with the right amendment and the right amendment was an act that in one thousand nine hundred eighty it restricted flights to and from what field the airport located in the city of dallas the flights can only travel to and from a lot of fields within texas and a four states bordering texas and there was an exception for planes with fifty six or fewer seats and i just interrupted together three on the ok so let me just get to the heart of it and this is just a general question i'm not talking about the demolition here i'm just talking about the agreement which had already allocated all of the twenty games to certain airlines which would have excluded the limited terminal i don't think the statute incorporated the five party agreement across the board obligations then the gates that are available under war which is a total of twenty are already allocated under the statute the statute does not allocate the case the statute sets a cap of twenty and that's so the statutory language of the city of dallas pursuant to its authority to operate and regulate the airport is granted under texas law in the act of texas law the summary of the statute said there shall determine the allocation of lease case of man's love field in accordance with the statute doesn't refer and if i think the person you're talking about doesn't refer just to this contract the united states is not a party to this contract this contract you're right between dallas southwest of the other airlines allocates the gates answers the question of where the gate should be for dallas and those airlines but it doesn't mean it's right for the united states and the united states in the reform act doesn't answer it either it says there's going to be twenty gates and you dallas to sort that out taking into account your think so because the reform act knows how to reference in congress knew how to reference this specific agreement and it doesn't in the same section if i did says that the the five party agreement is a specific reference to it this is much broader it's a referenc this contract talks about the leases the city of south pass with airlines concerning the number of so this contract makes clear there are other contracts other leases dealing with outage or so on page thirty ninety one  our first second line american airlines and southwest agreed to voluntarily surrender a gate rights under existing leases so that's the first reference to other contractual rights concerning the sarawak air air this airfield and if you keep going down there's there's more of them existing  es each of the airlines mentioned here has a lease with the city of dallas that concerns a number of of gates i do think is the takings theory here was the the two thousand and six that she changed the gate allocation i thought the theory was that there was a reasonable expectation that the white amendment would be  was part of the theory here that the change in the the i think that may be part of the theory of i think their main theory is physically thank you and that they could not develop a terminal free of the right amount and not that's what they're just compensation one hundred thirty three million dollars is based on a industry they made it not just industry highly regulated particular airport you have to look at the economic impact in the character of the government watch and i think we've run through all those in our brief and i think that the takeaway here is even if the act was more targeted then it is including condemnation or demolition it doesn't it doesn't specifically reference incorporate the language in the agreement talking about the plaintiff's case and so the united states that role here was was one that  it actually had been the original braniff airlines leaves which allowed the conduct of the air transportation service so it actually had been an airline lease originally it did not speak to the number of gates that were allowed first of all under five day that dallas manage love field in accordance with the five party contract the contract of july eleventh two thousand and six section five d  speaks to the removal of gates at the lemon avenue facility lemmon avenue is where love terminals terminal was located the removal of gates at the lemon avenue facility allowable the terminal had been constructed your honor it was existing and had been used over over time for as as an airline terminal it was a second airline terminal being use field it was allowable but there was nothing in the lease that said you get six gates or you get sixteen gates or you get ten gates of the right to the film property the right to construct a terminal to operate that terminal was part of the property right now the overall master plan the love field master plan that was being redeveloped that was the subject of the five party agreement of july eleventh two location that the main terminal is actually existing now and we know it's a matter of fact from the city of dallas that the case of city dallas versus delta airlines to circuit decided recently five hundred nineteen million dollars now what was the federal involvement the government keeps saying why dallas could have done this on their own well they couldn't because of the other trust act because of federal preemption  transportation in this country in order to proceed with the redevelopment of love field which has now taken place in the city of dallas was required to get f a a approval so what does section five  five party agreement it specifically calls out five party agreement so if you take all the sections together all of the sections of section five and you take the factual circumstance that congress had asked the local incidents seducer dallas fort worth and the d f w airport authority to come up with a so called local solution proposed that congress they did get together they signed a five part agreement they said here is our with your clients to acquire the lease and if necessary to do it by condemnation let's take the first part of that if the federal government says just  why because air transportation service was no longer and allow big use on that property so in point of fact as part of the overall redevelopment of l that the gate had to be reduced to twenty that's explicit in section five had the let's heal had to be only no you are absolutely not my client continued to pay one point eight million dollars a year in carrying costs for two years after the passage of the reform act and then finally said prohibited our clients from continuing their business because as i indicated section five decent talks about the removal of the act this is the one that talks about no federal funds shall be used in remain full of the gate separate terminal that that we can can operate i think that would have been a frivolous argument quite frankly so the trial one incident what exact language in two thousand and six legislation  mandates it says the city of dallas shelf allocate gates in accordance with the five part agreement and shall manage love field in compliance with the july eleventh the local bring and what congress asked the local parties to come up with and what they brought to congress through the senator hutchison of texas yes the way in which they would agree to the phasing out of the right amendment in return for limiting the number of flights that could go out of left field and the way that limitation took place was to limit the number of gates you can get ten flights out of a gate so ten times twenty limits you to two hundred flights per dac that's a limitation on love field that would have been it and i trust violations to district court found it would it certainly would not have been incorrect and we disagree with the court of federal claims with respect to that here what is left yes the court of federal claims relied on the theory that the reasonable expectation tested at the time of purchase was to conduct an air transportation business and love terminal partners invested about seventy million dollars in reliance on the expectation that their damages rested on the notion  is that you could conduct an air transportation business right amendment no right amendment that's what was taken that's the destroyed expectation valuation then looks at what did the market anticipate in two thousand and six at the time of the taking and we were the only parties to present guy gratian testimony we were the only party to present expert testimony on airport  mid may of two thousand and six the city of dallas put out a study on what would be the impact of the repeal of the right amendment and of course on october thirteenth the reform act actually went into effect so there was great anticipation that the wright amendment which was no longer necessary because they have dubbed it was one of the busiest airports in the horrible and no longer needs protection from this smaller at love field which is dominated by southwest has southwest has ninety seven percent of the flights out of four thank you thank you r sixteen gate terminal i could fly anywhere in the united states and that's what the c f c s reasonable investment back to expectations is based on in the calculation of damages and that think that is not a reasonable expectation because that was barred since hundred eighty by the right amendment they invested in one nine hundred ninety nine you cannot have a reason all of us are backed expectation of the right amendment simply was not going to be on the books we actually know what happened to the reform act comes along and it relaxes the right amendment but doesn't repeal it immediately and there can't be for the reasons we said in our brief a reasonable expectation that federal law will be changed in a way that makes your speculative investment on airport airlines on whose testimony was stanley's that particular sorry the study post dates their complaint in this case and looked at what the value would be of it's about sixteen gate fly anywhere terminal there is nothing in the record that that predates the reform act that shows that  so i think that's a reasonable investment act expectation i think the court should look at the other factors to economic impact their investment already failed by this point the legend had gone bankrupt no one had paid any rent no airline any rent for their terminal for five years before the reform removal don't use our money to do it we're not mandating it don't bill us for it you city of dallas if you want to do that that's on you and so i think five beat strongly supports argument that there is no taking here and finally been i don't recall if they if they if they has a fight on that you know that i think the record shows they were receiving some moneys from renting to a car dealership and to a limousine service there's a chart any event do you know that the were from their whole take you there is based on a federal action here that is just the reform act so you look at it so you know their theory is the reform act is the law is what took their property it was what diminish their property