Southwest says it's now the second-busiest carrier at Washington National
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
This certainly can't be good news for WTs favorite airline. As he's been preaching on here for a while now, the #3 carrier in any given market is doomed!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #3
you couldn't just leave it alone.... but instead prove that you had to jump on this thread to cover your own stupid comments about social justice.
WN isn't larger than DL in a single market that both serve from DCA.
WN has a bunch of slots at DCA which they gained by arguing that AA was going to crush them if they didn't get more access to DCA and LGA and the dumb DOJ which was arguing just weeks before the settlement that it wasn't prepared to take the AA/US merger case to trial caved in to WN.
WN simply did not see the value of investing in operations at the largest east coast airports and so plead to the government that they needed to be bailed out even while arguing that they should be free to exclude other carriers from DAL.
The hypocrisy stinks all the way to 40,000 feet.
and let's see who actually CARRIES more passengers from the NE airports when all is said and done.
WN has a far higher cancellation rate at its NE airports than any of the legacy carriers have. All of those slots don't matter if WN bails at far higher rates than the legacy carriers every time the weather goes bad - which is pretty often.
WN isn't larger than DL in a single market that both serve from DCA.
WN has a bunch of slots at DCA which they gained by arguing that AA was going to crush them if they didn't get more access to DCA and LGA and the dumb DOJ which was arguing just weeks before the settlement that it wasn't prepared to take the AA/US merger case to trial caved in to WN.
WN simply did not see the value of investing in operations at the largest east coast airports and so plead to the government that they needed to be bailed out even while arguing that they should be free to exclude other carriers from DAL.
The hypocrisy stinks all the way to 40,000 feet.
and let's see who actually CARRIES more passengers from the NE airports when all is said and done.
WN has a far higher cancellation rate at its NE airports than any of the legacy carriers have. All of those slots don't matter if WN bails at far higher rates than the legacy carriers every time the weather goes bad - which is pretty often.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
So why didn't DL simply not see the value of investing in operations at DAL, including securing gates/leases and instead is now pleading with the government to prevent the possible upcoming eviction?
The hypocrisy stinks all the way to 40k feet!
But then I guess you would call it social justice if WN had gates/leases taken away and given to DL.
Is that how it works?
Spin away!
Correct FF. I have always said Delta had it's chances to own and operate their own gates here at DAL for years before the W/A went away. Now they are counting on a very small grey area to be allowed to stay after the July 6th deadline.FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #6
you would have to be able to prove that there were ever gates available at DAL.
Plz tell me when there were gates that DL could have invested in.
DL has served DAL for more time since the 5 party agreement was signed until now but there were no gates available to lease.
And it doesn't really matter whether you think it is hypocritical or not.
The Dept. of Transportation has said that airlines that have been operating at an airport- any airport - cannot be forced out regardless of the change in leases that may take place - which is precisely the type of ruling that must exist to prevent the type of charades that WN is trying to play by hoarding gates and forcing out the competition.
in complete contrast, WN whined about why it needed access to DCA and LGA despite the fact that it has a larger domestic operation at BWI than any carrier has in the Washington area. WN simply did not bother to invest in slots and gates at the big NE airports until they woke up and realized that FL was one way to do it which is why they got the slots and gates FL had and has cut their ATL operation in half and eliminated FL's presence in every other city including 18 cities that FL served but WN chose not to even though every one of them was served by at least the 717.
There is no legacy carrier that did that as part of their mergers. NONE.
and WN could have also fought the part of the 5PA that required it to give up gates at DAL in order to serve DFW - and that part of the agreement is still highly suspect legally since all it has done is to protect AA and WN's positions at DFW and DAL. It is highly uncompetitive.
The remaining portions of the 5PA could easily be overturned in antitrust court because they have been used by WN to eliminate competition and dominate DAL.
There is no legal basis for arguing that DAL and DFW are a single market or that carriers that serve one of those airports is prohibited from serving any other in the region - other than AA which gave up its right to serve DAL as part of the merger agreement.
In the meantime, we are now 1 month from the end of DL's lease at DAL and the likelihood is that DL will remain once again because WN knows it cannot get by with pushing DL out.
so, no, there are no similarities between DCA and DAL other than to show WN's hypocrisy in arguing for access to DCA while denying it to competitors at DAL.
Plz tell me when there were gates that DL could have invested in.
DL has served DAL for more time since the 5 party agreement was signed until now but there were no gates available to lease.
And it doesn't really matter whether you think it is hypocritical or not.
The Dept. of Transportation has said that airlines that have been operating at an airport- any airport - cannot be forced out regardless of the change in leases that may take place - which is precisely the type of ruling that must exist to prevent the type of charades that WN is trying to play by hoarding gates and forcing out the competition.
in complete contrast, WN whined about why it needed access to DCA and LGA despite the fact that it has a larger domestic operation at BWI than any carrier has in the Washington area. WN simply did not bother to invest in slots and gates at the big NE airports until they woke up and realized that FL was one way to do it which is why they got the slots and gates FL had and has cut their ATL operation in half and eliminated FL's presence in every other city including 18 cities that FL served but WN chose not to even though every one of them was served by at least the 717.
There is no legacy carrier that did that as part of their mergers. NONE.
and WN could have also fought the part of the 5PA that required it to give up gates at DAL in order to serve DFW - and that part of the agreement is still highly suspect legally since all it has done is to protect AA and WN's positions at DFW and DAL. It is highly uncompetitive.
The remaining portions of the 5PA could easily be overturned in antitrust court because they have been used by WN to eliminate competition and dominate DAL.
There is no legal basis for arguing that DAL and DFW are a single market or that carriers that serve one of those airports is prohibited from serving any other in the region - other than AA which gave up its right to serve DAL as part of the merger agreement.
In the meantime, we are now 1 month from the end of DL's lease at DAL and the likelihood is that DL will remain once again because WN knows it cannot get by with pushing DL out.
so, no, there are no similarities between DCA and DAL other than to show WN's hypocrisy in arguing for access to DCA while denying it to competitors at DAL.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #8
UA has to be willing to lease and it is clear that they along with AA want DL out of DAL so that they would all have to compete from DFW.
DL doesn't play with that kind of antitrust violating cooperation which is why DL has chosen to stay at DAL and will fight to do so.
and it also doesn't change that there is nothing in any law or legal agreement regarding any airport or airline that prevents or limits any airline from serving any airport because it serves another airport in the same region - except WN at DAL and they agreed to it.
I have also said that the clause requiring WN to give up gates at DAL if it serves DFW is patently anticompetitive but WN needs to challenge that on its own.
What it cannot do is dominate DAL to the exclusion of other competitors because WN chose to not compete against AA at DFW.
DL will be at both Dallas airports just as they are in other multiple airport cities including Chicago, SF/Oakland, and NYC and Washington even if other carriers have chosen not to serve every facet of the market.
DL doesn't play with that kind of antitrust violating cooperation which is why DL has chosen to stay at DAL and will fight to do so.
and it also doesn't change that there is nothing in any law or legal agreement regarding any airport or airline that prevents or limits any airline from serving any airport because it serves another airport in the same region - except WN at DAL and they agreed to it.
I have also said that the clause requiring WN to give up gates at DAL if it serves DFW is patently anticompetitive but WN needs to challenge that on its own.
What it cannot do is dominate DAL to the exclusion of other competitors because WN chose to not compete against AA at DFW.
DL will be at both Dallas airports just as they are in other multiple airport cities including Chicago, SF/Oakland, and NYC and Washington even if other carriers have chosen not to serve every facet of the market.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
why would AA want them out of DAL when AA has a hell of an operation at nearby DFW and AA was forced to give up the slot at DAL to help please the bureaucratic clowns to get the merger thru
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #10
precisely because AA agreed to not fly from DAL in order to get the merger thru.... again, an agreement I patently disagree with and wish AA would challenge but that is even more complex than the mere DAL issue because it also involved DCA and LGA and other airports where AA gave up gates but didn't have to leave.
The supposed DOJ with the settlement did more to help accelerate a two carrier at each of the two big Dallas airports dominance of the N. Texas market than anything so far.
DAL and DFW should both be open to all carriers.
I suspect that DL will be the catalyst that will force DAL and DFW to operate the way ORD and MDW do. AA and UA are free to start MDW service if they want. likewise, WN could start ORD service but does not. Even though they have not, DL does see value in serving both airports.
that is the market, not government making decisions and the way it should be.
The supposed DOJ with the settlement did more to help accelerate a two carrier at each of the two big Dallas airports dominance of the N. Texas market than anything so far.
DAL and DFW should both be open to all carriers.
I suspect that DL will be the catalyst that will force DAL and DFW to operate the way ORD and MDW do. AA and UA are free to start MDW service if they want. likewise, WN could start ORD service but does not. Even though they have not, DL does see value in serving both airports.
that is the market, not government making decisions and the way it should be.
Kev3188
Veteran
Exactly.WNMECH said:
...and as noted, it would mean UA being willing to agree...
That's the "market" at work, right?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #12
a market has to involve two parties. If UA is not willing to lease to DL or any other carrier except WN, then there is no market.
as I have noted before, UA has a lot of reason to see WN grow as large as it can and take as much share from AA since AA and UA have the two legacy carrier hubs in Texas. A weaker AA at DFW provides for more opportunity for UA, esp. given that UA is facing WN's own growth including for int'l flights in Houston.
I don't think it will be too hard for DL to show, if it chooses to do so and I believe they will, that AA, UA, WN, and VX have all cooperated to block DL's access to DAL in order to limit competition.
and whether DL proves that point or not, there is no federal law that requires that a carrier give up its right to serve one airport in a region because it serves another.
except for WN's signature on the 5PA to give up gates at DAL if it starts DFW - a patently anticompetitive measure that serves no purpose other than to keep WN from competing directly with AA.
The clause that requires WN to give up gates at DAL if it serves DFW should be removed from the 5PA and WN should be limited to the 16 gates it had at the date of the end of WA while all remaining gates at DAL should become common use. VX will eventually pull back its operations at DAL because it like every other bidder for the gates has to operate 20 flights/day in order to maintain a presence at DAL, a patently uncompetitive move to limit competition and to force small LCCs to operate economically unviable flights in order to hold onto its gates.
DL is the only airline besides WN that has expressed a willingness to serve DAL and be able to do so with a schedule that can close to filling 2 gates. I suspect in time that DL will end up with 2 gates, WN will have 16 at DAL and as many as they want at DFW, and other carriers will start new service from DAL, splitting the remaining two gates with VX which will reduce its presence to its core LAX and SFO markets.
as I have noted before, UA has a lot of reason to see WN grow as large as it can and take as much share from AA since AA and UA have the two legacy carrier hubs in Texas. A weaker AA at DFW provides for more opportunity for UA, esp. given that UA is facing WN's own growth including for int'l flights in Houston.
I don't think it will be too hard for DL to show, if it chooses to do so and I believe they will, that AA, UA, WN, and VX have all cooperated to block DL's access to DAL in order to limit competition.
and whether DL proves that point or not, there is no federal law that requires that a carrier give up its right to serve one airport in a region because it serves another.
except for WN's signature on the 5PA to give up gates at DAL if it starts DFW - a patently anticompetitive measure that serves no purpose other than to keep WN from competing directly with AA.
The clause that requires WN to give up gates at DAL if it serves DFW should be removed from the 5PA and WN should be limited to the 16 gates it had at the date of the end of WA while all remaining gates at DAL should become common use. VX will eventually pull back its operations at DAL because it like every other bidder for the gates has to operate 20 flights/day in order to maintain a presence at DAL, a patently uncompetitive move to limit competition and to force small LCCs to operate economically unviable flights in order to hold onto its gates.
DL is the only airline besides WN that has expressed a willingness to serve DAL and be able to do so with a schedule that can close to filling 2 gates. I suspect in time that DL will end up with 2 gates, WN will have 16 at DAL and as many as they want at DFW, and other carriers will start new service from DAL, splitting the remaining two gates with VX which will reduce its presence to its core LAX and SFO markets.
jimntx
Veteran
Not quite. AA is still the primary leaseholder on our gates at DAL. We are just not allowed at this time to offer service from DAL; so, we have subleased the gates.robbedagain said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #14
exactly Jim.
and I believe the AA/US merger agreement was wrong to have given the farm to WN and a few acres to B6 in order to gain merger approval but AA agreed to it so it is harder to argue that it should be overturned.
but the clearly anticompetitive part of the 5PA that requires WN to give up gates in order to serve DFW needs to be overturned.
It is also noteworthy that the DOT's rules are far less about who controls the gates and instead who actually operates flights in determining who should and should not stay.
what is clear is that WN's arguments that it needed protection from AA or any other carrier in adding longhaul service from DAL was patently false and has been proven to be so, particularly since WN hypocritically argued that it needed to be given increased access to DCA and LGA in order to increase competition.
and I believe the AA/US merger agreement was wrong to have given the farm to WN and a few acres to B6 in order to gain merger approval but AA agreed to it so it is harder to argue that it should be overturned.
but the clearly anticompetitive part of the 5PA that requires WN to give up gates in order to serve DFW needs to be overturned.
It is also noteworthy that the DOT's rules are far less about who controls the gates and instead who actually operates flights in determining who should and should not stay.
what is clear is that WN's arguments that it needed protection from AA or any other carrier in adding longhaul service from DAL was patently false and has been proven to be so, particularly since WN hypocritically argued that it needed to be given increased access to DCA and LGA in order to increase competition.
Similar threads
