Looks Like AA wants back into Love Field

[dfw gen]

What a self serving fool.

 

[WorldTraveler]

except I haven't made any of the decisions involved here... I just report on them.

 

[diamondcutter]

except I haven't made any of the decisions involved here... I just report on them.

Except for the fact that you always put put your own spin on everything! The BBC just reports , your Fox News style of reporting has no merit here. Don't give us anymore of the "you can't accept or it's worth noting" BS!!! No one here has to accept or acknowledge anything from you because you continually ruin every discussion!

 

[WorldTraveler]

how about you instead just admit that AA has no current legal basis to serve DAL and there really is no certainty that AA could do so in 10 years.  If the DAL case ends up as it appears to be going, DAL will be more than full, the DOT's regulations will be upheld, and it will be impossible for AA to argue in 10 years that it should be able to kick out existing carriers from DAL so AA can restart service which it hasn't operated in over 10 years... esp. since AA wasn't even serving DAL at the time of the merger agreement that required AA to leave DAL.
 
If the facts ruin the discussion for you, then you probably shouldn't particpate in conversations that might bring those facts to light.

 

[eolesen]

The scarce use provisions are pretty clear -- signatory carriers *do not* have to accommodate new (or existing) entrants at the expense of their own schedules, and they don't have to announce them in advance. DOT would have to force a renegotiation

DOT doesn't have the ability to force lease modifications, or to change the laws. They can try to influence policy where there's room open for discussion, and that's about it.

What's also clear is that AA does have operating authority at DAL -- that's implied by having a lease. They're voluntarily not doing so in agreement with the DOJ.

Unlike a slot surrender, that provision can be modified or struck with the stroke of a pen if both parties agree the circumstances prior to Wright have changed and the settlement was perhaps over-reaching.
 

Except for the fact that you always put put your own spin on everything! The BBC just reports , your Fox News style of reporting has no merit here. Don't give us anymore of the "you can't accept or it's worth noting" BS!!! No one here has to accept or acknowledge anything from you because you continually ruin every discussion!

Maybe with Terry Maxon retiring, WT should send his resume to the DMN as his replacement... If he gets paid by the paragraph, he'd be a millionaire before year end.

 

[WorldTraveler]

except that I'm not interested and it has nothing to do with this topic.  What is relevant to this topic is the accuracy of what has been stated about the DAL situation and the judge will likely rule within a few months to decide the case for the long-term even though DL has been repeatedly affirmed in its position regarding access to DAL.
 
you and others have repeatedly argued that property rights and local control supersede federal law including DOT access requirements.
 
I believe we will see the DOT's position affirmed which will mean that not only will DL be allowed to remain but also to permanently expand based on its previous accommodation request.
 
If property rights are allowed to trump federal airport access requirements, then airports will devolve into fiefdoms that can be controlled to the exclusion of competitors, something the DOT and DOJ have worked very hard to prevent from happening at other airports.
 
WN has benefitted at DCA and LGA from those very federal requirements that WN wants to pretend don't apply to DAL. 
 
of course DAL and the City of Dallas do have the choice to exercise local control - but at the cost of losing federal funds.

 

[700UW]

Hey where is the court order for those eight flights?

You know the ones that DL asked for but WASNT granted?
 
Still waiting for your proof.
 
But I wont hold my breath as we know you made it up and I clearly proved so.
 
FEDERAL LAW supersedes a regulation, the WARA is clearly a federal law, where a DOT letter isnt.
 
Something you cant grasp, that DAL is treated different than any other airport in the US.  Just like LGA and DCA, which are treated different than other airports.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL has the right to add those flights. Kev has told you that DL is likely waiting until final confirmation of an order before adding those flights.

DL also is cooperating with WN for the short-term which is exactly what Gary Kelly asked for. You are the one that knows nothing about cooperation.

DL doesn't need to use your bully tactics to achieve its strategic goals.

feel free to cling to your notion about how special and different DAL is. A judge will decide it and if the DOT has its way, and they very likely will and have plenty of reasons to show why they will prevail, DAL will conform with the very same laws that have been used elsewhere.

and DL will remain at DAL for the long-term just as it has a presence at MDW which AA and UA have chosen not to pursue.

 

[700UW]

Where is the proof?
 
Come on already.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you've posted that DL has the right to add those flights.

Kev told you why they haven't.

Since you would rather argue rather than admit someone else is right and then refuse to admit you were wrong all along, it isn't a surprise that you are arguing this point as well.

DL has the right to add flights whether it exercises that right or not.

You will be shown that DAL is not special enough to SUPERSEDE federal airport access laws

 

[700UW]

I have posted no such thing, I have posted Delta ASKED to add those flights and has not gotten permission from WN, COD nor the court system.
 
Dont lie again.
 
WARA is a Federal Law, just for DAL, dont you grasp that concept?  It also shows WARA is exempt from Federal access laws.
 
Which I have posted before.
 
So where is the proof DL can add those eight flights?
 
You have been asked at least a dozen times, you are making it up once again, the fabricator of facts.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL doesn't need WN or COD's permission to add flights.

and you clearly missed are ignoring that both parties said NO to DL only to do an about face when they had a chat with the judge.

Anyone else but you would recognize that DL was right while WN and DAL were wrong.

argue til your heart's content.

DAL will be just one more issue on which you are wrong.

 

[swamt]

The scarce use provisions are pretty clear -- signatory carriers *do not* have to accommodate new (or existing) entrants at the expense of their own schedules, and they don't have to announce them in advance. DOT would have to force a renegotiation

DOT doesn't have the ability to force lease modifications, or to change the laws. They can try to influence policy where there's room open for discussion, and that's about it.

What's also clear is that AA does have operating authority at DAL -- that's implied by having a lease. They're voluntarily not doing so in agreement with the DOJ.

Unlike a slot surrender, that provision can be modified or struck with the stroke of a pen if both parties agree the circumstances prior to Wright have changed and the settlement was perhaps over-reaching.
 

Maybe with Terry Maxon retiring, WT should send his resume to the DMN as his replacement... If he gets paid by the paragraph, he'd be a millionaire before year end.

I see someone is still up to their usual tactics, just by reading your response.
 

Hey where is the court order for those eight flights?
You know the ones that DL asked for but WASNT granted?
 
Still waiting for your proof.
 
But I wont hold my breath as we know you made it up and I clearly proved so.
 
FEDERAL LAW supersedes a regulation, the WARA is clearly a federal law, where a DOT letter isnt.
 
Something you cant grasp, that DAL is treated different than any other airport in the US.  Just like LGA and DCA, which are treated different than other airports.

He seems to be the only one that doesn't understand or grasp how it works at DAL.  We have tried and tried to explain it to him and he will never get it.  The judge could rule this in either direction, it will go to the best lawyers who will convince him on which way to rule, and of course he will use all Laws that pertain to DAL.  I don't see Delta getting anything more than what they have now IF they are allowed to stay at all.  What they have now is what they had and might be able to maintain but I still doubt it.  It mainly comes down to lease ownership and lease laws.  This will not end even after this coming decision by the judge.  These gates are so heavily desired there will more than likely be appeals after appeals until it is finally done with.  I could see AA or DL appealing if SWA wins the decision, and I could see SWA appealing if it goes in some other airlines favor.  
BTW, if most have been following the reports, SWA is at 166 flights now, and is planning to go to 180 after these gates are ironed out, that's only 14 more flights when SWA could get 20 more out of 2 gates.  Just wondering if SWA is leaving enough cushin in case the ruling is that DL can stay and maintain their 5 flights per day to ATL?  Then they would still be safe at running the 180 flights with room to go to 180+ as we now can see some gates are spinning more than the 10 flights per gate.

 

[700UW]

Where the proof?
 
DMN reports DL asked and received no reply.
 
So you are lying once again, DL's owns spokesman even stated they compromise only provides the five flights a day.
 
So are you saying DL and the DMN are both lying?
 
You know all about lying, dont you?

 

[WorldTraveler]

If you were as right as you are, the case wouldn't be in federal court.

And WN wouldn't have capitulated to DL's demands to use WN's gates - which WN had repeatedly denied until WN had a takl with a real federal judge.

If WN wants to run 180 flights/day at DAL, they are free to do so after they provide DL with access including for the flights that a judge affirms DL is entitled to add under its accommodation request.

You are the one that is lying, 700.

nowhere does it say that DL asked or that it received no reply.