Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DFW Wants Gate Limit At DAL To Lift Wright Rules  
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3095 posts, RR: 10
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4890 times:

Courtesy: USA Today

DFW Wants Gate Limit At DAL To Lift Wright Rules

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-04-07-dfw-love_x.htm

101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4841 times:

If Southwest must be forced to limit these gates then CO and AA must also have theirs split to, its only fair, SWA shouldn't be the only one to suffer at DAL.

It is a start but not the right direction.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineEjmmsu From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4832 times:

I guess DFW-AA has decided that compromise is better than "saving the children"... very shallow minded of them.... what will happen to the children?


"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7065 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4817 times:

If the DAL master plan already has a gate limit of 32, whats the big deal with the DFW board coming up with a new limit? Only practical use I can see for it is to limit expansion at DAL, meaning WN now uses 14, has leases on a couple more, so if you limit it to 14, either WN is the only carrier there in which case no expansion, or WN has to give up some gates.

If this type of progress continues, I would have taken out membership here for nothing, cause these WA / WN threads will soon be gone.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4809 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
If this type of progress continues, I would have taken out membership here for nothing, cause these WA / WN threads will soon be gone.

Except for the daily threads asking "What's up with the WA" months after it was settled, or the weekly "Wright Amendment - two weeks later" threads. It would appear no subject is ever gone forever on the hallowed halls of A.net.  Smile


User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4767 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 4):
Except for the daily threads asking "What's up with the WA" months after it was settled, or the weekly "Wright Amendment - two weeks later" threads. It would appear no subject is ever gone forever on the hallowed halls of A.net.

So those NWA DC9's, i mean ya know.......... Wink  Wink



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineLegion242 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4757 times:

Quoting KarlB737 (Thread starter):
Courtesy: USA Today

DFW Wants Gate Limit At DAL To Lift Wright Rules

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...x.htm

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 1):
If Southwest must be forced to limit these gates then CO and AA must also have theirs split to, its only fair, SWA shouldn't be the only one to suffer at DAL.

It is a start but not the right direction.

What would happen is that DAL would be limited to say, 18 gates, and then all interested parties would submit for the gates. In effect, anyone serving DAL would "suffer". It just makes the playing field a bit more even. Sorta like hitting the reset button.



Don't make me release the monkeys!!
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6756 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4748 times:

Could DAL set up their gates like RDU does...

Gate A16 has 4 plane stands.. So DAL could have 20 gates.. let 12 of them have jetbridges for 12 planes.. and let the other 8 have four stands each gate for an additional 24 spots.. hmmm? works for me.. and an easy way to get around the gate limitation rule.. LOL.. I so sneaky...or do like Orlando do and have 20 gates.. but let gates 19 & 20 go A-M.. DRAMATICALLY increases the number of plane stands.. Hmmmm.. makes u ponder..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3095 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4729 times:

Quoting Legion242 (Reply 6):
It just makes the playing field a bit more even

First, how many gates are there at DFW right now?

Second, how many gates are there at DAL right now?



How does this proposal "make the playing field a bit more even"?


User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6756 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4717 times:

Quoting Legion242 (Reply 6):
It just makes the playing field a bit more even. Sorta like hitting the reset button.

How? I'm sure DFW gates outnumber DAL 20 to 1... No airport should be restricted in what they can do unless it is because it is at capacity.. plane and simple.. it's just like if your competitor came to your job and say nobody can make more than $30K because you are taking too much money from their business. WTF is that all about? This is just crazy and the government needs to just kill the Amendment and let them fight it out the way it should be done.. mano-a-mano.. DFW is really acting spoiled and selfish..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4659 times:

Already being discussed:

D/FW Leaders Recommend Regional Airport Authority (by Cjpark Apr 6 2006 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
If the DAL master plan already has a gate limit of 32, whats the big deal with the DFW board coming up with a new limit?

Because a single operating agency cannot put an artificial limit on a facility with the exception of being sued for noise (fat chance). The way this works is a new agency is placed in charge of both airports and DAL is limited in build out. They operate as a system.


User currently offlineEjmmsu From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4633 times:

Again, I must ask....

If AA-DFW compromises, what will happen to the children !!!!!



"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4618 times:

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 11):
If AA-DFW compromises, what will happen to the children !!!!!

They still die. Possibly more of them.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7065 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4597 times:

Boeing7E7 thanks for the link, read the entire thread. Does the limit proposed elimnate all the airspace issue's that you detailed in previous threads?
If it does, then yes, I'm afraid I will have to jump on the NW DC9 threads, because it is reasonable, and a better compromise than what the Feds may come up with. Only red flag I would raise is the composition of the board, because just as they can limit gates, presumable they could also close DAL, stop commercial traffic etc.
Any proposals already out there on the scope and composition of this board and its ultimate mandate? Does it specifically state that DAL will remain open for commercial traffic? I think without something like that in it, the Abolish W.A. supporters will not support its creation.


User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5008 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4579 times:

This is probably the opening offer from DFW. Then DAL will counter with 40 gates and back and forth, blah blah blah until WN ends up with a max of 20 (just a random number), and 12 more (or whatever) for everyone else.


Next Up: STL-LGA-RIC-ATL-STL
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4571 times:

Quoting Legion242 (Reply 6):
What would happen is that DAL would be limited to say, 18 gates, and then all interested parties would submit for the gates. In effect, anyone serving DAL would "suffer". It just makes the playing field a bit more even. Sorta like hitting the reset button.

Removing the Wright Amendment is not the goal of people in favor of removing the Wright Amendment. The goal is increased competition for air service in the North Texas market. Removing the Wright Amendment and then restricting gates so that no expansion of air service takes place still does not satisfy the goal of increased competition. If DAL was limited to 18 gates, the fires would continue to burn and nothing would be settled. The issue would then become allowing more gates at DAL and would continue to be a hot political topic until relief from AA's high air fares is delivered.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineFrequentflykid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4541 times:

Well put DALNeighbor. There are so many facets and different avenues this debate can go down, but I still do not understand why we have legislation that restricts competition in an deregulated industry. I don't claim to know all the facts and every little minute detail of the Wright Amendment and the pro's and con's, however it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that it is wrong. I know that the airline industry is in a terrible state and that many think airline fares are too low anyway, but that shouldn't be an argument used to want to keep the Wright Amendment around. I don't know, just seems anti-capitalism.

User currently offlineTismfu From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4498 times:

So if it's unfair to cap it at 18, why should 32 be the magic number? What about free and unfettered competition? Shouldn't the maximum gate number be as many as the airport can safely and efficiently handle, should airlines, passengers, etc., demand it?

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4480 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 13):
Boeing7E7 thanks for the link, read the entire thread. Does the limit proposed elimnate all the airspace issue's that you detailed in previous threads?

Yes it does. Anything up to 24 (about half the capacity of a single runway in Dallas - weather etc.. considered) is doable which would probably be the end result. The myth about the DAL master plan is that it's set in stone and can't be altered later to more gates. Without a regional authority, DAL can start with 32 and build out to its "close parallel" runway capacity which is about 80 to 90 gates. Such action would obviously deplete capacity at DFW in a trade off of design airspace handling. It would take a long time to get there, but those buying into the Master Plan argument are simply fooling themselves. A "Regional Authority" can also be specific about commerical aircraft size and/or seating capacity at DAL because there is a shared proprietorship outlet for service in the market at DFW (i.e. - no RJ's/No aircraft over 150K max/etc...Making it a Southwest specific Airport that would have service development along the lines of Midway). Not going to a regional agency covering both airports is what caused this mess in the first place. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Lets say the build out is 24 and Southwest gets 18 gates. That's about what? 140 departure flights a day?

Quoting Tismfu (Reply 17):
So if it's unfair to cap it at 18, why should 32 be the magic number? What about free and unfettered competition? Shouldn't the maximum gate number be as many as the airport can safely and efficiently handle, should airlines, passengers, etc., demand it?

This is why the Master Plan argument is flawed. A single airport agency can't self impose a limit.

[Edited 2006-04-08 01:42:15]

User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4456 times:

Quote:
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport would support ending limits on flights from Dallas Love Field if its smaller rival would agree to close nearly half its gates, according to a DFW report.

Might as well keep the Wright Amendment.



Delete this User
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4451 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 15):

Removing the Wright Amendment is not the goal of people in favor of removing the Wright Amendment. The goal is increased competition for air service in the North Texas market.

If that's your only goal, there's plenty of room at DFW, competition for all, on a level playing field.

Quoting Tismfu (Reply 17):
So if it's unfair to cap it at 18, why should 32 be the magic number? What about free and unfettered competition? Shouldn't the maximum gate number be as many as the airport can safely and efficiently handle, should airlines, passengers, etc., demand it?

Because the DAL people are hypocrites. They want unfettered access, but yet they don't want noise. So they complain about American's Super80's being noisy even though the noise issue never really got raised over old 727 freighters, business jets, nor Southwest's old 732's up until last year's retirement. In actuality, they, being heavily funded/supported by WN, want what's best for Southwest Airlines. Making a limited number of gates, and grandfathering Southwest into a majority gives Southwest an even bigger advantage than they got by buying out ATA to get their MDW gates. What's best for the airport, the metroplex, the neighbors, the industry, or the airspace of Texas is NOT what SWA and "Setlovefree.com" want.


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9181 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4442 times:

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 20):
If that's your only goal, there's plenty of room at DFW, competition for all, on a level playing field.

especially if WN does go international eventually. I am sure there would be plenty of Canadian or Caribbean/Mexican routes from DFW, like DFW-CUN/MBJ/Grand Cayman or Bahama Island. But this is rather irrelevant for the time being I think...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 21):

especially if WN does go international eventually.

Don't worry... with the way they have politics tied around their finger down there... if they get Wright lifted, they'll blow through that DAL Master Plan, and the lack of INS at DAL so quickly it'll make your head spin. Logical thinking would say that's another good reason for them to move up to DFW now and get it over with... but they'll just whine some more to get more laws changed in their benefit.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4428 times:

I'm stunned that DFW would bbe interested in doing this.

It's nothing more than casting WN's gift in stone. This agreement would ensure that WN would get virtually all the benefits of lifting Wright, while virtually guaranteeing that no one else could possibly use DAL. Frontier, AirTran, and jetBlue for example would be left hung out to dry in this arrangement.

In exchange for eliminating competition and gaining the ability to fly anywhere, WN 'sacrifices' down to what, 140 flights a day? And heck, they'll probably just use non-jetway layouts so they can service multiple flights from a gate, so they might well be able to push 240-250 flights a day from Love.

But they'd better get any agreement really locked down, since, as we know, to Southwest, a 'gentleman's agreement' isn't worth squat.

Steve


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4420 times:

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 23):
so they might well be able to push 240-250 flights a day from Love.

But what about the "Master Plan?" Oh the humanity! haha

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 23):

But they'd better get any agreement really locked down, since, as we know, to Southwest, a 'gentleman's agreement' isn't worth squat.

Can't make a gentleman's agreement when you're substituting spoiled brats instead of gentlemen. Like I said, give 'em a few years, they'll be wanting international from DAL next.


25 AirframeAS : It seems to me that DFW is telling DAL how to do business and run an airport. If DFW is so afraid of competition, they should stay on the porch. Airpo
26 Tornado82 : Actually airports are out to break even. A governing body cannot use an airport as a revenue source to fund other government functions.
27 Cjpark : If increased competition is the goal of the pro repeal people then why are they only exploring one option to gain this so called competition? Why not
28 Stirling : I am not affliated with Southwest Airlines in any way....but I support repeal. The noise issue came into play because of AA's funding of this "Stop a
29 Atrude777 : I am not affiliated and i want W.A repealed. It was repealed for STL, I am a STL flyer because it was repealed it made it cheaper for me to fly to Da
30 Steeler83 : I can see why you really do not approve of WN so much. I still like the airline and how it runs things tho. Basically what it is doing is doing every
31 Boeing7E7 : I beleive you were refering to a commment by the reporter. And this will ensure repeal. What is it with you people? You get a bone sufficient for Sou
32 Cjpark : There is no need to repeal the WA. Have you ever flown any other airline besides WN?
33 Kanebear : Yes, there's a clear need to repeal the WA. It's anticompetitive. Of course, we've been over this ad nauseum. Yes, likely more than you have, all pai
34 Atrude777 : No need to force carriers over to DFW either. Yes, I have flown Southwest Airlines, America West, American Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Delta Airlin
35 Tornado82 : Wrong. WN's agreement was like a common-law marriage, by staying at DAL. If they didn't agree, they would have never stayed at DAL to begin with. Bes
36 Floorrunner : I am not affiliated with them either and I favor repeal.
37 Kanebear : Not wrong. WN came along after the signatories agreed to move all traffic to DFW. They couldn'tve signed as they didn't exist. The agreements to move
38 Tornado82 : The majority of this country doesn't know the Wright Amendment exists nor Love Field either, and with their limited network the majority of this coun
39 Kanebear : The wright amendment? The people may not know what it is specifically; their lawmakers do, and that's all that matters. The lawmakers know their cons
40 Tornado82 : There are more lawmakers in districts where Southwest servicing DAL won't matter than there are lawmakers in districts where Southwest does matter. C
41 AAgent : Now that is the honest truth. Besides the Airliners.net gang, the employee groups of both American/American Eagle and Southwest, a handful of the mos
42 BHMNONREV : I believe this is how it will ultimately play itself out. DFW says 18 gates, Love Field Master Plan says 32. So they split the difference and go with
43 Kanebear : Current Wright states can gain plenty, as it'll give them more opportunities to get elsewhere on WN that they might not be able to currently. An examp
44 Blsbls99 : Hahahahaha!!!! I can't believe some of you...to insinuate that any person who supports a repeal of the WA works for Southwest or only flies Southwest.
45 HPLASOps : Hmmm, wasn't Herbie a co-writer of the Wright? He fought it at first, forced Jimmy to make a few revisions, and the two ultimately made a compromise
46 HPLASOps : Ask the tens of thousands of people who have a job because of DFW why the airport is so interested in this debate. DFW was designed to be THE airport
47 Blsbls99 : Oh so DFW is looking out for the best interest of it's employees. And now Southwest wants a monopoly on service out of DAL. Tell me something I can be
48 HPLASOps : That's just as believable as WN proclaiming itself to be the Johnny Appleseed of low fares.
49 TxAgKuwait : >>Ask the tens of thousands of people who have a job because of DFW why the airport is so interested in this debate. DFW was designed to be THE airpor
50 Kanebear : My comment was to DAL being open and WN operating from there. WN never signed on to the voluntary agreement to shift services to DFW and cease operat
51 Adriaticus : I don't think so... Most specially after MX and AM have recently dropped DFW. Not for WN's business plans, given DFW's astronomical fares... Exactly.
52 HPLASOps : No, but I did see WN suing to keep the rights to fly out of DAL even though all intentions were for commericial aviation to end there. Of all the thi
53 NorthwestEWR : Are DFW's fares really that higher ?? I looked around and seem to come up with average about $250 R/T. That is not an unreasonable fare. People can't
54 Blsbls99 : I use to fly PHX to Dallas for business a couple times a year. PHX-DFW fares were north of $1000 several times, even with Delta on the route. So, who
55 Adriaticus : I meant, fees. __Ad.
56 BHMNONREV : I'm not exactly sure they would need to give up any gates, and in fact would probably stand to gain a few if this all plays out. I don't see any othe
57 Post contains links DALNeighbor : Yes it does mean they are losing the battle. From a recent story on DFW's change in stance on Wright: The airport has been mostly silent on Wright fo
58 Scoljet : STOP the world I wanna get off!!! The insanity of the WA posts here are second only to the NW diesel 9 posts.
59 Post contains links KarlB737 : Back to the original topic: Gate Numbers At DAL Dictated by DFW Does Ford tell Chevy how many dealers it can have in a specific city? Does WalMart tel
60 Isitsafenow : Waytogo Karl.... I could not care less about DFW, American, Love or Southwest but I believe in an equal balanced field. Years ago when the Wright was
61 Kanebear : It's not anticompetitive? It's a law that was crafted specifically to restrict WN's operations at DAL. Wright couched the amendment in terms of "prot
62 Kanebear : My guess is that Kay Bailey went to AA and the D/FW airport board and told 'em she had a snowball's chance in hell opposing the repeal and they'd bet
63 Steeler83 : If you continued to read the remainder of the post, I also mentioned the Caribbean and Bahamas, or is the O&D on FL to ATL and then onto Grand Bahama
64 Tornado82 : I can tell you one thing... people on the Western side of PA are already about as disenchanted with Southwest as they were with USAirways as soon as
65 Post contains images Steeler83 : Terrific... something else to look forward to. I have been hearing about how WN wants to add more flights and destinations, and we have not seen any
66 Stirling : So an airline serving Ft Worth would provide jobs and tax revenue, but an airline serving Dallas is bad for children and a drain on city resources? W
67 Tornado82 : Saves the hometown jobs. PIT is nothing but a base for a few ramp workers/CSA's for WN, for US it's some pilots, etc. I might be rather anti-US here
68 Post contains images Steeler83 : I used that word in other posts do describe AA's presence in Dallas. They essentially dominate the Dallas market. WN is not happy with this; they whi
69 Stirling : I took that into consideration. But the proof remains, IAD does not have the 800+ dailies on one airline that DFW does with AA. I am thinking that WN
70 Steeler83 : I never said that they did. I am just not sure why they didn't add anymore service there. I kept hearing that they were pleased with their service at
71 Steeler83 : I knew that myself. I should have stated that but I didn't. Foolish me... Some of those flights are completely booked some two weeks before the actua
72 Tornado82 : Is not Southwest still hedge to the same prices ATA was paying, making your question moot? ATA never came in saying "You're now free from high fares.
73 Post contains images Steeler83 : Apparently you and I feel the same way about that one
74 CentPIT : As do I! WN will add PIT service in due time!
75 Steeler83 : I am thinking either another FLA destination or NE, like ISP, PVD, or MHT... IND is another possibility I would imagine...
76 Legion242 : My bosses say that to me every month!!!
77 Kanebear : Like hell they are. This isn't about who can sell the cheapest fare. WN will, at times, be higher than the majors. Where WN excels is that their unre
78 Post contains links LoneStarMike : Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 49)American is an excellent example. Yes, they agreed to move all operations to DFW. Signed the letter and everything. Yet t
79 Tornado82 : Why the hell would you compare AA on that route? They're the #4 carrier (and a distant #4) on PIT-Chicago. Obviously, your "I hate AA" sentiment is s
80 Post contains links LoneStarMike : Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 57)Bernard was an outspoken critic of the Wright Amendment and an advocate for repeal during the Shelby Amendment/ Legend a
81 Steeler83 : Whenever I compare two airlines, particular the PIT-PHL route, I always compare US and WN, but then, those are the only two airlines that serve that r
82 Stirling : No I don't and I didn't. You're too defensive. And I never said you did. Thanks for the backup. And by your own admission, so do you. A discussion be
83 DALNeighbor : So of the two "legally unenforceable" agreements, one being the Dallas and Ft. Worth agreement to phase out commercial service from DAL, FTW, RBD, an
84 Post contains images Steeler83 : And what would I owe to PIT, a "no parking" sign, or a "the white zone is for loading and unloading of passengers only" sign, or how about one of tho
85 Stirling : Appreciated. Things get to serious in here sometimes.
86 Tornado82 : But that doesn't stop me from seeing that the Wright Amendment is still a good thing, now does it?
87 Kanebear : I hate AA? Gee, I must hate 'em an awful lot to be Executive Platinum AND to have qualified on points, NOT miles. Not only do I fly 'em, I pay to fly
88 HPLASOps : That's easy one, all WN has to do is move over to DFW and they can fly wherever they damn well please.
89 Blsbls99 : How about all of the states that are covered by the Wright and Shelby Amendment can only be served out of DAL, and not DFW? You think American would l
90 DALNeighbor : He's not worried about AA being hurt by a Wright repeal, just like your MIA example, fares will come down and AA will see an increase in traffic at D
91 Post contains links OPNLguy : Amen to that;precisely why I didn't exend that other thread to a part-4, or participate in this one, just too much of a waste of time arguing with ar
92 Steeler83 : OPNLguy, that article spoke of a new authority for Dallas, a regional airport authority. What would that do with regard to the Wright Amendment, essen
93 Post contains links OPNLguy : That's why I included the www.bugmenot.com address, so you can access the article in case it asked for registration... Try: Username nothing@test.com
94 Steeler83 : That's what I got out of reading that article. I though "how would that involve repealing the Wright Amendment? What would that do exactly regarding
95 Post contains images OPNLguy : I see SWA with more than 14, and with no more than 21... I don't think international service is in the forseeable future... As I mentioned earlier, t
96 Post contains links DALNeighbor : I've been enjoying the B-17, B-25, and B-24 that have been using DAL in conjunction with the tour through the Frontiers of Flight Museum. http://www.f
97 Boeing7E7 : DFW and DAL are the same market. This proposal essentially makes DAL and DFW the same facility in terms of use within the market carving out predicta
98 DALNeighbor : On paper, that looks reasonable. The fear in Dallas is that the regional airport authority will not make any investments in facilities at DAL all the
99 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : Then the public needs a lesson in airport finance and how the FAA requires funding for a facility to be at a level consistant with the operational de
100 DALNeighbor : " target=_blank>http://www.metroairport.com/about/ Given the City of Dallas' 7/11ths ownership and representation on the DFW airport board, you could
101 Boeing7E7 : Or as is usually the case, you could have an appointed board from each affected County/City etc appointed by Mayors and two top board members that wou
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...
Groups Wants FAA To Lift No-fly Zone At Disney posted Sat Jun 28 2003 18:17:09 by Jhooper
Study - No Need To Limit DAL To 20 Gates posted Thu Sep 28 2006 15:14:25 by DALNeighbor
Jetbridge At YYZ Gate 164-A.. What Happened To It? posted Tue May 16 2006 22:44:59 by Airlinelover
Why WN Will Fight To The Death At DAL posted Tue Apr 25 2006 01:53:48 by Iluv2pilot
Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place posted Wed Aug 10 2005 16:56:34 by Cjpark
Bill Introduced To Ban Commercial Traffic At DAL posted Wed Jul 20 2005 14:34:33 by LY4XELD
What Happened To Legend And Their Terminal At DAL posted Wed Dec 15 2004 23:15:29 by Mainrunway
Transfer From DAL To DFW posted Tue Mar 9 2004 03:27:20 by DFWJIM
Delta Connection To Suspend Service At DAL posted Thu Mar 13 2003 19:07:28 by ScottysAir
AA To Demolish Premium Gates/terminal At DAL posted Fri Mar 8 2002 00:39:30 by AA@DFW