Atlanta Crushing Another Airport to Protect Delta and the Stresses of Summer Vacation

News and notes from around the interweb:

About Gary Leff

Gary Leff is one of the foremost experts in the field of miles, points, and frequent business travel - a topic he has covered since 2002. Co-founder of frequent flyer community InsideFlyer.com, emcee of the Freddie Awards, and named one of the "World's Top Travel Experts" by Conde' Nast Traveler (2010-Present) Gary has been a guest on most major news media, profiled in several top print publications, and published broadly on the topic of consumer loyalty. More About Gary »

More articles by Gary Leff »

Comments

  1. I think what Delta is doing is absolutely correct. In fact, other large cities should not only refuse to add capacity to ancillary airports, but any airport beside the main one should be closed immediately. That way, there’d be no quandary on whether to fly into EWR, JFK, or LGA, because EVERYONE would be forced to use JFK. Good thinking Delta!

  2. Delta attempt to confuse the matter.

    Promises and blather that weren’t in the contract, don’t count.

  3. The Paulding thing is no different than a dry cleaner signing a lease in a strip mall with the understanding that the realty company guarantees they won’t put another dry cleaner in the same strip mall. This is common business practice, not some admission of being anti-competitive.

  4. Err, that would be like putting a McDonalds into an airport promising not to add a Burger King. This is promising that other businesses won’t build an additional strip mall in a different city. And it’s government making the promise to benefit one business.

  5. Right, but Atlanta sold the land to Paulding with the understanding it would not be used to compete with Atlanta’s commercial airport. I could agree with you if this were just a nearby town deciding to jump into the commercial airport business, then I would say fine, good luck with that. But this is land Atlanta sold to them with essentially a non-compete agreement and likely represented to its “tenants” that there would be no commercial airport ever placed there. The “tenants” (Delta) would have actionable cause against Atlanta for the false representation upon which they relied in expanding its operations in Atlanta, which in turn gives Atlanta actionable cause against Paulding for breach of contract.

  6. @Rob since it wasn’t part of the sale contract, wasn’t deeded that way, I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. A handful of politicians binding citizens how far into the future without even a formal vote?

  7. As usual, trump deplorables defending big businesses, and in the process going against their own self interests.

    No wonder they continue to fight hard and vote to lose their health coverage, to give more tax breaks to the 1 percenters, and for fewer teeth in their mouth and more guns in their closet.

  8. CJ: what in the world does this article have to do w/ “trump(sic) deplorables?”

    And, BTW, if you live in the USA you’re already a “member” of the 1%…..

  9. @ Gary, I agree it is more complicated and they will have to make their case in front of a judge to determine whether or not that promise was legally binding or if a breach of contract actually happened. But a handful of politicians binding citizens to agreements far into the future without a formal vote is just called normal governing. That is why we elect people. Somebody has to be empowered to make binding agreements without formal votes on every decision or government could not function. And if it were enough to say…oh well we didn’t have a vote on it, so it’s not binding, then no entity would enter any kind of agreements with governments if there were some kind of escape hatch like that from every contract.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *