Will the DAL Love Field spat spread to other airports?

[swamt]

This is an interesting article.  The DAL Love Field gate spat could very well reach other restricted airports.   Helping to improve flights, as well as congestion.  
 
Southwest and Delta are in a fight in Dallas and now the FAA is trying to break it up

 

[WorldTraveler]

the article is confusing the issue of gate access and perimeter rules. The two are different.

further, the perimeter restrictions at LGA are controlled by the Port Authority whereas the perimeter restrictions at DCA are controlled by Congress.

The issue at DAL regards domination of an airport, elimination of competition, and following accommodation rules which DAL and WN knew all along had to be followed at DAL and which were never superseded by any other legislation just as antitrust regulations have not been overruled.

Obviously, WN and DAL do not see it that way but all of the federal agencies that have weighed in on the DL access issue via the accommodation process have sided with DL; the DOJ has made no comment on the accommodation process nor has it taken a position on the issue of DL's service to DAL outside of the awarding of the ex-AA gates to VX as part of the merger approval.

there are enough threads on the issue of the DAL gate issue but we can keep it going if you want.

The simple answer to the question you pose in the thread title is NO because perimeter restrictions are a different issue from the current DAL access issue.

and correcting the article, the FAA has specifically said there is no defined deadline to settle the DL gate access issue and there can be no dates given by any parties in the case as to how long DL can remain. The court and only the court will decide the timeline for the case and the disposition of the use of the facilities.

 

[AirLUVer]

There are enough closed threads about the DAL gate issue.

There will be potential similar issues if they lift perimeter rules at LGA and DCA, and airlines that current sublease their slots to other carriers are unable to get their slots back from the subleasing carrier.

 

[swamt]

There are enough closed threads about the DAL gate issue.

There will be potential similar issues if they lift perimeter rules at LGA and DCA, and airlines that current sublease their slots to other carriers are unable to get their slots back from the subleasing carrier.

Yes there is.  I will always post when there is something new or changed on this topic.  I have conversed with the moderators on this issue.  WT is simply here (with another poster) to obviously shut down every topic involving the DAL Love Field issues as they are very negative towards Delta staying at DAL, so this is his main and only goal to shut down every topic on the issue.  If the forum users would put him on ignore and not read his crap the threads would remain open.  If this one gets shut down I will start another one. Stop reading his postings and stop responding to them and the forum will continue to remain open with good and positive input, otherwise, this one will get shut down too.  I have warned and warned about this and most just continue to fall for his BS.  
Now, back to the topic.
Yes there would be more similar issues IF this is allowed to get out of hand which is exactly why I posted it and the 2 airports you listed are the ones that are waiting for the ruling at DAL.  
 
BTW, I looked into the flights at DAL since since the Aug 9th gate that SWA added the additional flights upping the gate usage to 10 flights per day and all airlines are getting there flights off the ground. So the idea that it would not be able to be done is crushed.  Pretty sure the little 5 flights per day by Delta and will stay and now the airport is maxed out. Delta just won't be able to grow at DAL to the 20 flights they have always wanted...

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, I am not interested in or trying to shut down anything.

I am well aware that we have a different opinion about DAL but the notion that DL can stay now that the operation can support DL's 5 flights plus WN's 180 won't be the factor that determines the outcome.

Either DL's reason for insisting that it had a right to stay in the first place was right and if so, then the basis for DL to stay long term and to add the flights it requested to add BEFORE WN announced its schedule to use the 18 gates is just as valid.

it will be a whole lot harder for WN or DAL to argue that DL should be kicked out when it is clear that the operation is working with DL there.

but again, WN said for months that there wouldn't be room for DL when WN brought its schedule up to 180 flights so why should anyone believe that the schedule can't work with 8 or 9 more flights?

The article you raised poses some very interesting questions and trends in the industry - which the author did not fully elaborate and you did not bring out.

first, low fuel prices will provide the basis for increased demand, esp. as airlines are forced to be more aggressive with pricing not only to not give up ground to ULCCs but also to avoid displeasure from the government with a consolidated industry.

second, airport space will become increasingly limited and some airports will become even more difficult for airlines to expand. DAL will certainly be at the top of the list.

but third, and this brings it back to DAL, if WN can get by with dominating DAL and not allowing other competitors in, then you can bet your bottom dollar that DL and AA will argue aggressively about whether they should have to give anything up or make any accommodations for other carriers if the LGA and DCA perimeter restrictions are lifted.

I don't want to get into a long pi789ng match, but WN pulled a huge smokescreen over the DOJ during the AA/US merger process and WN succeeded at getting access to DCA that has never been given to any other carrier other than to B6 when they launched from JFK. JFK had a whole lot more space available at the time. WN argued that they should have the right to bid their way into DCA in a highly limited bid that would ensure that WN would be the carrier with the deepest pockets and wouldn't face any real competition in bidding.

I can absolutely assure you that process will not be repeated.

It is now very obvious that the DOJ's actions at DCA and LGA did little to diversify or expand the market at DCA or LGA beyond B6 and WN but simply took a chunk of the legacy carriers' business and shifted it to B6 and WN.

the DOJ's actions at DAL and DCA were done in part to ensure that AA could recover the most amount of money from the divested slots rather than to increase competition.

Further, it is even more obvious that the DOJ's requirement that the AA gates at DAL be divested to a single carrier has limited growth to other carriers besides VX but has also resulted in VX clearly adding the AUS flights solely to hang onto the gates and block them from being used by other airlines.

The DOJ stuck their nose into the AA/US case without proper preparation or understanding of the airline industry and the results of their decisions clearly show that they did not increase the competitive environment near as much as they could have if they had not allowed WN to have so much influence as it did in the process.

even if a court requires that AA and DL divest slots at DCA and LGA - and I doubt if they can require it because there is no change in the number of slots by any carrier but rather how they are used. Every carrier that serves DCA or LGA or could has the choice NOW of how they want to use their slots and they will continue to have that option. If they want to fly longhaul routes, then it will have to come at the cost of some shorthaul flights - and every carrier will have to make that same decision.

what is certain is that there will be no more slots created at LGA - which is how the feds have added longhaul flying from DCA. They did not take any slots from any existing slot holders but simply added longhaul slots for new service; there simply is no way that LGA can handle any more flights.

and finally, WN might like to have a game where they can win and no other carrier can, but I can assure you that AA and DL will be very quick to point out what WN has been able to get by with at DCA, LGA, and DAL - even if DL stays at DAL and expands - and WN won't be given another pass at AA and DL's expense.

so, as much as you want to think that WN or other carriers will once again waltz into Washington and get even more access to LGA and DCA if those airports relax their perimeter restrictions, you will undoubtedly find yourself very disappointed. WN got its slots and it will have to make up its mind whether it really needs to operate as many short-haul flights from LGA and DCA as it does now if it also wants to add flights to places like PHX, LAS, and OAK.

and even more so if WN refuses to bend regarding access for other carriers at DAL, the chances that AA or DL will either roll over to WN or any other carrier are slim while they will both be very quick to point out what WN has been able to get by at DAL.

and as has been noted, arguing that WN brought down fares for the new markets won't fly when it is obvious that fares to previous WN cities from DAL have gone up and AA and WN have both managed to further concentrate the DAL/DFW market between themselves because AA and WN were both able to essentially cherry pick who they could compete with out of DAL.

 

[robbedagain]

thx swamt  for keeping us posted   it is very interesting to see how it all will play out and in the end how it will end up    Does DAL have room to expand further or no???

 

[700UW]

They are forbidden by law to expand beyond the 20 gates.

 

[robbedagain]

thx 

 

[WorldTraveler]

They are forbidden by law to expand beyond the 20 gates.

which is all the more why the aspirations that DAL can be expanded down the road while pushing a competitor out now are futile.

And again it highlights that if DAL can get by with reducing competition while increasing access to more of the country as the Wright Amendment fell, there is no reason or justification to think that removal of the perimeter restrictions at LGA or DCA should in the least involve redistribution of slots or gates from the dominant carrier, esp. since the DAL/DFW market has become more concentrated between AA and WN since the WA restrictions fell simply with market share being passed from AA to WN in longerhaul domestic markets while AA has regained some share (at higher fare levels) in some of the short haul markets in which WN cut capacity in order to free up space to add longhaul flights.

It is highly unlikely that anyone will embrace that model for how slot restrictions should be removed at DCA and LGA or that such an arrangement is acceptable even at DAL/DFW.

 

[swamt]

thx swamt  for keeping us posted   it is very interesting to see how it all will play out and in the end how it will end up    Does DAL have room to expand further or no???

 
 

They are forbidden by law to expand beyond the 20 gates.

Hey robbed.  Yes DAL does have room to expand further.  But, 700 is correct, for now, they are forbidden by law and restricted to only 20 gates.  SWA and COD originally wanted 32 gates, but were restricted to 20 by outspoken near by residents of a very, very well to do hood near DAL Love Field as well as by DFW airport and some other smaller groups that spoke up about it, and other airlines.  I don't think it will happen, but I am hoping for a revisit to these 20 gate restrictions to be increased (maybe a little at a time) back up to the 32 originally planned for.  This way more airlines could move in, SWA could get more gates, Virgin could get more gates, Delta could get more gates and maybe even draw in some other airlines like AA eventually.  This would be good for all who would want to serve DAL and it would be great for COD too.  AA is fighting tooth and nails to get back in as we speak.  I say let's meet them in the middle and open the gates to 26 and see how it goes.  However, to do anything with the 20 gate restrictions at DAL would take an agreement of all 5 parties involved in the WARA agreement, which in my opinion would be a rather large task.   And again we all sat and watched all of SWA's 180 flights, Virgin's 19 flights, Seaport's 2 flights, and Delta's 5 flights coming and going since Aug 9th.  So far there hasn't been any complaints or problems that we have heard. Maybe it's a little early to tell but we have nothing as of this time.  
Robbed, if anything else changes or comes up I will post an update.  With just mere minutes drive time passengers can be in down town Dallas and this is why DAL is getting more and more popular over DFW as far as choices for the 2 airports.  I still think the time frame set by the judge was to watch and see if all the flights could happen and they are, so my guess is Delta MIGHT be able to stay after all... 

 

[WorldTraveler]

Looks to me like you are trying to slowly admit that DL has a basis to stay at DAL in the first place and it has nothing to do with whether the operation can handle it or not.

but rather than admit that DL has a LEGALLY BASED case, let's use the operation as the measure.

I suspect that DAL and WN's strategy at this point is to not admit that the legal basis actually does exist and just resolve the issue based on the operation so as to not to allow the legal basis of a whole lot of WARA to be challenged.

that strategy could work and I don't have any problems with it.

Doesn't matter what means you or WN use to justify it, as long as DL gets the 14 or so flights it asked for under the accommodation request, then the result is the same.

Let's fact it that if DAL wants to expand, WARA itself will be reexamined and potentially thrown out as uncompetitive. at this point, an expanded DAL with more than adequate access for all carriers really involves two other rules that need to go and that is that DAL can handle int'l flights and that WN can fly to DFW IF it wants to with no loss of gates at DAL.

I can assure you that DL and other carriers would likely support enlarging DAL but only if a disproportionate amount of the new gates go to other carriers first and remain that way for several years with WN only able to use the if no other carrier is interested.

VX will likely shrink its operation to remove the AUS flights if they see DL staying which basically leaves the current DAL operation plus DL's new flights very similarly sized before and after DL and VX change their schedules - DL adds, VX shrinks.

AA service to DAL is still dependent on reworking the merger agreement... you can bet that DL and other carriers are not going to roll over and let AA return to DAL without the other carriers getting something out of the deal; DL wanted to be able to bid on more gates at DAL - perhaps DL will allow the DOJ to throw a few added DCA slots to DL and UA as payment (LAX and SEA service) without admitting that the whole AA/US merger divestiture process was a disaster.

but glad after years and years you are finally getting to the point of recognizing that DL will stay and it is in WN's best interest for WN and DAL to drop the hardline tone in exchange for a more conciliatory approach that allows DL and WN to both get what they want.

If DL hadn't fought tooth and nail to get there, WN would have gotten its way at DL's expense a long time ago.

and DAL could turn out as an example of how the dominant carrier doesn't have to block access by anyone and doesn't have to give away slots or space to just anyone to succeed without perimeter restrictions but they do have to play by the rules that existed at the time the perimeter restrictions changed.

 

[robbedagain]

thanks swamt   appreciate the updates    its very interesting 

 

[eolesen]

If there is a move to have the cap lifted, you're going to see AA and the estate of Legend blow a gasket and expect to be made whole for the concessions they gave post 5PA.

AA had an investment into their six gates and space for a future Admirals Club that they'd rehab'd prior to the newest compromise, and Legend had six or seven at their Lemmon Ave. Terminal.

 

[RetiredCoasty]

Here is the real issue, WT why don't you talk about how WN as remained at LUV grown their Employees and flights to service the country with limited growth, while DAL was a major player at DFW than pulled out leaving the city under serviced and laying off a major amount of the DFW work force. DAL needs to go to DFW if they want expand on the gates the gave up years ago. AMR is smart enough to know two gates at one airport can be four at DFW, allowing them to explain all they want. Virgin will see also as they grow out of 2 gates, where they had as many as needed at DFW. Judges should use the history of DAL to make a ruling on the future of a limited gate airport.

 

[WorldTraveler]

first, for clarity, let's use DL to refer to Delta Air Lines and DAL to refer to Dallas Love Field.

and as much as you or anyone else wants to think what DL did with DFW has any bearing on this issue, it absolutely does not and will have absolutely no bearing in any legal discussions about it.

the only carriers that signed any agreements regarding DAL were AA and WN; no other carrier has signed any agreement that changed anything about their right to serve DAL or DFW. Federal laws apply for everyone that wasn't a signatory to some Wright Amendment related document.

DL's right to be at DAL is the same as B6 or any other carrier. The difference is that DL unlike VX and UA made a decision to serve BOTH Dallas airports and has the legal right to do so. DL is actually the 2nd most senior airline at DAL behind WN and has served DAL before the WA restrictions fell and has maintained that service. Based on DOT law, that gives DL the right to remain at DAL REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LEASES.

what you and others can't understand or admit is that federal airport access laws are designed to prevent dominant carriers at airports from controlling the leases and pushing other carriers out.

Further, in part two of DL's DAL plans are the right to add flights as long as there is unused space available at the time a carrier makes application to the airport for that service. The DOT specifically says that carriers cannot hold airports gates with the intent to block carriers based on unannounced service. DL announced its plans for expanded service and asked DAL for gate space to operate it BEFORE WN announced its post WN schedule.

The court will decide but swamt's continuous moving target of saying that WN might find room for DL is just an admission that DAL and WN knew all along and the judge is telling them privately that they will lose the case. Instead of being made to look like fools, they would do well to just give DL what it wants. There is no other carrier standing in line waiting to do what DL has asked to do because only DL met the requirements.

swamt is absolutely right that the operation can support the combined VX, DL, and WN operation. VX is certain to shrink its operation as soon as it finds out that DL is staying one way or the other. VX can bleed money trying to fill up its gates but they aren't big enough to operate a route that generates LFs 30 points below the rest of their system.

Given that DAL and WN argued for months that there was no space to accommodate DL's existing flights and yet that is happening, it is hard to believe any argument that they could make that 8 more flights won't fit in as well.

Finally, DL's legal argument will be decided by the court but it is becoming increasingly obvious that if WN has any hope whatsoever of gaining any support for expanding DAL, they do NOT want to be branded as having led a campaign to kick carriers out of DAL or be unwilling to accommodate other carriers.

E does have a point regarding the claims that carriers might have regarding trying to change rules that cost some carriers in the past. Some decisions can't be fully undone now but what absolutely won't work is to argue that money alone can solve the problem - which is about equitable access and not just being able to spend enough money to dominate an airport.

and specific to the topic which swamt teed up here, if DAL can get by with pushing competitors out as part of dropping perimeter restrictions at DAL, it is very doubtful that there is any chance whatsoever that WN or any other carrier stands a chance of arguing that low cost carriers should gain access to DCA or LGA when legacy carriers are completely blocked from DAL while DAL was specifically reserved for LCCs to the exclusion of legacy carriers.
There is no shortage of space at IAD or JFK.

It is also notable that WN's concentration of the DAL market is far, far higher than UA has at EWR which is the most concentrated slot controlled airport in the US. In contrast, DL has less than a 50% market share at LGA and an even smaller share at JFK, both of which are smaller than AA at DCA.

If WN can argue that it should be granted a privileged position to kick carriers out of an airport so it can dominate it but alternative airports exist in NYC and WAS, it becomes impossible for anyone to argue that AA or DL should have to give up one iota unless they get significant access to DAL.

when you factor in that DOT data shows that WN and AA have tightened their control of the Dallas market, it becomes even harder to justify that any system like the Wright Amendment is in the best interest of consumers.

rational, real economic and legal considerations will determine the future of DAL, not grudge matches which some want to hold regarding previous airline actions in the Dallas market.