Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 48): The advantage of Love Field's location is overrated.

Indeed, location not the major part of the Love vs. DFW issue for Southwest.

The real killer is the landing fee: It's currently $0.35 per 1000 lbs at DAL versus $4.94 at DFW. The difference is $4.59/1000 lbs, which is about $688.50 for each 737 flight. At 117 departures per day, Southwest saves every day $80,500 by landing at DAL. That's 29 million USD per year.

No wonder Southwest is out in full force to delete Wright.

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 48): That being said, the single biggest advantage for WN at Love Field is it is where they have all their stuff - headquarters and infrastructure.

Wrong as shown above. That's what Southwest wants us to believe.

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 48): No vested interest in this deal at all except for an abiding preference for free markets.

Also wrong as shown above. Supporting the expansion of Love Field is not showing a preference for free markets because the airport is very limited to expand. That will prevent competition from coming in in the future. And that's a big part of Southwest's strategy is many places beyond Love Field.

I too am surprised that AA is waging such a battle over DAL. AA co-exists with WN in Chicago as does CO in Houston from seperate fields.

I recall AA trying the same thing with another strong LLC when that LLC "invaded" their turf. It was when B6 began offering LGB-JFK flights. Remember how AA responded with multiple 757s per day on that route?

And guess who is still flying that route, and who has pulled out of LGB all together?

I really can't for the life of me figure out what AA is doing. Someone above said it was for political purposes. But the fact is that the fight against Wright is a state-by-state battle (as Missouri, Alabama, etc. have demonstrated). The good Senators from Arizona, Nevada, Illinois, or California will not care if AA threatens to pull Eagle flights from Waco if they push for a "Wright Exemption".

And this is where I don't understand AA's position. WN isn't going anywhere. Nobody is going to shut down Love. AA isn't making money at Love. Wright will fall, if not by legislation, then by state-by-state exemptions. Why is AA at Love?

Quoting Dartland (Reply 39): All this anti-trust stuff is BS since WN knew about the WA when they decided to stay and hunker down at DAL. It turned out to be a good move for them.

Actually, there wasn't a Wright Agreement when Southwest litigated to sty at DAL.

However, at that time, Southwest could only legally fly within the state of Texas (more restrictive than Wright!). Ad because DAL management had screwed up and not made them sign the agreement to move to DFW, Southwest was able to drive what became, over the years, a giant Mack truck through that mistake.

The Wright Amendment was put into place only after deregulation, which allowed Southwest to fly anywhere. It still gave up ground over "just Texas" -- as did Shelby later on. Because, by then, it was clear that Southwest was a growing airline and as going to continue to build up the Mack truck, and increase service at DAL.

And indeed, that's what they've done. They found the loophole and have crammed everything through it. They'd fly 300 flights a day through DAL if they could.

And now the little whiny babies are complaining that they might lose the discounted landing rate they got for putting Stage III aircraft at DAL. Gee, so horrible, it appears, that a return to the landing rates of 20 years ago might cripple their whole operation.

Much less landing rates that would be the same as DFW.

What a joke. If it was anyone but the A.net darling airline, people would be all over it. People in this thread talk about Legend. All AA did was some court cases, and, moe importantly, just matchedtheir pricing. Boo hoo...that's evil and the end of the world. But Southwest flying hundreds of flight a day into an airport that was supposed to be closed to commercial service thirty years ago... oh, that's a great deal.

Steve

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 53): . People in this thread talk about Legend. All AA did was some court cases, and, moe importantly, just matchedtheir pricing. Boo hoo

An amazing understatment...

Some court cases?

Yeah... just one or two right?

It's not like American was sueing them or the very same things that American themselves were doing?... right?

And Fort Worth didn't do anything either right?

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 7): By virtue of the restrictions placed on DAL, AA operates exclusive non-stop service between DFW and 50+ markets. Without the Wright Amendment, there would be significantly fewer markets exclusive to AA on a non-stop basis.

Anyone can use DFW. They have plenty of space and sweet deals to start up there. Get over it.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 13): What I'm saying is that by placing restrictions on operations at DAL, a monopoly "environment" is created.

For the airport only, and ideally, airports in mid-sized market should be monopolies. They are public infrastructure, and why have redundancy? There's no net savings to the local population in redundancy in these situations.

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 22): oh, yes, along with all that wonderfully polluted ground that will take years and $Billions to clean up.

Hmmm.

Empire center in Burbank was Hughes aviation and Lockheed (IIRC).

Since it was sold, it has been developed into:

3 hotels (with 2 more coming)
Business parks
Office Parks
Giant shopping complex including:

Lowes
Staples
Target Greatland
BestBuy
GreatOutdoors
Marshall's
Big5
David's Bridal
Lots of small shops and food courts
Olive Garden
Outback
etc.

This place is doing amazing business, pulling people from all over, providing jobs, etc. It is constantly packed, the restaurants are always overflowing, and the tax revenue must be ungodly.

Love field is much larger.

Please don't tell me there isn't a better use for a redundant, aging facility that was planned to be closed since DFWs inception?

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 48): "Remember what it was like before Southwest Airlines?"

Umm... Yeah.... People paid fares substantial enough to support the actual cost of travel and carriers had a thing called "service". Unfortunately because of the requirement to drive costs through the floor, when a narrowbody is created to bring back a suitable level of comfort, the airlines won't take advantage of such comfort improvement but will simply cram more seats into the bird. Such a wonderful future this thing we call "air travel" has.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): For the airport only, and ideally, airports in mid-sized market should be monopolies. They are public infrastructure, and why have redundancy? There's no net savings to the local population in redundancy in these situations.

Well thank freakin' God someone gets it. Of course some in here would say each market needs multiple airports so they (the airports) can compete with eachother and go broke in 20 years just like the airlines, because as everyone knowns aviation resources are limitless...   

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 48): It is not Boeing 7E7's place to decide whether or not the Dallas area is vibrant enough to support multiple airports. When it is argued that other metro areas....NYC, WASH, LA, SF, Chicago, Miami, Houston all have multiple airports, he is fond of saying that those are big, industrious places and Dallas does not qualify as such.

You're right, it's up to the public that invests in the cost. Last time I checked, they made that choice pretty damn clear 30+ years ago when the approved and built DFW.

[Edited 2006-01-13 01:43:18]

Quoting Planefreakaa (Reply 40): DAL lost 20 million dollars each of the past 2 years, come on and get real DAL is a open wound either stitch it up or put it to sleep..

Most of the deficit was due to debt payments on recent infastructure development that will subside once airport improvements are repaid. The opperational loss was much less dramatic, and WN opening two new routes alone will add nearly $500,000 in revenue.

The landing rate has not been adjusted for inflation in years. Some sort of rate increase is obviously called for.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 45): Isn't Southwest willing to lose money to prove a point too?

How do you know that a discount $49 fare is money losing for WN?

WN is not an airline that plays ball in fare wares. They offer discount flights across their system, especially when establishing new routes, but they are an airline driven by yield managment. The answer is obvious.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 50): No wonder Southwest is out in full force to delete Wright.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*

  

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 50): Supporting the expansion of Love Field is not showing a preference for free markets because the airport is very limited to expand. That will prevent competition from coming in in the future.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! DAL is not the market. North Texas is the market. DAL and DFW are components of the North Texas market. Because DAL cannot fly long-haul, free market principles are impossible to realize.

It's being proven that virtually no one can compete with AA at DFW. They saturate regional, domestic, and international routes. Small carriers are dropping like flies. Healthy LCC are calling off growth plans. Free markets suffer when choices diminish.

The real injustice is that many AA/DFW fares are inflated compared to routes of similar duration be it LCC or Legacy. DFW is the most monopolized hub in the US. DFW is not a flawed airport, the flaw is AA. They have no reason to challenge their own yields, offer all but the smallest number of discount seats, or provide rational last-minute fares on the 85% of DFW traffic they carry. That hurts the flying public, local business, and the regional economy.

DAL could break this cycle, and thus create a free-er market. AA would be forced to compete with an airline that can provide what travelers want over a large number of domestic routes. Matching WN fares limits AA’s resources to quash small carriers at DFW. Not everyone has to fly from DAL for a free market to exist! Moreover, not everyone will choose to fly from DAL, airlines are fully aware that DAL has limited growth potential.

AA needs to be put in their place; an 85% monopoly on traffic is unacceptable. Opening the door to competition will allow the North Texas market to settle in a more rational manner. In all likelihood, this means a bit of competition pain for AA but no long-term damage to the strongest U.S. legacy carrier.

Removing the W.A. is the fastest, most efficient, and least complicated way to provide the DFW public and economy choices and rational fares.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 56): Such a wonderful future this thing we call "air travel" has.

Yes... the blankets Indian tribes wouldn't accept, the food that was the butt of endless jokes, and pillows not fit for the Good Will. We've lost so much.

WN's only crime is taking the "elitism" off air travel and giving customers what their wallets have shown they want: rational fares, flexible travel options, and customer satisfaction.

I'd sure trade the ability to fly when/where I want for a can of New Coke and a false feeling of superiority and class. I can get the soda on WN and I'm secure with my social-economic status. Are you?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): Anyone can use DFW. They have plenty of space and sweet deals to start up there. Get over it.

Right... because that's shown to be possible  

Of course, they could always take the "incentive package" tailor made for WN's rejection thereby incriminating an astute business leadership. What do Aeromexico, Mexicana, Delta, Air France, Air Tran, Southwest, and jetBlue all have in common? They are smarter than you!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 57): AA needs to be put in their place; an 85% monopoly on traffic is unacceptable.

Which is why DFW needs to empty the pockets of AA's hands implement a proper competition plan that would make DFW more competitive thus eliminating the need for DAL.

You have two problems. A surplus airport (DAL) that reduces overall throughput and a weak competition plan (DFW) at the Primary airport for the region favoring AA.

Such a competition plan (as the one that made AirTran possible at ATL and Frontier at DEN) and a concerted effort by WN and DFW to move WN to DFW in a cost effective arrangement for their operation solves the problem. Otherwise, this battle will never end.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 58): Yes... the blankets Indian tribes wouldn't accept, the food that was the butt of endless jokes, and pillows not fit for the Good Will. We've lost so much.

Wrong decade.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 58): I'd sure trade the ability to fly when/where I want for a can of New Coke and a false feeling of superiority and class. I can get the soda on WN and I'm secure with my social-economic status. Are you?

So Southwest will get you to Fargo? I'll pass on the drive from Madison, take the legroom that used to exist and because of my economic status be more than willing to pay for it. Are you??? Because if I had to rely on Southwest I'd have spend more time in a car than in the air.

[Edited 2006-01-13 02:25:31]

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): ideally, airports in mid-sized market should be monopolies

Since when is the 5th largest metro area in the U.S. a "mid-sized market?"

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 56): People paid fares substantial enough to support the actual cost of travel and carriers had a thing called "service".

And fewer than 40% as many people flew in 1978 as compared to today. And, in any case, Southwest has turned in annual profits for 32 straight years and is virtually certain to post one for 2005 -- it seems like they're finding enough people who will pay enough "to support the actual cost of travel."

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 56): Last time I checked, they made that choice pretty damn clear 30+ years ago when the approved and built DFW.

Actually, I'd imagine that if the public were so against Southwest at Love, they would choose simply not to use Southwest's product. And, in any event, IAH and HOU coexist quite nicely in Houston, which is smaller than the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): Please don't tell me there isn't a better use for a redundant, aging facility that was planned to be closed since DFWs inception?

There was never a plan to close DAL completely, only to end commercial service there -- just as there was never a plan to shut down FTW. GSW was forced to close since it was adjacent to the DFW site.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 60): And fewer than 40% as many people flew in 1978 as compared to today. And, in any case, Southwest has turned in annual profits for 32 straight years and is virtually certain to post one for 2005 -- it seems like they're finding enough people who will pay enough "to support the actual cost of travel."

And fewer people could afford a car in 1978. Fact is fares stabilized which stimulated service but continued to fall below the cost of doing business which is why airlines are in BK. No one is advocating 50% profit margins as was the case in 1978, but we've reached a point where there is nothing but economic loss. Yields have not kept up with operational cost. That's a losing combination. Sure, Southwest makes a profit. On high density, predominantly regional operations between large markets, but even their margin is slim.

There is more to the actual cost of travel than just going from one high density market to another, there is the cost of having the freedom to go from one market to any market that is increasingly more difficult as large market yields are pushed to the limit by low cost fare suppression that now places yields upside down with cost. You can either accept that cost or abandon service and see how well we do. You and your buddy Mineta can get together and disolve the hub and spoke system and watch the shake out and see how many people are flying in the end. But hey, places like Fargo, Rapid City, Sioux Falls are fly over country and don't matter. Everyone should just drive. That's an environmentally friendly cost effective way to get around and a sure bet for economic collapse in small cities.

I'll give you an example. If I travel from Madison to Dulles, I'll pay about $250, my last trip wat $270 with taxes. Of that, about 70% of the yield is the trip from MSN to ORD and 30% to IAD. If the yield between the large market were say 10-20% higher (as it should be because people are paying less to travel from ORD-IAd than they are on the 100 mile trip from MSN to ORD), there would be a lower yield from MSN to ORD stimulating traffic from MSN to ORD making the leg from ORD to IAD more profitable and at a cost inline with the actual cost of that trip. Instead, people pay a fare less than it actually costs them to fly from ORD to IAD and the difference is made up n teh leg from MSN to ORD. This is the result of excessive low fare stimulus on large market routes. There is a line between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. How long do you think a car manufacturer would stay in business if it sold a car that cost $18,000 to make for $16,000? Not long.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 60): Actually, I'd imagine that if the public were so against Southwest at Love, they would choose simply not to use Southwest's product. And, in any event, IAH and HOU coexist quite nicely in Houston, which is smaller than the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.

People would use Southwest regardless of the facility and Houston is apples to oranges.

[Edited 2006-01-13 03:10:31]

Rather than going down the tired DFW vs. DAL argument, can we discuss what AA is hoping to accomplish through its flights from DAL?

Is it:
1. Steal enough business away from WN to make the STL/MCI flights unprofitable for them, and making them withdraw from the market.

or
2. Lose money on these flights, cut other unprofitable routes from DFW, and highlight this as a danger of further opening DAL. (If this is the reason, who are they trying to persuade? Congress? Other Texas communities? City of Dallas?)

or
3. They think there is actually money to be made by flying to these markets from DAL, and they may end up being profitable flights for AA after all.

or
4. Other?

AA is not doing themselves any favors. In the end, AA will lose money by this move. Lowering fares between DFW and the same markets doesn't do much for them either. They'd simply be operating those flights at cost, or a loss.

One only has to look at the California corridor to see the future. Not much choice there anymore. While Southwest doesn't stick it to passengers in fares, they are also the only game in town in a majority of those markets that were once served by nearly every carrier in the late 80's mid 90's. Those carriers, save UA out of LAX and SFO and HP in LAS/PHX, have all left. You couldn't pay me to fly either of those carriers.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 61): But hey, places like Fargo, Rapid City, Sioux Falls are fly over country and don't matter. Everyone should just drive. That's an environmentally friendly cost effective way to get around.

Actually, sustaining service to smaller communities is a matter of public policy, not business policy. If the government feels that it is a worthy endeavor, it needs to write the checks to subsidize the service -- and force the providers to do it at a competitive cost to the traveler. Many of these cities lose passengers to driving because the network carriers have set fares at such outrageous levels that flying is simply unaffordable. When the one-week advance purchase fare from FAR to NYC is over two-and-a-half times more expensive than a comparable fare from MSP, people drive.

Most folks in smaller communities don't drive because they prefer to; they drive because the network carriers have made air service to small markets unaffordable through their pricing practices.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 61): large market yields are pushed to the limit by low cost fare suppression that now places yields upside down with cost.

Actually, the more capacity the airlines put in a given market, the lower the cost per seat (until congestion or poor execution raises average costs). The network carriers have made the long-term strategic mistake of trying to subsidize LCC-competitive markets with uncompetitive markets -- which ends up in a destructive spiral of decreasing traffic and increasing unprofitability.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 63): One only has to look at the California corridor to see the future. Not much choice there anymore. While Southwest doesn't stick it to passengers in fares, they are also the only game in town in a majority of those markets that were once served by nearly every carrier in the late 80's mid 90's. Those carriers, save UA out of LAX and SFO and HP in LAS/PHX, have all left. You couldn't pay me to fly either of those carriers.

Except for:
7x/day AA LAX-SFO
9x/day AE LAX-SJC
4x/day AS SNA-OAK
1x/day AS LAX-SFO

There are options other than WN and UA in CA (and neither are that bad).

But you can blame AA and the "legacies" for what happened in the California Corridor. We had a good thing going with AirCal and PSA, and good 'ol AA and US bought those two airlines (respectively) and promptly drove them into the ground.

Oh, and Reno Air started in the Corridor as well, and then guess who bought them? Yeah, you guessed it.....

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 59): Such a competition plan (as the one that made AirTran possible at ATL and Frontier at DEN) and a concerted effort by WN and DFW to move WN to DFW in a cost effective arrangement for their operation solves the problem. Otherwise, this battle will never end.

I have no problem with such a plan, and WN has said themselves that they could operate profitably from DFW. There are still several big problems:

1. DFW is woefully lacking leadership to organize such an effort. Cox "let's make a deal" attitude went hostile and WN making headway in adding MO probably hasn't changed anything for the better. DFW also has a dozen other high-priority issues they must deal with concurrently.

2. DFW must put forth an appealing plan. The "incentive plan" was laughable. In all likelihood, it was tailored so as to dissuade WN. For example, the airport should float whatever cost are incurred moving all WN operations to DFW. WN shouldn't be required to serve a destination list.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 64): Actually, sustaining service to smaller communities is a matter of public policy, not business policy. If the government feels that it is a worthy endeavor, it needs to write the checks to subsidize the service -- and force the providers to do it at a competitive cost to the traveler.

Those markets actually support themselves and a portion of the yield helps offset the low yields in the large markets. So who needs subsidizing? I'm rather certain it doesn't cost $109 to fly from MSN to ORD in a full RJ, but that's the going rate and I know for damn sure it costs more than $69 a seat to fly from ORD to IAD, but that too is the going rate.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 64): Actually, the more capacity the airlines put in a given market, the lower the cost per seat (until congestion or poor execution raises average costs).

The direct operational cost of a seat does not change. Adding more of them is a minor "net" cost reduction in "indirect" cost utilization. People are paying fares that don't even cover the "direct cost" of the operation. There is a balance between just right and excess. Finding that balance and being able to charge a reasonable yield is what is key. Without it, the cycle of loss will persist.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 64): The network carriers have made the long-term strategic mistake of trying to subsidize LCC-competitive markets with uncompetitive markets -- which ends up in a destructive spiral of decreasing traffic and increasing unprofitability.

The network carriers have made no such mistake. They simply have no choice but to reduce yields on large markets to a point of diminished returns. There is a balance, and it has nothing to do with the network carrier structure and everything to do with artificially deflated pricing. They have no choice but to stay in the large markets, but unlike LCC's they see the value and the vitality of the smaller markets. Those markets are what is keeping them alive, barely. If they folded the small markets, they would implode the next day.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 62): Rather than going down the tired DFW vs. DAL argument, can we discuss what AA is hoping to accomplish through its flights from DAL?

This is what I really don't get either. I don't see where they reach an endgame that's winnable. Southwest can sustain a fare war far longer than American, and they benefit from the ability to connect passengers at DAL. Southwest has fought very hard to have the Wright perimeter expanded or removed, so it is unlikely that they will give up easily.

I doubt that the small communities they threaten with losing air service have as much political clout as the states/cities which would love to see service on Southwest to Love. Perhaps they really can make money at DAL -- but they'd probably make even more money in their own sandbox at DFW.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 63): One only has to look at the California corridor to see the future.

For once I agree with you. But again, I think that the network carriers brought that upon themselves. HP used to have the monopoly on SNA-SMF (it was pretty unique as a point-to-point route for them) and the fares reflected it -- in the neighborhood of $250 each way. Once WN got slots for SNA-SMF, HP abandoned the route in short order. UA and AA have what should be the premier route (LAX-SFO) and yet WN carries 1.75 times as many passengers as the two combined just on LAX-OAK. I guess AA thinks it will be competitive in California by charging a buck for a soda on Eagle.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 65): Except for: 7x/day AA LAX-SFO 9x/day AE LAX-SJC 4x/day AS SNA-OAK 1x/day AS LAX-SFO There are options other than WN and UA in CA (and neither are that bad). But you can blame AA and the "legacies" for what happened in the California Corridor. We had a good thing going with AirCal and PSA, and good 'ol AA and US bought those two airlines (respectively) and promptly drove them into the ground. Oh, and Reno Air started in the Corridor as well, and then guess who bought them? Yeah, you guessed it.....

SMF, OAK, LAS, PHX, all used to have multiple carrier service. RJ's don't cut it. Blame the legacies? For not being able to compete with $39-49 fares? Please.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 66): DFW is woefully lacking leadership to organize such an effort.

Yup....

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 67): The direct operational cost of a seat does not change. Adding more of them is a minor "net" cost reduction in "indirect" cost utilization.

Well, it does to some degree. It generally costs a lot less per seat to provide service in a 737 or 757 or A320 than it does in a CRJ or ERJ.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 67): People are paying fares that don't even cover the "direct cost" of the operation. There is a balance between just right and excess. Finding that balance and being able to charge a reasonable yield is what is key. Without it, the cycle of loss will persist.

The point is that this is where the network carriers are indeed failing. They're putting too many uneconomical fares out there in an attempt to retain market share in routes where they have little hope of being competitive long-term, rather than trying to drive profitable (but reasonably priced) traffic in markets in markets they can control.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 67): Those markets are what is keeping them alive, barely. If they folded the small markets, they would implode the next day.

The way I see it, though, they are strangling the small markets which is simply accelerating their day of reckoning. I honestly think Delta had the right idea with Simplifares.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 69): Blame the legacies? For not being able to compete with $39-49 fares? Please.

The thing is, the average WN fare in most of the California Corridor markets (plus RNO, LAS, TUS, PHX) sits between $70 and $90. Even the network carriers ought to be able to make money at 20-25 cent/mile yields.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 70): They're putting too many uneconomical fares out there in an attempt to retain market share in routes where they have little hope of being competitive long-term, rather than trying to drive profitable (but reasonably priced) traffic in markets in markets they can control.

They have no choice but to put out those fares because of the current fare structure.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 70): The way I see it, though, they are strangling the small markets which is simply accelerating their day of reckoning. I honestly think Delta had the right idea with Simplifares.

Sort of, but it doesn't work so well with 50 seat RJ's they're stuck with in a high fuel cost environment. Blame the public perception RJ bandwagon, but the Q400 needs about 800 orders to solve the 500 mile radius cost problem. It's a lose lose until the large market yields start to increase. I'm ever thankful I have Midwest at my disposal for a majority of my flying. Sure the yield is higher, but the service is what one should expect from a carrier.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 69): SMF, OAK, LAS, PHX, all used to have multiple carrier service. RJ's don't cut it. Blame the legacies? For not being able to compete with $39-49 fares?

The fact is they bought two successful intra-California carriers and proceeded to abandon their entire intra-California route structures. And today Californians have UA, WN, and to some extent AA flying intra-California. It's hardly a one-carrier show.

I don't get where you're going with your arguments. WN can fly profitably on $39-$49 intra-CA fares. Last I checked, companies are in business to make a profit, something WN has done many years in a row.

If everyone ends up flying WN, so be it. We're never returning to the regulated '70s.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 73): The fact is they bought two successful intra-California carriers and proceeded to abandon their entire intra-California route structures. And today Californians have UA, WN, and to some extent AA flying intra-California. It's hardly a one-carrier show.

30 or so flights vs. several hundred is hardly a multicarrier environment.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 73): If everyone ends up flying WN, so be it. We're never returning to the regulated '70s

Not that I advocate it, but don't be so sure either. Much more of this get in, sit down and shut the hell up and pax will be screaming for service level standards beyond the existing PBR.

[Edited 2006-01-13 04:05:28]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 74): 30 or so flights vs. several hundred is hardly a multicarrier environment.

UA has a ton of intra-CA. Where do you get 30?

Just because you won't fly UA doesn't mean it "doesn't count".

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 75): UA has a ton of intra-CA. Where do you get 30?

Regional to support the hubs, yes. Major markets point to point, no. Complete WN saturation. Wake up man.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 76): Regional to support the hubs, yes. Major markets point to point, no. Complete WN saturation. Wake up man.

I think you like to argue to hear yourself argue.

UA routes currently served with mainline equipment:
LAX-SFO
LAX-SMF
BUR-SFO
SAN-SFO
SNA-SFO
LAX-OAK
ONT-SFO

So UA doesn't serve SAN-SMF with mainline? So what? UA covers most of the major markets with mainline or CRJs.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 77): I think you like to argue to hear yourself argue.

I think you aren't able to distinguish between hub/focus market support and point to point.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 71): The thing is, the average WN fare in most of the California Corridor markets (plus RNO, LAS, TUS, PHX) sits between $70 and $90. Even the network carriers ought to be able to make money at 20-25 cent/mile yields.

Utilization costs associated with point to point mainline would dictate a minimum fare of about $109 in Coach and $159 in First to make it profitable. They were run out of the markets by $39-49 fares in the 90's, that was the last nail in the coffin. It simply wasn't sustainable. 1995 was a bad year.

[Edited 2006-01-13 04:26:11]

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 57): It's being proven that virtually no one can compete with AA at DFW.

  
Southwest SAVES 29 MILLION USD (in landing fees only) by using Love Field instead of DFW. Who could possibly compete from DFW with them at Love? Please, we are not idiots.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 57): DAL could break this cycle, and thus create a free-er market.

  . Repeat: 29 MILLION USD

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 57): AA needs to be put in their place; an 85% monopoly on traffic is unacceptable. Opening the door to competition will allow the North Texas market to settle in a more rational manner.

This is very lousy corporate propaganda.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 57): Removing the W.A. is the fastest, most efficient, and least complicated way to provide the DFW public and economy choices and rational fares.

If your intent is to support Southwest corporate objectives with this argumentation, just be aware that another airline may come into the vacant gates of DFW (Virgin America or Jet Blue) and solve this "problem". Then the reason to do away with the W.A. from that perspective becomes void. And if the amendment doesn't go away, Southwest risks being promoted to third largest carrier in the area.

Given the lack of regard Southwest is treating the neighborhoods around their HQ, they deserve no less.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 79): Given the lack of regard Southwest is treating the neighborhoods around their HQ, they deserve no less.

I guess Continental Express doesn't regard the neighborhoods much either, and that AA will start not regarding them in March, right...  

AA can't beat southwest at love field they will lose money by fighting with southwest.
perhaps they could do something like united did with ted with some of the md-80s out in the desert. I know aa couldn't have a fare war with southwest but could american eagle?

>>I guess Continental Express doesn't regard the neighborhoods much either, and that AA will start not regarding them in March, right...<<

I personally would be devastated by the loss of quality of life in those neighborhoods up around Grapevine, N of 635, on the edge of DFW.

All those people living in their Mcmansions on postage stamp sized lots DESERVE to have fewer aircraft fly over their houses.

I've got it! Leave WN at Love Field and those ugly coloured 737s will not be a problem for those good folks.

And yeah, I really can't believe how small those lots are upon which they have put up all those 3500 sq ft houses. Sheesh. I was sitting there on the tarmac just the other day, and told the fly attendants "look down there at those people, they look just like ants." To which she replied, "those are a nts, we haven't yet left the gate."

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 79): Repeat: 29 MILLION USD

WN saves so much money because of scale. With approx 42,000 flights a year from DAL, that works out to around $700 in non-fuel cost per flight? Not every airline flying into North Texas opperates a hub.

How do airlines compete? Easier than one might think:

- They serve an airport that has a larger customer base, more sophisticated amenities, and greater access to the general public.

- They offer a supeior product

- They fly to destinations WN does not

Removing the W.A. would be excellent news for the small carriers like FL, F9, US, UA, CO, etc. Resources spent by AA fighting off WN are resources not spent on competing with them.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 79): just be aware that another airline may come into the vacant gates of DFW (Virgin America or Jet Blue) and solve this "problem".

Nice try. B6 has repeatadly turned down the pleas by DFW to open service and Virgin America doesn't have the resources to make a ripple in the pond. To what extend V-America will serve DFW is entirely unknown, it could end up being just a point to SFO.

Less you also forget Air Tran? Well established LCC tries bulding a DFW hub and were saturated by AA with dozens of frequencies and slashed prices. FL gave up and scaled down their DFW ops back down.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 79): This is very lousy corporate propaganda.

85% market share isn't propoganda, it's fact. Because it stings your ears changes nothing.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 79): If your intent is to support Southwest corporate objectives with this argumentation

As I've said before, I'm a UALAQ shareholder and I've never flown a revenue flight on WN. EVER. You sure know where my allegiance stands.

I want rational fares in my home town so I can afford to go to friend's weddings, a vacation, or visit family members like everyone else in the world does. That's damn hard for young people working their first real job when advanced tickets are still $500.

I support WN's effort to remove the W.A. because (as I have said repeatedly) it is the fastest, most efficent means to the end I want, regardless of what airline I choose to fly on.

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 35): I get back to the territorial limits of the continental United States (excluding tropical possessions, of course) only to find CJPark and Boeing7e7 spouting the same nonsense as always.

yes, the same nonsense which is practical, political, and tactical. where 99% of the repeal WA arguments here are just concerned with air service.

Quoting Planefreakaa (Reply 40): tax revenue, are you kidding me. DAL lost 20 million dollars each of the past 2 years, come on and get real DAL is a open wound either stitch it up or put it to sleep..

How dare you for bringing this up.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 45): Isn't Southwest willing to lose money to prove a point too? It started service between Dallas and St. Louis offering $49 one-way. Meanwhile, in a flight that is similar in duration such as Dallas-Albuquerque, the lowest fare they offer is $107. Sounds like two sides of the same coin.

they proved it with $29 intro fares out of Pittsburgh

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 50): The real killer is the landing fee: It's currently $0.35 per 1000 lbs at DAL versus $4.94 at DFW. The difference is $4.59/1000 lbs, which is about $688.50 for each 737 flight. At 117 departures per day, Southwest saves every day $80,500 by landing at DAL. That's 29 million USD per year.

yes, Southwest complains about DFW landing fees but flies Seattle, Denver, St. Louis....

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 48): When it is argued that other metro areas....NYC, WASH, LA, SF, Chicago, Miami, Houston all have multiple airports, he is fond of saying that those are big, industrious places and Dallas does not qualify as such.

Dallas simply does not qualify. and the other metro areas have airports usually operating under one airport authority, with the exception of L.A., which obviously has a large enough metro area.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 50): The real killer is the landing fee: It's currently $0.35 per 1000 lbs at DAL versus $4.94 at DFW. The difference is $4.59/1000 lbs, which is about $688.50 for each 737 flight. At 117 departures per day, Southwest saves every day $80,500 by landing at DAL. That's 29 million USD per year.

With all due respect, your numbers are off, since you seem to be "assuming" a 150,000 lb aircraft. Landing fees are based on max structural landing weight (irrespective of how many folks are actually aboard). SWA flies a mix of -500s (MLW 110,000), -300s (MLW 114,000), and -700s (MLW 128,000), so you can do the math yourself (using the correct values.)

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 56): You're right, it's up to the public that invests in the cost. Last time I checked, they made that choice pretty damn clear 30+ years ago when the approved and built DFW.

What Election Day ballot was that on?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): Anyone can use DFW. They have plenty of space and sweet deals to start up there. Get over it.

Yeah, "sweet deals" just like those unsolicited credit cards offers folks get in the mail that have more strings attached than Leo Kottke's guitar. No thanks... If it was such a stellar offer, you'd think someone would beating down DFW's door to take advantage of it, but other airlines (not just SWA) know it's a no-win deal... (Get over it, indeed...)

Well, I been away for a while....logged on today for the 1st time in several months and was caught by the ongoing vitriolic sniping between the AA/DFW cabal and the WN/DAL folks. Many perceptions of the core of the conflict exist....the "level playing field" ploy...."we hafta move back over there to compete"...."no one can stay in the game at DFW against AA"....."WN isn't being fair by running a monopoly at DAL"...."WN is being a bad neighbor by forcing a higher traffic concentration"....yadayadayada.

May we cut to the chase?....WN is being castigated by the DFW airport council and their inseparable shadow AA for all of a sudden pushing big-time for the WA repeal out of sheer selfishness and other immoral, really low-down motives. Why, they're trying to tear down the entire North Texas economy and the sterling business model ("economic engine".....dontcha love that bit of high-sounding hyperbole?) that we (the above-mentioned, plus probably the Dallas "business roundtable" or whatever moniker they have for it) have labored so long and hard to install. If y'all let them Oranges go anywhere they want outa Love Field, you aren't gonna leave us any choice....

So....would it surprise anyone if the real reason for the WA repeal push came up was that a good many of the folks who regularly fly WN (either from N Texas or to it) are asking for it? "How come if I hafta fly to Cleveland (or wherever) I either gotta go out to DFW and fight the traffic mess and that spaghetti road maze out there, drag my rollerboard and PC case through the long-term garage, down the elevator, across the street, into the mob-scene checkin area, either find a kiosk or a (fat chance) short counter line, get the bag checked, get thru "security", then hope I don't have more than a hundred yards or so to the gate...'course when I looked up the flt on the web last nite it was goin' outa C37...now you say it's been changed to A17? Great...so much for grabbin' a Starbuck's before I board....I gotta do an OJ back to the skylink and hope I make it. Or....I gotta get online and buy two separate tkts, one OKC (or LIT, TUL, etc) and another to MCI or STL and cnx to CLE...claim the bag and rechk it(which makes me a federal law-breaker!!). Same process on the return.

Now how come if I lived in Houston, Chicago, etc, I could buy just one tkt, connect once or maybe even go nonstop...what a luxury that would be! But I live in Dallastexas....not allowed to go from user-friendly Love Field....penenance must be paid, so it's suck-it-up and take one undesirable choice or the other. And so it goes....

I guess the bottom line is....do it OUR way...the way WE say...or you don't go....

Quoting ScottB (Reply 60): Since when is the 5th largest metro area in the U.S. a "mid-sized market?"

when it's been discussed to death that there is virtually no tourist or international interest in Dallas compared to many many many other markets like:

Miami
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Orlando
Tampa
New York
Boston
Washington
Atlanta
Las Vegas
Seattle
Chicago

If DAL were 1.5 hour drive from DFW, I could see the point. Not as it stands now, nor did the planners see the point.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 60): There was never a plan to close DAL completely, only to end commercial service there

But it's MY PLAN. The only way to solve it is to close it completely and convert it to other uses, which WILL bring in more revenue based on similar moves elsewhere both in the USA and internationally.

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 82): "those are a nts, we haven't yet left the gate."

Big Bird told that joke better on that Sesame Street special I saw as a kid. Or was it Ernie. I forget. But the whole gang was boarding a plane for the first time. It was funny, for a kid.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 83): 85% market share isn't propoganda, it's fact. Because it stings your ears changes nothing.

It's propoganda because they don't have 85% control of gate space at DFW, only 85% of the traffic at DFW. There is plenty of space for other players. Moving WN to DFW alone would cut that "monopoly" of traffic down quite a bit, as well as letting WN EXPAND to anywhere in their system they want to fly.

$700 a flight fees would equal about $5 segment cost per flight for WN pax. The fact that DAL basically lets WN land for free is not good enough reason to keep it open, especially if DAL is losing money with that policy. If they are losing $20 million and WN is saving $29 million, sort of points out how DAL isn't charing WN enough. You can claim it's due to "improvements" but that cost is supposed to be covered by your fees! You don't just itemize it away as a loss. Raise the fees for DAL enough to cover that $20 million, and the DFW "tax" is maybe $2 a flight per pax in that respect. The benefit of the tax is the ability to fly anywhere.

Why doesn't a developer offer to pay WN to move to DFW? Something like $30 million, or 3 years of the $2 tax.

Why does WN want to expand out of DAL but wouldn't out of DFW? Because expanding out of DAL is basically free, since DAL doesn't charge them enough...

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 85): What Election Day ballot was that on?

The respresentative democracy known as a Republic where by officials elected by the North Texas region sought, with CAB support, to find a solution to the air transportation problem that existed. They did. Apparently, you were sleeping or counting peanuts or something...  

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 78): Utilization costs associated with point to point mainline would dictate a minimum fare of about $109 in Coach and $159 in First to make it profitable. They were run out of the markets by $39-49 fares in the 90's

Then it's probably best that they were run out of the markets, if they are that unable to operate efficiently.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 74): Much more of this get in, sit down and shut the hell up and pax will be screaming for service level standards beyond the existing PBR.

Strange then that Southwest consistently has far fewer complaints per passenger than any of the network carriers. The traveling public isn't as stupid as you seem to believe; they largely do understand what they're getting when they fly Southwest.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 89): Strange then that Southwest consistently has far fewer complaints per passenger than any of the network carriers.

It's called a level of expectation.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 89): The traveling public isn't as stupid as you seem to believe; they largely do understand what they're getting when they fly Southwest.

They are that stupid, they assume that when they fly a major carrier at Southwest prices they should have a better product because it's the "big network carrier". The average person simply doesn't fly enough to have a grasp on what has happened to this industry. They get a nice present every Christmas.

[Edited 2006-01-13 07:32:51]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 90): They are that stupid, they assume that when they fly a major carrier at Southwest prices they should have a better product because it's the "big network carrier".

Actually, that perception is largely the fault of the network carriers. They have long promoted the notion that you can get cheap fares and full service even when it meant gouging their best customers. AA was advertising exactly that in recent years -- something along the lines of "a low fare and a better airline." They have promised more than they can afford to deliver.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 91): Actually, that perception is largely the fault of the network carriers. They have long promoted the notion that you can get cheap fares and full service even when it meant gouging their best customers. AA was advertising exactly that in recent years -- something along the lines of "a low fare and a better airline." They have promised more than they can afford to deliver.

They provided a service in a new cost environment to a public accustomed to better service, its easy to change a pricing structure, not so easy to change perception. In my opinion they all over reacted. They traded quality for quantity.

I want this I want that!!!!!!!!!! none of you have ever worked as a gate agent i can tell, people want and want, they want upgrades, they dont want anyone sitting next to them, they want a seat closer to the front, they want a aisle seat, window seat, jump seat, ok flight attendants and pilots are asking for the last one, i want a 150 dollar round trip from dal to mdw.you cant drive it for that cheap
yes it is easier for WN to charge that price, when you are only paying for fuel at 35 dollars a barrel, and the other airlines are paying market price
im just throwing my two cents in here, WN's day is coming when they will have to start playing the same game that everyone else does.


what do the airlines want, a profit, to make money in the business they are in.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 85): Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 56): You're right, it's up to the public that invests in the cost. Last time I checked, they made that choice pretty damn clear 30+ years ago when the approved and built DFW. What Election Day ballot was that on?

Lets see when the North Texas Cities of Dallas and Ft Worth voted to approve the bonds for construction of the new airport.

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 48): You might fool someone who was not busy watching Lee Cullum Clark and Billy Porterfield and Patsy Swank and Peter Lesser and Bob Ray Sanders on "Newsroom" (channel 13 KERA's evening newscast) as they spent day after day dissecting the Love Field case and awaiting Judge Taylor's decision.

Let me guess you thought you were the only kid nerdy enough to watch KERA's evening news cast? No matter which argument you make each person still only hears his side of the argument. You heard it then and you still hear the echo now.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 87): But it's MY PLAN. The only way to solve it is to close it completely and convert it to other uses, which WILL bring in more revenue based on similar moves elsewhere both in the USA and internationally.

Removing the Wright Amendment would end the debate. AA and Ft. Worth could chose to litigate to their heart's content, but we already have precedent for the continuing operation of DAL as a passenger facility.

Boy and girls, as I much as I enjoy debating the politics and economics of the Wright Amendment, further loosening and ultimate repeal are inevitable. Mark my words, Wright will fall in the 2007 FAA reauthorization.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 95): Removing the Wright Amendment would end the debate. AA and Ft. Worth could chose to litigate to their heart's content, but we already have precedent for the continuing operation of DAL as a passenger facility.

And end the limit such an arrangement imposes on the number of flights at DAL. You won't get a limit on the number of flights. Hate to break it to you.

I'm rather certain the firm of Morrison & Forrester will deliver the crushing blow to your dreams of such a limitation.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 96): And end the limit such an arrangement imposes on the number of flights at DAL. You won't get a limit on the number of flights. Hate to break it to you. I'm rather certain the firm of Morrison & Forrester will deliver the crushing blow to your dreams of such a limitation.

While I would personally like to see the 250 flight limit in the DAL Master Plan remain, for the greater good of the traveling public and the economic prosperity of North Texas, I would be williing to risk losing the limit in return for the removal of Wright restrictions.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 97): While I would personally like to see the 250 flight limit in the DAL Master Plan remain.

That won't happen, so you'll have to get over it.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 98): That won't happen, so you'll have to get over it.

It's been happening since 2001.