Despite your profanity laced assertions to the contrary, the only thing that is obvious is that you have a very selective memory of what actually was said about DL and access to DAL.
Let me recount for you:
On the day the DOJ-AA/US merger agreement was announced the DOJ and both AA and US execs were very clear that no assets from the divestiture would go to either DL or UA, including the DAL gates.
DL subleased the gates from AA and there was absolutely no provision to protect DL’s right to continue to serve DAL as part of the merger divestiture agreement.
There were indeed several people on this forum who repeatedly made the point that DL subleased gates from AA and AA could have terminated the lease at any time (not sure it was ever proven that DL was on a month to month lease); they made the point that DL was SOL because of their sublease and had no recourse to regain access. There was absolutely no doubt that DL’s ability to serve DAL was dependent on the gates which were part of the divestiture agreement and for which there was no recourse for DL to remain at DAL.
DL itself repeatedly raised concern that it could be forced from DAL as a result of the divestiture process, including within hours of the very same day the DOJ/AA-US agreement was announced.
If you want to believe otherwise, find and post the legal documents that proved that DL would be given access regardless of the outcome of the 2 gates.
For you to say that there was no doubt that DL would be accommodated is quite simply the most revisionist and selective reading of what actually took place on the subject.
In fact, it was I who said that DL would gain access because DAL as a federally funded airport is required to accommodate new entrant carriers and, contrary to what many people on here argued, DL would be a new entrant carrier if they were forced to leave and then chose to reenter the airport because new entrant status as far as DOT airport access does not mean a carrier that has ever served an airport.
I also said that DL would use 717s which is exactly what they will be doing.
The only part where I was wrong was that DL would be restricted to ATL. Given that DL is increasing the number of flights it will offer compared to its current schedule and because DL is using mainline aircraft – which could be replaced with even larger M80s/90s or larger, those who argued that DL would be allowed to have the same number of flights they currently have is not even correct. IN fact, E posted a survey of the number of flights that I expected DL to have and I said it would likely be less than the 20 that they stated they would operate and likely around 10-12 (I do not remember his exact range of flights in each group). He acknowledged that DL would likely be at DAL but he in fact was one of the first who acknowledged with me that DL would be at DAL regardless of the disposition of the gates.
You clearly have an axe to grind and aren’t going to let it go but the more you post the more obvious it is that you cannot accept that I was right on the subject, erring only on the number of flights that DL would be allowed to operate, but even there I acknowledged it would be less than their full proposed schedule of 20+ flights.
Move on and let it go.
And get used to seeing DL 717s and perhaps other mainline aircraft at DAL.