What's new
By:

UA transfers its two DAL (Love Field) gates to Southwest; Is DL out?

Status
Not open for further replies.
With the decision to add DTW and SLC, if WN is successful in adding these flights, WN just GUARANTEED that DAL's airport access and WN's size at DAL will go to court on the basis of antitrust violations, a far larger issue than the lease.

That will not be the only implication of their decision - but I will let DL announce that part themselves.

given that WN is bating AA too, you might be surprised how quickly AA and DL can fight on issues that are equally of benefit to each other.
 
Can you elaborate a little robbed?  Are you referring to SWA keeping promises or Delta on filing suits?
 
robbed isn't smart enough to realize that WN's growth at DAL is coming directly out of his employer's revenues - and his own job security.

DL advised DAL that they could file suit - that wasn't my statement but DL's - if they were forced out of DAL.

there is no reason to think that DL has backed down from that position at this point.

once again, there is nothing that AA and DL would BOTH love to do than pull the rug out from under WN at DAL... operating 97% of the seats at an airport is such an easy antitrust case.

It's time for the case to go to court and for WN to be put back into their box.
 
except that even the DOT said that WN has to accommodate DL.

that is why WN is playing with fire by walking into court or allowing a competitor to walk into court when the controlling federal agency has said that WN is not as free to do what it wants as it thinks.

I'm ready for this to go to court.
 
SWA continues to add more cities out of their home base.    as for the DL lawsuits  Im still waiting for them to file it over the US/AA merger   🙂      According to the link you provided WN says theyre making good on the promises they made with adding more cities to their network out of DAL
 
 
Of course for the DL lawsuit  all of us were expecting them to file it over the US/AA merger  then the DC slot issue   and neither has occurred  yet...   So it appears that the one who is smart here is most likely and most definitely not WT    Secondly I am not worried about my job security   Afterall I did not take the money and run run run run  like a FORMER DL REVENUE CLOWN DID
 
WorldTraveler said:
except that even the DOT said that WN has to accommodate DL.

that is why WN is playing with fire by walking into court or allowing a competitor to walk into court when the controlling federal agency has said that WN is not as free to do what it wants as it thinks.

I'm ready for this to go to court.
Click to expand...
WN doesn't care what the DOT has to say as long as it benefits them. 
 
topDawg said:
Why wouldn't they? The .gov has already proven that Southwest doesn't have to follow any anti-trust laws. 
 
the issue however is that the courts aren't controlled by the DOT.
Click to expand...
No, the courts don't have the same latitude that DOT has to redefine policy... The courts only gets to decide which laws apply.

Since there is no Federal law which requires an airport to evict a tenant from their own leasehold to accommodate a non-tenant, it's going to be interesting to see what grounds DOT or DL have to try and define how WN can use their real estate.

Right now, if they're looking at a policy decision (e.g. the letter) and a law, the law usually takes precedence.
 
eolesen said:
No, the courts don't have the same latitude that DOT has to redefine policy... The courts only gets to decide which laws apply.

Since there is no Federal law which requires an airport to evict a tenant from their own leasehold to accommodate a non-tenant, it's going to be interesting to see what grounds DOT or DL have to try and define how WN can use their real estate.

Right now, if they're looking at a policy decision (e.g. the letter) and a law, the law usually takes precedence.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the WA say that the lease hold carriers must find room for airlines that want to fly into DAL? That is what was explained to me 
 
also I still have no idea how WA is legal because of Air21...... 
 
No, the courts don't have the same latitude that DOT has to redefine policy... The courts only gets to decide which laws apply.

Since there is no Federal law which requires an airport to evict a tenant from their own leasehold to accommodate a non-tenant, it's going to be interesting to see what grounds DOT or DL have to try and define how WN can use their real estate.

Right now, if they're looking at a policy decision (e.g. the letter) and a law, the law usually takes precedence.
Click to expand...
like Hades they don't.

there have been MASSIVE changes in US policy that have been completely decided by the judiciary

and the Administration

the only ones that HAVE NOT been a part of the massive changes that have taken place in American society has been the Legislature.

you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that there are airport access laws which require that a certain amount of access be made available to non-lease holders at US airports.

again, DAL is one of the VERY FEW airports in the entire US that does not have common use gates - which exist specifically to ensure that competition is maintained.

DAL's leases are defective in not providing for access to non-lease holders.

And, btw, the DOT agreed with DL. For months we heard that DL was barking up a tree by themselves.

now we find out that the DOT has been supporting DL's position all along.

The DOJ made the lease transfer conditional on DL remaining, not just thru the end of the lease but on an ongoing basis.

WN is WAY OUT OF LINE with their expectations of dominating DAL.

and again, you aren't smart enough to realize it but WN's success is costing AA far more than it is costing DL.

this isn't an internet pi87sing contest between me and a bunch of people who can't admit I am right.

this is about fair and open access - something WN does not want despite the fact that it went screaming to the DOJ and DOT about needing access to DCA and LGA - which it already had - even though AA and DL had nowhere near as much of the market as WN does at DAL.

WN's position is so hypocritical that it will take no time for the case to be ruled AGAINST WN.

it's time for it to go to court and for WN to be reduced to the 55% of the DAL market that AA/US was limited to in the number of DCA slots.

that would be 11 gates for WN and 9 for the rest of everyone.

And I can assure you that AA would be happy to join DL in the case if it got 2 gates out of the deal.
 
may be its bec you are not right even though you always claim to be right    mr perfect
 
no, I am right but you aren't capable of admitting that someone else can be.

and the topic is not about me although you and others love to make it so.

WN's growth at DAL is hurting AA WAY more than DL.

Kev is right that DL would redeploy the aircraft if it is kicked out of DAL... but the part he is wrong about is that DL will easily walk away.

DL isn't going to walk away from DAL without a fight because being there is about what is right.

It is flat out wrong for WN to be able to dominate DAL just months after whining to the DOT that it was being excluded from DCA and LGA despite the fact that it bought FL and gained plenty of slots, dismantled FL's operations, and raised fares dramatically.

WN needs to be seen as the hypocrite that it is - demanding access to DCA and LGA on the basis of fair access but dominating DAL far worse than any other legacy carrier dominates any other airport.

Take the case to court... cut WN's legs out from under them at DAL.

11 gates - 55% of DAL - just like what AA/US was held to at DCA.
 
topDawg said:
Doesn't the WA say that the lease hold carriers must find room for airlines that want to fly into DAL? That is what was explained to me 
 
also I still have no idea how WA is legal because of Air21......
Click to expand...
I think you may have some bad info... The 2006 agreement requires airlines to follow the scarce resource provisions. The SRP's, in turn, require airlines to accommodate other carriers, but also explicitly say an airline doesn't have to reduce its schedules in order to accommodate the carrier requesting space.

FWAAA has covered it in a lot of detail before:

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57698-city-of-dallas-tells-delta-it-can-no-longer-fly-out-of-love-field/?view=findpost&p=1129359

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57698-city-of-dallas-tells-delta-it-can-no-longer-fly-out-of-love-field/?view=findpost&p=1127692

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57698-city-of-dallas-tells-delta-it-can-no-longer-fly-out-of-love-field/?view=findpost&p=1123658
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top