Virgin Awarded Love Field Gates

[Sluggo_63]

This part was my favorite:

3. Virgin America’s current Dallas fares are higher than Southwest’s fares once Virgin’s fees for checked baggage ($25 on both first and second bags) and ticket changes ($150) are included. Southwest does not charge passengers those fees. Southwest’s estimated fares from DAL to LAX and SFO would be 7% to 9% below Virgin America’s current fares.

...so you're saying that every passenger is going to check two bags and change their ticket, therefore your fares are lower? What if I don't change my ticket and check one bag? Whose fares are lower, then?

 

[Ralph Cramden]

Scoreboard, I'm going to have to invoke the George Carlin defense on you: "Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience".

I don't see any war, civil disturbance, strike or act of god in this case.

Have fun in your world.

 

[HowardBorden]

That's a stupid comment. The DOJ told AA that VX was the only eligible bidder, so does that not rule out WN and DL?

I guess the minor fact that AA holds the lease with right to sublet with only the duty to "consult" with the city can be swept aside with a pizza party?

There is going to be lawsuits galore no matter what happens when the city council offers it's direction to the city manager. Gotta love Texas politics!

That is not at all what the city of Dallas claims. They specifically state:

Airports can lease gates on following basis
-Exclusive use
-Airlines have full control, including branding and scheduling, over space

-Preferential use
-Airlines have control but gives right for airport to allow
new entrants to operate at gates that are not being fully utilized

-Common use
-gate space and time of use is managed by the airport

Dallas Love Field [?DAL?] has leased all available gates on a
preferential use basis
-Southwest Airlines
-16 gates
-United Airlines
-2 gates
-American Airlines
-2 gates

If the right to use the preferential gates ceases, they become common use
-Common use gates are managed by the airport



The city of Dallas is taking this authority directly from the 5 party agreement signed by Dallas, Southwest and American.

In the end no matter who the gates go to, there will be litigation, LOTS of litigation.

 

[BuckMurdock1]

In the end no matter who the gates go to, there will be litigation, LOTS of litigation.

Yeah- the only ones who'll be 'winning' in the end are the damn lawyers.

 

[scoreboardII]

Scoreboard, I'm going to have to invoke the George Carlin defense on you: "Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience".

I don't see any war, civil disturbance, strike or act of god in this case.

Have fun in your world.

Those are some examples. Others include but are not limited to federal law or directives changing. The bankruptcy of a company can and has been used to invoke the clause, this would then be a prefect use of the clause. Sorry if it doesn't fit your horse blinder view of the world. But between the two of us, you're the only admitted troll, good day.

 

[Flyer1015]

No, the DOJ told VA they could have it because that is who AA wanted the gates to go to if AA couldn't have them for themselves.

And yes, the city owns the property, last time I checked, that meant something in Texas, and the US of A. The DOJ can suck it.

Yes but per AA's lease agreement on two gates with the city of Dallas, AA can sublease them to another carrier without unduly denial. I just don't see what leg the Dallas city officials are standing on to deny AA's contractual right to sublease the two gates out.

 

[Flyby1206]

Yes but per AA's lease agreement on two gates with the city of Dallas, AA can sublease them to another carrier without unduly denial. I just don't see what leg the Dallas city officials are standing on to deny AA's contractual right to sublease the two gates out.

I agree with you and think it is some serious BS, but I am assuming the city of Dallas feels that since AA cannot use their preferential gates anymore (due to DOJ ruling) then the gates revert back to common use and under the control of the city of Dallas.

 

[Flopgut]

Haven't read anything that says American wanted the gates to go to Virgin. Pretty clear in this link:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...on-doj-list-for-dallas-love-field-gates.html/


"The DOJ has advised us that Virgin is the only acceptable party from their perspective. We?ve been told by the DOJ that Virgin is their preferred candidate to get these gates.
?Accordingly, we entered into an assignment agreement to assign the gates to Virgin. That was not agreed to by the city."

 

[scoreboardII]

I'm thinking AA would want to keep VA at DFW vice let them have an in at LUV.

 

[Flopgut]

You might be correct to have suspicion, but American is being clear that they are only doing exactly what the DOJ has told them to do

 

[Flyer1015]

I agree with you and think it is some serious BS, but I am assuming the city of Dallas feels that since AA cannot use their preferential gates anymore (due to DOJ ruling) then the gates revert back to common use and under the control of the city of Dallas.

That shouldn't matter. The lease IIRC goes for another 14 years. If AA can't use it then they should be allowed to use their sublease clause of the gate contractual agreement that the city of Dallas officials agreed to. If they have a problem with that then they shouldn't have put a sublease section in their agreement.

Apparently Branson is coming to town. Hopefully this goes the way it should. At no other airport in the country has any airline owned 90% of the gates/operation. No reason SWA should get the additional two gates when they already own 80% of the airport.

 

[HowardBorden]

I'm curious, and I certainly don't know the answer to this question.

Who trumps who? If the DOJ asserts (as it appears it has) that Virgin is the only suitable divestiture candidate for the 2 Love gates and the city of Dallas cites the 5 party agreement which states that if the use of the preferential gates ceases, they come under the control of the city, who wins that argument? Does the DOJ have the authority to ammend the terms of the 5 party agreement?

Obviously they have some authority to abrogate the agreement, because the agreement also stated that AA would retain the rights to the 2 gates in question. But the role of the DOJ in that instance was in relation to the anti-trust case brought forth to remedy alleged harms of the merger. Does the DOJ have the authority to overrule Dallas' assertions that control of the gates goes back to Dallas if AA can no longer utilize those gates?

An interesting debate for sure. It seems that the City of Dallas better be ready to pony up some serious legal fees if they don't follow the DOJ divestiture stipulations. On the other hand, the city and SWA funded the new terminal, shouldn't they have some ability to steer what they consider to be the solution that will be of most benefit to the citizens of that community? Never the less, it will most definitely get more interesting.

 

[Saluki Dawg]

The DOJ is requiring divestment of the gates which means that they go back to the City of Dallas. A sublease by AA to VX is not a divestment in this case since AA would retain ownership of the gates. That's why the Dallas City Council is holding a vote later this week. They will ultimately decide which Airline will get the gates, not AA, VX, or the DOJ.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

I think the problem is that Virgin was never limited in its growth if the Dallas market. It can grow as large as it wants to at DFW. So why are they planning this big expansion only if given gates at the cross town airport? Theoretically, couldn't they do whatever they want at DFW and still create the competition, low fares, and additional jobs even if they don't get the gates?

I guess my point is, if you want to compete for the gates, go for it. Keeping in mind that SWA does not have the ability to expand at DFW (even if they wanted to) and virgin can open a mega hub in Dallas with or without the gates if they like.... one could argue that giving SWA the last gates and holding their feet to the fire regarding the expansion would actually create MORE competition IF Virgin chooses to go ahead and expand anyway, but in DFW.

That said, I don't think it would hurt SWA for it to have some progressive new competition in DAL. Virgin has a great product and strong competition can only make SWA a better competitor. It might spark a little innovation from SWA that would not have otherwise existed. I don't think competition is ever a bad thing, but to create a level playing field IF Virgin gets the gates, the DFW and international flight restrictions that remain from the Wright amendment need to be eliminated. (Even if SW chooses not to avail itself of them)

 

[scoreboardII]

delete/.....