The Southwest and Delta battle for gates

[swamt]

Here's the latest from Terry on the battle for gates at Love Field.  With dates listed from the court that go well beyond the 7-6-15 dates where Delta's extension expires. Question remaining is what will happen to the Delta leased gates in the mean time?  On 7-6-15 will they remain until settled? Or is the end of the lease a done deal?  No movement what so ever but here is an update...
 
There'll be no quick decision in the Southwest Airlines-Delta dispute over Dallas Love Field gates

 

[WorldTraveler]

There is no battle except in the minds of WN and its fan base because there is no legal protection for WN to eliminate all other competitors from DAL by occupying more than 16 gates even using the most restrictive interpretation of the Wright Amendment and the Five Party Agreement.

WN is not exempt from antitrust guidelines and the fact that the case is being tried in Washington DC and not Texas says that the rest of the world is not nearly as intoxicated with or influenced by the hubris that N. Texas has tried to convince itself of regarding DAL.

The latest iteration of the WA restrictions were nothing but one more attempt by AA and WN to carve up the N. Texas airline market between two airlines which started with AA and BN and now involves AA and WN.

Further, anyone can see that UA's interest in bowing out of DAL is to allow WN to focus as many of its resources on AA which weakens AA, a strong competitor to UA.

WN's acquisition of the UA gates did not excuse them from following antitrust regulations or from accommodating any other carriers that want access to DAL esp. DL which had access before the WA restrictions fell and as a non-lease holding airline at DAL has the right to be accommodated.


Given that the DOT has already lined up against WN and DL has been very effective in arguing against WN at one step after another in this case, even before WN decided to sue the DOT, it is only a matter of time before WN is rolled back to operating just 16 gates and DL is given the legal right to operate from the two gates

I can't say I am surprised that WN is fighting as hard as it can to dominate the airport but the simple fact is that they not DL and not any other airline besides AA signed the Five Party agreement and have to figure out how to maximize their service to the N. Texas market with the 16 gates they have

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

So it looks like unless or until the court(s) decide otherwise, the carriers that have a DAL lease get to use the DAL gates.

 

[eolesen]

Looks like the judge won't be hurried by DL's timeframe. There wasn't an order yet to maintain the status quo, but I imagine there will.

In VX's quarterly report, they said that PRASM in Dallas was -20% YOY. Loads were great, yields not so much. It's blown their profitability model, and the move to add AUS wound up pulling down a transcon service which *was* profitable.

Not really sure why DL would want to be signing up for that, but they must have their reasons. You know, strategy and all them fancy words...

The smart move would be to just leave now until VX collapses. Let the war of attrition between WN and VX go on without them.

 

[WorldTraveler]

actually, VX' transcon profitability was already hurting because every other carrier has now gone to lie flat products and B6 is adding premium cabins to its aircraft. B6 has a much stronger NYC/NE point of sale advantage while VX has it from California but got a lot of NE/NYC advantage as the only non-legacy carrier with a decent business class product.

VX is trying to find some niche in which they can operate but with AS and DL both growing on the west coast and the transcons becoming a lot less friendly to VX, VX had no choice but to try to find other focus cities, and DAL seemed like as good of a place as any. It doesn't appear that they had any idea how hard it would be to compete against WN or how relatively good they had it at DFW, but they made their decision and as several here have expected, DAL might be their last stand to try to find a market niche before realizing they will implode.

The reason why DL is sticking around is because at the minimum, the DOT says that DAL is REQUIRED to accommodate non-lease holding airlines that have been at DAL. WN and DAL and VX can all point fingers at each other as to who has to accommodate DL but ultimately the problem is DAL's and they refused to convert the two gates to common use which would have eliminated the crunch which is now happening.

Further, I am sure DL still has eyes on a larger DAL presence and when - probably more likely than if - VX fails DL will be in a stronger position to argue that it should have access to those gates than any other carrier since DL laid out a full plan for use of the gates before any other carrier did and much of what DL originally proposed will still provide increased competition in markets which VX and WN are now flying.

and it is not likely that there is any other carrier that can come into DAL and compete effectively against WN.

DL is sticking around because the DOT, who WN is suing, said that those who have been at DAL have to be accommodated for the services they currently operate and they likely also have the best chances of obtaining increased gate space when it becomes available.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Further, I am sure DL still has eyes on a larger DAL presence and when ...........

 
If DL couldn't hack it at DFW, what makes you think they'll be able to at DAL?

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL ran a HUB at DFW with over 400 flights/day on DL and DCI. DL does very well both from DFW and DAL operating to/from its hubs which now include LAX, SLC, MSP, DTW, ATL, LGA, and JFK from DFW and ATL from DAL. There is no doubt that DL can compete from DFW feeding its hubs.

further, the airline industry is considerably different from DFW and DAL than it was 10 years ago.

I don't think DL has any designs on a hub but they do want to continue to grow fro N. Texas just as they are doing from Chicago (both airports), Houston, LAX, MIA, DEN, and other major markets which are also other carrier hubs and in many cases where there is service to the area from two or more airports

and other carriers are doing the same thing given a consolidated industry and the need for all remaining large carriers to offer a full network in order to win top business customers and contracts.

 

[FWAAA]

WN is not exempt from antitrust guidelines and the fact that the case is being tried in Washington DC and not Texas says that the rest of the world is not nearly as intoxicated with or influenced by the hubris that N. Texas has tried to convince itself of regarding DAL.

Uhh, No. Southwest petitioned the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is where litigants usually attack agency positions like this one of the DOT. That the court is located in Washington, DC doesn't "say" anything about the world's intoxication (or lack thereof) with Southwest. It's merely where the courthouse is located.

There is no trial - this is an appellate court. Briefs will be filed followed by oral arguments of the legal issues by legal counsel for WN, DOT and DL.

This paragraph of yours is symptomatic of the things you fabricate.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I get all of that... and yet the outcome is still that WN and DAL could very well be told that they are required to accommodate DL.

and Washington cares a whole lot less about the Wright Amendment and WN than Texas does.... and yet for so many years we've been reading that any challenge to the WA has to take place in Texas.

I predict that the first step of the legal challenge will be for DL to win the right to remain at DAL using the WN gates and then it will slowly start making a case that it has the right to obtain more space and WN does not have the protection to operate all of the space it is currently using.

 

[eolesen]

Correct, FWAAA - venue has no real significance here, especially when you consider the bulk of the discussions around the Wright Amendment and the 5PA were all worked out in DC.

It's not like everyone flew to Texas to have a big ol' meetin' followed by some beer & two-stepping at Billy Bob's...

 

[WorldTraveler]

and it is precisely because the Federal government including the DOT is headquartered in Washington DC that the case is being heard there.

and yet have we not heard repeatedly on here that legal challenges to the WA and the 5 party agreement had to be held in Texas courts?

The simple fact is that the case will be settled on the basis of law which the DOT and DL both say requires DAL to accommodate carriers that operated service before the leases changed hand and before WN filled its gates with flights.

WN and VX are both trying to fill up their gates AFTER DL petitioned to remain at DAL despite the fact that the DOT has made it clear in numerous cases in other airports that the airport operator cannot push a carrier out of the airport.

DAL can figure it all out but I will strongly bet that WN and VX will be required to proportionately give up space in order to accommodate DL - unless the Appeals Court rules that WN and WN alone has the requirement as part of the DL sublease that predated WN's acquisition of the UA gates and because DL never gave any intention of leaving DAL.

and once it is clear that DL is at DAL for the long-term, I am betting that VX will stop flying its AUS flights and might pull down DAL all together, opening the door for further DL service which DL will fight to obtain given that WN never was given legal protection from antitrust laws to operate from more than 16 gates.

can we start the first hearings tomorrow?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

This is classic WT.
 
WT often gets a bit angry when some refer to him as World Fraudster, but let's have a look at this little gem here:
 
1)  first the fabricated statement (that's what happens when all you dream of is DL grandeur)
 

WN is not exempt from antitrust guidelines and the fact that the case is being tried in Washington DC and not Texas says that the rest of the world is not nearly as intoxicated with or influenced by the hubris that N. Texas has tried to convince itself of regarding DAL.

 
2)  Then the correction (thanks FWAAA) or should I say schooling:
 

Uhh, No. Southwest petitioned the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is where litigants usually attack agency positions like this one of the DOT. That the court is located in Washington, DC doesn't "say" anything about the world's intoxication (or lack thereof) with Southwest. It's merely where the courthouse is located.

There is no trial - this is an appellate court. Briefs will be filed followed by oral arguments of the legal issues by legal counsel for WN, DOT and DL.

This paragraph of yours is symptomatic of the things you fabricate.

 
 
3)  And here comes the spinning, denials, deflections - making sure ofcourse to work in the statement of imagined DL grandeur:
 

I get all of that... and yet the outcome is still that WN and DAL could very well be told that they are required to accommodate DL.

and Washington cares a whole lot less about ...........................

I predict that the first step of the legal challenge will be for DL to win ...................................

 
  

 
4)  And more spinning and deflecting.
 
 

and it is precisely because the Federal government including the DOT is headquartered in Washington DC that the case is being heard there.

and yet have we not heard repeatedly on here that legal challenges to the WA and the 5 party agreement had to be held in Texas courts?

The simple fact is that the case will be settled on the basis of law which the DOT and DL both say requires DAL to accommodate carriers that operated service before the leases changed hand and before WN filled its gates with flights.

WN and VX are both trying to fill up their gates AFTER DL petitioned to remain a..............................

DAL can figure it all out but I will strongly bet that WN and VX will be required to proportionately give up space in order to accommodate DL - unless the Appeals Court rules that WN and WN alone has the requirement as part of the DL sublease that predated WN's acquisition of the UA gates and because DL never gave any intention of leaving DAL.

and once it is clear that DL is at DAL for the long-term, I am betting that VX will stop flying its AUS flights and might pull down DAL all together, opening the door for further DLservice which DL will fight to obtain given that WN never was given legal protection from antitrust laws to operate from more than 16 gates.

 

 

[WorldTraveler]

again, you are nothing more than a jealous little twit that has to insert yourself into conversations that other people are discussing. You are NOT AWESOME.

You are nothing but another user name in a long line that can't stand that I am right and you are not only wrong but don't even understand the basic issues of the discussion.

what FWAAA said and what you tried to connect with me aren't even close to being related.

And FWAAA's comment doesn't change that Washington could care less about WN's perceived need and Texas' LUV affair with them.

The Appeals court will rule on the merits of the law and everything any rational person can see says that WN is on the wrong side of the law on this issue.


in case you missed it, DL IS in the title of this thread. For you to think that we would be discussing AA and not DL shows how insanely jealous you are



Leave the discussion to people who are capable of reading and comprehending what is said.

Whether I agree with anyone else, they and not you can follow the conversation and stay focused.


You, however, have to insert yourself into a conversation and call names because you can't stand that someone else is having a conversation and you aren't.

I suppose with the WN pilots on strike this summer, DL can argue that it should have ALL 18 of WN's gates.

 

[eolesen]

Hmmm. More fabrications?

Someone else quoted this from WT:

and yet have we not heard repeatedly on here that legal challenges to the WA and the 5 party agreement had to be held in Texas courts?

Who has ever claimed once (let alone repeatedly) that any challenges "had" to be tried in a Texas court? That's simply ridiculous.

The only claims I've seen are that the Texas delegation would be consulted. Not the courts.

 

[WorldTraveler]

There are absolutely posts on this forum where people have claimed that challenges to the WA and 5 party agreement had to be made in Texas.

and why you or anyone else would even think that Texas has the right to dictate the use of federally funded facilities above federal courts is beyond comprehension and precisely the Texas-sized arrogance that so many have thought applied to DAL above every other airport.

We can keep this latest thread going until a ruling comes, the mods can lock this thread, or we can agree that there is no precedent anywhere in US aviation for any airline to dominate an airport to the exclusion of other carriers and there is no basis in the WA or 5 party agreement for WN to do so, even though that is clearly what WN wants to do.

WN made the decision to sit out years of competing in N. Texas long haul markets so it could wait for DAL to open up but in the process is now at the end of the usable capacity of DAL and WN's 16 gates.

No one is going to roll over or play dead so WN can grow into key industry markets and most certainly not DL.

If WN wants to dominate DAL, then they at the minimum need to make sure they don't fly to DL hub markets.