Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
wnflyguy
Posts: 2088
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:13 am

Rumor now is there is some speculation That should DL lose the battle for Space at DAL.
VX and DL may strike a deal .DL Will long-term lease one VX gate and in return VX will get 2 gates one at ORD and one additional gate at JFK. In Addition VX will be able to code share on regional DL connecting flights at LAX and JFK with DL....

Flyguy

[Edited 2015-09-04 18:16:58]
My Wings are clipped just another Retired Airline person. The Ultimate Armchair out of the loop airline industry geek. Aloha Mr Hand!
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 10373
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:01 am

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 150):
and one additional gate at JFK

Value = ZERO. Particularly if LGA perimeter rule falls.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 150):
In Addition VX will be able to code share on regional DL connecting flights at LAX and JFK with DL....

That would make sense with Cush's odd comments on this topic. I figured he was alluding to something.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7190
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 150):
Rumor now is there is some speculation That should DL lose the battle for Space at DAL.
VX and DL may strike a deal .DL Will long-term lease one VX gate and in return VX will get 2 gates one at ORD and one additional gate at JFK. In Addition VX will be able to code share on regional DL connecting flights at LAX and JFK with DL....

What I see as being more workable is that VX would lease DL a gate as well as the VX slots at LGA. DL would take over LGA-DAL and offer VX a code share. There's no way that VX could operate all of DAL-SFO/LAX/DCA/LGA with just a single gate. Maybe VX gets to put its code on DAL-ATL and stays out of ATL non-stop from LAX/SFO (or puts its code on the DL flights). And VX also gets a code share on the regional DL flying at LAX & JFK.

That'd be a win for both since DL gets DAL access and VX gets to drop money-losing non-core flying at DAL. Plus DL gets to expand its hub at LGA and VX gets access to the code share they claim to need.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 10373
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:55 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 152):
There's no way that VX could operate all of DAL-SFO/LAX/DCA/LGA with just a single gate.

That's not a problem. I don't think there is much evidence any of it is working. Plus AUS is toast.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:35 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 143):

And I'm pretty sure they signed their lease amendment to accept "preferential use of 16 gates." And I'm pretty sure they have made their lease payments and even operated from those 16 gates every day since. If the gate allocations in the contract were some kind of legal/operational minimums, AA would not have been able to sublet to DL in the first place. If they were maximums, you would find words such as "only" or "not to exceed" or "no more than" next to them. You won't. So, help me understand your point.


?????????


The issue in question is the sublease of the United Gates to Southwest with the goal of excluding other airlines from flying from Love Field. The reform act gives 16 gates to WN, let WN honor it he terms they agreed to in the compromise. FYI, AA subleased to Delta long before the compromise was signed.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 145):

And CO and AA each agreed to 2 gates, so no one else except for CO and AA should be able to use those 2 gates, right?

Never said that, but when the DOJ forced AA to give up their gates at DAL they also specified that WN could not lease the AA gates. Why would the DOJ differentiate between the AA and CO gates..
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:04 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 154):
et WN honor it he terms they agreed to in the compromise.

As many have demonstrated to you, that assertion is false. Neither the 5 Party Agreement nor the implementing legislation limit WN to 16 gates.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 154):
FYI, AA subleased to Delta long before the compromise was signed.

Don't believe that is correct either. AA suspended service shortly after the compromise was enacted, after which they sublet their gates to DL:

http://hub.aa.com/en/nr/pressrelease/aa-signs-new-lease-at-love-field

[Edited 2015-09-05 10:26:54]
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11045
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:26 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 155):
Don't believe that is correct either. AA suspended service shortly after the compromise was enacted, after which they sublet their gates to DL:

Yes, DL returned to DAL in July 2009 with the introduction of DAL-MEM. That is just shy of 3 years after the compromise was signed into law in November 2006. DL had previously left DAL in 2002 IIRC.

At the time of the compromise AA, WN, and CO were the only ones serving DAL- that is why they are all part of the agreement. If DL had service before the compromise they would have been included in the talks and we would be discussing a 6, not 5, party agreement.

[Edited 2015-09-05 11:28:04]
 
cjpark
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:49 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 155):

As many have demonstrated to you, that assertion is false. Neither the 5 Party Agreement nor the implementing legislation limit WN to 16 gates.


Did Southwest sign the compromise? How many gates did they agree to?

Somehow I don't think Delta's lawyers follow your logic either.

[Edited 2015-09-05 16:07:46]

[Edited 2015-09-05 16:09:12]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:09 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 154):
The issue in question is the sublease of the United Gates to Southwest with the goal of excluding other airlines from flying from Love Field.

So you are sure that making money from the sub-lease was not UA's intention, they could have gotten a better price by leasing to someone else? Hhmmmmm, DL is claiming in court that WN paid an outrageous price.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 157):
Did Southwest sign the compromise? How many gates did they agree to?
Quoting cjpark (Reply 154):
The reform act gives 16 gates to WN, let WN honor it he terms they agreed to in the compromise.

So were they given or agreed to, in any event I guess this is a one way street, if WN decided to sub-lease 10 of their 16 gates you would not see that as a violation, hence the reason why UA get's no flak for giving up the gates they agreed to in the compromise.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:35 pm

Anyone else but me want to bulldoze DAL? 40+ years and counting....

There is no airport in the country dealing with the convoluted mess that is DAL/WA/5 Party Agreement/Previous add-ons to the old WA etc....just be done with it already.

Dallas is in the odd position of DAL being west of the city, as is DFW. No comparison ORD/MDW, IAH/HOU. Most Dallas residents have to drive past DAL to get to DFW.

The 5 Party Agreement is clearly anti-competitive pertaining to DAL and DAL alone. Screw the whole argument that DFW/DAL are the same market. DFW serves the whole Metroplex. DAL serves everything east of DFW. Fort Worth is out of the loop on that one. Drive past DFW to get to DAL. OK, sure.

If I could wave my magic wand DAL would be closed and WN would have a gorgeous new terminal at DFW. DAL would be a bizjet paradise.

WN has not been the darling of deregulation and plucky upstart for quite a while, yet certain government entities think the Southwest Effect is still a thing. Sort of, not really across the board.

Ok then, let WN stay at DAL, fine. Build another 20 gates for everyone else. WN-20, competitors-20. But kill the whole 5-Party thing.
"My soul is in the sky". -Pyramus- A Midsummer's Night Dream
 
cjpark
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:04 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 158):

So you are sure that making money from the sub-lease was not UA's intention, they could have gotten a better price by leasing to someone else? Hhmmmmm, DL is claiming in court that WN paid an outrageous price.


Are you familiar with the term SWAG? Scientific Wild A##ed Guess? If I was to make a SWAG on this issue. This controversy goes beyond Love Field into the cosmic realm of paybacks. Paybacks are a "female canine". There is not a party to this dispute or even those parties watching from the sidelines whether airline or city or government agency, or angry pax that does not have an Axe to Grind over past grievances related to or not related to DAL or the Wright Amendment but with any or all of the parties involved over this dispute. All of the parties whether active or on the sidelines could gain or lose depending upon the final resolution. That said there is also an old saw that tells us that given enough rope anyone can hang themselves. If I was United and had a chance to divest myself from an airport or even an agreement that netted no true benefit to my purpose but gave an adversaries/competitors the opportunity to immerse themselves into a conflict that would require exposing themselves to damages in the financial, legal and public realm then yes I will take the check and sit back and watch the show.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
ScottB
Posts: 7190
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:29 am

Quoting enilria (Reply 153):
Quoting ScottB (Reply 152):
There's no way that VX could operate all of DAL-SFO/LAX/DCA/LGA with just a single gate.

That's not a problem. I don't think there is much evidence any of it is working. Plus AUS is toast.

Oh, I agree with that. But the fact still remains that they couldn't sublease an entire gate at DAL to DL and still operate the existing flying even if they were to drop DAL-AUS. The flights to LAX & SFO are probably the only things which have a prayer of working for VX. I don't doubt DL would like more DCA slots but they wouldn't operate DCA-DAL.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 154):
The issue in question is the sublease of the United Gates to Southwest with the goal of excluding other airlines from flying from Love Field. The reform act gives 16 gates to WN, let WN honor it he terms they agreed to in the compromise.

The Five-Party Agreement (not the Reform Act) guarantees WN 16 gates at DAL. It does not restrict them to 16 gates; it merely says they will have preferential leases for 16 gates.

And it is not even clear that Southwest's primary goal is to exclude other carriers from DAL. They utilize their gates quite heavily and the standard of ten daily turns per gate at DAL seems well beyond the usage requirements of any other preferential leases for gates at other airports in the U.S.

They don't operate any flying at DAL which seems to have as its primary purpose gate-sitting, akin to the IAH-DAL flying UA had planned or VX's empty DAL-AUS flights. Moreover, five daily Delta 717's to ATL and eight to ten daily UAX E145's to IAH pose very little risk to WN's business at DAL -- certainly not enough to justify the supposed "king's ransom" paid by Southwest for the United gates.

No, it seems far more likely that WN saw the availability of the United gates as a unique opportunity to further expand a very profitable operation at DAL.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 154):
when the DOJ forced AA to give up their gates at DAL they also specified that WN could not lease the AA gates. Why would the DOJ differentiate between the AA and CO gates.

DOJ wasn't forcing UA to give up gates at DAL. The sublease of the AA gates was a concession made by AA as a condition for DOJ approval of their merger with US.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 157):
Did Southwest sign the compromise? How many gates did they agree to?

Prove your claim. Show the language where Southwest agrees to use no more than 16 gates at DAL.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 159):
There is no airport in the country dealing with the convoluted mess that is DAL/WA/5 Party Agreement/Previous add-ons to the old WA etc....just be done with it already.

The restrictions on DAL are there because DFW Airport, Fort Worth, and AA insisted upon them. And they're still a great deal better than the Wright restrictions were ten years ago.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:01 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 160):
If I was United and had a chance to divest myself from an airport or even an agreement that netted no true benefit to my purpose but gave an adversaries/competitors the opportunity to immerse themselves into a conflict that would require exposing themselves to damages in the financial, legal and public realm then yes I will take the check and sit back and watch the show.

UA and others already sat on the sidelines, WN was the primary mover and shaker pushing for the WA repeal, only after the movement gained traction and it seemed a sure thing that something was going to change did other carriers put up a public position.
Bottom line to my mind is politics, the WAII is still all about DFW whether it needs protection or not, once again rather than step up and give up government funding for DAL so that they can finally accomplish their initial intent they punted again.
The reality today is that for the city of Dallas, DAL is a larger financial contributor than they imagined when the plans for DFW were put in place, as politicians go, they are doing their best not to square with that reality.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 159):
There is no airport in the country dealing with the convoluted mess that is DAL/WA/5 Party Agreement/Previous add-ons to the old WA etc....just be done with it already.

A number of years ago I thought WN should just be done with them, the carrier is no longer Texas only, people all over the country now rely on them for service, and airports / states elsewhere have no axe to grind for staying at DAL against the intent of etc etc etc.
Starting a gradual draw down and relocation of facilities would allow all to save face get DAL to what they want, I just don't think that the pax services that were offered at DAL will be transferred to DFW.
A gradual loss is sustainable and gets lost in the morass of numbers and statistics allowing full deniability.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:25 am

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 14):
The Wright Ammendment and 5 party agreement was an actual law passed by Congress and therefore supersedes any authority those organisations have.

No. The new terminal was started after the Wright Amendment with restrictions based upon the city accepting AIP funds for the terminal. If the FAA/DOT looses they then can demand the city repay the AIP funds for which it has accepted restrictions and not met.

Since the City of Dallas agreed to the restrictions after the Wright Amendment they became responsible to meet both sets of restrictions. What happened is the City of Dallas fraudulently represented the project for AIP funds probably in hope the WA would cover them. The FAA has been consistent stating the city meets the AIP funds agreements. Ultimately the City can't meet both sets of restrictions and will probably be forced to repay the AIP funds. City of Dallas taxpayers, bend over.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:05 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 161):
Prove your claim. Show the language where Southwest agrees to use no more than 16 gates at DAL.

Read Section 3, subsection 2.

The Parties agree that upon, four years after enactment of legislation as provided herein, 16 gates would be leased by Southwest Airlines, 2 would be leased by American Airlines, and 2 would be leased by Continental Airlines.

Is Southwest a party to the compromise and did they agree to the terms or not? Now if you wish to allege that Southwest signed the agreement and that they did not intend to honor their commitment to 16 gates, then more power to you.

[Edited 2015-09-07 20:15:18]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
airliner371
Posts: 2404
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:53 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:34 am

Quoting cjpark (Reply 164):
Read Section 3, subsection 2.

The Parties agree that upon, four years after enactment of legislation as provided herein, 16 gates would be leased by Southwest Airlines, 2 would be leased by American Airlines, and 2 would be leased by Continental Airlines.

Is Southwest a party to the compromise and did they agree to the terms or not? Now if you wish to allege that Southwest signed the agreement and that they did not intend to honor their commitment to 16 gates, then more power to you.

No where, absolutely no where in there does it say they are restricted to only 16 gates. It also says nothing about sub leasing. The lease is still 2 gates for United, United just sub leased the gates to Southwest. So that blows your argument entirely.

And how about the American Airlines gates? If you are going to read so strictly into this, then how should Virgin America be allowed to lease two gates? That's blasphemy, we should sue Virgin America right now and tell them they need to leave and give the gates back to American. Oh wait... That's what I thought.
 
usflyguy
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:43 am

Quoting cjpark (Reply 164):
The Parties agree that upon, four years after enactment of legislation as provided herein, 16 gates would be leased by Southwest Airlines, 2 would be leased by American Airlines, and 2 would be leased by Continental Airlines.

So, by your logic, DL nor VX should be able to serve DAL, only AA and CO should. UA couldn't even use those gates as they are not CO.
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7190
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:47 am

Quoting cjpark (Reply 164):
Read Section 3, subsection 2.

The Parties agree that upon, four years after enactment of legislation as provided herein, 16 gates would be leased by Southwest Airlines, 2 would be leased by American Airlines, and 2 would be leased by Continental Airlines.

Is Southwest a party to the compromise and did they agree to the terms or not? Now if you wish to allege that Southwest signed the agreement and that they did not intend to honor their commitment to 16 gates, then more power to you.

I have read the agreement. Nowhere does it state that Southwest agrees to use 16 and only 16 gates. It states that they will have a preferential lease for 16 gates and they do. It states that ExpressJet will have a preferential lease for two gates. There is no language in the agreement preventing United (as ExpressJet's successor in the lease) from subleasing its gates to Southwest. If United had returned its gates to the City they would have become common-use and nothing in the agreement would have restricted WN from using those gates.

Your argument would only be valid if the agreement said that Southwest agrees to use at most 16 gates at DAL -- but there is nothing in the agreement to that effect. It only guarantees them a preferential lease for 16 gates under their existing lease terms. There are no prohibitions on subleases or the use of common gates, if available.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:53 am

Quoting cjpark (Reply 164):
Read Section 3, subsection 2.

You do realize this doesn't have bearing on the FAA's investigation. The Wright Amendment is not relevant to the FAA, they are not subject to it.
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:26 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 164):
Read Section 3, subsection 2.

The Parties agree that upon, four years after enactment of legislation as provided herein, 16 gates would be leased by Southwest Airlines, 2 would be leased by American Airlines, and 2 would be leased by Continental Airlines.

I see what you've done there--you quoted a footnote from the press release that omits the term "preferential use" because that is your argument's kryptonite.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5842
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:55 pm

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 139):
Or the City could decide the whole thing is too hard, there are too many Lawyers involved, that a Federal Department is unwilling and/or unable to provide clear guidance and respond by saying either sort your shit out or we're closing DAL and you can all fight with AA at DFW.

...well...

Quoting ScottB (Reply 141):
DAL is an enormously valuable economic asset to the City; it's not closing.

...exactly.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 159):
Anyone else but me want to bulldoze DAL? 40+ years and counting....

I'm guessing that the thousands of people whose livelihood depends upon Love Field and has nothing to do with the airlines would object fairly vigorously.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
cjpark
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:59 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 169):
I see what you've done there--you quoted a footnote from the press release that omits the term "preferential use" because that is your argument's kryptonite.





Well by all means produce the "correct" copy of the compromise agreement that shows the language you are searching for. Be sure and highlight the language that says Southwest did not agree to only 16 gates. While you are at it explain what difference it makes whether the term “preferential use” gates is referenced. After all 16 preferential use gates are still just 16 gates.

[Edited 2015-09-08 10:14:16]

[Edited 2015-09-08 10:15:08]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
airliner371
Posts: 2404
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:53 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:14 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 171):
Well by all means produce the "correct" copy of the compromise agreement that shows the language you are searching for. Be sure and highlight the language that says Southwest did not agree to only 16 gates.

I find it funny how 5 people corrected your inaccurate statements and rather than respond to any of them or acknowledge them, you act like none of them were posted and you just keep pressing this inaccurate statement. I mean I couldn't care less but I just think it's rather funny.
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 2275
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:28 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 164):
Read Section 3, subsection 2. The Parties agree that upon, four years after enactment of legislation as provided herein, 16 gates would be leased by Southwest Airlines, 2 would be leased by American Airlines, and 2 would be leased by Continental Airlines.

Usually, in contracts I have worked with, language like this means "at least" It does not prohibit having more than.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14718
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:30 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 171):
Be sure and highlight the language that says Southwest did not agree to only 16 gates.

Do you see some language in one of the agreements that prohibits signatories from subleasing among themselves? If WN had subleased two gates to UA, would that also be a violation in your book?

[Edited 2015-09-08 10:45:03]
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11045
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:40 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 171):
Well by all means produce the "correct" copy of the compromise agreement that shows the language you are searching for. Be sure and highlight the language that says Southwest did not agree to only 16 gates. While you are at it explain what difference it makes whether the term “preferential use” gates is referenced. After all 16 preferential use gates are still just 16 gates.

These documents are not secretly hidden away...they are all public record.

Here is the 5 party agreement: http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/dal_ResolveWrightAmendment.pdf

Here is the law passed by congress removing/modifying the old Wright amendment: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ352/pdf/PLAW-109publ352.pdf

Your language is from the original joint statement that the parties released in regards to resolving the Wright Amendment issue- it is not the final contract signed (although the are similar- language was mostly cleared up and things located in footnotes were spelled out in actual contract). None of the documents state that WN only agreed to ever use 16 gates, AA agreed to only ever use 2, and CO only agreed to use ever 2.
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:54 pm

Since Polot already used his Google machine to locate the document in question, you can use his link.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 171):
Be sure and highlight the language that says Southwest did not agree to only 16 gates.

Please note that when describing the 20 gate cap, the drafters used the word " only." They did not use that word in allocating preferential use gates.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 171):
While you are at it explain what difference it makes whether the term “preferential use” gates is referenced.

Think of those as reserved seats at the ball game. You can use them or you can give them to others. Or you can use them and get more from others.

[Edited 2015-09-08 11:54:41]

[Edited 2015-09-08 11:56:17]

[Edited 2015-09-08 12:10:10]
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:45 pm

[cjpark[/quote]

Sorry, I was in a hurry went I last posted, so I'll lay the whole issue out for you:

1) Type--there are several types of gates: preferential use, common use and owned being several. And, carriers often lease/sublease their gates to others. When the agreement (the gate allocations are not included in the legislation) mentions WN's 16 gates, it always refers to them as preferential use gates.
2) Limit--when the agreement and legislation refer to the 20 gate cap, they always include terms such as only, maximum, not to exceed, and beyond. Indeed, it is those words that make it cap on the total number of gates (along with some teeth that prevent subdividing and hardstands ops). The absence of those words, particularly in documents where drafters so freely used them on the 20 gate cap, tell you that the 16 WN gates are not a limit.

Taken together, if the drafters used the term "not to exceed 20 preferential use gates" to describe the gate cap, DAL would be free build as many of the other types as it desired. And, lest you say I am parsing words and capping WN's gates at 16 was the spirit of it, the agreement speaks to that too. The last paragraph--"Entire Agreement"--tells us nothing was intended other than what is written.
 
freakyrat
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:42 am

Quoting wnflyguy Reply 150

"Rumor now is there is some speculation That should DL lose the battle for Space at DAL.
VX and DL may strike a deal .DL Will long-term lease one VX gate and in return VX will get 2 gates one at ORD and one additional gate at JFK. In Addition VX will be able to code share on regional DL connecting flights at LAX and JFK with DL…."

You don't think DGS having the ground service contract for both VX and DL at DAL has anything to do with this.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:44 am

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 177):


1) Type--there are several types of gates: preferential use, common use and owned being several. And, carriers often lease/sublease their gates to others. When the agreement (the gate allocations are not included in the legislation) mentions WN's 16 gates, it always refers to them as preferential use gates.
2) Limit--when the agreement and legislation refer to the 20 gate cap, they always include terms such as only, maximum, not to exceed, and beyond. Indeed, it is those words that make it cap on the total number of gates (along with some teeth that prevent subdividing and hardstands ops). The absence of those words, particularly in documents where drafters so freely used them on the 20 gate cap, tell you that the 16 WN gates are not a limit.

Taken together, if the drafters used the term "not to exceed 20 preferential use gates" to describe the gate cap, DAL would be free build as many of the other types as it desired. And, lest you say I am parsing words and capping WN's gates at 16 was the spirit of it, the agreement speaks to that too. The last paragraph--"Entire Agreement"--tells us nothing was intended other than what is written.


They agreed to 16 gates out of the 20 allowed at the airport regardless of what you wish to call the gates.

Maybe this might help you see past the duplicity.

If you have an airport with only 20 allowed gates and 3 airlines; Airline A, Airline B and Airline C with gates assigned to them by a compromise agreement Signed by two cities, two airlines called Airline A and Airline B and an airport board. If airlines B and C each get 2 gates each as a result of the compromise agreement how many gates does Airline A get?

[Edited 2015-09-08 19:26:07]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:53 am

Quoting cjpark (Reply 179):
They agreed to 16 gates out of the 20 allowed at the airport regardless of what you wish to call the gates.

That is demonstrably false, but I get that you don't care. Good luck in court.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:06 am

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 180):
Good luck in court.

None of this will be in court because it is not material. This discussion is based on the assumption the Wright Amendment is relevant to what the issue is all about. For a moment I suggest the parties discussing this first define the core issue and then how Wright applies. I can see validity of the discussion as a matter specific acts and whether they are morally justified but those things will not be addressed in the FAA/Delta/SW/Airport legal issue.
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:38 am

Quoting atypical (Reply 182):

It is relevant to the dispute between DL and WN, which I would argue is all the courts will ultimately decide. If WN wins control of the gate and the FAA attempts to punish DAL, I don't believe Congress will abide that.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Fri Sep 11, 2015 6:44 am

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 182):
It is relevant to the dispute



What is the core legal issue and how is the WA apply? This is where I think the discussion above went off the rails. No one was discussing the actual issue. It appears there is an assumption of the legal issue that has not been established as correct.
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:45 am

Quoting atypical (Reply 183):
No one was discussing the actual issue.

C'mon, say what you mean--life is short. If the issue isn't WN being forced to accommodate DL, what is it?
 
jcwr56
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:36 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:02 pm

[quote=Polot,reply=175][/quote

Just a general thought and comment.

Is there a TOR to this at all? One key piece is what defines a new entrant and how it may or may not apply to DL.

I'll be in concurrence with others, no where does it state the airlines are specifically gate capped to what the agreement states. Actually, I'd say this was poorly written without any forethought to potential M&A's or sub leases between carriers.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:34 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 184):

C'mon, say what you mean--life is short. If the issue isn't WN being forced to accommodate DL, what is it?


Its called airport access, how can Southwest argue for access to airports in the NYC, Washington DC areas while denying other airlines access to Love Field in Dallas, TX? Why shouldn't the spirit of the law that allowed Southwest to stay at Love Field not apply to other airlines that want to fly from Love Field now?
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
airplaneboy
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:48 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 186):
Its called airport access, how can Southwest argue for access to airports in the NYC, Washington DC areas while denying other airlines access to Love Field in Dallas, TX? Why shouldn't the spirit of the law that allowed Southwest to stay at Love Field not apply to other airlines that want to fly from Love Field now?

Southwest never argued to gain access to those airports. In fact, they paid *millions* of dollars for access to slots and facilities. Delta was given the opportunity, to also pay for access to facilities (legally leased and subleased by Southwest) at Love Field. They didn't think the price was "cheap" enough.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:21 am

Quoting airplaneboy (Reply 187):

Southwest never argued to gain access to those airports. In fact, they paid *millions* of dollars for access to slots and facilities. Delta was given the opportunity, to also pay for access to facilities (legally leased and subleased by Southwest) at Love Field. They didn't think the price was "cheap" enough.

Was any airline other than Southwest given an opportunity to bid on the United gates at DAL before they were sold to Southwest?

Maybe you could elaborate on how those slots and facilities became available at those airports that Southwest paid millions for and what role Southwest had in making them available for purchase.

[Edited 2015-09-11 18:23:26]

[Edited 2015-09-11 18:35:48]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
alfa164
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:18 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 124):
Thus, DL would need some sort of constitutional argument to unwind the Agreement. Nothing springs to mind. I'm a lawyer, so I can't oppose paying lawyers, but I don't understand what's in this fight for Delta.

As a lawyer, I would expect you to recognize that this is not a constitutional question; it will be heard based on statutory law, not constitutional law.

"Restraint of trade" is a term we might be watching for...

Quoting cjpark (Reply 130):
“… Kelly angrily emailed [Dallas] City Manager A.C. Gonzalez that the City was ‘reward[ing] competitors that have contributed nothing to Dallas.’ Citing billions of dollars in value that Southwest seeks credit for bringing to Dallas and millions of dollars of tax revenues paid, he threatened, as Southwest so often has done, to pull out of Dallas if the City did not help Southwest suppress competition, telling the City that if it did not give in to Southwest’s attempts to block Delta, Southwest would punish the City and its tax-paying citizens by ‘moving on to focus our corporate investments in those markets that place a value on them and their corporate residents.’ His message was clear—stand down and allow us to block competition or we will make you pay, dearly.”

"Restraint of trade" and "tortuous interference with a business relationship" come immediately to mind.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 154):
The issue in question is the sublease of the United Gates to Southwest with the goal of excluding other airlines from flying from Love Field. The reform act gives 16 gates to WN, let WN honor it he terms they agreed to in the compromise.

  

Quoting cjpark (Reply 154):
but when the DOJ forced AA to give up their gates at DAL they also specified that WN could not lease the AA gates. Why would the DOJ differentiate between the AA and CO gates..

     
One issue clearly will be whether Kelly's e-mail was truly an attempt to stifle competition. In ordering that WN should not be allowed to lease the AA gates, the DOJ seems - clearly, to me - to show concern about WN's capability of creating an effective monopoly at an important air facility. Leasing the UA gates proved to be an end-around to get - interestingly - exactly the same number of gates it had requested be delivered from AA. In doing so, it would be eliminating one competitor. If that was the real purpose, then the DOJ must be foaming at the mouth.

Regardless of the merits and legal validity of WA2, the Court will be now be forced to look at issues well beyond the scope of that agreement.

The ante, gentlemen, has now been raised.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
usflyguy
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:17 am

Quoting cjpark (Reply 186):
Its called airport access, how can Southwest argue for access to airports in the NYC, Washington DC areas while denying other airlines access to Love Field in Dallas, TX? Why shouldn't the spirit of the law that allowed Southwest to stay at Love Field not apply to other airlines that want to fly from Love Field now?

Southwest paid dearly for every slot that they have at LGA, EWR, and DCA... It all started with the acquisition of some of ATA's assets in 2008.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 188):
Was any airline other than Southwest given an opportunity to bid on the United gates at DAL before they were sold to Southwest?

VX CEO stated such months ago and DL admitted they had the chance to procure the gates but were outbid by WN and then didn't want to pay the amount that WN offered the use of the gate for. You do a really good job of ignoring things that you don't want to know.
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:57 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 189):
One issue clearly will be whether Kelly's e-mail was truly an attempt to stifle competition.

Because corporations never throw their weight around with facility locations to get favors from public entities, right? No other airline has ever done that in the Metroplex, right? Certainly, there's no other airline using an HQ decision to stick their hand out as we speak, right?

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/bu...sky-talk-blog/article34190082.html

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 189):
In ordering that WN should not be allowed to lease the AA gates, the DOJ seems - clearly, to me - to show

DOJ said DL couldn't bid on the AA gates too, and you forget they supposedly blessed the UA/WN sublease.

What almost never gets talked about in these threads is the concept of public good. And, I'd love to see someone seriously (that excludes many of the posters above) make an argument that DL offering 5 flights to a single destination with 23 flights on 4 carriers produces more public good than WN offering those 5 flights on larger equipment on routes with less competition, likely including 1 or 2 new pairs that are otherwise AA monopoly routes.

I'd also love to see a serious discussion about DL's somewhat surprising pluck in this fight. Are they just playing keep away from WN or would they show the same will if the fight was to kill the gate cap and build more gates? My guess is the former, and if WN was to get more gates too, DL would fade away.
 
SWADawg
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:34 pm

DL is just trying to be a thorn in WN's side. My guess is that something gets worked out between DL and VX to partially use one of their gates. The permanent Stonehenge poles have already been installed at Gate 15. I highly doubt that the City would have allowed WN to install those at that gate if they really thought DL was going to be able to hold on to it. The other rumor I've heard is that after this Gate fight is settled that WN plans to add an additional 30 flights a day to bring their total up to about 210 Departures per day. Apparently they plan to achieve this by adding flights both earlier in the morning and later at night.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:47 pm

Quoting SWADawg (Reply 192):
Apparently they plan to achieve this by adding flights both earlier in the morning and later at night.
CJ's gonna love that. It would set up an interesting conversation down the road where WN offers to condense flights into better times if they get more gates.

[Edited 2015-09-12 07:51:14]

[Edited 2015-09-12 07:51:59]
 
alfa164
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:06 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 191):
Because corporations never throw their weight around with facility locations to get favors from public entities, right? No other airline has ever done that in the Metroplex, right? Certainly, there's no other airline using an HQ decision to stick their hand out as we speak, right?

There is a vast difference between "throwing their weight around with facility locations to get favors" and attempting to stifle competition. That is why antitrust laws exist. Even a non-lawyer should recognize that.

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 191):
Certainly, there's no other airline using an HQ decision to stick their hand out as we speak, right?

Sure looks like UA did that in Newark - and that is the subject of a major investigation that, so far, as already brought down the head of the airline.

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 191):
What almost never gets talked about in these threads is the concept of public good

Under the theory of capitalism - which, the last time I looked, was still the basis of economics in the USA - competition is, per se,considered to contribute to the "public good".

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 191):
And, I'd love to see someone seriously (that excludes many of the posters above) make an argument that DL offering 5 flights to a single destination with 23 flights on 4 carriers produces more public good than WN offering those 5 flights on larger equipment on routes with less competition, likely including 1 or 2 new pairs that are otherwise AA monopoly routes.
Quoting cjpark (Reply 130):
“… Kelly angrily emailed [Dallas] City Manager A.C. Gonzalez that the City was ‘reward[ing] competitors that have contributed nothing to Dallas.’ Citing billions of dollars in value that Southwest seeks credit for bringing to Dallas and millions of dollars of tax revenues paid, he threatened, as Southwest so often has done, to pull out of Dallas if the City did not help Southwest suppress competition,

Mr. Nutz, meet Mr. Kelly.

You may not think DL offers competition - and I might not even think so - but Mr. Kelly seems to feel otherwise.

And, keep in mind: unlike most posters here, I don't have a dog in this fight. I do see where most everyone has picked a side (often apparently, the side of their own employer) and refuse to admit that any other position could be valid. That is the kind of echo-chamber-thinking that will lead to false arguments and conclusions - and utter shock when the Court hands down its decision.

Keep some valium next to your bedside table.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11045
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:11 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 194):
There is a vast difference between "throwing their weight around with facility locations to get favors" and attempting to stifle competition. That is why antitrust laws exist. Even a non-lawyer should recognize that.

All airlines attempt to stifle competition...there are many means of doing so without breaking the law. Why do you think DL is always so vehemently opposed to another ATL airport? Or AA/UA are always against plans to create a western terminal at ORD?
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:22 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 194):
Under the theory of capitalism


So capitalism favors DL. I can't believe I forgot about that. Duh.

Quoting Polot (Reply 195):
Keep some valium next to your bedside table.

I don't have a dog in this either, but the City of Dallas and VX have both publicly said WN should/would win, so I am curious what more you know than they?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:33 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 186):
Its called airport access, how can Southwest argue for access to airports in the NYC, Washington DC areas while denying other airlines access to Love Field in Dallas, TX?

Last I checked the city of Dallas control DAL airport, when exactly did they give up their responsibility, the same time that they threw up their hands and went to the Feds?

Quoting cjpark (Reply 186):
Why shouldn't the spirit of the law that allowed Southwest to stay at Love Field not apply to other airlines that want to fly from Love Field now?

...because the spirit of the law did not allow WN to stay at DAL, the full force of the law did that. The spirit of the cities of Dallas and Forth Worth wanted WN to move to DFW, but since the law trumps the spirit of the cities....

Quoting cjpark (Reply 188):
Was any airline other than Southwest given an opportunity to bid on the United gates at DAL before they were sold to Southwest?

Why are you asking WN that question, since the gates did not belong to WN but the airport and the 5 party agreement gave UA preferential use of those two gates, I would think UA and the city of Dallas should answer that question, however, since the city already threw up their hands and passed the buck..........

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 189):
the DOJ seems - clearly, to me - to show concern about WN's capability of creating an effective monopoly at an important air facility.

Which makes no sense since WN was not the one who had the airport gates recapped from 32 down to 20, it was a 5 party agreement passed into law by the same folks who empower the DOJ.

A question, why exactly do you think the 5 party agreement gave WN preferential use of 16 gates out of 20?
Once again I still say this is all WN's fault, if they had continued the good fight for full abolition of the WA.....
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:02 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 197):
Once again I still say this is all WN's fault, if they had continued the good fight for full abolition of the WA.....

Fear not, I don't think history will be any kinder to the gate cap than the WA. We got where we are due to 2 twists of fate: 1) Had Jim Wright not been Majority Leader or from someplace other than FW, the WA would never have happened; 2) Had it not become clear by the Summer of 2006 that Congress was likely to change hands to folks less friendly to WN, they would not have settled.

I can't tell you when or how, just that there's no good reason for DAL to be the only airport in America with a federal gate cap. Maybe the current court goes postal on WN and that reopens the whole can of worms. Maybe AA/WN get greedy and take advantage of the duopoly and raise fares to the point of public backlash. Maybe President Trump and his Tea Party Congress quietly kill it soon. Who knows.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7190
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1

Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:19 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 194):
Quoting cjpark (Reply 130):
“… Kelly angrily emailed [Dallas] City Manager A.C. Gonzalez that the City was ‘reward[ing] competitors that have contributed nothing to Dallas.’ Citing billions of dollars in value that Southwest seeks credit for bringing to Dallas and millions of dollars of tax revenues paid, he threatened, as Southwest so often has done, to pull out of Dallas if the City did not help Southwest suppress competition,

The allegation of Southwest threatening to punish the City of Dallas for not "help[ing] Southwest suppress competition" is a characterization lifted from Delta's court filing. As in any court filing, the intent is to paint the opposition in the worst possible light. It's like relying on Donald Trump to judge Hillary Clinton's character, true or not.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 194):
Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 191):
Certainly, there's no other airline using an HQ decision to stick their hand out as we speak, right?

Sure looks like UA did that in Newark - and that is the subject of a major investigation that, so far, as already brought down the head of the airline.

The EWR "Chairman's flight" scandal (1) has NOTHING to do with an airline HQ decision and (2) is about a non-monetary benefit provided to a specific individual (the Chairman of the Port Authority) in exchange for him no longer blocking projects at EWR which UA wanted. There are no inducements, monetary or non-monetary, being offered to specific public officials in exchange for favorable decisions with respect to DAL. The Dallas city manager isn't getting cash or free flights or a once-weekly non-stop to his vacation home in South Carolina.

You don't think Delta throws its weight around with the City of Atlanta with respect to projects at ATL? They threatened to reduce their international flying at ATL if Atlanta didn't scale back its grandiose plans for the new international terminal. United threatened to reduce its presence at IAH if Southwest got the go-ahead to build international gates at HOU -- and like idiots, they followed through with it. And apparently IAH-AKL is going gangbusters for NZ even though the CO guys identified the potential for that route by announcing it five years ago!

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 194):
Under the theory of capitalism - which, the last time I looked, was still the basis of economics in the USA - competition is, per se,considered to contribute to the "public good".

Same-airport competition isn't the only possible competition. All the flying WN has added at DAL in the past year has clearly increased competition in the Metroplex or we wouldn't be hearing pretty much EVERY airline except WN saying how unit revenues in the DFW market have weakened year-over-year. 143 seats on a WN 737 may very well provide greater benefit in an otherwise AA-monopoly market than 117 seats on a DL 717 in a city pair with three competitors.

A market like CVG-ORD ought to be super-competitive because there are three competitors flying the exact same airport pair. But it's not, with an average airfare of $306 which is over $1/mile. MDW-DAL must be horribly uncompetitive because only one carrier flies it, but no, it has fares about one-third lower than ORD-DFW and about 65% lower than ORD-CVG.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 189):
"Restraint of trade" and "tortuous interference with a business relationship" come immediately to mind.

The City has no business relationship with Delta. Delta holds no valid gate leases at Love Field.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 188):
Was any airline other than Southwest given an opportunity to bid on the United gates at DAL before they were sold to Southwest?

Apparently, yes. Southwest was willing to pay the largest sum of money for the gates.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos