In the grand scheme of things, the additional construction at DFW will raise their cost which will have an additional impact at DAL. One benefit of the new terminal at DAL was to raise its cost and minimize the difference in cost between the two airports, something will have to be done at DAL to either increase the cost a second time or ensure no additional expansion at DAL via gate sharing, methinks they made a mistake when such sharing was not mentioned.

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 49): Exactly - by that logic, Midway and Hobby should also be closed.

I'm not saying that at all. With the airports on opposite sides of these cities, they have there own distinct market and enough distance between each other that the airlines can financially justify operations at both. In Dallas however, because the airports are so close to each other there market shares overlap. I can't believe I am going to say this, but I actually agree with Southwest on this mater. To me, this means that if given the option most airlines will choose one airport over the other based on their clientele. I'm sure many would attempt to operate from both for a while, but in the end the cost would most likely be to high.

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 49): This lingering artificial and un-needed protection of DFW is insane. LET THE MARKET DECIDE

On this, we completely agree. If they are going to continue to run both airports, open them to full competition and let the market decide.

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 49): This lingering artificial and un-needed protection of DFW is insane. LET THE MARKET DECIDE.

Just like WA1 was to protect BN's move to DFW the 5 party agreement was to protect AA at DFW.

Speculation of course but I would almost guarantee that AA would be first in line to file an appeal and request a temporary injunction if the 5 party agreement is modified or dissolved.
Then up the court chain things will go.

AA has WN & VX trapped where they want them and DL and everyone else trapped for direct competition at DFW.
I would not expect AA to allow DL to shift enough flights to DAL that would require additional gates without a legal battle that could last years.

Okie

Quoting Okie (Reply 52): I would not expect AA to allow DL to shift enough flights to DAL that would require additional gates without a legal battle that could last years.

And if the court decides in DL's favor, just how would AA manage to make that happen?

Quoting mayor (Reply 53): And if the court decides in DL's favor, just how would AA manage to make that happen

If the court decision requires additional gates then that would modify the 5 Party agreement. (Federal)
AA is part of the 5 party agreement they would have legal standing along with the other 4 parties to challenge the judges decision in appeal.

The issue is really the gate space/time. DL or any other operator could add 200 more flights if they could figure out how to do that with the 20 gate limit along with the other requirements of the 5 party agreement. For instance no hard stands or violating the voluntary curfew.
The airport is open for competition until they run out of gates. There is a reason AA agreed or wanted only 20 gates instead of the 32 at DAL and that is to force direct competition in the DAL/DFW market to DFW.

Okie

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 48): The market is large enough for Delta to maintain a presence at DFW and DAL--

If bought up in the current legal arguments it will highlight some issues with the current WA, which is that the incumbents cannot do what DL can do without penalty - operate at both airports -.

Quoting Okie (Reply 54): The airport is open for competition until they run out of gates.

Well in some eyes they ran out of gates when they reduced to 20 pre-allocated gates, if they left a couple unassigned that would have been a different story  

Quoting AST1Driver (Reply 51): I'm not saying that at all. With the airports on opposite sides of these cities, they have there own distinct market and enough distance between each other that the airlines can financially justify operations at both

Quoting AST1Driver (Reply 51): In Dallas however, because the airports are so close to each other there market shares overlap.

I cannot agree. DFW and DAL do have their own "distinct markets'; whereas DFW local raffic flows from the entire North Texas region - and, these days, counts on a huge percentage of connecting flights whose passengers neither originate nor terminate at that airport - and DAL is sustained by a large O&D market, concentrated in the North Dallas/Highland Park/University Park areas (most of whom would never choose DFW as their primary airport), the markets are as clearly defined as the markets in Houston and Chicago.

And I would also suggest that ORD/MDW and IAH/HOU markets "overlap"... but are nevertheless different enough to justify their existence.

Quoting par13del (Reply 55): Well in some eyes they ran out of gates when they reduced to 20 pre-allocated gates, if they left a couple unassigned that would have been a different story

  

Quoting par13del (Reply 55): Well in some eyes they ran out of gates when they reduced to 20 pre-allocated gates, if they left a couple unassigned that would have been a different story

We know that was part of the AA plan with the 5 party to limit competition from DAL with the 20 gate limit.

It will be interesting how the judge rules.
It appears that the DOJ decision was based on keeping the 5 party intact.

If the decision comes down that the 5 party agreement is invalid because the DOT says additional operations have to be accommodated with additional gates. Then one could assume that international flights would be allowed, that are prohibited in the 5 party, if an operator wanted to fly them.

Unknown what the landscape holds in the future. 5 years from now a ME3 could own 49% of DL stock and want to start international from DAL. I better put a smiley on that one.  

Okie

Quoting Okie (Reply 57): Then one could assume that international flights would be allowed, that are prohibited in the 5 party, if an operator wanted to fly them

That is an assumption not in evidence. No one has suggested DAL be expanded to allow international operations, and there s no indication that the City would request that. WN and the City of Houston worked together to persuade the Federal Government to allow FIS facilities there; I do not think Dallas would be so inclined.

A ruling making DAL accessable to the airlines wanting to serve it would in no way mean that international travel would be accommodated; that is a r herring.

[Edited 2015-06-27 07:21:58]

Quoting Okie (Reply 57): We know that was part of the AA plan with the 5 party to limit competition from DAL with the 20 gate limit.

AA or any other airline should not be able to dictate airport capacity. An airport's master plan should. Another reason for the court to throw out Wrong Amendment 2.

Quoting Okie (Reply 57): Then one could assume that international flights would be allowed, that are prohibited in the 5 party, if an operator wanted to fly them.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 58): No one has suggested DAL be expanded to allow international operations, and there s no indication that the Cit would request that.

I agree international would be a reach, DAL may get additional gates or be allowed to use hard stands, but I think that would be the extent of any adjustment to the operations if the WA2 is amended.
It will be years before anyone can find justifications to push for international traffic, they have just allowed open domestic traffic, give that a few years to play out.

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 59): AA or any other airline should not be able to dictate airport capacity. An airport's master plan should. Another reason for the court to throw out Wrong Amendment 2.

   Nor should any airline be able to claim 90% of the gates at a 20-gate airport - leaving only 2 gates for anyone else - and effectively block any competition from that airport.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 61): Nor should any airline be able to claim 90% of the gates at a 20-gate airport - leaving only 2 gates for anyone else - and effectively block any competition from that airport.

Hey, I fully agree read my 5 point reply 43

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 43): 1. You can no longer create "agreements" that overtly create zero competition at a city airport. 2. You can no longer create "agreements" that overtly create unecessary restrictions to airlines and where they choose to fly. 3. You can no longer create "agreements" that overtly create an obvious monopoly for any one airline and by doing so shut out all others. 4. You can no longer limit gate capacity to fuel said monopoly. 5. You can no longer create "agreements" that suggest that "protection" to an obvious large international airport in the same city is needed to overtly limit competition.

All of the decades that DAL and the FEDS have coddled WN and permitted them to move the goal post have finally come to a head. They have again breached the "spirit of the agreement " by using more than their alotted gates via UAL. I hope AA and DL sue their pants off and win! The last WA was supposed to have put this to bed but the chutzpah of WN ruined it. As for my opinion, DAL should have been razed ala Stapleton.

Gen2stew, you appear to not know the historical facts surrounding the Wright Amendment. Please read Part 1 of this topic in entirety. WN was never "coddled," they operated *legally* during their entirety at DAL. *Any airline* was able to serve DAL if they wanted to throughout the decades, but *only WN* ever faced restrictions from operating at both DFW and DAL with WA2. In addition, while WA1 in place, DL closed their hub at DFW. And they elected not to fly from DAL because they didn't want to fly within the perimeter that was required of WA2. The only real "winner" of any of these restrictions was AA, who had unlimited expansion opportunities and financial incentives to hub at a much larger DFW.

Actually I think the real winner of the Wright Amendment was Southwest Airlines. Because their growth was limited at DAL they had to look for other markets, which they did with much success. Had they been able to serve more cities from DAL their long term growth may have been limited. I think Herb knew exactly what he was doing when he accepted the limitations of the Wright Amendment.

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 7): If that happens--the Federal court is essentially saying that WN is allowed to have a near monopoly. That sets a dangerous precedent for other airports in the country with the DOT/DOJ.

Of course they can. Its Southwest. They do what they want. The US government has made that quite clear.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 9): If the DOJ says it's one market (which they already have), then that protects cities with more than one airport. If their is only one airport in a market, it's a different story.

No it isn't. Its horse crap.

Southwest went crying to the DOJ/DOT during the slot swap, Delta/US correctly pointed out that LGA/JFK/EWR and IAD/DCA/BWI is one market. Can someone remind me how that worked out?

and FWIW Delta or US wouldn't have controlled 90% or LGA or DCA

Quoting par13del (Reply 12): Allowed or given, 16 out of 20 in some circles is regarded as a monopoly.

in every circle its a monopoly.
The even bigger issue is that its not 16 out of 20 gates but 18 out of 20 gates. 90% is a monopoly.


and if a legacy had that kind of a monopoly at a controlled airport in the US WN and the US government would have a complete s**t fit about it.

This should teach airline executives that they need to fight to the president's favorite airline. Then you do what you want.

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 48): -IIRC it was LAX, DTW, LGA, MSP, SEA.

No SEA. The original plan was 16 (IIRC) flights split up between ATL, DTW, MSP, LGA and LAX.

Deltal101man, the issue at play here is that Delta wants access to an airport that has NO room for them. DAL is not a slot controlled airport, it has a gate cap of 20 gates. Southwest was fairly awarded 16 of those gates under WA2 (from which they LOST gates due to the reduction in gates from the old terminal complex). Delta was aware that it would have to END service after their sublease expired. And it is not the fault (nor the concern) of Southwest for Delta's inability to secure a sublease from UA for their 2 gates. You win some, you lose some. There is nothing illegal here nor anything that Southwest should do to assist a competitor.

Let's take a look at MDW, where WN controls the majority of gates. If airline XYZ wanted access to MDW tomorrow and every gate was spoken and accounted for, WN (by default for being the largest carrier at MDW) has NO responsibility or obligation to make any gates available to ANY airline. Let's take a look at DCA and LGA. Prior to WN's acquisition of AirTran, WN had no access to DCA. And prior to their acquisition of ATA's assets post liquidation, they had no access to LGA. What did WN do to gain access to these airports? Purchase slots and/or competitors when the opportunity arose. They didn't spearhead a legal battle to gain access to airports dominated by legacy carriers who benefited from being there first (and who didn't pay for most of the slots they "owned" because they were grandfathered in based on their long time services at these airports).

Yes, DAL is a federally funded airport as are the aforementioned slot restricted airports. But once an airport is full, it's FULL. WN was *fairly* awarded 16 out of 20 gates (still a reduction from the number of gates they possessed prior to WA2). And they were *fairly* subleased UA's 2 gates at DAL because that is UA's decision. I highly doubt ANY airline would make business transactions such as gate and aircraft subleases public knowledge. And although you are in denial, the DOJ sees DFW and DAL as one market- otherwise there would **not** be a Wright Amendment in the first place. And WN wouldn't be the ONLY airline with restrictions on operating at both DAL and DFW, unlike VX, DL or any other airline. I say fully repeal WA2, build another terminal for DL and other airlines at DAL, and let WN fly from BOTH DFW and DAL without any restrictions. Period.

[Edited 2015-06-27 19:21:40]

Quoting airplaneboy (Reply 64): Gen2stew, you appear to not know the historical facts surrounding the Wright Amendment. Please read Part 1 of this topic in entirety. WN was never "coddled," they operated *legally* during their entirety at DAL. *Any airline* was able to serve DAL if they wanted to throughout the decades, but *only WN* ever faced restrictions from operating at both DFW and DAL with WA2. In addition, while WA1 in place, DL closed their hub at DFW. And they elected not to fly from DAL because they didn't want to fly within the perimeter that was required of WA2. The only real "winner" of any of these restrictions was AA, who had unlimited expansion opportunities and financial incentives to hub at a much larger DFW.

Historical facts? WN was able to force Dallas and the region to accept their presence at Love Field. Yes any airline could fly from DAL as long they accepted the limitations imposed on the airport. Yes any airline could fly from DFW without restrictions including WN. No airline placed any limitations on themselves concerning being able to fly from both DAL and DFW until WN signed the compromise agreement. WN was not forced to sign the compromise and they were never forced to accept limitations on their operations in the DFW market. They had the same option available to them as the other airlines, move to DFW.

AA did not gain their dominance in this market by any Federal actions or restrictions or incentives. They earned their position through open competition at DFW. WN on the other hand avoided real competition in the DFW market by hiding at DAL.

Cjpark, WN did not force Dallas to accept their presence at Love Field. Had Braniff and TI not taken WN to court in 1967 to prevent their startup, WN would have signed the agreement to move operations to DFW. But thanks to their desire to prevent WN from starting operations (and nearly depleting their cash reserves in the process), they were not operating at the time to sign the agreement to move operations to DFW. They were not legally bound to operate out of DFW as a result. And as the courts ruled, if DAL were to continue to operate but solely for private air traffic, they were legally obligated to allow commercial operations as a "federally funded airport."

And yes cjpark, "historical facts." LoneStarMike provided numerous links to historical data and information in part 1 of this topic. You however, rarely provided any substantiative proof to your claims. I have a degree in history and have a fairly decent grasp of scientific hypothesis formulation when it comes to establishing conclusions based on historical and anecdotal information.

Quoting airplaneboy (Reply 70): And yes cjpark, "historical facts." LoneStarMike provided numerous links to historical data and information in part 1 of this topic. You however, rarely provided any substantiative proof to your claims. I have a degree in history and have a fairly decent grasp of scientific hypothesis formulation when it comes to establishing conclusions based on historical and anecdotal information.

Do you often injure your arm from patting yourself on the back?  

mayor, no. I don't need that acknowledgement. If you've been reading this post from the beginning of part 1- it's exhausting to see the same poorly supported argument when various posters have contributed valuable insight with substantive information (aka links). We live in a day and age where we don't have to spend hours researching at a library and all (or much of) the information we need is at our fingertips courtesy of the World Wide Web. The point of mentioning my academic background is to provide credibility for my opinion. As you can see, with over 11 years in this forum and only under 600 posts, I don't post often. But when I do, it usually isn't something with unsubstantiated evidence or rhetoric.

Cheers!

Quoting airplaneboy (Reply 70): And yes cjpark, "historical facts." LoneStarMike provided numerous links to historical data and information in part 1 of this topic. You however, rarely provided any substantiative proof to your claims. I have a degree in history and have a fairly decent grasp of scientific hypothesis formulation when it comes to establishing conclusions based on historical and anecdotal information.

Believe it or not Lone Star Mike and I quoted the same source. Concerning your degree in history, well good for you. Some of us are old enough to have followed the events surrounding the Wright Amendment and WN as they happened.

[Edited 2015-06-28 05:07:39]

Quoting Gen2stew (Reply 63): All of the decades that DAL and the FEDS have coddled WN and permitted them to move the goal post have finally come to a head. They have again breached the "spirit of the agreement " by using more than their alotted gates via UAL.

How could the city of DAL coddle WN and allow WN to breach the spirit of the agreement by the city of DAL approving the WN lease for the UA gates, you do know the authorities who created the 5 party agreement had to approve the lease?
If anything the city probably set WN up.

Quoting mcg (Reply 65): Actually I think the real winner of the Wright Amendment was Southwest Airlines.

Quoting mcg (Reply 65): Because their growth was limited at DAL they had to look for other markets, which they did with much success.

How can you be a winner if someone puts something in place to limit your growth and make your business difficult? The authorities who put the limitations in place did not achieve their intended results.

Quoting cjpark (Reply 68): Historical facts? WN was able to force Dallas and the region to accept their presence at Love Field.

So WN now controls the court system who made a legal ruling, or the authorities of DAL who refused to shut down the airport?

Quoting cjpark (Reply 68): Yes any airline could fly from DAL as long they accepted the limitations imposed on the airport.

Now we have someone in clear language saying that WN did not prevent other carriers from operating at DAL under WA1....

Quoting cjpark (Reply 68): WN on the other hand avoided real competition in the DFW market by hiding at DAL.

....then we turn around and say that since no one chose to operate under the limitations at DAL somehow that has something to do with WN?

The issue appears to be the limitations which were put on DAL that no other carrier had the desire to operate under, maybe they thought they were taking an ethical stand by staying at DFW?
In that case I admire their conviction, just don't see what that has to do with WN, one's principles should not be governed by what others do or do not do.

When the City of Dallas agreed to let WN sublease UA's 2 gates, Dallas got approval for the transaction from the DOJ. Was the City of Dallas required to get that approval or did they do that just to cover themselves? (I'm asking because I truly don't know.) If they were required to get approval from the DOJ, what would have happened had UA offered the gates to DL instead? Would the DOJ have approved DL getting the gates? They didn't approve DL getting the AA gates.

LoneStarMike

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 56): I cannot agree. DFW and DAL do have their own "distinct markets'; whereas DFW local raffic flows from the entire North Texas region - and, these days, counts on a huge percentage of connecting flights whose passengers neither originate nor terminate at that airport - and DAL is sustained by a large O&D market, concentrated in the North Dallas/Highland Park/University Park areas (most of whom would never choose DFW as their primary airport), the markets are as clearly defined as the markets in Houston and Chicago.

AA and NK's recent statements in earnings calls suggest otherwise. AA has noted yield pressure from DAL indicating that they are priced the same and NK with load factor pressure suggesting there is a distinct shifting in traffic. Your entire monopoly/different market argument is predicated on an opinion that is not proving to be reality.

Quoting par13del (Reply 74): Quoting mcg (Reply 65): Actually I think the real winner of the Wright Amendment was Southwest Airlines. Quoting mcg (Reply 65): Because their growth was limited at DAL they had to look for other markets, which they did with much success. How can you be a winner if someone puts something in place to limit your growth and make your business difficult? The authorities who put the limitations in place did not achieve their intended results.

I think part of what mcg was alluding to was the fact that a limited Love Field allowed other SWA cities to have a nice portfolio of n/s routes …like Austin and San Antonio for example…n/s routes that are today stand alone successes without DAL.

Quoting modernart (Reply 77): I think part of what mcg was alluding to was the fact that a limited Love Field allowed other SWA cities to have a nice portfolio of n/s routes …like Austin and San Antonio for example…n/s routes that are today stand alone successes without DAL.

However that was a result of the WA not really a WN choice, the WA mandated that a stop had to be made in the perimeter area. WN chose to make the stop while the other airlines chose to use 50 seats in their a/c to work around the restriction.
I still do not understand why when they saw how successful WN was they chose not to compete, and this during the time when the mantra of airlines was to chase market share by dumping capacity and running the competiton off.

Quoting par13del (Reply 74): How can you be a winner if someone puts something in place to limit your growth and make your business difficult?

Quoting mcg (Reply 65): Actually I think the real winner of the Wright Amendment was Southwest Airlines. Because their growth was limited at DAL they had to look for other markets

Quoting Gen2stew (Reply 63): All of the decades that DAL and the FEDS have coddled WN and permitted them to move the goal post have finally come to a head

I'm not sure coddled is the right word to use, but the rules set in place by the WA did allow WN to grow and flourish at DAL with very little direct competition during the early days of deregulation. What people seem to forget, is that WN was originally founded under license of the State of Texas not the CAB. This kept them from having them from having to move to DFW in 1974 with everyone else, but it also limited them to flights within Texas. It wasn't until 1978 and deregulation that the DAL/DFW battle really meant anything. This of course brought about the WA in 1979, but did allow expantion outside of Texas. We all know the history from there. If Southwest had been forced to move to DFW with the others, it is very unlikely they would have survived a head to head battle with Delta, American, and Braniff.

Quoting AST1Driver (Reply 79): It wasn't until 1978 and deregulation that the DAL/DFW battle really meant anything. This of course brought about the WA in 1979, but did allow expantion outside of Texas. We all know the history from there.

In 1979 when the WA went into effect WN fleet was very small, indeed prior to deregulation the airline did struggle at DAL.
Wiki may not always be the best but...I'm trying to get a number on fleet size when the WA was implemented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines

Quoting modernart (Reply 77): Quoting par13del (Reply 74): Quoting mcg (Reply 65): Actually I think the real winner of the Wright Amendment was Southwest Airlines. Quoting mcg (Reply 65): Because their growth was limited at DAL they had to look for other markets, which they did with much success. How can you be a winner if someone puts something in place to limit your growth and make your business difficult? The authorities who put the limitations in place did not achieve their intended results. I think part of what mcg was alluding to was the fact that a limited Love Field allowed other SWA cities to have a nice portfolio of n/s routes …like Austin and San Antonio for example…n/s routes that are today stand alone successes without DAL.

Actually I'm thinking of all of the very large non-Texas markets WN has developed, for example MDW, BWI, PHX, LAS, California. Being forced to think outside of DAL WN was able to develop a large number of very strong markets. I think that by forcing WN to look outside of Dallas for growth, the WA in an odd way helped WN prosper in the long run.

I think the authorities that put the limitations did achieve their goal, which was to protect AA from competition in the Dallas O and D market. The fact is that to the majority of O and D markets from Dallas, AA was protected from WN. I'm not saying whether that was good or bad, it's just the way it was.

Quoting mcg (Reply 81): I think the authorities that put the limitations did achieve their goal, which was to protect AA from competition in the Dallas O and D market. The fact is that to the majority of O and D markets from Dallas, AA was protected from WN. I'm not saying whether that was good or bad, it's just the way it was

Yes and no. Because it also kept WN from having to compete directly with the other airlines at DFW.

By the way, the lawsuit that brought on the Wright Amendment was filed by DFW and Braniff not American. Although recently AA has been the beneficiary depending on your point of view.

AST1driver, thank you for the clarification on the plaintiffs of the original lawsuit. It's interesting to see what the motivation was for closing DAL (from the perspective of the city of Dallas) during the time that the idea of DFW was conceived. I wonder if there's any correlation to the rapid development of communities surrounding DFW
's location away from the center of Dallas proper during that time? (I'm not from Texas and just speculating based on the historical urban development of the D/FW metroplex).

Quoting airplaneboy (Reply 83): It's interesting to see what the motivation was for closing DAL (from the perspective of the city of Dallas) during the time that the idea of DFW was conceived.

I suspect the city of Dallas wanted to make sure that DFW was a financial success and able to service it's debt.

Actually, airplaneboy I feel that you misinterpreted my statement, wn was consistently permitted to bend and change the rules of the WA by adding more cities to states outside of the perimeter and by being allows to charter to anyplace... furthermore, having agreed to the original WA and then changing it as they saw fit negates the point of agreeing. To put it simply, they got what they asked for by being allowed to stay at DAL but then chose to fight and go against the agreement.

Quoting Gen2stew (Reply 85): wn was consistently permitted to bend and change the rules of the WA by adding more cities to states outside of the perimeter and by being allows to charter to anyplace... furthermore, having agreed to the original WA and then changing it as they saw fit negates the point of agreeing.

You do realize that the WA was a Federal law and as was the case with the new variant - WA2 - only an act of congress could make changes such as adding more cities to states outside the perimeter.

Quoting Gen2stew (Reply 85): To put it simply, they got what they asked for by being allowed to stay at DAL but then chose to fight and go against the agreement.

If it is a bad agreement why not fight?

DL's attorney did step aside, which offers an explanation for the truce that doesn't go to the merits of either side. The judge may have just told the parties that he could not decide the issue until DL got new counsel and that they best be reasonable in the interim.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-from-dallas-love-field-case.html/

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 87): DL's attorney did step aside, which offers an explanation for the truce that doesn't go to the merits of either side. The judge may have just told the parties that he could not decide the issue until DL got new counsel and that they best be reasonable in the interim.

Or maybe DL just changed counsels so that this nonsensical sticking point wouldn't be something that would decide the case against DL.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 58): WN and the City of Houston worked together to persuade the Federal Government to allow FIS facilities there; I do not think Dallas would be so inclined.

Why not? They are going to be against something that's going to create some jobs? Lol! No.

Quoting Gen2stew (Reply 85): Actually, airplaneboy I feel that you misinterpreted my statement, wn was consistently permitted to bend and change the rules of the WA by adding more cities to states outside of the perimeter and by being allows to charter to anyplace

Southwest has NEVER run a public charter, so I'm not exactly sure how that bends the rules. Anyway, any airline can run charters from love field and there are actually several CHARTER AIRLINES based at DAL. DL, AA, UA, and CO have all run large charters out of DAL in the past.

STL, MCI, BHM, and JAN were the only cities added... by acts of CONGRESS! Now aren't those some HOME RUN routes!

Quoting par13del (Reply 86): You do realize that the WA was a Federal law and as was the case with the new variant - WA2 - only an act of congress could make changes such as adding more cities to states outside the perimeter.

      Shhhh! That ruins the story line of AA and DL being the victims here.

Again, I am all for solid and successful operations for Southwest Airlines at Love Field (and, for that matter, for anyone else who operates out of Love); I cannot, however, endorse the notion that Love Field should grow, in an uncontrolled manner, to lkevel of operations it had before the opening of DFW airport. To do so would be, for airspace utilization and traffic, and all manner of other infrastructure issues, an unmitigated disaster.

Let passengers and their $$ make these decisions! DFW is its own center of gravity now and no longer needs coddling. And the nimbys near DAL need to be reminded that they CHOSE to live smack in the middle of a large, dynamic city, so stop whining about the very things that help this area maintain its phenominal success!

Quoting sccutler (Reply 90): I cannot, however, endorse the notion that Love Field should grow, in an uncontrolled manner, to lkevel of operations it had before the opening of DFW airport.

I don't think you have any cause to worry about that happening, the FAA most likely will not allow anything beyond 32 due to the proximity to DFW.
Funny thing is, it is entirely possible that the more you try to restrict / control something the more desirable you make it to others.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 89): Quoting par13del (Reply 86): You do realize that the WA was a Federal law and as was the case with the new variant - WA2 - only an act of congress could make changes such as adding more cities to states outside the perimeter.       Shhhh! That ruins the story line of AA and DL being the victims here.

Of course, then the Feds added that nasty footnote to the story line of telling AA that it had to divest themselves of two gates at DAL and then they awarded them to VX. Then WN and UA get together over a golf game and UA subleases the two gates that DL is using to WN. Seems like a pretty coincidental event, doesn't it?

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 89): Southwest has NEVER run a public charter, so I'm not exactly sure how that bends the rules. Anyway, any airline can run charters from love field and there are actually several CHARTER AIRLINES based at DAL. DL, AA, UA, and CO have all run large charters out of DAL in the past.

Charter Request Information - Travel Tools - Southwest Airlines
https://www.southwest.com/html/travel-tools/charter.html?clk...CHARTER
Request information and make reservations for chartered flights with Southwest Airlines.

Quoting mayor (Reply 93): Then WN and UA get together over a golf game and UA subleases the two gates that DL is using to WN.

I'm pretty sure they weren't just given to WN. $$$ exchanged hands (and from what I've read on these forums, a lot of it) and DL was well aware they were up for sale (according to VX) and just wanted to play the entitled victim. Poor DL.

Quoting mayor (Reply 94): Of course, then the Feds added that nasty footnote to the story line of telling AA that it had to divest themselves of two gates at DAL and then they awarded them to VX.

Whether VX or AA got the two gates, do you think WN really cares? That still only 2 gates and 20 flights, and I bet WN couldn't care less who it was. Seeing AA's track record at DAL, I'm betting they were thrilled.

[Edited 2015-07-03 01:30:44 by wilco737]

[Edited 2015-07-03 01:31:25 by wilco737]

Quoting cjpark (Reply 94):

I think he confused charters with public charters like someone operating a route on behalf of Apple Vacations.

That said I'm not sure why Gen2Stew brought up charters. The WA never restricted charters (just had to be less than 10x a month so you can't run passenger service as a "charter service") and it was never Dallas/DFW/whoever's intent to restrict charters at DAL. Charters are in fact one of the reasons why they wanted to keep DAL open versus just razing it when DFW was built.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 95): Quoting cjpark (Reply 94): Of course, then the Feds added that nasty footnote to the story line of telling AA that it had to divest themselves of two gates at DAL and then they awarded them to VX. Whether VX or AA got the two gates, do you think WN really cares? That still only 2 gates and 20 flights, and I bet WN couldn't care less who it was. Seeing AA's track record at DAL, I'm betting they were thrilled.

So, if WN didn't care who got those gates, why sublease from UA to keep DL out of the other two? Why pay all those dollars just for two gates if they really didn't care?

[Edited 2015-07-03 01:31:43 by wilco737]

Quoting mayor (Reply 97): So, if WN didn't care who got those gates, why sublease from UA to keep DL out of the other two? Why pay all those dollars just for two gates if they really didn't care?

I think he meant that between VX, AA, DL, and any other airline WN really didn't care who got the AA gates if they couldn't have them. Obviously WN would like to have more gates at DAL, that is why it bid for the AA gates when they came up, but I don't think WN is particularly concerned with what airlines are operating out of the leftover gates as long as the 20 gate cap is in existence.

Quoting mayor (Reply 97): So, if WN didn't care who got those gates, why sublease from UA to keep DL out of the other two? Why pay all those dollars just for two gates if they really didn't care?

Because they needed more space to grow and they were available. Would WN prefer to operate 180 flights instead of 160? Apparently so, and those were the only two gates available to expand. The move IMO was not to block DL out, but to expand their DAL presence, where their flights have had incredible load factors. Sure an added benefit was to block DL out, but then again WN did offer DL half a gate for a price, which DL declined.

By DL, AA, VX, or UA having the other two gates, those carriers are limited in what they can do, what routes they can fly, and the ability to expand. I meant with my comments that WN might not care who got the 2 other gates (VX, AA, or DL) because of WN's size and those constraints. If those other 2 became available, you can bet WN would be interested in even further expansion and growth at DAL.