UA transfers its two DAL (Love Field) gates to Southwest; Is DL out?
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
the story I cited is still on DMN's website and contains the words "indefinite" and "The compromise leaves open Delta’s request to begin operating eight more flights beginning Aug. 15"
WN may appeal to the masses but DL appeals to those who are willing to pay for premium service.
WN may appeal to the masses but DL appeals to those who are willing to pay for premium service.
The request is still open, but not yet granted. The next paragraph says that Americans request is still open.
You havent cited anything, where is the link and/or citation?WorldTraveler said:
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/mitchell-schnurman/20150627-southwest-vs.-delta-we-win-either-way.ece
Gee dont see anywhere that they were granted the rights to add eight more flights.
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/temporary-ceasefire-heads-off-dallas-love-field-confrontation-on-july-7.html/
Seems you got caught again lying.
There is no agreement anywhere for DL to add eight more flights to DAL.
How stupid can you be, you keep posting lies and misinformation, you get caught out those lies and still lie about it, changing the subject or deflecting by throwing everything at the board except the kitchen sink?
Do you have a mental problem about lying and making up your so called "facts"?
I mean I have already listed several of your lies and misinformation and yet you still dont provide any factual proof of what you typed, no wonder why you over negative 10,000 and setting new highs of negativity every day!
I have provided links and quotes, you have provided nothing but more of your lies.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
You just can't admit you are wrong or at least have the good sense to walk away and stop talking, do you?
you also can't stop spewing and calling other people liars when it is you that have a deep-seated ability to admit that someone else is right.
congrats on finally finding the article which has been posted on this site for days and which says that DL has the option to add more flights if it wants - even under the temporary extension and while the final agreement is being worked out.
Now given that WN was trying not even a week ago to get DL thrown out completely of DAL and DL now has the assurance that they will be at DAL at least until a final decision is made PLUS can add the flights it had petitioned to add over a year ago, WN's about face can only be seen as a stern talking from a judge who agreed with the DOT and DL that DL does have the right to operate flights based on its accommodation request that preceded WN's announcement of flight additions, let alone the operation of them.
WN's strategy all along with DAL was to acquire the gates - or sit on the ones they had - and keep DL out by holding those gates until WN announced its own schedule.
DL would not have been given the right to add flights to DAL even above what it operates if WN's logic and strategy was valid.
DL is being given the right to stay not just on a temporary basis but on a long-term basis because DOT regulations say that carriers can't squat on gates just to keep competitors out and then announce their own schedules after the other carrier has announced theirs.
DL has the advantage of having a res system and booking processes that take bookings much further out than WN which means that DL can ask for accommodation and sell flights before WN can.
You can argue about what evidence is necessary to convince you but it is clear that the court so far is strongly agreeing with DL's right not only to stay there, but also to add flights that DL should have been given the right to operate months ago.
We will see whether DL chooses to exercise that right but the evidence is overwhelming that WN's logic and strategy was wrong and DL will be at DAL on a long term basis and with the ability to grow beyond what it currently operates because the lookback for facility usage was the date of DL's accommodation request, not today or the date when WN decided to announce its own flights.
You can keep arguing what is increasingly becoming a debate which you and many others took on as much in opposition to me as anything but it is increasingly becoming obvious that you and others including WN were very wrong.
btw, the answer to the thread title is "NO, DL is not out of DAL" despite the fact that we heard dozens of impassioned people arguing that July 6 was it for DL.
you also can't stop spewing and calling other people liars when it is you that have a deep-seated ability to admit that someone else is right.
congrats on finally finding the article which has been posted on this site for days and which says that DL has the option to add more flights if it wants - even under the temporary extension and while the final agreement is being worked out.
Now given that WN was trying not even a week ago to get DL thrown out completely of DAL and DL now has the assurance that they will be at DAL at least until a final decision is made PLUS can add the flights it had petitioned to add over a year ago, WN's about face can only be seen as a stern talking from a judge who agreed with the DOT and DL that DL does have the right to operate flights based on its accommodation request that preceded WN's announcement of flight additions, let alone the operation of them.
WN's strategy all along with DAL was to acquire the gates - or sit on the ones they had - and keep DL out by holding those gates until WN announced its own schedule.
DL would not have been given the right to add flights to DAL even above what it operates if WN's logic and strategy was valid.
DL is being given the right to stay not just on a temporary basis but on a long-term basis because DOT regulations say that carriers can't squat on gates just to keep competitors out and then announce their own schedules after the other carrier has announced theirs.
DL has the advantage of having a res system and booking processes that take bookings much further out than WN which means that DL can ask for accommodation and sell flights before WN can.
You can argue about what evidence is necessary to convince you but it is clear that the court so far is strongly agreeing with DL's right not only to stay there, but also to add flights that DL should have been given the right to operate months ago.
We will see whether DL chooses to exercise that right but the evidence is overwhelming that WN's logic and strategy was wrong and DL will be at DAL on a long term basis and with the ability to grow beyond what it currently operates because the lookback for facility usage was the date of DL's accommodation request, not today or the date when WN decided to announce its own flights.
You can keep arguing what is increasingly becoming a debate which you and many others took on as much in opposition to me as anything but it is increasingly becoming obvious that you and others including WN were very wrong.
btw, the answer to the thread title is "NO, DL is not out of DAL" despite the fact that we heard dozens of impassioned people arguing that July 6 was it for DL.
Are you that blinded and obtuse?
There is no agreement with WN nor COD for DL to add eight flights, can you not even read and comprehend at all?
It states clearly DL asked to add eight flights, no response from WN nor COD, you are truly blind, take your widget glasses off and come back to reality.
So like I said, you are nothing more than a poster who thrives on posting misinformation and lies.
Why dont you admit you are wrong?
DL has not gotten permission to fly anything more than the current five flights.
You know nor matter how many times YOU repeat a lie, doesnt make it the truth.
There is no agreement with WN nor COD for DL to add eight flights, can you not even read and comprehend at all?
It states clearly DL asked to add eight flights, no response from WN nor COD, you are truly blind, take your widget glasses off and come back to reality.
So like I said, you are nothing more than a poster who thrives on posting misinformation and lies.
Why dont you admit you are wrong?
DL has not gotten permission to fly anything more than the current five flights.
You know nor matter how many times YOU repeat a lie, doesnt make it the truth.
You are correct 700. Delta can maintain their 5 flights to Atlanta on a temporary basis until the courts give a final ruling. This is in no way perm. by any means as of now. It is a temporary extension for Delta to stay until the ruling comes. Then it will either stay as is, or be asked to leave for reasons of no room to accommodate. I know it would take an act of congress, but I have been reading lately (local Dallas articles) that maybe with all of this interest from many airlines now for Love field gates, maybe all airlines interested and current users could all ban together and try to get a new gate cap. I honestly think this would be a win-win for everyone as well as boosting even more competition in the North Dallas market(s). Yes it would take a long time to pass the opening of more gates, but at least this is a way to accommodate all airlines willing to service Love Field. SWA, Virgin, Delta, and maybe even AA as they have requested for flights just as Delta has but has not been givin an agreement to do so, it is simply a request. Anyone out there (including AA) has the "option" to request for gates at Love Field. Doesn't mean they have an agreement to do so.700UW said:
Just reading your comments to him is the only reason I read some of his postings still as I have him on ignore, but it sure seems that nothing has changed.
I was shocked that the 2 gates from United were so easily pushed over to SWA. I thought that one a piece would have been givin to Virgin and Delta, but not sure if Virgin is willing to expand into another gate at Love Field just yet. Heck, even AA wants back in but will be restricted by the WARA agreement. Going by memory, but I think AA is restricted from any DAL flights for 10 years from agreement date or at least something like that...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
and you and everyone else on here has repeatedly failed to understand that who holds leases is immaterial to who gets to fly there.
The DOT's airport access rules REQUIRE airports to accommodate airlines that want to fly there if there is space available at the time the accommodation request was made.
WN's strategic failure was in thinking they could grab the gates, sit on them and block DL out, and then announce their schedule when it was in the range of their booking system.
I never said that DL has announced additional flights or that anyone else's approval was given.
The court clearly told WN that DL has the right to add new flights - JUST AS THE DOT HAS SAID - and that the lookback date for usage would be the date of DL's accommodation request, not the date when WN gets around to filling up its gates.
and both of you can argue the agreement is temporary - and that is legally true - but given that WN did a complete about face in its right to throw DL out for even its five flights and the compromise (can you really call it that when the judge tells you that you will be in deep horsepoop if you don't comply?) allows DL to add the same flights DL asked to add months before WN announced its schedule, it is clear that the judge explained a few finer points of law that WN and DAL either didn't know or chose to ignore.
You don't go from "we'll throw them and their security out" to a compromise that allows DL to stay and add flights unless you have been told you are wrong.
We have listened to so-called experts drone on and on for 18 months about why WN didn't have to comply with DOT requirements and why DL was wrong.
EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, DL has remained and WN/DAL's position has been proven wrong.
There is very little chance that a judge will all of a sudden decide that all of the laws that previously had been used to allow DL to stay are invalid and WN now has the right to kick DL out, dominate an airport where it controls 90% of the traffic, and tell the DOT and their lawyers who actually provide funding to US airports that they are wrong.
Feel free to keep arguing a point which is increasingly obvious is wrong.
DL made the point that it had a right to be at DAL, is still there despite numerous predictions they would be gone, and DL is clearly well positioned to not only stay at DAL with its 5 ATL flights but increase them to include other destinations.
but if you want to add to the evidence that you stuck your nose into a subject that you didn't know the truth about and were proven wrong, go for it.
The DOT's airport access rules REQUIRE airports to accommodate airlines that want to fly there if there is space available at the time the accommodation request was made.
WN's strategic failure was in thinking they could grab the gates, sit on them and block DL out, and then announce their schedule when it was in the range of their booking system.
I never said that DL has announced additional flights or that anyone else's approval was given.
The court clearly told WN that DL has the right to add new flights - JUST AS THE DOT HAS SAID - and that the lookback date for usage would be the date of DL's accommodation request, not the date when WN gets around to filling up its gates.
and both of you can argue the agreement is temporary - and that is legally true - but given that WN did a complete about face in its right to throw DL out for even its five flights and the compromise (can you really call it that when the judge tells you that you will be in deep horsepoop if you don't comply?) allows DL to add the same flights DL asked to add months before WN announced its schedule, it is clear that the judge explained a few finer points of law that WN and DAL either didn't know or chose to ignore.
You don't go from "we'll throw them and their security out" to a compromise that allows DL to stay and add flights unless you have been told you are wrong.
We have listened to so-called experts drone on and on for 18 months about why WN didn't have to comply with DOT requirements and why DL was wrong.
EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, DL has remained and WN/DAL's position has been proven wrong.
There is very little chance that a judge will all of a sudden decide that all of the laws that previously had been used to allow DL to stay are invalid and WN now has the right to kick DL out, dominate an airport where it controls 90% of the traffic, and tell the DOT and their lawyers who actually provide funding to US airports that they are wrong.
Feel free to keep arguing a point which is increasingly obvious is wrong.
DL made the point that it had a right to be at DAL, is still there despite numerous predictions they would be gone, and DL is clearly well positioned to not only stay at DAL with its 5 ATL flights but increase them to include other destinations.
but if you want to add to the evidence that you stuck your nose into a subject that you didn't know the truth about and were proven wrong, go for it.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
wrong... there is no double standard and there is no basis for giving WN any access at any airport it does not already have or hasn't requested based on federal guidelines.
LGA and every other DL hub airport -plus virtually every other airport in the US - complies with federal airport access guidelines.
They have procedures that airlines follow to gain space and they are in complete agreement with DOT regulations.
LGA and every other DL hub airport -plus virtually every other airport in the US - complies with federal airport access guidelines.
They have procedures that airlines follow to gain space and they are in complete agreement with DOT regulations.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
again you quote out of context --- because if you quoted in context, it would be clear why you are wrong.
when it comes to meeting federal airport access requirements, it doens't matter who holds the lease if there is space available at the time an accommodation request is made by an airline that doesn't hold a lease.
WN's error was that it thought it could acquire the real estate and not immediately fill the gates.
DL knew the rules and played by them and will have a presence at DAL.
btw, WN has more than 30 daily flights at LGA with almost as many flights as UA that has served LGA for decades.
WN is not disadvantaged at ANY US airport unless it is of their own choice.
and part of the reason I am sure why DL pressed the DAL issue is because WN made such a production about getting access to LGA and DCA and shut out the legacy carriers in the process. DL simply used the laws that exist to ensure that the tables got turned in WN's own backyard.
regardless of whehther that entered into DL's decision to pursue DAL access or not, there are compelling reasons for DL to have a presence at DAL based on pure competitive and economic reasons; DL has the largest share of the market from ORD to every one of DL's interior US hubs - ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC - which are all served from both Chicago airports. and DL has an average fare premium from Chicago to those cities as well.
given that no other airline will likely serve both DAL and DFW, the same scenario is likely to develop at DAL/DFW as exists for DL at MDW/ORD.
the answer to the thread title is, "NO, DL is not out of DAL and will be there for years to come."
when it comes to meeting federal airport access requirements, it doens't matter who holds the lease if there is space available at the time an accommodation request is made by an airline that doesn't hold a lease.
WN's error was that it thought it could acquire the real estate and not immediately fill the gates.
DL knew the rules and played by them and will have a presence at DAL.
btw, WN has more than 30 daily flights at LGA with almost as many flights as UA that has served LGA for decades.
WN is not disadvantaged at ANY US airport unless it is of their own choice.
and part of the reason I am sure why DL pressed the DAL issue is because WN made such a production about getting access to LGA and DCA and shut out the legacy carriers in the process. DL simply used the laws that exist to ensure that the tables got turned in WN's own backyard.
regardless of whehther that entered into DL's decision to pursue DAL access or not, there are compelling reasons for DL to have a presence at DAL based on pure competitive and economic reasons; DL has the largest share of the market from ORD to every one of DL's interior US hubs - ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC - which are all served from both Chicago airports. and DL has an average fare premium from Chicago to those cities as well.
given that no other airline will likely serve both DAL and DFW, the same scenario is likely to develop at DAL/DFW as exists for DL at MDW/ORD.
the answer to the thread title is, "NO, DL is not out of DAL and will be there for years to come."
- Status
