Virgin Awarded Love Field Gates

[General Lee]

LGA and JFK are single market but come on they are entirely two different airports with different missions and locations. You can't fly to LAX or SFO out of LGA but you can out of JFK and Europe as well. You can't fly from DAL to Europe but you can from DFW.

Single airport. 20 gates. 16/20 to 18/20 makes no sense.

Delta used to fly "Saturday only" nonstop from LGA to LAX and SLC, and ATA did "Saturday only" nonstop to SFO. They were the only exemptions on the LGA perimeter rule. That did stop a few years ago, which is a shame.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[scarlet]

AA has 108 gates at DFW. Think SWA's 18 at LOVE is way to many.

FACE it AMERICANS look for the lowest price. If cheaper at DFW drive there, if DAL is cheaper drive there.

Its business. SWA more job creations, more passengers..

30-40 flights a day to Chicago and New York airports, DCA airports,

VA=I see 2 years after 49.00 fares they pull out and head for more profitable routes.

 

[Tomct]

Already had multiple city councilmen state that they were voting for VX to get the gates. And the DOJ already said that if anyone BUT VX gets the gates, they will block it.

Sorry SWA!

See ya'll in the Luv Funny papers.

 

[scarlet]

Yeah VA will bring a whole 4 cities and 20 employees from DFW, no gain for employment.

 

[Flyer1015]

AA has 108 gates at DFW. Think SWA's 18 at LOVE is way to many.

FACE it AMERICANS look for the lowest price. If cheaper at DFW drive there, if DAL is cheaper drive there.

Its business. SWA more job creations, more passengers..

30-40 flights a day to Chicago and New York airports, DCA airports,

VA=I see 2 years after 49.00 fares they pull out and head for more profitable routes.

SWA isn't a LCC. Give them that monopoly the fares will skyrocket. It's very telling that while DL and VX have published schedules, SWA is hush hush about their flight schedules. Maybe because they know some cities will only get one flight per day.

 

[redflyer65]

I think in the end it will be a colossal mistake for VA to move from DFW to Love. Just like pulling out of SNA.

Southwest may very well get the gates anyway if it doesn't work out for them.

 

[tzskipper]

Just so I understand....

1. DFW/DAL is "one market".

2. VX (or VA, whatever), is allowed into "that market". Obvi.

3. VA said it has a legit, signed "sub-lease" of two gates held by AA (apparently "sub-leases" are acceptable to the city, i.e. Delta and Seaborne previously?). For the record, I could not find any info regarding any issue the City Council or the City Manager had with the above "sub-leases".

4. This signed "sub-lease" apparently meets the DOJ requirements of the "divestiture" as demanded in the anti-trust settlement, as it is acceptable to them. Even though the DOJ has "blessed" this, if 1, 2, and 3 above are true, does it even matter in the context a a consensual deal between AA and Virgin?

5. The additional questions I see are (more of a curiosity); Why the big deal now? Why not when a deal was done with Delta or Seaborne? Why the issue with Virgin and not the others?

Just musing...

S

 

[HowardBorden]

Just so I understand....

1. DFW/DAL is "one market".

2. VX (or VA, whatever), is allowed into "that market". Obvi.

3. VA said it has a legit, signed "sub-lease" of two gates held by AA (apparently "sub-leases" are acceptable to the city, i.e. Delta and Seaborne previously?). For the record, I could not find any info regarding any issue the City Council or the City Manager had with the above "sub-leases".

4. This signed "sub-lease" apparently meets the DOJ requirements of the "divestiture" as demanded in the anti-trust settlement, as it is acceptable to them. Even though the DOJ has "blessed" this, if 1, 2, and 3 above are true, does it even matter in the context a a consensual deal between AA and Virgin?

5. The additional questions I see are (more of a curiosity); Why the big deal now? Why not when a deal was done with Delta or Seaborne? Why the issue with Virgin and not the others?

Just musing...

S

I think the big deal for Dallas is that the 5 party agreement to end the WA states:

If the right to use the preferential gates ceases, they become common use-Common use gates are managed by the airport

In the previous situations mentioned AA had not lost the right to use the gates. In the DOJ anti-trust remedy voluntarily entered in to by AA, they agree to divest the gates or in other words "the right to use the preferential gates ceases."

At least that is what I can piece together from the Dallas public statements.


http://www.dallascityhall.com/commi...dGateLeases_042814.pdf#page=31&zoom=100,0,338

 

[tzskipper]

Interesting.

Thanks Howard. That is the only rational position that has been taken regarding this whole discussion, and probably the only arguable position in a "legal" sense.

I guess it does leave a question that needs clarification; who (which entity) is in a position to make the determination that AA "loses" the gates (invalidates the current leases)? Based on the DOJ's acceptance of a sub-lease scenario, it's apparently not them. If the DOJ is not forcing AA to cancel the lease(s), what basis does the city have to make its case?

S

 

[DCMartin]

Agreed.

The city of Dallas can't pick and choose what part of the DOJs ruling to follow. Either they ignore it entirely and AA does not have to give up the gates. Or they follow it entirely, which would mean AA would sub lease to virgin.

 

[HowardBorden]

Agreed.

The city of Dallas can't pick and choose what part of the DOJs ruling to follow. Either they ignore it entirely and AA does not have to give up the gates. Or they follow it entirely, which would mean AA would sub lease to virgin.

I think the argument is that the settlement has AA relinquishing their rights to operate out of the gates and Dallas is claiming that if their rights to use the gates ceases then they revert back to city control as per their agreement with AA via the 5 party WA agreement. The DOJ is allowing AA to sub-lease the gates to Virgin in order to remain within the 5 party agreement, but Dallas is arguing that if AA can no longer use them themselves, they return to city control. I am of course only speculating all this from the public statements made by Dallas. I guess we will find out sometime today what Dallas has decided to do going forward. No doubt all of this will most likely end up in court with a judge making the final determination.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

These two gates are being relinquished as a result of the AA/USAir merger. For whatever reason, the DOJ felt like of the 120 gates AA and Us had in the Dallas area, relinquishing 2 at an entirely different airport solved their competitive heartburn. Ok... it's weird. But, it also pretty much makes the argument that in the eyes of the DOJ, the Dallas metroplex is a single market. In which case AA still overwhelmingly dominates the market.

So AA wants to eliminate a competitor at DFW (whose management happens to be former AA?) and negatively impact a competitor? Sounds fishy.

 

[scoreboardII]

Agreed.

The city of Dallas can't pick and choose what part of the DOJs ruling to follow. Either they ignore it entirely and AA does not have to give up the gates. Or they follow it entirely, which would mean AA would sub lease to virgin.

The reality is, the DOJ cannot dictate to the city who gets to sublease in violation of the 5 party agreement. The agreement is clear, loss of the gates, means they become controlled once again by the city, not the DOJ, nor whomever AA wants to lease them too.

 

[HowardBorden]

I.' Key Airport Gates and Facilities' means all rights and interests held by Defendants in two gates at each Key Airport as described in Exhibit C. The term 'Key Airport Gates and Facilities' includes Associated Ground Facilities, up to the extent such facilities were used by Defendants to support the gates described in Exhibit C.

D. Subject to any necessary approval of the relevant airport operator, Defendants are ordered and directed to divest the Key Airport Gates and Facilities to Acquirer(s) in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment within 180 calendar days after the later of (1) completion of the Transaction or (2) the United States providing Defendants a list of the Acquirers.

 

[redflyer65]

I think the argument is that the settlement has AA relinquishing their rights to operate out of the gates and Dallas is claiming that if their rights to use the gates ceases then they revert back to city control as per their agreement with AA via the 5 party WA agreement. The DOJ is allowing AA to sub-lease the gates to Virgin in order to remain within the 5 party agreement, but Dallas is arguing that if AA can no longer use them themselves, they return to city control. I am of course only speculating all this from the public statements made by Dallas. I guess we will find out sometime today what Dallas has decided to do going forward. No doubt all of this will most likely end up in court with a judge making the final determination.

I think Howard has it right.

Let's say the DOJ allows the 'AA sub-lease' to VA. What happens if six months down the road VA decides to pull out. Aren't we back to square one with AA still having a divesture? The gates should go back to the city with no AA input going forward. Otherwise known as a full divesture.

So if VA leaves would AA get another chance at naming the future tenants?

 

[DCMartin]

Looks like Virgin should get them:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/business/C...in-Americas-move-to-Love-Field-258562971.html

DALLAS -? Two sources from City Hall told News 8 that Dallas City Manager A.C. Gonzalez will approve Virgin America?s lease of two gates at Love Field.

Attorneys for the airline and the city are still working through fine print of the deal, sources said, but it will likely be announced on Friday.

Virgin America is sub-leasing the gates from American Airlines through 2028. American agreed to give up its Love Field gates in a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice so it could merge with US Airways.

The Justice Department rejected offers from Southwest Airlines and Delta Airlines to take over the gates.

Last month, in a highly-publicized event, Virgin announced it would move its operations from D/FW Airport to Dallas Love Field though it didn?t yet have a signed agreement with American Airlines or the city of Dallas.

Virgin reached an agreement with American on Monday, according to Sir Richard Branson, founder of The Virgin Group.

Though the city manager made the decision, Gonzalez had the council briefed on the situation.

Dallas-based Southwest Airlines is still lobbying the city for the gates, though it does not have a deal under consideration.

Virgin pledged to add New York, Washington D.C., and eventually Chicago to the Los Angeles and San Francisco flights it already has at D/FW.

Branson even came to Dallas this week in a lobbying effort to help finalize the deal.

 

[redflyer65]

And why is American involved at all again?

Something doesn't sound right.

 

[DCMartin]

And why is American involved at all again?

Something doesn't sound right.

My guess is if AA released the gates they would go back to the city as common use as pointed out earlier. I'm thinking by sub-leasing them the lawyers aren't considering AA as technically releasing them. Just a guess though.

 

[FlyinGuy]

If you peek behind the curtain, you will see the AA puppet master is laughing as he controls this whole thing. Dallas politics never changes!

 

[scarlet]

How long will they last running a loss everyday?

49.00 fares to SFO/LAX/ORD//MDW/DCA/New York? From AA, United, SWA, Spirit?

Where is Legend?