Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SWA Plans "Substantial" Growth At Love Field  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13857 times:

Well probably no surprise with the Wright Amendment handcuffs coming off at Dallas Love Field in 2014, the prospects have Southwest Airlines officials excited.

In an interview the chief commercial officer Bob Jordan calls the lifting a "fabulous opportunity".

He says the airline knows its North Texas customers prefer nonstop service, and as such expect to add "substantial number of not just new destinations but also new flights" out of Love Field.

More specifically he certainly expects Southwest to connect Love with its major cities like Chicago, Las Vegas and Phoenix with new nonstop service.

They also see boost in DAL departures by 30-40 new daily flights with airport enplanements climbing 25% "easily".

Also part of the lifting of restrictions SWA sees "modest reductions" coming to some of its shorthaul routes from Love which today are being propped up by customers going to beyond markets.

But all in all Bob Jordan says “The sum total of all this will be more flights, more passengers out of Love Field.”

Story:
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/a...om-dallas-love-field-handcuffs.ece

All in all the Metroplex market will become even more competitive by late 2014. Good for consumers.

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
121 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4718 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13733 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
They also see boost in DAL departures by 30-40 new daily flight

At that level, I dont expect a lot of new cities...

If you figure:
MDW 7x
LAX,LAS, ATL, PHX and BWI at 5x
SFO, LGA at 4x
SEA, MCO and BNA at 3x

You are at about 50 flights right there and only 10 cities (all of which at that levels are still at a massive frequency disadvantage)



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7726 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13715 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
They also see boost in DAL departures by 30-40 new daily flights with airport enplanements climbing 25% "easily".
Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Also part of the lifting of restrictions SWA sees "modest reductions" coming to some of its shorthaul routes from Love which today are being propped up by customers going to beyond markets.

I wasn't aware they were able to add flights given the gate reduction. Well, if you think about it, this is a really big deal for the rest of the WN network.

They are essentially saying they are going to add 60+ beyond perimeter RTs fractionally funded by ~20 short trips. Allowing for stage variance, that's like adding about 100 departures (switching from roundtrips to departures and deducting the short flights at a 50% stage discount) all of which are 3-4 hours in average stage. That's say 350 block hours net added and works out to about 30 aircraft. Guess what? WN is basically fleet neutral, so they are going to take 30 planes from somewhere in their network to fund this. Care to guess where?

#1 Choice: ATL


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4154 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13692 times:

With DAL finally becoming a legitimate connection point we could very likely see fewer flights at current east-west transit airports such as PHX, ABQ, STL and MCI. I think the vast majority of WN traffic will eventually be routed across the country through one of DAL, DEN and MDW.

User currently offlineAAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13673 times:

Agreed that its good news for the Dallas side of the metroplex.

Unlike the late-1970s when DFW was a brand new airport, the D/FW area is now large enough to fully support the use of both airports. This will cetainly effect pricing levels to a degree but otherwise it will be business as usual at both facilites.
I wonder if WN at some point pushes futher and requests the abillity to fly to Mexico from Love ...



Next
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13588 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 2):
Well, if you think about it, this is a really big deal for the rest of the WN network.

  

Yes the removal of the artificial quarantine around Love will indeed create ripples around the Southwest network.

Not only does the company gain the ability to finally connect its North Texas home and customers nonstop across the nation, it does allow for easier of passenger (and cargo) connection flow across the network.

Also for the first time that I recall seeing, SWA discusses what we long suspected - many DAL shorthaul markets are there to provide beyond links, and their frequency is above what the market can support on its own. Certainly going to be a loss I think for airports like ABQ, ELP, OKC, TUL, MSY, etc that see lots of 1-stop continuing service today imo.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinealggag From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13558 times:

As a Houston based WN flyer it's going to feel strange to connect in DAL while on my way to somewhere other than LBB.  
Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 4):
I wonder if WN at some point pushes futher and requests the abillity to fly to Mexico from Love ...

Maybe, but the next battleground will probably be to get the gate limit removed. Trying to get international service would be a huge battle as they would have to get the Wright Amendment 100% removed to allow the international flying "in principle" just to get into a HOU 2.0 type battle for international facilities. 


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2952 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13500 times:

Give Dallas some true, national competition. Good for consumers. Doesn't AA still have some gates there? Most likely they will add some nonstops to protect some traffic to higher yielding markets (i.e. LGA, LAX, etc.).

Does Love have much room to expand? With the restrictions off the opportunity is there not just for WN, but for everyone else too.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17829 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13463 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
many DAL shorthaul markets are there to provide beyond links, and their frequency is above what the market can support on its own. Certainly going to be a loss I think for airports like ABQ, ELP, OKC, TUL, MSY, etc that see lots of 1-stop continuing service today

I think this is the bigger, not really surprising, news here--I'm more curious where the current DAL routes will end up circa 2015 and beyond than what will be added.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 7):
Give Dallas some true, national competition

NK beat them to the punch.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 7):
Doesn't AA still have some gates there? Most likely they will add some nonstops to protect some traffic to higher yielding markets (i.e. LGA, LAX, etc.).

I'd like to think AA has learned from the last couple times they tried this but I doubt it. Then again I suspect US will not allow such a pointless waste of money and resources.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinealggag From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13460 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 7):
Does Love have much room to expand? With the restrictions off the opportunity is there not just for WN, but for everyone else too.

Not really - a consequence for removing the perimeter rule was the institution of a 20 gate rule, 16 of which for WN.


User currently offlinesdoyon From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13403 times:

Any thoughts on how much (if any) DAL-HOU will be reduced? I have no doubt they can fill most of these seats with O&D pax, but 25 seems a little high--maybe 20?

Without a doubt, MAF/LBB/AMA won't stay at 6x daily--I see these as 2 daily tops. This will free up for places like DEN, MDW, LAS, LAX, OAK, BOS, and LGA (I'm pretty sure DAL-LGA is within the LGA perimeter, but I could be wrong).


User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13358 times:

Quoting alggag (Reply 9):
a consequence for removing the perimeter rule was the institution of a 20 gate rule, 16 of which for WN.

Assuming 15-16 hours a day of operation (6AM to 9 or 10PM), how many departures could WN schedule from 16 gates?



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5948 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13349 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 7):
Does Love have much room to expand? With the restrictions off the opportunity is there not just for WN, but for everyone else too.

No, it's hemmed in on all sides, really, by lakes, roads, hoses, etc.
BUT- given how large aircraft (747) have served it in the past, aircraft size is not an issue.
Given how many customers have transited there in the past, and again in recent years, that sort of infrastructure isn't an issue, either.
All in all, I don't think there is any need for expansion, EXCEPT this 20-gate rule nonsense, but unlike above posters, I believe it is here to stay, for another thirty years anyhow. But it limits things pretty severely.
16 gates are for WM, 2 for UA, and 2 for AA/DL. The language in the agreement says that if a new carrier wants in (jetBlue, Virgin, and airTran were the names thrown around at the time), then everyone has to play nice and voluntarily share their gates with them. Yeah, right. That'll happen.


User currently offlinesdoyon From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13325 times:

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 11):
Assuming 15-16 hours a day of operation (6AM to 9 or 10PM), how many departures could WN schedule from 16 gates?

I think WN would be ecstatic if they could get 10 departures per gate per day out of DAL, or around 160 flights a day. Any more than that and they run the risk of jamming up the entire operation when a 40-minute turn suddenly goes tech.

[Edited 2013-03-25 12:11:49]

User currently onlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13299 times:

No offense but the author also states that Continental leases/owns 2 gates at DAL.

User currently offlinealggag From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13304 times:

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 10):
Any thoughts on how much (if any) DAL-HOU will be reduced? I have no doubt they can fill most of these seats with O&D pax, but 25 seems a little high--maybe 20?

Depending on the time of day some of the loads can be quite low. For example, the last time I flew my booked flight was cancelled (mechanical) and all passengers from my flight were accommodated on the next flight with enough room still to spare for standby passengers that themselves were originally booked on even later flights! That said, they would have to step very carefully on making any adjustments as a lot of passengers that fly this route are on full fare tickets and count on basically just being able to show up at either DAL or HOU at anytime of the day and getting on the next available flight.


User currently onlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13224 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 3):
With DAL finally becoming a legitimate connection point we could very likely see fewer flights at current east-west transit airports such as PHX, ABQ, STL and MCI.

I doubt you see too many losses around PHX, STL, or MCI. I tend to think the buildup at DAL will be about better serving the local market and adding non-stops that overfly the previous connecting points, not moving connections through DAL instead of places like PHX or MCI.

The stations I think are going to get hurt the most are the ones that WN used to route their DAL customers out to non-Wright airports. It will be airports in Texas and the border states that will see scehdule trims. ABQ, OKC, MSY, HOU, AUS, SAT, and ELP might all see a few flights lost as that connecting traffic from DAL is reduced.

This will be the final nail in ABQ as a decent connecting point for WN, as it was really the most logical place for connections when traveling from DAL to cities like PHX, LAX, SAN, and LAS. We've already seen ABQ lose much of its prominence for connections at WN as DEN has been built up. The shift from a 733 heavy fleet to 73G also made it easier for east coast to west coast passengers to overfly ABQ instead of connecting there, so the longer haul marginal markets like TPA, PDX and MCO were either reduced or eliminated from ABQ. They'll still sell connections as the schedule allows, but I think ABQ is going to get squeezed a little more from this with lost frequencies to DAL and a few out west that took lots of connecting passengers, and could end up somewhere around 35-40 flights a day, where a decade ago it was almost 70.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13173 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
They also see boost in DAL departures by 30-40 new daily flights with airport enplanements climbing 25% "easily".

Just as expected - "substantial growth" is likely to amount to a few dozen new departures. A marked increase, for sure, but I don't expect it will have all that dramatic a net effect. I suspect probably around 60 new departures to new beyond-Wright markets, with around 2/3 of that incremental departure growth from new flights, and the other 1/3 from displacing shorthaul departures.

Will be interesting to see how it goes ...

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 4):
Unlike the late-1970s when DFW was a brand new airport, the D/FW area is now large enough to fully support the use of both airports. This will cetainly effect pricing levels to a degree but otherwise it will be business as usual at both facilites.

  

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 7):
Doesn't AA still have some gates there? Most likely they will add some nonstops to protect some traffic to higher yielding markets (i.e. LGA, LAX, etc.).

AA still holds leases on 2 gates at DAL that will likely be getting well-used come next year. I suspect AA will fly a fairly predictable pattern to major U.S. O&D centers and major hubs - at a minimum ORD, LGA, LAX and likely MIA, plus possibly other markets like DCA, SFO, etc. Given the capacity constraints, I doubt it will total more than around 20 daily departures.


User currently offlinealggag From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12882 times:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 16):
The stations I think are going to get hurt the most are the ones that WN used to route their DAL customers out to non-Wright airports. It will be airports in Texas and the border states that will see scehdule trims. ABQ, OKC, MSY, HOU, AUS, SAT, and ELP might all see a few flights lost as that connecting traffic from DAL is reduced.

I don't think HOU will see any real noticeable reductions. Keep in mind that this will be happening around the time that HOU will likely be turning into WN's gateway to Central America on top of its existing duties as a big domestic station.

[Edited 2013-03-25 13:27:15]

User currently onlineAVENSAB727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 981 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12848 times:

Quoting alggag (Reply 6):

Maybe, but the next battleground will probably be to get the gate limit removed. Trying to get international service would be a huge battle as they would have to get the Wright Amendment 100% removed to allow the international flying "in principle" just to get into a HOU 2.0 type battle for international facilities. 

I see, I can see AA fighting that. I can only wonder what could happen if SWA wins the right to fly internationally from DAL.



Always look on the bright side of Life!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12755 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 7):



Give Dallas some true, national competition. Good for consumers. Doesn't AA still have some gates there? Most likely they will add some nonstops to protect some traffic to higher yielding markets (i.e. LGA, LAX, etc.).

I'm thinking a merged/undergoing merger AA is going to have bigger fish to fry, and the whole Love Field debacle is going to be but a distant memory...   Especially if a merged AA headquarters ends up in PHX.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12719 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 2):
WN is basically fleet neutral, so they are going to take 30 planes from somewhere in their network to fund this. Care to guess where?

#1 Choice: ATL

I'll say you're just as right on this as you were with saying the code-share was never going to happen...

By then the ROIC should be on track and growth will happen.



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12605 times:

Here is a quick and dirty of the top O&D metros from DFW that fall outside the DAL perimeter.

Gives a bit of clue where SWA might want to go.

Los Angeles - 4,021
New York - 3,186
Chicago - 2,697
Washington D.C. - 2,659
San Francisco - 2,541
Las Vegas - 2,240
Atlanta - 2,219
Denver - 1,920
Miami - 1,653
Orlando - 1,416
Seattle - 1,306
Boston - 1,188
Philadelphia - 1,088
Phoenix - 1,031
Minneapolis - 900
Detroit - 787
San Diego - 746
Salt Lake - 733
Charlotte - 655
Tampa - 608
Portland - 549
Milwaukee - 524
Nashville - 473
Cleveland - 462
Raleigh - 450
Pittsburgh - 414
Jacksonville - 398
Indianapolis - 394
Sacramento - 362
Columbus - 432
Cincinnati - 316
Reno - 313
Hartford - 311
Tucson - 307

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinecactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2451 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12544 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 20):
Especially if a merged AA headquarters ends up in PHX.

Not going to happen.



You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5948 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12480 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 17):
AA still holds leases on 2 gates at DAL that will likely be getting well-used come next year. I suspect AA will fly a fairly predictable pattern to major U.S. O&D centers and major hubs - at a minimum ORD, LGA, LAX and likely MIA, plus possibly other markets like DCA, SFO, etc. Given the capacity constraints, I doubt it will total more than around 20 daily departures.

I respectfully disagree.

AA tried DAL... ORD, MCI, STL, and... one other place that escapes me at the moment.
It didn't work.
It didn't work with F100's back at the turn of the century.
It didn't work with MD-80s a few years ago.
It didn't work with ERJ's the year after that.

I don't know how successful DL is with DAL-MEM (I think they're capitalizing on people who don't know the difference between DAL and DFW... their pax, as compared to us CO DAL veterans, always look dazed and confused). But I don't expect that to be long-term, either. Maybe ATL or something... we'll see.


User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12945 times:

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 10):
I'm pretty sure DAL-LGA is within the LGA perimeter, but I could be wrong).

You are correct LGA-DAL is 1380 mi.....inside the 1500 mi perimeter rule   


User currently offlinewilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12923 times:

Quoting AVENSAB727 (Reply 19):

Bifg

Quoting AVENSAB727 (Reply 19):
Quoting alggag (Reply 6):

Maybe, but the next battleground will probably be to get the gate limit removed. Trying to get international service would be a huge battle as they would have to get the Wright Amendment 100% removed to allow the international flying "in principle" just to get into a HOU 2.0 type battle for international facilities.

I see, I can see AA fighting that. I can only wonder what could happen if SWA wins the right to fly internationally from DAL

There is a gate cap at Love field, unlike Hobby.


User currently offlinepanam330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2693 posts, RR: 9
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13352 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 14):
No offense but the author also states that Continental leases/owns 2 gates at DAL.

How is that offensive? They're United gates now that CO is gone.

Quoting cactus739 (Reply 23):
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 20):
Especially if a merged AA headquarters ends up in PHX.

Not going to happen.

   It will stay in Texas until hell freezes over.


User currently offlinewwtraveler99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13085 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 24):
AA tried DAL... ORD, MCI, STL, and... one other place that escapes me at the moment.

Looks like AUS is the one that escaped you.


Also maybe the rumored deal with Boeing/Ryanair/Southwest has a little truth to it. Now it makes even more sense.

They will need some planes.


WW


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12849 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 24):
AA tried DAL... ORD, MCI, STL, and... one other place that escapes me at the moment.
It didn't work.
It didn't work with F100's back at the turn of the century.
It didn't work with MD-80s a few years ago.
It didn't work with ERJ's the year after that.

All of that is meaningless in telling us how AA may perform going forward for one critical reason: AA in the past was never able to simultaneously fly the right routes and the right aircraft from DAL. AA at various times was able to do one or the other, but not both. Ultra-low-density, all-premium F100s and 1-class 50-seat RJs are suboptimal for flying longhaul from DAL, which were the only markets AA could ever hope to compete in, anyway (not AUS, MCI, etc.).


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17829 posts, RR: 46
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12777 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 29):
AA in the past was never able to simultaneously fly the right routes and the right aircraft from DAL

I think more importantly, AA doesn't need to be in DAL any more than it needs to be in MDW, or FLL, when it can compete much more effectively with much more scale a few miles to the west. It can try with the right plane on the 'right' route and it will be clobbered right back to DFW like it was before, *or* a post bankruptcy, merged AA can compete effectively from its powerhouse hub and actually inflict some meaningful damage on DAL.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently onlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12640 times:

Quoting panam330 (Reply 27):
How is that offensive? They're United gates now that CO is gone.

I was making the point that the author couldn't even get the simple fact that CO hasn't existed in over a year, so should the article be seen as just some more PR hype around Wright.


User currently offlineTigerguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1003 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12575 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 31):
I was making the point that the author couldn't even get the simple fact that CO hasn't existed in over a year

The author was not referring to CO existing today. In explaining the parts of the 2006 compromise and the events that were scheduled to happen in the future, one of the parties was the still-existing CO.

Quote:
Love Field’s facilities would be remodeled or replaced, with an all-new 20-gate concourse to replace all existing gates at the 1958-era airport. Southwest would control 16 gates, with Continental Airlines Inc. and American Airlines each controlling two.



Flying friendly for a while, but is that a widget I see in the rear-view mirror?
User currently offlinewnflyguy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12667 times:

I think DAL will become 737-800 heavy in OCT 2014.
I see the morning line up like this.
6am LAX--737-800
6am LGA--737-800
6am BWI--737-800
6am SFO--737-800
6am PHX--737-800
6am BOS--737-800
6am ATL--737-800
6am DEN--737-800
6am LAS--737-800
6am MDW--737-800
6am STL
6am AUS
605am MSY
605am ELP
605am HOU
605am SAT.


I see DAL also getting a few a one day flights like
1 SNA
1 FLL
1 MKE
1 PVD
1 SEA
1 PDX
1 SJU
1 MSP
1 PHL
1 PIT
1 BDL
1 BUF
1 RDU
1 OAK
I also see a 9 or 10 pm bank to major cities.
wnfg 

[Edited 2013-03-25 16:53:32]

[Edited 2013-03-25 16:55:10]


my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12534 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 30):
I think more importantly, AA doesn't need to be in DAL any more than it needs to be in MDW, or FLL, when it can compete much more effectively with much more scale a few miles to the west. It can try with the right plane on the 'right' route and it will be clobbered right back to DFW like it was before, *or* a post bankruptcy, merged AA can compete effectively from its powerhouse hub and actually inflict some meaningful damage on DAL.

I don't really disagree with you.

I don't think the convenience of Love Field, nor for that matter Southwest, is quite the scary competitor it might have once been, and as such, I don't think the opening of Love Field is going to have quite as dramatic an impact on the DFW hub as some have predicted in the past.

I was simply making the point that, either way, the relative success or failure of past AA incursions into Love are not necessarily an accurate predictor of future outcomes, since AA will now be freed of several inhibitions that had limited its ability to compete optimally in the past.


User currently offlineJoeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 956 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12480 times:

Don't forget about OMA! Remember, this wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for the US Senator from Nebraska that pushed the Wright amendment change through Washington! An Omaha newspaper article years ago stated that a southwest spokesperson said that Omaha would definitely be added once 2014 hits. I know times have changed a ton from back then but it would really be a slap in the face if OMA-DAL wasn't on the list.

Plus I believe the O/D is plenty to support this service, especially with the plethora of easy connections to places like AUS, SAT, HOU, MSY and other TX cities that you now have to go through STL or MDW to get to from OMA. Not nearly as direct!!

My guess is OMA is included on this list at 2x daily.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12332 times:

Regarding AA, I don't think being at Love is much a deal for them even post Wright.

With 2 gates, and AA's slower/more complex operation they certainly wont be mounting many flights even if they tried again.

Frankly if allowed, they might get more value by selling/leasing the gates to SWA instead.

Quoting Joeljack (Reply 35):
Plus I believe the O/D is plenty to support this service

OMA is far down the list - 294 per day.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2266 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12349 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
Then again I suspect US will not allow such a pointless waste of money and resources.

   New Sheriff in town, and he knows how to make money with airplanes.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 20):
Especially if a merged AA headquarters ends up in PHX.

The HQ will stay in FTW. That was part of the initial announcements last Fall.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 33):

I think DAL will become 737-800 heavy in OCT 2014.

   Agree, and believe this is one reason for their recent interest in used 800s.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently onlineTW870 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12222 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 10):
Without a doubt, MAF/LBB/AMA won't stay at 6x daily--I see these as 2 daily tops. This will free up for places like DEN, MDW, LAS, LAX, OAK, BOS, and LGA (I'm pretty sure DAL-LGA is within the LGA perimeter, but I could be wrong).

Why would places like LBB and MAF lose service with the change? They already send their traffic to DAL for connections, and it seems like the new plan will give them even more one-stop connecting opportunities. I was looking at taking a job in LBB, and I would never have used WN - even though I like them - because I would have had to do 2 stops to get so many places. Now I would absolutely chose WN over AA out of LBB if they both had one stop service.

Unless the intra-Texas flights were artificially overscheduled to cope with the Wright amendment, it seems like they will stay the same. Its the 1-stop cities outside Texas like OKC or ABQ that I would think would be most impacted.


User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12067 times:

Quoting TW870 (Reply 38):
Unless the intra-Texas flights were artificially overscheduled to cope with the Wright amendment, it seems like they will stay the same. Its the 1-stop cities outside Texas like OKC or ABQ that I would think would be most impacted.

N/S service out of DAL will be overflying the current stops.



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 12034 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 24):
Maybe ATL or something... we'll see.

DL currently flies ATL-DAL on CRJ-200's. A friend of mine flew it last week. I'm not sure how well it does for DL, though.


User currently offlinesdoyon From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 11895 times:

Quoting TW870 (Reply 38):
Why would places like LBB and MAF lose service with the change?

As you postulated yourself, these flights may be artificially overscheduled. I am of the opinion that they are. How is it that MAF-HOU has 3x daily flights but DAL has 6x daily? The metro sizes are almost equal (+300K to DAL), but the HOU hub is bigger and better connected to the rest of the WN network.

There is no doubt in my mind WN is overscheduling these cities to better use the gates in DAL until the opportunity arrises for expanded growth. Remember, WN has incentive to use their gates in DAL, if another carrier comes in, they are required to share their space as needed. Better to overschedule and prevent the competition from muscling in on their home turf.

In addition, these places like MAF/AMA/LBB are chock full of $100 WGA fares, where as:
- DFW-BOS: $499 when you exclude NK and B6
- DFW-LGA: $545 when you exclude NK
- DFW-ATL: $391 when you exclude NK

When you remove NK and AA from the equation, there is a real opportunity for WN to have $250-$350 fares in these markets, and in my opinion, transform DAL from a regional hub into a national one.

[Edited 2013-03-25 18:52:34]

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5948 posts, RR: 11
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11665 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 40):
DL currently flies ATL-DAL on CRJ-200's. A friend of mine flew it last week. I'm not sure how well it does for DL, though.

Really? I was almost certain it was NW's old Memphis route...


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13552 posts, RR: 100
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is an exciting change for WN and DAL.

Am I the only one excited by WN able to open up 'hubs' from DAL and thus tremendously expanding their customer base.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
All in all the Metroplex market will become even more competitive by late 2014. Good for consumers.

Agreed, it will be quite a shift though!

Quoting commavia (Reply 17):
and the other 1/3 from displacing shorthaul departures.

I agree with your ratios. While DAL will gain flights and gauge, there will be many short hauls reduced in frequency. I wonder if any will be dropped?  
Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 33):

I think DAL will become 737-800 heavy in OCT 2014.

I agree. Those flights will up-gauge very quickly.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1488 posts, RR: 17
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11597 times:

Quoting alggag (Reply 9):
Not really - a consequence for removing the perimeter rule was the institution of a 20 gate rule, 16 of which for WN.

That's a monopoly on gates. WN should be forced to give up gates to new entrants like VX, B6 and the legacy carriers should also get a few gates......this is what WN has argued for their own handout of legacy gates at slot/gate limited airports.


User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11565 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 44):
Quoting alggag (Reply 9):
Not really - a consequence for removing the perimeter rule was the institution of a 20 gate rule, 16 of which for WN.

That's a monopoly on gates. WN should be forced to give up gates to new entrants like VX, B6 and the legacy carriers should also get a few gates......this is what WN has argued for their own handout of legacy gates at slot/gate limited airports.

I believe all of this was agreed to with the airlines in return for the 2014 repeal of the WA, so no turning back now. And as someone else mentioned earlier, if a new entrant wants to come in gate space must be made available.

In regards to AA, I can't see them cannibalizing their DFW service save for maybe a few flights to ORD, DCA and LGA. As far as DL and UA, who knows...


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11591 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1):
MDW 7x
LAX,LAS, ATL, PHX and BWI at 5x
SFO, LGA at 4x
SEA, MCO and BNA at 3x

I think that is too many, youre at 49 there. My guess

MDW x5-5
LAX x3-8
PHX x3-11
ATL x3-14
LAS x3-17
BWI x3-20
BNA x2-22
MCO x2-24
DEN x3-27
OAK x1-28
RDU x1-29
TPA x1-30
Long shots
LGA x3-33
DCA x2-35

DAL will not be trying to grab tons of pax from DFW.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 3):
With DAL finally becoming a legitimate connection point we could very likely see fewer flights at current east-west transit airports such as PHX, ABQ, STL and MCI.

I don't think so, 30-40 more DAL flights isn't enough to kill those cities. I Do think youll see fewer flights from DAL to STL ABQ,and MCI. Probably cut in half

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 11):
Assuming 15-16 hours a day of operation (6AM to 9 or 10PM), how many departures could WN schedule from 16 gates?

I think DAL is something like 12 departures per gate, one of the highest in the industry. I don't think it will that high. Maybe 10. That would put them at 160 which is roughly they have today plus 30 or so.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7321 posts, RR: 57
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11572 times:

Can DAL not use gates to serve multiple flights by using bussing 'technology' That would allow, for example a 6am and a 6.30am departure from the same gate - one of them being bussed to remote stand.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11565 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 47):
Can DAL not use gates to serve multiple flights by using bussing 'technology' That would allow, for example a 6am and a 6.30am departure from the same gate - one of them being bussed to remote stand.

1. There is no reason for that
2. WN would never do that
3. That would violate the spirit if not the actual agreement concerning the size of DAL and number of gates

Fort Worth and DFW would be in Federal Court in 2 sec if that happened.


User currently offlinealggag From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 11504 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 46):
I think that is too many, youre at 49 there. My guess

MDW x5-5
LAX x3-8
PHX x3-11
ATL x3-14
LAS x3-17
BWI x3-20
BNA x2-22
MCO x2-24
DEN x3-27
OAK x1-28
RDU x1-29
TPA x1-30
Long shots
LGA x3-33
DCA x2-35

DAL will not be trying to grab tons of pax from DFW.

This is more realistic than some of the, how shall I say, more optimistic predictions. DAL would be slightly larger than today's HOU - that, along with their similar location and similar market size is why I say that DAL post Wright will look more or less like today's HOU. But, I think WN might steal some LGA or EWR flights from HOU over to DAL along with maybe 2x to SFO. Otherwise, that's about it.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5948 posts, RR: 11
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 11354 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 45):
As far as DL and UA, who knows...

Rumor had it that pre-merger CO wanted to expand DAL greatly, at the expense of DFW service.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 47):
Can DAL not use gates to serve multiple flights by using bussing 'technology' That would allow, for example a 6am and a 6.30am departure from the same gate - one of them being bussed to remote stand.

No, see below:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 48):
3. That would violate the spirit if not the actual agreement concerning the size of DAL and number of gates

The language actually explicitly states NO HARDSTAND OPERATIONS. It's 20 gates, and that's it... even to the point of demolishing the entire Legend Airlines Executive Terminal. Sad that, that way. Stupid.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 11020 times:

Quoting alggag (Reply 49):
BWI x3-20
BNA x2-22

Actually let me switch BNA and BWI. BWI would be 2 and BNA 3. I think STL and MCI will shrink to 4-5 from 8-10 today.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7321 posts, RR: 57
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 10773 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 50):

The language actually explicitly states NO HARDSTAND OPERATIONS. It's 20 gates, and that's it... even to the point of demolishing the entire Legend Airlines Executive Terminal. Sad that, that way. Stupid.

Thanks for the explanation. This is a very restrictive rule indeed.

Are they allowed to Hard Stand in case of delays, or are passengers stuck on board?

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 48):

2. WN would never do that

Getting a bus to the plan isn't that terrible.


Perhaps WN will be visiting EasyJet to learn how to turn an aircraft in thirty minutes.

Otherwise, could it mean a 6am departure, followed by a 6.20 being tugged onto the Jetway at 06:05 - aircraft being prepared (Crewed, fueled, bags, etc all fulfilled remotely)?

Having never flown to DAL - is there a passenger hold area where passengers can be given gate information 45 minutes before departure to allow total flexibility in gate operations?



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 10705 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Getting a bus to the plan isn't that terrible.

We generally don't do that in the USA. Europe does it because of the lack of space but in the USA, space is not such a premium. I cant off hand think of an US airport where mainline aircraft are hardstanded on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it is exceedingly rare.


User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 10487 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Perhaps WN will be visiting EasyJet to learn how to turn an aircraft in thirty minutes.

WN routinely does 25-30 minute turns at DAL.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
is there a passenger hold area

No.

Just a FYI... http://www.lovefieldmodernizationprogram.com/



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5948 posts, RR: 11
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 10448 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Perhaps WN will be visiting EasyJet to learn how to turn an aircraft in thirty minutes.

Hah! Funny joke! You're forgiven, because you aren't from this country, and you're not privy to the revolution that was travel on WN in the 1970's.
WN INVENTED the 10-minute turn. Their whole business model was built around it at one point.
Passengers had to cooperate, i.e., take the first seat they could find on the plane, and not hog the aisle. That would never work today- no one in the traveling American public is capable of thinking of anyone other than themselves, it seems...
But in the 1970's, for WN, it had to be done in ten minutes. Flat.
And it all started at DAL.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 10377 times:

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 21):

A few of the planes to fund DAL expansion will come from reductions in DAL itself. Also 30-40 flights per day doesn't translate into 30 lines of flying. More like 10.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10187 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Otherwise, could it mean a 6am departure, followed by a 6.20 being tugged onto the Jetway

From my understanding that would still be in violation of the hardstand rule. This is crazy!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7321 posts, RR: 57
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10175 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 55):
Hah! Funny joke! You're forgiven, because you aren't from this country, and you're not privy to the revolution that was travel on WN in the 1970's.

It was a joke BTW. I know where it all started!

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 53):
We generally don't do that in the USA. Europe does it because of the lack of space but in the USA, space is not such a premium. I cant off hand think of an US airport where mainline aircraft are hardstanded on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it is exceedingly rare.

I was thinking out of the box at a way that WN could increase frequencies from the limited gates they have. Europe does it also as one mega LCC refuses to pay for air bridges.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 55):
That would never work today- no one in the traveling American public is capable of thinking of anyone other than themselves

And is shows at the horror shown here of the concept of walking outside for thirty seconds. I'll get back in my "hardstand pinko socialist gun hating euro lovin' bus to plane" box.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5703 posts, RR: 52
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10133 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 53):

We generally don't do that in the USA. Europe does it because of the lack of space but in the USA, space is not such a premium. I cant off hand think of an US airport where mainline aircraft are hardstanded on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it is exceedingly rare.

Burbank Airport would have to be one right? I know you said rare, but that is def a US Airport that would utilize hard stand on a regular scheduled basis?

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10119 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 24):
Maybe ATL or something... we'll see.

MEM got cut a while a go....moved here(ATL)

Quoting commavia (Reply 29):
50-seat RJs are suboptimal for flying longhaul from DAL, which were the only markets AA could ever hope to compete in, anyway (not AUS, MCI, etc.).

Delta seems to be making ATL-DAL work(with 2x the cost of fuel when AA's ORD-DAL failed) Same goes for UA and DEN-DAL.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 42):
Really? I was almost certain it was NW's old Memphis route...

Delta was the one that started MEM-DAL(at least the last time) along with some other Texas flying.

ATL-DAL
DL5104 0811-0930 CRJ
DL5154 1055-1220 CRJ
DL5272 1408-1530 CRJ
DL5326 1601-1723 CRJ
DL5368 2052-2216 CRJ

DAL-ATL
DL5462 0715-1015 CRJ
DL5104 0955-1253 CRJ
DL5154 1245-1546 CRJ
DL5272 1555-1855 CRJ
DL5326 1755-2057 CRJ

Delta's Texas network is DFW/DAL/IAH/HOU/ELP/SAT/AUS/GRK. ELP/GRK/DAL are only flown from ATL.

Delta also start MFE/LBB/AMA-MEM after the merger...all have been cut AFAIK. (I think DAL was the only one to get moved to ATL)



yep.
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10110 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 51):
I think STL and MCI will shrink to 4-5 from 8-10 today.

I could see six to STL, most if not all on the -800. Even though MDW and other major markets will be accessible N/S from DAL there are still a lot of connecting opportunities from STL as well as a good sized local market.

In fact I think they have -800's currently running thru STL to/from DAL.


User currently onlinedeltacto From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 9841 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 42):
Really? I was almost certain it was NW's old Memphis route...
DL started ATL-DAL September 2012

Delta Launches ATL-DAL In September (by cat3dual Jul 7 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Before that DL flew DAL-MEM 3/day starting July 2009

Delta To Restart Service At Dallas-Love (by FrequentFlyKid Apr 23 2009 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2013-03-26 04:02:23]

[Edited 2013-03-26 04:03:41]

Delta/ASA flew DAL-ATL before but suspended the route in 2003

Delta Connection To Suspend Service At DAL (by ScottysAir Mar 13 2003 in Civil Aviation)


[Edited 2013-03-26 04:11:34]

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5948 posts, RR: 11
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 9754 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 60):
Delta seems to be making ATL-DAL work(with 2x the cost of fuel when AA's ORD-DAL failed) Same goes for UA and DEN-DAL.

UA's DEN-DAL has been cancelled, effective Jan 31st 2013. Bummer, as it made a nice one-stop to Dallas from Anchorage for me.... rather than the SEA-IAH-DAL routine.
But it wasn't a surprise; the flight was routinely priced $200 higher than via IAH to DAL, so... go figure, no one booked it, I guess.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 58):
And is shows at the horror shown here of the concept of walking outside for thirty seconds. I'll get back in my "hardstand pinko socialist gun hating euro lovin' bus to plane" box.

Hah. Okay then!

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 60):
Delta was the one that started MEM-DAL(at least the last time) along with some other Texas flying.
Quoting deltacto (Reply 62):
DL started ATL-DAL September 2012

Alright. I'da sworn that there was a DL flight to Memphis just two weeks ago as I waited for my IAH ERJ in terminal 1... But evidently, I'da been wrong!


User currently offlineAusTexFlyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 9397 times:

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 41):
As you postulated yourself, these flights may be artificially overscheduled. I am of the opinion that they are. How is it that MAF-HOU has 3x daily flights but DAL has 6x daily? The metro sizes are almost equal (+300K to DAL), but the HOU hub is bigger and better connected to the rest of the WN network.

If anything, Midland could support more flights to HOU than to DAL N/S anyway. I haven't looked up official numbers, but being somebody that has earned CO/UA Platinum status (on segments flown) a couple of times doing nothing but flying AUS-IAH-MAF-IAH-AUS, with several trips on WN AUS-DAL-MAF and AUS-HOU-MAF thrown in as well, the Houston to Midland traffic is certainly heavier. The HOU-MAF flights are always full, and the MAF-DAL flights carry quite a lot of people connecting on to HOU. The oil business traffic between Houston and Midland overwhelms the Dallas to Midland traffic.

I can see WN moving a couple of MAF flights from DAL to HOU, but not reducing MAF's daily departures much. If they do cut MAF, I suspect they will regret it.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 33
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 9287 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Are they allowed to Hard Stand in case of delays, or are passengers stuck on board?

This is the relevant paragraph of the agreement:

Quote:
Airlines may nor subdivide a "gate." A gate shall consist of one passenger hold room and one passenger loading jet bridge supporting one aircraft parking space and no hardstand operations, except as allowed herein, may be permitted. Nothing shall preclude any airline from utilizing hardstands for RON parking, maintenance, training or for irregular operations (i.e. flights that were scheduled originally for one of the twenty available gates and cannot be accommodated thereon due to weather, maintenance, or unforeseen emergencies), or other uses that do not involve passenger air service.
Source (See subsection A in part 3.)

So exceptions are made during irregular operations and passengers would not be stuck on board.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlinewwtraveler99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 9219 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 44):
That's a monopoly on gates. WN should be forced to give up gates to new entrants like VX, B6 and the legacy carriers should also get a few gates......this is what WN has argued for their own handout of legacy gates at slot/gate limited airports.

The problem with this is that airlines agree to it and its now a LAW. So WN is not required to give up gates. Neither is UA or AA. The airport is not required to build gates nor are they allowed to build them.


WW


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8566 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Perhaps WN will be visiting EasyJet to learn how to turn an aircraft in thirty minutes.

You realize - Southwest was the model for EasyJet. Stelios spent time with Southwest carefully studying their model.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8514 times:

I don't think you'll see DAL-MSY cut too much. The smallest number of nonstops I ever remember them having in the market was 5, and that was before they were allowed to sell DAL-Florida tickets, etc. They have 8 now. Considering it's a good sized O&D market, I can see them going down to maybe 6, but no less than that.

User currently offlineSELMER40 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 100 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8215 times:

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 33):

I see DAL also getting a few one daily flights like..

Memphis may need to be added to this list. If Memphis doesn't get at least one daily flight to DAL, the city leaders will be highly upset.

[Edited 2013-03-26 08:26:54]


Teaching this old dog a new trick
User currently offlineJBAirwaysFan From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8119 times:

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 4):
I wonder if WN at some point pushes futher and requests the abillity to fly to Mexico from Love ...

Probably not. If I recall correctly one of the provisions in the Wright Compromise prohibits international flights from DAL. So WN would have to fight to lift the gate limit and the international flights ban as well.



In Loving Memory of Casey Edward Falconer; May 16, 1992-May 9, 2012
User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 7628 times:

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 69):
Memphis may need to be added to this list. If Memphis doesn't get at least one daily flight to DAL, the city leaders will be highly upset.

Which city leaders? Memphis? Who would care if they're upset other than themselves? Absent a direct subsidy to support the service, WN will use its limited DAL capacity to serve wherever it'll make the most money. Why would MEM necessarily be one of those cities?


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2952 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 7442 times:

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 69):
Memphis may need to be added to this list. If Memphis doesn't get at least one daily flight to DAL, the city leaders will be highly upset.

Well, they continue to watch their status as a hub diminish. I don't think hell will break lose if they don't get a single flight to Love, especially since flights will remain to DFW.

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 71):
WN will use its limited DAL capacity to serve wherever it'll make the most money.

At the end of the day, this is what will drive the service.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 7364 times:

With DAL being able to serve a lot of east/west connect traffic flows post 2014 with the geographic position that they have, does anyone think that maybe DEN could be somewhat effected with cuts because of the lifting of the Wright restrictions? With the east/west connect traffic flows, it is now basically MDW and DEN that can serve these as maybe HOU may be a bit far south, and maybe STL a bit far east, and maybe MCI maybe just not big enough. But with DAL into the mix, it could certainly be that especially southern U.S. east/west connects will organically have another option with DAL for WN. Or will DAL be too constrained to really effect DEN, and even maybe other connects at MDW, STL and MCI, and would WN be smart and stick with their current thinking (as they need to be) and be basically focusing on the O&D at DAL?

 


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 7347 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 71):
Which city leaders? Memphis? Who would care if they're upset other than themselves? Absent a direct subsidy to support the service, WN will use its limited DAL capacity to serve wherever it'll make the most money. Why would MEM necessarily be one of those cities?

It's a decent-sized market right in the "sweet spot" as far as stage length at around 400 miles. I think it'll get a couple of daily flights. At only 110 PDEW, there's lots of room for stimulation. Compare BNA, which is about 330 PDEW, and it's not hard to see the upside.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7278 times:

Does the restriction on WN (or any airline wholly-owned by WN) serving DFW end with along with the interstate flying restrictions? Could WN then serve DFW if it wanted to?

User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 2024 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7258 times:

I don't think it can be mentioned enough how the opening up of DAL will lead to greater one-stop opportunities for WN. With the perimeter rule in place now, many smaller WN stations furthest away from DAL either do not have 1-stop service or have very limited 1-stop service. Opening DAL up to MDW, BWI, DEN, ATL, LAS, etc. will greatly expand the connecting opportunities and will be much more attractive to the customer.

User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5703 posts, RR: 52
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7304 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 75):
Does the restriction on WN (or any airline wholly-owned by WN) serving DFW end with along with the interstate flying restrictions? Could WN then serve DFW if it wanted to?

Nope. If WN chooses to serve DFW after 2014, they still must follow the rules of the new Wright Amendment and give up a gate for every flight they add at DFW or within an 80 mile radius of Dallas. The stipulation gets a bit tedious based on the amount of flights and gates but that's the basic gist of it.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2952 posts, RR: 6
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7309 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 75):
Could WN then serve DFW if it wanted to?

Nothing has ever stopped WN from serving DFW. They could start 100 flights tomorrow, in theory. WN has simply chosen not to serve DFW and lobby for the restrictions at DAL to expire.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6831 posts, RR: 32
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7176 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 60):
Delta seems to be making ATL-DAL work

Maybe it "works" with CR2's, or maybe they're operating the flights to establish a pre-existing use of a gate when the domestic restrictions end next year.

Quoting point2point (Reply 73):
With DAL being able to serve a lot of east/west connect traffic flows post 2014 with the geographic position that they have, does anyone think that maybe DEN could be somewhat effected with cuts because of the lifting of the Wright restrictions?

I think the effects on other connecting points, apart from reduced through/connecting traffic from DAL, will be somewhat limited as DAL will still remain constrained by the gate limitations. I expect that WN will focus more on carrying Dallas O&D traffic than on connecting traffic flows at DAL. That's why we may see a few flights from the smaller Texas cities shift to HOU, which won't face the same constraints.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 44):
That's a monopoly on gates. WN should be forced to give up gates to new entrants like VX, B6 and the legacy carriers should also get a few gates

The gate restrictions are incorporated into Federal law by reference in the Wright Amendment Reform Act. There's no other airport I'm aware of which has a gate cap imposed by Federal law.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Getting a bus to the plan isn't that terrible.

Given a choice and comparable prices, passengers book away from carriers using buses and hardstands. There are also issues with accommodating disabled passengers.


User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7041 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 78):
Nothing has ever stopped WN from serving DFW. They could start 100 flights tomorrow, in theory. WN has simply chosen not to serve DFW and lobby for the restrictions at DAL to expire.

Hi, BigG!  

I don't know the specifics, but there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL. When WN bought FL, they had to discontinue FL's services to DFW because FL had become a subsidiary of WN:

http://www.ajc.com/news/business/air...dallas-flights-result-of-te/nQLC6/

I've heard anecdotal reports that WN execs regularly fly AA or DL DFW-ATL for business since their own airlines can't fly them there. Cue Alanis Morissette.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2952 posts, RR: 6
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 6990 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
Hi, BigG!  

I don't know the specifics, but there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL. When WN bought FL, they had to discontinue FL's services to DFW because FL had become a subsidiary of WN:

http://www.ajc.com/news/business/air...dallas-flights-result-of-te/nQLC6/

I've heard anecdotal reports that WN execs regularly fly AA or DL DFW-ATL for business since their own airlines can't fly them there. Cue Alanis Morissette.

Ironic indeed. Thanks. I stand corrected.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6958 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 79):
I expect that WN will focus more on carrying Dallas O&D traffic than on connecting traffic flows at DAL.

  

Quoting ScottB (Reply 79):
The gate restrictions are incorporated into Federal law by reference in the Wright Amendment Reform Act. There's no other airport I'm aware of which has a gate cap imposed by Federal law.

Well, given the history of "promises" made and then not kept, not enforced or otherwise abrogated by the courts, I think certain parties (understandably) want something more firmly enshrined in statute. They tried "binding" bilateral "agreement" between the two cities in 1968 - we see how well that worked out.

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL.

No.

There is no provision - either in the original language or revised language - that prohibits WN from serving DFW. However, the agreement that was made in 2005 was that for each gate WN leases at DFW, they must relinquish one at DAL.

The point is moot, though, of course, since WN does not now nor has it ever had any intention of competing at DFW - it has long enjoyed its protected near-monopoly at DAL. (And, of course, that's precisely why Wright exists in the first place - because WN sued to maintain access to DAL even after the City of Dallas had already agreed to shut it to commercial service, and after all of WN's main competitors had signed binding bond agreements tying them to DFW.)


User currently offlineAAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6943 times:

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Reply 70):
Probably not. If I recall correctly one of the provisions in the Wright Compromise prohibits international flights from DAL. So WN would have to fight to lift the gate limit and the international flights ban as well.

Yes - think so. Also the fact that US CBP is not on the premises is an issue. But they doesn't mean still can't push for it  
Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
I don't know the specifics, but there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL. When WN bought FL, they had to discontinue FL's services to DFW because FL had become a subsidiary of WN:

Correct. FL discontinued DFW a few months after the transaction was announced.

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
I've heard anecdotal reports that WN execs regularly fly AA or DL DFW-ATL for business since their own airlines can't fly them there. Cue Alanis Morissette.

Herb Kelleher was Executive Platinum with AA for years and was a regular sight at DFW while traveling for business.
One interesting, and ironic, note about Kelleher's relationship with AA's employees in general: he attended the opening of the 9/11 Flight Crew Memorial in Grapevine, TX (near DFW airport)with a large contingent of AA pilots - the very same ceremony where Gerard Arpey was conspicuously absent. This prompted a few sarcastic attendees to remark that he had a better relationship with the AA flight department then Aprey did….



Next
User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6838 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 81):
Ironic indeed. Thanks. I stand corrected.
Quoting commavia (Reply 82):
There is no provision - either in the original language or revised language - that prohibits WN from serving DFW. However, the agreement that was made in 2005 was that for each gate WN leases at DFW, they must relinquish one at DAL.

Apparently, I stand corrected, too.

How did that work with the FL acquisition anyway? Was FL able to just walk away from the gate lease? Did it have a gate lease? Is WN/FL still paying for the gate(s) but electing not to use it/them so they wouldn't have to give up any gate(s) at DAL?

These discussions are proof of how bizarre and unnatural all of these provisions are.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 33
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6676 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 82):
There is no provision - either in the original language or revised language - that prohibits WN from serving DFW. However, the agreement that was made in 2005 was that for each gate WN leases at DFW, they must relinquish one at DAL.

   but to add to that, the gate relinquishing provision (which also applies to AA in a somewhat different fashion*) expires in 2025. After that WN & AA would be free to start service at any airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field without having to give up gates at Love Field.

* AA's gate relinquishing provision is slightly different from WN's. WN isn't allowed to use any gates at any airport (including DFW) within an 80-mile radius without having to give up gates at Love Field. AA is allowed to add more gates at DFW, without giving up it's two gates at Love Field, but not at any other airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field. None of the other airlines (including United) have these gate-relinquishing provisions.)

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 33
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6580 times:

Quoting Joeljack (Reply 35):
Don't forget about OMA! [...] My guess is OMA is included on this list at 2x daily.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 36):
OMA is far down the list - 294 per day.

True, but if WN operated it as a DAL-OMA-MSP flight, it would capture some DAL-OMA traffic on the first leg, some OMA-MSP traffic on the second leg, and some DAL-MSP traffic on both legs. If WN didn't want to offer nonstop DAL-MSP service (like they don't offer nonstop So. California-SEA service) both OMA and MCI would be logical stopping points on through flights from DAL to MSP as both of those routings are pretty much a straight line.

DAL-MSP nonstop is 853 miles.
DAL-OMA is 586miles and OMA-MSP is 282 miles for a total of 868 miles.
DAL-MCI is 461 miles and MCI-MSP is 393 miles for a total of 854 miles.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2952 posts, RR: 6
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6384 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 85):
* AA's gate relinquishing provision is slightly different from WN's. WN isn't allowed to use any gates at any airport (including DFW) within an 80-mile radius without having to give up gates at Love Field. AA is allowed to add more gates at DFW, without giving up it's two gates at Love Field, but not at any other airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field. None of the other airlines (including United) have these gate-relinquishing provisions.)

Wow...so for the sake of context, aside from DAL and DFW, are there any other airports within that 80 mile radius that would be impacted?

They say everything, including the red tape, is bigger in Texas. Here's proof.  


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5948 posts, RR: 11
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6346 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 87):
Wow...so for the sake of context, aside from DAL and DFW, are there any other airports within that 80 mile radius that would be impacted?

Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations. There hasn't been air service there since the Wright brothers diverted once, but hey. I think they've still got a terminal, actually.


User currently onlinedeltacto From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6284 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 88):

Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations. There hasn't been air service there since the Wright brothers diverted once, but hey. I think they've still got a terminal, actually.

Dont forget Fort Worth Airlines!
They had flights between Meachem and AUS, HOU, and SAT back in 1985 on NAMC YS-11's

http://www.airtimes.com/cgat/usb/fortworth.htm

http://www.departedflights.com/AUS85p1.html

http://www.departedflights.com/HOU85p2.html

http://www.departedflights.com/SAT85p1.html


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6189 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 82):
it has long enjoyed its protected near-monopoly at DAL. (And, of course, that's precisely why Wright exists in the first place - because WN sued to maintain access to DAL even after the City of Dallas had already agreed to shut it to commercial service, and after all of WN's main competitors had signed binding bond agreements tying them to DFW.)

When WN inherited sole possession of DAL as a commercial carrier in January of 1974, I think they may still have been a three plane operation flying to three cities in Texas. In any event, I have long maintained that WN wouldn't even exist today without that de facto subsidy from the City of Dallas (not that the city wanted it that way).


User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4617 posts, RR: 23
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5970 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 88):
Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations. There hasn't been air service there since the Wright brothers diverted once, but hey. I think they've still got a terminal, actually.

Don't forget about the branded service Mesa offered back in the 90s or early 2000s. It didn't last long.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2266 posts, RR: 9
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5991 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 90):
WN wouldn't even exist today without that de facto subsidy from the City of Dallas

The City of Dallas could have prevented Southwest from using Love if they really wanted to. Doing so would have resulted in Dallas losing FAA funding for the airport.

Who was getting subsidized?



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 53):
We generally don't do that in the USA. Europe does it because of the lack of space but in the USA, space is not such a premium. I cant off hand think of an US airport where mainline aircraft are hardstanded on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it is exceedingly rare.

I've done many a moon buggy at IAD

Quoting ScottB (Reply 79):
Given a choice and comparable prices, passengers book away from carriers using buses and hardstands. There are also issues with accommodating disabled passengers.

What is the data to support this? Most pax, I'd presume don't even know ahead of time.
What are the issues with disabled pax? I've travelled with many a wheelchair bound friend and family member and if anything the service is faster at the hardstand when the lift truck comes.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 88):
Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations. There hasn't been air service there since the Wright brothers diverted once, but hey. I think they've still got a terminal, actually.

Mesa flew to HOU from FTW. Late 90s or early 2000s IIRC
I had family that flew the route and loved it as they did business in downtown FTW and it was great.



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineJoeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 956 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 86):
True, but if WN operated it as a DAL-OMA-MSP flight, it would capture some DAL-OMA traffic on the first leg, some OMA-MSP traffic on the second leg, and some DAL-MSP traffic on both legs. If WN didn't want to offer nonstop DAL-MSP service (like they don't offer nonstop So. California-SEA service) both OMA and MCI would be logical stopping points on through flights from DAL to MSP as both of those routings are pretty much a straight line.

DAL-MSP nonstop is 853 miles.
DAL-OMA is 586miles and OMA-MSP is 282 miles for a total of 868 miles.
DAL-MCI is 461 miles and MCI-MSP is 393 miles for a total of 854 miles.

LoneStarMike

I was actually thinking the exact same thing! OMA-MSP flights are a fortune and even though it's only 282 miles in a straight line to drive it, it takes 6 hours because you go due east to DSM first then north on I-35. If WN started this route I would imagine there would be significant market stimulation.

2x daily to MSP and 2x daily to DAL from OMA would work well! To be honest...this would about complete WN in OMA in my mind and be the perfect schedule to serve the entire country conveniently.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2245 posts, RR: 15
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5293 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 30):
I think more importantly, AA doesn't need to be in DAL any more than it needs to be in MDW, or FLL, when it can compete much more effectively with much more scale a few miles to the west. It can try with the right plane on the 'right' route and it will be clobbered right back to DFW like it was before, *or* a post bankruptcy, merged AA can compete effectively from its powerhouse hub and actually inflict some meaningful damage on DAL.

I don't think you can really bundle the MFA airports with the likes of ORD/MDW and DFW/DAL. You must realize that FLL and PBI are actually quite far up north from the Miami-Dade county area, and compete for a completely different sector of traffic than MIA does. You'll notice that when UA merged with CO, they added a ton of service back into both FLL and PBI, after having previously withdrawn from then before.

That said, I agree with you that AA doesn't really need to be present in DAL nor MDW.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 96, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4672 times:

Here is a peak at what the new terminal layout will be and planned concessions.

Concourse looks quite compact and easy to navigate.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...s-at-new-love-field-terminal.html/

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4287 posts, RR: 52
Reply 97, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4561 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 87):
Wow...so for the sake of context, aside from DAL and DFW, are there any other airports within that 80 mile radius that would be impacted?

TKI talked about trying to attract commercial carriers. Doubt anything would have come of it, but they were not too happy.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5948 posts, RR: 11
Reply 98, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4507 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 96):
Here is a peak at what the new terminal layout will be and planned concessions.

Concourse looks quite compact and easy to navigate.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...s-at-new-love-field-terminal.html/

=

Judging by that diagram, I'm not exactly sure where the GATES are. It seems that nearly all the exterior walls are completely lined with revenue-generating opportunities.
Or maybe Southwest just wants us to wait inside Starbucks for our flights!


User currently offlineblueflyer From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Jan 2006, 4196 posts, RR: 2
Reply 99, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4495 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 4):
I wonder if WN at some point pushes futher and requests the abillity to fly to Mexico from Love
Quoting alggag (Reply 6):
Maybe, but the next battleground will probably be to get the gate limit removed.

Don't hold your breath and wait for Southwest to do either. Quite the contrary, I expect Southwest to remain very quiet for years to come about the current DAL setup. Any change they propose and other carriers will jump in and request their piece. There's no doubt that if new gates are ever built at DAL, Southwest will be last in line to get any, after every other carrier has had a chance to grab them...

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 75):
Could WN then serve DFW if it wanted to?

Yes. Southwest can bring more competition at DFW tomorrow, but that would mean more competition at DAL, and Southwest isn't too keen on that...

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
I don't know the specifics, but there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL. When WN bought FL, they had to discontinue FL's services to DFW because FL had become a subsidiary of WN:

When Southwest bought AirTran, they chose to discontinue service to DFW because they like their dominant position at DAL and didn't want to give up gates for new entrants, but that is certainly not how Southwest would choose to spin it. They tried to have their cake and eat it too for several months, but eventually the mayor of Ft Worth stepped in and told Southwest to hurry up and leave DFW or give up gates at DAL.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 88):
Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations.

I don't have the text of the repeal agreement with me on the road, but I do remember there being a paragraph about the cities of Ft Worth and Dallas promising not to help any carrier wanting to start service at any airport other than DAL and DFW. They can't actively block them, of course, but forget about any kind of assistance beyond the minimum required (eg no incentive, reduced fees to start operations, etc...).



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1485 posts, RR: 10
Reply 100, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4411 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 99):
When Southwest bought AirTran, they chose to discontinue service to DFW because they like their dominant position at DAL and didn't want to give up gates for new entrants, but that is certainly not how Southwest would choose to spin it. They tried to have their cake and eat it too for several months, but eventually the mayor of Ft Worth stepped in and told Southwest to hurry up and leave DFW or give up gates at DAL.

So in the same breath.... did WN CHOOSE to leave or were they TOLD to leave? I understood it that WN knew they had to leave but had a mutually agreed-on timeframe in which they did it in order to cause the least amount of disruption to the passengers and also to comply with the rules.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 101, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4372 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 99):
Yes. Southwest can bring more competition at DFW tomorrow, but that would mean more competition at DAL, and Southwest isn't too keen on that...

  

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 100):
So in the same breath.... did WN CHOOSE to leave or were they TOLD to leave?

Southwest chose to maintain 100% of their gate space at DAL, and thus - per the terms of the 2005 agreement - were then required to discontinue flying at DFW. Again - the agreement states that beyond the gates Southwest had at DAL, any additional gate Southwest utilizes at other North Texas airports requires an equivalent number of gates at DAL to be relinquished 1-for-1.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 33
Reply 102, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4255 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 101):
Again - the agreement states that beyond the gates Southwest had at DAL, any additional gate Southwest utilizes at other North Texas airports requires an equivalent number of gates at DAL to be relinquished 1-for-1.

Up to a maximum of 8 gates. In other words, If WN suddenly changed their minds and wanted to operate out of 25 gates at DFW, they'd only have to give up a maximum of 8 gates at DAL. I don't think they'll be changing their minds, though.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 99):
I don't have the text of the repeal agreement with me on the road, but I do remember there being a paragraph about the cities of Ft Worth and Dallas promising not to help any carrier wanting to start service at any airport other than DAL and DFW.

This is the relevant portion of the agreement:

Quote:
The Cities agree that they will both oppose efforts to initiate commercial passenger air service at any area airport other than DFW Airport (and Love Field, subject to the provisions herein) during the 8 year period. "Commercial Passenger Air Service" does not include a spaceport or air taxi service as defined by Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The Cities agree to jointly oppose any attempts to repeal or further modify the Wright Amendment earlier than the eight year period. To the extent that any other airport within an eighty-mile radius of Love Field seeks to initiate scheduled commercial passenger service within this eight-year period, both the Cities agree to work diligently to bring that service to DFW Airport, or if that effort fails, then to airports owned by the Cities of Dallas and/or Fort Worth.

The "eight-year period" referred to in the above clause ends in October of 2014.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 99):
They can't actively block them, of course, but forget about any kind of assistance beyond the minimum required (eg no incentive, reduced fees to start operations, etc...).

That's just not true. If an airline wanted to initiate service at another airport within an eighty-mile radius of Love Field that was not owned by the Cities of Dallas and/or Fort Worth, then Dallas and Fort Worth cannot prevent another city or airport from offering an airline incentives to do so.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineblueflyer From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Jan 2006, 4196 posts, RR: 2
Reply 103, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3972 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 100):
did WN CHOOSE to leave or were they TOLD to leave? I understood it that WN knew they had to leave but had a mutually agreed-on timeframe in which they did it

Southwest had announced well before the purchase closed that they would be leaving DFW and I don't think anyone expected them to leave overnight. I wasn't privy to internal discussions within Southwest or Fort Worth and I am sure that Southwest had a date in mind, at least internally, but I am not so convinced that they shared it with Fort Worth because the mayor came out at the end of the 2011 summer with the comment that Southwest needed to be out of DFW well before the end of the year or the city would be pushing for Southwest to give up gates at DAL.

In the end, Southwest ended DFW service in November, 7 months after the transaction closed. If we are to believe comments in the local newspaper, some AirTran employees had been told the "transition" would last a year, so if it were true (it was never confirmed by Southwest) then I suppose one could say Fort Worth did kick Southwest out of DFW.

My personal opinion (and I stress, it is only an opinion) is that Southwest left with their back against the wall, because they cut all flights just before Thanksgiving. I would think if they were master of their calendar, they would have left after for obvious reasons.

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 102):
If an airline wanted to initiate service at another airport within an eighty-mile radius of Love Field that was not owned by the Cities of Dallas and/or Fort Worth, then Dallas and Fort Worth cannot prevent another city or airport from offering an airline incentives to do so.

I was talking specifically about airports controlled by Dallas and Ft Worth, but I should have remembered there are airports within the 80-mile radius that aren't owned by either. Thanks for the precision.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3941 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 24):
AA tried DAL... ORD, MCI, STL, and... one other place that escapes me at the moment.
It didn't work.
It didn't work with F100's back at the turn of the century.
It didn't work with MD-80s a few years ago.
It didn't work with ERJ's the year after that.

AA's incoming A319s seem like the perfect equipment for AA to compete against WN at DAL.

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 41):
When you remove NK and AA from the equation, there is a real opportunity for WN to have $250-$350 fares in these markets, and in my opinion, transform DAL from a regional hub into a national one.

DAL's limited size will never allow it to transform into a national hub.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):
Los Angeles - 4,021
New York - 3,186
Chicago - 2,697
Washington D.C. - 2,659
San Francisco - 2,541
Las Vegas - 2,240
Atlanta - 2,219
Denver - 1,920
Miami - 1,653
Orlando - 1,416
Seattle - 1,306
Boston - 1,188
Philadelphia - 1,088
Phoenix - 1,031
Minneapolis - 900
Detroit - 787
San Diego - 746
Salt Lake - 733
Charlotte - 655
Tampa - 608
Portland - 549
Milwaukee - 524

There you have your major business routes with all of the AA/US hubs being in the top 15.
LAX
NYC
ORD
DCA
MIA
PHL
PHX
Those will likely be the locations that AA choses to fly into with the additions of BOS and SFO.


User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 104):
AA's incoming A319s seem like the perfect equipment for AA to compete against WN at DAL.

I don't think they will want to. Maybe a spoke from DCA.

AA has 75% at DFW, Eagle has 12%. Guess who #3 is..... US Airways! The new owners of AA will be looking to make a profit, not fight for the sake of a presence.

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 102):
Up to a maximum of 8 gates. In other words, If WN suddenly changed their minds and wanted to operate out of 25 gates at DFW, they'd only have to give up a maximum of 8 gates at DAL. I don't think they'll be changing their minds, though.

   WN will be just as satisfied to dominate DAL and not fly from DFW as they are to ignore ORD and pocket 94% of MDW.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 106, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3785 times:

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 104):

AA's problems at DAL have nothing to do with the equipment. Hard to see how DAL succeeds for AA just because they have 319s. Empty M80, empty ERJs and empty F100s don't suddenly become profitable 319s.


User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3743 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 106):

AA's problems at DAL have nothing to do with the equipment. Hard to see how DAL succeeds for AA just because they have 319s. Empty M80, empty ERJs and empty F100s don't suddenly become profitable 319s.

First, AA has no problems from DAL because they currently don't fly from there.

Second, the AA of 2014 is going to be a lot different from the AA in the specially configured F100 days.

Third, when AA does fly out of DAL again, the A319 is going to be a very competitive aircraft for AA going up again WN's 737s.

Finally, the competition out of DAL in 2014 isn't going to be for all the secondary cities the WN is currently flying to and AA could really care less about those cities out of DAL.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3654 times:

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 107):
First, AA has no problems from DAL because they currently don't fly from there.Second, the AA of 2014 is going to be a lot different from the AA in the specially configured F100 days.

AA couldn't make DAL-STL work when STL was still a hub.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 107):
Third, when AA does fly out of DAL again, the A319 is going to be a very competitive aircraft for AA going up again WN's 737s.

AA's PAST problem has zero, nothing, nada to do with aircraft type. How exactly is the A319 going to be MORE competitive than anything AA tried in the past??You really think aircraft type was the reason AA failed at DAL? Also with a limited number of 319s, it would be a waste to put them in DAL.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6831 posts, RR: 32
Reply 109, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 104):
LAX
NYC
ORD
DCA
MIA
PHL
PHX
Those will likely be the locations that AA choses to fly into with the additions of BOS and SFO.

AA won't have enough gates at DAL to offer a competitive schedule to all those airports. They will have two gates and they may have to continue to share them with DL.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 104):
There you have your major business routes with all of the AA/US hubs being in the top 15.

Except for the largest US hub at CLT.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 107):
First, AA has no problems from DAL because they currently don't fly from there.

AA has a long history of being unable to effectively compete from DAL. They dropped DAL like a bad habit after WARA was passed because they were losing their shirts at DAL. New A319's with an uglier paint job than WN's won't fix AA's problems at DAL -- because the key problem wasn't costs.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 107):
the competition out of DAL in 2014 isn't going to be for all the secondary cities the WN is currently flying to

Many of those "secondary cities" are among the top markets from DAL/DFW, like HOU/IAH, AUS, SAT, MSY, MCI, & STL.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 110, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3655 times:

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 104):
AA's incoming A319s seem like the perfect equipment for AA to compete against WN at DAL.

A low density AA A319 wont be financially competitive against a SWA 737/8.

As LCCs around the world are finding, the A319 is not the sweet spot, the A320 is. A319 seat cost is high.

The A319 will have a special niche at AA, same as the 737-700 at DL. They were ordered in small numbers (16) and with over powered engines to eventually serve a special market segment.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 111, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 109):
AA won't have enough gates at DAL to offer a competitive schedule to all those airports.

I could see around 20x flights among ORD, LGA, LAX, MIA, DCA. That is definitely doable with 2 gates.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 109):
They will have two gates and they may have to continue to share them with DL.

Do they? I thought AA got preferential use as the leaseholder?

Quoting ScottB (Reply 109):
AA has a long history of being unable to effectively compete from DAL.

As I've said, I don't think past performance is any indication of how AA may do in the future at DAL, since prior restrictions have limited AA's ability to compete in an optimal way. I'm not saying AA will or won't be successful at DAL, but they stand a much better chance now that it will be free to fly whatever airplane it likes to any of its hubs. That is the critical difference then vs now.l

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 110):
They were ordered in small numbers (16) and with over powered engines to eventually serve a special market segment.

I doubt 16 will be the final number. I believe that is only a placeholder.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 112, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 111):

I think Doug Parker will be more sane on DAL than the previous AA mgmt was. AAs problem was a simple lack of pax. That doesn't change with 319s


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6831 posts, RR: 32
Reply 113, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3507 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 111):
I could see around 20x flights among ORD, LGA, LAX, MIA, DCA. That is definitely doable with 2 gates.

Does AA get 10 turns per gate anywhere in the system? (Excluding bus gates)

Quoting commavia (Reply 111):
I thought AA got preferential use as the leaseholder?

They do under the lease, but it's possible that DL might try to assert some sort of right of existing use given that AA hasn't used the gates at all for several years.

Quoting commavia (Reply 111):
prior restrictions have limited AA's ability to compete in an optimal way.

AA was able to use the optimal aircraft to STL and that failed. A limited schedule to their other hubs from DAL will fail because the schedule just won't be competitive with the hub schedule at DFW.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6831 posts, RR: 32
Reply 114, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3379 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 115):
I said around 20 - for those markets, could be even less.

But 3-4x daily to ORD/LAX/MIA/LGA/DCA won't really be competitive on schedule with the DFW hub, with the possible exception of MIA. I suppose the plus would be that upgrades will be easy to come by out of DAL. I actually don't expect them to fly DAL-MIA at all.

Quoting commavia (Reply 115):
The key before was AA was never able to fly to both the optimal places and with the optimal aircraft. At varying times they did one or the other, but never both.

The all-F F100's flew to the correct markets but they were still relatively empty, even with AA calling up the AAdvantage elites to offer them free upgrades if they'd shift their bookings from DFW to DAL. In 2001 (before the DAL service was terminated after LC shut down), the DAL-ORD service ran a 47% load factor, while DAL-LAX was at 52% and DAL-LGA performed the best at 67% -- all well below the airline's domestic mainline load factor. They were definitely using the wrong aircraft, and they lost boatloads of money, but that's not the only reason the service failed.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 115, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 116):
Actually no - the firm 130 order portion does not have that latitude.

Are you 100% positive about this? I'd be interested to see a source. My understanding was that AA had wide flexibility with this order, as with most of their other large orders, to modify variants at a certain lead time ahead of delivery. I would be very surprised if AA did not have that same right here.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 117):
But 3-4x daily to ORD/LAX/MIA/LGA/DCA won't really be competitive on schedule with the DFW hub

Obviously it will never be competitive with DFW, but it doesn't need to be. WN at DAL will also never be competitive in these markets on schedule with AA at DFW - but it, too, doesn't need to be.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 117):
The all-F F100's flew to the correct markets but they were still relatively empty, even with AA calling up the AAdvantage elites to offer them free upgrades if they'd shift their bookings from DFW to DAL.
Quoting ScottB (Reply 117):
They were definitely using the wrong aircraft, and they lost boatloads of money, but that's not the only reason the service failed.

Like I said - wrong markets and/or wrong aircraft. Now they will have the opportunity to deploy the right aircraft in the right markets that give them the best shot at - though no guarantee of - success.


User currently offlineSkedGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 137 posts, RR: 3
Reply 116, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ScottB (Reply 114):
They do under the lease, but it's possible that DL might try to assert some sort of right of existing use given that AA hasn't used the gates at all for several years.

I suppose they could, but that seems unlikely since I believe DL actually subleases the gates from AA -- not the City of Dallas.


User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3111 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 103):
In the end, Southwest ended DFW service in November, 7 months after the transaction closed. If we are to believe comments in the local newspaper, some AirTran employees had been told the "transition" would last a year, so if it were true (it was never confirmed by Southwest) then I suppose one could say Fort Worth did kick Southwest out of DFW.

My personal opinion (and I stress, it is only an opinion) is that Southwest left with their back against the wall, because they cut all flights just before Thanksgiving. I would think if they were master of their calendar, they would have left after for obvious reasons.

Wasn't the schedule at the time already open and for sale through November 7 and when the schedule was extended, DFW was closed?



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 118, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3098 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 121):
Has AA's contractual flexibility been diminished since then?

Yes -- they had to commit to the first 130 planes -- they did that -- 16 A319 and 114 A321s for delivery 2013-2017.

They can still play around with the NEO's and the options they hold.

I was there in Dallas for this deal.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 119, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 115):

AA flew the exact right markets from DAL. What is more right than LGA, ORD, LAX and STL when it was still a hub?? With loads as low as they had, there is no right or wrong aircraft. The routes weren't viable period.


User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4617 posts, RR: 23
Reply 120, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

So the last several posts having nothing to do with WN @ DAL. Time to close the thread since people can't stay on topic?

User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 12
Reply 121, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2555 times:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 120):
So the last several posts having nothing to do with WN @ DAL. Time to close the thread since people can't stay on topic?

   I was going to say, "Mods, please change the name of the airline mentioned in the title of this thread to 'AA'."

bb


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...
BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field posted Mon Apr 10 2006 17:08:23 by Tismfu
Los Angeles Times: Battle At Love Field! posted Mon Jun 27 2005 04:18:18 by SHUPirate1
B-777 Landing At Love Field... posted Thu Apr 28 2005 20:35:56 by RHSNYC
AA At Love Field - Gone For Good? posted Wed Oct 10 2001 03:20:16 by LoneStarMike
Air Austral 737-200's At Love Field posted Sun Jul 29 2001 07:22:06 by Us330
L-1011 At Love Field posted Sun Mar 4 2001 03:34:20 by Tom in NO
Schedule For Move At Dallas Love Field posted Sat Mar 9 2013 08:47:37 by midway7
Police Car Chase At Dallas Love Field posted Thu Aug 19 2010 13:27:22 by Gulfstream650
Air Canada Jetz At Dallas Love Field posted Sat Nov 21 2009 16:31:33 by Utapao
So Where Will DL/NW Be At DAL Love Field? posted Mon Jun 29 2009 02:38:30 by AA737-823