Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Chicago Says It Rules Gates At Mdw

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

lowecur

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
2,317
Well we are beginning to see more clarity from the city as the BK decision gets closer. They are in essence throwing cold water on the judge's decision and threatening to sue if they don't agree. They are specific that any airline wishing to take over those gates should be in formal discussions with the City. The City has said they have received no proposals from SWA or AWA. We know they have received a formal proposal from AirTran, so they are in the game. Since Jetblue was not mentioned, they have not been eliminated and it's my guess they are submitting a formal proposal. It's interesting Chicago says they will insist on 1000 seats offered per gate for minimum utilization. AirTran says they cannot offer that until 2006, nor could Jetblue. An AWA deal could. The city also said competition at the airport is very important in any decision. This in essence would throw out a SWA deal.

City says it rules gates at Midway

Chicago demands approval over ATA's successor

Mark Skertic
Tribune staff reporter

November 25, 2004

Chicago aviation officials are insisting that they have final say over who gets control of 14 ATA Airlines gates at Midway Airport, not the airline nor the bankruptcy court judge overseeing the sale of its assets.

Furthermore, the city has threatened legal action if the judge ignores Chicago's request to OK who ultimately can use the gates.

The tussle for Midway's gates, which is being monitored closely by other airlines, potentially could slow ATA's efforts to emerge from bankruptcy.

When it filed for Chapter 11 protection last month, ATA secured an $89.5 million deal with Orlando-based AirTran Airways that includes rights to Midway gates as well as landing rights at other airports.

But in a recent filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Indianapolis, Chicago made clear that any deal that includes the gates rights needs the city's blessing.

"The right to use the 14 gates and facilities at Midway cannot be simply assigned to just any entity that has sufficiently deep pockets," the city said in its court filing.

Unlike gates at O'Hare airport, which belong to airlines, Midway's gates are owned by the City of Chicago. The city wants the court to require bidders to negotiate with Chicago aviation officials.

"Failure to do so may result in costly litigation and delay," the city warned in its filing.

The city's threats to slow the bankruptcy proceedings come as it seeks to ensure significantly more capacity--and ultimately more revenue--at Midway.

Specifically, aviation officials want an airline that will spur growth at the South Side airport, which handles more than 17 million passengers annually.

The next tenant at ATA's gates will be required to meet what the city calls Midway's general utilization rate--1,000 scheduled departing seats per day for each gate, the court filing revealed.

That would be a substantial increase from the minimums ATA was required to meet since 1998, when it received "grandfathered gate status," the filing stated. At the time, Midway was undergoing a massive renovation that expanded the airport and gave it a much-needed facelift.

Currently, ATA is required to fly only a single daily flight, with at least 69 seats, at 12 of its 14 gates.

Details on the exact number of departing seats per gate for ATA were not available from the city on Wednesday. An Aviation Department spokeswoman said ATA has averaged six flights a day at each of its Midway gates.

The Boeing jets ATA flies have at least 175 seats, which would have enabled the airline to meet Midway's utilization standard.

Curbing interest in gates

Chicago's enforcement of the utilization rate will limit the ability of some airlines to bid on ATA's gate leases, said Aaron Gellman, a professor at the Transportation Center in Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.

"It will chill the interest of some airlines to take over those gates," Gellman said. "They wouldn't be able to do it. A thousand seats a day per gate is a lot."

Indianapolis-based ATA filed for bankruptcy in October. At the same time, the carrier announced it had reached its deal with AirTran.

The gate deal prompted an executive at JetBlue Airways, a rival low-cost carrier, to scoff that ATA was trying to sell something it didn't own. JetBlue has said it has inquired about Midway gates, but it will not enter the bidding for ATA's assets.

Southwest and America West Airlines have filed notices with the bankruptcy court that they are interested in bidding on some of ATA's assets.

The city has not disputed that ATA's Midway use agreements are valuable assets that can be bid on, but aviation officials want to ensure that the eventual owner of the gates has worked out a new deal with the city.

"The bottom line is that the ATA use agreement is different from other commercial agreements, where performance and rent are usually the only relevant considerations," the city said in its filing. "The determination of which airlines to lease gates to involves numerous considerations other than the ability to pay rent."

The city also must consider whether airlines are able to meet state and federal regulations and ensure competition for passengers continues, Aviation Department spokeswoman Annette Martinez said.

Neither Southwest nor America West have submitted proposals to the city, she said.

Southwest could be in a position to strengthen its dominant position at the airport. It controls 19 of Midway's 43 gates. America West, which has said it might be interested in acquiring all of ATA, could establish a significant Chicago presence with one move.

AirTran would be able to meet Midway's utilization rate by 2006, said Richard P. Magurno, senior vice president, general counsel and secretary.

"We're actively working with the city in connection with this transaction," Magurno said.

Debt payment obligation

The deal the two airlines have struck includes a $7 million payment by AirTran to the City of Chicago to retire debts owed by ATA for construction of a jet bridge and two expansion gates.

While the bankruptcy moves forward, ATA met with union leaders this week to inform them that 600 to 700 pilots and up to 800 flight attendants could be laid off if AirTran takes over the Midway operation.

The ATA-AirTran agreement "only calls for preferential interviews for AirTran pilots," said Rusty Ayers, spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association.

"And depending on the way you read it, it's preferential interviews only for employees who are residents of the city [of Chicago]--not preferential interviews for everyone. So, there's no guarantee AirTran will pick up a single ATA pilot."

- - -

Midway Airport gates

Southwest Airlines: 19

ATA Airlines: 14

Continental Airlines: 3

Northwest Airlines: 2

Other carriers share: 5


Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
 
"The next tenant at ATA's gates will be required to meet what the city calls Midway's general utilization rate--1,000 scheduled departing seats per day for each gate, the court filing revealed".

Let us know how that works out for you Dick Daley.
 
If AWA is considering the whole airline then there is no reason to talk to Daley and the city.

If the BK court approves an AWA deal and AWA offers employment to most of the ATA flight and ground crews, there is no way the city could block the deal.

Could you imagine the PR. "Sorry AWA but since you cannot operate 1000/seats per gate every day we will block the deal. We think it's better for 600 pilots and 600 FA's to lose their jobs because we really need 1000 seats/day."


Daley's just pissed that he doesn't run the show here.

1000 seats a day over 14 gates would mean AWA would have to operate 105 flights a day using only 134 seat 737's. Any A319's would mean an increase in flights. Use of the 737-800's - which have too many seats for the MDW markets served by ATA would = 80 flights/day.
 
Dizel8 said:
"The next tenant at ATA's gates will be required to meet what the city calls Midway's general utilization rate--1,000 scheduled departing seats per day for each gate, the court filing revealed".

Let us know how that works out for you Dick Daley.
That's exactly why I don't think long term leases will be signed on those gates right away. I think the City will catagorize them as "general usage," until such time that a carrier can demonstrate to the City that they have a growth plan. I think the gates will be split between Jetblue, AirTran, and anyone else who feels they can put 1000 seats per day on a gate. This will give the gates full utilization and maximum landing and gate usage fees for the City. What will be interesting is as Jetblue and AirTran grow from 4 or 5 gates apiece, is how the City will award or subtract future gates (lottery?). You may see the 5 "general usage gates" that are at the airport now be included as part of the long term leases for any carrier in the next 3 years that wants to expand.
 
Last edited:
Cactus73 said:
If AWA is considering the whole airline then there is no reason to talk to Daley and the city.

If the BK court approves an AWA deal and AWA offers employment to most of the ATA flight and ground crews, there is no way the city could block the deal.
Wrong!!!!!!!!!!

The City will take it to the Supreme Court and the judge knows it. There is no way he will award the gates without the Cities blessing. He doesn't want those gates tied up in litigation. That's not to say that the AWA deal won't get the Cities blessing, it's just the judge won't make any decision without it.
 
I think it is unlikely, that any carrier would subject themselves to Dicks demand, particularily if there is a caveat, that says those gates may be taken away any time another carriers deems them suitable.

I am curious, if the 1000 pax a day apllies to gates used by SWA, NWA, CAL etc.

As someone else said, I think Dick is trying deperately to run the show and dictate terms, but not sure he will succeed.
 
Cactus73 said:
Daley's just pissed that he doesn't run the show here.
Don't worry. It's just Daley pissing on his tree. He knows that everything is negotable. He's just marking his place (and rightful place) at the bargaining table with the gate's successor.

Fate.
 
SWA will get the gates it wants. It is the only company that can, at present, feasibly do 1000 seats a day at the new gates. SWA could actually lower its total number of flights per day and still make the quota with the new gates. Don't forget, we are locked into the same utilization rates at our existing gates as ATA is with theirs. All we have to do is transfer flying from our existing gates to our "new" gates to fullfil the obligation. Then gradually grow back into our "old" gates as we methodically grow at MDW.

You will be supprised at what the mayor will agree to when he has no other options. You can bet that his options will be limited considering the current state of the industry in regards to his demands.

JetBlue has said the are not interested. (Lowcur, reread the article you posted)
 
Dizel8 said:
I think it is unlikely, that any carrier would subject themselves to Dicks demand, particularily if there is a caveat, that says those gates may be taken away any time another carriers deems them suitable.

I am curious, if the 1000 pax a day apllies to gates used by SWA, NWA, CAL etc.

As someone else said, I think Dick is trying deperately to run the show and dictate terms, but not sure he will succeed.
Well maybe the City will give longterm leases to anyone other than SWA that can provide 1000 seats per day per gate after 1 or 2 years of service. This way you eliminate any airline that would throw planes at a gate for the short term. Don't forget, that's only 7 flights per day for Jetblue and 6 per day for AWA, and 9 for AirTran using the 717.
 
roughneck said:
SWA will get the gates it wants. It is the only company that can, at present, feasibly do 1000 seats a day at the new gates. SWA could actually lower its total number of flights per day and still make the quota with the new gates. Don't forget, we are locked into the same utilization rates at our existing gates as ATA is with theirs. All we have to do is transfer flying from our existing gates to our "new" gates to fullfil the obligation. Then gradually grow back into our "old" gates as we methodically grow at MDW.

You will be supprised at what the mayor will agree to when he has no other options. You can bet that his options will be limited considering the current state of the industry in regards to his demands.

JetBlue has said the are not interested. (Lowcur, reread the article you posted)
You'd better re-read the article. Jetblue is not interested in bidding for the gates in BK court, but they are interested in the gates for $0. You should also read the part about maintaining competition at the MDW. SWA will be lucky to get 1 gate.;)
 
LowerIQ. Why so biased about Jet blue? It doesn't happen to have anything to do with a EMB order now does it?
 
N1atEcon said:
LowerIQ. Why so biased about Jet blue? It doesn't happen to have anything to do with a EMB order now does it?
Yes...:)
 
Everyone hates Daley due to the Meigs issue, and I really can't defend him on that. What he is trying to do here is protect jobs for Chicago workers and maintain the Chicago economy. Who can blame him? I am actually proud he is stepping in and trying to save Chicago jobs. That's all we need: more unemployed workers in this country. Who knows, maybe Daley stepping in and keeping the Midway gates from getting eaten by the vultures in this industry might save some pilot, F/A and ramp jobs at ATA. Which is a very good thing.
 
FlyChicaga said:
Everyone hates Daley due to the Meigs issue, and I really can't defend him on that. What he is trying to do here is protect jobs for Chicago workers and maintain the Chicago economy. Who can blame him? I am actually proud he is stepping in and trying to save Chicago jobs. That's all we need: more unemployed workers in this country. Who knows, maybe Daley stepping in and keeping the Midway gates from getting eaten by the vultures in this industry might save some pilot, F/A and ramp jobs at ATA. Which is a very good thing.

What are you talking about?

How is putting a 1000/seat use quota and playing ownership rights protecting jobs?
Basically his quota amounts to a "wage and price" control. That's all we need is for state and city goverments to have control over inter-state commerce. The whole point of the inter-state commerce acts dating back to the railroads is to prevent power hungry jack-asses such as Daley from having too much influence.

I guess if you are into over government control of the economy you should defend him.

AWA's bid (if we even make one) will probably save the most amount of jobs. Telling us how much or little we have to use gates will cost jobs.

He's not interested in jobs, he's only concerned about himself. He doesn't like the fact that an Indiana court is in control.

It's all about power. He pissed on the FAA in the Meigs deal too so don't even go there.
 
Anything/Everything's negotiable

Destroying Meigs is a pretty tough one to overcome, IMHO. Normally we really didn't see too many "ground stops" out of MDW - the rule used to be, if ORD was stopped, MDW wasn't - and vice versa, but really, ORD might have been backed up for hours while planes were departing easily out of MDW. Now that Meigs is no longer, I've been part of several ground stops this year out of MDW. More airline traffic in general, more biz-jet traffic - whatever...it really reeks, though, to say that you're closing Meigs due to "safety concerns" when all you're really accomplishing is putting more pressure on MDW and ORD.

That's been debated ad nauseum, I digress.

Just like the guy with the picture of the pawn for his avatar said, it's negotiable. Where did this 1000 seat number come from? Supposedly ATA is "grandfathered in" - well, I'll bet SWA, NWA and all those carriers that have those gates at MDW (who have been there for a long time) - are probably grandfathered in as well. This seems like something that came about when they started to renovate the airport years ago.

Lowecur is right, though - the city WILL sue and it WILL tie things up in litigation. Maybe it is a power play - but it's also a political one. ATA's HQ has never been in Chicago and it never will (unless you know something that I don't) - but they were a MAJOR part of the entire Midway renovation plan - as such, quite a bit of their business interests and obligations are tied up in Chicago - not Indianapolis. It's also political suicide (so much as it can be for Daley) to simply roll over and allow for thousands of jobs to be lost - or at least, for the PERCEPTION of that to get out in the public -- even if it does or doesn't happen.

If some carrier (AWA, whomever) presents Daley and the city with a good deal that doesn't quite meet that 1000 seat per day stipulation, as long as it's met by 20xx, I'll bet they strike a deal. Don't doubt for a minute, though, that the mayor will tie things up in litigation if he doesn't like the deal. Just like he said about the Meigs thing -- why? "Because I could." Argh.

-brew3
 
brew3departure said:
Lowecur is right, though - the city WILL sue and it WILL tie things up in litigation. Maybe it is a power play - but it's also a political one. ATA's HQ has never been in Chicago and it never will (unless you know something that I don't) - but they were a MAJOR part of the entire Midway renovation plan - as such, quite a bit of their business interests and obligations are tied up in Chicago - not Indianapolis. It's also political suicide (so much as it can be for Daley) to simply roll over and allow for thousands of jobs to be lost - or at least, for the PERCEPTION of that to get out in the public -- even if it does or doesn't happen.

The point I was making was the Daley is getting dangerously close to meddling in the affairs of inter-state commerce as defined in the 1887 act.

He and the city do have a say as airports are somewhat locally funded, but he may find few friends in the federal courts.

I'm not a lawyer, so these things go way over my head, but I am fairly sure that setting quotas on a company that engages in inter-state commerce at an airport built largely on federal funds and grants..is leading down a rocky road.

Do we really want the mayors of all the cities we serve regulating our business plans?
 
Cactus73 said:
The point I was making was the Daley is getting dangerously close to meddling in the affairs of inter-state commerce as defined in the 1887 act.
You're right. He may be going about it the wrong way.

If he simply said, "We'll be happy to renegotiate the gate-lease agreement with ATA's successor at MDW." I don't think there would be any arguments. Daley has never been very well spoken. He comes across like the thug he is. But he is just trying to better-deal the gate leases for Chicago.

Fate
 
PHXFLYR said:
Daley is a first-class jacka$$....Period!

PHXFLYR:cool:

Exactly!

If he can set departure quotas on the gates why not fares too? Any airline that uses the gates can't charge more than $50 for any seat. This will keep fares low in Chicago using his logic.

What a thug.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top