hazelrah

In many respects but not all, Chicago and its metro airports is a single market. Even if one doesn't like MDW or Southwest, passengers using ORD receive a lot of competitive benefit from the presence of MDW.

If airlines are "people" then by economic definition they have unlimited wants. In a situation of scarcity, a scramble for resources is conducted, choices have to be made, and trade-offs performed, none of which should be surprising.

In the greater competitive landscape, IMO we don't need more service from Delta to Delta hubs from DAL. We need more competitive service against legacies to places like MEM and MKE. MKE service got whacked from its loss of Midwest and then its loss of Frontier when Frontier skedaddled.

SJC ORD LDR

I agree. I think DL is the only legacy to serve MDW and the only airline that serves both ORD and MDW. When I flew to Chicago on a regular basis, it was nice to have a shorter L ride into downtown Chicago from MDW.

What's going on in Dallas with DAL seems to be out of the Chicago political playbook.

hazelrah

Perhaps you need to reconsider your position; wouldn't DL need legal standing?

DL has had time to try to negotiate gates. Southwest negotiated with UA for the gates, and according to the article the transaction has been approved by the city and DoJ. Further, Southwest had agreed to honor UA's commitment and allow DL use of the gates through July 6, so no harm to DL.

If DL insisted on pre-booking past 6 July given these facts, wouldn't that be a self-inflicted wound?

AKC6

Deltamatic will still sell you DAL tix for August, September, October, so maybe Va. Ave. has something up their sleeves.

SJC ORD LDR

Do we know if UA even made a token effort to ask DL about a permanent sublease? I don't see that in the article, but then I might have missed that.

When it comes to the DoJ's decisions on airlines, I think they are misguided. They seem out to get the legacies while helping WN (which doesn't need help), B6, and VX (which needs all the help it can get).

I think the unnatural 20 gate cap and assigning gates to specific carriers was shady. I think trying to take out DL's existing ATL service was shady. And this is coming from someone who has never been the Metroplex and has no desire to visit.

rtalk25

Delta seems more open about servicing alternate airports where it doesn't have the hub. In Chicago make sense for it to be in both MDW and ORD. However, UA and AA have hubs in ORD so it doesn't make sense for them to be in MDW. US was also a Star Alliance partner prior to AA merger, so it made more sense to keep all capacity at ORD.


That is biased against Delta. When Delta offers more seats in a market, even if it's just to existing hubs, it does offer lower fares on certain connection routes and connects airports to a wider network than what a LCC will offer.

I think policy shouldn't be against Delta, and in favor solely for "low cost carriers".

Tying back to DAL, I do wonder if Delta will sue. It wasn't part of the compromise that artificially capped DAL to only 20 gates, excluding new entrants. DAL remains lower cost to operate than DFW and closer to downtown Dallas and some wealthy communities, that Delta will be in weaker position to compete. Perhaps it can get JetBlue, Frontier and some smaller carriers who aren't that tied down to DFW to join in such suit to repeal the DAL compromise.

However, Delta does have a large share of slots in LGA/JFK where others can't easily enter. I'm not sure if it's worthwhile for them to push for DAL access beyond a gate or two. A full repeal might work in Southwest's favor if DAL became open to international.

Probably Delta will work a deal with VX for a single gate of the two that VX has, and maybe VX's DCA slots, and VX will drop DAL-DCA and Delta could attain 1 DAL gate and 3-4 DCA slot pairs from VX. I don't think VX will last on the DAL-DCA route. Maybe Delta could then use the DCA slots for RDU-DCA instead of RDU-BWI.

It was oddly unfair that Delta wasn't permitted to bid for DCA slots, or even the fact that US/AA had to give up more slots than AA brought to the table, in favor of policy directed towards the low cost carriers. I think Southwest might have more DCA slot pairs than Delta does because of this now.

BenA

Chicago? Market dynamics? Are we even talking about the same city? The one that illegally demolished Meigs Field in the middle of the night because the mayor didn't like it, to reduce airport choices for the people of Chicago? The one where an attempt to privatize Midway to raid its operating profits for other city programs got derailed when, in part, ethics questions were raised about a set of relationships so complicated I had to draw it out to understand it?

MDW only really came back to life because ORD was at full capacity and Chicago's government was too gridlocked to expand it fast enough; ORD expansion has been consistently controversial for nearly 30 years between 1980-2010, and MDW was the only option that would remotely make sense for a low cost carrier to serve the Chicago area as a result.

Pretty much all of the other capacity controlled inner city US airports - LGA, DAL, and DCA come to mind - are highly regulated, in theory to benefit the traveling public. But as we saw in the huge LGA/DCA slot swap between DL and US and now in this sublease agreement between UA/WN at DAL - the airline industry is incredibly talented at convincing politicians to let them build fortress hubs out of what should be a shared public asset for the convenience of residents of and visitors to our most important cities.

diver858

Don't hold your breath. VX is currently surviving on its own, airlines are a hobby for Branson, who doesn't think twice about writing a check when cash is required.

hazelrah

I'm not sure what your point is, other than a historical treatise. Even accepting all this what does it demonstrate other than it hasn't been a straight line from the past to the present (complete with some rather spectacular political sideshows, bumbling, and my word heavy handedness. Nothing here reflects on the rather insatiable demand for low-cost travel in a large American metropolitan area serviced by two large airports. As Americans we pretty much all have these armored things with 4 rubber wheels that take us where we want to go, even crosstown!

Yes, there used to be a saying in Washington, D.C. that politics isn't everything, it's the only thing. That goes for corporate games/politics too.I think of an example of a paper mill that closed and the employees wanted to buy the plant and run it themselves, but they were advised not for sale, huh?

It goes on. Should we be surprised that it does? I'm shocked that negotiations, deals, and politics is going in this establishment

readywhenyouare

Well then that doesn't say much for his intelligence.

BenA

The point is that MDW is not a valid comparison for DAL. MDW is owned by the same airport authority as ORD and functions as a non-slot-constrained extension. In comparison, DAL is size constrained and administratively separate from DFW.

DCA and LGA are much better comparisons, and similarly rotten slot trade deals that are bad for travelers have happened there as well.

airplanegod

Sorry to disappoint, but while VX might not be doing as good as the big 4, they are holding their own. While you may support less competition and people losing their jobs, some of us enjoy having a "different" airline that is holding their own.

hazelrah

The point is - Dallas is in many respects a single market served by two substantive airports with a choice between them, just like Chicago.

readywhenyouare

VX is hardly competition. If WN wanted them gone they could do it very easily. VX left a bad taste in my mouth a few years ago when they were whining about gate space at ORD and thought they were too good to serve MDW. They still portray an image of being too good to seve but only a few "trendy" cities. But of course what do you expect from someoje as arrogant as Branson.

airplanegod

Not arguing that, just saying the VX isn't going anywhere anytime soon.