questions wrote:

1. How did DL get that gate if not part of the original Five Party Agreement and didn’t purchase it? How are they allowed to “legally trespass”?

The 5-party agreement and the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 does allow the City of Dallas to require WN, UA, and AA to share gates with new entrant carriers if necessary, and this was agreed to by at least AA, WN, and the City of Dallas almost 12 years ago.

Here are the relevant provisions of the 5-party agreement and the Wright Amendment Reform Act that gives the City of the Dallas the authority to require WN, UA, and AA to share gates with new entrant carriers if necessary:

• Subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006: "to accommodate new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases"
• Subsection (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the 5-party agreement: "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of Dallas will seek voluntary accommodation from its existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant service. If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, then the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements."

Airlines other than WN, AA, and UA. including AS and DL, are entitled access to the 20 existing gates at DAL under the new entrant carrier provisions of the 5-party agreement, the new entrant carrier provisions of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, and the gate sharing provisions of the gate leases at DAL.

Wow! Sounds like a storyline for the Ewing’s!

Thanks everyone for the brief summaries!

jplatts wrote:

Airlines other than WN, AA, and UA. including AS and DL, are entitled access to the 20 existing gates at DAL under the new entrant carrier provisions of the 5-party agreement, the new entrant carrier provisions of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, and the gate sharing provisions of the gate leases at DAL.

The crux of the matter is whether, or not, WARA usurps the federal rules of non-discriminatory access to federally obligated airports.

jplatts wrote:

questions wrote:

1. How did DL get that gate if not part of the original Five Party Agreement and didn’t purchase it? How are they allowed to “legally trespass”?

The 5-party agreement and the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 does allow the City of Dallas to require WN, UA, and AA to share gates with new entrant carriers if necessary, and this was agreed to by at least AA, WN, and the City of Dallas almost 12 years ago.

Here are the relevant provisions of the 5-party agreement and the Wright Amendment Reform Act that gives the City of the Dallas the authority to require WN, UA, and AA to share gates with new entrant carriers if necessary:

• Subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006: "to accommodate new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases"
• Subsection (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the 5-party agreement: "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of Dallas will seek voluntary accommodation from its existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant service. If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, then the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements."

Airlines other than WN, AA, and UA. including AS and DL, are entitled access to the 20 existing gates at DAL under the new entrant carrier provisions of the 5-party agreement, the new entrant carrier provisions of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, and the gate sharing provisions of the gate leases at DAL.

Would DL count as a new entrant, though?

kalvado wrote:

Would DL count as a new entrant, though?

Actually, DL would be considered a new entrant since it did not have existing scheduled service at DAL when the 5-party went into effect.

aaway wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Would DL count as a new entrant, though?

Actually, DL would be considered a new entrant since it did not have existing scheduled service at DAL when the 5-party went into effect.

But they did have service via gate sublease - and lost that sublease - before current situation.
I don't see a legal definition of "new entrant" in any of the documents, and I would argue that DL is not "new" in this case (at least I would if I was WN lawer). Which is probably a part of ongoing legal process anyway.

kalvado wrote:

aaway wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Would DL count as a new entrant, though?

Actually, DL would be considered a new entrant since it did not have existing scheduled service at DAL when the 5-party went into effect.

But they did have service via gate sublease - and lost that sublease - before current situation.
I don't see a legal definition of "new entrant" in any of the documents, and I would argue that DL is not "new" in this case (at least I would if I was WN lawer). Which is probably a part of ongoing legal process anyway.

DL's second stint flying to DAL began in 2009. (It originally stoped in 2003) The 5 party agreement was signed in 2006, while DL was not serving the airport.

KMCOFlyer wrote:

DL's second stint flying to DAL began in 2009. (It originally stoped in 2003) The 5 party agreement was signed in 2006, while DL was not serving the airport.

Which makes me believe that DL is at the mercy of whomever wants to help them out.

I seriously don't understand why DL is so adamant about flying to Love. They have a respectable flight operation out of DFW, even though it's no where near their hub levels were.

DDR wrote:

Which makes me believe that DL is at the mercy of whomever wants to help them out.

I seriously don't understand why DL is so adamant about flying to Love. They have a respectable flight operation out of DFW, even though it's no where near their hub levels were.

DL likes to fly out of secondary airports. They are the only legacy carrier left to fly out of MDW (and have a decent operation there as well with flights to DTW/ATL/MSP) and also fly out of HOU. DL still has a huge FF base in the DFW area probably from the DFW hub days and DL probably sees that a large portion of these elites may live near DAL. (hence wanting to fly out of DAL) I personally feel DL should have access to DAL as without them if you want to fly anywhere else other than the west coast, WN is your only option out of DAL. Also I find the sublease between UA and WN to be very sneaky. DL first inquired about using UA underutilizing gates but UA responded by putting 90 min turns on their IAH ERJ flights and a couple of months later removed the 90 min turns and took DL's cash let DL use the gates but then WN way overpaid for the gates and took over the gates and wants to kick DL out and accuses them of trespassing when they were never offered any other alternative to have gates at the airport.

KMCOFlyer wrote:

kalvado wrote:

aaway wrote:

Actually, DL would be considered a new entrant since it did not have existing scheduled service at DAL when the 5-party went into effect.

But they did have service via gate sublease - and lost that sublease - before current situation.
I don't see a legal definition of "new entrant" in any of the documents, and I would argue that DL is not "new" in this case (at least I would if I was WN lawer). Which is probably a part of ongoing legal process anyway.

DL's second stint flying to DAL began in 2009. (It originally stoped in 2003) The 5 party agreement was signed in 2006, while DL was not serving the airport.

Is there anything in writing defining "new entrant" as a carrier not operating at the time of agreement being signed?

KMCOFlyer wrote:

DDR wrote:

Which makes me believe that DL is at the mercy of whomever wants to help them out.

I seriously don't understand why DL is so adamant about flying to Love. They have a respectable flight operation out of DFW, even though it's no where near their hub levels were.

DL likes to fly out of secondary airports. They are the only legacy carrier left to fly out of MDW (and have a decent operation there as well with flights to DTW/ATL/MSP) and also fly out of HOU. DL still has a huge FF base in the DFW area probably from the DFW hub days and DL probably sees that a large portion of these elites may live near DAL. (hence wanting to fly out of DAL) I personally feel DL should have access to DAL as without them if you want to fly anywhere else other than the west coast, WN is your only option out of DAL.

The only airports that are currently served by WN but not by DL are AMA, CRP, HRL, ISP, and LBB. Of these 5 airports, ISP is a secondary commercial airport located in the NYC metropolitan area, and the other 4 airports are located in smaller Texas markets. WN along with AS and UA will also be starting service out of PAE in the Seattle area later this year, but DL will not be starting service out of PAE. However, the situation is somewhat different at ISP and PAE since DL has hubs at LGA, JFK, and SEA, since LGA and JFK are much closer to Manhattan than ISP is, and since SEA is closer to downtown Seattle than PAE is.

In addition to ISP and PAE, there are some other secondary commercial airports in major U.S. metropolitan areas that aren't currently served by DL, including BLV, JQF/USA, LCK, SFB, AZA, PIE, STS, and TTN. However, all of these airports with the exception of PIE are located in the outlying portions of major U.S. metropolitan areas. Of these airports, STS is served by AS, AA, SY, and UA, TTN is only served by F9, and the others are only served by G4.

Unlike most of the secondary commercial airports that DL doesn't serve, MDW is closer to downtown Chicago than ORD is, DAL is closer to downtown Dallas than DFW is, and HOU is closer to downtown Houston than HOU is. Why does DL insist on serving both DAL and DFW, even though there are other secondary commercial airports in major U.S. metropolitan areas that DL doesn't serve?

jplatts wrote:

Why does DL insist on serving both DAL and DFW, even though there are other secondary commercial airports in major U.S. metropolitan areas that DL doesn't serve?

At this point, I'd suggest that the current DAL-ATL service is merely a placeholder pending the outcome of the litigation.

Should the litigation end in DLs favor, then I tend to concur with KMCOFlyer here. DL has reams of primary marketing data. I'd posit that the data met internal baseline objectives that was suggestive of the originally proposed DAL services being successful.

Considering the robustness of the original DL/DAL service proposal - 22 flights split between ATL/DTW/MSP & LAX/LGA - I'm of the opinion that DL would've scaled back at DFW eventually.

kalvado wrote:

Is there anything in writing defining "new entrant" as a carrier not operating at the time of agreement being signed?

The closest analog to such verbiage exists in a 2014 Love Field Gate Leases briefing memorandum from Dallas' Assistant City Manager to the Dallas City Council members that comprised the council's Transportation & Trinity River Project Committee. Issues pertaining to Love and Red Bird airports were (and continue to be) under the purview of this committee.

In the briefing, there is a citation on page two (2) which outlines the DAL gate leasing provisions:
(1) the Exclusive Use definition
(2) Preferential Use - Airlines have control but gives right for airport to allow new entrants to operate at gates that are not being fully utilized
(3) the Common Use definition

On page 22 of this document, the basic provisions of the 'Use & Lease Agreements' are outlined. From the fifth bullet point:
All space subject to “accommodation provisions” for new entrant airline access to terminal

aaway wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Why does DL insist on serving both DAL and DFW, even though there are other secondary commercial airports in major U.S. metropolitan areas that DL doesn't serve?

At this point, I'd suggest that the current DAL-ATL service is merely a placeholder pending the outcome of the litigation.

Should the litigation end in DLs favor, then I tend to concur with KMCOFlyer here. DL has reams of primary marketing data. I'd posit that the data met internal baseline objectives that was suggestive of the originally proposed DAL services being successful.

Considering the robustness of the original DL/DAL service proposal - 22 flights split between ATL/DTW/MSP & LAX/LGA - I'm of the opinion that DL would've scaled back at DFW eventually.

WN fits more flights per gate per day at AUS, BUR, LAX, and SJC than it does at DAL. WN does an average of at least 11 departures per gate per day out of AUS, BUR, LAX, and SJC, and there are 1 or 2 gates at DAL currently used by only WN that see 12 departures a day. WN can probably fit 176 departures a day out of the 16 preferential use gates at DAL that are leased to WN and that are currently in use by only WN. There is enough room at DAL to permanently accommodate DL's DAL-ATL nonstop service, and there might even be enough room to accommodate 16 DL departures a day out of the 2 gates that UA subleased to WN at DAL.

DL and WN could possibly share gates 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 at DAL if common use terminal equipment is installed in these 7 gates at DAL. The installation of common use terminal equipment (CUTE) at DAL would give the City of Dallas, DL, and WN more flexibility at DAL since the City of Dallas would be able to send a DL flight to another gate that is equipped with CUTE if one of the gates normally in use by DL is in use by WN and vice versa. The use of CUTE at DAL would also allow DL to spread out its departures at DAL to more than 2 gates.

WN can connect passengers to Texas destinations not served by DL from ATL, DTW, LAX, and LGA through DAL, and there are also frequent flyers in the DFW Metroplex who prefer to fly on WN out of DAL.

aaway wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Is there anything in writing defining "new entrant" as a carrier not operating at the time of agreement being signed?

The closest analog to such verbiage exists in a 2014 Love Field Gate Leases briefing memorandum from Dallas' Assistant City Manager to the Dallas City Council members that comprised the council's Transportation & Trinity River Project Committee. Issues pertaining to Love and Red Bird airports were (and continue to be) under the purview of this committee.

In the briefing, there is a citation on page two (2) which outlines the DAL gate leasing provisions:
(1) the Exclusive Use definition
(2) Preferential Use - Airlines have control but gives right for airport to allow new entrants to operate at gates that are not being fully utilized
(3) the Common Use definition

On page 22 of this document, the basic provisions of the 'Use & Lease Agreements' are outlined. From the fifth bullet point:
All space subject to “accommodation provisions” for new entrant airline access to terminal

This is not defining what "new entrant" actually means.
DL was operating via a sublease of gates, as opposed to direct contract for gate use with city of Dallas before, and I would say it used up its "new entrant" credit as it started service in 2009, and had no new entrant rights in 2013 when subleased AA gates were divested by AA. Which played out not very well for DL, and situation is hardly fair - but Wright amendment is the most unfair part of the deal and root cause of all DAL problems.

jplatts wrote:

KMCOFlyer wrote:

DDR wrote:

Which makes me believe that DL is at the mercy of whomever wants to help them out.

I seriously don't understand why DL is so adamant about flying to Love. They have a respectable flight operation out of DFW, even though it's no where near their hub levels were.

DL likes to fly out of secondary airports. They are the only legacy carrier left to fly out of MDW (and have a decent operation there as well with flights to DTW/ATL/MSP) and also fly out of HOU. DL still has a huge FF base in the DFW area probably from the DFW hub days and DL probably sees that a large portion of these elites may live near DAL. (hence wanting to fly out of DAL) I personally feel DL should have access to DAL as without them if you want to fly anywhere else other than the west coast, WN is your only option out of DAL.

The only airports that are currently served by WN but not by DL are AMA, CRP, HRL, ISP, and LBB. Of these 5 airports, ISP is a secondary commercial airport located in the NYC metropolitan area, and the other 4 airports are located in smaller Texas markets. WN along with AS and UA will also be starting service out of PAE in the Seattle area later this year, but DL will not be starting service out of PAE. However, the situation is somewhat different at ISP and PAE since DL has hubs at LGA, JFK, and SEA, since LGA and JFK are much closer to Manhattan than ISP is, and since SEA is closer to downtown Seattle than PAE is.

In addition to ISP and PAE, there are some other secondary commercial airports in major U.S. metropolitan areas that aren't currently served by DL, including BLV, JQF/USA, LCK, SFB, AZA, PIE, STS, and TTN. However, all of these airports with the exception of PIE are located in the outlying portions of major U.S. metropolitan areas. Of these airports, STS is served by AS, AA, SY, and UA, TTN is only served by F9, and the others are only served by G4.

Unlike most of the secondary commercial airports that DL doesn't serve, MDW is closer to downtown Chicago than ORD is, DAL is closer to downtown Dallas than DFW is, and HOU is closer to downtown Houston than HOU is. Why does DL insist on serving both DAL and DFW, even though there are other secondary commercial airports in major U.S. metropolitan areas that DL doesn't serve?

Let's get a few things straight about DL's secondary airports:
NYC-HPN, SWF (DL flew to ISP until 2008, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them re-enter depending on F9s performance on ISP-ATL)
Central Florida/Orlando Area-DAB, MLB (technically outskirts of Greater Orlando by certain definitions), You can sort of add TPA as well since some will fly to MCO and vice versa
St. Louis-Market not large enough
Columbus-Market not large enough, LCK is mostly a cargo facility anyway
Phoenix-No major US carrier flies to Mesa
San Francisco-OAK, SJC (SMF?)
TTN: Previously served by DL, and TTN could essentially be considered a primary airport as well.

DAL/DFW, ORD/MDW, and HOU/IAH are large enough metro areas to support the service, and DL shouldn't be excluded. As for "new entrant" the issue is that DL started DAL again in 2009 before the old 32 gate facility was demolished, but they were left out of the agreement because it was 3 years prior, but my guess is new entrant is defined as any carrier not flying to DAL in 2006 at the time the agreement passed.

Rumors from DAL sounds like AS has agreed to share gate 13 with DL for 10yrs.

Flyguy

evank516 wrote:

Let's get a few things straight about DL's secondary airports:
NYC-HPN, SWF (DL flew to ISP until 2008, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them re-enter depending on F9s performance on ISP-ATL)
Central Florida/Orlando Area-DAB, MLB (technically outskirts of Greater Orlando by certain definitions), You can sort of add TPA as well since some will fly to MCO and vice versa
San Francisco-OAK, SJC (SMF?)
TTN: Previously served by DL, and TTN could essentially be considered a primary airport as well.

SMF is located in a separate metropolitan area from SFO, OAK, and SJC, and SMF is also located more than 90 miles from OAK, SFO, and SJC. At least in my opinion, SMF is the primary airport for the Sacramento Metropolitan Area

STS is located in the northernmost part of the San Francisco Bay Area, and DL could possibly add service to STS since the other 2 big legacy carriers (AA and UA) along with AS and SY already serve STS. DL could add nonstop service to its LAX, MSP, SLC, and SEA hubs from STS if it adds service to STS, and there is already nonstop service to LAX, MSP, and SEA from STS on other airlines.

TTN is located near the border between the NYC metropolitan area and the Philadelphia metropolitan area, and TTN is also located in between EWR and PHL in New Jersey near the NJ-PA border. While F9 is currently the only airline to serve TTN, DL could re-enter the TTN market since DL might be able to attract business travelers who live closer to TTN than to EWR, LGA, or PHL (including the north side of the Philly metro area and the southernmost portion of the NYC metro area) if it re-enters TTN.

evank516 wrote:

DAL/DFW, ORD/MDW, and HOU/IAH are large enough metro areas to support the service, and DL shouldn't be excluded. As for "new entrant" the issue is that DL started DAL again in 2009 before the old 32 gate facility was demolished, but they were left out of the agreement because it was 3 years prior, but my guess is new entrant is defined as any carrier not flying to DAL in 2006 at the time the agreement passed.

I agree that DL should be accommodated at DAL, even if DL is no longer considered to be a new entrant with DL resuming service out of DAL subsequent to the enactment of WARA but prior to full repeal of the Wright Amendment.

aaway wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Airlines other than WN, AA, and UA. including AS and DL, are entitled access to the 20 existing gates at DAL under the new entrant carrier provisions of the 5-party agreement, the new entrant carrier provisions of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, and the gate sharing provisions of the gate leases at DAL.

The crux of the matter is whether, or not, WARA usurps the federal rules of non-discriminatory access to federally obligated airports.

EVERY piece of federal legislation trumps (sorry, no pun intended) EVERY federal rule that might be in conflict with that legislation. Thus it is not a question of whether WARA usurps anything, but a fact that WARA is superior to any federal rule that might conflict with it.

wnflyguy wrote:

Rumors from DAL sounds like AS has agreed to share gate 13 with DL for 10yrs.

Flyguy

Hopefully this is true. AS is cutting back from DAL and it makes sense for them to share with DL. Hopefully this is the end of this drama then but DL had a similar agreement with UA in 2015 but UA later sold the gates to WN leaving us in the position we are today. If AS ever decides to fully pull out of DAL, DL should be the first to have dibs on the gates or we will be back in the same situation as we are now.

kalvado wrote:

This is not defining what "new entrant" actually means.
DL was operating via a sublease of gates, as opposed to direct contract for gate use with city of Dallas before, and I would say it used up its "new entrant" credit as it started service in 2009, and had no new entrant rights in 2013 when subleased AA gates were divested by AA. Which played out not very well for DL, and situation is hardly fair - but Wright amendment is the most unfair part of the deal and root cause of all DAL problems.

I agree that the restrictions imposed at DAL under the 5-party agreement, restrictions imposed at DAL under the WARA, the DL-NW merger, the AA-US merger, the WN-FL merger, and DL's desire to serve DAL subsequent to the repeal of the Wright Amendment have all contributed to the problems at DAL.

There are more passengers traveling out of both DFW and DAL since the repeal of the Wright Amendment, and there were 71,062,000 passengers who traveled to, from, or through either DFW or DAL between March 2017 and February 2018 compared to 62,481,000 passengers who traveled to, from, or through either DFW or DAL between November 2013 and October 2014. Even though some individuals thought that the demand for flights out of DFW would decrease subsequent to the repeal of the Wright Amendment, the demand for flights out of DFW has increased since the repeal of the Wright Amendment.

DAL could be repositioned as a multi-carrier airport that is served by WN, AA, DL, UA, and AS if the 5 parties to the 5-party agreement could agree in writing to amend the 5 party agreement to allow the expansion of DAL beyond the existing 20 gates, if Congress amends the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 to allow the expansion of DAL beyond the current 20-gate limit, and if additional gates are constructed at DAL subsequent to the amendments to the 5-party agreement and WARA.

jplatts wrote:

DAL could be repositioned as a multi-carrier airport that is served by WN, AA, DL, UA, and AS if the 5 parties to the 5-party agreement could agree in writing to amend the 5 party agreement to allow the expansion of DAL beyond the existing 20 gates, if Congress amends the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 to allow the expansion of DAL beyond the current 20-gate limit, and if additional gates are constructed at DAL subsequent to the amendments to the 5-party agreement and WARA.

IMO that'll never happen for UA and AA. Both want their flights concentrated at cities' main airports. Both serve ORD and avoid MDW. UA serves IAH but avoids HOU. UA tried DAl and gave up. AA got beat up by WN pretty badly at DAL.

I could see F9 or B6 or NK trying DAL though.

bob75013 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

DAL could be repositioned as a multi-carrier airport that is served by WN, AA, DL, UA, and AS if the 5 parties to the 5-party agreement could agree in writing to amend the 5 party agreement to allow the expansion of DAL beyond the existing 20 gates, if Congress amends the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 to allow the expansion of DAL beyond the current 20-gate limit, and if additional gates are constructed at DAL subsequent to the amendments to the 5-party agreement and WARA.

IMO that'll never happen for UA and AA. Both want their flights concentrated at cities' main airports. Both serve ORD and avoid MDW. UA serves IAH but avoids HOU. UA tried DAl and gave up. AA got beat up by WN pretty badly at DAL.

I could see F9 or B6 or NK trying DAL though.

AA does serve both IAH and HOU, and SFO and OAK, so in these two cases, it's not concentrated at the main airport for those markets. PHX-OAK was inherited from US, but AA added DFW-OAK. Of course, UA avoids HOU and MDW because it has it's hub in IAH and ORD. It's investment is at those hubs - it wants it's passengers to experience the lounges and everything it has to offer. Likewise, if AA couldn't squat gates, then maybe it wouldn't want to be in DAL. If Detroit, Atlanta, and Minneapolis had secondary airports nearby, it's really unknown if DL would serve the two airports - fortunately, it doesn't have those situations at it's own hubs.

If UA wasn't permitted to profit off of leasing it's DAL gates to WN, I'd think it actually be interested in servicing DAL, and operate DAL-EWR/SFO/ORD. At that point, why give up say the DAL-SFO business to AS and WN. But that's just my guess.

wnflyguy wrote:

Rumors from DAL sounds like AS has agreed to share gate 13 with DL for 10yrs.

Flyguy

In exchange for what?

EA CO AS wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

Rumors from DAL sounds like AS has agreed to share gate 13 with DL for 10yrs.

Flyguy

In exchange for what?

I don't think there's an exchange of anything! Sounds like DAL airport is getting AS to give up the lease on one gate since it's pulling back service and hasn't increased enough to capacity fill 2 gates daily. In addition WN will be required to give DL A gate RON spot at 15 plus 1 daily slot.
If rumors are true DL will be able to increase to 11 daily flights from 5.

Flyguy

Apparently, for years, Southwest and Dallas worked together successfully to manage DAL airport despite it's physical size. High politics have turned DAL into a rather hot topic. Love!

It'll be interesting to see what has changed DAL in 20 years from today.

wnflyguy wrote:

If rumors are true DL will be able to increase to 11 daily flights from 5.

Man, fingers crossed that rumors aren’t true!

EA CO AS wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

If rumors are true DL will be able to increase to 11 daily flights from 5.

Man, fingers crossed that rumors aren’t true!

If DL can increase from 5 to 11 flights, it means more seats. As a by product, DL can be competitive on 1-stop fare pricing in non hub markets. Flew PHL-ATL-CLE on DL when it was the cheapest option of all carriers, and I've seen DL be the cheapest from EWR, and BWI at times, on one-connection stops.

It's not as glamorous as new nonstops to unserved destinations, but it's something of value. AFAIK, DAL-MSP isn't covered by WN, so it might be considered and might be a new destination specifically from DAL.

phluser wrote:

If UA wasn't permitted to profit off of leasing it's DAL gates to WN, I'd think it actually be interested in servicing DAL, and operate DAL-EWR/SFO/ORD. At that point, why give up say the DAL-SFO business to AS and WN. But that's just my guess.

They seemed to have no interest in that when they had the gates. What would be different now?

phluser wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

If rumors are true DL will be able to increase to 11 daily flights from 5.

Man, fingers crossed that rumors aren’t true!

If DL can increase from 5 to 11 flights, it means more seats. As a by product, DL can be competitive on 1-stop fare pricing in non hub markets. Flew PHL-ATL-CLE on DL when it was the cheapest option of all carriers, and I've seen DL be the cheapest from EWR, and BWI at times, on one-connection stops.

It's not as glamorous as new nonstops to unserved destinations, but it's something of value. AFAIK, DAL-MSP isn't covered by WN, so it might be considered and might be a new destination specifically from DAL.

I agree that both DL and WN could add daily nonstop service to MSP from DAL, and there are more passengers who fly on WN to and from MSP than from all of the other WN stations that don't have daily nonstop service to DAL with the exception of MKE (which used to have nonstop service from DAL on WN until recently). WN would be able to connect passengers to Texas destinations not served by DL (including AMA, LBB, and MAF) from MSP if it added daily nonstop service to DAL from MSP, and there are many passengers in the DFW Metroplex and other Texas markets served by both DL and WN who prefer to fly on WN over DL.

WN is also probably willing to reduce frequencies on one of its existing nonstop routes out of DAL if necessary to add daily nonstop service to MSP in response to DL adding DAL-MSP since WN reduced frequencies on DAL-MEM and DAL-OKC to add additional nonstop service to SAN and SJC in order to better compete against AS at DAL.

DL could probably add DAL-LGA nonstop service if it has room to do so after AS discontinues DAL-LGA and DAL-DCA nonstop service since there is a lot of demand to LGA from both DFW and DAL. DL even considered serving LGA nonstop from DAL if it got approval to sublease the 2 AA gates at DAL 4 years ago.

DL would probably do better on DAL-LGA than AS did if it added DAL-LGA nonstop service since DL has an established FF base in the NYC market, since LGA is currently the 4th largest DL hub, since DL would be able to connect passengers to other destinations in the Northeast from DAL through LGA if it added DAL-LGA nonstop service, and since there are some travelers in the NYC area who prefer to fly on DL over AA or WN.

If rumors are true I see DL adding LAX,MSP,DTW and BOS. Possibly JFK

wnflyguy wrote:

If rumors are true I see DL adding LAX, MSP, DTW and BOS. Possibly JFK

DL has nonstop service to CVG from DFW, but DL has never publicly announced any plans to serve CVG nonstop from DAL subsequent to the repeal of the Wright Amendment. DL also does not currently serve SEA or BOS nonstop from DFW, and DL has not publicly announced any plans to serve SEA or BOS nonstop from DAL.

If DL is planning on serving NYC nonstop from DAL, I could see DL adding DAL-LGA nonstop service rather than DAL-JFK nonstop service since the DL proposal to sublease the AA gates at DAL 4 years ago included plans to serve LGA nonstop from DAL but not JFK from DAL. DL's LGA hub is also slightly bigger than its JFK hub, and DL serves a few within-LGA perimeter destinations nonstop from LGA but not from JFK.

DL had also previously considered serving SLC nonstop from DAL 4 years ago if it was able to sublease the 2 AA gates at DAL.

I agree that DL could add DAL-DTW nonstop service since there are already some passengers connecting between DAL and the East Coast on DL through ATL and since DL would be able to connect passengers between DAL and the East Coast through DTW if it added DAL-DTW nonstop service.

Bobloblaw wrote:

Who will result in lower fares to MSP and DTW? DL or WN? Growing Delta at DAL wont lower fares, growing WN will.

First time Ive ever heard someone say a monopoly lowers fares.

wnflyguy wrote:

If rumors are true I see DL adding LAX,MSP,DTW and BOS. Possibly JFK

Delta already said they wanted to add LGA-DAL before VX won the gates. If they got more space, they'd be flying to NYC in some way. Question is how much capacity DL would dump into some of these routes should they be allowed to expand? Makes me wonder if DL will use mainline over E jets.

If dl adds, it will be to their fortress hubs of msp dtw and slc. They will get slaughtered to any other markets.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Who will result in lower fares to MSP and DTW? DL or WN? Growing Delta at DAL wont lower fares, growing WN will.

First time Ive ever heard someone say a monopoly lowers fares.

Well, when WN was essentially the only one operating at DAL under the WA, how did they do with that monopoly?
If DFW prevented them from gouging customers what has changed?

wnflyguy wrote:

If rumors are true I see DL adding LAX,MSP,DTW and BOS. Possibly JFK

DL is not adding all those flights with only 1 full gate. I could see 2-3 more ATL flights and possibly 3 flights to either MSP,DTW, or LGA. I hope this is true and DL is allowed to run more flights. Better for the airport as a whole and provides other options to WN going east after AS stops flying to DCA and LGA.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Who will result in lower fares to MSP and DTW? DL or WN? Growing Delta at DAL wont lower fares, growing WN will.

First time Ive ever heard someone say a monopoly lowers fares.

All of the WN nonstop routes out of DAL will be in competition with AA nonstop service out of DFW when AA starts DFW-ECP nonstop service on June 7th. In addition, some of WN's nonstop routes out of DAL are already in competition with NK, B6, F9, DL, and UA nonstop service out of DFW. The WN situation out of DAL is similar to the WN situation at BWI, MDW, HOU, OAK, and SJC, where most of the WN nonstop flights out of these 5 airports are in competition with other carriers out of nearby airports.

tphuang wrote:

If dl adds, it will be to their fortress hubs of msp dtw and slc. They will get slaughtered to any other markets.

While this is a good point, DL would probably be able to do well on DAL-LGA if it adds DAL-LGA nonstop service since DL already has 9 daily nonstops to NYC (7 to LGA and 2 to JFK) from DFW, since DL would be able to connect passengers from DAL to other destinations in the Northeast through LGA if it adds DAL-LGA nonstop service, since DL has more market share than AA or WN do at LGA, and since LGA is the 4th largest DL hub (after ATL, DTW, and MSP).

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Who will result in lower fares to MSP and DTW? DL or WN? Growing Delta at DAL wont lower fares, growing WN will.

First time Ive ever heard someone say a monopoly lowers fares.

The feds have already ruled that DFW and DAL are one market. So WN at DAL is not a monopoly for the market.

For the record, AA complained in 2015 and 2016 that it's fares out of DFW had fallen as a result of WN's service at DAL.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Who will result in lower fares to MSP and DTW? DL or WN? Growing Delta at DAL wont lower fares, growing WN will.

First time Ive ever heard someone say a monopoly lowers fares.

I dont think you really understand monopolies. One carrier will fly MSP-DAL as there arent enough gates for both DL and WN to do it. So who would you prefer fly MSP-DAL??? DL or WN? Delta adding flights at DAL wont lower fares on ONE SINGLE ROUTE period. It is best that WN grow and add DTW and MSP from DAL, not Delta.

jplatts wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

If rumors are true I see DL adding LAX, MSP, DTW and BOS. Possibly JFK

DL has nonstop service to CVG from DFW, but DL has never publicly announced any plans to serve CVG nonstop from DAL subsequent to the repeal of the Wright Amendment. DL also does not currently serve SEA or BOS nonstop from DFW, and DL has not publicly announced any plans to serve SEA or BOS nonstop from DAL.

If DL is planning on serving NYC nonstop from DAL, I could see DL adding DAL-LGA nonstop service rather than DAL-JFK nonstop service since the DL proposal to sublease the AA gates at DAL 4 years ago included plans to serve LGA nonstop from DAL but not JFK from DAL. DL's LGA hub is also slightly bigger than its JFK hub, and DL serves a few within-LGA perimeter destinations nonstop from LGA but not from JFK.

DL had also previously considered serving SLC nonstop from DAL 4 years ago if it was able to sublease the 2 AA gates at DAL.

I agree that DL could add DAL-DTW nonstop service since there are already some passengers connecting between DAL and the East Coast on DL through ATL and since DL would be able to connect passengers between DAL and the East Coast through DTW if it added DAL-DTW nonstop service.

Seems to make more sense to do LGA than JFK, though maybe a 1x daily to connect TATL could be added in. I'd leave the spokes to hubs at DFW.

Bobloblaw wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Who will result in lower fares to MSP and DTW? DL or WN? Growing Delta at DAL wont lower fares, growing WN will.

First time Ive ever heard someone say a monopoly lowers fares.

I dont think you really understand monopolies. One carrier will fly MSP-DAL as there arent enough gates for both DL and WN to do it. So who would you prefer fly MSP-DAL??? DL or WN? Delta adding flights at DAL wont lower fares on ONE SINGLE ROUTE period. It is best that WN grow and add DTW and MSP from DAL, not Delta.

You dont get to cherry pick a route to make your point. Logically, look where DL and WN currently compete. Its just one market: ATL. Are you telling me with a straight face that if WN had ATL all to themselves that fares would drop???

Delta is a high cost high fare airline. They are not going to be able to really lower fares on any route. That’s why they will add to their fortress hub where they can maintain a revenue premium over wn. Otherwise, it’s not going to work for them.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

First time Ive ever heard someone say a monopoly lowers fares.

I dont think you really understand monopolies. One carrier will fly MSP-DAL as there arent enough gates for both DL and WN to do it. So who would you prefer fly MSP-DAL??? DL or WN? Delta adding flights at DAL wont lower fares on ONE SINGLE ROUTE period. It is best that WN grow and add DTW and MSP from DAL, not Delta.

You dont get to cherry pick a route to make your point. Logically, look where DL and WN currently compete. Its just one market: ATL. Are you telling me with a straight face that if WN had ATL all to themselves that fares would drop???

Wrong analogy.

AA DID have the non stop market to itself in Dallas at DFW - it charged anything it wanted to charge.


In 2014 DAL was opened to non stop service by WN. The next two years AA complained that the new WN service was hurting AA's profits because ticket prices had fallen.as a result of of WN's service at DAL across routes where they competed.

DFW and DAL are part of the same market. If prices are too high out of DFW, then people fly out of DAL, and via versa. It happens all the time. So DAL ticket prices are kept in check by DFW prices, and DFW prices are kept in check by DAL prices.

My user name tells you my first name as well as where I live, and I do fly out of both airports as my mood and ticket prices dictate.

bob75013 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Who will result in lower fares to MSP and DTW? DL or WN? Growing Delta at DAL wont lower fares, growing WN will.

First time Ive ever heard someone say a monopoly lowers fares.

The feds have already ruled that DFW and DAL are one market. So WN at DAL is not a monopoly for the market.

For the record, AA complained in 2015 and 2016 that it's fares out of DFW had fallen as a result of WN's service at DAL.

Good point, but there was more than just post-Wright Amendment expansion at DAL that led to lower AA fares out of DFW in 2015 and 2016. NK also added DFW-CLE nonstop service in February 2015, and F9 also added DFW-CVG nonstop service after the repeal of the Wright Amendment in October 2014. VX also added nonstop service to AUS, LAS, LGA, and DCA subsequent to the repeal of the Wright Amendment, but VX has already discontinued DAL-AUS and DAL-LAS nonstop service. DL also resumed DFW-LAX nonstop service after the repeal of the Wright Amendment in November 2014.

While fares have dropped on AA nonstop routes subsequent to the repeal of the Wright Amendment, there is actually more demand for AA flights out of DFW today than was the case prior to the repeal of the Wright Amendment.

wnflyguy wrote:

Rumors from DAL sounds like AS has agreed to share gate 13 with DL for 10yrs.

Flyguy

Can’t happen without AA signing off on it, they are the leaseholder of AS’ gates.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

First time Ive ever heard someone say a monopoly lowers fares.

I dont think you really understand monopolies. One carrier will fly MSP-DAL as there arent enough gates for both DL and WN to do it. So who would you prefer fly MSP-DAL??? DL or WN? Delta adding flights at DAL wont lower fares on ONE SINGLE ROUTE period. It is best that WN grow and add DTW and MSP from DAL, not Delta.

You dont get to cherry pick a route to make your point. Logically, look where DL and WN currently compete. Its just one market: ATL. Are you telling me with a straight face that if WN had ATL all to themselves that fares would drop???

Sure I do....the next add for WN is MSP and that would likely be the next add for DL as well.

Bobloblaw wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

I dont think you really understand monopolies. One carrier will fly MSP-DAL as there arent enough gates for both DL and WN to do it. So who would you prefer fly MSP-DAL??? DL or WN? Delta adding flights at DAL wont lower fares on ONE SINGLE ROUTE period. It is best that WN grow and add DTW and MSP from DAL, not Delta.

You dont get to cherry pick a route to make your point. Logically, look where DL and WN currently compete. Its just one market: ATL. Are you telling me with a straight face that if WN had ATL all to themselves that fares would drop???

Sure I do....the next add for WN is MSP and that would likely be the next add for DL as well.

WN is doing DAL-MSP, Sunday Only, I believe for this summer so you are indeed correct