UA transfers its two DAL (Love Field) gates to Southwest; Is DL out?

Status
Not open for further replies.
indeed, Gary Kelly did not win the discussion since he had to end it by saying to go to the other big airport.

He is right that the problem is DAL's. But DAL didn't bother to create common use gates to allow other carriers to be accommodated or even withhold half of a gate's worth of space for DL given that the DOT has long said that existing carriers have to be accommodated - and they reiterated that.

so, yeah, DAL has to figure it out but they will use the gates they have - which are leased fully to WN and VX - or they can lose federal funding. DL wouldn't mind that solution since it would send WN's costs thru the roof.

Chances are very high that DAL will say that WN must accommodate DL because they had a lease that predated WN's transfer of their lease to WN and the DOT had already told DAL that they must accommodate DL

OR

DAL will have to accommodate DL proportionately between WN and VX space - which might make VX accommodate about one of DL's flights every other day but WN will still be left with the "burden" of sharing their space with DL.

when did they say the Appeals Court will rule?
 
Since there really is no current precedent for this situation, anyone making predictions is simply a unicorn farting rainbows...
 
or more accurately there is no precedent for a carrier occupying 95% of the gates at an airport, having as many seats as AA has at DCA, and then saying that an airport that large doesn't need to have service by 3 carriers because 1 of them can fly out of the "other airport"

guess what?

the DOJ bought WN's argument about needing LGA and DCA access hook, line, and sinker and now DL is going to hold WN to the same standard that WN obtained for itself at NYC and WAS.

Further, there is no legal protection at DAL for WN to occupy 18 gates any more than there is for any other carrier to occupy 95% of the gates at any other airport.

and DAL screwed up by refusing to convert the 2 AA gates to common use.

now someone has to figure out all out.

which really means that someone is going to have to give up gate space they should have never had in the first place.

DL

You know what they say about karma, don't you?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #334
WorldTraveler said:
and DAL screwed up by refusing to convert the 2 AA gates to common use.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I'm curious - how would DAL convert AA's two gates to common use? And when should DAL have attempted that conversion? AA has a lease, and that lease says "preferential use." Does federal law contain any mechanism for re-writing leases before their expiration?

When the lease is renegotiated, sure, that's when airports can implement the DOT's preference for Common Use gates, but AFAIK, there is no way to do that in the middle of a lease term if the tenant says "no thanks."

Wasn't that the problem in Chicago with B6 and VX both wanting gates when the exclusive use tenants (like AA) refused to lease them space? There was nothing ORD or DOT could do about it - that space belonged to AA. Same with UA's ORD gates.
 
DL petitioned DAL and the DOJ for DAL to do just that and noted that DAL is one of the very few airports in the 100 largest in the US that do not have common use gates - ANY AT ALL.

The AA lease could just as easily have been transferred to DAL and AA received the exact same amount of money that any lease could have generated.

and many airport leases DO contain provisions that if there is a change in usage, such as occurred with UA, that the gates automatically revert to common use or the airport has the right to impose restrictions if necessary including to meet legal requirements.

WN argued that there was no legal requirement for any carrier to gain access to those gates and that they were gaining access because of the economic advantage they could bring to the market - completely arguing against the legal requirements regarding airport access which DL had raised.

DAL absolutely could have refused to transfer the lease and converted it to common use and would have had the DOT on their side.

Now, it is the DOT against WN who will continue to pressure DAL but DAL has now weakened to the point of saying they won't run the risk of losing federal money so they will comply with whatever the Appeals Court or any other legal body that ultimately decides the case says must be done.

and you continue to ignore the fact that VX was accommodated at ORD in the int'l terminal. VX didn't want that space but ORD did comply with federal access requirements.
AA and UA's gates aren't common use at ORD but ORD most definitely has common use gates.

There is now just one terminal at DAL so DL doesn't really care which of the 20 gates at DAL it uses.

It just will use the equivalent of half a gate.

Until they decide to go after more.
 
WorldTraveler said:
.There is now just one terminal at DAL so DL doesn't really care which of the 20 gates at DAL it uses.It just will use the equivalent of half a gate.Until they decide to go after more.
Click to expand...
Is that before, or after DL takes over MIA?
 
DL has gates at MIA and MIA has common use gates

btw, you do realize that DL has more seats to/from MIA than every other OPERATING carrier except AA mainline?
 
WorldTraveler said:
btw, you do realize that DL has more seats to/from MIA than every other OPERATING carrier except AA mainline?
Click to expand...
 
Oh good grief, here we go again.
 
who-is-awesome.jpg

 
If one does a World Fraudster to English translation, what you're really saying is that DL is really #4 in S. FL market (behind NK, B6, AA), isn't that the Whole Truth.
 
Spin away!
 
yes, unfortunately, the conversation went to the dogs as soon as you showed up.

I didn't say the S. Florida market.

I said MIA.

If you were half as quick to read as you were to throw dirt, you might actually get yourself out of the dog house.

poor little pitiful dog that you are looking for someone to give you a pat on the head.
 
There are only about 4 people here who even bother to respond to and quote it's posts. If you absolutely feel the unnecessary urge to respond, please refrain from using the quote feature.

And to others, please stop saying, "I can't wait to hear the spin on this". Yes, we can wait...
 
but you bothered to show up.

It apparently bothers you enough to jump in.

and you are absolutely right that some people can't help themselves by invoking my name in a conversation and then acting peaved that I actually respond.

or in the case of the cheap flyer, he can't quite grasp that those who want a peaceful board will get it by debating the issues and leaving the name calling to the side.

and I suppose your little diversion in the conversation is nothing but a relief valve for you from having to admit that WN is in a corner by itself on the DAL issue and DL and the DOT are just waiting for WN to come to the same conclusion about sharing DAL gates that are paid for by US taxpayers since DAL is a federally funded airport that the rest of the world minus a few people here already know.
 
btw you realize AA is the second largest carrier at BOS and MSP or LGA, etc
 
not sure why anyone would be pointing out who the second largest carrier is in a hub like MIA
 
WorldTraveler said:
indeed, Gary Kelly did not win the discussion since he had to end it by saying to go to the other big airport.He is right that the problem is DAL's. But DAL didn't bother to create common use gates to allow other carriers to be accommodated or even withhold half of a gate'gs worth of space for DL given that the DOT has long said that existing carriers have to be accommodated - and they reiterated that.so, yeah, DAL has to figure it out but they will use the gates they have - which are leased fully to WN and VX - or they can lose federal funding. DL wouldn't mind that solution since it would send WN's costs thru the roof.Chances are very high that DAL will say that WN must accommodate DL because they had a lease that predated WN's transfer of their lease to WN and the DOT had already told DAL that they must accommodate DLORDAL will have to accommodate DL proportionately between WN and VX space - which might make VX accommodate about one of DL's flights every other day but WN will still be left with the "burden" of sharing their space with DL.when did they say the Appeals Court will rule?
Click to expand...
Federal Law did not create common use gates at Love Field. IMO and I am sure in WNs opinion, if Delta wants to stay, they need to get a lease or a sublease on the gate space that they need to operate their scheduled flights.
 
btw you realize AA is the second largest carrier at BOS and MSP or LGA, etc

not sure why anyone would be pointing out who the second largest carrier is in a hub like MIA
Click to expand...
because someone wanted to insert MIA into a discussion about DAL, that's why.

Is that before, or after DL takes over MIA?
Click to expand...
 
  
 

Federal Law did not create common use gates at Love Field. IMO and I am sure in WNs opinion, if Delta wants to stay, they need to get a lease or a sublease on the gate space that they need to operate their scheduled flights.
Click to expand...
except that DL's position from the beginning of this whole fiasco and the DOT has agreed with DL that DL doesn't need a lease in order to be able to serve DAL.

DL had service to DAL under a lease which was pulled out from under them when AA/US agreed to divest gates.

The DOT says that DL has the right to continue to be accommodated at DAL and DAL has the responsibility to find a place for DL.

Given that WN and VX now control all of the gates at DAL, it isn't hard to figure out who will be forced to provide gate space for DL.

and common use gates are a MEANS for airports to use to comply with federal airport access laws.

Had DAL complied with DL's request to convert the AA/US gates into common use, there wouldn't be any argument or lawsuit today.

but DAL didn't do that because WN wanted to dominate the airport and hope no one would stop them and now the legal process is playing out that will lead to WN being forced to give up some of the space it has amassed.

and if WN doesn't lose on the basis of airport access laws, it will lose on the basis of antitrust laws. There is no legal protection for WN to operate 95% of the gates and offer more than 98% of the seats from an airport that has as many seats as AA's operation at DCA which the DOJ said was too large for one carrier to operate without more competition. Further, the WA and 5PA provide no protection for WN to operate 18 gates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top