Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:41 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 49):
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.

This "various provisions" language on which you rely is uselessly vague. I comply with "various provisions" of the law every day; hopefully, you do too. Again, exactly what provisions do you contend the City certified authority on but lacked that authority.

Quoting atypical (Reply 49):
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.

Is there not at least an implied understanding that the government will not interfere with the City's ability to meet the Grant Assurances? Until the government took gates from a carrier that was willing to assist the City in accommodating new entrants (AA) and gave them to a carrier that admittedly uses money-losing routes to squat (VX), there was no issue.

Quoting atypical (Reply 49):
The FAA is not using antitrust statutes but Title 49 Chapter 471 instead.

I agree that FAA (part of DOT) can use Chapter 471, but you suggested that they might also be able to use antitrust statutes, and as I read WA2 that is not the case.
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

Sun Sep 20, 2015 2:57 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 50):
This "various provisions" language on which you rely is uselessly vague. I comply with "various provisions" of the law every day; hopefully, you do too. Again, exactly what provisions do you contend the City certified authority on but lacked that authority.

Exactly what are you looking for? These are my opinions of the situation with law as often as possible to validate the opinion. I have no issues with anyone thinking that I have not present a valid set of circumstance. I try to back up my opinion with law provide useful insight rather than add noise to the discussion.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 50):
Until the government took gates from a carrier that was willing to assist the City in accommodating new entrants (AA) and gave them to a carrier that admittedly uses money-losing routes to squat (VX), there was no issue.

I think the City of Dallas allowing SW to capture the UA gates is a demonstration of the City of Dallas not exercising their obligations to the AIP. I believe the city was also required to file a report with the FAA when an airline is denied access. Since Delta was informed last November the city need to file that report prior to January. The letters between the city and FAA do not indicate that so I wonder.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 50):
but you suggested that they might also be able to use antitrust statutes, and as I read WA2 that is not the case.

I was not clear then. I think the FAA will only act on 49-471 however the city can make the FAA go away by refunding the AIPs. DL or another party would then need to get traction with antitrust. I do think the DOJ may have some interest in how a public facility without expansion possibilities can grant one carrier 85% use while denying service by others. I can see the DOJ state the market as a whole is fair and open, while still finding the situation at DAL is a violation.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:27 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 47):
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.

I meant in the WA2 negotiations the city in their grand plan to continue limitations eliminated gates and planned infrastructure changes to increase cost at the airport, AIP was a portion of the funding used.

Quoting atypical (Reply 51):
I think the City of Dallas allowing SW to capture the UA gates is a demonstration of the City of Dallas not exercising their obligations to the AIP.

UA had a valid lease on two gates, I do not believe they were going to turn them over to the city, one of two things happened, either they gate squat or sub-lease, the sub-lease made them more money, how was the city involved?

Quoting atypical (Reply 51):
I do think the DOJ may have some interest in how a public facility without expansion possibilities can grant one carrier 85% use while denying service by others.

Ok, the WA2 reduced the gates from 32 to 20 and allocated all gates, who did the deny service too?
DL is now trying to gain access, to say that the city is denying a carrier access while grating one carrier 85% is a distortion by rearranging the timing of the events.
The DOJ had years to look at the gate reduction, allocation of all gates and the fact that no gates were left for city use, heck, I'm betting they reviewed drafts of the WA2 before it was passed into law.
Unfortunately, the Feds are held to different standards.
 
LAXtoATL
Posts: 596
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:55 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:59 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):

UA had a valid lease on two gates, I do not believe they were going to turn them over to the city, one of two things happened, either they gate squat or sub-lease, the sub-lease made them more money, how was the city involved?


The city had to approve the sub-lease
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:56 am

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 53):
The city had to approve the sub-lease

Sure but if they did not approve what do you think UA would have done, turn the gates over? My thought is that they would have gate squat, run the required number of flights to ensure they maintained the gates,
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:01 am

Quoting atypical (Reply 51):
Exactly what are you looking for?

What did the City promise to do and fail to do? Certainly, nothing (in AIP or elsewhere) requires an airport to have a gate for any new entrant at any time, or else all sorts of airports would have violated AIP guarantees over the years, perhaps most significantly ORD for about a decade when B6, VX, NK and perhaps DH could not get the access they wanted.

Quoting atypical (Reply 51):
I do think the DOJ may have some interest in how a public facility without expansion possibilities can grant one carrier 85% use while denying service by others. I can see the DOJ state the market as a whole is fair and open, while still finding the situation at DAL is a violation.

Regardless of the particular arm of the government enforcing the antitrust laws, it seems inequitable that the government created the "antitrust problem" of lack of access for DL by giving gates to a carrier that would squat and not cooperate with the City's efforts to accommodate new entrants.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ocracoke
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:15 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:33 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 55):
What did the City promise to do and fail to do? Certainly, nothing (in AIP or elsewhere) requires an airport to have a gate for any new entrant at any time, or else all sorts of airports would have violated AIP guarantees over the years, perhaps most significantly ORD for about a decade when B6, VX, NK and perhaps DH could not get the access they wanted.

There is a difference between not getting the access "wanted", and not getting access at all.

ORD had space for those airlines you mentioned....over at the international terminal. The problem was that those airlines didn't want to pay for the slightly higher terminal fees, and balked at the idea. But the space was there.

We had a bazillion threads about that issue on here going back almost 12-14 years.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:39 am

Quoting ocracoke (Reply 56):
ORD had space for those airlines you mentioned....over at the international terminal.

At the international terminal, and often not at commercially reasonable times; for large chunks of that period, the international terminal was full between 1300 and 1800 or so.

Really, it's no different from DAL. DAL has space for those airlines, like WN, that choose to pay the market rate for a sublease. Likewise, DH solved the ORD access conundrum by arranging to use a CO gate.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ocracoke
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:15 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:12 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 57):
At the international terminal, and often not at commercially reasonable times; for large chunks of that period, the international terminal was full between 1300 and 1800 or so.

Really, it's no different from DAL. DAL has space for those airlines, like WN, that choose to pay the market rate for a sublease. Likewise, DH solved the ORD access conundrum by arranging to use a CO gate.

Regardless, those airlines still had the option of going to ORD. Maybe not at their optimum time; maybe they would have had to have settled for a flights at 8am, 10am, 6pm and 10pm, but at least they still had the option. The city of Chicago was open to their needs, and tried to offer them at least something the airlines could work with, until the DL/NW merger opened up more gates. Hence, it appears that ORD did follow the AIP rules, whereas you thought that they did not:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 55):
or else all sorts of airports would have violated AIP guarantees over the years, perhaps most significantly ORD

They way things are set up at DAL currently, B6, AS, NK, G4 et all don't even have option for a single flight. The city of Dallas had the perfect opportunity (when it became evident that UA wanted out) to buy those two UA gates and make them common-use gates, instead of signing off on the UA-WN lease. That way, Dallas would have had two gates to use towards insuring their AIP guarantees.

So it is different.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:07 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):
The DOJ had years to look at the gate reduction, allocation of all gates and the fact that no gates were left for city use, heck, I'm betting they reviewed drafts of the WA2 before it was passed into law.
Unfortunately, the Feds are held to different standards.

Fair enough. The only I was considering antitrust implications because generally the courts limit themselves to the law before them, and in this case it was WA2. I am unsure if antitrust was applied at the same time, if it wasn't then there may be even more court drama to come.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 55):
What did the City promise to do and fail to do? Certainly, nothing (in AIP or elsewhere) requires an airport to have a gate for any new entrant at any time

The AIP does require the government to make an effort to accommodate, but that doesn't men they can accommodate the carrier. The AIP does require the City of Dallas to inform the FAA in writing if they have denied any airlines request for new or increased access. These are the times the FAA looks at the AIP compliance up to that point to see if the city has been meeting the guidelines.

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):
UA had a valid lease on two gates, I do not believe they were going to turn them over to the city

That is a good point but it strongly reflects on the city's AIP compliance. United and the city agreed to an updated contract when United moved into the new terminal. Since the contract United had was for the old facility the city could have legally required a new contract instead of amending the old one. The are a lot of questions that arise from this:
1. Why did the city choose to update old leases instead of write new ones?
2. Why did the city update the lease of a carrier when the carrier had no intent to use the facilities?
3. Did the city take any steps to recapture both United's and American's gates?
4. Why did the city approve of United's sublease to Southwest?.

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):
I meant in the WA2 negotiations the city in their grand plan to continue limitations eliminated gates and planned infrastructure changes to increase cost at the airport, AIP was a portion of the funding used.

I am confused here. The AIP wasn't a declaration of WA2. The City of Dallas submitted the application in 2009, approved in 2010, and funds began to arrive in 2011. The City of Dallas is receiving payouts with the last one arriving in 2017. The City of Dallas' application for AIP certified it had legal authority to meet the AIP provisions. Any negotiations the city made on WA2 had no AIP implications.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:11 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 55):
it seems inequitable that the government created the "antitrust problem"

I agree, but it wouldn't surprise me either.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:28 am

Quoting atypical (Reply 59):
I am confused here. The AIP wasn't a declaration of WA2.

Not saying it was, the city in setting up the WA2 wanted to preserve as many limitations on the use of DAL as they could, recall WN was pushing for full repeal.
The WA2 called for elimination of gates and the rebuilding of airport infrastructure, terminal, parking garage etc.
WN provided funding as well as the city, who elected to avail themselves of AIP, if they had not used AIP we would not be talking about it now, that was my point.
The WA2 was in place before the city applied for AIP so I don't see how the FAA will be able to use breach of the AIP to affect the WA2, the WA2 did not leave any un-allocated gates.

Quoting atypical (Reply 59):
That is a good point but it strongly reflects on the city's AIP compliance. United and the city agreed to an updated contract when United moved into the new terminal.

As per the above, the new terminal was a part of the WA2 which maintained the original leases.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:42 pm

Quoting ocracoke (Reply 58):
Regardless, those airlines still had the option of going to ORD. Maybe not at their optimum time; maybe they would have had to have settled for a flights at 8am, 10am, 6pm and 10pm, but at least they still had the option.

DAL has space in the middle of the night, so the difference is one of degree if a difference exists at all.

Quoting atypical (Reply 59):
2. Why did the city update the lease of a carrier when the carrier had no intent to use the facilities?

Perhaps the answer to this question is that having AA (who always worked with other carriers) was akin to having common use gates. It's certainly a lazy approach to gate management, but it worked for quite a while.

Quoting atypical (Reply 59):
4. Why did the city approve of United's sublease to Southwest?

Was there a provision in the lease that would have permitted disapproval? I've not seen the lease, but I expect it does not give the City unfettered discretion to veto a sublease.
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

Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:27 pm

Quoting ocracoke (Reply 58):
Regardless, those airlines still had the option of going to ORD. Maybe not at their optimum time; maybe they would have had to have settled for a flights at 8am, 10am, 6pm and 10pm, but at least they still had the option.

I'm more than willing to bet that WN would give up 5 of their gates at 6:00a for a single DAL-ATL flight to take off per gate, and then 5 ATL-DAL flights back at 10:59p if that meant this whole problem would go away. The times and efficiency for DL are terrible, but they'd technically be able to keep their existing frequency.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6748
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:18 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 47):
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...

And yet, this paragraph is also limited in WARA by the following:

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.

Forcing WN (or UA or VX, for that matter) to accommodate DL on gates which are considered fully-utilized under the terms of the preferential gate leases would be a modification of those leases, as would forcing the City to recapture gates which have not been ceded by their lessees.

Quoting atypical (Reply 59):
1. Why did the city choose to update old leases instead of write new ones?
2. Why did the city update the lease of a carrier when the carrier had no intent to use the facilities?
3. Did the city take any steps to recapture both United's and American's gates?
4. Why did the city approve of United's sublease to Southwest?.

(1) They had agreed to honor the existing leases as part of the Five Party Agreement (to which they are bound as a signatory).
(2) United was using its gates when the new terminal opened and, in fact, had published a gate-squatting schedule effective in early January 2015.
(3) The City was unable to recapture AA's gates as DOJ directed them to approve the sublease to VX. It is also not clear that they have the right to recapture gates unless those gates go unused (or there are violations of the Five Party Agreement) and the UA gates as yet have not gone unused.
(4) The City may have had little choice but to approve of United's sublease; it is not within their purview to enforce antitrust statute. The City's approval of any sublease may well be little more than a formality if that's what's written into the lease.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:49 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 61):
The WA2 was in place before the city applied for AIP so I don't see how the FAA will be able to use breach of the AIP to affect the WA2, the WA2 did not leave any un-allocated gates.

This isn't and will not be an issue with WA2. The FAA only has to deal with AIP, nothing else. The Grant Assurances are not a problem with 20 gates. This comes down one party's actions: the City of Dallas. WP2 has no bearing on the issue at all when it comes down to how the FAA will proceed. Whether it is a problem for the City of Dallas is another matter.

Quoting par13del (Reply 61):
As per the above, the new terminal was a part of the WA2 which maintained the original leases.

1. Is this an interpretation on your part or is this specifically stated?
2. If this is specifically stated then it will be game over for the City of Dallas. Most likely, they will not retain the AIP, they will be sanctioned and banned from receiving future AIP funds, and thy might have opened themselves up to be sued by the FAA which I think it

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 62):
Perhaps the answer to this question is that having AA (who always worked with other carriers) was akin to having common use gates. It's certainly a lazy approach to gate management, but it worked for quite a while.

I think if this is the only issue the FAA will mot find this to be a problem. If there are other issues then this would be more evidence the city was not attempting to me the Grant Assurances.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 62):
Was there a provision in the lease that would have permitted disapproval? I've not seen the lease, but I expect it does not give the City unfettered discretion to veto a sublease.

The FAA will expect the city to perform the required diligence in meeting the Grant Assurance. The FAA will expect the city to recapture leases if it can possibly do so, especially when the demand outstrips supply. The same thing for denying the sublease.
 
usflyguy
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:50 am

Quoting atypical (Reply 49):
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.

Is it a false statement if the statement is made at a time when their are four underutilized gates.. I believe that 2 AA and 2 CO gates combined had a total of 12 flight running from them for quite a number of years?

Quoting atypical (Reply 51):
I do think the DOJ may have some interest in how a public facility without expansion possibilities can grant one carrier 85% use while denying service by others. I can see the DOJ state the market as a whole is fair and open, while still finding the situation at DAL is a violation.

Hasn't the DOJ already published an opinion that they consider DFW and DAL one market?

Quoting atypical (Reply 59):
I am confused here. The AIP wasn't a declaration of WA2. The City of Dallas submitted the application in 2009, approved in 2010, and funds began to arrive in 2011.

And at that time there were 4 underutilized gates, maybe their crystal ball at the time was telling them that there wouldn't be an issue since no one was raising hell about not being able to offer service then?
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:32 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 66):
Is it a false statement if the statement is made at a time when their are four underutilized gates.. I believe that 2 AA and 2 CO gates combined had a total of 12 flight running from them for quite a number of years?

I don't know. It doesn't matter though, at least to the points I have made.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 66):
Hasn't the DOJ already published an opinion that they consider DFW and DAL one market?

Yes, but that doesn't limit the DOJ. Let's take the extreme example, 100% of the gates at DAL go to SW, no AIP. I contend that the DOJ could find that a violation of law by providing 100% of the available space at an airport to a single carrier without out being inconsistent in regards to the market as a whole. If that is reasonable then at what degree does it become reasonable? 100% only, 90%, 80%...? My point is that it is possible, and, considering the government sometime acts as sometimes it has multiple personality disorder, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 66):
And at that time there were 4 underutilized gates, maybe their crystal ball at the time was telling them that there wouldn't be an issue since no one was raising hell about not being able to offer service then?

I don't see the larger point you are trying to make. Since AIP Grant Assurances stretch 20 years I am sure none of the airports who have received it have a crystal ball. This isn't a problem that I can see.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:25 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 65):
The FAA will expect the city to recapture leases if it can possibly do so, especially when the demand outstrips supply. The same thing for denying the sublease.

To me, the more salient question is whether FAA will expect the City to breach a contract to comply with the grant assurances (assuming without knowing for sure that that was required).
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ScottB
Posts: 6748
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:31 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 67):
Since AIP Grant Assurances stretch 20 years I am sure none of the airports who have received it have a crystal ball. This isn't a problem that I can see.

But there are also zero other U.S. airports restricted by Federal law to a specific number of gates. I expect the normal method of fulfilling those assurances is "We'll build more gates." Except that's not a remedy available to the City of Dallas, and the city is not obligated to modify or break preferential leases as specified in WARA.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 66):
Hasn't the DOJ already published an opinion that they consider DFW and DAL one market?

I don't believe they've explicitly stated it, but the "remedy" for the AA-US merger would seem to lock them into that viewpoint. The AA-US merger created greater market concentration at DFW, and the "concession" made by AA was two gates at DAL. Market concentration increased significantly at DFW as two carriers representing nearly 5% of domestic traffic exited the airport, while market concentration at DAL decreased.

It's akin to the DOJ hypothetically accepting the concession of gates at BWI as a remedy for the AA-US merger's increased market concentration at DCA.

Quoting atypical (Reply 67):
My point is that it is possible, and, considering the government sometime acts as sometimes it has multiple personality disorder, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

It does indeed, and the result will be what we're currently seeing -- protracted litigation.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:03 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 68):
To me, the more salient question is whether FAA will expect the City to breach a contract to comply with the grant assurances (assuming without knowing for sure that that was required).

First, I said. "The FAA will expect the city to recapture leases if it can possibly do so..."

So why do you think this is a salient question at all? The AIP program has been running a very long time. Do you have any evidence the FAA would have any airport act in a capricious manner. How are you deriving this question?

Quoting ScottB (Reply 69):
Except that's not a remedy available to the City of Dallas, and the city is not obligated to modify or break preferential leases as specified in WARA.

WA2 has no bearing.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 69):
It does indeed, and the result will be what we're currently seeing -- protracted litigation.

That could very well be. In my opinion the FAA investigation and outcome will not be complicated. The cases following that however can be nothing but complicated.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6748
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:00 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 70):
WA2 has no bearing.

WARA absolutely does matter because the FAA's ability to enforce regulations and requirements of grant assurances are limited by the provisions of WARA; namely that the City shall not be obligated to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases to meet those requirements. The FAA may end up trying to claw back the AIP grant monies, but I suspect they will fail when that is litigated.

To some degree, I think that DOT is dancing on the fine line between "guidance" and "final order" with respect to the accommodation they want for Delta at DAL in no small part because the provisions of WARA work against them and any final order directing Dallas to accommodate Delta at DAL would be overturned in court.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:01 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 70):
First, I said. "The FAA will expect the city to recapture leases if it can possibly do so..."

That seems inconsistent with your insinuation that the City was acting in bad faith when it said it could comply with the grant assurances, doesn't it?
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

Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:27 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 71):
WARA absolutely does matter because the FAA's ability to enforce regulations and requirements of grant assurances are limited by the provisions of WARA

If you are correct then city lied on the AIP application where it stated it had the legal authority to implement the Grant Assurances. If the city had disclosed it as they should have the FAA would have denied the AIP grant.

If the city tries to use WA2 they only expose their illegal actions to which no statute can protect them. WA2 doesn't apply.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:51 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 69):
I don't believe they've explicitly stated it, but the "remedy" for the AA-US merger would seem to lock them into that viewpoint. The AA-US merger created greater market concentration at DFW, and the "concession" made by AA was two gates at DAL.

Actually, that argument is contradictory to many of the arguments on this thread. If DFW and DAL are really considered to be one market, then how did moving Virgin to DAL create a "new entrant"? They were already flying into this theoretical two-airports-but-single-market.

Quoting atypical (Reply 70):
WA2 has no bearing.

I agree with 99% of everything you say, and I appreciate your non-biased, non-passionate, logical presentation. However, there is that 1% of disagreement; I do think the Court will, at some point, have words to say about WA2,
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

Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:08 am

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 74):
If DFW and DAL are really considered to be one market, then how did moving Virgin to DAL create a "new entrant"? They were already flying into this theoretical two-airports-but-single-market.

This question was asked (and still not answered) a lot when the City was deciding between DL, VX, and WN for the two gates. It's also fun to mention that AA was forced to give up the gates at DAL, but in a way benefited because they lost competition and a full carrier over at DFW, while directly increasing WN's competition over at DAL.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6748
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:04 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 73):
If you are correct then city lied on the AIP application where it stated it had the legal authority to implement the Grant Assurances. If the city had disclosed it as they should have the FAA would have denied the AIP grant.

I don't believe that's quite correct, though. The city does have the legal authority to meet its obligations under the grant assurances; however, WARA provides that those obligations do not extend to the construction of new gates or the modification or elimination of preferential leases at DAL.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 74):
Actually, that argument is contradictory to many of the arguments on this thread. If DFW and DAL are really considered to be one market, then how did moving Virgin to DAL create a "new entrant"? They were already flying into this theoretical two-airports-but-single-market.

It didn't create a new entrant. But unless DFW & DAL are a single market, giving up gates at DAL can't be an appropriate remedy for a merger which would increase market concentration at DFW, particularly if that remedy ends up increasing market concentration even further at DFW due to the exit of an additional carrier from that market. Keep in mind that AA management expressed an interest in serving DAL again once the restrictions on domestic non-stops ended, so giving the gates to VX wouldn't effectively increase the number of competitors at DAL.
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:39 pm

New court filings today:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...est-in-love-field-gate-fight.html/

You might want to read the City's filing if you think WARA has nothing to do with AIP grant assurances.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:26 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 72):

That seems inconsistent with your insinuation that the City was acting in bad faith when it said it could comply with the grant assurances, doesn't it?

I might be misreading you. If the city has done nothing to recapture leases when there is nothing legally preventing it from doing so (eg. not extending leases to carriers with no presence at airport) then this is an indication the city has not met its duties under the Grant Assurances.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 74):
However, there is that 1% of disagreement; I do think the Court will, at some point, have words to say about WA2,

I am not sure but my opinion is that will be Act 2 of this drama. Delta has a legal leg under the AIP. However the FAA does not use AIP to compel compliance, they use it to determine compliance. If the airport is not complaint the FAA moves to sanctions and there are no provisions for the airport to make corrections. The AIP is a voluntary program, no airport is required to apply. From that standpoint the AIP is more contractual than statutory. If the airport refuses to meet the terms of the AIP the FAA will not sue the airport to comply as it would statutorily but takes the legal steps of a contract violation. If the FAA investigation determines the city is in violation of the AIP the FAA takes actions that ultimately result in eliminating the legal basis for the challenge Delta is now using. They must determine if the wish to initiate a new legal challenge which will probably be far more expensive. Considering the limited presence they are striving to retain, an expensive court battle is not very cost effective.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 76):
however, WARA provides that those obligations do not extend to the construction of new gates or the modification or elimination of preferential leases at DAL.

Several points:

1. If WA2 limits the city's legal ability to meet the Grant Assurance provisions then the city lied on the application. Yes or no, black of white. The city had to certify they had the legal authority and they did not use any qualifiers such as * except where the 'Wright Amendment Reform Act' applies *.
2. Although discussed earlier with disagreement, WA2 does specifically state it cannot be applied to the AIP 5(e)(1)(E). You mention both the construction of new gates or the modification or elimination of preferential leases how you are not quoting correctly:

(2) Facilities.--Paragraph (1)(E)--
(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after implementation of subsection (b);


That is a specific limitation to the gates and buildings at that point in time. The current facilities can in no way be the ones that "remain" at DAL because they did not exist at the time. Again, to apply this provision to 5(e)(1) would completely nullify (E) of that section in all cases. Show a situation where both could be applicable and valid.
3. Assuming both points 1 and 2 are not valid.
a. There has been nothing to show that the City of Dallas was legally obligated to approve the AA sublease to SW under WARA (I will stop using WA2 for here out). This is huge because without a legal obligation to approve the sublease means the the city broke the agreement to meet the Grant Assurances. Some posters here said there is a legal obligation for the city to approve the sublease but so far none has provided the legal basis for that statement.
b. WARA 5(e)(2)(B) (ii)...unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis. PDX rental agreements include "34.6 Right to Take Back Underutilized Airline Premises" and other airports include like provisions. Both United and American face this provision at other airports so WARA does not prohibit the introduction at DAL.
c. WARA 5(e)(2)(B) (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... This provision is less clear on whether these changes can be applied to leases updated in order to reflect other changes. Arguments can be made to either position.
4. The City of Dallas was required to file a report prior to January 1, 2015 for its November 2014 letter to Delta denying accommodations. I have seen nothing to indicate the City of Dallas did file a report with the FAA. If the city did not file the report there is nothing in WARA that can protect the city from the consequences of that failure. This would be a violation of the AIP Grant Assurances and on this alone the FAA could rule the city violated conditions of the AIP therefore stopping further AIP payments and sanctioning the city.

Again, you can disagree with any or all the points I have made. I am sure you can also make salient arguments against any or all of my points. If you think they are all invalid do you believe they are so invalid that even if FAA investigation shows the City of Dallas violated the AIP that none of these would be used to justify that determination?
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 24, 2015 11:22 am

Quoting atypical (Reply 78):
New court filings today:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...est-in-love-field-gate-fight.html/

You might want to read the City's filing if you think WARA has nothing to do with AIP grant assurances.

Not at all unexpected.

The premise of the city seems to be:

1. Ignore that AIP is a voluntary program where the recipient agrees to adopt certain provisions in exchange for the grants. If the recipient cannot or will not adopt the provisions then it cannot qualify for the funds.

The City of Dallas attempts to invoke the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) which "governs internal procedures of administrative agencies." The APA is not an unlimited act and specifics when it cannot be applied. It specifically states it cannot be applied to "a matter relating to agency management or personally or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts..." which is exactly what the AIP falls under.

2. Use WARA to eliminate FAA AIP oversight. The city contends the court is the only legitimate authority over the AIP contract.

The city even goes to the length of saying the FAA's investigation is a violation of WARA: "WARA does not provide a vehicle for judicial review."

I don't think either will fly but I got to hand it to the City of Dallas for thinking "outside the box" in trying to get from under the AIP.

Even if the judge rules against the city but cites either one of these arguments as valid the FAA is placed in a very difficult position to apply the provisions of the AIP. In my opinion the APA requirement for oversight might make the AIP unmanageable but have a far reaching impact on DOT particularly with road improvement programs.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14220
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:14 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 78):
I might be misreading you. If the city has done nothing to recapture leases when there is nothing legally preventing it from doing so (eg. not extending leases to carriers with no presence at airport) then this is an indication the city has not met its duties under the Grant Assurances.

This may be where we disagree. It seems to me that the City was using the AA lease as a tool to meet the Grant Assurances. We might argue about the wisdom of this approach, but it worked.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ScottB
Posts: 6748
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:10 pm

Quoting atypical (Reply 78):
1. If WA2 limits the city's legal ability to meet the Grant Assurance provisions then the city lied on the application. Yes or no, black of white. The city had to certify they had the legal authority and they did not use any qualifiers such as * except where the 'Wright Amendment Reform Act' applies *.

It depends on what the specific statements are on the application. If the City only has to certify the ability to meet its obligations under the grant assurance program, then it has been truthful. WARA exempts the City from modifying or breaking preferential leases as an obligation of complying with the grant assurances.

Quoting atypical (Reply 78):
(2) Facilities.--Paragraph (1)(E)--
(A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain at Love Field after implementation of subsection (b);

That is a specific limitation to the gates and buildings at that point in time. The current facilities can in no way be the ones that "remain" at DAL because they did not exist at the time. Again, to apply this provision to 5(e)(1) would completely nullify (E) of that section in all cases. Show a situation where both could be applicable and valid.

As I pointed out above, if you argue this, then yes, indeed, Paragraph (1)(E) removes FAA's authority to enforce the requirements of the grant assurances with respect to the new concourse (one could argue that DL should still be accommodated in the ticketing area as that was extant in 2006). Paragraph (1)(E) grants authority to the FAA to enforce regulations and requirements under Federal law and without it, FAA loses some of that authority over DAL facilities.

Quoting atypical (Reply 78):
a. There has been nothing to show that the City of Dallas was legally obligated to approve the AA sublease to SW under WARA (I will stop using WA2 for here out).

UA sublease. There's also nothing to show that they weren't obligated to do so.

Quoting atypical (Reply 78):
b. WARA 5(e)(2)(B) (ii)...unless such modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide basis. PDX rental agreements include "34.6 Right to Take Back Underutilized Airline Premises" and other airports include like provisions. Both United and American face this provision at other airports so WARA does not prohibit the introduction at DAL.

It doesn't, but clearly this provision is intended to apply in the case of a new policy requirement which would apply to all airports nationwide -- not in the case of isolated airports choosing to do so. IIRC the City of Dallas does have the ability to take back underutilized gates from the carriers; however, none of the gates are currently underutilized, nor have they been underutilized in the time period under question. It was never in the City's financial interest to take back underutilized gates over the several decades during which DAL had plenty of empty space; doing so would have deprived the City of lease income and few would have predicted the current situation until very recently.

Quoting atypical (Reply 78):
4. The City of Dallas was required to file a report prior to January 1, 2015 for its November 2014 letter to Delta denying accommodations. I have seen nothing to indicate the City of Dallas did file a report with the FAA.

I cannot say whether they did or did not meet their reporting requirements. One would hope their legal staff knows better but anything is possible.

Quoting atypical (Reply 78):
Again, you can disagree with any or all the points I have made. I am sure you can also make salient arguments against any or all of my points. If you think they are all invalid do you believe they are so invalid that even if FAA investigation shows the City of Dallas violated the AIP that none of these would be used to justify that determination?

The FAA may very well find that the City was not compliant with the requirements of the Grant Assurance Program, but if they attempt to enforce, there will be litigation and I am fairly well-convinced that FAA will lose due to the provisions of WARA.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:19 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 81):
It depends on what the specific statements are on the application. If the City only has to certify the ability to meet its obligations under the grant assurance program, then it has been truthful. WARA exempts the City from modifying or breaking preferential leases as an obligation of complying with the grant assurances.

From AIP Sponsor Guide - Sponsor Eligibility

"A Sponsor’s eligibility to receive funds under the AIP program varies per the type of sponsor and the type of proposed project activity. In all cases, the sponsor must be legally, financially and otherwise able to assume and carry out the obligations required of an AIP grant agreement."

WARA seems to limit the city's legal ability to carry out the grant obligations.

Please note, the least important part of what I am writing is about being right or wrong in my interpretation. The only important measurement is if my interpretations are valid or not. Particularly from the basis I am attempting to show what is possible route for this issue to take. WARA is a huge part of this however I do not think it can be applied to the FAA's AIP grant to the City of Dallas. Am I demonstrating a valid interpretation? I hope so.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 81):
There's also nothing to show that they weren't obligated to do so.

True, but there is no way we can reasonably exchange ideas here if the absence of evidence is proof of something. It legitimizes more false positions than it does true.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 81):
there will be litigation and I am fairly well-convinced that FAA will lose due to the provisions of WARA

I was hoping to demonstrate several valid examples of where the FAA could act without coming under WARA. It would be argumentative (and thus disrespectful) for me to push on this further. You have made excellent points.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:40 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 81):
It was never in the City's financial interest to take back underutilized gates over the several decades during which DAL had plenty of empty space; doing so would have deprived the City of lease income and few would have predicted the current situation until very recently.

Sorry, I forgot to address this. Two points:

1. The city's financial interest can only be considered after the obligations of Grant Assurances. In this case, if the city is acting based upon the financial interest of gate leasing while risking AIP funding and sanctions it would be impossible to financially justify.
2. There is no evidence the city would loose any income. Gate leases can only guarantee long term income but cannot guarantee that long term income would exceed that of short term leases for the same period. The AIP prohibits the city from charging a premium on any lease.
 
rtalk25
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:14 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:42 am

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 74):
If DFW and DAL are really considered to be one market, then how did moving Virgin to DAL create a "new entrant"?

I believe the DOJ didn't expect Virgin or any smaller carrier than WN to have interest in those gates, at the time it a requirement concession for AA from it's merger. The probable intention and expected outcome the DOJ had was for AA to concede it to WN so that WN could compete more (with more nonstop flights) in Dallas against AA, as WN can't add flights out of DFW like all other carriers.

Isn't it anyways just a sublease from AA for 10 years that AA could theoretically claim them back from VX in 10 years?
 
ScottB
Posts: 6748
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:00 am

Quoting atypical (Reply 82):
"A Sponsor’s eligibility to receive funds under the AIP program varies per the type of sponsor and the type of proposed project activity. In all cases, the sponsor must be legally, financially and otherwise able to assume and carry out the obligations required of an AIP grant agreement."

WARA seems to limit the city's legal ability to carry out the grant obligations.

No, WARA doesn't limit the City's legal ability to carry out grant obligations; it limits the enforceability of provisions of the grant obligations. The city is exempted from compliance if compliance would require the modification or elimination of gate leases or the construction of new gates. They can truthfully say that they can meet their obligations under the law or regulation precisely because WARA limits those obligations in those cases.

Quoting atypical (Reply 82):
The only important measurement is if my interpretations are valid or not. Particularly from the basis I am attempting to show what is possible route for this issue to take. WARA is a huge part of this however I do not think it can be applied to the FAA's AIP grant to the City of Dallas. Am I demonstrating a valid interpretation? I hope so.

Correct, we differ on our interpretation of the law. And in the end it will be up to the courts to resolve the issue. I would not be surprised if the litigation extends for years, but I also wouldn't be surprised to see an accommodation reached between DL & VX given that DAL-AUS is losing boatloads of money for VX.

Quoting atypical (Reply 83):
1. The city's financial interest can only be considered after the obligations of Grant Assurances. In this case, if the city is acting based upon the financial interest of gate leasing while risking AIP funding and sanctions it would be impossible to financially justify.
2. There is no evidence the city would loose any income. Gate leases can only guarantee long term income but cannot guarantee that long term income would exceed that of short term leases for the same period. The AIP prohibits the city from charging a premium on any lease.

But again, given the history of gate utilization at DAL, there was no reason for the City to try to recapture gates without interested carriers. And there are plenty of other airports where carriers hold or have held leases on underutilized or completely disused gates. F9 is sitting on a bunch of unused gates at MKE going back to the old YX hub but there's no call for the airport to take the gates back. DL has dozens of idle gates at MEM while UA leases an entirely empty concourse at CLE.

If the city is prohibited from charging a premium on any lease, then there is virtually no way that speculative income from short-term leases (or pay-per-use arrangements) would exceed the income from the existing long-term preferential leases. And the City has a valid interest in assuring a reliable income stream given bonded indebtedness which must be serviced.
 
Dallas
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:37 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:44 pm

I'm curious what would happen if the judge declared the UA sublease to WN invalid. Do you think UA would then bring back operations to DAL (and block DL), or do you think UA would sublease to DL or give the gates back to the City for common use gates?

Also hinging on this ruling would be VX's plan for DAL-AUS. I wouldn't be surprised if DL got kicked out, VX would wait for a month or two (for DL to remove the schedules and infrastructure from DAL) and then decide to cut back their current DAL operations to 15x daily. I feel if the judge rules in favor of DL, VX would be forced to keep the DAL-AUS (and 19x) to ensure they get to keep their two gates. If they were to remove those 4 flights and be down at 15x, WN would want DL to operate from VX's gates, or move some of their own flights to VX's gate to ensure it stays "fully utilized."
 
AST1Driver
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:07 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:41 pm

Ok, so after reading most of this thread and the 20 others about this topic, what do we know?

1) There are many armchair lawyers and airline CEOs on a-net that are very passionate about DAL and its gate allocations.

2) No mater what the court decides, someone will be upset with the results and the ruling will most likely be appealed.

Seriously though, what are the courts options?

A) The court finds that the WN sublease is valid, all gates are being used to capacity and DL is told to take a hike.

B) DL has the right to operate from DAL and must be accommodated.

Obviously, option A causes the least overall problems. Delta won't like it, but it puts all this to an end (hopefully). But if they choose option B, what then? Whose gates and at what cost? Will DL still be limited to their current 5 ATL flights or could they add others? Will other airlines have the right to request flights to DAL? If so where do they go? So many unanswered questions.

Of course there is an option C) The court finds part or all of the 5 party agreement unconstitutional, throws it out and DAL begins a rapid expansion.

A few more questions not necessarily related to the lawsuit... It is my understanding that the VX gates are still owned by AA and are on a 10 year lease. What happens if AA decides they want these gates back? Is there an expiration date on the 5 party agreement? At some point could AA or WN operate from both DFW and DAL without penalty?
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:26 pm

Now we are getting somewhere--WN paid UA $120mm for the gates:

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article36836919.html

Quoting AST1Driver (Reply 87):
Is there an expiration date on the 5 party agreement?

Only the limitation on serving other airports in the region has an expiration date, which is 2025. The preferential gate leases have expiration dates (2026 I believe), but they may also have extension options.
 
wwtraveler99
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:34 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:18 pm

I see that it is not very specific about what the $120 million covers. I assume thats the total amount paid to UA over the term of the lease.

If my math is correct that comes out to about $385,000 per gate per month.

Maybe DL is lucky that WN only want $30m for 1/2 of a gate.


Hopefully we will find out the courts ruling by the end of the week.


WW
 
airliner371
Posts: 2404
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:53 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:17 pm

I find this interesting, Southwest was willing to give the gates to Delta in exchange for slots at LaGuardia but DL declined.

I'm going to look at this through the perspective of New York and not Dallas, this shows that Southwest is clearly interested in New York. I wonder what kind of other deals Southwest is interested in to expand in New York.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/sep...0-million-for-2-gates-at-dallas-a/
 
Dallas
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:37 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:17 pm

So just to make sure I understand the full details:

-DL was offered to sublease UA's gates in Sept 2014, before the Oct 2014 WA2 took full effect, but declined
-DL was again offered to sublease UA's gates in Jan 2015, but declined to pay the requested price, which WN paid ($120 M) and received the subleases (DL only wanted to pay $8.4 M)
-The UA-WN deal was approved by the City of Dallas, FAA, DOT, and DOJ
-WN offered DL gates/ slots in exchange for LGA slots, but DL declined
-WN offered DL 1/2 a gate for $30 M (same price WN paid), but DL declined
-DL wants to remain and expand at DAL, but with no valid leases
-DL continues to sell tickets for flights at gates they do not have, and declare it would damage their brand and reputation if they cannot fly these flights, trying to put extra pressure on the City and Courts
-DL is able to move all operations to DFW without punishment (as they've done before), where WN would lose DAL gates
-VX continues to "squat" on their gates by flying 4x DAL-AUS at a 31% LF

UA probably saw this mess coming and preferred to negotiate with DL, but DL declined and offered a very low and offensive number. WN offered a great price, and the deal was accepted and approved. Kudos to UA for getting out of the way and if it holds up, made a good profit on gates it didn't want.

DL needs to go home and shut up at this point. I really don't see how a Court will rule in favor of them seeing how many times they were offered a deal/ solution, but instead declined, played victim, and claimed they were entitled to gates at DAL.
 
SWADawg
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:41 pm

DL wants the gates, but doesn't want to pay the fair market rate for said gate(s). They also don't want to be required to trade anything to get said gate(s) i.e. LGA Slots. I think I understand their position now. After the smoking deal they got to take the 717's off of WN's hands, they think WN should just hand over those gate(s) because they think space should be made available for them even though WN has a valid sublease with UA for preferential use of those gates which are being fully utilized IAW the WA2 Restrictions. I think DL's days are numbered at DAL.
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

Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:42 pm

Quoting Dallas (Reply 91):
So just to make sure I understand the full details:

Two other interesting notes:
* WN only disclosed the $120mm payment to DOJ
* DL internal emails say they were concerned about overpaying UA and weren't interested unless it was a long term deal.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/bu...sky-talk-blog/article37006398.html
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2642
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:18 pm

If Delta wants to make a real splash in the Dallas area, Go talk to the folks
who run Collin County Airport in McKinney about starting up service.

If/ when that airport gets scheduled airline service, everyone will quit fighting over
DAL and start heading north. That Frisco,Plano, Allen & McKinney area
is ground zero for the population boom in this whole region.
 
eugdjinn
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 5:58 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:22 pm

Quoting AST1Driver (Reply 87):
Seriously though, what are the courts options?

A) The court finds that the WN sublease is valid, all gates are being used to capacity and DL is told to take a hike.

B) DL has the right to operate from DAL and must be accommodated.

How about C?

C) DL is ordered to pay WN the $120mm that was paid to UA plus a 5% commission or $126mm and immediately (well, alright, in fifteen days) assume the FULL use of those two gates.

Clearly, DL can afford it, and if they are really so sure that the community is in need of Delta service to Atlanta from Love, well, I have little doubt the community also needs Delta service to Detroit, Salt Lake, Minneapolis, DC, LAX, Seattle and New York. Probably Boston too, come to think of it. They need to get busy. Not only is it time to put up or shut up, it's time to put their money where their mouths are, so, Delta, are you really ready to play in Dallas this time?

(And yes, I am actually a Delta fan boy, and I really do want to see them have to get serious here. I just think it's high time Delta had to make good on promises to DFW after departing so foolishly.)
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:26 pm

Quoting Dallas (Reply 91):

UA probably saw this mess coming and preferred to negotiate with DL, but DL declined and offered a very low and offensive number. WN offered a great price, and the deal was accepted and approved. Kudos to UA for getting out of the way and if it holds up, made a good profit on gates it didn't want.
Quoting airliner371 (Reply 90):

I'm going to look at this through the perspective of New York and not Dallas, this shows that Southwest is clearly interested in New York. I wonder what kind of other deals Southwest is interested in to expand in New York.

This is the crux of the whole thing. DL didn't want to pay either UA and WN and thinks they're entitled to dirt cheap gates just because FAA thinks so.

And for that $120m figure, I'm sure WN purposely overbid to ensure there's no realistic chance for DL to counter offer UA.

UA is quite smart indeed - pocketing a very large cash payment, eliminate all risk of flying the route, and have the other parties kill each other in court while they sit back with the popcorn.
 
airliner371
Posts: 2404
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:53 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:35 pm

Quoting eugdjinn (Reply 95):
C) DL is ordered to pay WN the $120mm that was paid to UA plus a 5% commission or $126mm and immediately (well, alright, in fifteen days) assume the FULL use of those two gates.

DL had the opportunity multiple times and they are not willing to pay that much so this isn't going to happen.
 
Dallas
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:37 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:41 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 93):
* WN only disclosed the $120mm payment to DOJ

I'm not a lawyer, but shouldn't the amount not make a difference, as long as it was reasonable? If they had paid $20 M (more than what DL offered) or $120 M, I would assume it wouldn't matter. If the issue is of the cash payment itself, wouldn't the City, FAA, DOT, etc. be naive to not realize that money had exchanged hands? UA wouldn't just give the gates away without receiving some sort of compensation in return. I guess I don't see the issue here with this point, but would love clarification and understanding.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: FAA Steps Into DAL Debate - Part 2

Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:41 pm

The gates are a scarce resource. DL must think UA are all complete morons if they offered to barely pay the rates listed in the master lease.

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