City of Dallas still in talks with Delta about Love Field

[eolesen]

Ah, and it's even Bob McAdoo's analysis. I tend to take his opinions with a huge grain of salt. He was one of the management team at Vanguard (AA put them out of business) and he was on the management team at People Express (CO eliminated most of their management when they bought them), so Bob was out of a job twice directly/indirectly because of AA and UA. If he'd only worked for PA or NW, he'd have the trifecta of negative bias going for him.

 

[swamt]

Source, please?... I've never heard of investors getting that level of detail, although it is possible that they just made some assumptions that it was a waste of resources to try and serve both airports (which I think might be a valid conclusion for DL as well as UA). AA came to that conclusion when they were doing the 56 seat F100's, not to mention the dilution it was causing to the same markets out of DFW. Arguably, the same argument (it's a waste of resources) could also hold true of trying to serve MDW and ORD, or IAH and HOU, or LGB/BUR/LAX, although the distances and population densities between those airports are significant enough that they really do serve slightly different primary markets.

I'm sure that there are guys like Bob McAdoo who will try to extrapolate it from T-100 data, but the flaw in that approach is you can't really figure out what the network contribution is, nor can you really look at *who* is flying those DAL-IAH RT's and make a decision that it's lower risk to have them originate at DFW.

That's the type of info an airline would hold very, very closely.

E, it was in an article I read that suggested that UAL was barely profitable at LF.  Not really a source if you will.  I will try to relocate it and post later...

 

[WorldTraveler]

he didn't say that UA was unprofitable at DAL based on its then-current schedule. He did say that he didn't believe UA would be profitable by increasing its flights, and UA apparently came to that conclusion.

he did say

"He said the expansion “is likely to be highly unprofitable” and “seems more focused on hoarding airport assets, or getting in the way of Delta, than on profits.”

and that statement is very likely accurate.

the only thing that isn't known is if DL was even given a chance to bid on the gates after UA decided to leave or to counter whatever WN offered.

I suspect the answer is no and I think the very reason is that UA did not want the possibility of DL being the only legacy carrier left at DAL, also with the possibility that DL could start DAL-LAX, a route that DL said it would start if it had gates. With more gate space, DL could also start either DTW or MSP or SLC, all of which are directly competitive hubs to UA hubs.

UA did not want DL at DAL if it had any choice in the matter.

UA cannot, however, change US gov't requirements which require that DAL provide access to carriers that want to serve DAL - just as all federally funded airports are required to do.

even more so than with the DOJ"s decision to grant access to VX, there isn't a judge in the US that would argue that WN is in compliance with US antitrust law by taking over a lease from a competitor and then pushing out DL under a sub-lease so that WN ends up getting rid of two carriers and further concentrating DAL into just two carriers with WN operating ~95% of all DAL seats.

 

[DL2WN]

.

 

[swamt]

You just don't get it.  LF is a very different situation then other airports.  Good God get a clue...

 

[WorldTraveler]

uh, no.

LF is just as important as everywhere else.

the difference is that WN is ALREADY running higher LFs than at other airports and focusing more on local traffic.

congratulations on realizing what WN is doing. I said years ago that WN would focus on higher LFs, more local vs. connecting traffic, and use the largest aircraft available.

WN will hit the wall with what it can do at DAL.

The demand is there. They will either raise their fares back to the same levels that AA had before at DFW because the market is there at which case then WN loses an advantage or WN is forced to add capacity.

While you and other WN fans want to back track on how long it will take to take to build more gates, the fact is that WN will lose its advantage if it doesn't add gates well within the 10 year period before AA can return to DAL.

If AA returns to DAL and has 2 gates to use when WN is tapped out, then AA could move very quickly to undo a lot of the advantage that WN has gained. AA will add service to key markets such as LGA, LAX, and ORD plus key AA hubs and can make it work even with just two gates. AA has 321s and/or 757s that they could use for their entire schedule from DAL. and AA won't connect ANYONE at DAL which means their operation will be ENTIRELY focused on the local market.

if WN doesn't grow DAL and get moving very quickly, they won't have much of an advantage in the top markets by the time AA returns even without adding gates.

 

[Kev3188]

 

You just don't get it.  LF is a very different situation then other airports.  Good God get a clue...

SWAMT--

Just for clarity, when you wrote "LF" you meant Love Field, and not Load Factor, correct?

 

[WorldTraveler]

could be, Kev.

if so, thanks. DAL is the abbreviation for Love Field. LF is the industry standard abbreviation for load factor.
and as much as swamt wants to think otherwise, DAL is not different from other airports.

WN is not entitled to monopolize it to the exclusion of other carriers - which is the only real point that swamt seems to be able to make.

 

[Kev3188]

 

could be, Kev.

I'm 99.99999% sure it is.

if so, thanks. DAL is the abbreviation for Love Field. LF is the industry standard abbreviation for load factor.

Well aware. Thanks, though.

and as much as swamt wants to think otherwise, DAL is not different from other airports.

Sure it is. That fact is this thread's raison d'etre.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, the thread is about DAL's dealing with DL, as in Delta Air Lines.

if swamt and others were even close to being right, then DL would have been gone from DAL a long time ago and no one could have done anything about it.

and all of these predictions about what WN will do at DAL will be shattered if WN pushes DL out, alienates everyone, and then thinks they can convince anyone that DAL should be expanded even though WN controls more of DAL than any other carrier controls any other airport that is on par with DAL.

 

[eolesen]

Sure it is. That fact is this thread's raison d'etre.

Yep. DAL has different rules. That's not just an opinion. It's codified in law.

DL is lucky they've been accommodated and WN will do just enough to stay within the framework.

 

[swamt]

 

SWAMT--

Just for clarity, when you wrote "LF" you meant Love Field, and not Load Factor, correct?

Correct sir.  Sorry for the confusion.  I will start using DAL in place of LF when referencing Love Field. 
As much as others do not want to believe, there are in fact very different rules, regs, and policies to follow at DAL in comparo to other airports.  And below is another story that also says Delta's time at DAL may if fact be in question.  I am positive that SWA will use these gates to their fullest.  By doing so, it will again put Delta at a risk of departing DAL, just like last time.  OR, Delta could very well keep extending the temporary leases, work something out with Virgin, and even possibly work something out with SWA and keep at their current level of 5 flights out of a 1/2 gate being shared.  I would find it very hard to believe that SWA will be able to offer a shared gate as they want and need the gates at full capacity and even more gates now.  Will Delta sue to remain at DAL if there does become no room for accommodation? They very well may, as they have already threatened to do so in the past, but was successful at nego the temporary leases instead.  And E's suggestion that SWA may be better off just keeping Delta at their 5 flights limited to 1/2 gate could also be the better move, who knows.  We shall all see come July.  I would only hope that the COD and/or the DOJ would give Delta enough time in order to transfer their flights over to DFW without any delays.  Last time I think they were only givin a notice of 1 week or so, that was not fair in my mind.  Here's the story I was talking about...
 
Southwest leasing two Dallas Love Field gates from United

 

[swamt]

Yep. DAL has different rules. That's not just an opinion. It's codified in law.

DL is lucky they've been accommodated and WN will do just enough to stay within the framework.

Yes.  I have been trying to explain this to him, as I know most people outside of DAL area don't realize this.  (Not talking about Kev, he already knows and understands)

 

[WorldTraveler]

Yep. DAL has different rules. That's not just an opinion. It's codified in law.

DL is lucky they've been accommodated and WN will do just enough to stay within the framework.

no, no, no.

There are NO federal rules that allow DAL to not accommodate carriers that want to serve it or to allow one carrier to control 90% of the gates while denying access to others.

I would expect WN employees and their fans here to try to argue that WN and DAL is special but they are not.

What they have done is to take advantage of a Dept. of Justice that has been completely failed at its job of promoting competition in the US airline industry.

Consider that WN controls 90% of the gates at DAL and offers 95% of the flights at DAL, far, far higher than what any other carrier has at any other airport that is even remotely close to the size of DAL.

Consider that by this summer WN will offer 94% of the seats that AA offers at DCA post merger (combined operation) and 92% of the seats DL offers from LGA and yet WN argued and the DOJ agreed that AA and DL should be forced to give up assets at DCA and LGA while WN has an operation that is within a few percent of the size of DL at LGA and AA at DCA - yet those airports have far more competition and were forced open to competitors including WN.

EVEN IF the law currently exists, the DOJ failed to realize the potential that WN had at DAL and it is entirely possible for the very laws can be overturned that you and others continue to argue that protect WN from the very competition which it demanded at DCA and LGA.

WN has completely benefitted at DCA and LGA at the hands of a DOJ that was ignorant beyond belief about the airline industry.

Meanwhile, WN has created a monopoly at DAL that is far worse than any other airline enjoys at any other airport in the US, if not the planet.

There is no way that WN is going to push DL out and invite a lawsuit because it is so incredibly obvious the complete abortion of justice that the DOJ presided over and that will be easily overturned in any court of law.

There is also no way that anything at DAL will be changed to the slightest benefit of WN if DAL is not opened up on a fair and equal basis to other carriers, including AA which should have never have had to give up gates at DCA or LGA while being kicked out of DAL just so that WN could create a monopoly that is simply unmatched in the history of US airports

 

[eolesen]

It's not worth the effort. Some people can't face the truth.