Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DFW In The RED-Raising Landing Fees?  
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4640 times:

Instead of handing out refund checks at the end of the year, DFW might want to consider keeping surpluses in some years to build a reserve for years like this one. I believe DAL has done just that and helped eliminate the volatility in airport costs that are passed to the airlines. Seems DFW management could learn a thing or two from the well run DAL.

Full Story: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.ART.State.Edition2.1da86ae3.html


American Airlines Inc. and other carriers may have to kick in more money to cover expenses at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport because of a projected revenue shortfall, officials said Thursday.

The lighter revenue, expected to be as much as $39 million below expectations, or 6 percent, is largely the result of airlines cutting back their schedules at D/FW.....

....Airport staff members couldn't recall if the airport has ever had to go to carriers for a significant cash infusion to cover expenses. Officials said they hope they can eliminate the shortfall by Sept. 30, when D/FW's fiscal year ends.....

....Budgets would be tightened where possible, and some capital projects may be deferred. Another option might be to raise landing fees, a move that would require airline approval.....

.....For much of D/FW's history, the so-called signatory airlines have received an annual refund check.

Even after the 9/11 attacks, which caused a dramatic decline in revenue, D/FW was able to slash its costs and offer carriers a $2.8 million refund. Last year, the airport refunded $12.8 million.....


Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

Meanwhile.......
DFW airport board sets a budget for $1.3 million in upgrades to the 6 month old airport hotel.

Full Story: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/13763146.htm

This just about says it all:

But board members Pamela Dunlop-Gates and Santiago Salinas complained that there wasn't enough detail on the proposed changes.

"We have no idea where all this money is going," Salinas said.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1250 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4596 times:

Isn't this exactly what the airport predicted would happen when airlines reduced service at DFW to compete with WN at DAL?


"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineNateDAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 417 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4576 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 2):
Isn't this exactly what the airport predicted would happen when airlines reduced service at DFW to compete with WN at DAL?

You are right.

All the troubles at DFW are because of the 10 flights AA is adding at DAL.  rotfl 



Set Love Free
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4565 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 2):
Isn't this exactly what the airport predicted would happen when airlines reduced service at DFW to compete with WN at DAL?


Oh, I see. DAL revenue shortfalls are a result of bad management and not flight reductions sine 9/11. DFW shortfalls are not a result of bad management, but from flight reductions from one airline that was forced to move 16 flights to DAL.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

Hmm, the revenue shortfall must be because of everyone going to DAL.

It cannot possibly be the fact that Delta pulled out most of their flights.
It cannot possibly be because DFW opened a whole NEW fricken concourse.
It cannot possibly be because oil has gone so high that airlines have to reduce capacity to drive up fares.

Nope DFW's woes are all because of WN and DAL.


Sarcasm aside, if Wright gets lifted DFW is going to bleed like a pig.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineEjmmsu From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

This financial problem is due to two things...

--Bye Bye Delta

and

--Huge expensive, white-elephant international terminal that is quite impressive asthetically, but chronically under-utilized and questionable in its necessity.

This has nothing to do with AA moving a tiny fraction of flights to DAL. Besides, this "move" to DAL is pending right now, and wouldn't have an effect on the earlier financial performance of DFW anyway.



"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
User currently offlineAAtakeMeAway From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4536 times:

What were the NW and TZ reductions the DMN article refers to

User currently offlineTexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4469 times:

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 6):
This financial problem is due to two things...

--Bye Bye Delta

and

--Huge expensive, white-elephant international terminal that is quite impressive asthetically, but chronically under-utilized and questionable in its necessity.

Quite well said. Boy, those international airlines are just lining up to offer passenger service to DFW, right?  Yeah sure

When 9/11 happened, DFW should have just stopped the Terminal D effort right away.

Airports like DFW, DEN, etc are airports that carriers expand into when the going is good, and when things are rough, like now, are the first airports to feel the squeeze. People will always want to fly to LAX, ORD, and JFK, however.



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 8):
Quite well said. Boy, those international airlines are just lining up to offer passenger service to DFW, right?

When 9/11 happened, DFW should have just stopped the Terminal D effort right away.

Airports like DFW, DEN, etc are airports that carriers expand into when the going is good, and when things are rough, like now, are the first airports to feel the squeeze. People will always want to fly to LAX, ORD, and JFK, however.

The irony of traffic declines at DFW is that DFW management's efforts to stifle competition at DAL creates a high fare scenario at DFW thereby further suppressing traffic.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4375 times:

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 5):
Sarcasm aside, if Wright gets lifted DFW is going to bleed like a pig.

And that is supposedly a good thing?

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 8):
When 9/11 happened, DFW should have just stopped the Terminal D effort right away.

And what? Cancel contracts, not finish the people mover leaving shells behind to be later completed at twice the cost?

Try thinking first.

[Edited 2006-02-03 21:48:55]

User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1250 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4327 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 4):
Oh, I see. DAL revenue shortfalls are a result of bad management and not flight reductions sine 9/11. DFW shortfalls are not a result of bad management, but from flight reductions from one airline that was forced to move 16 flights to DAL.

No the Dallas Aviation Department is being investigated for more than low landing fees. Leases at the airport for some tenants have not been re negoiated in years. Some have been month to month for 20 or more years.

This points to massive miss management of the value of DAL. Or it only points out that the value of the leases is not there. If the value is not present then the current state of the finances at DAL suggest collusion with the largest tenant of the airport. They cannot afford to anger WN or WN is dictating terms to the city.

Notice that DFW is up front about the need to raise fees to cover expenses and so far the main tenant has not said it would protest unlike your favorite airline at DAL.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 11):
Notice that DFW is up front about the need to raise fees to cover expenses and so far the main tenant has not said it would protest unlike your favorite airline at DAL.

Another lie. WN has not protested the proposed 64% rate hike. What they have protested is the suggestion that landing fees should be raised to some average rate that illegally increases revenue higher than is necessary to operate the airport. DFW's landing fees are much lower than ORD and DEN, maybe DFW should raise it's landing fees to match the average for airports of similar size.

DAL doesn't need higher landing fees, they need more traffic. It was the decrease in flight activity that precipitated the decrease in revenue.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineSaxman66 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
Sarcasm aside, if Wright gets lifted DFW is going to bleed like a pig.
And that is supposedly a good thing?

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 8):When 9/11 happened, DFW should have just stopped the Terminal D effort right away.
And what? Cancel contracts, not finish the people mover leaving shells behind to be later completed at twice the cost?

Try thinking first.

Well said Boeing 7E7. It's a little hard to just stop things when they are already underway. Even a few years after 9/11 traffic was going strong at DFW. What do you do, when Delta de-hubs DFW 4 months before opening day?



Ride Amtrak!
User currently offlineDFW13L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4268 times:

Quoting AAtakeMeAway (Reply 7):
What were the NW and TZ reductions the DMN article refers to

Not sure either, but I know for sure that NW (Pinnacle) dropped the DFW-IND service a couple months ago. Also, TZ used to have DFW-IND service on a 737-800 but dropped it, though that was about a year ago on TZ.


User currently offlineAirStatDFW From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

Quoting AAtakeMeAway (Reply 7):
What were the NW and TZ reductions the DMN article refers to

NW dropped IND-DFW and TZ dropped IND-DFW and reduced MDW-DFW from 5 to 3 a day.

AirStatDFW


User currently offlineTexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4159 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
And what? Cancel contracts, not finish the people mover leaving shells behind to be later completed at twice the cost?

Try thinking first

Try thinking first, yourself. Sept 11, 2001 happened approximately one year after groundbreaking of Terminal D. Completion wasn't scheduled until 2005.

At that early time, DFW officials could have easily turned the project into something more viable and cost-effective. It could have completed later if conditions warranted. Other airports either shelved or scaled back their projects after 9/11. Not DFW, and now look at the costs vs. benefit ratio. What new airline has moved in? Where is EVA, CX, AF, or Qantas?

Other the other hand, DL has closed its hub, and Mexicana has stopped flying here totally.

What DFW needed in the late 90's and early 2000's was not a new terminal, but through and through improvements over the tiring facades and walkways of the existing terminals.



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1250 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4155 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 12):
Another lie. WN has not protested the proposed 64% rate hike. What they have protested is the suggestion that landing fees should be raised to some average rate that illegally increases revenue higher than is necessary to operate the airport. DFW's landing fees are much lower than ORD and DEN, maybe DFW should raise it's landing fees to match the average for airports of similar size.

DAL doesn't need higher landing fees, they need more traffic. It was the decrease in flight activity that precipitated the decrease in revenue.

Your right DAL does not need higher landing fees. It needs to be shut down period.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
Your right DAL does not need higher landing fees. It needs to be shut down period.

That's about as good an idea as a fart in a spacesuit.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineN839mh From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4085 times:

Maybe instead of DFW spending all their money on signs and stickers
supporting "Southwest @ DFW, together we're stronger," maybe they
should have started years ago by supporting the carriers other than
AA. Maybe "Delta@DFW, keeps DFW stronger" or any of the other
airlines which were flying out DFW.

DFW doesn't need Southwest, it needs better management. DFW board
needs to fire Kevin Cox, Jeff Fegan and his cronies. One airline i.e Southwest
is not going to make up for the poor business decisions made by a bunch
of idiots at DFW.

If the Kansai airport (2nd highest airport operating cost in the world) can
make it without Southwest, than maybe with the right people running
DFW and not sleeping with the largest airline (AA) management...maybe
even DFW could survive.

"Getting rid of Cox & Fegan @ DFW, will make DFW stronger!"



Solodude!
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4059 times:

Quoting N839mh (Reply 19):
Maybe instead of DFW spending all their money on signs and stickers
supporting "Southwest @ DFW, together we're stronger," maybe they
should have started years ago by supporting the carriers other than
AA. Maybe "Delta@DFW, keeps DFW stronger" or any of the other
airlines which were flying out DFW.

DFW doesn't need Southwest, it needs better management. DFW board
needs to fire Kevin Cox, Jeff Fegan and his cronies. One airline i.e Southwest
is not going to make up for the poor business decisions made by a bunch
of idiots at DFW.

DING! When is DFW management going to be held accountable for creating a competitive environment where one airline has more than 85% of the market? That is absolutely unacceptable in a market the size of Dallas-Ft. Worth.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineTexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4045 times:

Quoting N839mh (Reply 19):
DFW doesn't need Southwest, it needs better management. DFW board
needs to fire Kevin Cox, Jeff Fegan and his cronies. One airline i.e Southwest
is not going to make up for the poor business decisions made by a bunch
of idiots at DFW.

Bingo!
DFW management is pathetic and unbecoming of a top 10 airport.



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4029 times:

N839mh, DALNeighbor, Texdravid,

Let me see if I have this right. You believe those in charge of a given operation should be held accountable for that operations success or failure. Really earn their pay? You mean if they don't get the job done fire them!?! WOW, that's cool.
Wait.....couldn't they just cut the pay of all of the little people and make it look like they made money? Then they could give themselves a bonus. Nah, that would never work. (tongue firmly in cheek)

Nice post gentlemen.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1250 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 20):
DING! When is DFW management going to be held accountable for creating a competitive environment where one airline has more than 85% of the market? That is absolutely unacceptable in a market the size of Dallas-Ft. Worth.

Then by your logic the Aviation Department of Dallas should be held accountable for letting WN control 98% of the market at DAL?

Remember there is more than one airline at DFW that competes with AA. There is just one at DAL running RJ's to an airport that WN does not serve.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 18):
That's about as good an idea as a fart in a spacesuit.

Somehow I actually think you would know all about farting in a space suit.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3989 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 23):
Then by your logic the Aviation Department of Dallas should be held accountable for letting WN control 98% of the market at DAL?

Come on Cj, you know nobody has LET SWA control 98% of the market at DAL. the TRUTH is no other carrier cares to operate there. If they did I'm sure the DAL port authority would welcome their money.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 23):
Remember there is more than one airline at DFW that competes with AA. There is just one at DAL running RJ's to an airport that WN does not serve.


So the one carrier there (DAL) doesn't care about SWA, just catching their own hub feed from that (DAL) end of town. Oh my! Good customer service!! That one carriers customers don't have to drive/cab/bus from downtown over to the Mighty DFW to fly their preferred carrier.
As for the many other carriers competing with AAL at DFW. There would be MORE if the management at DFW could offer that great buy on gates without the strings attached. But no, DFW had to offer the gates at a great price to the carrier who would fly when and where DFW specified. Any surprise there were no takers? Why would DFW want to specify where/when an airline could fly? Do they specify these items to AAL? It's bad enough a new entrant has to compete with an airline (AAL) with a history of illegal anti-competitive behavior, but to have the port authority in on it, give me a break. I wonder. I wonder if MIA,FLL, or PBI tell their tenants where and when they can fly?



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
25 SPREE34 : Screw DFW. Let them go bankrupt, then contract to place out to BAA. They seem to find a way to run airports without kissing any one carriers empennage
26 DALNeighbor : I would absolutely hold them accountable if WN controled 98% of an unrestricted DAL. Given the severity of Wright restrictions in place their hands a
27 Cjpark : The Dallas Aviation Department is being investigated for mismanagement of DAL by the Dallas City Auditor. DAL was kept open for one airline by Court
28 DALNeighbor : You accused DAL of mismanagement because of the deficit and below average landing fees. So when DFW runs a deficit, why don't you apply the same litm
29 Cjpark : I did not accuse DAL of mismanagement only echoed the charge made by the Dallas City Council. Besides there have been two articles in the Dallas Morn
30 N839MH : Bottom line...DFW's Fegan & Cox need to be fired from DFW! DFW needs to take control of their own problems and expenditures and move on without Southw
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...
Is TAM Operating In The Red? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 09:31:22 by Antiuser
Airbus UK In The Red posted Mon Sep 12 2005 08:08:04 by NAV20
MyTravel In The Red posted Thu Nov 28 2002 14:23:17 by Bledd330
Airlines That Operated In The Red For The Longest posted Tue May 14 2002 15:26:46 by BWIA 772
Midwest Express In The Red... posted Thu Apr 26 2001 00:56:00 by 737doctor
Landing / Parking Fees IN The Canary Islands posted Wed Apr 27 2005 22:59:17 by SBE727
How Do You Witness Landing/takeoff In The Cockpit? posted Mon Feb 27 2006 20:32:54 by B777A340Fan
Landing At Night In The Middle Of A City (MEX Pic) posted Sat Feb 11 2006 23:03:26 by SFOMEX
Another Emergency Landing Story In The News posted Wed Feb 1 2006 18:54:49 by Csturdiv
What Airport Has The Cheapest Landing Fees? posted Thu Jan 12 2006 17:30:41 by AirCanada014