We are all waiting for all the law suits from Delta that they and one individual promised. They keep promising and promising suits but never follow thru, what gives? I will still say good luck Delta, it's a long haul uphill for you. We will all see the results soon, and I am hearing of some rumblings that it will in fact go SWA's direction. Thx robbed for the explanation...robbedagain said:
UA transfers its two DAL (Love Field) gates to Southwest; Is DL out?
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
what you and E don't get is that there is nothing in any document related to DAL that allows any carrier to gain a 97% dominance of the market to the conclusion of other carriers and a complete violation of antitrust laws.
the reason why the legal framework of the agreements haven't been challenged is because there was no reason to know what would happen.
E or you or anyone else that thinks that WN can defend under the WA, 5PA, or any other document what has happened at DAL in a court of law is woefully ignorant.
WN is trying to bully everyone around including demanding access to DAL.
11 gates. that is the proportionate to the limit the DOJ imposed at DCA on AA.
the reason why the legal framework of the agreements haven't been challenged is because there was no reason to know what would happen.
E or you or anyone else that thinks that WN can defend under the WA, 5PA, or any other document what has happened at DAL in a court of law is woefully ignorant.
WN is trying to bully everyone around including demanding access to DAL.
11 gates. that is the proportionate to the limit the DOJ imposed at DCA on AA.
Here's more on DAL. By April and Aug DAL will be at max capacity between SWA and Virgin alone covering 200 plus flights per day with 10 flights per gate per day. The SRP states that no airline would be forced to reduce schedules in order to accommodate. This is getting more and more interesting as we get closer and closer to July 6th. Terry Maxon does a very good job at looking at all aspects in this article...
Southwest to add 8 more nonstop cities from Love Field
Southwest to add 8 more nonstop cities from Love Field
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
the problem with WN's strategy is that WN has specifically and repeatedly ADDED flights in an attempt to block DL when it was specifically told by the DOT and DOJ that its lease transfer from UA required them to honor the DL lease and to continue the same mindset beyond July.
DL continues to sell seats from DAL into August and beyond.
DL is clearly confident that WN is playing at best a game of brinksmanship that they hope DL will blink and leave.... highly unlikely this far into the process.
WN can also reduce its own flights to conform with DOT guidance or find that the case goes to court with the DOT testifying for DL and saying that they provided that guidance specifically to prevent DAL from becoming even more monopolized by one carrier than it already is.
you and E can claim any document you want but there is and never will be any defense for any carrier dominating 97% of the seats at one airport, esp. when the DOJ required AA/US to divest seats to prevent them from having excess market power.
WN is taking a calculated risk to try to add as many flights as it can hoping that they will win but knowing full well that if they don't try, they likely will never be able to.
DL continues to sell seats from DAL into August and beyond.
DL is clearly confident that WN is playing at best a game of brinksmanship that they hope DL will blink and leave.... highly unlikely this far into the process.
WN can also reduce its own flights to conform with DOT guidance or find that the case goes to court with the DOT testifying for DL and saying that they provided that guidance specifically to prevent DAL from becoming even more monopolized by one carrier than it already is.
you and E can claim any document you want but there is and never will be any defense for any carrier dominating 97% of the seats at one airport, esp. when the DOJ required AA/US to divest seats to prevent them from having excess market power.
WN is taking a calculated risk to try to add as many flights as it can hoping that they will win but knowing full well that if they don't try, they likely will never be able to.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
and the same principle can be applied to WN. they can pull their flights and route those passengers over the rest of their network if they can't figure out how to accommodate DL's flights and operate their 180 flights on their 17.5 gates with DL using a half gate.
it isn't a big surprise how badly WN is trying to get to exactly the 10 flights/gate that DAL says is full.
WN won't win its attempts to dominate DAL.... WN knows it, DL knows it, the DOT knows it.
WN is just pushing as hard as they can for as long as they can.
it isn't a big surprise how badly WN is trying to get to exactly the 10 flights/gate that DAL says is full.
WN won't win its attempts to dominate DAL.... WN knows it, DL knows it, the DOT knows it.
WN is just pushing as hard as they can for as long as they can.
WN has an absolute defense to an antitrust action claiming that its control of 16 gates is anti-competitive, and that's the WARA where Congress and the President gave WN a pass on those 16 gates.
WN's recent acquisition of two more gates, on the other hand, has not been blessed by lawmakers, but there are rumours that the DOJ has approved the WN lease of the two extra UA (formerly ExpressJet) gates. This is where it might get interesting. Suppose someone brings a lawsuit alleging an antitrust violation for those two new gates - WN doesn't have an ironclad defense that permits it to control 90% of the gates like it does for the original 80% of the gates.
WN's recent acquisition of two more gates, on the other hand, has not been blessed by lawmakers, but there are rumours that the DOJ has approved the WN lease of the two extra UA (formerly ExpressJet) gates. This is where it might get interesting. Suppose someone brings a lawsuit alleging an antitrust violation for those two new gates - WN doesn't have an ironclad defense that permits it to control 90% of the gates like it does for the original 80% of the gates.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
your 2nd paragraph is where the problem lies and that is exactly why the DOT told them they had to accommodate DL as an existing carrier.
The DAL letter said that BOTH the DOT and DOJ, IIRC, said that transfer of the 2 UA gates to WN was dependent on WN honoring the DL sublease and continuing something similar going forward.
2 gates makes a huge difference at an airport where it means the difference in 2 or 3 carriers.
thank you for acknowledging that there is no legal defense that WN can use for dominating the extra 2 gates.
The DAL letter said that BOTH the DOT and DOJ, IIRC, said that transfer of the 2 UA gates to WN was dependent on WN honoring the DL sublease and continuing something similar going forward.
2 gates makes a huge difference at an airport where it means the difference in 2 or 3 carriers.
thank you for acknowledging that there is no legal defense that WN can use for dominating the extra 2 gates.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Yep, which is why I think there may be some ulterior motive, e.g. having DOT provide the political cover for WN cutting back some markets which aren't as strategically important.FWAAA said:
Then again, by the time anyone could bring an antitrust lawsuit and have it heard, VX will probably have cut back service at DAL, and will be begging DL to pick up part of the sublease, and the ATI claims will be nullified.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
I don't think DL cares where the gates come from but that DL be accommodated somehow.
If VX fails - and their 5 flights/ to AUS are a recipe for having WN come after them with all barrels, then they will have had their chance to make it.
what WN can't defend is blocking efforts for any carriers to serve the airport and then dominate nearly every gate.
and WN could still operate its 180 flights/day from 17.5 gates.
If VX fails - and their 5 flights/ to AUS are a recipe for having WN come after them with all barrels, then they will have had their chance to make it.
what WN can't defend is blocking efforts for any carriers to serve the airport and then dominate nearly every gate.
and WN could still operate its 180 flights/day from 17.5 gates.
Yes they did didn't they? Matter fact it was for 13 added flights and growing to 15 added flights on top of the 5 for a grand total of 20. All these tickets were sold when they just thought for sure they were getting the 2 gates being divested by AA which went to Virgin...700UW said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
and despite what you asserted, there were no legal repercussions for DL for selling schedules that had to be pulled.
and given that the DOT is behind DL staying at DAL and said as much in the letter they sent to DAL which incorporated DOT language into the lease transfer of the UA gates to WN, the chances are very slim that WN will win this, esp. since even FWAAA acknowledges that there is NO protection legally for WN regarding more than 16 gates.
and given that the DOT is behind DL staying at DAL and said as much in the letter they sent to DAL which incorporated DOT language into the lease transfer of the UA gates to WN, the chances are very slim that WN will win this, esp. since even FWAAA acknowledges that there is NO protection legally for WN regarding more than 16 gates.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Except it's really not a contradiction. The law requires reasonable accommodation. At some point, there's no room at the inn, and the SRP recognizes both situations. DL seems to be in denial about the latter.topDawg said:
It's unreasonable to expect a leaseholder to be unable to use their leasehold, and I don't think you'll find a single judge at the appeals court level who would rule otherwise (at the lower levels, anything is possible).
- Status
