User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:33 am

Please continue the discussion here.

Quote:
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.

Previous thread:
FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 1 (by 727LOVER Aug 11 2015 in Civil Aviation)
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:33 am

Quoting Cubsrule:
Congress banned DOT (but, somewhat interestingly, not DOJ) from taking any action inconsistent with the agreement, so there is something of an exemption. See Section 5(d)(1)(B) of the WA Reform Act of 2006.

WA2 5(d)(1)(B) applies only to the facilities present at the time the bill was past. WA2 5(e)(1)(E) makes the specific statement:

(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed--

(E) to limit the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other Federal agency to enforce requirements of law and grant assurances (including subsections (a)(1), (a)(4), and (s) of section 47107 of title 49, United States Code) that impose obligations on Love Field to make its facilities available on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis to air carriers seeking to use such facilities...

49 U.S. Code Chapter 471, Subchapter I - AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT - § 47107. Project grant application approval conditioned on assurances about airport operations

Which is exactly what this is about.

WA2 itself states it cannot be applied. Even if there is ambiguity or apparent conflict between 5(e)(1)(E) and any other section a judge will use specific declarations over general declarations. When it comes to this matter a judge can only apply applicable law and WA2 could not make have made a stronger declaration it can not be applied here.
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:35 pm

@cjpark:

I can't quote everything you wrote in the prior thread, but let me address your main points:

**"What you consider to be the good fight others consider selfish and belligerent. "

I think most people understand the WN's principal purpose in the world is to produce profits for its owners. Are you under the impression that what happens at DFW/Centreport is some great humanitarian story?


**"Dallas Love Field being used for airline operations with DFW so close by is nothing less than corporate welfare for Southwest and is a waste of public resources."

How would a new terminal and runway at DFW (whatever excess capacity they had in 2005 is gone) be cheaper than what WN built at DAL and its existing runways?


**"You do understand that if AA moved to Dallas the jobs would still be in the region."

You ignore how politics works. While FW is willing to expend significant funds to retain AA ($6.5 mm for the IOC alone), they won't have a dime for "the region" if AA moves elsewhere. Same story in Dallas (has Dallas even provided any public funds to WN?).


CJ, I get that this is somehow very personal to you, and for that I am sorry. But I have never seen Wright supporters attempt a remotely plausible scenario where the region is better off than it is today. That is likely because full repeal is the only one and, like it or not, history would suggest it is coming.

[Edited 2015-09-15 06:40:59]
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:27 pm

Latest update from the previous thread:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-fight-over-love-field-gates.html/

From this, DL is squarely aiming at the 5 Party Agreement. While the gate cap is in the Reform Act so it presumably is not at risk to this court (according to our resident attorney Cubsrule), the gate allocations are not so they could be. And that might be very interesting.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6748
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:35 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 1):
(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed--

(E) to limit the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other Federal agency to enforce requirements of law and grant assurances (including subsections (a)(1), (a)(4), and (s) of section 47107 of title 49, United States Code) that impose obligations on Love Field to make its facilities available on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis to air carriers seeking to use such facilities...

Except you conveniently ignore §5(e)(2)(B)(ii):

Quote:
(2) FACILITIES- Paragraph (1)(E)--

(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a); and

(B) shall not be construed to require the city of Dallas, Texas--

(i) to construct additional gates beyond the 20 gates referred to in subsection (a); or

(ii) to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases with air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity to new entrants or to create common use gates, unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis.

DL is a new entrant to DAL as of when the Act was passed into law. According to the terms of the gate leases, WN's gates are fully-utilized; they also have a valid sublease for UA's gates which are also fully-utilized. Forcing WN to accommodate DL on gates which are considered fully-utilized would be a modification of the preferential leases; the City is expressly not required to do so as per the quoted provision.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:56 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 2):
I think most people understand the WN's principal purpose in the world is to produce profits for its owners. Are you under the impression that what happens at DFW/Centreport is some great humanitarian story?

Standard fall back argument, side step and spin.

No one has ever said otherwise unfortunately that has always meant WN forcing its way on the City of Dallas to maintain its unneeded operations in this region at DAL.

What has happened at DFW? DFW fueled the growth of this region and all of the airlines that served at DFW contributed to that growth.

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 2):
How would a new terminal and runway at DFW (whatever excess capacity they had in 2005 is gone) be cheaper than what WN built at DAL and its existing runways?

Throughout the history of this mess there have always been gates and resources available at DFW for Southwest. Even if a new terminal and runway had to be built it would have been DFW floating the note and not the City of Dallas and best of all this whole Wright Amendment controversy would have been eliminated and the City of Dallas would be free and clear of this mess forever.

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 2):
You ignore how politics works. While FW is willing to expend significant funds to retain AA ($6.5 mm for the IOC alone), they won't have a dime for "the region" if AA moves elsewhere. Same story in Dallas (has Dallas even provided any public funds to WN?).

I am a long time resident of Dallas, I know how local politics work here. On our best days our City and County governments could give lessons to Chicago.

Where do you live and why is Southwest at Dallas Love Field so important to you?

Has the City of Dallas provided funding for Southwest? Let’s see, bond money for the upgrades to the airport, the new parking garage…..

Are you aware that the City of Dallas has also made a huge investment in DFW as well and that the city has much more to lose if DFW fails than it will ever have with a failed DAL?

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 2):
But I have never seen Wright supporters attempt a remotely plausible scenario where the region is better off than it is today. That is likely because full repeal is the only one and, like it or not, history would suggest it is coming.

There is no way to substantiate what could have been so why bother. But consider this much if Southwest put on its big boy pants way back when, that megahub at DFW might belong to Southwest? You might also want to consider that had WN moved to DFW and failed how much better the air travel experience in this country would be.

Concerning full repeal of the Wright restrictions, possible but immaterial since the DAL can barely support the number of passengers and aircraft movements it has now.

Now would you like to explain how all of the litigation forced on the City of Dallas as a result of Southwest at DAL, and the lack of competition for years in this region resulting in higher airfares has created a win-win scenario for the people of Dallas and Ft Worth?

[Edited 2015-09-15 10:13:24]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
alfa164
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:17 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 4):
Except you conveniently ignore §5(e)(2)(B)(ii):

Quote 2) FACILITIES- Paragraph (1)(E)--

(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a); and

(B) shall not be construed to require the city of Dallas, Texas--

(i) to construct additional gates beyond the 20 gates referred to in subsection (a); or

(ii) to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases with air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity to new entrants or to create common use gates, unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis.
DL is a new entrant to DAL as of when the Act was passed into law. According to the terms of the gate leases, WN's gates are fully-utilized; they also have a valid sublease for UA's gates which are also fully-utilized. Forcing WN to accommodate DL on gates which are considered fully-utilized would be a modification of the preferential leases; the City is expressly not required to do so as per the quoted provision.

Not quite right. The provision that the agreement "...shall not be construed to require the city of Dallas, Texas...(ii) to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases with air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity to new entrants or to create common use gates, unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis..." is not pertinent to only the time the agreement was made; it is an ongoing part of the requirements. There is not prhaseology indicating the proivision should be constructed to apply only "at the time this agreement is signed".

Since DL is currently an incumbent carrier, it appears to hold the same rights and privigelges as any incumbent.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
Dallas
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:37 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:15 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
What has happened at DFW? DFW fueled the growth of this region and all of the airlines that served at DFW contributed to that growth.

It is no longer the 1970s and 80s. DFW continues to be an international hub and has its benefits, just like DAL has its benefits, but don't act like the region would completely fail and fall apart without DFW. I'm pretty sure without DFW, the Metroplex wouldn't be the equivalent of a Midland, Tulsa, etc..

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
Where do you live and why is Southwest at Dallas Love Field so important to you?

I live in Dallas currently, and grew up in Plano, so I think I also have valid opinions of this whole mess.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
Are you aware that the City of Dallas has also made a huge investment in DFW as well and that the city has much more to lose if DFW fails than it will ever have with a failed DAL?

It's 2015. DFW is not going to fail, and neither is DAL. Both will continue to co-exist, just like HOU-IAH, ORD-MDW, BWI-IAD-DCA, JFK-EWR-LGA, LAX-ONT-LGB-BUR-SNA-SAN, OAK-SJC-SFO.
 
Dallas
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:37 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:18 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 6):
There is not phraseology indicating the provision should be constructed to apply only "at the time this agreement is signed".

I believe this is covered by the last part of the Agreement:

"SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Sections 1 through 6, including the amendments made by such sections, shall take effect on the date that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration notifies Congress that aviation operations in the airspace serving Love Field and the Dallas-Fort Worth area which are likely to be conducted after enactment of this Act can be accommodated in full compliance with Federal Aviation Administration safety standards in accordance with section 40101 of title 49, United States Code, and, based on current expectations, without adverse effect on use of airspace in such area."
 
hivue
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:32 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 2):
But I have never seen Wright supporters attempt a remotely plausible scenario where the region is better off than it is today.

Glad that you realize that, now that the WA has said "My work here is done" and has (more or less) ridden off into the sunset, the region is so well off.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:43 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
What has happened at DFW? DFW fueled the growth of this region and all of the airlines that served at DFW contributed to that growth.

So DFW was / is a good thing.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
Are you aware that the City of Dallas has also made a huge investment in DFW as well and that the city has much more to lose if DFW fails than it will ever have with a failed DAL?

So DAL is a minor issue which the city should have shut down as a commercial airport once the courts ruled against them, why kowtow to WN when the risk is greater elsewhere?

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
Concerning full repeal of the Wright restrictions, possible but immaterial since the DAL can barely support the number of passengers and aircraft movements it has now.

So the reason for reducing the gates was because the airport could not handle the current volume, the rest of us thought it was to prevent expansion when the initial WA was lifted.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
Now would you like to explain how all of the litigation forced on the City of Dallas as a result of Southwest at DAL, and the lack of competition for years in this region resulting in higher airfares has created a win-win scenario for the people of Dallas and Ft Worth?

So the DFW fueled growth in the region would have been greater if the likes of Braniff etc were allowed to survive with some assistance from DFW, it can't all be WN, after all, the hostile conditions created at DAL were intended to inhibit their growth and profitability, I don't see them as being put in place by the cities of DFW and DAL to protect WN and allow them to flourish without competition.

Why is travel via DAL not regarded as competition in the metroplex, is it because those who use DFW don't like the Texas Two Step so they paid the higher prices, or they are / were unable to get to DAL?
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:04 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
Standard fall back argument, side step and spin.

Hey, I'm not the one calling WN, AA or anybody else selfish and greedy. Corporations have to find ways to compete, and secondary airports are part of WN's DNA. Even today, if you take BWI, DAL, FLL, HOU and MDW away, there's not much left.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
DFW floating the note and not the City of Dallas
Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
City of Dallas has also made a huge investment in DFW

Doesn't really matter which of these is true--that debt is serviced by user fees.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
There is no way to substantiate what could have been so why bother.

TODAY, not what could of been. How could the region be in better shape than it is today?

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
But consider this much if Southwest put on its big boy pants way back when, that megahub at DFW might belong to Southwest?

That defies everything we know about Southwest. We don't have to guess how that would of worked out--see Braniff.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
Now would you like to explain how all of the litigation forced on the City of Dallas as a result of Southwest at DAL, and the lack of competition for years in this region resulting in higher airfares has created a win-win scenario for the people of Dallas and Ft Worth?

Sure, airline analysts talk about it regularly. Here's a taste:
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/08/...nalysis-airfares-slip-5-6-in-july/

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
Where do you live and why is Southwest at Dallas Love Field so important to you?

I'd be happy to share my background offline, but suffice to say I was born at Baylor, skated around the disco ball at Llove and was professionally involved in this and other aviation policy issues. But I would take umbrage at the notion I am a WN partisan. I just think they are right on this one.

[Edited 2015-09-15 12:30:02]
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:33 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 4):
Except you conveniently ignore §5(e)(2)(B)(ii):

It was not forgotten it just doesn't apply.

5(e)(2) FACILITIES- Paragraph (1)(E)--

(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a); and


5(a) In General- The city of Dallas, Texas, shall reduce as soon as practicable, the number of gates available for passenger air service at Love Field to no more than 20 gates. Thereafter, the number of gates available for such service shall not exceed a maximum of 20 gates. The city of Dallas, pursuant to its authority to operate and regulate the airport as granted under chapter 22 of the Texas Transportation Code and this Act, shall determine the allocation of leased gates and manage Love Field in accordance with contractual rights and obligations existing as of the effective date of this Act for certificated air carriers providing scheduled passenger service at Love Field on July 11, 2006. To accommodate new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases

1. This refers to the existing facilities. 5(e)(2)(A) references 5(a) conditions to limitations placed on 5(e)(2)(B). The statute is specific when it refers to 5(a) and the specific provisions within as a limitation. This limits the scope to the facilities and contracts on July 11, 2006.
A. The contracts currently used by the City of Dallas and the airlines are not the same contracts that were being used on July 11, 2006.
B. The facilities referenced were the ones used on July 11, 2006.
5(e)(2) can only be applied if both the contracts and the facility are the same as specified 5(a) and this is no longer the case.

2. 5(e)(2)(B) is a direct contradiction to provisions in 5(e)(1). If 5(e)(2)(B) applies then all the provisions of 5(e)(1) are invalid and can never be used.

3. Even if 5(e)(2)(B) could be applied to this case the courts will use specific declarations over generic declarations. Since specific declarations have been used for Title 49 Section 47107 and the courts will apply the declarations WA2 has made in 5(e)(1)(E).

The FAA has not finished their investigation of the City of Dallas' compliance of Title 49 Section 47107. Right now the City of Dallas has cited no legal basis for their suit. Until this becomes an issue based upon AIP funding nothing will be resolved.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:33 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 11):
TODAY, not what could of been. How could the region be in better shape than it is today?

Southwest at DFW with 300 or more flights and with still more room to grow.

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 11):
That defies everything we know about Southwest. We don't have to guess how that would of worked out--see Braniff.

Don't you mean that defines everything about Southwest? Avoiding competition without special conditions is indeed a trademark of WN.

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 11):
Sure, airline analysts talk about it regularly. Here's a taste:
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/08/...july/

LOL, that is a great source.
"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: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:45 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 13):
Southwest at DFW with 300 or more flights and with still more room to grow.
Quoting cjpark (Reply 13):
Don't you mean that defines everything about Southwest? Avoiding competition without special conditions is indeed a trademark of WN.

Which is it, did WN get to 300 or more flights because they avoided competition at DAL, if that's the case, are you in agreement that operating at DFW would have made them a much smaller carrier while benefiting the metroplex with less service but more competition?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:21 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 1):
WA2 5(d)(1)(B) applies only to the facilities present at the time the bill was past. WA2 5(e)(1)(E) makes the specific statement:

I was talking about antitrust enforcement activity (which I do think DOT is barred from taking), not the gate cap.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Dallas
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:37 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 2:25 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 13):
Avoiding competition without special conditions is indeed a trademark of WN.

What exactly are you referring to here? Just DAL, right, you know, one airport out of 100 they operate from? Just because they CHOOSE to operate from secondary airports, doesn't mean they are avoiding competition with special conditions, in case that is what you're referring to.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 2:27 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 13):
Avoiding competition without special conditions is indeed a trademark of WN.

What special conditions do they have at PHL? PHX? DEN? FLL? MCO? SEA? All have plenty of competition.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:01 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 13):
Avoiding competition without special conditions is indeed a trademark of WN.

Of all the airports, in all the towns, in all of America surely you can name another with these "special conditions" you speak of? No?
 
hivue
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:58 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 14):
did WN get to 300 or more flights because they avoided competition at DAL

If DFW had never been built and all airlines had stayed at DAL, WN might have competed well and survived. Or it might not have. But because DAL was so much more convenient to many travelers, having exclusive use of it in the early days essentially guaranteed WN success as long as they didn't make stupid business mistakes (which they definitely did not).
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2642
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:11 pm

If you spend any time spotting at Love Field, it quickly becomes
apparent that the airport is beyond capacity.

Nowadays, it's common to see a WN flight land and have to sit on
the taxiway for several minutes waiting for an open gate. That
rarely if ever happened before WN added all those flights post WA.

I might be simple minded, but how about WN gives up one of the UA
gates to DL and all the lawyers can go home   
 
ScottB
Posts: 6748
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:29 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 12):
It was not forgotten it just doesn't apply.

5(e)(2) FACILITIES- Paragraph (1)(E)--

(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a); and

5(a) In General- The city of Dallas, Texas, shall reduce as soon as practicable, the number of gates available for passenger air service at Love Field to no more than 20 gates. Thereafter, the number of gates available for such service shall not exceed a maximum of 20 gates. The city of Dallas, pursuant to its authority to operate and regulate the airport as granted under chapter 22 of the Texas Transportation Code and this Act, shall determine the allocation of leased gates and manage Love Field in accordance with contractual rights and obligations existing as of the effective date of this Act for certificated air carriers providing scheduled passenger service at Love Field on July 11, 2006. To accommodate new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases

1. This refers to the existing facilities. 5(e)(2)(A) references 5(a) conditions to limitations placed on 5(e)(2)(B). The statute is specific when it refers to 5(a) and the specific provisions within as a limitation. This limits the scope to the facilities and contracts on July 11, 2006.

If you argue that Paragraph (1)(E) only applies to existing facilities at DAL as of the time of the bill's passage, then it would not apply to the current terminal concourse. Consequently, the FAA & DOT's authority to enforce requirements of law and grant assurances as referenced in Paragraph (1)(E) would be limited with respect to the new gates constructed.

Quoting atypical (Reply 12):
A. The contracts currently used by the City of Dallas and the airlines are not the same contracts that were being used on July 11, 2006.

There is no language in the law restricting its application to preferential leases in existence at the time of the law's passage; it only says the City shall not be required "to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases with air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity to new entrants or to create common use gates, unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis."

Quoting atypical (Reply 12):
2. 5(e)(2)(B) is a direct contradiction to provisions in 5(e)(1). If 5(e)(2)(B) applies then all the provisions of 5(e)(1) are invalid and can never be used.

That's simply false. 5(e)(2)(B) only supersedes a SINGLE paragraph [5(e)(1)(E)] and only in the very limited cases where the City would be compelled to construct additional gates (which would violate 5(a)) or in which FAA/DOT policy would require the City to modify preferential leases. The rest of 5(e)(1) is never affected by any condition in 5(e)(2).

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 6):
Since DL is currently an incumbent carrier, it appears to hold the same rights and privigelges as any incumbent.

DL holds no valid gate leases at DAL. Arguably Seaport should have also been permitted to stay at DAL as an incumbent, rather than being forced off the VX gates.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 13):
Don't you mean that defines everything about Southwest? Avoiding competition without special conditions is indeed a trademark of WN.

What special conditions have been placed on other airports they dominate like HOU, OAK, BUR, ONT, MDW, BWI, BNA, STL, MCI, etc.? WN's original ask was that Wright be repealed entirely, full stop. WARA and the Five-Party Agreement were billed as compromises. If what WN really wanted was a facility that would be limited to protect themselves from competition, then what exactly did they give up as a compromise?
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:57 pm

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 20):
I might be simple minded, but how about WN gives up one of the UA
gates to DL and all the lawyers can go home  

Because of this from SWAdog in the other thread:

"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."
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 5:51 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 19):
But because DAL was so much more convenient to many travelers, having exclusive use of it in the early days essentially guaranteed WN success as long as they didn't make stupid business mistakes (which they definitely did not).

The exclusive time period was small, once de-regulation kicked in and WN attempted flights outside of Texas, the cities sued and ultimately the WA came into being, the majority of WN's growth took place after the WA was put in place and the only exclusivity was the fact that no other carrier chose to compete against them under the conditions.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5839
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:28 pm

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 20):
If you spend any time spotting at Love Field, it quickly becomes
apparent that the airport is beyond capacity.

Nowadays, it's common to see a WN flight land and have to sit on
the taxiway for several minutes waiting for an open gate. That
rarely if ever happened before WN added all those flights post WA.

It might seem that way, but in fact, the big issue (just now) is the scale and scope of construction under way at the airport, with lots and lots and oodles and gobs of closed taxiways.

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/notamRetrievalByICAOAction.do?method=displayByICAOs&reportType=RAW&formatType=DOMESTIC&retrieveLocId=KDAL&actionType=notamRetrievalByICAOs

!DAL 08/116 DAL TWY B BTN TWY B1 AND TWY R CLSD LGTD AND BARRICADED 1508300256-1511292300
!DAL 08/115 DAL TWY S CLSD LGTD AND BARRICADED 1508300246-1511292300
!DAL 08/101 DAL TWY D BTN TWY D1 AND TWY C CLSD LGTD AND BARRICADED 1508252138-1509302100EST
!DAL 08/100 DAL TWY N CL LGT OUT OF SERVICE 1508252134-1509302100EST
!DAL 08/099 DAL TWY D CL LGT OUT OF SERVICE 1508252128-1509302100
!DAL 08/073 DAL TWY P CLSD LGTD AND BARRICADED 1508200103-1510010559
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:14 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 21):
5(e)(2)(B) only supersedes a SINGLE paragraph [5(e)(1)(E)]

5(e)(2)(B) clarifies 5(e)(1)(E) but does not change it

(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a);

The new terminal is replacing those facilities. There is no way 5(e)(2)(B) can be applied to 5(e)(1)(E) without negating the entire provision. If so please describe a project 5(e)(2)(B) and 5(e)(1)(E) can both be satisfied.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 21):
There is no language in the law restricting its application to preferential leases in existence at the time of the law's passage
5(e)(2)(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a);

5(a) ...determine the allocation of leased gates and manage Love Field in accordance with contractual rights and obligations existing as of the effective date of this Act for certificated air carriers providing scheduled passenger service at Love Field on July 11, 2006.

There is no reason to specify July 11, 2006 unless the conditions at that time require certain acts to be performed.

However, for the sake of discussion, let us assume all your points are correct. WA2 still doesn't apply...

The only issue is the application and approval for the City of Dallas to receive AIP funds. Had the City of Dallas submitted their application accurately they would have not qualified for AIP funds because they could not meet the assurances required by the FAA. Within the application they must inform the FAA they can meet the obligations required of the AIP. WA2 does not state the FAA must extend grants to the City of Dallas for programs they do not qualify. At this this time the City of Dallas has made false statements on it's application. WA2 is not going to protect the city from the FAA getting a judgement against the City for the funds it was ineligible or freezing future grants.

5(e)(1)(E) only applies to "enforce requirements" of Title 49 Section 47107 however the city has no protections from any sanctions from the FAA for submitting an application containing false statements. This begins and ends with the City of Dallas. The FAA has no standing if the city returns all AIP grants it is not entitled to. The city then only needs to comply to WA2.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):
I was talking about antitrust enforcement activity (which I do think DOT is barred from taking), not the gate cap.

Delta would have to initiate an antitrust case. The FAA's authority in this case comes directly from Title 49 Section 47107 and I doubt the FAA wants or needs to complicate the issue by including antitrust provisions. The FAA's authority is very strong because the City of Dallas applied for and accepted funds and their provisions. If City of Dallas is required to return the funds then Delta will need to peruse its own legal path.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:14 am

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 20):
I might be simple minded, but how about WN gives up one of the UA gates to DL and all the lawyers can go home

Too late. The FAA has begun its investigation to review the City of Dallas on if it has been meeting its grant assurances and probably to determine if the city was even qualified for it in the first place. If the city knew it would not be able to meet the provisions of WA2 and the terms of the grant assurances it would have been required to declare that in the application. At this time it is not meeting its grant assurances. If the city made false statements on its application there is nothing within WA2 that can protect it. Chances are the city will be forced to meet grant assurances or repay for all AIP grants it was not qualified to receive. The City of Dallas really screwed up and if going to find itself in a bad spot no matter what.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:50 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 26):
If the city knew it would not be able to meet the provisions of WA2 and the terms of the grant assurances

To clarify for me, is this meant to be if the city knew that it could not meet its grant obligations under the rules of the WA2,
I assume this is about the funds to build new terminals and parking infrastructure.
In my reads I got the impression that the city put those items in as a result of wanting to reduce the gates from 32 to 20 and to increase some cost to make the airport a bit less attractive other airlines.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6748
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:58 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 25):
(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a);

The new terminal is replacing those facilities. There is no way 5(e)(2)(B) can be applied to 5(e)(1)(E) without negating the entire provision. If so please describe a project 5(e)(2)(B) and 5(e)(1)(E) can both be satisfied.

It may very well have been the intent of the framers of the law to only have it apply to the extant facilities at DAL.

Quoting atypical (Reply 25):
The only issue is the application and approval for the City of Dallas to receive AIP funds. Had the City of Dallas submitted their application accurately they would have not qualified for AIP funds because they could not meet the assurances required by the FAA. Within the application they must inform the FAA they can meet the obligations required of the AIP. WA2 does not state the FAA must extend grants to the City of Dallas for programs they do not qualify. At this this time the City of Dallas has made false statements on it's application.

The City may have had a reasonable expectation at the time that room would be available for all carriers to continue to operate at DAL; after all, AA wasn't using its gates at all (and had announced no plans to use them) and CO/UA wasn't fully utilizing its gates to the threshold where they could refuse to accommodate another carrier. Even VX's gates weren't fully utilized until they started their money-losing DAL-AUS flights.

I think it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that the City had knowingly made false statements on its grant applications.
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:23 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 26):
The City of Dallas really screwed up and if going to find itself in a bad spot no matter what.

I'll just say one more time that this is a federally-created problem and any language Congress screwed up in WA2 they can fix.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:01 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 27):
To clarify for me, is this meant to be if the city knew that it could not meet its grant obligations under the rules of the WA2,

Sorry, this was a bit vague. The City of Dallas applied for and was granted Airport Improvement Project (AIP) funds to has helped finance the new terminal and possible other projects.

Grant Assurances (Obligations)

Grant Assurances. The obligations airport owners, planning agencies, or other organizations undertake when they accept funds from FAA-administered airport financial assistance programs. These obligations require the recipients to maintain and operate their facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. The assurances appear either in the application for federal assistance and become part of the final grant offer or in restrictive covenants to property deeds. The duration of these obligations depends on the type of recipient, the useful life of the facility being developed, and other conditions stipulated in the assurances.


The specific provision of the

all federally assisted airports are bound by federal grant assurances that require the airport operator to accommodate reason able requests for access by a new entrant carrier or by an incumbent carrier that wants to expand its operations. While an air carrier tenant is not required to cancel flights or to forfeit its use of airport facilities, an airport operator may not deny access to its facilities based solely on existing lease arrangements. Airport operators also have the legal authority to oversee gate usage for purposes of efficient operation and to accommodate airline requests for access.

This is the provision that allows Delta to remain and the FAA to regulate. If the City of Dallas returns all AIP funds which they are unable the Assurances for the FAA no longer has any ability to regulate service.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:13 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 30):
While an air carrier tenant is not required to cancel flights or to forfeit its use of airport facilities, an airport operator may not deny access to its facilities based solely on existing lease arrangements.

Ok, so tell me if I have this right.
WN, VX or CO are not required to forfeit gates or cancel any flights that they operate out of the 20 gates assigned to them, but the city of DAL who is the airport operator cannot deny access to DL because the 20 gates are already assigned to carriers via valid lease agreements?

Short of the airport operator cancelling a lease, how are they going to force one carrier to allow a competitor to use their gate facilities? If this is done under the thumb of the FAA, would that create the condition for a law suit?
I am not going to mention increasing the number of gates since the current number was done via Federal Law, so the FAA in effect would be fighting against itself.
 
hivue
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:42 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 23):
The exclusive time period was small,

1974-1978. WN wasn't sitting on its hands for 4 years.

Quoting par13del (Reply 23):
the majority of WN's growth took place after the WA was put in place

I will agree with you that the WA was not bad for WN at DAL.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:53 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 32):
1974-1978. WN wasn't sitting on its hands for 4 years.

No they were not but they also did not grow to a 100 plane fleet during those 4 years.

Yes a lot of focus is on WN at DAL as a result of how successful they were, but the original bond signatories also won the right to serve DAL after it was not shut down, hence the initial WA, it was focused on the airport to prevent AA and others re-starting any substantial service at the airport.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:43 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 31):
If this is done under the thumb of the FAA, would that create the condition for a law suit?

The Airport Improvement Project (AIP) funds are voluntary and are granted after the Sponsor (the party requesting the AIP funds, who has legal authority over the facilities the AIP is to be used, and has legal authority to meet requirements set forth in the AIP Grant Assurances).

The regulatory authority the FAA has was granted by the Sponsor (the City of Dallas) in exchange for AIP funds. If the City of Dallas returns all AIP funding to which it no longer meets within AIP Grant Assurances provisions then the FAA will no longer have regulatory authority.

Please note that the AIP is a long established funding program with detailed documentation. The only way I can see the City of Dallas reasonably making legally challenge the AIP Grant Assurances would be based on changes made after application that rendered the Grant Assurances and WA2 in conflict.

[Edited 2015-09-17 17:46:59]
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:15 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 31):
via valid lease agreements

According to the Grant Assurances to which the City of Dallas.

1. Delta may remain irrespective to gate leasing.

While an air carrier tenant is not required to cancel flights or to forfeit its use of airport facilities

2. Gate leases, by themselves, cannot be used to restrict carriers access to the airport. The issue here is that the new terminal has increased the numbers of flights. SW has experienced a significant increase in flights at DAL. The currently issue only affects their planned expansion. Had SW needed to reduce service and open its gates there would be recourse to reverse the FAA.

an airport operator may not deny access to its facilities based solely on existing lease arrangements

3. By not not recapturing the gates from the unused American and United leases and not actively overseeing all gate operations and providing gates to incumbent and new carriers as stipulated by the AIP Grant Assurances the city of Dallas has hurt both SW and DL.

Airport operators also have the legal authority to oversee gate usage for purposes of efficient operation and to accommodate airline requests for access

To say the City of Dallas screwed the pooch here is actually complimentary compared to the apparent depths of
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:15 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 31):
I am not going to mention increasing the number of gates since the current number was done via Federal Law, so the FAA in effect would be fighting against itself.

No. The City of Dallas agreed to -

all federally assisted airports are bound by federal grant assurances that require the airport operator to accommodate reason able requests for access by a new entrant carrier or by an incumbent carrier that wants to expand its operations. While an air carrier tenant is not required to cancel flights or to forfeit its use of airport facilities, an airport operator may not deny access to its facilities based solely on existing lease arrangements. Airport operators also have the legal authority to oversee gate usage for purposes of efficient operation and to accommodate airline requests for access.

- years ago. The responsibility to execute the provision above lies only with the City of Dallas. If the City of Dallas cannot execute this provision because of WA then it was never able to meet the AIP legal authority requirements in the first place.

2. Responsibility and Authority of the Sponsor
a. Public Agency Sponsor:
It has legal authority to apply for this grant, and to finance and carry out the proposed project; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein


The fault here is not with DL, SW, the FAA, nor WA2, but only with the City of Dallas.

"FAA in effect would be fighting against itself" is an inaccurate characterization. This is going to play out one of two ways for the FAA, both of which close the issue:

1. The City of Dallas meets the obligations of the AIP Grant Assurances.
2. The FAA investigation of the City of Dallas AIP concludes:
A. The application for the AIP was false and the City of Dallas never met the AIP grant requirements.
B. The City of Dallas did not meet the provisions of the Grant Assurances

If the City of Dallas is in violation of the grant terms the FAA and following appeals the FAA will have the authority to apply Administrative Sanctions by withholding approval, modification and, payment of FAA grants and the USDOT will withhold funding for any other transportation projects in order to recover violate grant funds.

This is not new territory to the FAA.
 
SWADawg
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:10 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 36):

So it would seem like WN could write the City of Dallas a VERY big check, which the City of Dallas could then give to the DOT to return all funds from the AIP grant assurances, kick Delta to the curb, and call it a day. This maybe where this is heading.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
B757Forever
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:23 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:52 pm

Quoting SWADawg (Reply 37):
So it would seem like WN could write the City of Dallas a VERY big check, which the City of Dallas could then give to the DOT to return all funds from the AIP grant assurances, kick Delta to the curb, and call it a day. This maybe where this is heading.

I suppose that's a possibility. However if that is the route they choose, they would be writing a big check every year as it would likely affect future FAA funding as well.
The Rolls Royce Dart. Noise = Shaft Horsepower.
 
usflyguy
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:51 pm

Quoting cjpark (Reply 5):
WN forcing its way on the City of Dallas to maintain its unneeded operations in this region at DAL.

So you are an employee or stock holder of AA? They've already said on multiple occasions how the competition from WN at DAL is putting pressure on their revenue performance at DFW... which is good for the region as it's bringing prices down on nonstop routes where AA once had monopolies.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 13):
Don't you mean that defines everything about Southwest? Avoiding competition without special conditions is indeed a trademark of WN.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 17):
What special conditions do they have at PHL? PHX? DEN? FLL? MCO? SEA? All have plenty of competition.

and LAX, SAN, LAS, TPA, MSY, AUS, SAT, BNA, STL, MCI, etc., etc., etc... Please do tell us all about the special conditions WN has had at these airports and how they were avoiding competition.
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
737tanker
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:47 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:23 pm

I'm not sure if this has been asked before in these two threads but what would be happening if instead of UA subleasing their gates they had just increased their flights to such a number that there wasn't room for DL. Would DL still be arguing that they are allowed to operate from DAL and that the city would have to force either UA, VX, or WN to give up a gate?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:32 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 35):
According to the Grant Assurances to which the City of Dallas. 1. Delta may remain irrespective to gate leasing.While an air carrier tenant is not required to cancel flights or to forfeit its use of airport facilities

DL sub-lease was expiring and UA offered up the gates for lease and only WN paid the price, so this one troubles me a bit.
However, the second statement below I can go with, essentially when an airport is restricted in the early years and is in demand, it is the operator responsibility to ensure no "gate squatting"

Quoting atypical (Reply 35):
Airport operators also have the legal authority to oversee gate usage for purposes of efficient operation and to accommodate airline requests for access
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:07 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 41):
DL sub-lease was expiring and UA offered up the gates for lease and only WN paid the price, so this one troubles me a bit.

The AIP Handbook and documentation from the FAA have all indicated the airport should not have all gates leased and keep several open for new entrants. The FAA also said the gate leases should be "recaptured" so the airport meet competition requirements. It clearly states that gate leases are secondary to carriers ability to maintain service into the facilities being built with AIP funds.

Generally, there are no contractual issues for leases to be cancelled if a facility is to be destroyed, even if a company will occupy the same space in a replacement facility. This is the method the City of Dallas should have used. Instead the city had the airlines sign updated leases with changes made to reflect the realities of the new facility. The updated leases should not have been an issue however the city was sloppy with the way they were written and/or administered. They at least have abandoned their legal responsibilities. The only thing that remains to be seen is if they had the legal authority to receive the AIP grants in the first place or if they legally delegated that authority away to the point they now are in violation of the grant conditions.

Quoting 737tanker (Reply 40):
Would DL still be arguing that they are allowed to operate from DAL and that the city would have to force either UA, VX, or WN to give up a gate?

Yes and no. The AIP Grant Assurances include the provision,

"While an air carrier tenant is not required to cancel flights or to forfeit its use of airport facilities, an airport operator may not deny access to its facilities based solely on existing lease arrangements."

This provision protects DL and supports their position.

It also demonstrated how badly the City of Dallas bungled things up, they have done it so badly they are likely in violation of AIP grant terms. If the city had acted to meet the AIP provisions they would have either recaptured the gates UA was not using or exercised their authority to control the sublease. It is a horrible decision to allow an airline to control what other airlines can do at an airport they no longer service, particularly when that airport is flight restricted.

Quoting SWADawg (Reply 37):
So it would seem like WN could write the City of Dallas a VERY big check, which the City of Dallas could then give to the DOT to return all funds from the AIP grant assurances, kick Delta to the curb, and call it a day. This maybe where this is heading.

You hit the nail on the head.

The remaining questions would be related to US Antitrust laws and the ability for the airport to qualify for future AIP grants.

Let me note that airlines paying for terminal construction without the use of AIP funds is not uncommon, look at JFK for example. I do not know if there are common gates at JFK but I assume that JFK is able to provide the physical facilities (gates, ticketing, etc) for new entrants who have otherwise qualified for flights into JFK. The question is with DAL if SW has locked up 85%+ the access to a public airport and 0% availability for new carrier service or competition carrier expansion related to Antitrust or other laws. This would be a DAL, not a DAL/DFW, issue since it is looking at access to a single facility primarily supported supported by public funds.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:00 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 42):
The AIP Handbook and documentation from the FAA have all indicated the airport should not have all gates leased and keep several open for new entrants.

But didn't WA2 preclude that? Certainly, Congress has the privilege to override regulations and guidance if it likes.

Quoting atypical (Reply 42):
Generally, there are no contractual issues for leases to be cancelled if a facility is to be destroyed, even if a company will occupy the same space in a replacement facility. This is the method the City of Dallas should have used.

It would have made no difference. Delta hasn't been a signatory carrier at DAL for decades.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:01 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 42):
The AIP Handbook and documentation from the FAA have all indicated the airport should not have all gates leased and keep several open for new entrants.
Quoting atypical (Reply 42):
The only thing that remains to be seen is if they had the legal authority to receive the AIP grants in the first place

The WA2 came first, the city included the adjustments in the negotiations I assume to ensure that max restrictions given the new climate were placed on the facility. The removal of 12 gates and the assignment of all gates based on the above means that the city did not qualify for the AIP grants. Since the WA2 was such a high profile item, how could the FAA not know that all 20 gates were assigned and none left free for new entrants thus disqualifying the city?
I would think the Feds should also be investigating the FAA if they were the ones who approved the grants.
 
SWADawg
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:24 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 42):

WN's argument might be that since DAL/DFW have been determined to be a single market, that the DAL Terminal could be considered just another Terminal at the DAL/DFW Terminal Complex and that while Delta and any other Airline may not be able to park in that Terminal (DAL). There is ample room for them across the Airport complex over at (DFW). Due to the close proximity of the two Airports, I think that the single market interpretation by DOJ is the correct one.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:32 pm

New update--FAA/DOT asking Dallas judge to hold off until the DC case is resolved:
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...ion-into-citys-actions-wraps.html/

Regarding the AIP discussion above:

1) DOT says it has made no determination on the issue
2) It appears from this that $60mm in AIP funds (out of $500mm) were used on the terminal:
http://www3.dallascityhall.com/commi.../BFA_LFMP-FinancingPlan_011110.pdf
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sat Sep 19, 2015 8:51 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 43):
But didn't WA2 preclude that? Certainly, Congress has the privilege to override regulations and guidance if it likes.

No. WA2 expressly limits itself.

(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed--

(E) to limit the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other Federal agency to enforce requirements of law and grant assurances (including subsections (a)(1), (a)(4), and (s) of section 47107 of title 49, United States Code) that impose obligations on Love Field to make its facilities available on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis to air carriers seeking to use such facilities...
...
49 U.S. Code Chapter 471, Subchapter I - AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT - § 47107. Project grant application approval conditioned on assurances about airport operations...


Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 43):
It would have made no difference. Delta hasn't been a signatory carrier at DAL for decades.

Correct if this was a WA2 issue. This is an issue based on Title 49 § 47107 to which WA2 prohibits itself from being used.

Even if WA2 could be used, when the City of Dallas applied for AIP funds it was required to have legal authority to meet all of the Grant Assurances. The City of Dallas did certify it had the legal authority, if WA2 does apply the City of Dallas submitted a fraudulent application. Had the city submitted correct information their application would have been denied.

Quoting par13del (Reply 44):
The WA2 came first, the city included the adjustments in the negotiations I assume to ensure that max restrictions given the new climate were placed on the facility.

The AIP is not a negotiated program. There is an application submitted to the FAA that is approved or denied with funds available upon approval.

Quoting par13del (Reply 44):
how could the FAA not know that all 20 gates were assigned and none left free for new entrants thus disqualifying the city?

2 points:

1. The FAA has no direct involvement on the local level. The agency applying for the funds also administers all aspects related to the funds.
2. The FAA requires all AIP applicants to certify they have the legal authority to meet the provisions within the AIP. The City of Dallas did certify to the FAA they had the legal authority to meet all of the Grant Assurances. Now the city is arguing that it does not have the legal authority to meet Grant Assurances particularly the competition requirements. The city screwed up in a very serious manner and the the DL/SW mess is a direct result of that screw up.

Quoting SWADawg (Reply 45):
WN's argument might be that since DAL/DFW have been determined to be a single market... Due to the close proximity of the two Airports, I think that the single market interpretation by DOJ is the correct one.

This might be the issue to follow the current drama. Assuming the AIP grants are returned and the FAA competition requirements are no longer applicable there might be some antitrust implications. It is unlikely the courts will allow individual airports to be exempted from antitrust violations just because the market as a whole is considered fair.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:19 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 47):
Even if WA2 could be used, when the City of Dallas applied for AIP funds it was required to have legal authority to meet all of the Grant Assurances. The City of Dallas did certify it had the legal authority, if WA2 does apply the City of Dallas submitted a fraudulent application.

But the City has met its grant obligations for years. Historically (until the federal government got involved with reallocating gates), the City has accommodated every carrier who has wanted space at DAL, including new entrants. It would be an odd result indeed if the federal government could with one hand take away the City's ability to find market-rate space for new entrants (by reallocating gates by force) and on the other punish the City for its inability to find market-rate space or new entrants.

Quoting atypical (Reply 47):
The City of Dallas did certify it had the legal authority,

Does any airport that has all of its gates leased "lack legal authority?" Does any airport that has every gate leased or occupied for large chunks of the day (e.g. ORD) "lack legal authority?" Does any airport that is not a bottomless pit of space for new entrants (e.g. CLT) "lack legal authority?" Exactly what authority do you contend the City certified it had but actually lacked?

Quoting atypical (Reply 47):
Assuming the AIP grants are returned and the FAA competition requirements are no longer applicable there might be some antitrust implications.

Again, DOT lacks any authority to take antitrust action vis a vis DAL because WA2 took that authority.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:03 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 48):
But the City has met its grant obligations for years.

The AIP is clear the City of Dallas is obligated to meet the Grant Assurances provisions for 20 years after the last grant payment is received for that project.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 48):
Exactly what authority do you contend the City certified it had but actually lacked?

When the City of Dallas submitted its application for the AIP funds it certified it had the legal authority to meet the various provisions of Grant Assurances. If WA2 is preventing the City of Dallas from meeting the provisions of Grant Assurances then the City of Dallas made a false statement on their application for the AIP funds.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 48):
Again, DOT lacks any authority to take antitrust action vis a vis DAL because WA2 took that authority.

The FAA's authority to regulate was granted by the City of Dallas when they accepted the AIP funds. The FAA is not using antitrust statutes but Title 49 Chapter 471 instead. In addition...

1. WA2 cannot protect the city if it made false statements on the AIP application.
2. WA2 clearly states that it cannot be applied to the AIP Grant Assurances:

(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed--

(E) to limit the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other Federal agency to enforce requirements of law and grant assurances (including subsections (a)(1), (a)(4), and (s) of section 47107 of title 49, United States Code) that impose obligations on Love Field to make its facilities available on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis to air carriers seeking to use such facilities...

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