The Dallas Morning News is reporting that Delta will get to stay at Love Field at least through the end of the Year

Mark my words:
Delta will stay at Dallas Love.
It may take fifteen lawsuits, but ultimately, they'll be there. Unless they internally lose interest.
Kicking them out was a clear violation of the spirit of the five party agreement.
Wright, Wrong, or indifferent, that's how I see it happening.

Bring on the 717s!!

United's new flights don't start till January. I was told that Delta was demanding that DAL pay for passengers ground transportation between DFW and DAL which was a lot of money.

I don't think this means anything beyond December. I'm not even sure where DL will operate from after December. If they do force DL in, this situation will just happen later when somebody like B6 wants in.

Here is the link for the story from the Dallas Morning News

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2...-through-the-end-of-the-year.html/

I just have a feeling that something else will be announced before January....

Quoting enilria (Reply 2): United's new flights don't start till January. I was told that Delta was demanding that DAL pay for passengers ground transportation between DFW and DAL which was a lot of money.

I wonder who paid for all those new DL adds that were also moved to DFW well after VX got the gates   

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 4): I just have a feeling that something else will be announced before January....

I'm expecting injunctive relief, which in turn, will lead to a redrafting of the lease agreements.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 5):

I think the issue was for passengers leaving from DAL and having their cars at DAL that was caused by the short notice. DL would be required to provide transport to DAL.

Delta was kind of irresponsible to keep booking passengers past when its contract was thru, but then again you can't blame them as they didnt have it official, its just a sticky situation. The airport didnt take anything from delta, they just didnt renew.

It does seem like a major pain for people who booked into Love regardless of why delta kept booking passengers. I doubt they have too much booked in 2015 after the holiday season anyways. This extension will surely help as we all know thanksgiving and xmas time alot of passengers im sure were booked. The airport should be trying to help the passengers effected, they booked into love so unless you have a plan its only makes sense to let delta fly thru until after the new years time.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 8): Delta was kind of irresponsible to keep booking passengers past when its contract was thru, but then again you can't blame them as they didnt have it official, its just a sticky situation. The airport didnt take anything from delta, they just didnt renew.

I don't know that I fully agree here.
Delta booked passengers based on, from what I can piece together, the idea that United was going to share a gate with them, AND the phrasing of the fiver party agreement that says something to the effect of, "If someone else wants to fly here, they get to. You guys just talk amongst ya'selves to figure out how to share."
Go back and read the agreement- it's clear that the idea was that other carriers WOULD be interested, and that concession would have to be made to accomodate them.
Now, years later, surprise surprise- no one wants to share.
So you end up with United saying, "Sorry, Delta, we're using our facilities to their fullest capability." When the reality is that United is SHARING A GATE WITH SOUTHWEST. For a few months, anyway.
The airport did, in a way, take something from Delta. Delta has had gates at Love since 2000, with a hiatus in the middle. They started out at Legend's terminal, and continued to operate there even after Legend went bust.
Then they leased American's gates in the red concourse, after American lost interest.
So it's not like Delta hasn't been there.

In short, I think there IS no right answer to this situation, except to open things up somehow.
Good luck with that.

From the Dallas Morning News article:

Quote: In a letter to the city at the end of last week, Delta’s attorneys threatened to sue the city if it didn’t find room for the airlines at Love at least through the end of the year. Washington, D.C.-based attorney Kenneth Quinn told the city in a nine-page letter that Delta was under the impression — “as recently as last week” — that the city “had notified United by letter that it must accommodate Delta on its gates.” Quinn told the city that at the very least it wanted Dallas City Hall to allow the carrier to keep flying out of Love Field until January, if only to accommodate the 16,000 passengers who have already purchased tickets out of Love.

What?? Delta was "under the impression" that the City had told UA it had to "accomodate Delta on its gates"?

Sounds like a lawyer bluff to me.

IMO, if anyone is required to relinquish gate space for DL, it should be WN. Actually, a more amicable solution seems likely -- the article hints that WN may be willing to provide space for Delta, if the price is right:

Quote: Southwest vice president and general counsel Mark Shaw said Wednesday evening. “Our discussions with Delta are ongoing. Any accommodation is subject to agreement between Southwest and Delta covering reasonable terms and conditions. We hope and expect to conclude these discussions quickly.”

It will be hard to ignore that the Dallas-Atlanta route is the sixth busiest domestic route out of Atlanta, it will argue well in a possible lawsuit if needed.

Worst thread title ever?

Temporary or extension or something should be in the title

Quoting atlwarrior (Reply 11): It will be hard to ignore that the Dallas-Atlanta route is the sixth busiest domestic route out of Atlanta, it will argue well in a possible lawsuit if needed.

That's a very leading quote there. Completely ignoring the million-ton gorilla of DFW. A VAST majority of DL North Texas-ATL pax fly through DFW. A handful of CRJ's (yes I'm aware of the 50-seat restriction and the Wright Amendment Repeal coming this Monday) cant compete with the double-digit mainliners flying DFW-ATL. Further, while DL is the undisputed leader of NT-ATL flyers, AA takes a huge chunk of the NT local fliers, and WN will surely eat into the NT-ATL market further. I fail to see the importance of Love Field to the DL network. for most of the metroplex DFW is closer. Add to that the Sky Club and amenities of DFW over DAL, and I'd take a DFW-ATL over a DAL-ATL if I were a DL loyal flyer (disclosure: AA elite), and I live 20 minutes closer to DAL than DFW.

[Edited 2014-10-08 22:25:49]

Quoting ipodguy7 (Reply 13):

Definitely can't speak for everyone, but for someone that goes to Dallas periodically on Delta; I would prefer Love Field over DFW, because of its location to Downtown Dallas.

Quoting atlwarrior (Reply 14): Definitely can't speak for everyone, but for someone that goes to Dallas periodically on Delta; I would prefer Love Field over DFW, because of its location to Downtown Dallas.

I completely understand your point, but how many people would switch airlines if DL were to cut DAL? I fail to see how much DL can gain by operating out of DAL, when DFW is within twenty-five minutes (non-rush hour) to an hour (even in the worst Dallas traffic) from the CBD? The traffic around DAL is horrendous. Ever try to navigate 75-N to the SMU exit and then Mockingbird through Highland Park at rush hour (for the non-metroplexians that's the most common route to take from downtown to DAL)? It'll take you almost as long as the trek out to DFW.

Quoting ipodguy7 (Reply 15): The traffic around DAL is horrendous. Ever try to navigate 75-N to the SMU exit and then Mockingbird through Highland Park at rush hour (for the non-metroplexians that's the most common route to take from downtown to DAL)? It'll take you almost as long as the trek out to DFW.

As a lifelong Dallasite, Dallas is one of the best major cities to drive around in if you know what roads to drive on. I live in Lake Highlands and get get to DAL 15 to 20 mins tops no matter what the traffic is or weather except frozen precipitation. Dallas south of LBJ is a grid and it is easy to get across town. I don't even have traffic to drive in even during rush hour. The only part of Mockingbird I use is the part in front of the airport. There is an easy way to get from 75 to DAL without ever getting on Northwest Hwy, Walnut Hill, Royal, Lovers, Mockingbird except in front of the airport and do it in 10 to 15 mins. Great thing about DAL, there is 100 different ways to get there if you live in Dallas.

Now DFW Airport, I say a pray every time I have to venture out there. 635 screws me everytime. I have to leave hours before departure, while at DAL without check bags, I know I can leave my house 45 mins before wheels up and have no problem making my flight.

If going to Downtown Dallas from DAL, one could just stay on the road that goes into the airport Cedar Springs and go directly to Downtown Dallas.

DAL used to be much busier than it is now, before DFW opened. It had more gates, more airlines and it still has all that space. There has to be a solution. Can't they do remote gates somehow?

I made the following statement about this attempt to remove Delta and Love Field in a previous discussion. Dallas is is going to pay big to dump Delta. Their appears to be NO love between Dallas and Delta. I know Richard and he does not take things sitting down. I was criticized for for my statement and it appears below.

"Richard Anderson is a lawyer and from Texas. He most likely already knows what Delta will be doing. He may even take this personal and make it very uncomfortable and expensive for the City of Dallas."

           

[Edited 2014-10-09 07:48:46]

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 10): What?? Delta was "under the impression" that the City had told UA it had to "accomodate Delta on its gates"?

Sounds like BS...why would UA owe anything to DL that isn't explicitly in the contract, and why would it be in the contract in the first place?

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 10): IMO, if anyone is required to relinquish gate space for DL, it should be WN. Actually, a more amicable solution seems likely -- the article hints that WN may be willing to provide space for Delta, if the price is right:

Good luck with that. Seeing what WN has gone through at DAL for the last 4 decades, having their HDQ here in Dallas, and seeing how hard they fought VX/DL for the two AA gates, I would never think in a million years they would permanently give up a gate to a new entrant/ competitor at DAL.

My guess is they are allowing DL to fly until the end of the year with the agreement DL doesn't file a lawsuit in January to continue flying. Once WN opens up their schedule in early 2015, I don't think it'll be possible from them to give up a gate to anyone, and those flights are already scheduled and ticketed. Based on their gradual ramp-up approach with DAL, it was possible to accommodate DL until the end of the year.

IMO, the gate cap is a load of crap...if they can accommodate the flights, let them build the gates...even at the expense of DFW. (Yes, I know this was one of the terms of the WA repeal, but still...)

Quoting Dallas (Reply 20): My guess is they are allowing DL to fly until the end of the year with the agreement DL doesn't file a lawsuit in January to continue flying. Once WN opens up their schedule in early 2015, I don't think it'll be possible from them to give up a gate to anyone, and those flights are already scheduled and ticketed

WN is following the 5 party agreement, in other words, not using a gate to full extent then you have to make it available to others. Obviously 01.06.15 WN fills the rest of its schedule.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 18): "Richard Anderson is a lawyer and from Texas. He most likely already knows what Delta will be doing. He may even take this personal and make it very uncomfortable and expensive for the City of Dallas."

Well Mr. Anderson makes a handsome living representing clients win or lose.

I will wait and see what DL files on to make a call, DL did not have a lease at DAL only a sub-lease from AA, did not participate in the 5 party agreement and the DOJ said DL could not enter into the 2 gate antitrust settlement which VX received.
It will be interesting what DL really does file, it sounds like there is a lot of legal language that prohibits Dallas from making any deal with DL other than offering unused gate time which the lease holder has the control of schedule.

Looking like high drama and "popcorn time".


Okie

Something to keep in mind, we are also waiting for Southwest to add Boston, San Jose and Portland (OR) to its schedule next year that they have already announced in addition to where ever else they chose to add next year. There is zero chance that Southwest will be able to accommodate Delta next year.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 16): Now DFW Airport, I say a pray every time I have to venture out there. 635 screws me everytime. I have to leave hours before departure, while at DAL without check bags, I know I can leave my house 45 mins before wheels up and have no problem making my flight.

You take 635 from Lake Highlands to DFW? I stopped that years ago--Northwest Highway to either 183 or 114 followed by Walnut Hill usually reduces the headache.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 19):

It wouldn't surprise me if the city said you have to accommodate the flights if you have room at your gates since UA had underutilised its DAL gates. Now that UA increased its schedule, that threat no longer works.

Texan

Quoting aaway (Reply 6): I'm expecting injunctive relief, which in turn, will lead to a redrafting of the lease agreements.

On what grounds, DL lost out on the two gates that were available - AA gates - UA and WN have solid lease agreements, so what would be the grounds for the re-drafting?

Quoting okie (Reply 22): WN is following the 5 party agreement, in other words, not using a gate to full extent then you have to make it available to others. Obviously 01.06.15 WN fills the rest of its schedule.

I will re-read the document but unless there are more details elsewhere, there is no standard definition of a minimum gate use in terms of turns per hour / day / week, so even if we accept that UA turn times are excessive, unless a standard is provided it passes muster.
http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/Wright_Amend_Agreement061506.pdf

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 10): From the Dallas Morning News article: Quote: In a letter to the city at the end of last week, Delta’s attorneys threatened to sue the city if it didn’t find room for the airlines at Love at least through the end of the year. Washington, D.C.-based attorney Kenneth Quinn told the city in a nine-page letter that Delta was under the impression — “as recently as last week” — that the city “had notified United by letter that it must accommodate Delta on its gates.” Quinn told the city that at the very least it wanted Dallas City Hall to allow the carrier to keep flying out of Love Field until January, if only to accommodate the 16,000 passengers who have already purchased tickets out of Love. What?? Delta was "under the impression" that the City had told UA it had to "accomodate Delta on its gates"?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 19): Sounds like BS...why would UA owe anything to DL that isn't explicitly in the contract, and why would it be in the contract in the first place?

Quoting texan (Reply 24): It wouldn't surprise me if the city said you have to accommodate the flights if you have room at your gates since UA had underutilised its DAL gates. Now that UA increased its schedule, that threat no longer works.

Perhaps my interpretation of this is flawed, but I'd hazard to guess that the "understanding" of Delta's attorneys, and subsequent action by the City of Dallas, were under the guise of adherence to the DAL Competition Plan.

Quoting atlwarrior (Reply 11): It will be hard to ignore that the Dallas-Atlanta route is the sixth busiest domestic route out of Atlanta, it will argue well in a possible lawsuit if needed.

Quoting ipodguy7 (Reply 15): I fail to see how much DL can gain by operating out of DAL, when DFW is within twenty-five minutes (non-rush hour) to an hour (even in the worst Dallas traffic) from the CBD?

From a certain viewpoint, a DL niche at (what is currently) a constrained facility - and considering the competition - may just be lucrative enough to fight for.
I wouldn't underestimate a long term, strategical aspect to this, which would be DL ultimately launching that DAL schedule that was initially proposed.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 18): Richard Anderson is a lawyer and from Texas. He most likely already knows what Delta will be doing. He may even take this personal and make it very uncomfortable and expensive for the City of Dallas.

I agree with the hypothesis, not necessarily with the conclusion. The expense would be the cost of litigation.

I'll defer here to the lawyers who regularly participate in these forums - but it seems that without a lease agreement, the cure is somewhat limited in scope. With that, it seems the most reasonable cure would be the grant of access.

Perhaps that's where DL will have the legal footing in mounting a challenge, perhaps based upon the provisions of the Airport Improvement Program or AIR-21 legislation.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 21): IMO, the gate cap is a load of crap...if they can accommodate the flights, let them build the gates...even at the expense of DFW. (Yes, I know this was one of the terms of the WA repeal, but still...)

I agree but believe treading carefully will be the catch phrase here. It hasn't been mentioned thus far - the current gate cap was enacted with casualties: AMR (which in 1998 had signed a 25 year lease agreement for the old Braniff terminal), and the development group responsible for the old Legend terminal (who had been in lease negotiations with Pinnacle Airlines for that facility).

My initial impression is that this issue will be settled with perhaps DL getting preferential gate access on a single gate, and/or a carve out of another 1 or 2 gates for common use managed by the city. Essentially, modified access within the constricts of the five-party agreement.

Quoting okie (Reply 22): Looking like high drama and "popcorn time".

I find it fascinating theater. The parallel to 1971-1974 when a certain party was not a participant to a broader regional agreement - ultimately adjudicated in that parties' favor. Even this interim WN-DL agreement has the appearance of returning a favor. After all, it was DL that subleased to WN during the formative years at DAL.

[Edited 2014-10-09 16:03:38]

Quoting par13del (Reply 25): On what grounds, DL lost out on the two gates that were available - AA gates - UA and WN have solid lease agreements, so what would be the grounds for the re-drafting?

Not every commercial service airport operates with a standard 'cut-and-dry' gate lease schema. As a simplified example, my home airport, LAX, essentially has a hybrid scheme of long term lessees, sub-lessees, and a tariff system ("pay-as-you-go") for gate access.

I've listed a possible re-drafting scenario in my previous post.

[Edited 2014-10-09 15:50:01]

Quoting aaway (Reply 26): I'll defer here to the lawyers who regularly participate in these forums - but it seems that without a lease agreement, the cure is somewhat limited in scope. With that, it seems the most reasonable cure would be the grant of access.

There are multiple avenues of attack, depending on what the intended result is. There are a couple of arguments they could make that could entice some other airlines to join a suit--although a couple of other airlines would vehemently oppose. And the remedy would depend on what argument or arguments they attempt in the first place  

Texan

Quoting aaway (Reply 26): My initial impression is that this issue will be settled with perhaps DL getting preferential gate access on a single gate and/or a carve out of another 1 or 2 gates for common use.

Part of the 5 party agreement was that the parties could not participate for modifications until 2025 in the agreement. (20 gate cap)
As noted WN and UA's silence on the issue.

The real question to me is if DL does file wanting modifications then does that relinquish the agreement to the point where WN or anyone else can come back in for modifications and DAL could be back to a 32 gate airport for instance if WN wanted 10 more gates and 2 for DL?
Just a thought.

Okie

Quoting okie (Reply 29): Part of the 5 party agreement was that the parties could not participate for modifications until 2025 in the agreement. (20 gate cap)

Duly noted which is why I believe if adjudication is to occur, DL will need a favorable outcome from the federal level.

Quoting okie (Reply 29): The real question to me is if DL does file wanting modifications then does that relinquish the agreement to the point where WN or anyone else can come back in for modifications and DAL could be back to a 32 gate airport for instance if WN wanted 10 more gates and 2 for DL? Just a thought.

The way I understand it, none of the 5 party members can initiate or participate in fighting to repeal/change the wright amendment but I don't believe it says anything about benefiting from someone else fighting for it.

So if DL were to fight the wright amendment, WN and others (I believe) could get gates as well.

Separately, if this were to happen, I highly doubt WN would get 10 gates. I could see them getting 8 max, 6 most likely. with 6 going to other airlines.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 31): Separately, if this were to happen, I highly doubt WN would get 10 gates. I could see them getting 8 max, 6 most likely. with 6 going to other airlines.

I just threw that out there as a number to get back to 32 gates.
Since this is hypothetical at this point.
Then AA could get gates since it gave up the gates required now could regain gates?
Then could international be offered out of DAL?
Would the Nimby's get back involved?
A Re-re-rewrite could be a can of worms.

I will watch with popcorn at this point but I just do not know what standing DL would have with the City as they had no contract or lease and the City is tied to the 5 party agreement which is federal.

Okie

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 31): Separately, if this were to happen, I highly doubt WN would get 10 gates. I could see them getting 8 max, 6 most likely. with 6 going to other airlines.

Since the feds threw the WA back to the locals my opinion is that if the locals want to modify the feds would have no issue, hence the reason why the agreement says all parties agree not to attempt to change etc.
If you look at the compromise, the only federal involvement is no international flights so no need for full CBP personnel, the gate cap is not based on ATC requirements, it is simply based on locals attempting to protect or limit access.

If the gate cap is increased say by 5 gates - facility listed in the document used by WN - they could all go common use two to DL and three available for anyone not named AA, the lifting of the gate cap does not have to go to full 32.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 9): Delta booked passengers based on, from what I can piece together, the idea that United was going to share a gate with them, AND the phrasing of the fiver party agreement that says something to the effect of, "If someone else wants to fly here, they get to. You guys just talk amongst ya'selves to figure out how to share." Go back and read the agreement- it's clear that the idea was that other carriers WOULD be interested, and that concession would have to be made to accommodate them.

Just because an airline (that doesn't have a gate lease with the City of Dallas, but rather a sublease with another airline) wants to fly out of Love Field doesn't mean they automatically "get to." They "get to" subject to Dallas Love Field's existing gate lease provisions.

All of DAL's gates are leased on a preferential-use basis and all of them include what's known as a scarce resource provision. The scarce resource provision says that Lessees must share a gate with a requesting airline subject to the following provision:

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

LoneStarMike

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 34): All of DAL's gates are leased on a preferential-use basis and all of them include what's known as a scarce resource provision. The scarce resource provision says that Lessees must share a gate with a requesting airline subject to the following provision: In case of a conflict between schedules of Lessee and the requesting airline, the Lessee shall have preferential use of its personnel and its Terminal Lease Area.

Of course, the leases do not trump federal antitrust law.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 35): Of course, the leases do not trump federal antitrust law.

Is the antitrust only applicable if DL files a suit?

Delta doesn't care about those gates But Dallas sure didn't know that!!
I'll bet United is still Pissed about losing the D gates at ATL and having to move to the T concourse.
We were on the D gates For YEARS before anybody cared about them. At one point?
That whole end of the concourse was empty after Eastern met it's demise.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 37): I'll bet United is still Pissed about losing the D gates at ATL and having to move to the T concourse.

Well if they are, they have successfully stopped DL from sharing / using any of their gates, so mission accomplished.

Quoting par13del (Reply 36): Is the antitrust only applicable if DL files a suit?

DoJ could investigate or sue.

Kind of related to this discussion...analyst Bob Mcadoo is criticizing UA for upping DAL service and basically gate squatting. If I am not mistaken...this is the same guy who says they should dehub IAD.

aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/...ng-dallas-love-field-flights.html/

So UA has no other airports that they can serve from DAL, even if they still use RJ's throw in another airport or two and see what happens, expand the choices for UA clients out of DAL.
The airport will be unrestricted so take advantage of the option or lease the gates out to someone who will.
As one of the 3 large legacy carriers, I find it hard to believe that UA cannot operate a couple flights from DAL to one of their other hubs, eve if sitting on the gate, if they have something larger than an RJ the additional time is warranted.

Stop this madness and up the gates at DAL---This cap may be the agreement but it is ridiculous for a growing area to have such a limitation!! We need another FREE LOVE but this time all the airlines (except AA) wil help!!

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 9): The airport did, in a way, take something from Delta. Delta has had gates at Love since 2000, with a hiatus in the middle. They started out at Legend's terminal, and continued to operate there even after Legend went bust. Then they leased American's gates in the red concourse, after American lost interest. So it's not like Delta hasn't been there.

Yes, Delta is an incumbent carrier at DAL. I really think that they should have leased one gate to Delta and one gate to United. I don't think it's fair to force an airline out when, according to the Wright Compromise, they technically have a right to be there and they've been providing steady service for 5 years (DL (NW) returned to DAL from MEM in 2009 and DL took over the operations once the merger closed and switched to Delta on January 1, 2010).

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Reply 43): I really think that they should have leased one gate to Delta and one gate to United.

Ummm... UA has maintained their lease at DAL since the 80's. There were empty gates for years and if DL was that concerned about DAL they could have leased gates then. Don't cry when your flight departs and you aren't on it and their flight departed and they were left standing around.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 44): Ummm... UA has maintained their lease at DAL since the 80's.

Maintained their lease? Yes, but they certainly did not use the gates to anywhere near their full potential.

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Reply 43): Yes, Delta is an incumbent carrier at DAL. I really think that they should have leased one gate to Delta and one gate to United.

DL wasn't an incumbent carrier when the Wright compromise was drawn up and it was decided who got the gates.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 45): Maintained their lease? Yes, but they certainly did not use the gates to anywhere near their full potential.

and that is not done by all the airlines somewhere?!?
It all comes down to what is the definition of 'proper utilization of a gate' is.
I am sure that the argument DL is using at DAL could be used against it at other airports.

You know, it just seems to me that if anybody is clever enough to take this circus and turn what appears to be a disadvantage into an advantage, it should be Delta.

Why not:
go for a Golden Age retro theme done truly well? Find space that isn't a proper gate, and build out a behind-security, Delta-only 1950's era or 1960's era departure lounge where 'guests' wait in comfort for the departure of their retro liveried 717's which will board out the doors and across the ramp, up stair-trucks... ala once-upon-a-time (so there is no official gate) with gracious Delta employees to welcome them, offer them opportunities to stop by the (very cheap) soda fountain, the gift shop, the displays of model planes from all the years of Delta flight in their glass cases, under the tall ceilings and turning ceiling fans... in a beautiful yesteryear-ish space. Employees might have retro and rare uniforms indoors, and clever use of mats, drainage, etc outside would make it look and feel special, older, unique. Retired employees who wish to might pick up a few extra dollars playing tour guide, and explaining the process of turning a plane to interested onlookers, etc. And the modern technology can still be present, just quietly so.

In fact, I'd make that ramp as electric as possible, and staff it well and carefully.

But I'd make that station sing! And I'd rub it in the noses of the competitors and the City of Dallas... I'd make flying Delta out of Love an experience, a show, a joy! And worth having to use an umbrella once in a while... why not? It makes the threat to UA clear... keep your gazillion flights up - or in the rain, we'll just borrow your jetway!

For the truly nostalgic who cannot get over the loss of the PanAm WorldPort - you could even give it that soaring roof to keep the rain off!

Anybody with me? Let's think outside the box, gang... it is after all, what WN used to do... it'd be funny to beat them at their own game.

Quoting eugdjinn (Reply 48): Find space that isn't a proper gate

The repeal agreement is crystal clear on one thing: one gate, one plane, one bridge, period. No dividing gates, no remote parking, no air stair, nothing but walking down the bridge from a "proper gate" into the aircraft.

Other than that, I actually think it's a cool idea.