AZjetgeek From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 235 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day ago) and read 2732 times:
The people at DFW continue to act like spoiled children who have to have their way and take no responsibility for their own misdeeds.
Of course Southwest turned down the offer for the soon-to-be vacant gates at DFW. DFW is so congested that on-time performances are in the 60-70 percent range. Southwest's success is due in part to its 30-minute turn-around times, which used to be 20 minutes not so many years ago.
DFW should feel very fortunate that Southwest remained neutral on the Wright/Shelby Amendment for so many years. Gary Kelly, et al, at Southwest only expressed they would like to see the restrictions of the amendment lifted. They have not stated they will actively lobby Congress to repeal the legislation.
After more than 25 years, one would think that the people at DFW would have put their petty jealousies aside. Mature, reasonable people would.
PHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day ago) and read 2719 times:
From the article:
DFW officials say Southwest attempted to sabotage the airport's chance of luring a new discount carrier by publicly changing its stance on the Wright Amendment
What new discount carrier? FL is already at DFW and has somewhat expanded in the past year making DFW a 'focus city' wannabe for them. TZ's been there for a while as well but their long-term future could be in question. Are the officials talking about luring B6 or Indy Air (once they get their A319s) to DFW? Of course, Indy Air's future might be in question as well.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 2655 times:
WN would rather remain restricted at DAL then go to DFW and be delayed there. Honestly, this is all about the City of Fort Worth wanting its piece of the air traffic pie. That is what brought about the Wright Amendment, it is why the Shelby Amendment did not expand the rules further and it sucks.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 2612 times:
Honestly, this is all about the City of Fort Worth wanting its piece of the air traffic pie.
Is that because FTW would also have its restrictions lifted as well? I'm not familiar with the greatest extents--nor do I suspect many are--of the Amendments, but I do know that somehow FTW is involved. Anyone have any more insight?
Planespotting From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 3512 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 2547 times:
Haha, dude stearmannut, southwest ain't leaving Love Field. The hub-bub is all about starting services from DFW, not moving all their operations. Southwest has a multi-million dollar headquarters and training center at DAL (hundreds of millions of dollars worth of flight simulators are located in the building i sit in right now)
Fort Worth and DFW can kiss our collective Low Cost Airline Ass. The real reason they are being so pissy is because they want Southwest to start serving DFW. If southwest doesn't have to serve DFW to get out of wright amendment states then Southwest will never serve DFW. Imagine being one of the largest and busiest airports in the country but an airline that is based not 20 miles down the road doesn't serve you. It's kind of a cold shoulder. Not that we have any reason to serve DFW. They are just being lil babies about it.
William From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
Yadda,yadda.........Every couple of years this subject comes up and nothing happens. SWA is not going to spend its political capital on this,when there are other fish to fry...........say MDW and USAirways future.
Oh,by the way, SWA may say they are not fearful of Jetblue(and really why would they),they would not be too happy for the "darling" of the industry to set up shop in its backyard either.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 2441 times:
In another thread, an article cited "an LCC poised to take all of Delta's old gates". I doubt it's JetBlue. That's 24 gates. If that carrier was indeed jetblue, and they were looking at 24 gates at DFW, then I'd say that they really are People Express/Braniff reincarnated. Before the jetblue lovers get their panties in a wad, I mean...JetBlue has 11 gates at their JFK hub and they run about 100 flights a day out of them. Acquiring 24 gates at DFW with the assumption of the same amount of utilization out of them means that for all intents and purposes, they would be setting up their "main hub" in Dallas, going against the hub traffic of AA and the LCC traffic out of Love Field (who operates 124 daily flights there). Sorry, I don't buy the idea that JetBlue was going to make a foray into Dallas by starting with 10 more gates than Southwest has and operating twice as many flights. And taking on the competitive response of both American and Southwest.
Ramerinianair From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 2399 times:
Not to offend anybody but, what a great frickin time to declare that you don't like the wright and shelby amendments. The market is in the shitter and AA, who has a hub in DFW would go further into the shitter. Sometimes I think what this is about. Is WN and B6 and the rest going for blood- WN in PHL and B6 attacking some of the only profitable routes to California and Florida?
I think that the amendments should stand. LUV was good enough for WN when they were only in Texas. The lower fees were good for them too but the perimeter isn't.
P.S. I know it's not technically a perimeter.