Within the thread there was a cited source that said VX was getting the slots from AA. I (mistakenly) assumed that AA was reducing flights elsewhere and then selling those slots to VX. Apparently that's not the case, though.
The Dallas Morning News has updated the story with new information.
Quote: American Airlines is asking the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to let it lease 15 takeoff and landing slots at Newark Liberty International Airport to Virgin America.
And, as it turns out, 10 of the slots are currently leased to United Airlines and four are leased to Canadian carrier Porter Airlines. The other slot is currently operated by American.
In its Wednesday evening filing, American asked the court to approve its rejection of the United and Porter slot leases as of Saturday, March 30. The slots then go to Virgin America on Sunday, March 31, two days before VA begins Newark flights.
We also learn from the filing that American actually signed the agreement to lease the slots to Virgin America on Sept. 28, 2012. We also learn that American (actually subsidiary American Eagle) leased the slots to United and Porter in 2008, with the leases to expire in 2019.
So, is there any chance that the courts will not allow AA to reject United's and Porter's leases?
And if the leases are rejected, wouldn't UA have to either reduce frequencies on their competing service with VX and/or cut flights to other cities?
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6177 times:
15 slots is more then you need to operate 3x daily each to LAX and SFO. With 3 slots still unaccounted for means another daily flight can be added to one of the destinations but how will they incorporate that extra slot left over?
enilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7859 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6020 times:
Quoting LoneStarMike (Thread starter): So, is there any chance that the courts will not allow AA to reject United's and Porter's leases?
Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 1): If the courts deciede that AA can't break the leases with UA and Porter then they also can't break the lease with VX and will have to reduce their own flying.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2): As article states the amount AA would be making from VX deal and its future cost savings is more beneficial then the current UA/PD deal.
Not a problem. AA only has to show that the transaction is overall positive versus the current contract. They are free to reject such contracts. Technically, it doesn't even have to be positive, but the creditors would have nothing to whine about if they show it is positive.
surfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2923 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5819 times:
I figured AA was the one giving VX the slots. They've slashed EWR service in the past decade, quitting mainline to the likes of LHR, EGE, and SJU.. IIRC Eagle dropped flights to BOS, RDU, etc. during the same timeframe. Everyone else seems to be maintaining their EWR slot portfolios or growing whenever possible, with a few exceptions like FL pulling out in order to do a slot swap with CO for more LGA (and DCA) slots and SQ finally ending the costly ULH to SIN. I'm sure UA will manage just fine, and PD can probably grab the SQ slot or whatever else may be available...
If there was great doubt over the ability of this deal to go through, VX wouldn't already be selling tickets for EWR. It seems everyone involved (VX, AA, EWR airport) is confident the service will go forward as planned...
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16937 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5457 times:
Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 5): They've slashed EWR service in the past decade, quitting mainline to the likes of LHR, EGE, and SJU.. IIRC Eagle dropped flights to BOS, RDU, etc. during the same timeframe.