Dallas asks U.S. court to solve gate fight at Love

Status
Not open for further replies.

Glenn Quagmire

Veteran
Apr 30, 2012
4,825
4,428
I put this here since it involves many airlines...not just Southwest, Delta, American, Virgin, etc....


By TERRY MAXON [email protected]
Staff Writer

Published: 18 June 2015 12:09 AM
Updated: 18 June 2015 12:33 AM
The city of Dallas asked a federal court Wednesday to tell it what to do in the battle over whether Delta Air Lines can continue to fly out of a Southwest Airlines gate at Dallas Love Field.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Dallas, the city also seeks guidance on the rights of other airlines that want to use Loves increasingly in-demand gates.

Mandates from two federal agencies under color of federal law and conflicting legal claims and litigation threats by several airlines under federal law have put the city in an impossible situation that only this court can resolve, the lawsuit states.

An impending July 6, 2015, deadline that may cause chaos at Love Field requires the city to file this action now, the suit states, citing the date when the Southwest-Delta gate arrangement ends.

The suit names Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines Co., Virgin America, American Airlines, United Airlines, SeaPort Airlines, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration as defendants.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airline-industry/20150618-dallas-asks-u.s.-court-to-solve-gate-fight-at-love-field.ece
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
No!  The COD has no standing in this matter.  Just because they OWN the airport, they think they can stick their nose in this business?????  Only Dullta has standing to sue and they will.  (Well, just as soon as they get all the other suits filed that WT has promised the rest of us will suffer for trying to deny Dullta their right to do whatever they want to do in their drive to take over the world.) 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Will be interesting to see how this pans out with WN's filing in the DC district court. Looks to me like the COD is venue shopping for a different outcome than what might happen on more neutral ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
of course DAL is smart enough to know it cannot risk losing federal funding to play favorites for WN.

And of course they want the court to answer the questions.

and it weakens WN's standing as being in a position to drive the process.

DAL should have argued against the DOJ for common use gates and that is very likely what will end up happening with WN forced to divest the gates it gained from UA on antitrust grounds.

and pending resolution of the issue, this is as good of a space as any on the forum for addressing multi-airline issues.
 
Did anyone see this part?

The lawsuit also says American Airlines now wants to fly two flights into and two flights out of Love every day — even though the Justice Department forced the carrier to relinquish its gates to Virgin America last year. And, the city says, Virgin America and SeaPort, which flies twice daily out of Love using Virgin’s gates, don’t want to share with Delta.
AA wants to fly two daily flights (if there is any space).
 
Yep, but I don't see that being entirely serious as much as "it doesn't hurt to try" request.

Arguably, there's an argument to be made that DOT's original concerns changed materially with UA's exit, and allowing AA back in might help tip the balance back a bit on meaningful competition.
 
thank you to both of you for focusing on the business issues of the case.
 
Did anyone see this part?


AA wants to fly two daily flights (if there is any space).
I didn't see it either... thanks for bringing it up.

I have said and will continue to say that AA needs to fight to get back in DAL, overturn the AA merger agreement with the DOJ because it was built on WN's baseless claims of being unable to compete against AA without protection, and force WN to compete from DFW if they want further growth in N. Texas.

overturning a merger agreement that AA signed is a lot harder to do than for the court to argue that DL which never agreed to anything regarding staying out of DAL has a priority on access to DAL based on its own service which has continued to operate.

It is time for AA and DL to realize that it is in both of their interests to put WN back in a 16 gate sized box in N. Texas.

it is also noteworthy that the Feds just sent DAL another letter a few days ago telling them they have to accommodate airlines that want to serve DAL and not allow DAL to become an exclusive airport for a few airlines.
 
eolesen said:
Yep, but I don't see that being entirely serious as much as "it doesn't hurt to try" request.

Arguably, there's an argument to be made that DOT's original concerns changed materially with UA's exit, and allowing AA back in might help tip the balance back a bit on meaningful competition.
I agree with ya, but AA wanting back in the party makes for a complete circus. :D

Anybody know AA's proposed destination for a grand total of two daily departures?
 
Chicago is the market where WN has taken the most amount of share at AA's expense. I would bet it is ORD.

Why AA chose just two flights - unless it is related to VX' previous plans to start ORD service - is unknown.

But as with DL's previous schedule to serve 20 plus markets, of which WN has entered some of those after those announcements, AA shouldn't have to announce what it intends to serve and it isn't the feds' business to pick carriers based on what routes they will serve.

The case is about access to DAL. AA now wants back in after agreeing to leave as part of the merger agreements. DL has been serving DAL continuously for several years and currently does. DL also still has a list of markets it wants to serve that it cannot.

DAL does not want to be forced to lose federal funds and they recognize that there will likely have to be an emergency ruling to keep DL at DAL or DL will have basis for being harmed.

DAL is also arguing for the feds to pay its legal expenses. Let's see how that works out.

I would strongly bet that WN will be forced to divest the two gates it gained from UA or at least those gates will be heavily used by other carriers.
 
FWAAA said:
Anybody know AA's proposed destination for a grand total of two daily departures?
Let's assume AA gets back in. I'd guess LGA or DCA. Either one of them would mortally hurt VX, and then AA gets the rest of their leasehold back.

Just sayin'.... The first pawn moved on the chessboard hardly determines what the fourth or fifth move is planned to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
VX will fail on its own... the AUS flights alone are nothing more than an attempt to squat on gates which it cannot fill with profitable flights.

and if the LGA perimeter rule is lifted, VX will likely decide that returning to its core strength at NYC on transcon markets with an upgraded transcon product is what they need to do instead of flying to DAL from LGA.

The DOJ tried to intervene in the free market, WN bullied DAL into trying to dominate a market which the side of the DOT and DOJ that weren't ready to throw in the AA/US route case because they weren't prepared to argue the case stepped back up to the plate, and DAL's gates will be distributed based on long-standing airport access principles that some of us said all along existed and which the DOT once again reaffirmed just days ago.

AA will have a very hard time gtting out of the DOJ merger agreement but I would like to see them back in to DAL along with WN being forced to give up gates back to the 16 they had at the time of the end of WA restrictions and allow other carriers to serve DAL.

Even with 16 gates, WN will still have a higher percentage of gates at DAL than any other carrier as at any other airport as large as DAL.

and WN needs to equally argue that it should not have to give up gates at DAL to begin DFW service which is where it should go to grow beyond the 16 gates it had at DAL.
 
Delta has posted an article on its news site along with a copy of the most recent DOT letter.
http://news.delta.com/dot-delta-must-be-allowed-serve-love-field

http://news.delta.com/sites/default/files/City%20of%20Dallas%20Love%20Field%20Letter%20(Final)%20(Signed)%206-15-15.pdf

In it, the DOT specifically notes that it does not believe that the City could argue that a carrier that has requested service can be denied it based on unannounced service or the argument that WN and many others have made that DAL is full - after DL filed its request for additional gate access and flights and BEFORE WN announced their schedules for expansion post WA at DAL.

If a court agrees with the DOT, this looks more and more like DL will be free to add as much as it wants and WN will be forced to accommodate DL even at the expense of its own plans despite the number of times we heard people here argue about WN's property rights.

Ms. Thompson also says in the letter that the views of the DOT letter do not include considerations under antitrust laws which WN could well be violating and which DAL could have enabled.

DAL is finally being forced to do what it should have done months ago and the DOT is essentially telling them that.

Trying to pass the buck to the feds because DAL wasn't willing to comply with the DOT's guidelines sent six months ago simply won't fly.

and WN will likely end up giving up far more space to DL than if it had agreed to accommodate DL's 5 flights.
 
thank you, Mark.

I have repeatedly said they should not have been allowed to acquire the 2 UA gates and the DOT's letter makes it clear that DAL should have accommodated DL's request BEFORE WN ever announced its own DAL post Wright plans.

this latest DOT letter is a stinging indictment of WN's attempts to dominate DAL to the exclusion of other carriers and of DAL's refusal to take the actions a long time ago to accommodate DL.

The only part of the case that the DOT did not address is the requirement in the WA that WN would have to give up gates in order to serve DFW.

WN has never indicated it wants to serve DFW but it is clear that WN's plans for a 180 flight/day operation at DAL have come to an end.
 
Instead of divesting gates, COD should just revoke the sublease, allow UA out of their lease, and revert those over to common use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Status
Not open for further replies.