The Southwest and Delta battle for gates

[WorldTraveler]

DL doesn't need to obtain gate space.

According to the DOT, all they have to do is keep flying what they flew on the date the WA restrictions fell and they are guaranteed space.
the reason why there is a lawsuit, legal challenge or whatever his highness FWAAA says is the acceptable term is because WN is on one side of the issue and DL and the DOT are on the other side.

and it is still very possible that there could be a finding that WN is not legally protected from antitrust laws to operate above 16 gates at DAL and that its acquisition of UA's gates which was not open to all carriers violated antitrust laws since DL had already announced its desire to fly more service from DAL and Wn already operates a higher percentage of flights and gates at DAL than any other carrier does from any other airport that is remotely close to the size of DAL.

 

[eolesen]

Perhaps DL should have secured gate leases prior to announcing their schedules.

Exactly.

This is a real estate rights issue. WN is the tenant, they have a valid and executed lease.

Incumbency, tenure, schedules, etc. don't matter if you don't have a lease. I don't get to stay in a hotel room for another week after I've been there for a week if I don't have a reservation for the next week. If the house we're currently leasing gets sold, we can't just declare squatter's rights and stay beyond the end date of the lease.

DOT as a government authority doesn't have a Constitutional right confiscate or interfere in a valid lease transaction between two private parties.

 

[swamt]

 
Perhaps DL should have secured gate leases prior to announcing their schedules.

Exactly.  DL had a chance to be one of the regular lease holders way back prior to the W/A agreement and 5 party agreement.  Not to mention all those years prior to 2006 that Delta had a chance to do a perm. lease from the COD.  Delta has had plenty of chances to do so.  The most critical time that they should have jumped was in 2004 when SWA announced they were going to fight to get rid of the W/A.  If Delta would have done a perm lease prior to all these airlines putting in the these gates then Delta would not be having this trouble to get into Love Field.  They would be one of the original lease holders instead of a sub-lease holder.  When this all started back in 2004 about the W/A going away I said Delta waited too long to get involved, by sitting back and just waiting rather than getting actively involved is exactly why they are in the current situation.
Don't bother with him.  He still does not grasp the whole restrictions and laws around these 2 airports as WN has just pointed out as well.

 

[WorldTraveler]

can you tell us when there were gates available from DAL that DL could have leased? dates please?

where in the process of divesting AA/US gates was DL given the right to bid? where in the UA transfer of gates was DL given the right to take over the gates?

you can't grasp that DL was never given the chance but it really doesn't matter because the DOT has said airport success and ensuring competition is independent of leases.

and regardless of what you think, the DOT has said that a carrier that was serving DAL has the right to be accommodated regardless of whether it holds a lease from the airport or a sublease from another carrier.

that is why the case is going to trial. or whatever FWAAA wants to say is going to happen.

are you two going to admit that you were wrong when DL remains at DAL and esp. if it parks even one flight on one of WN's 18 gates?

I sure can but I doubt very seriously that the DOT is mistaken.

 

[WNMECH]

you should have stopped No one can be "kicked out"



DL is THE ONLY carrier that operated from DAL before the WA restrictions fell and does not have a lease.

You should have stopped there.

You would have finally been right about something on this subject.

 

[WorldTraveler]

except the DOT has said that leaseholding or not doesn't entitle a carrier to be able to serve an airport to the exclusion of other carriers.

Given that WN spent some much effort trying to convince everyone how badly it was harmed by not being able to fly as much as legacy carriers do at DCA and LGA even though WN had ample service from BWI and other NY area airports, it is mind boggling that DL and the DOT are throwing some of WN's own arguments back in its face regarding airport access.

will you be willing to admit you were wrong if DL remains at DAL and esp. if even one flight ends up at one of WN's 18 gates?

 

[WNMECH]

I wont be wrong.

I have always said that WN will retain all of its 16 gates and will not be forced to share any of them.
I have also always said that the process will continue to play out just as it has and that if Delta is allowed to stay, it will have to be on either VX or UAL gates.

And more recently:
"Unless the COD, WN or VX offer Delta space, OR a judge steps in issuing an order, Delta will have NO flights from love after their temp lease is up in July."

You have made so many claims and changed your positions, that you are always wrong about something.

You said Delta would file suit if they didn't get AA gates.
You said the Wright Amendment Reform Act would be challenged in court and WN would have to give up some of their 16 gates.
You used to say WN had no antitrust protection at Love but changed it to say "beyond 16 gates".

In the mean time, WN has expanded to 18 gates and Delta has kept only 5 flights. Delta has moved around like musical chairs trying to keep a seat. They will never expand beyond 5 flights, like you have repeatedly claimed, unless VX allows it.

Time is running out as the process and music plays on.
If the COD doesn't act, where will Delta sit (with no leases) when the music stops.

As Gary Kelley said,
“We have our 18 gates, 16 leased and two subleased. We will use every ounce of time and space at those 18 gates and it will be up to the city to deal with whatever other requests it has.”

We don’t have room for Delta Air Lines flights at Love Field (and it’s not our problem).

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Given that WN spent some much effort trying to convince everyone how badly it was harmed by not being able to fly as much as legacy carriers do at DCA and LGA even though WN had ample service from BWI and other NY area airports, it is mind boggling that DL and the DOT are throwing some of WN's own arguments back in its face regarding airport access.


will you be willing to admit you were wrong if DL remains at DAL and esp. if even one flight ends up at one of WN's 18 gates?

 
So you're going to argue that BWI is an alternative for WN to DCA and tough cookies that there were no slots + gates available? 
What is stopping WN saying that DFW is available for DL if there are no gates available at DAL?
 
Do you see how childish this is?
 
DL could remain at DAL, especially if VX fades away or there is some sort of a deal between VX and DL.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

You said Delta would file suit if they didn't get AA gates.
You said the Wright Amendment Reform Act would be challenged in court and WN would have to give up some of their 16 gates.
You used to say WN had no antitrust protection at Love but changed it to say "beyond 16 gates".
 

 
That's just a few of his gems.
 
When it comes to DL, specifically if DL is not shed in the best of light, he gets fired up and posts nuggets of gold.  For example the classic blast from the past is DL finishing JAL off once and for all, to AS pulling publicity stunts to embarrass DL earlier this year, to the just recent Mexico repealing the open skies deal because the DL-AM JV didn't get done.
 
Very predictable.
Lather rinse repeat.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you do realize that the name of BWI is Baltimore - Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport?

WN does not have the legal right to tell DL where it can and can't fly.

neither can the federal government or any other governmental body.

WN is the only carrier that signed an agreement that restricts its ability to serve an airport in N. Texas (DFW) at the cost of its space at DAL.

AA signed away its right to serve DAL as part of its merger agreement with the DOJ.

DL is NOT a party to the WA or 5PA and is now bound by AA's merger agreement.

DL doesn't care where DAL finds the gates because the DOT says that any carrier who flies to an airport cannot be forced out even if the leases change hands.

If you don't agree, file a friend of the court brief. FWAAA will surely tell you how to do it.

I don't get fired up about anything except people here who can't discuss issues without trashing other people in the process.

I am happy to see good, healthy debate.

You are one of several here that wants to turn business issues of the industry into personal issues.

and the court in DC could care less other than what is in the law.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

So if BWI is a suitable alternative for WN to DCA, then does it not follow that DFW is a suitable alternative to DAL for DL?
 
Or what is your point?

 

[WorldTraveler]

I am not trying to say what airports are suitable alternates but simply saying that WN has a strong leadership position at BWI which has Washington in its name but argued that it should be given access to DCA.

DFW might be considered a suitable alternative to DAL if WN hadn't succeeded at pushing its way into DCA and LGA when it had service at other airports in the regions of both airports including BWI, EWR, and ISP and yet successfully argued that it needed access to DCA and LGA.

The reason WN was capable of doing what it did is because the US has NO RULES that say that any airport is sufficient as an alternate for a region and that serving one airport precludes a carrier from seeking service at another airport.

There are NO SUCH RULES.

the only rules regarding airport access involve WN at DAL and DFW and that was in an agreement that ONLY WN and AA signed and only restricts WN's ability to serve DFW.

AA's restrictions on serving DAL came from its merger agreement.

no other carrier has any restrictions on it regarding its ability to serve DAL AND DFW>

NONE.

the sooner you and others get that concept thru your heads, the sooner we can discuss the rest of the issues.

WN wants to eliminate all competitors from DAL because WN can ONLY serve DAL without losing gates if it adds DFW service.

But WN also DOES NOT have any protection from antitrust laws for operations above 16 gates. and DAL STILL has to comply with federal government airport access laws

WN will have to figure out how to make the most of its 16 gates and stop its growth at DAL when it fills those gates up as long as other carriers want to fly to DAL and can fill up 4 gates and are willing to make an antitrust case against WN for blocking access to any of the other 4 gates - which I suspect will be a charge that DL will make given that DL outlined its intention to add service in markets which WN later announced it would fly.

 

[WNMECH]

WN will have to figure out how to make the most of its 16 gates and stop its growth at DAL when it fills those gates up as long as other carriers want to fly to DAL and can fill up 4 gates and are willing to make an antitrust case against WN for blocking access to any of the other 4 gates - which I suspect will be a charge that DL will make given that DL outlined its intention to add service in markets which WN later announced it would fly.

So now you think WN, Delta and VX can split up Love Field with WN controlling 80
% of the gates?
You must be beyond delusional according to this guy.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

WorldTraveler

Posted 08 October 2014 - 04:02 PM


The idea that DAL and WN can hide behind a 20 gate limit to restrict the operation to 3 carriers with WN having 80% of them is beyond delusional.

 

[WorldTraveler]

by the standards of US antitrust laws, WN's control aall by itself of 80% of the gates at DAL is beyond delusional but it has been allowed because the 5PA solidified WN's dominance of DAL.

the 5PA does not protect WN from antitrust provisions for any operations above 16 gates which is why I agree that they will not lose those gates but they have no protection if a carrier or a governmental body chooses to pursue antitrust charges against WN.

given that DL announced firm plans to serve a number of markets from DAL before WN ever did and expressed its desire to use the two gates to add that service - which WN proceeded to launch and expand using gates for which it has no antitrust protection.

so, yes, WN is on a whole lot slippier ground than you want to admit but the chances are that the worst that can happen is that they are forced to give up gate space if they lose in future cases so it makes more sense for them to try to gain all the gates it can, build them out, and then deal with the consequences if they come.

given that DL was ticked that it was not allowed to bid for any of AA/US' assets but had to watch WN grow in key DL markets and has also demonstrated that it can compete successfully against WN, I fully expect that DL will continue to push the case as far as it can.

 

[WNMECH]

by the standards of US antitrust laws, WN's control aall by itself of 80% of the gates at DAL is beyond delusional but it has been allowed because the 5PA solidified WN's dominance of DAL.

Your argument is not with me, its with this guy.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVV


WorldTraveler

Posted 08 October 2014 - 05:15 PM


No, you are delusional if you think the 30th busiest airport in the US will remain open to only 3 jet carriers who control all of the real estate.

That's right. DAL, based on currently published schedules, comes out as having more seats than HOU and just under PDX and not far behind TPA.

You are beyond delusional if you think there will be lawmakers in the US who will accept that the 30th busiest airport in the US will be occupied by only 3 carriers, you are the one that is beyond delusional.