SWA now getting involved with slot (s) possibilities

  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #211
Here's an interesting article with the dead line I was referring to. Do you think Delta's attorneys will be smart enough to comply this time??
BTW: Delta will not get any more than the 2 gates they currently have, IF, I repeat, IF they even get those. WN, pls correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is verbiage in the W/A agreement that 2 gates will go to one airline and 2 will go to another airline, as well as if there are more airlines wanting to come in they would be required to share the 4 gates. I have been told that SWA will not get any of the 4 gates unless they remain open after bidding and not used, but I could be wrong here. Anyway here's the article:-




AMR Merger Settlement Approved by Bankruptcy Judge

By Erik Larson - Nov 27, 2013 10:59 AM CT .

American Airlines parent AMR Corp. (AAMRQ) won bankruptcy court approval of the deal it reached this month with regulators to complete its $17.2 billion merger with US Airways Group Inc. and create the world’s biggest airline.

The Nov. 12 accord with the U.S. Justice Department, which agreed to drop its antitrust challenge if the carriers gave up some airport slots, was approved today by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane in Manhattan.





Enlarge image American Airlines & US Airways


American Airlines & US Airways






US Airways and AMR Corp.'s American Airlines said a merger was the only way they could compete with United Continental Holdings Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc., the industry’s biggest carriers. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg


AMR, US Airways Merger Good for Economy: Crandall

2:12

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Robert Crandall, former chief executive officer of American Airlines' parent AMR Corp., talks about the U.S. settlement allowing the merger of AMR and US Airways Group Inc. to go through. Crandall speaks with Tom Keene and Scarlet Fu on Bloomberg Television's "Surveillance."
.
“The settlement easily satisfies” bankruptcy requirements and the merger may be consummated “without delay,” Lane said. A more detailed written version of the ruling will be posted on the docket today at noon, he said.

AMR, based in Fort Worth, Texas, intends to complete the merger on Dec. 9 and rename the company American Airlines Group Inc., it said today in a statement. The last day of trading of all outstanding securities of AMR and the common stock of US Airways will be Dec. 6, according to the statement.

In his ruling, Lane denied a bid by a group of private plaintiffs opposing the merger to temporarily block the agreement. He said the plaintiffs made “sweeping” allegations without proving they would suffer any harm, and also relied heavily on the Justice Department’s claims in its now-settled lawsuit.

‘Utterly Failed’

“The plaintiffs have utterly failed to establish irreparable harm” as a result of the merger, Lane said.

The Washington judge in the antitrust case must also approve the terms of the proposed settlement after a public comment period that runs through Feb. 7.

“Today’s rulings by the court are another important step in our path toward emerging from restructuring and closing our planned merger with US Airways,” Mike Trevino, an American spokesman, said in an e-mail.

The deal with US Airways is the linchpin of American’s bid to emerge from bankruptcy after almost two years and repay creditors. Lane approved American’s bankruptcy reorganization plan in September, while barring it from taking effect until the underlying merger won regulatory clearance.

The Justice Department filed the antitrust lawsuit in August to block the merger of American and Tempe, Arizona-based US Airways, arguing it would raise prices and harm consumers. American could emerge from bankruptcy and compete on its own without the merger, the U.S. said.

Landing Slots

To resolve regulators’ concerns that the deal would give the merged airline too much clout at Washington’s Ronald Reagan National Airport and boost prices, American and US Airways agreed to divest 52 pairs of takeoff and landing slots there. The combined carrier will also give up 34 slots at New York’s LaGuardia Airport and make smaller concessions at five other airports.

American and US Airways said a merger was the only way they could compete with United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL) and Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL), the industry’s biggest carriers. They argued the deal would give passengers more choices and generate more than $500 million a year in benefits.

AMR’s total value for its stakeholders under the reorganization plan is about $13.1 billion based on current trading, representing an increase of $2.7 billion since Aug. 7, when a valuation was last completed, Stephen Karotkin, a lawyer for the company, told Lane at a Nov. 25 hearing.

‘Most Successful’

“This hearing represents the culmination of perhaps the most successful Chapter 11 case for an airline in recent history,” he said at that hearing, calling the value created for creditors a “remarkable achievement.”

“We are pleased with the judge’s ruling,” Karotkin said after today’s hearing.

After the merger, US Airways Chief Executive Officer Doug Parker will hold the same title at the combined airline, while AMR CEO Tom Horton would serve as chairman until the first annual meeting of the merged carrier.

The merger agreement gives 28 percent of the stock of the combined company to US Airways shareholders, with the remaining 72 percent going to AMR creditors, unions, certain employees and shareholders.

The bankruptcy case is In re AMR Corp., 11-bk-15463, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). The antitrust case is U.S. v. US Airways Group Inc. (LCC), 13-cv-01236, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
 
WorldTraveler said:
You forgot the concerns about the loss of service to small/medium sized cities. Apparently another ***?

When the settlement agreement is finalized and DL gets kicked out of DAL and there is no mechanism for ensuring service to small/medium sized cities by other carriers, let me know.
I didn't forget, it's what I was talking about.

Now don't you forget that SWA serves many small and med sized cities from Love Field.
By your logic, if DL is allowed to fly to many flights to top markets from Love, then WN will have to cut those flights to El Paso, Amarillo, Lubbock and the others, just to compete with Delta.

Are you going to be crying to congress about Delta causing small and med city losses then?

Of course not.

Delta is making a red herring issue just to get more slots.
 
He cries that the merger would hurt small and medium cities but as you said wn swa flies to a lot of those cities.. but wt sure doesnt cry poor mouth when dl sliced up cvg and mem and those 2 cities are medium cities let alone former hubs
 
I have said multiple times that DL is the dominant carrier from Chicago to the cities it flies to from both airports - which are its primary hubs.  The very reason why DL intends to fly from DAL to its primary hubs plus LGA and LAX is because DL knows that the carrier that can serve both airports will dominante the market.  AA and WN can't do that from DAL and DFW.   DL can.
 
I have been well aware of the 60 day rule regarding an antitrust settlement which is why DL and Congress have written letters but the rest is still going on behind the scenes.
 
DL didn't object to the merger which is what the requirement to file briefs was all about, even if a few WN mechanics think otherwise. 
 
DL objects to the settlement agrément which is not final for 60 days after the merger... more than enough time for the DOJ and AA/US to realize that the merger could sit thru another lawsuit if the terms aren't revised.
 
It is also possible that the DOJ could save face and tell AA/US they have to disclose their small/médium sized DCA city schedules within X days after the merger that they would be required to maintain regardless of what winners of the slot bids do.  Based on those schedules, the DOT could create additional slots for small city service
 
AMA and LBB are not small cities if WN jets show up.  There are alot of cities that would be happy to have any airline's mainline jet show up at their city.  DL's 717s will do more to bring mainline service to small cities than anything WN has ever done.
 
And it doesn't change that the issue is not small cities in total but SMALL CITIES WITH NONSTOP SERVICE TO DCA.
 
WN won't be wasting slots to fly to AMA or any other small city from DCA.  WN already dropped a dozen or more small cities that FL served which could have been good candidates for small town service but WN wasn't interested. 
 
As much as you want to keep repeating it, robbed, CVG and MEM are not small cities and the cities that were served from CVG and MEM still have service from other hubs.  CVG and MEM are far smaller hubs but DL signed no requirement to maintain its hubs.  AA/US have. 
 
You understand the labor aspect of the industry, Kevin.  I have no problem acknowledging your expertise in the áreas you know well.  You would do well to do the same for others.  
 
WorldTraveler said:
I have said multiple times that DL is the dominant carrier from Chicago to the cities it flies to from both airports - which are its primary hubs. 
And the 737 is the dominant aircraft flown by SWA to the cities it flies. Fact.

You and your use of data from large data sets is similar to a guy who trims bonsai. A snip here, a pinch there. You manicure the data and facts and bury those little cuttings in huge, page-long posts. They may be true, but they are far from painting the entire picture. It seems you do all this to make people on this forum think you are some kind of expert.

It only took me a few weeks to figure out your game. With your reputation on here, I see that the rest of this forum saw through it long ago.
 
The forum doesn't like the aggressive, cut to the facts I take to what I post. That doesn't make what I write inaccurate... it is precisely because I am correct and aggressive that I ruffle feathers.

Specific to the text you quoted, I never said that DL was the dominant carrier from MDW/LGA to every market. I said it was to its key hubs - ATL/DTW/MSP - and they are the largest carrier in those markets because they serve each of those 3 hubs from both Chicago airports. DL is also the largest airline from Chicago to SLC but they don't serve SLC from MDW, only ORD.

DL will be taking the same logic to N. Texas. The difference is that DAL is in a far better location to the Metroplex than MDW is to Chicago. AA and WN can't do what DL will do and DL is targeting its key hubs plus LGA and LAX. What DL intends to do could fundamentally change the N. Texas market if a non-hub/non-Texas market establishes itself as the dominant carrier in some of the largest markets from the Metroplex even though AA and WN will have far larger operations.
 
Force... I long ago knew he was not an expert judging by his 2 and a half mile long delta posts. He is a former dl employee who defends every single thing dl does and if another airline did the same exact thing he cry about it..

so bec cvg and mem are not small cities and dl cuts them up like pizza its ok but its not for any other airline to do the same... the way I see it... dl back stabbed tn by slicing mem which is one reason tn went against the merger after seeing what damage dl caused in mem by chopping it up
 
Robbed,
you have tried to draw serving small/medium sized cities from DCA into the same discussion about hub closures. They are not the same. AA and US have also closed hubs to so I'm not sure what your point is. Like DL, AA, and US serve nearly all of the same cities from their other hubs as they served from their closed hubs.

And again, TN might not look what DL did and I'm not saying they should be happy... but DL did not sign any agreements guaranteeing that they would keep any hubs or major routes. Neither did WN. UA did and AA/US have.

The mere fact that you equate the length of a post with accuracy shows that you truly don't understand the issues involved.

Airlines aren't run based on website sound bites.

Anyone who can't process what I have to say is welcome to tune out.

Repeatedly I see people keep coming back and arguing the details I put out there. The details do matter to a lot of people and they are capable of understanding them.

I do say that I enjoy being the focus of so much attention on this forum but I would rather just discuss the facts.
 
WorldTraveler said:
 
 
DL didn't object to the merger which is what the requirement to file briefs was all about, even if a few WN mechanics think otherwise. 
 
 
 
 
 
.
WRONG.
 
SWA did not object to the merger, and that is NOT a requirement to file a friend of the court brief.
 
Read it here.
 
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/southwest-airlines-wants-to-tell-judge-why-american-airlines-and-us-airways-should-give-up-slots-in-washington-and-new-york.html/
 
WorldTraveler said:
The forum doesn't like the aggressive, cut to the facts I take to what I post. That doesn't make what I write inaccurate... it is precisely because I am correct and aggressive that I ruffle feathers.

Specific to the text you quoted, I never said that DL was the dominant carrier from MDW/LGA to every market. I said it was to its key hubs - ATL/DTW/MSP - and they are the largest carrier in those markets because they serve each of those 3 hubs from both Chicago airports. DL is also the largest airline from Chicago to SLC but they don't serve SLC from MDW, only ORD.

DL will be taking the same logic to N. Texas. The difference is that DAL is in a far better location to the Metroplex than MDW is to Chicago. AA and WN can't do what DL will do and DL is targeting its key hubs plus LGA and LAX. What DL intends to do could fundamentally change the N. Texas market if a non-hub/non-Texas market establishes itself as the dominant carrier in some of the largest markets from the Metroplex even though AA and WN will have far larger operations.
 
Bla, bla, bla,
 
Delta had a hub in north Texas once. I wonder what happened to it?
 
Oh yeah, I remember.
Delta went bankrupt and closed that hub.
 
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-01-31-delta-dfw_x.htm
 
Bla, bla, bla,
 
Delta had a hub in north Texas once. I wonder what happened to it?
 
Oh yeah, I remember.
Delta went bankrupt and closed that hub.
 
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-01-31-delta-dfw_x.htm
 
Again, I have to laugh that you get as worked about what I say and what DL does/did if it has no effect on you (collectively).

The reason why what I say bothers you is because it is true.

You have been repeatedly asked to show me where filing a brief had anything to do with being included in the divestiture process. It doesn't and legally it couldn't. The DOJ can't pass out a proposed settlement and ask who wants to be involved.

The settlement will be overturned and the fact that the process has two more months before it is finished puts the pressure on the DOJ and AA/US to come up w/ something that actually... which just might mean that WN walks away with a whole lot less bacon than they were planning - which fully explains your angst.
 
Oh yea, Delta had a hub in Florida once, they closed that too!
We've been thru it before but DL traded 6-7% of local market share at DFW in order to redeploy assets from DFW that were used to operate hundreds of flights that were filled with connecting passengers. Those assets ended up predominantly in NYC where DL went from no. 3 in NYC behind CO and AA to the number one domestic carrier and the number one int'l carrier at JFK.

Again, I have not criticized AA for shutting down their hubs at BNA or RDU but because they lost the local market to other carriers. AA made the decision to redeploy their assets from BNA and RDU to MIA where they generate far more revenue than they did in the local markets.

You wet your pants just thinking about the possibility of DL being the dominant airline in the a handful of key DAL/DFW markets because DL can serve them from both Dallas airports while WN and AA have to use just one.

Delta's relative market position in Florida is unchanged. And DL is not thru with expanding its network in Florida.
 
WorldTraveler said:
 
Again, I have to laugh that you get as worked about what I say and what DL does/did if it has no effect on you (collectively).

The reason why what I say bothers you is because it is true.

You have been repeatedly asked to show me where filing a brief had anything to do with being included in the divestiture process. It doesn't and legally it couldn't. The DOJ can't pass out a proposed settlement and ask who wants to be involved.

The settlement will be overturned and the fact that the process has two more months before it is finished puts the pressure on the DOJ and AA/US to come up w/ something that actually... which just might mean that WN walks away with a whole lot less bacon than they were planning - which fully explains your angst.
 

We've been thru it before but DL traded 6-7% of local market share at DFW in order to redeploy assets from DFW that were used to operate hundreds of flights that were filled with connecting passengers. Those assets ended up predominantly in NYC where DL went from no. 3 in NYC behind CO and AA to the number one domestic carrier and the number one int'l carrier at JFK.

Again, I have not criticized AA for shutting down their hubs at BNA or RDU but because they lost the local market to other carriers. AA made the decision to redeploy their assets from BNA and RDU to MIA where they generate far more revenue than they did in the local markets.

You wet your pants just thinking about the possibility of DL being the dominant airline in the a handful of key DAL/DFW markets because DL can serve them from both Dallas airports while WN and AA have to use just one.

Delta's relative market position in Florida is unchanged. And DL is not thru with expanding its network in Florida.
You are getting me and SWAMT mixed up.

You apparently didn't read the link I provided that clealy shows you were WRONG.

Maybe if you read half as much as you bloviate, could learn something.

SWA filed an amicus brief before the courts deadline to show how they believe slots should be divested.
The DOJ were persuaded by these arguments and SWA is now going to be allowed to bid and win some of these slots.
Delta had the same chance to make a different case but did not.
Delta now is trying to play catchup and you are the only one getting worked up about it.

Oh and don't forget, you were proven wrong by just some mechanic at WN.

You don't get bother me at all, I am just having fun at your expense.

You just don't realize it.
 
WorldTraveler said:
 
The settlement will be overturned and the fact that the process has two more months before it is finished puts the pressure on the DOJ and AA/US to come up w/ something that actually... which just might mean that WN walks away with a whole lot less bacon than they were planning - which fully explains your angst.
You don't understand me at all.
I have no angst about any of this stuff in the least

If we bid on any slots and the price is too high, we will walk away just like last time.
No big deal here.

If Delta keeps their 2 gates at Love or even gets more, no big deal to me.

I am just having fun blowing holes in your two sided arguments and watching you spin like a top.

Unlike you, I am not a zealot.
Just a mechanic enjoying the show.

You still haven't taken my bet that WN will still have 16 gates at Love after this is all over.
Even after you claimed the Wright Amendment Reform Act was full of holes and Delta could easily challenge it in court.

It also seems to me that you take the fact that Delta was driven into bankruptcy, personally.
 
Back
Top