ACAfan
Topic Author
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:25 pm

Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:36 am

In the cover of darkness, bulldoze the runway at Dallas Love.

WN will be forced to move to DFW.

Problem solved.












[Please dont flame me. I love DAL, WN, and I despise the AAntichrist and DFW. I present this idea as a solution to the problem. I did not say I liked it.]
Freddie Laker ... May be at peace with his maker ... But he is a persona non grata ... with IATA
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:43 am

Two reasons come to mind:

Airport generates more than $2 billion annually to the Dallas economy.

Estimated 24,243 jobs attributable to Love Field.
 
ti717
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 11:33 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:14 am

Also Dallas has little control of DFW( have to play nice with Fort Worth, Useless, Irving) and all the control of Love. I.E. All money at Love goes to City of Dallas, Little money at DFW goes to City of Dallas.

Ti717
Sir, don't you think we should turn on the runway lights?" "No, that's just what there expecting us to do!"
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:15 am

Although Dallas Mayor Laura Miller is questionable at times, I tend to think she doesn’t govern like the Daleys.

 spin 
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
ckfred
Posts: 4694
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:25 am

I read that FLL is fighting the FAA on using more than one runway for commercial operations, due to noise concerns. Someone suggested ripping out extra runways. The response was that the FAA must approve any runway closings. Apparently, FAA rules and regs. don't apply in Chicago.

The ironic thing is that King Richard II (his father was King Richard I) said that if he gave notice, then the matter would be tied up in court by lawyers. The man is a lawyer, as well as 2 of his brothers and his late father. He basically took away a lot of billable hours from his brothers and sisters in the legal profession.

He probably would have won in court, but let some friends earn downpayments for summer homes on Lake Michigan.
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:45 am

The moment that happens WN will pack up and take its headquarters (and all associated jobs) to HOU, LAS, PHX, SAT, or any other place more "friendly" to its operations.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:04 am

The demilition of the Megis (?) Field on the waterfront near downtown Chicago was in part a response to serious security/terror questions after 9/11 of a small airport so close to the downtown of a major American city. Yes Daley and his friends did it in the wrong way, but one can understand some legitment reasons for the closing of that field.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:26 am

Quoting ACAfan (Thread starter):
In the cover of darkness, bulldoze the runway at Dallas Love.

WN will be forced to move to DFW.

Problem solved.

Because DAL serves an improtant GA role. While I support a closure to Commercial Traffic, the GA traffic trying to migrate to DFW creates capacity problems. As was the intent, DAL was to close only to Commerical Traffic, not close it's doors.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:33 am

Quoting Ti717 (Reply 2):
Also Dallas has little control of DFW( have to play nice with Fort Worth, Useless, Irving) and all the control of Love. I.E. All money at Love goes to City of Dallas, Little money at DFW goes to City of Dallas.

Ti717

Actually the City of Dallas owns 60% of DFW.

All revenue generated by the airports through landing fees, rents and concessions must be by law put back into the airports operations. The argument that the City of Dallas gets revenues from DAL is wrong.

Actually what the city needs to do is to raise the Gate Rental Fees and Landing Fees to match DFW. However I think all the city needs to do is close the Fire Station at DAL to make WN move.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
blink182
Posts: 5271
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 3:09 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:39 am

Let's not forget though that Southwest's entire fleet is registered in Dallas...hence Southwest might just be Dallas' biggest tax payer. The city can close down the DAL fire station or raise operating fees, but Southwest has a right to register its fleet somewhere else, thus robbing the city of Dallas from tax dollars that might otherwise be there.

blink
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:45 am

Quoting Blink182 (Reply 9):
Let's not forget though that Southwest's entire fleet is registered in Dallas...hence Southwest might just be Dallas' biggest tax payer.

The fleet contracts were probably done elsewhere to avoid taxes completely as is often done and the registration is Federal.
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2768
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:47 am

Quoting Blink182 (Reply 9):
Let's not forget though that Southwest's entire fleet is registered in Dallas

Eh? As far as I know, Southwest's entire fleet--like every other aircraft on the N register--is registered with the FAA in Oklahoma City...
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
727EMflyer
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:22 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:30 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
The fleet contracts were probably done elsewhere to avoid taxes completely as is often done and the registration is Federal.

Here are the registered owners of three randomly selected airliners operated by Texas's home town airlines:

N212WN: 73G operated by Southwest Airlines
Southwest Airlines Corporation
PO Box 36611
Dallas TX 75235

N951U: MD-80 operated by American Airlines
Boeing Capital
4060 Lakewood Blvd 6th Floor
Long Beach CA 90808

N24706: 73G operated by Continental Airlines
Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, NA Trustee
299 S Main St # U1228-120
Salt Lake City UT 84111

Granted most airlines lease their fleets these days, and IIRC WN leases some too, but who do you think collects property taxes on these jets? Not Houston, and AA isn't paying Dallas!
 
727EMflyer
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:22 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:32 am

Oh, yeah, and what Chicago did with Meigs was illegal and the city faces a (token) fine. As aviation enthusiasts we should all look for the expansion of flight and the construction of more airports, NIMBY's be damned!
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:43 am




Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
The demilition of the Megis (?) Field on the waterfront near downtown Chicago was in part a response to serious security/terror questions after 9/11 of a small airport so close to the downtown of a major American city. Yes Daley and his friends did it in the wrong way, but one can understand some legitment reasons for the closing of that field.




Care to explain how the downtown area is safer with the closure of Meigs? Without an operating control tower and protected airspace, one can now fly even closer to the skyscrapers in nontowered airspace, without even talking to ATC.


2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
ckfred
Posts: 4694
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:51 am

LTBEWR:

Meigs Field was less a security threat than the threat to aviation safety that Richie has created. By closing Meigs, there is more GA traffic going into MDW. MDW's airspace is already tight, because of the amount of space ORD uses. But putting biz jets and Cessnas in with MD-80s and 757s is not a good combination.

In terms of economics, Meigs was almost walking distance from McCormick Place, Chicago's convention center. A lot of conventioneers, as well as other business people flew in, because Meigs is so close to both McCormick Place and the Loop.

From what I've read, several large corporations decided against moving into the Loop, because Meigs closed. I don't know if they looked into locating near Palwaukee, DuPage, or Aurora, or simply picked other metro areas, but you don't close an airport that can stimulate economic growth.

Richie has been trying to close Meigs and turn it into a park since he became Mayor in 1989, saying that only "rich Republicans" use it. First, the last thing Chicago has needed is more park space in and around the Loop. The City needs to a) fix up the parks that it already has in the neighborhoods and b) add more park space in the neighborhoods.

Apparently, Richie is not an aviation buff.
 
workbench
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 1999 3:22 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:21 am

Quoting Blink182 (Reply 9):
Let's not forget though that Southwest's entire fleet is registered in Dallas...hence Southwest might just be Dallas' biggest tax payer. The city can close down the DAL fire station or raise operating fees, but Southwest has a right to register its fleet somewhere else, thus robbing the city of Dallas from tax dollars that might otherwise be there.

How much tax revenue does the city get. I thought aircraft regs were federal and it cost about $12.00 to register a airplane.
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2768
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:25 am

Quoting 727EMflyer (Reply 12):
Here are the registered owners of three randomly selected airliners operated by Texas's home town airlines:

These are not really good examples, since only one of the aircraft is actually owned by the airline in question. These addresses do not mean that the aircraft are registered to a specific address for tax reasons. Property taxes are not a consideration when it comes to the registration of commercial aircraft--they're simply not an issue. Registration is a federal matter, and the address on record is the address of whoever happens to own the plane. If you look up an aircraft that is registered in the name of American, I think you will find that the address is in fact in Texas.

Let's go through them one by one:

N212WN: 73G operated by Southwest Airlines
Southwest Airlines Corporation
PO Box 36611
Dallas TX 75235


Ok, this one is easy--this aircraft is owned by WN, and WN is based in Dallas, hence the Dallas contact information.

N951U: MD-80 operated by American Airlines
Boeing Capital
4060 Lakewood Blvd 6th Floor
Long Beach CA 90808


This aircraft, however, is not owned by AA at all, but appears to be owned by and leased from Boeing Capital in Long Beach.

N24706: 73G operated by Continental Airlines
Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, NA Trustee
299 S Main St # U1228-120
Salt Lake City UT 84111


This aircraft is not owned by CO, but by what we call an "owner trust". For a variety of reasons, title is held by a trust (usually in Delaware or Utah, as in this case, and quite frequently with Wells Fargo as trustee) instead of an individual. It could be because the beneficial owner is a foreign entity (only "U.S. citizens" can register aircraft with the FAA), or because the aircraft is subject to some sort of financing arrangement.

So, to be fair, let's try another aircraft that IS owned by American Airlines. Here are the results for N221AA, another MD-80:

Registered Owner

Name AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
Street 4333 AMON CARTER BLVD # MD5569
City FORT WORTH State TEXAS Zip Code 76155-2672
County TARRANT
Country UNITED STATES

So, you can see, the address on record with the FAA is really just the mailing address of the owner of the plane, not some sort of devious plan to avoid paying property taxes in Texas.

[Edited 2005-07-20 02:26:54]
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:34 am

LTBEWR...."The demilition of the Megis (?) Field on the waterfront near downtown Chicago was in part a response to serious security/terror questions after 9/11 of a small airport so close to the downtown of a major American city. Yes Daley and his friends did it in the wrong way, but one can understand some legitment reasons for the closing of that field."

Complete and total Bullshit. There are/were no legitimate reasons for this.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:53 am

Let's not forget though that Southwest's entire fleet is registered in Dallas...hence Southwest might just be Dallas' biggest tax payer. The city can close down the DAL fire station or raise operating fees, but Southwest has a right to register its fleet somewhere else, thus robbing the city of Dallas from tax dollars that might otherwise be there.

blink

Blink,
WN has a fleet worth over a Billion dollars. They list in the year end report 15Mil in taxes to the city of Dallas. Just based on a billion dollars in fleet supposedly taxed in Dallas is what? Just rest assured that I wished my property taxes could be so low.

Let WN go we can fill the spot with a good responsible corporate citizen.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
texan
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:51 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 19):
Let WN go we can fill the spot with a good responsible corporate citizen.

Just a bit of clarification...by "fill the spot with a good responsible corporate citizen," are you talking about closing DAL and having other businesses relocate to DAL land?

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2768
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:55 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 19):
WN has a fleet worth over a Billion dollars. They list in the year end report 15Mil in taxes to the city of Dallas.

Good point, and I would add that (a) WN's fleet is worth a lot more than a billion dollars (as a conservative guess, I'd say at least 5 billion), and (b) these taxes are probably attributable mainly to real estate, i.e., WN's corporate headquarters.
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
SLUAviator
Posts: 292
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:30 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:03 am

LTBEWR, as we saw in Tampa, a Cessna will NOT hurt a skyscraper. Hell, the Citations and King Air's that also used Meigs would probably not hurt a skyscraper either.

The reality of it is MDW and ORD are not really that far from downtown Chicago. One could easily take off from either airport and be over downtown before anyone has time to react. We are talking about 15 miles from ORD and around 10 for MDW. Mere minutes at any airplane speed. And don't tell me that being in controlled airspace makes a difference, if you are out to start trouble you don't care if you are in controlled airspace or not.

Anyone who believes the crap about Meigs detracts from a safer downtown area is a model for ignorance.

On that tragic night mayor Daley and any other Daley lost my vote.
What do I know? I just fly 'em.......
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:04 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
The demilition of the Megis (?) Field on the waterfront near downtown Chicago was in part a response to serious security/terror questions after 9/11 of a small airport so close to the downtown of a major American city. Yes Daley and his friends did it in the wrong way, but one can understand some legitment reasons for the closing of that field.

no offense dude, but the security threat posed by the location of Meigs field was about as serious as a can of silly string at a high school football game. There was absolutely no good reason to do what he did. Normally I am pretty Daley-neutral, but this went beyond the normal political corruption that chicagoans are accustomed to and have come to expect from the family dynasty that has run their city for the past 50 odd years. But it did prompt the federal goverment and the FAA to put in resrictions on the type of blackbook operation that happened at meigs, and any city that tries to repeat that feat will be subjected to millions of dollars in fines.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
nonrevman
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:05 am

A closure of Love Field would be a disaster to the entire metroplex, not just Dallas and those who use Love Field. American at least has some competition on interstate and adjacent state routes thanks to WN. Without WN, American has an even tighter monopoly, and fares out of here will be worse than they already are. If Love Field closes, you can bet your life that WN will move its corporate headquarters, costing the area thousands of jobs. With layoffs by all of the other carriers, the hub closure by DL, and all of the other firms laying off, do we really need this?

As a side note, I am going to become a teacher thanks to an alternative certification program. Many teacher candidates are not getting jobs this year because now the supply of teachers is greater than demand in many areas, unless you want to teach in the Bumblebee ISD 70 miles from here. They attribute the change to many laid off people trying to teach. Anyway, we really do not need another major corporation and taxpayer pulling out of here.

I do not think WN would simply pack up and move to DFW. This is not the type of airport they want to serve. At best, they might offer a limited number of flights. If they did that, those flights would be PACKED with low fare seekers and those who remain loyal to WN. Yet, I do not think they will ever have a sizeable, if any operation at DFW.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:09 am

Quoting 727EMflyer (Reply 13):
As aviation enthusiasts we should all look for the expansion of flight and the construction of more airports, NIMBY's be damned!

Got my vote. I'm all for LAX, SAN, ORD and SFO taking out a neighborhood or two.

Quoting FoxBravo (Reply 17):
So, you can see, the address on record with the FAA is really just the mailing address of the owner of the plane, not some sort of devious plan to avoid paying property taxes in Texas.

And the address of the lien/lease holder doesn't mean the paperwork wasn't signed somewhere in the Pacific Rim to avoid paying taxes on the sale. When a company sends out a press release on the purchase of an aircraft, take a look at the City it was released from. It's often revealing.
 
dadoftyler
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 4:16 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:44 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 19):
Let WN go we can fill the spot with a good responsible corporate citizen.

CJ, puh-LEASE. A better corporate citizen like, who? Your beloved AA? How long did you spend polishing your AA employee (or your AAdvantage card if not an AAer) today?

Oh, yeah. They're SUCH a great corporate citizen. They do SO much to promote travel and tourism to the D/FW area. If, of course, that's what you call gang-raping the whole of the Metroplex with high airfares absent LCC competition. In the meantime, Southwest is BASED in Dallas, pays TAXES to Dallas, generates MILLIONS in tax dollars as well as tourism dollars fueled by affordable airfares--plus SWA employees put in thousands of hours volunteering for charities IN DALLAS like Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, and of course, the Ronald McDonald House.

I've challenged you before, and you've ignored me, to attempt to make a logical, sustainable business case for keeping the Wright Amendment that you can actually defend. If you can, I recommend you immediately find a job as an aviation consultant, because both SH&E and Campbell-Hill--two highly respected aviation consulting firms--came to the same conclusion: lifting the W/A would dramatically reduce airfares across the board, not just to/from DFW but between LBB, AMA, MAF, AUS, OKC, TUL, and LIT and points newly servable from DAL by Southwest....get the point? Plus, air travel would skyrocket to/from DFW, resulting in hundreds of millions in rub-off tourism dollars flowing into the area. Downside? AA would suffer huge yield declines. SO sorry. Laws are not meant to protect individual companies. DFW would likely actualy see an INCREASE in traffic, something they continue to refuse to admit.

And let's talk about this close Love Field thing. Frankly, if the City of Dallas wasn't playing both sides against each other--while laughing all the way to the bank with the tax, tourism, and other monetary benefits Southwest provides--I wouldn't have been surprised if they had suggested this themselves. However, to propose national legislation to close a commercial airport to commercial traffic is ludicrious (plus, to expect the government of the City of Dallas to ANYTHING logical and remotely morally upright is just plane stupid). The Ensign bill is a repeal of inappropriate, anti-competitive, national legislation. This new bill will get derailed quicker than the Jamiacan Bobsled Team.

I feel better. And Wright is Wrong....and WILL be repealed.

dadoftyler
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2768
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:22 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 25):
And the address of the lien/lease holder doesn't mean the paperwork wasn't signed somewhere in the Pacific Rim to avoid paying taxes on the sale. When a company sends out a press release on the purchase of an aircraft, take a look at the City it was released from. It's often revealing.

As someone who deals with this sort of paperwork every day, I can't say I've heard of this. We do try to close deals while the aircraft is in a tax-favorable jurisdiction, but that usually just means it's flying over (or parked in) one state instead of another. Where the paperwork is signed is irrelevant...most of these transactions are closed on a conference call, and signature pages are sent by mail.
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:16 pm

Quoting FoxBravo (Reply 27):
As someone who deals with this sort of paperwork every day, I can't say I've heard of this. We do try to close deals while the aircraft is in a tax-favorable jurisdiction, but that usually just means it's flying over (or parked in) one state instead of another. Where the paperwork is signed is irrelevant...most of these transactions are closed on a conference call, and signature pages are sent by mail.

That must be why we signed 328Jet deals in Singapore when I worked for Dornier. The "example" I gave is no different than the one you just gave of flying into a favorable jurisdiction.

[Edited 2005-07-20 06:18:19]
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:28 pm

Dadoftyler,

I am not employed by DFW or AA or any other airline. Are you?

WN leaves another company will come in. Dallas makes squat off of the airport. Tourism in Dallas are you serious? Hell the only reason conventions used to come to Dallas was our once outstanding collection of Mens Clubs.

My reasons for keeping the WA are personal I am a neighbor of the airport and do not want additional aircraft noise from the additional competition that the repeal of the WA will bring in. I don't have to justify a business case to you or anyone else.

Want to improve the quality of life in Dallas, quit spending so much money on downtown and invest in areas of town that can be developed or redeveloped. Get WN out to DFW and let the WN effect work for the whole region.

Guess what there is now a Bill in the Senate that will close Love Field to all commercial air traffic in 3 years. So obviously other people out there think closing DAL to WN and the other airlines is a good idea as well.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
dadoftyler
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 4:16 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:05 pm

CJ,

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 29):
WN leaves another company will come in. Dallas makes squat off of the airport. Tourism in Dallas are you serious? Hell the only reason conventions used to come to Dallas was our once outstanding collection of Mens Clubs.

Um...no, sorry. The convention business in Dallas used to be huge--we used to be the #2 market in the country--and that's suffered big-time due in part to the cost of airfare to/from DFW. (although you're probably right about the once outstanding collection of Men's clubs. But they seem to be dwindling, which should make you happy--as should it all of us).

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 29):
My reasons for keeping the WA are personal I am a neighbor of the airport and do not want additional aircraft noise from the additional competition that the repeal of the WA will bring in. I don't have to justify a business case to you or anyone else.

A distant neighbor, at that. See post in another thread....Inwood and Royal is a huge stretch to complain about Southwest's noise. Why not have them close the Gulfstream center? Associated? They all contribute MUCH more noise than Southwest does.


Quoting Cjpark (Reply 29):
Guess what there is now a Bill in the Senate that will close Love Field to all commercial air traffic in 3 years. So obviously other people out there think closing DAL to WN and the other airlines is a good idea as well.

Right, and that should have been expected. Actually, it should have been expected from the City of Dallas, if they had any ethics about them at all, which we all know they don't. But, the bill from the good Senators from OK and IA is a new national bill designed to legislate local politics. The Ensign/McCain/Lieberman bill is designed to abolish a national bill designed to legislate local politics. See any difference there, bud?

And if you can't argue an issue in any other frame of reference than a NIMBY one.....do you truly expect to retain any credibility?
 
texan
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:41 pm

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 29):
WN leaves another company will come in. Dallas makes squat off of the airport. Tourism in Dallas are you serious?

What kind of company? Another airline or FBO? There are 7 FBOs already on the field and no other airline would really want to take it's place. Moreover, if another airline took it's place you'd have just as much if not more noise. The land of DAL is an ecological disaster. No company would want to take on much of the property around there; part of the reason the great white elephant (Dalfort maintenance and painting facility) has sat vacant for so long.

There is a large amount of business traffic that comes into DAL, whether via WN or GA aircraft. We frequently cannot find hotel rooms or rental cars for clients coming into the area, as there are major conventions occuring at either the trade mart, World Trade Center, or Dallas Convention Center. Happens an average of one week every month at least. And each person who flies in here spends money here, and those that fly into Love Field spend money mostly in Dallas. They contribute billions of dollars per year to the Dallas economy. It would be idiotic to clost the airport to all traffic or commercial traffic. It would cost the city of Dallas a tremendous tax base.

Which is also the answer to the original question, "Why not a Daley solution to the Wright issue." The land of DAL can only really be used for an airport or an industrial dump. The cost to make the land into anything else useful is too prohibitive to merit debate. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs alone! CGX was a wonderful airport that apparently could be useful for other purposes and turned into a park that would not increase the risk of cancer or other diseases if kids played on it for too long, like DAL's land is supposedly. Plus, as other people have noted, the Dallas City Council and Mayor are, to put it nicely, usually inept or too involved in turf wars with each other to care about the actual city. I won't go further into city politics, as that would take up much more space and time than many of our elected officials should receive.

Plus it would put thousands of people out of jobs and cost the city over $1 billion per year. And if you are the reason that they are out of jobs, and there are 24,000+ jobs attributable to DAL, guess who will never hold elected office in the city again (voter turnout may not be high normally, but when someone gets you fired and you know who did it, you actively work and campaign against them).

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:39 am

DadofTyler and Texan,

Do us all a favor and look around the Metroplex and tell us how many people are employed by aviation as compared to say the Telecom, Semiconductor, Banking, Auto Manufacturing, and other business not at all related to your favorite passion WN and when you are finished admit to who actually pays the way here in Dallas and the rest of the Metroplex? Do you really expect me to believe that you think companies make the decision to relocate to Dallas based only on the basis of low fares for transportation?

DAL is only 1/4 built up anyway. What is not covered in buildings and concrete is covered in grass. Now unless the tenants at the airport are illegally dumping hazardous wastes on the grounds there should not be that much to clean up. Think about it the city of Dallas has a waste water plant next door and there is Bachman lake which is nothing more than a catch basin for DAL anyway. That water runs off into the watersheds so if closing the airport and cleaning it up is a disaster then wouldn't it be even more dangerous to leave it open?

Go down the road and you can see where they recently removed the old Texas Industries Plant on Maple. They are building apartments and dwellings on that land. How much more dangerous can Love Field be?

Your comments to differentiate the differences between the two Bills in the Senate concerning DAL does acknowledge one fact. All politics is local. When WN asked that the WA be removed by Congress it invited the input of everyone in the country to what should be a local issue. According to both sets of Senators the WA affects their constituents locally. The effects on each group are 180 degrees opposite of each other. One side says that competition can be achieved at a regional airport. You know everyone on the same field. The other side says that competition can only be achieved if we have our own field.

While that bill to close DAL has little or no chance at passing it does effectively broaden the debate and bring in issues that WN would just have rather left under the table. I would be surprised if any of the bills in the House or the Senate make it out of committee for a floor vote this year anyway. Face it time is not on WN's side here. The longer this draws out the worse the situation will become for WN.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
apodino
Posts: 3022
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:40 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 29):

My reasons for keeping the WA are personal I am a neighbor of the airport and do not want additional aircraft noise from the additional competition that the repeal of the WA will bring in. I don't have to justify a business case to you or anyone else.

Well Guess What. If You get your way there will be more corporate jets and stuff like that which will keep your noise levels high. If there is more competition from Airline jets, they will be CRJ's, 737's and A320s, all of which are far quieter than any corporate jet. While if the Harkin/Inhofe bills pass, There will be more room for corporate jets and likely an increase since it will be more cost effective to do that than fly AA into DFW. Thus noise at DAL will increase, not decrease.

And if you don't like ac noise, don't live near an airport. Its that simple.

At least Boeing7E7 uses facts and has legitimate reasons other than NIMBYism for opposing wright. I can understand noise concerns, but do a little more research, and don't be so bitter to everyone in this forum, because it makes you sound worse in the end.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:26 am

So tell me Apodino what do you have to gain from the repeal of the WA?
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:09 am

Actai

Quoting ACAfan (Thread starter):
In the cover of darkness, bulldoze the runway at Dallas Love.

WN will be forced to move to DFW.

Problem solved.

Actually a Daley solution would be to have jobs at LUV given to your political supporters. Contracts given out not by lowest bidder but by a rigged system. And when it all hits the fan say you had no idea what was going on and that you were going to fix it.  Wink
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
apodino
Posts: 3022
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:43 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 34):
So tell me Apodino what do you have to gain from the repeal of the WA?

Me personally, absolutely nothing. Thats not the point. If you have read my posts on this topic in the various forums, I have said my opposition to the wright amendment is for selfless reasons, not selfish reasons.

The reason I want wright repealed is simple, I personally feel that this provides the best opportunity to allow DFW to thrive, rather than being an underutilized facility that it is right now. As of right now, although there is service at DFW, most airlines won't provide too too much service into DFW because of the predAAtor that lurks there already. WN is probably the only carrier with the resources and the infastructure to cause AA to sweat in DFW. If WA is repealed, all of a sudden then AA feels they have to pull all their resources to defend their turf against WN on the new routes from DAL. With AA weakened, it becomes much easier for a LCC already serving DFW to take their offer of Hubbing DFW. Then one carrier will take up the offer. Air Tran has been adding some sort of presence there lately, US/HP would love a midwest hub and this could make sense, and JetBlue has no midwest presence whatsoever and this would make them an instant player. And gate space would become at such a premium you will see a terminal F built very quickly as well.

US/HP does affect me, since my employer, ZW, is an affiliate of the carrier, which could mean more RJ flying for us out of the old remote terminal. I know it is a longshot, but its still something that is on the back of my mind. I know WN benefits the most, and believe me, the last thing US wants is an even Stronger WN.

Just because someone isn't personally affected by something doesn't mean they are not entitled to an opinion about it. And I do know a thing or two about ac noise. I spent three years living on an airport when I was in college at Embry-Riddle, which has about as many movements a day as ORD, except all the ac are cessnas, not jets. And how do you know noise will increase? The jets used these days are very quiet, especially RJ's. One motto I always live by. You never know unless you try.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24522
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:59 am

Quoting Apodino (Reply 36):
. Air Tran has been adding some sort of presence there lately,

After all the hoopla, all they've done lately is end service to Fort Lauderdale and Tampa.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 36):
US/HP would love a midwest hub

They have never said that. Establishing a new hub is the last thing on their minds right now, and they wouldn't do it in Dallas.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 36):
and JetBlue has no midwest presence whatsoever and this would make them an instant player

jetBlue is perfectly satisfied serving the FL-CA-NY crowd for now.

I think you are overestimating what opening DAL would do to AA. AA will still protect DFW to every extent, and they would likely be successful against anybody except Southwest.
a.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:01 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
The demilition of the Megis (?) Field on the waterfront near downtown Chicago was in part a response to serious security/terror questions after 9/11 of a small airport so close to the downtown of a major American city

Not in any way, shape or form. Based on the size of aircraft Meigs could take in, there was absolutely no security threat. Also, if you worry about airports close to downtown, then you would have to close SAN (not a bad idea, but for other reasons), LAX, DAL, DCA, ELP, ABQ, LAS, PHX, HNL, BOS and several others. The reason they demolished Meigs was because the flight path was next to the window of the Daley's condo (no joke) as well as being the site where Daley wants to build a massive casino.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
but one can understand some legitment reasons for the closing of that field.

There were absolutely ZERO legitimate reasons for closing Meigs and it was completely and totally illegal
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
c680
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:52 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
The demilition of the Megis (?) Field on the waterfront near downtown Chicago was in part a response to serious security/terror questions after 9/11 of a small airport so close to the downtown of a major American city. Yes Daley and his friends did it in the wrong way, but one can understand some legitment reasons for the closing of that field.

Who do you work for? TSA? Secret Service? Fox News?

Seriously, Meigs was all about politics, and nothing about aviation (or security) If you apply your logic, then BOS should shhut down tomorrow. After all, the Hijackers took over planes at Logan. Oh, yeah, thats right, they hijacked COMMERCIAL planes! Megis had nothing but privates and coporates. Like we saw in Tampa: Cessna 172 vs. Skyscraper = one less 172 in the world and a few new windows for the building.
My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:25 pm

>> A distant neighbor, at that. See post in another thread....Inwood and Royal is a huge stretch to complain about Southwest's noise.

CJpark, is it true that you live near Inwood and Royal? I would agree that is a huge stretch to honestly complain about noise from DAL. I went to school at Inwood and Forest and all my other friends went to school at Inwood and Walnut Hill. Noise was never an issue, and Walnut Hill is closer to DAL than Royal. In fact, road noise from the DNT was far worse than any airplane approach.

You're also telling me that in one of the poshest zip-codes in Dallas you don't have insulated windows like all the other starter castles do? I don't think Dr. Booth, who lives on the corner of Inwood and Royal, is complaining too heavily about DAL noise...
 
sccutler
Posts: 5556
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:49 pm

Quoting Workbench (Reply 16):
How much tax revenue does the city get. I thought aircraft regs were federal and it cost about $12.00 to register a airplane.

Aircraft and other assets used for business purposes are taxed as Business Personal Property (BPP), and Southwest's aircraft are all sited in Dallas for taxing purposes.

Current Appraisal District figures reflect Southwest as having tax base of approximately $571,234,460.00 in Dallas, the vast majority of which is BPP and, of that, mostly aircraft (as you'd expect).

The notion of closing Love Field? Couldn't be done under current law, or any sane set of circumstances. DAL's here for the long haul, and ultimately, we'll see that kind of traffic leaving and arriving there, too.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:55 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 40):
>> A distant neighbor, at that. See post in another thread....Inwood and Royal is a huge stretch to complain about Southwest's noise.

CJpark, is it true that you live near Inwood and Royal? I would agree that is a huge stretch to honestly complain about noise from DAL. I went to school at Inwood and Forest and all my other friends went to school at Inwood and Walnut Hill. Noise was never an issue, and Walnut Hill is closer to DAL than Royal. In fact, road noise from the DNT was far worse than any airplane approach.

You're also telling me that in one of the poshest zip-codes in Dallas you don't have insulated windows like all the other starter castles do? I don't think Dr. Booth, who lives on the corner of Inwood and Royal, is complaining too heavily about DAL noise...

Good Catch!

So you actually do live in the Dallas area. The comment about Inwood and Royal was meant to check if any of you knew the City. We actually live between Walnut and Royal but closer to Midway than Inwood.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Sun Jul 24, 2005 6:58 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 42):
We actually live between Walnut and Royal but closer to Midway than Inwood.

Using the above general information, I used my MS mapping program to approximate your location. I picked a point halfway between Royal and Walnut Hill, and about a third of the way east from Midway towards Inwood. The point is roughly at the intersection of Merrill and Crestline. Assuming that point is reasonably close to your home (which I have no interest in knowing the exact location of), some info:

-You are 2.3 miles from the extended centerline of runway 13L, at a point about 0.5 miles off the end of the runway. Runway 13R is a tad -further- from you. At a mere 1/2 mile from the ends of the runways, aircraft on approach here are a mere 200-300 feet off the ground.

-You are between 2.5 and 3.0 miles from I-635/LBJ, where aircraft making visual approaches to 13L/R at Love are at about 3,000 feet. They follow 635 to the I-35E/Stemmons interchange and then turn inbound and descend towards the runways.

-You are about 1.5 miles -outside- of the 65 dBz DNL noise footprint for runways 13R and 13L, based on 2000 values. See http://dallaslovefieldmasterplan.com...00%20Contour%20Map%20-%2055DNL.pdf

-You are smack dab on the extended centerline of runway 18, about 2.0 miles out. (This runway isn't used by air carriers unless winds are so strong as to exceed limits for 13L/R, which happens rarely, like every couple of years, if not longer.)

Now, all that said, is your problem with noise -really- with Stage-III Southwest 737s using 13L/R, or -really- business jets using 13L/R, and general aviation aircraft using 18?

[Edited 2005-07-24 00:07:55]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:11 am

OPNL

Good attempt at trying to localize the air traffic over Dallas. WN's planes are all over the sky of the Metroplex. When we used to live at the Village years ago 737 after 737 would fly over the apartments daily headed west towards love . Even at my brothers house in Lakewood they are constantly flying over as well.

Except for the occasional 20 year old lear or citation flying over the GA noise is not that bad.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:38 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 44):
Good attempt at trying to localize the air traffic over Dallas.

Good attempt to evade the question...  Wink

Let's leave Dallas as a whole out of it, and just have you answer the question as it pertains just to your residence...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:09 am

OPNL

Is the WA fight about low fares or is it about competition between airports?

Besides I answered your question. And that was a pretty good attempt to localize the air traffic to suit whatever argument or statement you are trying to set up.

[Edited 2005-07-24 04:17:11]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:11 pm

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 46):
Besides I answered your question.

Not competely... You said GA noise wasn't bad (except for the 20-year old Lear or Citation). How about the 737s on the 13L centerline 2.3 miles perpendicular to the assumed location? (Hint; I live about 2 miles perpendicular to one of the extended centerlines of a certain runway at DFW, and you see the aircraft, but don't hear them. (But you already knew that, right?)

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 46):
And that was a pretty good attempt to localize the air traffic to suit whatever argument or statement you are trying to set up.

Not trying to set anything up. You previously mentioned personal noise concerns, you mentioned roughly where you live, and I provided distances and altitudes on inbound flights to Love relative to the assumed location, and then questioned you on how much airliner noise you -really- actually hear.

If you prefer not to answer the question, just say so, without the dancing and trying to steer the discussion on whatever tangent suits you. Based on your evasive, incomplete answer, I think we all now know what your true answer would have been.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 46):
Is the WA fight about low fares or is it about competition between airports?

If you've forgotten, it's about low fares via competition between airports, just like occurs between MDW/ORD, et. al. under the auspices of what the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 intended.

I'm all for intelligent discussion on these and other topics, but if all you're going to do is talk in circles and toss mud in the water, you can do so by yourself...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:49 am

Anytime an aircraft flys over or even near your house you will hear it. If you go back and read my previous posts you will see that my concern for noise consideration has to do with all of the other aircraft from the other airlines that will move into DAL to compete with WN.

Now for a point of correction for you. The WA was written to keep two airports from competing with each other for long distance passenger service.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue?

Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:46 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 48):
Anytime an aircraft flys over or even near your house you will hear it.

Over, yes. Near, maybe, depending upon where you are relative to its flight path. In a "sideline" location such as yours, 2.3 miles perpendicular to the 13L centerline, it's nil, just like it is when I see (but not hear) them go by 2 miles perpendicular to the centerline on one of DFW's runways.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 48):
If you go back and read my previous posts you will see that my concern for noise consideration has to do with all of the other aircraft from the other airlines that will move into DAL to compete with WN.

You won't hear them either...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.