The Southwest and Delta battle for gates

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I'm not a legal expert by any means, but suppose that WT is correct in his opinion that if a carrier is operating at an airport they must be accommodated no matter who holds the gate leases. 
 
If that is indeed correct, then what is stopping WN from announcing say 50 additional flights to dozen or so cities from LGA for next summer (or DCA) and forcing DL to make room.  After all, WN was at the airport, they announced their schedule, and although they don't have the resources ..................... well by WT's logic who cares, they have to be accommodated no matter what.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you don't get it.

DL has been operating from DAL. what happens with the lease doesn't change the DOT's requirement that DL be allowed to continue to operate those flights.

DL acquired the LGA slots in a swap with US that also involved the divestiture of slots to increase competition.

WN can't ADD flights to LGA or DCA it never operated and expect to be accommodated.

and neither can any other carrier BESIDES DL add flights to DAL and expect to be accommodated.

The only reason DL can be accommodated is because they flew the flights before the WA and have continued to operate them and will do so.

surely you understand the difference.

WN made the argument that it should get MORE slots at DCA and LGA in order to bring down fares and enhance competition and that is PRECISELY the reason why they cannot defend what they are doing at DAL as much as some people think that the Wright Amendment and 5PA make DAL/DFW different than other airports for anything more than 16 gates.

WN has no protection or preference for anything above 16 gates.

 

[WNMECH]

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.

 
You don't have to convince me.
Its this guy who doesn't understand.
 
 
 
 
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
 
WorldTraveler

Posted 05 October 2014 - 04:02 PM

You might find how well DL can put together NATIONWIDE support for reopening the whole Wright Amendment and everything related to it and strip WN of the gates it does have at DAL and the gates they have until every carrier that wants to serve DAL has the right to be accommodated.

The best laugh will come when AA, DL, and UA all serve DAL along with VX and WN is forced to split its N. Texas oprations between DFW and DAL or settle for the same size operation it had at the time WN's first schedules were published.
WN doesn't want to and hasn't competed against carriers if they can avoid it.
You don't need to keep arguing with me.
I am just telling you what is coming.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and we haven't gotten anywhere close to the best laugh because AA and UA both decided they don't want to serve DAL while VX is not likely to remain there for long unless it can figure out how to increase its loads and yields.

DL, OTOH, does want to compete against WN at DAL and has repeatedly demonstrated that it can succeed in direct competition with WN, including from MDW where DL is the only legacy carrier.

There is a very good chance that WN will be forced to at least accommodate DL on WN's gates and it is also possible that if DL pushes the case WN might be forced to relinquish control of the 2 gates on the basis of antitrust reasons.

let's see how it plays out but the chances that WN will succeed at forcing DL out and gain control of those two gates in their entirety is likely very, very low.

 

[swamt]

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).

Exactly...
 

 
You don't have to convince me.
Its this guy who doesn't understand.
 
 
 
 
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
 
WorldTraveler

Posted 05 October 2014 - 04:02 PM

You might find how well DL can put together NATIONWIDE support for reopening the whole Wright Amendment and everything related to it and strip WN of the gates it does have at DAL and the gates they have until every carrier that wants to serve DAL has the right to be accommodated.

The best laugh will come when AA, DL, and UA all serve DAL along with VX and WN is forced to split its N. Texas oprations between DFW and DAL or settle for the same size operation it had at the time WN's first schedules were published.
WN doesn't want to and hasn't competed against carriers if they can avoid it.
You don't need to keep arguing with me.
I am just telling you what is coming.

There he goes again.  The post you answered here just flipped due to you constantly proving him wrong.  Some things never will change.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

no one has proven ANYONE wrong.

the case has yet to play out before the Appeals Court.

You and others need to wrap your head around the idea that perhaps, just maybe, there are people who will see thru WN's campaign to eliminate competition and rule that WN DOES NOT have any antitrust protection for its flights at the 2 gates acquired from UA AND that DAL is REQUIRED as a federally funded airport to follow federal airport access regulations - which are anything but mere suggestions.

The case will go to court which is where a number of us thought it was going to end up almost 2 years ago.

I am more than happy to admit I am wrong if DL gets kicked out of DAL but are you willing to admit you are wrong if a single DL flight parks at a WN gate after the ruling?

 

[WNMECH]

That wont prove any of us wrong either, because UAL did not use their gates to capacity.
 
We would only be wrong if WN held only their 16 preferential use gates used at full capacity and was forced to give Delta or anyone else gate space on them.
 
That is what would break the Scarce Resource Provision.
 
The fact that  UAL decided to sub-lease to WN makes it unknown how these two gate leases will be seen because  WN is a preferential lease holder, but they are not at those two gates.
 
All along we have said the only way for Delta to be forced to leave is if the Preferential gate holders filled their gates to full capacity and their schedules conflicted with Deltas.
 
You on the other hand have made wild claims about the Wright Amendment Reform Act and how it would be overturned.
 
If Delta is allowed to stay because of the UAL sub-lease to WN, the process has still been followed and the WARA is still intact.
 
If WN has full use of 16 gates (80% of LOVE) we were right and you were wrong.
 
If WN holds 80% or more with only 3 jet carriers at Love, you were proven to be, in your words, "beyond delusional".
 
However, if the UAL sub-lease is upheld to also be covered as preferential for WN, and Delta has no place to park, we will have to find better words to describe how really wrong you were.

 

[dash8roa]

Maybe the courts will come to the realization that an 8 mile separation of the two airports constitutes a common market, and DL isn't being denied anything since they have unfettered access at an airport they're already serving. Similar arguments have been made for years regarding DCA access, something the court will be intimately familiar with.

Good point. DL had a hub at DFW and then decided it wanted to drop it. DL can offer service today from DFW as there are available gates. It was WN who stuck it out at DAL when other carriers showed little interest. Now that the Wright hostage amendment is gone, DL wants back in and claims it wants to compete but when talk of another badly needed Atlanta airport surfaced, they went to great lengths to stop it. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

Good point. DL had a hub at DFW and then decided it wanted to drop it. DL can offer service today from DFW as there are available gates. It was WN who stuck it out at DAL when other carriers showed little interest. Now that the Wright hostage amendment is gone, DL wants back in and claims it wants to compete but when talk of another badly needed Atlanta airport surfaced, they went to great lengths to stop it.

no, it isn't a good point.

there is NO requirement that DL or any carrier EXCEPT WN has to serve one airport or the other at the expense of its service at the other.

There is NO law anywhere that restricts DL or any carrier except WN from serving one airport in the Metroplex or the other.

and there is NO law anywhere in the US that restricts any carrier from serving one airport because of service it has at any other airport.

EXCEPT FOR WN AT DAL.


 

That wont prove any of us wrong either, because UAL did not use their gates to capacity.
 
We would only be wrong if WN held only their 16 preferential use gates used at full capacity and was forced to give Delta or anyone else gate space on them.
 
That is what would break the Scarce Resource Provision.
 
The fact that  UAL decided to sub-lease to WN makes it unknown how these two gate leases will be seen because  WN is a preferential lease holder, but they are not at those two gates.
 
All along we have said the only way for Delta to be forced to leave is if the Preferential gate holders filled their gates to full capacity and their schedules conflicted with Deltas.
 
You on the other hand have made wild claims about the Wright Amendment Reform Act and how it would be overturned.
 
If Delta is allowed to stay because of the UAL sub-lease to WN, the process has still been followed and the WARA is still intact.
 
If WN has full use of 16 gates (80% of LOVE) we were right and you were wrong.
 
If WN holds 80% or more with only 3 jet carriers at Love, you were proven to be, in your words, "beyond delusional".
 
However, if the UAL sub-lease is upheld to also be covered as preferential for WN, and Delta has no place to park, we will have to find better words to describe how really wrong you were.

I'm so glad you finally made that post because it means that we are on the same page.

and what you posted is not at all what some other people have said.

I have never said that WARA being overturned but simply said that WARA does NOT apply to the two gates which WN acquired from UA but ONLY the 16 gates which WN had at the time of the 5PA.

and WN has publicly not acknowledged that they are willing to share any part of their two UA acquired gates so if you believe that to be the case and WN believes that will be required, they haven't said so at this point.

I have said and will repeat that the case will end IF WN accommodates schedule of 5 or 6 flights to ATL. DL does not have any recourse to ask for any space beyond that.

However, I believe that DL could pursue an antitrust case against WN for not DL being able to expand and for WN adding service to cities including DTW which DL said it intended to serve but for which DL does not have gates.

Again, I believe there is no antitrust protection for WN for any flights above what fits on the 16 gates it had at the time of the 5PA but that may or may not be part of the case which is before the Appeals Court right now.

If you want to argue that 5 or 6 DL flights on ANY gate (I'm not sure that WN cares which TWO gates but maybe they do) is a settlement for both DL and WN, then I agree.

again, others have never said that could be the outcome and WN has never acknowledged publicly they are willing to consider that as an acceptable outcome.

 

[WNMECH]

I'm so glad you finally made that post because it means that we are on the same page.

and what you posted is not at all what some other people have said.

I have never said that WARA being overturned but simply said that WARA does NOT apply to the two gates which WN acquired from UA but ONLY the 16 gates which WN had at the time of the 5PA.

Now you think we forget what you claimed before the 2 UAL gates were sub-leased to WN.
You were sayin this.
vvvvvvvvvvvv
 


Posted 05 October 2014 - 04:02 PM

WorldTraveler

no it didn't.

Tell me when the Wright Amendment was challenged by other airlines over THEIR access to DAL or DFW.

AA and WN fought plenty but the assumption ALWAYS was that the federal government would preserve the interests of non-Texas airlines.

UP until the AA/US merger, non-Texas airlines had no reason to get involved in the mess at DAL and DFW.

that might well be changing.

WN is trying to squat on as much of DAL as possible before they find that a judge rules that they overstepped their bounds.

There is no legal justification for saying that DAL told airlines to accommodate DL and then have them all decide to make deals among themselves to keep DL out.

You might find how well DL can put together NATIONWIDE support for reopening the whole Wright Amendment and everything related to it and strip WN of the gates it does have at DAL and the gates they have until every carrier that wants to serve DAL has the right to be accommodated.

The best laugh will come when AA, DL, and UA all serve DAL along with VX and WN is forced to split its N. Texas oprations between DFW and DAL or settle for the same size operation it had at the time WN's first schedules were published.

WN doesn't want to and hasn't competed against carriers if they can avoid it.

You don't need to keep arguing with me.

I am just telling you what is coming.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I can't tell you how many discussions we have had because you and others don't know what are and how to use subjunctive and modal verbs.

MIGHT is not WILL.

 

[WNMECH]

no, it isn't a good point.


I'm so glad you finally made that post because it means that we are on the same page.

and what you posted is not at all what some other people have said.

I have never said that WARA being overturned but simply said that WARA does NOT apply to the two gates which WN acquired from UA but ONLY the 16 gates which WN had at the time of the 5PA.

Again, I believe there is no antitrust protection for WN for any flights above what fits on the 16 gates it had at the time of the 5PA but that may or may not be part of the case which is before the Appeals Court right now.

We are not on the same page because you keep changing your claims while I have not.
While you were saying the WARA would be overturned, I was posting this.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVV
 

Posted 09 October 2014 - 08:03 PM

Nice try, but we never said Delta wouldn't be at Love post Wright.

I have always said the Wright Amendment Reform Act wont be overturned and WN will be free to use all of is 16 WN gates as they see fit.

They have preferential use (not sole use) of 16 gates. Federal Law and their legal gate leases will force Delta to seek other accommodations or leave Love Field after Jan 6 when WN's schedule will fill those 16 gates.

 

[WNMECH]

I can't tell you how many discussions we have had because you and others don't know what are and how to use subjunctive and modal verbs.

MIGHT is not WILL.

But BS is still BS.
Where is the word MIGHT in these lines you wrote.

VVVVVVVVVVVV






The best laugh will come when AA, DL, and UA all serve DAL along with VX and WN is forced to split its N. Texas oprations between DFW and DAL or settle for the same size operation it had at the time WN's first schedules were published.

WN doesn't want to and hasn't competed against carriers if they can avoid it.

You don't need to keep arguing with me.

I am just telling you what is coming

 

[WNMECH]

Worldspinster should just put the word MIGHT in his name line so he can spout as much BS as possible and claim he didn't mean it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, I use the correct verb tenses and moods because they mean different things.

The English language as well as many languages have the ability to express different degrees of probability.

"WILL" is a definite form; might and may are less so.

I have repeatedly noted what MIGHT happen and what WILL happen and I have also noted that I am willing to be judged based on what actually happens based on what I said.


and you continue to fall back in saying that WN will retain full use of its 16 gates as if we will miss that WN now has 18 gates.

again, it is the DL-WN sublease that has provided DL with access to DAL and it is on that basis that I believe that DL will remain there.

and I still believe that once DL cements its right to remain at DAL long-term that they MIGHT upgrade ATL service to M88 aircraft which is what they use largely to DFW and I believe they MIGHT also pursue an antitrust case to gain access to 2 full gates by arguing that WN never should have had the ability to acquire UA's gates given that there was a known list of carriers that wanted to expand, the proposed schedule for DL's expansion was known, and WN's acquisition of the gates served to block DL's ability to expand despite WN already controlling 80% of the gates and 90% of the seats from DAL.

The outcome is likely that DL ends up long term on WN's 2 acquired gates that WN MIGHT be forced to surrender.