Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Southwest Gets Ready For End Of Wright Amendment  
User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 25926 times:

It is planning a full year of celebrations and promotions to lead up to Oct. 13, 2014.

On Monday, it will unveil a countdown clock in its headquarters lobby so that employees can see how many days remain until the big change.

“Something big is going to happen on 10-13-14,” Southwest executive Ron Ricks said Friday, “and it’s so big that we think it’s going to take a full year to celebrate. So we’re going to start the countdown at 10-14-2013.”

"If history is any guide, Southwest probably will lay out its Oct. 13, 2014, schedule in February or March."

“Being Southwest Airlines, we may have a surprise or two here or there with regards to timing,” Ricks said, “but we don’t know yet.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/a...dy-for-end-of-wright-amendment.ece

A very exciting year ahead for Southwest!


You will either love or hate the airline industry. If you love it, it will get in your blood and it will never leave.
184 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25856 times:

Now if we could just get working on the repeal of the gate capping, or (even better) require WN to give up some some more gates in order to make things properly competitive at the airport.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25804 times:

I just read the linked news item to find out what the Wright Amendment is... restrictive legislation on where an airline can fly to from Dallas Love Field.

"Not only did the law bar flights beyond those states, but it also barred airlines from selling a ticket that would take a passenger to airports beyond those states even on a connecting or one-stop basis." Crazy!

I find myself asking the same question with the perimeter rules at LGA and DCA... Why???

I can understand why traffic may be restricted/capped for environmental reasons, but if you are allowing a jet airliner to depart, why on earth should it matter where it is going?



707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Now if we could just get working on the repeal of the gate capping, or (even better) require WN to give up some some more gates in order to make things properly competitive at the airport.

We need to have more gates allowed and built at DAL as I have frequently opined. It is ridiculous to have any restrictions on Love Field---look at other large cities and metropolitan areas---most have more than one airport to choose from---we in the Bay Area have 3 and Los Angels has 5, Chicago 3 and NYC area 3 to name a few.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25733 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):

Now if we could just get working on the repeal of the gate capping, or (even better) require WN to give up some some more gates in order to make things properly competitive at the airport.

You know it wasn't WN who put the gate restrictions in.... As far as "properly competitive", no one has shown any real interest in flying there in some time. Find someone who cares about gate space there and you'll see they have gates.

I still think WN agreed to the whole nasty mess simply because it got them closer to where they wanted to be... eventualy. Yet hoping someone else would sue over the blatently illegal crap in it. That way they could go "yes, yes we agree this whole thing is wrong and needs to be ended now with none of this anti-competitive and illegal measures in it"

Still stands that there is no outside party wanting in at this time.


User currently offlinetjh8402 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25661 times:

Any guess on what the odds are that MCO will be one of the new non stop destinations? AA is currently my only option to go to the Dallas/Ft Worth area non stop, and whenever I looked they were quite expensive. I'm flying WN next month, but obviously having to connect in HOU. Would be nice to be able to do the trip non stop.

User currently offlineLittleFokker From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 269 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25576 times:

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 2):
I can understand why traffic may be restricted/capped for environmental reasons, but if you are allowing a jet airliner to depart, why on earth should it matter where it is going?

You have to remember the timeline of how DAL, DFW, the CAB, and WN came to be to understand. The decision to build DFW came before WN began operations. All current operators at DAL at the time they decided to begin construction signed an agreement to move to DFW upon completion of the airport. WN began operation while DFW was in the middle of being constructed. The CAB, which existed until 1979, didn't allow any airline to freely operate anywhere (all domestic routes had to be approved through them). WN had only applied with the CAB to be an intrastate carrier within Texas, and wasn't expected to be a threat to anyone at the beginning. So, to protect their investment into DFW, the Wright Amendment was passed to ensure that any airline that wanted to do significant business in the Dallas/Ft Worth area would chose DFW over DAL. When de-regulation occurred in 1979, the game changed for everyone in the industry, and thus the spat between AA and WN over DAL began.

Quoting n471wn (Reply 3):
We need to have more gates allowed and built at DAL as I have frequently opined. It is ridiculous to have any restrictions on Love Field---look at other large cities and metropolitan areas---most have more than one airport to choose from---we in the Bay Area have 3 and Los Angels has 5, Chicago 3 and NYC area 3 to name a few.

The metroplex is unique situation that isn't wholly comparable to the others you mentioned. Except for the Bay Area, the other cities you mentioned are large cities surrounded by ample suburbs. The airports in those regions are scattered enough as to serve the individual areas of that market. DFW serves two major cities with surrounding suburbs that are just close enough together that it can properly serve both conveniently. Sure, DAL could be expanded to it's maximum capacity (not much higher than what it currently is), but at what cost? Would you have to develop FTW into a similar sized airport to properly serve it? Wouldn't new traffic at DAL be cannibalizing traffic from DFW at this point? And that would hurt Ft Worth if they didn't develop their own airport.



"Toughest wind I ever played in....straight down!" - W. C. Fields
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2941 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25526 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 5):

I bet MCO will be one of the new destinations when the time comes.

And also don't forget that NK flies DFW-MCO twice a day.  



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25504 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Thread starter):
“Being Southwest Airlines, we may have a surprise or two here or there with regards to timing,” Ricks said, “but we don’t know yet

Could it be Mexico flights with Customs and Immigration at HOU or SAT on the return trip?

The Wright Amendment has had it's good points as well for connecting states. OKC has been a benefactor since we are a connecting state and have had many flight options because the WA has required a stop at an WA state.

Now OKC will have to stand on its own, with the end of the WA and the cap on flights at KDAL then we may see a pretty good roll back on flights to accommodate higher revenue direct routes out of KDAL.

Okie


User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25480 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 6):

Thanks for the explanation LF. It is much clearer now, but amazing to think that this overhang from before the 1979 deregulation still has an effect in 2013!



707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlinetjh8402 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25340 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 7):
And also don't forget that NK flies DFW-MCO twice a day.

You couldn't pay me to set foot on an NK flight haha


User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2941 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25311 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 10):

Same here! But I just thought I'd throw that out there!       



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 25030 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 3):
We need to have more gates allowed and built at DAL as I have frequently opined. It is ridiculous to have any restrictions on Love Field

Those restrictions went into place at the creation of DFW. WN should not have been granted the exemption at DAL. In fact I think that they should have been forced to give up much more to get the perimeter rule removed. WN was handed a monopoly at DAL with the removal of the perimeter relaxation. Imagine if this was AA, UA or DL with a fortress at DAL and WN wanted slots. The outrage from the WN side would be deafening.


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 24951 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Thread starter):

  

I'm excited! Talk about bad government and politics screwing us over. It's been long overdue. Let us hope there are no more government chicanery to block the end of this malarky!



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 24953 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mcdu (Reply 12):
Those restrictions went into place at the creation of DFW. WN should not have been granted the exemption at DAL. In fact I think that they should have been forced to give up much more to get the perimeter rule removed. WN was handed a monopoly at DAL with the removal of the perimeter relaxation. Imagine if this was AA, UA or DL with a fortress at DAL and WN wanted slots. The outrage from the WN side would be deafening.

Oh pleeez.....you mean that because WN outmaneuvered AA and the DFW people that you want them punished? I say they were strategically brilliant!!


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 24870 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
You know it wasn't WN who put the gate restrictions in

It wasn't, but I don't think they minded much. They got handed a virtual monopoly of the airport, an a legally-enforced one at that - that's pretty valuable.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
As far as "properly competitive", no one has shown any real interest in flying there in some time.

JetBlue definitely did when the whole debate was going on, and they weren't happy that they were shut out of the airport. Any similar carrier would be a good candidate for DAL service. F9, VX, etc. - non-legacy carriers that want to serve the Dallas market with a couple of flights per day, and for whom the lower costs of DAL would be beneficial.

Quoting n471wn (Reply 14):
you mean that because WN outmaneuvered AA and the DFW people that you want them punished?

It's not about punishing WN, it's about actually "setting Love free", not chaining it to one carrier.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineiMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6279 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 24751 times:

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 10):
You couldn't pay me to set foot on an NK flight

Isn't Spirit rated a bit worse than Greyhound for travel?

Has no one mentioned that PHX will be one of the first cities?



Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2941 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 24261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
It wasn't, but I don't think they minded much. They got handed a virtual monopoly of the airport, an a legally-enforced one at that - that's pretty valuable.

Are you faulting the airline for making a genious business decision?

Quoting n471wn (Reply 14):
Oh pleeez.....you mean that because WN outmaneuvered AA and the DFW people that you want them punished? I say they were strategically brilliant!!

I agree. It was an excellent business decision!



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 24220 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 12):
Those restrictions went into place at the creation of DFW. WN should not have been granted the exemption at DAL

The gate and flight restrictions came with the end of the WA settlement.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 12):
Imagine if this was AA, UA or DL with a fortress at DAL and WN wanted slots. The outrage from the WN side would be deafening

I am afraid your analogy is incorrect. AA has always had gates at KDAL and has tried time and time again to get profitable operations going there and compete against WN.
AA, UA, DL, B6, NK anyone can operate out of KDAL at any time they please and can fly anywhere out of KDAL after 10-13-14 without a WA stop.
CO or if you want to call it UA, operates out of KDAL and has a relative successful schedule.

Okie


User currently offlinebarney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 926 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 22938 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 8):
Could it be Mexico flights with Customs and Immigration at HOU or SAT on the return trip?

Nice thought, but even after the "repeal" (maybe we should just refer to it as "easing") of the Wright Amendment, International flights are still prohibited out of DAL.



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 22027 times:

Quoting barney captain (Reply 19):
Nice thought, but even after the "repeal" (maybe we should just refer to it as "easing") of the Wright Amendment, International flights are still prohibited out of DAL.

Ok, Thanks

I thought HNL but that is roughly 3300nm from KDAL and a 738 is rated at 2900nm roughly with standard tank.
We are looking at "Big surprise" that is related to "timing" which would sort of line up with 180 ETOPS implementation but can not be international and HNL is not international so now the question is.
Do the new WN ETOPS birds have additional tanks to handle the distance?
We are only talking less than 15% more fuel or combination of less passengers.

Okie


User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21840 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 13):
I'm excited! Talk about bad government and politics screwing us over. It's been long overdue. Let us hope there are no more government chicanery to block the end of this malarky!

Yes and no. As noted, the amendment became effective long before Southwest was the business force it is today. Times were different then, and the law supported DFW. But, who knows, without the amendment and dominance at Love Field, maybe WN wouldn't have become as large as it is today, with all the influence it has had over competition in other cities.

Other carriers could have flown out of DAL and, as noted above, have and do so now. Remember AA flying F-100's to LAX? Legend Airlines and their 56-passenger DC-9's?

There's plenty of odd protectionist legislation out there. That's just what the WA is...protectionist, but in this case, favoring economic trade of one city over another, rather than the typical one country over another.


User currently offlinebarney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 926 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21810 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 20):
Do the new WN ETOPS birds have additional tanks to handle the distance?

Unfortunately, not even close. The -800 can reliably make the West Coast to Hawaii (although even PDX/SEA can be a problem), but anything even remotely inland (LAS/PHX) is a non-starter. So DAL would definitely not be doable.



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21664 times:

Quoting barney captain (Reply 22):
The -800 can reliably make the West Coast to Hawaii (although even PDX/SEA can be a problem), but anything even remotely inland (LAS/PHX) is a non-starter.

Really? PDX is only about 50 miles further from HNL than LAX; SEA about 70 miles beyond that; Vancouver a bit further. Interestingly, SFO/OAK are closer than LAX is. Do 73H flights from the Northwest have to divert? But, agreed, DAL would never work for a 73H; it's more than a 1,000 miles further than LAX.


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21618 times:

Let's be honest here. AA should be the ones with the countdown clock. LOL.

Southwest is certainly gonna steal some o&d off dfw. I expect them to spend a lot next summer on adds of all types in the area. Southwest assaulted den with adds I think dfw will see the same thing coming.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 22213 times:

Quoting barney captain (Reply 22):
Unfortunately, not even close

Thanks again.

So I am really stuck on the big surprise related to timing. Not much else I can think of would be a big surprise.

Okie


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 26, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 22017 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 17):
Are you faulting the airline for making a genious business decision?

No, I'm faulting the government for the decision.

Quoting okie (Reply 18):
AA, UA, DL, B6, NK anyone can operate out of KDAL at any time they please and can fly anywhere out of KDAL after 10-13-14 without a WA stop.

Sure, if they can get a gate. And the gates are all taken at the moment.

Quoting cschleic (Reply 21):
As noted, the amendment became effective long before Southwest was the business force it is today. Times were different then, and the law supported DFW.

As did WN at the time.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinewilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21812 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 14):
Quoting mcdu (Reply 12):
Those restrictions went into place at the creation of DFW. WN should not have been granted the exemption at DAL. In fact I think that they should have been forced to give up much more to get the perimeter rule removed. WN was handed a monopoly at DAL with the removal of the perimeter relaxation. Imagine if this was AA, UA or DL with a fortress at DAL and WN wanted slots. The outrage from the WN side would be deafening.

Oh pleeez.....you mean that because WN outmaneuvered AA and the DFW people that you want them punished? I say they were strategically brilliant!!

No, he is actually right, but I blame the airlines for not getting assurances that Love's terminal would close. SWA just used loophole like any good business.

Not many posters here remember or were alive in the early 80s, the Wright Amendment protected SWA at Love. SWA made the law work for them , no one else really cared to fly to Love. Kudos to SWA for making it work and growing from it. But if Love was opened up in 1984 instead of 2014, SWA may not be around today.

[Edited 2013-10-12 21:06:50]

User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2740 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21785 times:

Beside the usual suspects of the current allowable routes that will probably see cuts once WN gets past the WA and flying to where it can, when it can, I would wonder if DEN would be affected in any way? Maybe DAL could serve some of the same traffic flows that DEN does, and WN would prefer to maybe build there and cut some at DEN? Or is there enough room at DAL to conduct a DEN sized operation, with DAL currently (per WIKI) showing 129 daily flights, and DEN at 171 daily flights?

Also, are night ops permitted (or will they be past WA) at DAL? Is there (or will there continue to be past WA) any sort of time curfews at DAL? Redeyes here any possibility?

I guess with WN already starting to make big, big hoopla a year in advance of the post WA era, I can see them really making an effort here starting - as well as stringing things along over the next year - to have a major national operation at DAL.

Now.... when is ATL and the FL merger going to be finished? I would think that in about 6-7 months is when the major DAL noise will be really starting. In the meantime, will they use the time between now and the time they start with post-WA DAL to be dedicated to ATL and FL?

 


User currently offlineODwyerPW From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21186 times:

The Wright Amendment is a shameful piece of protectionism buried in a completely unrelated bill.... Politics at it's worst.


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21169 times:

Quoting iMissPiedmont (Reply 16):
Has no one mentioned that PHX will be one of the first cities?

I'm sure it will be along with LAX, LAS, MDW & BWI. They'll be others for sure but those are so obvious I'd be shocked if they all aren't announced by late next summer or early fall.


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21075 times:

I would think BWI, MCO, MDW, LAS, PHX, LAX, OAK, ATL, and DEN any of these are very good guesses i think. Somewhere crAAZy like LGA could be really entertaining. Might be worth moving a slot or two to get direct service from LUV to NYC.

User currently offlineshnoob940 From Australia, joined Sep 2008, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20854 times:

I'm an Aussie here, and I have no idea of the terms and conditions of the Wright Amendment..

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 2):
"Not only did the law bar flights beyond those states, but it also barred airlines from selling a ticket that would take a passenger to airports beyond those states even on a connecting or one-stop basis." Crazy!

I flew LAS-ELP-DAL.. Isn't that a one stop?



A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A388 733 734 735 737 738 739 743 744 762 763 773 788 E170 E190 Q400
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4368 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20821 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 30):
I'm sure it will be along with LAX, LAS, MDW & BWI. They'll be others for sure but those are so obvious I'd be shocked if they all aren't announced by late next summer or early fall.
Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 31):
I would think BWI, MCO, MDW, LAS, PHX, LAX, OAK, ATL, and DEN any of these are very good guesses i think.

  

It will be interesting to see if smaller Southwest stations such as MSP, SLC, PHL, SMF, TUS, etc. will see non-stop DAL service. Gate space is certainly a factor in DAL, although in the medium term I think we could see a couple less flights on routes such as DAL-STL/MCI due the traffic being able to fly non-stop to places such as MDW. It will be interesting to see what happens to passenger numbers in DAL both from a connecting and O&D standpoint. Either way or a combination of the two I would expect the airport will see a modest increase in passenger numbers after the WA is lifted.

Edit: Another factor is no growth in system capacity until return on investment hits 15%. The majority of new route additions recently have been funded by cuts some where else in the system.

Quoting shnoob940 (Reply 32):
flew LAS-ELP-DAL.. Isn't that a one stop?

If you had the option of staying on the aircraft in ELP, yes.

[Edited 2013-10-12 22:50:11]


Next flights: WN DSM-LAS-PHX, US PHX-SJD. Return: US SJD-PHX, WN PHX-MDW-DSM
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 34, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 20718 times:

Quoting shnoob940 (Reply 32):
Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 2):
"Not only did the law bar flights beyond those states, but it also barred airlines from selling a ticket that would take a passenger to airports beyond those states even on a connecting or one-stop basis." Crazy!

I flew LAS-ELP-DAL.. Isn't that a one stop?

Originally, you could not have flown LAX-ELP-DAL on a single ticket. You would have had to buy two separate tickets. One from LAX-ELP and a second one from ELP-DAL. At ELP, you would have had to reclaim your checked luggage and rechecked it onto the ELP-DAL leg.

As part of the 2006 agreement, through ticketing was finally allowed, meaning you could fly from DAL to other cities outside the Wright Amendment as long as you stopped and/or made a connection at another city that was within the Wright Amendment perimeter, like ELP.

I think WN will certainly offer n/s flights to DEN once the Wright Amendment is gone, because DEN is a good connection point to other cities out west. I also think BNA will benefit, because BNA is a relatively uncongested airport and could serve as a good connection point from DAL to the northeast.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 20564 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 26):

Quoting okie (Reply 18):AA, UA, DL, B6, NK anyone can operate out of KDAL at any time they please and can fly anywhere out of KDAL after 10-13-14 without a WA stop.
Sure, if they can get a gate. And the gates are all taken at the moment

The drop in gates from 32 to 20 came at AA's insistence to stop other competitors and limit WN's growth.
Late 2006 early 2007 AA reopened, again, flights with a vengeance to about everywhere WN flew out of KDAL.
They pretty much shut the whole operation down, again, in months and completely in less than a year.

When I flew through KDAL during that time frame the F/A's would announce when pushing back from the gate for everyone to wave out the window at the AA aircraft to show them what a full plane looks like.

So back to the "Big Surprise", if you considered that to mean a larger aircraft type like a 787 then I would think that of more of a Quantum Leap. I would doubt that is what WN is considering to deal with limited gates and flights to KDAL.

Okie


User currently offlinebarney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 926 posts, RR: 13
Reply 36, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 19838 times:

Quoting cschleic (Reply 23):
Really? PDX is only about 50 miles further from HNL than LAX; SEA about 70 miles beyond that; Vancouver a bit further. Interestingly, SFO/OAK are closer than LAX is.

While it's not a milage concern, the winds can make the pacific Northwest to Hawaii an issue during certain times of the year.



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 19638 times:

Quoting cschleic (Reply 23):
Interestingly, SFO/OAK are closer than LAX is


The Bay Area is farther west than southern California is south if that makes any sense. Doesn't seem like it and some map projections don't help either. That's why the early pionners across the Pacific used OAK like Kingsford-Smith and Earhart instead of SoCal.

Quoting barney captain (Reply 22):
The -800 can reliably make the West Coast to Hawaii (although even PDX/SEA can be a problem), but anything even remotely inland (LAS/PHX) is a non-starter.

AQ at one point was flying to PHX with a 737 but it was routed HNL-SNA-PHX. The nonstop would not have worked. HA had the bigger equipment to fly further inland.


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 18227 times:

I'm sure we will see some of MDW, PHX, LAX, OAK, SFO, SAN, DEN, LAS, MCO, FLL, TPA, ATL, BWI, LGA, DCA, BOS, SLC, MSP, SNA and SEA. These are all large and important cities that would benefit from having non-stop service to DAL. I am not saying all of these will be added, but these are not out of the picture. I think we will see a lot of -800s in DAL...

Quoting point2point (Reply 28):
I would wonder if DEN would be affected in any way? Maybe DAL could serve some of the same traffic flows that DEN does, and WN would prefer to maybe build there and cut some at DEN?

I don't think so because DAL is going to be mostly O&D where DEN has a good amount of connecting passengers. DEN should be fine.

[Edited 2013-10-13 06:41:24]


You will either love or hate the airline industry. If you love it, it will get in your blood and it will never leave.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4239 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 17921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 10):
You couldn't pay me to set foot on an NK flight haha
Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 11):
Same here! But I just thought I'd throw that out there!
Quoting iMissPiedmont (Reply 16):
Isn't Spirit rated a bit worse than Greyhound for travel?

And yet they make money.

Sure give the "It's all about big yields and more profits for the stockholders" crowd something to think about.


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 40, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 17704 times:

Quoting iowaman (Reply 33):
Edit: Another factor is no growth in system capacity until return on investment hits 15%. The majority of new route additions recently have been funded by cuts some where else in the system.

Spot on. With little to no growth all the additional DAL services will come from a cut somewhere else. I still feel the WA amendment should be kept in place. The real airlines paid a significant price to move to there's convenient DFW and to allow WN to have a hub where AA could still have a hub had they not been forced to leave is bad.

If a new Dallas airport were built today and AA and the rest of the legacy carriers were forced to move to the new airport That leaving DFW with the WA restrictions and another carrier other than WN decided to put a hub in the abandoned AA facilities. Should that new carrier get the restrictions lifted to allow them to operate a full up hub at the DFW facility?

This is in effect what happened with WN at DAL. The real carriers wre forced out to the new airport. WN like a cockroach took root in the forced abandoned facilities. Now they want to have the restrictions removed so they can compete from the location the rest of the airlines were forced to leave. All the former airlines should have been given their gates and facilities back and if they wanted to lease them to WN it should have been THEIR option.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 17677 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Now if we could just get working on the repeal of the gate capping, or (even better) require WN to give up some some more gates in order to make things properly competitive at the airport.
Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
It wasn't, but I don't think they minded much. They got handed a virtual monopoly of the airport, an a legally-enforced one at that - that's pretty valuable.
Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
It's not about punishing WN, it's about actually "setting Love free", not chaining it to one carrier.
Quoting william (Reply 27):
Not many posters here remember or were alive in the early 80s, the Wright Amendment protected SWA at Love. SWA made the law work for them , no one else really cared to fly to Love. Kudos to SWA for making it work and growing from it. But if Love was opened up in 1984 instead of 2014, SWA may not be around today.
Quoting okie (Reply 35):
The drop in gates from 32 to 20 came at AA's insistence to stop other competitors and limit WN's growth.

AA, DAL & DFW officials for many years wanted WN gone from DAL and used their political influence to get the WA put in place which was supposed to punish WN, ensure that their business would either fail or the conditions force them to move to DFW.
However we want to look at it, they stayed at DAL and made a successful business out of it.
Now we get to the repeal and no question the conditions that AA, DFW and DAL officials decide to put in place for the repeal will now entrench and protect the incumbent carrier, a bit ironic that they now focus on the airport itself, something they should have done once the case was lost. The city of DAL could have done many things to the airport itself over the years to make it less attractive for commercial operations, but that is water under the bridge.

The gate restriction may be challenged as once the WA is gone if other carriers want in there is some difficulty. In principle I see the WN gates as no different that the slots at La Guardia and DC, if they already belong to a carrier how do you now tell them to give them up to others to allow competition?


User currently onlinesdoyon From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 17594 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 40):
The real airlines

I'm sorry, I know you have an ax to grind with WN, but when you say stuff like this, you really, REALLY hurt any credibility you might have. Whether you like it or not, WN found a loophole and took advantage of it--you don't think AA, UA, or DL would have done the same thing?

In 1973, WN sued the city of Dallas for use of DAL, and, guess what? WN won on the grounds that as long as DAL stayed open as an airport, WN was free to use it. Would you argue that in any time since 1973, DAL stopped being an airport?

---

An aside, are the 20 gates still owned as follows: 16 WN, 2 UA, and 2 AA? Are any of them common use?


User currently offlineFlytravel From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 17534 times:

Quoting iowaman (Reply 33):
It will be interesting to see if smaller Southwest stations such as MSP, SLC, PHL, SMF, TUS, etc. will see non-stop DAL service.


I think it might consider DAL service to EWR over PHL, since NK is at PHL-DFW is already trashing the yields for AA and US who fare match on advance purchase fares. If AA and US get approval to merge, then it might open prospects more. WN also fare matches on the advance purchase one-stops.

DCA/BWI and LGA are likely and EWR can be done, perhaps by removing one MDW flight or some other flight. I think DAL-SLC and even HOU-SLC makes sense.

[Edited 2013-10-13 07:43:56]

User currently offlinecapejet From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 17332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

An aside, are the 20 gates still owned as follows: 16 WN, 2 UA, and 2 AA? Are any of them common use?

I think if another carrier wants to serve Love Field (lets say Jet Blue) the other carriers have to try to accomodate them by leasing gates to them.


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 17288 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 38):
I'm sure we will see some of

I would also add PHL to the list.

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 42):
I'm sorry, I know you have an ax to grind with WN, but when you say stuff like this, you really, REALLY hurt any credibility you might have.

Spot on. Comparing WN to a cockroach and asking for credibility... he gets none now.



You will either love or hate the airline industry. If you love it, it will get in your blood and it will never leave.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 46, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16995 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 40):
This is in effect what happened with WN at DAL. The real carriers wre forced out to the new airport. WN like a cockroach took root in the forced abandoned facilities.

No, what happened is that the city of DAL and DFW lost a case in court, do you really care why they lost?
The city of DEN built a new airport and had no problem closing down the old airport, is that because they have competent lawyers in Denver?

Quoting mcdu (Reply 40):
If a new Dallas airport were built today and AA and the rest of the legacy carriers were forced to move to the new airport That leaving DFW with the WA restrictions and another carrier other than WN decided to put a hub in the abandoned AA facilities. Should that new carrier get the restrictions lifted to allow them to operate a full up hub at the DFW facility?

Sure if we follow your logic, is that not what was done with DFW and DAL, if you did it once why not do it again.

I have one question, why does the owner of DAL not close it down, we know WN is not the owner so why is the city of DAL cowtowing to WN and keeping the airport open when they were / are an investor in DFW?


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1578 posts, RR: 7
Reply 47, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 17012 times:

The real purpose of the Wright Amendment and distance restrictions at DCA and LGA was to force airlines to use newer, further out airports that were underutilized. DFW had just been completed in 1974. IAD was a big white elephant for many years and you could literally sit there for hours without seeing an airplane movement. JFK (previously IDW) was not so much a distance problem but a facility issue. For many years IDW was housed in Quonsett huts before any of the permanent terminals were built.

These rules served to force airlines to use the "less desirable" facilities. DCA was a particular issue as with runways so short it was difficult if not impossible for long haul airplanes like the B707 and DC-8 to take off and land safely.

I have to laugh now at the terrible overcrowding at IAD, DFW and JFK with construction in constant motion and encroaching on land closer to homes seems to be routine. The original model of DFW with the "horseshoe" terminals has been abandoned in favor of a more traditional long terminal building. JFK has been totally rebuilt and IAD has seen the expansion of the original Saarinen terminal and the construction of remote gate building connected with an underground tram system.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16897 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 47):
The original model of DFW with the "horseshoe" terminals has been abandoned in favor of a more traditional long terminal building. JFK has been totally rebuilt and IAD has seen the expansion of the original Saarinen terminal and the construction of remote gate building connected with an underground tram system.

Wasn't DFW built as an O&D facility in mind? The idea was you could park close to your gate. There were signs as you drove in with gate information. Of course, it became more of a hub operation and, now, the ATL format is seen as more efficient for that purpose. For JFK, seems like the rebuilding still is underway.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16869 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 47):
The real purpose of the Wright Amendment and distance restrictions at DCA and LGA was to force airlines to use newer, further out airports that were underutilized. DFW had just been completed in 1974.

DAC and LGA are totally different from the WA and it reasons, to me the only comparison is with the incumbent carriers when the slots went in place or the WA is lifted.

De-regulation, poorly constructed legal documents on the creation of DFW and the closing of DAL resulted in a lost court case forcing DAL authorities to remain open for commercial aviation, the WA was essentially a way to get around the law.


User currently offlineadamh8297 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 839 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16615 times:

Quoting cschleic (Reply 48):
Wasn't DFW built as an O&D facility in mind? The idea was you could park close to your gate. There were signs as you drove in with gate information.

That sounds like MCI.


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1578 posts, RR: 7
Reply 51, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16636 times:

Quoting cschleic (Reply 48):
Wasn't DFW built as an O&D facility in mind? The idea was you could park close to your gate.

That was the original intent. I guess even the planners could not foresee what a huge facility it would become forty years later. MCI was built along the same model. MCI just had better airport junk food
Quoting par13del (Reply 49):
De-regulation, poorly constructed legal documents on the creation of DFW and the closing of DAL resulted in a lost court case forcing DAL authorities to remain open for commercial aviation, the WA was essentially a way to get around the law.

That is part of the story. The homeowners around DAL wanted the facility closed. However BN had their main maintenance hub there so jets were always coming and going. There were also a large number of private jets--I recall seeing Elvis Presley's C-880 there. BN continued to operate to IAH and SAT out of DAL for quite some time after DFW opened. They were not about to lose their turf to WN without a fight.

The Wright Amendment was poorly crafted and WN's lawyers did a great job in having its interpretation questioned. I cannot recall if the Wright Amendment specifically prohibited WN from moving to DFW or if it was trying to force them to move. I'll have to rely on the memory of others on that question. IIRC it tried to force them to move in the hopes they would lose their competitive advantage.

On a personal note, I recall the night BN made the big move from DAL to DFW. The last flight landed at about 2300 and the first departure out of DFW was scheduled for 0600. Ever pilot, f/a, agent or ramper that was not on duty pitched in. I drove a baggage tug with about 30 empty carts on it at 20 mph down HWY 114, then was driven back to DAL to drive other ramp vehicles. Pilots were ferrying airplanes and returning for more. BN had set up a huge buffet of fried chicken, salads, soft drinks and desserts for us. However, having unlimited access to parts of the airport we were not normally in led to the discovery of where the liquor stocks were kept. Thank goodness that the baggage tugs had a 20 mph governor on them. There were a massive number of moving vans carrying files and office equipment.

Next morning at 0600 the first flight left full and on time.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 16020 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 51):
The homeowners around DAL wanted the facility closed.

In which case the city of DAL could have had the airport closed to ALL traffic and the property used for something else, done in Denver could have been done here also.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 51):
I cannot recall if the Wright Amendment specifically prohibited WN from moving to DFW or if it was trying to force them to move.

The forcing of carriers to move to DFW was built into the agreements used to build the new airport, it preceeded the WA.
WN due to the laws / rules etc. around de-regulation could not be forced to move their operations to DFW, they were taken to court and won the case, in essence on the basis that as long as the airport was open for traffic, commercial aviation could not be prevented, so not a GA only airport.
So to get around the court ruling, the WA was invented and pushed by the politicians whose name it bears.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 53, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15654 times:

The Wright Amendment was created by the majors like AA bribing a number of critical US Senators and Congress members (of both parties) with campaign contributions from their executives to crush WN and other small competitors who wanted to use DAL/Love. It was also a way to force airlines to use the then new DFW to make it successful. Currently DFW is pretty busy and with the massive consolidation of what over 10 large airlines to now to really 4 along with their closely affiliated regionals, other like JetBlue, Frontier. With AA the dominate player in the Dallas region, you need more airlines access to DAL to hold down fares due to the decline in competition.

I would expect WN to use DAL as a hub for connecting flights from their existing major originating airports they are strong at (like BAL), to eliminate some direct flights that may not be as good in yields and finally offer services from Love to adjacent states in the 'Sunbelt' and Midwest. Wouldn't it be great for many in the Dallas region to have an option for going to Chicago, LA, and other cities where AA and DL may be your only non-stop choice and mean more reasonable fares.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 54, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15157 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 40):
Spot on. With little to no growth all the additional DAL services will come from a cut somewhere else. I still feel the WA amendment should be kept in place. The real airlines paid a significant price to move to there's convenient DFW and to allow WN to have a hub where AA could still have a hub had they not been forced to leave is bad.

If a new Dallas airport were built today and AA and the rest of the legacy carriers were forced to move to the new airport That leaving DFW with the WA restrictions and another carrier other than WN decided to put a hub in the abandoned AA facilities. Should that new carrier get the restrictions lifted to allow them to operate a full up hub at the DFW facility?

This is in effect what happened with WN at DAL. The real carriers wre forced out to the new airport. WN like a cockroach took root in the forced abandoned facilities. Now they want to have the restrictions removed so they can compete from the location the rest of the airlines were forced to leave. All the former airlines should have been given their gates and facilities back and if they wanted to lease them to WN it should have been THEIR option.

Aside from getting every point of fact incorrect, I don't think you understand how businesses operate and market their products in the real world. Successful businesses do not go head-to-head with every Tom, Dick, and Harry in a commoditized market. They find an unserved but demanded niche. That's exactly what Southwest did, but apparently you find business 101 insectival.

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):
The forcing of carriers to move to DFW was built into the agreements used to build the new airport, it preceeded the WA.

The operative word is agreement. The legacy airlines at DAL voluntarily agreed to move to DFW. Four of the seven airlines signing the agreement also included a contractual right to void the agreement if any of the airlines chose to remain at DAL.

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):
WN due to the laws / rules etc. around de-regulation could not be forced to move their operations to DFW, they were taken to court and won the case, in essence on the basis that as long as the airport was open for traffic, commercial aviation could not be prevented, so not a GA only airport.

And not only did WN win the right to continue usung DAL, they won the right for all airlines to using DAL. All "fairness" arguments should start and stop with that point. WN won no special privilege that gave it an unfair advantage. Other airlines, to varying degree, did return service to DAL.

Speaking of fairness, two of the airlines that led the legal charge against the nascent Southwest airlines later pleaded no-contest to federal charges of conspiring to push Southwest out of business.


User currently offlinedeltacto From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14641 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 51):
BN continued to operate to IAH and SAT out of DAL for quite some time after DFW opened. They were not about to lose their turf to WN without a fight.

How was Braniff able to operate these flights from Love, if they signed the agreement to move to DFW?
How long did these flights last?

The April 1974 OAG shows 3 Braniff flights a day DAL-SAT

http://www.departedflights.com/SAT74p1.html

Since this is a "Pocket Flight Guide", it doesnt include all cities.
There may have deen DAL-IAH flights that are not shown in this OAG

[Edited 2013-10-13 11:27:42]

User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3935 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 14088 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting capejet (Reply 44):
I think if another carrier wants to serve Love Field (lets say Jet Blue) the other carriers have to try to accomodate them by leasing gates to them.

True, but the language is, purposely in my opinion, very vague, so any incumbent carrier at Love could claim to be accommodating the newcomer simply by offering them a slot at their gate from, say 5 to 7 am. There is no provision whatsoever requiring these "accommodations" to be commercially viable or at a time of the newcomer's choosing.

I believe this clause was inserted primarily to mollify the FAA and DOT with no intention that it ever be used, at least not without some serious legal action to define what "accommodate" is.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinehz747300 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2004, 1656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13920 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting iMissPiedmont (Reply 16):
Has no one mentioned that PHX will be one of the first cities?

I for one think PHX and maybe even TUS would be on the short list. Certainly PHX.



Keep on truckin'...
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 58, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13936 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 14):
Oh pleeez.....you mean that because WN outmaneuvered AA and the DFW people that you want them punished? I say they were strategically brilliant!!

Brilliant? Hardly. WN is a very good marketing company and they enjoyed a cost advantage over the legacy carriers for many years. That margin has shrunk due to longevity of the employee group total compensation and the increased cost required to compete with leaner legacy carriers. WN is not growing as they once did and that should concern many of the WN cheerleaders.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 54):
They find an unserved but demanded niche. That's exactly what Southwest did, but apparently you find business 101 insectival.

And I too don't think you understand. The WN niche was carved from the restrictions of the WA. If they didn't want to operate under the WA then they should have been forced to leave DAL like the rest of the airlines. I am more than happy to let WN compete under the auspices of the WA from DAL. They knew the terms when they started the service.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 59, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13909 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 56):
True, but the language is, purposely in my opinion, very vague, so any incumbent carrier at Love could claim to be accommodating the newcomer simply by offering them a slot at their gate from, say 5 to 7 am. There is no provision whatsoever requiring these "accommodations" to be commercially viable or at a time of the newcomer's choosing.

My expectation would be that a newcomer (say B6) would request a time slot and then it would be upon the incumbent to show that no gates are available. Even with a major operation, there will be empty gates at times during the day. It just won't be feasible to run flights without demand just to box-out the competition.

Successful "box-out" strategies at slot constrained airports typically involve flying high frequencies with smaller aircraft to consume slots. WN doesn't have an armada of RJs to that end.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 56):
I believe this clause was inserted primarily to mollify the FAA and DOT with no intention that it ever be used, at least not without some serious legal action to define what "accommodate" is.

Here's hoping. I fully expect another round of legal wrangling in the next 10-20 years that finally clobbers the remaining restrictions. Let's just be done with it and let Love Field be Love Field. It's a decidedly secondary airport that serves less than 50% of the metroplex at more than 50% of the cost structure of DFW. It's only a value if you build an operations around the minority of metroplex travelers.

Even if WN doubles their post-Wright operations to a station equal to MDW, the split of daily movements between DFW and DAL would be 75% to 25%.


User currently offlinetjh8402 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13881 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 39):
And yet they make money.

Sure give the "It's all about big yields and more profits for the stockholders" crowd something to think about.

I never said they didn't make $ or didn't have a viable, if not successful business model. I just said that as a passenger, I would never consider them an option for getting anywhere, even if you offered to pay me to take the flight.


User currently offlinecapejet From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13726 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't think the city of Dallas was ever really in favor of closing Love Field. They were persuaded by the folks in Washington to agree to support the building of DFW, but they were never enthusiastic about it like Fort Worth. At that time Dallas was home to two airlines Southwest and Braniff. Southwest was small and did not have a lot of clout. Braniff was the pride of Dallas, a large well respected international airline. AA had its roots in Fort Worth, but had its corporate offices in NYC. AA would move to Fort Worth sometime after DFW was opened. The DFW area has been home to 3 major airlines and a few smaller commuters, a true aviation hub.

User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2941 posts, RR: 4
Reply 62, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13684 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mcdu (Reply 40):
The real carriers wre forced out to the new airport
Quoting mcdu (Reply 40):
The real airlines paid a significant price to move to there's convenient DFW and to allow WN to have a hub where AA could still have a hub had they not been forced to leave is bad.

So, when I fly B6 (which I do a LOT), I'm actually flying on thin air, because I'm not on a real airline? And I guess the 500 blue and orange 737s flying around America today are just an illusion?

And, it's "The real airlines paid a significant price to move to THEIR convenient DFW and to allow WN to have a hub where AA could still have a hub, had they not been forced to leave."



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently onlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2875 posts, RR: 30
Reply 63, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13605 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Thread starter):
“Being Southwest Airlines, we may have a surprise or two here or there with regards to timing,” Ricks said, “but we don’t know yet.”

Now that the surprise or two is with regard to timing.

The timing can't mean flights will start early because the amendment prohibits that.

If the surprise or two regarding timing is that they don't start some long haul flights when the amendment is dropped, that would be something rather odd to be bragging about.

So I'm really stumped as to what sort or surprise or two there could be related to timing. The only thing I can come up with is that they will publish those flights earlier than the normal booking window to try and generate more excitement and anticipation. But if the actually make them for sale farther out than the rest of the schedule it could be a logistical/technological issue. And if they announce them far in advance it only gives the competition more time to study if/how to best react. And such a "reaction" might not even involve Love Field.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 64, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13603 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 58):
I am more than happy to let WN compete under the auspices of the WA from DAL. They knew the terms when they started the service.

Except your timing is wrong, when WN started there was no WA, when WN was taken to court by the DFW crowd there was no WA.

As it relates to the main topic, how about WN advising at 1 minute after midnight on the big day that a few routes would be free to walk up pax or walk up fares revert to 20 years prior for the day.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22731 posts, RR: 20
Reply 65, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13590 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 58):
I am more than happy to let WN compete under the auspices of the WA from DAL. They knew the terms when they started the service.

Maybe, but by that logic, shouldn't everyone still be "competing under the auspices" of regulation? After all, all the carriers that were around pre-deregulation "knew the terms when they started the service?" You can't look at the WA/DAL in a vacuum without the historical context, both of regulation and of Dallas-Forth Worth geography and politics.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 66, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13359 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 65):
Maybe, but by that logic, shouldn't everyone still be "competing under the auspices" of regulation? After all, all the carriers that were around pre-deregulation "knew the terms when they started the service?" You can't look at the WA/DAL in a vacuum without the historical context, both of regulation and of Dallas-Forth Worth geography and politics.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to reregulation. Service would be better but the consumer would be paying much more than they do now. With regulation I don't think WN would have been allowed to be what they are today. The mythical $49 fares would not have been allowed.

Airlines would be able to compete on service versus the upper left corner on the orbitz price chart.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 67, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13303 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 66):
Airlines would be able to compete on service versus the upper left corner on the orbitz price chart.

Nothing preventing airlines from offering better service than their competitors, the question is does the market exist for that product and if it does not should an artificial one be created.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22731 posts, RR: 20
Reply 68, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13318 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 66):
Airlines would be able to compete on service versus the upper left corner on the orbitz price chart.

That's an interesting point with respect to WN, who isn't on Orbitz.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 69, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 13181 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 68):
That's an interesting point with respect to WN, who isn't on Orbitz.

WN isn't in orbitz because they don't want their fares compared to the others. They operate under a myth and a headline of being a low fare leader. The WN marketing machine is well oiled and potent. Back in the old days they probably offered the lowest fare. Today I don't believe they do.


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 13158 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 69):
WN isn't in orbitz because they don't want their fares compared to the others.

Oh, thats a bunch of B.S. They weren't on it 10 years ago for the same reason they aren't now, to save money.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 69):
Today I don't believe they do.

So you "believe" this. Beliefs display bias, facts don't, show me the facts or this is just a bunch of b.s. made up by you.



You will either love or hate the airline industry. If you love it, it will get in your blood and it will never leave.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 71, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 13056 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 69):
WN isn't in orbitz because they don't want their fares compared to the others. They operate under a myth and a headline of being a low fare leader. The WN marketing machine is well oiled and potent. Back in the old days they probably offered the lowest fare. Today I don't believe they do.

If you are saying WN fares are not available online you have an argument, but if you simply choose to do no homework and end up paying higher or lower fares that is your choice, others on the other hand........


User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12556 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 46):
I have one question, why does the owner of DAL not close it down

They probably wanted to keep DAL open for private aviation. When DFW was being built there was nothing but prairie out there. Take a look at www.historicaerials.com and you can see how middle of nowhere that was.

Quoting capejet (Reply 61):
I don't think the city of Dallas was ever really in favor of closing Love Field.

It made sense to keep small private planes and the coming business jets out of DFW. Their passengers were more targeted at DAL or FTW than a mixture of both. Dallas ran DAL but was only a partner at DFW. When MCI replaced MKC around the same time Kansas City ran both of them. MKC was kept open for private planes to keep them out of MCI. MKC was so dead the first 10 years after MCI opened the old TWA hangar by the bridge had tennis courts in it for active downtown workers. I'm not sure exactly what prevents a really determined airline from trying to force service at MKC. Air Midwest operated commuter flights there for over 10 years after MCI opened. Half of the terminal is still there but with the city directly running both airports they probably make lease terms unreasonable. Denver avoided the whole DAL/DFW legal mess by closing old DEN when DVX/new DEN opened.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 73, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12376 times:

Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 72):
Denver avoided the whole DAL/DFW legal mess by closing old DEN when DVX/new DEN opened.

  
As for MKC, one has to wonder how much money the city is spending, that should be prime real estate for any form of urban renewal.


User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12345 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 73):
As for MKC, one has to wonder how much money the city is spending, that should be prime real estate for any form of urban renewal.

I disagree, it is reasonably busy now for a GA airport. Closing it would not be a good idea. It is in a flood plain that any other developmental use might find problematic. There's lots of land for urban renewal in the river bottoms west of downtown that probably isn't put to better use for the same reasons.


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1578 posts, RR: 7
Reply 75, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12327 times:

Quoting deltacto (Reply 55):

How was Braniff able to operate these flights from Love, if they signed the agreement to move to DFW?
How long did these flights last?

IIRC it was about late 1974 that BN finally gave up and moved everything to DFW. It was difficult for pilots and f/a's to start their trip sequence at DFW and end it at DAL. The company seemed to have no great interest in arranging trips to arrive and depart from the same airport. Then you had to arrange for your own transportation back to DFW to get your car out of the employee lot and drive home. There was a regular bus service at that time but you had to watch the times closely as I believe that stopped service from about 2300-0500.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 76, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12341 times:

Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 72):
Quoting par13del (Reply 46):
I have one question, why does the owner of DAL not close it down

They probably wanted to keep DAL open for private aviation.

   That's exactly the reason why Dallas never wanted to close Love Field. They intended for it to be used for private aviation and it was conveniently located 6 miles from downtown. That's also why the City of Fort Worth never closed FTW. Meacham is also used for private aviation and it's 5 miles from downtown Fort Worth.

The problem was Dallas wanted to restrict DAL to general aviation only and the courts ruled that they couldn't. I suppose if an airline had wanted to serve Forth Worth out of Meacham rather than DFW back in 1974, they would have been allowed to do so for the same reason that Southwest was allowed to fly out of DAL.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 77, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12132 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 76):
The problem was Dallas wanted to restrict DAL to general aviation only and the courts ruled that they couldn't. I suppose if an airline had wanted to serve Forth Worth out of Meacham rather than DFW back in 1974, they would have been allowed to do so for the same reason that Southwest was allowed to fly out of DAL.

Actually I think someone did try to run service out of Meacham but did not last long. I seem to remember OKC-FTW (Meacham) I believe it was in the 80's
Now you are going to make me do some research when I get time.

Okie


User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12121 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 77):
I think someone did try to run service out of Meacham but did not last long.

Mesa (YV) ran a small operation under their own name at FTW about 15 years ago with CRJ's. It did not last long though.


User currently onlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12048 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 77):
Actually I think someone did try to run service out of Meacham but did not last long. I seem to remember OKC-FTW (Meacham) I believe it was in the 80's
Now you are going to make me do some research when I get time.

Okie

There were flights from FTW to Houston also in the late 90s IIRC on Mesa.



Ciao Windjet mi manchi
User currently offlinewilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12058 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 76):
That's exactly the reason why Dallas never wanted to close Love Field. They intended for it to be used for private aviation and it was conveniently located 6 miles from downtown. That's also why the City of Fort Worth never closed FTW. Meacham is also used for private aviation and it's 5 miles from downtown Fort Worth.

The problem was Dallas wanted to restrict DAL to general aviation only and the courts ruled that they couldn't. I suppose if an airline had wanted to serve Forth Worth out of Meacham rather than DFW back in 1974, they would have been allowed to do so for the same reason that Southwest was allowed to fly out of DAL.

So any GA airport is open to commercial ops then. Hmmm, wander when Teterboro in NJ will get commerical service?


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1578 posts, RR: 7
Reply 81, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12073 times:

On an interesting personal note, one night I had both Jim Wright and John Tower on a flight to DCA from DFW. They were sitting in 1A and 1B on the 727-200 and both had consumed several adult beverages (despite what Senator Tower later claimed during his confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense.) Sitting in the main cabin was our former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson. A charming, polite and gracious woman, she always politely declined the offer of a FC upgrade, paid for her beverages (and we were told by her Secret Service detail to take the money! It would hurt her feelings if we did not.) Certain members of congress felt an upgrade was their due and the ground staff did not dare challenge them.

After dinner a bit of the devil got into me so I leaned over to the Congressman and Senator and said "Gentlemen, I am not sure if you are aware of it but we have our former First Lady Mrs. Johnson aboard today." So, of course, they had to slink back like little kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar to say hello. My crew and I gathered in the aft galley with an incurable case of the giggles.

How ironic that Senator Tower would later die in an airplane crash. After numerous Braniff flight attendants came forward and testified that they had personally served the Senator alcoholic beverages on many occasions, his claim of years of sobriety was quickly squashed, as was his nomination. IIRC, he withdrew it himself.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently onlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2875 posts, RR: 30
Reply 82, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12022 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 77):
Actually I think someone did try to run service out of Meacham but did not last long. I seem to remember OKC-FTW (Meacham) I believe it was in the 80's
Now you are going to make me do some research when I get time.

Okie

I think you're thinking of Fort Worth Air which ran YS-11 turboprop aircraft out of Fort Worth for several months around 1986 or so. Kind of surprised I can't seem to find any trace of them online at the moment, but I do have a timetable or two at home.


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1578 posts, RR: 7
Reply 83, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11913 times:

When was the last commercial service out of Greater Southwest Airport? I recall taking off from DFW towards the south and immediately passing over the deserted terminal and runways. For years there was an old B-36 parked there that was fun to see. I seem to recall one airline (either DL or EA) that lost a DC-9-10 there during a training flight.


Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 84, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11747 times:

Quoting william (Reply 80):
So any GA airport is open to commercial ops then. Hmmm, wander when Teterboro in NJ will get commerical service?

I never said any GA airport is open to commercial ops. We're talking about DAL and FTW here. Teterboro has a weight limit of 100,000 lbs on aircraft, so that pretty much rules out commercial service there. DAL has (I believe) a weight limit of 300,000 lbs and FTW has (I believe) a weight limit of 350,000 lbs.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11718 times:

Here is the countdown clock at the HQ. I have to say its very fancy.

https://twitter.com/whitbartels/status/389778299687149568



You will either love or hate the airline industry. If you love it, it will get in your blood and it will never leave.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 86, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11678 times:

Quoting william (Reply 80):
So any GA airport is open to commercial ops then.

If the airport was originally built to commercial aviation standards, in some cases, as jet a/c evolved some airports were not updated and as such are only capable of accepting GA traffic, runways not long enough, weight limits, no tower, etc. etc. etc.
In the case of DAL, look at commercial aviation as a grandfather function. 


User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11616 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 83):
For years there was an old B-36 parked there that was fun to see.

The history and restoration of the last B-36 ever built "City of Ft. Worth". The former gate guardian at GSW.
http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/last_one.htm


User currently onlinejsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2017 posts, RR: 15
Reply 88, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11571 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 83):

When was the last commercial service out of Greater Southwest Airport? I recall taking off from DFW towards the south and immediately passing over the deserted terminal and runways. For years there was an old B-36 parked there that was fun to see. I seem to recall one airline (either DL or EA) that lost a DC-9-10 there during a training flight.

Scheduled service at GSW ended in 1969. Charter services and training flights continued up until January 1974 when DFW opened. At that point the GSW runways were closed due to their close proximity to the new airport.

The DC9 crash you reference was in 1972. It was a Delta training flight that attempted to land behind an American DC10 that had been doing touch-and-gos on GSW's runway 13. The DC9 hit the DC10's wingtip vortex, flipped over and crashed just past the touchdown zone.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 89, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11423 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 76):
That's exactly the reason why Dallas never wanted to close Love Field. They intended for it to be used for private aviation and it was conveniently located 6 miles from downtown.

Not only private aviation, when the Dallas City Council agreed to the joint airport, their meeting minutes clearly state that they expected DAL to stay open for commuter airline traffic.

For anyone interested, I suggest reading From Prairie to Planes by Kathy Fitzpatrick and Darwin Payne. It's dirt cheap on Amazon and is probably the most comprehensive write-up of the DFW airport history and the Wright Amendment. It's an easy read and is heavily cited.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 802 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11404 times:

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 2):
"Not only did the law bar flights beyond those states, but it also barred airlines from selling a ticket that would take a passenger to airports beyond those states even on a connecting or one-stop basis." Crazy!

Not crazy when you consider the region had spent millions on a new airport because it was known that DAL could not support the regions traffic demand long term. Is it outdated now? Yes, but it wasn't outdated when it was put into place.

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 2):
I find myself asking the same question with the perimeter rules at LGA and DCA... Why???


Both of these airports are the preferred airports in the region. Pulling the perimeter rule probably makes sense at this point, but they'd still need to be slot allocated because without limitations they would get flooded with flights. Eliminating the perimeter rule would probably benefit both by eliminating the ridiculous number of RJ flights in favor of longer haul flights in larger aircraft.

Quoting n471wn (Reply 3):
Bay Area have 3 and Los Angels has 5

San Jose has a curfew.
Orange County, Burbank and Long Beach have curfews and/or use restrictions.

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 76):
The problem was Dallas wanted to restrict DAL to general aviation only and the courts ruled that they couldn't. I suppose if an airline had wanted to serve Forth Worth out of Meacham rather than DFW back in 1974, they would have been allowed to do so for the same reason that Southwest was allowed to fly out of DAL.

The problem was that competing agencies operated the airports and Southwest was an Intrastate Carrier wanting to provide Interstate flights under deregulation. Had they placed all of the airports in the DFW region under one agency, that agency could have dictated the use of any and all of the airports in the region and the courts couldn't have done a thing about it. It also would have negated the need for the Wright Amendment. If a single agency controls multiple airports in a market (or region), then it is completely permissible for that agency to restrict use of one or more airports under its control.

[Edited 2013-10-14 10:34:30]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 91, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11397 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 58):
And I too don't think you understand. The WN niche was carved from the restrictions of the WA. If they didn't want to operate under the WA then they should have been forced to leave DAL like the rest of the airlines. I am more than happy to let WN compete under the auspices of the WA from DAL. They knew the terms when they started the service.

You are mistaken in basic fact:

Southwest began service from Love Field in 1971

The Wright Amendment was passed in 1979

You cannot argue "[Southwest] knew the terms when they started the service" for a law that didn't exist until their eighth year of operation.

The law was blatantly anti-competitive and has outlived any legitimate purpose it might have ever served. We're not a country of stagnant laws. We review them, modify them, or repeal them as necessary. Public polling in 2006 indicated that North Texans were for repealing the Wright Amendment 80% to 20%. You would have us ignore basic democratic process for a legal relic.

[Edited 2013-10-14 10:17:30]

User currently offlineODwyerPW From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11318 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 70):
Oh, thats a bunch of B.S.

Hey, play nice. No potty mouths in the sandbox.
Seriously, a topic like the Wright amemendment is so sensitive we don't have to use inflammatory language.

Back on topic.... I can see the abolishment of this ammendment as providing huge cost reductions to WN. This will be wonderful for them. Operating out of their home base so handicapped for all of these years; no wonder the countdown!



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 802 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11317 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 91):
The law was blatantly anti-competitive and has outlived any legitimate purpose it might have ever served. We're not a country of stagnant laws. We review them, modify them, or repeal them as necessary. Public polling in 2006 indicated that North Texans were for repealing the Wright Amendment 80% to 20%. You would have us ignore basic democratic process for a legal relic.

1. The only reason it existed was because of deregulation. Southwest (an intrastate carrier prior to deregulation), benefited from State oversight which incidentally protected them from many of the Federal Regulations that impacted the other carriers who flew across state lines.

2. The law was passed to protect a Federal interest - that being investment in a new airport which was built because DAL wasn't going to be able to handle all of the air traffic it needed to. While the law was considered obsolete in 2006, it was a completely different story in 1979.

Quoting william (Reply 80):
So any GA airport is open to commercial ops then. Hmmm, wander when Teterboro in NJ will get commerical service?

They won't, unless PANYNJ decides to make it a commercial airport. In theory they could, but it's unlikely they ever will.

[Edited 2013-10-14 10:37:21]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 94, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11168 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 93):
1. The only reason it existed was because of deregulation. Southwest (an intrastate carrier prior to deregulation), benefited from State oversight which incidentally protected them from many of the Federal Regulations that impacted the other carriers who flew across state lines.

And the purpose of deregulation was to increase competition. Saying the Wright Amendment was necessary component of de-regulation is self-defeating.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 93):
2. The law was passed to protect a Federal interest - that being investment in a new airport which was built because DAL wasn't going to be able to handle all of the air traffic it needed to. While the law was considered obsolete in 2006, it was a completely different story in 1979.

The record for passenger traffic through DAL was 6.7 passengers million in 1973. The best data I've seen estimates approximately 12 million passengers transited DFW in 1978, the year before the Wright Amendment. There was no going back.


User currently offlineSooner787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11158 times:

The way things are booming up in Collin County ( north of Dallas)

I wonder when/if the Collin County Airport in McKinney will open up

to commercial flights ( UA Express AA eagle, etc ) ?

It's a 45 min - 1 hour drive from that part of town to either DFW or DAL.


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10968 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 90):
Both of these airports are the preferred airports in the region. Pulling the perimeter rule probably makes sense at this point, but they'd still need to be slot allocated because without limitations they would get flooded with flights. Eliminating the perimeter rule would probably benefit both by eliminating the ridiculous number of RJ flights in favor of longer haul flights in larger aircraft.

While I would love to get rid of the perimeter rule, there are not the facilities at either airport to handle the increase in passengers from more mainline and less RJs.



You will either love or hate the airline industry. If you love it, it will get in your blood and it will never leave.
User currently offlinetjh8402 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10938 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 84):

I never said any GA airport is open to commercial ops. We're talking about DAL and FTW here. Teterboro has a weight limit of 100,000 lbs on aircraft, so that pretty much rules out commercial service there. DAL has (I believe) a weight limit of 300,000 lbs and FTW has (I believe) a weight limit of 350,000 lbs.

Plenty of RJs have MTOW under 100k so that's not what's keeping them out of TEB. TEB sees Gulfstreams and Globals that are as big, if not bigger, than RJs, as well as bizjets that are based on RJs (like Embraers ERJ-135 based Legacy and E-190 based Lineage). I'm curious, Orlando went through a similar transition, with commercial traffic moving from ORL to MCO, and ORL becoming GA only. Aside from runway length requirements, what caused this? Not that any has reason to want to, but assuming someone did, what would stop an airline from restarting service to ORL aside from possible lack of facilities and TSA issues (we're not badged at ORL)? ORL has a 6000 ft runway and sees BBJs and ACJs, there's not an inability to handle mainline sized aircraft, much less RJs.


User currently offlinedeltacto From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10633 times:

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 82):
I think you're thinking of Fort Worth Air which ran YS-11 turboprop aircraft out of Fort Worth for several months around 1986 or so. Kind of surprised I can't seem to find any trace of them online at the moment, but I do have a timetable or two at home.

The February 1985 OAG shows flights on Fort Worth Air from Meacham to both Houston Hobby and San Antonio

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

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


User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 99, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10541 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 98):

Right. The rule was put in place when WN was intrastate operation. They were free to move to the airports designed and forced upon the real airlines at the time. WN wanted the monopoly of DAL and prospered by flying under the radar with limited service for many many years. I still believe if they want to fly outside of the perimeter it should be from DFW and not DAL. The other carriers were forced to move and so should WN.

Technically No...WN was already flying HOU-MSY, their first inter state route before Wright Amend had begun. I know I am splitting hairs here but it was the launching of DAL-MSY that caused Jim Wright and many others to protest to WN's expansion outside Texas, and Dallas specifically.

There was no rule for WN when WN started DAL in 1971..there was no Rule when WN launched HOU-MSY...there was no rule when WN launched DAL-MSY (which is the route that started the whole Law and Ruling debate)

The irony of the ruling though is the Wright Amendment, the original one catered to Southwest, even though Southwest did not create the law. If the law really wanted to prevent WN from expanding it should have said all flights from DAL must have been kept within the state of Texas. Southwest had one interstate route, HOU-MSY, this law still didn't affect Southwest at the time. It still allowed Southwest to keep flying and to add routes beyond Texas and Dallas to the original states bordering Texas.

No airline was forced to move, when DFW was being built, it was asked among the airlines at DAL, if we build DFW, will you be willing to move to DFW and help shoulder the cost, the airlines signed that agreement. They were not forced to do so...people stating airlines were forced to move to DFW are wrong in that context.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlinetexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4273 posts, RR: 52
Reply 100, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 10482 times:

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 95):
The way things are booming up in Collin County ( north of Dallas)

I wonder when/if the Collin County Airport in McKinney will open up

to commercial flights ( UA Express AA eagle, etc ) ?

It's a 45 min - 1 hour drive from that part of town to either DFW or DAL.

It won't happen unless the Wright compromise bill is overturned. Part of the compromise, approved by Congress, forbade the operation of other airports within a specified distance from opening up to airline flights. TKI falls under the limitation.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently onlineflyiguy From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10421 times:

The cities that will be most likely are obviously the crew bases. ATL, MCO, BWI, DEN, MDW, PHX, LAS & OAK. The cities that will be hurt by the lifting of the Wright Amendment will be thru cities such as LBB, AMA, ELP and ABQ and to a lesser extent STL, MCI and HOU. We've already seen reductions I. ELP and ABQ have already seen some drastic cuts from their hay days. On top of the crew bases I see non stops to LAX, SEA, PDX, DCA, BNA, BOS , SAN and possibly SFO. Let's not forget that with the reduction of thru flights we will have additional aircraft for INT'L flying from HOU when the FIS facility opens.

FLY



The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 102, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10320 times:

Quoting texan (Reply 102):
Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 95):
The way things are booming up in Collin County ( north of Dallas)

I wonder when/if the Collin County Airport in McKinney will open up

to commercial flights ( UA Express AA eagle, etc ) ?

It's a 45 min - 1 hour drive from that part of town to either DFW or DAL.

It won't happen unless the Wright compromise bill is overturned. Part of the compromise, approved by Congress, forbade the operation of other airports within a specified distance from opening up to airline flights. TKI falls under the limitation.

That's not correct. The agreement states that Dallas and Fort Worth agree to oppose any airline service within an 80-mile radius of Love Field during the 8-year period (from 2006 until 2014) And just because the two cities agree to oppose airline service at other airports, doesn't mean it can't happen. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth have no jurisdiction over airports owned by other cities.

The agreement also states that if Southwest or American initiates service at another airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field, then they have to relinquish some of their gates at Love Field. That clause only applies to AA and WN (not any other carriers) and that clause expires in 2025.

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/dal_ResolveWrightAmendment.pdf

(See Item 6, Item 10 and Item 11)

LoneStarMike


User currently offlinetexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4273 posts, RR: 52
Reply 103, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10195 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 104):
That's not correct. The agreement states that Dallas and Fort Worth agree to oppose any airline service within an 80-mile radius of Love Field during the 8-year period (from 2006 until 2014) And just because the two cities agree to oppose airline service at other airports, doesn't mean it can't happen. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth have no jurisdiction over airports owned by other cities.

Really? I thought it forbade service completely. Serves me right for not having looked at the agreement in years.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10138 times:

Quoting texan (Reply 102):
It won't happen unless the Wright compromise bill is overturned. Part of the compromise, approved by Congress, forbade the operation of other airports within a specified distance from opening up to airline flights. TKI falls under the limitation.

Texan
Quoting texan (Reply 105):
Really? I thought it forbade service completely. Serves me right for not having looked at the agreement in years.

Texan

LoneStarMike is right. CO now UA is the one who came out the best in the deal. They have gates at DAL and DFW and can fly out of any airport in North Texas without having to give up a gate at DAL. The only thing CO protested was the new agreement originally restricted international transfers, but CO brought up that they have been doing that since 1998. CO was always able to do through ticketing because they flew planes with 56 seats or less. After the new agreement they started flying Q400s and CRJ-700s.



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 105, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10083 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 106):
CO was always able to do through ticketing because they flew planes with 56 seats or less. After the new agreement they started flying Q400s and CRJ-700s.

Why did they change the aircraft type with the "new agreement" which doesn't go into effect until Oct 2014 anyway? They could fly a 757, or a ERJ or a CR7, DAL-IAH (the only route they fly at the time) without breaking the law? Or are you referring to the thru ticketing allowances that was changed in 2006 where the aircraft type did NOT have to be under 56 seats to sell beyond DAL?

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10056 times:

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 107):
Why did they change the aircraft type with the "new agreement" which doesn't go into effect until Oct 2014 anyway? They could fly a 757, or a ERJ or a CR7, DAL-IAH (the only route they fly at the time) without breaking the law? Or are you referring to the thru ticketing allowances that was changed in 2006 where the aircraft type did NOT have to be under 56 seats to sell beyond DAL?

Alex

They changed aircraft for thru ticketing. Prior to 2006, only the ERJs with 56 seats or less got around it. After that they could upgauge to larger aircraft to IAH which they did. I can't wait for EWR in 2014. I'll never have to go to DFW ever again!!!!



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5490 posts, RR: 28
Reply 107, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9901 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 26):
Quoting mcdu (Reply 98):
I still believe if they want to fly outside of the perimeter it should be from DFW and not DAL. The other carriers were forced to move and so should WN.

And you are well-entitled to "believe" that - but as a consumer of aviation services in the DFW area, I would find it highly objectionable to compel a competitive carrier to do business in a less-efficient way. It appears, from Southwest's successful growth, I would not be the only one.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 100):
No airline was forced to move, when DFW was being built, it was asked among the airlines at DAL, if we build DFW, will you be willing to move to DFW and help shoulder the cost, the airlines signed that agreement. They were not forced to do so...people stating airlines were forced to move to DFW are wrong in that context.

Well, let's split words here - commercial airports rely heavily upon federal funding to develop and survive, and the CAB had decreed that neither Dallas nor Fort Worth would get another red cent for their respective airports unless and until they agreed on a joint airport plan. The city governments could make very strong and persuasive arguments to the air carriers. While I may be glad Love's still a viable alternative for airline travel, it would be nuts not to admit that DFW has been a huge asset for north Texas



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 108, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9869 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 93):
2. The law was passed to protect a Federal interest - that being investment in a new airport which was built because DAL wasn't going to be able to handle all of the air traffic it needed to. While the law was considered obsolete in 2006, it was a completely different story in 1979.

No, it was to protect the money and power of rich and powerful people. People who got very upset that they were told they couldn't do whatever they wanted to whoever they wanted.

It wasn't about protecting DFW, it was about slapping down WN and the people who dared to say NO. People who didn't play the game the way they said it should be played.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 802 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9770 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 111):
No, it was to protect the money and power of rich and powerful people. People who got very upset that they were told they couldn't do whatever they wanted to whoever they wanted.

It wasn't about protecting DFW, it was about slapping down WN and the people who dared to say NO. People who didn't play the game the way they said it should be played.

Let's try to stick to facts, not hyperbole. The fight over Love Field's use is long past. No one needs to campaign.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 94):

And the purpose of deregulation was to increase competition. Saying the Wright Amendment was necessary component of de-regulation is self-defeating.

It was a necessary component in the DFW region because it was preferred to have consolidated commercial operations at DFW not duplicative passengers operations at two airports. People were flying, but nothing like we have today. As bullish as people were about deregulation, a lot of people felt it was very likely it could fail.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 94):

The record for passenger traffic through DAL was 6.7 passengers million in 1973. The best data I've seen estimates approximately 12 million passengers transited DFW in 1978, the year before the Wright Amendment. There was no going back.

You can't compare 1973 Dallas pre-derivation air traffic with 1978 when the hub and spoke model was employed as deregulation came into play. The issue wasn't "going back" it was "who can last and if there is a shake out will there be enough passengers to cover the investment".


Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 100):
Technically No...WN was already flying HOU-MSY, their first inter state route before Wright Amend had begun. I know I am splitting hairs here but it was the launching of DAL-MSY that caused Jim Wright and many others to protest to WN's expansion outside Texas, and Dallas specifically.

In the transitional period, it was permissible for intrastate carriers to get permission to fly to points in other states. It was not until 1981 that domestic restrictions were completely removed. During this time, Congress retained some rather broad powers which is what ultimately allowed for the Wright Amendment.

[Edited 2013-10-15 00:38:24]

User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 6
Reply 110, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9710 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 3):
We need to have more gates allowed and built at DAL as I have frequently opined. It is ridiculous to have any restrictions on Love Field---look at other large cities and metropolitan areas---most have more than one airport to choose from---we in the Bay Area have 3 and Los Angels has 5, Chicago 3 and NYC area 3 to name a few.

What is the 3rd Chicago airport? GYY? LOL! I understand they have no service again. That airport will never work. Never! It is worse than DET which also did not work.


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 111, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9665 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 113):
That airport will never work. Never! It is worse than DET which also did not work.

Look at their locations...you might get shot or carjacked just getting to the airport.


User currently offlineAirFiero From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9269 times:

I know that WN has been adverse to traditional "hub" operations, but is there any chance they might create a hub at Love?

User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9033 times:

Quoting AirFiero (Reply 117):
I know that WN has been adverse to traditional "hub" operations, but is there any chance they might create a hub at Love?

I dont think WN will ever have enough gates for a true hub at LUV. I am sure they will take connections as they are profitable but the focus will be on o&d IMHO. They can offer N/S to cities like ATL, DEN, LAX, LAS, MDW etc places that people really want to go from Dallas so that is huge. No more one stops needed.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 114, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8970 times:

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 119):
I dont think WN will ever have enough gates for a true hub at LUV. I am sure they will take connections as they are profitable but the focus will be on o&d IMHO. They can offer N/S to cities like ATL, DEN, LAX, LAS, MDW etc places that people really want to go from Dallas so that is huge. No more one stops needed

If you figure all the WA stops where 17 people get off and 17 get on while 120 sit at the gate in the plane at a WA city 10 times a day then you are going to gain 10+ hours of aircraft efficiency due decelerating to land, turn time and getting back up to flight level. The passenger loads of the WA will be have to deal with less frequency and will have to stand on their own passenger O & D.

Several states were added to WA over time and effect is not going to be disastrous because the of the additional states added over time decreased flights to a lot of the close WA cities. There will be some balancing involved but I suspect WN knows where their ticket sales are.

Okie


User currently offlineAirFiero From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8775 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 118):
Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 119):
I dont think WN will ever have enough gates for a true hub at LUV. I am sure they will take connections as they are profitable but the focus will be on o&d IMHO. They can offer N/S to cities like ATL, DEN, LAX, LAS, MDW etc places that people really want to go from Dallas so that is huge. No more one stops needed

How many gates do they have? Maybe enough to link some key destinations, like Bay area and LA to Florida, and so on? Maybe other cities in the south west to the north east?


User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 906 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8711 times:

Quoting AirFiero (Reply 123):
How many gates do they have? Maybe enough to link some key destinations, like Bay area and LA to Florida, and so on? Maybe other cities in the south west to the north east?

WN has 16 gates, UA has 2, and AA has 2 (DL currently leases AA's gates from them). With 16 gates, WN can and probably will push 160-165 flights a day out of DAL putting it in line with DEN, PHX, and HOU. If red-eyes from the west coast (ie. SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX, SAN) are run, maybe even more.

http://swamedia.com/channels/Corpora...t/pages/corporate-fact-sheet#top10

Without the need for DAL to have the one-stops, I could see some of those WA gateway cities get nonstops to HOU instead of DAL since quite a few of them are currently routed through DAL to take advantage of the need for a stop to continue beyond the WA perimeter. I do think, at the very least, DAL-HOU will maintain hourly service. Some of the :15 and :30 flights may go away, but for the most part I think that routes schedule will remain intact.



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2941 posts, RR: 4
Reply 117, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8663 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 125):
WN has 16 gates, UA has 2, and AA has 2 (DL currently leases AA's gates from them). With 16 gates, WN can and probably will push 160-165 flights a day out of DAL putting it in line with DEN, PHX, and HOU. If red-eyes from the west coast (ie. SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX, SAN) are run, maybe even more.

Does DL lease both gates from AA? Seems like a waste of money to lease two gates for 5 CRJ-200s a day (and with only one RON).

Also, while we are kind of on the subject, does anybody see DL upguaging ATL-DAL when the WA is gone? I imagine they'll put two-class CRJs on the route, especially with more and more CRJ-900s coming into service.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11215 posts, RR: 52
Reply 118, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8558 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 17):
Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
It wasn't, but I don't think they minded much. They got handed a virtual monopoly of the airport, an a legally-enforced one at that - that's pretty valuable.

Are you faulting the airline for making a genious business decision?

So, what is your position on airline slot allocation at DCA?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2941 posts, RR: 4
Reply 119, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8533 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 127):

What does that have to do with this?

And personally, I'm neutral when it comes to the DCA slot allocation. I get that it was put in place to get people to use IAD. It also prevents overuse of the airport, makin it a more enjoyable facility to use. On the negative side, it gives US Airways a greater advantage than some others, but everybody seems to be working well s DCA. B6 is growing as is WN, and DL was able to swap slots with US at LGA, making both parties happy.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 120, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8484 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 125):
Also, while we are kind of on the subject, does anybody see DL upguaging ATL-DAL when the WA is gone? I imagine they'll put two-class CRJs on the route, especially with more and more CRJ-900s coming into service.

DL subleases their gates at DAL from AA. If AA were to decide they want those gates back after the Wright Amendment goes away (and if AA fully utilizes them) DL may not be flying out of DAL at all.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8410 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 125):
Does DL lease both gates from AA? Seems like a waste of money to lease two gates for 5 CRJ-200s a day (and with only one RON).

Delta leases one AA gate and SeaPort Airlines has the other AA gate. UA onws their two.



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2941 posts, RR: 4
Reply 122, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8418 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 128):

Very interesting. I hope DL isn't forced to leave DAL.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 129):

Thanks, I knew DL couldn't be paying for an unnecessary gate.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1578 posts, RR: 7
Reply 123, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8095 times:

Does the Wright Amendment still cover the number of gates? I believe I read that terminal 2 will be demolished in 2014--could that be reconstructed with a larger terminal with more gates?


Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 124, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8055 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 123):
Does the Wright Amendment still cover the number of gates? I believe I read that terminal 2 will be demolished in 2014--could that be reconstructed with a larger terminal with more gates?

The Wright Amendment limits the total number of gates to 20. Currently, Southwest has 12 gates in the portion of the new terminal that has been completed (Gates 1-10, Gate 12 and Gate 14) and 3 gates in the old West Concourse (renumbered as Gates 42, 43, and 44) for a total of 15 gates.

Terminal 1 Map

United has control of 2 gates (27 & 28) and AA has control of 3 gates (29, 30, & 31) in the old East Concourse (Which has been renamed Terminal 2.) I believe that of AA's 3 gates, one is used by Delta, one by Seaport and the third one is unused.

Teminal 2 Map

Once the western portion of the new concourse is completed it will add 8 gates (Gate 11, Gate 13 and Gates 15-20.) Southwest will move their 3 remaining gates from the old West Concourse, and the 5 gates in Terminal 2 will also be moved. Southwest will gain control of one more gate (from AA) giving Southwest a total of 16 gates, American - 2 gates and United 2 gates. At that point, Terminal 2 will be torn down.

LoneStarMike

[Edited 2013-10-16 05:31:47]

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11215 posts, RR: 52
Reply 125, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7862 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 127):
Quoting D L X (Reply 127):

What does that have to do with this?

I'm curious to see if you also think that monopolies "earned" (for lack of a better word) through natural competition or through mergers should be able to keep their slots, or should the government divest them. The parallels between the situations at DAL and DCA or LGA are clearly there, though there are also obvious differences. I was just wondering where you stood.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 906 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7830 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):

I'm curious to see if you also think that monopolies "earned" (for lack of a better word) through natural competition or through mergers should be able to keep their slots, or should the government divest them. The parallels between the situations at DAL and DCA or LGA are clearly there, though there are also obvious differences. I was just wondering where you stood.

DAL isn't a monopoly for WN due to a lack of access since it is not slot controlled, others have tried service there and failed. Prior to this agreement, DAL wasn't gate limited either so anyone could have started service there and many tried. DCA and LGA are slot controlled which is a totally different situation.



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 6
Reply 127, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7807 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 3):
We need to have more gates allowed and built at DAL as I have frequently opined. It is ridiculous to have any restrictions on Love Field---look at other large cities and metropolitan areas---most have more than one airport to choose from---we in the Bay Area have 3 and Los Angels has 5, Chicago 3 and NYC area 3 to name a few.

What is the 3rd Chicago airport? GYY? LOL! I understand they have no service again. That airport will never work. Never! It is worse than DET which also did not work.

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 111):
Quoting milesrich (Reply 113):
That airport will never work. Never! It is worse than DET which also did not work.

Look at their locations...you might get shot or carjacked just getting to the airport.

AWAC, I don't think the bad neighborhoods in which the airports are located, DET and GYY, have much to do with it. GYY is only closer than MDW to a very small part of greater Chicagoland, so it's a convenience factor, and the so called big draw is that it is right off the Skyway-Indiana Toll Road, but that means the only people that are going to go there from Illinois are on the Southside of Chicago, i.e., much closer to MDW than ORD. The area close to the airport is not a high income area by any stretch of the definition. But I think Peotone is also a crazy idea. Plus from both ORD and MDW have rapid transit service from downtown, so unless its for a really cheap flight, no one is going to go to GYY.


User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 128, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting milesrich (Reply 127):
What is the 3rd Chicago airport? GYY? LOL! I understand they have no service again. That airport will never work. Never! It is worse than DET which also did not work.

Milwaukee


User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7527 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 124):
erminal 1 Map

United has control of 2 gates (27 & 28) and AA has control of 3 gates (29, 30, & 31) in the old East Concourse (Which has been renamed Terminal 2.) I believe that of AA's 3 gates, one is used by Delta, one by Seaport and the third one is unused.

I just need to make some minor corrections to this. Gates 27 and 28 do not exist anymore. UA has gates 29 and 30. AA gates are 31 and 32. Delta subleases 31 and Seaport Airlines subleases 32. There are only 4 gates in Terminal 1 UA/DL Terminal. This mean WN should have 16 gates in their terminal now. UA/AA only have 4 gates.

Video below of Terminal 1 Operations at Dallas Love Field. This was before the UA rebrand. It was all Continental and Delta and some G4 and Seaport. Only 4 gates thou
http://youtu.be/82kg6Kjmtyo



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3009 posts, RR: 2
Reply 130, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7377 times:

The odious WA will die an over-due and just death in a year. HOORAY!! But I just wonder how long it will take for there to be protesters about increased "noise". Yes, DAL is surrounded by the city, but so are LGA, MDW, etc. Folks today don't have a clue what REAL airport noise (angelic music to me) is... How about when 707s, DC8s, DC9s, 727s, etc regularly took off from & landed at DAL?? Yeah, the area around DAL is going to be unfit for human habitation soon!  Yeah sure

[Edited 2013-10-16 17:14:23]


Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 131, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7367 times:

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 130):
But I just wonder how long it will take for there to be protesters about increased "noise".

The airport lowered its gate capacity, WN is capped at 16, they also do very little if any red eyes, so the 4 gates available for the night flyers should not generate much additional traffic in the evenings.
It sure would be funny to see the DAL authorities put a curfew in place, I can hear the shouts now, more protection for WN.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 132, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7233 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 129):
I just need to make some minor corrections to this. Gates 27 and 28 do not exist anymore. UA has gates 29 and 30. AA gates are 31 and 32. Delta subleases 31 and Seaport Airlines subleases 32. There are only 4 gates in Terminal 1 UA/DL Terminal. This mean WN should have 16 gates in their terminal now.

Thanks for the correction about the UA/AA gates only totaling 4 now. But where is the 16th WN gate? I count 12 in the new concourse and 3 in the old for a total of 15.

Quoting par13del (Reply 131):
It sure would be funny to see the DAL authorities put a curfew in place

DAL already has a curfew in place from 11:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.

http://www.lovefieldmodernizationpro...esolveTheWrightAmendmentIssues.pdf

(See Item 4)

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 133, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7213 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 132):
But where is the 16th WN gate? I count 12 in the new concourse and 3 in the old for a total of 15.

You count right, they gain a gate with the new terminal.



You will either love or hate the airline industry. If you love it, it will get in your blood and it will never leave.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 134, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7178 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 132):
DAL already has a curfew in place from 11:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.

Thanks, proves how much more reading one must do  


User currently onlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 135, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7019 times:

For arguments sake let's say an airline wants to start service at FTW will they be limited to 20 gates? I thought the 20-gate limit at DAL ended in 2025.


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 906 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6823 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 135):
For arguments sake let's say an airline wants to start service at FTW will they be limited to 20 gates? I thought the 20-gate limit at DAL ended in 2025.

They'll be limited to less than that as FTW is surrounded by neighborhoods and their isn't anywhere to build a terminal with more than 6 or 7 gates.



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 137, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6785 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 135):
I thought the 20-gate limit at DAL ended in 2025.

What ends in 2025 is the requirement that Southwest or American give up gates at Love Field should they decide to initiate service at another airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field. Love Field would still be limited to 20 gates under the current law.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 138, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6748 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 133):
You count right, they gain a gate with the new terminal

That will be the new 787 equipped gate.   


Okie


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 139, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6637 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 138):
Quoting airliner371 (Reply 133):
You count right, they gain a gate with the new terminal

That will be the new 787 equipped gate.

That must be the gate where the red-outlined plane is parked.  

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 802 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6593 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 131):
It sure would be funny to see the DAL authorities put a curfew in place, I can hear the shouts now, more protection for WN.

That's what they did in order to limit the number of gates and get what amounts to an appeal of the Wright Amendment. An airport with a curfew can have artificial constraints if the FAA signs off on it, which they did.

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/Wright_Amend_Agreement061506.pdf

[Edited 2013-10-17 10:33:55]

User currently offlinebarney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 926 posts, RR: 13
Reply 141, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6537 times:

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 130):
The odious WA will die an over-due and just death in a year

Can we all agree that the WA doesn't in fact "die"?

Gate restrictions and more importantly, a prohibition on all international flights means the WA has only been "amended".

Quoting okie (Reply 138):
That will be the new 787 equipped gate.

Unfortunately, that 787 will have to stop in HOU before it can fly to GIG.  



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlineSooner787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 142, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6467 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 138):
That will be the new 787 equipped gate.

nope, the 787 gates will be at HOU 


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12903 posts, RR: 100
Reply 143, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6456 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting barney captain (Reply 141):
Gate restrictions and more importantly, a prohibition on all international flights means the WA has only been "amended".

Agreed. This will limit WN's growth at DAL. Which means:

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 142):
nope, the 787 gates will be at HOU

   As will other WN growth due to the gate restrictions. Or some other airport...

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3009 posts, RR: 2
Reply 144, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6415 times:

Quoting barney captain (Reply 141):
Gate restrictions and more importantly, a prohibition on all international flights means the WA has only been "amended".

HEAR, HEAR! Why can't it be allowed to go to the place where bad laws go to die? Enough with artificial market tinkering already!



Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2740 posts, RR: 1
Reply 145, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6291 times:

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 144):
HEAR, HEAR! Why can't it be allowed to go to the place where bad laws go to die? Enough with artificial market tinkering already!

All it takes is an Act of Congress. That's it.

So write what you have in mind as to how to change this to your U.S. Representative, your two U.S. State Senators, and the President. And if there is a majority vote to such in the U.S. House of Representatives, and then same with U.S. Senate, and then the sitting U.S. President signs off on it..... viola..... no more WA or protectionist laws at DAL.......

Ain't democracy a bi*ch, eh?

 


User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 146, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6235 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have said it many times and I will say it again---anyone who thinks that the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is going to live with one full service airport (DFW) and one restricted airport (DAL) is simple foolish. Laws will be changed as the free market will demand it and WN is strong enough to make it happen. Never say never.

User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 147, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6159 times:

Quoting barney captain (Reply 141):
Gate restrictions and more importantly, a prohibition on all international flights means the WA has only been "amended".
Quoting point2point (Reply 145):
So write what you have in mind as to how to change this to your U.S. Representative, your two U.S. State Senators, and the President.

Nah, simple way to get it done is to just get a local politician to slip an amendment in a major bill which everyone is focused on, put something like international flights in 5 years and it would probably pass without anyone noticing until its too late.
Fortunately or unfortunately that is how a large number of bills / laws have been passed "in the dead of night", heck one bail out bill resulted in the 24 hour rule to give reps enough time to read the bills they were voting on, go figure.


User currently offlineLittleFokker From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 269 posts, RR: 1
Reply 148, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6111 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 146):
I have said it many times and I will say it again---anyone who thinks that the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is going to live with one full service airport (DFW) and one restricted airport (DAL) is simple foolish. Laws will be changed as the free market will demand it and WN is strong enough to make it happen.

Funny, NYC gets along fine with 3 restricted airports (slots), Los Angeles gets along fine with 1 open airport (albeit restricted by available gates) and 4 curfew/slot restricted airports, as well as Chicago - 1 open airport, and another limited by size and slots for future growth. Plus, the size and location of DAL limits it's potential - DFW is still the most convenient airport for the large majority of the population. You'll see some new nonstops to the places WN is already strong, but DAL is not going to open the floodgates of new service the WN cheerleaders are thinking it will be.



"Toughest wind I ever played in....straight down!" - W. C. Fields
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5997 times:

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 139):

That must be the gate where the red-outlined plane is parked.  

There is a story behind that gate. All the gates at DAL are desgined to hold 737s. That was the only gate that can hold a larger aircraft and still have a 737 parked on both sides. This gate was supposed to be for AA at their first request. since it was first desgin AA and UA swapped gates. so now this gate and the one next to it on the right are UA. I think old CO which offered to switch. Now the can fly 753 into DAL if they ever have a reason to. Things have changed since the merger so who knows how they will use them. CO did not like flying into more than one airport in same city. Dallas was the only place they did that. Had the merger not happened, DFW airport wouldn't have been to pleased with CO come 2014. CO would have been serving three airports non stop from DAL that WN wouldnt have in 2014. Everything has changed now.



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineairliner371 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 150, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5971 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 148):
You'll see some new nonstops to the places WN is already strong, but DAL is not going to open the floodgates of new service the WN cheerleaders are thinking it will be.

And you have what to back this up? Everything we've seen so far is saying the opposite of this, unless you have some kind of source to back this up, this has no credibility.



You will either love or hate the airline industry. If you love it, it will get in your blood and it will never leave.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12903 posts, RR: 100
Reply 151, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5892 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting n471wn (Reply 146):
Laws will be changed as the free market will demand it and WN is strong enough to make it happen. Never say never.

I don't. But I think it will take time. Look how long it took to amend the WA.

Quoting par13del (Reply 147):
put something like international flights in 5 years and it would probably pass without anyone noticing until its too late.

   One could open, something like 'international flights in 5 years and a phase out of gate restrictions' would be even better.  

When such a rider happens will depend on how good the 'new AMR' is. The more customers (voters) are happy, the longer we'll wait and vice versa.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1927 posts, RR: 2
Reply 152, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5962 times:

Quoting airliner371 (Thread starter):
“Something big is going to happen on 10-13-14,” Southwest executive Ron Ricks said Friday, “and it’s so big that we think it’s going to take a full year to celebrate. So we’re going to start the countdown at 10-14-2013.”

I'm thinking a new livery will be rolled out.



My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3935 posts, RR: 2
Reply 153, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5927 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting n471wn (Reply 146):
Laws will be changed as the free market will demand it and WN is strong enough to make it happen. Never say never.

For the short to mid-term, I simply must disagree. Southwest has a dominant position at DAL and they know that it is not going to get better. Any change Southwest might push for will come with a price they've made clear time and again they are not willing to pay: more competition.

This is especially true for gate capacity. If the current cap is ever lifted and new gates are built, Southwest will get to try and grab them after just about everyone else will have had their turn.

For now, count on Southwest being the agent of status quo at DAL. Might be a different story 20 years from now, never say never, indeed, but for now, Southwest is the last airline interested in rocking the DAL boat.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 149):
CO did not like flying into more than one airport in same city. Dallas was the only place they did that.

And just before 9/11, they announced their intention to service FTW as well.