SWA is really going after the ATL passengers in a big way. Giving away tickets after 3 RT flights...
Southwest Airlines Offers Atlanta Unprecedented Perk
Southwest Airlines Offers Atlanta Unprecedented Perk
City of Dallas still in talks with Delta about Love Field
- Thread starter swamt
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
couldn't be a greater admission of how badly WN is doing in ATL
you don't give away free tickets after 3 paid tickets if you are doing well.
there will be further cuts to WN's ATL schedules.
you don't give away free tickets after 3 paid tickets if you are doing well.
there will be further cuts to WN's ATL schedules.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 11,125
- Reaction score
- 2,676
or a way to undermine and undercut DL in DL own hometown
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
if WN has to give away every 4th ticket, they aren't going to undercut anyone but themselves.
And the drama continues and now brought on by SWA. SWA very smart in acting first for this to be settled. This is a major step in the final ruling coming in July. Yes, it very well could get extended or fixed at the end of this. Happy reading for all...
Southwest Airlines goes to federal court to keep from having to share Love Field gates with Delta
Southwest Airlines goes to federal court to keep from having to share Love Field gates with Delta
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
you certainly won't admit it but WN is actually pretty stupid to be escalating a situation that has a very high potential of resulting in the entire Wright Amendment and DAL leases to be ruled illegal.
let it go to court.
Let WN screw itself in a court of US law.
let it go to court.
Let WN screw itself in a court of US law.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
hint... hint. THE DOT said that WN had to accommodate DL.
I'll take their word over yours in a country minute.
I'll take their word over yours in a country minute.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
and that is precisely why the chances are high that in seeking to define what it says could require a federal judge to rule that WN's control of DAL is way out of line with antitrust laws.
WN is playing with fire when the DOT itself and the DOJ agreed that DL's lease had to be included and the principles had to be incorporated going forward.
WN will get burnt if they kick DL out.
WN is playing with fire when the DOT itself and the DOJ agreed that DL's lease had to be included and the principles had to be incorporated going forward.
WN will get burnt if they kick DL out.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Well, technically Wright, which had been around for decades, was superseded in large part by the Five Party Agreement, which hasn't been around for decades, unless you use WT Math, and then it has spanned two decades...
This is nothing more than a property dispute. We have is a political appointee trying to redefine how the terms of the master lease are to be interpreted by the City. In short, her letter is telling the City that they can declare eminent domain over WN's sublease.
I've posted the Scarce Use Provisions enough time that I shouldn't have to do so again, but the short story is that the signatory carrier's rights trump those of a non-signatory carrier. Nowhere in the SUP's does it state that the City can infringe on a leaseholder's ability to use their property within the terms of use.
I'm sure some DL fans will try to project this as an opportunity for the courts to invalidate the Five Party Agreement, but I don't see standing for the court to go there. WN didn't open that door and request a ruling on that law. All they're asking the courts to determine whether or not DOT has the standing to redefine the terms of the master lease agreement.
The only danger I see in all of this is the risk of the court ruling that VX and WN don't enjoy the same protections over their lease that WN, AA, and UA enjoy as signatory leaseholders. Signatory rights don't normally flow through on an exclusive sublease. That would require the City to craft something aside from the SUP, and that could get messy.
This is nothing more than a property dispute. We have is a political appointee trying to redefine how the terms of the master lease are to be interpreted by the City. In short, her letter is telling the City that they can declare eminent domain over WN's sublease.
I've posted the Scarce Use Provisions enough time that I shouldn't have to do so again, but the short story is that the signatory carrier's rights trump those of a non-signatory carrier. Nowhere in the SUP's does it state that the City can infringe on a leaseholder's ability to use their property within the terms of use.
I'm sure some DL fans will try to project this as an opportunity for the courts to invalidate the Five Party Agreement, but I don't see standing for the court to go there. WN didn't open that door and request a ruling on that law. All they're asking the courts to determine whether or not DOT has the standing to redefine the terms of the master lease agreement.
The only danger I see in all of this is the risk of the court ruling that VX and WN don't enjoy the same protections over their lease that WN, AA, and UA enjoy as signatory leaseholders. Signatory rights don't normally flow through on an exclusive sublease. That would require the City to craft something aside from the SUP, and that could get messy.
jimntx
Veteran
Ok, E. Now you've done it. You know how using logic is nothing more than attempt on your part to confuse him. We'll get at least two more pages of how the WA, the Five Party Agreement, and any other law are invalid because they disagree with the way he thinks ought to be--i.e., DL gets to do whatever it wants to do.
Here's more to add to the drama. Just announced this morning Virgin will beef up their flights at DAL from 13 to 19 in all starting April. This will bring an average of more than 9 flights per day per gate. This will now put Virgin at full capacity status and make it even harder for Delta to be able to share a gate with them. I guess the courts won't be asking Virgin to share with Delta. You just gotta LUV this stuff...
Virgin America to launch Dallas-Austin flights in April
Virgin America to launch Dallas-Austin flights in April
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Not my problem, thanks to the ignore feature.jimntx said:
AUS could be a good market for VX, but it's going to be trash yields. VX's higher end product isn't all that compelling on a 35 minute flight, and WN sets the bar on pricing.
- Status
Similar threads
