Here come the Feds!   

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating whether the city of Dallas has improperly failed to assure that Delta Air Lines can continue operating at Dallas Love Field.


http://www.dallasnews.com/business/2...with-warning-to-city-of-dallas.ece

If I recall this is a known issue. I believe this is why Dallas took the whole matter to court.
Dallas feels they have conflicting legal views that ensure that no matter what stance they take they will break a law.

I feel like the conflicting details were included in the recent thread, but I am not going to re-read all of it:
Any Update On DL Gates @ DAL? (by Dallas Apr 22 2015 in Civil Aviation)
Any Updates On DL Gates @ DAL - Part 2 (by American 767 May 28 2015 in Civil Aviation)

I think this move by the FAA only puts more pressure on the timelines. The courts will need to act

Here's hoping the Feds just end this stupid gate cap crap and open DAL completely.

Quoting ordbosewr (Reply 1): If I recall this is a known issue. I believe this is why Dallas took the whole matter to court.

It is a known issue with a new layer. The DOT had stepped in previously, and now the FAA has decided to join the fun, with a stern warning to the city: keep Delta in Love Field until their investigation is over or else.

The city may feel boxed in but...

Quoting ordbosewr (Reply 1): Dallas feels they have conflicting legal views that ensure that no matter what stance they take they will break a law.

Dallas has no one but itself to blame. When Southwest sent them the sublease agreement with United, the aviation department rolled over, waged its tail obediently and grabbed a pen. They spent a nanosecond thinking about the consequences.

As most of us will recall, when it was the turn of Virgin and American, the aviation department did a lot more thinking, so much so the city council had to step in. Even then, the department still wanted their pound of flesh since their favorite child was being denied. To bring an end to the saga, Virgin had to agree to two demands:
-Noise reductions measures that are voluntary for all other carriers would be mandatory for Virgin;
-Virgin would pay the city's legal fees if Southwest or Delta sued.

If you think Southwest is quieter or is writing checks to the city's legal team since they got their sublease approved, I have a shiny new Boeing 797 I'd like to talk to you about.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 2): Here's hoping the Feds just end this stupid gate cap crap and open DAL completel

How likely is that, do you know?
If they're looking for a permanent resolution either removing the cap entirely or closing the airport would make the problem go away for good, but is either possible legally or politically? My guess would be another compromise instead.

even if the court rules, is it considered final ? Can some new stipulation from DOT or FAA supersede it ?

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 5): even if the court rules, is it considered final ?

Probably not.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 5): Can some new stipulation from DOT or FAA supersede it ?

Conflicting stipulations from federal laws
FAA federal, DOT federal, DOJ federal, WA (5 party) federal.

Welcome to the world conflicting laws from federal agencies and trying to operate a business the US.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 2): Here's hoping the Feds just end this stupid gate cap crap and open DAL completely.

Exactly if Delta wants to fly out of DAL they can pay for the privilege of building terminal space and move operations from DFW. If half the airlines at DFW want to move over to DAL let them build terminal space. If WN wants 30 gates let them pay for 12 more.
That way one Federal Law can out trump any others whether Environmental or any other laws get in the way.

Unfortunately, I suspect whatever decision that comes out of the court will be rehashed with another suit followed by another until someone throws in the towel.



Okie

DL wants to fly out of DAL (and expand), yet didn't pay enough to UA to sublease 1 or 2 gates. DL wants to fly their existing 5 flights, yet doesn't want to pay WN for the gate space offered. AA wants to fly out of DAL again... there is no space!

If DL wants to fly from DAL, then make them pay the exact same sublease as WN did to UA, and transfer it.

Honestly, I think the fairest thing to do at this point (for the short-term) is to have WN give 1 full gate to DL at the same rate/ price per gate that WN paid UA. DL can slightly expand, and WN gets to expand from 16 to 17 gates. If DL doesn't want to pay, then they need to leave. AA should stay gone because of the US/AA merger and how they had to divest the gates a year ago to VX. Should gate space become available, then they (or any new carrier) should be accommodated, provided they are the highest bidder. It should work exactly like DCA/NYC slot controlled airports.

Long-term: build more gates (a new terminal with 8-10 gates). Give WN 20 in the main terminal, then have VX/DL/AA/others in the new terminal.

IMO the only thing I can see any ruling on is the sub-lease to WN by calling it anti-competitive in the restricted environment.
If the FAA were to pull funding WN would be the major party to suffer, if the city wants to keep the funding they will have to put in additional gates and pass the cost on, it would make the airport more costly and a dis-incentive for other carriers to want access, WN on the other hand would see a major rise in its cost with not much of an alternative, it is their primary airport and they won't be leaving anytime soon, at least that is the general wisdom.

Somehow I suspect this is what the framers of the modified WA intended all along, WN went with the compromise and will now see the downside.

Quoting ordbosewr (Reply 1): If I recall this is a known issue. I believe this is why Dallas took the whole matter to court. Dallas feels they have conflicting legal views that ensure that no matter what stance they take they will break a law

Just more lawsuits in the making. I don't think the FAA can really do anything as there is a federal law specific to this situation which I'd think will supersede.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 7): DL wants to fly out of DAL (and expand), yet didn't pay enough to UA to sublease 1 or 2 gates.

I don't recall UA holding an open auction where it announced it would sublease its gates to the highest bidder.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 7): DL wants to fly their existing 5 flights, yet doesn't want to pay WN for the gate space offered.

When has DL said it expects to fly into DAL for free? And when has WN offered DL a longer-term gate lease?

Quoting Dallas (Reply 7): If DL wants to fly from DAL, then make them pay the exact same sublease as WN did to UA, and transfer it.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 7): Long-term: build more gates (a new terminal with 8-10 gates). Give WN 20 in the main terminal, then have VX/DL/AA/others in the new terminal.

  
The only real solution is to build more gates, that will make everyone happy. Everything else is just a band-aid. The faster the WA2 dies, the better for all parties involved. DFW does not need the protection of the WA any longer to remain successful.

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 10): I don't recall UA holding an open auction where it announced it would sublease its gates to the highest bidder.

DL and WN were made an offer by UA. DL refused the offer and they did not want to pay. WN ponied up and paid the price UA was asking.

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 10): And when has WN offered DL a longer-term gate lease?

DL has only been offered gate space according to DOJ and within the bounds of the 5 Party.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 7): If DL wants to fly from DAL, then make them pay the exact same sublease as WN did to UA, and transfer it.

They have refused to pay that already when offered by UA. I do not expect DL to pay for the infrastructure cost for a gate as long as they can get a court ruling forcing someone else to pay.

Okie

[Edited 2015-08-11 13:34:51]

Quoting Okie (Reply 12): DL and WN were made an offer by UA. DL refused the offer and they did not want to pay. WN ponied up and paid the price UA was asking.

Source? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere (not saying it isn't true).

Quoting Okie (Reply 6): Conflicting stipulations from federal laws FAA federal, DOT federal, DOJ federal, WA (5 party) federal.

Not really. The FAA, DOT, and DOJ are parts of the executive branch. Any rules they make are supposed to be simply a means of enforcing federal laws. The Wright Ammendment and 5 party agreement was an actual law passed by Congress and therefore supersedes any authority those organisations have.

Page 3 of the 5-party agreement, Par 3b says it all. "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of Dallas will seek voluntary accommodation from existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant service. If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, the the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements". From the beginning Southwest knew that it might have to share one of its 16 gates (now 18 gates) and the City of Dallas knew that it might have to require sharing of a gate. What is keeping BOTH from doing what they AGREED TO DO? Now that these issues are in the court anything can happen. If I were the court I would rule that at 11:59 PM some date Delta's status would cease being a sublease and at 12:01 AM next date Delta would become a new entrant carrier and require the City of Dallas to honor their part of the agreement to require sharing of a gate. The Parties to the agreement may have to do this for more than Delta.

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 15): "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field,

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 15): next date Delta would become a new entrant carrier

DL has history at DAL, a judge would have to make a determination of what constitutes a new entrant for those to apply.

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 10): I don't recall UA holding an open auction where it announced it would sublease its gates to the highest bidder.

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 10): When has DL said it expects to fly into DAL for free? And when has WN offered DL a longer-term gate lease?

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 13): Source? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere (not saying it isn't true).

Read the other 10 threads regarding this topic and you'll find all kinds of links. I think it was the VX CEO that actually was quoted saying that DL was given the opportunity to sublease the gates from UA.

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 15): Par 3b says it all. "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of Dallas will seek voluntary accommodation from existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant service. If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, the the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements"

What you are missing is that the clause "pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements" references the gate-sharing provisions of those lease agreements, and those provisions more or less state that a gate with at least ten daily turns or with some specific scheduling criteria satisfied is considered fully utilized and not subject to sharing. If all gates at DAL are considered fully-utilized by the incumbent carriers, the City is allowed to tell new entrants that there is no space available.

Quoting ordbosewr (Reply 1): If I recall this is a known issue. I believe this is why Dallas took the whole matter to court. Dallas feels they have conflicting legal views that ensure that no matter what stance they take they will break a law.

   The City filed suit to force a decision on the matter. IMO FAA's position is weak because the Wright Amendment Reform Act directs the city to act in accordance with the existing gate leases -- and direct Congressional action will be held to supersede executive branch agency policy.

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 15):

You seem to suspiciously left out the part about existing leases.

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 14): Not really. The FAA, DOT, and DOJ are parts of the executive branch

If you would do some research then you would know that the conflict arose when the DOJ said NO to DL for the gates at DAL as being anti competitive and gave AA gates to VX.
DL did offer a very substantial schedule for DAL to get those gates, 16 flights I believe.
You can spin it all you want but I personally can not really figure the logic behind DOJ telling NW/DL No and allowing CO/UA to operate their gates while allowing VX to move from DFW.
No matter which way you look at it there is some disparity.

The grand canyon in DL's argument is that when they had the opportunity to get the CO/UA gates to operate their 16 flight schedule is they turned down the offer and let WN have the gates.


That is why there is a court suit going now. The city of Dallas wants a definitive answer from the courts because of the conflict.
I suspect regardless of court decision it will go to appeal. It will be years before there is a definitive answer.

I would also prognosticate if the court throws out the 5 party which I doubt and allows more gates then with the Environmental work and Nimby's around DAL it would take ten years to turn a shovel to add more gates.
Like it or not the Environmental/Nimby issue was indirectly involved in the 5 party which limited the gate count and voluntary curfew.

Okie

Quoting Okie (Reply 19): I would also prognosticate if the court throws out the 5 party which I doubt and allows more gates then with the Environmental work and Nimby's around DAL it would take ten years to turn a shovel to add more gates. Like it or not the Environmental/Nimby issue was indirectly involved in the 5 party which limited the gate count and voluntary curfew.

The gate limit isn't going away without Congressional action. There's no basis for a court to overturn the gate limit because it is very clearly spelled out in the law modifying the Wright Amendment.

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 10): I don't recall UA holding an open auction where it announced it would sublease its gates to the highest bidder.

As Okie mentioned, DL was well aware and didn't want to pay. Instead, they wanted to be given the gates or take it to court. Even Cush/ VX mentioned this that DL was in the loop. Plus, it's a free market, if you want something, put some $$$ on the table for it.

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 10): When has DL said it expects to fly into DAL for free? And when has WN offered DL a longer-term gate lease?

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...ction-over-dallas-love-field.html/

“As the City is fully aware, Southwest has now demanded that Delta vacate the premises after July 6, 2015, unless Delta is willing to pay Southwest $30.0 million for the privilege of continuing to use half a gate at DAL for Delta’s existing five daily flights,” the letter stated. “Delta rejected Southwest’s demands because they are unreasonable and inconsistent with federal law.”

30mil for "half a gate"? Sounds outrageous for WN to even come up with that figure.

Quoting toobz (Reply 22): 30mil for "half a gate"? Sounds outrageous for WN to even come up with that figure.

It depends on how much WN paid UA for the right to use the gate. I doubt UA was interested in doing WN any favors.

Quoting toobz (Reply 22): 30mil for "half a gate"? Sounds outrageous for WN to even come up with that figure.

or how much WN can make over 365 days if they were running their own flights during the day when DL is using the gate... you also don't know how much WN is leasing the gates from UA for.

On one hand some chastise DL for not taking advantage of an (alleged) offer of the UA gates. Just because a VX executive was quoted as such does not necessarily make it a factual statement.

Here's another argument. Maybe instead of paying an inflated price for access to the gate(s), DL took the approach of exposing WN. WN seems to perpetuate this image that it's an underdog in the business that's just trying to simply save the traveling public with its peanut fares from the big, bad legacy carriers. Those in the business know this is crap. This whole lawsuit exposes WN who would like nothing better than to have 'ol DAL primarily to itself. To WN, VX is the Carly Fiorina of Love Field. It seems apparent that the city is in WN's pocket. I've also run into several folks in my years in various aviation circles who retire from the FAA and find post retirement work rather quickly with WN. I understand they could go to any airline once they retire, I'm just saying my personal observation is a disproportionate number of FAA retirees end up sucking the teat of Southwest. Lastly, fare research shows they're not the cheapest in the market even though they do a great job of marketing themselves that way to the traveling public.

I applaud DL for outing WN. Maybe WN will drop the act that they're the poor little underdog and people will realize they're no different than the legacy carriers when it comes to playing to win.

Regardless of the arguments for or against DL at DAL, the fact remains the U.S. government would look like (or even more than currently) schmucks if DL was forced out. Competition is a key component in our economy. Folks in congress are constantly putting the airlines under the microscope and investigating claims of anti-competitive practices (fares, bag fees, capacity restraint, etc.). Allowing one airline ~90% of gate capacity at a major US airport at the expense of involuntarily bumping a competitor out of the airport should really set off their "competition radar."

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 25): On one hand some chastise DL for not taking advantage of an (alleged) offer of the UA gates. Just because a VX executive was quoted as such does not necessarily make it a factual statement.

I'm sure the lawyers at UA and WN are smart enough to cover all of the bases, and I have a feeling that it was shown to the DOJ that DL was offered the opportunity to sublease the gates but declined... The DOJ has already stated that DAL/DFW are a single market, which is why AA/US had to give up their gates.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 25): Regardless of the arguments for or against DL at DAL, the fact remains the U.S. government would look like (or even more than currently) schmucks if DL was forced out. Competition is a key component in our economy

Lets see the United States Department of Justice denied DL the AA gates on the grounds of being anti-competitive which is exactly your point.

Okie

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 25): On one hand some chastise DL for not taking advantage of an (alleged) offer of the UA gates. Just because a VX executive was quoted as such does not necessarily make it a factual statement. Here's another argument. Maybe instead of paying an inflated price for access to the gate(s), DL took the approach of exposing WN. WN seems to perpetuate this image that it's an underdog in the business that's just trying to simply save the traveling public with its peanut fares from the big, bad legacy carriers. Those in the business know this is crap. This whole lawsuit exposes WN who would like nothing better than to have 'ol DAL primarily to itself. To WN, VX is the Carly Fiorina of Love Field. It seems apparent that the city is in WN's pocket. I've also run into several folks in my years in various aviation circles who retire from the FAA and find post retirement work rather quickly with WN. I understand they could go to any airline once they retire, I'm just saying my personal observation is a disproportionate number of FAA retirees end up sucking the teat of Southwest. Lastly, fare research shows they're not the cheapest in the market even though they do a great job of marketing themselves that way to the traveling public. I applaud DL for outing WN. Maybe WN will drop the act that they're the poor little underdog and people will realize they're no different than the legacy carriers when it comes to playing to win. Regardless of the arguments for or against DL at DAL, the fact remains the U.S. government would look like (or even more than currently) schmucks if DL was forced out. Competition is a key component in our economy. Folks in congress are constantly putting the airlines under the microscope and investigating claims of anti-competitive practices (fares, bag fees, capacity restraint, etc.). Allowing one airline ~90% of gate capacity at a major US airport at the expense of involuntarily bumping a competitor out of the airport should really set off their "competition radar."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NAILED IT PERFECTLY!!!!! Poor little ole Southwest.

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 15): If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, the the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements".

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 15): If I were the court I would rule that at 11:59 PM some date Delta's status would cease being a sublease and at 12:01 AM next date Delta would become a new entrant carrier and require the City of Dallas to honor their part of the agreement to require sharing of a gate.

To both remember Delta is NOT a new entrant service or carrier. They were flying there on leased gate space, not on gate space they had previously. So they do not qualify as a new service. They did not want to pay the lease so the owner of the gates "United" leased them to Southwest. Delta does not deserve to get them from a court. The passed it up and now their upset about their mistake.

There are articles all over the web that Untied offered the gates to Delta and they turned them down. To bad Delta!

[Edited 2015-08-11 20:31:49]

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 29):

If indeed they can prove in the courts that DL was the one rejecting the lease offer from UA, then they have no case. This isn't a WN problem if DL had the right of first refusal, which is what's implied.

The ONLY case DL might have is that they can show UA purposely quoted a much higher lease rate to DL than to WN, but UA would be quite stupid to engage in such behavior that is simply an invitation for lawsuits.

Southwest paid out of its own pocket the entire cost to rebuild Love Field. Southwest is the only reason that Love Field exists, Dallas wanted to tear down the airport when DFW was built. Southwest paid serious $'s to United to sublease the two gates. Delta does nothing, has no lease or sublease in place and cries that it wants to use the gates. If federal and contract law is ignored like this at other airports, the entire system breaks down and anyone can fly from anywhere. I guess might as well go back to the time before deregulation when the feds determined who could fly and where???

Quoting lweber557 (Reply 31): Southwest paid out of its own pocket the entire cost to rebuild Love Field.

You're out of your mind. The facts are that most of the cost at DAL is shouldered by Federal grants. It is those grants that the FAA is threatening to cancel as their big stick.

Quoting lweber557 (Reply 31): Southwest paid out of its own pocket the entire cost to rebuild Love Field.

Entire cost??? Really!!! Get a grip or show us?? WN paid 100%??? If you can prove that WN paid entire costs for the rebuilding of DAL, I should be able to have some percentage of my Dallas County taxes refunded to me.

Quoting lweber557 (Reply 31): If federal and contract law is ignored like this at other airports, the entire system breaks down and anyone can fly from anywhere. I guess might as well go back to the time before deregulation when the feds determined who could fly and where???

What is contract law you speak of that can be ignored? There are no other commercial airports in the USA that are bound in this concoction of federal laws. By the way under deregulation laws of 1978, all airlines are allowed to fly any route they choose. Your WN is also included in this.

Congrats on your 100th post.

[Edited 2015-08-11 23:10:23]

I am highly amused by all the people saying that such-and-such airline should "pay to build their own gates".

What you guys are missing is that the stupid 5-way agreement required the city to DEMOLISH gates, and to demolish the very, very nice former Legend terminal. That terminal's owners fought valiantly in court to keep the terminal standing, but the City prevailed and levelled the gates. What a waste.

The abject stupidity of everything that has been done in the last 30 years at Love, driven by the idiotic politics of North Dallas and the previously-huge political influence of American Airlines, just makes me want to throw the computer across the room every time I foolishly take the time to read about what nuttiness is happening this time.

Local politics is a cesspool. Nobody votes in local elections, so the noisy single-issue voters have disproportionate influence because they can turn out 100 votes.

The same factors came into play when the lessee of Texas Stadium wanted Irving to let it serve beer to the patrons in the stands during sporting events, concerts and tractor-pulls. At the time, you could bring your own, so Texas Stadium routinely picked up something like an average of 4 beer cans for every man, woman and child in attendance. This didn't prevent the Alcohol Is Evil folks from opposing the plan, which was actually supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving because it would necessarily and substantially reduce alcohol consumption at events. No matter. It ended up requiring a very-expensive, complex lawsuit that the City was destined to lose from the moment I carried it to the clerk's office and filed it, but we had to take them to the absolute edge of the abyss before it finally occurred to them that when the plaintiff won, there would be ramifications far beyond Texas Stadium. I think I told some media-type (in jest) that when the plaintiff won, I finally would be able to open a liquor-serving topless bar in Irving. The public awareness of the spectre of something like that happening was what I believe finally brought the City to the table. It was such a waste of time and resources on an issue that could easily have been resolved by any group of rational politicians (or six-year-olds) who had the interest of the entire community in mind, rather than people who were cowed by a few noisy ideologues who could turn out 50 voters in a local election.

The situation at Love is, in my view, always going to be a tableau of inanity. Here's hoping I will someday be proven wrong.

[Edited 2015-08-12 00:14:25]

[Edited 2015-08-12 00:21:57]

[Edited 2015-08-12 00:30:15]

Quoting lweber557 (Reply 31):

Oh, OK. I think I see your point now . So if in 1982 Crandall had gotten his fare raising plan in a written contract with Putnam at BN, then the Feds would have been OK with it from a competition standpoint?

Bad congressional legislation has an avenue for review.

The cry on this thread seems to be "Delta had the opportunity to lease the gates from UA and refused to pay, so tough luck." In 2005, 24 gates at DFW became available and would have allowed poor little 'ol Southwest to be freed from those big, bad route restrictions the WA imposed on them at Love. Know what? Southwest refused this solution as well. Like any good liberal, they moved forward with working the system to change the rules to something more favorable to their interests. (Note: I am still curious if there's hard evidence DL was ever included in the bidding for the 2 UA gates).

My point, Southwest has historically dug their heels (err...spurs), into DAL and gambled. Why is DL any different for using the legal system to expose WN for what they really are (one of the Big Boys.....not the helpless little start-up they were in the 70's).

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 25): Regardless of the arguments for or against DL at DAL, the fact remains the U.S. government would look like (or even more than currently) schmucks if DL was forced out. Competition is a key component in our economy.

So it would help competition to let DL keep flying to ATL and limit WN's operations where they go head to head with AA at DFW? We already know the FAA considers DAL/DFW as one market and AA has noted in their past few earnings calls about the fare pressure caused by new service at DAL. Sounds to me like this move could have the opposite effect that you desire.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 36): Bad congressional legislation has an avenue for review.

Not really, unless it violates the Constitution (which the 5 party agreement plainly does not).

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 36): In 2005, 24 gates at DFW became available and would have allowed poor little 'ol Southwest to be freed from those big, bad route restrictions the WA imposed on them at Love. Know what? Southwest refused this solution as well.

And why wouldn't they refuse? They had a successful operation at DAL.

Quoting ordbosewr (Reply 1): If I recall this is a known issue. I believe this is why Dallas took the whole matter to court. Dallas feels they have conflicting legal views that ensure that no matter what stance they take they will break a law.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 3): Dallas has no one but itself to blame.

Yes, they knew this whole concept was legally questionable, but all they seem to care about is protecting DFW, AA and WN.

Quoting Okie (Reply 6): Conflicting stipulations from federal laws FAA federal, DOT federal, DOJ federal, WA (5 party) federal. Welcome to the world conflicting laws from federal agencies and trying to operate a business the US.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 18): The City filed suit to force a decision on the matter. IMO FAA's position is weak because the Wright Amendment Reform Act directs the city to act in accordance with the existing gate leases -- and direct Congressional action will be held to supersede executive branch agency policy.

Here's a question. Is this the FAA's gambit?

FAA: Sure, you can restrict gates, keep out new entrants, throw out Delta, but you lose grant assurances and now must maintain your own runways and taxiways.

So, that would put pressure on the City of Dallas to get the law changed. Can FAA do that? ...or would it be seen as contravening a federal law? If FAA was able to take that position it would force everybody to get the law changed because the cost to operate at DAL would skyrocket. It would probably go to $20 CPE or more. BTW, do the grant assurances affect TSA costs as well? Any other items it would hit? ATC?

Quoting Okie (Reply 6): Exactly if Delta wants to fly out of DAL they can pay for the privilege of building terminal space and move operations from DFW.

They can't under the law

Quoting Dallas (Reply 7): DL wants to fly out of DAL (and expand), yet didn't pay enough to UA to sublease 1 or 2 gates.

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 10): I don't recall UA holding an open auction where it announced it would sublease its gates to the highest bidder.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 25): Here's another argument. Maybe instead of paying an inflated price for access to the gate(s), DL took the approach of exposing WN.

It's worth a lot more money to WN to maintain a near monopoly than it is to DL to provide competition. That's a bit of a flaw in capitalism. That's why you have a DOJ. Do we have one? Not sure we do...

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 38): Not really, unless it violates the Constitution (which the 5 party agreement plainly does not).

Well.... The Sherman Anti-Trust legislation was based on the Federal Government's authority to regulate interstate commerce. Now if the 5 party agreement is interpreted to violate interstate commerce (a constitutional issue), then it may need a review by the folks at the SC. I fully admit I'm not a lawyer, but lawyers out there feel free to chime in.

Quoting GLG20 (Reply 37): So it would help competition to let DL keep flying to ATL and limit WN's operations where they go head to head with AA at DFW? We already know the FAA considers DAL/DFW as one market and AA has noted in their past few earnings calls about the fare pressure caused by new service at DAL. Sounds to me like this move could have the opposite effect that you desire.

Well, now interesting argument. Why don't we just strip VX of their 2 gates, send them and DL all back to DFW and then and give WN 100% usage of the DAL gates? This way Southwest can bolster service without anyone else possibly offering alternative service so that they can really stick it to AA. Hmmm....wait, something seems wrong in this logic (IMO).

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 35): I am highly amused by all the people saying that such-and-such airline should "pay to build their own gates". What you guys are missing is that the stupid 5-way agreement required the city to DEMOLISH gates, and to demolish the very, very nice former Legend terminal. That terminal's owners fought valiantly in court to keep the terminal standing, but the City prevailed and levelled the gates. What a waste.

You absolutely nailed it. The situation is not WN's fault, they have gates that they want to operate and not turn over to other operators. Nothing surprising there. I'm sure if any other airline was put in WN's place, they would act in the same way. As I have said before, the problem here is the WA2 that puts a gate cap on DAL. When you have an increased demand for gates, and don't increase the supply whatsoever, you are going to get these sort of problems. And just to think, all these problems could have been avoided if the gates were not torn down.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 40): Well, now interesting argument. Why don't we just strip VX of their 2 gates, send them and DL all back to DFW and then and give WN 100% usage of the DAL gates? This way Southwest can bolster service without anyone else possibly offering alternative service so that they can really stick it to AA. Hmmm....wait, something seems wrong in this logic (IMO).

The logic is that VX has a valid lease at DAL and Delta does not.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 40): I fully admit I'm not a lawyer, but lawyers out there feel free to chime in.

I am a lawyer. What you are missing is that the WA is newer than the Sherman Act, so it's not "illegal" for it to contradict the Sherman Act, or any other older statute.

Quoting GLG20 (Reply 42): The logic is that VX has a valid lease at DAL and Delta does not.

No, you're absolutely right. Strip was a harsh adjective to use. Acquire would be more appropriate and more in line with Southwest's MO. Maybe WN could just acquire VX (and then assume the lease on the remainting 2 gates) to have DAL all to themselves. It's not like they've ever acquired a competitor to eliminate them and then get a little something they wanted in return (73W).

Quoting enilria (Reply 39): BTW, do the grant assurances affect TSA costs as well? Any other items it would hit? ATC?

It's unlikely that FAA has any control over TSA given that FAA is in DOT and TSA is in DHS.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 25): Here's another argument. Maybe instead of paying an inflated price for access to the gate(s), DL took the approach of exposing WN. WN seems to perpetuate this image that it's an underdog in the business that's just trying to simply save the traveling public with its peanut fares from the big, bad legacy carriers. Those in the business know this is crap. This whole lawsuit exposes WN who would like nothing better than to have 'ol DAL primarily to itself.

What exactly is there to "expose?" WN wants more DAL gates so they can operate more flights. It'd be one thing if they were sitting on gates and operating 20x daily to SHV, 10x daily to ACT, and 10x daily to SPS -- but they're not. They've had to cut existing economically viable flying within the former perimeter to help free up space for new flights outside the perimeter (although granted, some of that capacity to airports like HOU/MCI/STL/ABQ was carrying through or connecting traffic). And adding a bunch of new capacity at DAL is the polar opposite of the "capacity discipline" over which the airlines have found themselves in hot water for collusion.

Everyone except WN has identified DFW as a weak spot in their network. I wonder why that is.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 36): The cry on this thread seems to be "Delta had the opportunity to lease the gates from UA and refused to pay, so tough luck." In 2005, 24 gates at DFW became available and would have allowed poor little 'ol Southwest to be freed from those big, bad route restrictions the WA imposed on them at Love. Know what? Southwest refused this solution as well.

They sure did, because moving to DFW was never a good option. Part of the reason why Delta closed their DFW hub was the impending completion of the new Terminal D and SkyLink train -- a couple of billion dollars of new infrastructure which really only benefited AA (DL would need a new inter-terminal train why?) but which all tenants would end up funding. Half-hour taxi-in/out times don't work well for an airline which tries to keep its planes in the air -- and it's easy to foresee AA pilots taxiing even more slowly than their usual glacial pace when in front of a WN aircraft.

Quoting enilria (Reply 39): Here's a question. Is this the FAA's gambit? FAA: Sure, you can restrict gates, keep out new entrants, throw out Delta, but you lose grant assurances and now must maintain your own runways and taxiways.

I think it's a dangerous move since that would likely invite Congressional action on the part of the North Texas delegation. And I'm sure it's why the City tried to force the issue with its own lawsuit.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 25): On one hand some chastise DL for not taking advantage of an (alleged) offer of the UA gates. Just because a VX executive was quoted as such does not necessarily make it a factual statement.

Not alleged. See my response in Reply 21 with the quote and link. Fact.

Quoting notdownnlocked (Reply 34): There are no other commercial airports in the USA that are bound in this concoction of federal laws. By the way under deregulation laws of 1978, all airlines are allowed to fly any route they choose. Your WN is also included in this.

By your logic, WN should start service to JFK immediately, and expand at DCA, EWR, and LGA. I hope they do, that would prove the same point DL is trying to make now. Trying to fly to an airport that they have no lease or gate space. If you want to fly to one of these airports, you have to pay, which DL had the opportunity to do and chose not to. Had they never left DAL in the first place, or had they spoken up during WA2 discussions, this wouldn't be an issue. Maybe don't de-hub and leave DFW, and you might be in better graces with the City of Dallas and locals here in the Metroplex.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 21): unless Delta is willing to pay Southwest $30.0 million for the privilege of continuing to use half a gate

I will note that the paragraph above that one in the article describes the price as "high." Is one gate at DAL truly worth $60M annually?

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 36): I am still curious if there's hard evidence DL was ever included in the bidding for the 2 UA gates

As am I.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 46): Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 25): On one hand some chastise DL for not taking advantage of an (alleged) offer of the UA gates. Just because a VX executive was quoted as such does not necessarily make it a factual statement. Not alleged. See my response in Reply 21 with the quote and link. Fact.

I see no mention of that in the article.

This will be in the courts for a while, and with appeals, I can see this case wending it's way to the Supreme Court. When you have conflicting rulings from government agencies, it does get the attention (usually) of the magistrates.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 35): What you guys are missing is that the stupid 5-way agreement required the city to DEMOLISH gates, and to demolish the very, very nice former Legend terminal.

Very, very nice? Maybe by 1980's standards... Also, most modern aircraft wouldn't fit at the gates there side by side due to the increased wing spans and the anchored jet bridges that were built in to the building.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 36): Like any good liberal, they moved forward with working the system to change the rules to something more favorable to their interests.

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 36): Why is DL any different for using the legal system to expose WN for what they really are (one of the Big Boys.....not the helpless little start-up they were in the 70's).

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 44): It's not like they've ever acquired a competitor to eliminate them and then get a little something they wanted in return (73W).

Why are you so butthurt about this? Is it because of the pressure that WN is putting on AA in the DFW market? AA has admitted that WN is putting far more pricing pressure on it than they thought and since you are an AA lover, maybe you're taking it personally?