Judge sets dates for Dallas Love Field hearings

Status
Not open for further replies.

FrugalFlyerv2.0

Veteran
Oct 29, 2003
2,931
3,414
WorldTraveler said:
whether ATL supports or opposes another airport in the region means nothing since the residents of Paulding County themselves thru their own elected officials .............................
 
Yes, the residents have spoken. 
Ofcourse the fact that ATL and DL got their panties in a serious twist about even the smallest of possibility of a LCC/ULCC serving Paulding county airport and were the most hostile forces / loudest opposition ..... well let's ignore that.
 
WorldTraveler said:
and there really is no threat to either airport in Dallas, which has been a two airport city for years. There has been no loss of traffic from DFW and in fact AA has added flights in some markets to maintain its market share.

so, no, there is no evidence whatsoever that DAL or DFW is at any financial risk by having two airports.
 
That's interesting that in this case, you're saying that DFW will not suffer any decline(s) in traffic and will even thrive as DAL is expanded.  Yet in the not so distant past (roughly around and shortly after October 2014), you were doing some major gloating of how much more traffic WN is drawing through DAL and doing multiple cartwheels + jumping for joy at the thought of damaging AA at the same time (you do realize that AA, is DFWs dominant carrier, right?).
 
So, which is it? 
Can you ever make up your mind?
Or do you want to have it both ways?
You wouldn't be trying to sell a certain narrative would you?
 
Spin away!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people

WorldTraveler

Corn Field
Dec 5, 2003
21,710
10,721
WN IS drawing higher value local passengers from AA at DFW.... AA and WN execs have both said so.

That does not mean that DFW is losing traffic because AA is growing in order to keep from losing share.

once again, you are either confused or intentionally argumentative about facts that anyone that has any idea of what is going on in N. Texas aviation knows.
 

Kev3188

Veteran
Oct 5, 2003
18,497
9,443
Right in the middle.
Having a field open for 16 hours doesn't mean it makes sense to run flights the entire time-all the more so if the argument is that DAL will focus on O & D traffic.
 

WorldTraveler

Corn Field
Dec 5, 2003
21,710
10,721
I totally agree... but it is only the COD and WN that are making an issue about DL staying at DAL.

the DOJ and DOT don't see a conflict between their own regulations and what they have granted.

This case is very likely headed exactly where I said it would go which is that DL does have the right not only to remain with its ATL flights but also to add its flights under its accommodation request.

Because DL will be at DAL, WN has to figure out how to get the most out of the space it has. DAL set 10 flights/day as full capacity but they didn't say that no airline could operate above that level.

I fully expect that WN will maintain 180 flights/day - but may have to make changes to its schedules in order to make it work. If they can demonstrate that they can make 180 flights/day work alongside DL and VX, then there should be nothing from stopping them from adding as much as they want.

AA has arrivals at DFW as early as 0600 (when DAL can start operating) and flights departing at times after 10 pm (when DAL operations have to end). Dallas is a big enough city for early morning/late night flights. WN will have to figure out what markets it can serve at the times when space will be available but they should be able to add as much as they can make work.

The question is raised, though, that if DAL can really operate with far more than 10 flights/gates whether other carriers be given a chance to operate some of that increased airport capacity.

The inevitable next step is that DL will remain and add its DTW, MSP, and SLC flights.
 

FrugalFlyerv2.0

Veteran
Oct 29, 2003
2,931
3,414
WorldTraveler said:
WN IS drawing higher value local passengers from AA at DFW.... AA and WN execs have both said so.
 
You've just voided your argument that increased operations at DAL / expansion of DAL poses no risk for DFW.
 
Thank you , good night!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people

WorldTraveler

Corn Field
Dec 5, 2003
21,710
10,721
nope.

you, as usual, go flying to conclusions that aren't supported... but why would anyone expect you to demonstrate logic now? As usual, you create straw men that are so flimsy anyone can knock them over.

DAL is growing; if DFW was worried about DAL, WARA would have never been signed.
 

AirLUVer

Senior
Aug 22, 2002
448
180
The residents nearest Love Field have spoken, that is why there is a 20 gate limit at the airport.

This is an ownership issue as much as an access issue. If I have a legal sub-lease that is expiring, and I now need that property, I should have the ability as the primary lease holder to not renew my tenants sub lease and evict them. Delta is operating on an expired sub lease contract, and unless there is a clause in their sub lease contract that allows them access to the property in perpetuity they are trespassing. Southwest should file for damages for lost revenue and other costs associated with their trespassing tenant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people

WorldTraveler

Corn Field
Dec 5, 2003
21,710
10,721
your first paragraph is correct.

your second is not.

Airport leases in the US have never been solely about who holds the lease or allowing them to do whatever they want. All of those rules about private property rights don't apply to facilities which exist for the common good and are paid for or owned by the federal government. A very similar principle exists regarding the airwaves.

WN can call it trespassing as much as it wants but the DOT has said that DL has the right to serve DAL because it has served it continually for multiple years. Leases cannot be transferred solely for the purpose to eliminate a competitor and the DOJ specifically noted that the UA-WN lease transfer had to include access for DL not just for the short-term.

The notion that the DOT and DOJ are saying contrary things and that the requirements are in conflict is a creation solely of WN and the COD in an attempt to not provide access to a competitor.

Federal airport access laws exist to ENHANCE competition and prevent larger carriers from forcing smaller carriers out of airports. and it is the DOJ that enforces antitrust laws. Any antitrust judge in the US can see the problem with a carrier that already controls 80% of the gates at an airport being able to control even more and in the process push a competitor out of the market.

btw, DOT load factor data for April shows that VX' LF on its AUS flights which began in April was just 29%. Not one of VX' other DAL markets had a LF over 80%.

WN had 7 markets with over 20 flights/day that had LFs under 75%, which is about 10 load factor points below WN's DAL average for the month. Many of those poor performing LF markets are pre-WA markets that WN has flown for years, where it is the dominant carrier from the Metroplex and where it has little incentive to reduce fares - which is what it is doing in the new long haul markets to drive huge LF increases.

In contrast, DL had the highest LF of all carriers at DAL with 92%.

The same trend was true in the first quarter of 2015, the first full quarter after the WA restrictions fell.

It is clear that DL is using its access to DAL efficiently and will undoubtedly add more seats as soon as the legal issues are finalized while VX and WN are both not fully utilizing their access nearly as efficiently and could easily increase their LF using existing flights, esp. on flights that are supposedly core to both carriers' Dallas networks.

WN is doing well with its longhaul expansion from DAL. I said all along that they would.

But WN's success will not come at the expense of eliminating competition by trying to argue that conflicting laws prevent DAL and WN from using federal airport resources in the very cooperative environment that Gary Kelly has said must exist as WN adds yet another wave of flights.
 

WorldTraveler

Corn Field
Dec 5, 2003
21,710
10,721
yes, I do.

so does the DOT and the DOJ.

It is only WN and the COD that think they have found conflicts which neither the DOT or DOJ think exist.

there are no conflicts between any of the legal requirements which COD is supposed to comply with, including airport access requirements which they acknowledge they have to follow.

The DOT told DAL that the way for them to meet all of the requirements is to convert the exUA gates into common use gates. There is no provision in WARA or any other document that gives WN the right to acquire gates above the 16 it had when WARA began to exclude competitors or for DAL to fail to comply with the very airport access requirements which DAL has acknowledged they must meet and there is no protection for WN from all laws including antitrust laws in its choice to acquire the 2 exUA gates for the clear purpose of kicking DL out and starting service on routes which DL said it intended to start as part of its accommodation request.

The real question is how WN will run its operation with the latest round of flight additions. WN's OT at DAL has been below average for their system already but the COD has already said that if DAL can handle the DL and expanded WN flights, it's hard to argue that DL shouldn't be there....in a clear sign that they are looking for resolution of a problem they created before the judge tells the COD that they have to accommodate DL's current schedule as well as what it has requested via its accommodation request.
 

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,702
9,342
Dear Moderating Staff.... can you please put this topic on ice until September when the hearings actually take place?...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Status
Not open for further replies.