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

[swamt]

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.

 
 

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.

Another thing that he is not wrapping his head around are the rules and regs surrounding anyone, not just Delta, who wants to lease at DAL.  The primary lease holder must have room, and as long as it does not disrupt the primary lease holders schedules.  SWA will not have any room to sub-lease out any gate at DAL.  It is not up to SWA to accommodate anyone at DAL.  It is up to the COD to try and find a way to accommodate Delta as long as the 2 major points I listed above are followed, otherwise they can not be accommodated.  I am still willing to bet that Virgin may end up making some room later when they revamp their schedules as we are hearing.  But if they do not, and they too use full capacity 18-20 flights per day, then Delta will be asked to relocate their flights over to DFW as they have the right to fly out of both airports with no restrictions unlike SWA.  He still does not understand the surroundings of these 2 airports and has no clue how badly restricted SWA has been for all it's years until now.  
Now some on here are thinking Virgin may pull out eventually from DAL, if and when that happens those two gates will go up for lease and it will take a Low cost carrier to get them just like they did last time, if no LCC takes them then maybe they will go outside to other airlines at that point, but I doubt it. What would be funny is if no LCC applied and they were awarded over to SWA a LCC...

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I am still willing to bet that Virgin may end up making some room later when they revamp their schedules as we are hearing.

Right.
Given how poorly VX is doing at DAL, I'm a little curious as to how long they are willing to continue their little experiment.
Or perhaps they may already in negotiations with DL about sharing gates?
 

Now some on here are thinking Virgin may pull out eventually from DAL, if and when that happens those two gates will go up for lease and it will take a Low cost carrier to get them just like they did last time, if no LCC takes them then maybe they will go outside to other airlines at that point

I always thought that B6 would be the 'logical' LCC that ended up at DAL when AA was forced to give up their gates. G4 and/or NK would have been my other guesses.

Now suppose that VX does walk away, I wonder if the gov will insist that only a LCC may bid on those gates again ... ... ...

 

[swamt]

Right.
Given how poorly VX is doing at DAL, I'm a little curious as to how long they are willing to continue their little experiment.
Or perhaps they may already in negotiations with DL about sharing gates?
 
I always thought that B6 would be the 'logical' LCC that ended up at DAL when AA was forced to give up their gates. G4 and/or NK would have been my other guesses.

Now suppose that VX does walk away, I wonder if the gov will insist that only a LCC may bid on those gates again ... ... ...

Good point. They very well could be in nego's with Virgin thru another sub-lease type arrangement. I agree with your assumptions.  Just curious why they did not apply.  I was positive that Spirit would have tried to move over to DAL, but I was wrong on that guess.  B6 was another top choice in my mind as well.  I don't really put VX on the LCC list. In my opinion they are more of a Lower Cost option of lux travel than AA, Delta and United.  Really no impact on SWA when they arrived.  SWA is still reporting 90% and better load factors out of DAL since the W/A has been lifted...

 

[WorldTraveler]

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

 
I treat people with the same respect that they show me.

sorry if that sounds cruel but FF is one of the very last people on this forum who has yet to figure out that if they want peace, then show respect to others even if they don't agree with your point.

I have given enormous latitude to those who can show respect for them to say.
 

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.

 
so you really don't ignore, right? just admit it.

The ones who are getting poked are those who really can't ignore me but have to throw their own little comments in - which are guaranteed to evoke a response from me because I don't ignore anyone.
 

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.

 
 

Another thing that he is not wrapping his head around are the rules and regs surrounding anyone, not just Delta, who wants to lease at DAL.  The primary lease holder must have room, and as long as it does not disrupt the primary lease holders schedules.  SWA will not have any room to sub-lease out any gate at DAL.  It is not up to SWA to accommodate anyone at DAL.  It is up to the COD to try and find a way to accommodate Delta as long as the 2 major points I listed above are followed, otherwise they can not be accommodated.  I am still willing to bet that Virgin may end up making some room later when they revamp their schedules as we are hearing.  But if they do not, and they too use full capacity 18-20 flights per day, then Delta will be asked to relocate their flights over to DFW as they have the right to fly out of both airports with no restrictions unlike SWA.  He still does not understand the surroundings of these 2 airports and has no clue how badly restricted SWA has been for all it's years until now.  
Now some on here are thinking Virgin may pull out eventually from DAL, if and when that happens those two gates will go up for lease and it will take a Low cost carrier to get them just like they did last time, if no LCC takes them then maybe they will go outside to other airlines at that point, but I doubt it. What would be funny is if no LCC applied and they were awarded over to SWA a LCC...

except it isn't simply a real estate issue and never has been.

first, the DOT is not just a limp-wristed advisory committee that plays second fiddle to the market.

second, like so many of the arguments, yours doesn't even logically hold up since the two gates in question were acquired from UA and WN has preceded to fill them up - or is working on doing so. DL's stake at DAL for service goes back before WN acquired UA's gates. further WN acquired the gates and THEN loaded them up even while other carriers were waiting to add flights and WN knew it. It is highly unlikely that any court will allow WN to acquire assets above the 16 gates and push out the competition given that it has been known for almost two years that DL wanted to add flights.

and finally, the federal government considers federally funded airports as public property. Private property rights are superseded by federal law and policy and that happens ALL THE TIME IN MULTIPLE INDUSTRIES.
The DOT absolutely has the right to dictate how federal assets are used and they have done it repeatedly involving gates, slots, and other federal aviation infrastructure.

IF WN really wants to be able to exercise private property rights, it can buy DAL from the City of Dallas and pay for the full cost of operating the airport. Then and only then do federal laws stop applying, including the ones that require that competition be maintained if not expanded and antitrust laws enforced.

when WN buys DAL, let me know so we can rewrite the rules based on private ownership and not federal requirements.

frugal,
congratulations to your cordial discussion of the issues without name calling!

B6 wasn't interested in DAL at first because they couldn't possibly fill 2 gates worth of flying.

VX can't either but they are willing to further tick off WN by flying to AUS on top of other markets.

at some point, they will have to admit that their strategy has failed

If the two gates which VX occupies becomes available because of their failure, DAL will likely once again be faced with the choice of converting them to common use.

But as long as DL continues to maintain service, the DOT says that DL does have the right to be accommodated.

at this point, if the Appeals court rules that DL must be accommodated, WN will probably want to see VX fail and then have the two VX gates converted to common use and split between DL and whoever else might want a piece of a gate.

I'm not sure that DL would accept that since it proposed a schedule for the use of two gates and common use gate usage does not require splitting between multiple carriers if one is willing to take them all.

Further, I still think that eventually and perhaps as part of this case, the size of WN's operation at DAL relative to other airports will be challenged esp. since the WA and 5PA does not provide any legal protection for WN to operate above 16 gates.

WN's oeprations on any gates above 16 will be subject to the same airport access and antitrust requirements that every other airline faces at every other airport.

I am happy to admit if I am wrong but I believe that eventually that will be shown to be true. Will others admit if they are wrong?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

first, the DOT is not just a limp-wristed advisory committee that plays second fiddle to the market.

 
I find it interesting that on one hand you're worshiping/praising the DOT as an almighty can-do-no wrong federal agency, whereas on another thread (see below) you're attitude is that it is a POS gov agency that airlines like DL can disrespect:
 

Airlines say what they need to say to the DOT. What happens in real life is considerable different.

So which is it?
You can't have it both ways.
 

further WN acquired the gates and THEN loaded them up ......

To me all that it means is that WN got their ducks in a row.
Contrast that with DL, who got caught with their pants down.
 

Further, I still think that eventually and perhaps as part of this case, the size of WN's operation at DAL relative to other airports will be challenged esp. since the WA and 5PA does not provide any legal protection for WN to operate above 16 gates.

We'll see how this all plays out in the courts.
The way one could look at it is that WN has their 16 gates, VX has the 2 former AA gates, and the other 2 were UAs.  To whom UA chooses to sub-lease the gates to (if they're not using them) really isn't up to the courts to dictate.  Perhaps UA on purpose went to WN to p!ss off DL or perhaps DL wasn't willing to pay the rates UA was asking or that WN was offering?  Regardless, I can't see how a judge has the authority to tell UA or any lease holder for that matter, to whom they wish to sub-lease to.
 
I'm thinking the best outcome for DL is to hope for VX failure at DAL or some sort of a deal with VX.
 
Obviously you'll disagree, but I'm not surprised.

 

[WorldTraveler]

nowhere did I say that the DOT is a POS agency that airlines can disrespect.

the DOT like a lot of people doesn't fully ask a question that requires a full answer. DL and other airlines including AA don't always tell everything, including that AA intended to discontinue its LAX-NRT flight if it won the right to fly LAX-HND.

Did AA disrespect the DOT? I didn't say that. I said the DOT didn't ask all of the questions, AA didn't tell them what they didn't ask, and it was only because of a bonehead in AA's schedule dept. that they assigned the same flight number to the proposed LAX-HND flight as is currently used for LAX-NRT

disrespect? no.

but the disrespect line is all you can hold onto to claim that the DOT is wrong. Sorry but you and others than think the DOT just pulled these guidelines out of a hat are sorely mistaken. They have existed for years.

I'm not sure why you and others can't accept that the federal government has OFTEN told carriers that they have to divest assets. The fact that you can't see that history in your attempts to argue that "this has never been done" and "there is no basis for it" is really rather frightening. It happens all the time with public assets, which is exactly what federally funded airports are.

The DOT already said that leases at airports can't be extortionistic so the "DL wasn't willing to pay the freight" argument doesn't work. and leases at public airports are public knowledge. If that was all the reason, DL would have no case and the DOT would know it.

The federal government has dictated now federal assets are used, not just in aviation but in other industries. and the courts have been required to settle disputes between private companies and the federal government before.

 

[eolesen]

Given how poorly VX is doing at DAL, I'm a little curious as to how long they are willing to continue their little experiment.
Or perhaps they may already in negotiations with DL about sharing gates?
 
I always thought that B6 would be the 'logical' LCC that ended up at DAL when AA was forced to give up their gates. G4 and/or NK would have been my other guesses.

Now suppose that VX does walk away, I wonder if the gov will insist that only a LCC may bid on those gates again ... ... ...

First off, AA still has the lease on the gates VX is using. They weren't forced to give up their gates -- they are just precluded from operating at DAL as long as the consent decree is in place (which expires before AA's lease does).

If VX leaves, those gates are still AA's, and the DOJ's intent of opening up those gates to new entrants would probably still apply, although I can't imagine anyone else would want them at this point other than DL.

The irony of that is should DL wind up on AA's gates, in a few years, DL would potentially be out on the curb (again) should AA resume flying at DAL, which they'd be able to do the day the consent decree expires.

 

[WorldTraveler]

first, the DOJ's requirement for AA/US to not serve DAL was related to the AA/US merger.

There is no basis for them dictating airport access on any other basis and it is doubtful that attempts to do so could survive a legal challenge.

Second, the terms of the lease or who owns the gates has nothing to do with DAL's requirement to follow airport access requirement.

you and others can't get rid of the idea that airport access requirements are independent of airport leases - and the airport access requirements exist precisely to ensure that leaseholders cannot eliminate competition by hoarding gates.

and it isn't at all a given that DL would be out even if DL ends up in AA's gates because airport access requirements still require that carriers that have maintained service at an airport have a right to continue to do so.

the irony could be that DL could operate at gates that have a lease with DAL by UA, WN, and then AA.

 

[eolesen]

https://youtu.be/DGhTr8lDCV0

 

[WorldTraveler]

and what does that have to do with the fact that there is no legal protection for WN to operate the two gates and that the DOT has said that incumbent carriers must be accommodated regardless of what happens with leases?

but hey they are just an advisory body responsible for virtually all transportation within and to/from the US so what would they know?

 

[Dog Wonder]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/analyst-dallas-love-field-situation-getting-uglier-by-the-day.html/
 
From reading the comments the locals think DL should pound sand.

 

[southwind]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/analyst-dallas-love-field-situation-getting-uglier-by-the-day.html/
 
From reading the comments the locals think DL should pound sand.

Really? The only locals I could see, wanting DL to pound sand was WN. Keep DL out and then they can raise prices. You being a Libtard and all, I would think you would be all about competition, price wars, if it benefited the little people!

 

[WorldTraveler]

it's no wonder you post the stuff you do when you can come up with a conclusion like that from the article you cited.

and besides, DAL is not a local airport. It is a federal airport. DAL has to comply with federal laws or lose federal funds.

DAL is a whole lot less attractive if WN has to pay for the cost of operating it on its own (plus the tiny piece that VX has)

and you probably missed or ignored the part that DL said it isn't leaving and also that DL has named its new chief counsel - someone who was named as antitrust lawyer of the year in 2013 and has lots of experience in complex legal cases.

Methinks DL is just winding up to take DAL and the remnants of the Wright Amendment apart on the basis of antitrust law which is what any rational person would conclude has happened to DAL since the WA restrictions were dropped. When one carrier controls 90% of the gates at a single airport and over 95% of the seats, there is no justice for anyone and justice itself has been sacrificed on the altar of WN's ego.

Methinks it's all going to come to a screeching halt for long.

the best part of this board is that it, well, will always be here.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/analyst-dallas-love-field-situation-getting-uglier-by-the-day.html/
 
From reading the comments the locals think DL should pound sand.

Great comment posted from this guy:

"It seems fairly obvious what Southwest’s play is here, as they want to force Delta to either: (1) leave Love Field altogether; or (2) file a federal lawsuit challenging the 20-gate gate limit at Love Field on anti-trust grounds. Either way, it’s a win for Southwest. If Delta leaves, it’s less competition for Southwest at Love. If Delta attacks the 20-gate limit in federal court on anti-trust or other grounds, then Delta is essentially doing Southwest’s dirty work for it by trying to force an expansion of Love Field, but without Southwest having to take the PR hit or incur potentially enormous litigation costs. Under this scenario Delta, not Southwest, will be the airline the blows up the Love Field 20-gate compromise and thereby incurs the wrath of Fort Worth, DFW Airport, American Airlines and Love Field's residential neighbors. And if Delta pulls back from the brink and doesn't litigate, then it's one less competitor at Love for SWA. Either way, moving so quickly to sublease those two badly underutilized United gates was a very clever win-win play by Southwest."

 

[WorldTraveler]

except it is not an antitrust violation for WN to have to work within the physical restraints of DAL which the community agreed to.

Every airport has limited facilities.

DL, OTOH, did not agree to not serve DAL so that WN could.

DL is not interested in challenging the 20 gate limit.

DL is interested in seeing that DL and any other carrier that wants to serve DAL is allowed to do so. Given the DOT's rules, DL is the only carrier that has expressed an interest in DAL, does not serve it, and is being threatened with being pushed out.

The antitrust case is that WN has dominated the market at DAL, has acquired a far higher percentage of the gate space at DAL and has engaged in activities to force competitors out of the market.

It is no surprise that DL hired one of the top antitrust lawyers in the country as its chief counsel.

The irony is that all of the cries that Texas would determine the outcome of its airports will be changed because a non-Texas hubbing airline has decided they are going to break up the way-too-cozy relationship that exists between Texas airlines and regulators.