Dallas asks U.S. court to solve gate fight at Love
- Thread starter Glenn Quagmire
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #92
except the analogy is faulty because it does not include the statement that DAL promised DL that it would be accommodated because that is what they know they are legally required to do.
Now that WN has seen how successful DAL would be - as I predicted - they can't live within the agreement they signed in 2006 and which is fully compatible with DOT airport access regulations.
I can't wait to see the outrage from the public when news stories come out with how much DAL will be forced to pay because of their doing the bidding with collusion and against antitrust laws for WN.
It is far more likely that DAL will be paying the legal bills for all parties than the feds will be.
and what I have said for the past number of months is exactly what DL said in its letter.
The fact that some people tried to paint the author of both the Dec 2014 and July 2015 letters as a low-level staffer shows how woefully ignorant far too many people are who have flapped their mounts on this issue on this forum.
Now that WN has seen how successful DAL would be - as I predicted - they can't live within the agreement they signed in 2006 and which is fully compatible with DOT airport access regulations.
I can't wait to see the outrage from the public when news stories come out with how much DAL will be forced to pay because of their doing the bidding with collusion and against antitrust laws for WN.
It is far more likely that DAL will be paying the legal bills for all parties than the feds will be.
and what I have said for the past number of months is exactly what DL said in its letter.
The fact that some people tried to paint the author of both the Dec 2014 and July 2015 letters as a low-level staffer shows how woefully ignorant far too many people are who have flapped their mounts on this issue on this forum.
Gotta call BS on that one too.
I am sure you can provide a link to the statement where DAL or the COD promised that Delta would be accommodated after July 6 cant you?
Your desperation is really showing with all the blatantly false statements you are making.
Whatever happened to you using may, might, maybe and could be?
Still waiting for Delta to file any kind of lawsuit at all.
Maybe they don't want to look stupid in court.
WN will be providing the judge with legal contracts, leases signed by UAL, WN and the COD.
Delta will be waving around two letters that don't hold any legal weight or compel anyone to do anything.
"But judge, we got these letters, see. Doesn't that mean we can sell tickets to passengers from an airport that we don't have lease agreements at and trespass all we want?"
Maybe they don't want to look stupid in court.
WN will be providing the judge with legal contracts, leases signed by UAL, WN and the COD.
Delta will be waving around two letters that don't hold any legal weight or compel anyone to do anything.
"But judge, we got these letters, see. Doesn't that mean we can sell tickets to passengers from an airport that we don't have lease agreements at and trespass all we want?"
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #95
the quote that DL was told by DAL that it would be accommodated is in the letter. DMN links to it.
They also said they will (not might, but will) file a lawsuit.
again, it is only if you or others believe that the US DOT and its general counsel is incapable of understanding the laws governing DAL plus all of the other laws of the land PLUS ignore what DAL previous said to DL and agreed to can you believe that WN and DAL will get by with kicking DL out.
Collusion and antitrust violations esp. when done or enabled by governments carry potentially very large penalties.
The citizens of Dallas will be shocked that they have elected officials that have enabled this to go on as long as it has and at such a cost when the bill is handled to DAL and WN.
They also said they will (not might, but will) file a lawsuit.
again, it is only if you or others believe that the US DOT and its general counsel is incapable of understanding the laws governing DAL plus all of the other laws of the land PLUS ignore what DAL previous said to DL and agreed to can you believe that WN and DAL will get by with kicking DL out.
Collusion and antitrust violations esp. when done or enabled by governments carry potentially very large penalties.
The citizens of Dallas will be shocked that they have elected officials that have enabled this to go on as long as it has and at such a cost when the bill is handled to DAL and WN.
Here is the Southwest motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that would enjoin DL from trespassing on the WN real estate after July 6:
http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/southwest-says-delta-is-trespassing-at-love-field-asks-federal-court-to-boot-carrier-on-july-7.html/
http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/southwest-says-delta-is-trespassing-at-love-field-asks-federal-court-to-boot-carrier-on-july-7.html/
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #98
and DL's will certainly follow.
the notion that WN dominate DAL to the exclusion of other carriers is not permitted under any law, including WARA, which WN and DAL agreed to because they contain provisions that specifically ensure compliance with all other federal regulations.
WN cannot effectively operate above 16 gates but they didn't have that in 2006 and DAL has specficially refused to comply with DOT's opinions to avoid violations of federal airport access laws.
it will be VERY hard for DAL or WN to argue that they didn't know what they were supposed to do when they asked for DOT opinion and have chosen instead to do what they want
the notion that WN dominate DAL to the exclusion of other carriers is not permitted under any law, including WARA, which WN and DAL agreed to because they contain provisions that specifically ensure compliance with all other federal regulations.
WN cannot effectively operate above 16 gates but they didn't have that in 2006 and DAL has specficially refused to comply with DOT's opinions to avoid violations of federal airport access laws.
it will be VERY hard for DAL or WN to argue that they didn't know what they were supposed to do when they asked for DOT opinion and have chosen instead to do what they want
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
And now both the City and DL have filed their own requests for restraining orders...
The City's request is too vague to even comment on. They didn't ask for anything more than a decision.
DL followed that with a restraining order preventing their eviction.
Of the three filings, I still say WN's is the easiest to defend.
This is a real estate issue, DL's trying to squat when their lease has expired. It's a black and white issue that any judge should be able to rule on.
The City's request is too vague to even comment on. They didn't ask for anything more than a decision.
DL followed that with a restraining order preventing their eviction.
Of the three filings, I still say WN's is the easiest to defend.
This is a real estate issue, DL's trying to squat when their lease has expired. It's a black and white issue that any judge should be able to rule on.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #100
It is a real estate issue only as long as federal funds are not involved
And DAL and WN both omit or falsify key information such as the DOJ's requirements as part of the UA gate transfer and the date that DL sought accommodation
And DAL and WN both omit or falsify key information such as the DOJ's requirements as part of the UA gate transfer and the date that DL sought accommodation
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
Looks like we'll know something by next week.
Or not.
Thank God it's shark week...
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/shark-week/
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #103
700's link from the DMN completely debunks the notion that the WARA and DOT regulations are incompatible. The same lawyer who helped create WARA knows
No wonder DAL wants him excluded
No wonder DAL wants him excluded
Yes, clients are funny like that. They often don't like it when their former lawyer represents someone else in litigation that's closely related to the former engagement. The mistake was consenting to the conflicted representation in the first place for the negotiation phase. Having done that, it's a bit cheeky to object to the same lawyer representing DL in litigation over the same issue.WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #105
And yet the lawyer handling the case won't change the fact that he knew when WARA was created and still is compatible with all other federal regulations
DAL might have said things to him that indicates that but regardless DAL and WN are on the defensive against the very people who helped them benefit
Hard to believe that DL and the DOT haven't got this thing in a bag and it's a matter of paperwork and WN's flight cuts
DAL might have said things to him that indicates that but regardless DAL and WN are on the defensive against the very people who helped them benefit
Hard to believe that DL and the DOT haven't got this thing in a bag and it's a matter of paperwork and WN's flight cuts
- Status
Similar threads
