Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

[FlyinGuy]

holy cow...nevermind

 

[General Lee]

Delta isn't being evicted, the status quo has not changed at all.

Delta owned no gates before AA was instructed to divest the 2 they owned and Delta still owns no gates.

No one has prevented Delta from leasing gates from any of the three owners of gates at Love, just as they were doing before. Most likely AA would have kicked Delta out anyway in order to utilize the gates themselves now that the onerous restrictions are being lifted.

But DL asked the Mayor of Dallas for help in attaining a gate, and he said he would try to get access, because it would be good for the people of Dallas. Somehow nothing happened.

SWA had a chance to come to ATL prior to their merger with AT. There were plenty of airlines that had a gate or two, like JetBlue and good ole Kiwi way back when. The problem was SWA didn't want just one or two gates, they wanted more or nothing. Delta wanted a few gates for ATL mainline flying at Dallas Love, and E175s to LGA/LAX/DTW etc. After Virgin won the gates, DL only wanted one gate for 5 daily 717s to ATL by January. Looks like that won't happen. Not even one gate. That is the difference Howie.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Bad analogy, Bill.

But to continue with it to its logical conclusion, the fact is, that they didn't "rezone HOU from retail to residential"; they merely built a much bigger "retail mall" up north (IAH). Hobby is still "zoned retail" (as in an operating airport). And it just so happens that we prefer to operate out of the "old, dingy strip mall," instead of the new, gleaming "super mall" that you guys use for your mega-fortress hub-and-spoke operation. That's all.

That's how to properly apply your zoning analogy.

But the larger question is, why the hell do you guys even care where we do our business? You guys were, and still are, free to fly out of HOU as well as IAH. You guys used to operate out of both simultaneously, and I think you still send your feeder airlines' RJs there. You left because you didn't like it there, or it wasn't worth your while anymore. Whatever; that's your choice. But why does it bother you so much that we like it there? Seriously?

Bubba

Whats the matter Bubba....afraid of competition? Afraid The big 3 will expose your can of lies to the traveling public about being the low fare leader?

Maybe thats why somebody wants in.....just like you want more space in LGA (good luck)

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Hey, I agree that everyone should have been able to fly out of DAL since 1971. I'm with you there. I still think it should be the case.

But the legacies agreed to move (to DFW) in return for having a many-times larger airport built to support their operations. In other words, they wanted to move, because DAL wasn't big enough for their expansion plans. DAL still isn't big enough (runway lengths) for the legacies' heavy, intercontinental aircraft.

And to the second part of your rant, we didn't force anyone out of DAL, either "back in the day," or now. Over the years, other airlines came and went at DAL, and all of their own free will. There was plenty of gates in those days, but they usually left because they couldn't make their business model work, and not because anyone forced them out. As far as now goes, if you wanted to operate out of DAL, then maybe you should have fought against the gate restrictions American Airlines insisted on in our battle to lift the WA. (Just like you should have fought against the WA in 1979 as well.) Trust me, limiting DAL gates to 20 (our 16 and the other 4), wasn't Southwest's idea. Nor was it our idea to give American's gates to Virgin instead of you--we all made our pitch for them, and the DOJ picked Virgin over you and us.

Hey, I got an idea....maybe you could spend your money/efforts to lobby/fight to change the DAL restrictions again--this time to add more gates for everyone!

As far as your Parker family thesis goes, I honestly don't know anything about it. Could you provide a little more info?

Bubba

Bubba....

Nobody was interested in corndoggin around Texas and a couple of other states. It was left to you, who operated within that framework established by the existing agreements and did very well I might add.

Later, you decided the existing agreements weren't good for your airline, so you bought politicians, passed out petitions to your passengers to fill out (classy)....and then when all your payouts registered and the amendment gets dropped, you act like "oh, why would anybody want to compete with this little 'ol airline establishing a hub" and using your same contacts and political wizardry, you block anybody wanting to compete.

This isnt about shiny new or better facilities....this is about routes.....and you want to monopolize them....

Cant wait for your latest cry for a Legacy airline to give up more slots at a controlled airport.....cry us a river

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Those 4/5 sentences aren't in touch with reality, at all. I don't recall at any point anyone saying you should give up gates. Reality: Delta is being evicted. It's no real mystery why--They pose the most serious competition to your Love Field cash cow. It's history repeating itself, just as it always does.

Well said Flop.....

The shoe is on the other foot and they act offended when somebody wants to compete.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Well said Flop.....

The shoe is on the other foot and they act offended when somebody wants to compete.

Talk about out-of-touch with reality... What the hell are you two bitching at Southwest for?!

WE didn't "kick you out" of Love Field. WE didn't say you can't compete with us. WE didn't put any limits on Delta in any way, shape, or form. It was American Airlines that forced the limitation on gates, and it was the DOJ gave the gates you were subleasing to Virgin as a condition of the AA-US merger. Southwest had nothing to do with that. Nothing.

But yet you somehow think it's appropriate to blame Southwest for your troubles? What exactly do you think WE did to contribute to your hissy fit? Do you also blame Southwest when the price of oil goes up, or if bad weather screws up your operation in Atlanta? Is that somehow our fault too?

Seriously, just so we're having the same argument, what exactly did we do to screw you in DAL?

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

This post is actually funny...

Bubba....

Nobody was interested in corndoggin around Texas and a couple of other states. It was left to you, who operated within that framework established by the existing agreements and did very well I might add.

In the framework of "existing agreements"? What a joke. You obviously need a history lesson, Bill, since you don't seem to know jack squat about DAL and the Wright Amendment. You obviously don't realize that we started flying from DAL years before the WA was created.

We started flying at DAL in 1971, after a protracted (and partially criminal) attack by other airlines to prevent us from competing. After deregulation in 1978, we planned to fly interstate from Texas. More legal attacks to prevent us from competing followed, all soundly rejected by every court in the land. After all that legal slap down, the other airlines got Speaker Wright to sneak the WA into unrelated legislation in 1979, specifically to hobble Southwest Airlines. Period. It was another attack (and the first successful one, for that matter), to protect other airlines from having to compete with us.

Later, you decided the existing agreements weren't good for your airline, so you bought politicians, passed out petitions to your passengers to fill out (classy)....and then when all your payouts registered and the amendment gets dropped, you act like "oh, why would anybody want to compete with this little 'ol airline establishing a hub" and using your same contacts and political wizardry, you block anybody wanting to compete.

More BS. Actually, impartial studies (ironically, even those paid for by DFW's lobbyists) showed that "existing agreements"--that is the WA that had been shoved down our throat by an AA stooge--weren't good for the people of the Dallas metroplex. They were overpaying for airfare to/from Dallas because the WA prevented actual competition to anything other than the WA states. In fact that protectionist law was already failing on its own lack of merit. Other states' politicians were writing their own amendments to exempt their states, in hopes of getting us to fly there (Shelby Amend., and the last one to add Missouri). We then started a grassroots campaign to "set Love free," and the other parties (AA, etc.) couldn't even pretend with a straight face that DFW needed "protection" from Love Field. Eventually the compromise came which set an end date of eight years. We even had to promise not to fly to any other new state that was exempted until then, because more states' politicians were writing bills hoping to lure us to their cities from DAL, in actual competition with AA. How about that?--Basically, we had to promise American eight more years of monopoly for them. That's how much of a crappy protectionist bill the WA always was.

Your "bought politicians" comment was especially funny, Bill, as the only politician ever bought in this whole debacle was Speaker Wright in 1979. Literally bought and paid for.

This isnt about shiny new or better facilities....this is about routes.....and you want to monopolize them....

Cant wait for your latest cry for a Legacy airline to give up more slots at a controlled airport.....cry us a river

BTW, you also again mentioned Southwest "blocking anybody from competing." Please tell me how we did that. Ever. And give specifics, please. On the other hand, WE never mounted a legal attack on another airline to kill them or prevent them from competing. WE never got a politician to pass a law to specifically limit another airline's expansion plans. You clearly must be thinking of someone else.

BTW, If you're going to give me some more made-up crap about DAL and Delta being evicted, think again. WE didn't do that. If you want to work to get more gates allowed at DAL, then go for it--we'll support your efforts.

We've always been happy to compete head-to-head with any and all comers.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Whats the matter Bubba....afraid of competition? Afraid The big 3 will expose your can of lies to the traveling public about being the low fare leader?

Maybe thats why somebody wants in.....just like you want more space in LGA (good luck)

Nope, not afraid at all.

It seems to be all the legacies who are afraid. Southwest has NEVER attempted to stop another airline from flying to/from any airports hat they wanted to. Never. It's the other airlines who always try to do that. United/Continental (and apparently, Flopgut personally) most recently in Houston, and of course everybody and their brother at Dallas Love over the years. All in attempts to protect whatever monopoly they had.

Hey, fly wherever you want. We don't care. Knock yourself out. That's good old, American-style competition. How about you just don't tell us where we can and cannot fly.

Bubba

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Cant wait for your latest cry for a Legacy airline to give up more slots at a controlled airport.....cry us a river

Yep... smells like LaGuardia. (ok, ok, not vaguely like a pissed on kerosene soaked rag - but metaphorically.)

Oh, for the clamoring repressed masses yearning to fly on a blue 737; not simply a mostly white one!

 

[Flopgut]

This is where Bubba uses word count to avoid addressing context and/or the big picture.

Bubba: Figuratively speaking, the truth is we all want to get our hands around your throat and start squeezing. Legacies used to be unable to pressure you guys, but now we can. You're not who you used to be. We are in the last days of these airport controversies and political moves, that despite the plausible deniability you cling to, are exactly what has been the difference for your airline. Don't write me 400 words with that quote, just wait and see how things change around you when the SWA's political moves dry up.

I am going to take your advice though. I'm going to put in plenty of my own effort into changing things. Need to find out if the mayor is related to either of the two Parkers that were key SWA people. Make sure when you fail to create 10,000 jobs/$130 ticket to BOG/and a billion $ boost to Houston's economy, that the city council hears about it constantly. And make sure every airline at every Country you fly to out of there understands you're violating bi lateral agreement treaties. So I'll be busy, fun stuff

 

[waveflyer]

Billy you big sellout-
You're much to reasonable to be taking sides with crazy flop

 

[Flopgut]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_amendment#undefined

Good link. Read it and compare the facts against Bubba's manifesto. The WA included all metroplex airports and not just Love Field. Real simple: the municipalities agreed to build DFW and limit their other airports. SWA went rogue-hippie-squatter and acted like they had some proprietary claim on Love, which was ok--Texas only. It was when they left Texas the problem escalated. SWA wanted the rules re-written just to accommodate their own operation. And that is what SWA has wanted ever since: any/all rules to be re-written to provide them an advantage.

 

[Flopgut]

"Southwest Airlines was founded after the agreement between the airlines and cities to relocate to DFW and was not a party to the agreement, and felt that their business model would be affected by a long drive to the new airport. Before DFW's opening, Southwest filed suit to remain at Love Field, claiming that no legal basis existed to close the airport to commercial service and that they were not bound by an agreement they did not sign. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, so long as Love Field remained open, the City of Dallas could not preclude Southwest from operating there. The ruling was in the regulated environment where the CAB did not have control of travel within a state, the only service Southwest then offered."

Texas only--SWA couldn't be limited. It's not like the supreme court handed SWA a blank check. That's why the end result is 20 gates and no international. FAR more than was ever intended for Love, but never enough if you listen to bubba et al

 

[Flopgut]

Fascinating to me that Federal rulings that limit an airports scope can be interpreted two different ways in Houston and Dallas, both go in SWA's favor. (Both instances include questionable politics) Doj really needs to take a closer look at what's been done

 

[HowardBorden]

I am going to take your advice though. I'm going to put in plenty of my own effort into changing things. Need to find out if the mayor is related to either of the two Parkers that were key SWA people. Make sure when you fail to create 10,000 jobs/$130 ticket to BOG/and a billion $ boost to Houston's economy, that the city council hears about it constantly. And make sure every airline at every Country you fly to out of there understands you're violating bi lateral agreement treaties. So I'll be busy, fun stuff

Good luck with that Flop, please keep us informed how it's going.

 

[HowardBorden]

Fascinating to me that Federal rulings that limit an airports scope can be interpreted two different ways in Houston and Dallas, both go in SWA's favor. (Both instances include questionable politics) Doj really needs to take a closer look at what's been done

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TEXAS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants,
v.
TEXAS AERONAUTICS COMMISSION, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 75-2539.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.


V. CONCLUSION

62
This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field. Precisely worded holdings and deference to state authorities by the federal judiciary have only generated more suits, appeals, and petitions for rehearings. Once again, we repeat, Southwest Airlines Co. has a federally declared right to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open. The narrowly drawn preliminary injunction of the district court correctly protects that right. It does so without violating principles of federalism, the federal law of res judicata, or the dictates of due process.

The judgment of the district court is

63
AFFIRMED.

 

[Flopgut]

Let's have the actual link to that Howard. If you don't mind?

 

[shagadelic]

Let's have the actual link to that Howard. If you don't mind?

Let me google that for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Once+again%2C+we+repeat%2C+Southwest+Airlines+Co.+has+a+federally+declared+right

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Sh!ts gettin real....maybe Dallas should force Southwest to divest their gates? What's that? They are theirs? Really? That never stopped them from crying for somebody elses gates at other cities......




An attorney for Delta Air Lines Inc. threatened to sue the city of Dallas unless it takes ?immediate action to implement a short-term solution? that keeps the Atlanta-based airline flying from Dallas Love Field.
In a nine-page letter to Dallas aviation director Mark Duebner, attorney Kenneth Quinn demanded that the city find room for Delta, which has been flying from Love Field since 2008. It flies five daily nonstops to Atlanta and had planned to add more flights after the Wright amendment expires Oct. 13.
Earlier this week, the city told Delta that it would have to leave Love Field come Oct. 13 because there was no space to accommodate it.
The new Love Field has 20 gates, 16 of which are being used by Southwest Airlines. Two others will be used by Virgin America beginning Oct. 13, and the final two are leased by United Airlines. United is subleasing one to Southwest and has told the city it will use the second to increase its flights to Houston next year.
In his letter, Quinn said Delta was under the impression ?as recently as last week? that the city ?had notified United by letter that it must accommodate Delta on its gates.?
Instead, United handed over one of its gates to Dallas-based Southwest, which had been looking to add to its gates at the city-owned airport.
Delta also said United was not playing fair with its second gate. While the airline is doubling its flights to Houston, it?s also going to ?triple its aircraft ground times in an effort to preclude Delta from using its gates,? Quinn said.
In his letter to Duebner, Quinn included a copy of United?s proposed service levels in 2015, showing that each plane will spend about 90 minutes on the ground, which is three times longer than its planes spend on the ground now.
?It is simply not true, as the city would have it, that there is no room at the inn for Delta,? Quinn said in his letter. ?The truth is, the city decided the available gate space should go to hometown favorite Southwest ? which already controls 80 percent of the gates at Love Field ? instead of to Delta, which would have used the gate space to compete with Southwest.?
Duebner, First Assistant City Manager Ryan Evans and City Attorney Warren Ernst did not respond to emails seeking comment.
Earlier this week, City Manager A.C. Gonzalez said, ?We understand that while the situation we?re looking at is subject to some disagreement, we are going to maintain our view that we want full utilization and robust competition for Love Field.?
Quinn said that at the minimum, Delta wants the city to let it keep flying out of Love Field until January, if only to accommodate the 16,000 passengers who have already purchased tickets out of the airport. But it also wants to stay in Dallas. Anything less, writes Quinn, will probably wind up with a trip to the courthouse.
?Although we are hopeful that the city will accommodate Delta?s request,? he writes, ?these attempts to resolve this matter will not preclude Delta from seeking additional relief at law or in equity.?
Delta also had asked Virgin America to find space for Delta?s flights at Virgin?s two gates. Virgin America chief executive David Cush said his carrier turned down Delta?s request.
?Our answer is: We?re fully utilizing our gates,? Cush said this week.
Virgin America will move its operations from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to Love Field on Oct. 13, the day that federal law will allow nonstop service from Dallas to any U.S. airport. It begins operations with nine departures a day, going to 13 departures Oct. 28 and 16 departures in April.
Virgin America is allowing tiny carrier SeaPort Airlines to use its gates for two daily departures for El Dorado, Ark.
?We?ll accommodate them as long as we can. We?ll see how long it is,? Cush said.
?But certainly with 16 flights, we can accommodate them. With 18, it?ll be a little trickier,? he said. ?But you know, they wanted two flights a day. They didn?t want the pattern of service that Delta was looking for.?

 

[HowardBorden]

Let's have the actual link to that Howard. If you don't mind?

Have you never heard of this magical web search tool called Google?
Paragraph 62.

http://openjurist.org/546/f2d/84/southwest-airlines-company-v-texas-international-airlines-inc