Dja Notice

[DFWCC]

Did you notice that everytime there is a mention of the Wright Ammendment on the AA forum of this site, that all Wn posters come over and poo poo AA and DFW.
There must be such hatred for AA at WN that bells go off, so they all come to this board to spew there hate. They must really fear AA because they are so afraid to go head to head and fly from DFW.
Wn wants it all. They have nearly all the gates at DAL and could squash most any airline that might try to start service.
The only way to get rid of the WA is if WN would be limited to two gates max and the rest to beopen to all others.

 

[nbmcg01]

Did you notice that everytime there is a mention of the Wright Ammendment on the AA forum of this site, that all Wn posters come over and poo poo AA and DFW.
There must be such hatred for AA at WN that bells go off, so they all come to this board to spew there hate. They must really fear AA because they are so afraid to go head to head and fly from DFW.
Wn wants it all. They have nearly all the gates at DAL and could squash most any airline that might try to start service.
The only way to get rid of the WA is if WN would be limited to two gates max and the rest to beopen to all others.

[post="311965"][/post]​

I don't think it is JUST WN..AA isn't "beloved" by many..lol

 

[FWAAA]

Did you notice that everytime there is a mention of the Wright Ammendment on the AA forum of this site, that all Wn posters come over and poo poo AA and DFW.
There must be such hatred for AA at WN that bells go off, so they all come to this board to spew there hate. They must really fear AA because they are so afraid to go head to head and fly from DFW.

AA must really fear WN because AA is so afraid to allow WN to go head to head with AA from DAL. What are you afraid of, AA?

I'm probably AA's biggest cheerleader on this entire website, and Arpey's bleating about the WA sounds childish. Time to grow up, Mr Arpey. B)

Wn wants it all. They have nearly all the gates at DAL and could squash most any airline that might try to start service.
The only way to get rid of the WA is if WN would be limited to two gates max and the rest to beopen to all others.

[post="311965"][/post]​

WN only has about half the gates at DAL. And two gate max? I would have to disagree.

I do agree that the 32 gate limit in the Master Plan is unrealistic, since it was based upon the existence of the WA. If the WA is repealed, and DAL is opened to unfettered competition, then the 32 gate limit must be thrown on the trash heap.

I'd prefer that the stupid Master Plan be ripped up and allow the use of 60-70 gates total, just like DAL featured in the old days.

 

[jimntx]

  B)
WN only has about half the gates at DAL.    And two gate max?  I would have to disagree.

[post="312037"][/post]​

IIRC, there are 16 working gates at DAL. SWA controls 14 of them. AA's gates (3, I think) don't even have jetbridges attached to them; so, it would take major capital investment to make them usable. When we were flying the 56-seat Fokker from there, we sub-leased a gate from CO.

Also, AFAIK, DAL is like DFW. Each airline is responsible for the furnishing and upkeep of its gates and terminal space. The airport basically provides you with floor space and a hole in the wall to attach a jetbridge to.

 

[FWAAA]

IIRC, there are 16 working gates at DAL. SWA controls 14 of them. AA's gates (3, I think) don't even have jetbridges attached to them; so, it would take major capital investment to make them usable. When we were flying the 56-seat Fokker from there, we sub-leased a gate from CO.

Also, AFAIK, DAL is like DFW. Each airline is responsible for the furnishing and upkeep of its gates and terminal space. The airport basically provides you with floor space and a hole in the wall to attach a jetbridge to.

We're both right.

Yes, WN controls nearly all the gates that are currently operational. That's where you are correct.

But even under the MP (which I think should be thrown out if the WA is discarded), 32 gates are allowed.

And it's not like AA doesn't know how to renovate space and attach jetbridges to terminals. Between JFK, ORD, DFW, LAX, SFO, LGA and a few other large AA cities, AA has several hundred jetbridge-equipped gates, so I'm confident that AA could figure out how to activate some DAL gates if it had to.

DAL authorizes 32 gates right now, of which WN controls less than half. That's where I'm correct.

See, we're both right.

And if the WA is thrown out, I'm pretty certain that WN will not control all the active gates for long. B)

 

[jimntx]

And it's not like AA doesn't know how to renovate space and attach jetbridges to terminals. Between JFK, ORD, DFW, LAX, SFO, LGA and a few other large AA cities, AA has several hundred jetbridge-equipped gates, so I'm confident that AA could figure out how to activate some DAL gates if it had to.
And if the WA is thrown out, I'm pretty certain that WN will not control all the active gates for long. B)

I never said that we didn't know how! I was just pointing out that moving flights to DAL would involve more than just dusting off the ticket counters. And, that is money we don't need to spend if we don't have to.

Since I live in Oak Cliff, and there is a slim chance that I might live long enough to get transferred back to DFW, flying out of DAL would suit me just fine. It's less than 5 miles from my condo to the DAL employee parking lot.

 

[Ch. 12]

Did you notice that everytime there is a mention of the Wright Ammendment on the AA forum of this site, that all Wn posters come over and poo poo AA and DFW.
There must be such hatred for AA at WN that bells go off, so they all come to this board to spew there hate. They must really fear AA because they are so afraid to go head to head and fly from DFW.
Wn wants it all. They have nearly all the gates at DAL and could squash most any airline that might try to start service.
The only way to get rid of the WA is if WN would be limited to two gates max and the rest to beopen to all others.

Sorry...I'm not with WN. I just don't like AA's tactics. They succeed by unethically creating an uneven playing field. The fact that they are apparently protected by the legislature (WA) and by the DOJ (how could they not be found guilty in the Vanguard case and why did their Legend tactics not elicit a response?) is alarming in the current Enron era. I have always been a fan of free markets and untethered competition and I just can't "hoorah" for a company that goes against that.


I think the mentality of having to move flights to this airport when you already have a fortress in the metro area (just a few miles down the road as I'm constantly reminded) defeats repealling the WA. Wouldn't it be great if a repeal meant that we actually lowered the barriers for LCCs like B6, FL, etc to provide service to the area, stimulate traffic, and reduce costs to the consumer? If AA seeks to move some flights to DAL and maintain its current stranglehold on DFW gates, isn't that bad news? Seems anti-competitive to me. In fact...all of this talk about WN gates at DAL, lets look at AA and AE at DFW. Let's see...all of A, half of B, all of C, and from what I've read..."AA will have 1/2 of D gates and AE will share several others with int'l flag carriers when they aren't in use" (I would think that would be the majority of the day). Talk about controlling a facility!

And now the arguement against the WA is that AA would have to spend $$ to move *some* flights to DAL. Don't you think it would cost WN a helluva lot more to move ALL flights to DFW?

 

[FWAAA]

Sorry...I'm not with WN. I just don't like AA's tactics. They succeed by unethically creating an uneven playing field. The fact that they are apparently protected by the legislature (WA) and by the DOJ (how could they not be found guilty in the Vanguard case and why did their Legend tactics not elicit a response?) is alarming in the current Enron era. I have always been a fan of free markets and untethered competition and I just can't "hoorah" for a company that goes against that.

Re: the bolded portion: AA won the Vanguard case and AA's Legend tactics didn't elicit a response because the entire notion of "predatory pricing" has been widely discredited as a fantasy, that's why.

Even if predatory pricing were possible in the real world (and most courts are convinced that it is not possible), the facts of Vanguard (and Legend) are that AA simply matched Vanguard's prices. And matching the prices of a competitor and adding additional capacity demanded by that new lower price simply isn't a violation of the Clayton Act. There are some old cases where liability could attach to AA's conduct, but today's enlightened view is that those lower prices and additional capacity, while hurtful toward Vanguard, actually benefitted consumers.

AA won the Vanguard case because what AA did to Vanguard isn't against the law.

Maybe it should be, but it's not. And since it's not, AA was rightfully awarded sumary judgment.

 

[Bob Owens]

name='FWAAA' post='312080' date='Oct 14 2005, 05:52 PM']
Re: the bolded portion: AA won the Vanguard case and AA's Legend tactics didn't elicit a response because the entire notion of "predatory pricing" has been widely discredited as a fantasy, that's why.
Even if predatory pricing were possible in the real world (and most courts are convinced that it is not possible), the facts of Vanguard (and Legend) are that AA simply matched Vanguard's prices.

Of course predatory pricing is possible. The question is "Under lassiaz faire is it OK?".

And matching the prices of a competitor and adding additional capacity demanded by that new lower price simply isn't a violation of the Clayton Act. There are some old cases where liability could attach to AA's conduct, but today's enlightened view is that those lower prices and additional capacity, while hurtful toward Vanguard, actually benefitted consumers.

Benenfited, but for how long? How did the price and the capacity react to the elimination of a competitor? The ban against Predatory pricing was for the benifit of the Consumer also. While the consumer may benifit from short term discounts as one company kills off the other what usually happens is the consumer ends up paying more.

AA won the Vanguard case because what AA did to Vanguard isn't against the law.

Or maybe they just couldnt prove it, there is a difference.

Maybe it should be, but it's not. And since it's not, AA was rightfully awarded sumary judgment.

So it never went before a Jury? Sumary judgements are when having friendly judges pays off.

 

[FWAAA]

So it never went before a Jury? Sumary judgements are when having friendly judges pays off.

There was nothing for a jury to decide, since the legal standard for summary judgment requires the court to assume that all facts alleged are true. Essentially, the district court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that even if AA did all the bad things alleged by the DOJ (like even if the jury were allowed to decide all the facts in favor of the DOJ), then AA still would be entitled to win, since the LAW was on AA's side. Had the judge submitted the case to a jury, and the jury decided that AA did all the bad things alleged by the DOJ, the judge would have had to overrule the jury as a matter of law. That's what summary judgment means.

Summary judgment doesn't mean you're good friends with the judge. It means the law is on your side even if you did all the bad things you are accused of doing.

Here's the DOJ's statement of the legal standard for awarding summary judgment:

This Court "review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard used by the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56©." Multistate Legal Studies, Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal And Professional Publ'ns, Inc., 63 F.3d 1540, 1545 (10th Cir. 1995). The evidence of the non-moving party "is to be believed; all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor; its nonconclusory version of any disputed issue of fact is assumed to be correct." Id. Thus summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence "is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).

10th Cir opinion: http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-3202.htm
DOJ's appellate brief: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9800/9814.htm

The district court judge agreed with AA that the law was on AA's side. So did the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I have won cases by convincing courts to grant summary judgment in favor of my clients, and it has nothing to do with having friendly judges. I've lost cases at the summary judgment level as well. When the law's on your side, the law's on your side. Even if your client actually did all the evil things alleged by the other side.

 

[Ch. 12]

Let me just scratch my head on both Vanguard and Legend and wonder how in the heck it can be stated that it "helped the consumer". Creating a loss for AMR while working feverishly to run one out of a market and the other out of business meant that consumers only benefitted for a very short term. This was VERY damaging to consumers in the long term b/c #1 cheap fares to MCI disappeared and #2 the biz product out of DAL (that AMR itself even stated was a strong new market that they intended to serve for the long run) also disappeared. These were purely unethical business practices and AMR got away with one...oh wait...two. And those are only the ones I wish to count today...there are more.

 

[Bob Owens]

'FWAAA' date='Oct 14 2005, 06:43 PM'
Had the judge submitted the case to a jury, and the jury decided that AA did all the bad things alleged by the DOJ, the judge would have had to overrule the jury as a matter of law. That's what summary judgment means.

Summary judgment doesn't mean you're good friends with the judge. It means the law is on your side even if you did all the bad things you are accused of doing.

Are you claiming that the law is black and white and not subject to interpretation?

Here's the DOJ's statement of the legal standard for awarding summary judgment:

Is that the same DOJ that said you cant fire sombody for striking but you can "permanently replace " them?

I have won cases by convincing courts to grant summary judgment in favor of my clients, and it has nothing to do with having friendly judges.

Maybe in some cases it doesnt, but in others it does and you know it.

I've lost cases at the summary judgment level as well. When the law's on your side, the law's on your side. Even if your client actually did all the evil things alleged by the other side.

Once again it comes down to how the Judge interprets the facts given and how they apply to the law.

 

[FWAAA]

Let me just scratch my head on both Vanguard and Legend and wonder how in the heck it can be stated that it "helped the consumer". Creating a loss for AMR while working feverishly to run one out of a market and the other out of business meant that consumers only benefitted for a very short term. This was VERY damaging to consumers in the long term b/c #1 cheap fares to MCI disappeared and #2 the biz product out of DAL (that AMR itself even stated was a strong new market that they intended to serve for the long run) also disappeared. These were purely unethical business practices and AMR got away with one...oh wait...two. And those are only the ones I wish to count today...there are more.

Everyone likes to say they are in favor of free markets and competition; problem is, the results of that competition often cause someone to win, and someone to fail. And that's ugly. I like steaks, but I don't want to visit a slaughterhouse.

If what AA did to Vanguard and Legend were deemed unlawful, then we'd be tying the hands of the established business against its upstart competitors. New entrants would come in with low prices and they would automatically win if the established business were not allowed to match those prices and try to beat the new competition.

Vanguard and Legend are (as you point out) but two examples where AA has successfully defended its turf. There are probably dozens of similar examples in the 27 years since deregulation.

But notice all the times that AA didn't win? Nobody talks about those. WN is huge and strong, despite AA's attempts to squash it over the years. JetBlue may still falter, but for now, it has thumped AA on several fronts. AA is abandoning many nonstops from BOS, for instance, in what looks like a B6 victory over AA. AA tried to beat B6 at LGB, and AA failed. B6 moves into a market, lowers fares dramatically, AA tries to fight back, AA loses. So it's not like AA crushes ALL low-fare competition, just the weak low-fare competition.

I agree with you that the demise of Legend and Vanguard allowed AA to revert to the old ways with higher fares. Consumers would have had much more benefit if Legend had attracted the capital that Neeleman got when he started B6. We might still have Executive Class service at DAL as they continued to fight each other. If Vanguard had deeper pockets, then maybe AA and Vanguard would still be duking it out, benefitting consumers. But is it AA's fault that both of them brought knives to a gunfight?

 

[Ch. 12]

FWAAA-

I hear what you are saying about AA's "losses" to B6 (though think they've been fairly successfull keeping their business model and still competing with WN for a few decades.) But I will say that who cares if the Yankees lose a few games. They still are almost always at the top and have deep enough pockets to squash the likes of the Expos. I can't feel too bad when they lose a few games and I can't feel too bad if AMR, the largest carrier in the world, loses a one battle. They have gotten quite a few favorable (and questionable) calls from the umps to win the ones that they have.

 

[jimntx]

As they used to say here in Texas...We have the finest justice system that money can buy!