Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field  
User currently offlineTismfu From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 88 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8024 times:

Phaseout at Love seen as a solution
By DAVID WETHE
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

Excerpt:
A Pennsylvania-based group representing business travelers across the country proposes phasing out commercial flights at Dallas Love Field over three years and letting the two Metroplex airlines battle it out at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport as a way to resolve the Wright Amendment dispute.

Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, said he's been studying the issue since October and interviewed 47 people, including representatives of Fort Worth-based American Airlines, Dallas-based Southwest Airlines, D/FW Airport, and the Love Field Citizens Action Committee, which supports the Wright Amendment.



BTC press release:
http://btcweb.biz/btc_wright_press_release.htm

BTC report:
http://btcweb.biz/btc_report_on_wright.htm

194 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7997 times:

wow...the last line of the first citiation says

Quote:
Founded in 1994, the mission of the Business Travel Coalition is to lower the long-term cost structure of business travel. BTC seeks to bring transparency to industry and government policies and practices so that customers can influence issues of strategic importance to them.


If the idea is to lower the cost structure, why send Southwest to a higher cost airport?
Should these reccomendations be adopted, I have the perfect middle finger salute for North Texas...let WN fly out of DFW, but charge $1,200 for flights between DFW and MCI or STL, then move the corporate headquarters to Houston. I know, some of the other cities are bigger, but if you want to take the employees into consideration, it is sure nicer for them to remain in a state with no state income tax instead of moving them to an area with 1) a higher cost of living and 2) state income tax.

[Edited 2006-04-10 17:35:05]

User currently offlineJFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3377 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7949 times:

I'm sorry . . . maybe it's the NYer in me but,

WHO cares what a guy in Pennsylvania thinks about an airport in Texas?

Of all the opinions we have heard for and against Wright, this has to be the most 'who cares' that I can think of.

PJ


User currently offlineTismfu From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7936 times:

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 2):
WHO cares what a guy in Pennsylvania thinks about an airport in Texas?

I know what you're saying, but the BTC apparently was asked by AA and WN for its opinion:

The coalition, which represents more than 400 business travelers across the country including about a half-dozen in the Metroplex, did not receive money for doing the study, but was asked last summer by Southwest and American to offer its opinion, Mitchell said.


User currently offlineLucianflyboy From St. Lucia, joined Jun 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7922 times:

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 2):
WHO cares what a guy in Pennsylvania thinks about an airport in Texas?

Amen to that! I will be SO happy when this thing is done with. The rich fat cats in HighLand Park and Universtiy Park are all spotting the 'Stop and Think' cards on their lawns. They have them along Lemmon Ave and Mockingbird Lane.

I don't know how much money the city just spent impoving Love Field but I doubt Laura Miller will let the cost of that improvement be classed as a 'loss'.

Weither they repeal the ammendment, keep it or end commerical flights all together, it will have an effect on the NorthWest Dallas,HighLand Park and University Park economy.

The saga continues!


User currently offlineAlphascan From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 937 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7886 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
If the idea is to lower the cost structure, why send Southwest to a higher cost airport?

You obviously did not take the time to read the report.

They make the point that the goal of their recommendation is for the most efficient public policy, and does not take into consideration the best interests of either American Airlines or Southwest Airlines. The report actually scolds both carriers for their PR strategies on the issue, especially American.

I'm not saying I agree with the report until I hear the opinions of those who oppose its findings, it does outline several ways in which their recommendation saves the average taxpayer and passenger money and has me rethinking my previous position that WA should be repealed

a. Because DFW can not (and refuses to negotiate contractual codicils which would allow carriers to back out of new gate lease agreements should Wright be repealed) guarantee Wright won't be repealed, no new carriers-mainly LCCs- are willing to move into the many empty gates at DFW, thereby stifiling competition which would lower fares.

b. The cost to all US taxpayers of operating and securing competing airports eight miles apart which serve the same market is exorbitant. Best practice policy all over the world has been to combine area airports when building a new one as was done in Denver and Austin.

c. The landing fees at Love Field are so low they do not cover half of the costs associated with airport improvements, leaving the Federal Government(taxpayers) footing the bill and indirectly subsidizing WN.

Finally, while the report calls for a three year phased closing of DAL, it warns AA to "be careful what you wish for" saying a WN move to DFW would be a significant competitive threat to that carrier.



"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7852 times:

I haven't finished reading the whole thing yet, but one thing did jump out at me:

§ The objective of Wright was not to restrict DAL, but to allow it to stay open for the benefit of 1 airline, WN. With the advantage of a truly protected base, the fledgling WN has grown into a powerful giant and today transports more passengers than any airline in the world.

The issue of Love being allowed to stay open (for Southwest, and any other airline) was decided in the federal courts and upheld in various appeals in the 1973-1977 timeframe. Wright came later, in 1979. They are two distinct events in the Love Field timeline, yet we continue to see folks confuse/promote the two as a singular event.

The above quote also infers that Wright was responsible for Southwest's growth into the airline it is today, but I think one will find that Southwest grew in spite of Wright, not because of it.

Need an example?

In 1979, Southwest served (excluding Dallas Love) 9 Texas cities: El Paso, Midland, Lubbock, Amarillo, Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Harlingen, and Houston. Most were served by non-stops, and Corpus and Harlingen saw mostly 1-stops with an occasional non-stop.

In 1979, service to New Orleans started out of both Houston and Dallas. That's 10 cities serveable from Dallas Love.

In 1980, service to Albuquerque, Oklahoma City and Tulsa started. That's 13 cities serveable from Dallas Love.

In 1983, service to Little Rock started. That's 14 cities servable from Dallas Love.

Going back a year to 1982, Southwest also started service to Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las Vegas. None of these were serveable from Dallas Love.

In the years between 1982-2006, all of Southwest's new city growth (with the exception of Little Rock in 1983) was in just about every other part of the country, all without being serveable from Love.

When Shelby came along in 1997 (and permitted service to Jackson and Birmingham via through/connecting flights versus non-stops from Love), 14 years had gone by since Love was able to offer new services. Southwest's growth at Love 1983-1997 was static, and the growth continued elsewhere. Jackson and Birmingham brought the number of cities serveable from Love up to 16.

In late 2005, Missouri was exempted from Wright, and service from Love to Kansas City and St. Louis was started (another 8 years since Shelby), bringing the number of cities serveable from Love to 18.

In 2006, Southwest is now up to 62 cities, and a 63rd (Dulles) is due for this fall, making 45 cities that can't be served from Love by either non-stops, or via through/connecting flights.

Clearly, it's been the roughly 75% of the other places Southwest serves that have made much greater contributions to Southwest's success than has the static growth at Love Field. Not a lament, just a statement that should be obvious, that is if folks will take a minute to look back into history, and understand the context.

For an outfit like BTC to not apparently understand this (especially about the two distinct legal issues in Love's historical timeline) defies common sense, which then invites alternative explanations.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7797 times:

Quoting Alphascan (Reply 5):
a. Because DFW can not (and refuses to negotiate contractual codicils which would allow carriers to back out of new gate lease agreements should Wright be repealed) guarantee Wright won't be repealed, no new carriers-mainly LCCs- are willing to move into the many empty gates at DFW, thereby stifiling competition which would lower fares.

b. The cost to all US taxpayers of operating and securing competing airports eight miles apart which serve the same market is exorbitant. Best practice policy all over the world has been to combine area airports when building a new one as was done in Denver and Austin.

c. The landing fees at Love Field are so low they do not cover half of the costs associated with airport improvements, leaving the Federal Government(taxpayers) footing the bill and indirectly subsidizing WN.

Finally, while the report calls for a three year phased closing of DAL, it warns AA to "be careful what you wish for" saying a WN move to DFW would be a significant competitive threat to that carrier.

These three (four) points have been expressed by me and others in various ways and usually dismissed by pro-DAL/WN people. Since I don't like AA or WN, I can't consider myself having in a horse in the race. But I am a taxpayer and I have always found the fact (not opinion, fact) that DAL loses money, is redundant and was planned to be closed when DFW was built to be the main reasons to close it. AA and WN should have NO SAY in the matter. Nor should those who complain that DAL is a little closer to their house. I am not willing to subsidize AA, WN or the lazy flyer.

Close it, let all the airlines duke it out.

I have the absolute belief that WN could make DFW work to the point that AA will be shaking in their boots...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7753 times:

I’m trying to be as constructive and creative as possible, and avoid anything inflammatory or offensive to anyone, so please don’t yell at me just because you don’t like my opinion. In addition, I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I have a lot to say on the subject, as do many!

While Southwest has had enormous success at the sheltered and restricted Love Field, the city is subsidizing their service there by charging below-cost and below-market facility and landing charges, and in turn, harming the City of Dallas’ enormous investment exposure in D/FW Airport, the region’s primary airport.

I continue to believe that closing Love Field, and consolidating all traffic for the entire North Texas Metroplex region at D/FW Airport is the only long-term solution that satisfies the interests of all consumers: it will bring down fares overnight at D/FW, and also inject new competition into many markets from D/FW (like Baltimore, Chicago Midway, Los Angeles and Phoenix) that currently only receive service from one or two airlines. D/FW and the Metroplex would be stronger if D/FW could be used for its original, envisioned purpose, as a consolidated air hub for the Metroplex, Texas, the southwest, and the United States. The region has invested so many billions into D/FW, and it has paid off so well, as D/FW is now one of the largest and most successful air hubs on earth, and it would be such a shame to see that ruined.

A ‘Modest’ Proposal for Resolution of the Wright Amendment Issue:

Love Field Commercial Flying is Phased Out over Five Years

Commercial airline flying at Love Field would be phased out over a five, rather than three, year period, to give every party involved – American, Southwest, the City of Dallas, D/FW Airport, North Texas consumers, et al – plenty of time to adjust.

Southwest would be able to continue operating at Love Field until the end of the five year period, and in the interim (i.e., until the end of the fifth year of the phase out period), would be able to fly unrestricted from Love Field to any markets in the United States. Flight capacity reductions at Love Field would occur simultaneously with the remodeling of D/FW, and the introduction of flights there by Southwest, as outlined below.

During the phase out period, Southwest (along with American and Continental Express) would have to reduce their flying (as measured by movements) by 5% the first year, 10% the second year, 15% the third year, 20% the fourth year, and the remainder in the final, fifth year. Each airline would be expected to eliminate the same approximate amount of capacity relative to the size of their respective operations (i.e., if Southwest is expected to eliminate 15% of its movements during the third year, American and Continental Express would have to eliminate 15% of their own movements for that same year).

Following the completion of the renovation of D/FW Airport’s airport and terminal facilities for Southwest, as outlined below, Southwest could begin moving flying over to D/FW as quickly as it takes D/FW to remodel the terminal space for Southwest (probably under one year).

Finally, by the end of year 5 of the phase out period, Love Field will be closed to all commercial traffic and all airline travel to, from, and through the D/FW Metroplex will occur at D/FW International Airport, as was originally envisioned and intended by the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, and the federal government. The City of Dallas would then be free to make a determination as to the long-term future of Love Field, whether they would keep it open to general aviation traffic, or perhaps consolidate that traffic at Red Bird Airport so as to revitalize Love Field in another commercial capacity, as some local studies have shown could be financially beneficial for the city.

D/FW Remodels Terminal and Facility Space Specifically for Southwest’s Needs

Concurrent with the phase out of commercial flying at Love Field, and the subsequent discontinuation of service there by American, Continental and Southwest, D/FW would modify its terminal facilities at D/FW to accommodate the needs of Southwest. D/FW would market long-term facility revenue bonds in order to finance renovation of terminal space for Southwest, and the construction of a new corporate campus for Southwest to be jointly financed between the two companies.

D/FW could remodel the high ‘E’ gates, vacated last year by Delta, with the direct oversight and input of Southwest Airlines itself, so as to insure that Southwest’s specific requirements and unique operational model are incorporated into any redesigned terminal facility for the airline.

To accommodate Southwest, D/FW could set aside the high ‘E’ gates, gates E16-E38. To accomplish this, D/FW would reconfigure the formerly Delta terminal to accommodate two additional gates, as widebody gates would no longer be needed. D/FW would also proceed with its planned remodel of the Terminal E satellite building, refurbishing the structure to accommodate up to nine jet aircraft, as is visible in this picture. That new satellite could be used by a combined USAirways (4 gates), along with AirTran (3 gates) and one gate each for ATA and Spirit. Frontier could be moved from its current location at gate E32 to gate E2, with Midwest moved over from Terminal B to gate E3, and Mesa moved over from Terminal B to gate E10.

This would provide a total of 16 gates for Southwest, two more gates than they currently operate from at Love Field. D/FW could then invest in new interiors and new gate and ticketing counter stands for those Terminal E gates and ticket counters that don’t already have them, plus D/FW could also invest in a larger security checkpoint across from gate E32, which would primarily handle Southwest customers. Again, all of this would be done with the input and consultation of Southwest, who would be the primary user of these gates, ticket counters, and airport facilities.

However, as we all know, an airline’s operations at a major station such as Southwest’s in Dallas don’t require just gates alone. Southwest could also utilize the now empty and vacated former Delta maintenance facility, which is a very short taxi across the airfield from where Southwest’s gates in Terminal E would be. Delta’s former maintenance hangar on the east side of the airport would provide ample interior maintenance and engineering space under the roof, plus a huge ramp service area, both of which are expandable. Southwest could also utilize the mostly empty former Delta cargo facility that is a few hundred feet south of their terminal space at Terminal E.

Southwest would have, within a few hundred feet, a spacious and freshly refurbished terminal space completely designed specifically for their and specially equipped to fit Southwest’s operating model, a huge hangar and ramp maintenance area, and a huge cargo and logistics handling and sorting facility.

In addition to all this, D/FW Airport and Southwest would also jointly finance the construction of a new headquarters facility for Southwest – should the airline want it – that would be situated on or near D/FW Airport property. D/FW would also give Southwest one year of free landing charges, which would give Southwest an enormous competitive advantage, and ample time to adjust to a different cost model associated with operating at D/FW versus Love Field.

Ultimately, the North Texas region and Metroplex travelers would benefit far more, in my opinion, from having the region’s two hometown airlines, the world’s largest carrier and the world’s largest low-fare carrier, battling it out on a level playing field at the world’s second third busiest airport.

Travelers would benefit from more flights, more choices and lower fares.

American would benefit from some healthy competition, and the huge boost to travel demand volume Southwest would generate.

Southwest would benefit from being completely free to fly wherever, and whenever, they want to.

The City of Dallas would benefit as its enormous investment in D/FW could be protected, and it could revitalize the Love Field property as a mixed-use commercial property that studies estimate would generate far, far more tax revenue for the city and county.


User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7731 times:

Quoting Alphascan (Reply 5):
They make the point that the goal of their recommendation is for the most efficient public policy, and does not take into consideration the best interests of either American Airlines or Southwest Airlines. The report actually scolds both carriers for their PR strategies on the issue, especially American.

I was responding to the quote they had on the first post, which I cited earlier. How do they lower the long term cost structure of business travel by recommending a higher cost structure for an airline?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 8):
D/FW could remodel the high ‘E’ gates, vacated last year by Delta,

If I were Southwest, I would insist that the terminals be on the WEST side of the airport and as far from the AA operations on the east side as I could get. The anti WN contingent cites their "reckless" taxi speeds, but AA has a complete opposite taxi speed...rather than a brisk walk, it's more of a labored crawl. Multiply that by 900 daily flights and you've got your works gummed up big time. Further, I would insist that AA utilize the east side runways, and leave the West side runways for the west side airlines.


User currently offlineCOrocks From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7689 times:

As a business traveler, I would hate it if Love went away. In addition, I work with hundreds of people who fly into Dallas at least a few times a year, and very few of them would want it to happen either. The convience factor is too high. Getting around at DFW is a pain, as well as the traffic into Downtown Dallas from the far west side of town. Love field is awesome, especially for those of us flying from Houston since we have several options into DAL.

Just my opinion.


User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7644 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
But I am a taxpayer and I have always found the fact (not opinion, fact) that DAL loses money, is redundant and was planned to be closed when DFW was built to be the main reasons to close it.

If DAL loses money, then where did the current $50 million dollar surplus come from?

I love the irony of this BTC passage:
Adding Missouri to Wright exceptions via an Appropriations bill because of the parochial interests of an individual Subcommittee Chairman represented a “spin-the-dial” approach to developing aviation policy. Which state might be next and what would be the public policy rationale is the question. Important aviation policy should not be made through “back door” mechanisms like Appropriations bills, but rather through the aviation-related Committees with expertise. “Wright 2004” took on more national importance to BTC.

The very genesis of the Wright Amendment was through "back door mechanisms like Appropriations bills."

edit: italics and bold

[Edited 2006-04-10 22:36:45]


Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2240 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7609 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 9):
I would insist that AA utilize the east side runways, and leave the West side runways for the west side airlines.

Runway selection cannot be made in this manner. Preference to one company over another is an obvious "no no." That would also screw AAL's schedule for the rest of the day.
Aircraft requirements, winds, departure routing, other ATC requirements, and my most hated reason, noise abatement, are reasons to consider in selecting a runway.
I may not be spot on here, but I've heard DFW is assigning runways now based on RNAV SIDs. If you have a west SID you go off the west side, east off the east. That would be a change from how they used to do it.


edited/spelling



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7554 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 12):
Runway selection cannot be made in this manner. Preference to one company over another is an obvious "no no." That would also screw AAL's schedule for the rest of the day.

So there is your biggest reason to just get rid of Wright and let SWA operate out of Love. AA's standard operating procedures would screw Southwest's schedule for the rest of their day.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7554 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 13):
So there is your biggest reason to just get rid of Wright and let SWA operate out of Love. AA's standard operating procedures would screw Southwest's schedule for the rest of their day.

If Southwest can operate out of as delay-prone a place as PHL, then I don't think anything AA can do to them at DFW could really be that bad. Not to mention, that if this hypothetical "slow-taxi shakedown" that AA would supposedly inflict on WN would harm WN, than it would no doubt harm AA as well. Like many other competitive spats between airlines, one airline can only sustain competive harm to another airline for so long before it also begins to harm itself.


User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7537 times:

I want to know is, Dallas and Ft. Worth spent so much time and money to invest in DFW, understandable, so why didn't chicago close MDW?, Houston close HOU, LAX close the other airports. See what im getting? Why must DAL be closed, and not the other "original city" airports stay open?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 8):
Ultimately, the North Texas region and Metroplex travelers would benefit far more, in my opinion, from having the region’s two hometown airlines, the world’s largest carrier and the world’s largest low-fare carrier, battling it out on a level playing field at the world’s second third busiest airport.

Thus leaving out those around Dallas who LOVE to fly out of DAL, now THEY must be hassled into driving all the way over to DFW to catch a flight. No one is going to truly win out of this entire thing.


DAL hasn't shut down AA, AA didn't file for BK when STL and MCI were started, lord knows SWA is not going to serve EVERY Airport in the US, only to demands. Shelby proved that just because it opens doesn't mean Southwest will serve it non stop.

commavia, I do like your suggestions and they are quite reasonable, but why should DFW and the airline have to pay for all the constructing and working and everything to make it WN ready when all they have to do is just repeal the W.A and only thing added at DAL is simply more N/s should the demand need it?!

AA did not die when WN started MDW, nor did UAL.

AA will not die if W.A is repealed.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7492 times:

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 15):
why should DFW and the airline have to pay for all the constructing and working and everything to make it WN ready when all they have to do is just repeal the W.A and only thing added at DAL is simply more N/s should the demand need it?!

Because D/FW will be far more negatively impacted if Love Field is completely opened up to all flying and allowed to compete with D/FW, less than 20 miles away, that was originally designed to serve the entire region.


User currently offlineTismfu From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7492 times:

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 15):
I want to know is, Dallas and Ft. Worth spent so much time and money to invest in DFW, understandable, so why didn't chicago close MDW?, Houston close HOU, LAX close the other airports. See what im getting? Why must DAL be closed, and not the other "original city" airports stay open?

For many reasons. First and foremost, MDW and the non-LAX Los Angeles basin airports act as relievers for the very full and congested primary airports in their respective areas. HOU probably isn't needed as much as a reliever, but, unlike Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston wasn't told by the federal government to consolidate commercial air facilities or lose funding. In addition, Houston didn't come together as a community and agree to move all commercial traffic to IAH for the good of the area, again, unlike the situation here in the Metroplex.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7480 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 9):
If I were Southwest, I would insist that the terminals be on the WEST side of the airport and as far from the AA operations on the east side as I could get.

I think I'd lean on a cross field terminal with access to both sides on the South end of the airfield leaving AA on the north side.

[Edited 2006-04-11 02:40:18]

User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7448 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 16):
Because D/FW will be far more negatively impacted if Love Field is completely opened up to all flying and allowed to compete with D/FW, less than 20 miles away, that was originally designed to serve the entire region.

How will they be negatively impacted? Losing Money? Passengers? Its a business, fight or die trying.

Flights being reduced if W.A opened up wouldn't be the cause, they were not profitable to start with.

Quoting Tismfu (Reply 17):
For many reasons. First and foremost, MDW and the non-LAX Los Angeles basin airports act as relievers for the very full and congested primary airports in their respective areas. HOU probably isn't needed as much as a reliever, but, unlike Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston wasn't told by the federal government to consolidate commercial air facilities or lose funding. In addition, Houston didn't come together as a community and agree to move all commercial traffic to IAH for the good of the area, again, unlike the situation here in the Metroplex.

So why did Dallas and Ft. Worth feel the need to shut down DAL, in the first place when MDW, HOU and others remained open? Couldn't they see those airports did NOT hurt IAH, ORD and LAX and it certainly wouldn't have hurt DFW, as we can see clearly now it is thriving.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7416 times:

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
How will they be negatively impacted? Losing Money? Passengers?

Yes on both counts. Opening Love Field will move passengers and revenue away from D/FW and to Love Field.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
Its a business, fight or die trying.

But why should these two airports have to compete, and "fight or die trying?" D/FW was designed and built specifically for the purpose of replacing Love Field, and building a national air hub (both of which were immensely successful). Again -- it is so immensely sad that the billions the region has invested in D/FW is now being threatened.

Rather than the region splitting its air traffic between two airports less than 20 miles apart, why not allow all airlines to fly from one centralized hub for the entire region? That way, the airlines, and not the airports could "fight or die trying." Surely this competition would be more beneficial to travelers.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
So why did Dallas and Ft. Worth feel the need to shut down DAL, in the first place when MDW, HOU and others remained open?

First off, MDW and ORD serve a far larger metropolitan area than DFW and DAL do. Secondly, neither Chicago or Houston were compelled to shut down their older airports when the new ones were built, as the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth were. Thirdly, both MDW/ORD and IAH/HOU serve one major city, and in both cases, that city owns and controls the finances of both airports. DFW and DAL are completely different. DFW serves two major cities, Dallas and Fort Worth, and is owned by both, while DAL serves only DAL, and is owned by only the City of Dallas. Big difference.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
Couldn't they see those airports did NOT hurt IAH, ORD and LAX and it certainly wouldn't have hurt DFW, as we can see clearly now it is thriving.

Again, both ORD and LAX serve far, far larger local O&D markets and cachment ares than the Metroplex. Again, The Cities of Chicago and Houston both own both their airports, and both of those cities' two airport serve only one major city. And, in LA's case, it is a completely different market dynamic, as the City of Los Angeles is actively trying to harm LAX's traffic and grow smaller basin area airports because LAX has limited expansion capacity. This is not the case in the Metroplex, where DFW has ample room to grow.


User currently offlineTismfu From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7410 times:

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
So why did Dallas and Ft. Worth feel the need to shut down DAL, in the first place when MDW, HOU and others remained open? Couldn't they see those airports did NOT hurt IAH, ORD and LAX and it certainly wouldn't have hurt DFW, as we can see clearly now it is thriving.

Because the federal government told our cities that if we wanted to continue to receive funding we had to consolidate at one facility, not two (or more). In addition, and again, MDW and the other LAX-area airports are very needed due to capacity restrictions at ORD and LAX, respectively. This is not the case with DAL. DFW can handle all of the Metroplex's traffic needs, and much more, for many years to come.


User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4000 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7391 times:

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 15):
Thus leaving out those around Dallas who LOVE to fly out of DAL, now THEY must be hassled into driving all the way over to DFW to catch a flight. No one is going to truly win out of this entire thing.

The presence of two airports creates three categories of travelers: Those who prefer airport A, those who prefer airport B, and those indifferent. That reduces competition (not all passengers will consider all flight options) and gives the airlines more power to increase fares.


User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7377 times:

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 22):
The presence of two airports creates three categories of travelers: Those who prefer airport A, those who prefer airport B, and those indifferent. That reduces competition (not all passengers will consider all flight options) and gives the airlines more power to increase fares.

However, the average flying customer WANTS competition, and they don't want the airfares to be raised.



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7364 times:

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 23):
However, the average flying customer WANTS competition, and they don't want the airfares to be raised.

Exactly! Which is why closing Love Field and consolidating all traffic at D/FW would deliver above and beyond for customers. AA having direct competition right at D/FW will have a huge impact on driving fares down even more, not to mention the fact that closing Love would likely bring in more money for the City of Dallas, and thus help lower tax rates there, or slow the rise in tax rates.


25 ScottB : Well, I've read through the "report" and it seems that BTC pretty much arrived at their own foregone conclusion. The introduction to the report pretty
26 Atrude777 : You didn't read the reports then, repealing the W.A and opening DAL would BRING in MORE money to the city of Dallas, and THAT is a fact. AA can have
27 Commavia : It depends on the report. Others in the past have said that closing Love Field (which the City of Dallas readily admits has lost money for years) wou
28 Texan : If the cities had been forced to close their airports, they would have been closed. Your statement has absolutely no factual basis. The major airline
29 Commavia : Well, allow me to rephrase. The cities agreed to close their respective airports to airline traffic. This is simply fact. I'd say it was pretty darn
30 MDorBust : At Red Bird? Lol, that's great. You couldn't even fit half of the current GA aircraft onto the tarmac at RBD, much less operate them. And yes, Addiso
31 Goingboeing : AA has shown that they will take a hit to hit the competition. Look at Braniff...back then they had absolutelyl NO reason to use the west side runway
32 Commavia : The City of Dallas has a huge investment in D/FW, IINM, a far larger investment than they have in Love Field. D/FW brings in tons of money each year
33 Par13del : Commavia, I have two points you and others may be able to clarify. 1. This whole mess started because the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth did not ensur
34 Commavia : This whole thing started because WN exploited a poorly-written legal loophole in the DFW facility bonds that the Cities marketed, and the airlines we
35 Goingboeing : Offset the loss of tax revenues from Dallas County from the equation....then how much money will Dallas make off of DFW? Remember...Southwests headqu
36 Commavia : Well, then fine, you make a good point. Edit my plan: DFW and Southwest work out a deal to either build or renovate a new headquarters for Southwest
37 Post contains images OPNLguy : Don't look now guys, but I think you're agreeing with one another...
38 Atrude777 : TAC (Texas Aeronautics Commission) did not force SWA to move. Naturally Dallas, DFW, Ft. Worth officials were mad. SWA did not sue first. SWA sued no
39 Commavia : I respectfully disagree, and please, consider the source of your 'Myth' talking points. It's Southwest's own setlovefree.com website. With all due re
40 Atrude777 : But it is true, no one else but SWA will know Southwest reason and plan for being successful right now. and most of the other sources people use to f
41 Ikramerica : Again, your convenience is no reason for the rest of us to pay more to fly to DFW or help support a money losing airport. Bull hockey pucks. Dallas i
42 Lightsaber : Man, it must be another week if another Wright thread is going. I can't believe I read through this whole thread.. It is very simple, will WN get more
43 N1120A : They can move to Las Vegas and get a reasonable COL and no state income tax. Actually, they are 11 miles apart and one focuses more on one of the two
44 ScottB : Ummmmm NO. The city's aviation department is currently losing money largely because of the bonds financing the new parking garage at DAL. They chose
45 TxAgKuwait : I will apologize if someone has already answered Commavia. When I read the post captioned above, the sheer and total inaccuracy forced me to skip down
46 KC135TopBoom : Anyone notice the BTC press release is all one sided against WN? How much did AA shell out for this one? I hope BTC made good money from them.
47 Boeing7E7 : Didn't know SFO had the capacity and expansion opportunities that DFW has to meet the demand for the region. Must have missed something while sorting
48 DALNeighbor : No it does not. Please show me the tax revenue to Dallas from DFW. Excuse me Mr. Hockey puck, but that $50 million is cash in the bank. DAL had been
49 Tismfu : DFW might not bring in lots of tax revenue to the City of Dallas, but, of course it brings in tons of money each year for the City through all the vis
50 Tismfu : I think they considered the high praise of Mr. Kelleher to be payment enough: Herb Kelleher, Chairman, Southwest Airlines: "The BTC, through Kevin Mi
51 Post contains images Tango-Bravo : We're not turning this topic into a discussion of the accounting practices used by the frequent flyer "loyalty" programs of the U.S. legacies now, ar
52 SeeTheWorld : Kevin Mitchell has proven to be partisan in the past when it serves his purpose. In addition to any ulterior motive Mr. Mitchell may have, making this
53 COrocks : My only point was that this group is supposed to be representing the business travelers, and I don't think many of them would want it closed.
54 Commavia : I highly doubt that Southwest would just completely drop service to the Metroplex if they had to move to D/FW.
55 SeeTheWorld : You can "highly doubt" it as much as you want, but I highly doubt DAL Love will ever be closed. My point was, if the unexpected happens (somehow DAL
56 DALNeighbor : They dropped Denver for 20 years.
57 Floorrunner : if it was legally permissable. It wasn't.
58 N1120A : In fairness, that had nothing to do with the move to DIA, which happened a decade later. They bailed on SFO, IAH and Beaumont too because they weren'
59 HPLASOps : Whoa, a ton of stuff I wanna comment on: No, of course AA won't die with the repealing of the WA, however, one of their main competitors will be gaini
60 SeeTheWorld : Whether WN would be profitable at DFW or not is completely and totally irrelevant. We live in a country that allows private companies to make their o
61 Atrude777 : If it isn't the best way then why is it being done in the LA area? DC Area, Chicago Area, Houston Area, it works everywhere else? So why can't it wor
62 Post contains images Lightsaber : Its not if WN can make a profit at DFW. If WN is forced to move from DAL, can DFW guarantee a greater profit than if WN moves the aircraft elsewhere?
63 N1120A : Again, the airports are only 24 miles apart, with HOU being closer to the downtown area. Whether or not one is more convinient than the other for peo
64 Commavia : I'd say its fairly relevant, as it is one of WN's main contentions for why they want to stay put at Love Field. On the contrary, I'd say AA would be
65 SeeTheWorld : It's irrelevant because no airline should be forced to serve an airport they choose not to serve. That was my point. You, my friend, do not understan
66 HPLASOps : I don't understand your version of airline economics either. AA at DFW = existing infrastructure, personnel, equipment, customer base, and overall fa
67 Goingboeing : I'd say yes, it's very true. For all the other airlnes, DFW is just a "spoke" from one of their hubs. WN would have a fairly decent sized operation t
68 SeeTheWorld : Well, you're right that it would cost AA loads of money if the WA were repealed regardless of whether they put more flights in DAL Love or not. That'
69 Par13del : I like the responses in this thread, for the most part they are very civil. In this post I'd like to deal with DFW's "problems" which in most threads
70 Post contains links HPLASOps : That could be spun the other way just as easily. No one is forcing WN to serve DFW. However, our argument is that WN chose to operate out of the wron
71 Post contains images Lightsaber : Very nice case of taxi times at DFW. Wow... I learned something in a Wright thread... That said, I've already posted why I think WN will stay out of
72 SCCutler : Still, nothing written above (or in any of the myriad other threads on the topic) has articulated a reason why WN should be compelled to move, except,
73 HPLASOps : Actually, I realized I was quoting this year's first two months compared to 1 whole year in 2000, so let me compare apples to apples, and show DFW's
74 Floorrunner : That is only your opinion. It just so happens to be the right airport for their business model.
75 N1120A : Actually, the problem has always been always international, not domestic. Funny, but the airport still does add flights. And BWI is still there. I am
76 HPLASOps : BWI's primary aviation concerns are based on the needs of Baltimore. What ever traffic they pull from the Washington DC area is of secondary concern.
77 N1120A : Yeah, that is about as true as saying that Dulles' primary aviation concerns are based on the needs of Reston, VA, BDL's primary aviation concerns ar
78 HPLASOps : Yeah, and by that logic, LAS is closer to Henderson and SEA serves Kent, WA. As the Washington Airport Authourity to name the three most significant
79 Txagkuwait : HP_LAS_Ops: You know, we’ve chatted before about saying this which are untrue, and repeating them over and over again in the hope some people will c
80 HPLASOps : So this is the revisionist history that CJ, Tornado, and the BTC report refer to. Tell me this, why would Dallas and Ft. Worth agree to build a mega
81 TxAgKuwait : >>So this is the revisionist history that CJ, Tornado, and the BTC report refer to. Tell me this, why would Dallas and Ft. Worth agree to build a mega
82 SPREE34 : So I guess the two cities acted on poor legal advise. Otherwise, it could be argued they acted illegally. There's probably three or four other ways t
83 SeeTheWorld : The fact that it took you that many sentences to make your point proves that it CANNOT just as easily be spun the other way. And it's not the same th
84 ScottB : Here are the comparable numbers for DAL: Average Taxi-out times at DAL (1/1/2006 to 2/28/2006) WN only: 8.44 minutes All Airlines at DAL: 8.98 minute
85 HPLASOps : Again, my point was not to compare DFW to DAL - see my rebuttal to TxAg's comment saying the same thing. It is relevant if/when they loose the battle
86 Post contains links Cjpark : What the report is saying that had the Wright Amendment not been enacted either other legislation or court action would have forced Love to close to
87 Post contains images SCCutler : Good gracious, I feel silly revisiting this again and again, but just as repetition of a na ction in training can reinforce a good habit, perhaps rep
88 Post contains images TVNWZ : Why is it everyone forgets this or ignores it? AxAgKuwait keep pounding that rock. You can not write this enough. This IS the truth and it is the cru
89 TxAgKuwait : HP_LAS_Ops: >>Quoting Txagkuwait (Reply 79): I guess I would like to know what you think happens when Southwest has a monopoly on a certain route. Ple
90 Cjpark : Two things: What you are trying so hard to ignore is that the Business Jet Industry was not as large then as it is now. The industry just was not in
91 TxAgKuwait : >>GA still does not bring in enough cash to operate the airport
92 Cjpark : FYI, Highland Park is not part of the City of Dallas. Where is Beverly Drive? Highland Park
93 OPNLguy : He never said it was... His mention of Laura Miller was in specific reference to her theoretically renting a backhoe and tearing up the Love runways
94 Cjpark : And what is it that the rich and powerful people who do not live in Dallas can do to the mayor? If I remember correctly Miller was not the power brok
95 TxAgKuwait : >>Where is Beverly Drive?
96 OPNLguy : Neither here nor there; the point remains that he never said those folks were in Dallas--that was your characterization, and not an accurate one... '
97 SeeTheWorld : Give a lot of money to a challenger, that's what rich folk who don't live in Dallas can do. And, that is more important than their votes.
98 Cjpark : That comment was directed to you. The suggestion that Highland Park has control over the City of Dallas Government was made by you.
99 N908AW : I have a better idea. Let's slowly reregulate the airline industry. Let's restrict every market to just one airport. Destroy capitalism in the airline
100 HPLASOps : Hmm, Chicago didn't seem to have any trouble closing down Meigs Field. DAL may be convient for the biz jets, but if overall circumstances warrant a c
101 SCCutler : Actually, no. Meigs had not been the recipient of AIP funds and, thus, the City of Chicago had no legal obligation to keep it open (although the mean
102 Cjpark : There are many things that cannot be imagined, but there is nothing that cannot happen! Including closing Love Field to commercial traffic and outrig
103 SCCutler : Southwest "gave" nothing; it is simply seeking to have what was taken away, restored. But you knew that.
104 N908AW : Good job reading the Constitution. Actually, no ruling body that had any power to close Love Field said anything about closing Love Field. (They almo
105 Ikramerica : Airports and other infrastructure is already quasi-regulated or directly regulated. Your point is invalid. WN has every right to fly to anywhere it w
106 Cjpark : They agreed to the compromise that is the Wright Amendment and are now trying to rewrite the history of the situation to paint themselves as victims
107 JayDavis : The BTC does NOT truly speak for Corporate America and their Travel Managers. The true organization for business travel is the NBTA, The National Busi
108 HPLASOps : Did you say that to imply that AA is run and operated by evil souless robots? AA has people working for them too - again trying to appeal to emotion
109 Cjpark : Maybe you could provide some proof of your assertion with a press release from this organization stating their position on the repeal effort/effort t
110 AAgent : This sounds a lot like the ranting airline unions that threaten to strike if their pay is cut. There's a lot of strong talk, and the actions threaten
111 TxAgKuwait : >>And do you really believe that WN would set idly by while another airline raked in "monopoly" profits with no effort on their part to grab a piece o
112 Cjpark : Midland and Lubbock had mainline jet service from AA, CO, TI and for a short time BI long before and after Southwest came in to the area. BI and TI w
113 TxAgKuwait : >>Midland and Lubbock had mainline jet service from AA, CO, TI and for a short time BI long before and after Southwest came in to the area. BI and TI
114 SCCutler : Machts nichts; there still has never been any rational justification for (1) abandoning DAL's existing infrastructure, both public and private, and (
115 HPLASOps : Easy, when this line was written: I interpreted it as "WN is the only airline run by people, that's all the justification we need to repeal Wright."
116 SCCutler : Well, no, actually it says that they can fly those long distances from anywhere *but* DAL. This persistent effort to characterize the Wright Amendmen
117 ScottB : Uhhhh, this is probably the most ridiculous reach I've ever seen. I think the only implication is that Southwest isn't just a corporation; it's an or
118 Cjpark : Yet again you go off on a tangent. How in the world is carjacking related to the WA? Victims of crime are denied negotiation. WN was included in the
119 Floorrunner : I am getting weary of the attitude "A deal is a deal is a deal" If this is true, then every airline that agreed to a union contract should not be allo
120 HPLASOps : Holy hypocrisy, Batman! So on one hand you try to convince us that repeal is all about making air travel affordable for North Texas, how Southwest is
121 TxAgKuwait : HP_LAS_Ops: I am glad to see you have made it back. I am still sitting out here waiting for you to provide examples (or an example) of where Southwest
122 BHMNONREV : While normally I am loathe to pipe in on these WA urinating contests, because I have no dog in this fight one way or the other, I think a lot of the
123 TxAgKuwait : >>Southwest may exist to provide low fares, but low fares take a back seat to profits...
124 Incitatus : Here: There are many. Southwest fares are pretty sour in some markets with little competition. For example, Dallas to St. Louis Southwest gives you a
125 Atrude777 : For a total of 528 dollars round trip, Sounds expensive... Lets go over to AA.com, I priced the same dates, leaving at the same times and connecting
126 TxAgKuwait : Well, Incitatus, I am looking at internet one ways between Austin and Albuquerque at $114 on their website right now. Plus, neither of those markets a
127 Incitatus : You need to get your facts straight. The fare for departure today I got in aa.com for AUS-ABQ is $524 plus taxes. For departure tomorrow it's $498 pl
128 Atrude777 : Thats another thing about AA.com prices jump so suddenly and the fare structure is confusing, all airlines are. One minute it may be what I quoted, n
129 HPLASOps : Okay zen master, I'll start off with a route I'm personally familiar with, LAS-SAT: I checked as of today, 4/17/06, 11:58 am west coast time Walk up
130 ScottB : That's a pretty big strawman you're trying to set up there! Given to hyperbole, are you? When have I or anyone else claimed that "Southwest is the Go
131 HPLASOps : What can I say, I like to tack on a little extra rhetoric to sell my point, not unlike anything WN or AA will do. You didn't really fire back at my o
132 Goingboeing : Tex is a buddy of mine, and while you attempted to show SWA "raping" a customer on a "monopoly" route, I'll give you a better example of a route wher
133 SeeTheWorld : TxAgKuwait and SCCutler - welcome to my respected users list. It was a pleasure reading your accurate and deft posts on the issues surrounding the WA
134 ScottB : But the way Southwest makes money is by offering lower fares in (previously) high-priced markets -- very unlike AA, HP, US, DL, NW, UA, or CO. Southw
135 Cjpark : Isn't this interesting a person from Boston telling us what the wishes of the Dallas, Ft Worth region are. Just like I told SC if it was not a compro
136 ScottB : I lived in Texas for enough years to understand the political landscape...and that still doesn't change the fact that Jim Wright was corrupt. Had the
137 HPLASOps : For months I've ready you and other pro-repeals talk about how this isn't about the benefit of one airline, how this is all about for the benefit of
138 N908AW : Ahhhh....nothin' like getting my posts twisted. I know. I feel bad about that too. But I won't let my capitalist ego surface too much in here. Eek...n
139 Cjpark : Tom Delay is also a crook but even so that does not detract from the fact that all elected officials must listen to the voters. Wright listened. You
140 Incitatus : I never said American offers low fares. But numbers were misquoted by Southwest supporters (i.e., lies with numbers) as usual. My point is that South
141 ScottB : Repealing Wright would benefit all airlines wanting to serve DAL. And greater competition for the public's air travel dollars (via expanded service a
142 Tugger : I haven't been able to read through this entire thread, too long. But does anybody consider that DAL wants the WA repealed? It would bring more airlin
143 HPLASOps : Local opposition? By who? The local politicians who fly DCA-LAS on us don't seem to be opposed to it. Save for a few NIMBY's living around the airpor
144 HPLASOps : Repealing Wright won't mean new airlines are coming in, just means they'll get more revenue off WN. It also means that they will grow up to and beyon
145 Goingboeing : I wasn't aware that it was an outcry from the voters that Wright listened to. I think voters in Fort Worth would have been reluctant to enact anythin
146 TxAgKuwait : >>Repealing Wright won't mean new airlines are coming in, just means they'll get more revenue off WN. It also means that they will grow up to and beyo
147 SCCutler : Hey, Army- hope you're doing well. This debate really has come down to one thing- punishment. Punish WN for being successful. Punish Dallas for-- what
148 SeeTheWorld : Once again, you've pretty much laid out the issue clearly and concisely. And, another unbiased and sane argument. Both of you are brilliant - I don't
149 HPLASOps : When has any of us ever made that argument? In fact, just about 5 posts ago, I was the one asking the pro-repealers who was the airline waiting on th
150 ScottB : Not just "a few NIMBY's" living around the airport; a lot of folks in Arlington and Alexandria are very unhappy with the service expansions at DCA. A
151 TxAgKuwait : >>Or do you think there should be adult video stores next door to Elementary Schools.Should television networks be allowed to broadcast whatever they
152 Cjpark : To say that the debate has been centered on punishment for either WN or the City of Dallas is great spin. That is if you are counting on your audienc
153 Goingboeing : Why should another airline fight for it? For them, it isn't economically prudent. If Wright falls, they can decide if they'd want to move their opera
154 Cjpark : Can you answer the question for us?
155 Goingboeing : What question should I answer? Why should another airline fight for it? Why not let Southwest spend their own money and I'll save mine, and if Wright
156 HPLASOps : If that were the case, I invite you to come out to Vegas, stay at the Westward Ho, and see how long it takes you to get a cab cause none of them are
157 Floorrunner : If a deal is a deal, then every airline that agreed to a contract with their employees for a certain amount of pay does not have the right to ask for
158 Cjpark : How it is that the WA is anticompetitive? Specifically if a law applies to all carriers how is it a barrier to one and not to all? And if it is that
159 Goingboeing : I thought I answered this...the other airlines have only a handful of flights into Dallas. Why spend their money when Southwest is spending their own
160 Cjpark : You cannot or will not answer the question on how is the Wright Amendment anticompetive. I wonder why?
161 HPLASOps : AA is not just protecting DFW, they are also protecting the marketplace and their airline's ability to compete. AA wants WN to come to DFW to compete
162 Goingboeing : Okay. I T... I S... A N T I C O M P E T I T I V E... B E C A U S E ... I T ... A R T F I C I A L L Y... L I M I T S... F L I G H T S ... O U T...O F.
163 Lt-AWACS : HPLASOps, Houston doesn't, in fact the city has ordinances that control adult themed businesses and how close they can be in relation to schools. In
164 Atrude777 : So why dont they ask WN/ATA/FL/F9 to come to ORD from MDW. Why don't they pull out of BUR. Why doesn't CO ask WN to pull out of HOU. Hey after all it
165 HPLASOps : Did you read my post? I said two competing HUBS for the same market isn't viable out of different airports.
166 Post contains images N908AW : Good job. Competitve=zero "if"s.
167 Cjpark : And yet all carriers face the same limitations. I asked you how is it anticompetitive?
168 Atrude777 : According to most people....WN has "hubs" at MDW and HOU. AA/UA have hubs at ORD, next to MDW and CO has a hub at IAH. So if not hubs, SWA has very l
169 Goingboeing : I've answered you twice. But let me ask you...why, after 32 years of being in business, does DFW airport need any protections?
170 SCCutler : The answer, of course, is that DFW does not need legislative protection, and the right of choice for where, and from where, one flies should be in all
171 HPLASOps : The public needs protection against a single business engaging in unfair business practices that undermine the rest of the industry. And before you f
172 Atrude777 : Wright NOT appealed =a single business (AA) getting a significant competitive advantage via gov't assistance (ie when gov't forced DAL to be only wit
173 ScottB : The reason DFW was built is that the CAB forced Dallas and Fort Worth to do it back in the 60's. That is the reason DFW was built -- not the "wishes
174 ScottB : So then you would agree that it is okay to charge $10 for a gallon of milk after a disaster because there are people who are willing to pay it? Or th
175 HPLASOps : I was asking why you think there are alot of folk in the Alexandria area that want DCA more restricted, and what proof you have of it. It was a combi
176 Goingboeing : Hmmm...airfares in and out of Chicago are considerably lower than airfares out of Dallas. Airfares in and out of Houston are considerably lower than
177 Cjpark : Neither of you have a definitive answer for the question on how is the WA is anticompetitive do you? Goiingboeing, DFW is an underutilized airport. D
178 Goingboeing : Cjpark...how come the only "relief" for O'hare seems to come from LCC's and a very small handful of "legacy" flights? You know, DFW was initially desi
179 Cjpark : Your right the FAA is responsible to determine if and when an airport is needed for relief purposes. Can you explain to us how you reached this concl
180 Floorrunner : What unfair business practices are Southwest using? What government assistance are they receiving?
181 Sccutler : Cactus, that may be the most relevant post in this thread, and in it (and with due consideration of the historical context it brings forth), you find
182 Goingboeing : They did such a magificent job with Mid America airport outside St Louis. Thank you for demonstrating that the free market, and not you, nor congress
183 Cjpark : You were asked how the WA is anticompetitive. Granted it restricts flights from DAL as that was it's purpose. Now explain how it is anticompetitive w
184 SCCutler : The WA is anticompetitive because it restricts flights from Love Field. Any carrier which serves Love Field, and desires to fly beyond the Wright per
185 HPLASOps : Agreeing to operate out of a cheaper, older, restricted airport, publicly promising to abide by the law, not say a word about the law for 25 years, t
186 SCCutler : See, there's the problem. WN has abided by the law, and is not asking the government for help. They are asking the government to withdraw its (unique
187 HPLASOps : Then ask Dallas businessmen to move closer to DFW Considering I've driven through West Texas a dozen times and never heard of a Marfa, I don't think
188 Cjpark : Uh, they can go to the other airport right? Unless you know of a caveat in the WA that says Southwest can only fly out of Dallas from Love Field. So
189 Goingboeing : Apparently you've missed the past several years where several corporate headquarters reloacted to Las Colinas...know what airport Las Colinas abuts?
190 Cjpark : I don't know anything about the FAA and Mid America airport so I am not going to bother answering. NBO I have not been given an answer as to why a la
191 N908AW : Gee. Maybe because it costs money to move stuff? Move all of Southwest's employees, offices, aircraft, and financial investments?
192 Floorrunner : You still did not answer my question. What unfair business practices are Southwest using?
193 HPLASOps : The cost of one business having to change locations has nothing to do with with whether a law is anti-competitive and you know that. Geezus, I gave y
194 Goingboeing : ExxonMobil,Zales, Nokia for starters. Sony Corporation has a regional headquarters there. Boy Scouts of America, numerous insurance companies have a
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...
Orions At Love Field posted Thu Oct 26 2006 20:07:51 by WN700driver
Los Angeles Times: Battle At Love Field! posted Mon Jun 27 2005 04:18:18 by SHUPirate1
B-777 Landing At Love Field... posted Thu Apr 28 2005 20:35:56 by RHSNYC
AA At Love Field - Gone For Good? posted Wed Oct 10 2001 03:20:16 by LoneStarMike
Air Austral 737-200's At Love Field posted Sun Jul 29 2001 07:22:06 by Us330
L-1011 At Love Field posted Sun Mar 4 2001 03:34:20 by Tom in NO
Odd 737-800 At DAL Love Field posted Wed Feb 15 2006 04:01:03 by OPNLguy
AA Wants Out Of Love Field Lease posted Thu Jun 26 2003 06:14:07 by LoneStarMike
N707JT At Dallas Love Field posted Wed Feb 26 2003 01:29:04 by JayDavis
Southwest Flight Restrictions At Dallas Love Field posted Wed Jul 24 2002 05:22:28 by Matt_milligan