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

[WorldTraveler]

did you really think that Gary is going to say at this point that WN is going to give half of a gate to DL?

It is obvious that WN's strategy is to fill up DAL as fast as it can in order to eliminate all other airlines from DAL.

Problem is that strategy is counter to DOT federal airport access guidelines which existed long before the WA ended and that WN has no legal protection from antitrust actions for operating anything above 16 gates.

further, if you actually read the article you would see that Mr. Kelly was more than a little rattled by the whole line of questioning which finally ended with him saying that he has enough to worry about running WN and the whole gate issue is someone else's problem.

no, Gary, it is YOUR problem because WN occupied such a high percentage of the gates at DAL even before the WA fell and you have only added to that gate count since the WA fell.

WN will be accommodating DL at least in part and very well could be required under antitrust laws to divest the two gates it acquired from UA when it is shown that DAL cannot comply with federal airport access requirements and that WN's size at DAL far exceeds what any other carrier has at any other comparably sized airport and that the whole DAL vs. DFW division which some want to believe can be enforced has no basis in law.

WN is the only carrier that had to choose between whether it would serve DAL or DFW and if it served DFW it would cost it gates at DAL.

No other carrier has that requirement and no other carrier has to choose beyond serving one airport over another.

DAL is required under federal airport access requirements to make gates available to incumbent, non-lease holding airports and WN is not excused from complying with antitrust laws.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

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...

 
Apologies for the 'pollution' created by quoting of WT's posts. 
Typically I try to avoid posting the entire 10000 word diatribes and just try to re-post the salient statements that show either his delusions/dreams of DL grandeur or his fabricated statements (a.k.a. lies).

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

DAL is required under federal airport access requirements to make gates available to incumbent, non-lease holding airports and WN is not excused from complying with antitrust laws.

 
Like I said on the WN forum, I now see that you dropped your "DL is a new entrant" carrier and has to be accommodated narrative.

 

[WorldTraveler]

You mean the parts that you can't actually challenge based on facts?

what you can't accept is that you can't debate the facts of the case so you resort to personal attacks.

Problem with your strategy is that I have been dealing with it for the better part of a decade so that is why I focus on the facts of the case and you, just like many before you, will be reduced to dust in the debate.

In this case, it is pure stupidity to argue that the DOT doesn't know what it is talking about while WN who wants to eliminate all competitors does. Given that the DOT is making the same arguments that DL has made for now years regarding DAL even before the DOT sent its letter should provide all the evidence that WN is the one that is backed into the corner and Gary's huffy departure from the line of questioning shows he knows he has a case on his hand where he can't win just by the typical marketing BS that WN has used to pursue its strategies for years.

 

[eolesen]

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.

Yep. Some people are in denial over the concept of "no room at the inn" which in a way is a bit ironic...

I expected the City to act by the 30 day countdown of the sublease expiration, but that's still two weeks off.

Maybe they're comfortable enough defending the Scarce Use provisions. DOT gave their blessing on those provisions 15 years ago, so it will be fun watching the DOT essentially argue against their own decision to approve the DAL competition plan.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and some people don't understand that WN can't take over all of the gates at an airport and then kick out incumbents or be free from antitrust requirements - even though that is EXACTLY what they argued the legacies did at DCA and LGA.

WN's actions at DAL wouldn't be so galling if they hadn't been blessed by the DOJ gain access at DCA and LGA on the basis of the very same activity used by the legacies.

you and others want to argue that DAL is different so that WN can do at DAL what the DOJ stopped the legacies from doing at DCA and LGA.

There is nothing any different about WN above 16 gates at DAL than for the legacies at DCA or LGA or EWR where they were forced to allow space for competition.

and given that WN was allowed to EXPAND at DCA and LGA and not just hold onto leases or slots in order to maintain its then existing schedule, it is very likely that WN's schedule will be forced to fit into 16 gates and the rest of DAL will have to be made available in time to other carriers.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

You mean the parts that you can't actually challenge based on facts?

You do grasp that the facts are that you have argued, posted multiple posts, stating how DL will 'win" at DAL with the new entrant carrier argument.  Now that you got egg on your face you switched narratives.  The best part is that you then go on to write diatribes about people not having the mental horsepower to grasp  the issue at hand and have an intelligent discussion.  With you that is an impossible task since you lie, spin, deflect and change narratives constantly.  Reality is that you're motive is to sell your dream of DL grandeur, which sadly isn't working.

 

[WorldTraveler]

holy cow you are dense.

DL might well succeed at gaining space as a new entrant - non leaseholder - but they are not using that tactic.

They are arguing that they are a non-lease holding INCUMBENT.


It should be easy for most people with a modicum of intelligence to realize that there are multiple strategies that DL could use. They just happen to be using the strategy of being an incumbent without a lease.

the DOT is siding with them.

Give up your endless campaigns of trying to smear me and focus on what is said.

You are nothing but a jealous immature brat that can't deal with the fact that others including E with whom I disagree can discuss a topic and you can't.

 

[Dog Wonder]

You are nothing but a jealous immature brat that can't deal with the fact that others including E with whom I disagree can discuss a topic and you can't.

Quit stomping your feet.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you directed your response to the wrong person.

I can have a DISCUSSION with anyone who wants to do so debating facts.

I have ZERO tolerance for people calling others names and denigrating them because they don't like the facts that others present.

Despite the line of thought that many have tried to use, there is NO legal protection for WN to operate above 16 gates at DAL and there are well-established airport access requirements that the DOT required for federally funded requirements that far preceded the 5 party agreement or the relaxation of the Wright Amendment.

WN also does not get any pass from antitrust laws on its activities above 16 gates including its attempts to acquire the UA gates and then fill them up only to argue that they can't accommodate DL which indicated its intent to expand its service from DAL long before the WA restrictions fell and before any other carrier announced or implemented their post Wright plans.

WN's actions are clearly anticompetitive and there is a very good chance that they will be forced to retrench to their 16 gates.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The statement below is a nice theory:
 

I have ZERO tolerance for people calling others names and denigrating them because they don't like the facts that others present.

 
But here is the Whole Truth:
 

holy cow you are dense.

You are nothing but a jealous immature brat .....................

 

or in the case of the cheap flyer..........................

 

[700UW]

I have ZERO tolerance for people calling others names and denigrating them because they don't like the facts that others present.

 

And you call people names all the time, you called someone a "twit" in this thread.
 
Hypocrite.

 

[CMH_GSE]

DL has gates at MIA and MIA has common use gatesbtw, you do realize that DL has more seats to/from MIA than every other OPERATING carrier except AA mainline?

Obviously, AA should just capitulate and file for chapter7 and liquidate now"

 

[CMH_GSE]

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...

I have him on ignore, but I have to admit, sometimes it's just ... Fun, to poke cute lil thing.
He's like a pull string doll, so,when I need some comic relief, I pull the string, he never disappoints.

 

[eolesen]

This is a real estate rights issue. WN is the tenant, they have a valid and executed lease.

Incumbency, tenure, schedules, etc. don't matter if you don't have a lease. I don't get to stay in a hotel room for another week after I've been there for a week if I don't have a reservation for the next week. If the house we're currently leasing gets sold, we can't just declare squatter's rights and stay beyond the end date of the lease.

DOT as a government authority doesn't have a Constitutional right confiscate or interfere in a valid lease transaction between two private parties.