tismfu
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:05 am

BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:08 am

Phaseout at Love seen as a solution
By DAVID WETHE
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

Excerpt:
A Pennsylvania-based group representing business travelers across the country proposes phasing out commercial flights at Dallas Love Field over three years and letting the two Metroplex airlines battle it out at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport as a way to resolve the Wright Amendment dispute.

Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, said he's been studying the issue since October and interviewed 47 people, including representatives of Fort Worth-based American Airlines, Dallas-based Southwest Airlines, D/FW Airport, and the Love Field Citizens Action Committee, which supports the Wright Amendment.



BTC press release:
http://btcweb.biz/btc_wright_press_release.htm

BTC report:
http://btcweb.biz/btc_report_on_wright.htm
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:33 am

wow...the last line of the first citiation says

Quote:
Founded in 1994, the mission of the Business Travel Coalition is to lower the long-term cost structure of business travel. BTC seeks to bring transparency to industry and government policies and practices so that customers can influence issues of strategic importance to them.


If the idea is to lower the cost structure, why send Southwest to a higher cost airport?
Should these reccomendations be adopted, I have the perfect middle finger salute for North Texas...let WN fly out of DFW, but charge $1,200 for flights between DFW and MCI or STL, then move the corporate headquarters to Houston. I know, some of the other cities are bigger, but if you want to take the employees into consideration, it is sure nicer for them to remain in a state with no state income tax instead of moving them to an area with 1) a higher cost of living and 2) state income tax.

[Edited 2006-04-10 17:35:05]
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 3969
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:23 am

I'm sorry . . . maybe it's the NYer in me but,

WHO cares what a guy in Pennsylvania thinks about an airport in Texas?

Of all the opinions we have heard for and against Wright, this has to be the most 'who cares' that I can think of.

PJ
 
tismfu
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:05 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:28 am

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 2):
WHO cares what a guy in Pennsylvania thinks about an airport in Texas?

I know what you're saying, but the BTC apparently was asked by AA and WN for its opinion:

The coalition, which represents more than 400 business travelers across the country including about a half-dozen in the Metroplex, did not receive money for doing the study, but was asked last summer by Southwest and American to offer its opinion, Mitchell said.
 
lucianflyboy
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:30 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:36 am

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 2):
WHO cares what a guy in Pennsylvania thinks about an airport in Texas?

Amen to that! I will be SO happy when this thing is done with. The rich fat cats in HighLand Park and Universtiy Park are all spotting the 'Stop and Think' cards on their lawns. They have them along Lemmon Ave and Mockingbird Lane.

I don't know how much money the city just spent impoving Love Field but I doubt Laura Miller will let the cost of that improvement be classed as a 'loss'.

Weither they repeal the ammendment, keep it or end commerical flights all together, it will have an effect on the NorthWest Dallas,HighLand Park and University Park economy.

The saga continues!
 
alphascan
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:04 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:08 am

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
If the idea is to lower the cost structure, why send Southwest to a higher cost airport?

You obviously did not take the time to read the report.

They make the point that the goal of their recommendation is for the most efficient public policy, and does not take into consideration the best interests of either American Airlines or Southwest Airlines. The report actually scolds both carriers for their PR strategies on the issue, especially American.

I'm not saying I agree with the report until I hear the opinions of those who oppose its findings, it does outline several ways in which their recommendation saves the average taxpayer and passenger money and has me rethinking my previous position that WA should be repealed

a. Because DFW can not (and refuses to negotiate contractual codicils which would allow carriers to back out of new gate lease agreements should Wright be repealed) guarantee Wright won't be repealed, no new carriers-mainly LCCs- are willing to move into the many empty gates at DFW, thereby stifiling competition which would lower fares.

b. The cost to all US taxpayers of operating and securing competing airports eight miles apart which serve the same market is exorbitant. Best practice policy all over the world has been to combine area airports when building a new one as was done in Denver and Austin.

c. The landing fees at Love Field are so low they do not cover half of the costs associated with airport improvements, leaving the Federal Government(taxpayers) footing the bill and indirectly subsidizing WN.

Finally, while the report calls for a three year phased closing of DAL, it warns AA to "be careful what you wish for" saying a WN move to DFW would be a significant competitive threat to that carrier.
"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:31 am

I haven't finished reading the whole thing yet, but one thing did jump out at me:

§ The objective of Wright was not to restrict DAL, but to allow it to stay open for the benefit of 1 airline, WN. With the advantage of a truly protected base, the fledgling WN has grown into a powerful giant and today transports more passengers than any airline in the world.

The issue of Love being allowed to stay open (for Southwest, and any other airline) was decided in the federal courts and upheld in various appeals in the 1973-1977 timeframe. Wright came later, in 1979. They are two distinct events in the Love Field timeline, yet we continue to see folks confuse/promote the two as a singular event.

The above quote also infers that Wright was responsible for Southwest's growth into the airline it is today, but I think one will find that Southwest grew in spite of Wright, not because of it.

Need an example?

In 1979, Southwest served (excluding Dallas Love) 9 Texas cities: El Paso, Midland, Lubbock, Amarillo, Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Harlingen, and Houston. Most were served by non-stops, and Corpus and Harlingen saw mostly 1-stops with an occasional non-stop.

In 1979, service to New Orleans started out of both Houston and Dallas. That's 10 cities serveable from Dallas Love.

In 1980, service to Albuquerque, Oklahoma City and Tulsa started. That's 13 cities serveable from Dallas Love.

In 1983, service to Little Rock started. That's 14 cities servable from Dallas Love.

Going back a year to 1982, Southwest also started service to Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las Vegas. None of these were serveable from Dallas Love.

In the years between 1982-2006, all of Southwest's new city growth (with the exception of Little Rock in 1983) was in just about every other part of the country, all without being serveable from Love.

When Shelby came along in 1997 (and permitted service to Jackson and Birmingham via through/connecting flights versus non-stops from Love), 14 years had gone by since Love was able to offer new services. Southwest's growth at Love 1983-1997 was static, and the growth continued elsewhere. Jackson and Birmingham brought the number of cities serveable from Love up to 16.

In late 2005, Missouri was exempted from Wright, and service from Love to Kansas City and St. Louis was started (another 8 years since Shelby), bringing the number of cities serveable from Love to 18.

In 2006, Southwest is now up to 62 cities, and a 63rd (Dulles) is due for this fall, making 45 cities that can't be served from Love by either non-stops, or via through/connecting flights.

Clearly, it's been the roughly 75% of the other places Southwest serves that have made much greater contributions to Southwest's success than has the static growth at Love Field. Not a lament, just a statement that should be obvious, that is if folks will take a minute to look back into history, and understand the context.

For an outfit like BTC to not apparently understand this (especially about the two distinct legal issues in Love's historical timeline) defies common sense, which then invites alternative explanations.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:14 am

Quoting Alphascan (Reply 5):
a. Because DFW can not (and refuses to negotiate contractual codicils which would allow carriers to back out of new gate lease agreements should Wright be repealed) guarantee Wright won't be repealed, no new carriers-mainly LCCs- are willing to move into the many empty gates at DFW, thereby stifiling competition which would lower fares.

b. The cost to all US taxpayers of operating and securing competing airports eight miles apart which serve the same market is exorbitant. Best practice policy all over the world has been to combine area airports when building a new one as was done in Denver and Austin.

c. The landing fees at Love Field are so low they do not cover half of the costs associated with airport improvements, leaving the Federal Government(taxpayers) footing the bill and indirectly subsidizing WN.

Finally, while the report calls for a three year phased closing of DAL, it warns AA to "be careful what you wish for" saying a WN move to DFW would be a significant competitive threat to that carrier.

These three (four) points have been expressed by me and others in various ways and usually dismissed by pro-DAL/WN people. Since I don't like AA or WN, I can't consider myself having in a horse in the race. But I am a taxpayer and I have always found the fact (not opinion, fact) that DAL loses money, is redundant and was planned to be closed when DFW was built to be the main reasons to close it. AA and WN should have NO SAY in the matter. Nor should those who complain that DAL is a little closer to their house. I am not willing to subsidize AA, WN or the lazy flyer.

Close it, let all the airlines duke it out.

I have the absolute belief that WN could make DFW work to the point that AA will be shaking in their boots...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:53 am

I’m trying to be as constructive and creative as possible, and avoid anything inflammatory or offensive to anyone, so please don’t yell at me just because you don’t like my opinion. In addition, I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I have a lot to say on the subject, as do many!

While Southwest has had enormous success at the sheltered and restricted Love Field, the city is subsidizing their service there by charging below-cost and below-market facility and landing charges, and in turn, harming the City of Dallas’ enormous investment exposure in D/FW Airport, the region’s primary airport.

I continue to believe that closing Love Field, and consolidating all traffic for the entire North Texas Metroplex region at D/FW Airport is the only long-term solution that satisfies the interests of all consumers: it will bring down fares overnight at D/FW, and also inject new competition into many markets from D/FW (like Baltimore, Chicago Midway, Los Angeles and Phoenix) that currently only receive service from one or two airlines. D/FW and the Metroplex would be stronger if D/FW could be used for its original, envisioned purpose, as a consolidated air hub for the Metroplex, Texas, the southwest, and the United States. The region has invested so many billions into D/FW, and it has paid off so well, as D/FW is now one of the largest and most successful air hubs on earth, and it would be such a shame to see that ruined.

A ‘Modest’ Proposal for Resolution of the Wright Amendment Issue:

Love Field Commercial Flying is Phased Out over Five Years

Commercial airline flying at Love Field would be phased out over a five, rather than three, year period, to give every party involved – American, Southwest, the City of Dallas, D/FW Airport, North Texas consumers, et al – plenty of time to adjust.

Southwest would be able to continue operating at Love Field until the end of the five year period, and in the interim (i.e., until the end of the fifth year of the phase out period), would be able to fly unrestricted from Love Field to any markets in the United States. Flight capacity reductions at Love Field would occur simultaneously with the remodeling of D/FW, and the introduction of flights there by Southwest, as outlined below.

During the phase out period, Southwest (along with American and Continental Express) would have to reduce their flying (as measured by movements) by 5% the first year, 10% the second year, 15% the third year, 20% the fourth year, and the remainder in the final, fifth year. Each airline would be expected to eliminate the same approximate amount of capacity relative to the size of their respective operations (i.e., if Southwest is expected to eliminate 15% of its movements during the third year, American and Continental Express would have to eliminate 15% of their own movements for that same year).

Following the completion of the renovation of D/FW Airport’s airport and terminal facilities for Southwest, as outlined below, Southwest could begin moving flying over to D/FW as quickly as it takes D/FW to remodel the terminal space for Southwest (probably under one year).

Finally, by the end of year 5 of the phase out period, Love Field will be closed to all commercial traffic and all airline travel to, from, and through the D/FW Metroplex will occur at D/FW International Airport, as was originally envisioned and intended by the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, and the federal government. The City of Dallas would then be free to make a determination as to the long-term future of Love Field, whether they would keep it open to general aviation traffic, or perhaps consolidate that traffic at Red Bird Airport so as to revitalize Love Field in another commercial capacity, as some local studies have shown could be financially beneficial for the city.

D/FW Remodels Terminal and Facility Space Specifically for Southwest’s Needs

Concurrent with the phase out of commercial flying at Love Field, and the subsequent discontinuation of service there by American, Continental and Southwest, D/FW would modify its terminal facilities at D/FW to accommodate the needs of Southwest. D/FW would market long-term facility revenue bonds in order to finance renovation of terminal space for Southwest, and the construction of a new corporate campus for Southwest to be jointly financed between the two companies.

D/FW could remodel the high ‘E’ gates, vacated last year by Delta, with the direct oversight and input of Southwest Airlines itself, so as to insure that Southwest’s specific requirements and unique operational model are incorporated into any redesigned terminal facility for the airline.

To accommodate Southwest, D/FW could set aside the high ‘E’ gates, gates E16-E38. To accomplish this, D/FW would reconfigure the formerly Delta terminal to accommodate two additional gates, as widebody gates would no longer be needed. D/FW would also proceed with its planned remodel of the Terminal E satellite building, refurbishing the structure to accommodate up to nine jet aircraft, as is visible in this picture. That new satellite could be used by a combined USAirways (4 gates), along with AirTran (3 gates) and one gate each for ATA and Spirit. Frontier could be moved from its current location at gate E32 to gate E2, with Midwest moved over from Terminal B to gate E3, and Mesa moved over from Terminal B to gate E10.

This would provide a total of 16 gates for Southwest, two more gates than they currently operate from at Love Field. D/FW could then invest in new interiors and new gate and ticketing counter stands for those Terminal E gates and ticket counters that don’t already have them, plus D/FW could also invest in a larger security checkpoint across from gate E32, which would primarily handle Southwest customers. Again, all of this would be done with the input and consultation of Southwest, who would be the primary user of these gates, ticket counters, and airport facilities.

However, as we all know, an airline’s operations at a major station such as Southwest’s in Dallas don’t require just gates alone. Southwest could also utilize the now empty and vacated former Delta maintenance facility, which is a very short taxi across the airfield from where Southwest’s gates in Terminal E would be. Delta’s former maintenance hangar on the east side of the airport would provide ample interior maintenance and engineering space under the roof, plus a huge ramp service area, both of which are expandable. Southwest could also utilize the mostly empty former Delta cargo facility that is a few hundred feet south of their terminal space at Terminal E.

Southwest would have, within a few hundred feet, a spacious and freshly refurbished terminal space completely designed specifically for their and specially equipped to fit Southwest’s operating model, a huge hangar and ramp maintenance area, and a huge cargo and logistics handling and sorting facility.

In addition to all this, D/FW Airport and Southwest would also jointly finance the construction of a new headquarters facility for Southwest – should the airline want it – that would be situated on or near D/FW Airport property. D/FW would also give Southwest one year of free landing charges, which would give Southwest an enormous competitive advantage, and ample time to adjust to a different cost model associated with operating at D/FW versus Love Field.

Ultimately, the North Texas region and Metroplex travelers would benefit far more, in my opinion, from having the region’s two hometown airlines, the world’s largest carrier and the world’s largest low-fare carrier, battling it out on a level playing field at the world’s second third busiest airport.

Travelers would benefit from more flights, more choices and lower fares.

American would benefit from some healthy competition, and the huge boost to travel demand volume Southwest would generate.

Southwest would benefit from being completely free to fly wherever, and whenever, they want to.

The City of Dallas would benefit as its enormous investment in D/FW could be protected, and it could revitalize the Love Field property as a mixed-use commercial property that studies estimate would generate far, far more tax revenue for the city and county.
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:17 am

Quoting Alphascan (Reply 5):
They make the point that the goal of their recommendation is for the most efficient public policy, and does not take into consideration the best interests of either American Airlines or Southwest Airlines. The report actually scolds both carriers for their PR strategies on the issue, especially American.

I was responding to the quote they had on the first post, which I cited earlier. How do they lower the long term cost structure of business travel by recommending a higher cost structure for an airline?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 8):
D/FW could remodel the high ‘E’ gates, vacated last year by Delta,

If I were Southwest, I would insist that the terminals be on the WEST side of the airport and as far from the AA operations on the east side as I could get. The anti WN contingent cites their "reckless" taxi speeds, but AA has a complete opposite taxi speed...rather than a brisk walk, it's more of a labored crawl. Multiply that by 900 daily flights and you've got your works gummed up big time. Further, I would insist that AA utilize the east side runways, and leave the West side runways for the west side airlines.
 
corocks
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:57 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:55 am

As a business traveler, I would hate it if Love went away. In addition, I work with hundreds of people who fly into Dallas at least a few times a year, and very few of them would want it to happen either. The convience factor is too high. Getting around at DFW is a pain, as well as the traffic into Downtown Dallas from the far west side of town. Love field is awesome, especially for those of us flying from Houston since we have several options into DAL.

Just my opinion.
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:34 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
But I am a taxpayer and I have always found the fact (not opinion, fact) that DAL loses money, is redundant and was planned to be closed when DFW was built to be the main reasons to close it.

If DAL loses money, then where did the current $50 million dollar surplus come from?

I love the irony of this BTC passage:
Adding Missouri to Wright exceptions via an Appropriations bill because of the parochial interests of an individual Subcommittee Chairman represented a “spin-the-dial” approach to developing aviation policy. Which state might be next and what would be the public policy rationale is the question. Important aviation policy should not be made through “back door” mechanisms like Appropriations bills, but rather through the aviation-related Committees with expertise. “Wright 2004” took on more national importance to BTC.

The very genesis of the Wright Amendment was through "back door mechanisms like Appropriations bills."

edit: italics and bold

[Edited 2006-04-10 22:36:45]
Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:28 am

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 9):
I would insist that AA utilize the east side runways, and leave the West side runways for the west side airlines.

Runway selection cannot be made in this manner. Preference to one company over another is an obvious "no no." That would also screw AAL's schedule for the rest of the day.
Aircraft requirements, winds, departure routing, other ATC requirements, and my most hated reason, noise abatement, are reasons to consider in selecting a runway.
I may not be spot on here, but I've heard DFW is assigning runways now based on RNAV SIDs. If you have a west SID you go off the west side, east off the east. That would be a change from how they used to do it.


edited/spelling
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:54 am

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 12):
Runway selection cannot be made in this manner. Preference to one company over another is an obvious "no no." That would also screw AAL's schedule for the rest of the day.

So there is your biggest reason to just get rid of Wright and let SWA operate out of Love. AA's standard operating procedures would screw Southwest's schedule for the rest of their day.
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:56 am

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 13):
So there is your biggest reason to just get rid of Wright and let SWA operate out of Love. AA's standard operating procedures would screw Southwest's schedule for the rest of their day.

If Southwest can operate out of as delay-prone a place as PHL, then I don't think anything AA can do to them at DFW could really be that bad. Not to mention, that if this hypothetical "slow-taxi shakedown" that AA would supposedly inflict on WN would harm WN, than it would no doubt harm AA as well. Like many other competitive spats between airlines, one airline can only sustain competive harm to another airline for so long before it also begins to harm itself.
 
atrude777
Posts: 4258
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:05 am

I want to know is, Dallas and Ft. Worth spent so much time and money to invest in DFW, understandable, so why didn't chicago close MDW?, Houston close HOU, LAX close the other airports. See what im getting? Why must DAL be closed, and not the other "original city" airports stay open?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 8):
Ultimately, the North Texas region and Metroplex travelers would benefit far more, in my opinion, from having the region’s two hometown airlines, the world’s largest carrier and the world’s largest low-fare carrier, battling it out on a level playing field at the world’s second third busiest airport.

Thus leaving out those around Dallas who LOVE to fly out of DAL, now THEY must be hassled into driving all the way over to DFW to catch a flight. No one is going to truly win out of this entire thing.


DAL hasn't shut down AA, AA didn't file for BK when STL and MCI were started, lord knows SWA is not going to serve EVERY Airport in the US, only to demands. Shelby proved that just because it opens doesn't mean Southwest will serve it non stop.

commavia, I do like your suggestions and they are quite reasonable, but why should DFW and the airline have to pay for all the constructing and working and everything to make it WN ready when all they have to do is just repeal the W.A and only thing added at DAL is simply more N/s should the demand need it?!

AA did not die when WN started MDW, nor did UAL.

AA will not die if W.A is repealed.

Alex
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:31 am

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 15):
why should DFW and the airline have to pay for all the constructing and working and everything to make it WN ready when all they have to do is just repeal the W.A and only thing added at DAL is simply more N/s should the demand need it?!

Because D/FW will be far more negatively impacted if Love Field is completely opened up to all flying and allowed to compete with D/FW, less than 20 miles away, that was originally designed to serve the entire region.
 
tismfu
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:05 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:32 am

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 15):
I want to know is, Dallas and Ft. Worth spent so much time and money to invest in DFW, understandable, so why didn't chicago close MDW?, Houston close HOU, LAX close the other airports. See what im getting? Why must DAL be closed, and not the other "original city" airports stay open?

For many reasons. First and foremost, MDW and the non-LAX Los Angeles basin airports act as relievers for the very full and congested primary airports in their respective areas. HOU probably isn't needed as much as a reliever, but, unlike Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston wasn't told by the federal government to consolidate commercial air facilities or lose funding. In addition, Houston didn't come together as a community and agree to move all commercial traffic to IAH for the good of the area, again, unlike the situation here in the Metroplex.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:38 am

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 9):
If I were Southwest, I would insist that the terminals be on the WEST side of the airport and as far from the AA operations on the east side as I could get.

I think I'd lean on a cross field terminal with access to both sides on the South end of the airfield leaving AA on the north side.

[Edited 2006-04-11 02:40:18]
 
atrude777
Posts: 4258
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:01 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 16):
Because D/FW will be far more negatively impacted if Love Field is completely opened up to all flying and allowed to compete with D/FW, less than 20 miles away, that was originally designed to serve the entire region.

How will they be negatively impacted? Losing Money? Passengers? Its a business, fight or die trying.

Flights being reduced if W.A opened up wouldn't be the cause, they were not profitable to start with.

Quoting Tismfu (Reply 17):
For many reasons. First and foremost, MDW and the non-LAX Los Angeles basin airports act as relievers for the very full and congested primary airports in their respective areas. HOU probably isn't needed as much as a reliever, but, unlike Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston wasn't told by the federal government to consolidate commercial air facilities or lose funding. In addition, Houston didn't come together as a community and agree to move all commercial traffic to IAH for the good of the area, again, unlike the situation here in the Metroplex.

So why did Dallas and Ft. Worth feel the need to shut down DAL, in the first place when MDW, HOU and others remained open? Couldn't they see those airports did NOT hurt IAH, ORD and LAX and it certainly wouldn't have hurt DFW, as we can see clearly now it is thriving.

Alex
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:33 am

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
How will they be negatively impacted? Losing Money? Passengers?

Yes on both counts. Opening Love Field will move passengers and revenue away from D/FW and to Love Field.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
Its a business, fight or die trying.

But why should these two airports have to compete, and "fight or die trying?" D/FW was designed and built specifically for the purpose of replacing Love Field, and building a national air hub (both of which were immensely successful). Again -- it is so immensely sad that the billions the region has invested in D/FW is now being threatened.

Rather than the region splitting its air traffic between two airports less than 20 miles apart, why not allow all airlines to fly from one centralized hub for the entire region? That way, the airlines, and not the airports could "fight or die trying." Surely this competition would be more beneficial to travelers.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
So why did Dallas and Ft. Worth feel the need to shut down DAL, in the first place when MDW, HOU and others remained open?

First off, MDW and ORD serve a far larger metropolitan area than DFW and DAL do. Secondly, neither Chicago or Houston were compelled to shut down their older airports when the new ones were built, as the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth were. Thirdly, both MDW/ORD and IAH/HOU serve one major city, and in both cases, that city owns and controls the finances of both airports. DFW and DAL are completely different. DFW serves two major cities, Dallas and Fort Worth, and is owned by both, while DAL serves only DAL, and is owned by only the City of Dallas. Big difference.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
Couldn't they see those airports did NOT hurt IAH, ORD and LAX and it certainly wouldn't have hurt DFW, as we can see clearly now it is thriving.

Again, both ORD and LAX serve far, far larger local O&D markets and cachment ares than the Metroplex. Again, The Cities of Chicago and Houston both own both their airports, and both of those cities' two airport serve only one major city. And, in LA's case, it is a completely different market dynamic, as the City of Los Angeles is actively trying to harm LAX's traffic and grow smaller basin area airports because LAX has limited expansion capacity. This is not the case in the Metroplex, where DFW has ample room to grow.
 
tismfu
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:05 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:38 am

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 19):
So why did Dallas and Ft. Worth feel the need to shut down DAL, in the first place when MDW, HOU and others remained open? Couldn't they see those airports did NOT hurt IAH, ORD and LAX and it certainly wouldn't have hurt DFW, as we can see clearly now it is thriving.

Because the federal government told our cities that if we wanted to continue to receive funding we had to consolidate at one facility, not two (or more). In addition, and again, MDW and the other LAX-area airports are very needed due to capacity restrictions at ORD and LAX, respectively. This is not the case with DAL. DFW can handle all of the Metroplex's traffic needs, and much more, for many years to come.
 
incitatus
Posts: 2699
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:49 am

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 15):
Thus leaving out those around Dallas who LOVE to fly out of DAL, now THEY must be hassled into driving all the way over to DFW to catch a flight. No one is going to truly win out of this entire thing.

The presence of two airports creates three categories of travelers: Those who prefer airport A, those who prefer airport B, and those indifferent. That reduces competition (not all passengers will consider all flight options) and gives the airlines more power to increase fares.
Stop pop up ads
 
atrude777
Posts: 4258
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:58 am

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 22):
The presence of two airports creates three categories of travelers: Those who prefer airport A, those who prefer airport B, and those indifferent. That reduces competition (not all passengers will consider all flight options) and gives the airlines more power to increase fares.

However, the average flying customer WANTS competition, and they don't want the airfares to be raised.
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:07 am

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 23):
However, the average flying customer WANTS competition, and they don't want the airfares to be raised.

Exactly! Which is why closing Love Field and consolidating all traffic at D/FW would deliver above and beyond for customers. AA having direct competition right at D/FW will have a huge impact on driving fares down even more, not to mention the fact that closing Love would likely bring in more money for the City of Dallas, and thus help lower tax rates there, or slow the rise in tax rates.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5446
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:09 am

Well, I've read through the "report" and it seems that BTC pretty much arrived at their own foregone conclusion. The introduction to the report pretty much says as much:

Quote:
BTC’s early analysis was that “Wright 2004” was not a legitimate public policy debate. Rather, it appeared to be a controversy created by one firm, WN, to advance its commercial interests, much like AA helped gin up the false FAA funding crisis in 1997 seeking to shift tax burdens to the low-fare airline sector.

Moreover, while the "report" claims that "[t]here is spin on both sides of this issue, which will be identified and called out for what it is," it makes important factual errors and pretty much presents its own spin:

FALSE: These airlines were now prohibited from flying from DAL, while WN enjoyed a protected, court-sanctioned right to operate from the most desirable airport in the region. The main point of the case was that all airlines should be required to provide commercial air services from DFW. WN won this lawsuit. Consequently, from 1974 until 1979, when Wright became law, WN effectively was the only airline permitted to offer commercial air services at DAL.

TI and BN offered competing services from DAL at various points during that period.

FALSE: Nonetheless, via an act of Congress in 1979, the Wright Amendment truly institutionalized WN’s intrastate air service monopoly at DAL

Southwest had plenty of intrastate competition at DAL what with Muse Air starting up in 1982; they've also competed with AA and CO on intrastate routes from DAL in recent years.

CONTRADICTION: In the early 1960s the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) informed the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas that the USG would stop funding multiple commercial airports within North Texas

vs.

WN was the aggressor in this intrigue exploiting a legal loophole in disregard of the intent of the peoples of Fort Worth and Dallas.

It would seem that the intent to build the DFW regional (not "international gateway") airport was driven by the CAB, not the "peoples of Fort Worth and Dallas." If Southwest had really gone against the will of the "peoples of Fort Worth and Dallas," one would certainly imagine that said "peoples" would not have made Southwest successful.

FALSE: Keeping Wright "[m]aintains public confidence in the principle that parties to an agreement should be bound by their Corporate Seals."

Where is there any proof (aside from the word of Jim Wright, who was forced to resign from Congress amidst an ethics scandal!) that Southwest placed its "corporate seal" on the Wright Amendment?!

FALSE: Closing DAL will result in "WN’s likely move to DFW."

Southwest has said that they will not move to DFW, period. Closing DAL means Southwest will exit the market.

SPIN ALERT: Repealing Wright immediately will result in "[a] massive fare and capacity war in a dozen well-served markets, that could spread, would further weaken a near-insolvent air transportation system that virtually all businesses depend upon to service their own customers and grow their industries."

But nowhere is there any indication that the same would happen if Southwest were to hypothetically move to DFW; why exactly is it that "consumer benefits" happen at DFW with Southwest there, but a "massive fare and capacity war" is the result if Southwest stays at DAL? Moreover, why exactly is it that "[l]ow-fare airlines would likely enter DFW" with Southwest having moved to DFW, but that they would avoid the market with Wright repeal?

MORE SPIN ALERT: Repealing Wright "[c]reates safety (minimal safety zones at DAL), health (noise-induced learning problems for school children) and quality-of-life concerns (noise and congestion impacts on neighborhoods) for hundreds of thousands of residents, schools, daycare centers and businesses. A decline in property values is also a concern." So BTC has swallowed "Stop and Think's" FUD campaign whole, even while giving lipservice to "AA’s bodacious $500K funding of Stop and Think, a self-proclaimed citizens group."

EVEN MORE SPIN: The "report" encloses Inhofe's bill to close Love Field while conveniently ignoring Hensarling's bill (with "only" 45 cosponsors) to repeal Wright. BTC's "Wright Amendment Controversy"

STILL MORE SPIN: "Adding Missouri to Wright exceptions via an Appropriations bill because of the parochial interests of an individual Subcommittee Chairman represented a “spin-the-dial” approach to developing aviation policy."

And yet Jim Wright adding the Wright Amendment to an unrelated bill in 1979 was not a "'spin-the-dial' approach to developing aviation policy?"
 
atrude777
Posts: 4258
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:14 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 24):
Exactly! Which is why closing Love Field and consolidating all traffic at D/FW would deliver above and beyond for customers. AA having direct competition right at D/FW will have a huge impact on driving fares down even more, not to mention the fact that closing Love would likely bring in more money for the City of Dallas, and thus help lower tax rates there, or slow the rise in tax rates.

You didn't read the reports then, repealing the W.A and opening DAL would BRING in MORE money to the city of Dallas, and THAT is a fact.

AA can have competition right across the city at DAL, just like they do at ORD, MIA, JFK, why should DFW be any different? It ISN'T!

Airfares will STILL be lowered if you open DAL too. Why should the city of Dallas and the people around DAL be inconvenienced to drive over to DFW, when they have their own airport at DAL to fly out of? Doesn't make sense.

Alex
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:24 am

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 26):
You didn't read the reports then, repealing the W.A and opening DAL would BRING in MORE money to the city of Dallas, and THAT is a fact.

It depends on the report. Others in the past have said that closing Love Field (which the City of Dallas readily admits has lost money for years) would be a boom for the city, as redeveloping the land could generate billions in additional property tax revenue for the city's coffers, while Love Field just drains money out of the city's budget.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 26):
AA can have competition right across the city at DAL, just like they do at ORD, MIA, JFK, why should DFW be any different?

D/FW has the capacity, has all the facilities WN would need, and would accomplish everyone's goals at once, as long as D/FW was willing to give WN a good deal (which no doubt they would be). Again, you (and others) still keep repeating the comparisons between DFW/DAL and Chicago, Miami, New York, L.A. These are all fundamentally different scenarios because in all four cases, larger markets are served. Furthermore, Chicago and New York own all of their airports jointly. Finally, and most importantly, the reason -- in virtually every one of the cases mentioned already in this thread -- that in other cities airports are opened up to compete with each other is because no one airport in any of those regions (Chicago, L.A., Miami, New York, etc.) is physically capable of handling all the traffic. This is exactly the opposite of the case at D/FW. D/FW has ample room to handle not only every last bit of traffic now currently handled at DAL, but far, far more as it has tons of room for growth and expansion of its airfield, terminal facilities, and support infrasturcture. The same cannot be said about ORD, MDW, JFK, EWR, LGA, MIA, FLL, PBI, LAX, SNA, ONT, BUR, LGB or SNA.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 26):
Why should the city of Dallas and the people around DAL be inconvenienced to drive over to DFW, when they have their own airport at DAL to fly out of?

For the same reason the people of Fort Worth were inconvenienced to drive over to D/FW when they followed through on their promise, and for the benefit of the Metroplex, its economy, and to protect the tens of billions of investment both cities and the region's economy have tied into D/FW.
 
texan
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:25 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
Secondly, neither Chicago or Houston were compelled to shut down their older airports when the new ones were built, as the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth were.

If the cities had been forced to close their airports, they would have been closed. Your statement has absolutely no factual basis. The major airlines signed agreements not to operate out of DAL, WN did not. DAL was not to be shut down to commercial traffic, the airlines who split operations between DAL and FTW agreed to move their ops to DFW and were paid a relocating fee. If DAL and FTW were to be closed to commercial service, the airports would have been shut down. Since CO, AA, Braniff, and the city of Fort Worth were the ones sueing to close DAL since it was not mandated anywhere, nor was it understood implicitly or explicitly. If it had been, again, DAL and FTW, WHICH WILL STILL BE OPEN FOR COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC EVEN IF DAL IS CLOSED, would have been shuttered. There is no legal basis for your argument, there is no logical basis for your argument.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
First off, MDW and ORD serve a far larger metropolitan area than DFW and DAL do.

I guess OAK and SJC should be closed down then, since they are both in competition with the main airport, SFO, and are in a similarly sized metropolitan area. And we better close down DCA and BWI, too, since they compete with IAD, the major airport in the DC metro region, and one of similar size to the Metroplex. And what of Miami-Ft. Lauderdale? Bye bye, FLL! Hasta manana! You are no longer needed. MIA can handle everything. For those of you living closer to SJC, DCA, BWI, OAK, and FLL or who found them more convenient for business...too bad, you do not matter, move on down the line. The multiple airport structure does not exist just in Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York. In fact, much of the time the major airport is dominated by legacy carriers and the secondary airports by LCC, making them dominated by one or two low fare airlines. Well, that must drive down yields at the competing airports to unsustainable levels, right? Let's just check that real fast, shall we?

MIA yield: 10.92
FLL yield: 8.92

Two full cents more per seat mile at MIA! Almost 11 cents per seat mile yield. And guess what? MIA is still growing!

IAD yield: 13.17
BWI yield: 10.41
DCA yield: 16.20

Does not look like the low fare competition is hurting yields at DCA or IAD. Even BWI has typically high yielding flights. Damn those LCCs!

For your comparison, even though you do not like using Chicago as such:

ORD yield: 13.62 (and that's with two airlines fighting tooth and nail over each and every passenger! Good yields!)
MDW yield: 10.12

Still very strong yields, 3.5 cents more per seat mile, at ORD than at MDW. Which means, passengers still prefer the airport dominated by the majors and have no problem paying the higher fares. This scenario is repeated at airports across the country. The "Gloom and Doom" scenario at DFW just would not occur. DAL is capacity limited and does not have the infrastructure to handle the amount of flights of even an MDW, much less and LGA or DCA. In addition, the routes that AA is concerned about WN entering...guess what? All but 2 already have LCC competition, and AA seems to be doing just fine against their competition. In fact, you could say they are attempting to smother them.

DFW's yields are currently 15.31 cents per seat mile, the fourth highest out of major airports in the country. AA might as well have miniature dildos protrude through the seats to remind us that we, the local consumer, are being screwed.

But guess what? Most business travellers won't care! They will still choose their frequent flier benefits and DFW over DAL. So AA will continue to be able to fleece the majority of the Metroplex, while WN receives a slight boost to their business, which, by way of reducing fares in a few markets, helps stimulate overall demand, increasing AA's boardings and stranglehold on the Metroplex.

In fact, AA is the airline LEAST likely to be hurt by opening up DAL! If you wanted to make an argument, say F9 to DEN; ATA to MDW; HP to LAS and PHX; FL to LAX and BWI. These are the routes likely to see an increase in WN ridership and therefore hurt AA's competition, thereby increasing AA's performance on the route!

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
But why should these two airports have to compete, and "fight or die trying?" D/FW was designed and built specifically for the purpose of replacing Love Field

DFW was built to centralize the majority of air traffic. DAL and FTW both remained open to commercial air traffic. AFW opened and can serve commercial air traffic, although it currently does not.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
Thirdly, both MDW/ORD and IAH/HOU serve one major city, and in both cases, that city owns and controls the finances of both airports.

Ah, so since Burbank serves the purposes of Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena alone, it should be closed. And FLL does not serve MIA, therefore it should be closed. IAH/HOU would serve two cities if Houston did not swallow up all of it's suburbs. Would you rather Dallas do that? That way the majority of the Metroplex can exist under the city name of Dallas and we can own two of the five airports that can viably serve commercial air traffic.

Quoting Tismfu (Reply 21):
Because the federal government told our cities that if we wanted to continue to receive funding we had to consolidate at one facility, not two (or more).

The Federal Government said they wanted the area to build a new airport to help consolidate operations. They did not dictate whether or not airlines would have to move there. The airlines did this on their own accord, with relocation expenses voluntarily paid by the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 22):
The presence of two airports creates three categories of travelers: Those who prefer airport A, those who prefer airport B, and those indifferent. That reduces competition (not all passengers will consider all flight options) and gives the airlines more power to increase fares.

So it helps AA! Your entire spiel before this has been that opening up DAL will hurt AA. You just completely contradicted yourself. What are you complaining about?

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:37 am

Quoting Texan (Reply 28):
Your statement has absolutely no factual basis.

Well, allow me to rephrase. The cities agreed to close their respective airports to airline traffic. This is simply fact.

Quoting Texan (Reply 28):
Since CO, AA, Braniff, and the city of Fort Worth were the ones sueing to close DAL since it was not mandated anywhere, nor was it understood implicitly or explicitly

I'd say it was pretty darn explicit, since the City of Dallas was among the parties that brought a suit against Southwest to compel them to move to D/FW.

Quoting Texan (Reply 28):
I guess OAK and SJC should be closed down then, since they are both in competition with the main airport, SFO, and are in a similarly sized metropolitan area.

Not in the slightest, I'm not saying that at all. Again, that is unrealistic as SFO cannot handle the entire Bay Area traffic demand. D/FW, on the other hand, can easily handle all of the Metroplex's traffic demand and more.

Quoting Texan (Reply 28):
The airlines did this on their own accord, with relocation expenses voluntarily paid by the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth.

Not true. The airlines operating at DAL were basically forced to sign the DFW facility bonds. They didn't really have a choice, the cities forced them to.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:41 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 8):
, whether they would keep it open to general aviation traffic, or perhaps consolidate that traffic at Red Bird Airport

At Red Bird?

Lol, that's great. You couldn't even fit half of the current GA aircraft onto the tarmac at RBD, much less operate them.

And yes, Addison is full... and that whole Millenium Airport thing is still in the planning.. again.. or maybe it got canceled again.

No, DAL will always have a large volume of traffic at it... but if WN does get pushed to DFW, then you will have a DAL with even less income that still has to be payed for.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:16 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):
If Southwest can operate out of as delay-prone a place as PHL, then I don't think anything AA can do to them at DFW could really be that bad. Not to mention, that if this hypothetical "slow-taxi shakedown" that AA would supposedly inflict on WN would harm WN, than it would no doubt harm AA as well.

AA has shown that they will take a hit to hit the competition. Look at Braniff...back then they had absolutelyl NO reason to use the west side runways, but suddenly, they were taxiing over...at a harm to themselves...to delay Braniff flights.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 24):
Exactly! Which is why closing Love Field and consolidating all traffic at D/FW would deliver above and beyond for customers. AA having direct competition right at D/FW will have a huge impact on driving fares down even more, not to mention the fact that closing Love would likely bring in more money for the City of Dallas, and thus help lower tax rates there, or slow the rise in tax rates.

How will operating at DFW, which is in Tarrant County help the city of Dallas?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 30):
And yes, Addison is full... and that whole Millenium Airport thing is still in the planning.. again.. or maybe it got canceled again.

Addison's been full from years. I remember when a buddy and I were flying into Addison and the tower had no idea where we were, so we broke off the approach and went back to Dallas North...no way Addison or Red Bird could handle the additional GA traffic if Love closed.
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:24 pm

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 31):
How will operating at DFW, which is in Tarrant County help the city of Dallas?

The City of Dallas has a huge investment in D/FW, IINM, a far larger investment than they have in Love Field. D/FW brings in tons of money each year for the City of Dallas.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6676
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:31 pm

Commavia, I have two points you and others may be able to clarify.
1. This whole mess started because the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth did
not ensure that their intention for a single airport for the metroplex
was done "legally"
2. A lot of your plan can be viewed as DFW bending over backwards to
get WN to DFW. From a "legal" point of view, whats to stop B6, Frontier,
or some other LCC suing to get the same breaks that WN is getting,
my understanding of US laws are in general that discrimination and
preferential treatment especially at airports is a no no. If the majority
of WN flights are now outside of the W.A. restrictions, it make that
thought even stronger.

On a lighter note, its a pleasure to see the recognition that a WN move to DFW is more that just opening another station at a congested, high cost airport, but a home move. Raises another question, are there any other airports in the US that have two major airline based there?
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:40 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 33):
This whole mess started because the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth did not ensure that their intention for a single airport for the metroplex was done "legally"

This whole thing started because WN exploited a poorly-written legal loophole in the DFW facility bonds that the Cities marketed, and the airlines were part of, back in the late 1960s. When the bonds were marketed, and the airlines forced to DFW, WN did not exist, and thus it was not a party to the agreement between the Cities and the airlines. WN sued to be able to stay at Love Field, which both cities and the airlines contested, but WN won. WN wanted to be sheltered at Love, safe from competition by bigger, more established airlines. Their reasoning for such a position is obvious -- they were very small at the time, and being exposed to much bigger competition from AA, DL, BN, etc. at DFW would likely have killed them. Being able to stay at Love, safe from competition, is what allowed them to grow.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 33):
A lot of your plan can be viewed as DFW bending over backwards to get WN to DFW.

No doubt about it. That is absolutely what it comes down to.
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:40 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 32):
The City of Dallas has a huge investment in D/FW, IINM, a far larger investment than they have in Love Field. D/FW brings in tons of money each year for the City of Dallas.

Offset the loss of tax revenues from Dallas County from the equation....then how much money will Dallas make off of DFW? Remember...Southwests headquarters at a dead airport would most likely move to Tarrant County....Airport related jobs would move to Tarrant county....how's this help Dallas...should they annex Tarrant Count???
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:49 pm

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 35):
Offset the loss of tax revenues from Dallas County from the equation....then how much money will Dallas make off of DFW? Remember...Southwests headquarters at a dead airport would most likely move to Tarrant County....Airport related jobs would move to Tarrant county....how's this help Dallas...should they annex Tarrant Count???

Well, then fine, you make a good point. Edit my plan: DFW and Southwest work out a deal to either build or renovate a new headquarters for Southwest somewhere in the City of Dallas. Or, even better, upon closing Love, and rebuilding the entire area as a new mixed-use residential/commercial complex, they can build up the area right around Southwest's existing headquarters complex. Either way, though, many economics have estimated that the property taxes that the huge Love Field tract of land would generate are more than enough to offset the loss of revenue (actually losses) from the airport.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:00 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 33):
1. This whole mess started because the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth did not ensure that their intention for a single airport for the metroplex was done "legally"



Quoting Commavia (Reply 34):
This whole thing started because WN exploited a poorly-written legal loophole in the DFW facility bonds that the Cities marketed, and the airlines were part of, back in the late 1960s.

Don't look now guys, but I think you're agreeing with one another...  Wink
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
atrude777
Posts: 4258
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:01 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 34):
WN sued to be able to stay at Love Field, which both cities and the airlines contested, but WN won. WN wanted to be sheltered at Love, safe from competition by bigger, more established airlines. Their reasoning for such a position is obvious -- they were very small at the time, and being exposed to much bigger competition from AA, DL, BN, etc. at DFW would likely have killed them.

TAC (Texas Aeronautics Commission) did not force SWA to move. Naturally Dallas, DFW, Ft. Worth officials were mad. SWA did not sue first. SWA sued no one to stay at DAL, they had every right to be at DAL because as the contracts were being drawn up, as you said SWA did not exist. When they started DAL, they told DFW Board they would NOT be moving to DFW. It was then, a joint suit was filed June 16th, 1972 by Dallas, FT Worth and the Regional Airport Board. The judge and court listened and gave SWA the right to stay at DAL.

The reasoning for staying was it made no sense for SWA at the time (and still does) that caters to business travelers to move to DFW, 30 min away from Dallas, when they could offer the same service at DAL, only 10 minutes away.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 34):
Being able to stay at Love, safe from competition, is what allowed them to grow.

Absolutely untrue.

a quote here..

Myth: The Wright Amendment has allowed Southwest Airlines to grow and prosper. Southwest Airlines can trace its early existence and 35 years of success to the Wright Amendment.

Fact: The Wright Amendment is not the reason for Southwest Airline's success. Southwest's success is derived from a business plan that focuses on keeping costs low, flying a point-to-point schedule, quick turnaround times, and providing excellent Customer Service. Southwest began service in 1971, eight years prior to the Wright Amendment and after four years of legal battles. Southwest recorded its first profit in 1973, six years prior to Wright. The Wright Amendment was not meant to aid Southwest's success; it was a final legislative attempt to drive Southwest out of business after 12 years of court battles had failed to do so.

The Wright Amendment was created with the specific intention of protecting a then fledgling DFW in 1979 and to further restrict Southwest Airlines at Love Field, which continued to post profits to the chagrin of the other carriers. Since 1979, the circumstances have changed and DFW has become the world's third busiest airport, serving more than 53 million passengers in 2004 and is adding additional service daily. Tiny Love is no threat to mighty DFW. Today, Southwest serves much of the United States. The Wright Amendment should be repealed so those Customers flying in and out of North Texas will have the same "Freedom to Fly" enjoyed by all other Customers around the United States.


As you can see, W.A didn't do anything, it was simply's SWA business plan.

Alex

[Edited 2006-04-11 06:03:04]
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
 
commavia
Posts: 9732
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:08 pm

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 38):

Absolutely untrue.

I respectfully disagree, and please, consider the source of your 'Myth' talking points. It's Southwest's own setlovefree.com website.

With all due respect, I think it is absolutely true that Southwest was able to survive and prosper -- at least in part -- due to the fact that they had a virtual guarantee of no competition at Love Field, an airport closer to downtown Dallas, more convenient to many Dallas residents, and smaller than D/FW. Had Southwest been forced to compete with everyone else at Love Field, as all the other airlines were, I think it is quite possible that the outcome might have been different. The fact that Southwest could operate out of Love Field, free of any intrastate competition at the beginning, is, in my view, an enormous part of the reason why Southwest was able to survive as a tiny, fledgling airline.

Now, as to Southwest's "business plan that focuses on keeping costs low, flying a point-to-point schedule, quick turnaround times, and providing excellent Customer Service," I don't dispute any of those things. I have enormous respect and admiration for Southwest, for all of these things and more, and have an enormous amount of respect for the superb business model they put in place. But, on balance, I doubt those things are what allowed Southwest to survive in the beginning. Had Southwest offered low costs, quick turnarounds, and excellent customer service from 1971, but had to compete out of D/FW up against American, Braniff, Delta, Texas International, etc., I don't think all of these competitive weapons would have been nearly as valauble. Bottom line: Southwest's superior business model is what allowed it to grow once it got big, but Southwest's ability to fly out of close-in Love Field when no other entrenched competitors could is definitely a big part of why it was able to survive in the early years.
 
atrude777
Posts: 4258
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:23 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 39):
I respectfully disagree, and please, consider the source of your 'Myth' talking points. It's Southwest's own setlovefree.com website.

But it is true, no one else but SWA will know Southwest reason and plan for being successful right now.

and most of the other sources people use to fight the repeal of the W.A they get their sources from keepdfwstrong.com and other "wright" stuff. there is no "true source" to be honest.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 39):
With all due respect, I think it is absolutely true that Southwest was able to survive and prosper -- at least in part -- due to the fact that they had a virtual guarantee of no competition at Love Field, an airport closer to downtown Dallas, more convenient to many Dallas residents, and smaller than D/FW.

But they had compeititon at Houston, ELP, Phoenix, MSY, some of the other cities too and they did fine too.

No one was forced to move to DFW legally were they? Once they signed, THEN they had to move, but no one was forced to sign either.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 39):
ottom line: Southwest's superior business model is what allowed it to grow once it got big, but Southwest's ability to fly out of close-in Love Field when no other entrenched competitors could is definitely a big part of why it was able to survive in the early years.

Somewhat true, but Southwest couldnt fly very far out of DAL, it really restricted WHERE from DAL, WN could fly to.
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:16 pm

Quoting COrocks (Reply 10):
As a business traveler, I would hate it if Love went away. In addition, I work with hundreds of people who fly into Dallas at least a few times a year, and very few of them would want it to happen either. The convience factor is too high.

Again, your convenience is no reason for the rest of us to pay more to fly to DFW or help support a money losing airport.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 11):
If DAL loses money, then where did the current $50 million dollar surplus come from?

Bull hockey pucks. Dallas itself has said DAL loses money. They might have a "surplus" in a convoluted way of accounting that doesn't count all costs, but over time, DAL has lost a great deal of money by catering to WN.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 15):
I want to know is, Dallas and Ft. Worth spent so much time and money to invest in DFW, understandable, so why didn't chicago close MDW?, Houston close HOU, LAX close the other airports. See what im getting? Why must DAL be closed, and not the other "original city" airports stay open?

Because, as others have said, those markets need the capacity, and (except for LGB, which should be closed, IMHO) the airports are MUCH further away. HOU and IAH are 45 min to 75 min away from each other. BUR and LAX, ONT and LAX, SNA and LAX: all an hour apart. MDW and ORD? Don't try to go between them in any reasonable amount of time. And ORD, LAX and IAH can't support the whole region. IAH is absolutely packed. LAX is full (well it was, but DL is not using all their space).

As for WN, why are they able to function at LAX but not DFW? WN would be able to take a whole terminal at DFW, and considering the expansion WN could have out of DFW flying to all points in the USA, AA wouldn't have the ability to "slow them down" as WN would be just as big a player.

It's all about WN not wanting to pay a "living wage" to the airport. They underpay fees at DAL, and don't want to pay market fees at DFW. That's the long and short of it.

I like the idea of a 5 year phase out. But rather than open long distance flying from DAL unrestricted, I think the rule should be that for every "non-Wright" frequency out of DAL that a carrier opens, they must match it with a "non-Wright" frequency out of DFW. WN would have to expand at both airports if they wanted to operate outside Wright. And AA could open up real longer distance routes out of DAL which might help WN to move quicker to DFW, since AA has an unlimited number of frequencies they could open out of DAL (since they have a huge "matching" base already at DFW).

If you did it that way, I doubt WN would even use the full five years to move. Too much INCENTIVE to move earlier. Fight or die, right? Well, if you don't rig it to favor WN, they'll gladly fight it out with AA. Right now, they don't need to fight it out.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11817
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:48 pm

Man, it must be another week if another Wright thread is going.

I can't believe I read through this whole thread..

It is very simple, will WN get more access from DAL in the next few years, or will they consider moving their HQ? Every solution I see forces WN to do one thing they have been avoiding: Take on the world's largest airline directly at their mega hub. I think they'd do better moving the HQ to MCO and abandoning Dallas.

Note: I too disagree having DAL just for WN. But it won't be just WN if Wright is repealed. (Although, if other airlines get too few of the gates, I would say an investigation would be appropriate.)

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:49 pm

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
it is sure nicer for them to remain in a state with no state income tax instead of moving them to an area with 1) a higher cost of living and 2) state income tax.

They can move to Las Vegas and get a reasonable COL and no state income tax.

Quoting Alphascan (Reply 5):
b. The cost to all US taxpayers of operating and securing competing airports eight miles apart which serve the same market is exorbitant.

Actually, they are 11 miles apart and one focuses more on one of the two cities than the other. JFK and LGA are also 11 miles apart and JFK still has room to grow capacity. SFO and OAK are only 11 miles apart as well, you can even see one from the other because they are almost directly across San Francisco Bay from each other. LAX and LGB are only 17 miles apart and serve the same market. LAX and BUR are 18 miles apart and serve the same market. FLL and MIA are 21 miles apart and serve the same market. Little penned in LCY is only 27 miles from much larger, room to grow, STN yet service keeps expanding there. LTN is 26 miles from STN, should they close that when Stansted gets its 3 new runways?

BTW, to all of you who are talking about how "far" HOU and IAH are apart, the distance between them is only 24 miles.

These arguments are ridiculous

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6):
Going back a year to 1982, Southwest also started service to Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las Vegas. None of these were serveable from Dallas Love.

Don't forget San Francisco, which they served for more than 15 years before consolidating at OAK (which started in 1990)

Quoting Commavia (Reply 8):
The City of Dallas would benefit as its enormous investment in D/FW could be protected

The City of Dallas' investment has already been repaid in spades. There is no protection needed since there is already a large airline hub at DFW and all additional costs there are nominal as compares to what it cost to build the thing. And don't say a word about AA discontinuing some money losing LIM service because WN got flights to MO, because you are too smart to give that any weight

Quoting Commavia (Reply 29):
I'd say it was pretty darn explicit, since the City of Dallas was among the parties that brought a suit against Southwest to compel them to move to D/FW.

Contractually, Dallas bound under compulsory joinder to be a party to the suit. Make no mistake about it, the driving forces behind both those suits were Fort Worth, America and Braniff

Quoting Commavia (Reply 29):
Not true. The airlines operating at DAL were basically forced to sign the DFW facility bonds. They didn't really have a choice, the cities forced them to.

Except that Southwest never did.

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 31):
How will operating at DFW, which is in Tarrant County help the city of Dallas?

DFW is split between Dallas County and Tarrant County. It straddles the line.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ScottB
Posts: 5446
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:25 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 41):
Bull hockey pucks. Dallas itself has said DAL loses money. They might have a "surplus" in a convoluted way of accounting that doesn't count all costs, but over time, DAL has lost a great deal of money by catering to WN.

Ummmmm NO. The city's aviation department is currently losing money largely because of the bonds financing the new parking garage at DAL. They chose to repay the bonds over ten years, rather than the more common 20- to 30-year term because they had a significant surplus. Once the bonds on the parking garage are repaid, DAL returns to a surplus. DAL has not lost "a great deal of money by catering to WN."

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 41):
If you did it that way, I doubt WN would even use the full five years to move. Too much INCENTIVE to move earlier. Fight or die, right? Well, if you don't rig it to favor WN, they'll gladly fight it out with AA.

It's not clear to me how long they'd take to pull out of the Dallas market if Love Field were slated to close. But mark my words, if DAL closes, Southwest is out of the Metroplex completely. You can take that to the bank.
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:03 pm

I will apologize if someone has already answered Commavia. When I read the post captioned above, the sheer and total inaccuracy forced me to skip down the page.

>>This whole thing started because WN exploited a poorly-written legal loophole in the DFW facility bonds that the Cities marketed, and the airlines were part of, back in the late 1960s. When the bonds were marketed, and the airlines forced to DFW, WN did not exist, and thus it was not a party to the agreement between the Cities and the airlines.<<

The bond agreement was not all that poorly written. Basically, it stated that all airlines would be forced to move (by the city) to DFW if legally permissible. It wasn't. Furthermore, Air Southwest Inc was incorporated as a Texas corporation in 1967. Technically they were a business when the agreements were signed. They had not yet commenced flight operations. The only reason they had not begun operations is that Braniff, Texas International, and Continental kept them bottled up in the courthouse. I would imagine, had Southwest been asked to sign the agreements when they started flying on 18 Jun 71, they would have. However, Harding Lawrence (then pres/ceo at Braniff) had told everyone in town that Southwest would not last 90 days, and then when they did, he said they would not last another 90 days. People were afraid of Harding. I doubt the city wanted to incur his wrath by asking Southwest to sign off on the agreement to move. You may think the city would have done business with Southwest but it was so bad, the airport itself would not lease gate or counter space to Southwest. They sub-leased 10' of counter from Frontier, and paid Delta a fortune to use gates 25 and 29.

>>WN sued to be able to stay at Love Field, which both cities and the airlines contested, but WN won. WN wanted to be sheltered at Love, safe from competition by bigger, more established airlines. Their reasoning for such a position is obvious -- they were very small at the time, and being exposed to much bigger competition from AA, DL, BN, etc. at DFW would likely have killed them.<<

Southwest was not "sheltered" at Love Field. Back there at about the time DFW opened, both Braniff and Texas International were able to keep flights at Love Field to continue competing with Southwest. Competition had nothing to do with it. The impact on short haul traffic due to the opening of a more remote, outside-the-city facility had everything to do with it. Southwest had the numbers and the experience of what happened (to Braniff & TI) in short haul markets when Hobby closed and everyone moved out to IAH. By the time someone could drive to IAH, it didn't make sense to stop and pay money to hop on a plane whein you could cruise another 3 hrs at 70 mph and be at your destination. When DFW opened, WN was in three cities. They had the lion's share of the market between those 3 cities. They were charging prices that Braniff could fill a plane up at and lose money. But the idea that Southwest and Southwest alone was able to stay and prosper at a protected Love Field is disingenious at best and a flat out lie at worst. The real deal is that Southwest, time and time again, ran the competition out of Love Field with superior service at terrific prices.

>>Being able to stay at Love, safe from competition, is what allowed them to grow.<<

The restrictions on Love Field have prevented them from going, rather than contributed to it.

As hard as it may be for people to believe, people do have travel options. If an airport is a pain in the butt to get to, people will drive rather than fly. This is exceedingly true in short haul. Southwest has taken a hit on short haul traffic since Sept 11th simply as a result of the increased security and the hassle of the TSA. Maybe, just maybe.....keeping service at a conveniently located airport is beneficial to keeping a short haul market thriving.

Then again, none of this is about doing what is best for the marketplace or aiir traffic. It is all about doing everything possible to prop up a sickly legacy airline, and (if possible) reduce Southwest's ability to compete.

I am devoted to historical accuracy. I had a front row seat for all this, so I find it incredible some of the stuff people make up and post, thinking of they repeat the same lie often enough people will believe it.

Southwest competed with everyone and had become profitable before DFW opened. Everyone was at Love Field.

Southwest stayed at Love Field due the hit on short haul traffic that occurred whenever airlines moved to more remote facilities. It was quite by accident that Southwest reopened Hobby - but they were desperate. They found out that the dramatic drop-off in short haul traffic that hit Braniff and TI when IAH opened did not mean that the traffic had disappeared for all eternity...it just meant that a lot of folks were opting to drive rather than fly due to the hassle of going to a new airport. The same reasoning was used when DFW opened.

Southwest was not left all alone at Love Field during the period between the opening of DFW and the imposition of the Wright Amendment. What really happened is Southwest took on all comers and gave them a black eye in head-to-head competition.

And if Southwest is forced out of Love Field, you can absolutely bet they will leave the Metroplex. They will cut off their nose to spite their face rather than move to DFW. You can bet money on it.

[Edited 2006-04-11 13:15:10]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:26 pm

Anyone notice the BTC press release is all one sided against WN? How much did AA shell out for this one? I hope BTC made good money from them.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:27 pm

Quoting Texan (Reply 28):
I guess OAK and SJC should be closed down then, since they are both in competition with the main airport, SFO, and are in a similarly sized metropolitan area.

Didn't know SFO had the capacity and expansion opportunities that DFW has to meet the demand for the region. Must have missed something while sorting through the apples and oranges in your post. Valiant effort though.

Quoting Texan (Reply 28):
And we better close down DCA and BWI, too, since they compete with IAD, the major airport in the DC metro region, and one of similar size to the Metroplex.

Wrong. DCA is near capacity, and IAD can't handle everything.

Quoting Texan (Reply 28):
And what of Miami-Ft. Lauderdale? Bye bye, FLL! Hasta manana! You are no longer needed. MIA can handle everything.

Wrong yet again. MIA cannot handle everything.

Only DFW is unique in this respect. ORD with Modernization will no doubt raise a question. 60% capacity increase and the ability to do as it choses with MDW beause it operates in a system of airports.

Try putting some fact in your fiction.

[Edited 2006-04-11 14:35:14]
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:32 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 32):
D/FW brings in tons of money each year for the City of Dallas.

No it does not. Please show me the tax revenue to Dallas from DFW.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 41):
Bull hockey pucks. Dallas itself has said DAL loses money. They might have a "surplus" in a convoluted way of accounting that doesn't count all costs, but over time, DAL has lost a great deal of money by catering to WN.

Excuse me Mr. Hockey puck, but that $50 million is cash in the bank. DAL had been running a significant surplus until the parking garage was built and decided to be repaid at an accelerated rate. Money is not disbursed from the city budget to operate DAL.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 43):
DFW is split between Dallas County and Tarrant County. It straddles the line.

Actually, no it does not. All the terminals, rental car facility, AA MX facility anything of significance all sit exclusively inside the Tarrant County border. Dallas County has a runway or two and I believe some UPS or FedEx facilities.
Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
 
tismfu
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:05 am

RE: BTC: Phase Out Flights At Love Field

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:18 pm

DFW might not bring in lots of tax revenue to the City of Dallas, but, of course it brings in tons of money each year for the City through all the visitors who make it into Dallas (a lot) and also employees of DFW who live in Dallas. Not only that, many businesses have moved to Dallas (and the Metroplex) thanks in part to access to such a great international/domestic hub. Their contribution to Dallas through taxes and other means is nothing to sneeze at.

[Edited 2006-04-11 16:20:45]

Who is online