And you call people names all the time, you called someone a "twit" in this thread.
Hypocrite.
I treat people with the same respect that they show me.
sorry if that sounds cruel but FF is one of the very last people on this forum who has yet to figure out that if they want peace, then show respect to others even if they don't agree with your point.
I have given enormous latitude to those who can show respect for them to say.
I have him on ignore, but I have to admit, sometimes it's just ... Fun, to poke cute lil thing.
He's like a pull string doll, so,when I need some comic relief, I pull the string, he never disappoints.
so you really don't ignore, right? just admit it.
The ones who are getting poked are those who really can't ignore me but have to throw their own little comments in - which are guaranteed to evoke a response from me because I don't ignore anyone.
This is a real estate rights issue. WN is the tenant, they have a valid and executed lease.
Incumbency, tenure, schedules, etc. don't matter if you don't have a lease. I don't get to stay in a hotel room for another week after I've been there for a week if I don't have a reservation for the next week. If the house we're currently leasing gets sold, we can't just declare squatter's rights and stay beyond the end date of the lease.
DOT as a government authority doesn't have a Constitutional right confiscate or interfere in a valid lease transaction between two private parties.
Another thing that he is not wrapping his head around are the rules and regs surrounding anyone, not just Delta, who wants to lease at DAL. The primary lease holder must have room, and as long as it does not disrupt the primary lease holders schedules. SWA will not have any room to sub-lease out any gate at DAL. It is not up to SWA to accommodate anyone at DAL. It is up to the COD to try and find a way to accommodate Delta as long as the 2 major points I listed above are followed, otherwise they can not be accommodated. I am still willing to bet that Virgin may end up making some room later when they revamp their schedules as we are hearing. But if they do not, and they too use full capacity 18-20 flights per day, then Delta will be asked to relocate their flights over to DFW as they have the right to fly out of both airports with no restrictions unlike SWA. He still does not understand the surroundings of these 2 airports and has no clue how badly restricted SWA has been for all it's years until now.
Now some on here are thinking Virgin may pull out eventually from DAL, if and when that happens those two gates will go up for lease and it will take a Low cost carrier to get them just like they did last time, if no LCC takes them then maybe they will go outside to other airlines at that point, but I doubt it. What would be funny is if no LCC applied and they were awarded over to SWA a LCC...
except it isn't simply a real estate issue and never has been.
first, the DOT is not just a limp-wristed advisory committee that plays second fiddle to the market.
second, like so many of the arguments, yours doesn't even logically hold up since the two gates in question were acquired from UA and WN has preceded to fill them up - or is working on doing so. DL's stake at DAL for service goes back before WN acquired UA's gates. further WN acquired the gates and THEN loaded them up even while other carriers were waiting to add flights and WN knew it. It is highly unlikely that any court will allow WN to acquire assets above the 16 gates and push out the competition given that it has been known for almost two years that DL wanted to add flights.
and finally, the federal government considers federally funded airports as public property. Private property rights are superseded by federal law and policy and that happens ALL THE TIME IN MULTIPLE INDUSTRIES.
The DOT absolutely has the right to dictate how federal assets are used and they have done it repeatedly involving gates, slots, and other federal aviation infrastructure.
IF WN really wants to be able to exercise private property rights, it can buy DAL from the City of Dallas and pay for the full cost of operating the airport. Then and only then do federal laws stop applying, including the ones that require that competition be maintained if not expanded and antitrust laws enforced.
when WN buys DAL, let me know so we can rewrite the rules based on private ownership and not federal requirements.
frugal,
congratulations to your cordial discussion of the issues without name calling!
B6 wasn't interested in DAL at first because they couldn't possibly fill 2 gates worth of flying.
VX can't either but they are willing to further tick off WN by flying to AUS on top of other markets.
at some point, they will have to admit that their strategy has failed
If the two gates which VX occupies becomes available because of their failure, DAL will likely once again be faced with the choice of converting them to common use.
But as long as DL continues to maintain service, the DOT says that DL does have the right to be accommodated.
at this point, if the Appeals court rules that DL must be accommodated, WN will probably want to see VX fail and then have the two VX gates converted to common use and split between DL and whoever else might want a piece of a gate.
I'm not sure that DL would accept that since it proposed a schedule for the use of two gates and common use gate usage does not require splitting between multiple carriers if one is willing to take them all.
Further, I still think that eventually and perhaps as part of this case, the size of WN's operation at DAL relative to other airports will be challenged esp. since the WA and 5PA does not provide any legal protection for WN to operate above 16 gates.
WN's oeprations on any gates above 16 will be subject to the same airport access and antitrust requirements that every other airline faces at every other airport.
I am happy to admit if I am wrong but I believe that eventually that will be shown to be true. Will others admit if they are wrong?
