DL's schedule from DAL/DFW post Wright

[WorldTraveler]

just show us where it was ever said by the DOJ, DAL, or anyone else in a position of authority that DL would be accommodated at DAL regardless of the disposition of the two gates.

that is the only question that matters because that is the point that swamt wants to push.

DL will be at DAL using 717s which is exactly what I said they would do.

They are starting service to LAX from DFW; I specifically said that DL would grow its presence in N. Texas regardless of the outcome of the gate situation at DAL.

If you or others want to make statements that are either right or wrong and not just an opinion, then don't be surprised if you are shown to be wrong when your statement is wrong.

If swamt or anyone else is shown to be wrong, it is because they made an inaccurate statement and for no other reason.

 

[Kev3188]

Move on and let it go.

Maybe you should take your own advice?

 

[swamt]

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.

You are the one with the ax to grind.  DAL was never forced out of LF therefore they are not and will not become a new entrant.  Several of us have told you this for months and months.  
If it is as you say that "many" posters have posted that Delta would be removed from LF (DAL) directly tied to the gates being divested, the post it, them.  You are always willing to post all kinds of links when you have them so why not the posters posting as you claim?
BTW, you also seem to think that Delta using the 717's at LF bothers the SWA employees.  You could not be further from the truth.  Less seats = more cost per seat mile, plus the added maint of the engines Delta can have them.  SWA will make more money without them I promise you that...
The only reason I made a response is because are the one that brought it back up, not me.  If you continue to bring it up I will continue to correct you when you are wrong--rather you will admit it or not, don't really care.  At least I do admit when I have been wrong and then acknowledged the person that corrected me.   I have never, not once ever read where you have done so, except for the very first time in the post above where you state the "only" part where I was wrong, wow that's a first.  Show the postings you talk about.  Otherwise it's pure WT revamping his own postings because the final outcome changed...

 

[swamt]

just show us where it was ever said by the DOJ, DAL, or anyone else in a position of authority that DL would be accommodated at DAL regardless of the disposition of the two gates.

that is the only question that matters because that is the point that swamt wants to push.

DL will be at DAL using 717s which is exactly what I said they would do.

They are starting service to LAX from DFW; I specifically said that DL would grow its presence in N. Texas regardless of the outcome of the gate situation at DAL.

If you or others want to make statements that are either right or wrong and not just an opinion, then don't be surprised if you are shown to be wrong when your statement is wrong.

If swamt or anyone else is shown to be wrong, it is because they made an inaccurate statement and for no other reason.

What's different is swamt and others will admit when their wrong and admit it.
No one (once again WT)  has stated that anyone said DL would be removed.  Delta has "ALWAYS" had the option to lease other gates and/or share gates just like I told you from the very beginning.  
Since delta is still there it is obvious that they were accommodated.  
And no it is not the only issue I will push,  keep dreaming.  Get a clue man...

 

[WorldTraveler]

swamt is the one that continues to reopen the topic of whether DL would have been forced out. Not me. The thread has gone dormant for several days only to be reopened by him.

All you need to show, swamt, is evidence from some authority that had the basis to say that DL would not be forced out of DAL as a result of the divestiture process.

There is abundant evidence that DL feared it could have been forced out of DAL as a result of the divestiture agreement and AA/US execs made it clear that they did not want DL receiving any of the assets or having access to DAL.

Is it really hard for you to see that the last thing AA wants is for DL and UA to be at an airport that AA cannot serve and that is a hard and fast rule? AA is the ONLY airline that cannot serve DAL for 10 years; even WN could serve DFW if it wanted to - and as you have noted will likely succeed at getting the laws changed to allow it to do so without the risk of losing DAL gates.

There was no guarantee that anyone would be required to sublease space to DL or that DL could remain there.
You have made the statement that DL would be accommodated but cannot provide evidence showing it.

As I noted, DL pushed the issue because they would have to be accommodated as part of DAL's agreements to the federal airport access requirements. You never agreed with me that DL would be accommodated on that basis and many people here mocked the notion that DL would be a new entrant and would be accommodated.

Since UA was the only airline that had space to lease, they either accommodated DL under those requirements or under sublease. Why would UA want to accommodate an airline that competes with UA's own network?

I said from the beginning that DL would be at DAL and it is. I also said that WN would gain no further gates at DAL as long as ANY carrier - DL included wanted into DAL and that also was true.

Your only job is to provide evidence from a legal authority - not forums chit chat from any of us - that DL would have stayed at DAL regardless of the disposition of the gates.

And yes DL will be at DAL.

If you would like to acknowledge that you personally believed that DL would be accommodated even thought there was no provision for that to happen outside of DAL's accommodation requirements under federal airport access laws, then I am through with the conversation.
But it is absolutely correct to acknowledge that there was no guarantee and AA/US worked actively to try to keep DL out of DAL.

once again, I wholeheartedly support the new competition that is coming to Dallas and I am very certain that WN will succeed. DL is just there because the market is opening and doesn't want to allow WN to have an advantage over DL. the show is really WN's with a side show of DL, VX, and UA.