Virgin America brand might keep flying after merger with Alaska Airlines

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I might be misunderstanding your post here, but, the DOJ cannot just review and rescind any part of the agreement. They can submit for changes thru the proper channels (legal system) and all 5 parties have to agree to the changes.  Which as far as a few on that list would not allow it unless, just thinking out loud here, not saying it's going to happen.  I would be willing to bet that AA could be very successful to get that change prior to the 10 years.  If AA wants it bad enough they could say "give us our gates back at DAL , please, and we will lift the restrictions for SWA to enter over at DFW, AND (big AND here but very key) AND lift the international restrictions at DAL?"   Or, lift the restrictions on the number of gates and allow the original 32 instead of the current 20?  Never say never. If certain parties want changes it can be done, the question is, how bad do they want changes and how much are they ready to rescind in order to get them what they want. 

 
I apologize if I'm mistaken, but I thought the restriction on AA flying out of DAL for 10 years was a DOJ imposed condition of the AA-US "merger" and has nothing to do with / is separate from the Wright Amendment 5 party agreement?
 
Therefore, the issue of AA getting the gates VX might vacate at DAL might come down to legal arguments between AA and the DOJ - but I'm not a laywer ...  ... ...

 

[swamt]

 
I apologize if I'm mistaken, but I thought the restriction on AA flying out of DAL for 10 years was a DOJ imposed condition of the AA-US "merger" and has nothing to do with / is separate from the Wright Amendment 5 party agreement?
 
Therefore, the issue of AA getting the gates VX might vacate at DAL might come down to legal arguments between AA and the DOJ - but I'm not a laywer ...  ... ...

Oh wait a minute. I may be completely wrong here and may be the one apologizing.  You make a great argument there.  It very well could be the way you say. I may have prematurely spoke saying it was tied to the 5P agreement.  I was thinking it was in the 5 party agreement probably because of the restrictions put on SWA about going to DFW.  So I was thinking those two restrictions were kinda going hand and hand. But, now that you mention it I may be completely wrong and your completely right.  I will do some homework later on today to try and find out, it would be interesting to know which way is correct as that mean a great deal of difference on how AA could and would fight to get back in at DAL. If you get time pls post, I need to get ready for work and I will do the same. Thx for that heads up. With all the crap going on and changes at DAL it's hard to keep straight what was what.

 

[700UW]

The restrictions were part of the merger, nothing to do with the Five party agreement.

 

[eolesen]

Oh wait a minute. I may be completely wrong here and may be the one apologizing.

AA's banishment from DAL was self-imposed in the settlement agreement that got DOJ to drop it's antitrust lawsuit against the merger.

It has nothing to do with the 5PA, WARA, or anything else that's an act of Congress, so all they have to do is mutually agree to rescind that section of the agreement, and file the right papers with the court who approved the settlement.

Worst case, they'd have to go in front of a judge to get approval if DL or someone else objected (which is entirely possible).

Also, DL has only been squatting for about 18 months. They had a legitimate lease with UA up until the point UA pulled out and subleased to WN.

 

[swamt]

AA's banishment from DAL was self-imposed in the settlement agreement that got DOJ to drop it's antitrust lawsuit against the merger.

It has nothing to do with the 5PA, WARA, or anything else that's an act of Congress, so all they have to do is mutually agree to rescind that section of the agreement, and file the right papers with the court who approved the settlement.

Worst case, they'd have to go in front of a judge to get approval if DL or someone else objected (which is entirely possible).

Also, DL has only been squatting for about 18 months. They had a legitimate lease with UA up until the point UA pulled out and subleased to WN.

Then I do apologize to you E. I was wrong. Sorry about all the confusion I caused. With (if) Virgin does pull out of DAL it will get interesting on who gets what.  We could possibly end up with 3-4 airlines wanting gates at DAL.

 

[eolesen]

We could possibly end up with 3-4 airlines wanting gates at DAL.

I doubt it. They could all apply for access now under the current rule, but they haven't.

AA can't. UA could, and technically still holds its lease, but apparently wants nothing to do with DAL.

Allegiant, Spirit and Frontier appeal to an entirely different type of customer base (think Walmart, not Dillards), and that's not what DAL is about.

Jetblue doesn't even fly JFK-DFW right now -- they only fly BOS-DFW. I certainly don't see them trying to do dual airport or move that over to DAL.

So, who else is left?...