL or DFW so they should not object in any way to expanding DAL; all of the current clauses only serve to stifle competition.

WN has to figure out how to win over the neighborhood around DAL but I would bet that stating that only the most current generation of aircraft will be used is enough.

AA and DL could be on WN's side in that fight to expand DAL IF they get something out of the deal... which for AA and DL will be the ability to serve DAL probably with about 2 gates each. Other LCCs and ULCCs will come to DAL if they don't have to fill 2 whole gates which is what the DOJ required.

But first there has to be resolution of the issue regarding DL's presence at DAL which is probably a whole lot closer to resolution than alot of people here want to admit.
 
So your own post proves my facts, DL never received permission from WN, COD nor the courts to add eight flights.
 
Thanks for proving your own lies once again.
 
set aside your warring mindset of constantly trying to prove me wrong and go find where I ever said that DL had received permission from WN or the COD. I never said that. You simply invented that phrase and have tried to argue it to prove me wrong.

DL has the RIGHT to add flights because it met the requirements of accommodation policies which DAL doesn't even deny exist and that they are obligated to obey.

They simply have said that there are conflicting requirements which they see and yet the DOT and DOJ do not see that conflict.

DAL has acknowledged in DOT documents before this case blew up that it is obligated to follow accommodation procedures and that is exactly what DL has asked for.


And COD's most recent statements show that they are looking for a way to resolve the situation by acknowledging that DL and WN very likely can coexist - which is exactly what I have said all along. WN is the one that has tried to argue they don't have space and yet WN will make its 180 flights work rather than risk having them cut since it is clear that the arguments that DL is not legally entitled to operate at DAL are not correct. There is no flight cap so WN can cram as many flights into DAL as it can operate as long as DL gets its current and expansion flights and VX operates what it is currently. VX certainly knows that if they drop flights on a permanent basis, that gate space will be taken and will never return.

It is a given that YOU will have egg all over YOUR FACE once again but this case is moving towards resolution and all that has to take place for that to occur is for WN to realize it won't be able to monopolize DAL and that DL's 13 or 14 flights can fit at DAL on top of WN's as long as WN provides room for DL's flights. There is no basis for any other carrier to add flights under accommodation policies since WN is now full and DL doesn't appear to have any basis for asking for more flights so the current DL schedule plus DL's 8 flights plus WN plus VX is what DAL will be at. AA has done nothing to gain access at DAL because they know that as much as they want to be there, there is no legal basis for them to get there as long as DAL is capped at 20 gates.

DAL is open for operations for 16 hours per day, IIRC. Even though 10 flights/gate is very high by industry standards, it is very possible for WN to operate 180 flights/day out of 16.5 gates and leave DL with 1.5 gates which is what they need to operate what they have the right to operate.

Quit trying to argue points that haven't even been made by me, DAL or WN, or DL.
 
WorldTraveler said:
There is no risk to either DAL or DFW so they should not object in any way to expanding DAL; 
Click to expand...
 
Really?
Expansion of DAL has no risk for DFW?
How do you come up with this stuff?
Using that logic, does that mean that ATL and DL should not object to Paulding county airport expansion either, if they do they are just trying to stifle competition.
 
whether ATL supports or opposes another airport in the region means nothing since the residents of Paulding County themselves thru their own elected officials have said they don't want commercial service in their county, even if the economics of an airport that is further from most of the region than ATL is actually worked.

and there really is no threat to either airport in Dallas, which has been a two airport city for years. There has been no loss of traffic from DFW and in fact AA has added flights in some markets to maintain its market share.

so, no, there is no evidence whatsoever that DAL or DFW is at any financial risk by having two airports.

the biggest obstacle to expanding DAL is the neighborhood that approved a smaller DAL in return for allowing long haul domestic flights.

WN's challenge will be to push as many passengers thru DAL as possible and that will mean focusing on the local market instead of connections, using the largest aircraft possible, and adding as many flights as they can handle thru the gates which they get to use.

There is no reason why DALshouldn't be allowed to have international flights and that might actually be an easier battle to win than getting more gates.

DAL is a success as many of us expected it would be and it is great to see WN growing as much as they can there as long as they comply with DOT airport access laws which mean that DL will be there, just as they are at MDW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Will the DAL Love Field spat spread to other airports?
Replies
14
Views
3K
WorldTraveler
WorldTraveler
S
Judge wants Congress to fix Love Field again
2
Replies
15
Views
4K
southwind
southwind
L
Love Field Modernization Project
2
Replies
18
Views
10K
SharoninSAT
SharoninSAT
S
Dallas Love Field Gate Feud
Replies
3
Views
1K
SWAMECH
S
S
SWA Mechanics picket in Dallas at Love Field
Replies
2
Views
2K
swamt
S

Latest posts

Back
Top