Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A New SWA Website  
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

http://www.setlovefree.com/

This one deals with SWA's efforts to repeal the Wright Amendment... It won't be active until sometime Thursday 5/5/2005...

Another good site is http://www.fightwright.org

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3226 times:

It's now operational....

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3181 times:

How about this... you and your lovely company save a region some money by not insisting they keep a second airport open just for you.

I can see you trying to pull this crap in San Diego in the not too distant future, probably a driving force in getting the Wright Ammendment off the table. One word for SAN the day a new airport opens... Bulldozer.


User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 2):
How about this... you and your lovely company save a region some money by not insisting they keep a second airport open just for you.

Why not ask the city of Dallas how much money they would have "saved" had they kept the Ice Rink at DAL and closed the airport. BTW- the "second airport" wasn't kept open "just for Southwest"...It was kept open for General Aviation and Corporate Aviation as well. So....if the airport was going to be kept open anyways, and passenger traffic from LUV brings in additional revenues to the city....just how much is Southwest's operation at Love Field "costing" the city of Dallas?


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 3):
Why not ask the city of Dallas how much money they would have "saved" had they kept the Ice Rink at DAL and closed the airport.

Considering the revenue goes back into the airport and not the city coffers? You tell me what they would have saved. I wonder what the land is worth at market prices? That money would go into the City coffers.


User currently offlineSWACLE From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

Hey, while we're at it, lets close MDW, DCA, LGA, OAK, SJC, BUR, ONT, SNA, PIE, ABE, PVD...etc, etc, etc. Surely we don't need any of those "secondary" airports since IAD, LAX, ORD, BOS, SFO, PHL, TPA exist...

And lets close Alliance and move all the freight guys over to DFW...don't need a separate airport just for freight...oh, wait..that money goes to Ft. worth also..never mind, Alliance is ok...

Here's an idea...quit supporting anti-competitive BS like the Wright Amendment and allow free competition at all D/FW area airports.

DC



Aircraft Flown: SF3 DH8 DH4 328 ERJ CRJ CR7 CR9 E70 E75 D9S M80 712 72S 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 752 318 319 32
User currently offlineB737200300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

SWA can start landing at that stealth airport in Nevada

User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3111 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 2):
How about this... you and your lovely company save a region some money by not insisting they keep a second airport open just for you.

You appear to support traditional capitalistic ideals, but then selectively oppose them when they're put into practice.

Maybe you support opaque, closed-door, backroom shenanigans instead? At least WN is being up-front about what they want and how they intend to get it. As for 'saving a region some money,' do you somehow not understand that WN already pays all fees that are required from them? If keeping DAL open costs more than the fees they pay, blame it on the officials who set the rates.

Most folks I know from Dallas are none too happy with the present monopoly they have to deal with. I usually tell them they have their own elected and appointed officials to blame for that, but that doesn't make the W.A. any more legitimate in the grand scheme of things.



Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3109 times:

Quoting B737200300 (Reply 6):
SWA can start landing at that stealth airport in Nevada

SWA has had B-2 service out of there for awhile now, you just never -see- them....  Wink


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3075 times:

Thruth be told, I could care less about DAL/DFW. My concern is the trend it sets. I look at it from the standpoint of the problem it would cause a new city (such as San Diego) in their quest to build a new airport. A market which cannot support two airports. Having negotiated tenant contracts with SWA I can tell you they want everything everyone else has for less money, then they complain after negotiating down for less that they didn't get what they wanted.

They spent 12 years suing over DFW, I'm sure they'd "luv" to be the only downtown game in town in San Diego, thus negatively affecting San Diego's ability to build a new facility (by an adverse affect on bond ratings due to legal uncertainty) which has constraint problems not in spite of Southwest, but because of Southwest. Southwest has already declined to move to the north side of San Diego's airport, a move that would relieve traffic congestion and free up some of San Diego's problem, at least short term. A move that makes sense because they have no code-share arrangements or interline ticketing. A move they opposed and threatened to sue over in 1999. Maybe it will take La Guardia like delays at SAN to get through to them, who knows. What I do know is that since I left there, nothing has changed.

So, make a special provision for them once, you'll have to make it again. So then the question becomes... If you say yes to SWA time and time again, and have lawsuits that set precidences to back them up, then how do you deal with telling them no when the time comes that you have to for airport survival?

My issue is not with their service, it's with their damaging tactics which I have seen first hand.


User currently offlineNtspelich From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3069 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 8):
SWA has had B-2 service out of there for awhile now, you just never -see- them....

You already let them know too much. Now Colleen's army of ninja's is on its way to your desk.. Big grin



United 717 heavy, you're facing the wrong way. Any chance you can powerback to get off of my deice pad?
User currently offlineB737200300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

SWA can start landing on Aircraft carriers, just add tail hook to all your 737s

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3029 times:

Quoting B737200300 (Reply 11):
SWA can start landing on Aircraft carriers, just add tail hook to all your 737s

These whack jobs came close in such a proposal to SAN a couple of years ago, forget the environmental issues, the open ovals adjacent the runway, the fact their plan was 20,000 feet long. Nothign like a rolling ILS to make your day. You know, little things:

http://www.floatinc.com/Floatport.html


User currently offlineJsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2036 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3023 times:

Boeing7E7:

I'm sure Southwest would be more than happy to move to a new SAN provided it was located within reasonable reach of the city. After all, they moved from Austin-Mueller to Austin-Bergstrom back in 1999, even though Austin-Mueller was very convenient to downtown.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Quoting Jsnww81 (Reply 13):
I'm sure Southwest would be more than happy to move to a new SAN provided it was located within reasonable reach of the city. After all, they moved from Austin-Mueller to Austin-Bergstrom back in 1999, even though Austin-Mueller was very convenient to downtown.

They've already provided opposition to the project which is why the only way SAN will stay open is if they can only get a single runway solution at another location for the network carriers.


User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2853 times:

If anyone has ever read my posts, you'll know full well I try to be a voice of reason on A.net, giving every statement the benefit of the doubt; understanding what a poster is trying to say before flying off in a tirade....but some comments in this particular thread really have me scratching my head.

What does San Diego, (and what may, or may not happen in the future), have to do with the CURRENT legislative situation at Love Field?

Love costing Dallas money? I mean come on, do you REALLY believe that?
So the money doesn't go STRAIGHT to the general fund....why should it?
Love Field is self-supporting.
Somehow I was mistaken in thinking that was a good thing....
Ever seen the northeastern and southeasten edges of the Love property, along Lemmon and Mockingbird?...lots of aviation support firms, with workers, who pay taxes, and who more than likely live in Dallas County....now how is that bad?

Unless the real point here is moving that tax base to Tarrant County? Is that was this is really about? Of course it is, it'a always about money, which incidentally, Dallas County per capita personal income leads Tarrant $36,000 to $30,000.......hmmmm.

Landing Fees, fuel taxes, land leases, concession and franchise fees, parking fees, terminal use-fees, rentals,...the list goes on....why would the city bulldoze this? To be replaced with what?

If and when San Diego gets a new airport; at such time we'll cross that bridge.
In the mean-time, come up with a better argument than, "they (WN) wouldn't move to the other side of the Lindbergh...."
So....which airlines did move? Exactly.

As for, "How much is the land around Love Field worth?"
I am not a realestate broker, but judging by the other available realestate around the DFW Metroplex, I would say 'not much', comparatively.

Even when Love was the main airport for the region, the area around Love was in decline. The growth was happening along the corridors of the North Central Expressway from the CBD to Richardson (now McKinney), Stemmons from CBD to Lewisville, LBJ from Garland to DFW, Las Colinas, Arlington, Airport freeway through Irving and Texas Stadium, and of course Downtown (Woodall Rogers/West End/Arts District)...there might be a few more, these are the biggies.

Without aviation, Love would have become an urban waste land. A massive superfund clean up site requiring billions of $ before it could have EVER been converted to other uses.
Over the years, I've even heard Love Field be called the buffer between the Park Cities (Highland and University) and the riff-raff of Harry Hines Blvd and beyond.

Let's face it once and for all.
The Wright Amendant is a piece of favoritist legislation.....the reward for relocating an HQ to Tarrant County.....let's see it for what it truly is.

Sidenote to History:
My father was involved on the Dallas end of the television show "Dallas".
Most footage was shot in Hollywood. In the summer, they would come to Dallas to shoot the outdoor atmospheric shots.
The year is 1978. The cast and crew are in downtown Dallas kicking off the first season with a big party at the Adolphus Hotel. The "Who's Who" in Dallas are all there...The movers and shakers, the money, the people who make Dallas 'tick'.
I was just a teenager then and didn't go, but I remember the things my father told me about it the next day, he said it was "Just a bunch of drunks, and their "King", (as my dad called him) Larry Hagman making all kinds of Fort Worth jokes....oh, and Patrick Duffey kissed your mom."

When I asked him about why the 'Fort Worth jokes', he went on to explain that Fort Worth had approached Lorimar Productions about using some 'Fort Worth' locations in the show. Lorimar declined, saying, "it's a show about Dallas". {the older guy who played JR's dad said something along the lines of, "We get enough bullshit as it is from Larry, why would we want to go to a place known as 'Cowtown'?...the crowd goes wild, Larry continues speaking.}

The late 70's were passionate times in North Texas...DFW was new and state of the art (minus the stupid people-mover), and the show "Dallas" was beamed all over the world, people could not get enough of anything Dallas or Texas.
But in all this, Fort Worth was just the ugly freckled red-headed step-child.

My father's uncle was one of the MANY local attorney's and business leaders who worked on the AA relocation, and became very wealthy in the process.
Within a year of that "Party" at the Adolphus(more like 9 months), the Wright Amendant is law. (Almost like word got back to the enemy, and Wright legislation was the response...)

I will acquiesce this: For the time, the Wright Amendment was ABSOLUTELY necessary to protect the national (taxpayers) investment made in DFW. Somewhere along the way, it became the shield for bozo's like my great-uncle and other men like him to hide behind. Close Addison and Alliance too then.

In those days my Grandfather owned an office supply company (Stephens Office Supply-S.O.S.) which had, as his primary customer base, the airlines and related businesses and industry at or around Love Field.
The Christmas of 1979 was the first holiday in history without Uncle Lloyd; from that point on my grandfather and great-uncle never spoke another word, let alone be in the same room together for the rest of their lives...They died within months of each other, having not spoken in 21 years.
All because of an airport.


Connected? Probably not a snowball's chance in hell. But mine is not the only story. Hatfields and McCoys? - Dallas/Tarrant county line. Same difference, 21st century style.

I bring these unconnected and seemingly unrelated anecdotes to the table in hopes of illustrating a deep-seated rivalry that anyone outside of North Texas might find hard to understand.

Keep San Diego in California, and Dallas in Texas....the two issues are unrelated. Argue San Diego on it's own merits and liabilities. Please.



Delete this User
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2716 times:

As one might expect, DFW has weighed-in on SWA's new website...

http://www.keepdfwstrong.com/news/05/05/050505-website.html


User currently offlineTheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

Is it just me, or does the DFW comments come off as mere whining and really the use of the freedom cliches, it gets old quick.

Pure crap in my opinion. I just hope they repeal this archaic piece of legislation sooner than later and give consumers the choise they deserve.

My question to DFW, if is so great to fly out of DFW, why are you scared of repealing the Wright Amendment? Repeal it and let Southwest learn the hard way the "folly" of their reasoning. They'll be on your doorstep in no time if it really is worth it to fly from "a vibrant, state-of-the-art facility: [like] DFW International Airport"  scratchchin 

GreatChecko



"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 17):
Pure crap in my opinion.

Especially their use of the same old 97% monopoly figure...

While that figure might be accurate now (since no other airline (COEX excluded) in their right mind wants to fly into DAL and put up with the restrictions), it would -not- be 97% post-repeal. With the WA gone, other airlines would bring some flights into DAL, and SWA's relative percentage would -decrease- from that 97%. Yet, the DFW/AA folks continue to parrot that 97% figure at every opportunity, since they apparently want folks to think that 97%=monopoly=SWA bad, and nothing more.

Funny, but post-repeal, what do you want to bet that SWA's eventual overall share of DAL traffic is still -below- the 80% that DFW has at DFW?

[Edited 2005-05-06 00:56:27]

User currently offlineSccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 9):
So, make a special provision for them once, you'll have to make it again. So then the question becomes... If you say yes to SWA time and time again, and have lawsuits that set precidences to back them up, then how do you deal with telling them no when the time comes that you have to for airport survival?

An amusing comment, in that the "special provision" is an unprecedented piece of federal legislation whcih artificially restricts a city asset, Love Field, from being used to its logical potential.

Meanwhile, over there in Tarrant County, there's another airport consistently and substantially siphoning revenue away from DFW, and yet we are supposed to disregard that? AFW (Alliance) is a money pump, and its traffic and facilities *could* be at DFW- but they're not.

Wright is wrong, and it is worm food. Get over it.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Thank you for posting the link, OPNL.

Very well written and well put together site!

Now, you wouldn’t happen to know what ship operated 615 HOU-MHT today, would ya?


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 20):
Now, you wouldn’t happen to know what ship operated 615 HOU-MHT today, would ya?

I heard a rumor that it was N790SW, but then again, I could be wrong...  Wink


User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 21):
I could be wrong...

It kinda looked like that one...so I'll let you slide.... Wink


BTW – I love the many .pdf files – specifically the link that WN has offered “drastically” lower fares.


User currently offlineMainland From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 18):
Especially their use of the same old 97% monopoly figure...

I hate it too because I know it doesn't tell the truth behind the statistic, but technically it is true. The Amendment foreclosed competition at DAL, essentially giving WN a monopoly.

This whole issue over monopolization got me thinking... Now, I'm not from the Dallas area and do not have extensive knowledge in the aviation business, but I've noticed something interesting in researching this topic. Yields at DFW are among the highest of large O&D airports, and I have no doubt economically that this is due to American not having to compete with WN over most routes. However, yields at DAL are just as high. What I don't have the background to know is if these high yields at DAL are just due to the nature of the routes WN operates, or if (as I initially suspected) the high yields are also a product of the Wright Amendment giving WN nearly no competition at DAL.

No matter the cause, the benefits of breaking out from the Wright restrictions are just too great for Southwest and I support its repeal. (I don't think I could be an econ major if I thought any other way....)



You don't need a passport to know what state you're in...
User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

Quoting Mainland (Reply 23):
What I don't have the background to know is if these high yields at DAL are just due to the nature of the routes WN operates, or if (as I initially suspected) the high yields are also a product of the Wright Amendment giving WN nearly no competition at DAL

Keep in mind you are talking about a MSA with 5+ million residents that has 60 flights daily – on one airline – between another MSA that has 5+ million residents – Houston.


25 OPNLguy : Yes, technically true -today-, pre-repeal, but it won't be post-repeal. AA/DFW know that, yet they continue this disingenuous spin to infer it will -
26 Silver1SWA : Hmmm, I'm not sure if I can get into the details here, but I'll say of that list, SJC may be in trouble. The city, and Southwest are not getting alon
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...
New Airbus Website To Promote A350XWB posted Tue Dec 5 2006 16:10:35 by Leelaw
New United Website posted Wed Nov 15 2006 19:06:16 by Bicoastal
New BA Website Goes Live posted Tue Nov 7 2006 09:28:42 by EI787
New BA Website posted Sat Sep 30 2006 18:56:21 by Sam1987
New RFD Website Up Right Now posted Fri Sep 8 2006 23:47:17 by KarlB737
New OneWorld Website posted Thu Aug 24 2006 13:39:47 by Challiday
New Mexicana Website posted Tue Aug 22 2006 18:34:52 by Ucunnn
AA New J Class Website posted Thu Aug 3 2006 18:02:15 by N725RW
New CLE Website posted Thu May 18 2006 15:29:33 by CLE757
New TK Website. posted Thu Apr 6 2006 23:53:09 by ThereAndBack