Quoting Dartland (Reply 99): They can, and Congress can even pass it. But under this agreement, WN can't then start flights to those exempted cities without penalty. By signing this agreement, they are agreeing to give up a significant number of gates at DAL in exchange for starting that non-stop service before the 8-year period.

Thats what I wondered, so it would be a waste for the states to try to get their states under the Wright Amendment then unless WN was really willing to give up the gates for it.

Alex

Airlines are not allowed to have discussions among themselves about scheduling or pricing nor carve out markets or airports that they agree or not agree to serve. In addition, DOT competition laws require that an airport make reasonable accommodation to any airline that wants to serve the airport. Getting rid of gates at an airport and then dolling out the remaining ones to only three airlines when it will be clear that other carriers may want to serve DAL after the WA expires is likely to be considered discriminatory.

From the DOT:

"Federal law requires airport operators to provide access to all qualified air carriers on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination, and prohibits them for granting an exclusive right to operate at their airports. Airport practices that have the effect of unreasonably denying or hindering access by air carriers in effect regulate their routes, contrary to the federal preemption authority over fares, routes, and services."

"To receive federal airport improvement funds, an airport operator must agree that it will operate the airport in an economically nondiscriminatory manner. The 'economic non-discrimination' grant assurance implements the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47101(a)(1) through (6). IN pertinent part, these provisions require the airport sponsor to make the airport available for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to any aeronautical user."

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 101): Airlines are not allowed to have discussions among themselves about scheduling or pricing nor carve out markets or airports that they agree or not agree to serve. In addition, DOT competition laws require that an airport make reasonable accommodation to any airline that wants to serve the airport. Getting rid of gates at an airport and then dolling out the remaining ones to only three airlines when it will be clear that other carriers may want to serve DAL after the WA expires is likely to be considered discriminatory.

That's true, but here both AA and WN have the argument that this was an effort driven primarily by city governments with ownership interests in the airports. In addition, there is a good chance that Congress could simply override these requirements when/if the repeal of the Wright Amendment comes to the floor.

In addition, the agreement provides that WN, AA, and CO will be forced to share gate space at DAL if any other airline expresses a desire to begin flights. This gets them around the "discrimination" provision.

In short, I understand the collusive appearance of this deal, but the feds asked the locals to come up with a local solution. I surely hope they will not turn their backs on it after the local officials and airlines worked so hard to find common ground here.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 90): I am not stunned only disappointed he came to his senses and accepted the deal. There was no chance of repeal anyway.

IF there was no chance of a repeal, then why would AA agree that half of Wright goes away now and the remaining half goes away in 8 years.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 90): Dal go back and read the agreement again. There is no provision exempting WN from starting service at DFW.

I never said they were prohibited from serving DFW, they are just making it very very difficult for WN to come to DFW. Why would they want to put anything in this agreement to discourage service at DFW? How does that help DFW or any of the consumers in the area?

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 90): What gives SC? Does that attitude of not playing fast and loose with the livelihoods of hard-working wage earners only apply to those people who work at DAL? Where was this concern of yours for the workers at DFW when Southwest started this mess?

Objection, silly little fellow; you have again assumed as a predicate an unproven contention. Reality check: your predicate inevitably fails.

Repeal of Wright will not harm DFW. Increased competition by efficient operators inevitably increases the number of air travelers. That creates more jobs, not fewer.

Silly little fellow.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 104): Objection, silly little fellow; you have again assumed as a predicate an unproven contention. Reality check: your predicate inevitably fails.

You and I will not know for 8 years or whether or not your supposition would ring true. But is funny how you so staunchly defend the jobs of the people at DAL but had such a callous attitude to others whose jobs depend on DFW.

FYI, Southwest does not fly international so repeal of Wright would have brought nothing to my table. So why upset the apple cart? Leave well enough alone I get my boards and people overseas in a timely manner with operators from DFW and I am happy. So you might say the job I was concerned with was my own!

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 103): IF there was no chance of a repeal, then why would AA agree that half of Wright goes away now and the remaining half goes away in 8 years.

What better way to paint Southwest in a corner for 25 years? Southwest still cannot fly outside the Wright perimeter non stop for 8 years. What do you think the premium will be for non stop flights to the average business traveler? Time is money you know.

Besides why would AA want to look like a goat in this situation? By agreeing they effectively stopped WN for 8 years on Wright and saddled them with 200mil or so of debt and pinned them in an airport with limited growth potential. Southwest will eventually have to shrink that hub to grow the long distance market. So tell me who got the better deal.

I am disappointed however we did not get them out of the airport.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 39): Love Field is a redundant facility.

I fail to see how something that pumps so much into the Dallas Economy, can be labeled "Redundant". Ship it off to DFW, and the city and county lose money, simple as that.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 67): Dude, at this point you'll have more luck getting an A380 out of MDW than closing DAL.

Well, maybe if it was headed for Gary IN, and there were only 8 pax on board!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 62): Then buy 1300 acres of undeveloped land and save millions in reclimation costs. Dallas County is not built-out.

Such as the area south of I-20/1-30 and east of I-45.....now this is an area that could use some redevelopment; hell, plain development would be nice.

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 78): I suppose he feels that he can make the one-stop option work for now,

I spent all day today in the care of Southwest Airlines....it surprised me how many people were "one-stopping" it today....on routes that have major nonstop action; LAX-CHI (via LAS), LAS-CHI (via DEN), DEN-CLE (via MDW), PHX-HOU (via SAT)....but there are literally hundreds of possibilities.
Explains why Frontier has started marketing in Denver that states: "Every Frontier Flight is a nonstop flight". (Half true....only if you live in the Denver area) But a definite jab at Southwest's multi-stop nature.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 90): Cargo was conveniently left out of the agreement.

Yes it was....and that irritates me.
To be honest, the whole thing rubs me the wrong way.
In my opinion, they just made everything more convoluted and restrictive.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 90): Where was this concern of yours for the workers at DFW when Southwest started this mess?

Well, technically, when Southwest began flying, their competition was Braniff and Trans-Texas....on the DAL-SAT/HOU routes.
Braniff treated the routes as tags to the more important routes in their system.
As for the other airline, TT-TransTexas, there was a reason folks in the day referred to them as TreeTop Airlines. Piston and Turboprop aircraft and highly unpredictable service....they survived on the routes where they were the only game in town, like Hobbs NM, Ft Polk LA, and El Dorado AR.
Southwest came along and focused on 2 routes the other airlines were ignoring....or treated as an afterthought. On a segment of ORD-DFW-SAT, or JFK-DFW-IAH....it was the first segment that airlines really cared about, or the through passengers.
If these routes were so important to BN and TT, they should have done a better job serving the local customer.
(This month's inflight magazine discusses this topic, unfortunately, not very well written-some glaring inaccuracies, but good for a thumbnail sketch.)

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 92): This deal is illegal and isn't going to pass the anti-trust laws. It's all for show.

Your post is the equivalent of a drive by shooting.  

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 101): Federal law requires airport operators to provide access to all qualified air carriers on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination, and prohibits them for granting an exclusive right to operate at their airports. Airport practices that have the effect of unreasonably denying or hindering access by air carriers in effect regulate their routes, contrary to the federal preemption authority over fares, routes, and services.

There ya go!
Spot on.
Again, this whole thing has me more than just a little mystified.

As I mentioned, I spent the whole day with Southwest.....heading to the Award's Banquet Saturday night in Dallas.
Being in Denver, getting to Dallas is not an easy task at all.
My itinerary:
DAL-LAS-SAT-DAL.
Although my ticket was confirmed space, it was still non-rev, and I was bumped all day. It would have been nice to have a more direct route to headquarters.
My return, on Sunday night, equally impossible:
DAL-SAT-PHX-DEN.
Love that Southwest is now serving my NEW home, but right now, it is too isolated from the rest of the network.

My question....(Back on Topic).....is this agreement is set in stone?
Now that Love is effectively opened up to the rest of the nation, how do the other network carriers feel about essentially being *locked-out* of Love Field?

I've been flying all day, I look like this    and    , accept my apologies if I have rambled or don't make sense.   

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 101): Airlines are not allowed to have discussions among themselves about scheduling or pricing nor carve out markets or airports that they agree or not agree to serve. In addition, DOT competition laws require that an airport make reasonable accommodation to any airline that wants to serve the airport. Getting rid of gates at an airport and then dolling out the remaining ones to only three airlines when it will be clear that other carriers may want to serve DAL after the WA expires is likely to be considered discriminatory.

While true, if this is put in place, DAL will become an artificially constrained facility under a noise ordinance and would further develop along the lines of Orange County. Airlines will tend to avoid the curfew constrained airport so the competition issue is rather moot.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 106): Such as the area south of I-20/1-30 and east of I-45.....now this is an area that could use some redevelopment; hell, plain development would be nice.

  

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 105): FYI, Southwest does not fly international so repeal of Wright would have brought nothing to my table.

Actually, WN has indicated they may go international within the next 2-3 years. Where and to what extent is unknown.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 105): What do you think the premium will be for non stop flights to the average business traveler? Time is money you know.

It's Southwest we're talking about, how much time do they spend on the ground?   

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 90): Settle down Dfw, notice he did not put a time period on his statement.

So in other words, it's a totally unfounded speculation? I could buy some land out near Conroe, because in an unspecified time period, it will inevitibly become beach front property with global warming and costal erosion...

Quoting Stirling (Reply 106): In my opinion, they just made everything more convoluted and restrictive.

I also agree. The more complications now, the more likely the "parties" will have trouble abiding by the original agreement at some point in the future. There was no need for a solution this convoluted...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 108): Quoting Cjpark (Reply 105): What do you think the premium will be for non stop flights to the average business traveler? Time is money you know. It's Southwest we're talking about, how much time do they spend on the ground?

I am not talking about the airplanes. Listen if your company is more concerned with getting the absolute lowest fare than getting you where need to be to get the work done that means either the job is not that important or you are not that important to the point it is cheaper to let you spend your time in airports and airplanes all day rather that get you to the job ASAP.

That is where the premium for non stop flights is.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 106): Well, technically, when Southwest began flying, their competition was Braniff and Trans-Texas....on the DAL-SAT/HOU routes.

I am talking about the recent repeal effort. We are all well versed in how the little David airline slew the Goliath Airlines with a bag a peanuts and a case of scotch.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 109): Listen if your company is more concerned with getting the absolute lowest fare than getting you where need to be to get the work done that means either the job is not that important or you are not that important to the point it is cheaper to let you spend your time in airports and airplanes all day rather that get you to the job ASAP.

* sigh *

As your sense of humor is obviously wanting, take note. It's an industry-wide joke that WN aircraft taxi very quickly and spend very little time on the ground before departing again. I was being ironic  

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 105): You and I will not know for 8 years or whether or not your supposition would ring true. But is funny how you so staunchly defend the jobs of the people at DAL but had such a callous attitude to others whose jobs depend on DFW.

It is, of course, possible that the effect of opening up the marketplace here could be completely different than in every other market in the country. I think we can consider that possibility a remote one.

In any event, greater competition creates a stronger business environment for all business in the area, not just the ones at the airport.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 105): FYI, Southwest does not fly international so repeal of Wright would have brought nothing to my table. So why upset the apple cart? Leave well enough alone I get my boards and people overseas in a timely manner with operators from DFW and I am happy. So you might say the job I was concerned with was my own!

Again, use your powers of observation to see what has happened elsewhere. Observe, learn, and when someday you have achieved your place in business, you'll find the experience to be valuable.

Quoting B737700doctor (Reply 3): Southwest is in direct competition with my airline but I think that the Wrong amendment is BS this is not free enterprise This is the United States ladies and Germs let companies do biz head to head dog eat dog. That is what free enterprise means.

              

Jeez! And to think that this was a free market. How stupid of me!   

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 111): Again, use your powers of observation to see what has happened elsewhere. Observe, learn, and when someday you have achieved your place in business, you'll find the experience to be valuable.

No offense intended SC but free market talk coming from a lawyer means about as much as a birth control lecture from a Priest.

[Edited 2006-06-17 15:29:01]

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 113): No offense intended SC but free market talk coming from a lawyer means about as much as a birth control lecture from a Priest.

SCCutler has proven himself in terms of disciplined, rational reasoning and discussion, Cj. No offense intended, but you would do well to follow his lead.




2H4

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 114): SCCutler has proven himself in terms of disciplined, rational reasoning and discussion, Cj. No offense intended, but you would do well to follow his lead.

That is only if you agree with what he is saying.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 105): What better way to paint Southwest in a corner for 25 years? Southwest still cannot fly outside the Wright perimeter non stop for 8 years. What do you think the premium will be for non stop flights to the average business traveler? Time is money you know. Besides why would AA want to look like a goat in this situation? By agreeing they effectively stopped WN for 8 years on Wright and saddled them with 200mil or so of debt and pinned them in an airport with limited growth potential. Southwest will eventually have to shrink that hub to grow the long distance market. So tell me who got the better deal.

I'm happy that you believe you won and WN came out the loser. Good for you.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 115): That is only if you agree with what he is saying.

Not at all, Cj. Disciplined, rational reasoning and discussion is respectful regardless of what side of the argument you're on. In fact, I'd say it's even more appreciated when it originates from the opposing side.




2H4

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 116): I'm happy that you believe you won and WN came out the loser. Good for you.

No the resolution does not meet my expectations either. As I said earlier compromise to me would have been giving WN a time line to move out of DAL and into DFW.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 62): I know there are pleanty of people from Dallas who no longer live in Dallas, or people who just take interest in our local issues, but you really have no idea what you are talking about !!

Actually you and the Southwest train in this thread are the ones misinformed. Or rather, misinforming and misleading. Redevelopment of Love Field was a forbidden issue prior to the agreement because no developer in the area was willing to upset their relationship with the City of Dallas. In the next 12 months there will be competing proposals to redevelop the airport. Dallas should be able to extract a couple of billion dollars out of the land, and then tax it.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 64): It is shameful to see idle aviation hobbyists fantasize and play fast and loose with the livelihoods of hard-working wage-earners, and taxpaying citizens.

Oh, you stopped short of wrapping yourself in the American flag and say it's bad for the country to make Love Field into something useful.

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 84): Sometimes we tend to forget the investment that the FAA puts into our various airport infrastructures. They tend to take an extremely dim view of any attempts to either completely close or restrict operations at a particular airport.

Indeed, but they also take a dim view of supporting redundant facilities.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 67): 8 years from now, DAL will be the equivalent of LGA or DCA.

Sorry but any attempt to compare La Guardia or National with Love is pitiful. Actually any attempt to compare anything in Dallas with anything in New York is pitiful. Ain't the same league, not even close.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 119): Redevelopment of Love Field was a forbidden issue prior to the agreement because no developer in the area was willing to upset their relationship with the City of Dallas.

So was it in fact forbidden, legally, or were the developers were simply not willing to do something? There is a difference.




2H4

Quoting Incitatus - Reply 119

Indeed, but they also take a dim view of supporting redundant facilities

Then why do they continue to support TPA and PIE -- two airports 10 miles apart serving a metro area half the size of the Dallas Fort Worth area?

LoneStarMike

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 119): Dallas should be able to extract a couple of billion dollars out of the land, and then tax it.

Redeveloping DAL into apartments and office space, of which there are plenty available in Dallas, is the small minded view. A viable airport in the heart of Dallas is the catalyst for the redevelopment of an area 5x larger than the land DAL sits on.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 119): Sorry but any attempt to compare La Guardia or National with Love is pitiful. Actually any attempt to compare anything in Dallas with anything in New York is pitiful. Ain't the same league, not even close.

As LGA is to JFK and DCA is to IAD so will DAL be to DFW.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 119): Indeed, but they also take a dim view of supporting redundant facilities.

Absolutely not true! The FAA is dealing with significant increases in the numbers of passengers over the foreseeable future and lack of infrastructure is a huge issue. DAL is NOT a redundant facility. Wake the hell up!

This attempt at an agreement is perhaps the only thing more sick about this whole false debate than seeing AA attempt to maintain their monopoly at any cost and by any means. Shame on the parties involved.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 119): Indeed, but they also take a dim view of supporting redundant facilities.

I was surprised this has not been mentioned in any of the WA threads recently, but if NASA is right DAL is gonna get real busy real fast. Here's the fair use excerpt:

Air-taxi services threaten to jam airports
Wednesday, March 29, 2006

By Scott McCartney, The Wall Street Journal

Thousands of new small jets about to hit U.S. skies will likely add hundreds of additional flights each day in big cities like Las Vegas, Chicago and Dallas, leading to airport congestion and flight delays.

Las Vegas's McCarran International Airport will see the biggest impact from air-taxi service over the next decade, according to the NASA forecasting, with nearly 400 air-taxi flights a day by 2014, a huge jump at an airport that today is near capacity with 1,600 takeoffs and landings daily. Chicago's busy Midway Airport was No. 2 in NASA's air-taxi projections (with 355 flights), followed by Dallas Love Field (with 350).

That doesn't sound redudant to me.

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 17): Interesting, I also notice it says nothing about Alliance, Meechamrn& cargo. Now the question is, will the rest of Congress go forrnthis? Did I read it correctly that if Congress simply repeals the WA,rnWN has to give up 8 gates?

The agreement is about passenger service only. Meacham, etc. are indirectly mentioned - if anyone starts service at a third airport, they have to give up gates at LUV.

The parties were asked by congress to come up with a solution themselves so it is likely that this solution will BECOME federal law. As such, it would supersede any other laws it may go against. OPNL is right ..... it is convoluted. The most troubling aspect of this is once it becomes federal law it will be very hard to modify.

My guess is Southwest accepted the gate limit because it will be enough for the foreseeable future. Southwest could enough flights with the allocated gates to serve just about anywhere they need to for the foreseeable future. If they need more gates 25 years later - they can simply enter DFW as well. By that time they will need that market to fill their airplanes, if they maintain anything like their present growth rate.

I think many of us misunderstood Southwest's aims in trying to get the Wright Amendment reppealed. They didn't want to darken the skies with flights to LUV. They don't want to become as big in LUV as AA is in DFW...they realize LUV has limited growth potential even with no restrictions. DFW is better positioned to serve the vast bulk of the metroplex. LUV's only advantage NOW are low cost, and proximity to the Dallas downtown area.

Southwest had three main aims in repealing the Wright amendment.....

1. To save a stagnant and marginal operation at LUV. Yields and load factors
were slowly eroding. It is not possible anymore to maintain an operation of that size with Wright Amendment restrictions.

2. To improve traffic to other markets in danger of becoming unprofitable - mainly smaller Texas cities. Without connecting traffic made possible by Wright
amendment repeal, Southwest may eventually be forced to leave some of these nmarkets - which it has served for a long time. Many of these communities depend on WN and leaving would be very bad PR.

3.To allow highly profitable long-haul and medium-haul flights to other "mega-stations". BWI, MDW, LAS, etc. come to mind. Connection opportunities and WN market position keep the yield relatively high. The minimal need for extra infrastructure at either end keeps the costs down.

Courtesy: WFAA-TV

Wright Pact A Matter Of Facing Reality

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw...ries/061806dnbuswright.e13599.html

Courtesy: Star-Telegram

Changes To Wright Deal Might Be Sought - To Get Federal Approval

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14842382.htm

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 119): Dallas should be able to extract a couple of billion dollars out of the land

You are exactly right.
But add a couple billion dollars to the price-tag to clean up the ground underneath.
Its a wash...making the scenario less attractive.

That's a good point. You'd be hard pressed to find a closed military base that the govt. netted any cash out of.

Quoting JustPlaneNutz (Reply 125): Quoting Incitatus (Reply 119): Indeed, but they also take a dim view of supporting redundant facilities. ... That doesn't sound redudant to me.

The "redundant facilities" mantra is an oft-cited myth, propagated by teenaged airline hobbyists fantasizing about frequent first-class airline travel and whose worries never include raising families, running businesses or paying airfare themselves.

Some even concoct fictitious careers with big companies, and everything!

No rational analysis has ever regarded DAL as redundant, with or without airline service.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 131): The "redundant facilities" mantra is an oft-cited myth, propagated by teenaged airline hobbyists fantasizing about frequent first-class airline travel and whose worries never include raising families, running businesses or paying airfare themselves. Some even concoct fictitious careers with big companies, and everything! No rational analysis has ever regarded DAL as redundant, with or without airline service.

Why not provide us with an analysis rational or not that says DAL is not redudant then. To dispel the myth as you say?

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 132): Why not provide us with an analysis rational or not that says DAL is not redudant then. To dispel the myth as you say?

No need for me to do so; the FAA has done it for us already, having identified DAL as a necessary airport in the "Primary" category in its National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems.

In fact, as it turns out, largely because of the substantial loss of airports in the area over the past twenty years or so, there are no public-use airports in Dallas or Tarrant counties which are below the "Reliever" category in the NPIAS. Dallas-Ft. Worth is actually hurting for airport capacity now, and that shortage is only expected to worsen.

Of course, for those who use the airports, especially those who do something other than boarding airline flights (I count myself among this fortunate group), this comes as no surprise; the relentless loss of vital airports is a crisis for the aviation industry as a whole, and the Dallas-Ft. Worth area is not excepted from this trend.

One can learn more about the NPIAS from the FAA, to-wit:

"The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) is submitted to Congress in accordance with Section 47103 of Title 49 of United States Code. The plan identifies 3,364 existing airports that are significant to national air transportation and contains estimates that $46.2 billion in infrastructure development that is eligible for Federal aid will be needed over the next 5 years to meet the needs of all segments of civil aviation.

The NPIAS is used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) management in administering the Airport Improvement Program. It supports the FAA’s strategic goals for safety, system efficiency, and environmental compatibility by identifying the specific airport improvements that will contribute to achievement of those goals."

Mineta, Norman Y., Report to Congress, National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) - (2001-2005), US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, at p. ix.

"When a city becomes so large that it generates more than 10 to 12 million originating passengers per year, a second commercial service airport may be warranted. There are few cities this large: London, Paris, and Tokyo fit the example, as well as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Boston, and Washington in the United States."

Id., at p.12.

There's a lot to see there, but the Cliff's Notes is that DAL is here to stay, securely anchored by its vital place in the aviation infrastructure.

(Amazing, isn't it, what one finds when one allows oneself to consider objective reality, rather than idle fantasy).

[Edited 2006-06-20 05:49:29]

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 133): When a city becomes so large that it generates more than 10 to 12 million originating passengers per year, a second commercial service airport may be warranted. There are few cities this large: London, Paris, and Tokyo fit the example, as well as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Boston, and Washington in the United States." Id., at p.12. There's a lot to see there, but the Cliff's Notes is that DAL is here to stay, securely anchored by its vital place in the aviation infrastructure. (Amazing, isn't it, what one finds when one allows oneself to consider objective reality, rather than idle fantasy).

All that being listed as a NPIAS airport means is that Love Field is eligible for Federal Grants. It does not suggest that the airport is anymore important than say MAF or ELP.

If objective reality is an indicator of importance why did the compromise between Dallas, Ft Worth, DFW, Southwest and American Airlines seek to limit its growth potential?

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 8): If by both sides you mean AA and WN, yes. They each gave up some and got some, but the rest of the industry is virtually locked out of DAL (save CO, which is there already). The limit on gates should have been in within the Love Field Master Plan. 32 gates total. 16 for WN, 2 for AA and 2 for CO, with 12 gates left open for other carriers. In essence, 3 airlines get basically exclusive rights to DAL (the provisions about space being made for new entrants and Love Field officials not lobbying for new carriers notwithstanding). So, 3 TEXAS corporations have thier own private airport, in Texas. Congress should shoot this down ASAP, unless other carriers are allowed similar free-market-killing provisions in thier home states, or hub markets. I've been in favor of Wright repeal, but this "compromise" stinks to high heaven, unless of course you're a Texas based carrier. "Texas, it's like a whole other country". If this goes through they might as well be.

I AGREE! Well said.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 133): "When a city becomes so large that it generates more than 10 to 12 million originating passengers per year, a second commercial service airport may be warranted. There are few cities this large: London, Paris, and Tokyo fit the example, as well as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Boston, and Washington in the United States." Id., at p.12.

This number (threshold) climbs each year with the net percentage of enplanements and is further altered by facility limitations of the primary airport. Mineta is a clown.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 134): If objective reality is an indicator of importance why did the compromise between Dallas, Ft Worth, DFW, Southwest and American Airlines seek to limit its growth potential?

Probably because at least three of the players (Fort Worth, American Airlines, and the D/FW Airport Board) derive a benefit from hobbling DAL. Southwest probably agreed because they can grow their operation by roughly 50% with 16 gates (I'd estimate they could get up to 180-200 daily departures with that many gates) and because they will ultimately be freed of the Wright restrictions. They also would appear to get a new, modern terminal as part of the deal -- and it would not surprise me to see AA pull out of DAL after this is implemented. What Dallas gets is a resolution to this whole controversy -- at least, for the next twenty years.

Courtesy: WFAA-TV

Fort Worth Council Approves Wright Resolution

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw...aa060620_wz_fwwright.a5d6fe39.html

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 134): All that being listed as a NPIAS airport means is that Love Field is eligible for Federal Grants. It does not suggest that the airport is anymore important than say MAF or ELP.

I think a re-read of the report is in order, if that's all you got out of it. Note well, the designation of the airport as a "Primary" category field is significant in itself.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 134): If objective reality is an indicator of importance why did the compromise between Dallas, Ft Worth, DFW, Southwest and American Airlines seek to limit its growth potential?

Durn their hides, they left me out of the room when they were hammering out the deal.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 136): Quoting SCCutler (Reply 133): "When a city becomes so large that it generates more than 10 to 12 million originating passengers per year, a second commercial service airport may be warranted. There are few cities this large: London, Paris, and Tokyo fit the example, as well as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Boston, and Washington in the United States." Id., at p.12. This number (threshold) climbs each year with the net percentage of enplanements and is further altered by facility limitations of the primary airport. Mineta is a clown.

Ummm... okay. Not really sure you said anything there (well, except for the Mineta part, with which I agree in large measure). I imagine there was at least some scientific method put into the preparation of the report, and there were likely some qualified staff involved; they did, in any event, include lots of numbers and pretty charts and stuff.

Quoting Sccutler (Reply 139): Ummm... okay. Not really sure you said anything there (well, except for the Mineta part, with which I agree in large measure). I imagine there was at least some scientific method put into the preparation of the report, and there were likely some qualified staff involved; they did, in any event, include lots of numbers and pretty charts and stuff.

I'll give you a link when I get home tonight of a discussion paper on this by the guru of secondary airports (MIT Prof I believe). Mineta is simply repeating the findings of the research ignoring the comments made by the professor about how the threshold increases each year altering the demand that drives a supplemental until the primary airport runs out of capacity options or becomes constrained. Like all things Mineta, he's looking at a single issue, without taking the totality of the issue into consideration.

Quoting Sccutler (Reply 139): I think a re-read of the report is in order, if that's all you got out of it. Note well, the designation of the airport as a "Primary" category field is significant in itself.

Oh I read the report. Did you also read up on the criteria for airport designation? You see it is not that significant of an acheivement to be named a Primary Airport.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff.../orders/media/planning_5090_3C.pdf

2-3. TYPES OF AIRPORTS
Airports are divided into two categories that reflect the type of service provided the community. The service levels also represent statutory funding categories associated with the airport grant program.
a. Commercial Service Airports are publicly owned airports that enplane 2,500 or more passengers annually and receive scheduled passenger aircraft service. Commercial service airports are either:
(1) Primary - airport that enplanes more than 10,000 passengers annually; or
(2) Nonprimary - airport that enplanes between 2,500 and 10,000 passengers
annually.

As promised - Richard de Neufville:

http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_papers/mas.atm1.PDF

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 141): Oh I read the report. Did you also read up on the criteria for airport designation? You see it is not that significant of an acheivement to be named a Primary Airport.

It is not so much of an "achievement," as much as a status.

Of equal consequence, though, is the enduring reality that Dallas and Ft. Worth cannot afford to lose any airport capacity, and the loss of DAL would certainly create an immediate and critical problem.

We agree, then, to disagree on this point; I simply disagree with substantial, independent and authoritative information as a fundamental underpinning for my contentions.

Here's what's good about the deal:

-WN gets to fly direct service now and non-stop service throughout the U.S. in 8 eight years.

-AA gets 8 years to get its financial house in order for when it will compete with WN across the entire domestic routes system out of the Metroplex.

-Residents near DAL know that DAL isn't going to see the kind of growth that other secondary airports, such as MDW, have seen.

Here's what's bad:

-CO is locked into 2 gates. The deal certainly limits the number of flights it can offer to IAH, CLE, and EWR.

-New entrants are basically frozen out, if WN and AA do nothing that requires them to give up gate space. I could have seen B6 offering service to JFK, LGB, BOS, and/or LGA.

-No international service. Not that anyone is about to start NRT-DAL or FRA-DAL, but I certainly could have seen service to Mexico or Canada, if WN ever starts trans-border flying. Even MDW has customs facilities, although TZ is the only carrier flying international routes. Mexicana did go into MDW a few years ago, but dropped service after 9/11.

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 144): -New entrants are basically frozen out, if WN and AA do nothing that requires them to give up gate space. I could have seen B6 offering service to JFK, LGB, BOS, and/or LGA.

Actually, I believe the deal requires WN, AA, and CO to share gate space at DAL if another carrier wishes to fly there. I don't think the deal would pass FAA or antitrust muster if this weren't the case.

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 144): -No international service. Not that anyone is about to start NRT-DAL or FRA-DAL, but I certainly could have seen service to Mexico or Canada, if WN ever starts trans-border flying. Even MDW has customs facilities, although TZ is the only carrier flying international routes. Mexicana did go into MDW a few years ago, but dropped service after 9/11.

I don't think this is that big of a deal. It's the same way with HOU and IAH, LGA and JFK, etc. I think it is still unclear what would happen if someone wanted to fly to DAL from a foreign airport with pre-clearance facilities (like AC's flights to LGA and DCA), but that will probably be a moot point for years to come.