Sabre Travel International, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa Ag, Austrian Airlines Ag, Brussels Airlines, nv/sa, and Swiss International Air Lines, Ltd., 567 S.W.3d 725

Sabre operates a Global Distribution System (GDS) that aggregates airline inventory for travel agents; Lufthansa contracted with Sabre and other GDSs and agreed to non‑discrimination provisions.
Lufthansa implemented an $18 surcharge for tickets sold through GDSs (not applied to direct bookings) to offset GDS fees; Sabre disputed the surcharge as breaching contract terms.
Sabre allegedly encouraged travel agents to use Lufthansa direct‑connect channels and then make “passive bookings” in Sabre’s GDS so agents could avoid the surcharge while Sabre still collected booking fees; Lufthansa sued Sabre for tortious interference and breach of contract.
Sabre moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim under Texas Rule 91a, arguing the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts the claim; the trial court denied dismissal and certified the order under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(d) for permissive interlocutory appeal.
The court of appeals declined to accept the permissive interlocutory appeal; Sabre petitioned the Texas Supreme Court, which granted review of jurisdiction and the ADA preemption question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lufthansa)	Defendant's Argument (Sabre)	Held
Whether the Texas Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order after a court of appeals denies a § 51.014(d) permissive appeal	Trial court certification under § 51.014(d) suffices to invoke Supreme Court review under former Gov’t Code § 22.225(d)	Court of appeals’ denial of permissive appeal means no appeal exists for Supreme Court review	Court has jurisdiction: certification by trial court under § 51.014(d) is the jurisdictional predicate for § 22.225(d) review regardless of the court of appeals’ denial
Whether the ADA preempts Lufthansa’s tortious‑interference claim	Claim protects airline’s private contracts with agents and thus does not regulate prices, routes, or services or enforce state law having regulatory effect	Claim relates to airline pricing/distribution and would impermissibly regulate airline prices/routes/services, so ADA preempts it	ADA does not preempt the tortious‑interference claim: the claim does not sufficiently "relate to" prices/routes/services nor impose state‑law regulation within ADA’s preemptive scope

Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374 (holding ADA preemption clause is broad and preempts state actions that have a connection with airline prices, routes, or services)
American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (distinguishing state consumer‑protection enforcement from private contract claims under ADA preemption)
Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (ADA can preempt state common‑law claims that effectively impose state‑imposed obligations beyond parties’ contract)
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Kiefer, 920 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.) (analyzing ADA preemption of common‑law torts vs contract claims)
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Black, 116 S.W.3d 745 (Tex.) (applying two‑part ADA preemption test in Texas)
Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex.) (final‑judgment rule background)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Yarbrough, 405 S.W.3d 70 (Tex.) (Texas Supreme Court review appropriate despite intermediate appellate dismissal)