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

[WorldTraveler]

and that could well be the final decision.

those common use gates might be enough to allow DL to operate all of the flights it wants, AA can fight to overturn the DOJ settlement order, and VX will quit flying the AUS flights at a minimum which are nothing more than gate hoarding.

but for WN or DAL to say they were given conflicting messages is incorrect. Both were told that DL's sublease needed to be retained at a minimum.

This week's letter takes the issue all the way back to DL's request for additional gate space that was BEFORE WN's announcement about what flights it would add and which the DOT notes was uncompetitive because WN was free to add its own flights on top of what DL had announced.

this is a huge blow for WN and for DAL's statements that they didn't know what to do.

DL told them that the best choice was common use gates all the way back to the VX gate issue.

The DOT just reaffirmed that and said WN cannot monopolize gates to the exclusion of competitors - what I have said all along.

 

[WNMECH]

It is clear from the reading of the lawsuit , that the COD understands its obligations under ALL federal law better than you or the DOT.
The DOT wont be able to ignore the WARA.
 
The DOT letters are threats only and have not been determined to have any  legal weight.

 

[WNMECH]

The COD states its case pretty well and a judge will be able to see the DOT is overreaching and trying to ignore the WARA while trying to coerce the COD.
 
Read it and weep.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/269000215/City-of-Dallas-Lawsuit-Over-Delta-at-Love

 

[WorldTraveler]

The DOT hands out the money to airports.

If you bothered to read the DOT's letter at all, they made it very clear that there is no conflict in DAL's ability to comply with ALL of the requirements - if they had converted gates to common use and if they continue to do so.

DAL chose not to do that not once but twice and the DOT is telling DAL that if they want to operate an airport for the exclusive benefit of one carrier - they will lose federal funding.

and they also indicated they are not making a statement on antitrust grounds but clearly see that as an issue as well because they mentioned it without comment.

WN approached DAL as an opportunity to dominate an airport well beyond what any other carrier has been allowed to do at any large airport, acted like DAL was a special case that allowed it to ignore all other laws, and now the DOT is saying that isn't the case.

Further, the DOT has said that DAL might have violated airport access requirements by denying DL's request for gates even BEFORE WN announced its DAL schedule.

This is a major loss for WN which also got its stock downgraded by one analyst today based on average and not premium financial results.

WN survived well by flowing markets that other carriers didn't want to. The analyst specifically noted that WN's results are not premium in markets where it has to compete with other carriers or where it cannot dominate - which includes DAL.

Let the case go to court. But even DAL admits it is not going to risk losing federal funds by not complying.

They just weren't big enough to read the laws and advice months ago and act and now want a court to tell them.

If DAL doesn't have airport mgmt. that is smart enough to figure out what they are supposed to do, then they will lose every time they run afoul of federal laws - and the feds are not picking up the tab to do so.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Instead of divesting gates, COD should just revoke the sublease, allow UA out of their lease, and revert those over to common use.

That sounds like a decent settlement offer, if one is needed. They could send it back and say the law is the law, conflicting or not. Hey Congress, you fix it. They will get to it right away...

 

[WorldTraveler]

The DOT's general counsel says there is no conflict in any of these laws.

The conflict is with WN's perceived need to dominate an airport above the 16 gates that it had at the time the WA longhaul restrictions ended and DAL's unwillingness to say no to WN and reallocate gates as common use, something the DOT has said that DAL should have done twice - at the time of the AA/US merger agreement and at the time of the UA gate transfer.

DOT also says they strongly recommend that all gates that become available from this point forward become converted to common use.

Given that the DOT hands out federal airport money and they aren't satisfied that DAL has done what it was told it needed to do six months ago but has continued to go down the path of allowing WN and VX as leaseholders to threaten DL, the DOT's letter is the last thing from leaving doubt about any conflicts or that it will tolerate DAL's plays of stupidity, esp. if DL is pushed out of DAL.

Given that the DOT also said that DAL could have violated airport access laws by denying DL's request before WN ever announced its own schedule and before it filled up its 16 gates, the amount of space that could be available for cmopetitors other than WN is potentially a significant part of DAL's gate capacity.

If VX realizes they aren't going to get anywhere from hoarding gates and can't keep DL out, they will likely pull back their own flights that are nothing more than attempts to hoard gates and even more space can be reallocated.

If AA can convince a court to overthrow the DOJ merger settlement, there is probably enough gate space at DAL for AA and DL to both have close to 20 flights/each.

AA's efforts to get the DOJ settlement overturned are much larger than DAL's need to comply with DOT regulations which will not only cement DL's position at DAL but likely also lead to additional flights.

 

[WNMECH]

The DOT hands out the money to airports.

If you bothered to read the DOT's letter at all, they made it very clear that there is no conflict in DAL's ability to comply with ALL of the requirements - if they had converted gates to common use and if they continue to do so.

I read the letters.
The DOT uses terms like you do.
WE believe, our opinion, our views, and issue vague indirect threats without acknowledging that the WARA addresses these issues.

The DOTs opinions are only opinions.
the only FACT they got right is this:

"I note, as I have in the past, that it is the City's responsibility to decide how to act on Delta's requests. The City, of course, must make this decision in compliance with the grant assurances and its other legal obligations. DOT has expressed its views to the City on this subject and also given guidance about some aspects of those obligations. Ultimately, however, it is the City that must make a decision, and I urge you to do so in a reasonable and timely manner."
 
The WARA was not written and passed in a vacuum.
It addresses all the DOT concerns and gives the COD cover to act without being bullied by the DOT.
 
Also as noted in the lawsuit, the DAL completion plan was approved by the DOT already with the scarce resource provision included.
Good luck getting a judge to agree to ignore the WARA and all the protections for the COD and signatory airlines included.
 
And per the WARA and noted in the lawsuit:
 
" A WARA provision provides the one avenue that could allow the agencies to
override the Signatory Airlines’ preferential gate lease rights at Love Field:  they could adopt
nationwide regulations that would be authorized by federal law to preempt preferential gate
rights.  However, the Federal Agencies’ directives to the City are for Love Field only, whereas
the governing federal statute, as shown below, requires that any such preemption be on a
nationwide basis."
 
If you bothered to read the lawsuit you would have seen all the DOT opinions are countered in the WARA.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Given that the DOT hands out the money to airports, feel free to think that DAL is going to piss on what the DOT says because it is only opinion.

The DOT has repeated the same statements as they did six months ago and which are strikingly similar to what I have been saying for 18 months, only that this time they are far stronger and specifically address loss of federal funding in relation to this gate conflict that DAL has refused to resolve. I noted the issue with DAL losing federal funds if it failed to comply with DOT guidelines as well - and many on here pissed on those opinions as well.

and as I have noted hundreds of times on here and you and others have argued otherwise, there is NO LEGAL PROTECTION FOR WN TO OPERATE MORE THAN 16 gates at DAL and the DOT even noted that the gate usage level that should be applied is the level of activity that WN had at the time other carriers made accommodation requests. Given that WN had not released its schedules for post Wright flying at the time that DL indicated its desire to serve DAL, there could very well be grounds for the DOT to argue that DL should be allowed to have enough gate space to accmodate its originally proposed 2 gates worth of flying - 20 something flights IIRC - because WN wasn't even using its full 16 gates at the time and the DOT says future intentions cannot be used to block accommodation requests.

Further, the DOJ NEVER approved WN's additional gates or any other issue related to DAL based on WN's ability to dominate DAL or for DAL to refuse to comply with DOT airport access regulations. The DOJ specifically noted that its approval EVEN FOR THE UA GATES - were conditional upon protecting DL's sublease. You and others lined up with WN that thumbed its nose on that opinion, trying to argue for property rights when I specifically said that the federal government restricts the use of federal assets all the time.

As much as you want to believe otherwise, the DOT's general counsel has specifically stated that DAL could have met all DOT requirements and not violated any agreements including WARA if it had converted the UA gates to common use which DL suggested should be done and the DOT agreed.

WN does not have protection from antitrust laws or the right to above 16 gates at DAL as long as there are carriers that want to add service to DAL.

For now, DL appears free to add far more service than it operates - in addition to being firm in its right to remain past July 6.

Many of you have been beating the drum for over 18 months saying that DL would be forced to leave.

It is now clear that not only will DL be allowed to remain beyond July 6 but that they will likely be able to expand their service, other carriers that come along will be allowed to add service as well depending on the date of their accommodation request - and WN will very likely be forced to operate to a maximum of 16 gates or 160 flights which is still in excess of what WN operated on the date the first accommodation request was made.

Feel free to argue the case and act like DAL that you find all of the requirements conflicting.

DOT"s general counsel has said what I said.

If you want to think they are just opinions, then you don't have any idea how badly DAL could be damaged if the DOT slaps the airport with the loss of federal funds because they didn't comply with the DOT's opinions.

DAL wants a black and white list of what it can and cannot do.

If they aren't capable of understanding the laws and listing to opinions from their own regulators , then they will pay for the cost of their refusal to listen and WN as the chief tenant at the airport will never be able to plan anything with certainty because DAL won't do its job of meeting the same requirements that other airports around the US have figured out how to meet.

WN will learn to live in the 16 gate footprint. you can start talking among your colleagues about what flights will be cut but WN will not be operating the flights it had planned to operate.

and as I have repeatedly stated and many people have tried to argue against, DL aircraft will be a common and long-term site at DAL for years to come.

 

[eolesen]

Having read the filing, there's another possible outcome: a judge could rule DAL/DFW serve the same market, thus nobody is being denied access if they can't get space.

DOJ has already argued this, and they're the ones responsible for anti-trust and competition, not the DOT.

 

[WorldTraveler]

it is only an option in YOUR MIND because there is NO FEDERAL LAW that says that service to one airport is dependent or limited by service to another airport in the same region.

There is ONE exception and that is WN's ability to serve DFW while retaining its own DAL gates, which I have said is anti-competitive and should be blocked.

What you and others can't grasp is that the DOJ does not understand or speak conversantly about DOT"s own competitive access laws and procedures which have existed for years, which DOJ walked all over with the AA/US merger agreement, and which do not consider DFW and DAL a single market for AIRPORT ACCESS PURPOSES.

and despite what you want to believe, the DOJ specifically conditioned UA's gate transfer to WN based on preserving DL's sublease. the DOJ got a whole lot more than you think even if they didn't understand the larger competitive access laws.

hang your hat on the hope that WN will prevail because of a divided market if you want but it won't fly.

Further, WN wanted to argue for separate airports in the WAS and NYC markets and does not want that to work in Dallas/Ft. Worth. Can you tell us the laws that have codified what distance is a single airport and I can assure you it isn't the distance that will keep everyone else out of DAL but allow WN into every other multi-city airport that it wants.

WN will be reducing its schedule at DAL and DL will likely be expanding its, along with being assured it can stay at DAL against WN's threats that have gone on for way too long.

If the DOJ wants to sue the DOT and tell them their own pro-competitive laws are wrong, then they can do so.

Given that the DOJ said it wasn't ready to argue its own case against AA/US, it is doubtful that the DOJ higher ups will be stupid enough to argue against competition which the DOT clearly understands better than the DOT - and you.

 

[swamt]

Most people don't understand how the WARA works, and it is obvious by their postings of what they think will happen.  To change anything within the WARA will in fact take an act of congress and with all 5 parties agreeing to do so.    On a second note, here's another response from Virgin about the Love Field chaos...
 
Rival backs Southwest Airlines in Love Field fight with Delta

 

[WorldTraveler]

of course most people don't.

I would hardly call the DOT"s general counsel as incompetent or unable to understand what is involved in the case.

whether 22K people back WN or not doesn't change the fact that WN announced its schedule AFTER DL requested accommodation which the DOT says at the minimum protects DL's right to stay at DAL but also opens antitrust concerns.

I've said the very same thing for months to the great displeasure of people on this board.

Given WN's repeated mindset that they can grow to whatever sign at DAL they want and step all over the competition, dominate the airport and eliminate competition, and use the WARA as an excuse to do so, t would certain that this day would come when they would be put back in their box.

16 gates. that's what WN gets and what they will end up having to learn to live with as long as other carriers want to add service. And 16 gates is fully compatible with all of the requirements of every piece of law that applies to DAL.

It's a great day for the rule of law and protection of the same prnicples that WN used to gain access to other airports including DCA.

It will be interesting to see what DAL markets and/or flights WN pulls.

 

[FWAAA]

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.

After reading the entire pleadings, it turns out that AA has asked for FOUR flights, not two (as the media mistakenly wrote), so perhaps two daily to LGA and DCA would be the ticket.
 

It is clear from the reading of the lawsuit , that the COD understands its obligations under ALL federal law better than you or the DOT.
The DOT wont be able to ignore the WARA.
 
The DOT letters are threats only and have not been determined to have any  legal weight.

Agreed. After reading the pleadings, I have to commend the city attorneys for their filing. Aside from a couple of annoying typos (they happen), it provides a comprehensive review of the entire situation and the conflicting demands made of the COD by the DOT/FAA and the airlines.

Toward the end of the pleading, this appeared:

Delta has suggested that Delta may retain security to protect their continued use of the space they are currently using after July 6, 2015.

What the hell does that mean? Has Delta threatened to employ force to enable it to operate at an airport? That sounds awfully close to a terrorist threat to me. Airlines have no legal basis for employing "security" to enable them to prevail over the wishes of an airport operator or to enable them to occupy gates over which another airline asserts a superior claim. Anderson might wish to get another opinion by outside legal counsel before his airline commits a felony at Dallas Love Field.

 

[eolesen]

What the hell does that mean? Has Delta threatened to employ force to enable it to operate at an airport? That sounds awfully close to a terrorist threat to me. Airlines have no legal basis for employing "security" to enable them to prevail over the wishes of an airport operator or to enable them to occupy gates over which another airline asserts a superior claim. Anderson might wish to get another opinion by outside legal counsel before his airline commits a felony at Dallas Love Field.

 

[WorldTraveler]

It means what I said when we started a couple years ago that DL was deadly serious about intending to serve DAL and started the process knowing full well where it would lead.

Given that this case has long been about DL and the DOT against WN and DAL, DL doesn't appear to be afraid of standing up to WN's threats and letting the process work its way quickly thru the legal system to prove that DL has the right to serve DAL, it knew it when it started, and also is not afraid to stand up to DAL and WN who have long though that federal interests should bow to Texas law and interests.

I still haven't seen anything from WN but DAL's filing is nothing but a move of desperation in hoping a court will tell them explicitly what to do so they don't have to do what they know deep in their heart of hearts they have to do to keep from losing federal funds.

The fact that the DOT's letter was as direct and referenced the Dec 2014 letter on so many points is a clear message that DAL and WN's pleas that they didn't know what they were doing is simply false.

the only part of this drama that has yet to be seen is how much DL chooses to add at DAL, what WN will be forced to cut, and how long it will take VX to fold up realizing that they will be sat upon by any number of parties.

and AA still has a very lengthy process to go thru to get out of the DOJ merger settlement agreement but perhaps they want to stick their finger in the reservation process for gates on the very same basis that DL did in notifying of their intent to use gate space - although DAL said that AA had not asked for accommodation as of yesterday.

No matter how it plays out, WN and DAL have been handedly repudiated for failing to abide by federal regulations that could result in far deeper consequences than just WN having to give back gates.

and DL, which chose to stand up to WN, DAL, VX, and Texas interests is going to get to defy what so many here gleefully predicted would happen - be pushed out of DAL.