Virgin appearently wins gates at DAL

[WorldTraveler]

so it is ok for WN to have worked their tails off but it wasn't ok for DL to take that same risk? if that isn't hypocrisy, I'm not sure what is.

Esp. since WN might not be able to grow AS MUCH without the two gates but DL is still fighting to be able to stay at DAL at all.

DL had every reason to fight.

And, E, it is precisely because DL put out a proposed schedule (which is STILL for sale) that the legality of WN and Virgin now releasing schedules and saying they can't accommodate an existing carrier who also proposed schedules becomes even trickier.

I'm not really interested in debating the legal nuances other than to continue with my assertion that the 2 gates are not the issue but rather access to DAL; and I believe that DL will indeed be serving the airport after the WA falls/changes with a schedule closer to what it proposed than to what it operates now.

 

[eolesen]

Legality of issuing a schedule?... There is no requirement under the DOT to have schedules published in advance that I'm aware of, but I'm sure you can enlighten all of us on that.


And just so we understand your prediction clearly... are you choosing Option 3 or Option 4 from below?... it would need to be one of those two in order to be " closer to what it proposed than to what it operates now."

1) DL will be serving DAL with between 6 and 10 flights
2) DL will be serving DAL with between 10 and 14 flights
3) DL will be serving DAL with between 14 and 18 flights
4) DL will be serving DAL with between 18 and 22 flights


I'm putting my chips on either option 1 or 2. DL will be displaced, and have to fit into UA's schedule, and trying to double the schedule without having preferential use is going to be difficult, at best.

 

[eolesen]

AA confirms that Virgin was the only airline approved by the DOJ. Says that the lease isn't a done deal yet, and that the City rejected an outright transfer.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/04/american-airlines-exec-virgin-america-was-the-only-airline-on-doj-list-for-dallas-love-field-gates.html/

Per an AA official in Corporate Real Estate:
 

The DOJ has advised us that Virgin is the only acceptable party from their perspective. We’ve been told by the DOJ that Virgin is their preferred candidate to get these gates.

Accordingly, we entered into an assignment agreement to assign the gates to Virgin. That was not agreed to by the city.

So we have begun negotiations with Virgin to sublease the gates to Virgin. Those negotiations are ongoing. They’re not completed. There is a chance that they would be completed next week, and we’re continuing to work on those. But they’re not completed yet.

With that, it’s important to know that we are very respectful of the city’s rights with respect to these arrangements, and we don’t want to complete these discussions until we are comfortable that the city is happy with this and will support a sublease with Virgin.

Both DL and WN were missing from the list, so hopefully this settles once and for all the question over who the DOJ saw as fit to bid....

 

[WorldTraveler]

indeed it does. WN was never considered as an alternative even though swamt sure seemed to think sodespite my repeated words that the DOJ could never allow a carrier to grow from 80 to 90% of the gates at an airport which other carriers had a significant interest in serving.


as for the number of flights, I am in agreement with you that it will likely be 1 or 2.

given that UA only has 7 flights/day published on CR7/CRJ aircraft, there is actually a whole lot of room in the schedule for even one gate, let alone two.

and as much as swamt wants to believe otherwise, WN is not exempt from having to share gates if that is what is necessary to accommodate other carriers. Neither is VX.

Even 10 flights/day on mainline aircraft, easily doable with just one gate, could equal as many seats as DL proposed in its first schedule. The real issue will be whether DL can obtain more gate space by doing quick turns on smaller aircraft vs. longer turns on larger aircraft.

Given that VX is going with a fairly low frequency approach to serving multiple markets, it is likely DL can do the same thing and maximize its ability to serve the market. Given that WN really doesn't have a huge amount of extra capacity without dramatically reducing its existing DAL schedule, they will likely go with a max of 5 flights/day with some markets getting fewer flights than that.



I'm glad you recognize that DL will very likely be there... which is what the whole discussion has been about.

Further, there is no doubt that the competitive impact to the metroplex will be far greater as a result of having multiple carriers at each airport instead of simply a couple serving each route.

Key markets like DFW/DAL - NYC, CHI, and LAX will all of a sudden become very competitive.


now I want to see WN's schedules and fares.

 

[swamt]

Wrong again WT!!  I have never said SWA would not have to share a gate at LF, PERIOD, NEVER, Try again sir...

 

[eolesen]

Let it go, swaamt. You never said it. I did. There was no way that the City was going to force WN to share when Skywest's leasehold is grossly underused.

The only thing I've recognized about DL is they'll be able to maintain the level of service they have now.

Five years from now, all the hand wringing over the Wright Amendment will be forgotten, and the pattern of service offered by everyone except for WN will revert back to what it was before. I don't see Virgin's experiment working out too well for them in the long run, and when nobody else wants to jump in, you'll see WN expand into their unused gates...

 

[SharoninSAT]

.
No gates yet, but VX begins selling Love Field tickets...
 
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airline-industry/20140425-no-gates-yet-but-virgin-america-begins-selling-love-field-tickets.ece#
 
If the DAL gates are not awarded to Virgin by the City of Dallas, I suppose
 they could say... "hey, it wasn't approved" and offer those flights out of DFW.

 

[robbedagain]

theyre going to pull the phl flights out  to help w the DAL flights    that's according to news article on nbcphiladelphia.com

 

[swamt]

Sorry bout that E.  It happens so often with him I assumed he was talking to me.  Thx for the correction.
 
Sharon, I read that the City of Dallas is suppose to deal with it Mon morn so hopefully we will all know by then.

 

[700UW]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/04/david-cush-virgin-america-lacks-only-the-citys-approval-for-dallas-love-field-gates.html/

 

[WorldTraveler]

Let it go, swaamt. You never said it. I did. There was no way that the City was going to force WN to share when Skywest's leasehold is grossly underused.

The only thing I've recognized about DL is they'll be able to maintain the level of service they have now.

Five years from now, all the hand wringing over the Wright Amendment will be forgotten, and the pattern of service offered by everyone except for WN will revert back to what it was before. I don't see Virgin's experiment working out too well for them in the long run, and when nobody else wants to jump in, you'll see WN expand into their unused gates...

except even that interpretation and what swamt has repeatedly posted defies the following which are part of the 2006 agreement that removed the Wright amendment restrictions on longhaul domestic flying -

1. There are no longer ANY exclusive use gates at DAL for any airline including Southwest. Southwest has no claim to the 16 gates it has sat on for decades. None. All gates at DAL are on a preferential use basis.

2. The City of Dallas properly recognizes in the lease that they are required by federal law to accommodate new entrant airlines and as such the airline leases specifically state that DAL will voluntarily seek accommodation of new entrants via gate leaseholders but if no volunteers are found, the city will require the sharing of preferential use gates.

3. There is no distinction in the airline leases or the 2006 agreement between low fare carriers or legacy carriers nor is there is any limit on the number of flights that are considered the maximum which a new entrant carrier can operate and expect to be accommodated.

4. Any gates which revert to the City of Dallas become common use gates.

If DL does not have access sufficient for what it seeks to do, it becomes a new entrant and must be accommodated based on the 2006 agreement, the airline leases, and federal airport access laws.

The UA gates may well accommodate part of DL's schedule but there is nothing that says that DL cannot insist on operating its entire proposed schedule with UA, Virgin, and WN all having to provide access as necessary to allow DL to operate its schedule.

The very reason why the City of Dallas has not approved the lease is because they know full well that they have legal requirements to satisfy and they will have to accommodate DL's schedule.

Further, the City of Dallas also recognizes that DL could well be the first of many airlines that become interested in serving DAL if service by WN is half as successful as WN and I believe it will be.

There have been a number of people who have repeatedly tried to argue that the situation between DAL and DFW will be the same as between ORD and MDW or IAH and HOU but even on that basis there are very real reasons why DL has every intention to seek DAL service.

First, DL is the 2nd largest airline at both MDW and HOU even though it also serves IAH and ORD. DL is also the largest airline from the combined MDW/ORD market to each of its 3 major hubs which it serves from both airports - ATL, DTW, and MSP.

DL does not fly MDW-SLC but is still the largest airline in the local CHI-SLC market based on its service from ORD; DL does not fly HOU-DTW,MSP,or SLC but is still the largest airline from the combined IAH/HOU based on its service from IAH.

DL is also the largest revenue carrier from DFW to ATL/DTW/MSP/SLC.

DL's execs made a statement recently that those on here would do well to remember as well as understand the significance to this DAL discussion. DL said that it is the dominant carrier in all of its hubs and it is precisely for that reason that DL generates the revenue premiums to the industry that it does.

If WN wasn't interested in flying to any of DL's hubs, including LGA, DL might well be willing to let DAL go.

But DL has demonstrated at both HOU and MDW that they are not going to allow WN or any other carrier to fly from any one of WN's heavily monopolistic hubs/focus cities to a DL hub without DL operating on the same route.

The law is on DL's side that WN will not be able to set up shop at DAL flying to DL's hubs without DL being able to offer its own service.

swamt can wring his hands all he wants but unless the schedule DL wants to operate from DAL can be accommodate on existing available gates, and it is doubtful that their 22 flight schedule can fit into the space left over at UA's gates, then DL aircraft will very likely be operating at WN and Virgin gates at DAL.

And it is also very possible that further new entrants could choose to show up at DAL and will have to be accommodated as well, further reducing the size of WN's operation.

 

[robbedagain]

700  thanks for that link    I like that one line  whereas it says DL was eliminated from it per se that they are not a low cost carrier...   DL got knocked down further   they may not be out yet but its not far

 

[WorldTraveler]

so are you willing to treat ME to dinner at Ruth's Chris if you are wrong and I am right, robbed?

 

[700UW]

The very reason why the City of Dallas has not approved the lease is because they know full well that they have legal requirements to satisfy and they will have to accommodate DL's schedule.

Making things up again?

 

[WorldTraveler]

When one understands the complex legal environment that has been the WA and what the Justice Dept's interference in it has done, it is really quite logical for the City of Dallas to make sure THEY stay out of legal hot water.

All that has to happen is for someone to screw up legally and the whole thing ends up in court, everyone could lose everything that they have put into the agreement and development of DFW and DAL, and the entire market has to be reset based on some complete unknown.

The City of Dallas knows what it is doing and it is precisely why they have not signed off yet and won't until they have assurances that all of the competing demands can be met.

Further, just because swamt doesn't understand the way this all works doesn't mean the execs running WN don't. They are well aware of what is at stake and what they have to do to keep their plans from all blowing up in their face.

All of those that have cheered the size of the schedule that Virgin announced just defined how high the threshold of "new entrant" is. Not very many airlines enter a market with almost 20 flights/day but that is what Virgin has done and the DOJ has blessed and that is now the size of the hurdle to which any subsequent new entrant can pursue - all at the potential cost of the size of WN's operation.