Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why WN Will Fight To The Death At DAL  
User currently offlineIluv2pilot From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 95 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 6814 times:

Kudos to LoneStarMike at another Blog for pulling data that shows exactly why WN will never give up the fight at DAL. This data is exactly why:

Actually, there is an easy way to compare WN's taxi-in times to those of other airlines at the same airport.

Go to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website. Scroll down a little ways to the summary statistics section. Choose Destination Airport.

When the next page loads, enter the desired airport, airline (Southwest) and the start and end dates from the drop-down tables and then submit.

The table that comes up will show you (among other things) the average taxi-in time among all carriers at the airport and the average taxi-in time of all WN flights.

Compare DAL's all/WN's taxi-in times to DFW's all/AA's taxi-in times

DAL - 3.10 (All) - 3.03 (WN)
DFW - 11.42 (All) - 12.88 (AA)

If you want to check taxi-out times, go back to the summary section and choose origin airport instead of destination airport and repeat the above process.

Here's how DAL's and DFW's taxi-out times compare

DAL - 8.76 (All) - 8.34 (WN)
DFW - 17.35 (All) - 17.35 (AA)

On average, a plane doing a turn at DFW has 16.91 more minutes of taxi time getting to its gate and back to the runway than a plane doing a turn at Love Field. Multiply that extra 16.91 minutes per turn by 120 turns per day (what WN currently does at DAL) and that's nearly 34 additional hours of fuel-burning taxi-time per day to offer the same number of flights out of DFW.

This is exactly why Southwest wants to stay at DAL.

93 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUSPIT10L From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3295 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6729 times:

Quoting Iluv2pilot (Thread starter):
On average, a plane doing a turn at DFW has 16.91 more minutes of taxi time getting to its gate and back to the runway than a plane doing a turn at Love Field. Multiply that extra 16.91 minutes per turn by 120 turns per day (what WN currently does at DAL) and that's nearly 34 additional hours of fuel-burning taxi-time per day to offer the same number of flights out of DFW.

This is exactly why Southwest wants to stay at DAL.

That's exactly why smaller, close-in airports are some the best airports in WN's system. It's also the best part of their business plan, in my opinion. I can't believe AA has brainwashed most of the Metroplex into buying their "stance" on Wright! It's not even like you can fly anywhere in the world from DFW, anyway. I love AA, but come on! Show a little honesty here! Arpey wouldn't be crucified if he called Wright wrong!



It's a Great Day for Hockey!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6692 times:

Quoting Iluv2pilot (Thread starter):
On average, a plane doing a turn at DFW has 16.91 more minutes of taxi time getting to its gate and back to the runway than a plane doing a turn at Love Field. Multiply that extra 16.91 minutes per turn by 120 turns per day (what WN currently does at DAL) and that's nearly 34 additional hours of fuel-burning taxi-time per day to offer the same number of flights out of DFW.

This is due to an airfield with insufficient crossing points. If you have dual taxiways between each terminal you don't have to taxi around terminals to get to the right side of the airfield. Building a cross field terminal for Southwest on the south end of the field (South of A or demo E and build it north of B), and American on the north end (North of Y) will cut these times by as much as 60%. Everyone else will still be taxiing around, but they won't have to taxi through the AA bottleneck. DFW has a poor layout for a hub airport, but that's easily corrected.

[Edited 2006-04-25 04:28:51]

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11979 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6673 times:

Just out of curiosity, what are the taxi-in/-out times at DEN, FLL, PHL, IAD and LAX?

User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6644 times:

Thanks for the shout-out.  

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics website is also useful in determining Southwest's overall load factors at individual airports. It doesn't tell you load factor on individual routes, but using this formula can give you a general idea what percentages of the flights have butts-in-seats. Kind of like an average load factor.

You first need to know how many passengers WN carried out of a particular airport. Not all airports break this info down in their monthly activity reports, but some like DAL and AUS do. Sometimes the info might be mentioned in a newspaper story like WN's totals at DEN were recently.

Love Field's monthly traffic statistics are on this page. For February, 2006 they show Southwest having flown 455,450 passengers in and out of DAL.

Once you know the passenger count, go the the BTS website and look at the summary statistics for WN at that airport for whatever date range,

Look at WN in DAL for 02-01-2006 through 02-28-2006. Looking at Origin Airport will give you the number of departures for the month and looking at destination airport will give you the number of arrivals for the month.

WN had 3078 departures and 3078 arrivals at DAL in February for a total of 6,156 flights.

Multiply 6,156 flights times 137 (seats on each plane) and you come up with 843,372 available seats for the month. (Yes, I know Southwest has 25 735's that seat 122, but statistically those don't make much of a difference.

Number of passengers flown (455,450) divided available seats (843,372) equals WN's avg. load factor (54.00%)

In comparision, WN's system-wide load factor in Feb. was 68.5%. Had WN's loads at an unrestricted DAL been more in line with the rest of the system, they would have carried 577,709 passengers.

WN's Jan. avg. load factor at Love Field was even worse.at 46.58%

WN has a lot of potential at Love Field if restrictions are ever lifted. They could do it from DFW but the costs of the move, the extra ground time (and time spent wasting fuel), as well as other fAActors, make Love Field the better choice for WN.

LoneStarMike

[Edited 2006-04-25 05:08:19]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6584 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Just out of curiosity, what are the taxi-in/-out times at DEN, FLL, PHL, IAD and LAX?

Outside of taxi times, you also must consider other airport costs such as DAL's rock-bottom landing fees and affordable lease rates. DFW's half-hearted efforts at "free rent" don't come close to the cost structure WN has built at DAL.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 2):
Building a cross field terminal for Southwest on the south end of the field (South of A or demo E and build it north of B), and American on the north end (North of Y) will cut these times by as much as 60%.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0602/06039AD.PDF

Looking at DFW layouts, I don't quite understand what you are suggesting. Would such a terminal be located near the hold pads at the corners of the central terminal area?


User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6583 times:

With such a great deal for Southwest I wonder what will happen when all those other airlines move in once Wright is repealed? More traffic slower turn times. There goes the neighborhood.


"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6567 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 6):
With such a great deal for Southwest I wonder what will happen when all those other airlines move in once Wright is repealed?

You can name the carriers interested in establishing a DAL station once the W.A. is repealed on a single hand. As a hint, the only significant one is already back at DAL...


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9272 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6513 times:

Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 1):
That's exactly why smaller, close-in airports are some the best airports in WN's system. It's also the best part of their business plan, in my opinion. I can't believe AA has brainwashed most of the Metroplex into buying their "stance" on Wright! It's not even like you can fly anywhere in the world from DFW, anyway. I love AA, but come on! Show a little honesty here! Arpey wouldn't be crucified if he called Wright wrong!

Thank you USPIT10L! I never cared for Wright either, and here's another reason to dislike it. I was all for WN moving into DFW if they could not fight Wright, but if they're going to waste fuel on the ground in such slow taxi times, they might as well not even hedge (exaggeration here). Thanks for giving me, as well as the rest of us a different perspective here on why Wright is Wrong...

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 6):
With such a great deal for Southwest I wonder what will happen when all those other airlines move in once Wright is repealed? More traffic slower turn times. There goes the neighborhood.



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
You can name the carriers interested in establishing a DAL station once the W.A. is repealed on a single hand. As a hint, the only significant one is already back at DAL...

I agree with DfwRevolution here. Sorry cj, but if you consider how many gates are at DAL and how many of those WN operates, how many more carriers are going to go there? If AA is smart they'd back out of that financial balck hole and retreat back to DFW. Along with their finances, their credibility is flowing right into that vacuum as well...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6470 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 2):
This is due to an airfield with insufficient crossing points. If you have dual taxiways between each terminal you don't have to taxi around terminals to get to the right side of the airfield. Building a cross field terminal for Southwest on the south end of the field (South of A or demo E and build it north of B), and American on the north end (North of Y) will cut these times by as much as 60%. Everyone else will still be taxiing around, but they won't have to taxi through the AA bottleneck. DFW has a poor layout for a hub airport, but that's easily corrected.

Actually, that doesn't solve the problems at DFW. Generally speaking, aircraft going to destinations east of DFW taxi to the east side of the airport, and depart. The same thing for the western departures going to destinations west of DFW. That is why departing traffic crosses the A,B,Y, & Z Bridges. Arriving traffic is the same way.

Building duel center field taxiway bridges between Terminals E & C/D, then A/B & C, is expensive, and really wouldn't save much more than a minute of outbound and inbound taxi times. We did survey this a few years back, before Terminal D was built (now we don't have the room to build them).

There is a thought, to offer to build Terminal F for WN, it will be north of B Twy/Bridge and east of Twy G, where the GA Ramp is today. The best way to increase taxi times is to "give" WN almost exclusive use of Twy F, and launch all of their departures on the west side. For AA, that will not work out.

But, this is all talk, I mentioned about a year ago, the taxi times is a big concern for WN, and they cannot make their goals at DFW, or most other big airports. Yes, I know WN flys into DEN, SEA, and LAX, but those are exceptions to their business plans. Almost everywhere else, they use the smaller airports, like MDW, BWI, LGA, PVD, Manchester, NH, if there are some available (in those areas) within easy commute distance. It is the same at DAL.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2266 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6377 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
You can name the carriers interested in establishing a DAL station once the W.A. is repealed on a single hand. As a hint, the only significant one is already back at DAL...

And losing their AA$$ to prove an un-provable point. The stockholders should have someone's AA$$ on a platter.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineTxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6365 times:

>>Multiply 6,156 flights times 137 (seats on each plane) and you come up with 843,372 available seats for the month. (Yes, I know Southwest has 25 735's that seat 122, but statistically those don't make much of a difference<<

LSM, you and I seldom disagree but I needed to point out one thing.

The difference between 122 and 137 seats makes quite a bit of difference.

Actually, the -500s tend to spend more time in Texas, just as the -200s did.

So most of the flying in/out of Love Field is on 122 seat aircraft.

The difference in Load Factor between 122 and 137 seat aircraft amounts to the difference between a LF of 54.0 and a LF of 60.6 percent.

There are some 137 seat aircraft that show up from time to time. But I think you'd have been closer to the actual LF using the 122 seat rather than the 137 seat model.

Somewhere's around 59.0 to 60.0 would be my guess.


User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6330 times:

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 8):
Thank you USPIT10L! I never cared for Wright either, and here's another reason to dislike it. I was all for WN moving into DFW if they could not fight Wright, but if they're going to waste fuel on the ground in such slow taxi times, they might as well not even hedge (exaggeration here). Thanks for giving me, as well as the rest of us a different perspective here on why Wright is Wrong...

Hey now that makes sense. Repeal a law written to protect public investment so an airline does not have to spend as much money to operate does not make sense. I understand that most of the people here are airline people but come on people, think!



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6306 times:

Thanks, TxAG. I didn't know that. Most of my flights from AUS-DAL have been on the -300 so I just assumed most of the other flights into/out of DAL...and I guess I should know better than that.

If you multiply the 6156 flights by 122 seats rather than 137 you come up with 751,032, or 92,340 fewer seats so that is quite a difference.

I stand corrected.

I'm asuming (oops - there I go again  Smile) that my original formula would be more accurate at airports outside the current Wright Amendment Area - that see little or no -500's.

LoneStarMike

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6249 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
Looking at DFW layouts, I don't quite understand what you are suggesting. Would such a terminal be located near the hold pads at the corners of the central terminal area?

You set in place semicircles over the roadway and infill the area around them, then build terminals on top of them. The terminals and associeated ramps would be on top of the road way with access to both sides of the airfield from any gate in the concourse. Look at it like Atlanta or Denver, but each concourse having it's own Ticket Counter and baggage claim.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Actually, that doesn't solve the problems at DFW. Generally speaking, aircraft going to destinations east of DFW taxi to the east side of the airport, and depart. The same thing for the western departures going to destinations west of DFW. That is why departing traffic crosses the A,B,Y, & Z Bridges. Arriving traffic is the same way.

And a cross field terminal allows direct access to each side of the field and would cut the times in half. As it is, they taxi north or south, then cross. Cross field terminals are always more efficient and provide substantially better access.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Building duel center field taxiway bridges between Terminals E & C/D, then A/B & C, is expensive, and really wouldn't save much more than a minute of outbound and inbound taxi times. We did survey this a few years back, before Terminal D was built (now we don't have the room to build them).

Then the consultants that did the study need to find new employment because they put too much emphasis on the existing terminal layout. A, B, C and E are near the end of their useful life. If there's any time to make this shift it will be in the coming years. They should have thought about that before going up with the skytrain. This monkey business of a core terminal complex with a circular taxiway system is the most half assed layout I've ever seen.


User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6229 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 6):
With such a great deal for Southwest I wonder what will happen when all those other airlines move in once Wright is repealed? More traffic slower turn times. There goes the neighborhood.

YOu really think airlines will flock to DAL? Where was the rush of airlines into MDW or HOU?

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 12):
Repeal a law written to protect public investment s

The public investment the WA was written to protect is 32 years old. It's what we usually call "mature", and no longer needs that protection. The WA was like training wheels on a bike for DFW...gets it started until it can ride on it's own. You're about as old as the Wright Amendment....do you still ride with training wheels?


User currently offlineSCCutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5617 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6046 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
But since you bring up big lies why don�t you tell us how Southwest cannot compete without the Wright Amendment removed from the books? Then you can lie to us again and tell us how is it that a law that applies to all carriers is anticompetive.

CJ, please recognize the distinction between a lie, the proffering of a statement known to be false but represented as truth; and a contention, an assertion advanced as an argument and intended to persuade. In may corners, to call someone a liar is one of the highest forms of insult, and I am certain that it is not your intent to unsult or demean anyone.

-=-

The WA restricts flights from Love Field. Any carrier which serves Love Field, and desires to fly beyond the Wright perimeter, is restricted from competing with carriers which fly from airports which do not have those restrictions.

Hence, the Wright Amendment is anticompetetive.

-=-

This is my contention, and one which is considered a credible contention among a geat many commentators, here, in the Dallas area at large, and indeed, among many experts elsewhere. Nothing there which could remotely answer to the definition of a "lie."

Presuming that Love Field and DFW serve (at least to some degree) the same market (north Texas), then lifting the Wright Amendment will serve to increase competition.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinePetmbro From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6005 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 16):

YOu really think airlines will flock to DAL? Where was the rush of airlines into MDW or HOU?

They're not going to flock to DAL, which is why this doesn't make any sense. WHEN Wright is repealed DAL will become an LCC hub just like MDW and DFW will become the ORD of north Texas. You don't see ORD fighting over MDW, so why should DFW keep fighting over DAL? There is no reason the two can't peacefully coexist



"don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!" - Judge Judy
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5993 times:

I've heard the ol' taxi time arguments before but if it were really the case for WN than why did they go back to DEN, one of physically largest airports in the Nation? They want to stay at DAL for two reasons - A) they want to win their argument against AA so they don't lose face with the consumers, and B) they don't want to spend the money to move.

If they actually enforced taxi speed limits say like NASCAR enforces on pit-road via radar, WN would be just like the rest of the industry.


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9272 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5965 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 16):
The public investment the WA was written to protect is 32 years old. It's what we usually call "mature", and no longer needs that protection. The WA was like training wheels on a bike for DFW...gets it started until it can ride on it's own. You're about as old as the Wright Amendment....do you still ride with training wheels?

Excellent post!!!!!! Big grin

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 18):
please recognize the distinction between a lie, the proffering of a statement known to be false but represented as truth; and a contention, an assertion advanced as an argument and intended to persuade. In may corners, to call someone a liar is one of the highest forms of insult, and I am certain that it is not your intent to unsult or demean anyone.

It should not be of anyones intent to insult period, but I don't think he intended to call anyone a liar either.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 18):
The WA restricts flights from Love Field. Any carrier which serves Love Field, and desires to fly beyond the Wright perimeter, is restricted from competing with carriers which fly from airports which do not have those restrictions.

Hence, the Wright Amendment is anticompetetive.

Then W.A. should be lifted. WN should not have to move to DFW where they'll burn more fuel on the ground during taxiing, higher landing fees and fees for services they do not need or use just to compete out of Dallas; that is just silly IMO...

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 12):
Hey now that makes sense. Repeal a law written to protect public investment so an airline does not have to spend as much money to operate does not make sense. I understand that most of the people here are airline people but come on people, think!

Moving to DFW and paying for services they don't necessarily need, and having delays and taxi times mount my the minutes makes sense, but paying a reasonable ops fee at DAL does not make sense... Ok...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5954 times:

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 18):
CJ, please recognize the distinction between a lie, the proffering of a statement known to be false but represented as truth; and a contention, an assertion advanced as an argument and intended to persuade. In may corners, to call someone a liar is one of the highest forms of insult, and I am certain that it is not your intent to unsult or demean anyone.

The comment is directed at statements made by WN in support of their effort to repeal the WA. For your own reference such statements can be found on the Set Love Free Website.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 18):
The WA restricts flights from Love Field. Any carrier which serves Love Field, and desires to fly beyond the Wright perimeter, is restricted from competing with carriers which fly from airports which do not have those restrictions.

Hence, the Wright Amendment is anticompetetive.

NO, it is not because the law does not compell those airlines serving DAL from serving at airports without restrictions. There is a difference between a legislated barrier that prevents a carrier from flying beyond the Wright perimeter at all airports and a legislative barrier that prevents all carriers from flying beyond the Wright perimeter at a single airport.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 18):
This is my contention, and one which is considered a credible contention among a geat many commentators, here, in the Dallas area at large, and indeed, among many experts elsewhere. Nothing there which could remotely answer to the definition of a "lie."

You are of course entitled to your contention. However the rest of us know there is no competitive barrier to Southwest flying long distance routes from North Texas other than those that are self imposed.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5952 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 16):
The public investment the WA was written to protect is 32 years old. It's what we usually call "mature", and no longer needs that protection. The WA was like training wheels on a bike for DFW...gets it started until it can ride on it's own. You're about as old as the Wright Amendment....do you still ride with training wheels?

The public investment is not finished growing and anything that can be done to facilitate its growth is good for the region.

I do not need training wheels but I do drive with safety belts fastened. Seems a wise thing to do. Protecting the public investment is also a wise thing to do.

[Edited 2006-04-26 05:42:09]


"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineCF6PPE From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5939 times:

Quoting Iluv2pilot (Thread starter):
On average, a plane doing a turn at DFW has 16.91 more minutes of taxi time getting to its gate and back to the runway than a plane doing a turn at Love Field. Multiply that extra 16.91 minutes per turn by 120 turns per day (what WN currently does at DAL) and that's nearly 34 additional hours of fuel-burning taxi-time per day to offer the same number of flights out of DFW.

The additional 34 hours of daily taxi time would consume an (est.) additional 10,000 gallons of fuel on a daily basis, or about 3.7 million gallons annually....

At todays fuel prices the additional cost could be more than $7 million annually...

Also, with the longer taxi in/out times at DFW, most likely additional equipment (aircraft) would be required to operate a schedule equivalent to DAL....

I would imagine that the WN 's economics at DAL are much better without taking into consideration the additional costs of operation at DFW...

Maybe AA needs to take a lesson in airport economics 101....


User currently offlineSCCutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5617 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5907 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 20):

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 18):...the Wright Amendment is anticompetitive.

NO, it is not because the law does not compell those airlines serving DAL from serving at airports without restrictions. There is a difference between a legislated barrier that prevents a carrier from flying beyond the Wright perimeter at all airports and a legislative barrier that prevents all carriers from flying beyond the Wright perimeter at a single airport.

Ah yes, but in order to do so, an airline already established and possessing all needed infrastructure at DAL, and thus needing none of the more-costly facilities located at DFW, would have to pick up and move, a move which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So... it logically and inevitably follows that...

...the WA restricts flights from Love Field. Any carrier which serves Love Field, and desires to fly beyond the Wright perimeter, is restricted from competing with carriers which fly from airports which do not have those restrictions.

Hence, the Wright Amendment is anticompetitive.

===

The "barrier" to Southwest competing beyond the Wright perimeter is certainly not "self-imposed" (Southwest never "imposed" legislation on itself), nor (for that matter) is there a singular "barrier."

Southwest is precluded from competing from DAL by restrictive legislation; Southwest is inhibited from competing at DFW by (inter alia ) the prohibitive cost of abandoning its existing, appropriate and fully-functional infrastruture base at DAL, the absence of appropriate infrastructure at DFW (appropriate to its operations), the expense of enduring infrastructure at DFW which is utterly useless to WN, and the presence of a dominant carrier at DFW whose operations would be disruptive of WN's efficient business model. these are the proverbial "tip of the iceberg."

That WN could be competitive at DFW, in no rational way compels the conclusion that they should be forced to move.

Simple, free-market economics. Having more choices is virtually always better, and this is a great example.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineHPLASOps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5882 times:

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 23):
The "barrier" to Southwest competing beyond the Wright perimeter is certainly not "self-imposed" (Southwest never "imposed" legislation on itself), nor (for that matter) is there a singular "barrier."

Yes, but WN did continue to operate out of DAL even though they agreed to the Wright compromise even though the opportunity for them to fly out of DFW was always available. WN chose to abide by Wright, agreed to be "passionately neutral" about it, and ignored the multiple chances they had to move to DFW, so yes, in a way, the barrier is self-imposed.


25 Cjpark : Southwest having infrastructure at DAL is an excuse. Southwest having infrastructure at DAL is not a valid reason as to why the Wright amendment coul
26 Iluv2pilot : The other problem with DFW for WN passengers is security and terminal issues. More to park, takes longer to get to gate, a passenger has to get there
27 SCCutler : The issues mentioned in CJ's immediately-preceding post are rationally-stated, and in my view, more than adequately addressed by the change in market
28 Apodino : If Southwest moves to DFW, they have to spend more on gas to taxi. Hence this adds to the demand for Jet A and those fuel prices go even higher. This
29 Cjpark : Keeping the airlines in this region at separate airports only serves the interest of both AA and WN not the consumers and will not help to bring pric
30 DALNeighbor : Repealing Wright is in the public's best interest because it makes use of the all the public's already paid for infrastructure at both airports, gener
31 OPNLguy : I think the answer would be "C", none of the above... With Wright gone, and existing limits on growth at Love already in place, repeal/closing Love m
32 SCCutler : Objection. Assumes a false and impossible predicate. The closure of DAL is not an option, as this action would (1) violate federal law; (2) destroy o
33 Goingboeing : And this is bad how?
34 HPLASOps : How would it violate federal law to close an airport? Was it a violation to close Robert Mueller Airport or Stapleton? Yeah, cause DFW doesn't employ
35 Goingboeing : You haven't been to Dallas much, have you?
36 Dartland : WOW. Nobody is saying they are going to close Love, but unless you have blackmail material on a majority of the Dallas City Council, I'm afraid your
37 Cjpark : Objection to what. Assuming a false and impossible predicate? Let me remind you that there are two Senators with a Bill in place to close Love Field.
38 Dartland : I'm living there right now and I see nothing wrong with that statement. I'm not suggesting that it would go unnoticed, but DFW has PLENTY of room to
39 HPLASOps : About a dozen times with family members still living around the area. I'm coming back around late June, early July in fact. However, my experiences i
40 Post contains images Steeler83 : Do the business travelers really want to travel out of their way to some traffic-laden overpriced fortress just to fly to the top business markets???
41 HPLASOps : PIT is out of the way, DFW is not. DFW is centrally located to ALL travelers, business and leisure, in North Texas with multiple freeway access. All
42 Ckfred : There are two significant differences. First, ORD is maxed out under FAA rules until the third east-west runway is built. Second, both MDW and ORD ar
43 SCCutler : No arrogance involved, unless you characterize knowledge of the law and how it works as "arrogance"; DAL is a targeted "Primary and Comercial Service
44 Cjpark : SC, you can go and look for yourself at the FAA financial reports if you want to. What you will find is that GA does not bring in enough revenue from
45 Goingboeing : Doesn't that shoot down the "closer to business" argument the pro Wright people sling out because that would be the cause of the mass exodus of fligh
46 DALNeighbor : This is what AA is really scared of. These routes from DFW to LGA/BOS are the most profitable in their entire system. TZ on a codeshare from LGA to D
47 Cjpark : If WN had not started the effort to repeal the WA we probably would have all ready had B6 flying from DFW to BOS, JFK, LGA, LGB and EWR by now.
48 Post contains images DfwRevolution : That's a bold statement given that: (1) B6 stated that DFW was not a high priority before WN began their W.A. repeal efforts in November 2004 (2) B6
49 DALNeighbor : I realize I could have worded that better, but I meant TZ flying DAL -LGA and WN providing codeshare opportunities from other cities to DAL. That's a
50 Apodino : I just realized something. Southwest does offer service at DFW and is competing. Its just that the seats they are selling are on ATA metal.
51 OzarkD9S : *SIGH* How about they close both DFW and DAL and let the whole damn metroplex drive to AUS or OKC?
52 Iluv2pilot : Quick ? For those supporting Wright and AA, please explain how WN keeps down costs at DFW or keep them in line with DAL? Simple ?
53 Travelin man : I think the original intent of the first post is being lost. People always confuse LAX as a "big" airport, rather than just a "busy" one. WN is ideall
54 CentPIT : Not in my book, but maybe yours!
55 Cjpark : Please try to clarify your question so it is not so broad that no one can answer it. Sort of like this statement. DALNeighbor,reply=30]Repealing Wrig
56 Steeler83 : The area around PIT is growing very rapidly in the business market. Look at Dicks Sporting Goods. They are doubling the size of their campus there, a
57 Ckfred : The fact that B6 flies into FLL, rather than MIA, and LGB, rather than LAX or SNA, leads me to say yes. The reason that B6 doesn't want to go into MD
58 SCCutler : Denver's new field was intended, ab initio (and unlike DFW) as a complete replacement, and (of course), the Denver area was still served by several s
59 DfwRevolution : And that's different than DAL? The location of the airlines is irrelevant, so the "taking on AA at DFW" or "taking on WN at DAL" mantra is unnecessar
60 Steeler83 : It's basically about the cost then. Given those extra costs that WN would have to pay up, more than half of them are not necessary. International gat
61 DALNeighbor : You are wrong. My statement about what will happen can certainly be proven true or false. Repeal Wright and we will see if traffic increases at both
62 Iluv2pilot : Simplified question. For those who think the Wright Amendment should stay in place, how do you make a biz case for the much longer taxi times at DFW v
63 HPLASOps : Wright shouldn't be about what's best for WN, it should be about what's best for the consumer, and keeping Wright in place is what is best for the co
64 TxAgKuwait : >>Wright shouldn't be about what's best for WN, it should be about what's best for the consumer, and keeping Wright in place is what is best for the c
65 Cjpark : Simplified answer. Southwest nor American Airlines owns DAL or DFW or any other airport for that matter. The City of Dallas owns 100% of DAL and 60%
66 Dartland : Because that "grandiose international terminal" and "higher cost facility" needs to be paid-for and has fueled development in North Texas! It's not a
67 TxAgKuwait : >>Because that "grandiose international terminal" and "higher cost facility" needs to be paid-for and has fueled development in North Texas! It's not
68 Travelin man : Because the sky will fall. Sincerely, Houston Chicago LA NY Detroit DC Miami/FLL
69 Cjpark : DAL became surplus for PAX service when DFW opened.
70 Steeler83 : But WN will not be the only airline to benefit from it. Any airline that wishes to use the terminal would benefit; those airlines can fly routes like
71 Dartland : True true, Steeler. That's exactly what I'm talking about -- real arguements that aren't from the WN bubble. While I disagree with your premise (e.g.
72 Socalfive : Excellent, well worded statement chock full of truths and facts and pure Common Sense SC! This WA issue gets worse with every thread and 2/3 of the p
73 TxAgKuwait : >>If anything, you'd argue anti-trust against AA at DFW, not anything having to do with DAL), at least you are positing an arguement that is not focus
74 Dartland : Kudos for another well thought out arguement. Frankly, you may be right. Hard to say, really. I don't think either side can convincingly prove this e
75 Incitatus : Do you really believe - based on your posting history - that you can write anything in this issue that will come across as non-biased? Who are you tr
76 Goingboeing : That could have something to do with the size differential between Continental and American.
77 AAgent : I've often wondered, do the movers and shakers at WN ever lie awake at night wondering to themselves... Why, oh why, did we open up this can of worms
78 TxAgKuwait : >>I've often wondered, do the movers and shakers at WN ever lie awake at night wondering to themselves... Why, oh why, did we open up this can of worm
79 Dartland : Hey hey hey -- AA management can afford to do that too! After all, they gave themselves a $100M bonus payout recently, remember? They are paying dear
80 Steeler83 : Thanks. I am a pretty big fan of WN. I like the airline, the employees, what have you, but it's not like they're the only airline flying from Dallas,
81 HPLASOps : I'll answer your question with another. How is allowing a single airline to operate freely out of an airport that is convient for less than 1/3 of th
82 SCCutler : DAL was never just an air carrier field. Perhaps that was not clear.
83 Apodino : And that has a much better chance of happening without wright, for reasons I have mentioned numerous times in other threads. Not exactly true. Rememb
84 HPLASOps : It was only MS and AL - I question these senators' motivations for wanting repeal. Is it because they want more aviation service to their market or i
85 TxAgKuwait : >>Well at least I won't be accused of being a bandwagoner when the new US Airways eventually overtakes WN as the largest carrier of domestic pax - oh
86 TxAgKuwait : HP: here's some more. >>I don't see WN fans admitting their airline may have flaws. I fear such an attitude of invicibility - because in the end, such
87 HPLASOps : Hey, I can dream just like anyone else. By the way, I was under the impression that WN was beginning to run thin on new markets to enter, that their
88 TxAgKuwait : >>How is allowing a single airline to operate freely out of an airport that is convient for less than 1/3 of the market while the competition operates
89 Goingboeing : Please help me understand. AA has a hub in Chicago. WN flies out of MDW. AA has a very, very slight presence at MDW...just a handful of flights. Is t
90 Sccutler : GB, you just don't understand; already, as a direct result of the addition of Missouri and Kansas to the WA-allowable destinations, AA was forced- co
91 Cjpark : A lot of good it did Mr. Shelby, you still can't get to Alabama, Kansas or Mississippi from DAL. Life is not fair especially when you do not have a c
92 Goingboeing : I'll give you Kansas. That was a bone that the city of Wichita wanted thrown in Southwest's direction to begin service to ICT. But it's a funny thing
93 OPNLguy : You might not be able to get DAL-JAN or DAL-BHM non-stop on SWA right now, but you can darn sure buy a ticket for through/connecting service via HOU,
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...
WN Pilots Fight To Fly Past The Age 60 posted Mon Mar 21 2005 04:22:42 by AAFLT1871
What Will Happen To AA 767 At LAX? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 15:38:08 by AAFan
What Will Happen To The Old Bangkok Airport posted Thu Sep 7 2006 15:07:14 by NewYorkCityBoi
What Will Happen To American Eagle At LAX? posted Sun Sep 3 2006 08:12:17 by Trvlr
What Will Happen To The "Pink Plane"? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 20:18:18 by DL4EVR
What Will Happen To The BAX Fleet? posted Fri Nov 18 2005 10:19:52 by MD 11
Passenger Falls To His Death At JNB posted Sun Oct 16 2005 15:31:26 by Andz
Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue? posted Tue Jul 19 2005 19:36:46 by ACAfan
What Will Happen To The US/UA Codeshare? posted Mon May 23 2005 10:22:18 by SendMEtoLAS
What Will Happen To The Origonal A380 posted Thu May 5 2005 21:55:30 by Snn2003