Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Delta Announces Love Field Expansion Plans  
User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 25012 times:

Boy, the PR team in Atlanta has been busy this week.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-...pansion-dallas-love-140000850.html

I believe Delta still has a lot of FF in the DFW area from the old hub days, this expansion may be a way to build on that foundation. However, if AA couldn't make a go of it, not sure how Delta thinks they will.

18 daily flights from two gates seems to be a lot. Especially when those flights are likely to be timed so close together.

223 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7767 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 25046 times:

Interesting:

DL is proposing:

DAL:
DTW
MSP
LGA
LAX
additional ATL flights

I would've figured we would potentially see DFW-LAX first.


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7673 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24949 times:

Quoting DTW.SCE" class="quote" target="_blank">PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 1):
Interesting:

DL is proposing:

DAL:
DTW
MSP
LGA
LAX
additional ATL flights

I would've figured we would potentially see DFW-LAX first.

Was there no SLC? That's highly interesting.


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7673 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24855 times:

Two more things...
1) expect a cut at DFW.
2) Thus begins what I've been saying is going to happen. Every airline that WN irritates by adding their hub from DAL will be trying to get into DAL's artificially tight gate inventory.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11966 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24835 times:

Man are they working overtime trying desperately to get in on the AA/US divestitures. We'll see how far they get. With specific respect to DAL, they're obviously hoping to get an asymmetric advantage over AA in the DFW local market by being able to offer nonstop flights in core AA markets (LGA, LAX) from DAL as opposed to DFW. We'll see what low-fare competitors - like B6, which has lobbied for DAL access in the past - have to say about that.

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24823 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 2):
Was there no SLC? That's highly interesting.

What does it gain them that LAX doesn't?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8760 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24771 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 4):
Man are they working overtime trying desperately to get in on the AA/US divestitures.

They are smart enough to have known all year that this would be happening.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24599 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 4):
Man are they working overtime trying desperately to get in on the AA/US divestitures. We'll see how far they get. With specific respect to DAL, they're obviously hoping to get an asymmetric advantage over AA in the DFW local market by being able to offer nonstop flights in core AA markets (LGA, LAX) from DAL as opposed to DFW. We'll see what low-fare competitors - like B6, which has lobbied for DAL access in the past - have to say about that.

I guess we'll see soon from AA:

LAX-ATL
LAX-MSP
LAX-DTW

As a side note, AA would be smart to "fund" some of the research behind developing a second Atlanta airport.  


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11966 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24521 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6):
They are smart enough to have known all year that this would be happening.

True, but I doubt that's got much to do with the behavior we're seeing from Delta. I think the bigger issue is that statements from the DOJ and the airlines seem to imply that Delta (and United) "need not apply" for the divested assets.

Quoting seatback (Reply 7):
I guess we'll see soon from AA:

LAX-ATL
LAX-MSP
LAX-DTW

It will be interested to see if AA "retaliates" at all, and if so, how. I would think LAX-ATL and potentially upgauging LGA-ATL to mainline (freeing up some soon-to-be-divested LGA slots in the process  ) might be to plausible ones. I still don't think AA seems all that worried about DAL, anyway, though - with or without DAL trying to shift DFW service there.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5723 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24485 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 2):
Was there no SLC? That's highly interesting.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 5):
What does it gain them that LAX doesn't?

A lot more connection opportunities than are currently available at LAX (without a double connection)/



Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
User currently onlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3675 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24303 times:

I assume rhese flts are after the WA expires or are they all RJ?


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24303 times:

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 9):
A lot more connection opportunities than are currently available at LAX (without a double connection)

Certainly, but LAX is a much larger local market and, save for DEN, offers connections to the largest markets without a significant geographic disadvantage.

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
I still don't think AA seems all that worried about DAL, anyway, though - with or without DAL trying to shift DFW service there.

Keep in mind that DL is the largest legacy by a fair amount at other secondary airports like MDW and HOU (indeed, the only legacy at MDW), so it's not unreasonable to think that, without gate restrictions, DL would be fairly large and reasonably successful at DAL.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinetimf From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 971 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24189 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 10):
I assume rhese flts are after the WA expires or are they all RJ?

These changes are effective October 2014, so after the Wright Amendment.

In order for Delta to make this work, they have to expect to get control of both AA gates at DAL. I'm not sure if it's realistic to force them entirely out of the airport even though AA doesn't use them currently. I could see them taking control of one AA gate, but then they'd have to go after a WN gate for further expansion.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 24185 times:

This is the part of the press release that I don't understand:

Quote:
Delta will require access to gates at Love Field in order to operate its expanded schedule. Delta has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to allow it to bid on Love Field gates as part of the divestiture of airport assets under a proposed settlement agreement with American Airlines and US Airways.

None of the airlines "own" their gates at Love Field. WN, UA, & AA all have preferential-use leases. AA subleases its gates to Seaport and Delta.

If you read the agreement to end the Wright Amendment:

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/dal_ResolveWrightAmendment.pdf

there were provisions that applied onlyto AA and WN that if either initiated flights at another airport within an 80-mile radius, they would have to give up some of their gate leases. The gates would revert back to Love Field and they would be made available to other carriers to lease.

So AA is giving up the gates it currently leases from Love Field. (not because they are initiating service at another airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field, but as part of the divestiture related to the merger.) When Delta's press release says the want to "bid" on the gates, it makes it sound like they are wanting to buy them, but I don't think that is even possible. I would also hope that AA's gates are leased to another carrier on a first-come first-served basis and it looks like DL is first.

Why does Delta need permission from the DOJ to enter into a lease agreement with Love Field? That's the part I don't understand.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 852 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 24093 times:

Quoting DTW.SCE" class="quote" target="_blank">PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 1):
DL is proposing:

DAL:
DTW
MSP
LGA
LAX
additional ATL flights

I would've figured we would potentially see DFW-LAX first.

Why not SEA?


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 24006 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 13):
Why does Delta need permission from the DOJ to enter into a lease agreement with Love Field? That's the part I don't understand.

Because the DOJ is forcing the divestiture as part of the merger agreement and they want to make sure the reason for the divestiture (to increase competition) is kept and no funny business is involved.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 23848 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 15):
Because the DOJ is forcing the divestiture as part of the merger agreement and they want to make sure the reason for the divestiture (to increase competition) is kept and no funny business is involved.

This is what the Dallas Morning News had to say about it.

Delta Air Lines wants gates at Dallas Love Field

Quote:
Delta Air Lines said Wednesday that it would like to acquire the two gates at Dallas Love Field that American Airlines is giving up in a lawsuit settlement.

The problem is that the lead attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice in the lawsuit made clear that the DOJ wants the gates at seven airports and takeoff and landing slots to go to airlines other than Delta and other “legacy” carriers.

“We see the legacy carriers as part of the problem. We see low-cost carriers as a key part of the solution,” DOJ attorney Bill Baer said as he discussed the settlement. The deal would allow the American-US Airways merger to proceed.
OK, that's all well and good, but Love Field already has a low-cost carrier that accounts for 95% of the passengers. It seems like Love Field would be the one airport where the DOJ would want more legacy carriers.

LoneStarMike

[Edited 2013-11-14 07:57:34]

User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7673 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 23724 times:

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 9):
A lot more connection opportunities than are currently available at LAX (without a double connection)/
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 5):
Quoting enilria (Reply 2):
Was there no SLC? That's highly interesting.

What does it gain them that LAX doesn't?

That question is why it's highly interesting. At the point that you ask what does SLC offer a major spoke like DAL and the answer is NOTHING, you have to wonder if it will remain a hub long term. Also, WN will surely fly DAL-SLC.


User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1819 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 23668 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 16):
OK, that's all well and good, but Love Field already has a low-cost carrier that accounts for 95% of the passengers. It seems like Love Field would be the one airport where the DOJ would want more legacy carriers.

I'd argue they they don't. WN is neither low-cost or low-fare, and they are now more of a network carrier than ever. LCC's now are NK, G4 (future F9) etc.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 23580 times:

The entire Love Field situation is really jacked and should not be part of this settlement. Long term, I wonder how DAL is really going to work. You can't have proper competition from one airline that has 95 percent of the capacity and hides behind an artificial cap on any growth. B6, F9, NK, and DL all have the right to fly there.

It also goes to show how DAL was never really on AA's radar.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 23535 times:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 18):
WN is neither low-cost or low-fare, and they are now more of a network carrier than ever.

Why do you say WN isn't low fare? How else do we explain the disparity in average fares on CMH/CVG-CHI or BNA/MEM-LAS?

Quoting enilria (Reply 17):
That question is why it's highly interesting. At the point that you ask what does SLC offer a major spoke like DAL and the answer is NOTHING, you have to wonder if it will remain a hub long term.

Maybe, but isn't DAL at least somewhat sui generis? It's a very well-served city that is located pretty far south, so SLC is more out of the way than it is for a lot of other DL stations.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5373 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 23434 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 17):
That question is why it's highly interesting. At the point that you ask what does SLC offer a major spoke like DAL and the answer is NOTHING, you have to wonder if it will remain a hub long term.

With all due respect, you are reading way too much into SLC not being part of this announcement. SLC still functions very well as an east-west connector and serves many intra-west routes that cannot be adequately served by other DL hubs. In recent years, SLC has also been a strong performer for DL and it's the only other really viable hub in the Mountain West beside DEN, so I really don't see it going anywhere.

Quoting enilria (Reply 17):
Also, WN will surely fly DAL-SLC.

I really doubt that. They will fly DEN-DAL and can easily connect you onto SLC from here. SLC has been stagnant for WN, especially since they opened up DEN. I don't see them adding much, if anything, from there.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1111 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 22895 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
It will be interested to see if AA "retaliates" at all, and if so, how. I would think LAX-ATL and potentially upgauging LGA-ATL to mainline (freeing up some soon-to-be-divested LGA slots in the process &nbsp  might be to plausible ones. I still don't think AA seems all that worried about DAL, anyway, though - with or without DAL trying to shift DFW service there.

This should be an interesting fight. As a result of the merger, AA becomes the largest carrier at LAX and gains a leading position on the ends of almost all of their transcon routes with the addition of hubs/focus cities at RDU, DCA, and BOS, while adding Philadelphia and Charlotte. With everything else in place, that's an enviable portfolio of business destinations from LA.

The increased traffic flows (east and west, particularly through Charlotte) will give AA quite the wherewithal to try some new things at LAX, where it will now have approximately 20% of the market and growing. With that position, it won't hurt to try some new things.

[Edited 2013-11-14 09:10:23]

User currently offlinesyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2039 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 22844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seatback (Thread starter):

Boy, the PR team in Atlanta has been busy this week.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-...pansion-dallas-love-140000850.html

I believe Delta still has a lot of FF in the DFW area from the old hub days, this expansion may be a way to build on that foundation. However, if AA couldn't make a go of it, not sure how Delta thinks they will.

18 daily flights from two gates seems to be a lot. Especially when those flights are likely to be timed so close together.


Am I the only one who thinks there may be more to this than Delta wanting access to DAL? Or even DCA for that matter? To me, it just seems like posturing for something bigger, but what, I do not know.


User currently offlineQ From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 22671 times:

Delta should bring 747-400 once first flight DAL-LAX. Delta used to fly 747-200 many years ago DAL-LAX and SFO.

Q


User currently offlinetxkf2010 From Bermuda, joined Nov 2005, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 23597 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 7):
As a side note, AA would be smart to "fund" some of the research behind developing a second Atlanta airport.

Not a chance. Delta is the biggest employer in the state of Georgia so investing in another airport probably won't be something that "they allow" to happen.



...Rastafari Stands Alone...
User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33273 posts, RR: 71
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 23498 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 7):
I guess we'll see soon from AA:

LAX-ATL

This one is likely coming soon regardless.



a.
User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3129 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 23432 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 17):
That question is why it's highly interesting. At the point that you ask what does SLC offer a major spoke like DAL and the answer is NOTHING, you have to wonder if it will remain a hub long term. Also, WN will surely fly DAL-SLC.

I think it has to be taken into account their lack of possible gates, and LAX - being a large business market, with LA-Dallas being one of DL's largest un-served business markets in the country. I suspect in their LAX expansion, DFW was looked at and passed up for the same reasons as ORD - very competitive market with a current bloodbath. In addition to a huge amount of AA flights, NK, VX, and UA are all fighting for the market. DL probably sees a niche and possibility to charge a premium for LAX-DAL using which it can poach some premium passengers from AA (and UA).

Back to the lack of gates, I am sure SLC can offer enough feed to fill 2x daily CR9s, but I can understand why that isn't DL's priority. I imagine the only 4 business markets that can command a premium to DAL over DFW in the western half of the US are LAX, SFO, DEN and SEA. I assume SLC-DFW adequately serves the rest of the feed from SLC + the inner mountain west to the greater Dallas/Ft, Worth area, without the added costs of adding another route from SLC, and without the opportunity cost of using the very scarce DAL gate space which could better be used for a business market like LAX.

As for the other western markets, I believe DL is focusing more at feeding their international service at SEA rather than SEA O&D (which SEA-DAL could potentially serve), and their presence at SFO/DEN is too small to capture enough premium O&D to DAL.

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineAlsatian From France, joined May 2005, 438 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 23441 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
I guess we'll see soon from AA:
LAX-MSP

UA has just announced its own LAX-MSP a month ago. It's hard to beleive that an 5th carrier could entering this market.



Ok I am French but I am not on strike
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1761 posts, RR: 9
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 23230 times:

I think the result of this will be interesting - the settlement was very explicit that WN/B6 get the first right of refusal on assets they currently lease from AA, but was silent on DL having the same benefit with its lease on AA's DAL gates.

I think it would be a fairly tough sell to justify taking a competitor out of DAL and handing the gates to WN, and I assume DL announced this expansion plan to bolster its position knowing good and well that somebody like B6, who might be interested, won't be offering to set up shop with 18 flights to five destinations.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 23159 times:

Quoting txkf2010 (Reply 25):
Quoting seatback (Reply 7):
As a side note, AA would be smart to "fund" some of the research behind developing a second Atlanta airport.

Not a chance. Delta is the biggest employer in the state of Georgia so investing in another airport probably won't be something that "they allow" to happen.

I said this in jest, but Delta wouldn't be in a position to block research dollars funded by American.

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 27):
DL probably sees a niche and possibility to charge a premium for LAX-DAL using which it can poach some premium passengers from AA (and UA).

But is this worth losing some revenue on the LAX-ATL route? Let's say DL begins three daily flights to LAX from DFW, and AA begins three daily flights from LAX to ATL...there's bound to be a negative impact on DL's ATL revenue which diminishes the value of the revenue gained on DAL-ATL...so is it really worth the fight?


User currently offlineMIflyer12 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 23051 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 30):
But is this worth losing some revenue on the LAX-ATL route? Let's say DL begins three daily flights to LAX from DFW, and AA begins three daily flights from LAX to ATL...there's bound to be a negative impact on DL's ATL revenue which diminishes the value of the revenue gained on DAL-ATL...so is it really worth the fight?

That gets to the sentiment that legacy carriers may not bother to compete with each other (in your example, on some very major metro routes). That gives solid basis for the DOJ's demand for concessions by AA/US. Yes, the DOJ pointed to carve-outs reserved for LCCs but DAL is so concentrated with WN right now (and DFW with AA) that DL actually has a pretty solid argument about being the carrier best placed to compete.


User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22931 times:

These are their hub cities or focus cities. This is not rocket science--Stevie Wonder could've seen this coming. I am surprised BOS and SLC are not in the mix as well

User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5308 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22980 times:

Back in the 1990s, AA would defend DFW against any sort of increase in service by DL, but it completely ignored DL, when it came to defending ORD.

If DL added a DFW-ATL non-stop, AA would add one or even two non-stops, although AA never flew widebodies on DFW-ATL.

On the other hand, DL gradually increased ORD-ATL to 16 weekday roundtrips, offering hourly service from 6am to 9pm, and many of those flights were L-1011s and 767s. Yet, AA kept ORD-ATL at a range of 6 to 9 non-stops, with F100s, MD-80s, and sometimes a 727-200.

So, it will be interesting to see if AA decides to add service out of DFW to any of DL's hubs, as well as adding service from its other hubs to ATL.


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22901 times:

I think they are targeting o&d on the love plans. It would have been exciting if they added SEA just to keep things interesting! I dont think SLC would demand enough of a premium and they are not really targeting connections for Love i think.

User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7673 posts, RR: 15
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22894 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 19):
The entire Love Field situation is really jacked and should not be part of this settlement. Long term, I wonder how DAL is really going to work. You can't have proper competition from one airline that has 95 percent of the capacity and hides behind an artificial cap on any growth. B6, F9, NK, and DL all have the right to fly there.

It also goes to show how DAL was never really on AA's radar.

It's like my brain made that post without telling me. AGREE!!!!!!

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 20):
Maybe, but isn't DAL at least somewhat sui generis? It's a very well-served city that is located pretty far south, so SLC is more out of the way than it is for a lot of other DL stations.
Quoting OA412 (Reply 21):
With all due respect, you are reading way too much into SLC not being part of this announcement.

Anywhere with DAL service is going to pretty much wreck DFW. Look at the existing overlap markets in DOT. DAL is the preferred airport. DL could squeeze SLC in those gates if they wanted. It's exclusion is very interesting.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 21):
Quoting enilria (Reply 17):
Also, WN will surely fly DAL-SLC.

I really doubt that.

If it weren't sure before, it is now that DL announced they won't fly it.

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 27):
I think it has to be taken into account their lack of possible gates, and LAX - being a large business market, with LA-Dallas being one of DL's largest un-served business markets in the country. I suspect in their LAX expansion, DFW was looked at and passed up for the same reasons as ORD

That reminds me. There is a restriction on gates. Can they run an awful busing operation like DCA?


User currently offlineglobalflyer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 950 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22868 times:

Any idea what eqpt will be used by DL at DAL?


Landing on every Continent almost on an annual basis!
User currently offlinetexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4287 posts, RR: 52
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22782 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 3):
Two more things...
1) expect a cut at DFW.
2) Thus begins what I've been saying is going to happen. Every airline that WN irritates by adding their hub from DAL will be trying to get into DAL's artificially tight gate inventory.

You're probably right long term, but DL also says that these flights will bring them up to 63 total from the Metroplex. I doubt they cut any flights from DFW until they determine whether or not the DAL flights will be successful.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7767 posts, RR: 27
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22831 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 3):
Two more things...
1) expect a cut at DFW.
Quoting globalflyer (Reply 36):
Any idea what eqpt will be used by DL at DAL?

Almost certainly going to be CR7/CR9/E70/E75 equipment. Outside of leisure/beach/Florida markets and trans-cons that exceed the range of regional equipment, DL almost never starts a new route with mainline, since the 2-class RJs represent the lowest risk.

DAL-ATL if any, has the highest chance of possibly getting mainline.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 34
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22712 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 35):
That reminds me. There is a restriction on gates. Can they run an awful busing operation like DCA?

At Love Field? No. They'd be limited to whatever gates they could secure at DAL. No hardstand operations are permitted except in the case of IROPS.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 34
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22508 times:

Quoting seatback (Thread starter):
However, if AA couldn't make a go of it, not sure how Delta thinks they will.

When AA served Love Field, the restrictions were still in place. The only AA hub they could serve nonstop from DAL was STL. All their other hubs were outside the perimeter.

After October of next year, DL wouldn't have those same restrictions and could fly to any of its U.S. hubs nonstop.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22540 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 19):
You can't have proper competition from one airline that has 95 percent of the capacity and hides behind an artificial cap on any growth. B6, F9, NK, and DL all have the right to fly there

First of all WN only will have 16 of the 20 gates when DAL refurb is completed. That is 80% not 95%
We have legacy carriers operating out of DFW, ATL that have close to 80% now. I do not see any problem with that.

I just question if DL can operate that many additional flights out of DAL and DFW successfully load wise. I am sure DL wants to get the gate grab at DAL same as AA who did but eventually dropped use.
While DL has WA service at DAL now my thoughts are quite different.
I think DL is attempting to aggressively jump in with a large schedule on the belief that it is too make the dynamics look good for the transfer of gates to DL.
The end result is to stifle B6's and NK's ability to use DAL than any effort to compete with WN.

Okie


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8760 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22429 times:

Quoting Alsatian (Reply 28):
UA has just announced its own LAX-MSP a month ago. It's hard to beleive that an 5th carrier could entering this market.

Quoting myself, (5 new BA USA flights thread), AA is close to offering a comprehensive "cornerstone" network at MSP potentially to include LHR and LAX. It would cement their #2 position there. Being #2 suggests AA would be among the stronger carriers on that route. It's an interesting thing to do at a competing legacy hub, a little like DL operating the DFW minihub.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22287 times:

I would almost find it humorous if airlines started asking for gates at DAL to start service. The airport would have no choice but to take gates from WN and give them to other carriers to support their operations. Just because a settlement agreement gives WN 16 gates does not mean that they are actually entitled to them. They could quickly find themselves with half those gates if DL, UA, B6, F9, and AS decided to start service to their hubs. The precise scenario the WA sought to prevent...airlines jumping out of DFW.

User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 2021 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22313 times:

I would find this absolutely hilarious if the DOJ would allow DL to gain the divested gates. In this case it would be very anti-competitive for DL to control the divested gates. I don't even know why these gates are part of the settlement. If anything, the most competitive move would be to have WN control them. That way once Wright goes away WN will able to serve more cities and better compete with every other airline at DFW.

[Edited 2013-11-14 10:21:47]

User currently offlinedeltairlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8913 posts, RR: 12
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22080 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
Certainly, but LAX is a much larger local market and, save for DEN, offers connections to the largest markets without a significant geographic disadvantage.

Exactly. From where Dallas is geographically, SLC offers you connections to the Rockies and Pacific Northwest. Stuff like California and LAS can easily be hit over LAX. Not to mention O&D traffic - generally much more profitable for an airline since you're not splitting it over two legs.

Quoting questions (Reply 14):
Why not SEA?

Realistically too long for an RJ at 1670 miles which doesn't help is likely the largest reason why.

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 27):
I think it has to be taken into account their lack of possible gates, and LAX - being a large business market, with LA-Dallas being one of DL's largest un-served business markets in the country. I suspect in their LAX expansion, DFW was looked at and passed up for the same reasons as ORD - very competitive market with a current bloodbath. In addition to a huge amount of AA flights, NK, VX, and UA are all fighting for the market. DL probably sees a niche and possibility to charge a premium for LAX-DAL using which it can poach some premium passengers from AA (and UA).

Agreed - can probably get a higher yield mix on DAL-LAX than DFW-LAX, plus covers the Dallas market from LA.

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 32):
I am surprised BOS and SLC are not in the mix as well

I'm not. Would be a very long RJ route to BOS and Delta is not the dominant player in BOS anymore. Not to mention this is likely a WN Day 1 post WA route, so yields might not be great. SLC doesn't have enough local traffic to tie up a gate for that airplane.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 38):
DAL-ATL if any, has the highest chance of possibly getting mainline.

I would expect some 717s/MD-88s/A319s on some of the peak DAL flights. Likewise, I'd expect some reductions on DFW-ATL.


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1761 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22059 times:

Quoting seatback (Thread starter):
However, if AA couldn't make a go of it, not sure how Delta thinks they will.
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 40):
When AA served Love Field, the restrictions were still in place. The only AA hub they could serve nonstop from DAL was STL. All their other hubs were outside the perimeter.

Not to mention a significant fundamental difference - even with Wright Amendment gone, any AA route from DAL will have its performance significantly handicapped by the tremendous offering of non-stop AA flights just down the road at DFW. It would be difficult for them to extract a premium for DAL-ORD-XXX over a non-stop DFW-XXX. Given that fact, they could never offer enough DAL-ORD frequency on desirable equipment to make Metroplex business travelers choose DAL over the high frequency, all-mainline DFW-ORD schedule.

DL, on the other hand, has DFW as a spoke. People who want to fly DL and find DAL more convenient geographically aren't going to have nearly as much incentive to go to DFW instead. As others have pointed out, this is the same dynamic in play at MDW, where neither AA nor UA operate services competing with their own ORD hub, but DL has a nice little operation going.


User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21987 times:

I hope UA puts up a fight or at lease run up the lease rates high for Delta. I know UA already has two gates but if they could get these four they could run everything out of DAL.

I know premerger CO wanted to move their ops to DAL after Wright was gone. Heck CO been wanting to move back to DAL since 1985. UA could move it's ops to DAL from DFW with 4 gates. UA/WN could coexist nicely. There would be several airports (UA hubs) UA could serve from DAL that WN probably won't fly to from DAL. UA could have IAH, EWR, CLE, ORD, IAD to themselves from DAL and would keep 3 flights or less to SFO, LAX, DEN where they would have WN competition. I could see WN going to LGA, MDW, and DCA (in addition to HOU) instead of the UA hubs. It would offer passengers more choices out of DAL. AA already covers all the UA flights from DFW.

I bet UA would go about this quietly since they have two gates and AA wouldn't mind leasing it to them if it gets UA out of DFW.



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting deltairlines (Reply 45):
I would expect some 717s

"IF" DL got any DAL gates, it'd be pure karma to throw a whole bunch of 717s in there.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5792 posts, RR: 28
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21969 times:

Quoting syncmaster (Reply 23):

Am I the only one who thinks there may be more to this than Delta wanting access to DAL? Or even DCA for that matter? To me, it just seems like posturing for something bigger, but what, I do not know.

Delta has a lot going on and there is clearly a strategy to it all. They might realize that there will not be another opportunity like this where a forced divestiture takes place so they need to go for it all and see what they get. They might realize that having these assets now will put them in a position to "trade away" some later in a takeover of AS (were that to be required) or some other carrier (B6?). They might be trying to make life miserable for every other carrier while DL is strong. UA's wheels keep slipping. AA/US are distracted for the forseeable future. WN has stagnated. AS is sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place, and B6 is somewhat limited short-term on what they can do to grow significantly, but best keep Blue in check anyhow.

I don't know. I can think of a myriad of reasons why Delta is doing what it's doing. Who knows which - if any - are true.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21757 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 7):
As a side note, AA would be smart to "fund" some of the research behind developing a second Atlanta airport.

Not going to happen, as long-term, it wouldn't be to their benefit. The proposed commercial service at Silver Comet Field is limited service of no more than 20-30 flights a week, not exactly ideal for the likes of AA.


Quoting globalflyer (Reply 36):

Any idea what eqpt will be used by DL at DAL?
Quoting deltairlines (Reply 45):
I would expect some 717s/MD-88s/A319s on some of the peak DAL flights. Likewise, I'd expect some reductions on DFW-ATL.

I could definitely see the 717s being used at DAL for most services, but I would venture to guess that they'll put something like the 738s on the DAL-LAX and DAL-LGA, as those would be premium routes for them.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21677 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 33):
On the other hand, DL gradually increased ORD-ATL to 16 weekday roundtrips, offering hourly service from 6am to 9pm, and many of those flights were L-1011s and 767s. Yet, AA kept ORD-ATL at a range of 6 to 9 non-stops, with F100s, MD-80s, and sometimes a 727-200.

So, it will be interesting to see if AA decides to add service out of DFW to any of DL's hubs, as well as adding service from its other hubs to ATL.

We're looking at a new regime in Dallas who trained under Crandall. Hopefully, we'll see a much more aggressive AA.

Quoting texan (Reply 37):
You're probably right long term, but DL also says that these flights will bring them up to 63 total from the Metroplex. I doubt they cut any flights from DFW until they determine whether or not the DAL flights will be successful.

I don't believe for one minute Delta would cut DFW service. DAL would be an addition to.

Quoting okie (Reply 41):
First of all WN only will have 16 of the 20 gates when DAL refurb is completed. That is 80% not 95%

95 percent is passenger capacity, not gate capacity.

Quoting deltairlines (Reply 45):
Realistically too long for an RJ at 1670 miles which doesn't help is likely the largest reason why.

They didn't mention a/c type, but this is the clearest indication that they're planning on an RJ operation. Which isn't going to entice a lot of AA loyalists.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 47):
I know premerger CO wanted to move their ops to DAL after Wright was gone. Heck CO been wanting to move back to DAL since 1985. UA could move it's ops to DAL from DFW with 4 gates. UA/WN could coexist nicely.

Moving entire ops to DAL would be foolish. DFW covers a very wide, broad area (Ft. Worth and the entire western part of the Metroplex and isn't far from Dallas either.)


User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21069 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 51):
Moving entire ops to DAL would be foolish. DFW covers a very wide, broad area (Ft. Worth and the entire western part of the Metroplex and isn't far from Dallas either.)

Not when you won't be competing with anyone on many of the routes (IAH/EWR/IAD/ORD/CLE). The costs are lower at DAL, less delays, taxi times. AA has a lock on a lot of FF in western half of DFW Metroplex. There is a lot of business O/D out of DAL. I fly DAL-IAH just about every week and I see lot of business people on the plane. UA really doesn't compete much right now with AA. Look at DFW-LAX 3 CRJ-700 a day. It would much better for them to have all their ops at DAL. CO wanted to do this for a long time.



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineAAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 20960 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 35):
Anywhere with DAL service is going to pretty much wreck DFW. Look at the existing overlap markets in DOT. DAL is the preferred airport.

With all due respect, having lived in the D/FW area for over 25 years myself, the above is simply not true.
Remember, you have more then 2 million people on the Fort Worth side of the Metroplex for whom DAL will never be an option. Even for Dallas county residents, unless you are located directly in downtown, uptown, or the park cities, DFW is no further and in some cases closer (see North Dallas, Irving, Plano, Addison etc). Business travelers bound for the Metroplex could be going any number of destinations as well and won't be especially worried about airport choice.
The days when DAL was a more convenient choice for the majority of the traveling public headed to/from the area have long since passed.

I'm sure Delta could do just fine with more service at DAL but it won't have American too worried.



Next
User currently offlinetexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4287 posts, RR: 52
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 20764 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 51):
I don't believe for one minute Delta would cut DFW service. DAL would be an addition to.

I don't believe they will stop DFW service or close any particular route. And they certainly won't change all of their Dallas ops to DAL. But if the DAL gamble works well, it could take passengers from its DFW operation, reducing the need for a few flights. On the other hand, it could be that the services compliment each other well and no reductions are necessary. Or that the DAL gamble flops. That's why I said that if DL reduces DFW, it won't be immediately. And that it would only be a few flights.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 20768 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 19):
You can't have proper competition from one airline that has 95 percent of the capacity and hides behind an artificial cap on any growth

you do know that it wasn't WN who put the gate limit there.

I find it amazing the number of people who blame WN for things AA (and its paid for puppets) did.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11966 posts, RR: 62
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 20767 times:

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 53):
With all due respect, having lived in the D/FW area for over 25 years myself, the above is simply not true.
Remember, you have more then 2 million people on the Fort Worth side of the Metroplex for whom DAL will never be an option. Even for Dallas county residents, unless you are located directly in downtown, uptown, or the park cities, DFW is no further and in some cases closer (see North Dallas, Irving, Plano, Addison etc). Business travelers bound for the Metroplex could be going any number of destinations as well and won't be especially worried about airport choice.
The days when DAL was a more convenient choice for the majority of the traveling public headed to/from the area have long since passed.

I'm sure Delta could do just fine with more service at DAL but it won't have American too worried.

  

Exactly. The idea that some relatively small expansion at DAL will "wreck" DFW is just preposterous.


User currently offlinewnflyguy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 590 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 20456 times:

With DAL opening up this will add good competition between UA,DL and WN.
This will be the same competition as HOU vs IAH and ORD vs MDW.
I personally don't see anyone else jockeying for service/gates.
Maybe AS would want a daily flight to DAL from SEA and PDX they could easily share a gate with DL.
I'm excited to see DL step up and add this service they have a great product.
WN will just have to up their A game and compete.
Exciting Times!..Flyguy  



my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
User currently offlinesyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2039 posts, RR: 10
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 20270 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 49):
I don't know. I can think of a myriad of reasons why Delta is doing what it's doing. Who knows which - if any - are true.

Agreed. When you step back and look at the big picture of everything they are doing, SEA, DAL, DCA, BOS, etc, etc it can't help but make one wonder. I'm not trying to say there is anything sinister going on, but it definitely seems like they are trying to stir the pot for something.


User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2408 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 20065 times:

Quoting syncmaster (Reply 58):

I think it is pretty clear. They are trying to grow their business and share. All the consolidation is about done, if you are going to grow going forward, you are going to have to up your presence in areas you may be weaker at now, but have potential at tomorrow. That's what is going on.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 20031 times:

So according to the article DL is adding 18 flights to DAL which is 63 total out of the DFW metroplex.

Even if the 18 flights were 50 seat RJ's that would be an additional 800 seats per day to the listed destinations.
(LGA, LAX, MSP, DTW, ATL)
Now add what WN is going to add to those destinations after Oct 2014 as well.

Does anyone see those markets expanding massively a year from now?
Unless there is some profound shift away from US/AA alienation at DFW that is going to be a lot of new seats to fill.

Short term if DL get those gates I suspect there will be a good deal to be found on seats for a while.

I still think it is to keep B6, NK from getting those gates.

Okie

[Edited 2013-11-14 12:39:25]

User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7804 posts, RR: 25
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 19839 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 35):
Anywhere with DAL service is going to pretty much wreck DFW. Look at the existing overlap markets in DOT. DAL is the preferred airport. DL could squeeze SLC in those gates if they wanted. It's exclusion is very interesting.

To be frank, this post is written with a HUGE amount of ignorance. Anyone who has any clue about the Metroplex knows that its a matter of preference as to which airport is used. Its clear you dont know what youre talking about.

First off, the markets that are more prefered from DAL are the markets that are won over because of frequency (ie HOU) not because the flights are at DAL as opposed to DFW. Once the airport opens up, you will see a reflexion of that. There is NO way WN or anyone else can match what AA has at DFW. The frequency advantage will keep AA and DFW on top no matter what.

Now look at accessability. DFW is at the intersection of 6 major freeways and is accessable to each. DAL is off of Northwest and cannot be accessed without getting off of a freeway and going through several stop lights.

Look at how the Metroplex is growing. The areas around and more accessible to DFW (the DFW airport area, Plano, Frisco, McKinney, Carrollton, etc.) are booming. The 121 corridor is expanding ridiculously fast with residential and commercial development.

Meanwhile, with the expection of Downtown Dallas, the Park Cities, and East Dallas, the area around DAL is full of XXX theaters, BYOB strip clubs, prostitutes, massage parlors, all night taco joints (which are awesome), barrios and warehouses. Northwest Dallas and the Webb Chappel area are not exactly prime locales.

Given how the Metroplex is growing, it is DFW not DAL with the location advantage. The area around DAL and the city of Dallas is stagnant. The areas of the DFW area that are booming with growth are much more accessible to DFW.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 47):
I bet UA would go about this quietly since they have two gates and AA wouldn't mind leasing it to them if it gets UA out of DFW.

They would be absolute fools to do it.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 21
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 19570 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 61):
Meanwhile, with the expection of Downtown Dallas, the Park Cities, and East Dallas, the area around DAL is full of XXX theaters, BYOB strip clubs, prostitutes, massage parlors, all night taco joints (which are awesome), barrios and warehouses. Northwest Dallas and the Webb Chappel area are not exactly prime locales.

Could QF move their flight into DAL? That sounds like a much more "interesting" area for a foreign visitor to get dropped off in......................:P


User currently offlineairstatdfw From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 19530 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 62):

No they can't, no intl ops at DAL.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7804 posts, RR: 25
Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 19419 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 62):
Could QF move their flight into DAL? That sounds like a much more "interesting" area for a foreign visitor to get dropped off in......................:P

I gotta admit, Ive had some really good times in Northwest Dallas (as recently as last Friday). But its not an economically booming area of the city nor is it a growing area of the city. Its mostly a red light district, Koreatown, and a barrio.

Good times, but not a prosperous place.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineRIDGID727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19038 times:

Interesting move on DL's part. Wonder what routes WN will announce new service to that are DL's domestic crown jewels, and bring the fares down to $99

User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18971 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 61):
the area around DAL is full of XXX theaters, BYOB strip clubs, prostitutes, massage parlors, all night taco joints (which are awesome), barrios and warehouses. Northwest

Sounds a lot like the area around MDW...you're only missing the gangs.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7804 posts, RR: 25
Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18895 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 66):
Sounds a lot like the area around MDW...you're only missing the gangs.

No, we got those too.

The area around MDW is not as smutty as the area around DAL. They are both surrounded by barrios so they have that in common.

Im not saying DAL wont grow and be prosperous, but its going to take a backseat to DFW for the area on every level. Just like MDW does the same in regard to ORD.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6345 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18892 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 3):
Two more things...
1) expect a cut at DFW.

Why…DL operates to IAH and HOU quite nicely.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinedeltairlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8913 posts, RR: 12
Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18892 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 51):
They didn't mention a/c type, but this is the clearest indication that they're planning on an RJ operation. Which isn't going to entice a lot of AA loyalists.

LIkely would be using Embraer jets, which are equipped with First Class (including 3-4 solo seats), overhead bins that don't require pink tags, Economy Comfort, Wi-Fi and 2x2 seating in economy (no middle seats). Rather comfortable planes to be flying on.

The CRJ-700/900s (which might see some flying) have all of teh above except the part about pink tags.

Quoting okie (Reply 60):
Even if the 18 flights were 50 seat RJ's that would be an additional 800 seats per day to the listed destinations.
(LGA, LAX, MSP, DTW, ATL)
Now add what WN is going to add to those destinations after Oct 2014 as well.

The only route of the five that Delta can fly 50 seaters on is ATL-DAL - all the others are above the 750 mile maximum that Delta has in place for 50 seat aircraft. My guess is if they're putting a F cabin on all the others, they will not put a 50 seater to the megahub in Atlanta.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 18296 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 67):
The area around MDW is not as smutty as the area around DAL. They are both surrounded by barrios so they have that in common.

Hey the area around HOU has barrios too damn'it!

Doesn't this announcment seem like DL throwing their cards on the table early to see if anyone blinks first?
There must be a bigger strategy in place for them with this ruling than just DAL. I guess my question is what's the catch? Or what is "behind the curtain" re DL's intentions?



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7804 posts, RR: 25
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 18076 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 70):
Hey the area around HOU has barrios too damn'it!

That seems to be a trend for airports that WN dominates. HOU, DAL, MDW, OAK, and BUR are all like that.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17859 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 71):
That seems to be a trend for airports that WN dominates. HOU, DAL, MDW, OAK, and BUR are all like that.

Its a trend for airports in the US in general. Land value around airports really isn't the highest which means you get those kind of neighborhoods, especially in secondary airports that are generally surrounded by less commercial areas.


User currently offlineMesaFlyGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 3338 posts, RR: 6
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 44):

Wait, so it's anti-competitive to have another airline enter and give the dominator such competition, but it would competitive to let the dominator have every gate? Are you sure you're not mixing that up?

You say the gates should not be given to DL. May I ask why? UA serves both DFW and DAL, giving WN direct competition.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17696 times:

I guess the better question to ask is what is Delta cutting? They want to add at SEA, DAL, DCA, BOS....they only have so many planes so what are they cutting...

[Edited 2013-11-14 16:53:08]


Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17191 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 74):

They could split their regional capacity between DFW and DAL focusing on peak period flights rather than off peak and off peak flights.


User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3129 posts, RR: 4
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17142 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 30):
But is this worth losing some revenue on the LAX-ATL route? Let's say DL begins three daily flights to LAX from DFW, and AA begins three daily flights from LAX to ATL...there's bound to be a negative impact on DL's ATL revenue which diminishes the value of the revenue gained on DAL-ATL...so is it really worth the fight?

Honestly I think it depends on how big of an entry DL makes on LAX-DAL. I can't envision more than 3x daily, and my guess would be E75s. Given the giant presence AA has at DFW, I don't think it would effect AA much. And while AA's condition is improving financially, they're still weaker than DL, and I doubt they'd want to get in a fare war with DL at this time. I imagine AA's larger concern is what WN will morph into at DAL once they're allowed to. I imagine WN will attempt to serve most of the largest business markets out of DAL, and this will hurt much more than what DL is proposing.

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16985 times:

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 73):
Wait, so it's anti-competitive to have another airline enter and give the dominator such competition, but it would competitive to let the dominator have every gate? Are you sure you're not mixing that up?

Do not apply logic and reasoning to anything the US Federal Gov't does, including re:aviation.



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2408 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17000 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 74):
I guess the better question to ask is what is Delta cutting?

MEM. Then CVG.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16872 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 74):
I guess the better question to ask is what is Delta cutting? They want to add at SEA, DAL, DCA, BOS....they only have so many planes so what are they cutting...

DL has a lot of slack in their fleet I believe. IIRC, there are 757s sitting in the desert ready to go if needed (not all 757s but some.) Plus as others have mentioned, MEM just got axed. 739s and 717s are also coming online



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4064 posts, RR: 2
Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15102 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

E75s are probably the safest most logical way to start DAL, with the exception of perhaps ATL. Actually, DAL-ATL/MSP/DTW could all be flown with 717s too if the E75s proves to be too small.

User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 2021 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15013 times:

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 73):
Wait, so it's anti-competitive to have another airline enter and give the dominator such competition, but it would competitive to let the dominator have every gate? Are you sure you're not mixing that up?

You say the gates should not be given to DL. May I ask why? UA serves both DFW and DAL, giving WN direct competition.

Here's how I see it. If DL is allowed to expand at DAL and go up to two gates, it will likely increase competition to DAL. No question. Not by a ton, but it's an increase. However, it will not increase competition to the Dallas/Fort Worth metro. DL already flies to each of ATL, DTW, MSP, LAX, and LGA from DFW. And that all of those routes could see some trimming if DAL is added. Adding DL to DAL does little to nothing for the average consumer. DAL/DFW isn't a DCA/IAD situation in which one airport is clearly preferred by most. So I don't see how the flying public would be greatly benefited.

Now let's say an LCC or even WN gets the two gates. There's a good chance that a new LCC carrier will not fly to cities that they also serve at DFW. That's new competition for Dallas/Fort Worth as a whole. And in WN's case, we know that once Wright is gone they will change their route network out of DAL. About all of the cities that DL will fly to would be on WN's radar. They're gate limited too. So I don't see how forcing AA to give up gates to create competition against WN, not AA, is what the government should be doing. No, if anything those gates need to go to an LCC or WN so they will compete against AA.

But for the record, I don't understand why these gates are even part of the settlement. I don't think the DOJ has a clue about what competition really is.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4173 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days ago) and read 14789 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've read every post and there are a few things I am still pondering.

First and foremost, am I the only one to read the press release as announcing a total of 23 daily flights out of DAL? The press release mentions "plans to add 18 daily nonstop flights" (emphasis mine) but any addition would come on top of the existing daily 5 flights to ATL, would it not?

23 daily flights out of two gates is 11.5 flights per gate per day! I am the furthest thing from an expert in gate management, so what Delta is proposing may not be an issue at all, but I can't help but note that Delta manages only 5.2 departures per gate at its 10 busiest airports, with a peak of 6.3 in ATL. Can they really double that performance at an outstation like DAL, or is there something else going on?

I don't believe that American can sell its lease at DAL, but a sublease is certainly an option. Perhaps this is Delta's attempt at convincing the DOJ that American should enter into an unconditional sublease with Delta for the remainder of the lease on the two gates. If American terminates its lease now, the airport takes control and could hypothetically give United control of these two gates, which would certainly not increase competition.

So if the DOJ is to retain any influence to ensure the divestiture increases competition, I think a monitored sublease is the only way to go, but it would seem silly to break the existing one, or is that what Delta is worried about?

Either way, my interpretation of the agreement to repeal Wright that Southwest signed is that it is the only carrier who cannot bid for these two gates if they become available.

(Source for Delta gate utilization: masFlight presentation, AGIFORS Symposium)



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 14585 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 61):
Meanwhile, with the expection of Downtown Dallas, the Park Cities, and East Dallas, the area around DAL is full of XXX theaters, BYOB strip clubs, prostitutes, massage parlors, all night taco joints (which are awesome), barrios and warehouses. Northwest Dallas and the Webb Chappel area are not exactly prime locales.

Yes, and tell us all about the area around LAX...    



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14122 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 55):
I find it amazing the number of people who blame WN for things AA (and its paid for puppets) did.
Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 76):
And while AA's condition is improving financially, they're still weaker than DL, and I doubt they'd want to get in a fare war with DL at this time. I imagine AA's larger concern is what WN will morph into at DAL once they're allowed to. I imagine WN will attempt to serve most of the largest business markets out of DAL, and this will hurt much more than what DL is proposing.



Weaker than Delta? AA has a stock pile of cash and is number one in DFW by a long shot (read fortress hub). American has the resources and wherewithal to battle Delta if they wanted to. Additionally, AA has had years to "worry" about WN Dallas morphing. The two have competed well together and will continue to do so.

The real losers to the Wright Ammendment are cities like Lubbock, Midland, Amarillo that will certainly lose frequencies. There's only so much you can run from a 20 gate operation and I'm sure MDW, BWI, LGA, BOS, LAX, SFO will get priority.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 82):
23 daily flights out of two gates is 11.5 flights per gate per day! I am the furthest thing from an expert in gate management, so what Delta is proposing may not be an issue at all, but I can't help but note that Delta manages only 5.2 departures per gate at its 10 busiest airports, with a peak of 6.3 in ATL



If Denver is any indication, they can't run a 25 plus operation there with five gates without often times making planes wait for 30 minutes until a gate clears. Any delay and they'll have airplanes stacked up.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13817 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 82):

You could probably turn a couple of 737s and a boat load of E-Jets on two gates a day if the sequencing is right. The airport benefits from being in the middle of the country so the flow over would be pretty good in all directions. Airport gates are grossly underutilized.


User currently offlineRIDGID727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13773 times:

That many flights from 2 gates is laughable. 30-90 minute delays will have their DL skymiles PAX fuming as they sit waiting for gate space at DAL.

Are they serious, or is this just like the NW of old. Go a$$ over tea kettle to scare everyone around you.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 34
Reply 87, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13437 times:

New Story from the Dallas Morning News

American Airlines gates at Dallas Love Field may prompt bidding battle among carriers

In addition to Delta.......

Quote:
Southwest Airlines Co., which already has 16 of 20 gates planned for Love Field’s new terminal, also has said it would like to acquire American’s gates.

Virgin America Inc., which flies to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from Los Angeles and San Francisco, said Thursday that it’s looking seriously at seeking the gates. And Spirit Airlines, which flies to more than two dozen cities out of D/FW Airport, said it is also considering a possible bid.

But Delta was quickest to stake a claim on the Love Field gates, despite discouraging words from a Justice Department official about that prospect.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineHmelawyer From United States of America, joined May 2011, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13124 times:

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 53):
With all due respect, having lived in the D/FW area for over 25 years myself, the above is simply not true.
Remember, you have more then 2 million people on the Fort Worth side of the Metroplex for whom DAL will never be an option. Even for Dallas county residents, unless you are located directly in downtown, uptown, or the park cities, DFW is no further and in some cases closer (see North Dallas, Irving, Plano, Addison etc). Business travelers bound for the Metroplex could be going any number of destinations as well and won't be especially worried about airport choice.

While I believe it may be true that DAL does not have an advantage over DFW for residents of the Metroplex, I think that you are wrong about business travel to the Metroplex from other locations. Having traveled to that area for business well over 100 times, and having thousands of colleagues also traveling there regularly, I have found that DAL is the much more convenient airport in about 85-90% of trips. It isn't solely about location either. The rental car situation at DFW is a time draining disaster, delays have been much more common, and intra-airport time for security/walk to gate, etc. is far greater. As a business traveler I am trying to reduce my total time traveling. If I have business in Dallas, Frisco, Irving, (anywhere to the East of DFW), which is about 80% of trips to the Metroplex, than DAL has a huge advantage.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 12920 times:

Quoting Hmelawyer (Reply 88):
While I believe it may be true that DAL does not have an advantage over DFW for residents of the Metroplex, I think that you are wrong about business travel to the Metroplex from other locations. Having traveled to that area for business well over 100 times, and having thousands of colleagues also traveling there regularly, I have found that DAL is the much more convenient airport in about 85-90% of trips. It isn't solely about location either. The rental car situation at DFW is a time draining disaster, delays have been much more common, and intra-airport time for security/walk to gate, etc. is far greater. As a business traveler I am trying to reduce my total time traveling. If I have business in Dallas, Frisco, Irving, (anywhere to the East of DFW), which is about 80% of trips to the Metroplex, than DAL has a huge advantage.


I'm surprised to hear you say a HUGE advantage, since the airport, or part of it is in Irving. In regards to the rental car situation, that's a common problem with many airports...don't get me started on Denver!


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5723 posts, RR: 24
Reply 90, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 12933 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 48):
"IF" DL got any DAL gates, it'd be pure karma to throw a whole bunch of 717s in there.

      and we ALL know Karma's a B****h!!! Actually, the 717's could make DAL work quite nicely, I would think.



Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2408 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12730 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 81):
But for the record, I don't understand why these gates are even part of the settlement. I don't think the DOJ has a clue about what competition really is.

We all are assuming this was the DOJ's idea. Since this was a negotiated settlement, AA could have offered this up. Why would they do that? They were not going to use the gates anyway, those gates will have no affect on DFW, and it looks like they are making a big capitulation in their strongest market. Win-win.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7804 posts, RR: 25
Reply 92, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12693 times:

Quoting Hmelawyer (Reply 88):
The rental car situation at DFW is a time draining disaster, delays have been much more common, and intra-airport time for security/walk to gate, etc. is far greater.

I cant argue with that. Having to take a bus to get a car is a pain.

Quoting Hmelawyer (Reply 88):
. If I have business in Dallas, Frisco, Irving, (anywhere to the East of DFW), which is about 80% of trips to the Metroplex, than DAL has a huge advantage.

Dallas sure. Frisco? No way! DFW is far more convienent to Frisco than DAL. Its just a 20 minute drive up 121. From DAL, you get on Northwest Highway for 10 minutes through the western half of University Park and then another 20 minute drive up the Dallas North Tollway. Whereas you have to change roads to get to Frisco/Plano from DAL, from DFW its just one road and less drive time. As far as Irving goes, it doesnt really matter. DAL and DFW are the same for convinence. Las Colinas, the business side of Irving, is actually closer to DFW.

If you want to really know whats more convinent to DAL, its everything south of Bush and East of 35 and Loop 12. Everywhere else in the Metroplex is more convinent to DFW. I respect that you have made many trips to the Metroplex, but I live here (in the Plano/Frisco border area) and I fly a ton as well. I have flown out of both airports many times and I have never made it to DAL quicker than DFW from this area. Not to mention, traffic is far worse by DAL.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4173 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12651 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 87):
In addition to Delta.......

I can't see Spirit making a serious bid. I don't believe they would want to invest in an airport where their potential growth is so firmly limited to two gates, and any change depends on the goodwill of, among others, Southwest.

Likewise, I don't think Southwest is that serious in their bid. For one thing, if the city is allowed to control the future of the two gates, they will go to anybody but Southwest in order to avoid accusations of favoritism and anti-competitive behavior. For another, one way to interpret the Wright repeal agreement is that Southwest has agreed to be permanently limited to 16 gates at the airport. If Southwest were to get American's gates, this interpretation will surely be tested in the courts.

My guess is Southwest's intervention is aimed at raising the stakes and make it that much more expensive for whoever the new gate user is.

The other thing is that, as per that repeal agreement, if American gives up its gates before the end of the lease, they become common use gates controlled by the airport. This may be why Delta claims they can operate 23 flights out of them, to keep anyone else from trying to use them as well.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12589 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 81):
But for the record, I don't understand why these gates are even part of the settlement. I don't think the DOJ has a clue about what competition really is.

DOJ settled this case for political reasons following pressure from the administration. It's not that they don't have a clue, it's that they don't really care as long as they can maximize the vote count in the next election.

As others have pointed out, it's very weird that gates at a place as bizarre as DAL were even part of the settlement.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12507 times:

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 91):
We all are assuming this was the DOJ's idea. Since this was a negotiated settlement, AA could have offered this up. Why would they do that? They were not going to use the gates anyway, those gates will have no affect on DFW, and it looks like they are making a big capitulation in their strongest market. Win-win.

Excellent point!! I'm embarrassed to say that never crossed my mind. If true, it goes to show how AA was blowing a lot of smoke during the years of the WA debate.


User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12337 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 43):
The airport would have no choice but to take gates from WN and give them to other carriers to support their operations. Just because a settlement agreement gives WN 16 gates does not mean that they are actually entitled to them.

Please explain how you came up with this.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 61):
DAL is off of Northwest and cannot be accessed without getting off of a freeway and going through several stop lights.
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 92):
From DAL, you get on Northwest Highway for 10 minutes through the western half of University Park and then another 20 minute drive up the Dallas North Tollway.

Quick note… Northwest Highway doesn't go to Love Field, unless you've never been and you're only trying to figure it out by looking at a map. Most people use Mockingbird Lane to Dallas North Tollway, which takes less than 5 minutes and then the tollway north… 20-25 minutes from Love Field to Frisco.



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7804 posts, RR: 25
Reply 97, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12318 times:

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 96):
Quick note… Northwest Highway doesn't go to Love Field, unless you've never been and you're only trying to figure it out by looking at a map. Most people use Mockingbird Lane to Dallas North Tollway, which takes less than 5 minutes and then the tollway north… 20-25 minutes from Love Field to Frisco.

Sorry, I meant Mockingbird.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 12251 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 71):
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 70):
Hey the area around HOU has barrios too damn'it!

That seems to be a trend for airports that WN dominates. HOU, DAL, MDW, OAK, and BUR are all like that.

Please do tell us about the areas around LAX, PHL, SFO, EWR, LGA, BOS, MIA, IAH (that area is called gunspoint for a reason)…



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineHmelawyer From United States of America, joined May 2011, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12121 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 92):
Dallas sure. Frisco? No way! DFW is far more convienent to Frisco than DAL. Its just a 20 minute drive up 121. From DAL, you get on Northwest Highway for 10 minutes through the western half of University Park and then another 20 minute drive up the Dallas North Tollway. Whereas you have to change roads to get to Frisco/Plano from DAL, from DFW its just one road and less drive time. As far as Irving goes, it doesnt really matter. DAL and DFW are the same for convinence. Las Colinas, the business side of Irving, is actually closer to DFW.

If you want to really know whats more convinent to DAL, its everything south of Bush and East of 35 and Loop 12. Everywhere else in the Metroplex is more convinent to DFW.

My consideration though is not on travel time once I am on the road alone. It is total time in travel. DFW has to have a considerable road travel advantage to overcome the on-airport time drain, like actually getting into the car and starting to drive. The time difference to Frisco may marginally favor DFW for driving, but the overall time experience favors DAL. This doesn't even take into account the likelihood of actual flight delay which favors DAL as well.

To each his own, but as I said I think there is a difference in preference between those who live in the Metroplex (like yourself) and those who only travel there. If you live there, you also have to consider the many more locations that you can reach from DFW which makes it more convenient. When traveling to Dallas it doesn't matter to me that DFW has much more service.


User currently offlinetlecam From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12075 times:

Quoting syncmaster (Reply 58):
Agreed. When you step back and look at the big picture of everything they are doing, SEA, DAL, DCA, BOS, etc, etc it can't help but make one wonder. I'm not trying to say there is anything sinister going on, but it definitely seems like they are trying to stir the pot for something.

This sparked a question for me; my assumption is that the latest round of airline consolidation has come to a close. Well, it will start coming to a close as United and AA execute their merger plans.

Since DL is the furthest along in their merger process, I'm wondering if the expansions at these airports are a hint at what we'll see as carriers execute their post merger business plans. Obviously, these companies aren't just going to get comfy with current ops - it does seem logical that the next growth will come via growing marketshares at non hub airports. DL seems to be focusing on BOS, DAL and SEA for now.



BOS || A:319,320,321, 332, 333, 346 || B:735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 772, 744: L1011, DC10
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7673 posts, RR: 15
Reply 101, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12041 times:

"Southwest Airlines Co., which already has 16 of 20 gates planned for Love Field’s new terminal, also has said it would like to acquire American’s gates."
If this happens we should all march on the DOJ HQ with burning torches. The fact they even have the balls so say such a thing is horrifying. If that were to happen the DOJ exists for the purpose of extinguishing competition.


User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11979 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 81):
DL already flies to each of ATL, DTW, MSP, LAX, and LGA from DFW

Actually, DL does not fly to LAX out of DFW.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 82):
23 daily flights out of two gates is 11.5 flights per gate per day!
Quoting RIDGID727 (Reply 86):
That many flights from 2 gates is laughable.

DL already has 2 gates at DAL; they are asking for 2 more. That would mean - if my math is correct - 5.75 flights/gate/day.


User currently offlineirishayes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2240 posts, RR: 15
Reply 103, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11949 times:

For anyone who is a proponent of the idea that DAL has the ability to crush DFW, just look at the failed examples of DL (MEM), NW (MSP), UA (DEN), AA/MQ (MDW, SAT, MCI, STL, AUS) and Legend and then prove to me how your theory still holds water.

The one that I find most laughable was the ORD-DAL service on MQ (which I took back in college) and how miserably it performed.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6729 posts, RR: 24
Reply 104, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11893 times:

Quoting irishayes (Reply 103):
For anyone who is a proponent of the idea that DAL has the ability to crush DFW, just look at the failed examples of DL (MEM), NW (MSP), UA (DEN), AA/MQ (MDW, SAT, MCI, STL, AUS) and Legend and then prove to me how your theory still holds water.

The one that I find most laughable was the ORD-DAL service on MQ (which I took back in college) and how miserably it performed.

But that failure is partly because you were forced to either use RJ's on long stage lengths or use mainline aircraft that were woefully under capacity (Legend).

Of course, DAL will never crush DFW. However, if they truly let the free market work and removed all restrictions on DAL, it would have a negative impact on DFW. There's a reason why AA spent millions of dollars fighting to keep Wright in place for as long as it has.


User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2012 posts, RR: 6
Reply 105, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11923 times:

Quoting Q (Reply 24):
Delta should bring 747-400 once first flight DAL-LAX. Delta used to fly 747-200 many years ago DAL-LAX and SFO.

They were 747-132's, not 200's. Delta only flew the original -100's, five of them to be exact, excluding Pan Am equipment used on the ATL-IAD-Europe interchange, and got rid of the last two in 1977. They operated them out of DAL to ATL, LAX, and I think, SFO.


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 106, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11898 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 102):
DL already has 2 gates at DAL; they are asking for 2 more. That would mean - if my math is correct - 5.75 flights/gate/day.

This is incorrect. DL does not have any gates at DAL, they lease 1 from American. Delta is asking to take over AA's 2 gates instead of having to leave because AA has to give them up.

So for all intensive purposes, as of October 2014, DL currently does not have any gate to operate out of.

[Edited 2013-11-15 12:45:02]


"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1761 posts, RR: 9
Reply 107, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11917 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 102):
DL already has 2 gates at DAL; they are asking for 2 more. That would mean - if my math is correct - 5.75 flights/gate/day.

No, DL currently owns zero gates at DAL, but leases two from AA. With AA divesting those gates, DL is asking to buy them. They would maintain the two gates they are using today.


User currently offlineairstatdfw From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11912 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 102):

DL already has 2 gates at DAL; they are asking for 2 more. That would mean - if my math is correct - 5.75 flights/gate/day.

They are leasing one gate from AA and seaport airlines is leasing the other AA gate.


User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 2021 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11873 times:

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 91):
We all are assuming this was the DOJ's idea. Since this was a negotiated settlement, AA could have offered this up. Why would they do that? They were not going to use the gates anyway, those gates will have no affect on DFW, and it looks like they are making a big capitulation in their strongest market. Win-win.

Hmmm, good point. That hadn't crossed my mind. But still, I don't understand why AA would willingly give them up unless they weren't that important to them and they knew the DOJ would bite on the concession.

Quoting enilria (Reply 101):
If this happens we should all march on the DOJ HQ with burning torches. The fact they even have the balls so say such a thing is horrifying. If that were to happen the DOJ exists for the purpose of extinguishing competition.

I really don't see how that is worse than DL simply doubling up with flights to their hubs that they almost all fly from DFW. WN will be gate limited to compete against AA no matter what. Two more gates for them would likely increase overall Dallas/Fort Worth competition.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 102):
Actually, DL does not fly to LAX out of DFW.

Thanks for correcting me. I thought that one had been part of DL's LAX expansion, and I didn't double check.


User currently offlineCarfield From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1946 posts, RR: 8
Reply 110, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11828 times:

Sorry to be a bit ignorant...

So Southwest will get 16 out of 20 gates on the new Love Field terminal.

AA currently gets 2 gates but they are no longer flying to DAL. One is subleased to SeaPort, and one is subleased to Delta.

How about the other 2 gates? Are they common used? Just curious..

I presume United uses at least one gate, but does it belong to United?

Carfield


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 111, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11797 times:

Quoting Carfield (Reply 110):

How about the other 2 gates? Are they common used? Just curious..

I presume United uses at least one gate, but does it belong to United?

16 gates are Southwest, 2 are United and 2 were to be AA's, as of right now, they are now unassigned.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 109):
WN will be gate limited to compete against AA no matter what. Two more gates for them would likely increase overall Dallas/Fort Worth competition.

Exactly, giving 2 more gates to Southwest would be beneficial to the entire Dallas/Fort Worth area because they always have AA and all the other airlines at DFW to keep up the competition but it would allow Southwest to serve more cities. Just like MDW where Southwest controls nearly all gates but fares are still competitive because of the competition over at ORD. Southwest should be able to get these 2 gates. My opinion of course, and everyone is free to have there own.



"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlinecrj200faguy From United States of America, joined May 2007, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11744 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 61):
DAL is full of XXX theaters, BYOB strip clubs, prostitutes, massage parlors, all night taco joints (which are awesome), barrios and warehouses. Northwest Dallas and the Webb Chappel area are not exactly prime locales.

Sounds like an awesome layover to me!!


User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11742 times:

Quoting RIDGID727 (Reply 86):
That many flights from 2 gates is laughable. 30-90 minute delays will have their DL skymiles PAX fuming as they sit waiting for gate space at DAL.
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 85):
You could probably turn a couple of 737s and a boat load of E-Jets on two gates a day if the sequencing is right. The airport benefits from being in the middle of the country so the flow over would be pretty good in all directions. Airport gates are grossly underutilized.

Well if they can turn them like UA Express then they would be fine. Last Firday our incoming flight was late and as soon as the last person got down the jetway we started boarding and 15 minutes later pushing back. I have seen that done at at a few UAEX outstations. They can turn ERJ in 20 mins all day at DAL. Also one time back in 06-07 they were 27 CO Express ERJs in DAL due to weather in Houston and all had to deplane at CO Gates. Within the past two months, due to WX at IAH, 7 UA ERJs landed at DAL within an hour and all were deplaned in that hour using two gates.

An one time CO EX was flying 16 flights a day out of their two gates at DAL. It can be done.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 92):
From DAL, you get on Northwest Highway for 10 minutes through the western half of University Park and then another 20 minute drive up the Dallas North Tollway.
Quoting usflyguy (Reply 96):
Most people use Mockingbird Lane to Dallas North Tollway, which takes less than 5 minutes and then the tollway north… 20-25 minutes from Love Field to Frisco.

It should take less than 5 minutes to get from DAL to tollway via Mockingbird. It takes me 15 to 20 mins tops to get to DAL from Lake Highlands (Skillman/Walnut Hill) other side of central.

For me, DAL is so much more convenient than DFW. I can park in the parking garage right across from UA Terminal and be at the gate in less than 10 minutes. Coming home, I can get from the gate to my car in 5 mins and be home 15 minutes after than. I'd still be at DFW waiting for a bus to take me to my car. I can also park in-terminal at DAL for less than DFW Express Parking which not even in the terminal area. Not to mention trying to take 635 to DFW is like playing Russian Roulette. Never know if you will make your flight unless you leave two hours before.

I found out, I can fly out of DAL connect in IAH (most of my connection are less than 30 mins) and still get to where I need to go faster than trying to fly direct out of DFW. At the end of a day of working, I want to be home as quick as possible. I can be home in 20 from DAL, where I have found myself 30 minutes later still waiting for the bus to pick me up from the terminal at DFW to take me to my car. Not to mention if you land out in boonies it can take the plane 15 minutes to taxi to the gate at DFW, where DAL is like 2 min or less taxi.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 102):
DL already has 2 gates at DAL; they are asking for 2 more. That would mean - if my math is correct - 5.75 flights/gate/day.

Delta lease one gate and Seaport airlines leases the other gate.



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlinecjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 7
Reply 114, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11711 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 55):
you do know that it wasn't WN who put the gate limit there. I find it amazing the number of people who blame WN for things AA (and its paid for puppets) did.


Oh come on!

The gate limits were included in the compromise by Dallas, Ft Worth and Southwest for two reasons. The first reason is that the cities wanted to protect their investment in building DFW. The limited number of gates at DAL prevents airlines from leaving DFW for DAL. The second reason is that Southwest gets the benefit of limited competition at DAL. The limit on gates leave no room at the airport for any other airlines. Southwest got everything they wanted in the compromise.

Funny thing about this situation, even with AA giving up the gates at DAL they still have a say in what happens with future efforts to change or modify the compromise.

I wish Delta luck I look for them to exact a little payback at the expense of WN.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11727 times:

Quoting Carfield (Reply 110):
How about the other 2 gates? Are they common used? Just curious..

Those were CO now UA gates. 16 gates are WN / 2 UA / 2 AA which lease ONE to DL and one to Seaport

For those that don't know what DAL Terminal 1 looks like.

Here are a few videos. Currently, DL, UA, Seaport and G4 have ticket counter space in Terminal 1 at DAL. Guess G4 and Seaport shares a gate.

Video 1: Shows Seaport Airlines ops and gate at DAL and UA/CO
http://youtu.be/r2V6reW1DYQ

Video 2: Shows the entire terminal from check-in to baggage, security and CO Gates (now UA).
http://youtu.be/82kg6Kjmtyo

Video 3: Shows 5 Airlines using terminal 1. CO & UA were operating as two airlines during this time. You will see Continental, United, Delta, Seaport Airlines, and Allegiant Check-in area. Also at the gate there is a CO/UA/DL plane all there.
http://youtu.be/eYT0ufUNfa4



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 116, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11684 times:

Quoting cjpark (Reply 114):
The second reason is that Southwest gets the benefit of limited competition at DAL.

This is false in so many ways. If WN could have it their way, there would be no gate cap. Because even if they wanted to, other airlines would fail at growing in DAL besides WN. People in DAL are very loyal to Southwest.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 114):
Southwest got everything they wanted in the compromise.

Do you know the definition of compromise?

Quoting cjpark (Reply 114):
I wish Delta luck I look for them to exact a little payback at the expense of WN.

DL won't put a dent in WN at DAL...



"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1761 posts, RR: 9
Reply 117, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11668 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 107):
No, DL currently owns zero gates at DAL, but leases two from AA. With AA divesting those gates, DL is asking to buy them. They would maintain the two gates they are using today.
Quoting airstatdfw (Reply 108):
They are leasing one gate from AA and seaport airlines is leasing the other AA gate.

Too late to edit my post, but as airstatdfw and others have correctly pointed out, DL is only leasing one of the gates. I completely forgot about SeaPort using the other, my mistake.

[Edited 2013-11-15 12:58:45]

User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7804 posts, RR: 25
Reply 118, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11654 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 113):
It should take less than 5 minutes to get from DAL to tollway via Mockingbird. It takes me 15 to 20 mins tops to get to DAL from Lake Highlands (Skillman/Walnut Hill) other side of central.

Again, I mentioned that in this post:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 92):
If you want to really know whats more convinent to DAL, its everything south of Bush and East of 35 and Loop 12. Everywhere else in the Metroplex is more convinent to DFW.

You live in the area in question so it makes sense that DAL would be better for you. The area in question is roughly 2 million out of the 6.8 million that populate the Metroplex.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4173 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11537 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 111):
Exactly, giving 2 more gates to Southwest would be beneficial to the entire Dallas/Fort Worth area because they always have AA and all the other airlines at DFW to keep up the competition but it would allow Southwest to serve more cities.

No, it would not be beneficial. As explained ad nauseam above, there is a small catchment area of the Metroplex where the two airports compete. Everywhere else, there is one "natural" airport and the other is rarely considered.

Giving the two gates to anyone but Southwest will increase competition at DAL, on the other hand, which is exactly why Southwest wants them.

Southwest will soon be serving many more cities non-stop anyway, and the extra gate space will come from the cancellation of some of the many daily flights to cities such as AUS, ELP and OKC that will no longer justify the current frequencies since the entire domestic market will be within reach non-stop.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 120, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 11351 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 119):
ect their investm

Funny you leave out the part of my post with the similarities to MDW and how well its works in a very similar situation there.

[Edited 2013-11-15 15:23:10]


"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1111 posts, RR: 5
Reply 121, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11117 times:

You have to wonder what is the point of Delta's announcement.

As the DOJ has explained, Delta is not likely to qualify.

Even if it were, AA can make the decision on its own to sell the 2 gates to any of the qualified applicants. So, it is AA that can pick the winners and losers.

From what I've read, AA could even accept less money if it wanted to sell the 2 gates to Southwest or JetBlue over Delta, though I imagine these gates would be more valuable to Southwest than the other two airlines.

So, the announcement seems ridiculous on its face. Delta needs AA's two gates to expand, but the likelihood is high that Delta won't even have one gate for their current schedule.


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 122, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11068 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 121):
From what I've read, AA could even accept less money if it wanted to sell the 2 gates to Southwest or JetBlue over Delta, though I imagine these gates would be more valuable to Southwest than the other two airlines.

I wouldn't be surprised if WN gave AA a deal that AA couldn't refuse. At the same time the press release from the DOJ says "The acquirers of the slot and gate divestitures also require approval of the department. Preference will be given to airlines at each airport that do not currently operate a large share of slots or gates." In my opinion, it can go either way. I could see AA accepting B6 and VX to get a gate each at DAL to keep DL out.



"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 123, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11037 times:

Quoting Carfield (Reply 110):
AA currently gets 2 gates but they are no longer flying to DAL. One is subleased to SeaPort, and one is subleased to Delta.

I am just trying to figure out if AA which subleases the gates to others exactly how DL will have preference to those gates. It would seem to me DOJ cancelling the AA lease would leave DL out in the cold and the gates go to auction or negotiations to the highest bidder.

I am thinking that DL is promoting the 16 flights a day trying to swing DAL management to negotiate with them because of the ability to generate the most revenue for the airport with the two gates.

As far as gate turns if you start with 2 RONS and consider say 0700 to say 2100 that would give you 14hrs x 2gates = 28gate hours to turn 16 aircraft. I would sure hope you could turn a narrow body in less than an 1hour 45mins.

Okie


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 124, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10893 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 121):

You have to wonder what is the point of Delta's announcement.

As the DOJ has explained, Delta is not likely to qualify.

It's not like this is some irreversible action. DL is trying to jump on the opportunity to do something (the smart thing to do, not me just being biased) and maybe the DOJ will reconsider or enough stink will be raised to compel the DOJ to change their minds. What's the harm in trying? It's not like they are losing a bunch of money doing this or being absolutely obnoxious, they're being ambititous and trying to benefit from this... what's the harm in that?

I personally don't see DL getting any DCA slots, and I'm not sure they'll get DAL gates, but I think they have a pretty good argument on the DAL side. It's not like the legacies are drowning out "LCC" competition... DL is a minor player in DAL/DFW and very well could benefit the customer. It's not as simple as saying legacies are evils and LCCs spread joy to everyone. I'm not saying that you're implying any of these things, but many people seem to have this opinion

I think it's unprofessional for the DOJ to say any carrier is disqualified from anything. They're just saying they refuse to listen to anyone's arguments, no matter how good or bad they are. If they hear DL's argument and objectively/fairly decide it's not the best, toss them out. But don't just toss them out automatically because they aren't as "dis-privileged" as WN...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10804 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 123):
As far as gate turns if you start with 2 RONS and consider say 0700 to say 2100 that would give you 14hrs x 2gates = 28gate hours to turn 16 aircraft. I would sure hope you could turn a narrow body in less than an 1hour 45mins.

And if they started at 5:30 they could even do more. I was on a UA EX that departed DAL at 5:30 last week. Not fun at all.



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 126, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10741 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 116):
Quoting cjpark (Reply 114):
Southwest got everything they wanted in the compromise.

Do you know the definition of compromise?

yup, The "compromise" was pretty much the minimum that AA and DFW could give up in exchange for WN having a real (and soon) timeline on lifting the wright amendment.

Its my belief that WN both didn't expect it to go unchallanged by outside airlines, and regrets not pushing hard for the complete repeal in congress.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10719 times:

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 96):
DAL is a public use airport. If airlines want gates, the airport is required to provide them, even at the expense of another carrier. Southwest will have 16 gates, until other carriers need more than the other 4. At that time, they will either take gates from Southwest and give them to other carriers or change the agreement to add more gates.

[Edited 2013-11-15 18:50:07]

User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5792 posts, RR: 28
Reply 128, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10664 times:

Quoting cjpark (Reply 114):
I wish Delta luck I look for them to exact a little payback at the expense of WN.

Unless the good residents of DAL decide to take a little payback for DL throwing them all to the AA wolves at DFW.  

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 129, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10573 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 127):
DAL is a public use airport. If airlines want gates, the airport is required to provide them, even at the expense of another carrier. Southwest will have 16 gates, until other carriers need more than the other 4. At that time, they will either take gates from Southwest and give them to other carriers or change the agreement to add more gates.

The agreement says that Southwest has to give gate space if there is space available. If Southwest uses all their gates, no airline can come in and say we want to serve DAL, Southwest end some flights and give us a gate or two, except for at times the gates are not scheduled to be used. If an airline wants to add service, each leaser of the gates has preferential leases so if Southwest uses all 16 at all times, they get the gates and the other airline is out of luck.
http://www.lovefieldmodernizationpro...esolveTheWrightAmendmentIssues.pdf

[Edited 2013-11-15 19:34:04]


"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10530 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 129):


Incorrect. Case law is very clear on this. It is why airports have competition plans. Southwest may have 16 gates, but only some of them are preferential. The rest are subject to surrender for use by other carriers. If accommodation is not made, the City of Dallas will find itself in a Federal court so fast it will make their heads spin. The only thing binding in that settlement agreement is the curfew, and even that is suspect.

[Edited 2013-11-15 19:41:38]

User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 131, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10494 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 130):
Incorrect. Case law is very clear on this. It is why airports have competition plans.

You see the contract, you choose to believe it or not.

[Edited 2013-11-15 19:42:16]


"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10486 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 131):

If airlines need gates, it will come at the expense of Southwests 16 gates. Love Field is a Federally obligated airport, end of story.

Read away:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/

[Edited 2013-11-15 19:46:34]

[Edited 2013-11-15 19:52:14]

User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 133, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10426 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 132):
If airlines need gates, it will come at the expense of Southwets 16 gates. Love Field is a Federally obligated airport, end of story.

It will come at the expense of an available gate. Anyway, what it comes down to is the city of Dallas is responsible for it and who's side do you think they will be on? Southwest's. If you don't think they would take sides, you don't know politics. The contract is not clear enough to specify how the gate sharing would work so it comes down to interpreting it and Dallas politics will sway on Southwest's side with no doubt.

[Edited 2013-11-15 19:55:55]


"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1111 posts, RR: 5
Reply 134, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10404 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 124):
It's not like this is some irreversible action. DL is trying to jump on the opportunity to do something (the smart thing to do, not me just being biased) and maybe the DOJ will reconsider or enough stink will be raised to compel the DOJ to change their minds. What's the harm in trying? It's not like they are losing a bunch of money doing this or being absolutely obnoxious, they're being ambititous and trying to benefit from this... what's the harm in that?

No harm done, but it seems desperate given that Delta has no real standing to seek a remedy from the courts or the DOJ. What is it going to do? File a brief in the anti-trust case arguing that the settlement does not address its competitive concerns? The DOJ did not oppose the merger for the sake of protecting Delta from adverse competition.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 127):
DAL is a public use airport. If airlines want gates, the airport is required to provide them, even at the expense of another carrier. Southwest will have 16 gates, until other carriers need more than the other 4. At that time, they will either take gates from Southwest and give them to other carriers or change the agreement to add more gates.

From my understanding, the compromise reached between AA, Southwest, and the Government caps the number of gates at 20. Only an act of Congress can change that. The compromise does allow for gate sharing through voluntary accommodation at preferential gates. But beyond that Congress really tied the hands of the airport manager because it assigned the gates to the three airline parties to the compromise (Southwest, AA, and Continental) on an almost permanent basis. Those gates do not revert to common use unless Southwest, AA, or Continental (now UA) break certain terms of the compromise or do not renew the leases.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 34
Reply 135, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10396 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 125):
And if they started at 5:30 they could even do more. I was on a UA EX that departed DAL at 5:30 last week. Not fun at all.

I'm surprised to hear this. Part of the agreement to resolve the Wright Amendment states that

Quote:
4. The City of Dallas agrees that it will negotiate a voluntary noise curfew at Love Field precluding scheduling passenger airline flights between 11;00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Southwest Airlines and American Airlines shall enter into agreements with respect thereto with the City of Dallas.

Continental (now United) isn't mentioned, so maybe it doesn't apply to them. And the agreement is voluntary, so that might be another reason UA can have a flight leaving that early.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 127):
DAL is a public use airport. If airlines want gates, the airport is required to provide them, even at the expense of another carrier. Southwest will have 16 gates, until other carriers need more than the other 4. At that time, they will either take gates from Southwest and give them to other carriers or change the agreement to add more gates.

No. See the LoveField Competition Plan

It's old, but it's the one still in effect.

Go down to Page 21 to read the procedure the airport must follow and pay particular attention to Subparagraph 4 a. (WN, AA, and UA are the Lessees. Any other airlines would be the Requesting Airline.)

Quote:
1. All requests for airline facilities accommodation will be received by the Department of Aviation.

2. In the event the requesting airline has demonstrated to the Department of Aviation that it has contacted all airline lessees and has exhausted all reasonable efforts to secure accommodations, the Director shall notify all airline lessees in writing that if requesting airline is not accommodated within thirty (30) days from the receipt of notice, Director shall select one of the airline lessees to apply for the request for accommodation in a non-discriminatory manner.

3. At the end of said thirty (30) day period, if requesting airline has not been accommodated, Director may select a Lessee to accommodate requesting airline and, in that event, shall send written notice to Lessee to accommodate requesting airline within thirty (30) days from the receipt of said notice. Director shall include in such notice the reason or reasons why Lessee was selected. Lessee shall have ten (10) days after receipt of said notice to comment on or dispute such selection.

4. Unless Director rescinds such selection within said thirty (30) day period, Lessee shall accommodate requesting airline by sharing a portion of its Terminal Lease Area subject to the following conditions:

a. In case of a conflict of schedules of Lessee and the requesting airline, the Lessee shall have preferential use of its personnel and its Terminal Lease Area.

b Lessee agrees that if requested to accommodate another carrier pursuant to this paragraph, it will use its good faith efforts to effect such accommodation in a reasonable and equitable manner.

c. The Lessee may assess the requesting airline reasonable fees and charges under an appropriate contract for services rendered to, or subleased facilities shared with, requesting airline and which shall be based on Lessee's direct and indirect costs plus a reasonable allowance for administration. In the event of a dispute regarding these reasonable fees and charges or any other matter regarding this scarce resource provision, including but limited to Section 3, Subparagraph 4 a above, and upon the Director's receipt of written notice of such dispute(s), and, in good faith and in a non-discriminatory manner render a decision regarding the acceptable fees and charges, or any other matter regarding this scarce resource provision, including but not limited to Section 3 Subparagraph 4 a above, which shall be binding on the Lessee and the requesting airline.

I'm interpreting that Subparagraph 4 a to mean that if WN/AA/UA are using their gates at a time that another requesting airlines wants to add service, that the requesting airline would not have to be accommodated. If they did share, it would most likely not be during peak times.

And ALL the gates at Love Field are currently leased on a preferential-use basis. If DL doesn't get the two gates they are requesting, those gates may revert back to Love Field and those two gates might be common-use, but all of WN's are UA's gate leases are on a preferential-use basis.

This provision has come into play on at least one other occasion at Love Field back in the late 1990's.

American's gate access partially cut at Love Field in Dallas
By Andrew Backover
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
June 14, 1999


Quote:
Continental Express, citing increased demand among business travelers, has
partially squeezed American Airlines from the gates the carriers share at
Dallas Love Field.

Beginning July 9, Continental will add two daily Love-to- Houston round-trip
flights, forcing American to shift three Love-to-Austin routes to
Dallas/Fort Worth Airport beginning July 2, scrapping one daily flight in
the process.

Continental Express can elbow American for space at Love Field because it
has preferential use of gates 41 and 42, the gates shared by the two
airlines but controlled by Continental.

"They are our gates and, as we need them for additional flights, we need to
use them more often," said Michele King, a spokeswoman for Continental
Express in Houston. "We have increased the flights due to demand by our
customers."

American described the move as "taking the gates away from us, if you will,
during some of the prime times of the day," spokesman Tim Smith said.

[SNIP]

American, wanting to start service from Love, asked the city of Dallas in
April 1998 for access to gates controlled by Continental Airlines, which is
Continental Express' parent, and Southwest Airlines. Southwest was not
required to share because its gates were busier.

Just about every airport in the country is a public-use airport. If it were that easy for an airline to go to a gate-restrained airport and demand gates (and get them at the expense of other carriers) then WN would have started service at airports like CLT and ATL years ago.

LoneStarMike

[Edited 2013-11-15 20:02:29]

User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10366 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 133):

Local jurisdictions cannot set policy that favors a carrier over another. It violates the Federal rules and regulations regarding public use airports. While no one really cared when the local agreement was formed over Love field, the long term problem would always be access to a public use airport. You cannot guarantee the use of gates as they attempted to do. No, it is not an issue of carriers obtaining and using "available gates", it is an issue of gates period.

As I said, failure of the airport to provide access will result in a visit to the a Federal courtroom.


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 137, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10354 times:



Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 136):
Local jurisdictions cannot set policy that favors a carrier over another. It violates the Federal rules and regulations regarding public use airports. While no one really cared when the local agreement was formed over Love field, the long term problem would always be access to a public use airport. You cannot guarantee the use of gates as they attempted to do. No, it is not an issue of carriers obtaining and using "available gates", it is an issue of gates period.

As I said, failure of the airport to provide access will result in a visit to the a Federal courtroom.

I'm gonna send you to:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 135):
a. In case of a conflict of schedules of Lessee and the requesting airline, the Lessee shall have preferential use of its personnel and its Terminal Lease Area.
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 135):
if WN/AA/UA are using their gates at a time that another requesting airlines wants to add service, that the requesting airline would not have to be accommodated.

This says it all.

[Edited 2013-11-15 20:03:13]


"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1111 posts, RR: 5
Reply 138, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10334 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 136):
Local jurisdictions cannot set policy that favors a carrier over another. It violates the Federal rules and regulations regarding public use airports. While no one really cared when the local agreement was formed over Love field, the long term problem would always be access to a public use airport. You cannot guarantee the use of gates as they attempted to do. No, it is not an issue of carriers obtaining and using "available gates", it is an issue of gates period.

As I said, failure of the airport to provide access will result in a visit to the a Federal courtroom.

The Federal Government would be suing itself.

The policy at Love is the result of a Federal law that repealed the Wright Amendment.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10325 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 135):

The only reason Southwest didn't enter CLT or ATL was by choice. There are no barriers to entry at these two airports. The law is very clear on what airports must do to comply with their Federal obligations and gate access.

Because of the gate limit, the space would come from Southwest. This is rather uncharted territory. No one has ever actually forced the hand of the FAA with regard to this. If an airline files a complaint, gates will in fact be surrendered by Southwest for use by another carrier. Make no mistake about this. As a single proprietor airport, DAL is rather unique in having a gate limitation where so many of its gates are allocated to a single carrier.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10295 times:



Quoting airliner371 (Reply 137):

Except Mike is wrong in his interpretation.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 138):

The City of Dallas is not the Federal Government. It is the airlines that would be suing the City in a Federal Court over interstate commerce.

[Edited 2013-11-15 20:18:45]

User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 141, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10282 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 139):
The only reason Southwest didn't enter CLT or ATL was by choice. There are no barriers to entry at these two airports.

Thats not true, Southwest could not get gates.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 140):
The City of Dallas is not the Federal Government.

Its not of the City of Dallas, it was law passed by congress approved by the president.



"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1761 posts, RR: 9
Reply 142, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10270 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 140):

Assuming you're correct, I guess it's safe to assume nobody will be attempting to obtain AA's gates. Anybody who wanted to serve DAL would already have marched into court and simply demanded gate space.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 34
Reply 143, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10294 times:

Here's what I would love to see happen.

If Virgin America could get some of the slots at LGA and/or DCA and one or both of the gates at DAL, they could operate one-stop coast-to-coast flights LGA/DCA - DAL - LAX/SFO.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 144, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10266 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 143):
If Virgin America could get some of the slots at LGA and/or DCA and one or both of the gates at DAL, they could operate one-stop coast-to-coast flights LGA/DCA - DAL - LAX/SFO.

I could see VX getting one gate at DAL but not for this.



"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10272 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 141):

Southwest should have filed a complaint. Plenty of other carriers didn't seem to have a problem at either of those airports.

Also, the agreement over Love Field is a local agreement. The Fed is not signatory to it. It simply states, if Congress lifts the restrictions then we'll do this, this and this. It says nothing about how to deal with a scenario where the airport doesn't have enough gates to meet the demands of multiple carriers. That is up to the airport under the Federal guidelines which are well established.

The simple fact is, no one considered this problem.

[Edited 2013-11-15 20:32:59]

User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1515 posts, RR: 2
Reply 146, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10254 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 145):
Also, the agreement over Love Field is a local agreement. The Fed is not signatory to it. It simply states, if Congress lifts the restrictions then we'll do this, this and this. It says nothing about how to deal with a scenario where the airport doesn't have enough gates to meet the demands of multiple carriers. That is up to the airport under the guidelines which are well established.

The Wright Amendment was signed into law by the President after being passed by Congress.
http://www.aviationpros.com/news/10396478/congress-repeals-wright



"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."- HF
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10223 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 146):


Why do you cling to a repealed law which is completely irrelivant next October? We're talking about gate use and the requirements of an airport that is Federally obligated.

[Edited 2013-11-15 20:46:36]

User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 34
Reply 148, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10236 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 147):
The Wright-Amendment is about routes, not lease agreements, competiton plans or the requirements of equal access mandated by Federal obligations.

But the whole reason Love Field is gate-restrained is because it's limited to 20 gates. This limit on the number of gates is part of the federal law that Congress passed.

From the article posted by airliner371:

Quote:
In November 2004, Southwest Airlines announced that it would lobby Congress to lift the flight restrictions.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, introduced legislation the following May to repeal Wright completely, spurring lawmakers nationwide to pick up the cause to win cheaper flights to and from North Texas.

But Mr. Hensarling decided not to back the compromise agreement, saying he could not support the nation's only congressional mandate on the number of gates at a local airport.


And this limit of 20 gates does not become irrelevant next October. It will still be in effect.
LoneStarMike

[Edited 2013-11-15 20:49:01]

User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10199 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 148):

And the course of action will be to change the agreement and build more gates (this part of the agreement was done by curfew much like SNA) or redistribute gates as needed to meet the demands of other carriers. No one else really cared at the time of the agreement as it was largely viewed as an AA/WN/DAL/DFW pissing match, but it was over half a decade ago. Times change as do the desires of a carrier. What they really needed to do was place the two airports under a single agency. There is far more leeway in what can be done with such an arrangement (see LGA/EWR/JFK and IAD/DCA).

Again, the agreement is a local one that was drawn up to get wright repealed. It's not a Federal law. The entire agreement centers on the curfew. It is only with a curfew that a sole proprietorship airport could have such an artificial barrier to entry. It does not however preclude an airport with such a restriction from meeting it's other obligations with regard to access.

[Edited 2013-11-15 20:59:38]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 150, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10203 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 134):
No harm done, but it seems desperate given that Delta has no real standing to seek a remedy from the courts or the DOJ. What is it going to do? File a brief in the anti-trust case arguing that the settlement does not address its competitive concerns? The DOJ did not oppose the merger for the sake of protecting Delta from adverse competition.

IDK, it seems like you're reading into this more. They see an opportunity and are just going for it. I don't think they'll be that sad if they get denied. Just throwing their case out to the DOJ in the hopes they'll agree. The DOJ and everyone else knows they're just trying to get something but hey, if DL brings up a good point the DOJ never thought of they might give it to them, even if DL is just throwing a bunch of ideas out there



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)