Quoting Polot (Reply 99): While interest may be higher, widebody service is unlikely

Agreed pretty unlikely if you consider 739 single class config is 189 seats which is in 757 territory for seat capacity.
However, 20 gates is 20 gates and there is not really anything from keeping the airport from remodeling and enlarging the terminal to have 20 larger gates.
  
There is nothing on WN's near future for widebody but who knows what a decade down the road holds.

Okie

I don't understand something, the flights were at one time zeroed out but now Love flights are now bookable at Delta.com as I write this message. What happened?

Quoting notdownnlocked (Reply 101): I don't understand something, the flights were at one time zeroed out but now Love flights are now bookable at Delta.com as I write this message. What happened?

Conspiracy hat on: DL has worked out a deal with WN to use a gate during the time that WN is re-configuring those 717's to DL specs. Since WN has drawn down ATL what else is there between DL and WN?

Quoting par13del (Reply 102): Conspiracy hat on: DL has worked out a deal with WN to use a gate during the time that WN is re-configuring those 717's to DL specs. Since WN has drawn down ATL what else is there between DL and WN?

I believe WN is eating the costs to reconfigure the planes. They have no incentive to also give DL use of a gate, especially with their heavy utilization.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 89): Why does WN need the extra gate now, when they are not running a full schedule, but would somehow be okay without that gate come 2015 when they have an extra 30-40 flights with the final schedule?

Southwest needs the extra gate for the same reason United is leasing it to Southwest: to kick Delta out.

Quoting notdownnlocked (Reply 101): the flights were at one time zeroed out but now Love flights are now bookable at Delta.com as I write this message.

Must be a glitch in their system. Only specific fare classes are available, while others still show 0. Look at the first week of the "post Delta era." Pretty much the only inventory is in P. Not likely.

Quoting SWADawg (Reply 97): My guess is that UA will eventually consolidate all of their flights down to just one gate and sublease the other one to WN completely.

Having DAL access is an unique advantage that UA now has over AA and DL. Why would UA :

1. give away that unique advantage, and

2. allow WN to grow their monopoly, which might be used against UA to further undermine their DAL-IAH operation, assuming UA doesn't expand to other cities

UA is only temporarily subleasing to WN for a few months because :

1. they wanna kick DL out

2. they aren't ready to launch their expanded schedule

3. they wanna monetize the assets instead of letting them sit idle

Quoting Polot (Reply 103): I believe WN is eating the costs to reconfigure the planes. They have no incentive to also give DL use of a gate, especially with their heavy utilization.

So in return for the gate use via a lease agreement DL now eats some of the cost to reconfigure the 717's, at the end of the day it's all money, WN reduces it reconfiguration bill and get's additional funds for sharing a gate with DL.
How important is it for DL to have access to DAL and how much are they willing to pay, as long as there is a relationship with WN other than direct competitors the possibility exist for some negotiation.

If it's just a glitch in DL's reservation so be it, but who has more gate's available at DAL to allow sharing?
No way is WN going to lease out the gate full use, but they could do certain times per day.

Quoting par13del (Reply 106): If it's just a glitch in DL's reservation so be it, but who has more gate's available at DAL to allow sharing? No way is WN going to lease out the gate full use, but they could do certain times per day.

Querying a few dates it appears that the last day to "book" ATL-DAL is 11/8/2014. Most of the days only had Y, P, and F, but there were a couple that had K, which I thought was kind of odd. So a few things may be happening.

1. They were unable to reaccomadate everyone so they reached an agreement with another airline to operate until then.
2. They haven't finished reaccomadating so it still shows as "bookable", but mainly as refundable.
3. They will remain "bookable", but the flights will operate to DFW with ground transportation provided.

Apparently Delta asked Virgin to sublease DAL gates them...
Also VX confirms agreed to let SeaPort use its gates for its two daily departures.


Delta asked Virgin America to share its gate (Virgin said no thanks)
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...s-gate-virgin-said-no-thanks.html/

=

Quoting par13del (Reply 106): So in return for the gate use via a lease agreement DL now eats some of the cost to reconfigure the 717's, at the end of the day it's all money, WN reduces it reconfiguration bill and get's additional funds for sharing a gate with DL. How important is it for DL to have access to DAL and how much are they willing to pay, as long as there is a relationship with WN other than direct competitors the possibility exist for some negotiation.

I'm sure WN would rather DL get no gates and challenge the agreement in an attempt to abolish the gate cap.

As predicted, DL has upped the anty!

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2...carrier-at-dallas-love-field.html/

It appears that the antE has indeed been upped.   But does DL have a legal leg to sand on here?

Good for Delta. I can't stand United and it's obvious what they are doing with the 90 min turnarounds. The city says it wants fair competition out of Love, but it's actions speak otherwise. Many residents were excited about Delta mainline coming to Love as indicated by the 16,000 tickets already sold through January. I am one of those ticket holders. No one wants to fly your crappy Erjs, United. I really hope the city turns around their decision on this one.

Quoting deltaffindfw (Reply 110): As predicted, DL has upped the anty!

In reading the letter, it seems like, while Delta spends several pages of recitations of all the applicable statutes and regulations and promises, the real "nitty gritty" ultimately comes down to DAL enforcing the utilization requirements and, in so doing, forcing all three of the "incumbent" carriers - Southwest, United and Virgin - to either use every single one of their gates for a minimum of 10 turns per day, or alternatively allow Delta access to the gates for any of the available "excess" turns below 10 per gate per day.

I'm no lawyer, but to me, the easiest legal "out" here for the City and the airlines is for the City to put on the show trial of "forcing" the incumbent carriers to agree to sublease to Delta, and then basically just have those incumbents all schedule their gates such that any remaining times available would be unattractive to Delta (which is probably happening, anyway). It seems to me like merely agreeing to sublease to Delta is pretty much an academic formality if the only times available to Delta are - for example - 1000, 1300 and 2130.

Is United being fair by doing this? No. But they have the right to schedule how they wish. I'd personally like to see them up the gate count to 32, give Southwest 6 more gates, give DL 2 and make 4 common use for airlines like F9, B6, AA and others that would like to serve DAL with less than a full gate.

This would give Southwest 6 more gates but lower it's overall gates to just 69% of the gates, expanding the competition. And it would give DFW even more serious competition to lower fares.

I think this deal would be fair. We shall see what happens though. I really hope Southwest and Delta capitalize on this.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 114): I'd personally like to see them up the gate count to 32, give Southwest 6 more gates, give DL 2 and make 4 common use for airlines like F9, B6, AA and others that would like to serve DAL with less than a full gate. This would give Southwest 6 more gates but lower it's overall gates to just 69% of the gates, expanding the competition. And it would give DFW even more serious competition to lower fares.

Agreed, everyone would be able to benefit (except DFW) from a 32 gate terminal as long as all interested carriers could have a piece of the pie. I mentioned earlier what my 32-gate proposal would be, which is pretty similar:

Quoting Dallas (Reply 54): Had DAL been able to expand to 32 gates instead of 20, do you really think WN would have demanded or wanted all 12 extra gates (for a total of 28)? I bet WN would have maybe gotten 6 more gates and then the other 6 could be divided equally between interested carriers (2 for DL, 2 for AA/VX, 2 common use). Yes, WN more gates for themselves, but realize they also wanted a full repeal of the WA, which would have opened up DAL for all carriers for competition.

In the end you'd have: WN- 22, DL- 2, UA- 2, VX- 2, AA/US- 2, Common Use- 2. To give DFW an incentive, promise all international travel in the metro area will occur only at DFW, and that will last forever, no matter what law suits occur. (Yes this is already in the agreement, but it does make logical sense to force all international travel to DFW based on that investment, existing international facilities, and the longer runway lengths).

Question: How would DAL be able to expand from 20 to 32 without taking a huge operational hit? The 20-gate terminal has been completed and will be fully utilized come early 2015. I also think expanding from 20 to 32 isn't as easy as adding 6 gates to each end (since the airport is symmetric). A new terminal would have to be built IMO, and at what cost? If a new terminal were to be built, it would almost make sense to keep WN with the existing 20 (maybe add 2 gates there somehow) and then put the other carriers in the new 10-12 gate terminal.

At this point, I feel like the 32-gate option will not be possible in the short-term, based on the time and money invested in the 20-gate option, and changing to something so soon would be incredibly inefficient and expensive.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 115): everyone would be able to benefit

Again - not "everyone."

There are lots of constituencies - including American, the City of Ft Worth, the City of Irving, the City of Euless, the City of Grapevine, the City of Coppell, and many residents surrounding DAL, among others - who arguably would not benefit from further expansion of DAL's terminal.

Quoting commavia (Reply 116): Again - not "everyone."

Everyone would obtain some benefits, but not all benefits are equal.

AA would prefer the 20 gate option compared to 32, but would benefit in that situation by getting 2 gates for whatever service they may choose. I would also see a small benefit in that DL/UA could reduce service at DFW, making AA even more of a powerhouse there and monopolizing that region and anything west of DFW. They already "benefit" by having VX leave DFW completely, one less carrier there.

Residents surrounding DAL benefit by having more carriers, flights, and destinations without having to drive to DFW (but at the expense of the added traffic and noise).

As far as those cities go that you listed, I am looking more at the operational/ airline side of things. I feel that there should be open competition at the airports and let the public demand dictate the supply. DFW will be fine and is still expanding (look at the A380s there now), so adding 12 gates to DAL shouldn't be a back breaker for anyone.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 117): Everyone would obtain some benefits, but not all benefits are equal.

Again, no. Just because you or most other A.net members deem them to be "benefits" doesn't mean other constituencies view them the same way based on their values, not yours or mine or anyone else's.

In this case, I'm not arguing for or against expanding DAL. I'm simply making the comment - somewhat as a devil's advocate in a discussion that seems to be dominated by those in favor of expanding the airport - that contrary to the general sentiment more common here on A.net, there are lots and lots of people, and businesses, who are just as devoted to ensuring that DAL does not expand as the Southwest fans and DAL advocates are devoted to seeing the airport expand. In short, it's not as cut-and-dry as the sentiment expressed here makes it seem.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 117): AA would prefer the 20 gate option compared to 32, but would benefit in that situation by getting 2 gates for whatever service they may choose

AA seems to have made it clear by their actions that they don't have much interest in DAL - or at least not enough to fight the DOJ over it - and that their position remains that all commercial air service in the Metroplex should be at DFW, as was originally intended. As such, it seems pretty clear that AA would not view it as a "benefit" - on a net basis - to have 2 or any gates at DAL if it came at the "cost" of DAL's capacity expanding by up to 60%.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 117): Residents surrounding DAL benefit by having more carriers, flights, and destinations without having to drive to DFW (but at the expense of the added traffic and noise).

Okay, but if - for many of those residents - the "expense of the added traffic and noise" completely outweighs any "benefit by having more carriers, flights, and destinations," then further expanding DAL isn't really a net "benefit" to them, either. And, as the public debate in 2005-2006 made clear, there are plenty of residents surrounding DAL who absolutely do not believe expansion of the airport is a net "benefit" to them.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 117): As far as those cities go that you listed, I am looking more at the operational/ airline side of things.

Well, again, it's fine that you want to focus "more at the operational/ airline side of things," but that's not necessarily how municipalities see things, nor the way they likely ever will. Multiple municipalities rely on DFW - either directly or indirectly - for a meaningful portion of their tax and business base, so for them, the fact that Southwest will "benefit" from more gates at DAL to bring more money into the City of Dallas' coffers instead of theirs means absolutely nothing.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 117): I feel that there should be open competition at the airports and let the public demand dictate the supply.

I understand that you feel that way, but I - for one - simply disagree. Airports are public infrastructure, and like just about all other public infrastructure in the U.S. (and, indeed, around the world), they are not now, nor have they ever been, a "free market." Governments - at the federal, state and local levels - dictate all sorts of things about public infrastructure, from their cost to their location to their utilization, on a daily basis. In my opinion, airports are not, and should not be, any different.

In this case, the City of Dallas has decided - as is its right - that DAL should only have 20 gates so as to protect the investment and economic engine that is DFW.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 115): At this point, I feel like the 32-gate option will not be possible in the short-term, based on the time and money invested in the 20-gate option, and changing to something so soon would be incredibly inefficient and expensive.

The main issue is that AA fought tooth and nail to limit the gate count at DAL, even funded the Nimby's trying to trap WN and anyone else to a limited gate count at DAL.
AA wanted to limit the competition at DAL and force the airlines to use DFW where they could compete on an uneven playing field.
VX's shift to DAL from DFW is just a prime example of avoiding competing with AA, VX could have had about all the gates they could ever want at DFW, they chose to shift to DAL with a 2 gate limit.
That should give you a clue about competing against AA, BN found out as well.

I really do not have an answer here but it is obvious that UA/CO is making an attempt to limit DL's presence and DL never participated in any negotiations during the rewrites to even show any interest in DAL.
I suppose I would have a little sympathy for DL if they had made some effort negotiate during the re-rewrite. I just do not think they have a leg to stand on since they opted not to participate.

Okie

Quoting commavia (Reply 118): I understand that you feel that way, but I - for one - simply disagree. Airports are public infrastructure, and like just about all other public infrastructure in the U.S. (and, indeed, around the world), they are not now, nor have they ever been, a "free market." Governments - at the federal, state and local levels - dictate all sorts of things about public infrastructure, from their cost to their location to their utilization, on a daily basis. In my opinion, airports are not, and should not be, any different. In this case, the City of Dallas has decided - as is its right - that DAL should only have 20 gates so as to protect the investment and economic engine that is DFW.

Many of your thoughts and quotes, I do understand and agree with. However, why do you get to choose that the economic value of DFW is more important than DAL? Yes, I'll agree that DFW has more of an economic benefit than DAL, but that doesn't mean you have to shut down DAL completely for the good of DFW. What about the good of DAL and those residents? Why force all traffic now to DFW when DAL is perfectly fine at handling its smaller market, all after building a brand new facility? Why inconvenience those travelers/ customers and WN (I mention them specifically because your proposal would force a huge incumbent carrier the task of relocating a massive existing operation) to move for really no good reason?

Back in the 1960s and 70s, who was fighting for the best interest of DAL when the DFW was proposed to be created, which would significantly hurt DAL? Who fought for Denver Stapleton when DIA was being proposed? At what point do you quite protecting DFW and that investment, because it has been 35+ years and it is doing fine on its own. At what point is a new investment needed (replace DFW with a new airport, build another airport as the metroplex grows further away from DFW, expand DAL to help with congestion, etc.)? DFW is not the end-all solution for the rest of time. Times and situations change, and everyone needs to adapt to the current and prepare for the future environments. Limiting DAL, or even closing DAL and moving all operations to DFW in today's landscape will do a lot more harm than good for the metroplex IMO.

I would be happy if a DL lawsuit forces the status quo at Love. Let DL stay at gate 31 in the old terminal and not tear it down. Viola, 4 extra gates that are now underutilized and at the same time already built and mainline ready. Even room for newcomers. Let Seaport stay and UA can move and have its new toys all to itself.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 120): However, why do you get to choose that the economic value of DFW is more important than DAL?

I'm not choosing that. I am merely a voter - and not even a Dallas resident at that. I, alone, don't get a choice. But, alas, neither do you with your value judgments, either. There is not really a "right" or "wrong," per se, in this case.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 120): Back in the 1960s and 70s, who was fighting for the best interest of DAL when the DFW was proposed to be created, which would significantly hurt DAL? Who fought for Denver Stapleton when DIA was being proposed?

Who was fighting for Kansas City's downtown airport? Or Willow Run in Detroit? Or Penn Station in New York?

Again - these are pieces of public infrastructure and choices and decisions are made all the time about which ones make sense to use and invest in at any given time.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 120): Limiting DAL, or even closing DAL and moving all operations to DFW in today's landscape will do a lot more harm than good for the metroplex IMO.

Okay. Again - the above certainly represents what appears to be the "consensus" view here on A.net. But, as I said, the point I was making was simply that there are plenty of people - myself included - who feel equally strongly, and differently.

Quoting commavia (Reply 118): and that their position remains that all commercial air service in the Metroplex should be at DFW, as was originally intended.

In my line of work, I assume that when people write something in a contract, they mean it. And from that viewpoint, plainly it was not "originally intended" that DAL would lose all commercial air service, for the original agreement permitted air taxi service as well as unscheduled Part 121 passenger service and, IIRC, unrestricted commercial cargo service.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 123): In my line of work, I assume that when people write something in a contract, they mean it. And from that viewpoint, plainly it was not "originally intended" that DAL would lose all commercial air service, for the original agreement permitted air taxi service as well as unscheduled Part 121 passenger service and, IIRC, unrestricted commercial cargo service.

I didn't feel it's necessary to repeat the specific recitations over and over - we all know what I meant. But since I apparently need to be specific again, lest it be repeated yet again, it is absolutely, 100% undeniable that the type of service being discussed here - by Southwest, Delta, United, Virgin, and any other schedule passenger carrier - was all originally intended to be stopped completely at DAL.

[Edited 2014-10-03 18:54:59]

The CEO of DFW airport thinks it's a good thing that DAL offers a choice in the Dallas air market.

“From a consumer perspective, from a region perspective, this is a good thing. It offers more choice. At least initially, it’ll probably result in lower fares. Any time the region can have more service, if you look at it from a region perspective, that’s a good thing,” Donohue said.

“From a D/FW Airport perspective,” he added, “I just don’t see it having a significant impact on us.”


The notion that DFW needs protection from DAL is a fabrication that's been the cover for those that want to protect AA from competition with WN, VX, DL, UA or any other operator at DAL.


DAL was a 54 gate airport, so restoring it to 32 gates from 20 gates wouldn't really be an expansion as much as it would under utilizing the infrastructure less than it is today.

Quoting commavia (Reply 124): it is absolutely, 100% undeniable that the type of service being discussed here - by Southwest, Delta, United, Virgin, and any other schedule passenger carrier - was all originally intended to be stopped completely at DAL.

And, at least if you believe in the rule of law and the finality of judicial decisions, it's equally undeniable that this arrangement was illegal.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 114): I think this deal would be fair. We shall see what happens though. I really hope Southwest and Delta capitalize on this.

If there is going to be a new "compromise," you are going to have to buy off AA (if that is possible).

I wonder whether Southwest would accept a new compromise that let American back into DAL. Because if there is a new compromise, my thinking is that AA would get most of the new gates.

Having said that, I don't think Delta's predicament is going to trigger a review of the compromise at the federal level. Delta has no leverage in Texas.

Quoting commavia (Reply 118): AA seems to have made it clear by their actions that they don't have much interest in DAL - or at least not enough to fight the DOJ over it - and that their position remains that all commercial air service in the Metroplex should be at DFW, as was originally intended. As such, it seems pretty clear that AA would not view it as a "benefit" - on a net basis - to have 2 or any gates at DAL if it came at the "cost" of DAL's capacity expanding by up to 60%.

On the other hand, this is the reason why AA would not want to negotiate a new compromise.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 127): I wonder whether Southwest would accept a new compromise that let American back into DAL. Because if there is a new compromise, my thinking is that AA would get most of the new gates.

I doubt WN really cares. AA had 2 gates to operate from DAL for years and they never used them. AA knows it is pointless to try and compete against WN in DAL because WN will always win, just like WN knows it would be pointless to go to DFW and try and run a limited operation against AA.

If any new gates are allowed while the airport is under a gate cap, I suspect they would be CUTE, with no preferential leaseholders who can hijack them.

[Edited 2014-10-03 19:31:18 by polot]

Quoting Polot (Reply 128): I doubt WN really cares. AA had 2 gates to operate from DAL for years and they never used them. AA knows it is pointless to try and compete against WN in DAL because WN will always win, just like WN knows it would be pointless to go to DFW and try and run a limited operation against AA.

At the time of the DOJ settlement, Kirby of AA stated that the new AA had every intent of using the gates at DAL.

Under the current "compromise," WN cannot run a split operation without giving up gates at DAL.

Quoting Polot (Reply 128): If any new gates are allowed while the airport is under a gate cap, I suspect they would be CUTE, with no preferential leaseholders who can hijack them.

Fairness will not be the priority of any new compromise. In any case, it's a moot because as commavia asserted above AA's interests are better served by the current gate cap than by access to more gates at DAL.

So the repeal agreement may yet have its day in court. That could be interesting...

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 127): If there is going to be a new "compromise," you are going to have to buy off AA (if that is possible).

And don't forget the city of Ft Worth. It is part owner of DFW along with the city of Dallas and also signatory of the repeal agreement in its own capacity. Fort Worth will need guarantees that its share of the revenue from DFW will not suffer if it is to agree to a new compromise.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 129): At the time of the DOJ settlement, Kirby of AA stated that the new AA had every intent of using the gates at DAL.

Show us some proof instead of your spouting of the mouth.

Is DL able to file any sort of anti-trust lawsuit here?

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 129): Fairness will not be the priority of any new compromise. In any case, it's a moot because as commavia asserted above AA's interests are better served by the current gate cap than by access to more gates at DAL.

Fairness should be the priority. Your mumble jumble means nothing to those of us that speak English. Care to rephrase??? You're not speaking to a 5 year old here. Are you a lawyer representing the IRS? "Fairness will not be the priority of any new compromise" Please explain.

[Edited 2014-10-04 01:37:01]

Quoting dalneighbor (Reply 125): The CEO of DFW airport thinks it's a good thing that DAL offers a choice in the Dallas air market. “From a consumer perspective, from a region perspective, this is a good thing. It offers more choice. At least initially, it’ll probably result in lower fares. Any time the region can have more service, if you look at it from a region perspective, that’s a good thing,” Donohue said. “From a D/FW Airport perspective,” he added, “I just don’t see it having a significant impact on us.”

Let's remember who the parties were on the current WA compromise, I suspect DFW got much of what it wanted, so why would he not support a situation that he had a hand in creating?

Quoting Polot (Reply 128): AA had 2 gates to operate from DAL for years and they never used them. AA knows it is pointless to try and compete against WN in DAL because WN will always win, just like WN knows it would be pointless to go to DFW and try and run a limited operation against AA.

Except the conditions on the ground are now different, other than international flights, AA can run its 737 size a/c from DAL to anywhere in the country, they could not do that before and obviously they chose to use smaller a/c and not do the Texas two step with their larger a/c.
Whether WN would have been able to compete with AA at DFW is an open question, earlier in their life when the legacies had predatory styles I would say no, later after they established their brand who knows.
However, as long as the airport is available they have a choice of where to compete and they have chosen to stay at DAL so......

A big problem the city of Dallas will face going forward is that they now have an airport that airlines will / may want to serve, they have not had such in a few decades.
The struggle now will be how to maintain a facility that is seen as being fair and open to all comers. I always thought the gate compromise was flawed in its allocation primarily because the 20 gate cap was too low, based on the operation WN had at DAL, there is no way they could have split 20 gates evenly, the gate cap should have been higher, did not have to be 32 but definitely more than 20.
Putting in a cap of 20 with one airline getting 16 in my opinion was a disaster waiting to happen, even a 16 WN 8 rest would be more desirable.
If airlines cannot make a go of their 8 WN could eventually lease those as well, as per the current compromise, there is no reason why WN could not eventually get all 20 gates but that can only happen after others have been given the option to try.

Quoting UGA777 (Reply 112): Good for Delta. I can't stand United and it's obvious what they are doing with the 90 min turnarounds.

Here's the problem though, UA (through CO) has had a lease at DAL for some 40 years. That's why they have gates and DL does not, where's DL been all these years? When the compromise to remove the Wright Amendment restrictions was being developed where was DL?

Quoting par13del (Reply 134): Except the conditions on the ground are now different, other than international flights, AA can run its 737 size a/c from DAL to anywhere in the country, they could not do that before and obviously they chose to use smaller a/c and not do the Texas two step with their larger a/c.

Well, AA actually did try the "Texas two step with their larger a/c" to "begin" with, back in 1998 - when AA launched high-frequency DAL-AUS with a mix of Fokkers and MD80s. Nonetheless, I don't think any of it would make a difference. DAL expansion - by either AA or any other airline - undermines the strength of the DFW hub, which of course is DFW's main priority. I doubt AA is all that interested in any meaningful, if any, presence at DAL.

I don't think it changes one thing.

Quoting par13del (Reply 134): Whether WN would have been able to compete with AA at DFW is an open question

Apparently it is - although I have no idea how. How anybody could seriously suggest that Southwest isn't more than capable of being perfectly competitive - I would even suggest more so than currently - at DFW is beyond me. But like with many things on this topic, I recognize that mine is certainly the minority view - at least here on A.net.

Quoting enilria (Reply 17): It is the preferred airport if you look at the O&D data where service is equivalent to both.

Okay. I am not sure why DEN-DAL failed if they are truly equal.

Quoting peanuts (Reply 39): If it was by surprise, shame on them for not knowing what is known. Well, they are now going to sue. It looks like they didn't know. What will be the city's defense? I just don't think DL cares that it sorta locked up UA to pump money into DAL. Meanwhile they can milk this shut-out for all it's worth, as they focus on bigger potatoes.

These UA flights will not be empty, they will create some revenue. I doubt these roundrips to IAH are expensive to operate. Now if they were running 12 flights a day between EWR and DAL, that would be a different story.

Quoting commavia (Reply 136): How anybody could seriously suggest that Southwest isn't more than capable of being perfectly competitive - I would even suggest more so than currently - at DFW is beyond me

I think there are two ways to answer the question, the first and easiest one is to acknowledge that today WN is more than capable of competing with AA at DFW.
The second answer is to ignore the specifics of the question and focus the attention on DFW framing the question in the same manner, how anyone could question that DFW is not capable of surviving with DAL being fully open with all its gates.

Quoting commavia (Reply 136): But like with many things on this topic, I recognize that mine is certainly the minority view - at least here on A.net.

Speaking for myself I accept it, after all, I'm one of those who blames the city of Dallas for the success of WN at DAL by not closing the airport but trying to cast WN as the bad boy for wanting to operate there versus going to DFW when it opened and getting "killed" by the big boys.

Does DFW need protection, if I follow your thoughts I think you may agree that it does not, but your central point that traffic at DAL weakens the hub at DFW from a traffic position (not airline specific) bears merit. My answer would be glass half full or glass half empty. DAL has some traffic that would struggle at DFW due to price and convenience, additionally, during the WA, DAL had passengers that chose the two step over the ease and comfort of DFW non-stop. DFW authorities should do some research on that to see if it has any bearing on their operations.

Quoting commavia (Reply 136): How anybody could seriously suggest that Southwest isn't more than capable of being perfectly competitive - I would even suggest more so than currently - at DFW is beyond me.

We know that as far as local revenue on nonstop routes, WN pretty well has its way with AA now, making more revenue on most or all routes most quarters. How much of that is due to WN versus AA (and would thus transfer to DFW) and how much of that is DAL versus DFW is a harder question, I think. Presumably, connecting revenue would be unaffected by a move (as the passenger would be connecting within a modern, self-contained terminal in either event).

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 137): These UA flights will not be empty, they will create some revenue. I doubt these roundrips to IAH are expensive to operate. Now if they were running 12 flights a day between EWR and DAL, that would be a different story.

UA flights currently go out at full or near it. They will have no problem filling 12. CO used to run 16 a day and filled them. 10 to 12 flights a day on UA/CO is the norm for this route. It was only the past couple years and reduction in RJ flying UA is down to 7 to 8 at the most. And those days with 7-8 flights they are still going out full. When it is a CRJ-700 or Q400 they also going out full. There is a lot of walk up fares sold too.

Something I just found on YouTube. A video of Dallas Love Field from 1968. You can see many planes landing such as AA 707, 727s, etc. There are Braniff and Delta planes in it too. DAL was a very busy airport. DAL is in the beginning and the rest is after 2:05.
http://youtu.be/ULihrkJdSIY

I would like to see more gates at DAL and the airport opened to any airline that wants to fly there.

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2...carrier-at-dallas-love-field.html/

"We began the week with Dallas City Hall telling Delta Air Lines it will no longer be able to fly out of Dallas Love Field come October 13 because it’s all out of room. We end the week with Delta’s attorneys threatening to sue the city unless it takes “immediate action to implement a short-term solution” that keeps Delta at Love."

I found this line interesting...
** United is subleasing one to Southwest, and has told the city it will use the second to increase its runs to Houston in the new year.**

So...WN now has 17 gates? While this is United's to own and do what they want, the way AA agreed to sublease theirs to Virgin America, I am surprised UA would allow WN another gate at DAL, trying to keep peace in Houston? Hahaha


Alex

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 137): Okay. I am not sure why DEN-DAL failed if they are truly equal.

As UA was limited to 50 seaters they probalby could not generate enough revenue to cover the costs of operating the flight.

Quoting atrude777 (Reply 141): I found this line interesting... ** United is subleasing one to Southwest, and has told the city it will use the second to increase its runs to Houston in the new year.** So...WN now has 17 gates? While this is United's to own and do what they want, the way AA agreed to sublease theirs to Virgin America, I am surprised UA would allow WN another gate at DAL, trying to keep peace in Houston? Hahaha

There is a different article that I a bit to lazy to look for right now that says UA is leasing one gate to WN until the 1st of January when UAs schedule is increased...so it's only a temporary sublease.

Quoting atrude777 (Reply 141): So...WN now has 17 gates?

Not really. UA is kicking part use of the gate to WN till it needs it again in a few months. I think its a deal to keep someone else from trying to weasel in and then attempt to keep the gate when UA wants it back. I don't really see what WN gets out of it other than the same thing UA does... No one else with their finger in the pie.

Quoting par13del (Reply 138): I think there are two ways to answer the question, the first and easiest one is to acknowledge that today WN is more than capable of competing with AA at DFW.

WN will work very hard to stay away from DFW since the past history has shown the airport works for AA, and anything else done for another airline had better not hurt that. One of the big complaints WN had when DFW made its "modest proposal" to pay for WN to move there was the little fact that AA just got a 1.2 BILLION dollar terminal built for its international operations, and ALL airport users would have to pay for it. Would you want to move into the guest house and pay for the same share of the morgage as the guy living in the mansion with the 10 car garage?

Also this is the airport that helped AA run off DELTA. clearly its so easy to move in and prosper.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 143): One of the big complaints WN had when DFW made its "modest proposal" to pay for WN to move there was the little fact that AA just got a 1.2 BILLION dollar terminal built for its international operations, and ALL airport users would have to pay for it.

If you viewed that offer as a legit then yes, but if viewed from the point that a highly successful WN with solid revenues and high productivity along with a huge war chest was moving into DFW with AA having high labor cost and lower productivity how do you negate the difference?
In my opinion the offer was never legit, no low cost carrier would move to a new airport stating out with an investment designed to cripple and or negate its differences with the incumbents, if they went with that where would competition go?

Quoting Dallas (Reply 117): AA would prefer the 20 gate option compared to 32, but would benefit in that situation by getting 2 gates for whatever service they may choose. I would also see a small benefit in that DL/UA could reduce service at DFW, making AA even more of a powerhouse there and monopolizing that region and anything west of DFW. They already "benefit" by having VX leave DFW completely, one less carrier there.

Ft Worth, DFW and AA did not get what they wanted out of the compromise.

Dallas Love Field is now open to long haul flights and Southwest is still there. WN on the other hand was the big winner in the compromise.

WN gets the gate limit to keep other airlines out and gets to fly wherever it wants to.

Quoting okie (Reply 119): The main issue is that AA fought tooth and nail to limit the gate count at DAL, even funded the Nimby's trying to trap WN and anyone else to a limited gate count at DAL.AA wanted to limit the competition at DAL and force the airlines to use DFW where they could compete on an uneven playing field.

Who benefits the most from the gate limit? WN will eventually operate out of all 20 gates. They will never need more than the 20 gates anyway.

Could you explain what uneven playing field exists at DFW?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 143): WN will work very hard to stay away from DFW since the past history has shown the airport works for AA, and anything else done for another airline had better not hurt that. One of the big complaints WN had when DFW made its "modest proposal" to pay for WN to move there was the little fact that AA just got a 1.2 BILLION dollar terminal built for its international operations, and ALL airport users would have to pay for it. Would you want to move into the guest house and pay for the same share of the morgage as the guy living in the mansion with the 10 car garage?

Then why does WN not have issues paying for facilities it does not use at other airports? Why is DFW special in this regard?

The difference between that 1.2 Billion dollar terminal built at DFW and the current situation at DAL is that the terminal at DFW is open to any airline that wants to use it.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 143): WN will work very hard to stay away from DFW since the past history has shown the airport works for AA, and anything else done for another airline had better not hurt that. One of the big complaints WN had when DFW made its "modest proposal" to pay for WN to move there was the little fact that AA just got a 1.2 BILLION dollar terminal built for its international operations, and ALL airport users would have to pay for it. Would you want to move into the guest house and pay for the same share of the morgage as the guy living in the mansion with the 10 car garage?

Haha - well, yeah, I guess that is a good point. Since Southwest typically comes in and nearly takes over most of their hub airports, it's true that the airline isn't as used to paying for expansions that it doesn't get to keep most of the benefit from. Nonetheless, as I said months ago when Southwest didn't get AA's two gates from the DOJ - welcome to the big leagues, Southwest.

In this case, DFW Airport built a $1.2B international terminal - a decade ago - for the use of all the airport's carriers operating international flights, of which AA was and of course remains the largest. If DFW built a new terminal for Southwest, that, too, would end up being paid for in part by other operators (including AA).

But of course what this all really boils down to is cost - Southwest now, just like for decades, wants to maintain its comfortable position dominating the lower-cost (previously too-much-lower-cost) airport in the region.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 143): Also this is the airport that helped AA run off DELTA. clearly its so easy to move in and prosper.

Huh? How did DFW Airport help AA "run off" Delta? Please explain.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 145): Ft Worth, DFW and AA did not get what they wanted out of the compromise. Dallas Love Field is now open to long haul flights and Southwest is still there. WN on the other hand was the big winner in the compromise.

  

The present situation isn't want AA, DFW and the City of Ft Worth want, or ever wanted. They didn't want the 20-gate option, but rather than 0-gate option.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 145): Then why does WN not have issues paying for facilities it does not use at other airports? Why is DFW special in this regard? The difference between that 1.2 Billion dollar terminal built at DFW and the current situation at DAL is that the terminal at DFW is open to any airline that wants to use it.

  

Quoting commavia (Reply 146): The present situation isn't want AA, DFW and the City of Ft Worth want, or ever wanted. They didn't want the 20-gate option, but rather than 0-gate option.

We agree here, however, I believe that the cities looked at the massive public campaign that WN had launched, the public and political support they were gaining and decided to take the lesser of two evils, why do we believe that WN is the only one that compromised?
No way today is DAL going to be closed to commercial aviation, so the zero option was off the table, and the odds may have been 50 / 50 that WN's push would have gotten the WA lifted all together.
The Feds did tell the sides to work something out, what would have happened if they did not is the big question, so all sides hedged their bets.

I wonder what UA has up its sleeve -- will they really use all their DAL frequencies to IAH only? I don't believe it.

Come Spring, we might see United on DAL-ORD/IAD/SFO/EWR, if they have the frames for it. A problem at the moment for UA is the shortage of domestic mainline aircraft and E70/75s ... and those would be required, in the end, to make DAL competitive. A lot of mainline birds are being modded right now -- wifi, slimline seats, scimitars -- and UA should have more available for revenue flights next year. I think DAL can complement DFW in UA's network.

Also, all this talk about Love Field and the Wright Amt. has made me recall how Southwest Airlines struck a deal in the early 1970s with the City of Houston to serve Hobby after IAH had opened...look how well Hobby has done for them, just like Love has.

DELTA -- well, I do believe they ought to be serving DAL. Too bad the chips fell this way.

But, could they finagle WN for a gate (or a half-gate)? They do, after all, have a relationship with Southwest due to the AirTran 717 deal -- so they have been talking about some things anyway.

Quoting United1 (Reply 142): Quoting klwright69 (Reply 137): Okay. I am not sure why DEN-DAL failed if they are truly equal. As UA was limited to 50 seaters they probalby could not generate enough revenue to cover the costs of operating the flight.

Then why did the even start the route.

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 148): DELTA -- well, I do believe they ought to be serving DAL. Too bad the chips fell this way.

Well, unfortunately "ought to" might not be enough to get them back in.

Honestly who on here was expecting UA to ramp up all these DAL flights? Nobody. We all laughed. How do we know DL didn't react the same way, laughter, then shock.