Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL/US Back On For Slot Swap After WN EWR Deal?  
User currently offlinesmoot4208 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1312 posts, RR: 12
Posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9139 times:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...901-28KRITTGMK9F73T1LIFSLHIOA9.DTL

-"Southwest is happy about Newark," Becker said. "Now Delta and US Airways could go back to the FAA and say 'Look, Southwest got what it wanted, so let us try again.'"

99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3546 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9138 times:

Except the DOT set a minimum # of slots to be given away, and DL and US didn't do that. Unless they do that, no swap.

That's how a controlling agency works . . . they control


User currently offlinesmoot4208 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1312 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9090 times:

A couple of arguments that will be sent to the DOJ though:

-In the 2000 UA/US merger, the combined company was considered too large at "DC area" and would have to divest. In that case the DOT decided that IAD counts as DC, and the combined company couldn't be too big at "both" airports. If that is the DOT's stand, fine. But they need to uphold that standard today. You can bet if US and UA had merged this year instead of CO, the DOT would have made the combined company divest DC slots. In the recent slot swap, no mention was given to IAD, the supposed 2nd airport for the DC area. The DOJ doesn't have the authority to approve/reject the deal, but to find that the DOT was ethical or not. To me that seems to be a double standard for the "DC area" If IAD counts as a DC airport, WN could add flights there.

-Who owns the slots

-UA/CO merger approved conveniently the same day WN gets 36 slots at EWR

-Also there are 7 ex-Midwest Airlines slots at DCA. WN could realisticly get 5 flights out of that. (All but the Air 21 slots)

-And lastly, what the article suggests, that EWR is a NYC airport, and the addition of WN there will already increase competition

-With these recent additions, and especially after the DOT awards these 7 DCA frequencies, that already changes the landscape of the competition they wanted


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10512 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9077 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 1):
Except the DOT set a minimum # of slots to be given away, and DL and US didn't do that. Unless they do that, no swap.

Except, now, maybe, the number of slots at LGA/DCA doesn't matter because WN got some slots in the NYC area. I think, originally, that the DOT was more worried about what DL would get in the swap deal than what US got.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineFutureUScapt From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 765 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9033 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 3):
Except, now, maybe, the number of slots at LGA/DCA doesn't matter because WN got some slots in the NYC area. I think, originally, that the DOT was more worried about what DL would get in the swap deal than what US got.

Except that it does nothing to solve the "problem" that exists at DCA...


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8963 times:

The other argument that DL/US could make, and I think its a very legit argument, is that the slots that WN picked up were not made available to all carriers on the open market. In the DL/US deal, slots were divested to 4 other airlines. However its funny that deals get approved when WN gets something out of it, but not when they don't.

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10512 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8946 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 5):
The other argument that DL/US could make, and I think its a very legit argument, is that the slots that WN picked up were not made available to all carriers on the open market. In the DL/US deal, slots were divested to 4 other airlines. However its funny that deals get approved when WN gets something out of it, but not when they don't.

Don't waste your breath. I've made the same argument, on several different threads and have been shot down, every time, presumably by the "WN can do no wrong" crowd.  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8869 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 6):
Quoting apodino (Reply 5):
The other argument that DL/US could make, and I think its a very legit argument, is that the slots that WN picked up were not made available to all carriers on the open market. In the DL/US deal, slots were divested to 4 other airlines. However its funny that deals get approved when WN gets something out of it, but not when they don't.

Don't waste your breath. I've made the same argument, on several different threads and have been shot down, every time, presumably by the "WN can do no wrong" crowd.

This has nothing to do with it. WN was awarded the slots w/o much hassle because they had NO presence in EWR. The DL/US slot swap would have resulted TOO LARGE of a presence in LGA by DL who already had a decent size presence in LGA.

There is a big difference between the two deals.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8833 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 7):

This has nothing to do with it. WN was awarded the slots w/o much hassle because they had NO presence in EWR. The DL/US slot swap would have resulted TOO LARGE of a presence in LGA by DL who already had a decent size presence in LGA.

There is a big difference between the two deals.

No there isn't. In the case of the UA/CO merger, CO already had a large presence in EWR, and the UA slots would have resulted in too large a presence in EWR so they divested some slots. In the case of the DL/US deal DL would have gained a huge presence in LGA and US in DCA, so both airlines were requested to divest slots to make the deal work. I have no problem with that.

What I have the problem with is that the DOT allowed WN to get the EWR slots without putting them on the open market (I.E. where any airline could get them such as NK, B6, or F9 to name a few). However the DOT also told US and DL that they had to put their slots on the open market to divest them, even though 4 airlines would have gained slots out of the US/DL deal, and only one airline gained slots out of the UA/CO deal. WestJet was one of the airlines that was to gain slots in the deal, and they don't serve either LGA or DCA, plus WN already serves LGA. My original point still stands, that when WN benefits from something, its always approved without much issue, but when they don't and they cry about something, then it usually doesn't happen.


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8516 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 8):
What I have the problem with is that the DOT allowed WN to get the EWR slots without putting them on the open market

Fair point. I agree with this comment. However,

Quoting apodino (Reply 8):
There is a big difference between the two deals.

No there isn't. In the case of the UA/CO merger, CO already had a large presence in EWR, and the UA slots would have resulted in too large a presence in EWR so they divested some slots. In the case of the DL/US deal DL would have gained a huge presence in LGA and US in DCA, so both airlines were requested to divest slots to make the deal work. I have no problem with that.

There is a big difference in this respect. The airline who received the slots in EWR had NO presence. The airline who would have received the slots in LGA (DL) already had a decent sized presence. The additional slots would have made DL the largest carrier at LGA. There is a big difference between these two scenarios.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8502 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 9):
The airline who received the slots in EWR had NO presence. The airline who would have received the slots in LGA (DL) already had a decent sized presence. The additional slots would have made DL the largest carrier at LGA. There is a big difference between these two scenarios.

Again, I disagree with your thesis. As I said before in the case of EWR, the airline receiving the slots is UA as part of the CO merger, which increases their already fortress hub at EWR. Because of this they had to divest slots. In the case of LGA, DL is receiving the slots, and due to the amount of slots gained, they also have to divest slots. All I am saying is, why is UA allowed to divest slots without an open market bid, but not DL, or US at DCA?


User currently offlineT5towbar From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8380 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 8):
What I have the problem with is that the DOT allowed WN to get the EWR slots without putting them on the open market (I.E. where any airline could get them such as NK, B6, or F9 to name a few)

A good question is: Who would have taken those slots then?

I always thought that B6 would have gotten a few. But I doubt that......... I still think that Barger holds a grudge with CO. CO's not gonna help out B6 in that aspect. But I would have still thought that they would have got some IMHO.

FL left EWR (slot trade at DCA)

Spirit is in ACY

That leaves F9 and VX. Did they ever want or have interest in the NYC area? I wouldn't think that UA would help out F9 in any way because of what is happening in DEN. Maybe VX could of gotten a couple of slots? The main problem here at EWR is gate and facility space. Slots are only half the issue. What gates and facilities you are going to use with multiple carriers? I'm surmising that WN will get two or three of the UA gates at Terminal A.

Most of the above carriers would have preferred LGA over EWR any day of the week if they had that that kind of opportunity.

UA/CO made a preemptive move in getting WN to LEASE (I emphasize...LEASE) those 36 slots to get the regulatory OK from the DOT. WN got the next best thing since they couldn't get more slots at LGA. UA/CO got their merger passed through.



A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
User currently offlineN809FR From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 182 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8345 times:

You've got to love how easily lobbies control our government, WN cries foul and gets what they want, yet when they don't then nothing gets approved. I think F9 should have gotten some EWR slots, or at the very least gotten to hold on to the ex-Midwest DCA slots. I'm sure WN would love to have those slots even if it's just 7.

WN is a cancer that keeps growing and growing because the DOT wont stop them as long as WN continues to give money to the right people. Time to put an end to the unlimited expansion and bring them back down to earth.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6639 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8222 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 10):
All I am saying is, why is UA allowed to divest slots without an open market bid, but not DL, or US at DCA?

Who says that UA/CO didn't shop the slots around and WN was the highest bidder? I can bet you that CO would much rather have the slots go to a weaker player like FL or F9, but the reality is that those carriers don't really want EWR slots nor do they have the money to bid against WN.

Quoting N809FR (Reply 12):
WN is a cancer that keeps growing and growing because the DOT wont stop them as long as WN continues to give money to the right people. Time to put an end to the unlimited expansion and bring them back down to earth.

Why? WN provides affordable transportation that many people want.

Quoting apodino (Reply 8):
My original point still stands, that when WN benefits from something, its always approved without much issue, but when they don't and they cry about something, then it usually doesn't happen.

There might be some truth to what you say, but that's what happens when you run a business that people respect and want to do business with. When you run a business based on making things as difficult as possible for the consumer, you eventually find you don't have a lot of allies.


User currently offlineN809FR From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 182 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8188 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 14):
Why? WN provides affordable transportation that many people want.

Yet they have to do it in a way that puts a bad taste in many peoples mouths. Take DEN for example, F9 had long been wanting an expansion of the A Concourse but the airport said not unless they would pay for it themselves. WN comes into DEN and within a year or two have DEN building an expansion onto the C Concourse at the airports cost. I highly doubt WN brings mroe money to DEN than F9, and yet somehow they still get their way. How? I'm guessing lining the pockets of the people in charge has quite a lot to do with it.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10512 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8190 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 14):
Who says that UA/CO didn't shop the slots around and WN was the highest bidder?

Who's to say that DL/US didn't do the same thing in their swap deal and WN wasn't? Of course, that's silly....because we know that WN would be the highest bidder, BUT the DOT never stipulated that they had to take the highest bidder, no matter how much howling WN did.

Somewhere, down the road, can WN try to transfer those EWR slots to, say, LGA or are they locked into a particular airport?

[Edited 2010-09-01 09:55:34]


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 14):
Why? WN provides affordable transportation that many people want.

It's a fact. In any market where WN posts its Internet-only "Wanna Get Away" fares or "Seniors Only" fares, competing fares go down. For instance, I've been looking into fares out of LAX. On LAX to LAS/PHX/SEA/SFO/SMF when WN's Internet-only fares are posted, competing fares on AS, UA, and US come down to match them. When fare are sold out, competing fares go back up -- in some cases, they triple.

The so-called "Southwest Effect" is a real phenomena that will also function on EWR fares.


User currently offlineca2ohHP From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 955 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8110 times:

Very interesting that two of the largest airlines in the United States can completely merge operations by turning over a handful of slots to WN, yet DL/US cannot re-allocate slots to include a number of new entrant carriers.

Obviously the DL/US slot deal could be approved tomorrow if WN were included in any deal.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10512 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8046 times:

Well, it seems some analysts agree with what some of us have said on this thread.............



From Bloomberg:


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...southwest-adds-newark-service.html

[Edited 2010-09-01 10:40:33]


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinedartland From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 644 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7956 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is no inconsistency here. The DOJ has made it clear they view each airport in NYC as its own market. UA had a small presence at EWR, so divesting 36 slots met the threshold (that they were to SWA was an extra benefit) required.

At LGA (and DCA), both US and DL have large presences so the slot swap would have created a stronger power. They asked for divestitures to limit that impact, and DL and US refused. While the open market vs. closed-door deal of who got the slots may have impacted the final decision, DL and US never agreed to give up as many slots as the DOJ asked, they always tried to get away with fewer, and the DOJ balked.

Kudos to CO/UA for volunteering the divestiture to SWA to avoid the whole confrontation. Shame on DL/US for not doing the same, and then repeatedly underestimating the DOJ's stance on divestiture.

I don't see how the UA/CO/SW issue has any bearing on the US/DL slot swap at LGA and DCA. In both cases, the DOJ wanted the same thing -- divestiture of slots to new entrants. I don't see how US/DL have any new argument with the DOJ except a fuzzy notion of overall increased competition in the NYC area thanks to SWA's new presence at EWR. But we've heard the DOJ explicitly ignore that argument on grounds that EWR and LGA are different markets, so I can't imagine any shift in decision now.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6639 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7913 times:

Quoting N809FR (Reply 14):
I highly doubt WN brings mroe money to DEN than F9

I think you'd be surprised. WN has created most of DEN's growth over the past few years, not F9.

Quoting mayor (Reply 15):
Somewhere, down the road, can WN try to transfer those EWR slots to, say, LGA or are they locked into a particular airport?

Slots are airport specific.

Quoting dartland (Reply 19):
I don't see how the UA/CO/SW issue has any bearing on the US/DL slot swap at LGA and DCA.

It doesn't. These "analysts" are clueless. WN's 18 flights while a little helpful, don't meaningfully change the competitive balance in NYC as a whole and certainly not at LGA.

Not to mention that the biggest problem for US/DL was the number of slots that had to be given up at DCA. DL was willingly to play ball at LGA, but US balked at DCA.

Quoting ca2ohHP (Reply 17):
Very interesting that two of the largest airlines in the United States can completely merge operations by turning over a handful of slots to WN, yet DL/US cannot re-allocate slots to include a number of new entrant carriers.

One HUGE difference, the UA/CO case they are giving up all of UA's slots so that effectively the new UA will gain ZERO marketshare at EWR. At LGA/DCA, the deal will increase marketshare substantially for DL at LGA and a little bit at DCA.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7895 times:

Quoting dartland (Reply 19):
Kudos to CO/UA for volunteering the divestiture to SWA to avoid the whole confrontation. Shame on DL/US for not doing the same, and then repeatedly underestimating the DOJ's stance on divestiture.

Shame on companies wanting to do what's best for their businesses! Well if you look at what both carriers have to gain/lose, CO/UA could have delayed the entire merger on this one issue, whereas DL/US either stay at status quo or go through with a deal with much less positive than would have been worth it



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinebomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7882 times:

Wasn't the majority of the problem with the amount of slots the DOT wanted divested at DCA vs. LGA?

Peace   



AVIATION - A Vacation In Any Town, I Own Nothing
User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7869 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 20):
Not to mention that the biggest problem for US/DL was the number of slots that had to be given up at DCA. DL was willingly to play ball at LGA, but US balked at DCA.

Everybody thinks that, but do we actually know that?


User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1612 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7809 times:

Quoting N809FR (Reply 12):
WN is a cancer that keeps growing and growing because the DOT wont stop them as long as WN continues to give money to the right people. Time to put an end to the unlimited expansion and bring them back down to earth.

The US needs more cancer if this is the case. WN is the best run, best managed airline in the US. Every airline could improve a lot by emulating many of their business practices.



smrtrthnu
25 Post contains images mariner : And Southwest isn't causing United heartache at DEN? I still have an eyebrow raised about some of this. As I said in the other thread, in May Cambrid
26 ScottB : Except we don't know if DOT would have approved the Delta-US Airways deal if DL and US had actually agreed to divest the number of slots required by
27 ca2ohHP : It has bearing because UA/CO hand-picked who they divest these slots to. It's all a trade off, US gains marketshare at DCA, DL gains at LGA and colle
28 Cubsrule : Why in the world would DoT have stopped CO and UA from taking an action that was wholly procompetitive? I've asked that question in several threads,
29 STT757 : CO/UA acted proactively by making the "full" divestiture, they didn't play games like DL and US were with the slot swap, at first DL/US didn't offer
30 apodino : Bringing 4 new carriers into LGA and DCA is not procompetitive? I would argue its more pro competitive than one new carrier gaining access to EWR. I
31 STT757 : No because DL and US were still substantially growing their dominant positions at each airport, and second their were diluting the effectiveness of t
32 Post contains images par13del : Pity WN could not locate these power brokers when they were confined in DAL by that Wright Amendment, they might have gotton it abolished years ago I
33 ca2ohHP : More like a competitor with a fat wallet.
34 Cubsrule : No - concentration would still have gone up (quite a bit) at both airports. New carriers doesn't determine quality of the competition. Concentration
35 FlyASAGuy2005 : I think it's pretty obvious really and i'm suprised no one has mentioned it. IF DL and US were so pissed about what happened at EWR, why hasn't either
36 NYCAdvantage : They are not giving them, They are leasing them, after how many years can UA decide to get those slots back from WN? Will the DOT get the slots back
37 apodino : WestJet to Porter is an apples to oranges comparison. Porter is a niche carrier serving passengers willing to pay a premium to fly into the Toronto D
38 mayor : They did....their case is before the appeals court. It might have been a little easier for CO/UA to make their divestiture than it was for DL/US. Aft
39 ocracoke : Does anyone have the percentage of how many slots had to be given up at the 3 airports? In other words, CO/UA giving up 36 out of __?__ total slots =
40 cslusarc : IMHO, the fallout from this merger on prices will be minor if not insignificant. Right now the US airline industry is just breaking even and cannot p
41 STT757 : First of all not offering any divestiture, then when the DOT cites a specific number of slots be divested as a prerequisite for the DOT's approval DL
42 Post contains images mayor : But it was DL/US that submitted the plan to the DOT in the first place........it wasn't DOT going to DL/US and saying that they had to divest some sl
43 STT757 : DL and US are not the equals of the United States Government, they have no collective bargaining rights when it comes to obeying laws and Federal reg
44 smoot4208 : US at DCA: 16/42 or 33% DL at LGA: 20/120 or 16.7% CO at EWR: 408 flights plus 18 UA flights =426: 426=852 slots: 36/852 or 4.2%
45 JBAirwaysFan : If it doesn't, then CO is not NYC's largest carrier because EWR is not in NY. Continental competes very well with the other NYC Contenders via EWR so
46 jetlanta : Funny thing about our country is that they ARE equals to the government. Both the government and the companies need to follow the law. This is exactl
47 FlyASAGuy2005 : That one I know about. I meant in terms of this deal between UA and CO specifically. You can pretty much contest anything in court; doesn't mean it w
48 Flighty : Smoot posted the important fact. The DOT DOJ FAA here are being ditzes. They approve several hugely anti-competitive mergers and ATIs. And they disall
49 STT757 : Does anyone think at this point, considering the childish reaction from DL ending their DCA slot leases to US, that US would want to go back to dealin
50 Cubsrule : You make it sound like DL/US have a slam dunk case. They do not. It's a relatively large grey area. That said (and recognizing that DL/US was not a m
51 jfklganyc : DL and US can go to court all they want; as long as you have a liberal-leaning admin in place, they are going to side with more competition from LCCs.
52 Post contains images peanuts : Has no bearing. Don't mix "emotion" into this. It's just business. If another deal could be worked out that benefits BOTH parties, don't blink... you
53 jetlanta : Congress sets the law, not the DOT. DOT sets rules that can indeed be challenged if the rules violate the law. It happens all the time. And the gover
54 Post contains images mayor : I'm wondering if you would be talking the same way if it was CO/UA instead of DL/US? Specifically, which laws and regulations did DL/US break by subm
55 Cubsrule : How many air travel related DoT rules have been successfully challenged in court in the past five years?
56 jetlanta : Probably none, and there probably haven't been any challenges either. None that I can recall. The industry doesn't challenge these things willy nilly
57 STT757 : That FCC fine case after the Janet Jackson incident was recently settled, and that Super Bowl was what 7 years ago?..
58 FlyPNS1 : More like DL is desperate to get a bigger foothold in NYC and they know this slot deal is the only way. The folks at DL know they don't have much of
59 SESGDL : DL is already the second largest airline in NYC, and the largest in New York City if you discount EWR. It's not as if DL is trying to play catchup or
60 peanuts : This statement shows more wishful thinking and partisanship than anything. The facts prove otherwise. The LGA deal would've been a very important pie
61 Post contains links jetlanta : Im not talking about Janet Jackon. I'm talking about far more important issues like this: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...cc_loses_comcasts_co
62 smoot4208 : Also, didn't the rest of the Legacies, FL, and B6 all sign on the agreement part (not necessarily in favor of the deal) but stating that slots are pr
63 FlyPNS1 : Most of the unused slots DL has at JFK are at crappy times and not useful. DL tried to use them with lots of mid-day domestic flights which failed mi
64 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : Which is exactly why the ATA is behind DL and US on this.
65 Cubsrule : I thought "it happens all the time." What am I missing? DoT does effectively have the final word on CO/UA/WN. I can't think of anyone with standing t
66 SESGDL : Which is more slots than both B6 and AA have. Why is that? As the largest carrier at LGA they need even more slots to command a premium, despite serv
67 jfklganyc : "Congress sets the law, not the DOT. DOT sets rules that can indeed be challenged if the rules violate the law. It happens all the time. And the gover
68 Post contains images OA412 : Of course they did. Yeah CO is always so classy in everything that they do. More like CO and UA followed what happened with US/DL and knew that they
69 Post contains images peanuts : All I'm reading is: more flights/competition between bigger cities on bigger planes. Forget the smaller communities. How is this helping the consumer
70 JBAirwaysFan : Back up just a little bit. DL is the largest carrier at LGA? Last I checked US was. Honestly the swap originally was fare and square. The LGA slots a
71 mayor : Well, said. If it was so anti-competitive, why wouldn't the DOT to force DL and US, just as things are today, to divest themselves of some slots? Why
72 SESGDL : DL is the largest carrier at LGA, US is actually the 3rd largest after AA. Jeremy
73 Maverick623 : Not exactly. And by not exactly, I mean the details of slot "ownership" are so incredibly complicated that most lawyers can't even make heads or tail
74 MAH4546 : As with B6, AA and CO, Delta is in no position to expand in New York beyond using larger aircraft. You really think that AA, CO and B6 are also not s
75 DCA-ROCguy : It was established in a thread sometime in the past six months, with citations from the appropriate laws, that slots are *public property.* Those slo
76 Post contains images par13del : So have they attempted to sell or lease these slots to someone else for them to have a go and as jfklganyc asked in post 67, what slots are these? I
77 STT757 : The issue with the Slot swap was never the fact that WN was not included, the issue was and remains the fact that DL and US in particular found the n
78 par13del : I have to go back and read the threads and various reports, but I thought the whole thing went south when WN protested, up to that point the slots to
79 STT757 : No it was absolutely the number, DL and US came and made a counter offer of less slots than the DOT stated were required for approval. I think DL was
80 mayor : Well, that's what the DOT said, but it certainly seems coincidental that WN had protested the swap just prior to the DOT's "conditional" ruling.
81 STT757 : Fact is if DL and US had met the number of slots to divest, the deal what have gone forward. No matter whether WN was included or they were not.
82 mayor : Well, we'll never know, will we? Unless of course the appeal is successful.
83 STT757 : Why are we rewriting history, the DOT approved the slot swap conditional on the divestiture of a certain amount of slots in an open bidding. Parker i
84 JBAirwaysFan : Right, because the DOT doesn't allow that at all. AA doesn't monopolize DFW in an un-marketlike way...[Edited 2010-09-04 18:38:01][Edited 2010-09-04
85 MAH4546 : That's the free market at work. Dallas is not slot-controlled. Other airlines can come and fill in the gaps. Other airlines have tried just that at D
86 mayor : How am I rewriting history? DL/US submit original plan to DOT.......DOT comes back and conditionally okays plan as long as DL & US divest a certa
87 Schweigend : AA's monopoly of DFW is quite market-like -- they grew that hub organically, as have other airlines their various hubs. To gain a hub over time by di
88 Maverick623 : Last I checked DFW wasn't slot controlled. And if you're somehow referring to the Wright Amendment, you can thank your parents' corrupt Congressmen f
89 STT757 : DFW is not slot restricted, WN could have moved in years ago and competed. Also DL was there, but chose to leave.
90 mayor : Uh, DL is still there.....it's just not a hub. I daresay that DFW lost its hub status in those pre BK days because of extremem cost cutting measures.
91 JBAirwaysFan : You don't need a slot restricted airport to monopolize an airport in an unmarket-like manner.
92 MAH4546 : What on earth are you talking about? AA's "monopoly" at DFW is the result of the free market that has chosen to allow AA to have such a monopoly. Sou
93 genybustrvlr : My $0.02 WN's entrance to EWR provides significantly more competition at that airport than would the entrance of four new carriers at DCA and/or LGA.
94 STT757 : . You see you lost credibility with me right there, are you saying EWR is not the most convenient airport to Staten Island?.. That's a borough, and fr
95 Flighty : That's ludicrous; yes NJ has millions of affluent travelers, but come on, this is a.net. Surely Manhattan explains the entire USA travel market.
96 Cubsrule : At both LGA and DCA, the largest carrier would have gotten larger. That's anticompetitive.
97 jfklganyc : "How am I rewriting history? DL/US submit original plan to DOT.......DOT comes back and conditionally okays plan as long as DL & US divest a certa
98 mayor : Perhaps you missed this part. Somewhere between the original proposal and the DOT's response, WN complained. Now, WN's complaint MAY NOT have been th
99 Cubsrule : ...as is their right. What's your point?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DL/US Slot Swap Rejected posted Tue May 4 2010 12:29:14 by mah4546
DL,US Outmaneuver WN At LGA posted Tue Mar 23 2010 10:12:31 by bjorn14
DL/US LGA-DCA Slot Transaction Update posted Mon Feb 8 2010 21:11:39 by apodino
DL/US Slot Trade Agreement (document Released) posted Sat Oct 31 2009 12:01:35 by DL747400
JAL Talks With DL And AMR Are Back On. posted Mon Oct 19 2009 11:18:51 by DeltaL1011man
AA 763 Back On HNL-LAX For A Few Weeks posted Tue Jul 7 2009 19:14:08 by AQ737
DL/NW - No Plans For Avod In Y On NW 744s posted Mon May 25 2009 11:11:28 by 1337Delta764
DL To Charge $50 For 2nd Bag On Intl Flights posted Tue Apr 21 2009 06:40:09 by FWAERJ
DL Route Change On ATL-REC-FOR? posted Wed Feb 18 2009 04:12:11 by Jpyvr
I Need Info On A US Airways Diversion For Fuel posted Thu Sep 25 2008 13:29:50 by Whappeh