Delta to keep SEA-HND (with conditions)
- Thread starter BABABOOY
- Start date
- Status
LD3
Veteran
I am surprised it took DL so long to state their displeasure... Hopefully someone at the DOT will wake up and realize what they imposed in wrong....
Remember lots of folks on here were saying DL would keep the route and were very happy when they got to keep it - the issue is while DL was compliant with the route authority - the spirit of the authority was not fulfilled - I'm sure there is room for compromise however I doubt the DOT is going to move to far off it's position
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
The law isn't based on spirit. It is based on letter.
DL got the route and is arguing that the restrictions do not have precedent.
I have previously said that I do think the DOT is ok to tighten restrictions... whether they should be as tight as they are is something for DL and the DOT to fight over.
DL got the route and is arguing that the restrictions do not have precedent.
I have previously said that I do think the DOT is ok to tighten restrictions... whether they should be as tight as they are is something for DL and the DOT to fight over.
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,353
Delta has said they would keep it, but the that doesn't make the the ruling horse crap.jcw said:
and we don't go by the "spirit" of the law. That is the reason why our .gov is such a cluster f*^k to begin with. The DOT set its rules, Delta played the game and now in a butt hurt I will show you, very, very, very typical of this administration move they went off the deep end.
Or what? they stop losing money on one HND slot and AA gets to join in the part of setting money on fire?eolesen said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
Some people here don't understand that DL's strategy with HND is to ensure that DL gets a large enough portion of the US-HND slots that no single competitor can gain enough slots to become a viable alternative against DL's NRT hub.
It is for precisely the same reason that the US passed on expanded slot times at HND while Japan gave them out to other governments.
DL wants to hold as many of the HND slots to prevent another competitor from gaining a viable position in the market.
Open Skies with Japan did nothing for DL but open up a few middle of the night slots at HND. It gave AA and UA the ability to operate joint ventures. DL is going to take what it can out of the agreement.
that doesn't change that DL is justified in arguing that the DOT's restrictions are unprecedented and punitive.
and you know what will happen? DL will reduce fares in the HND market to fill planes and that will hurt other carriers far more than it will hurt DL. Given that DL's average fares to HND are much higher than what AA got to JFK on a 777, DL has a lot of room to reduce fares if it wants to.
at the end of the day, DL will fly the route and comply with the directions. The question is how much DL will reduce fares in order to fill seats and do so at the cost of other carriers.
It is for precisely the same reason that the US passed on expanded slot times at HND while Japan gave them out to other governments.
DL wants to hold as many of the HND slots to prevent another competitor from gaining a viable position in the market.
Open Skies with Japan did nothing for DL but open up a few middle of the night slots at HND. It gave AA and UA the ability to operate joint ventures. DL is going to take what it can out of the agreement.
that doesn't change that DL is justified in arguing that the DOT's restrictions are unprecedented and punitive.
and you know what will happen? DL will reduce fares in the HND market to fill planes and that will hurt other carriers far more than it will hurt DL. Given that DL's average fares to HND are much higher than what AA got to JFK on a 777, DL has a lot of room to reduce fares if it wants to.
at the end of the day, DL will fly the route and comply with the directions. The question is how much DL will reduce fares in order to fill seats and do so at the cost of other carriers.
Oh, so Dullta doesn't actually want to serve HND, it just wants to prevent any other U.S. airline from servicing it. That's what you were doing BEFORE the DOT ruled on that slot that you had to use it or lose it. I suppose now that mighty Dullta will sue for the privilege of sitting on, but not using the slot. Good friggin' luck.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
yes, DL wants to serve HND - at the size of the market that the Japanese created by making US carriers fly in the middle of the night.
DL isn't saying that it will sit on the slot.
It is using the slots to ensure its NRT hub is not marginalized by an agreement that helped Japanese carriers, AA and UA but only provided risk to DL's NRT hub.
DL wants to have the same restrictions in place that exist in other markets where carriers are free to implement holiday cancels and other market driven schedules.
I said long ago that I expected that the DOT would require tighter restrictions and they did.
having to ask to go the bathroom is middle school kind of stuff.
DL should be able to operate under a tighter set of restrictions that is not 100%.
DL isn't saying that it will sit on the slot.
It is using the slots to ensure its NRT hub is not marginalized by an agreement that helped Japanese carriers, AA and UA but only provided risk to DL's NRT hub.
DL wants to have the same restrictions in place that exist in other markets where carriers are free to implement holiday cancels and other market driven schedules.
I said long ago that I expected that the DOT would require tighter restrictions and they did.
having to ask to go the bathroom is middle school kind of stuff.
DL should be able to operate under a tighter set of restrictions that is not 100%.
You are incorrect, you pompous blowhard.WorldTraveler said:
Note how the Delta lawyers are arguing that the proposed order forces DL to fly the route 365 days a year without fail or else risk a default? The only part of my post not duplicated by the Delta lawyers in DL's objections was the part about the hot spare or cancelling a different SEA-Asia flight.
Now you're just making things up. So when the DOT used the word "perform," what they really meant was "schedule"? Looks like the DL lawyers agree with me, and not you. But of course we all know that you're smarter than everyone, including Delta's lawyers.WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler said:
You are such a doofus. I post an observation (a correct one, I might add) about the unprecedented nature of the DOT's proposed restrictions on Delta and this one route and not only do you say I'm wrong (when I wasn't) but you then launch into a nonsensical rant about your perceptions of my motivations in posting my observation. You're just a charlatan.
You should probably call Delta's lawyers and let them know that you and the charlatan know better than they do what the DOT is demanding in this proposed order.topDawg said:
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
DL's objection didn't happen in a vacuum. Someone at DL most likely conferred with DOT, and was told "yes, we really are going to count every unauthorized cancellation against you, regardless of the reason."
Is it really draconian? Nope.
DL is that employee that everyone knows who called in sick so many times that they wound up on a third step for attendance.
Is it unfair that they now have to bring in a doctor's note for every absence in the next two years, while everyone else gets trusted at face value?
No, it's not unfair at all. It's called the consequences of escalation.
DL's legal team has a job to do, but this really sits in Hauenstein's lap. Planning is the one who decided to no-op the flights and push the limits of the regulations. Legal just has to come up with a good argument for a bad situation.
Is it really draconian? Nope.
DL is that employee that everyone knows who called in sick so many times that they wound up on a third step for attendance.
Is it unfair that they now have to bring in a doctor's note for every absence in the next two years, while everyone else gets trusted at face value?
No, it's not unfair at all. It's called the consequences of escalation.
DL's legal team has a job to do, but this really sits in Hauenstein's lap. Planning is the one who decided to no-op the flights and push the limits of the regulations. Legal just has to come up with a good argument for a bad situation.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
FWAAA
you should probably call AA's network dept. and let them know that AA will not fly the route; all the behind the scenes footstomping by you and everyone else won't change that DL won the right to operate the route.
DL has every legal basis to argue that the DOT's terms are not supported by any precedent and they also do not address the problem which the DOT intended to correct by the route reaward.
What you and E and the rest of the AA fan club has been trying to argue for months is that DL doesn't have the legal or economic basis to operate the SEA-HND route and it should be reawarded to AA.
The DOT flatly disagreed
http://media.bizj.us/view/img/5551701/delta-object.pdf
What the DOT and DL are arguing about is the level of restrictions that the DOT is attempting to impose on DL.
here is what DL says in its filing with the DOT
The Department made the correct legal decision and an eminently sound policy
judgment in permitting Delta to retain its Haneda-Seattle slot authority. The unprecedented
365-day-a-year-service mandate, however, stands in stark contrast: that proposed condition is
plainly unlawful and it reflects an ill-advised policy judgment, inviting almost certain appellate
vacatur. Delta respectfully requests that the Department abandon the condition and consider a
narrowly targeted dormancy condition to the extent the Department has any remaining concerns
about Delta’s commitment to the Haneda-Seattle route. Delta stands ready to work with the
Department to craft an appropriate condition.
Note the part about PLAINLY UNLAWFUL.
DL is now armed with the DOT's affirmation of the ECONOMIC basis of the route award and is focusing on the language.
and, yes, DL has threatened a lawsuit and will win - which is why DL is not afraid of losing the route and the DOT will have to admit once again that it screwed up and is playing politics with US aviation policy.
The US is a nation of laws. For someone who is supposedly a lawyer, you seem hopelessly ignorant of that fact.
Maybe you should be a bureaucrat in Latin America or Africa practicing law since you seem to think whatever capricious decision the government makes is right - as long as it goes for your side.
you should probably call AA's network dept. and let them know that AA will not fly the route; all the behind the scenes footstomping by you and everyone else won't change that DL won the right to operate the route.
DL has every legal basis to argue that the DOT's terms are not supported by any precedent and they also do not address the problem which the DOT intended to correct by the route reaward.
What you and E and the rest of the AA fan club has been trying to argue for months is that DL doesn't have the legal or economic basis to operate the SEA-HND route and it should be reawarded to AA.
The DOT flatly disagreed
http://media.bizj.us/view/img/5551701/delta-object.pdf
What the DOT and DL are arguing about is the level of restrictions that the DOT is attempting to impose on DL.
here is what DL says in its filing with the DOT
The Department made the correct legal decision and an eminently sound policy
judgment in permitting Delta to retain its Haneda-Seattle slot authority. The unprecedented
365-day-a-year-service mandate, however, stands in stark contrast: that proposed condition is
plainly unlawful and it reflects an ill-advised policy judgment, inviting almost certain appellate
vacatur. Delta respectfully requests that the Department abandon the condition and consider a
narrowly targeted dormancy condition to the extent the Department has any remaining concerns
about Delta’s commitment to the Haneda-Seattle route. Delta stands ready to work with the
Department to craft an appropriate condition.
Note the part about PLAINLY UNLAWFUL.
DL is now armed with the DOT's affirmation of the ECONOMIC basis of the route award and is focusing on the language.
and, yes, DL has threatened a lawsuit and will win - which is why DL is not afraid of losing the route and the DOT will have to admit once again that it screwed up and is playing politics with US aviation policy.
The US is a nation of laws. For someone who is supposedly a lawyer, you seem hopelessly ignorant of that fact.
Maybe you should be a bureaucrat in Latin America or Africa practicing law since you seem to think whatever capricious decision the government makes is right - as long as it goes for your side.
Note the part that so far onlythe DL lawyers (and you, of course) have called it "plainly unlawful." That does not make it so. The route authority people in the DOT obviously do not agree with you or the DL lawyers. Someone very high up in the DOT or a Federal judge (up, possibly to the SCOTUS) will have to agree to make it so. Until that time, it is NOT plainly unlawful. It's a difference of opinion between DL and the DOT. And, as it stands, their ace trumps DL's king. It's like saying because your mother doesn't believe you shot your wife, that makes you innocent under the law. It's not quite that simple.
You seem to be "hopelessly ignorant" of the fact that your saying so does not make it so. And, I love the fact that a beancounter is setting himself up as judge and jury over a licensed lawyer. It's just one of the things that makes you such a buffoon.
You seem to be "hopelessly ignorant" of the fact that your saying so does not make it so. And, I love the fact that a beancounter is setting himself up as judge and jury over a licensed lawyer. It's just one of the things that makes you such a buffoon.
- Status
Similar threads
