SWA Plans "Substantial" Growth At Love Field

AA737-823 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:51 am

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 45):
As far as DL and UA, who knows...

Rumor had it that pre-merger CO wanted to expand DAL greatly, at the expense of DFW service.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 47):
Can DAL not use gates to serve multiple flights by using bussing 'technology' That would allow, for example a 6am and a 6.30am departure from the same gate - one of them being bussed to remote stand.

No, see below:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 48):
3. That would violate the spirit if not the actual agreement concerning the size of DAL and number of gates

The language actually explicitly states NO HARDSTAND OPERATIONS. It's 20 gates, and that's it... even to the point of demolishing the entire Legend Airlines Executive Terminal. Sad that, that way. Stupid.

Bobloblaw · Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:34 am

Quoting alggag (Reply 49):
BWI x3-20
BNA x2-22

Actually let me switch BNA and BWI. BWI would be 2 and BNA 3. I think STL and MCI will shrink to 4-5 from 8-10 today.

BestWestern · Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:55 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 50):

The language actually explicitly states NO HARDSTAND OPERATIONS. It's 20 gates, and that's it... even to the point of demolishing the entire Legend Airlines Executive Terminal. Sad that, that way. Stupid.

Thanks for the explanation. This is a very restrictive rule indeed.

Are they allowed to Hard Stand in case of delays, or are passengers stuck on board?

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 48):

2. WN would never do that

Getting a bus to the plan isn't that terrible.

Perhaps WN will be visiting EasyJet to learn how to turn an aircraft in thirty minutes.

Otherwise, could it mean a 6am departure, followed by a 6.20 being tugged onto the Jetway at 06:05 - aircraft being prepared (Crewed, fueled, bags, etc all fulfilled remotely)?

Having never flown to DAL - is there a passenger hold area where passengers can be given gate information 45 minutes before departure to allow total flexibility in gate operations?

Bobloblaw · Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:09 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Getting a bus to the plan isn't that terrible.

We generally don't do that in the USA. Europe does it because of the lack of space but in the USA, space is not such a premium. I cant off hand think of an US airport where mainline aircraft are hardstanded on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it is exceedingly rare.

usflyguy · Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:02 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Perhaps WN will be visiting EasyJet to learn how to turn an aircraft in thirty minutes.

WN routinely does 25-30 minute turns at DAL.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
is there a passenger hold area

No.

Just a FYI... http://www.lovefieldmodernizationprogram.com/

AA737-823 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:16 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Perhaps WN will be visiting EasyJet to learn how to turn an aircraft in thirty minutes.

Hah! Funny joke! You're forgiven, because you aren't from this country, and you're not privy to the revolution that was travel on WN in the 1970's.
WN INVENTED the 10-minute turn. Their whole business model was built around it at one point.
Passengers had to cooperate, i.e., take the first seat they could find on the plane, and not hog the aisle. That would never work today- no one in the traveling American public is capable of thinking of anyone other than themselves, it seems...
But in the 1970's, for WN, it had to be done in ten minutes. Flat.
And it all started at DAL.

Bobloblaw · Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:27 am

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 21):

A few of the planes to fund DAL expansion will come from reductions in DAL itself. Also 30-40 flights per day doesn't translate into 30 lines of flying. More like 10.

RyanairGuru · Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:48 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Otherwise, could it mean a 6am departure, followed by a 6.20 being tugged onto the Jetway

From my understanding that would still be in violation of the hardstand rule. This is crazy!

BestWestern · Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:49 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 55):
Hah! Funny joke! You're forgiven, because you aren't from this country, and you're not privy to the revolution that was travel on WN in the 1970's.

It was a joke BTW. I know where it all started!

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 53):
We generally don't do that in the USA. Europe does it because of the lack of space but in the USA, space is not such a premium. I cant off hand think of an US airport where mainline aircraft are hardstanded on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it is exceedingly rare.

I was thinking out of the box at a way that WN could increase frequencies from the limited gates they have. Europe does it also as one mega LCC refuses to pay for air bridges.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 55):
That would never work today- no one in the traveling American public is capable of thinking of anyone other than themselves

And is shows at the horror shown here of the concept of walking outside for thirty seconds. I'll get back in my "hardstand pinko socialist gun hating euro lovin' bus to plane" box.

atrude777 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:12 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 53):

We generally don't do that in the USA. Europe does it because of the lack of space but in the USA, space is not such a premium. I cant off hand think of an US airport where mainline aircraft are hardstanded on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it is exceedingly rare.

Burbank Airport would have to be one right? I know you said rare, but that is def a US Airport that would utilize hard stand on a regular scheduled basis?

Alex

deltal1011man · Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:21 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 24):
Maybe ATL or something... we'll see.

MEM got cut a while a go....moved here(ATL)

Quoting commavia (Reply 29):
50-seat RJs are suboptimal for flying longhaul from DAL, which were the only markets AA could ever hope to compete in, anyway (not AUS, MCI, etc.).

Delta seems to be making ATL-DAL work(with 2x the cost of fuel when AA's ORD-DAL failed) Same goes for UA and DEN-DAL.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 42):
Really? I was almost certain it was NW's old Memphis route...

Delta was the one that started MEM-DAL(at least the last time) along with some other Texas flying.

ATL-DAL
DL5104 0811-0930 CRJ
DL5154 1055-1220 CRJ
DL5272 1408-1530 CRJ
DL5326 1601-1723 CRJ
DL5368 2052-2216 CRJ

DAL-ATL
DL5462 0715-1015 CRJ
DL5104 0955-1253 CRJ
DL5154 1245-1546 CRJ
DL5272 1555-1855 CRJ
DL5326 1755-2057 CRJ

Delta's Texas network is DFW/DAL/IAH/HOU/ELP/SAT/AUS/GRK. ELP/GRK/DAL are only flown from ATL.

Delta also start MFE/LBB/AMA-MEM after the merger...all have been cut AFAIK. (I think DAL was the only one to get moved to ATL)

BHMNONREV · Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:21 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 51):
I think STL and MCI will shrink to 4-5 from 8-10 today.

I could see six to STL, most if not all on the -800. Even though MDW and other major markets will be accessible N/S from DAL there are still a lot of connecting opportunities from STL as well as a good sized local market.

In fact I think they have -800's currently running thru STL to/from DAL.

deltacto · Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:32 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 42):
Really? I was almost certain it was NW's old Memphis route...

DL started ATL-DAL September 2012

Delta Launches ATL-DAL In September (by cat3dual Jul 7 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Before that DL flew DAL-MEM 3/day starting July 2009

Delta To Restart Service At Dallas-Love (by FrequentFlyKid Apr 23 2009 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2013-03-26 04:02:23]

[Edited 2013-03-26 04:03:41]

Delta/ASA flew DAL-ATL before but suspended the route in 2003
Delta Connection To Suspend Service At DAL (by ScottysAir Mar 13 2003 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2013-03-26 04:11:34]

AA737-823 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:06 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 60):
Delta seems to be making ATL-DAL work(with 2x the cost of fuel when AA's ORD-DAL failed) Same goes for UA and DEN-DAL.

UA's DEN-DAL has been cancelled, effective Jan 31st 2013. Bummer, as it made a nice one-stop to Dallas from Anchorage for me.... rather than the SEA-IAH-DAL routine.
But it wasn't a surprise; the flight was routinely priced $200 higher than via IAH to DAL, so... go figure, no one booked it, I guess.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 58):
And is shows at the horror shown here of the concept of walking outside for thirty seconds. I'll get back in my "hardstand pinko socialist gun hating euro lovin' bus to plane" box.

Hah. Okay then!

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 60):
Delta was the one that started MEM-DAL(at least the last time) along with some other Texas flying.

Quoting deltacto (Reply 62):
DL started ATL-DAL September 2012

Alright. I'da sworn that there was a DL flight to Memphis just two weeks ago as I waited for my IAH ERJ in terminal 1... But evidently, I'da been wrong!

AusTexFlyer · Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:14 pm

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 41):
As you postulated yourself, these flights may be artificially overscheduled. I am of the opinion that they are. How is it that MAF-HOU has 3x daily flights but DAL has 6x daily? The metro sizes are almost equal (+300K to DAL), but the HOU hub is bigger and better connected to the rest of the WN network.

If anything, Midland could support more flights to HOU than to DAL N/S anyway. I haven't looked up official numbers, but being somebody that has earned CO/UA Platinum status (on segments flown) a couple of times doing nothing but flying AUS-IAH-MAF-IAH-AUS, with several trips on WN AUS-DAL-MAF and AUS-HOU-MAF thrown in as well, the Houston to Midland traffic is certainly heavier. The HOU-MAF flights are always full, and the MAF-DAL flights carry quite a lot of people connecting on to HOU. The oil business traffic between Houston and Midland overwhelms the Dallas to Midland traffic.

I can see WN moving a couple of MAF flights from DAL to HOU, but not reducing MAF's daily departures much. If they do cut MAF, I suspect they will regret it.

LoneStarMike · Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:34 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Are they allowed to Hard Stand in case of delays, or are passengers stuck on board?

This is the relevant paragraph of the agreement:

Quote:
Airlines may nor subdivide a "gate." A gate shall consist of one passenger hold room and one passenger loading jet bridge supporting one aircraft parking space and no hardstand operations, except as allowed herein, may be permitted. Nothing shall preclude any airline from utilizing hardstands for RON parking, maintenance, training or for irregular operations (i.e. flights that were scheduled originally for one of the twenty available gates and cannot be accommodated thereon due to weather, maintenance, or unforeseen emergencies), or other uses that do not involve passenger air service.

Source (See subsection A in part 3.)

So exceptions are made during irregular operations and passengers would not be stuck on board.

LoneStarMike

wwtraveler99 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:45 pm

Quoting mcdu (Reply 44):
That's a monopoly on gates. WN should be forced to give up gates to new entrants like VX, B6 and the legacy carriers should also get a few gates......this is what WN has argued for their own handout of legacy gates at slot/gate limited airports.

The problem with this is that airlines agree to it and its now a LAW. So WN is not required to give up gates. Neither is UA or AA. The airport is not required to build gates nor are they allowed to build them.

WW

LAXintl · Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:32 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Perhaps WN will be visiting EasyJet to learn how to turn an aircraft in thirty minutes.

You realize - Southwest was the model for EasyJet. Stelios spent time with Southwest carefully studying their model.

MSYtristar · Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:39 pm

I don't think you'll see DAL-MSY cut too much. The smallest number of nonstops I ever remember them having in the market was 5, and that was before they were allowed to sell DAL-Florida tickets, etc. They have 8 now. Considering it's a good sized O&D market, I can see them going down to maybe 6, but no less than that.

SELMER40 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:22 pm

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 33):

I see DAL also getting a few one daily flights like..

Memphis may need to be added to this list. If Memphis doesn't get at least one daily flight to DAL, the city leaders will be highly upset.

[Edited 2013-03-26 08:26:54]

JBAirwaysFan · Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:33 pm

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 4):
I wonder if WN at some point pushes futher and requests the abillity to fly to Mexico from Love ...

Probably not. If I recall correctly one of the provisions in the Wright Compromise prohibits international flights from DAL. So WN would have to fight to lift the gate limit and the international flights ban as well.

Josh32121 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:45 pm

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 69):
Memphis may need to be added to this list. If Memphis doesn't get at least one daily flight to DAL, the city leaders will be highly upset.

Which city leaders? Memphis? Who would care if they're upset other than themselves? Absent a direct subsidy to support the service, WN will use its limited DAL capacity to serve wherever it'll make the most money. Why would MEM necessarily be one of those cities?

BigGSFO · Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:10 pm

Quoting SELMER40 (Reply 69):
Memphis may need to be added to this list. If Memphis doesn't get at least one daily flight to DAL, the city leaders will be highly upset.

Well, they continue to watch their status as a hub diminish. I don't think hell will break lose if they don't get a single flight to Love, especially since flights will remain to DFW.

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 71):
WN will use its limited DAL capacity to serve wherever it'll make the most money.

At the end of the day, this is what will drive the service.

point2point · Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:21 pm

With DAL being able to serve a lot of east/west connect traffic flows post 2014 with the geographic position that they have, does anyone think that maybe DEN could be somewhat effected with cuts because of the lifting of the Wright restrictions? With the east/west connect traffic flows, it is now basically MDW and DEN that can serve these as maybe HOU may be a bit far south, and maybe STL a bit far east, and maybe MCI maybe just not big enough. But with DAL into the mix, it could certainly be that especially southern U.S. east/west connects will organically have another option with DAL for WN. Or will DAL be too constrained to really effect DEN, and even maybe other connects at MDW, STL and MCI, and would WN be smart and stick with their current thinking (as they need to be) and be basically focusing on the O&D at DAL?

Cubsrule · Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:25 pm

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 71):
Which city leaders? Memphis? Who would care if they're upset other than themselves? Absent a direct subsidy to support the service, WN will use its limited DAL capacity to serve wherever it'll make the most money. Why would MEM necessarily be one of those cities?

It's a decent-sized market right in the "sweet spot" as far as stage length at around 400 miles. I think it'll get a couple of daily flights. At only 110 PDEW, there's lots of room for stimulation. Compare BNA, which is about 330 PDEW, and it's not hard to see the upside.

Josh32121 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:32 pm

Does the restriction on WN (or any airline wholly-owned by WN) serving DFW end with along with the interstate flying restrictions? Could WN then serve DFW if it wanted to?

MSPNWA · Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:36 pm

I don't think it can be mentioned enough how the opening up of DAL will lead to greater one-stop opportunities for WN. With the perimeter rule in place now, many smaller WN stations furthest away from DAL either do not have 1-stop service or have very limited 1-stop service. Opening DAL up to MDW, BWI, DEN, ATL, LAS, etc. will greatly expand the connecting opportunities and will be much more attractive to the customer.

atrude777 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:38 pm

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 75):
Does the restriction on WN (or any airline wholly-owned by WN) serving DFW end with along with the interstate flying restrictions? Could WN then serve DFW if it wanted to?

Nope. If WN chooses to serve DFW after 2014, they still must follow the rules of the new Wright Amendment and give up a gate for every flight they add at DFW or within an 80 mile radius of Dallas. The stipulation gets a bit tedious based on the amount of flights and gates but that's the basic gist of it.

Alex

BigGSFO · Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:39 pm

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 75):
Could WN then serve DFW if it wanted to?

Nothing has ever stopped WN from serving DFW. They could start 100 flights tomorrow, in theory. WN has simply chosen not to serve DFW and lobby for the restrictions at DAL to expire.

ScottB · Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:53 pm

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 60):
Delta seems to be making ATL-DAL work

Maybe it "works" with CR2's, or maybe they're operating the flights to establish a pre-existing use of a gate when the domestic restrictions end next year.

Quoting point2point (Reply 73):
With DAL being able to serve a lot of east/west connect traffic flows post 2014 with the geographic position that they have, does anyone think that maybe DEN could be somewhat effected with cuts because of the lifting of the Wright restrictions?

I think the effects on other connecting points, apart from reduced through/connecting traffic from DAL, will be somewhat limited as DAL will still remain constrained by the gate limitations. I expect that WN will focus more on carrying Dallas O&D traffic than on connecting traffic flows at DAL. That's why we may see a few flights from the smaller Texas cities shift to HOU, which won't face the same constraints.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 44):
That's a monopoly on gates. WN should be forced to give up gates to new entrants like VX, B6 and the legacy carriers should also get a few gates

The gate restrictions are incorporated into Federal law by reference in the Wright Amendment Reform Act. There's no other airport I'm aware of which has a gate cap imposed by Federal law.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 52):
Getting a bus to the plan isn't that terrible.

Given a choice and comparable prices, passengers book away from carriers using buses and hardstands. There are also issues with accommodating disabled passengers.

Josh32121 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:12 pm

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 78):
Nothing has ever stopped WN from serving DFW. They could start 100 flights tomorrow, in theory. WN has simply chosen not to serve DFW and lobby for the restrictions at DAL to expire.

Hi, BigG!

I don't know the specifics, but there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL. When WN bought FL, they had to discontinue FL's services to DFW because FL had become a subsidiary of WN:

http://www.ajc.com/news/business/air...dallas-flights-result-of-te/nQLC6/

I've heard anecdotal reports that WN execs regularly fly AA or DL DFW-ATL for business since their own airlines can't fly them there. Cue Alanis Morissette.

BigGSFO · Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:19 pm

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
Hi, BigG!

I don't know the specifics, but there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL. When WN bought FL, they had to discontinue FL's services to DFW because FL had become a subsidiary of WN:

http://www.ajc.com/news/business/air...dallas-flights-result-of-te/nQLC6/

I've heard anecdotal reports that WN execs regularly fly AA or DL DFW-ATL for business since their own airlines can't fly them there. Cue Alanis Morissette.

Ironic indeed. Thanks. I stand corrected.

commavia · Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:39 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 79):
I expect that WN will focus more on carrying Dallas O&D traffic than on connecting traffic flows at DAL.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 79):
The gate restrictions are incorporated into Federal law by reference in the Wright Amendment Reform Act. There's no other airport I'm aware of which has a gate cap imposed by Federal law.

Well, given the history of "promises" made and then not kept, not enforced or otherwise abrogated by the courts, I think certain parties (understandably) want something more firmly enshrined in statute. They tried "binding" bilateral "agreement" between the two cities in 1968 - we see how well that worked out.

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL.

No.

There is no provision - either in the original language or revised language - that prohibits WN from serving DFW. However, the agreement that was made in 2005 was that for each gate WN leases at DFW, they must relinquish one at DAL.

The point is moot, though, of course, since WN does not now nor has it ever had any intention of competing at DFW - it has long enjoyed its protected near-monopoly at DAL. (And, of course, that's precisely why Wright exists in the first place - because WN sued to maintain access to DAL even after the City of Dallas had already agreed to shut it to commercial service, and after all of WN's main competitors had signed binding bond agreements tying them to DFW.)

AAIL86 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:41 pm

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Reply 70):
Probably not. If I recall correctly one of the provisions in the Wright Compromise prohibits international flights from DAL. So WN would have to fight to lift the gate limit and the international flights ban as well.

Yes - think so. Also the fact that US CBP is not on the premises is an issue. But they doesn't mean still can't push for it

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
I don't know the specifics, but there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL. When WN bought FL, they had to discontinue FL's services to DFW because FL had become a subsidiary of WN:

Correct. FL discontinued DFW a few months after the transaction was announced.

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
I've heard anecdotal reports that WN execs regularly fly AA or DL DFW-ATL for business since their own airlines can't fly them there. Cue Alanis Morissette.

Herb Kelleher was Executive Platinum with AA for years and was a regular sight at DFW while traveling for business.
One interesting, and ironic, note about Kelleher's relationship with AA's employees in general: he attended the opening of the 9/11 Flight Crew Memorial in Grapevine, TX (near DFW airport)with a large contingent of AA pilots - the very same ceremony where Gerard Arpey was conspicuously absent. This prompted a few sarcastic attendees to remark that he had a better relationship with the AA flight department then Aprey did….

Josh32121 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:19 pm

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 81):
Ironic indeed. Thanks. I stand corrected.

Quoting commavia (Reply 82):
There is no provision - either in the original language or revised language - that prohibits WN from serving DFW. However, the agreement that was made in 2005 was that for each gate WN leases at DFW, they must relinquish one at DAL.

Apparently, I stand corrected, too.

How did that work with the FL acquisition anyway? Was FL able to just walk away from the gate lease? Did it have a gate lease? Is WN/FL still paying for the gate(s) but electing not to use it/them so they wouldn't have to give up any gate(s) at DAL?

These discussions are proof of how bizarre and unnatural all of these provisions are.

LoneStarMike · Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:05 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 82):
There is no provision - either in the original language or revised language - that prohibits WN from serving DFW. However, the agreement that was made in 2005 was that for each gate WN leases at DFW, they must relinquish one at DAL.

but to add to that, the gate relinquishing provision (which also applies to AA in a somewhat different fashion*) expires in 2025. After that WN & AA would be free to start service at any airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field without having to give up gates at Love Field.

* AA's gate relinquishing provision is slightly different from WN's. WN isn't allowed to use any gates at any airport (including DFW) within an 80-mile radius without having to give up gates at Love Field. AA is allowed to add more gates at DFW, without giving up it's two gates at Love Field, but not at any other airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field. None of the other airlines (including United) have these gate-relinquishing provisions.)

LoneStarMike

LoneStarMike · Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:42 pm

Quoting Joeljack (Reply 35):
Don't forget about OMA! [...] My guess is OMA is included on this list at 2x daily.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 36):
OMA is far down the list - 294 per day.

True, but if WN operated it as a DAL-OMA-MSP flight, it would capture some DAL-OMA traffic on the first leg, some OMA-MSP traffic on the second leg, and some DAL-MSP traffic on both legs. If WN didn't want to offer nonstop DAL-MSP service (like they don't offer nonstop So. California-SEA service) both OMA and MCI would be logical stopping points on through flights from DAL to MSP as both of those routings are pretty much a straight line.

DAL-MSP nonstop is 853 miles.
DAL-OMA is 586miles and OMA-MSP is 282 miles for a total of 868 miles.
DAL-MCI is 461 miles and MCI-MSP is 393 miles for a total of 854 miles.

LoneStarMike

BigGSFO · Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:22 pm

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 85):
* AA's gate relinquishing provision is slightly different from WN's. WN isn't allowed to use any gates at any airport (including DFW) within an 80-mile radius without having to give up gates at Love Field. AA is allowed to add more gates at DFW, without giving up it's two gates at Love Field, but not at any other airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field. None of the other airlines (including United) have these gate-relinquishing provisions.)

Wow...so for the sake of context, aside from DAL and DFW, are there any other airports within that 80 mile radius that would be impacted?

They say everything, including the red tape, is bigger in Texas. Here's proof.

AA737-823 · Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:35 pm

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 87):
Wow...so for the sake of context, aside from DAL and DFW, are there any other airports within that 80 mile radius that would be impacted?

Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations. There hasn't been air service there since the Wright brothers diverted once, but hey. I think they've still got a terminal, actually.

deltacto · Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:53 pm

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 88):

Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations. There hasn't been air service there since the Wright brothers diverted once, but hey. I think they've still got a terminal, actually.

Dont forget Fort Worth Airlines!
They had flights between Meachem and AUS, HOU, and SAT back in 1985 on NAMC YS-11's

http://www.airtimes.com/cgat/usb/fortworth.htm

http://www.departedflights.com/AUS85p1.html

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

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

hivue · Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:42 am

Quoting commavia (Reply 82):
it has long enjoyed its protected near-monopoly at DAL. (And, of course, that's precisely why Wright exists in the first place - because WN sued to maintain access to DAL even after the City of Dallas had already agreed to shut it to commercial service, and after all of WN's main competitors had signed binding bond agreements tying them to DFW.)

When WN inherited sole possession of DAL as a commercial carrier in January of 1974, I think they may still have been a three plane operation flying to three cities in Texas. In any event, I have long maintained that WN wouldn't even exist today without that de facto subsidy from the City of Dallas (not that the city wanted it that way).

ouboy79 · Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:35 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 88):
Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations. There hasn't been air service there since the Wright brothers diverted once, but hey. I think they've still got a terminal, actually.

Don't forget about the branded service Mesa offered back in the 90s or early 2000s. It didn't last long.

SPREE34 · Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:43 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 90):
WN wouldn't even exist today without that de facto subsidy from the City of Dallas

The City of Dallas could have prevented Southwest from using Love if they really wanted to. Doing so would have resulted in Dallas losing FAA funding for the airport.

Who was getting subsidized?

FlyingSicilian · Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:45 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 53):
We generally don't do that in the USA. Europe does it because of the lack of space but in the USA, space is not such a premium. I cant off hand think of an US airport where mainline aircraft are hardstanded on a regular basis. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it is exceedingly rare.

I've done many a moon buggy at IAD

Quoting ScottB (Reply 79):
Given a choice and comparable prices, passengers book away from carriers using buses and hardstands. There are also issues with accommodating disabled passengers.

What is the data to support this? Most pax, I'd presume don't even know ahead of time.
What are the issues with disabled pax? I've travelled with many a wheelchair bound friend and family member and if anything the service is faster at the hardstand when the lift truck comes.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 88):
Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations. There hasn't been air service there since the Wright brothers diverted once, but hey. I think they've still got a terminal, actually.

Mesa flew to HOU from FTW. Late 90s or early 2000s IIRC
I had family that flew the route and loved it as they did business in downtown FTW and it was great.

joeljack · Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:35 pm

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 86):
True, but if WN operated it as a DAL-OMA-MSP flight, it would capture some DAL-OMA traffic on the first leg, some OMA-MSP traffic on the second leg, and some DAL-MSP traffic on both legs. If WN didn't want to offer nonstop DAL-MSP service (like they don't offer nonstop So. California-SEA service) both OMA and MCI would be logical stopping points on through flights from DAL to MSP as both of those routings are pretty much a straight line.

DAL-MSP nonstop is 853 miles.
DAL-OMA is 586miles and OMA-MSP is 282 miles for a total of 868 miles.
DAL-MCI is 461 miles and MCI-MSP is 393 miles for a total of 854 miles.

LoneStarMike

I was actually thinking the exact same thing! OMA-MSP flights are a fortune and even though it's only 282 miles in a straight line to drive it, it takes 6 hours because you go due east to DSM first then north on I-35. If WN started this route I would imagine there would be significant market stimulation.

2x daily to MSP and 2x daily to DAL from OMA would work well! To be honest...this would about complete WN in OMA in my mind and be the perfect schedule to serve the entire country conveniently.

IrishAyes · Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:26 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 30):
I think more importantly, AA doesn't need to be in DAL any more than it needs to be in MDW, or FLL, when it can compete much more effectively with much more scale a few miles to the west. It can try with the right plane on the 'right' route and it will be clobbered right back to DFW like it was before, *or* a post bankruptcy, merged AA can compete effectively from its powerhouse hub and actually inflict some meaningful damage on DAL.

I don't think you can really bundle the MFA airports with the likes of ORD/MDW and DFW/DAL. You must realize that FLL and PBI are actually quite far up north from the Miami-Dade county area, and compete for a completely different sector of traffic than MIA does. You'll notice that when UA merged with CO, they added a ton of service back into both FLL and PBI, after having previously withdrawn from then before.

That said, I agree with you that AA doesn't really need to be present in DAL nor MDW.

LAXintl · Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:50 pm

Here is a peak at what the new terminal layout will be and planned concessions.

Concourse looks quite compact and easy to navigate.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...s-at-new-love-field-terminal.html/

=

texan · Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:24 pm

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 87):
Wow...so for the sake of context, aside from DAL and DFW, are there any other airports within that 80 mile radius that would be impacted?

TKI talked about trying to attract commercial carriers. Doubt anything would have come of it, but they were not too happy.

Texan

AA737-823 · Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:45 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 96):
Here is a peak at what the new terminal layout will be and planned concessions.

Concourse looks quite compact and easy to navigate.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...s-at-new-love-field-terminal.html/

=

Judging by that diagram, I'm not exactly sure where the GATES are. It seems that nearly all the exterior walls are completely lined with revenue-generating opportunities.
Or maybe Southwest just wants us to wait inside Starbucks for our flights!

blueflyer · Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:48 pm

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 4):
I wonder if WN at some point pushes futher and requests the abillity to fly to Mexico from Love

Quoting alggag (Reply 6):
Maybe, but the next battleground will probably be to get the gate limit removed.

Don't hold your breath and wait for Southwest to do either. Quite the contrary, I expect Southwest to remain very quiet for years to come about the current DAL setup. Any change they propose and other carriers will jump in and request their piece. There's no doubt that if new gates are ever built at DAL, Southwest will be last in line to get any, after every other carrier has had a chance to grab them...

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 75):
Could WN then serve DFW if it wanted to?

Yes. Southwest can bring more competition at DFW tomorrow, but that would mean more competition at DAL, and Southwest isn't too keen on that...

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 80):
I don't know the specifics, but there was some provision of the Wright Amendment that said WN or any wholly-owned subsidiary could not serve DFW in exchange for WN keeping control of most of the gates at DAL. When WN bought FL, they had to discontinue FL's services to DFW because FL had become a subsidiary of WN:

When Southwest bought AirTran, they chose to discontinue service to DFW because they like their dominant position at DAL and didn't want to give up gates for new entrants, but that is certainly not how Southwest would choose to spin it. They tried to have their cake and eat it too for several months, but eventually the mayor of Ft Worth stepped in and told Southwest to hurry up and leave DFW or give up gates at DAL.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 88):
Periodically, Fort Worth Meacham gets thrown into the conversations.

I don't have the text of the repeal agreement with me on the road, but I do remember there being a paragraph about the cities of Ft Worth and Dallas promising not to help any carrier wanting to start service at any airport other than DAL and DFW. They can't actively block them, of course, but forget about any kind of assistance beyond the minimum required (eg no incentive, reduced fees to start operations, etc...).

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net