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

[WorldTraveler]

It's simply laughable to believe DL will somehow get the right to add flights beyond their "historical" pattern of service to ATL at the expense of WN or any other carrier. If anyone gets expanded "rights" I'd expect AA's request to be granted before DL goes above their five flights.

no, AA signed a consent degree as part of its merger agreement to not serve DAL. AA can go back to court and argue that it should be let out of the agreement which it signed.

in contrast, DL filed an accommodation request for up to 13 flights/day before WN announced its schedule and when there was adequate space at DAL to do so.

Let's wait for the final ruling but DOT's accommodation rules require that an accommodation request be honored if there is space available at an airport at the time a request is made.

The fact that the judge is granting DL the right to start additional flights even before the final ruling is issued and above DL's current level of flights to ATL says that there is a legal basis for DL to operate more than its current schedule. Let's also be clear that WN did not come up with an about face not only about DL staying there with its current schedule but also agree to DL's additional flights based on anything other than the legality of DL's request which became apparent to DAL and WN within minutes after the judge held his first call with all parties.

DOT airport access requirements do not allow carriers to sit on gates even as a leaseholder which are not being used while other carriers are requesting access.

That is no fabrication and we'll see who gets the last laugh.

 

[700UW]

The fact that the judge is granting DL the right to start additional flights even before the final ruling is issued and above DL's current level of flights to ATL says that there is a legal basis for DL to operate more than its current schedule.

The judge did no such thing.
 
Absolute lie by you.
 
Do you really thing you can fabricate facts and not get called out on it?
 
DL, WN and DAL compromised to let DL fly five flights a day, not anything more.
 
Why are you a pathological liar?

 

[eolesen]

I guess the fabricator of facts, forgets AA does hold the leases on two gates at DAL.

To be fair, Terry Maxon and I had an email exchange not to long ago where even he'd lost track of that fact.

I really doubt AA floated their request for flights as a trial balloon without having had some informal discussions with the DOJ first.

The bottom line: the agreement with DOJ which saw AA subletting their DAL gates to VX isn't law -- it's between AA and the DOJ.

If both parties agree to modify or even dissolve the agreement, they can. DOJ has more than six months of actual data to look at, so perhaps the concerns they had two years ago aren't as concerning anymore. No judge, no court case, no objections from DL.

 

[WorldTraveler]

What you have never been able to accept is that individual airline leases ARE NOT the basis of the DOT's access requirements which every airport including DAL must comply with if they wish to receive federal funds.

Whether AA or WN or anyone else controls the leases is immaterial to DL's request for accommodation and DAL's requirement to grant it as long as there is space available to accommodate DL's flights at the time the request was made and there was.

The whole reason why the DOT's airport access requirements exist is to ensure that competition and the maximization of it are not limited by carriers that control leases but do not use the gates.

AA cannot serve DAL as part of its merger agreement with the DOJ.

DL had an accommodation request in place before WN announced its post-Wright schedule, let alone before it acquired the WN gates.

The DOT's requirements say that accommodation cannot be denied if the AIRPORT has unused space at the time of the accommodation request.

WN added flights after it acquired the WN gates and after DL's accommodation request. The DOT says that future plans by a leaseholder are not sufficient grounds for denying an accommdation request.

So far as we know, AA has made no formal request for accommodation at DAL and they likely cannot because they are prohibited from serving DAL.


It is very possible that when AA is permitted to operate at DAL, all gate space will be full with DL, WN, and perhaps VX flights.

AA can at that point choose to terminate its lease and turn the gates over to DAL as common use gates.

There is no requirement that any carrier that is serving DAL must reduce their service in order to accommodate any airline that is not, and that includes AA.

I have repeatedly said that... the case has played out exactly as I said it would so far... feel free to wait for the final ruling but it is highly unlikely that the judge will rule in a way that is counter to what has been established so far and what he clearly permitte4d.

To somehow believe that WN is allowing DL to remain or to provide DL with the right to add flights without having been told by a judge that they are legally required to do so is nothing short of naivete.

WN did not change its position about DL remaining PLUS grant DL the right to stay under any agreement unless the judge clearly told them and DAL that they must do those things for DL.

 

[700UW]

Show us where the judge said DL can add eight more flights, very simple request we don't need a 10,000 word manifesto talking about everything else, provide the proof, that's all.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Feel free to give us a plausible explanation for why WN, after meeting with the judge and all other parties, made a complete about face in its intentions to not allow DL to remain at DAL on WN's gates not only as long as it takes to settle the legal issue - perhaps a couple months - but also for WN to AGREE to honor DL's right to add the flights it had asked to add over a year ago.

As much as you would like to believe otherwise, WN made that about change ONLY because a judge told them in the prsence of all other parties that DL's request along wiht the DOT's position were valid and did it in the presence of the lawyer who help craft WARA.

The case will be decided in its final form but it is very clear to anyone that intends to understand it that WN and DAL were in violation of federal access requirements that are not in violation of WARA and the only way for the DOT not to act was for DL to be given the access not only it presently has until the case is finally settled but also what DAL was required to provide DL even if that had not been granted.

if you have a cogent explanation for why WN such an about face, plz post it and be willing to defend it until the case is finally decided.

 

[700UW]

Here lets make this quite simple once again.
 
Everything you posted is not one ounce of proof that the Judge told WN and DAL to let DL have eight more flights a day at DAL in August.
 
Lets me try this again.
 
Where is the proof and factual evidence the Judge told WN and DAL that DL can have the permission to add eight more flight from DAL?
 
WN has not agreed to let DL add eight more flights, more lies by you, WN agreed to only let DL have the five flights to ATL until the courts decide the outcome.
 
You can admit you fabricated like most of the crap you post.
 
You got caught lying once again, man up and admit it for a change, thats the first step.
 
Do you even know the truth from all the lies you post and continually post even after you get caught out there all the time, you think you would learn by now.
 
Step on up folks, we have the WT the Fabricator of the Facts.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, WN DID grant DL the right to add eight more flights.

The agreement that was reached between the parties after the judge had the first word did not come because of WN's sudden desire to be a great corporate citizen.

WN agreed to not only allow DL to remain at DAL - in complete disagreement with their plan just hours earlier to push DL out of DAL - as well as to allow DL to add flights because the judge clearly told WN and DAL that they were flat out wrong.

You can cling to the errant notion that DL doesn't have the right to add flights in a feeble attempt to avoid admitting once again that you don't know what you are talking about with the DAL case but when multiple parties, including me, said that WN does not have the legal protection to operate above 16 gates at DAL, there was space at DAL for DL operate not only its flights to ATL but also additional flights to other DL hubs, and that the DOT was and is dead serious that DAL will not receive federal funds if it does not provide access to DL, it is obvious that WN was given a severe back hand by the judge and WN and DAL had no choice but to capitulate.

This case has wasted pages and pages of bandwidth on this site because a handful of people who know absolutely nothing about airport law have tried to argue that property rights is the superseding principle when it is clear that if that were the case, WN could have succeeded in kicking DL out of DAL years ago.

Property law is subservient to airport access laws which enhance competition by ensuring that carriers cannot dominate the real estate at an airport to the exclusion of competition.

WN made a strategic mistake in acquiring real estate and then announcing their schedule not once with their 16 gates but also with the 2 additional gates it acquired from DL; in contrast, DL knew the laws that apply and made its request which was clearly affirmed by the judge given that the gate space that WN is now magically willing to provide matches what was in DL's accommodation request.

DL was pi78sed at WN's arrogance at walking into DCA and LGA and getting access to gates and slots that were not available to DL, and to the DOJ and AA/US for asserting that DL would not operate from DAL.

It is highly likely that there will be no room for AA at DAL when their operating ban there is lifted and there is no evidence that AA has had any conversations with the DOJ or been given any indication that it could return to DAL. If it did and property rights were the issue, AA certainly wouldn't be returning with just 4 flights. And given that AA has made no formal accommodation request and DAL is now full, there is no space.

Given that there is no example of any airline having a lease at an airport which they did not serve for years at a time and then they came back and pushed existing carriers out, it is merely an unrealistic dream for AA to think it will ever come back to DAL unless DAL is expanded which will also require more gates for competitors besides WN as well as eliminate the highly uncompetitive requirement that WN give up gates to serve DFW.

VX will give up some of its gate space because it cannot afford to operate money-losing flights in order to hoard gates.

Next time, all of those parties that were so certain that they would keep DL out of DAL and allow WN to expand would do well to know the law and operate within it; DL knew the law, knew what it had to do to gain access to DAL and operate a similar service structure to its hubs as it does from MDW, and WN will be looking at DL jets at DAL, inclduing the 717s that WN couldn't figure out how to use in WN's network, for years to come.

The Wright Amendment and all of the efforts that AA and WN have used to gain an edge against each other have been used against both of them by a non-Texas airline and in complete compliance with federal requirements which ensures that DL will be at DAL in a robust form for years to come.

whether you can accept it or not, that is the essence of what has happened and will happen at DAL.

 

[700UW]

WN did not agree to let DL add eight more flight, they only agreed to let them continue the five flights.
 
Like I said provide the proof.

 

[WorldTraveler]

reread the articles which you have copied and pasted multiple times after pretending to be unable to find.

The agreement between DL and WN gives DL the right to add 8 additional flights.

There is no further agreement needed from WN; if DL wants to add the flights, it is legally permitted to do so and WN is required to comply.

WN didn't go from being ready to evict DL and telling them there is no room to giving DL the right to maintain and expand its service without a judge telling them they were legally reqiured to do so.

WN, AA/US, DOJ, and you tried to tell DL what it could and could not do and DL read the rules, looked at the market, and has done exactly what it has to do to expand at DAL and be there for years to come, just as they are at MDW.

If you or they were even close to being right, the case would have ended a long time ago. but it hasn't which speaks volumes about whose position has been affirmed and whose has been rejected.

 

[700UW]

No it does not.
 
Provide the proof, I have already posted the information numerous times, the truce only allows DL to continue the five flights.
 
You are lying again, come back to reality, Earth to WT, stop Fabricating Facts.
 
You post 10,000 words in each reply, yet you still cant provide any proof.
 
http://www.dallasnew...-is-settled.ece
 

 
The compromise leaves open Deltas request to begin operating eight more flights beginning Aug. 15, with two each to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Detroit and Salt Lake City, and two more to its Atlanta hub.

 

Southwest Airlines Co. has agreed to let Delta Air Lines keep operating temporarily out of a Dallas Love Field gate, averting a July 7 showdown that could have had Southwest blocking Delta from the airport.
Delta is pleased that Southwest has agreed to continue accommodating the five flights Delta currently operates at Love Field while the airlines pursue a long-term resolution in the courts, Delta spokeswoman Kate D. Modolo said Wednesday.
 

Your own Spokeswoman.
 
Game, Set, Match.

 

[WorldTraveler]

game, set, match,

You lose.

You lost the minute you started talking about the subject.

 

[700UW]

Looks like someone ran to the mods, boo hoo.
 
Provide the Proof:
 

 
Southwest Airlines Co. has agreed to let Delta Air Lines keep operating temporarily out of a Dallas Love Field gate, averting a July 7 showdown that could have had Southwest blocking Delta from the airport.
Delta is pleased that Southwest has agreed to continue accommodating the five flights Delta currently operates at Love Field while the airlines pursue a long-term resolution in the courts, Delta spokeswoman Kate D. Modolo said Wednesday.
 

Provide the proof.

 

[WorldTraveler]

the proof has been posted multiple times.


DL's statement says nothing and means nothing about anything other than the five flights DL currently operates.

the mods are your friends if you play by the rules.

They are doing their job and they are friends of all people who love justice, accuracy, and respectful conversation.

 

[700UW]

You have provided nothing, not once ounce of proof, no agreement, no statement from WN, DL, DAL, COD or the Courts.

Yet I have provided WN and DL proof about only five flights.

 
Southwest Airlines Co. has agreed to let Delta Air Lines keep operating temporarily out of a Dallas Love Field gate, averting a July 7 showdown that could have had Southwest blocking Delta from the airport.
Delta is pleased that Southwest has agreed to continue accommodating the five flights Delta currently operates at Love Field while the airlines pursue a long-term resolution in the courts, Delta spokeswoman Kate D. Modolo said Wednesday.
 

Provide the proof.