Looks Like DAL Is Staying At DAL

[Ex737Driver]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/federal-judge-dallas-says-delta-230657993.html

 

[General Lee]

Smack! Any comments from Howie or Red? Hey Red, any comments about the refinery too? Hugely profitable now with low oil.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[HowardBorden]

Smack! Any comments from Howie or Red?

Status quo remains until the courts render a final decision.

"The judge's decision Friday allows Delta to continue operating on a temporary basis at Love Field with five flights to a single destination"

"The Court's order will be in effect until there is a final resolution by agreement, trial or otherwise"

 

[DUBLINFLYER]

WOW the General surfaced again, oil is cheap now but it costs a lot to run the refinery and this is not helped in anyway with the low oil costs. It does help the air carriers bottom line of course

 

[Andy]

Status quo remains until the courts render a final decision.

"The judge's decision Friday allows Delta to continue operating on a temporary basis at Love Field with five flights to a single destination"

"The Court's order will be in effect until there is a final resolution by agreement, trial or otherwise"

The status quo will remain until one side exhausts all appeals. Probably years from now.

With the glacial speed that Judge Kinkeade's moving (along with his less than charitable comments toward Southwest), one might think that the pizzas Southwest keeps sending to the courthouse don't have toppings that Kinkeade likes.

 

[Andy]

Belated update.

Southwest is filing a couple of lawsuits since they've gone against Southwest.

Appealing Kinkeade's ruling: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...o-fully-utilize-our-gates-at-love-field.html/

Filing to get the DOT letter thrown out: http://www.law360.com/articles/758913/southwest-fights-dot-calls-to-share-dallas-gates-with-delta


So now the question is when will Southwest run out of appeals? Delta's just using Southwest tactics against Southwest.

 

[jackjack]

SWA needs to ramp up in Atlanta. Lots of full flights daily, difficult to commute.

 

[Ty Webb]

SWA needs to ramp up in Atlanta. Lots of full flights daily, difficult to commute.

No S#it. . . . . Bring back PNS, MLI, BMI, GPT, CHS, SAV, DAB, PHF and all the other places where we were making money kicking Delta's butt out of ATL.

 

[HowardBorden]

Belated update.

Southwest is filing a couple of lawsuits since they've gone against Southwest.

Appealing Kinkeade's ruling: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...o-fully-utilize-our-gates-at-love-field.html/

Filing to get the DOT letter thrown out: http://www.law360.com/articles/758913/southwest-fights-dot-calls-to-share-dallas-gates-with-delta


So now the question is when will Southwest run out of appeals? Delta's just using Southwest tactics against Southwest.

Southwest is just trying to protect what the 5 party agreement laid out for Love field. Delta had just as much right to reach a lease agreement with United as SWA for the two gates in question. Delta simply needed to break out their checkbook and outbid SWA for for those gates.

From the 5 party agreement:

Dallas Love Field-

"20 gates (per the five-party agreement and Wright Amendment Reform Act)"

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 has leased all available gates on a preferential use basis-
Southwest Airlines - 16 gates. United Airlines - 2 gates. Virgin America - 2 gates.

"Typically, ten flights or 'turns' per gate is full utilization"

Use & Lease Agreements:

"Allows for the sub-lease of the gates"

All gates at Love are "preferential" use gates.

Preferential use gates can be leased.

New entrants can be accommodated at gates that are not fully utilized.

"Ten flights is full utilization."

SWA legally leased the 2 gates from United with the legal blessing from the governing bodies. Southwest will fully utilize the gates in question with the requisite ten flights per day.

http://dallascityhall.com/government...ses_042814.pdf

 

[Yuppyguppy]

Screw Southwest. That airline sucks.

 

[Andy]

Howard, like I said, Delta's just taking a page from Southwest's playbook. That's how Southwest has operated at multiple airports around the country to get gates/slots from Delta, American and United over the years. You guys had no problem taking other airlines' assets for pennies on the dollar when it was in Southwest's interests - now you know how it feels when it happens to you guys.

 

[Freebrd]

Geez two lousy gates!

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard, like I said, Delta's just taking a page from Southwest's playbook. That's how Southwest has operated at multiple airports around the country to get gates/slots from Delta, American and United over the years. You guys had no problem taking other airlines' assets for pennies on the dollar when it was in Southwest's interests - now you know how it feels when it happens to you guys.

I don't blame any airline jockeying for the absolute best position they can finagle at an airport, it's just business.

In this case, the best time to make a move for the gates in question was went they went up for lease. Making a lease agreement would have offered a permanent solution with no room for judicial interpretation. Delta chose to keep their wallet shut and instead of outbidding SWA for the gates and claim squatters rights at a gate Southwest leased from the owner. It was certainly the cheaper option even though it introduced uncertainty to the equation.

So far it has worked out for Delta and they have continued operation at a gate they don't own against the lessee's wishes. More power to them they made a play and so far it is working out for them. However, SWA has a pretty good legal track record when it comes to deciding which cases to pursue through the legal system.

In the end it will be of little consequence to either side in the grand scheme of things. Five daily flights from DAL to ATL will neither make or break Delta. On the Southwest side, the inability to operate an additional 5 flights out of Dallas Love will reduce their daily flight schedule by 0.00131579%.

 

[Andy]

I don't blame any airline jockeying for the absolute best position they can finagle at an airport, it's just business.

In this case, the best time to make a move for the gates in question was went they went up for lease. Making a lease agreement would have offered a permanent solution with no room for judicial interpretation. Delta chose to keep their wallet shut and instead of outbidding SWA for the gates and claim squatters rights at a gate Southwest leased from the owner. It was certainly the cheaper option even though it introduced uncertainty to the equation.

So far it has worked out for Delta and they have continued operation at a gate they don't own against the lessee's wishes. More power to them they made a play and so far it is working out for them. However, SWA has a pretty good legal track record when it comes to deciding which cases to pursue through the legal system.

In the end it will be of little consequence to either side in the grand scheme of things. Five daily flights from DAL to ATL will neither make or break Delta. On the Southwest side, the inability to operate an additional 5 flights out of Dallas Love will reduce their daily flight schedule by 0.00131579%.

Howard, we can discuss this until the cows come home, but Southwest was attempting to have a monopoly at DAL. The only reason why Virgin America has gates at DAL is because the Justice Department allowed only Virgin America to acquire American's (forced divestiture) gates at DAL. No one else (including Southwest and Delta) was allowed to bid on those two gates. http://www.usatoday.com/story/today...eats-on-sale-for-dallas-love-flights/8144381/ In the past, Southwest's gained gates at several airports due to other airline forced divestitures. Now Southwest is on the receiving end of forced divestitures and you guys are acting like spoiled children.

As far as other carriers being able to bid on the gates that Southwest leased from United, sure. But Southwest never should have bid on the gates because it was an attempt at a monopoly, obvious to everyone except Southwesters. And the price paid by Southwest ($120 million) was over the top excessive - they intentionally drove up the price on the gates to ensure a monopoly. Funny how Southwest could benefit all these years by spotting smaller concentration of assets by other carriers at certain airports but were/are blind to Southwest's monopoly at DAL.

Southwest is just trying to protect what the 5 party agreement laid out for Love field.

Delta wasn't involved in that agreement so I'll use your convoluted logic here. Since Delta wasn't in the 5 party agreement, they aren't bound by it. That's been your logic for DAL remaining open when it was supposed to be closed to commercial traffic, correct? Southwest wasn't a party to the agreement to shut down Love Field to commercial traffic.

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard, we can discuss this until the cows come home, but Southwest was attempting to have a monopoly at DAL. The only reason why Virgin America has gates at DAL is because the Justice Department allowed only Virgin America to acquire American's (forced divestiture) gates at DAL. No one else (including Southwest and Delta) was allowed to bid on those two gates. http://www.usatoday.com/story/today...eats-on-sale-for-dallas-love-flights/8144381/ In the past, Southwest's gained gates at several airports due to other airline forced divestitures. Now Southwest is on the receiving end of forced divestitures and you guys are acting like spoiled children.

As far as other carriers being able to bid on the gates that Southwest leased from United, sure. But Southwest never should have bid on the gates because it was an attempt at a monopoly, obvious to everyone except Southwesters. And the price paid by Southwest ($120 million) was over the top excessive - they intentionally drove up the price on the gates to ensure a monopoly. Funny how Southwest could benefit all these years by spotting smaller concentration of assets by other carriers at certain airports but were/are blind to Southwest's monopoly at DAL.



Delta wasn't involved in that agreement so I'll use your convoluted logic here. Since Delta wasn't in the 5 party agreement, they aren't bound by it. That's been your logic for DAL remaining open when it was supposed to be closed to commercial traffic, correct? Southwest wasn't a party to the agreement to shut down Love Field to commercial traffic.

Thanks for stating the blatantly obvious Andy!

Does SWA want every single gate at Love, OF COURSE THEY DO.

Your characterization that this battle is a "forced divestiture" is patently false. As far as I have seen, no one is trying to force a divestiture of the gate in question. The legal action is based on whether or not SWA should be forced to accommodate Delta to continue five daily flights at a gate that was legally leased by southwest. You claim that Southwest: "never should have bid on the gates" is not supported by the DOJ or the City of Dallas.

"the transaction was reviewed and cleared without conditions by the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division. The City of Dallas, the owner and operator of Love Field, also approved the sublease."
http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/n...asing-two-dallas-love-field-gates-from-united

Of course Delta is bound by the 5 Party Agreement, just like everyone else who was not a party to the agreement. You do understand that the only reason the 5 Party agreement has any validity is because it was codified into law by congress don't you? The closure of Love field was never written into a law passed by congress. The decision to shut down Love Field was an illegal action undertaken by entities with no legal authorization to do so. This is not simply my opinion, it is the opinion of The Supreme Court of the United States of America. Your comparison is ridiculous.

 

[Andy]

Your characterization that this battle is a "forced divestiture" is patently false. As far as I have seen, no one is trying to force a divestiture of the gate in question. The legal action is based on whether or not SWA should be forced to accommodate Delta to continue five daily flights at a gate that was legally leased by southwest. You claim that Southwest: "never should have bid on the gates" is not supported by the DOJ or the City of Dallas.

Howard, that's because you're unable to envision JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant, Alaska, or any other smallish 'shut out' carrier petitioning for access to Love. That's straight from Southwest's old playbook. They will be granted access to Love and Southwest will be forced to accommodate any smaller 'shut out' carrier that wants to fly into Love.

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard, that's because you're unable to envision JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant, Alaska, or any other smallish 'shut out' carrier petitioning for access to Love. That's straight from Southwest's old playbook. They will be granted access to Love and Southwest will be forced to accommodate any smaller 'shut out' carrier that wants to fly into Love.

(2) Facilities.--Paragraph (1)(E)-- (A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after implementation of subsection (b); and (B) shall not be construed to require the city of Dallas, Texas-- (i) to construct additional gates beyond the 20 gates referred to in subsection (b); or (ii) to modify or eliminate preferential leases with air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity to new entrants or to create common use gates, unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis.

 

[Andy]

Howard, thanks for posting some legal mumbojumbo. Means nothing. At one time, Love was supposed to be closed to all commercial air traffic. Then all commercial flights could only be flown within Texas.

If you somehow think that Southwest is going to be permitted to keep near monopoly on Love field, you're going to be disappointed. Not that long ago, you were swearing up and down that Delta was going to be kicked out of Love. Didn't happen. Won't happen in the future.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Southwest be forced to accommodate American with gate space at Love sometime in the future.

 

[HowardBorden]

Not that long ago, you were swearing up and down that Delta was going to be kicked out of Love.

Never have I said any such thing. I have asserted all along that Southwest has a great legal team and rarely do they enter into litigation where they end up losing in a court of law. My money is still residing with the assumption that SWA has done their homework and will not pursue litigation where they do not feel they will eventually prevail. I'm not swearing anything "up and down" only looking past precedent as a guide as to how this will turn out.

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard, that's because you're unable to envision JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant, Alaska, or any other smallish 'shut out' carrier petitioning for access to Love.

I'm able to envision lots of things, but I also know the difficulties associated with changing U.S. law, especially with the gridlock currently residing in the legislative branch. It seems that what you choose not to realize is that just like the Wright Amendment, The 5 party repeal of the Wright Amendment is U.S. law. Can it be changed, of course. Is a change long, laborious and difficult, of course! The five-party agreement explicitly allocates 16 of the 20 Love Field gates to Southwest Airlines. If you think that provision will be quickly or easily changed, I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[Andy]

Never have I said any such thing. I have asserted all along that Southwest has a great legal team and rarely do they enter into litigation where they end up losing in a court of law. My money is still residing with the assumption that SWA has done their homework and will not pursue litigation where they do not feel they will eventually prevail. I'm not swearing anything "up and down" only looking past precedent as a guide as to how this will turn out.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that Southwest has ~95% of the traffic in and out of DAL and that the precedent for dealing with carriers who have a high percentage of the traffic at an airport is to take some assets from the monopoly carrier and give those assets to 'shut out' carriers.
It used to be Southwest that was able to get assets taken away from dominant carriers and given to Southwest and other 'disadvantaged' airlines. Now Southwest is the carrier whose gates at DAL will be poached at will by other carriers.

I'm able to envision lots of things, but I also know the difficulties associated with changing U.S. law, especially with the gridlock currently residing in the legislative branch. It seems that what you choose not to realize is that just like the Wright Amendment, The 5 party repeal of the Wright Amendment is U.S. law. Can it be changed, of course. Is a change long, laborious and difficult, of course! The five-party agreement explicitly allocates 16 of the 20 Love Field gates to Southwest Airlines. If you think that provision will be quickly or easily changed, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Howard, you crack me up. Southwest came in and had the big bad government take assets from the big 3 for many years so that they could be given to Southwest. Now that Southwest is the largest domestic carrier, you guys are starting to get a taste of what it's like to have your 'stuff' taken from you. The fact that Delta's able to use 'Southwest's gates' is just a bit of payback for all of the years that you guys have done this crap to the other majors. And if you somehow think that this will be the last time that Southwest gets assets taken from them, I suggest that you are very much mistaken.

Anyone who wants to fly into/out of DAL will be able to use Southwest's gates. Why? Because you guys have a monopoly in DAL. Call it Eminent Domain or In The Public Interest or whatever crap wording you want to use. Again, this is straight from Southwest's old playbook. You guys are now reaping what you've sown. You guys can 'own' as many gates as you want in DAL; you're just going to have to accommodate every airline that decides it wants to serve DAL by letting them use 'your' gates for pennies.

By the way, Southwest has 18 gates at DAL, not 16. So I guess that two of those gates should be taken away from them since Southwest is in violation of the '5 party agreement'.

 

[SWA Bubba]

You don't seem to grasp the fact that Southwest has ~95% of the traffic in and out of DAL and that the precedent for dealing with carriers who have a high percentage of the traffic at an airport is to take some assets from the monopoly carrier and give those assets to 'shut out' carriers.
It used to be Southwest that was able to get assets taken away from dominant carriers and given to Southwest and other 'disadvantaged' airlines. Now Southwest is the carrier whose gates at DAL will be poached at will by other carriers.

Speaking of grasping, you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the sole reason that Southwest carries such a high percentage of passengers to/from DAL (or rather, controls the overwhelming majority of the gates), is that the size of the aiport itself was contracted to fit around Southwest's existing 2006 operation. That's the only damn reason. There used to be plenty of gates for anyone who wanted to use them. The fact is, that nobody else wanted them. We controlled 16 of 32 (and possibly many more) gates, with the majority of the rest sitting idle. Southwest didn't "steal a monopoly" at Dallas Love; the airport was shrunk (for political reasons) to fit around what Southwest had been doing all along. Get it right, will ya'?

Howard, you crack me up. Southwest came in and had the big bad government take assets from the big 3 for many years so that they could be given to Southwest. Now that Southwest is the largest domestic carrier, you guys are starting to get a taste of what it's like to have your 'stuff' taken from you. The fact that Delta's able to use 'Southwest's gates' is just a bit of payback for all of the years that you guys have done this crap to the other majors. And if you somehow think that this will be the last time that Southwest gets assets taken from them, I suggest that you are very much mistaken.

Your quoted sentence, bolded above, is a blatant, self-serving falsehood. Here's an idea: Instead of just blathering anti-SWA generalizations, why don't you try to list actual examples of this claimed behavior? I don't know if it occurred to you, but there's a world of difference between an airline agreeing to divest itself of assets (slots/gates) in order to gain approval for a mega-merger, and then SWA being the highest bidder for some of those assets at the resultant auction; and the ridiculous idea that Southwest somehow "had the big bad government take assets" just so they can be "given to Southwest." That distinction seems to be lost on a Southwest hater such as yourself.

Anyone who wants to fly into/out of DAL will be able to use Southwest's gates. Why? Because you guys have a monopoly in DAL. Call it Eminent Domain or In The Public Interest or whatever crap wording you want to use. Again, this is straight from Southwest's old playbook. You guys are now reaping what you've sown. You guys can 'own' as many gates as you want in DAL; you're just going to have to accommodate every airline that decides it wants to serve DAL by letting them use 'your' gates for pennies.

I somehow doubt that a single word of this paragraph will come true (despite your fervent hopes). Not to mention that you seem to have as much understanding of how the airline business or airport allocation works (not to mention what the term "eminent domain" actually means), as you do about Southwest Airlines' actual history of operation. That is to say, none to speak of.

By the way, Southwest has 18 gates at DAL, not 16. So I guess that two of those gates should be taken away from them since Southwest is in violation of the '5 party agreement'.

Wrong again. Southwest has actual leases on 16 gates at DAL, not 18; which was the original allocation within the stated agreement. The other two gates that you refer to are actually currently leased to your airline, Andy (United), pursuant to that same agreement. United decided that they didn't want to use them, and subsequently sub-leased them to Southwest, which is allowed for in the agreement and the original leases themselves. So if you don't like Southwest using those two extra gates at DAL, then you only have yourself (or your own airline, rather) to blame--for leasing them to us.

You know, if you're really concerned about "fairness" in who gets to fly to/from DAL, then why don't you advocate changing the law to accommodate more gates there? It was only capped at 20 for political reasons, to limit Southwest's growth there. For instance, Southwest could use 18 or 20 gates, say, and then build another 10 gates for anyone else to use. Wouldn't that be the "fair" thing to do? (Even though you may not even fill them all, keeping in mind that even United decided it wasn't worth it to them to fly there)

It actually seems it's more important for you you to cause harm to Southwest, than to "level the playing field" for other airlines. Right? Kinda' like everyone's favorite Flopgut. And like Flopgut, to make your "case," you throw around BS allegations and generalizations, without the slightest regard to the truth. Hey, at least Flopgut has the balls to admit that his motivation is his hate of SWA.

So Andy, grow a pair. Admit your true motivations. And if you want to make an argument, fine--but do so using actual facts. At least quit with the lies and BS anti-SWA propaganda. Okay?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

If it weren't for the first lawyer showing up at Love Field, there wouldn't have been a second one. Or a third, a fourth, fifth etc etc.

Have fun SWA!

 

[HowardBorden]

If it weren't for the first lawyer showing up at Love Field, there wouldn't have been a second one. Or a third, a fourth, fifth etc etc.

Probably true. You can thank the first lawyer showing up from Continental Airlines, the second one from Braniff and the third from Trans-Texas all trying to kill the competition from Southwest out of Love Field. Unfortunately for all three, the Texas Supreme Court sided with Southwest.

 

[Flopgut]

The first "lawyer"?? Was Herb

 

[Flopgut]

And how'd SWA do on the final adjudication of the WA Howie?? Not too good

 

[Flopgut]

Embrace it howie

 

[HowardBorden]

The first "lawyer"?? Was Herb

Herb only fought the lawsuits filed against him. Herb was not the litigious one, he played defense.

 

[HowardBorden]

And how'd SWA do on the final adjudication of the WA Howie?? Not too good

I'm not quite sure what you're speaking of because the 5 party repeal amendment was not an adjudication but the passage of a US law.

If this is what you're speaking about, I'd say they did pretty well. SWA increased flights from DAL approximately 30%.

Consumers made out very well also.

"The great deals are indicative of how the cost of flying out of North Texas has come down dramatically since the Wright Amendment restrictions were eliminated in late 2014.
According to government data released this month, average fares at Love Field dropped 6.5 percent in the second quarter of 2015, compared with the same period of 2014, as Southwest Airlines added nonstop routes and flights.
In addition to the "Southwest effect" from its expansion at Love Field, the growth of low-cost carrier Spirit Airlines at DFW and plummeting fuel prices prompted American to aggressively match competitors, leading to the cheapest average airfares at North Texas airports since 2010.
'Dallas is absolutely the cheapest place to fly in the entire United States,' said George Hobica, founder of Airfarewatchdog.com."

 

[Flopgut]

Herb only fought the lawsuits filed against him. Herb was not the litigious one, he played defense.

Herb created all of the controversy