• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.
  • Logbook Pro for Apple iOS version 8.1 is now available on the App Store. Major update including signature endorsements and dark/light theme support. Click here to install now.

I guess no doesn't mean no for Delta

bluesideup1

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Posts
179
Total Time
5000+
No, I blew your ridiculous statement that Southwest couldn't add gates at DCA and LGA, but was only able to get gates at DCA and LGA by having them taken away from competing airlines.

You advocate forced divestitures when it favors Southwest, but oppose forced divestitures when it's Southwest whose ox is getting gored.


Southwest currently has greater than 80% of all flights and passengers in/out of Love field. If they are able to get Delta out of Love, they will have more than 90% of all flights and passenger traffic. Even if Southwest wins in a court of law, I would expect the DoT to force divestitures to lower Southwest's monopoly at Love.

I love how you deflect on how it is now my ridiculous argument even though I am sure that over the past 30 years NO ONE HAS tried to add gates to those places I mean what a stupid idea to add more gates to places that are slot restricted and have enormous revenue potential. The fact that you are trying to double down on Southwest responsibility to adding gate space to two of the most coveted places to fly is ludicrous.

If it had been possible to add more gate space it would have been done long before the mergers of Delta, American, America West and Northwest and the slots being opened up to the highest bidders. You know if they really wanted to keep those gates all they would have done is not merged but I guess they found it more profitable to merge the airlines and give up the gates.

This still doesn't answer the question of why you think it is right for Delta to come in and abrigate an agreement that was forged between all the airlines involved, cities and Federal government.
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
This still doesn't answer the question of why you think it is right for Delta to come in and abrigate an agreement that was forged between all the airlines involved, cities and Federal government.

Because that is exactly what SWA did 40 years ago. Not kind of, or similar, or close. Exactly what SWA did. They're no less a bystander to all of this recent change than SWA was a bystander to the initial deal to open DFW. AND: Love Field rules have always been written in pencil (mostly for SWA), where DFW rules have always been carved in stone for legacies. Why shouldn't they have the right to attempt to get (or expect) the same obviously favorable treatment that Love Field affords?
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Yes, if you quit spreading fiction and calling it fact!

Keep clinging to your story. My views are no different than a growing number of industry watchers, voters, and travelers. The whole thing is BS.

Btw: How is what Delta is trying to do at Love right now more agregious than SWA attempting to bogart United's Mexico routes a few months ago?! Delta also has "expensive assets that have to be flown". Do you remember those words?
 
Last edited:

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
Keep clinging to your story. My views are no different than a growing number of industry watchers, voters, and travelers. The whole thing is BS.

Btw: How is what Delta is trying to do at Love right now more agregious than SWA attempting to bogart United's Mexico routes a few months ago?! Delta also has "expensive assets that have to be flown". Do you remember those words?

I don't blame Delta for attempting to fly out of Love, I just don't understand why they didn't attempt to lease a gate from United rather than pronounce they would refuse to leave a gate legally leased and controlled by SWA.

It will be worked out in the courts and I'm fine with that. I can assure you if Delta wins the case I will not chalk it up to favoritism but will instead trust that the courts did their job. Can you say the same?
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
I don't blame Delta for attempting to fly out of Love, I just don't understand why they didn't attempt to lease a gate from United rather than pronounce they would refuse to leave a gate legally leased and controlled by SWA.

It will be worked out in the courts and I'm fine with that. I can assure you if Delta wins the case I will not chalk it up to favoritism but will instead trust that the courts did their job. Can you say the same?

Why should Delta be the airline that follows rules? Or doesn't try to force their own rules? Esp at Love Field AND when challenging SWA? Idk why SWA didn't just wait a few months and apply for their own routes to Mexico instead of insisting they be given United's?! (Actually, I do) How are these different?

Say the same? We'll see how it plays out. If SWA hadn't received the Mexico routes I'm pretty sure the golden army would have been dispatched to jiggle and wail about the unfairness of it. That's something you both can't deny, and something Delta won't stoop to.
 

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
It's called capitalism ladies and gentlemen! Delta had every opportunity to outbid SWA for those gates but they chose not to. Now SWA controls the gates through a sublease from United.



Delta Air Lines today detailed its many potential losses from revenue to customer satisfaction if it's not allowed to continue flying at Dallas Love Field.
"It's going to come down to our brand, our reputation, Joe Esposito, Delta's vice president of network planning for the Americas, said in federal court in Dallas. "There are two parts to the damage: What happens to the airline and what happens to the market. There won't be competition."
On their second day of a federal court hearing, Atlanta-based Delta and Dallas-based Southwest Airlines are fighting over whether Delta should keep flying at the city owned airport.
Delta operates five daily flights to Atlanta from Love Field using a gate under a licensing agreement with Southwest that was set to expire tomorrow. It can continue to fly there until U.S. District Court Judge Ed Kinkeade rules on the case. (Delta also flies out of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.)
Delta says the city of Dallas' policies require it to make room for the airline at Love Field. Southwest says its lease with the city of Dallas gives it "preferential use" of its gates.
Delta's current flying arrangement at Love Field is the third temporary agreement with an airline since October, when federal flying restrictions lifted there. Since then, Delta has been trying to gain a permanent foothold at the airport.
Esposito confirmed that Delta has gained 1,798 customers who shifted from flying out of D/FW Airport to Love Field, accounting for around $230 million in revenue a year.
"The flying public is going to have less options," Esposito said. If Delta can't fly out of Love Field, "we're going to have some pretty unhappy customers."
However, Southwest's lawyers repeatedly pointed out that Delta previously has shifted passengers without any problems from flights at Love Field to flights at D/FW Airport.
Delta officials yesterday said the airline sees D/FW Airport and Love Field as two separate markets. Today, Esposito said Delta cannot serve Dallas business, leisure and international customers from D/FW Airport.
For example, Delta created a map showing that 13 of 19 Fortune 500 companies in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are closer to Love Field than D/FW Airport.
Kinkeade said it looked like most of the Fortune 500 companies were located in Irving, which was about half way between the two airports. He asked why Delta didn't consider the largest employers in the area, not just the largest companies by revenue.
Delta also did a "gate plot" analysis fitting its five flights plus its plan to offer eight more flights into Love Field gates based on Southwest's published flight schedule, assuming at least 30 minutes of ground time between flights.
"We concluded there was plenty of space at Love Field," Esposito said. "It all fit."
However, he acknowledged that 10 slots did not provide enough ground time and where schedules would have to be tweaked.
Earlier this year, both Southwest and Delta vied to sublease two gates from United Airlines, which left Love Field, to expand their operations at the airport. Then, United talked with four airlines about its Love Field gates Delta, Southwest, Spirit Airlines and Virgin America, Kate Gebo, United's vice president for corporate real estate, said in videotaped testimony showed today by both Southwest and Delta.
Spirit wasn't interested and Southwest's offer ended up being better than Delta's or Virgin America's, she said.
Southwest revealed yesterday in court that it paid $120 million plus monthly rent to United to sublease the gates.
Delta claims the $120 million payment was "illegal."
United also offered a gate deal to Delta in September 2014 and Delta didn't want it, Gebo said.
When asked by a Delta lawyer, Southwest's vice president of airport affairs Bob Montgomery today said the airline did not tell the city of Dallas, the U.S. Department of Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration about the $120 million payment.
"I didn't see it as illegal or against [the city's] competition plan or the lease," he said. "And I wasn't required to tell them."
However, Montgomery did tell the U.S. Department of Justice because it was required to under anti-trust laws.
"Would you agree this is about as sharp-elbow a deal as can be?" Kinkeade asked Montgomery. This is a pretty sophisticated deal."
 
Last edited:

nimtz

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Posts
1,442
Total Time
?
This board really needs a LUV Field Section. Stunning how we see all this blabbering given that 99% of us could not give two shats.
 

maru657

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Posts
509
Total Time
>15000
As long as it keeps Southwest from having a no competition base with public support, it's all good.
 

canyonblue

Everyone loves Southwest
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,314
Total Time
15000+
As long as it keeps Southwest from having a no competition base with public support, it's all good.

Yeah, it's funny how we had no competition in Dallas for over 30 years and no one cared. Now every clown airline shows up and demands we should have competition. Where ya been all these years? :rolleyes:
 

hockeypilot44

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Posts
893
Total Time
Yeah, it's funny how we had no competition in Dallas for over 30 years and no one cared. Now every clown airline shows up and demands we should have competition. Where ya been all these years? :rolleyes:

Southwest started going into LGA/ATL/DEN/DCA/etc. Did Southwest really think it was going to encroach on the high value markets of other carriers and not have them do the same back?
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Yeah, it's funny how we had no competition in Dallas for over 30 years and no one cared. Now every clown airline shows up and demands we should have competition. Where ya been all these years? :rolleyes:

They want to cozy up to your operation. See if they too can perfect flying with giant shoes, a foam red nose, and a rainbow wig

Idea: Help them with the bucket/water/confetti trick, and I'll bet theyll help you write a functional etops program;)
 
Last edited:

Andy

12/13/2012
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
3,101
Total Time
121312
Southwest started going into LGA/ATL/DEN/DCA/etc. Did Southwest really think it was going to encroach on the high value markets of other carriers and not have them do the same back?

Reading through this thread, apparently, yes.

It appears to me that the Judge has decided to make a ruling by not making a ruling. Either way, I expect Southwest to have to lease space to Delta indefinitely.
 

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
Either way, I expect Southwest to have to lease space to Delta indefinitely.
That very well may be true, but I don't think Delta is going to like the price. If SWA paid $120 million for the lease of the gate, I can only assume they would be able to charge a lease fee commensurate with a pro-rated portion of that total bill.
 

Andy

12/13/2012
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
3,101
Total Time
121312
That very well may be true, but I don't think Delta is going to like the price. If SWA paid $120 million for the lease of the gate, I can only assume they would be able to charge a lease fee commensurate with a pro-rated portion of that total bill.

You might be right but precedent has been something different. In the past (distant and recent), Southwest and other 'disadvantaged' airlines have been given legacy gates and slots for well below value by the government.

It's interesting to watch you and others use the exact same arguments that legacy pilots were using when their companies were forced to divest gates/slots to Southwest and others. Those arguments didn't work for us but they may work for Southwest - in which case, perhaps a clawback of gates/slots previously given to Southwest and others under duress should be reviewed?

By the way, I don't think that the disclosure that Southwest paid $120M for those gates went over very well with the judge.
 
Last edited:

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
You might be right but precedent has been something different. In the past (distant and recent), Southwest and other 'disadvantaged' airlines have been given legacy gates and slots for well below value by the government.

It's interesting to watch you and others use the exact same arguments that legacy pilots were using when their companies were forced to divest gates/slots to Southwest and others. Those arguments didn't work for us but they may work for Southwest - in which case, perhaps a clawback of gates/slots previously given to Southwest and others under duress should be reviewed?

By the way, I don't think that the disclosure that Southwest paid $120M for those gates went over very well with the judge.
But Andy, the slots you speak of were parceled out by lottery, at no cost to the airlines!

Delta had the same opportunity to make offers for the gate in question, and did in fact make an offer. SWA outbid them. If SWA had to pay the amount they paid to secure the gate, it only seems that their sublease agreement would need to address the the price they paid to outbid Delta for the use of the gate in question.
 

Andy

12/13/2012
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
3,101
Total Time
121312
But Andy, the slots you speak of were parceled out by lottery, at no cost to the airlines!

No, I'm not talking about the Dallas Love stuff. All of the other auctions that were rigged so that there was only Southwest and maybe a couple other bidders. Those airlines selling the gates/slots did NOT want to divest their slots to Southwest or any other carrier. But you know that; you're just choosing to ignore all of those other auctions.

Those gates/slots were worth significantly more than Southwest and others paid for them.

Delta had the same opportunity to make offers for the gate in question, and did in fact make an offer. SWA outbid them. If SWA had to pay the amount they paid to secure the gate, it only seems that their sublease agreement would need to address the the price they paid to outbid Delta for the use of the gate in question.

I really hope you get your wish and Southwest jacks up the rates into the stratosphere on the gate Delta's using. I'd love to see how regulatory authorities would respond.
 
Last edited:

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
No, I'm not talking about the Dallas Love stuff. All of the other auctions that were rigged so that there was only Southwest and maybe a couple other bidders. Those airlines selling the gates/slots did NOT want to divest their slots to Southwest or any other carrier. But you know that; you're just choosing to ignore all of those other auctions.
I'm not talking about the Dallas Love stuff either. All the slots at every airport that is slot controlled were specifically granted to the airlines through a lottery process and the airlines paid zero dollars to get them. The commodity of slots were awarded originally free of charge.

If and when an airline decides to enter a merger or acquisition with another airline they absolutely know going in that regulatory agencies may require divestitures from the combined carrier if the combination presents monopolistic issues as decided by those regulatory bodies.
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
If and when an airline decides to enter a merger or acquisition with another airline they absolutely know going in that regulatory agencies may require divestitures from the combined carrier if the combination presents monopolistic issues as decided by those regulatory bodies.

Wonder what things would look like today if Love had been parceled out all those years ago... Instead of: everybody leave but SWA

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/airline-stocks-pulled-down-by-southwests-lowered-outlook-2015-12-08

Very intersting^^^^^^
 
Last edited:

Andy

12/13/2012
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
3,101
Total Time
121312
I'm not talking about the Dallas Love stuff either. All the slots at every airport that is slot controlled were specifically granted to the airlines through a lottery process and the airlines paid zero dollars to get them. The commodity of slots were awarded originally free of charge.

If and when an airline decides to enter a merger or acquisition with another airline they absolutely know going in that regulatory agencies may require divestitures from the combined carrier if the combination presents monopolistic issues as decided by those regulatory bodies.

You mean something was once free and now worth $120 million? Sound familiar?

Not all legacy forced divestitures were due to mergers. AMR and United were forced to give up assets at ORD about a decade ago.

Feel free to rationalize this any way you like, it doesn't matter. The DOT's not going to allow Southwest a virtual monopoly at Love field; I don't care if they buy gates for $1 billion apiece.
 
Last edited:
Top