Texairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
The legal drama concerning DAL seems to be winding down. Yesterday, the US Supreme Courts refused to hear an appeal filed by Ft. Worth, DFW, and American. Long haul is going to stay at DAL. There is one other possible avenue to prevent long-haul from DAL--an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, but the parties are uncommitted as of now about pursuing that.
Ft. Worth also stated that they will look into resuming flights at Meacham and/or Alliance.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7780 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
Also I want to add this.... I find it funny that American is crying about this deal as well. Get this...
"In their petitions, Fort Worth and its allies had said that such flightswould violate a 1968 bond agreement financing construction of D/FW Airport snd threaten the viability of the facility where American operates two out of every three flights."
THREATEN THE VIABILITY OF AMERICAN'S DFW HUB!!? Someone is sure smoking some good stuff there in Ft. Worth. I almost fell out of my seat laughing at that one. If AA feels so threatened why are they operating copy-cat Legend service out of Love? You gotta love it.
Plus under the Wright Amendment Fort Worth was never stopped from operating flights from Mecham or Alliance, Mesa-Air did operate CRJs, not ERJs, from Mecham to ABQ... didn't know about the Houston route. And there is probably a reason why nobody operates out of the Fort Worth airports, but everyone wants in at Love.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
Texairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
Mesa's operations at Meacham were obviously not successful, what are the chances that other carriers will be successful? The reason that DAL is even an issue is because DAL proved far more successful as the metro air hub until DFW was built. Meacham and Greater Southwest is a testament to that. Apparantly nobody really wants to fly to Ft. Worth, yet they don't understand this and keep trying to force the issue.
As a side note, if Meacham does get flights, perhaps they will be by the new Pan Am. What do you think?
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5519 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1387 times:
Oops- my mistake about the ERJ/CRJ Mesa ops.
The 1968 bond covenants were logical at the time, since Ft. Worth had previously built a thoroughly modern (for the times) airport called Amon Carter Field, later renamed Greater Southwest Int'l, which shriveled up and died. Its last remains can be seen at the south end of DFW, as remains of runway which used to cross SH 183 (I assume that's still there, isn't it?).
So the fear of DFW's failure was real, AT THE TIME. But at that time, AA's DFW/DAL operation wasn't big enough to warrant its own terminal; Braniff International was the only carrier which had enough traffic to command its own terminal.
AA now stomps around, consuming 2.5 terminals and wanting more, and the DFW Airport Board is administering a massive expansion, including a new International terminal.
AA just doesn't want WN to be able to compete on long haul flights, and bring real price pressure.
As for Legend, AA contends that the new airline will be "cherry-picking" its cream- its full-fare-paying pax (coach and first-class).
Of course, Legend will never have enough capacity to genuinely threaten AA. AA just likes to keep fares high and service mediocre.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3826 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1384 times:
Some comments and a question. First, I'm glad that the issue on long-haul flights out of DAL has been settled (at least for those aircraft with 56 seats or less.)I think AA has every right to be able to compete with Legend. The problem is that the way the media has reported the events of the last three years, it makes it seem like AA has spent too much time and effort trying to eliminate Legend and not enough time thinking of a way to actually compete with them.I'm glad to see ASA/Delta Connection will be sharing gates at Legend's terminal. That makes sense to me since Legend flyers can also earn miles on Delta. Doesn't Delta also share space with Legend at LAX and IAD?It's really too bad that Legend was not able to invite CoEX over to their terminal as well. CoEX could have moved to Legend'sterminal, and kept their space in the main terminal and subleased that space to AA. There are three jetways in the Gate 41-42 area and that should be sufficient for AA for now.The four ground-level gates in the North Concourse (2 of which were initially going to be used for the ASA service) could have been used for any new carriers wishing to start service to DAL, and Dallas could perhaps hold off on the decision on whether or not to open up the rest of the East Concourse at least until they had completed the master plan.Now there's one aspect about air service at DAL that is puzzling to me and if anyone could shed light on this issue, I would be most interested.There was an article in the Dallas Morning News on 06/13/2000 comparing AA's and Legend's passenger loads. The article is still on-line and can be read athttp://dallasnews.com/business/95400_amrlegend_13bu.htmlDid anyone happen to notice this part? "During the month, Legend operated 65 fewer flights than American, and the lease on it's terminal prohibited it from selling more than 50 seats."So why can AA fly 56 pax on it's jets out of the main terminal, but Legend is only allowed to fill 50 seats on it's own aircraft out of the Executive Terminal? The same group of investors who own Legend's terminal own a stake in Legend. Why would they limit themselves to only 50 pax when the plane is configured for 56? Was this retriction imposed by the investors who own the terminal or by the City of Dallas?Just curious if anyone knows.Mike
Mmcdow From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 43 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
I have been reading the book "From Prairie to Planes" published in 1999 and it covers the history of aviation in the Dallas Fort Worth area as well as the building of DFW. It gets into the feud between the two cities that dates back to the 1930's.
One could go on and on about it but bottom line is most of the flying public (in particular business travellers) comes from the Dallas side of the Metroplex not the Ft. Worth side. History has pointed this out and American, DFW, Ft. Worth and Dallas all know it. Because of that, Love Field will always be able find a market of it own.
MAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1338 times:
Good riddance of those lawsuits as well!
Nothing is more anti-competitive and absolutely -idiotic- than the home-spun soap opera that was engineered by the likes of -thankfully former- Congressman Jim Wright of Texas.
He, along with his big pals at AA along with the city of Fort Worth set about a course to ruin the chances of competition in the Dallas/Fort Worth air travel market using this pig-headed, ridiculous constriction of competition called "The Wright Amendment" (which should be dubbed "The Wrong Amendment")
--No other city-- in the US has a problem like the predicament at DAL (an airport with INCREDIBLE potential mind you!), where access SHOULD be granted to not just 56 seat aircraft to long haul destinations, but any destination that can be adequately handled by the runways at DAL!!
We have varying degrees of restrictions on airports like LGA, DCA, MDW but to think of an airport with more capability to expand than ever with a massively successful DFW Airport lying just off to it's west, being constrained by a PRE-Deregulation Era pork-barrel politic ridden piece of legislation which is now proving to be woefully flawed, favoring an already well established airport (DFW aint going anywhere folks!). It truly is beyond the pale.
I cant think of how many cities in this country would love to have an airport of DAL's size, coupled with another huge Airport off to it's west, followed by another airport, Meacham, further off to the west in a city center. And people want to limit capacity there!? Do what!?
It's time for the City of Fort Worth to wake up and get with the plan, Stop whining about DAL!, Enhance it's airport (It has the former Carswell Air Force Base in it's environs for Gosh Sakes..cant they expand onto that property if they need to? Similar to what Austin did with the former Bergstrom AFB? Hmm?), FWH needs to make itself known and a wanted commodity and stop using this antequated piece of junk legislation with the backing of one of the most monopolisitic companies the airline industry has ever seen behind it (AA).
The incredible stupidity of this "Wright Amendment" is really beyond the pale. It's time to take the Wright Amendment and junk it. Maybe we will be so fortuitous to see the end of this "law" someday soon. It ranks as one of the most byzantine, backwards-stuck-in-time acts Congress has ever passed.