The Southwest and Delta battle for gates

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Ooooh, the personal insults.
How deeply into your mental horsepower did you have to grasp to come up with that?
 

again, you are nothing more than a jealous little twit that has to insert yourself into conversations that other people are discussing. You are NOT AWESOME.

what FWAAA said and what you tried to connect with me aren't even close to being related.

And FWAAA's comment doesn't change that Washington could care less about WN's perceived need and Texas' LUV affair with them.

 
Speaking of the Whole Truth, let's have a look at it:
 

WN is not exempt from antitrust guidelines and the fact that the case is being tried in Washington DC and not Texas says that the rest of the world is not nearly as intoxicated with or influenced by the hubris that N. Texas has tried to convince itself of regarding DAL.

 

Uhh, No. Southwest petitioned the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is where litigants usually attack agency positions like this one of the DOT. That the court is located in Washington, DC doesn't "say" anything about the world's intoxication (or lack thereof) with Southwest. It's merely where the courthouse is located.

There is no trial - this is an appellate court. Briefs will be filed followed by oral arguments of the legal issues by legal counsel for WN, DOT and DL.

This paragraph of yours is symptomatic of the things you fabricate.

  ^^^^^^^^
+1
 

 
Spin away!
 
 


 

 

[eolesen]

Maybe the courts will come to the realization that an 8 mile separation of the two airports constitutes a common market, and DL isn't being denied anything since they have unfettered access at an airport they're already serving. Similar arguments have been made for years regarding DCA access, something the court will be intimately familiar with.

 

[swamt]

Maybe the courts will come to the realization that an 8 mile separation of the two airports constitutes a common market, and DL isn't being denied anything since they have unfettered access at an airport they're already serving. Similar arguments have been made for years regarding DCA access, something the court will be intimately familiar with.

That is correct E.  And let's also remember that SWA is the only airline that does not have unfettered access at both airports.  Very good point.  They may very well look at it this way or maybe even SWA and COD will argue it this way.  Looks like the dates will be surpassing the deadline of 7-6, any legal guesses on what might happen after 7-6?  Mind you, I don't think SWA needs full usage of those 2 gates until Aug, but that is just one month away from the deadline.  I still think Virgin will be realigning their schedules and Delta will be able to keep their 5 flights, but very, very doubtful of growing any larger than that unless Virgin starts to really cut back...

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, it isn't correct because you can't make up laws on the fly.

Further, WN whined about access to SPECIFIC airports - LGA and DCA - despite the fact that there is access to airports in the region and WN either had it or could have had it with little to no divestiture on anyone else's part.

What will likely be determined is exactly what the DOT has said all along and DL has used for its claim to access despite the efforts of nearly everyone else including people on here to say that DAL is full and DL has to go somewhere else.

WN made the decision to sit it out and wait for DAL to open to long haul domestic flights.

There was no requirement that any carrier is required to NOT serve DAL or do so at the expense of their presence anywhere else - except WN.

WN also has no antitrust protection for anything more than the 16 gates which they had the day the WA restrictions fell.

We can check back in years - but I will be willing to bet that DAL access will go down the path of that the courts will affirm that DL has a right to continue to operate at DAL with the same number of flights it had at the day the WA restrictions changed, and then DL will push for gaining access to additional gates based on antitrust provisions against WN given that WN operates a higher percentage of seats than at any other top 25 airport and more seats than AA does at DCA where WN argued for divestiture.

The clear reality is that this forum has been active for years with predictions of DL's demise at DAL and yet they are still there

 

[FWAAA]

Hmmm. More fabrications?

Someone else quoted this from WT:

Who has ever claimed once (let alone repeatedly) that any challenges "had" to be tried in a Texas court? That's simply ridiculous.

The only claims I've seen are that the Texas delegation would be consulted. Not the courts.

I saw that yesterday and I don't recall a single post by anyone where the claim was that Texas courts would have to be involved in anything having to do with the Wright Amendment's repeal or the five-party agreement.

I have said repeatedly that Congress (and the President) would have to become involved if the agreement were amended by the parties, say to increase the number of gates or to permit nonstop international flights, because those restrictions were enacted into law by Congress.

I never said that Texas courts had any unique role to play, and I don't recall any posts saying they did.
 

There are absolutely posts on this forum where people have claimed that challenges to the WA and 5 party agreement had to be made in Texas.

I don't recall a single instance of the above. Perhaps you could share a link? That's the polite thing to do when it looks like you've mis-remembered (or made something up).

and why you or anyone else would even think that Texas has the right to dictate the use of federally funded facilities above federal courts is beyond comprehension and precisely the Texas-sized arrogance that so many have thought applied to DAL above every other airport.

What is this gibberish all about? Nobody thinks that Texas has any rights to dictate anything. Nor has anyone posted such nonsense. That makes the paragraph above a classic "straw-man," something you've done before.

The DOJ decides whether to approve the transfer of the UA gates to WN, and if DL thinks that violates the antitrust laws, then they're free to bring their own lawsuit if the DOJ does not.

Congress (acting by majority, not just the Texas delegation) has the power to dictate what happens at DAL via legislation, like the WA Reform Act, which it passed back in 2006.

Maybe the courts will come to the realization that an 8 mile separation of the two airports constitutes a common market, and DL isn't being denied anything since they have unfettered access at an airport they're already serving. Similar arguments have been made for years regarding DCA access, something the court will be intimately familiar with.

That's an excellent point. Market definition is key in all antitrust analysis, and cogent arguments can be made that DFW is an acceptable substitute for DAL, as well as arguments for the other side, that DAL is a unique market because of its proximity to downtown Dallas. Same with most other 2-airport or 3-airport metro areas.

Unlike in many cities, DAL is apparently not surrounded by poor neighborhoods, and it's entirely possible that the wealthy residents near the airport complain loudly about the huge uptick in DAL traffic, mostly by WN. They probably won't be able to change things in the short-term, but long-term, noisy residents, especially wealthy ones, tend to get their way.

 

[WorldTraveler]

for someone who is supposedly "schooled" in the American legal system, you are woefully ignorant or at least trying to convince us that the legislative and administrative branch of the US government can and often is challenged not only by private citizens and other governments but also by the opposite branch of the federal government.

The DOJ, if you will remember, admitted that they weren't prepared to take AA/US to court (I'm sure FWAAA in all of his arrogance will tell me I have used the wrong terminology) because the Federal Gubmint had been shut down so the DOJ threw together a settlement and didn't bother to check on a lot of things, including the fact that the DOT regulations regarding airport access far preceded AA/US and also were well known to DAL.

you and E can hang onto the single market bullcrap but it wasn't used at LGA, JFK, and EWR or DCA, BWI, and IAD and it won't work now.

As much as you want to believe otherwise, the rules won't be changed now, esp. since WN has benefitted from the decision that EVERY US airport is treated separately and what there really is no precedent for is the idea that service to one airport in a metro area counts AGAINST a carrier being able to serve another airport in the region.

There isn't a single precedent where that has been the case.

Since you are such a legal wizzkid and E has so much knowledge of the airline industry (yes, I gest) you two should have no problem putting your two peaked heads together and coming up with an example.

In the meantime, the DOT has said that EVERY US airport is obligated to accommodate any carrier who has had service at that airport, regardless of what happens with the leases for any other carriers.

The reason why DL has not given up is because DL has been flying longer than either you and E have been alive and knows what can and cannot be done regarding airport access.

I can't say I blame WN for trying but they surely know or are about to find out that the DOT is not exactly new to this game either and DAL when push comes to shove will do the shoving itself against its lease holders rather than lose federal money.

so, yeah, go ahead and drag this out for a couple more months and then when WN is forced to accommodate DL at least in part -unless VX fails first - then it will be more apparent how wrong all of those who have argued against DL's position will be.

and no one has yet to be able to explain how if DL is on such precarious footing that they weren't kicked out a long time ago as many here said they would be.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

In the meantime, the DOT has said that EVERY US airport is obligated to accommodate any carrier who has had service at that airport, regardless of what happens with the leases for any other carriers.

The reason why DL has not given up is because DL has been flying longer than either you and E have been alive and knows what can and cannot be done regarding airport access.

 
So what happened to your "DL is a new entrant" argument?
 
I love it how the narrative changes / updates, almost as if in real time.  It's no wonder you contradict yourself so often.

 

[WorldTraveler]

because DL is taking the approach that established carriers without leases are the ones that should be accommodated and the DOT agrees.

New entrant might or might not work but that is not the approach DL is taking for right now.

 

[swamt]

And SWA says if we don't have room, we won't accommodate.
Doesn't mean they won't be accommodated. COD has this problem NOT SWA.
 
Southwest Airlines: We don't have room for Delta flights at Love Field

 

[WNMECH]

and no one has yet to be able to explain how if DL is on such precarious footing that they weren't kicked out a long time ago as many here said they would be.

It has been explained in length over and over but you don't comprehend.

No one can be "kicked out" until:

1. All the preferential gate leaseholders are using their gates at full capacity (10 flights per gate) and,

2. Accommodated airlines schedule service conflict with preferential lease holders schedules.

Those two things wont happen until august.
Number 2 still might not happen then, but WN suggests that it will (or shortly thereafter).


In case there was any doubt, Southwest Airlines Co. chairman and chief executive Gary Kelly made it emphatically clear: Southwest won’t have room to accommodate Delta Air Lines Inc.’s flights at Dallas Love Field much longer.

Speaking after Southwest’s annual meeting Wednesday, Kelly said the carrier’s expansion at Love Field this summer will fully occupy its 18 gates at the airport.

“We will use every ounce of time and space at those 18 gates, and it will be up to the city to deal with whatever other requests it has,” Kelly said.


The process outlined in the Wright Amendment Reform Act, the Scarce Resource Provision of the Love Field Competition Plan, and the Love Field Gate Leases, is still being followed.
The only thing added is the suggestion letter to the COD from a DOT administrator. It has not been proven to hold any legal weight.
Until it does, the process will continue.



What you have failed to explain is, if Delta is on such sure legal footing, why hasn't the city of Dallas taken your opinion on giving Delta space yet?
They aren't jumping on your bandwagon, but are waiting to hear from a judge before giving the DOT suggestion letter any legal weight at all.

Unless the COD, WN or VX offer Delta space, OR a judge steps in issuing an order, Delta will have NO flights from love after their temp lease is up in July.

It is Delta that needs help to continue their flights not WN.
Southwest has legal leases to a full 18 gates after July 6.
The process is still being followed and the clock keeps ticking.

 

[WorldTraveler]

And SWA says if we don't have room, we won't accommodate.
Doesn't mean they won't be accommodated. COD has this problem NOT SWA.
 
Southwest Airlines: We don't have room for Delta flights at Love Field

 
no.

DAL doesn't have gates in its back pocket.

DAL has no choice but to comply with federal law by providing access to DL USING THE GATES THAT ARE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY WN AND VX.

It is WN and VX' problem and VX is trying desperately to prove that they don't have to comply given that they were given their gates by the DOJ as part of the AA/US divestiture.

WN's 2 gates from UA are the problem. If they had been converted to common use or DL was allowed to be accommodated on them as happened under the UA-DL sublease, DL would have no legal ground on the basis of AIRPORT access and the DOT couldn't be telling WN that DL has to be accommodated.

DL might pursue more gate space on the basis of antitrust violations on WN's part later but the airport access requirement is fixed by DL being able to continue to operate its current 5 or 6 flight schedule.
 

It has been explained in length over and over but you don't comprehend.

No one can be "kicked out" until:

1. All the preferential gate leaseholders are using their gates at full capacity (10 flights per gate) and,

2. Accommodated airlines schedule service conflict with preferential lease holders schedules.

Those two things wont happen until august.
Number 2 still might not happen then, but WN suggests that it will (or shortly thereafter).


In case there was any doubt, Southwest Airlines Co. chairman and chief executive Gary Kelly made it emphatically clear: Southwest won’t have room to accommodate Delta Air Lines Inc.’s flights at Dallas Love Field much longer.

Speaking after Southwest’s annual meeting Wednesday, Kelly said the carrier’s expansion at Love Field this summer will fully occupy its 18 gates at the airport.

“We will use every ounce of time and space at those 18 gates, and it will be up to the city to deal with whatever other requests it has,” Kelly said.


The process outlined in the Wright Amendment Reform Act, the Scarce Resource Provision of the Love Field Competition Plan, and the Love Field Gate Leases, is still being followed.
The only thing added is the suggestion letter to the COD from a DOT administrator. It has not been proven to hold any legal weight.
Until it does, the process will continue.



What you have failed to explain is, if Delta is on such sure legal footing, why hasn't the city of Dallas taken your opinion on giving Delta space yet?
They aren't jumping on your bandwagon, but are waiting to hear from a judge before giving the DOT suggestion letter any legal weight at all.

Unless the COD, WN or VX offer Delta space, OR a judge steps in issuing an order, Delta will have NO flights from love after their temp lease is up in July.

It is Delta that needs help to continue their flights not WN.
Southwest has legal leases to a full 18 gates after July 6.
The process is still being followed and the clock keeps ticking.

you should have stopped No one can be "kicked out"

Your whole debate is based on the supposition that 1. WN has any legal protection above 16 gates which I believe will be shown that they do not and 2. that any leaseholder that acquires gates supersedes flight activity by carriers that already served DAL and have no leases. and that 3. WN can build up its schedule on leased gates after it acquires gates as the basis for kicking DL out of DAL.

DL is THE ONLY carrier that operated from DAL before the WA restrictions fell and does not have a lease.

WN's acquisition of additional gates and its build up of flight activity ON ITS OWN 16 gates and its acquired gates from WN came AFTER DL was notified its sublease - first via the AA gates and later via the UA gates - was terminated.

the DOT says that DL has to be accommodated based on its continuous service at DAL which preceded VX' arrival and WN's acquisition of UA's gates and WN buildup.

Of course, DL could probably let WN have its gates as long as WN doesn't fly to DL hubs which include LGA and LAX but as long as WN competes in markets that DL has flown for years, including ATL, DL is not going to roll over and allow WN to take DL market share just because WN has now decided to start longhaul domestic service from N. Texas.

Since DL and WN can't agree to not serve markets and WN has proven that it will fly to DL hubs from N. Texas, DL has no choice but to fight it out legally to serve markets that matter to DL from DAL.

And it also doesn't help WN's cause that it cried so badly about gaining access to LGA and DCA and now wants to do just the opposite of what was required of the legacy carriers who had to carve out space for WN at DCA and LGA.

The reason why Gary Kelly walked away from the questioning is because WN is being challenged by someone who is as determined to legally determine as WN has been but the other party - DL - is on solid legal ground and is not just pandering to antiquated marketing propaganda about what WN has done in markets.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

So what happened to your "DL is a new entrant" argument?

because DL is taking the approach that established carriers without leases are the ones that should be accommodated and the DOT agrees.

New entrant might or might not work but that is not the approach DL is taking for right now.

 
WT to English Translation:  I really had no idea of what I was talking about, but I had to make something up so that my dream of DL grandeur isn't shattered.  And I was hoping that because I write so much about DL each and every day that somehow nobody would notice my BS.

 

[eolesen]

I expected the City to act by the 30 day countdown of the sublease expiration, but that's still two weeks off.

When this goes to court, it will be interesting to see how the current DOT argues against itself -- they have known about the Scarce Use provisions since they approved DAL's competition plan 15 years ago.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and the scarce use provisions NEVER allowed any carrier to be kicked out of DAL nor did it override federal airport access requirements.

WN's tactic of acquiring gates and filling them plus the ones it already had AFTER DL had already been there and had already announced schedules not just for its own post Wright flying to ATL but also to other cities will show that WN's activity is counter to both airport access requirements and antitrust laws.

WN has no legal protections to acquire gates above 16 and fill them up in order to drive out a competitor that not only already served DAL but had clearly provided plans to use two full gates before WN provided its own post Wright plans, let alone flew a single flight.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

WN's tactic of acquiring gates and filling them plus the ones it already had AFTER DL had already been there and had already announced schedules not just for its own post Wright flying to ATL but also to other cities will show that WN's activity is counter to both airport access requirements and antitrust laws.

 
Perhaps DL should have secured gate leases prior to announcing their schedules.