Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WN Wont Serve DFW B/c Of Congestion...nonsense  
User currently offlineNealcg From United States of America, joined May 2004, 141 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2449 times:

I hate to add to the multitude of posting regrding what is essentially a regional spat but I must add my two cents regarding one of the reasons for WN not using DFW. The one I hear the most is that DFW is too congested for the 20 minute WN turnaround...

I call Boleshevik on that one.

DFW is the 4th busiest airport in the US. but look at the folllowing list

Airport/rank/served by WN
1) ATL / 1 / NO
2) ORD / 2 / NO
3) LAX / 3 / YES
4) DFW / 4 / NO
5) PHX / 5 / YES
6) LAS / 6 / YES

WN also serves other congested airports such as SEA, PHL, BWI...Also these airports are of comparable size so I dont buy the taxi distance theory either.

Any WN employees wish to elaborate...

If my bitterness shows its for forcing having to pay the AAxtortion airfares from SEA to DFW.


__________________
AGGIES WIN!

[Edited 2004-11-18 22:03:33]


REMEMBER...NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO...THERE YOU ARE !!
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

I think this excuse is BS as well. Add LAX to your list.

Also add to the fact there are certain time periods in the day that there is light traffic when all of AA is in its bankign process. Take for example between 12pm and 1pm. I've been at DFW adn there is NOBODY at the runways. Of course 1-130 is a different story. But there are little holes like this throughout the day that WN could come in and out. Doesn't make sense.


User currently offlineSleepyflyboy From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 73 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2420 times:

i dont think you can ever say that Southwest "definitly will not ever go into this airport." this airline has been able to adapt to the different economoic climates of the industry and has show that it can change over time. no one expected it to fly into PHL until they did. with the ground delays and the horrible turn around times no one expected it. its all speculation


kick the tires and light the fires
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Well, first of all, you're looking at the wrong statistic (i.e. passenger counts). When you look at aircraft movements, the top ten in the USA are:

  1. ORD
  2. ATL
  3. DFW
  4. LAX
  5. PHX
  6. MSP
  7. CVG
  8. LAS
  9. DEN
  10. DTW

Arguably, WN is a substantial portion of the movements at LAX, PHX, and LAS already; any presence at an airport like DFW would only add to the congestion there. In reality, congestion at DFW is down in the past couple of years due to AA's decision to depeak its hub, but taxi times are still quite high, especially, say, for an arrival on 17L where you can spend 15 minutes or longer taxiing to the terminal. Moreover, though the airfield has a lot of capacity, the terminal layout with respect to the runways is inefficient, since the runways on the west side of the complex are only useful to aircraft using Terminal B (and in future, Terminal D), unless you're willing to spend an extra 5-10 minutes taxiing all the way over to the 18-36 pair.

LAX has a far more balanced terminal layout for its runways, and WN's position at Terminal 1 lends itself to very short taxi-out times. Moreover, they are somewhat insulated from UA's hub operation and AA's focus operation which are both on the opposite side of the airport, and the peak time at LAX for international departures to Asia (after about 10 PM or so) is after WN's operation has begun to wind down for the night.

And none of the airports you list as being served by WN are of comparable size in land area to DFW.


User currently offlineAAtakeMeAway From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

I thought the runways on the west side of the field were primarily for flights heading/coming from the west, regardless of the terminal.
Also, isn't the large number of a/c movements at DFW primarily due to all the ASA/Skywest RJs, that are about to go away?


User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

While I'd like to see WN at DFW, maybe one reason is that they don't want to complicate their flights to "non-WA" states with intrastate flights to both DFW (potential "connecting" traffic) and DAL and increase their costs. I don't see them banging down the doors to serve O'hare. Southwest sees a new market, which has been there for 30+ years, but the restrictions for the Wright Amendment (which have pretty much been anti-competitive) prevented them from going after that market. While DFW isn't terribly delay prone, I remember when Braniff 1 was operating, and had terminals on the west side of the airport, while AA had terminals on the east side, somehow just as many AA planes were moseying over to the west side runways, delaying the Braniff flights as were taking to the East side runways and mixing with the Delta flights.

User currently offlineSpoke2Spoke From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

Why would WN want to serve DFW when they have their Love Field operations?

Their customers are probably happy to save and fly from Love Field instead. DFW ops would probably be pricey, from a fleet utilization perspective (delays)and would create quite a stir at the AA tower.

With airports they serve like PHL, SEA, there really aren't viable alternative airports in those markets. In PHL, there's that Northeast airport but I don't know if its big enough. Plus, in PHL, WN wants to take US' customer base (and everything else).

What else in Seattle besides SEA?

To get a presence in some markets, WN must use a congested airfield. You could counter my argument by saying "then why don't they use Long Beach in LA instead of LAX?" Lots of people actually prefer Long Beach anyway.



...carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks. - Wilbur Wright
User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

WN has been trying to get into BFI instead of SEA for a long time. They would dearly love to get out of SEA.


"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
User currently offlineNealcg From United States of America, joined May 2004, 141 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

With airports they serve like PHL, SEA, there really aren't viable alternative airports in those markets. In PHL, there's that Northeast airport but I don't know if its big enough. Plus, in PHL, WN wants to take US' customer base (and everything else).

What else in Seattle besides SEA?


Boeing Field and WN almost ended up going there.


Also, to clarify I'm not saying DAL should be closed or even scaled back. Going to DFW would merely tap into the large O&D market that can be served transcontinentaly from DFW. For example they could finally fly direct to their two largest hubs LAS and PHX from the Dallas area, something they cannot do now...as far as SEA is concerned I've never seen an empty AA MD-80 on that route and I take it over a dozen times a year.



REMEMBER...NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO...THERE YOU ARE !!
User currently offlineUN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

By the way, WN wanted something close to SoCal, and in addition, Long Beach has a huge pestilence called NIMBys..and they block B6.


What now?
User currently offlineWilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

SWA has the same pestilence problem at Love,you just don't hear about it on this board. Not just NIMBYs,RICH NIMBYs..............Again,this subject comes up every couple of years,and goes away. And funny how its the Tennessee congressmen that are wanting to bring this up. Funny SWA using there Tennessee friends to fight this for them.............Hmmmmm.

User currently offlineAAgent From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 560 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2057 times:

If you can get enough honey without disturbing the bees, then don't disturb the bees...especially when those bees are Killer AAfricanized Bees. Southwest didn't fill it's honey pots by being stupid. It's clear that they know when to leave things well enough alone.


War Eagle!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2053 times:

Moreover, though the airfield has a lot of capacity, the terminal layout with respect to the runways is inefficient, since the runways on the west side of the complex are only useful to aircraft using Terminal B (and in future, Terminal D), unless you're willing to spend an extra 5-10 minutes taxiing all the way over to the 18-36 pair.

The original master plan in the 70s had a second set of passenger terminals off Highway 114 on the north east side of the main terminals. These would have been much closer to the perpriary runways, but I think cargo airlines have set-up shop here. Not to mention... DFW won't be building terminals for a long time.... but they have land for a total of ten !


Btw... did anyone read the artice in todays Dallas Morning News? God were the DFW manegement bitching and moaning at WN !!  Big thumbs up

For those who read the article... who wants to bet that the LCC customer WN "scared away" was probably I-air anyway  Big grin


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3539 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 2009 times:

The nimbys around DAL don't give a shit about WN, it is they who take the $39 flights to houston and san antonio and el paso 3-4 times a week, and the runways are situated so there is really minimal noise dispersed over the wealthy areas. WN is staying at love, and not scaling down ops at love. WN does not want to go to DFW, but if forced to, they will.


Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 1993 times:

For me it looks like WN has decided to lift the Wright Amandment. It is no surprise that their anouncement not to leave DAL plus that they are not neutral anymore to the agreement comes nearly at the same time. In addition I think that DL's plans with DFW are also related to their decision. With DL leaving DFW it becomes obvious to everyone that AA might get a monopol in the whole North Texas area, so there shouldn't be that much political resistance to lift it than under an more competitive environment.

I think WN plays its political cards very smart.


User currently offlineSwadispatcher From United States of America, joined May 2004, 427 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Fact of the matter is that we're not going to have operations at both airports.. we already have an established base at Love and there is no reason to move out to DFW; besides the cost is to high to operate both airports. The board of directors at DFW need to quit whining like a bunch of 2 year olds and face the fact that the Wright Amendment is an antequated dinosaur that needs to go.. there are so many cities with co-terminals that function just fine:

1. ORD/MDW
2. SFO/OAK/SJC
3. LAX/BUR/SNA/LGB
4. FLL/MIA
5. JFK/LGA/EWR

I'm convinced that the carrier they speak of was Airtran.. but they're so busy with MDW and TZ that they can't afford to "invest" in DFW at the moment, so we really didn't have anything to do with it at all.. the DFW board just likes the public to think so..

Getting rid of the WA is good for north Texans and AA and WN can peacefully co-exist in the two airports as long as AA decides not to start a drag out fight at DAL.



Maintain 2300 until Boiler, cleared for the VOR-A approach, report BATLE inbound..
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3539 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

any fight AA initiates it will lose. end of story.


Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

And funny how its the Tennessee congressmen that are wanting to bring this up. Funny SWA using there Tennessee friends to fight this for them.............Hmmmmm.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe...just maybe...those "Tennessee friends" might be fighting for their constituency who can fly nonstop from Nashville to Los Angeles for $675 less than they can fly from Nashville to Dallas, and that maybe they'd like to "gift" their constituents a less expensive way to get between Dallas and Nashville? Hmmmmmm?


User currently offlineWilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

GoingBoeing......Please........Go through MDW or KC then.

I just find it humorus that they did not go through Sen. Hutchinson. Maybe because they know the answer already. Who knows,again,this comes up every few years,and after a couple of days this will blow over again.



User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

GoingBoeing......Please........Go through MDW or KC then.

To get where...Dallas? Can't do that because of the Wright Amendment.


User currently offlineJsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2074 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

The NIMBY problem at Love Field is a tricky issue...

The neighborhoods you see out the window of your 737 on short final to DAL are predominantly lower-income and heavily Hispanic. The schools under the approach path (I always think of T.J. Rusk Junior High, which is literally about 1200 yards from the 31L threshold) have been soundproofed. Most of the residents in those areas are working too hard to have time to bitch about aircraft noise. What's more, many of them work at the airport and enjoy the convenience of living close by.

Further off in the distance, about four miles from the airport (and completely off any runway heading) are the Park Cities. THOSE are the neighborhoods that complain about Love Field. Most of the time you can't even see (or hear) aircraft from the Park Cities, but rest assured they will be the first areas to bitch about "quality of life" should the Wright Amendment be repealed.

People in the Bachman and Maple Lawn areas, under the flight paths, are not going to complain. All the noise will come from the Park Cities, who have no right to make any.


User currently offlineCactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2450 posts, RR: 30
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1750 times:

Wlliam

You're suggesting that if someone wants to get from Nashville to Dallas, that they go through Chcago first?

Check a map, that's about as nconvenient as routing them through LAX.




You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
User currently offlineWilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

GB made the comment about going from Nashville to Los Angeles,I was referring to that Cactus.

This again is a moot point,it comes up every few years and the Mayors of both DALLAS AND FT. WORTH have stated they are on the same page regarding keeping the Wright Admendment. They stated they want LCC,but they want them to serve DFW not DAL. They have both sent a letter to the Texas congressional delegation in DC stating this.


User currently offlineSccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5615 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

You may be assured that, while I support Mayor Miller on many things, on this issue she is way off base. And she will hear about it from me.


...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineLoveFieldFlyer From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

... the Mayors of both DALLAS AND FT. WORTH have stated they are on the same page regarding keeping the Wright Admendment. They stated they want LCC,but they want them to serve DFW not DAL. They have both sent a letter to the Texas congressional delegation in DC stating this.

According to the Dallas Morning News, the letters were drafted by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport officials and printed on airport letterheads. Not exactly official letters from the mayors themselves.


25 Goingboeing : GB made the comment about going from Nashville to Los Angeles,I was referring to that Cactus. YOu missed my point William....people in Nashville can f
26 Kellmark : When the Wright Amendment was first created,it might have made sense to get DFW going. But it has now been several decades. It is time to get real der
27 Swadispatcher : I'm not sure that either mayor realizes the additional tourism dollars that would be brought to the metroplex by getting rid of the WA. I'm sure she's
28 LoveFieldFlyer : The fact that the mayors didn't initiate the letters themselves suggests that DFW Airport is twisting their arms. In other words, sign this and we won
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
WN Increasing Frequencies Out Of DAL posted Thu Aug 17 2006 17:59:22 by MrSTL
WN Assigned Seating Out Of SAN. How Does It Work? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 21:10:29 by FutureSDPDcop
STL WN Terminal Loses Part Of Roof posted Thu Jul 20 2006 02:49:22 by Reins485
WN Summer Schedules Out Of Your City posted Thu Mar 9 2006 06:36:33 by Iowaman
Latest WN Case Results Person Of Size posted Wed Feb 15 2006 16:23:24 by Luv2fly
WN To Serve Denver International posted Thu Oct 20 2005 13:12:49 by Johnboy
WN Officially Declines DFW Offer posted Fri Jan 21 2005 22:16:06 by Skedguy
Dallas & Ft. Worth Mayors Urge WN To Use DFW posted Tue Jan 18 2005 05:41:54 by Ssides
Why WN Must Add DFW... posted Wed Oct 13 2004 22:33:53 by Nealcg
WN 732 Exhibit - Change Of Seats? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 15:56:19 by September11