DL to suspend SEA-HND Flights

[FWAAA]

I have a question about dormancy provisions. The HND route awards said that a carrier would lose the award if the route were dormant for more than 90 days, right? Does it logically follow that the DOT cannot (or should not) yank the award if a carrier sits on it for 90 days and then operates a few flights, and then sits on it for 90 days? In other words, does the 90 day dormancy provision tie the hands of the DOT or does the DOT have more power than that?

 

[WorldTraveler]

clearly AA and HA want to think the DOT has more power than just to yank a route after a 90 day dormancy.

There have been dozens of routes that have gone dormant for one reason or another.

The DOT has been asked on occasions to eliminate dormancy provisions during major global issues - interesting 2009 was one of them.

Sometimes the DOT agreed but many times they have not.

There is no more basis for arguing that the DOT should enforce a tougher standard now, esp. in light of the fact that there are very few route award required markets left anymore - than to argue that the DOT should have allowed longer dormancy in the past.

And the worst thing that the DOT could do is order DL to restart the service or lose it. The chances of them taking the award without issuing an order to restart the service is about as high as Pelosi winning the Ms. America contest.

AA is barking up a tree and it will do no good. The fact that nothing happened for months doesn't change anything because HA decides to join the crowd.

 

[FWAAA]

AA is barking up a tree and it will do no good. The fact that nothing happened for months doesn't change anything because HA decides to join the crowd.

Nothing has happened for months, and HA didn't just decide to join the crowd - for some unknown reason, 700UW chose to post a two-month old article (written Oct 12, 2014) as if it was breaking news. Perhaps he just awoke from a 60-day nap?

 

[WorldTraveler]

thanks for catching that.

all the more reason to note that nothing will happen.

It might be nice to force DL to use the slots it petitioned for, but the DOT can't all of a sudden decide to enforce rules for DL that it hasn't enforced elsewhere.

and even if they did act, it would be to order DL to restart it or lose it... meaning DL is taking the bet that they can keep the flight on a seasonal basis until things improve as much as AA and HA are taking the risk they can force the DOT to act - but knowing full well that probably won't happen.

 

[topDawg]

thanks for catching that.

all the more reason to note that nothing will happen.

It might be nice to force DL to use the slots it petitioned for, but the DOT can't all of a sudden decide to enforce rules for DL that it hasn't enforced elsewhere.

and even if they did act, it would be to order DL to restart it or lose it... meaning DL is taking the bet that they can keep the flight on a seasonal basis until things improve as much as AA and HA are taking the risk they can force the DOT to act - but knowing full well that probably won't happen.

 this. I have never know the DOT to just take away a route/slot. They will give the operating carrier a chance to keep the flight. 
 
Having said that I would say no news is good news for Delta. The route has already been cut and will be back on the 15 of FEB. I dont see the DOT jumping in now and forcing Delta to operate the route. 
 

If AA and HA are playing with fire, what do you call DL's flaunting of the 90 day rule?

uh... legal? 
 
Is going 55 in a 55 playing with fire? no its simply following the law. Is the law wrong here? maybe. but I cant think of a single carrier that hasn't at some point in its history used the 90 rule to its advantage. It is however the first time that I know of a carrier(s) have challenged it. 
 

At the very least, when someone else is waiting in line to use a scarce resource, DOT should have the same latitude to enforce a tighter use-it-or-lose-it standard that DL was expecting Dallas to enforce.

Not if you aren't going to put that in the rules to begin with. It isn't fair to just change the rules in the middle of the game. DOT screwed up here in your opinion. Next time they had out NRT slots change the rules. (much like they have done with things such as China frequencies or Brazil frequencies. Use to be that a carrier got 7 unrestricted frequencies, but the DOT changed its opinion. However you don't see the DOT going to AA and telling it that those MIA-Brazil frequencies are frozen. (Or some of Delta's and United's frequencies)
 
also this isn't apples to apples with DAL. AA and HA have flights to HND (AA via its JV partner) Delta was about to be kicked out of a market it was already flying too. Also 
 
In other words, if it was going to be comparable it would be the DOT taking SEA-HND and giving it to AA because they have a pretty tail on their airplane.   
 

Knowing you could lose a route when someone else wants it might force airlines to be a little more tactical when requesting a route authority. Then again, we can only hope that route authorities like this would simply go away, and that slots guarantees be left to market forces.

 well that might be more fair. I wont argue that. 
 
I think that expecting the DOT to change rules just cause after they awarded the flights is as unfair as the system is now. If they do it in the next round that is more than fine..... these 4 slots should fallow the rules as long as they are with the current carriers on the current routes. 
 
 

I have a question about dormancy provisions. The HND route awards said that a carrier would lose the award if the route were dormant for more than 90 days, right? Does it logically follow that the DOT cannot (or should not) yank the award if a carrier sits on it for 90 days and then operates a few flights, and then sits on it for 90 days? In other words, does the 90 day dormancy provision tie the hands of the DOT ordoes the DOT have more power than that?

I don't recall the DOT saying anything about dormancy. Generally carriers have a mutual respect about these kinds of things(re my playing with fire comment) but for whatever reason that isn't the case here.
 
Having said that the general rule is you get 90 days. And yes once it operate one time then the clock restarts. Last time a big time route that did this was UA pulled LAX-MEX back for one winter season and did this. (and of course that time no one said a word)

 

[jcw]

At the end of the day here is the way a similar scenario would play out

Let's say AA was operating LAX to HND and DL was not - if AA scheduled the route like DL and DL filed with the DOT we would be hearing about DL's strategic move - it's called a double standard

In the end I believe DL will keep the route authority however I'm not going to fault anyone for trying

 

[topDawg]

At the end of the day here is the way a similar scenario would play out

Let's say AA was operating LAX to HND and DL was not - if AA scheduled the route like DL and DL filed with the DOT we would be hearing about DL's strategic move - it's called a double standard

In the end I believe DL will keep the route authority however I'm not going to fault anyone for trying

From WT yes, 
 
not from me. I would also say DL is playing with fire.... 

 

[eolesen]

The rules on dormancy are at the agency's discretion to set. They're normally not different for each route authority, although there have been some cases where there's a standard for dormancy with a bi-lateral agreement (e.g. US-Mexico had different rules from US-UK prior to Open Skies).

In the past DOT's made administrative changes to rules which were retroactive to earlier awards and proceedings, (e.g. allowing carriers to be polled by email vs. sending out in hardcopy, or reducing response periods when response have been received well in advance of the statutory deadlines).

If DOT wanted to change the dormancy provisions across the board, presumably they could do so simply by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. Parties could voice support or opposition, and it would then be the Department's discretion on whether to proceed, and it would be applicable to all route authorities upon execution. Congress could also step in and mandate that the agency change their rules (e.g. what happened with pilot hiring standards).


DOT's rules are based on the industry standard of an airline who operate less than daily service does so on a day of week basis. It's really just in the past few years that airlines have played games like this and scheduled service sporadically enough not to exceed the dormancy period.

In principle, what DL's doing is no different than BA flying empty planes a while back to avoid losing slots at LHR.

Legally, DL and BA are/were within their rights. That doesn't change the fact it's violating the intent of the rule without violating the letter of the rule, and prevented someone else from gaining access to a scarce resource.

When people violate the intent of a law or rule repeatedly, the only recourse for the agency is to change the letter of the law or rule.

And that's what I think may ultimately happen. Given that there are fewer and fewer markets where there'd be a ripple effect, the risk of the agency doing so would be minimal enough that they might actually do it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

the DOT is not going to revoke DL's authority unless at the very least it orders DL to restart the service or lose it.

 

[topDawg]

If DOT wanted to change the dormancy provisions across the board, presumably they could do so simply by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. Parties could voice support or opposition, and it would then be the Department's discretion on whether to proceed, and it would be applicable to all route authorities upon execution. Congress could also step in and mandate that the agency change their rules (e.g. what happened with pilot hiring standards).

I'm not saying they "can't" do it. I am saying that just doing so because of this case is BS. 
 
If the DOT is going to make a large scale change like that it should be done from this point forward. 
 

DOT's rules are based on the industry standard of an airline who operate less than daily service does so on a day of week basis. It's really just in the past few years that airlines have played games like this and scheduled service sporadically enough not to exceed the dormancy period.

sorry, calling BS here E. The DOT set this up so Delta can do exactly what they are doing. This gives a carrier a chance to operate a route seasonally. 
 
If it was for less than daily service it wouldn't be 90 days. 
 

In principle, what DL's doing is no different than BA flying empty planes a while back to avoid losing slots at LHR.

Nothing wrong with that. If BA wants to burn money doing so I don't see a problem with it. 
 
Government sets to rules, I don't believe that we should be pulling for them to change them whenever they want just cause. 
 

Legally, DL and BA are/were within their rights. That doesn't change the fact it's violating the intent of the rule without violating the letter of the rule, and prevented someone else from gaining access to a scarce resource.

 

When people violate the intent of a law or rule repeatedly, the only recourse for the agency is to change the letter of the law or rule.

And that's what I think may ultimately happen. Given that there are fewer and fewer markets where there'd be a ripple effect, the risk of the agency doing so would be minimal enough that they might actually do it.

I don't. I think they wont waste there time on it. 
 
What is really better for everyone? DL not flying the route or AA adding it and burning money? 
 
 
 
 
 
and again, all of this from an airline that HAD a flight to HND and didn't even ask to have it changed. All they did was give it up. As soon as Delta wants to fallow a rule, then they change their mind? IMHO this is Parker just trying to piss in Delta's pool. He knows if the DOT were to tell Delta they use it or lose it.....Delta would operate the route at a loss. IMHO he has absolutely no intention of operating a flight to HND right now.  

 

[eolesen]

The whole point of the 90 day waiver for dormancy was so airlines could stop flying a route during shoulder seasons (e.g. mid-November to mid-February).

That's not quite what DL's been doing. They've gamed the system to essentially get a 6 month dormancy without having to ask for a waiver. What's to say they won't just fly for a couple days in late March, and essentially get 9 months of a reprieve?...

I don't doubt that Parker wants to piss on DL whenever possible (sour grapes over being turned down years ago, perhaps?), but there's still the larger issue when should DOT step in when an airline isn't using an scarce resource to the degree they'd originally committed to.

Nobody's expecting DL to operate a money loser against their will. This isn't EAS. But if someone else is willing to try to make money in the market, why should DL be allowed to stop them from trying?

 

[WorldTraveler]

again, if you feel so passionate about it, press for the DOT to change the rules.

There is a certain poster on this forum who sent a letter to the DOT in a DL route case.

The DOT ruled for DL anyway.

but, hey, it's a democracy. At least that is what they teach in skul.

 

[jcw]

Once again if this was DL doing this to AA we would be calling this a strategic move

 

[eolesen]

again, if you feel so passionate about it, press for the DOT to change the rules.

Nah, I'll let the people with the JD's do the arguing.

but, hey, it's a democracy. At least that is what they teach in skul.

No, it's not a democracy. For someone who pretends to be so smart, how do you not know the difference between a representative republic and a democracy?...

 

[WorldTraveler]

Once again if this was DL doing this to AA we would be calling this a strategic move

only because think so... whether there is any evidence to support your position or not.
  

Nah, I'll let the people with the JD's do the arguing.


No, it's not a democracy. For someone who pretends to be so smart, how do you not know the difference between a representative republic and a democracy?...

a representative republic IS a form of democracy.

the JDs ARE trying to argue the point... nothing has changed.