Aa Expansion Plans For Dfw!

jimntx

Veteran
Jun 28, 2003
11,218
3,302
Dallas, TX
www.usaviation.com
I copied this article from a Yahoo bb. I was surprised to see that it was not yet posted here. Enjoy!

American may expand at D/FW

By Trebor Banstetter;Bryon Okada
Star-Telegram Staff Writers

FORT WORTH - After several years of cutbacks, American Airlines has
reached a tentative deal with Dallas/Fort Worth Airport that would
guarantee the airline's growth in North Texas over the next several
years in return for millions of dollars in incentives.

The world's largest airline and one of the world's busiest airports
inked the proposal last month, and airport officials disclosed details
of the deal Wednesday. It calls for American to take over 19 of the 28
gates in Terminal D, which is scheduled to open in summer 2005. The
airline also promises to increase its D/FW departures by 21 percent by
2007.


The deal must be finalized by the boards of the airport and the
airline, which could take several months. But the proposal
demonstrates that American plans to continue its dominance of D/FW
amid its aggressive drive to cut costs and return to profitability. It
shows the airline returning to a sustained growth mode after cutting
back on flights and employees at the airport because of the 9-11
terrorist attacks.

"We think this is good for the airport, and it's good for us,"
American spokesman Tim Wagner said. "It's the result of a lot of long,
hard work between both of us to find a way to make it work."

For the airport, the deal guarantees that it will have a major tenant
in the new $1 billion facility, which was envisioned as an
international terminal long before 9-11 and the economic slowdown
devastated the airline industry.

"We've been looking at creative ways to get American into the
[terminal] while looking for opportunities for D/FW to continue to
grow and expand in the post-9-11 environment," said Kevin Cox, the
airport's chief operating officer. "That's what brought us to this [
agreement] today."

For North Texas consumers, the deal would most likely lead to more
American flights to current destinations and service to new cities.

"We'd probably see more frequency and new routes, some combination of
both," Wagner said. But he stressed that growth plans are in the early
stages.

Plans call for Terminal D to include a mix of international and
domestic flights. It will feature a centralized customs facility to
process international passengers.

As an incentive, D/FW will use part of its rainy-day fund each year to
offset American's share of the costs for expensive projects like
Terminal D and the SkyLink people mover.

Airlines typically pay for airport expansions through fees and leases.
But American, like other major carriers, has been looking for ways to
reduce those costs as it struggles to return to profitability.
American lost $1.2 billion in 2003 and has lost $6.5 billion since 2000.

In the first year alone, D/FW would put up about $30 million to reduce
the airline's costs if passenger predictions are met, Cox said.

The value of the deal would vary in future years, based on American's
passenger levels and traffic, airport officials said.

They said the incentives won't deplete the fund, which is typically
used for future projects. The airport's $77 million rainy-day surplus,
which comes from passenger boarding fees, would increase to nearly
$100 million by 2009, when the deal would expire, airport officials said.

"The economic incentives are so strong for them to live up to this
agreement that it almost ensures compliance," said Max Wells, chairman
of the airport board.

American's growth won't be restricted to the new terminal, Wagner
said. "This will be happening throughout the airport," he said.

The growth projections include flights that American had already
shifted to D/FW when it reduced operations last year at its St. Louis
hub. The flights transferred from St. Louis account for about 8
percent of the 21 percent growth plan, airport officials said.

Wagner said the growth plan won't necessarily put pressure on
American's operating costs, which the carrier has labored mightily to
reduce during the past year.

"We've proven we can be more productive and we can have efficient
growth," he said. "All of our growth going forward is going to be
cost-effective growth."

Wagner said it's too early to know whether the growth would lead to
more jobs at D/FW. American has cut thousands of positions in North
Texas the past three years.

Under the deal, American would also grant the airport flexibility in
managing its gates in the new terminal. If American stops operating a
gate, the airport could allow another carrier to use it.

That's different from most current leases, under which the airline
controls a gate regardless of whether it's used. Such contracts have
hurt some airports since 2001, when major carriers cut flights and
stopped using many gates.

D/FW has been considering changing its gate-lease policy since before
the terrorist attacks, said Tracy Thompson, the airport's vice
president of planning and real estate.

Cox said, "We have the ability to plug and play if we need to."

Benefits of the proposed deal

For consumers: It will probably mean more American Airlines flights to
current destinations and service to new cities.

For the airport: It guarantees a major tenant in the new $1 billion
Terminal D.

For American Airlines: It may reduce the airline's costs by $30
million in the agreement's first year if passenger projections are met.
 
Nice to see good news like this. :)

Let's hope it leads to recalls of all furloughed employees who want to return. B)
 
ITRADE said:
Maybe they could move some of that $1,000,000,000 to fixing the TRAAM which breaks down so often that I want to BAARF!
If they did that, then flight attendants might start using the tram to get from one terminal to the next when changing flights (if a f/a is stuck on the tram and doesn't get to the gate in time, it's a missed trip, not a misconnect). They then would not be exhausted from the mile and a half walk from C39 to A12. Where's the fun in that for the company, pray tell? :lol:
 
jimntx said:
The airline also promises to increase its D/FW departures by 21 percent by 2007.
The "devil" is in the details. Read carefully. I suspect that AE will account for the majority of the increase in departures. AE expansion does not facilitate recall of mainline employees, in fact, it may actually bring about additional furloughs.

As far as having confidence in AA’s promises, ask the city of Kansas City, St. Louis, San Jose or Nashville, for that matter, how much stock you can place in AA’s promises. The proof will be in actions, not words.

Cynically Yours,
Hunter
 
Hunter said:
jimntx said:
The airline also promises to increase its D/FW departures by 21 percent by 2007.
The "devil" is in the details. Read carefully. I suspect that AE will account for the majority of the increase in departures. AE expansion does not facilitate recall of mainline employees, in fact, it may actually bring about additional furloughs.

As far as having confidence in AA’s promises, ask the city of Kansas City, St. Louis, San Jose or Nashville, for that matter, how much stock you can place in AA’s promises. The proof will be in actions, not words.

Cynically Yours,
Hunter
Hunter, I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you, that you would sign your post cynically yours. And, yes, AMR did a "bend over and grab your ankles" to all those cities.

However, I don't think they can play quite so fast and loose with DFW considering that headquarters is across the freeway from the airport property. Only if they decided to move HQ out of Texas would they dare do to DFW what they did to those other cities. AMR management may be crazy, but they ain't stupid! :p
 
Hunter said:
The "devil" is in the details. Read carefully. I suspect that AE will account for the majority of the increase in departures. AE expansion does not facilitate recall of mainline employees, in fact, it may actually bring about additional furloughs.
Maybe you're right; but then again, with AA scheduled to take delivery of 9 more 777s and 47 more 738s in 2006-2010, AA might just increase its mainline schedule from DFW. After all, ORD is once again full and AA just agreed (as did UAL) to move or cancel about 30 AA and AE flights this summer to help alleviate the delays at ORD.

In any case, announcements like this are sure as hell better news than promises to reduce the DFW flying by 21% in the next couple of years. B)
 
Hunter said:
jimntx said:
The airline also promises to increase its D/FW departures by 21 percent by 2007.
The "devil" is in the details. Read carefully. I suspect that AE will account for the majority of the increase in departures. AE expansion does not facilitate recall of mainline employees, in fact, it may actually bring about additional furloughs.

As far as having confidence in AA’s promises, ask the city of Kansas City, St. Louis, San Jose or Nashville, for that matter, how much stock you can place in AA’s promises. The proof will be in actions, not words.

Cynically Yours,
Hunter
How about AA's promise to Miami to expand service greatly back in 1999? Despite the events of 11 September, since June 2002, Miami has seen 13 destinations added:

Santiago (DR), Medellin, Punta Cana, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Richmond, Guanacaste Liberia, St. Lucia (1 November)

And more are coming (look for Dayton and Memphis next).

Then there's all those expanded frequencies to major markets like New York City, Boston, and the DC area. Not to mention ending prop service to Orlando and Tampa in favour of going all-mainline.

Some promises do become reality.
 
I would hate to say that AA is dangling a carrot in front of anyone, but I have to say that I will wait and see who is handling those 22% additional departures. Sometimes I feel like this is a business of used cars salesmen with a bait-and-switch routine.
I hope for the best, for everyone, but I am not holding my breath. I know that AA is bringing in new planes, but aren't the 30 or so A300s on their way out in the next 3-5 years?
 
AAmech said:
I think 5 to 7 years is whats in store for the A300.
As pilots' skills improve, mechanics' progress lags
Pilots are required by the federal government to undergo rigorous training exerciseseach year to keep flying. Flight attendants must take courses in emergency procedures yearly. But airline mechanics — whose exacting work can determine whether a planestays in the air — face no such mandate.
Once these critical workers complete a training program and pass several tests to qualify for a federal license, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not require any specific retraining.

Such loose standards have deadly consequences. According to a USA TODAY report this week that analyzed air-crash data, the rate of accidents caused by sloppy maintenance has remained steady since 1980, even as the overall rate of airplane accidents in the U.S. has fallen.

One factor behind the reduction in pilot errors is the innovative training used by the FAA and airline industry. Even so, this proven tool hasn't been applied to mechanics' work. Instead, regulators have backed away from tougher maintenance requirements in the face of industry opposition over cost.

Just last week, the National Transportation Safety Board cited faulty repairs done by a mechanic trainee as a major cause of an Air Midwest crash in 2003 that killed all 21 aboard. Mechanics ignored at least nine steps in the maintenance manual and didn't bother to check their work when they finished. A failure of one of the controls caused the plane to slam into the ground shortly after takeoff in Charlotte.

That accident was one of three major airline crashes since 2000 blamed in large part on poor maintenance. In all, 112 passengers and crew members died in the crashes.

The industry says all airlines provide continuing training of mechanics. However, the government does not set clear minimum standards for such training.

Its track record includes:

Loose rules. The FAA requires airlines to ensure that mechanics are "competent," but its rules don't specify the training needed to reach that goal. As a result, FAA inspectors can't judge the quality of training, says Brian Finnegan, president of the Professional Aviation Maintenance Association, which is lobbying for increased training.

Quashed improvements. In 1998, the FAA proposed a new rule that would have laid out training requirements. But several industry groups attacked the cost of complying with the proposal, and the FAA shelved it in 1999.

Failed oversight. The FAA failed to spot shoddy practices even when the warning signs were clear. For instance, it coddled Alaska Airlines during a series of maintenance lapses in the late 1990s. In 2000, Alaska's repeated failure to lubricate a jackscrew in a jetliner's tail caused a fatal crash.

An FAA spokesman says airlines are expected to make sure mechanics do their job right, and the air-safety record shows that mechanics "more than meet that standard."

Yet, the crash data tell a different story in which the mechanics who service airplanes haven't kept pace with the safety improvement charted by the pilots who fly them.

The success of pilot training in reducing fatal mistakes provides a clear glide path for the FAA to make sure the people backing up those in the cockpit are just as sharp.
 

Attachments

  • procompany01.jpg
    procompany01.jpg
    17.3 KB · Views: 139
coolflyingfool said:
I would hate to say that AA is dangling a carrot in front of anyone, but I have to say that I will wait and see who is handling those 22% additional departures. Sometimes I feel like this is a business of used cars salesmen with a bait-and-switch routine.
I hope for the best, for everyone, but I am not holding my breath. I know that AA is bringing in new planes, but aren't the 30 or so A300s on their way out in the next 3-5 years?
A300s don't fly in or out of DFW anyway, so their retention/disposal isn't relevant to a discussion of increased DFW flying.