• APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 9.1 is now available on the Apple App Store. Click here for details of what's new in this release. Major new features include Default Rest Facility, ATC Flight Planned Routes and Notifications of route changes, EDCT Status Board Widget, and more...

Looks Like DAL Is Staying At DAL

General Lee

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

12/13/2012
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. :D
 

Andy

12/13/2012
Belated update.

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

Appealing Kinkeade's ruling: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/southwest-to-appeal-judges-ruling-on-delta-gates-to-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.
 

Ty Webb

Hostage to Fortune
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. :mad:
 

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Belated update.

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

Appealing Kinkeade's ruling: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/southwest-to-appeal-judges-ruling-on-delta-gates-to-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
 
Last edited:

Andy

12/13/2012
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.
 

HowardBorden

Well-known member
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%.
 
Last edited:

Andy

12/13/2012
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/todayinthesky/2014/04/25/virgin-america-seats-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

Well-known member
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/todayinthesky/2014/04/25/virgin-america-seats-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/news/34897-southwest-leasing-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.
 
Last edited:

Andy

12/13/2012
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

Well-known member
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

12/13/2012
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 
Top