Delta loads new DAL flights

[WorldTraveler]

VX got gates... ORD WAS REQUIRED to accommodate VX and B6 who BOTH serve the airport now.
 
again, tell me one other airport where carriers have been unable to provide service at all. 

 

[700UW]

VX got gates at a way later time, not when they first wanted to fly to ORD.

 

[WorldTraveler]

indeed they did... but it still doesn't mean that DL or any other airline will be permanently shut out of DAL.
 
DAL cannot continue to accept federal funds and have no plan to accommodate new carriers who want to serve the airport.

 

[swamt]

WT, I have no idea of the exact date.  And I will tell you this, It was NOT publically noted, it was said and nego behind closed doors.  I know your not going to like this answer, but it is very well known within the company.  It was only talked about at one of our MTTF gatherings.  If I were to guess the time frame was 80's or 90's. But no promise... 

 

[eolesen]

VX got gates... ORD WAS REQUIRED to accommodate VX and B6 who BOTH serve the airport now.
 
again, tell me one other airport where carriers have been unable to provide service at all.

LGB SNA LGA DCA JFK have all had restrictions which have locked out airlines at one point or another, and all over artificially restricting the number of flights vs. what the airport was physically capable of handling.

VX could have had gates years earlier, but didn't want to pay the market rate, and the City didn't have any public use gates available to lease them.

WN threatened to move the HDQ during one of the last battles over the Wright Amendment. It wasn't something they issued a press release about (unlike DL who around that same point was issuing multiple press releases daily) but it was quite clear to both the City and the community that if they didn't get some love, LUV would leave them. It was a fairly empty threat, since moving the HQ wouldn't have mattered to anyone except the City.

 

[WorldTraveler]

First of all, SNA, DCA, and JFK and I am pretty sure LGB as well ARE SLOT CONTROLLED... not facility constrained.  There is a difference in that with a slot controlled airport - whether in the US or in other airports around the world - there is a process for carriers to request access.  SNA for one participates in a slot conference.
 
Even at the slot controlled airports, the DOT and DOJ have forced open access or created slots... and it isn't behind the realm of possibility that could happen again.
 
BUT slot controlled is not facility constrained.  DAL is NOT a slot controlled airport.  It is facility constrained, just like CLT and other airports that have a single carrier that control a high percentage of gates.  CLT IS REQUIRED to have a plan to provide access to other carriers who want to serve the airport.
 
DAL will either have to come up with a plan that provides access to carriers that cannot serve it, become slot controlled (which I can assure you that WN doesn't want) esp. since slot controls provide a mechanism for access, exchange, and trade, or DAL runs the risk of losing federal funds.
 
US airports cannot permanently block access to new entrant carriers.
 
The entire Wright Amendment itself and its revisions will be challenged if WN and other carriers are even remotely successful at DAL.  There is no other airport pair in the US like DAL and DFW where two carriers are precluded from serving one airport including at risk of losing access at the other.
 
Factor in that 2 airlines and government officials carved up access to the airports to the exclusion of other carriers and the ability for the free market to function is highly limited.  There is no basis for private companies to be able to squat and carve up a market to the exclusion of competitors, including each other.
 
If Wright isn't challenged now and if access doesn't change, it will be challenged in time, esp. if WN is even half as successful as I think they will be... and they want to be.
 
There is no basis for excluding other carriers including prohibiting WN from serving DFW unless they lose gates at DAL. 
 
The DOJ's sole logic is to provide WN with an opportunity to grow its presence from DAL w/o the threat of AA squashing them.  It will become obvious before very long that WN doesn't need any protection and that the exclusion of other carriers including WN and AA from each other's airports - is contrary to the public good and legally without defense.

 

[eolesen]

DAL is artificially constrained. The airport had additional gates, and demolished them on purpose. There is clearly room to build more gates, but by statute they cannot. There is room to do pad operations, but by statute they cannot.

Slots at SNA and LGB have nothing to do with airspace, runway or terminal capacity. They're capped because of noise budgets.

One of the arguments for artificially capping gates at DAL is also noise. Most people bought homes after Wright was already in place, and that brought along an expectation that the airport wouldn't be operating 200+ flights a day.

And yes, all three of these examples illustrate legislated artificial limits. So far, nobody has overturned the restrictions at LGB or SNA. If they did, and traffic increased, you'd have locals marching in the streets with pitchforks and torches.

 

[swamt]

E, you are so correct on the people buying homes during "pre-W/A" going away.  This is one of the major stone walls being hit as far as expansion and noise concerns are or were while fighting the W/A repeal.  Nice see someone has once done their homework on the issues at hand...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I get the whole home buying, neighborhood noise, and legislated capacity reductions.
 
But DAL is NOT slot controlled to a specific number of flights.
 
It is facility limited and the way that problem is handled at other airports - DAL is HARDLY the only airport that has enough gates to accommodate the demand - is to have common use gates to allow access to airlines w/o long-term leases and prohibit any carrier from controlling above a certain percentage of gates.
 
There is a certain logic that WN should be given a small window of time under which AA should be prohibited from serving DAL to allow WN to establish its presence. There is no more defense for saying such a move, including prohibiting WN from flying from DFW, should be permanent.
 
You can bet your bottom dollar that DAL's gate leases will not be long-term involving 100% of the facility if there is demand from any other carrier, including legacy carriers, exists and DAL cannot accommodate that demand.

 

[eolesen]

You can bet your bottom dollar that DAL's gate leases will not be long-term involving 100% of the facility if there is demand from any other carrier, including legacy carriers, exists and DAL cannot accommodate that demand.

...says the person who has never lived in North Texas and apparently has no idea of the local politics...

Go ahead, and continue to argue that DAL isn't slot controlled -- its just another example of you latching onto a sliver of specificity...

By specifying the maximum number of gates allowable at DAL, they've achieved the same basic result that slots have at DCA, LGA, JFK, LGB and SNA: capping operations.

Further....

Since that cap on gates is an exception codified in Wright II (Federal law), no judge in Texas is going to touch it, given the history.

DL's only bet is to convince both houses of Congress to change it. Good luck with that. The only way that this law gets changed is if two or more of the parties involved in that settlement approach their legislators.

 

[700UW]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/03/doj-says-delta-not-an-appropriate-divestiture-candidate-for-love-field-gates.html/
 

The U.S. Department of Justice stated Monday that Delta  Air Lines is “not an appropriate divestiture candidates” for two gates at Dallas Love Field that American Airlines must divest.
 

 

[eolesen]

I'm trying to locate the actual filing... here's what Terry quoted:

“In response to Delta’s request to acquire assets, the United States considered all the facts and circumstances in determining whether Delta should be considered an appropriate divestiture candidate,” the DOJ stated.

The United States concluded that divesting assets to Delta would fail to address the harm arising from the merger and would be inconsistent with the goals that the remedy seeks to achieve,” the DOJ stated.

 

[robbedagain]

that pretty well spells the end of delta attempt at those 2 gates at dal     lets see how wt defends that!!!!

 

[eolesen]

At those specific gates held by AA, yes.

As you can see, they've already shifted the narrative and are now trying to get UA gates.

I'm sure WT will shift accordingly, and claim that it was never about the two AA gates, and just about access in general...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm glad the DOJ has spoken so the next step can move forward.

Then we will see what DL chooses to do.... I have said all along that they wouldn't do anything until it became apparent they are shut out.
 
As much as E wants to argue otherwise, N. Texas politics has absolutely nothing to do with Federal law and is precisely why issues like this are treated at the FEDERAL level and why states are subservient to the federal government in the US form of government. 
 
Further, this move further increases the likelihood that there will be a legal challenge to Wright and its revisions.  An agreement carved up between two private companies and local and federal governments won't begin to pass the litmus test of being competitive for consumers if there are companies that want to serve DAL and can't - and likewise if WN is locked out of DFW without giving up gates.
 
Since WN has already stated according to swamt that they intend to seek revisions to the WA to allow WN to start int'l flights from DFW, the likelihood is really high that the whole thing should be thrown out and that every airline should be free to serve every airport in the region.  DFW and DAL remain the only two airports with similar restrictions in the US and you can absolutely bet that the legal basis for it won't stand.
 
Regardless, this also makes it clear for DL to reveal its market based plans for growth in N. Texas and I am certain they won't sit around and wait for a lengthy legal process to play out and they also will win in N. Texas just as they have in ATL and NYC against AA and WN.