Unused Routes

[laura62]

As I was evesdropping on another airline forum I read the following:

quote:

as UA has found that DL has "stolen" some of its unused Brazil frequencies?
endquote:


Is this true? Can another airline take/use/"steal" unused frequencies/routes from another airline?
I believe we have many unused int'l routes/frequencies.

 

[Bear96]

As I was evesdropping on another airline forum I read the following:

quote:

as UA has found that DL has "stolen" some of its unused Brazil frequencies?
endquote:
Is this true? Can another airline take/use/"steal" unused frequencies/routes from another airline?
I believe we have many unused int'l routes/frequencies.

[post="284891"][/post]​

I saw that too. But then I noticed it was perennial United-hater WorldTraveler who said it, so take it for what it is worth.

Generally, it is true that there is a "use it or lose it" policy for routes governed by international aviation treaties. If an airline does not use a frequency for a certain amount of time, they can lose the right to fly it at all and someone else can come in and start up on it, subject to all sorts of details and exceptions.

But I am unsure specfically what WT was referring to. (And it was not worth asking him directly, because the response from him would simply have been "exalted DL is just and wise in all things and therefore immune from bankruptcy, while nasty evil UA is doomed, DOOMED I tell ya and it serves 'em right!" which wouldn't have been particularly helpful so I didn't feel like getting into it with him.) As far as I know, UA made a conscious decision to not use some Brazil frequencies, especially when they moved the deep S.Am. flying from MIA to IAD.

And what also puzzled me was WT's use of the word "stolen." The implication seemed to be that UA was not aware they had to use the frequencies or lose them (or whatever WT was referring to). As if UA, which has one of the most extensive international networks in the world into some of the most contentious airports where the details and intricacies of these agreements are often bitterly fought over and disputed (think NRT and especially LHR), was unaware of the basics of international aviation agreements. 🙄

But then again consider the source.

 

[Fly]

Actually, DL did petition to use the Brasil route that United wasn't using (and got it). But, I believe they only get it for a set period of time (not positive on that though)

 

[767jetz]

(And it was not worth asking him directly, because the response from him would simply have been "exalted DL is just and wise in all things and therefore immune from bankruptcy, while nasty evil UA is doomed, DOOMED I tell ya and it serves 'em right!" which wouldn't have been particularly helpful so I didn't feel like getting into it with him.)

[post="284969"][/post]​

How true it is!

 

[Bear96]

Actually, DL did petition to use the Brasil route that United wasn't using (and got it). But, I believe they only get it for a set period of time (not positive on that though)

[post="284975"][/post]​

But how is that "stealing"? That's how the process works. If Airline A is not using a route, another can petition to use it instead. The way I read it, WT made it sound like UA wasn't aware of this possibility and was surprised when it happened.

 

[767jetz]

But how is that "stealing"? That's how the process works. If Airline A is not using a route, another can petition to use it instead. The way I read it, WT made it sound like UA wasn't aware of this possibility and was surprised when it happened.

[post="284986"][/post]​

I think Fly was basically agreeing with you. Use it or lose it is not a "steal," just DL capitalizing on an opportunity that UA temporarily conceded.

Both were business decisions made by each company.

Either way, you are correct in your assessment that WT was attempting to spin it in a way that implied that UA's loss (incompetence) is DL's windfall (superior management.)

We all know that is not the case.

 

[spacewaitress]

Oh please...semantics. Get over it.

 

[Rob]

Most of the frequency allocations granted by the DOT are subject to use-or-lose provisions. If the route or frequency is dormant for 90 days (in most cases), another airline can ask that the frequency be transferred to them.

It's not theft; but when an airline is in trouble and halts a route for what they hope is a temporary period, they risk being taken advantage of.

 

[laura62]

I was also puzzled by the word "steal" which was what set me to wondering.


Thanks for your responses.

 

[DLFlyer31]

I was also puzzled by the word "steal" which was what set me to wondering.
Thanks for your responses.

[post="285206"][/post]​

The only way I think you could use the term "stolen" was that the frequencies DL received from UA were originally purchased from Pan Am. During the battle over these frequencies, UA claimed that these frequencies were part of an asset purchase and not subject to the traditional dormancy requirements. The DOT didn't buy it and transferred the routes to DL.

Further, UA argued that should DL fail to use the frequencies, they should be returned to UA. The DOT didn't buy this argument either.

In fact, I believe this is probably one of the first cases where an airline lost a route that they had previously purchased. So in a way, DL took frequencies that another airline had purchased...which is somewhat like stealing.

 

[Borescope]

Amazing how you can twist anything to make it fit. Reading from the second post to the last, everyone has a different spin :wacko:

 

[TheDog2004]

Either way, you are correct in your assessment that WT was attempting to spin it in a way that implied that UA's loss (incompetence) is DL's windfall (superior management.)

We all know that is not the case.

[post="284991"][/post]​

Delta isn't superior, but their current management is a heck of a lot better than United's.

 

[Fly]

If United is successful in not only bringing United out of bk but making them a financial success too, you may find that the management team is the best out there. Of course everybody criticizes them now, but in a year from now what will be their opinion? Especially if Delta or Northwest are in bankruptcy themselves.

 

[TheDog2004]

If United is successful in not only bringing United out of bk but making them a financial success too, you may find that the management team is the best out there. Of course everybody criticizes them now, but in a year from now what will be their opinion? Especially if Delta or Northwest are in bankruptcy themselves.

[post="285550"][/post]​

For United's sake I hope that you are right, but so far the only thing they are good at is stalling. They don't seem to know how to get United out of Chapter 11 and don't appear to be in any hurry to do so. furthermore, they aren't being pressured by anyone to exit bankruptcy or liquidate. As a result, they are able to compete without many of the financial burdens other airlines who are struggling (Delta and Northwest, especially) have to endure.

I will give United this much credit - they are taking advantage of a system that rewards failure and using it to the utmost. Northwest and Delta should be rewarded for trying to avoid bankruptcy. Instead they are being punished for it.

That disgusts me.

 

[WorldTraveler]

insightful and true, Dog.

I'm glad you have enjoyed my choice of the word "stolen" and will be happy to enlighten you why I used the word.

United actually was quite indignant in its filings with the DOT that Delta had no right to take those rights because they were granted to UA as part of its purchase of the Pan Am South American assets which made UA (along with AA) a grandfathered carrer. The DOT agreed with Delta's argument that grandfathered rights cannot be exempted from the usual 90 day dormancy rules that govern all airline rights. Delta also purchased huge amounts of route authority to Africa and the uttermost parts of the earth as part of its transatlantic asset acquisition but most of it has gone unused and is available to any US carrier. The DOT also agreed with Delta's argument that route authority in a limited access argument must be used or it should become available to another carrier who is willing to use it.
Delta was PERMANENTLY awarded a third route to Brazil using seven of United's unused weekly frequencies and DL is using that authority to start an ATL-Rio flight to supplement its double daily ATL-Sao Paulo authority.
Based on the ATL-GIG finding, CO and DL have both petitioned the DOT for authority to acquire seven of UA's unused frequencies to Buenos Aires. DL wants it for JFK-EZE with a 763 while CO wants it for IAH-EZE with a 762. Given that IAH is a new gateway and CO is a new entrant to Argentina, I expect that CO will win the route.
To recap the original posting, my point was that UA acted surprised that DL should be allowed to "take" route authority from it. The DOT saw otherwise, a strong reminder to airlines to use the route authority it holds or risk losing it.