Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Traffic To Missouri Surges Without Wright  
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3122 posts, RR: 10
Posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2749 times:

Courtesy: Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Air Traffic to Missouri Surges Without Wright

http://www.airportbusiness.com/artic.../article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=6724

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2718 times:

Does anybody else know about this? I can't believe that fares came down and more people traveled. I thought the conventional wisdom was that DFW would be mothballed if its fragile customer base was not Federally protected from the horrible and unamerican effects of competition. Who knew?


Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineJetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2696 times:

Well wouldn't you know, more PAX flying out of DAL when the new city opens up.

Looks like this proves that a certain ammendment needs to go and I will give you a hint, it says it is wright but it isn't.

Lol (bad joke, im bored)

B6jfk airplane 



When You Know jetBlue, You Know Better
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4030 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 1):
I can't believe that fares came down and more people traveled. I thought the conventional wisdom was that DFW would be mothballed if its fragile customer base was not Federally protected from the horrible and unamerican effects of competition.

It's also horrible and unAmerican to dress up the desire to continue suckling on public property as a competitive issue. When will Southwest start paying to land in the Dallas area just like any other airline?



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 3):
It's also horrible and unAmerican to dress up the desire to continue suckling on public property as a competitive issue. When will Southwest start paying to land in the Dallas area just like any other airline?

They did not pay to land in Dallas? that's news to me  banghead .

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineJetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 3):
It's also horrible and unAmerican to dress up the desire to continue suckling on public property as a competitive issue. When will Southwest start paying to land in the Dallas area just like any other airline?

When will Dallas and Washington realise that this law is out dated and has no point but to favor AA. Not very laissez faire to me.  Sad

B6jfk airplane 



When You Know jetBlue, You Know Better
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 3):
When will Southwest start paying to land in the Dallas area just like any other airline?

You realize that the differences in landing fees/rents between DAL and DFW is based on the expenses of the respective airports, right? Folks that think that DAL's $0.55/100 rate should be increased to match DFW's $4.94/1000 to "level the playing field" just don't understand how things work.

The only valid reason for SWA paying $4.94/1000 would be if Southwest was serving DFW, and as has been said many times before, that's not going to happen, especially when there's a less expensive $0.55/1000 alternative available that also lets the Southwest make the best use of its other infrastructure at Love.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2555 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6):
You realize that the differences in landing fees/rents between DAL and DFW is based on the expenses of the respective airports, right? Folks that think that DAL's $0.55/100 rate should be increased to match DFW's $4.94/1000 to "level the playing field" just don't understand how things work.

The only valid reason for SWA paying $4.94/1000 would be if Southwest was serving DFW, and as has been said many times before, that's not going to happen, especially when there's a less expensive $0.55/1000 alternative available that also lets the Southwest make the best use of its other infrastructure at Love.

Well, If Dallas Love wants to increase its landing fee they are more than welcomed right? Why would WN pay $1/1000 if they are charged $0.55/1000?

One more thing, Love is only allowed to serve a very limited market. Why would they charge a high price if it is the case? Once the market opens up I would guess Dallas Love will be able to increase its price.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 7):
Well, If Dallas Love wants to increase its landing fee they are more than welcomed right? Why would WN pay $1/1000 if they are charged $0.55/1000?

One more thing, Love is only allowed to serve a very limited market. Why would they charge a high price if it is the case? Once the market opens up I would guess Dallas Love will be able to increase its price.

Tom in NO (MSY airport) has discussed this previously (so this is all from my memory, and I'll gladly defer to him if he chimes in here), but in a nutshell, airports can't just set fees/rates willy-nilly or otherwise whatever they feel like. Fees/rates are based on an airport's projected budget is (including big projects like international terminals and Skylink systems) and then set accordingly to cover them. If the fees/rates produce more income (than costs) at year's end, the overage is refunded/rebated/credited to the users. If the fees/rates produce less income (than costs) the users make up the difference. In theory, it's not all that different from someone setting their W-4 IRS withholding so that just the right amount gets taken out of their regular paycheck so they don't owe or get a refund at the end of the year.

If Love was going to build some capital-intensive project(s), they'd be justified in raising their fees/rates to cover the anticpated costs from $0.55/1000 to $2.00/1000 or $3.00/100 or whatever it would cost. They can't just raise them because they "feel like it" or because City Council folks think Love's fees/rates should be closer to DFW's fees/rates or the fees/rates in Timbuktu.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 8):
Tom in NO (MSY airport) has discussed this previously (so this is all from my memory, and I'll gladly defer to him if he chimes in here), but in a nutshell, airports can't just set fees/rates willy-nilly or otherwise whatever they feel like. Fees/rates are based on an airport's projected budget is (including big projects like international terminals and Skylink systems) and then set accordingly to cover them.

So what is the problem with Incitatus then? Clearly WN does not leech anything am I right?

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

I've been doing some thinking about Wright and asking myself if Wright really is right. What if MDW could only serve a 9 state region? What if all passengers leaving the state of California had to do so from LAX? BUR, ONT, LGB and SNA could only serve intra California? What if all U.S. citizens traveling to Mexico must transit through DFW? All travel to South America through ATL? All travel to Asia through SFO? Think about all the redundant airport facilities that could be eliminated. What if legacies were granted exclusive authority to fly to a specific continent? Think of all the jobs that could be saved. Maybe the world of Wright is a Utopia I just haven't been able to see.


Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 9):
So what is the problem with Incitatus then? Clearly WN does not leech anything am I right?

You'd have to ask him directly to be sure, but it appears that he thinks it's somehow "unfair" that Southwest pays fees that are less than fees would be at DFW. Doesn't matter that AA and CO pay those same rates at Love, but theirs seem to be overlooked as an issue. It's not as if Southwest paid $0.55 at Love while AA and CO at Love paid more...

If I located my 5,000 SF business where the rents were going for X/per SF, and my competitor had an identical 5,000 SF business in a part of town commanding rents of 8X/per SF, it'd be a pretty weak argument that I should set my prices based on my competitor's 8X overhead versus my actual X overhead just to "level the playing field." If my competitor want's to open a 5,000 SF shop across the street from me and enjoy the same overhead costs, more power to him/her. If my competitor insists I open a 5,000 SF shop across from his high rent location, I'm going to politely tell him/her to pound sand, since that's a decision that I get to make for my business, just like he/she gets to make decisions for their business.

I'm truly puzzled sometimes why this is such a conceptual problem for some folks...


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 11):
You'd have to ask him directly to be sure, but it appears that he thinks it's somehow "unfair" that Southwest pays fees that are less than fees would be at DFW. Doesn't matter that AA and CO pay those same rates at Love, but theirs seem to be overlooked as an issue. It's not as if Southwest paid $0.55 at Love while AA and CO at Love paid more...

I think it just means DFW runs much less efficiently than Love. A little competition might bring the cost down a little bit  Wink

I agree with you OPNLguy. Landing fees depends on the Airport, and does not be the same all over the board. We are not going to compare the landing fee, say, in Baraboo, WI to JFK's. I am sure airlines/airport users in Baraboo do not "continue suckling on public property"  Wink

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineRottamo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6):
Folks that think that DAL's $0.55/100 rate should be increased to match DFW's $4.94/1000

What does that rate means? Is it per passenger or based on weight of plane or what?

How big difference this causes to ticket price Dallas vs. other airfield?
1%, 5%, 10% ?

I am curious.

Rottamo


User currently offlineNWDC10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2407 times:

Quoting JetBlueAtJFK (Reply 5):
but to favor AA.

Bingo! Like i said earlier this is total BS. They need to just open DAL and let the "Real Competition Begin". Sounds like continue corruption from our Law Makers to favor AA. You don't do anything to "favor" any one or "take sides" to anyone. Robert NWDC10


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

Landing fees are based on X-amount per each 1,000 lbs of an aircraft's maximum structural landing weight. It matters not whether the aircraft is empty or full on a given flight, the rate is based on what the aircraft is capable of landing at.

For SWA, the 737-300, 737-500, and 737-700 have max landing weights of 114,000 lbs, 110,000 lbs, and 128,000 lbs respectively. Multiplying 114, 110, or 128 by either $0.55 or $4.94 gives the total landing fees for DAL and DFW, respectively, for each aircraft type SWA flies...


User currently offlineRottamo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

OK. About $5 -$7 per passenger (assuming 50%-70% load factor).
That's quite much if fares are around $80 - $120.

Now I understand why average fare to
Dallas - Kansas City has been around $233 (461 miles) vs.
Dallas - Harlinger $129 (461 miles).

Why this landing fee is so high in the Ft. Worth ?
Have they done big investments? If so, when these investment will have been paid? Or is it just more expensive airport to run?

Rottamo


User currently offlineRottamo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

BWT. According to
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/domestic-competition/3Q04.pdf
and
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-5...le_files/consumerairfarereport.htm

When WN entered to Philadelphia fares went (one way average fare):
Q3/2003 $210
Q3/2004 $113
Q3/2005 $118

and passenger numbers went
Q3/2003 2,003
Q3/2004 3,049
Q3/2005 3,249

So 40%-60% increase is exactly what we should expect.
Q3/2005 passenger numbers for
Kansas City 711
St. Louis 774

-> about 750 new daily passenger between these cities and Dallas.
In the future there will be about 2300 passengers. If we use current routes as a yardstick then there will be 12-16 new flights out of town from the Love vs. current 8.

So it seems that it is highly likely that WN will add 2-3 flights to each route in the future and may be even more.

My 2 cents.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting Rottamo (Reply 16):
Why this landing fee is so high in the Ft. Worth ?
Have they done big investments? If so, when these investment will have been paid? Or is it just more expensive airport to run?

AT DFW, it's largely the International terminal (very fancy) and Skylink system (elevated train between all the terminals), both very expensive projects. TPA built a new international terminal about the same time, and I think theirs cost about half as much, and while not as fancy as DFW's, it's still functional, and in today's airline revenue environment, more cost-effective. Airlines don't have unlimited budgets like they did back during the days of a regulated airline industry, yet some airports still seem to think they do.


User currently offlineSMUDFWflyer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 24 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2250 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 11):
If my competitor want's to open a 5,000 SF shop across the street from me and enjoy the same overhead costs, more power to him/her

That's the argument that many pro-Wright folks present. Neither AA nor any other airline could possibly open up an equal-sized operation to WN at Love right now, with or without Wright in place. WN has a significant competitive advantage at an airport that over 60% of metroplex travelers find more convenient.

If Wright were to be repealed, would the Love Field Master Plan remain in place? If so, WN would really have to be selective on which routes outside of the current perimeter would be served nonstop. I would guess MDW, LAX, OAK, DEN, BWI, TPA, FLL, BNA, PHX, and LAS for starters. AA would likely respond with flights of their own, which would max out DAL's capacity really quickly.

Back to the topic of this thread, I am flying DFW-STL-DFW in July on AA, so I guess I will be contributing to the surge in air travel to Missouri (just not in the way WN would like).

On a lighter note, has anyone seen the new Stop and Think commercial?


User currently offlineTiger119 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

Quoting SMUDFWflyer (Reply 19):
I would guess MDW, LAX, OAK, DEN, BWI, TPA, FLL, BNA, PHX, and LAS for starters.

- Not IND, SDF or CMH?  scratchchin 

Quoting SMUDFWflyer (Reply 19):
On a lighter note, has anyone seen the new Stop and Think commercial?

- Is it yet another funny WN commercial?  sarcastic 

David



Flying is the second greatest thrill known to mankind, landing is the first!
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...
Air Traffic To Kill Millions Of People posted Sat May 28 2005 14:13:22 by Joni
DAY Could Lose Air Traffic Control Tower To CMH posted Mon May 8 2006 19:48:27 by KarlB737
Arabesk Alliance To Be Launched Without Oman Air posted Mon Jan 30 2006 06:33:04 by BA
Air France Is Boosting Traffic To THR posted Mon Dec 26 2005 18:20:49 by FlySSC
Deciding To Become An Air Traffic Controller posted Wed Nov 9 2005 04:35:58 by Ph0king
How To Become An Air Traffic Controller? posted Fri Aug 26 2005 05:56:23 by Stl1326
Studying To Be An Air Traffic Controller posted Wed Feb 9 2005 23:39:43 by BT
Increased Air India Traffic To US posted Sat Nov 13 2004 23:52:40 by AirWales
Cancelled Due To Air Traffic Constraints posted Wed Jul 21 2004 23:31:05 by Dtwclipper
Delayed Due To Air Traffic Control Constraints? posted Thu Nov 27 2003 04:36:34 by Corbin