Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DAL Gates Now Available. Will Anybody Grab Them?  
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 6837 posts, RR: 14
Posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20914 times:

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/p...es-airtran-love-field-dfw/168174/1

So we now know for sure that WN subsidiary AirTran will operate from DFW throughout the Summer, despite initially saying they wouldn't. My reading of the agreement with AA/DFW/DAL/WN states that WN must now surrender two gates at Love Field if requested. Will anybody make that request? Keep in mind that in a couple of years every airline will be trying to get gates there to compete with WN flying to places like LAX/LGA/BOS/etc.

The most likely carriers to try it are:

F9 - Could fly to Kansas City with any aircraft type, but F9 seems to be shrinking at the moment so probably unlikely. They have the best route option, reason to do it (WN hubbing DEN), and UA is flying DEN-DAL with CRJs too.
DL - Already flying to MEM, but with a common use gate I believe (Verify?).
B6 - Could fly to MSY and doesn't fly to DFW. MSY isn't great, but they need to think about WN flying DAL-BOS/LAX/NYC/etc down the road.
NK - You never know.
US - Unlikely
VX - Unlikely
UA - Already has a gate.

217 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20854 times:

Sun Country flies DFW to MSP, & CUN I wonder if they would give it a try? Does anyone think a 737-800 could fly to CUN from DAL?


Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2026 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20810 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 1):
Sun Country flies DFW to MSP, & CUN I wonder if they would give it a try? Does anyone think a 737-800 could fly to CUN from DAL?

DAL has no FIS so there will be not be any international flights.


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20745 times:

With AA and B6 continually getting closer and closer I'm not sure if B6 will choose DAL.

User currently onlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20682 times:

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 2):
Quoting sunking737 (Reply 1):
Sun Country flies DFW to MSP, & CUN I wonder if they would give it a try? Does anyone think a 737-800 could fly to CUN from DAL?

DAL has no FIS so there will be not be any international flights.

Oh thanks for the update.



Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6574 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20655 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 1):
Does anyone think a 737-800 could fly to CUN from DAL?

Easily, but there are no CBP facilities at DAL for air carrier flights and there won't be any CBP facilities at DAL for air carrier flights.

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):
F9 - Could fly to Kansas City with any aircraft type, but F9 seems to be shrinking at the moment so probably unlikely.

They could have even done DEN-DAL non-stop with Chautauqua E145's. They could also have started service to DAL using the other one of AA's gates which currently is unused (DL is using one for DAL-MEM). DAL-MCI would be an expensive exercise, though, considering that they'd be competing with Southwest's ten daily round-trips.

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):
B6 - Could fly to MSY and doesn't fly to DFW. MSY isn't great, but they need to think about WN flying DAL-BOS/LAX/NYC/etc down the road.

They'd have to be willing to eat losses for three-and-a-half years on routings like that.


User currently offlinetimf From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 966 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20655 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Let's not forget that the Wright Amendment is still in effect for a couple more years. Any new airline starting service would be forced to use 50 seat regional jets or make a within-perimeter stop.

User currently offlineDLD9S From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20503 times:

Can any airline realistically start service at DAL (I am thinking branding gates, check in counters, train staff, sell tickets, ect...) before FL pulls out of DFW?


717 727 737 747 757 767 777 DC9 DC10 M80 M90 M11 L10 AB6 333 340 319 320 321 ARJ CRJ EM2 EMJ SF3 146 100 BE1...
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5997 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 20458 times:

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):

Just curious, B6 DAL-MSY? Why would you think this route?



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5686 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 20322 times:

Quoting as739x (Reply 8):


Just curious, B6 DAL-MSY? Why would you think this route?

B6 needs a city within the Wright Amendment to stop in, before flying onward to JFK or BOS. HOU would be unwise because of WN's frequency on the route. AUS is not out of the question and that's it that B6 flies to within the Wright Amendment. They don't have much of a choice.

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):
DL - Already flying to MEM, but with a common use gate I believe (Verify?).

This is the gate that they borrowed/Lease from American, which AA claims it will want back in 2014, when Wright goes away.

However, your article has NOT stated whether WN is ACTUALLY giving up a gate or two, (I have not seen confirmation from anything or anyone stating WN is indeed giving up two gates). Yes, the law states it, but due to this unique situation, I am curious if the other law which says WN must give advance notice of a pull out, would take over and WN is allowed a time period to pull out BEFORE giving up the two gates at DAL?

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3635 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 20243 times:

Quoting DLD9S (Reply 7):

Can any airline realistically start service at DAL (I am thinking branding gates, check in counters, train staff, sell tickets, ect...) before FL pulls out of DFW?

Eagle has two leftover gates at DAL. While the gates are currently being leased by Eagle, they won't be used for Eagle flights until the new DAL terminal opens in 2013. This happens to coincide with the lifting of the remaining Wright restrictions.

In the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised if Eagle subleases their DAL gates to another carrier.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineBOS2LAF From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 20042 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):
In the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised if Eagle subleases their DAL gates to another carrier.
Quoting usairways85 (Reply 3):
With AA and B6 continually getting closer and closer I'm not sure if B6 will choose DAL.

Actually, given the established relationship between the two companies, I could see Eagle subleasing a gate to B6.


User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 19972 times:

I think you are underestimating what it would take to get a new station started up... and then potentially shut down again in a few months. Is there really an advantage there? Is DAL that much more of an advantage over DFW to take that expense and risk?


Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 6837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19300 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 3):
With AA and B6 continually getting closer and closer I'm not sure if B6 will choose DAL.

I think B6 does what they want. AA has no control. B6 takes what AA leaves behind and helps them in NYC. That's it.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 5):
They could have even done DEN-DAL non-stop with Chautauqua E145's.

True

Quoting ScottB (Reply 5):
They'd have to be willing to eat losses for three-and-a-half years on routings like that.

Isnt it 2.5 years?

Quoting DLD9S (Reply 7):

Can any airline realistically start service at DAL (I am thinking branding gates, check in counters, train staff, sell tickets, ect...) before FL pulls out of DFW?

Does it have to start? Maybe they could just sign a lease and start later. I don't think it is clear on that.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 9):
However, your article has NOT stated whether WN is ACTUALLY giving up a gate or two

They won't unless somebody asks for them. That's what the agreement says.

Quoting BOS2LAF (Reply 11):
Actually, given the established relationship between the two companies, I could see Eagle subleasing a gate to B6.

Doubtful. The relationship isn't that close and AA gains little from helping B6 enter DAL.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6574 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19043 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 13):
Isnt it 2.5 years?

Nope, the restrictions last until October 2014.

Quoting enilria (Reply 13):
Quoting DLD9S (Reply 7):
Can any airline realistically start service at DAL (I am thinking branding gates, check in counters, train staff, sell tickets, ect...) before FL pulls out of DFW?

Does it have to start? Maybe they could just sign a lease and start later. I don't think it is clear on that.

My understanding is that the feds require utilization clauses in preferential lease agreements these days.


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 6837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 18890 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 14):
My understanding is that the feds require utilization clauses in preferential lease agreements these days.

AA has gates at the same airport they aren't using at all. What is the difference? There are plenty of cases where airlines have leased gates that are unused. DL was holding gates at ORD from the merger until just recently with zero use.


User currently offlineUSXguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 984 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 18471 times:

I know SeaPort is sniffing around Love Field...


xx
User currently offlinepeachair From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 18276 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 5):
Easily, but there are no CBP facilities at DAL for air carrier flights and there won't be any CBP facilities at DAL for air carrier flights.

Wouldn't they pre-clear US Customs in Cancun?


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6574 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 18138 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 15):
AA has gates at the same airport they aren't using at all. What is the difference? There are plenty of cases where airlines have leased gates that are unused. DL was holding gates at ORD from the merger until just recently with zero use.

The difference lies in when the leases were executed. The AA leases at DAL probably pre-date the feds' insistence on utilization clauses or use-it-or-lose-it provisions (as did the DL leases at ORD). If memory serves, new exclusive-use leases are prohibited. I don't believe that the City could execute a new lease with a carrier (like JetBlue) without use-it-or-lose-it provisions.

I believe that AA at one point wanted to give its DAL gates back to the City (after LC shut down) but Dallas chose to take the lease revenue.


User currently offlinefloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 18107 times:

Quoting peachair (Reply 17):
Wouldn't they pre-clear US Customs in Cancun?

Mexico isn't pre-clear.



Good goes around!
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6574 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 18084 times:

Quoting peachair (Reply 17):
Wouldn't they pre-clear US Customs in Cancun?

The Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 states the following:

Quote:
No person shall provide, or offer to provide, air transportation of passengers for compensation or hire between Love Field, Texas, and any point or points outside the 50 States or the District of Columbia on a nonstop basis, and no official or employee of the Federal Government may take any action to make or designate Love Field as an initial point of entry into the United States or a last point of departure from the United States.


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3635 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 17236 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 18):
The AA leases at DAL probably pre-date the feds' insistence on utilization clauses or use-it-or-lose-it provisions (as did the DL leases at ORD). If memory serves, new exclusive-use leases are prohibited. I don't believe that the City could execute a new lease with a carrier (like JetBlue) without use-it-or-lose-it provisions.

Eagle's lease at DAL began in 2009. It lasts until 2028.

http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2577



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlinegoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 17218 times:

DAL is obviously dominated by WN and if other airlines want in their gates, I think that airline would have to add the airport as one of their hubs. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. I could see B6 for some reason but it's a stretch.


From the airport with love
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 17025 times:

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 9):
B6 needs a city within the Wright Amendment to stop in, before flying onward to JFK or BOS. HOU would be unwise because of WN's frequency on the route. AUS is not out of the question and that's it that B6 flies to within the Wright Amendment. They don't have much of a choice.

Are you implying that people will choose B6 from DAL on a onestopper to JFK or BOS? WN gets away with this but I think it might be a stretch for B6. If anything I would think AUS as it provides connections to both coasts.

Quoting enilria (Reply 13):
Doubtful. The relationship isn't that close and AA gains little from helping B6 enter DAL.

You have to remember though that "beyond perimeter flights" won't start for another 3 years, that is a lot of time...AA and B6 could be in a full fledge codeshare agreement or have completely broken ties by that point.


User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 16906 times:

I think WN's genius is in the details - there is no question, in my mind, that Southwest's acquisition of AirTran triggers the relevant provisions in the Wright Amendment Agreement... but who cares? A temporary obligation to relinquish control over a gate or two is not much to give up, and I would be surprised if any other carrier commits meaningful resources to starting up DAL service under such tenuous and (still) one-sided circumstances.

Be nice to have JetBlue or Virgin America there, though, wouldn't it?



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
25 USXguy : You still have to have a customs facility for the departure. Someone has to approve the gen decs & any cargo manifests. And for some reason, I th
26 ScottB : The lease remains with American Airlines, not with American Eagle, and it is not clear whether the lease is a new lease or merely an extension of the
27 atrude777 : No, I am responding to the quote that asked IF B6 did go to DAL, why was it suggested they do DAL-MSY. I was simply stating the reasons why B6 would
28 IrishAyes : B6 has much bigger fish to fry. It would be stupid for them to attempt to fly into DAL without even having tried linking DFW to their primary hubs. I
29 Post contains links LoneStarMike : Of the two leftover gates (the ones not being subleased to Delta) AA is supposed to have to give up one effective October 2010. If you read that 5-pa
30 airstatdfw : AA is down to 2 gates since they have moved to the temp terminal. Currently they have CO/UA with 2 gates (29/30) and AA is leasing 31 to DL and they
31 united319 : MSY is actually more money and seats than people tend to think. The CVB there has been successfully woo'ing big groups to do conventions there throug
32 Post contains links and images CO777DAL : Unless ur UA It was very easy for them all they had to do was 1) Stick a sign on the wall at CO check-in, stick a sign on CO monitors, place a UA sti
33 keagkid101 : Even if Mexico did have pre-clear, DAL would still need to have customs facilities just in case an arriving flight needed additional screening or cle
34 wnflyguy : It has not even been 24hrs so slow down on WN having to give up gates at DAL. I'm sure in a week or two you will hear something on a timeline for the
35 texan : The City of Dallas is required to ask the current tenants to give up space. If the signatory airlines refuse to give up space, the City of Dallas is
36 ADent : Does WN really have to give up a gate? Couldn't a judge decide that the 90 day wind down of FL service at DFW doesn't constitute a breach? If WN does
37 CO777DAL : That is true but if say CO/WN always has a plane using the gate it is hard for the City of Dallas to say cut your flights. I can see an airline bring
38 Post contains links LoneStarMike : They're required to force the airlines to share a gate with a new entrant pursuant to DAL current lease agreements Per Love Field's competition plan
39 CO777DAL : Thanks for posting that! That is what I was thinking. I can't imagine the City of Dallas making an airline cut their flights who are primary lessor o
40 slcdeltarumd11 : This might be a shorter and less money lost wait then waiting for HND to pay off and profitable! I hope another airline will take a gate at Love field
41 Post contains images DCA-ROCguy : It's Airliners.net, where bomb-throwing subject heads are the norm. Why would any airline request gate space at DAL, when 90 days from now no WN-owne
42 Post contains links LoneStarMike : You're welcome, and to further clarify, if one of the 3 incumbent airlines were to give up a gate, Love Field could (if it wanted to) convert that ga
43 Azul320 : B6 cannot ignore the Dallas market forever. They have a small presence in AUS and an extremely limited presence at HOU. DFW is the only logical option
44 nkops : I do believe the NK is starting DFW in a few days to FLL and LAS, I can't see them switching over to DAL at this point.
45 enilria : You are usually very knowledgeable, but not in this case. There are no prohibitions on exclusive leases. The Air-21 law which you are thinking of onl
46 ASA : Not sure about the rest of Mexico - but CUN is certainly a US ICE pre-clear point - like many of the other Caribbean places.
47 LoneStarMike : Love Field doesn't rent any of its gates on an exclusive-use basis. They're all rented on a preferential-use basis. LoneStarMike
48 KarlB737 : A real judge would put a knife to the Wright Amendment and its subsequent 5-party agreement. All it has ever done is create havoc for everyone involv
49 TVNWZ : LOL. The whole Wright Amendment was set up to be anti-competitive to begin with. Deliberatly. And if you get into the good 'ol boy Texas politics of
50 n471wn : Finally an a.netter that gets it.....anyone who thinks that the Metroplex in 10 years will have just DFW and a gate restricted DAL is kidding themsel
51 blueflyer : You're correct that the act doesn't require it, but the particular provision you refer to specifically states that it applies to the act itself, henc
52 commavia : Well, respectfully, I think it was set up to try and salvage the original 1968 agreement that the City of Dallas signed which included closing Love F
53 LoneStarMike : The 5-party agreement stipulates that Southwest would have to give up gates at Love Field should they choose to serve another airport within an 80-mi
54 blueflyer : If Southwest had no notice, I would entirely agree with you, but as it turns out, they knew ever since they considered buying AirTran they would have
55 ScottB : I don't disagree that the restrictions on DAL are bad for just about everyone apart from AMR Corporation, DFW Airport, and Fort Worth's ego -- but th
56 exFATboy : The agreement effectively bans all international flights in or out of Love Field, whether they pre-clear or not; the agreement does not merely prohib
57 airstatdfw : General Aviation can clear customs at DAL they have a facility in the old legend terminal. Commercial air carrier can not have international operatio
58 LoneStarMike : Ending the service immediately would have been unreasonable, IMHO. Southwest alluded to this in their statement to USA Today The merger became offici
59 LoneStarMike : I've thought about this a little more and wanted to respond to the point you made above. From everything I've read regarding AirTran's ops in ATL, it
60 blueflyer : -A fleet of buses awaiting AirTran customers at DFW to take them to DAL; For the first five days, you can even couple that with twice-daily Southwest
61 sccutler : I love a good, entertaining humor post. Thanks for sharing!
62 Post contains images TVNWZ : And, respectfully, the 1968 agreements and all laws forcing traffic to DFW are anti-competitive. In your own words,.... Forced to move in order to ke
63 commavia : Right, which seems totally reasonable to me. In 1968, the CAB told the cities to stop supporting their airports, and instead support one regional air
64 sccutler : Close. It was a policy decision (wise one, I think, in hindsight) that the feds decided that no more federal grant money would be allocated for devel
65 cjpark : WN would receive a big dose of Karmic justice if a new carrier suddenly decided it was worthwhile to test the situation and create a permanent presenc
66 commavia : To clarify, I meant to say close Love to commercial traffic. I know that closing Love altogether was never the plan, but rather to close it to airlin
67 Post contains links LoneStarMike : This issue was briefly mentioned in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram 'Deal is done' to merge Southwest, AirTran That makes it sound like there is some sor
68 Post contains links OzarkD9S : The Mayors of Dallas and Ft Worth are saying FL out of DFW sooner than later: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...ayors-airtran-needs-to-get-ou.htm
69 ScottB : I actually think he's right; a timeframe of something like 90 days seems more than reasonable to me, and I doubt that FL's flights to and from DFW ar
70 Post contains images par13del : I know its been a while but what exactly did DFW and their political contingent promise to the DAL folks to get them to nuter themselves after all th
71 Post contains images enilria : This is one of the more interesting topics I've see on a.net in years. Let me add this. In my OAG thread, Branson Air Express has apparently been forc
72 ScottB : There are restrictions which remain past 2014. The Wright Amendment Reform Act restricts DAL to 20 gates and requires carriers leasing gates to opera
73 airstatdfw : I said it in the other thread but I will put it here as well. They didn't have TSA personal at BKG, so the pax coming in would not be screened and th
74 enilria : I don't mean distance limits. I mean commercial/non-commercial or limiting by weight for non-safety reasons. I'll say what I said over there. How do
75 Post contains links LoneStarMike : The story has now been updated and there is an additional story as well Gary Kelly talks about AirTran, Southwest Airlines and D/FW Airport LoneStarM
76 airstatdfw : The source I had who works for DAL, said they were going to use a FBO to board at BKG.
77 TVNWZ : Nice. and what harm occurs with AirTran/SWA staying till December? What damages would you argue before the court ? This whole issue will now be a pol
78 enilria : Why would they do that? How small is this plane? You must have TSA involved for airplanes with more than 9 seats. Maybe as a charter they are exempt?
79 enilria : Gary Kelly: "and we're not going to give up any of our facilities at Dallas Love Field. We realize that we have to phase out that DFW service." You kn
80 WNCrew : You've been waiting for a "train wreck" since this all started haven't you? It's been explained so clearly. WN couldn't tell FL what to do until lega
81 Post contains images par13del : Unfortunately, as a WN supporter I really think that is what they should do, the agreement does not really speak to any orderly shutdown. The agreeme
82 irish : What airline would want to walk into DAL on WN homecourt? Southwest would do everything to kick that airline out.
83 airstatdfw : I heard it was going to be a PC12 which is a pretty small plane. Now if they are using RBD which is a GA airport in Dallas they have no TSA there eit
84 commavia : Not really. As somebody very much in favor of the 2006 agreement - in fact, I'd prefer they go back to the 1968 agreement and just close Love altoget
85 cjpark : Not at all the same circumstance. Unfortunately for WN they are a signatory party to the agreement. The courts cannot help them unless one of the oth
86 OzarkD9S : Personally I think the entire WA2 agreement is an anti-competive crock of shite, but they all made thier beds. A better plan should have been in plac
87 sccutler : The agreement is "legally enforceable," but it does not preclude Southwest (or its subsidiaries) from operating from both airports; it merely provide
88 n471wn : Yes it is sad that with SWA for some A.Netters "no good deed goes unpunished" .......at the end of the day there is no way they could strand the book
89 TVNWZ : Post of the thread. +1
90 swa4life : Well said. Regardless of what the black and white text on the law books state (and we're not certain the law isn't in their favor), why are so many p
91 txagkuwait : The Fort Worth Mayor (and the Dallas Mayor, for that matter) need not worry. It won't take until December. Somebody up this thread nailed it. Southwes
92 exFATboy : As of right now, AirTran is still selling tickets (at least for DFW-ATL, which I just checked) through Nov 21st, which frankly suggests Southwest int
93 par13del : Circumstance is irrelevant when it comes to the law, that was my point. Not, but it does require them to give up exclusive use of like number of gate
94 sccutler : Precisely correct, with one proviso: No one would have to sue to get access to the gates; they would simply have to tell the City of Dallas that they
95 blueflyer : That is your, and Southwest's, interpretation of the repeal agreement. Another reading says there is absolutely nothing in the repeal agreement sugge
96 exFATboy : Paragraph 10 of the agreement doesn't contain a provision for gates that shift from WN exclusive use to common use to go back to WN's exclusive contr
97 sccutler : I have no idea what Southwest's interpretation is, but after twenty years of practicing law and a large reserve of experience in litigating over the
98 TVNWZ : Perfect. Which airline wants to get embroiled in a protracted court battle over the interpretation of the WA. If I have learned one thing in business
99 FlyPNS1 : Except that B6 would hemorrage red ink if they tried to serve DAL and WN knows it. The fundamental thing people are missing is that WN only gives up
100 Braniff727Ultra : I could see VX making this move if they hadn't already set up routes to/from DFW. With WN having the lions share of the DAL market I don't see any car
101 txagkuwait : The last thing on Earth that AA wants (and their puppets in the Dallas & Fort Worth city governments) is for WN to set up any sort of sizeable ope
102 cjpark : This is not 1979 or 2006. The circumstances that enabled WN to bully the region before are not in place now. Really? The whole point of all the lawsu
103 Cubsrule : Maybe I'm just slow, but as a native Chicagoan, I don't get it. Surely, the Wright Amendment had a purpose at some point in the past, just like the C
104 Post contains links and images CO777DAL : CO took all the 753s. You better believe it! If DFW had the gates and WN was able to do this tomorrow, (see below) it would probably be AA worst nigh
105 CO777DAL : I forgot to add if DAL-HOU is any indication of what WN can do in a market. Just imagine flow blown WN ops at DFW. AA wouldn’t know what to do.
106 mcg : Slightly off topic, but does CO still operate DAL - IAH? How is UA's DEN - DAL service do? I'm trying to understand what non-WN service operates from
107 atrude777 : Yes DAL-IAH, DAL-MEM is it along with DAL-DEN. Alex
108 TSS : Note- Just playing "devil's advocate" here, speculating on the possibility of Mr. Kelly reconsidering the decision to abandon DFW. I've been thinking
109 par13del : Why would someone be nuts enough to challenge the billions spent to build DFW and signed agreements to force termination of service at DAL? Why would
110 Cubsrule : I think we are in agreement, but it seems sort of silly. DAL won't ever be more than MDW or HOU is and wouldn't be if it had 20 free gates. We rag on
111 KarlB737 : "DAL Gates Now Available. Will Anybody Grab Them?" Sliding back to the original question. For the few gates that you would get even if you were a new
112 par13del : Agree DFW has the gates, the other necessary infrastructure and a political and management team dying for the option to take WN down a peg for all th
113 deltaffindfw : As I was driving into DFW this morning, I noticed that AirTran is no longer listed on the big blue signs directing you to the terminals. Guess DFW doe
114 Post contains images enilria : Actually, if you remember, there was something called D.C. Air proposed during the US/UA aborted merger. US/UA worked on creating a new carrier with
115 ScottB : It might be interesting to do a similar chart for gate domination, though. At DAL, WN controls 80% of gates, and that is lower than what US controls
116 enilria : Are you sure about that? I thought the multi-party agreement only allowed for CO (1), AA (is it two?), and WN got all the rest. How do you get to 80%
117 ScottB : CO (2), AA (2), WN (16).
118 enilria : Interesting. Well, WN operates an unusually high number of departures per gate relative to other airlines. At a hub the other airlines usually have o
119 enilria : I think it is also very important to note that there is only one air carrier hub within the existing mainline perimeter...IAH (CO) and that market is
120 ScottB : So they should be penalized for using their resources more efficiently than others? That doesn't preclude the network carriers from using 50-seat RJ'
121 par13del : Not really a case of glass half full or glass half empty, the powers behind DFW wanted to ensure that once the WA ended, airlines serving DFW would n
122 FlyPNS1 : They aren't ignoring the consequences. There simply are no consequences as no one has asked WN to give up a gate. If no one wants the gates, then WN
123 Cubsrule : They could, but unless they get a whole bunch of slots between now and then, I don't think they will. There are many higher priorities for the slots.
124 FlyPNS1 : They just got 19 more slot pairs to play with on May 3rd. Not to mention that as US/DL pursue a slot swap, there's a good chance WN will pick up a fe
125 Cubsrule : Of course, but isn't the same true in every large WN station? From LGA, it's about equivalent to MDW and inferior to BWI, BNA, STL and MCI.
126 enilria : No, but they constrained the number of gates at DAL knowing their own ability to utilize the gates more than other carriers do. They shouldn't be pen
127 Cubsrule : That's probably about right, but I expect most to fail and the competitive situation to wind up like MDW or HOU (which actually isn't a whole lot dif
128 enilria : BTW, post-WA why should DAL be any different than HOU where there is 4X as much competition vs. DAL? I would argue that DAL's more Northern geography
129 IrishAyes : As much as I love WN, I think they'll have to ramp up their inflight product offering in order to successfully court corporate travelers from AA in t
130 exFATboy : WN has a 97% share at DAL, but that's not the same thing as a "monopoly", since there's plenty of competition, and room for new entrants, at DFW, and
131 par13del : You assume that WN started out with a fleet of 100+ a/c, they grew the airline under the onerous conditions, my question to you would be why did AA a
132 Post contains links commavia : Try again. The City of Dallas is not being "pressured" into enforcing the law - they are legally bound to, want to, and indeed have an economic incen
133 sccutler : Gosh golly, gosh golly. Has anyone sought use of gates at DAL and been denied access thereto by SWA? If not, no breach has occurred. Class dismissed.
134 ScottB : HOU is arguably just as convenient to downtown Houston as DAL is to downtown Dallas. But I agree, the treatment SHOULD be the same; the difference is
135 Post contains images enilria : I think MEM exists only to hold on to a gate they can use in 2014. That's why I wonder if DL will use this to grab a gate. DEN may not last as I thin
136 Post contains images commavia : Precisely. Southwest is an incredible, iconic airline that has had a profound and positive impact on the U.S. and the industry, but it's hardly altru
137 FlyPNS1 : WN has plenty of experience flying between other carriers premium market. WN isn't for everyone, but there's enough traffic between NYC and Dallas fo
138 Cubsrule : With 30 slots, how many cities can they sensibly? I don't see more than 7 or 8, and I'd put DAL at about 7th to 9th most likely to see service. I cer
139 par13del : Except the new WA ensures that DAL is going to remain exactly as is, potential has been removed by law, it does not exist. You quote the article I wa
140 CO777DAL : CO/UA at DAL I can see them doing it after 2014. CO itself use to fly 8 flights a day per gate at DAL and that was just to IAH. They will have EWR, L
141 txagkuwait : Spike Cutler, you need to call me one of these days. Do you still have my cell? I'm always ready for another ride on your v-tailed doctor killer. I w
142 commavia : Not sure about that - I don't know the history. However, my understanding has always been that when Southwest sued to keep Love open, the City of Dal
143 par13del : Well somehow AA got gates at DAL and were able to provide service, so if someone made it illegal for CO to serve DAL it could not have been WN, since
144 CO777DAL : I never meant to imply WN was stopping them. It was the Wright Amendment that was stopping CO from flying out of DAL or else they would have moved ba
145 Post contains images par13del : Makes you wonder why CO was not more vocal when WN started their push for WA repeal, they certainely paid a price as well. If more carriers had voice
146 Post contains images enilria : Let's be honest, Kelleher and Crandall made a deal...and Crandall used his competitive angst against Braniff which landed him in legal trouble after
147 ScottB : This is superseded by WARA, which essentially states that the City of Dallas must ask the lease holders of preferential use gates to accommodate new
148 enilria : It can't be superseded as the competition plan is required by federal law, although it is likely that the competition plan simply states that WARA is
149 WNCrew : Gary didn't say; "We plan to ignore...." "We refuse...." "We don't care..." He simply said "...we're not going to give up any of our facilities at Da
150 par13del : Yes, comment was made in relation to the "potential" of the airport, since the DAL authorities restricted gate capacity the potential has been severe
151 enilria : The point is that it was not a very collegial comment. In Texas-talk "them's fighting words". As others point out, the gates go to common use if nobo
152 Post contains links ScottB : It can be superseded because WARA ("Wright Amendment Reform Act") is Federal Law; it is an Act of Congress. It has equal standing to any other Congre
153 Post contains links enilria : Apparently it isn't because here is there Air-21 competition plan. There should be a newer one. I haven't read it yet. http://www.dallas-lovefield.co
154 FlyPNS1 : But there's no one to fight with as no one wants the gates. That's the point you seem to be missing. You seem to just want to create drama where none
155 WNCrew : EXACTLY!!!!! It's entertaining in some ways, and mind-numbingly ridiculous and silly in others.
156 Post contains links ScottB : The "contract dated July 11, 2006, entered into by the city of Dallas, the city of Fort Worth, the DFW International Airport Board, and others regard
157 par13del : No doubt it benefits them but since they were not a party to the 1968 agreement or the initial WA they had no standing to demand anything, besides, b
158 enilria : I missed that because it, interestingly, did not mention American Airlines or Southwest by name. So, that's an interesting line. Does WN violating th
159 TVNWZ : You should read some of the old Wright threads when the changes were being considered. Riviting entertainment!
160 ScottB : I don't believe so, but the wording doesn't really make much sense.
161 exFATboy : Under the terms of the "five party agreement", as enacted into Federal law, surrender of exclusive use is supposed to occur as soon as WN is in viola
162 par13del : So WN is now by law utilizing two common-use gates at DAL, must they specifically list the actual gates or does DAL authorities get to select the gat
163 TVNWZ : I believe WN has a whole floor of lawyers, and other lawyers, billing by the hour in both Dallas and Washington D.C., that might disagree with you. J
164 sccutler : Man, you gotta start thinking like a lawyer! "We will not..." is easily resolved as a prediction, not a refusal. If he says, "We refuse to...," then
165 ScottB : I think it would be very difficult to argue for harm to Delta from free-market competition in this case, nor would the remedy they could gain reduce
166 exFATboy : Perhaps "party to the contract" is not the correct term, but if you enter into a contract with the city that has an impact on a third party, and the
167 cjpark : We always had a free market in Dallas. We just had an airline(WN) that would not compete. In fact it was not until Delta became a non factor did they
168 sccutler : (Chuckle). They have proven to be utterly and completely incapable of competing unless given preferential treatment at every station from which they
169 Cubsrule : How would CAB have made WN operate under regulation? How would moving to DFW have made WN a "good corporate citizen?" Is US a bad corporate citizen f
170 sccutler : It's the Devil Airline - makes some people Spit and Scream and Throw Pillows and Kittens and Small Nations.
171 Post contains images par13del : I do not understand the correlation between DL getting run out of DFW and WN pushing for WA repeal. WN has always been against the WA, no one in the
172 sccutler : Probably because KDAL is a vital airport to the Dallas economy, regardless of whether it has Part 121 traffic or not? (chuckle, again)
173 cjpark : WN moving to DFW would have ended the controversy. There would have been no need for the WA or WAII. You have to understand why the WA was put into p
174 par13del : The courts ruled that if DAL received fed funds for the operation of the airport they had to allow commercial traffic, period, any airline not a part
175 FlyPNS1 : What a joke. It is the anti-competitive Wright Amendment that is why the Dallas area pays higher fares. Get rid of this agreement and fares in Dallas
176 enilria : It seems to me that it says if the parties do not enforce their contract then it is no longer valid. That is a major issue should this go to court. L
177 bjorn14 : I wonder who really wanted the old Legend terminal torn down? WN or AA? Rumor has it that it was WN because they didn't want another carrier with a 1
178 KarlB737 : In light of the reference to the Supreme Court I hope the Wrong Amendment and the subsequent 5-party agreement slides into the highest court in the l
179 ScottB : Yes. I believe AFW is as well due to Fort Worth being a party to the agreement. The Legend terminal is/was six gates, and it wasn't exactly suitable
180 par13del : What exactly is WN's standing when it comes to the WA and the 1968 agreement to demand anything, like I said earlier and I have seen articles talking
181 exFATboy : Paragraph 6 of the agreement states "The Cities agree that they will both oppose efforts to initiate commercial air service at any area airport other
182 par13del : My question would be are they receiving federal funds to maintain the commercial designation, if they are, one can easily identify what the fed funds
183 Post contains images ScottB : There really isn't that much demand to travel to Fort Worth when compared to Dallas and the suburbs, most of which have developed on the Dallas side
184 bjorn14 : I was always under the impression that FTW was covered by the WA and WA2. It is curious that FTW is not specifically mentioned in the 5-P as DAL and
185 sccutler : This is a fascinating statement - what, exactly, *did* Ft. Worth "give up" to accommodate DFW? They had no commercial service at FTW, and GSW was, an
186 Cubsrule : Please post data to support this assertion.
187 sccutler : This oughta be good!
188 XT6Wagon : Maybe he is talking about AA's monoplization of DFW and the willing collusion of the airport management in assisting in that goal. I'm not quite sure
189 Cubsrule : But doesn't WN maximize profit? Most quarters, they make more money than the competition.
190 par13del : The irony of all irony's, they are doing this in spite of all the authorities being against them and enacting all forms of legislation to force their
191 XT6Wagon : yes, but you do it in a different place on the demand curve if you have a monopoly (or something that operates like one). One of the sure signs of an
192 exFATboy : In theory, the City of Dallas could have had Congressman Wright push through a bill to downgrade DAL from a commercial airport to a general aviation
193 Cubsrule : Sure. Where does WN have a monopoly? Baltimore is probably the closest, at least if we don't consider BWI a D.C. area airport. Are they cutting servi
194 bjorn14 : Yes, but they flew CRJ100s which are 50-seaters which can fly anywhere from DAL under WA rules. That's why Legend could fly DC9s with 56 (the max all
195 TVNWZ : Actually, we have high gas prices because of speculation.
196 Cubsrule : Is the perception of low fares or is it of fair fares? For me, it's more the latter. I often don't need to look up WN's fares because based on when I
197 Valorien : Where does it say that gates at DAL (Dallas Love Field) are now available?
198 Post contains links KarlB737 : Courtesy: Aero-News Network Who Won In The Wright Amendment Compromise? "Both Dallas and Fort Worth agree to oppose new commercial service at any oth
199 wwtraveler99 : What carrier was first to resume service? WW
200 cjpark : At the time of the ruling there was no precedent concerning local control of airports and the use of federal funds for improvement and operation of t
201 sccutler : I believe you're onto something here... but the FAA does not classify fields as "general aviation only." Most publicly-owned airports receive federal
202 Cubsrule : You didn't say high fares. You said "the highest fares in the country" - actually, you said "more for airfares than any other area in the country." W
203 Valorien : Okay I asked this question once and I feel silly asking it again, but no one has yet to give me a concrete answer. My question is "Where does it say t
204 CO777DAL : That is because Southwest is NOT giving any gates up at DAL nor has any such request been made.
205 txagkuwait : The truth? The truth? You can't handle the truth. (j/k) The real deal is that Texas International ran a limited service in/out of Hobby after IAH ope
206 KarlB737 : Look again at Reply 198: Note the second sentence below:
207 TVNWZ : Finally. Someone who knows what they are talking about.
208 par13del : Ok, I'll grant that no fraud was involved, just politicians and law makers who did not do due diligence in attempting to make things better for their
209 sccutler : I know you're establishing a predicate here, but something bears repeating here, for the benefit all those (and there are many) who believe that airl
210 par13del : Its why I specifically listed commercial aviation, I have not seen it stated anywhere that the airport should have been closed entirely, I believe th
211 Post contains images ScottB : FTW wasn't included in the Wright Amendment because (1) no one was interested in serving FTW and (2) FTW was in Jim Wright's district. Dallas was obl
212 sccutler : There have been those here who called for the outright closure of DAL - but I doubt any of them understand the genuine importance of general aviation
213 cjpark : Southwest wanting to stay at Love Field had nothing to do with survival but everything to do with competition. They did not want it. At Love Field th
214 XT6Wagon : You have yet to explain why WN's avoidence of highly illegal anti-competive actions on the part of the other airlines operating at DAL and then DFW c
215 sccutler : BN and TI leaving surely helped - but operations from DFW were antithetical to WN's business model - too far away for intrastate flying to make sense
216 txagkuwait : No, they did not operate all of their flights in/out of convenient Love Field. They only operated flights which competed directly with Southwest Airl
217 par13del : Why did they leave, anyone suggesting that WN got together with the DAL authorities to kick them out? Why would they, WN was a small carrier, they we
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 App Now Available For BlackBerry And Android posted Mon Dec 13 2010 13:30:48 by elbandgeek
Allegiant - Hawaii Now 2012, Will Announce LGB-LAS posted Wed Nov 17 2010 12:00:22 by FATFlyer
UA Seat Upgrades Now Available To CO Elites posted Tue Oct 12 2010 09:49:53 by ukoverlander
Final Report For LH 044 Incident Now Available posted Thu Mar 4 2010 05:19:40 by Rabenschlag
Midwest OMA-MCO & OMA-TPA Will They Keep Them? posted Fri Nov 20 2009 11:37:41 by Rj777
SAR Twin Otter Now Available: posted Wed Jun 17 2009 17:13:41 by 2175301
CO IAH-GIG Now Available posted Tue May 19 2009 08:47:01 by AznMadSci
A332+A350 Pictures Now Available On US Fleet Page posted Thu Jan 29 2009 16:12:55 by USAirALB
Now Airlines,What Happened To Them? posted Tue Jul 8 2008 14:08:20 by Cumulus
SAN Final EIR Now Available posted Wed Apr 23 2008 17:29:52 by SANFan