Please continue this discussion here.

City Of DAL Asks Feds What To Do About DL (by ridgid727 Jun 17 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Enjoy the hot summer  

Ben Soriano

It has probably been said before, however I didn't have time to look through 200+ posts, but it really seems that more gates are the only true solution to the problem and the likelihood of more gates becoming a reality anytime in the semi-near future seems highly unlikely. This whole situation just shows that the Wright amendment is still haunting DAL almost a decade after it has been repealed. If there were still 32 gates we wouldn't have this massive conundrum. IMHO the Wright amendment was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed. Kind of a tangent, but without WN's presence at DAL, does anybody have an idea of what would have happened to DAL after the opening of DFW in 1974?

Copied from the archived thread

Quoting cjpark (Reply 220): My original post said to go back to the original gate allotment of the compromise. 16-2-2. There is is a reason why the 20 gate limit was installed in the compromise. DAL cannot expand, the roads and access to the airport cannot handle additional ground traffic without severe degradation to the surrounding area. Adding more gates to the airport would undoubtedly create more noise pollution for the area and the increase in airline traffic would hamper general aviation operations at the airport.

Except DAL already had the roads and other infrastructure in place in recent times for 32 gates, yes they are tearing down the legend terminal and building additional parking, why, do they expect additional traffic as a result of WA2?
The intent is to continue to preserve DFW, what is wrong with stating that, using roads which already exist, plans for increase traffic which also impacts GA does not assist the argument of restraining DAL.

I actually forgot that hardstands were specifically listed in the WA2, they do however provide the judge with a cheap and easy remedy, have DL and or WN operate a number of flights from hardstands. The 20 gate limit would remain, and based on past history, no other carriers would want to operate under draconian conditions at DAL.

There is really three ways I see the court ruling.

Option 1 (Best): WA2 (with possibly WA as well) is stricken down as blatantly anti-competitive by giving DFW a monopoly on any new or expanded service, and further existence will be a detriment to the public as a whole. This will immediately solve the situation as they can set up hard stands for DL until they can build back out. This will also allow WN to finally serve DFW to the couple destinations that they probably could serve from both airports profitably (BTW don't go on a rant that they can now, they loose more at DAL than would ever be gained by DFW flights under WA/2 (further proving this law anti-competitive by design)). DFW will probably be hurt some by it but there is no way that DAL will suddenly grow and eclipse DFW so the harm is outweighed by the pros of increased service and competition.

Option 2 (Neutral): WA2 is upheld, DAL/DFW are the same market interchangeable, DL is told to pound sand. This pretty much a ruling that says DL is out of luck and upholds that the priority rights holders can use or sub-lease there gates as they see fit.

Option 3 (Worst): WA2 is upheld, Gate(s) are seized to give to DL and others access under the guise of increasing competition. This is the most dangerous of the rulings because it means that it will set precedent that the government can arbitrarily come in and seize assets of larger airlines at a facility to give to entrants. The reason this is a big problem is because any divesting by the airlines in the past was triggered by an event started by that airline (mergers, swaps, etc.). This would now mean that anyone who got the ear of a politician could go in and get gates/slots citing this case from the largest incumbent. It doesn't have to be at fortress hubs either, someone could go in and claim that their need to serve JFK at prime times deserves seizing of a slot from AA. I realize that DL is already there in this case but the issue is that they would be able to take gates/slots from an airline at a whim to give to the little guy at the airport all in the name of competition.

Quoting par13del (Reply 2): Except DAL already had the roads and other infrastructure in place in recent times for 32 gates, yes they are tearing down the legend terminal and building additional parking, why, do they expect additional traffic as a result of WA2? The intent is to continue to preserve DFW, what is wrong with stating that, using roads which already exist, plans for increase traffic which also impacts GA does not assist the argument of restraining DAL.

Because it is not true. The number of gates was decided and insisted upon by the City of Dallas to protect the area around the airport. The reasoning for the reduction was based on environmental factors. The old master plan for the airport factored in the use of smaller regional jets to fly beyond the Wright Perimeter. The new master plan had to consider the affects of larger jets on the area flying beyond the Wright perimeter.

I have a hard time imagining a ruling which would, in any material way, alter the current legislation; great deference is given to the legislative process. Long term, I see (and predict) a ruling pretty much maintaining the status quo, which leads to Delta's exit being delayed, but inevitable.

My crystal ball, however, is on the fritz...

Quoting sccutler (Reply 5): I have a hard time imagining a ruling which would, in any material way, alter the current legislation; great deference is given to the legislative process. Long term, I see (and predict) a ruling pretty much maintaining the status quo, which leads to Delta's exit being delayed, but inevitable.

Agreed.

I also think the odds of additional gates being constructed is flat out zero in this decade or the next.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 5): I have a hard time imagining a ruling which would, in any material way, alter the current legislation; great deference is given to the legislative process. Long term, I see (and predict) a ruling pretty much maintaining the status quo, which leads to Delta's exit being delayed, but inevitable.

If that happens--the Federal court is essentially saying that WN is allowed to have a near monopoly. That sets a dangerous precedent for other airports in the country with the DOT/DOJ.

WN has agreed to temporarily allow DL to maintain its 5 flights until things are solved.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/bu...624&nlid=44052408&tntemail0=y&_r=1

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 7): If that happens--the Federal court is essentially saying that WN is allowed to have a near monopoly. That sets a dangerous precedent for other airports in the country with the DOT/DOJ.

If the DOJ says it's one market (which they already have), then that protects cities with more than one airport. If their is only one airport in a market, it's a different story.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 4): The reasoning for the reduction was based on environmental factors.

Is that pretextual, though? The area around MDW is even denser, and MDW has 43 gates.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 4): The number of gates was decided and insisted upon by the City of Dallas to protect the area around the airport.

Let me correct this for you:

"The number of gates was decided and insisted upon by the City of Dallas to protect American Airlines."

You could easily add gates at DAL and have minimal impact. It's not like WN (the primary source of flights) is flying old MD80s!

Quoting cjpark (Reply 4): Because it is not true. The number of gates was decided and insisted upon by the City of Dallas to protect the area around the airport.

My point was that the infrastructure around the airport was already in place for greater than 20 gates.
As it relates to traffic, even with the limitation of 20 gates, the traffic at the airport was going to increase once the more draconian WA measures were removed, the only way to maintain the traffic at the WA1 level's was probably to reduce the gates further than the current 20, whether they would have gotten WN to sign on to that compromise is another story, DFW and DAL would be fine with such a limit.

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 7): If that happens--the Federal court is essentially saying that WN is allowed to have a near monopoly. That sets a dangerous precedent for other airports in the country with the DOT/DOJ.

Allowed or given, 16 out of 20 in some circles is regarded as a monopoly.
Honestly, I am hoping that since the local authorities abdicated their responsibilities, the courts will make a ruling to settle the situation once and for all, since the current situation is not tenable. We are presently dealing with 4 operating carriers which does not include B6 or NK, if either of them request access the merry go round will start again.

Looks like WN is still planning to expand its schedule while also accommodating the 5 DL flights:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...erative-at-dallas-love-field.html/

In other words, they have agreed to put 10 lbs. of s*&t in a 5 lb. bag. That should be interesting.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 10): Is that pretextual, though? The area around MDW is even denser, and MDW has 43 gates.

  

Quoting par13del (Reply 12): Honestly, I am hoping that since the local authorities abdicated their responsibilities, the courts will make a ruling to settle the situation once and for all, since the current situation is not tenable. We are presently dealing with 4 operating carriers which does not include B6 or NK, if either of them request access the merry go round will start again.

I have spend many years in many courtrooms; while we don't know the details of what transpired yesterday, I think we can glean some hints.

When a Judge schedules a conference call with all parties, and one of those parties does a 180-degree about face after the call, I would suspect there was at least some hint that the Court's decision might not go their way. When WN decided that DL should be allowed to stay - at least in the interim - I would not discount the possibility that they saw some handwriting on the wall.

Depending on whose side you take (and I am in the fortunate position of having no dog in this fight), it was either a magnanimous gesture on the part of WN, or capitulation to what they saw was inevitable. Only time will give us the full answer, but - like I said - I do read it as a hint of the route the Court was taking.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 14): When a Judge schedules a conference call with all parties, and one of those parties does a 180-degree about face after the call, I would suspect there was at least some hint that the Court's decision might not go their way. When WN decided that DL should be allowed to stay - at least in the interim - I would not discount the possibility that they saw some handwriting on the wall. Depending on whose side you take (and I am in the fortunate position of having no dog in this fight), it was either a magnanimous gesture on the part of WN, or capitulation to what they saw was inevitable. Only time will give us the full answer, but - like I said - I do read it as a hint of the route the Court was taking.

or DL decided that they would pay whatever it was that WN was asking to rent a portion of a gate because the judge indicated the result would be something they didn't like...

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 14): Only time will give us the full answer, but - like I said - I do read it as a hint of the route the Court was taking.

I don't think much can be made about what the court's final decision regarding the case will be from this move, but I suspect WN got a hint that they would be ordered to continue accommodating DL until the whole case is settled and final decision made. In that situation it's better to make the move first from a PR standpoint, as DL would tout the court order as a minor victory even if it is just one battle in the whole war.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 15): or DL decided that they would pay whatever it was that WN was asking to rent a portion of a gate because the judge indicated the result would be something they didn't like...

I would bet my $30 million - if I had it - that DL did not agree to spend its $30 million (as WN was apparently asking) for those gates.

Quoting polot (Reply 16): I suspect WN got a hint that they would be ordered to continue accommodating DL until the whole case is settled and final decision made. In that situation it's better to make the move first from a PR standpoint, as DL would tout the court order as a minor victory even if it is just one battle in the whole war.

I agree 100%.   

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 10): Is that pretextual, though? The area around MDW is even denser, and MDW has 43 gates.

Is Midway bordered on one side by the wealthiest area of Chicago? Love Field is bordered by the Park Cities, and Highland Park on the east side. Lots of wealth concentrated in those areas.

They say money talks and it obviously talked very loud to the City of Dallas during the compromise negotiations and now you have a 20 gate limit at the airport.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 14): When a Judge schedules a conference call with all parties, and one of those parties does a 180-degree about face after the call, I would suspect there was at least some hint that the Court's decision might not go their way. When WN decided that DL should be allowed to stay - at least in the interim - I would not discount the possibility that they saw some handwriting on the wall.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 15): or DL decided that they would pay whatever it was that WN was asking to rent a portion of a gate because the judge indicated the result would be something they didn't like...

Or the judge said he was likely to agree with Dallas that DL's attorney should step aside, and he could not adjudicate the matter until that issue was resolved. Perhaps he gave assurances to WN that they would suffer no prejudice by accommodating DL in the interim.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 14): When a Judge schedules a conference call with all parties, and one of those parties does a 180-degree about face after the call, I would suspect there was at least some hint that the Court's decision might not go their way. When WN decided that DL should be allowed to stay - at least in the interim - I would not discount the possibility that they saw some handwriting on the wall.

Hear him!

Quoting cjpark (Reply 18): They say money talks and it obviously talked very loud to the City of Dallas during the compromise negotiations and now you have a 20 gate limit at the airport.

Piss on 'em; Dallas is Dallas, Highland Park is Highland Park; they have no say.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 18): Is Midway bordered on one side by the wealthiest area of Chicago? Love Field is bordered by the Park Cities, and Highland Park on the east side. Lots of wealth concentrated in those areas. They say money talks and it obviously talked very loud to the City of Dallas during the compromise negotiations and now you have a 20 gate limit at the airport.

But Jerry Jones, etal (HP/UP residents) don't pay taxes or vote in Dallas, so do they really have much sway over the City? And doesn't The Bubble keep noise out anyway?

[Edited 2015-06-25 11:57:05]

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 21): But Jerry Jones, etal (HP/UP residents) don't pay taxes or vote in Dallas, so do they really have much sway over the City? And doesn't The Bubble keep noise out anyway?

  

And if it is "money talking," then it's NIMBYism talking, not legitimate environmental concerns.

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 13): Looks like WN is still planning to expand its schedule while also accommodating the 5 DL flights: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...erative-at-dallas-love-field.html/ In other words, they have agreed to put 10 lbs. of s*&t in a 5 lb. bag. That should be interesting.

I predict after WN adds those flight and if DL is still there, DL ops at DAL will be a total mess. WN has preferential use of the gates, meaning if WN has IRROPS or something is wrong and a WN plane is at the gate, DL will have to wait till the gate is free.

Earlier in the year when I was at DAL, UA was having IRROPS at IAH and had two planes parked at gates 15 and 17. DL landed and we watched the 717 sit out there for over an hour till UA was able to let the flight from gate 15 depart. I have seen DL wait a few times for UA to free up a gate 15. Back when UA was there, DL never had gate 15 to themselves, it always said at the gate on one TV DL and the other UA. Right now DL has the whole gate to themselves.

Also once last year when I was there a UA ERJ-145 was broke at gate 17. The had the engine cover opened up and everything. Back then UA was letting WN use gate 15. That day WN couldn't use gate 15 because UA was using it all day as gate 17 had a broke plane sitting there. Granted UA only had two gates and WN has 17 others now to use. But at the end of the day DL was at the mercy of UA and will be with WN as WN now has preferential use of the gates.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 23): Also once last year when I was there a UA ERJ-145 was broke at gate 17. The had the engine cover opened up and everything. Back then UA was letting WN use gate 15. That day WN couldn't use gate 15 because UA was using it all day as gate 17 had a broke plane sitting there. Granted UA only had two gates and WN has 17 others now to use. But at the end of the day DL was at the mercy of UA and will be with WN as WN now has preferential use of the gates.

Why can't they be creative and say : "okay, DL you can operate flights, but must be all remote tarmac parked, and all be bussed in"

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 24): Why can't they be creative and say : "okay, DL you can operate flights, but must be all remote tarmac parked, and all be bussed in"

Because that is forbidden by the agreement. They must use a gate, it is very specific.

WA2 prohibits scheduled hardstand ops. They could, however, use hardstands for IRROPS.

Quoting polot (Reply 25): Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 24): Why can't they be creative and say : "okay, DL you can operate flights, but must be all remote tarmac parked, and all be bussed in" Because that is forbidden by the agreement. They must use a gate, it is very specific.

That's the agreement. Since it's now in the courts, they can probably make any unpredictable ruling they want that's completely different from what WA2 said.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 18): They say money talks and it obviously talked very loud to the City of Dallas during the compromise negotiations and now you have a 20 gate limit at the airport.

I thought it was about "environmental concerns", but now you change the story and say it's just about protecting rich people. So what's the real story?

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 23): WN has preferential use of the gates, meaning if WN has IRROPS or something is wrong and a WN plane is at the gate, DL will have to wait till the gate is free.

I wouldn't want to be buying a ticket on DL on DAL-ATL...as I suspect on-time performance could take a real dive.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 27): That's the agreement. Since it's now in the courts, they can probably make any unpredictable ruling they want that's completely different from what WA2 said.

While most posters here have argued the merits of Southwest vs. Delta, and their respective legal positions, putting it in front of the Court opens the potential for much more far-reaching decisions. All parties will be able to present arguments for-and-against the WA2 agreement, the DL and WN contractural issues, and the restrictions that made WA2 palatable to the parties involved (and, arguably, unpalatable to the parties that were left out).

Beyond that, though, the Court has a duty to consider not only these formal agreements and arguments, but also what would best serve "the public interest" - an ill-defined, but often-used phrase that Courts seem to love to employ. That, my friends, could lead to a very interesting outcome indeed.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 20): Piss on 'em; Dallas is Dallas, Highland Park is Highland Park; they have no say.

Is that sarcasm?

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 21): But Jerry Jones, etal (HP/UP residents) don't pay taxes or vote in Dallas, so do they really have much sway over the City? And doesn't The Bubble keep noise out anyway?

Just so you know local taxes are not used to support the airport. And yes HP/UP have lots of sway in this city and region.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 22): And if it is "money talking," then it's NIMBYism talking, not legitimate environmental concerns.

In case you are interested here is the link to the study the City commissioned to understand the impact on the area surrounding Love Field with the Wright Amendment Repealed.

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

Quoting cjpark (Reply 30): Just so you know local taxes are not used to support the airport. And yes HP/UP have lots of sway in this city and region.

Heck yes they do, they've already squawked that WN was launching too many takeoffs from

13L / 31R than the 13R / 31L runways that are just slightly farther away from their houses.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 30): Just so you know local taxes are not used to support the airport.

Did I say they were?

Quoting cjpark (Reply 30): And yes HP/UP have lots of sway in this city and region.

So what part of Dallas did JJ build his stadium, his influence with Laura Miller being so large?

[Edited 2015-06-25 15:18:54]

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 32): Did I say they were?

Please re-read your reply 21.

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 32): qSo what part of Dallas did JJ build his stadium, his influence with Laura Miller being so large?

Just like the gate cap, Laura Miller made the correct call on the stadium question.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 33): Please re-read your reply 21.

Umm, maybe you should. I said HP/UP didn't pay any taxes to the City of Dallas, much less support DAL through taxes.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 33): Just like the gate cap, Laura Miller made the correct call on the stadium question.

On the stadium question, you may be correct--though spending $57 million for one game (TX/OU) vs. $325 million for 11 (10 Cowboys, Cotton Bowl, plus Final Four, Superbowl,and other events) might suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that Dallas public/pols resent HP/UP vastly more than kowtow to them.

[Edited 2015-06-25 16:13:58]

[Edited 2015-06-25 16:19:55]

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 34): Umm, maybe you should. I said HP/UP didn't pay any taxes to the City of Dallas, much less support DAL through taxes.

It is also clear that HP/UP have a love-hate (no pun intended) with DAL. The complain about they noise and the formerly-low-flying approach, but they are the first jump on a flight at their most-convenient airport.

Indeed, it is the proximity to to the upscale HP/UP/North Dallas area that makes flights from Love so desirable.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 35): Indeed, it is the proximity to to the upscale HP/UP/North Dallas area that makes flights from Love so desirable.

Anecdotally--there are a lot of Delta Medallion members connecting on DAL-ATL so that makes sense. Lots of international connections too.

Dear Mods:

I cannot stop giggling at the typo on the thread title.

"You said do-do!"

Sincerely,

My inner 12-year-old

 

Quoting JBo (Reply 37): Dear Mods: I cannot stop giggling at the typo on the thread title. "You said do-do!" Sincerely, My inner 12-year-old

It may closer to the truth than you think......it IS turning into do-do.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 35): Indeed, it is the proximity to to the upscale HP/UP/North Dallas area that makes flights from Love so desirable.

And it is the biz jets there that usually make the most noise...

Quoting cjpark (Reply 30): Quoting sccutler (Reply 20): Piss on 'em; Dallas is Dallas, Highland Park is Highland Park; they have no say. Is that sarcasm?

Meh. Not really.

Without Dallas, there is no Highland Park or University Park. All that pissin' and moanin' gets old, and you can count the number of residents who were alive when Love Field was built on .... oh, wait; there are none.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 40): Without Dallas, there is no Highland Park or University Park. All that pissin' and moanin' gets old, and you can count the number of residents who were alive when Love Field was built on .... oh, wait; there are none.

"I want to live near the airport so I don't have to drive far to catch my flight... but I don't want anyone else to fly from there...    "

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 41): "I want to live near the airport so I don't have to drive far to catch my flight... but I don't want anyone else to fly from there... "

You just provided the webster definition of NIMBY 

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 1): it really seems that more gates are the only true solution to the problem

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 1): This whole situation just shows that the Wright amendment is still haunting DAL almost a decade after it has been repealed. If there were still 32 gates we wouldn't have this massive conundrum. IMHO the Wright amendment was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed.

Well stated and with that I predict that the Court throw out Wrong Amendments 1 & 2 and state:

1. You can no longer create "agreements" that overtly create zero competition at a city airport.

2. You can no longer create "agreements" that overtly create unecessary restrictions to airlines and where they choose to fly.

3. You can no longer create "agreements" that overtly create an obvious monopoly for any one airline and by doing so shut out all others.

4. You can no longer limit gate capacity to fuel said monopoly.

5. You can no longer create "agreements" that suggest that "protection" to an obvious large international airport in the same city is needed to overtly limit competition.

I hope WA gets thrown out just to see the chaos it will cause. Tell Delta there is no gate limit and we will have a new Delta hub as soon as construction permits. Doubt me? This is going to be fun to watch.

Quoting william (Reply 44): I hope WA gets thrown out just to see the chaos it will cause. Tell Delta there is no gate limit and we will have a new Delta hub as soon as construction permits. Doubt me? This is going to be fun to watch.

DFW is fixin' to start construction of another Terminal building with 35 or so gates.

I'd love to see DL come back to DFW and crank up the hub like they had going

in the 80's and 90's. There will be plenty of gates to go around

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 45): DFW is fixin' to start construction of another Terminal building with 35 or so gates. I'd love to see DL come back to DFW and crank up the hub like they had going in the 80's and 90's. There will be plenty of gates to go around

I remember those days too, but I was talking about Delta starting a focus city or mini hub at DAL if the Feds threw out WA2 gate restrictions

Quoting Raventech (Reply 3): There is really three ways I see the court ruling

Option 4 (never going to happen) Close DAL to all commercial traffic and send everyone to DFW like was supposed to happen in 1974.

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 45): I'd love to see DL come back to DFW and crank up the hub like they had going in the 80's and 90's

Unfortunately, this will never happen. Delta has a very long history with Dallas dating back to 1929, with DAL being its western most airport for most of those years. My personal opinion is that Dallas will never be more than a focus city. And if Delta had been given the gate space at DAL that if originally wanted, I could see DFW operations shrinking even more or ending entirely.

Quoting AST1Driver (Reply 47): Unfortunately, this will never happen. Delta has a very long history with Dallas dating back to 1929, with DAL being its western most airport for most of those years. My personal opinion is that Dallas will never be more than a focus city. And if Delta had been given the gate space at DAL that if originally wanted, I could see DFW operations shrinking even more or ending entirely.

The market is large enough for Delta to maintain a presence at DFW and DAL--if WA is repealed, expect to see DL add the flights they originally wanted out of DAL--IIRC it was LAX, DTW, LGA, MSP, SEA.

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 48): Quoting AST1Driver (Reply 47): Unfortunately, this will never happen. Delta has a very long history with Dallas dating back to 1929, with DAL being its western most airport for most of those years. My personal opinion is that Dallas will never be more than a focus city. And if Delta had been given the gate space at DAL that if originally wanted, I could see DFW operations shrinking even more or ending entirely. The market is large enough for Delta to maintain a presence at DFW and DAL--if WA is repealed, expect to see DL add the flights they originally wanted out of DAL--IIRC it was LAX, DTW, LGA, MSP, SEA.

Exactly - by that logic, Midway and Hobby should also be closed. This lingering artificial and un-needed protection of DFW is insane. LET THE MARKET DECIDE.