Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No Room For WN At DFW  
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 599 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8954 times:

Now that there are only 5 open gates in the E terminal, there is not room for WN to move its DAL operation to DFW and launch long haul service. Now, the only way for WN to expand with long haul service is by repealing Wright and utilizing empty gates at DAL


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...us.ART.State.Edition1.dbdea92.html

D/FW takes steps to lure more carriers
Airport board OKs new incentive program; two other efforts revised

12:00 AM CDT on Friday, May 5, 2006
By SUZANNE MARTA / The Dallas Morning News


Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport is sweetening its offer to carriers willing to bring new service to North Texas.

The airport board approved a new incentive program Thursday that, for the most lucrative flights, would offer up to $1.2 million in landing fee rebates and marketing support.

The program revises two other incentive efforts – one that offered free gates in Terminal E after Delta Air Lines Inc. left, and another paying out matching funds for carriers that launch advertising campaigns for new service.

Joe Lopano, who heads D/FW's marketing effort, said the previous programs had become outdated.

For example, the Terminal E program offered incentives for carriers taking a minimum of 10 gates. But after shifting several carriers over from elsewhere at the airport, Terminal E has just five empty gates in the main building and nine at a satellite.....


Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
228 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTcttx From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8893 times:

Surely the 14 gates available in Terminal E would be enough.

User currently offlineIowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4416 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8879 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Tcttx (Reply 1):
Surely the 14 gates available in Terminal E would be enough.

Nadda, WN currently has about 140? roughly flights out of DAL, and would need all 14 DFW gates to maintain their current short-haul service, let alone the long-haul expansion that the WA is holding back.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8845 times:

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 2):
Nadda, WN currently has about 140? roughly flights out of DAL, and would need all 14 DFW gates to maintain their current short-haul service, let alone the long-haul expansion that the WA is holding back.

Beyond that, the need to schedule longer turn times would likely lose them a few flights over the course of the day.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8769 times:

The entire Terminal E Annex (16 gates) is still empty. Since AE moved to Terminal B, the 1E Terminal is empty (14 gates).

User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8742 times:

Quoting Tcttx (Reply 1):
Surely the 14 gates available in Terminal E would be enough.

The 9 E sataellite gates are pretty undesireable for any carrier. I thought both the A satellite and E satellite were going to be torn down anyway. That would leave only 5 open in E for WN. I don't think it would be healthy for DFW to have absolutely no open gates ready for other carriers to begin service. Regardless, I think WN would fully utilize its 21 gates at DAL once Wright is lifted and there just isn't that kind of capacity available at DFW.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5694 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8705 times:

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 2):
Nadda, WN currently has about 140?

120 DD out of DAL.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8688 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The entire Terminal E Annex (16 gates) is still empty. Since AE moved to Terminal B, the 1E Terminal is empty (14 gates).

Not suitable for 737 size aircraft. They were used by RJs and turboprops.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8688 times:

A relatively cheap terminal F could be built for WN or any future carrier. It already has access roads/ramps, a parking lot, and the Skylink train runs through it.

User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8674 times:

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 2):
Nadda, WN currently has about 140? roughly flights out of DAL, and would need all 14 DFW gates to maintain their current short-haul service, let alone the long-haul expansion that the WA is holding back.

Finally someone else recognises that Southwest Airlines has been withholding long haul service from North Texas. Iowaman welcome to the Dark Side!

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 5):
The 9 E sataellite gates are pretty undesireable for any carrier. I thought both the A satellite and E satellite were going to be torn down anyway. That would leave only 5 open in E for WN. I don't think it would be healthy for DFW to have absolutely no open gates ready for other carriers to begin service. Regardless, I think WN would fully utilize its 21 gates at DAL once Wright is lifted and there just isn't that kind of capacity available at DFW.

The 5 gates at Terminal E and the rest f the gates at Satellite Terminal E are perfect for Southwest. Quick access to the taxi way for both east and west sides of the airport. Besides Wright is not going anywhere anyway.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8653 times:

Even though I am against wright and want it repealed this is a BS arguement. With the gates in E all being filled, it is inevitable that the airport, or at least the way its run, will probably have to build a terminal F on the West side of the airport near the international terminal. This is where Southwest would end up if they moved. That being said, we all know southwest doesn't start service into a new airport with more than 3 or 4 gates, and there are still 5 open, or at least until they can convince United to move over there. Plus there are some gates in D that are common use as well.

User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1375 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8627 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 5):
The 9 E sataellite gates are pretty undesireable for any carrier.

I had read here recently that US Airways or Spirit was working on turning the E Satellite into something usable again, something like what this depicts from 1992...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christopher Liao - Spot This!



If WN had to move to DFW tomorrow, there is nothing available for their use as it stands. If I were Southwest, the most ideal location at DFW to build a new stand-alone terminal with about 12-15 gates would be between runways 36C and 36R, south of the Delta hangar, near where Founders Plaza is located. You could have an entrance off of the International Parkway around the southern end of the runways...


User currently offlineFCYTravis From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 1191 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8605 times:

The E Satellite gates are getting jetways so that US Airways/America West can move their combined operations there. Sadly and stupidly, the DFW Airport Board won't let US lease the old Delta Crown Room Club... I guess the airport board wants their own private club, sort of like they have their names inlaid on the floor of Terminal D  Yeah sure

Right now they fly:
6x DFW-PHX
5x DFW-LAS
5x DFW-PHL
5x DFW-CLT



USAir A321 service now departing for SFO with fuel stops in CAK, COS and RNO. Enjoy your flight.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8605 times:

Guys, this thread is purely a moot point, since the availability of DFW gates for Southwest is a non-issue. After countless Wright threads, everyone should know by now why Southwest isn't interested in DFW, and prefers to stay at Love. Well, almost everyone...  Yeah sure

User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8575 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 9):
The 5 gates at Terminal E and the rest f the gates at Satellite Terminal E are perfect for Southwest. Quick access to the taxi way for both east and west sides of the airport. Besides Wright is not going anywhere anyway.

WN's got 21 gates at DAL and there is just not enough gate space for them at DFW. Gotta open up DAL to provide any relief from high airfares in North Texas.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4280 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8568 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 7):
Not suitable for 737 size aircraft. They were used by RJs and turboprops.

Up until the mid to late 1990s, though DL still operated mainline flights out of there with MD80s and 737s, although operating mainline jets out of the annex does decrease the number of gates available.

But as OPNL said, WN still does not want to move to DFW, so what's the point?

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8532 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 14):
Gotta open up DAL to provide any relief from high airfares in North Texas.

I guess those folks drinking the WN Kool-Aid tend to forget that DFW does have LCCs operating out of there. FL flies to ATL, MCO, and LAS (also used to fly to LAX and BWI, but dropped them due to AA); HP/US to PHL, DCA, PHX, LAS, and CLT; NK to FLL; F9 to DEN; and TZ to MDW.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8507 times:

Texan and OPNLguy pretty much said it.

Thread dead.  Smile



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9236 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8507 times:

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 2):
Nadda, WN currently has about 140? roughly flights out of DAL, and would need all 14 DFW gates to maintain their current short-haul service, let alone the long-haul expansion that the WA is holding back.

Yeah, although, someone said that the actual DDs are 120. Still, I could see a MINIMUM of 200 DDs from Dallas for long haul, whether it be from DAL or DFW

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 16):
HP/US to PHL, DCA, PHX, LAS, and CLT

Hopefully they'll bring back PIT service if/when they get more E70 or E90 aircraft, just a thought; knowing PIT and air service out there, it won't happen. Nothing happens there anymore. It is almost as exciting as going to the bank...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8459 times:

You guys don't get it. Now you are using the BS no space available arguement. You know, Cjpark knows, Boeing7E7 knows, and I know thats a crock.

As I have said, there is plenty of space available to build new terminals, since the airport was designed for expansion. I believe there is an open lot on the west side where a terminal F can go, and it would put three terminals on each side of the airport. And if it works anything like Orlando, you can assign runways based on docking gate, meaning United, International Flights, American Eagle, and Southwest on the west side, and everyone else on the east side. This would shorten taxi times up, and everyone is happy.

Besides, Cox and Fagan are on record as saying, if WN ever did move, DFW would build them a new terminal. So to suddenly claim there is no space for them, and thats why wright should be repealed is utter nonsense. And no one has responded to the fact that WN has NEVER opened a new station with more than 3 gates or so, and by your own admission, there are 5 available.

Granted the terminal would take a little while to build. But repealing wright with the lengthy congressional process takes time as well, especially since congress already has its hands full.

Still, I don't want a WN/AA duopoly in the metroplex. There are plenty of other fine airlines, and those are the ones that are going to be able to create lower airfares, not southwest or American. The best solution is to just repeal wright, and let the market work. But to claim that WN can't move because of no gate space is Bull$#!& and I won't stay quiet as long as this arguement is raised, because you are only helping the other side in this debate.


User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4280 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8437 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 19):
As I have said, there is plenty of space available to build new terminals, since the airport was designed for expansion. I believe there is an open lot on the west side where a terminal F can go, and it would put three terminals on each side of the airport.

The Master Plan calls for 8 terminals arranged on the N/S line and possible other terminals on either side of the airport. But then we look at how much it costs to build new terminals, how the cost is passed along to the operator, and the economics issue rears it's ugly head again. Yes, it would be possible to spend another couple billion on a new terminal, but it would just sit there unused for quite a while.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineVisakow From United States of America, joined May 2006, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8397 times:

I don't know what the big deal is with Texas anymore. Yes they were born from Texas but that doesn't mean they need to thrive or die in Texas. WN is a big boy now and can operate successfully from wherever they choose. Yes I think the Wright A. is "BS" but either way they still have a very great product to sell and plenty of profit to make irregardless. They could pull out of TX all together and still stay in the black, though, of course that is not realistic and would make for a ugly business decision. Either way I don't understand all the hoopla. Personally I like seeing WN snub all the ego-maniacal TX politicians who still work against them.

User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8389 times:

Come on guys, if WN were to move to DFW, we all know that DFW would be more than happy to make room for them. If that means kicking everybody out to Terminal B, kicking Eagle back to were they were before, and giving Terminal E to WN, or kicking Eagle and giving B to WN. They can easily make room.

Plus, since no new carriers have come in (besides the very limited service from Spirit), how can all of a sudden there be no room for WN? Let's think logically here.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 12):
Right now they fly:
6x DFW-PHX
5x DFW-LAS
5x DFW-PHL
5x DFW-CLT

Don't forget 3x DFW-DCA.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 13):
After countless Wright threads, everyone should know by now why Southwest isn't interested in DFW, and prefers to stay at Love. Well, almost everyone...

Hey, it was one of "your" guys that brought it up.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8385 times:

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 22):
Hey, it was one of "your" guys that brought it up.

..and your point is? (My comment was meant for everyone, irrespective of whichever side of the issue they're on...)


User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8368 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 23):
..and your point is? (My comment was meant for everyone, irrespective of whichever side of the issue they're on...)

I interpreted as a negative post aimed at one specific side. Sorry about that.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
25 DALNeighbor : There is not currently sufficient gate space at DFW to handle an unrestricted WN operation. Why spend billions on new terminals and gates when there
26 Steeler83 : Right, then everybody could and would be happy with this. WN would make long hauls to the top markets like MDW, LAX, PHL et al. And AA would still ma
27 SonOfACaptain : Everything and anything about the Wright Amendment fight is baloney. Anybody else sick of it? It seems like only nonsense are pouring out of both sid
28 SCCutler : The absurdity of this position never ceases to amuse. SOAC, no so sure about that; WN fully-functional at DFW is AA's worst nightmare, and AA calls t
29 Visakow : I just remember, didn't Western Pacific go south/gutter after moving from a successful operation at Colorado Springs to a nightmare with UA at the new
30 SonOfACaptain : AA would much rather have WN move to DFW than AA move some of its operation to DAL. I consider that two completely different situations. -SOAC
31 Post contains images ExFATboy : Are you being sarcastic? The poster you're quoting refers to the WA "withholding long haul service", not WN. Nice try, though. Well, this would be a
32 Post contains images OPNLguy : I was wondering if anyone else would notice that subtle 7,200 rpm's worth...
33 Antoniemey : But the only reason that is even a consideration is AA's own business stupidity. They calim that if wright were repealed they would be "Forced" to sp
34 Post contains links LoneStarMike : >>I guess those folks drinking the WN Kool-Aid tend to forget that DFW does have LCCs operating out of there. FL flies to ATL, MCO, and LAS (also used
35 OPNLguy : Maybe they also previously felt "forced" to serve MDW in addition to their big operation at ORD, but in any event, they just decided to cease MDW ops
36 Cjpark : Really then why isn't Southwest flying long distance routes from North Texas now? Show us anywhere in the Wright Amendment were it says Southwest can
37 DALNeighbor : The same reason they aren't flying RJs from North Texas. They have more profitable activites to engage in. Unrestrict DAL and long distance flying be
38 LoneStarMike : >>While you are counting passengers on those LCC flights from Austin you might also want to acknowledge the number of LCC flights at Austin
39 Cjpark : Exactly. That is why it is important to get WN to DFW.
40 Par13del : ExFatBoy mad an interesting comment, which is food for thought. DFW and AA supports the lifting of the W.A. if WN commit's to opening a "STATION" at D
41 OPNLguy : Actually, I think it's more important to let Southwest executives run Southwest Airlines. I know everyone else under the sun seems to think its someh
42 Post contains links LoneStarMike : >>Exactly. That is why it is important to get WN to DFW.
43 SCCutler : Read, carefully, what was written. If you still can't get it, drop a line.
44 Cjpark : From the stand point of what is best for the community Southwests interests run second to those of the region. The difference between airlines and co
45 Goingboeing : Hmm...in one of the other numerous threads, I suggested exactly that...force WN to move to a west side terminal, and let them have the west side ops.
46 OPNLguy : Well, I'm pleased that we can finally agree on something... ...and as a result of that government regulation, you haven't seen Southwest flying DAL-L
47 DALNeighbor : Right, so you are saying the DFW offer isn't even legal. That is the point about DFW. They don't want WN at DFW or they would have made a decent offe
48 Cjpark : The actions of AA dealing with the flights from Love Field to Missouri are probably more about defending the Dallas market than any so called caring
49 DALNeighbor : It's pretty easy for them to say they will spend WN's money. WN would pay for it through fees and lease rates. How is that more enticing than using w
50 Cjpark : One hell of a lot more enticing than the City of Dallas being made to finance bonds to improve Love Field to suit the airlines in a post repeal world
51 OPNLguy : True, but how much would you care to wager that, post-repeal, some other airlines will want to take of advantage of the new ability to fly unrestrict
52 Goingboeing : So are you saying then that they were willing to throw in the towel in the Chicago market? Southwest competes with them to several more cities out of
53 SCCutler : Recognize, if you will, the distinction between an illegal restriction on service to/from an airport, and a perfectly legal condition placed on an of
54 Cjpark : DFW and ORD are two hubs for AA. St Louis/Kansas City are not hubs. AA is not surrendering anything to WN in either Chicago or Dallas. Giving away 20
55 Steeler83 : okay... this just is not making sense... DFW made an offer that they knew WN would not accept? Something is not kosher here...
56 Goingboeing : Apparently they are...why the pullout of their massive MDW operations from a larger city than Dallas...why the buildup of flights (that they have to
57 SCCutler : ...could not agree more (that what they did was not kosher)! But it does make sense, if you bear in mind that we are dealing with an organization whi
58 Steeler83 : So everyone knows that they don't want WN to compete with AA in Dallas. The only way, now, for WN to have more of a nation wide service out of DAL is
59 Post contains images OPNLguy : Personally, I don't think so, I see one of two different scenarios unfolding. 1/ Wright gets tossed this year, before Congress adjourns in early Octo
60 Post contains images 2H4 : You know, OPNL, a wise man once said: Engaging CJ in a debate about Wright is not unlike what someone once said about arguing with the IRS or FAA. i.
61 Post contains images Steeler83 : Wow... I just might be 23 then when this whole damned thing is settled. It just looked like this thing was just going to drag on for a while. I reall
62 Milemaster : Not to try to deviate from the thread topic, but this is really interesting. Is there an existing thread on this somewhere? I would like to read more
63 Post contains links Cjpark : How lucky you are OP to have a friend like 4h2. By the way has he hit you up for a reference yet? Maybe once in his life 24h will come up with an ori
64 Goingboeing : Yes...and maybe the WA will be abolished the same way it was enacted...tacked on to a much larger bill that nobody really bothered to read in the fir
65 Cjpark : Nope, you made no points on the noise issue. The people in Dallas have a right to be concerned about airport noise emanating from DAL. Now notice I s
66 OPNLguy : Instead of trying to goad 2H4 into an adverse response by calling him "4h2", "24h", and "4H2" (which you know not to be correct from your many past me
67 Steeler83 : I am sure that would be just about a definite given...
68 Cjpark : That would be a suckers bet. Remember the Pro Wright side has been saying all along that an unrestricted DAL would attract other carriers as well to
69 OPNLguy : Me too, but I also wanted to hear Cj's opinion on the matter, since he seems to be operating under the assumption that since only Southwest is advoca
70 Post contains images 2H4 : ...then an intelligent, mature discourse would be enjoyed by all. 2H4
71 Goingboeing : I'm not so sure about that. The only airline that seems to feel a real need to operate from Love Field is AA. The others might offer a couple of flig
72 OPNLguy : OK, you told us what the pro-Wright side has been saying, but the question remains what do you think? Do you personally think that some airlines (oth
73 Legion242 : Someone help me out here. What EXACTLY was in DFW's offer that required WN to turn it down? It has been refered to obliquely, but I have no idea what
74 Steeler83 : You don't think that there will be any carriers interested in flying into DAL other than WN and AA. I don't think that AA will want to relocate too m
75 DAYflyer : Sounds to me like DFW and AA are in collusion for keeping WN out.
76 Cjpark : Yes I do think that other airlines will take up residence at DAL. Why shouldn't the other airlines get a crack at the low rents and non existant land
77 Antoniemey : Or he could go to Wal-Mart... Basically, they'd get really wonderful breaks on landing fees and leases, if, and only if, they served almost all of th
78 OPNLguy : Additionally, SWA (or any airline for that matter) would to had to have taken a minimum of 10 gates, which at normal daily utilizations equates to ab
79 Cjpark : OPNL, Your turn to answer a question.
80 Steeler83 : A much more fortified, impenetrable AA fortress...
81 OPNLguy : Obviously, some flights would move from DFW to DAL, but precisely how many is just as obviously an issue in dispute. The Love Master Plan caps Love a
82 Goingboeing : Again, I have to ask why, in AA's other hub city, they only offered 3 daily departures out of the "other" airport...What makes the Dallas area somepl
83 ORD Boy 2 : What effect would repealing the Wright Amendment have on Fort Worth Meacham and Alliance Airports
84 OPNLguy : I gather because Love is closer to the Park Cities and North Dallas than DFW. MDW is on the south side of Chicago, and while closer to downtown, the
85 Steeler83 : I could see between 10 and 20 dailies switched over to DAL, or added to DAL, but I don't necessarily see as many as 50-75 flights...
86 Cjpark : The current Love Field Master Plan was built around the assumption that the Wright Amendment would remain in place. The assumption that Wright would
87 OPNLguy : Yes, it was. Now, how does that fact suddenly make rejection of the plan's 250 daily flight cap in favor of 300, 400, 500 or 600 daily flights a bett
88 DALNeighbor : None. Neither of those airports have any restrictions on them and are in now way connected to the Wright Amendment.
89 Cjpark : The answer to your question is in my previous post. The current Love Field Master Plan was built around the assumption that the Wright Amendment woul
90 ExFATboy : I agree that there's likely to be no action before the November elections - with the GOP in meltdown, there's simply no desire on the part of the Con
91 OPNLguy : Actually, it's not. Again, in terms of the effect on neighborhoods, why are 300, 400, 500 or 600 daily flights somehow "better" than 250?
92 OPNLguy : The name is OPNLguy--please use it. As far as your question goes, the answer is pretty obvious. AA has what, 83% or 84% of the DFW traffic? Right now
93 HPLASOps : But I postulated that there won't be new entrants to DAL post repeal - I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Plus, if my postulate is correct, WN's
94 OPNLguy : Obviously we've come to have different predictions. Time will tell what the real results will be...
95 HPLASOps : I know we differ on a lot of things. But you are basing your conclusions on WN's market share decreasing on the assumptions that there definitely wil
96 2H4 : How could DAL not be a more attractive option to DFW, post-repeal? DAL would offer lower costs, greater efficiency, faster access to Dallas, and a fa
97 HPLASOps : What about Ft. Worth? Shouldn't they get airline service too? Don't they count for anything? Or should all airlines have flights to both DAL and AFW?
98 Steeler83 : I would see a minimum of 40 to 50 flights added, as I would see at least 10 to 15 or so destinations added to their network out of DAL, including but
99 Apodino : Just getting creative here. What if wright was modified to allow service beyond the permeter of existing law. The catch is that on each flight beyond
100 2H4 : Absolutely, and with repeal, airfares will decrease for both. Positively. Overall domestic status is not what makes makes a fortress hub. Individual
101 Steeler83 : I like your creative thoughts here, but I don't think that WN would want to pay DFW THEIR landing fees on top of what they would pay DAL as well as w
102 Cjpark : But the BFI situation only applies to airports where there has not been any airline service. Had there been even a small commuter airline operating a
103 OPNLguy : Master plan = 250 daily flights. No master plan = (for the sake of argument) 300, 400, 500 or 600 daily flights. What common sense does it make to tr
104 SCCutler : Fortunately for the cause of fair competition, if all gates at DAL are developed, then carriers (including WN) are required, under the terms of their
105 HPLASOps : That is an opinion with no economic basis for such. Actually, with Wright Repeal, service options out of DFW will be limited, which in turn, means Ft
106 2H4 : HP, it already has. When Missouri was exempted from Wright, Southwest initiated service from DAL to STL. The next day, guess who dropped fares to mat
107 SCCutler : It is, one supposes, hypothetically possible that the north Texas market could be the *one* market nationally where the availability of less-costly l
108 Cjpark : I have answered your question now here is one for you. If you are so concerned about trashing the current Master Plan then why support repeal of the
109 OPNLguy : No sir, you have not. Once again, you twist the words of others to suit your own purposes. Not only is it disingenuous, but it's getting rather old..
110 Cjpark : Get off your high horse and think. Your question has been answered. If the mere mention that your company is responsible for creating the issue with
111 Goingboeing : Here's a thought CJ...keep the existing limitations of the master plan (I believe I read 250 flghts), then abolish Wright and operate the airport unde
112 Cjpark : I understand perfectly what he wants. However even the City of Dallas doubts the validity of that option. You realize the City commissioned a study o
113 Goingboeing : I guess you'll have to ask the city of Dallas why they felt the need to abolish a master plan if a restriction on an airport is removed. Doesn't make
114 2H4 : They would "go to the trouble" to explore that option because it's a very feasible and realistic one. Abolish Wright, maintain master plan. Seems lik
115 OPNLguy : Yes, for you acknowledge that common sense dictates that 250 flights is preferable to larger numbers, but it appears that you'd rather evade doing so
116 Cjpark : Amazing we almost agree on something. Guess I had better stay indoors so the lightening does not get me! Never said that at all. You on the other han
117 Goingboeing : You know....not to sound heartless here, but Love Field was opened in 1917...Anyone moving into that area since then most likely was aware that there
118 OPNLguy : Not at all...and it doesn't follow that more are better. ...and so, accordingly, what sense does it make to trash a plan with a limit of 250 in favor
119 Steeler83 : I'd go with 400... 300 will be too low of a limit for Love Field, come post-Wright. WN alone could have more dailies than what they have at LAS I wou
120 Goingboeing : they could, but I doubt they would.
121 OPNLguy : Sorry, the question was for Cj, and was in the context of what would be best for noise, not service considerations...
122 Steeler83 : at least right out of the gun, anyway. I think that the starting cities outside the restricted area would be as follows... LAS, PHX, PHL, BWI, MDW, D
123 Cjpark : Just to keep you happy I will choose A. You could add a fifth choice so I can answer honestly. F. No PAX service at all.
124 Post contains images Steeler83 : Don't I get a parting gift anyway for participating? Come oooooonnnnnnnnnn....
125 Floorrunner : I am getting confused. Why do some people on here think that the Love Field master plan is automatically going to change when the Wright amendment is
126 OPNLguy : While the Master Plan did indeed assume Wright being intact, I think that the pro-Wright folks like to make the linkage, since it then allows them to
127 DALNeighbor : The goal of the neighbors around DAL is to see DAL unshackled and used in a more viable and useful manner to the benefit of the community. Increasing
128 Steeler83 : I think it will change, and not just for the airport but for the surrounding communities. If Wright is lifted, think of what will happen to the airpo
129 Cjpark : Why do you continue to try to convince us that you are actually a neighbor of the airport? The position you are maintaining that it is better for the
130 OPNLguy : I don't think they're as diverse as they make themselves out to be. Rudy Longoria of LFCAC spoke at a gathering I was at and refused to divulge how m
131 Goingboeing : Wasn't it in a thread not too long ago that you were complaining about noise at White Rock Lake? He's closer than THAT to the airport
132 Cjpark : From Highland Park housewifes to Korean Businessmen and those in between you have to admit to the diversity of your opposition. Why is a Southwest em
133 Post contains images OPNLguy : Wouldn't you like to know...
134 Goingboeing : YOu know...I used to spend a little time at Southwest headquarters. Before that, I used to live right under the flight path to 13R...abut a mile from
135 Post contains links DALNeighbor : http://www.dallas-lovefield.org/lovenotes/lovefacts.html • Airport generates more than $2 billion annually to the Dallas economy. • Estimated 24,
136 Cjpark : Just like I thought, you can’t. Look at the websites of the organizations you love to denigrate so much you will find them. Now that is funny. You
137 Post contains images 2H4 : Boy, it's a wonder airports get built at all, isn't it, Cj? And railroads, and highways, and heliports.... 2H4
138 DALNeighbor : You're still working hard to manifest a problem that doesn't exist. There isn't a noise problem or a pollution problem or a traffic problem. Lemmon A
139 OPNLguy : By your reasoning then, we should also seal off all the roads into the Metroplex, and not let anyone else move here so growth (and the pollution and
140 Steeler83 : Woooowww... now wouldn't THAT be the smartest thing for us to do... That's it, we SHOULD to this...
141 Cjpark : Airports, highways, rail roads that are needed can always be built, by the same token airports, highways that redundant and those that cannot be expa
142 Post contains images 2H4 : Cj, the only thing that's keeping DAL from meeting the needs (and wants) of the community is the federally-approved price gouging that currently exis
143 OPNLguy : Hardly. I'm just taking the logic of your stated who in their right mind would want to add more noise, and pollution and traffic to contribute to the
144 Post contains images Steeler83 : You don't see any hotels or restaurants coming in once Wright is lifted and service goes up. If you're so concerned about the traffic situation down
145 NateDAL : I'm not really sure what these "citizens" groups expect to accomplish. Sure, they might spread some irrational fear among people who live around here,
146 Post contains links DALNeighbor : Here is a good article on the idea of closing DAL. Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2005/08/22/editorial1.html Idiotic stance D
147 OPNLguy : As I said earlier, I suspect their true prime directive is to be the squeakiest wheel possible so they can get as much grease (media attention) as po
148 Steeler83 : Interesting report. That is the thing again. Airports do not blight; they do the exact opposite. Land near a busy airport tends to be very valuable.
149 SCCutler : CJ, whom did you flush out as a "poseur"? Just curious.
150 HPLASOps : No credible argument? Then why hasn't it already been taken care of in congress? Surely an issue that WN is so "definitively" correct on should have
151 Post contains images OPNLguy : Replace "Wright Amendment debate" with "Iraq War debate" and see how far your "If X then Y" logic" gets you...
152 HPLASOps : Oh wow, that's below your standards. I could go into how far off that statement is but I'd get deleted for going too far off thread. Iraq war was an
153 NateDAL : Not to sound harsh, but if you think that Congress acts in the rational furtherance of market efficiency and social justice, and not for the benefit
154 HPLASOps : Which is exactly why they haven't repealed Wright.
155 Goingboeing : So, in other words, in order for the "WN vs the industry" playing field to be fair, WN should be operating under restrictions. Perhaps they can imple
156 NateDAL : Nice try. Even CJ knows in his gut that the Wright Amendment is all about supressing competition from WN.
157 HPLASOps : Hmmm, and all this time I thought it was about keeping the competition away from WN. All these years, WN could have moved to DFW, flown restriction f
158 Cjpark : Why blame a law that the rest of the airlines have no problem operating with instead of acknowledging that there is only one company that refuses to
159 Steeler83 : And I respectfully disagree with you. I have taken some planning courses through my major area of study here in college, and I cannot name a single a
160 Dartland : You're comparing two completely different systems. PIT is the only airport in Pittsburgh, and naturally the sorrounding area benefits from the hub an
161 Cjpark : No WN can operate from airports without restrictions just like every other airline. Nate, I do not think that the Wright Amendment is hindering the a
162 HPLASOps : Well I'm glad the area around PIT is thriving since de-hubbing. However, just like with the whole "multiple airports in other cities" argument, each
163 2H4 : The rest of the airlines don't operate with the law, nor do they even have to deal with it, because by and large, they don't operate out of DAL at al
164 Post contains images OPNLguy : Oh pluheze... You have so missed the point... What I meant by "If X then Y" logic" is your making a statement where "Y" supposedly proves "X", no mat
165 Steeler83 : Ok, I'll give you that one; my argument is a bit weak given that these are two different markets... Perhaps it would have been stronger and more vali
166 Cjpark : No Kidding? You are finally catching on. Good for you. Yes the important thing is that no airline can operate unrestricted out of DAL. That is what t
167 Goingboeing : You know...at one point in our countries history, it was the "law" that women could not vote. It was the "law" that minorities could not vote. It was
168 2H4 : Cj, who among us is arguing otherwise? More importantly, what does it prove? That Southwest is the predominant carrier at DAL? 2H4
169 OPNLguy : Just out of curiosity, exactly how do you "know" this as an absolute fact to make the above statement? It sounds like you and HPLASops share the comm
170 Dartland : Agreed, the city of Dallas would be affected by both WN moving or the closing of DAL (or both). I'm not advocating closing DAL, I'm just saying the b
171 Steeler83 : Sure, Southwest wants to operate unrestricted out of its home base in DAL. I could go on and on about why the Wright removal is so important besides
172 2H4 : ...And I'm sure those places are making money off of the thousands of WN employees who work, train at, and pass through DAL. 2H4
173 2H4 : I'd like to hear your answer to this question, as well, Cj. Please enlighten us. 2H4
174 Legion242 : No. Any hotels, restaurants of any signifigance is not really close to the airport. They are all located closer to the Trade Mart and Downtown. I thi
175 Steeler83 : Thanks for seein it that way. I have something else to consider. Sure, every hotel chain has a hotel there along with restaurants and other businesse
176 Cjpark : Very simple, no airline has come out in favor of repeal except Southwest. It would seem to me that if it was important to the industry to free up DAL
177 Goingboeing : YOu're right, it hasn't. So that would seem to be a pretty strong indicator that the other airlines are content to maintain operations at DFW...allow
178 Post contains images Steeler83 : Yeah, I kinda saw that post after I had already said to refer to it. I won't argue against what you are saying about that though. As you have said be
179 2H4 : How many airlines have "come out" in favor of upholding wright? It would seem to me that if it was important to the industry to lock down DAL, every
180 OPNLguy : So then, you answer my question by throwing it back at me... As I mentioned, the fact that other airlines have not openly supported repeal can be exp
181 Cjpark : There will not be any more passengers flying into the area. The most that will happen is a diversion of one airports traffic to the other. Reaching a
182 2H4 : Hmm...in one breath, you suggest that other airlines couldn't possibly support lifting restrictions at DAL. Then, you go on to say that those other a
183 DALNeighbor : Using your logic, since only AA has come out against repeal, then all other airlines MUST be for repeal.
184 Steeler83 : Then what do you think will happen if WN moves out? Do you think that those places will lose revenue due to the lack of pax? Or do you think that the
185 Stirling : I would disagree. The area would most likely see an uptick in passengers if past performance is any indication of future results. Take Philadelphia..
186 Post contains images OPNLguy : Lemme see if I have your logic straight.. Wright gets repealed, new airline-A starts Love service (to someplace that they couldn't have served before
187 Steeler83 : Then you agree with my original argument which I have reposted below?
188 Cjpark : Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Say you are traveling to San Francisco, CA to for a weekend visit to the City. You decide to fly into SJC ins
189 Goingboeing : So would you cite any airline other than AA that is adamantly opposed to lifting Wright?
190 Steeler83 : Ok, I see your argument there now C.J. You're saying that business will not be affected any which way whether WN stays or moves out. I think I am just
191 2H4 : Answer the question, please. Which is it? If you decide to ignore (or sidestep) the question, we will only be able to interpret that response as proo
192 Floorrunner : It seems to me that you have not thought of the possibility that the other airlines might be remaining silent for competitive reasons and do not want
193 Cjpark : Well I guess I have to explain this to you in terms that only you need. Maybe you have forgotten but it has previously been agreed to by many partici
194 OPNLguy : No, no you don't. A simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question(s) posed will do nicely, otherwise the true "obstinate" one will clearly obvious to e
195 Goingboeing : Ooooh...only 195 posts before CJ said "I haven't a clue"
196 2H4 : See, here's one of your main problems, Cj....you base your argument on assumptions and presuppositions, and blindly carry on from there. Why do you a
197 DALNeighbor : Think about what you just wrote and then tell us why the exact same reasoning does not apply to WN starting operations at DFW where AA has 900+ fligh
198 OPNLguy : Is that really necessary?
199 HPLASOps : Many of your arguments are based on assumptions and presuppositions too, like how repealing Wright will cause a whole plethora of airlines to service
200 2H4 : A keen reader will note that I never suggested great numbers of airlines would ultimately choose to service DAL. Those are your words, HP. Not mine.
201 Steeler83 : Yeah, What is with the harshness here?? Face it, you haven't a clue... I still believe what I believe in, as does OPNLguy, et al, and we flat out sta
202 HPLASOps : Who's fare structure is more beatable in terms of public perception of fare structure, AA or WN? What airline's marketing department has better bulls
203 2H4 : Wow, HP....it sounds like you really have an axe to grind with WN. Good luck with that. 2H4
204 Cjpark : I'd like to tell you to get in line behind him and wait your turn but that would only get this post deleted to. You guys got a yes and no answer. Yes
205 Goingboeing : He's still stinging because of SWA's response to the America West ad a few years back about people being embarassed to be seen flying Southwest, whic
206 Goingboeing : I haven't seen any articles or adds from any airline but American that was publicly stating that they were opposed to lifting the WA. Maybe I missed
207 OPNLguy : If no other airlines want Wright repealed, how can they be interested in flying to a post-repeal DAL? Your statement seems a bit of a disconnect. I t
208 2H4 : Not very well, it seems: This implies all other airlines have had to make enormous investments in circumventing wright. You're really stretching, Cj.
209 Dartland : I disagree (Cj -- I think you could use some back-up). I can't imagine other airlines on the whole being in favor of repealing Wright. WN has a huge
210 Goingboeing : They'd do the same thing if WN were forced to move to DFW...so why is it a good thing to maintain higher fares in Dallas because of Wright restrictio
211 Dartland : Exactly my point. Maintaining higher fares in Dallas is a good thing for airlines (except WN). Your comment is from the customer perspective -- but I
212 Post contains images 2H4 : I certainly don't think airlines on the whole are in favor of repeal, Dartland, but my original point remains...we cannot safely assume WN is the onl
213 Goingboeing : So since WN will never move to DFW, it's hunky dory to protect the DFW market from affordable fares? Prior to the WA changing to allow flights to MCI,
214 Apodino : CHILDREN ENOUGH PLEASE, instead of an intelligent debate on this issues, these threads have become flamewars. CJPark, all you do is issue personal att
215 Post contains images 2H4 : Pro-wrighters will argue that it "protects the public's investment in infrastructure"....but at what point does that investment become recognized as
216 HPLASOps : And why would any other airline try to compete against that on their home turf? That must've occured before I started working for HP, but I know how
217 Post contains links 2H4 : Not enough to make a difference. Look at what http://www.fightwright.org/ ...an independent site that is associated with neither AA or WN...has to sa
218 HPLASOps : I looked at that website, and if that's not a WN employee (probably a teenage ramp agent) operating that website, then there's some serious copywrite
219 2H4 : Funny how anyone with a viewpoint other than your own is instantly and consistantly labelled a "Kool-Aid drinker". I guess you simply refuse to belie
220 OPNLguy : I've been both in email and voice contact with the gent who runs the fightwright.org site, and he is not a Southwest employee, just as his site state
221 HPLASOps : I guess I was so amazed at what I was reading that I didn't last the whole way. It read like propoganda, someone who was hateful and bitter towards A
222 2H4 : So out of curiousity, and bearing in mind that the author is strongly opposed to Wright, what would he have to say or do differently to earn credibil
223 Goingboeing : That tends to happen when an airline feels free to charge what amounts to be a dollar a mile for a last minute ticket.
224 2H4 : Indeed. Wright supporters seem to forget that, along with much more reasonable last-minute fares, Southwest brings predictable and reliable fares. Up
225 Goingboeing : 2H4...doesn't necessarily have to be a business traveller. A couple of years ago, my mom had to have emergency surgery...$860 to fly from KC to Dallas
226 HPLASOps : For starters, list his creditials, proof that he is an industry expert who examines all points of view. Second, introduce the website with something
227 Post contains images 2H4 : Expert or not, the evidence he presents (usually with links to sources and links to offical documents and information) is difficult to argue. Unless
228 Goingboeing : Then again, there are many destinations that AA flies nonstop from, but they are also the only game in town. Witness my example of MCI-DFW a couple o
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...
Working For AA At DFW posted Tue May 30 2006 18:35:25 by PHXMKEflyer
FAA Environmental Approval For WN At DEN? posted Thu Apr 27 2006 04:14:28 by FATFlyer
AA Has No Love For WN! posted Mon Mar 6 2006 19:20:12 by L1329II
DFW Survey Says 85% Want WN At DFW posted Fri Jul 8 2005 17:45:42 by Drerx7
No Room For Swiss In SkyTeam posted Sun Sep 19 2004 17:15:31 by Gaut
No More CRJ-200's At DFW? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 07:10:09 by SonOfACaptain
Good News For Us At DFW posted Mon Aug 9 2004 23:00:28 by Relayze
FAA Says No Room To Grow At Newark posted Sat Jun 26 2004 06:37:04 by STT757
End Date For Work At DFW posted Thu Aug 21 2003 17:49:07 by Contrails
Why No AA 737-800 At Dfw? posted Thu Jul 26 2001 18:29:43 by Saxman66