Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The "rest Of The Story" On DFW's 5/10 Study  
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5676 times:

Remember the study that DFW released back on May 10th, the one that spelled out all the doom and gloom that would befall DFW if the Wright Amendment were repealed, but didn’t discuss anything regarding airfares?

Well, it turns out that was only a “summary” of the study—the complete study –did- discuss airfares. Check out this article at: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/11752968.htm (use http://www.bugmenot.com ). Here are some excerpts, along with some [personal comments…]

“Airfares from North Texas to dozens of cities could drop as much as 50 percent if the Wright Amendment is lifted, according to a recent study commissioned by Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.” [Gad, what a surprise…]

“The airport, a leading proponent of the amendment, released a summary of the study two weeks ago indicating that if flight restrictions were lifted at Dallas Love Field, hundreds of flights would be shifted to Love from D/FW. The summary did not include the findings on fares”. [Gee, I wonder why…]

"If Southwest Airlines is allowed to expand, will fares come down? Absolutely," said Christina Cassotis, the study's author and vice president of Simat, Helliesen & Eichner in Cambridge, Mass. [How nice that they finally admit this…]

“The Star-Telegram obtained the fare data this week from the airport's legal department after submitting a written request for the documents.” [Rather disingenuous of DFW not to have released it to begin with…]

"We weren't trying to hide that issue," said Kevin Cox, the airport's chief operating officer. "We just didn't think anyone was interested in 160 pages of voluminous material." [I’ll just bet they weren't. The results of those 160 pages could have been condensed into readible form, I mean, the newspaper managed to do so. Maybe if they hadn’t sandbagged everyone on releasing the full report, some folks would have come away with a different conclusion on the issue...]

Cassotis said the impact on fares was never intended to be the report's main focus. [Of course, because they don’t –want- it to be...]

"The fare issue is very important to consumers, and so perhaps we should have included it," she said. [Perhaps? You know the fare issue is very important to consumers, the best you can do is “perhaps?…]

The report also calculated that the average fare on all airlines, flying at D/FW or Love Field, would drop 31 percent to Southwest's new destinations, as other carriers are forced to compete. [Competition –works- folks…]

Southwest officials say those low fares are the crux of their argument for repealing the restrictions.

"Anytime you fetter competition, what you have is a penalty to the consumer," Kelleher said.

But airport officials say the debate shouldn't be about fares. [Again, because they don’t –want- it to be. Guess the consumer doesn’t deserve lower fares...]

"Of course fares would go down," said Cox, the D/FW official. "But that shouldn't be the question. The question is, at what expense?" [Actually, it –should- be the question...]

Cox called the fare issue "a red herring" because Southwest can fly to any destination from D/FW, without any potential damage to the airport from lifting the amendment. [DFW is doing a pretty good job of spinning themselves. Southwest has the inherent right, as a business, to decide how to run its business, and if Southwest decides operating at DFW doesn’t make sense for them, that’s their decision, and nobody else’s, whether folks agree with it or not. No red herrings, but what does smells fishy here is DFW’s lack of forthrightness on the whole issue...]

"Southwest is doing an excellent job of spinning this to make it look like they're helping the traveling public," he said. [Well, It sure doesn’t look like DFW is “helping the traveling public” with lower fares, so somebody’s got to…]

Speaking of which, the article also had a fare chart with pre/post-repeal fares…
http://www.star-telegram.com/mld/interactivemedia/fairschart.pdf

85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5649 times:

It'll be so funny watching DFW collapse under 50% lower air fares...

NOT.

Told you they can't support too full service airports. Only the Hubbing of AA and DL made that possible. Same with any other two airport town.

Thanks for sharing the obvious.


User currently offlineTexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5650 times:

Good point, 7E7.

DFW is a top domestic/international gateway is due only to AA's and previously, DL's largesse. Otherwise, the DFW region could only support a very limited international presence, and mostly to Latin/South America.

DFW without AA would become like STL, MSY...ok, maybe not that bad, but DFW for most people is just a connecting joint where 80% of the people don't get on/off at DFW.



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5616 times:

DFW without AA would become like STL, MSY...ok, maybe not that bad, but DFW for most people is just a connecting joint where 80% of the people don't get on/off at DFW.

You're exactly right.

While fares would be impacted, it's not that they would actually be lower. The shift in O&D demand would free up more seats artificially deflating the fares due to over capacity. Essentially, DFW would collapse.

Major thumbs up for God knows how many small airports dependent on DFW for a connection to the rest of the world that would lose air service. Lets here it for Southwest!!!

Southwest going to start serving Abiline? Fort Smith? Whichita Falls?

NOT!

Southwest helps no-one but themselves and large markets where pilling in the pax by the thousands is possible. Period. Thanks for a desire to further fragment the industry.

By the way, all SWA offers is Vanilla and Vanilla sucks.

[Edited 2005-05-27 17:40:05]

User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5604 times:

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 2):
DFW is a top domestic/international gateway is due only to AA's and previously, DL's largesse. Otherwise, the DFW region could only support a very limited international presence, and mostly to Latin/South America.

True, but only to an extent. AA made a conscious decision to hub its operation here, and a big part of that was potential growth. It's a chicken-or-the-egg argument ... did DFW grow because of AA, or did AA grow due to the growth in the DFW area?

You could make similar arguments for other hubs: DEN, ATL, IAH, MSP, etc.

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 2):
DFW without AA would become like STL, MSY...ok, maybe not that bad, but DFW for most people is just a connecting joint where 80% of the people don't get on/off at DFW.

Remember, the DFW area is still the ninth largest metropolitan area in the country. And, in the past 5-6 years, O&D traffic at DFW has grown significantly. I think O&D at DFW is now up to about 60% of traffic (I'm still looking for the figures), up from about 40% several years ago.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5587 times:

And, in the past 5-6 years, O&D traffic at DFW has grown significantly. I think O&D at DFW is now up to about 60% of traffic (I'm still looking for the figures), up from about 40% several years ago.

Not true. If it were, Delta would still be there. Even ORD's O&D is not that high and it supports UA and AA on a larger scale than DFW ever supported DL and AA.

[Edited 2005-05-27 17:49:20]

User currently offlineTAN FLYR From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5583 times:

Boeing 7E7 made a great point..Southwest, to its' credit, does a lot for point to points of larger cities. Those of us that utilize DFW as a connecting point to smaller cities ( FWA, DAY and such) probably would not benefit substantially.

User currently offlineBartond From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 791 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5575 times:

Actually I think it's the 5th or 6th largest metro area in the country but I see your point.

This will be SOOOO interesting to see how this works out. As much as I want to see free competition in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area I don't want to see AA's operation and/or DFW to dwindle down to a second or third tier airport.


User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5566 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 5):
Not true. If it were, Delta would still be there. Even ORD's O&D is not that high and it supports UA and AA on a larger scale than DFW ever supported DL and AA.

No, you're wrong. Read not too recently that DFW's O&D was about 53%, not 60%, but close enough. DFW is the nation's 10th biggest O&D city. ATL's O&D is 45%, so I think ORD's O&D is likely higher than both. Just because a city has high O&D doesn't mean that traffic is high-yielding. DL left DFW because the competition was too much, and they were fighting a loosing battle.

Jeremy


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5578 times:

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 2):
Good point, 7E7.
DFW is a top domestic/international gateway is due only to AA's and previously, DL's largesse. Otherwise, the DFW region could only support a very limited international presence, and mostly to Latin/South America.

DFW without AA would become like STL, MSY...ok, maybe not that bad, but DFW for most people is just a connecting joint where 80% of the people don't get on/off at DFW.

Hmm, maybe O&D traffic might grow if air fares were more reasonable for flying to/from Dallas to other states.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 3):
You're exactly right.
While fares would be impacted, it's not that they would actually be lower. The shift in O&D demand would free up more seats artificially deflating the fares due to over capacity. Essentially, DFW would collapse.

Why wouldn't the same thing happen if Southwest moved to DFW and opened direct routes to other cities? It seems to me you want limited capacity out of the Dallas-Ft Worth area to jack up fares.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 3):
Major thumbs up for God knows how many small airports dependent on DFW for a connection to the rest of the world that would lose air service. Lets here it for Southwest!!!

Southwest going to start serving Abiline? Fort Smith? Whichita Falls?

So the people of Dallas should pay more to AA to subsidize air travel for people living in these towns?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5544 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 1):
It'll be so funny watching DFW collapse under 50% lower air fares...

NOT.

The whole argument ignores the most basic of demand curves. As AA inevitably drops fares when the Wright Amendment is repealed, more people will be willing to pay a lower price for air travel. Thus, giving a boost to DFW's traffic in addition to DAL's.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5536 times:

Why wouldn't the same thing happen if Southwest moved to DFW and opened direct routes to other cities? It seems to me you want limited capacity out of the Dallas-Ft Worth area to jack up fares.

They should move. The problem is a two airport system in a one horse demand town. I look at it more as an airport problem than an airline problem.

So the people of Dallas should pay more to AA to subsidize air travel for people living in these towns?

It's a catch 22. DAL is too small to support the Dallas region demand. At the same time DFW is too big to suvive just being a hub. A collapsing DFW is a disaster for the Dallas region with DAL being able to survive and DFW being grossly under utilized to a point of non-economic viability, but still being required to meet demand at unprofitable levels. Talk about subsidization...

No, you're wrong. Read not too recently that DFW's O&D was about 53%, not 60%, but close enough. DFW is the nation's 10th biggest O&D city. ATL's O&D is 45%, so I think ORD's O&D is likely higher than both. Just because a city has high O&D doesn't mean that traffic is high-yielding. DL left DFW because the competition was too much, and they were fighting a loosing battle.

Yawn... They left because of over capacity and insufficient O&D.

The whole argument ignores the most basic of demand curves. As AA inevitably drops fares when the Wright Amendment is repealed, more people will be willing to pay a lower price for air travel. Thus, giving a boost to DFW's traffic in addition to DAL's.

You have some magical stockpile of passengers hiding somewhere in the Dallas area in this over capacity industry?

[Edited 2005-05-27 18:15:23]

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5504 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 11):
It's a catch 22. DAL is too small to support the Dallas region demand. At the same time DFW is too big to suvive just being a hub. A collapsing DFW is a disaster for the Dallas region with DAL being able to survive and DFW being grossly under utilized to a point of non-economic viability, but still being required to meet demand at unprofitable levels. Talk about subsidization...

If DFW is connected to the larger AA network and offers international service and DAL can't support Dallas region demand, I doubt DFW is going to collapse. Both DFW and AA will simply have to become more efficient.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5491 times:

If DFW is connected to the larger AA network and offers international service and DAL can't support Dallas region demand, I doubt DFW is going to collapse. Both DFW and AA will simply have to become more efficient.

That's a false argument.

If demand falls as it would at DFW service is lost and international connection traffic shifts to another hub further impacting DFW fares and service. In addition, the increase in demand puts undue preasure on another hub airport such as ORD or ATL which have their own capacity problems. DFW is vital to the air transportation system as a whole. More efficient? How much more efficient can a carrier get? You can't get much more efficient without negatively impacting system flow. The point to point cost structure is impossible in a hub and spoke structure and the hub and spoke system is vital to the transportation network. DFW will collapse, not vanish, but collapse and be grossly under-utilized at a time where air transportation efficiency is going down the crapper with each passing day. Ironically caused by low cost carriers like southwest who jam the airspace between larger cities with as many flights as possible in 100 seat planes further impacting the national air space system where larger 200 seat aircraft are more appropriate.

The irony of this... The carrier which best benefits from deregulation could push the Air Transportation System to it's brink with it's market cherry picking and a move like this and end up with the Government having no choice but to re-regulate the industry to salvage the airspace and airport capacity problems at large airport brought on by such a move.

How ironic.

[Edited 2005-05-27 18:42:58]

User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3538 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5473 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 11):
Yawn... They left because of over capacity and insufficient O&D.

DL left because they were extremely close to bankruptcy and had to consolidate their operations into one single hub. It was a cost saving measure. DL's financial statements (Cash Flow) for Q3 and Q4 2004 paint a perfect picture. You'll see a tremendous loss of revenue in Operating Cash Flows (nearly $2 billion in the red). From investing cash flows, they lost over half a billion dollars in Q3 and Q4. but in Q1 2005, (during the time they abandoned the hub at DFW) they only lost 67,000,000 in investing, and actually scored 165 million in cash from operating (quite a jump from losing as much as they did in 2004). So their net cash gain in Q1 2005 was 85 million or so, give or take.

I don't know how much you all know about accounting, but when a company jettisons a huge part of it's operation but somehow ends up making money, it shows you what a large amount of money that operation was taking out of their pocketbooks. Delta needed cash, and they didn't have time to sit at DFW to drain the rest of their excess cash for demand to pick up.

The cash they got from American Express financing helped them out a lot too. It's all about accounting folks!



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5463 times:

The problem dates back to around 1996/1997 when they had to begin removing mainline service and replacing it with RJ service due to a fall off in O&D. The DFW problem didn't happen overnight. Keeping SLC just made more sence systemwise, but even consideration was given in 2000 to moving that operation to LAS.

Thanks for trying though.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5435 times:

All those "other" texas cities that rely on DFW to connect them to the world?

Well, CO and IAH would be more than happy to provide increased service. Of course, with less competition, prices could increase.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKL662 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5413 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 1):
Told you they can't support too full service airports. Only the Hubbing of AA and DL made that possible. Same with any other two airport town.

Don't IAH and HOU coexist nicely? Why would the same sort of setup not work for DFW and DAL? Believe me, I'm no fan of Dallas or AA (being from Houston...  Wink), but I have a hard time believing that DFW would "collapse" if WN got to fly wherever they want from DAL... In fact, it seems that DFW is in a better position to compete with DAL than IAH is against HOU given its location. IAH is way north of town, and HOU much more centrally located, while DFW is ~between Ft. Worth and Dallas, right? DAL would appear to be a less central option for the region...


User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4067 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5399 times:

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 14):
DL left because they were extremely close to bankruptcy and had to consolidate their operations into one single hub.

Delta left after multiple rounds of trying to right-size the operation by making it smaller. That is evidence of the economies of scale of large hubs - it only supports the point of the DFW study that having say 5% reduction in local traffic at DFW has a far larger impact in total traffic.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5384 times:

Don't IAH and HOU coexist nicely? Why would the same sort of setup not work for DFW and DAL?

IAH's hub operation is much smaller than DFW and right sized for the market and operation, if CO pulled out or cut thier service in half the same problem would exist. When DFW lost DL they got smacked. Further imploding like that by American would make the facility unprofitable. No profit and AA looks elsewhere. Delta did. CO did in DEN and look how it impacted their operation. They are very lucky Frontier came to pass, but they still aren't where they thought they would be in demand.

In fact, it seems that DFW is in a better position to compete with DAL than IAH is against HOU given its location.

If anything, IAH's strength of being right sized hurts DFW. IAH is akin to CVG.

All those "other" texas cities that rely on DFW to connect them to the world?

Well, CO and IAH would be more than happy to provide increased service. Of course, with less competition, prices could increase.


At what inconvenience to the passenger? Fly AUS South to IAH then North past AUS to ICT??? Sounds like a trip on Southwest.


User currently offlineEjmmsu From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5379 times:

Earlier posts asked if WN would ever serve Wichita Falls ( SPS ).

The answer to that is obviously no, but AA service is very expensive here.

I live in Wichita Falls, and this spring I was had to book a trip to BNA to visit Vanderbilt University. The advanced purchase fare for a flight from SPS to BNA on AA was $521. From DFW, the fare was $440.

I decided to drive to OKC and fly WN to BNA, and paid $229.

What good is air service to SPS if it so expensive that no one can use it?



"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

The economic engine DFW thinks they are, needs a tune-up, and the Wright Admendment repealed.

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5354 times:

The answer to that is obviously no, but AA service is very expensive here.

But at least you have service. Hope you like driving.

The economic engine DFW thinks they are, needs a tune-up, and the Wright Admendment repealed.

Several billion lost as a result? More of a tune down.


User currently offlineWnsocal From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5310 times:

OPNLguy.....

Thanks again for your information. I am glad to see you research these things. The other side came only say how the sky will fall if the W/A is gone. In my opinion AA will "right size" thier DFW ops if the W/A falls, which I think it will.

To those who say WN should give up gates at DAL to allow other carriers in I say why don't those carriers give up gates in cities WN would like to serve. Fair is fair, right?

OPNLguy,

I wish you luck on your sparing with all the "pro" folks out there. I don't think anyone will actually listen to what you have to say. I also do not think you will get anyone to come up with a real reason NOT to repel the W/A.



Airline Nut
User currently offlineXkorpyoh From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting KL662 (Reply 17):
Don't IAH and HOU coexist nicely? Why would the same sort of setup not work for DFW and DAL?



Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 20):
What good is air service to SPS if it so expensive that no one can use it?

I agree with both of you. IAH/HOU, ORD-MDW, LGA-JFK-EWR, MIA-FLL, all do well and bring competition that is good for the flying public. The expensive fares to smaller airports are afforded only by companies that can pay for it.
I the demand is still there for high paying passengers, i am sure the flights will continue with or without W/A.

Sort off topic but related. Doesn't the bill allows for 70paxs planes to flight anywhere from DAL?! I am thinking that a 2 cabin E170 would be an ideal plane for DAL to serve many destinations nonstop. Maybe jetBlue wakes up and takes advantage of this loophol. E170 with PTV and the renowned B6 service would be a great competition for both WN and AA out of DAL.


25 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Speaking from personal experience with business, family, and leisure... if a Texas Two-Step is required, it's either drive or teleconfrence. If that'
26 Boeing7E7 : Funny... it's exactly what happened to American Airlines at MIA when they began facing subsantial competition at FLL. They trimmed opperations, increa
27 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Oh... okay, just checkin. Because people buying tickets for the right flight and the right price really changes dramatically from market to market 56
28 Post contains images OPNLguy : This thread has been so badly hijacked that I wondered when someone would have an on-topic post... I can't claim credit for the research--the Ft. Wor
29 Boeing7E7 : Oh... okay, just checkin. Because people buying tickets for the right flight and the right price really changes dramatically from market to market Mia
30 Wnsocal : This remind me of the other thread where you posted that repeal of the W/A causes baldness..... That was so funny I was rolling.
31 Xkorpyoh : thnks DFWR for the correction. got the 56 confused with 70.
32 Post contains links and images DfwRevolution : A federal judge also ruled that no party had the legal right to close DAL, so whose kidding whom? Nor can you close one Because that's all that's lef
33 Boeing7E7 : A federal judge also ruled that no party had the legal right to close DAL, so whose kidding whom? After the fact. Nor can you close one I can name sev
34 DfwRevolution : Says who? DFW? The FTC summary that I linked, from 1992, states clear as crystal- "In a letter signed by the FTC's Dallas Regional Office Director, T
35 BigB : AUS to IAH is only about a 30 min hop. That kind of trip has a similar total flt. time compare to AUS-DFW-ICT. Boeing7E7 Man, take a chill pill. DFW
36 PassBureauMgr : If the WA amendment is trashed, there will be a jetBlue effect in the Dallas area. Fares will decrease at DFW, and some carriers will go a$$ over tea
37 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Where else in B6 system has this happened? It sounds like you're morphing their contrasting JFK and ATL experience into an "effect." I would be... th
38 SunValley : With all due respect, WestJet has on more than one occasion said they would be very interested in YYC-DAL service. I believe PassB is referring to th
39 Post contains images Boeing7E7 : By who? Show us or shut-up... I've got the FTC on my side saying this isn't the case. What do you have? You're own personal opinion shared by DFW? The
40 OPNLguy : Of course, it couldn't -possibly- mean that the terms of acquiring all those gates (10/20/30, whatever) are so full of conditions, or that an airline
41 Boeing7E7 : Of course, it couldn't -possibly- mean that the terms of acquiring all those gates (10/20/30, whatever) are so full of conditions, or that an airline
42 OPNLguy : The conditions I was referring to were the 10 gate minimun, and the minimum usage requirements...
43 Boeing7E7 : The conditions I was referring to were the 10 gate minimun, and the minimum usage requirements... You could easily fill 15 and op 10 per a day at DFW,
44 DfwRevolution : Ahh... that makes sense. But you must recognize that in this issue, the two are not mutually exclusive. It's two home teams with their own stadium, o
45 Boeing7E7 : But you must recognize that in this issue, the two are not mutually exclusive. Not today, but they were 30 years ago. This is the exact problem they w
46 N1120A : We all seem to forget BN's involvement in DFW before their collapse IAH is still a massive hub operation for CO and CO is in just as dominant positio
47 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Let me take this one for Boeing7E7.... Those markets are different!
48 Boeing7E7 : BUR An integral part of LAWA's point to point service with expansion limited. Serves as an LAX reliever. ONT See Burbank. LGB Different operating auth
49 SCCutler : For the AA / DFW fans here (the ones who claim that the incremental increase in service to DAL which would result from repeal of the Wright Amendment)
50 Post contains links Aaway : Page 2-6 of the link shown below will illustrate and summarize why this isn't necessarily the case: http://dallaslovefieldmasterplan.com...s/Chap-2-F
51 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>There's an easy solution. Pay for the SWA move and close DAL to commercial service. Swell idea... Make sure to include a few gazillion dollars for
52 Post contains images Swadispatcher : You didn't hear.. that is our next city. Service starts in the fall! Ever heard of the "Southwest Effect" ? How will demand fall when airfares drop b
53 N79969 : Boeing7E7, At first I disagreed with you strongly in the other thread but you have made some very strong, credible arguments. While I am not quite con
54 Goose : YYC has a US Customs pre-clearance facility.
55 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>We're waiting for you to file your operating certificate with the FAA... It might be awhile... Branson is ahead in the line...
56 Boeing7E7 : Make sure to include a few gazillion dollars for the thrice-expanded HDQ building, the training center (3-bay expansion in progress), and several hang
57 OPNLguy : >>>elimination of an airport contributing to airspace congestion And moving that traffic from DAL to DFW isn't just moving the "congestion" from DAL t
58 Post contains links Travelin man : Not to be picky, but BUR does not fall under LAWA's operating jurisdiction either (same as LGB and SNA). See http://www.lawa.org/welcomeLAWA.html if
59 AirlineAddict : Your point about "overcapcity" at DFW brings up a question. How was this "overcapacity" created? Could it be that the airport managers and consultant
60 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : You know the Metroplex airspace was completely redone back in 1996, right? The arrival cornerposts got moved out a bit, and FUZ, TTT, and CVE provide
61 OPNLguy : >>>And you know that current modeling still shows it's not the most efficicient use of that airspace right? And you base this on what?
62 Boeing7E7 : And you base this on what? The fact that anything short of clearing the entire airspace of DAL commercial traffic is a compromise in efficiency due to
63 OPNLguy : >>>The fact that anything short of clearing the entire airspace of DAL commercial traffic is a compromise in efficiency due to the shared airspace. Yo
64 ORD : I don't agree with this at all. Dallas has about 2.1 million households. Divide that by two airports and you have on average 1 million households per
65 Drerx7 : While your facts are not completely accurate--I agree with the logic. If Houston can support IAH and HOU then the metroplex can support DFW and Love.
66 Travelin man : In terms of DFW losing service, my thought is that if the service cannot be maintained in a competitive environment (as opposed to the artificial rest
67 Boeing7E7 : So then, you're a controller too? No, but I do TERPS evaluations. Controllers don't know jack about airspace design and evaluation. Next. I don't agre
68 OPNLguy : >>>No, but I do TERPS evaluations Wally?
69 Padcrasher : Anybody need an example of Southwest twisting the facts? Go to their website where they talk about "the Southwest effect". What example to they use? O
70 OPNLguy : So you're saying the "Southwest Effect" doesn't exist? If so, this will come as a big surprise to the folks at the DOT... Nice try indeed... And, BTW,
71 Boeing7E7 : And, BTW, the Pro-Wright folks are the last ones that should be casting stones about twisting facts. The constant parroting of Southwest's current 97%
72 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>I'm pro aviation system efficiency and both of you pro/against are full of crap. That's right, prove your points by resorting to name-calling...
73 Travelin man : I thought you were pro over-intrusive government regulation. My bad.
74 Boeing7E7 : I thought you were pro over-intrusive government regulation. My bad. Looks to me like the Courts have been intrusive in this case. The Governemnt did
75 Travelin man : Just curious: Someone brought up AFW, and how AA and FedEx use it. Are you against that airport operating as well? Nobody answered the (very good) poi
76 Brons2 : How ironic. How many RJ's does AA fly again? And the other majors, for that matter? What about WN? You're really talking out of your ass there. If th
77 Boeing7E7 : Just curious: Someone brought up AFW, and how AA and FedEx use it. Are you against that airport operating as well? AFW is an industrial airport. What'
78 Travelin man : I'm just wondering, are you paid by DFW, AA, or both?
79 BigB : Whoa, hold ya horses there buddy. When IAH opened back in 1964, it was opened to replace HOU for commercial traffic. HOU was CLOSED the Night before
80 Travelin man : Hmmm.... that's really interesting BigB. Definitely sheds some light on a quite valid Dallas-Houston comparison. Look at how IAH is "collapsing"....
81 Post contains links OPNLguy : >>>When IAH opened back in 1964 Actually, IAH opened in June of 1969... http://iah.houstonairportsystem.org/about
82 Boeing7E7 : Hmmm.... that's really interesting BigB. Definitely sheds some light on a quite valid Dallas-Houston comparison. Look at how IAH is "collapsing".... o
83 Brons2 : Do you read your own posts? Here's what you posted immediately after what I quoted in my last post: No DFW or DAL here! Yes indeed, it is your ass th
84 Travelin man : You keep changing your arguments. We are not thick, it is you who is non-sensical. If you are concerned about revenue at DFW, why aren't you concerne
85 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>You said carriers like WN jammed the sky with 100 seat planes (actually 137, but who's counting). Since Southwest doesn't have any 100-seaters, I r
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...
Randy Baseler On The "Dash 10" posted Thu Feb 9 2006 01:51:13 by SNATH
Chances Of Getting The "new DL" Product On August? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 18:40:42 by Gokmengs
14 Bis Ready To Take Off On The "Century Flight" posted Tue May 16 2006 04:35:27 by LipeGIG
BA Featured On Queer Eye For The "British" Guy posted Wed Jan 26 2005 05:42:28 by Deltabobo
NW's "Sleep On The Job" Ad Campaign posted Wed Jan 12 2005 06:38:30 by NWA Man
A Variation On The "wrong Airport" Thread posted Wed Sep 15 2004 19:06:50 by PROSA
Was PE The First "buy On Board" Carrier? posted Sat May 22 2004 17:49:13 by Quantasflyer
The Star Does Pages On YYZ Is "Sorry" For Spotters posted Sat Apr 3 2004 22:21:54 by MartinairYYZ
For The Aussies: "Airport" Is On Now posted Sun Nov 17 2002 07:57:18 by Zanadou
What's The "best" Seat On BA 744? posted Mon Jun 10 2002 16:08:34 by Tripleseven