Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

[SWA Bubba]

Crimes Bubba? Really? You went there huh....

I did go there, Bill (and it's true). Mainly because Flop can't stop himself from spouting BS slander about Southwest. When pressed, he can't ever actually show any facts or anything, but that doesn't stop him from his lies and distortions. It's actually kinda funny, when you compare most legacies' records of conduct with Southwest's.

Speaking of which, Bill, still waiting for you to explain how Southwest did you wrong.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Flop,

"Narrowly drawn" doesn't mean that the decision was narrowly decided, as you inferred, but rather that it was narrow in scope, in that it was short and sweet; and unambiguous in that Southwest had the right to fly out of Love Field.

Hope that clears things up a little.

Bubba

It's staring you all right in the face, every damn day and you can't acknowledge it. Even now, after the WA has supposedly been repealed, Love Field is limited to 20 gates and no international. That's because the case against what you've wanted and have been doing had merit. Just because you have a "business model" doesn't mean we discard proper agreements or ignore that you didn't sign something. You can pick at me, I'm not a lawyer* and I don't want to be one. Just take a long look at DAL's 10-7 page: 20 gates and no international. You lost. Not to American or Braniff, but to the notion that agreements and integrity eventually matter.

And now you're going to sit there and watch Delta turn the screws on the situation. Good for them.

*We are skilled labor, that's all. We fly airplanes full of cargo and people from a to b. You want to act like a lawyer or MBA (or even if you are one), good for you. Doesn't matter on our side of the door. When you buy into the idea it's ok for your employer or union to subvert a good faith deal or exploit a situation because of a "business model", you've gone awry. This is what's screwed up this profession the most over the years. Take a look at where we're at with USAir and with SWA and all this Texas airport business: agreements and integrity don't mean sh1t to people anymore.

Now Bubba: Show us all you're not the lowest form of pilot there is, and don't claim [bawl] "we didn't sign it though Flop!!!!"

 

[Flopgut]

My God you truly are delusional. How in any way shape or form can you infer from the courts conclusion that this was a close decision? Just because you agree with the appellants arguments, that does not in any way mean that the court agreed with their legal validity. The court wholeheartedly dismissed the arguments and admonished the repeated attempts to relitigate the previously settled matter. Please read the courts conclusion one more time carefully.

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.

Maybe we can wrap this up pretty quick and agree on something? I've got to go get busy trying to find out if Houston's mayor is any relation to SWA execs. What you've selected to quote is from a time when SWA only flew in Texas, so the argument was over jurisdiction I don't think appealing 8 times to that loophole was excessive. Again: it was a loophole. So if the SWA argument is: Leave us alone, we didn't sign it and we don't leave Texas, how do you then end up getting to leave Texas?! Deregulation had zero to do with the Dallas airport agreements and in no way gave you a right to ignore it. The Wright Amendment had to be written for you to leave. Shoot, the guy did you a favor and you act like it's the worst thing ever.

3 times in 8 years. You read that one way, I read it another. My take is this: (and I think I'm the one with the correct context) To put that to the court 8 times was more a way to rub it in. Yeah, the court admonished the effort, but in doing so they were admonishing themselves just as much. It was embarrassing to the court to make that decision and 8 times it was rubbed in their face. They were given 8 chances to do the right thing, and they didn't.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Exhibit A Ladies and Gents....the Fix in on (wink wink nod nod)


Main road into Love may be renamed for Southwest?s Herb Kelleher


By TOM BENNING Staff Writer
Published: 07 October 2014 10:38 PM
Updated: 08 October 2014 12:01 AM


The main entrance to Dallas Love Field could soon be officially named after Southwest Airlines? famous co-founder.
The Dallas City Council will vote Wednesday on renaming Cedar Springs Road north of Mockingbird Lane as Herb Kelleher Way.
Kelleher, a living legend in the airline industry, was Southwest?s president and CEO for almost 20 years, and its executive chairman for 30. The 83-year-old still spends much of his time in Dallas, where he keeps an office at Southwest?s headquarters.
The renaming would honor ?Kelleher?s contribution to the airline industry, the state of Texas and the city of Dallas,? a council document says.
Brad Hawkins, a Southwest Airlines spokesman, said the company ?could not be more pleased with the ... truly monumental honor to Herb.?
He added: ?Hundreds of millions of Southwest customers have benefited from the purposed work he inspired and then led for decades. The people of Southwest, past and present, are thrilled that our home airport will forever be connected to the salty wit and boundless sage of our founder.?
In 2011, the City Council gave the stretch of road the ceremonial designation Herb Kelleher Way. But that action only added honorary signs next to the regular Cedar Springs Road signs.
The latest proposal, if approved, would replace the Cedar Springs markers at a cost of up to $10,000. Because the road isn?t technically a city street ? it?s airport property ? the renaming doesn?t go through the city?s normal process.
The designation comes at a busy time for Dallas, Love Field and Southwest Airlines.
In May, the city awarded two Love Field gates to Virgin America, despite objections from Southwest. But last month, the city booted Delta Air Lines from the airport, giving Southwest more flexibility in potentially accessing another gate.
Then, of course, there?s the expiration next week of the contentious Wright amendment, which has restricted air travel out of the airport.
That?s a major boon for Southwest, which controls nearly all of Love Field?s 20 gates, as there will be a greater selection of nonstop flights. City officials have likewise cheered the development, given Love Field?s proximity to downtown Dallas.

 

[HowardBorden]

What you've selected to quote is from a time when SWA only flew in Texas, so the argument was over jurisdiction I don't think appealing 8 times to that loophole was excessive. Again: it was a loophole. So if the SWA argument is: Leave us alone, we didn't sign it and we don't leave Texas, how do you then end up getting to leave Texas?! Deregulation had zero to do with the Dallas airport agreements and in no way gave you a right to ignore it. The Wright Amendment had to be written for you to leave. Shoot, the guy did you a favor and you act like it's the worst thing ever.

3 times in 8 years. You read that one way, I read it another. My take is this: (and I think I'm the one with the correct context) To put that to the court 8 times was more a way to rub it in. Yeah, the court admonished the effort, but in doing so they were admonishing themselves just as much. It was embarrassing to the court to make that decision and 8 times it was rubbed in their face. They were given 8 chances to do the right thing, and they didn't.

One last time I am going to show you through legal decisions that your assertions are completely incorrect and without legal merit according to the US Judicial system charged with making these determinations.

These are your words: "What you've selected to quote is from a time when SWA only flew in Texas, so the argument was over jurisdiction I don't think appealing 8 times to that loophole was excessive. Again: it was a loophole.

There was no loophole, there was only specific legal precedents that precluded SWA from being banned from operation at Dallas Love.

On November 11 and 12, 1968, the cities jointly adopted the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance authorizing the issuance of Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Joint Revenue Bonds for the financing of the new airport. The 1968 Ordinance provides, among other things, that the cities: ". . . shall take such steps as may be necessary, appropriate and legally permissible (without violating presently outstanding legal commitments or covenants prohibiting such action), to provide for the orderly, efficient and effective phase-out at Love Field, Redbird, GSIA and Meacham Field, of any and all Certificated Air Carrier Services, and to transfer such activities to the Regional Airport effective upon the beginning of operations at the Regional Airport."

On June 18, 1971, defendant Southwest Airlines Co. commenced its purely intrastate operations, as a "commuter airline," between Love Field, Dallas, and Houston and San Antonio, pursuant to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 22 issued by the Texas Aeronautics Commission (TAC). Southwest's Certificate stated that it was authorized to serve the Dallas-Fort Worth region through "any" airport in the area.

On October 20, 1971, Southwest Airlines formally advised the Regional Airport Board that it intended to stay at Love Field when the eight (8) CAB certificated airlines moved their operations from Love Field to the Regional Airport. Southwest also withdrew from its brief participation in planning sessions regarding the transfer of services from Love Field to the Regional Airport, and declined to execute the letter agreement with the Airport Board that had previously been signed by the CAB carriers.

On March 6, 1972, Southwest Airlines filed with the Regional Airport Board an instrument called a "Petition for Exemption, or Alternatively, Application For Waiver," by which it sought a determination from the Airport Board that Southwest was not required by the 1968 Concurrent Bond Ordinance, and could not lawfully be required, to move to the Regional Airport, or, alternatively, that a waiver of the transfer requirement should be granted under Section 9.5(A) of the Ordinance on the basis of an "overriding public need." After holding this Petition for three months without acting upon it, the Airport Board decided, on June 6, 1972, that the CAB rulings in the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Investigation deprived the Airport Board of jurisdiction to consider and act upon Southwest's Petition. That same day the two Cities and the Airport Board filed their Complaint against Southwest, commencing this lawsuit.

Among other contentions Plaintiffs argued in their Complaint that they were required by the rulings of the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Investigation to transfer all certificated air carrier services to the new Regional Airport, including the intrastate services of Southwest Airlines. (1) the Civil Aeronautics Board has no jurisdiction over a purely intrastate airline such as Southwest; (2) it never attempted to assert any such jurisdiction in its interlocutory orders entered in the Regional Airport Investigation; (3) it has jurisdiction only over "air carriers" engaged in "interstate air transportation"; and (4) it has no jurisdiction over cities or their airports, as such, pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, the Civil Aeronautics Board is authorized to exercise regulatory jurisdiction only over air carriers engaged in "interstate air transportation"

The Plaintiffs have again attempted to use a statute to justify conduct which that statute expressly prohibits. If the CAB carriers are precluded from serving Love Field after the opening of the Regional Airport, such preclusion results from action by the CAB, which has no jurisdiction over Southwest, or from the voluntary Letter Agreements between the Plaintiffs and the CAB carriers. The CAB carriers have not been excluded from Love Field by the Plaintiffs, and, therefore, Southwest's presence at Love Field after the opening of the Regional Airport can in no way be considered the prohibited grant of an exclusive right. Southwest has not voluntarily relinquished its right to serve Love Field and that right has not been limited or restricted by any regulatory agency with authority over Southwest.

It is the conclusion of this Court that none of the Plaintiffs have the power to deny Southwest access to Love Field for any aspect of its operations. It is likewise beyond the power of Plaintiffs, or any of them, to require Southwest to provide any services through the Regional Airport upon its opening. The bases for this conclusion are numerous, but their number should not detract from the fact that each ground is, in and of itself, sufficient to preclude Plaintiffs from denying Southwest access to Love Field.

Love Field is public facility and installation. There is no dispute among the parties to this case that Love Field has over the years been the recipient of federal funds, property and land through various federal aid programs, and that it is subject to federal prohibitions against unjust discrimination and the grant of an exclusive right.

Most egregious of all is the distinction the 1968 Ordinance makes between the carriage of intrastate passengers by Southwest Airlines and the carriage of such passengers by its CAB certificated competitors. As discussed above, this is a per se discrimination clearly violative of the federal statutes.

The Texas Aeronautics Commission has intervened in this matter and adopted the contentions of Southwest Airlines. It most specifically urges that the Plaintiffs' attempted exclusion of Southwest from Love Field is illegal as being, first, beyond the power of the Plaintiffs, and, second, in direct conflict with regulations promulgated pursuant to the laws of the State of Texas.

Moreover, the conflict between state and municipality in the instant case is even more direct. The TAC granted Southwest a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to serve Dallas, Texas, through "any" airport in the area.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes: (1) That determinations of public convenience and necessity respecting intrastate air commerce are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the TAC; (2) that exclusion of Southwest Airlines from Love Field constitutes an impermissible assumption by Plaintiffs of the power to amend Southwest Airlines' certificate of public convenience and necessity, contrary to the exclusive powers over such certificates conferred upon the Texas Aeronautics Commission by the Texas Aeronautics Act.

Finally, the Plaintiffs are prohibited from excluding Southwest Airlines from Love Field by prior legal commitments and covenants entered into by the City of Dallas.The exclusion of Southwest Airlines from Love Field would breach each of these covenants. The fact that circumstances may have changed and that Dallas would now like to ignore its prior covenants does not provide an adequate basis for the City's proposed action. Such obligations are binding and the City must adhere to them.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19731386371FSupp1015_11220

 

[HowardBorden]

So if the SWA argument is: Leave us alone, we didn't sign it and we don't leave Texas, how do you then end up getting to leave Texas?! Deregulation had zero to do with the Dallas airport agreements and in no way gave you a right to ignore it. The Wright Amendment had to be written for you to leave. Shoot, the guy did you a favor and you act like it's the worst thing ever.

Again, your words: Deregulation had zero to do with the Dallas airport agreements and in no way gave you a right to ignore it. The Wright Amendment had to be written for you to leave. Shoot, the guy did you a favor and you act like it's the worst thing ever.

Again, I will show you that deregulation had everything to do with SWA being allowed to leave Texas and Wright Amendment served only to restrict Southwest's ability to expand in the post deregulation era.

A leading scholar on public utility deregulation, Mr. Alfred E. Kahn led the move to deregulate U.S. airlines as chief of the now-defunct Civil Aeronautics Board in 1977-78.

"Historically, the board has insisted on second-guessing decisions by individual carriers to offer price reductions," Mr. Kahn said in 1978 as so-called "super-saver fares" swept the industry. "During the last several months we have been abandoning the paternalistic role, leaving the introduction of discount fares increasingly to the management." President Jimmy Carter embraced deregulation as a means of stimulating economic growth. Mr. Kahn was largely instrumental in garnering the support needed to push through the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 - the first thorough dismantling of a comprehensive system of government control since 1935.

By letting airlines instead of the government decide routes and fares, Mr. Kahn was credited with enabling a dramatic drop in airline fares and a boom in air travel over the last 30 years. Deregulation opened the way for such carriers as People Express and JetBlue, and allowed low-cost Southwest Airlines - which had up until then operated only within Texas, outside of the aeronautics board's reach - to expand nationwide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122905032.html


As part of the airport's funding arrangement, the cities adopted the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance, which, among other things, created the DFW Airport Board and required the cities to phase out existing air transportation operations at their local airport facilities and transfer them to the new DFW Airport. To fulfill the requirements of the Bond Ordinance, the DFW Board entered into contracts with the existing federally regulated air carriers requiring them to relocate their services to the newly constructed DFW Airport. After the contracts had been signed, but prior to the completion of construction, Southwest Airlines began operating intrastate commuter flights from Dallas's Love Field. Shortly thereafter, Southwest informed the DFW Airport Board that it intended to remain at Love Field even after DFW Airport was completed. Southwest's decision led the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, in conjunction with the Airport Board, to seek a declaratory judgment excluding Southwest from operating flights from Love Field once the new airport was operational. The District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that because Southwest was flying only intrastate flights, the CAB did not have jurisdiction over their activities. Thus, according to the court, Southwest, by virtue of its purely intrastate operations, could not be excluded from utilizing Love Field as long as the airport remained operational.

In 1978, however, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which included a provision allowing automatic entry into interstate aviation markets provided that the carrier seeking entry was fit, willing, and able to comply with all existing rules, regulations, and requirements of the CAB. Southwest promptly petitioned and was granted permission to operate interstate flights from Love Field to New Orleans, Louisiana. The expansion of Southwest's service from Love Field to interstate markets, however, prompted concerns from local officials about DFW's financial stability because it appeared that the local officials were powerless to prevent Southwest from expanding service.


" EXISTING STATE AUTHORITY
"(c) When any intrastate air carrier which on August 1, 1977, was operating primarily in intrastate air transporta-
tion regulated by a State receives the authority to provide interstate air transportation, any authority received
from such State shall be considered to be part of its authority to provide air transportation received from the
Board under title IV of this Act, until modified, suspended, amended, or terminated as provided under such title.
" DEFINITION
"(d) For purposes of this section, the term ' State' means any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any territory
or possession of the United States.".
http://apps.americanbar.org/antitrust/at-committees/at-tei/air-resources/Pub_L_95-504.pdf

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Do any of the DAL (and other legacy) or SWA pilots really believe they're going to change each other's minds on this?

This whole thread is tantamount to plastering your car's bumper with stickers with the hope of fixing the world in your vision.

...but it's entertaining nonetheless.

 

[HowardBorden]

Do any of the DAL (and other legacy) or SWA pilots really believe they're going to change each other's minds on this?

I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind, that is futile.

However, if someone feels the need to post their unsubstantiated opinions as factual, I will not let those assertions go unchallenged with easily verifiable facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

What I have posted are judicial rulings on the matter, they are not MY opinions, they are the opinions of the courts. You can choose to disagree with what the courts have mandated, but that in no way changes the validity of the courts rulings.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

I'll grant you that Howard, so long as it is agreed that legitimacy and propriety are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Cometman]

I'll grant you that Howard, so long as it is agreed that legitimacy and propriety are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.

Why don't you write so everybody can understand what you are saying. You might be impressed with yourself but most people on this site have no idea what you are saying. Care to try again?

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Here, I'll give you the 7th grade version - Umm, just 'cause it's legal or affirmed by a court (that means the court said it was "okay") - doesn't mean it wasn't pretty shady. I could bring up a prime example of that, but that fight already fills up the remainder of the majors forum.

 

[slaquer5]

Here, I'll give you the 7th grade version - Umm, just 'cause it's legal or affirmed by a court (that means the court said it was "okay") - doesn't mean it wasn't pretty shady. I could bring up a prime example of that, but that fight already fills up the remainder of the majors forum.

I agree


In the end OJ. ended up in jail anyway.

 

[nwaf16dude]

Interesting... Without doing any research, because I'm lazy, can anyone cite another case where a city has asked a major airline to leave it's airport? Usually cities are clamoring for more competition, not demanding less.

 

[General Lee]

Interesting... Without doing any research, because I'm lazy, can anyone cite another case where a city has asked a major airline to leave it's airport? Usually cities are clamoring for more competition, not demanding less.

I heard Dominos Pizza requested it...


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[HowardBorden]

I'll grant you that Howard, so long as it is agreed that legitimacy and propriety are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.

We live in a country where the judiciary is allowed to interpret our Constitution and how federal, state and local statutes comply with the document which is the basis for all of our laws. If we choose to change this basic tenet of our legal system it will take a constitutional amendment to do so.

Does the judiciary always get it right, most likely not which is why we have an appeals process. This issue at Love has been litigated and re-litigated ad nauseam always with the same result. If your assertion is that it has been incorrectly adjudicated each and every time the multiple courts including the Texas Supreme Court and The United States Supreme court has weighed in then I guess you yourself can decide it lacks propriety.

.

 

[FlyinGuy]

Here, I'll give you the 7th grade version - Umm, just 'cause it's legal or affirmed by a court (that means the court said it was "okay") - doesn't mean it wasn't pretty shady. I could bring up a prime example of that, but that fight already fills up the remainder of the majors forum.

Read this or the college version and you will see how every large company in America operates. I would even x out the term "pretty shady" and use the term "fought for by lobbyist". It takes money (over and under the table) for a large business to "force it's will". Some are trying to convince that there is only one shady company, but anyone with half a brain knows every airline in the world needs/uses money to force their will over the competitors.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

I was thinking more 2014, than 1978.

But I'm glad you agree.

 

[huronip]

Looks like SWA is showing some LUV. I wonder if Delta would do the same?


http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...ove-field--at-least-for-a-few-months-more.ece

 

[SpauldingSmails]

That's an interesting (and unexpected) development.

 

[Flopgut]

Hey Howard: I'm not going to quote the post. Again, you've missed the context of what you quoted. The Dallas airport agreement transcended deregulation. Case in point: Legend. They were post deregulation and still had to do <56 seats.