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
- #122
Outstanding but quite a change of face.
A few days ago WN was trying to get permission to throw DL out. Now it is all hospitality and cooperation. The judge clearly gave WN and DAL reason to change course
A busy DAL that has multiple airlines is good for everyone and can and will happen
A few days ago WN was trying to get permission to throw DL out. Now it is all hospitality and cooperation. The judge clearly gave WN and DAL reason to change course
A busy DAL that has multiple airlines is good for everyone and can and will happen
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
Conventional wisdom says delaying the eviction just bolsters the City and WN's case that reasonable good faith efforts have been made and exhausted.
There is another possibility, though.... is WN simply buying time?
In the DOJ's original "ruling" on the VX gates, it was inferred if not required that they shouldn't be subjected to having to accommodate another carrier due to Scare Use for 12 months after starting service.
*IF* this stay of eviction on DL runs up until October 14th or so, it's not out of the question to think that WN might just be treading water long enough to make the argument that the City should dump DL onto VX's gates.
There is another possibility, though.... is WN simply buying time?
In the DOJ's original "ruling" on the VX gates, it was inferred if not required that they shouldn't be subjected to having to accommodate another carrier due to Scare Use for 12 months after starting service.
*IF* this stay of eviction on DL runs up until October 14th or so, it's not out of the question to think that WN might just be treading water long enough to make the argument that the City should dump DL onto VX's gates.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #124
Access is DAL's requirement so it is possible the final ruling could require VX to provide access to DL in addition to WN.
Until a final ruling, WN singularly has to make space for DL
There is nothing in the VX gate award or WARA that allows a leaseholder to not fully use their gates and keep someone else out. The lookback for usage goes to when DL requested accommodation which was before WN added longhaul domestic flights.
WN will likely find they can operate more than 10 flights per gate each day and DL will add more flights to its hubs not to compete with VX and most of WN and VX will cut its AUS flights
The court will show land grabs aren't allowed and DAL can accommodate multiple carriers.
Until a final ruling, WN singularly has to make space for DL
There is nothing in the VX gate award or WARA that allows a leaseholder to not fully use their gates and keep someone else out. The lookback for usage goes to when DL requested accommodation which was before WN added longhaul domestic flights.
WN will likely find they can operate more than 10 flights per gate each day and DL will add more flights to its hubs not to compete with VX and most of WN and VX will cut its AUS flights
The court will show land grabs aren't allowed and DAL can accommodate multiple carriers.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #127
The knowledge and history he provided can't be thrown out or objected to.
It just means that there is one less objection that WN or DAL can throw out to a ruling that will undoubtedly go in DL's favor.
It just means that there is one less objection that WN or DAL can throw out to a ruling that will undoubtedly go in DL's favor.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #129
or perhaps DL knows he doesn't make or break the case and just removes a distraction from a final decision.
He has had more than enough opportunity to tell anyone else what took place in the discussions in 2006 and why the WARA never was intended to supersede federal airport access laws and that there is no language in it to do so - which any lawyer can not only see but be shown by him fairly quickly.
Those who think that the DOT is wrong on this issue would also have to believe that the DOT sat by silently while the 5 parties all acted and that the DOT tried but did not succeed in pushing its viewpoint that WARA is compatible wiht airport access requirements.
Since I have never seen anyone post any evidence that took place, my gut says it didn't and WARA is fully compatible with airport access requirements, DOT and DOJ knew that and likely so did DAL. DAL has likely been supporting WN because WN will very likely push more passengers thru the airport per flight than any other carrier including DL who may well use a commbination of large RJs and mainline.
and yet there is no minimum aircraft size requirement and even in airports that had mainline vs. regional carrier slots, large RJs are considered in the mainline size definition.
The irony of course is that the DOJ's charge of dominating markets and colluding to reduce capacity argues FOR having DL at DAL to inject more competition since a great deal of the discussions about capacity have involved AA and WN at DAL and DFW.
He has had more than enough opportunity to tell anyone else what took place in the discussions in 2006 and why the WARA never was intended to supersede federal airport access laws and that there is no language in it to do so - which any lawyer can not only see but be shown by him fairly quickly.
Those who think that the DOT is wrong on this issue would also have to believe that the DOT sat by silently while the 5 parties all acted and that the DOT tried but did not succeed in pushing its viewpoint that WARA is compatible wiht airport access requirements.
Since I have never seen anyone post any evidence that took place, my gut says it didn't and WARA is fully compatible with airport access requirements, DOT and DOJ knew that and likely so did DAL. DAL has likely been supporting WN because WN will very likely push more passengers thru the airport per flight than any other carrier including DL who may well use a commbination of large RJs and mainline.
and yet there is no minimum aircraft size requirement and even in airports that had mainline vs. regional carrier slots, large RJs are considered in the mainline size definition.
The irony of course is that the DOJ's charge of dominating markets and colluding to reduce capacity argues FOR having DL at DAL to inject more competition since a great deal of the discussions about capacity have involved AA and WN at DAL and DFW.
No it doesn't.
The only reason AA and Delta want to increase their flights at Love, is to limit the number of flights WN can operate out of the DFW area.
Thereby decreasing competition from WN.
If Delta moves to DFW, competition in the north Texas market increases, if WN isn't allowed to grow then competition decreases.
As much as you refuse to admit the obvious, WN flights at love do compete with flights at DFW.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #131
nonsense.
DL wants to fly from DAL because it serves a valuable market and is well-located.
DL served DAL long before you were alive.
And DL serves MDW and MDW is less favorably located relative to the most wealthy parts of Chicago and yet DL will likely have a smaller operation at DAL than it has at MDW.
and yes WN DOES have the option to serve DFW. It did 30 years ago or so when DFW opened but they chose to stay at DAL. They still have the option to add DFW service but have to give up their death grip on DAL in the process.
btw, I have repeatedly said that the provision that WN should be required to give up gates at DAL in order to fly from DAL is patently uncompetitive and should be stripped - but even if WN keeps 16 gates at DAL, that is a far higher percentage of gates than any legacy carrier has at any hub airport.
and as I have repeatedly said and will undoubtedly be highlighted in the DAL court case, there is no legal basis for arguing that any airline EXCEPT WN is required to reduce or limit its operations at one airport because of its operations at another.
DL wants to serve DAL for the same reason WN wants to... it is a valuable market.
AA wants back in to DAL but has to challenge the merger consent degree it signed.... thus, it is doubtful that AA will ever be able to serve DAL again.
and since airport access laws do not depend on who holds the lease but who has provided the service, even if AA regains access to its gates in 9 years or so, DAL still has to accommodate carriers that have served the airport. If DAL is full at the time at the date that AA says it wants to restart service - and they can't make a blank 10 year "we'll be back on X date" accommodation request, AA might not be able to be accommodated since it would require other carriers to cut their service - and there is no requirement that has to occur.
DL wants to fly from DAL because it serves a valuable market and is well-located.
DL served DAL long before you were alive.
And DL serves MDW and MDW is less favorably located relative to the most wealthy parts of Chicago and yet DL will likely have a smaller operation at DAL than it has at MDW.
and yes WN DOES have the option to serve DFW. It did 30 years ago or so when DFW opened but they chose to stay at DAL. They still have the option to add DFW service but have to give up their death grip on DAL in the process.
btw, I have repeatedly said that the provision that WN should be required to give up gates at DAL in order to fly from DAL is patently uncompetitive and should be stripped - but even if WN keeps 16 gates at DAL, that is a far higher percentage of gates than any legacy carrier has at any hub airport.
and as I have repeatedly said and will undoubtedly be highlighted in the DAL court case, there is no legal basis for arguing that any airline EXCEPT WN is required to reduce or limit its operations at one airport because of its operations at another.
DL wants to serve DAL for the same reason WN wants to... it is a valuable market.
AA wants back in to DAL but has to challenge the merger consent degree it signed.... thus, it is doubtful that AA will ever be able to serve DAL again.
and since airport access laws do not depend on who holds the lease but who has provided the service, even if AA regains access to its gates in 9 years or so, DAL still has to accommodate carriers that have served the airport. If DAL is full at the time at the date that AA says it wants to restart service - and they can't make a blank 10 year "we'll be back on X date" accommodation request, AA might not be able to be accommodated since it would require other carriers to cut their service - and there is no requirement that has to occur.
This is true. All the airlines have admitted this and especially AA by lowering their prices to keep up with the competition between DFW and DAL. Even Spirit has admitted to the competition between the two airports in the North Tx area.WNMECH said:
Sure we (SWA) could start service at DFW. But, SWA is the ONLY airline that will be punished for doing so. For every gate SWA starts at DFW, SWA would have to give up a gate at DAL. If this were to happen then SWA is not growing at all, just relocating the flights and staying on par, so technically SWA CANNOT grow at DFW. SWA can ONLY grow at DAL. All other airlines (except for maybe AA) can fly from both airports without any restrictions. I believe it is written in the agreement as a "gate for a gate" which could very well mean equal gates at each airport. If SWA started a domestic gate at DFW then we they would have to give up a domestic gate at DAL. Now, it could and very well may be argued by SWA (more than likely thru the courts because someone will cry about it and sue) that they should be able to open an international gate at DFW and not have to close a gate at DAL as they do not have any international gates at DAL. Gate for gate could very well mean equal gates at each airport. If this were to happen it would be the ONLY way SWA could grow by starting DFW service with international flights out of Dallas. I could see this happening later down the road, but I would also assume that SWA might try to fight (along with other airlines at DAL) for some international flights from DAL some time down the road...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #133
AA fought to serve DAL when everyone else was forced to move because that is what they agreed to.
WN isn't being punished in anything.
It agreed to stay at DAL and to use 16 gates and now wants to change the terms to dominate an airport that still receives federal funds which require that it be available to other carriers.
WN is living within the framework it agreed to.
It is not being punished.
WN isn't being punished in anything.
It agreed to stay at DAL and to use 16 gates and now wants to change the terms to dominate an airport that still receives federal funds which require that it be available to other carriers.
WN is living within the framework it agreed to.
It is not being punished.
OP
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,809
- 4,343
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #134
.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #135
meanwhile, DL will be staying at DAL at least until the court rules and very likely far beyond that date with not only their current schedule to ATL but with enhanced service to other hubs as well.
- Status
Similar threads
