Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wright Amendment Part Xxxivx  
User currently offlineTCFC424 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

Okay so my Roman Numerals aren't in order, but I overheard a conversation today that might shed some light of the Wright Amendment issue. Rest assured, My sources are pretty solid, though I cannot reveal them. (I know everyone wants a CNN link, including myself, but trust me on this)

First of all, the Wright amendment is but a small pawn in a global commerce world. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we will be in a position t remove the restriction. Everyone believes AA is the main funder of the opposition...rest assured there is MUCH MORE money involved.

I am going to list the facts that I know.

1) DFW is bleeding red ink. Their financing, their cost structure, etc, is completely turned upside down. DFW has a great asset to market, however they are not doing what it takes. Bottom line is they are losing money and they are doing so at an astounding rate...READ: Terminal D.

2) Love Field is not ging to be the next DFW. The master plan calls for a total of 32 gates, of which WN occupies about half. While we look at WN's operation, we should look at the fact that if the remaining gates are FULLY UTILIZED they would represent a 25% reduction in traffic at DFW. (This does not represent any increases in traffic that we know would occur of WN and AA got into a bidding war). This assumes that each gate is fully utilized and that each carrier operates a full schedule out of DAL.

3) While cargo flights are not subject to the terms of the Wright Agreement, they are carefully monitoring negotioations. Why you ask??? DFW's cost structure is out of whack, they need every dime they can muster. Because of this, FTW Alliance has come on board for a repeal because they are slated to receive a new China Airlines flight and facility. They are looking at potential revenue while DFW is standing to lose some. (I'm sorry, I am not up to date on China's DFW movements).

The gentleman I had in my vehicle today (FTW Alliance associated) said the Wright Amendment's end was the writing on the wall. AA prepare yourself, a battle is looming and your dollars are not enough. It is a much bigger deal than AA and WN...it is truly GLOBAL!!!!

This conversation cracked me up because I have been for the repeal of of the Wright Amendment based on an AA-WN fight. I never considered a major loss in cargo operations from DFW.

I have been pro lifting the Wright Amendment for a while and still jump on that wagon. I realize now though, that it would affect more than DAL.

Relationships have become more than a bottle of wine and a nice set of 18 holes. These days, you have to be able to persuade Joe Blow to commit to a facility that will handle the needs you have, be they passnger, freight, or a combination. AA and WN are playing second fiddle to the likes of Korea and China, and everyone but AA has realized that.

In my OPINION, AA remains strong at DFW. WN remains strong at DAL. Cargo moves to Alliance. Another airline TBD moves into DFW and picks up excess capacity left bt the DL pullout (I hope CO)

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlewGSW From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

Good stuff. THANKS!

I just see it differently based upon the circles I get my information from.

The point about DAL master plan is the biggest problem. Because it is just a plan. Montreal's plan for YUL at the time YMX was opened did not project that YUL would end up larger and handling 100% of flights with YMX empty as of November 2004.

If Wright is eliminated, then every airline will relocate to DAL because it is closer to more businesses and center of population. And the tax payer will have invested, by force from the feds, in a project that folks did not have the stomach to see through. UGH!

Party hard.


User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3209 times:

Quoting TCFC424 (Thread starter):
FTW Alliance has come on board for a repeal because they are slated to receive a new China Airlines flight and facility. They are looking at potential revenue while DFW is standing to lose some.

Is Alliance bound by the Wright Amendment?
Those existing cargo flights....where are they going and are they restricted as to their tonnage and destination?

Wondering....
What is the cost per passenger at DFW compared to DAL?



Delete this User
User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3190 times:

Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 1):
The point about DAL master plan is the biggest problem. Because it is just a plan. Montreal's plan for YUL at the time YMX was opened did not project that YUL would end up larger and handling 100% of flights with YMX empty as of November 2004.

Of course, keep in mind the SIZE of both DFW and DAL...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/N908AW/MAP1.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/N908AW/map2.gif

DAL simply could not handle "every airline" relocating to DAL. Don't believe for a second they could expand, in a downtown atmosphere where land values are off the scale.



'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offlineFlewGSW From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

That's what they thought in Montreal too. YUL was just too small, boxed in, etc.

And then they expanded YUL.

Yep, there is a mess of land to the west of DAL that could be seized. If they do if for football stadiums, they'll do it for an airport.


User currently offlineOnt 737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 4):
Yep, there is a mess of land to the west of DAL that could be seized. If they do if for football stadiums, they'll do it for an airport.

How ironic.... demolish WN's headquaters and MX hangers on the west side of the airport to expand Love Field.



"The world is run by C students"-Harry Truman
User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3071 times:

Didn't know they'd make half a million people move like that.


'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offlineThecamel67 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Quoting TCFC424 (Thread starter):
1) DFW is bleeding red ink. Their financing, their cost structure, etc, is completely turned upside down. DFW has a great asset to market, however they are not doing what it takes. Bottom line is they are losing money and they are doing so at an astounding rate...READ: Terminal D.

Right on the money. They had a chance to delay the project after 9/11 but the spin they put on is that they were "brave" enough to continue. I cannot believe that they did not see the handwriting on the wall re: DL's pull down and out. Just about everyone else in the industry did but they kept on and now we have to pay.

Quoting TCFC424 (Thread starter):
2) Love Field is not going to be the next DFW. The master plan calls for a total of 32 gates, of which WN occupies about half. While we look at WN's operation, we should look at the fact that if the remaining gates are FULLY UTILIZED they would represent a 25% reduction in traffic at DFW. (This does not represent any increases in traffic that we know would occur of WN and AA got into a bidding war). This assumes that each gate is fully utilized and that each carrier operates a full schedule out of DAL.

I don't think you will ever see it get to this level. Maybe I am just naive. As the metroplex continues to grow, DAL becomes less convenient for the majority of the population. AA will move a number of flights there initially and then realize that it is more cost efficient to compete matching fares out of DFW. I for one would continue to use DFW over DAL (more convenient) and AA over WN (AAdvantage).

Quoting TCFC424 (Thread starter):
FTW Alliance has come on board for a repeal because they are slated to receive a new China Airlines flight and facility.

Has Alliance come out publicly? I hadn't seen this one yet. They are correct, as DFW continues down a slippery slope, AFW becomes more attractive. Also, look to TKI to continue to make improvements for the ultimate goal of carrier service as well.

Quoting TCFC424 (Thread starter):
In my OPINION, AA remains strong at DFW. WN remains strong at DAL. Cargo moves to Alliance. Another airline TBD moves into DFW and picks up excess capacity left by the DL pullout (I hope CO)

I agree with everything except your last point. The reason for the DL pullout was there was no excess capacity, if anything there was overcapacity. Yes, you have seen AA expand Eagle into those markets in the SE that no longer have good East to West connections using DL and a few other odds and ends but that has been it. If there were the additional revenue opportunity, AA would have jumped all over it.

Also, no matter what anyone says above, DAL will never be physically expanded beyone its existing boundaries. You think the Wright Amendment is a can of worms...


User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 4):
That's what they thought in Montreal too. YUL was just too small, boxed in, etc.

And then they expanded YUL.

Oh yeah. This isn't Canada.

Are the airlines at HOU, closer to downtown? No, they're all at IAH.
Are the airlines at MDW, closer to downtown? No they're all at ORD.
Usually, with the possible exception of WN, airlines will go for infrastructure and proven demand over secondary, closer-to-town airports.



'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

Quoting N908AW (Reply 8):
Are the airlines at MDW, closer to downtown? No they're all at ORD.Usually, with the possible exception of WN, airlines will go for infrastructure and proven demand over secondary, closer-to-town airports.

That's why MDW sees service from NW, DL, UA- gotta love ted, CO, F9, and FL, plus regionals... not to mention TZ and WN  sarcastic 


User currently offlineUALdispatch From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

It amazes me on how the Wrong amendment has managed to stay in place all these years. Must be nice for A/A to have that kind of pull in Texas. I wonder what would happen if SW played hardball and threatened to move its operations unless the Wrong amendment was repealed? Of course SW wouldn't do such a thing but makes for an interesting what-if???


FLY UNITED AIRLINES AND THE FRIENDLY SKIES
User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 9):
That's why MDW sees service from NW, DL, UA- gotta love ted, CO, F9, and FL, plus regionals... not to mention TZ and WN sarcastic

Ok, sorry.
Are the airlines at HOU, closer to downtown? No, the majority is all at IAH.
Are the airlines at MDW, closer to downtown? No, the majority is all at ORD.



'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offlineFlewGSW From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Ya know, WN can fly anytime they want from DAL to any airport in the world they want to, RIGHT NOW!

WN cannot do it with their current fleet of 737s with the current seating configuration, but they CAN do it now!

So if WN wants to fly to LAX, FLL, RDU, OAK and all those other airports, they don't need to change the law, they just need to change the seating configuration on their current fleet or get another fleet of airplanes.

See where I'm going with this is?


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2266 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

FlewGSW......."See where I'm going with this is?"

Ah.......... No. Enlighten me.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4287 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2835 times:

Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 4):
Yep, there is a mess of land to the west of DAL that could be seized. If they do if for football stadiums, they'll do it for an airport.

The problem isn't the land right at the airport. Yes, they could demolish some of the housing to the west of the airport, but that would put the flight path too close to downtown Dallas and it's skyscrapers, meaning the runway could never be used.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 2):
Is Alliance bound by the Wright Amendment?
Those existing cargo flights....where are they going and are they restricted as to their tonnage and destination?

AFW nor FTW are bound by the Wrong Amendment, just DAL. FedEx has a cargo hub operation at AFW.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 13):
FlewGSW......."See where I'm going with this is?"

Ah.......... No. Enlighten me.

He is suggesting WN buy regional jets and fly them everywhere. The Wrong Amendment states that planes with 56 seats or less are not subject to the other aspects of the Amendment.



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineGeorgiabill From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 595 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If the Wright Amendment is over turned, and SWA can use their 737's anywhere in the 48 states they choose to serve. How will it affect operations in HOU, BNA and MDW?

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Quoting Georgiabill (Reply 15):
If the Wright Amendment is over turned, and SWA can use their 737's anywhere in the 48 states they choose to serve. How will it affect operations in HOU, BNA and MDW?

I wouldn't think all that much.

With repeal, I don't think you're going to see get to be anywhere near as big as someplace like LAS (just over 200 daily flights). Assuming the Love Field Master Plan's 250 daily flight limit are in effect, Southwest might have 130-140 of them, and would you would probably see are a few non-stops to cities now outside the Wright footprint, and lots of thru-plane service, i.e. DAL-TUL-STL, etc.

I think the talk here of wiping out houses/buildings on the west side of Love is meaningless.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2266 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quoting Texan (Reply 14):
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 13):FlewGSW......."See where I'm going with this is?"

Ah.......... No. Enlighten me.
He is suggesting WN buy regional jets and fly them everywhere. The Wrong Amendment states that planes with 56 seats or less are not subject to the other aspects of the Amendment.

Yeah, I know about the 56 seat rule and didn't think that was where he was going. I figure it's obvious SWA isn't interested in buying money losing airplanes that don't fit their needs. Is the suggestion 56 seat versions of the 737? Great way to lose money, AAL proved that at Dallas Love against Legend

Guess I still need enlightenment.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 12):
Ya know, WN can fly anytime they want from DAL to any airport in the world they want to, RIGHT NOW!

WN cannot do it with their current fleet of 737s with the current seating configuration, but they CAN do it now

They will lose money flying only 56 seats on all their B-737 operations from DAL.

Quoting Texan (Reply 14):
AFW nor FTW are bound by the Wrong Amendment, just DAL. FedEx has a cargo hub operation at AFW.

That is correct.

The WA is going to be repealed. Most of Congress will address this. The Texas Congressional deligation is not enough to stop this, nether is AA or DFW. It will be a package deal that includes lifting the limitations on LGA and DCA, as well as DAL. It is, as someone already said a national and global issue, not just local North Texas interest.

Cargo operations at AFW will not have a big effect on cargo operations at DFW. That is because UPS has their SW hub at DFW, and is thinking of international cargo to/from DFW.

WN will not move to DFW, period. As soon as the DFW Airport Board realizeses this, the better they are. The only gates available at DFW are the former 22 DL gates. No one is going to take the "offer" DFW has on the table for these gates, as there is direct compitition from AA, because 70% of the seats must fly to airports already served from DFW.

The DFW Board does not have the leadership ability to re-fill these vacant gates, as long as they let AA pull on their puppet strings.

A new proposal is needed for the vacant gates. If not, they will remain empty.

When the WA is repealed, what the political leadership of the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas really need to do is disband the DFW Airport Board and replace it with a true regional port authority, like the PANYNJ, or MASSPORT.
Then bring DFW, FTW, AFW, DAL, ADS, Arlington, Grand Perie, and Redbird all under the same Port Authority.

But, like I said, that will take leadership. Something the entire DFW Metroplex does not have.

No one is talking about this, as the DFW Airport Board wants to keep their high paying jobs. Jeff Fagan, the CEO of DFW makes $250,000 per year, plus bounuses and perks. An equivilent pay in say NYC or BOS would be over $500K per year, plus bounuses and perks.

DFW Airport is bleeding red, and they cannot stop it as long as DFW is AA's lapdog.


User currently offlineFlewGSW From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

1. Wright is only about commercial scheduled passenger traffic, not cargo. Which is a thorn in the side of Dallas when Fort Worth built Alliance as a maintenance/cargo/general aviation airport for one rich local family (He ran for president of the USA).
2. Wright affects FTW commercial scheduled passenger flights too, not just DAL. (See Mesa Airlines and Fort Worth Airlines attempts to serve FTW in the past 25 years.)
3. WN could purchase 56 seat RJs today. Other airlines have and they are making money. Why is WN so special that they have to use +56 seat airplanes? Because such airplanes don't fit into their business plan? Paaaaleaseeeee! I'd like for 777 and A-340s to fly into LGA DCA MDW, but they don't. I'd like to fly into SNA after midnight, and leave DCA prior to 6am, but I can't. And DAL doesn't allow planes with more than 56 seats to fly beyond 7 states (of which only 4 have non-stop service from DAL).


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 19):
2. Wright affects FTW commercial scheduled passenger flights too, not just DAL. (See Mesa Airlines and Fort Worth Airlines attempts to serve FTW in the past 25 years.)

Mesa has failed in both of their attempts in the last 15 years. The latest (in 1999) was flying CRJs between FTW, SAN, and HOB. Even though the had less than 56 seats and could have flown to any US airport, from FTW, they never offered the service. Why? because the market isn't enough to support commerical air travel from FTW.

Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 19):
3. WN could purchase 56 seat RJs today. Other airlines have and they are making money. Why is WN so special that they have to use +56 seat airplanes? Because such airplanes don't fit into their business plan?

Seems to me you answered your own question, that is why WN doesn't fly airplanes with 56 seats or less.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
WN will not move to DFW, period. As soon as the DFW Airport Board realizeses this, the better they are. The only gates available at DFW are the former 22 DL gates. No one is going to take the "offer" DFW has on the table for these gates, as there is direct compitition from AA, because 70% of the seats must fly to airports already served from DFW.

The DFW Board does not have the leadership ability to re-fill these vacant gates, as long as they let AA pull on their puppet strings.

A new proposal is needed for the vacant gates. If not, they will remain empty.

Before the DL de-hubbing at DFW, DFW Officials never paid any attention to DAL or WN. The empty DL gates at DFW are the heart of the problem, and AA's strangle hold on controlling the airfares from DFW.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
When the WA is repealed, what the political leadership of the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas really need to do is disband the DFW Airport Board and replace it with a true regional port authority, like the PANYNJ, or MASSPORT.
Then bring DFW, FTW, AFW, DAL, ADS, Arlington, Grand Perie, and Redbird all under the same Port Authority.

But, like I said, that will take leadership. Something the entire DFW Metroplex does not have.

This, and repealing the Wright Amendment is the simplest solution. Not trying to force WN to move their operations to DFW's empty gates.


User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1268 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting TCFC424 (Thread starter):
Okay so my Roman Numerals aren't in order, but I overheard a conversation today that might shed some light of the Wright Amendment issue. Rest assured, My sources are pretty solid, though I cannot reveal them. (I know everyone wants a CNN link, including myself, but trust me on this)

First of all, the Wright amendment is but a small pawn in a global commerce world. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we will be in a position t remove the restriction. Everyone believes AA is the main funder of the opposition...rest assured there is MUCH MORE money involved.

Finally someone realizes there is much more at stake here besides Granny getting to Vegas on a cheap fare. Yes the multinational corporations that depend upon fast, direct freight services to and from the DFW market to the rest of the world have a huge stake in the maintenance of DFW. Defeating the effort to repeal the WA fits their business plans.

Do any of you think the multinational corporations except Boeing give a care about WN or where it flies from in North Texas? Especially since WN does not interline and does not directly support the movement of international commerce whether it is freight or passengers.

Quoting Texan (Reply 14):
The problem isn't the land right at the airport. Yes, they could demolish some of the housing to the west of the airport, but that would put the flight path too close to downtown Dallas and it's skyscrapers, meaning the runway could never be used.



If you are landing from the South you fly over downtown. Getting Dallas taxpayers to fund any expansion at DAL will be the problem.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
When the WA is repealed, what the political leadership of the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas really need to do is disband the DFW Airport Board and replace it with a true regional port authority, like the PANYNJ, or MASSPORT.
Then bring DFW, FTW, AFW, DAL, ADS, Arlington, Grand Perie, and Redbird all under the same Port Authority.

But, like I said, that will take leadership. Something the entire DFW Metroplex does not have.

I like the idea of the Regional Port Authority. If the WA is repealed and the lawsuits start flying back and forth a Regional Port Authority might be the only way out of the court room. The Port Authority could make all things equal like landing fees, gate rentals and ensure that no airline has a cost competitive advantage from serving one airport or another.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2550 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 19):
Why is WN so special that they have to use +56 seat airplanes?

I would say that this is the most ignorant comment I have seen here yet. WN doesn't use 56 seat a/c because they operate an all 737 fleet period. And there are now 56 seat or less 737 without retrofits. It has nothing to do with other being able to make money with the RJs. This is the same reason that WN doesn't use 767s, or A340s, or Il-96s for that matter. It isn't that they are bad aircraft. It is that they are not common with the rest of their fleet.

WNs cost structure is the way it is right now cause they have kept things simple.

Now, as to the rest of this enlightening thread, I want to thank you TCFC424 for the great info. Very interesting that this has moved into a much larger arena then we all originally wanted to believe. And despite your condescension, CJ, you too were among us who believed a more narrow scope in the beginning.

I think that it is very true about the empty gates being most of the problem. If DFW is in the red, they have surely got to be the wound. The problem is, as has been stated before, there is too much capacity out there. And not just in the DFW region, but all over the US. Those gates will remain empty regardless. And DFW will bleed some more. Sad though, the design and plan for that airport was so sound. To see it mismanaged like this is a real shame.



For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1268 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 22):
Now, as to the rest of this enlightening thread, I want to thank you TCFC424 for the great info. Very interesting that this has moved into a much larger arena then we all originally wanted to believe. And despite your condescension, CJ, you too were among us who believed a more narrow scope in the beginning.

Sorry, but I have always maintained that this issue is broader than the brush WN has used to paint the issue. Go back and re read my posts and you will see my comments.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineFlewGSW From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

Typhaerion, you missed my point.

I do not expect WN to convert 737s to 56 seats like Legend did with DC-9s and AA did with F-100s.

But the rules of the sand box (DAL) say 56 is the limit outside Texas + 7 states.

So I say again, why does WN think that they are so special that they cannot play by the rules, which they agreed to, like all the other airlines?

The answer is fuel, and the hedge contracts that WN has that will expire next year. In 2006 the current fuel cost advantage WN has, and a very smart gamble and business decision it turned out to be, will be reduced. I really don't blame WN for attempting to come up with other business ideas to keep a cost advantage, like BFI. But eliminating WR is in my opinion not the right move.

And DFW airport board has stated publicly that they would build WN their own new terminal, anywhere on the property, with access to specific runways.

So WN could have a terminal built right off Texas 183 (Airport Freeway) close to the former Delta hanger. WN does not have to build a new terminal on International Parkway.


25 SCCutler : Free and fair competition. No Wright Amendment. The only chance north Texas has. Lower walk-up fares. AA *could* make the discussion irrelevant; match
26 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Yes, they have said that. What they did not say is where they could come up with the money. A new terminal and ramp will cost $1B-$2B, depending on h
27 Boeing7E7 : Man do you have some misconceptions about airport management salaries.
28 Cjpark : Hello SC. We all ready have the components in place for Free and Fair competition here in North Texas. The only thing the situation lacks is commitme
29 Boeing7E7 : You're just a bag of goodies today: RJ's are rarely profitable on routes between large hub cities because of yield depression. The cost structure isn'
30 Apodino : Wait a minute. Your own statement says that Fagan makes less than someone at either Massport or PANYNJ seems to think that the DFW airport board isn'
31 Boeing7E7 : Neither of them make that much. The highest paid guy is at LAX and he doesn't make $250K base, he made $265K with bonuses with a base of $225K. No on
32 Cjpark : I don't think so. AFW is too far away from WN's core customers. Besides they would have to move to Collin or Denton Counties to escape the reach of t
33 Kanebear : Repealing the Wright Amendment won't make a dent in AA's day. WN doesn't have the ability to run enough flights out of DAL to do much to AA and mainta
34 Apodino : There is no question that there would be litigation, the question is does it have any legal basis. As far as I am concerned, and I am no legal expert
35 Apodino : While I agree they won't flood DAL with seats I disagree with the rest of your post. Since WN will be able to sell tickets anywhere they fly out of D
36 Nealcg : Apodino__There is no question that there would be litigation, the question is does it have any legal basis. As far as I am concerned, and I am no leg
37 Post contains images N908AW : WN probably saw in 1979 that they were up against a brick wall. As they say on Rocko's Modern Life, "You can't fight City Hall!" NOW, they have suffi
38 Kanebear : I don't understand why people can't accept the fact that WN and AA CAN co-exist and prosper and that they compete in quite a few places already. DAL
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...
Wright Amendment Repeal Signed Into Law posted Fri Oct 13 2006 19:56:55 by TeamAmerica
DFW Airport - Wright Amendment Suppressed Demand posted Mon Oct 2 2006 21:37:41 by DALNeighbor
Wright Amendment Bill Passes Senate And House! posted Sat Sep 30 2006 05:03:11 by AirRyan
Official Wright Amendment Deal Thread posted Thu Jun 15 2006 20:57:00 by Dartland
Interesting Mike Boyd Article On Wright Amendment posted Thu Jun 1 2006 05:44:14 by Apodino
New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+ posted Thu Feb 9 2006 16:01:28 by TxAgKuwait
What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 20:48:13 by MrPhoo
Wright Amendment - TN Now In Play? WSJ posted Fri Nov 18 2005 18:37:19 by DALNeighbor
Wright Amendment Hearing Nov. 10 posted Wed Oct 26 2005 14:53:39 by LY4XELD
WN, Katrina, And Wright Amendment. posted Mon Oct 24 2005 00:32:38 by DAL7e7