AA To Announce Love Field Flts On Friday 11/18?

[Ch. 12]

Jim-

Never heard anything about WN "promising" the world to KS and then using 9/11 as an excuse. Any supporting links would be welcomed. I can only comment the same...how can you sustain full flights in a puny market with no connecting traffic?

I also don't care who you were addressing...I answered it, right?

And I am so glad that you have finally realized that DAL charges lower landing fees than DFW. This is hardly a revelation (well...maybe to the "AA is GOD" crowd) and is the whole arguement on why it is ridiculous to force carriers to DFW (and aside from the monopolistic carrier fortressed there is the main reason why LCCs don't find the airport very attractive). DFW and DAL are not part of an airport authority and there is no reason why they cannot have different fees. They are separate entities and DAL seems to survive just fine w/o having to charge exhorbanent landing fees. Guess it's b/c they don't squander their money on greasy execs like DFW's Cox nor do they squander it on trying to maintain and further build legislation through congress and the courts to protect them. So how is this a revelation? How is there any wrongdoing? I sure hope we don't make all airports charge the same fees as DFW...that would definitely bury this industry.

 

[jimntx]

Jim-

Never heard anything about WN "promising" the world to KS and then using 9/11 as an excuse. Any supporting links would be welcomed. I can only comment the same...how can you sustain full flights in a puny market with no connecting traffic?

I also don't care who you were addressing...I answered it, right?

And I am so glad that you have finally realized that DAL charges lower landing fees than DFW. This is hardly a revelation (well...maybe to the "AA is GOD" crowd) and is the whole arguement on why it is ridiculous to force carriers to DFW (and aside from the monopolistic carrier fortressed there is the main reason why LCCs don't find the airport very attractive). DFW and DAL are not part of an airport authority and there is no reason why they cannot have different fees. They are separate entities and DAL seems to survive just fine w/o having to charge exhorbanent landing fees. Guess it's b/c they don't squander their money on greasy execs like DFW's Cox nor do they squander it on trying to maintain and further build legislation through congress and the courts to protect them. So how is this a revelation? How is there any wrongdoing? I sure hope we don't make all airports charge the same fees as DFW...that would definitely bury this industry.

You're spinning so fast it's making my head swim. The point is not that DAL has been charging SWA less than DFW charges airlines using DFW, it's that DAL has been running a deficit because of it. The city of Dallas has been subsidizing SWA's famous low fares for years. Problem is that the Mayor and the City Council were not aware that they were in business with SWA (or, at least that's what they are claiming now that the information is public.) Mayor is promising an investigation into why DAL landing fees do not cover costs.

 

[Ch. 12]

You're spinning so fast it's making my head swim. The point is not that DAL has been charging SWA less than DFW charges airlines using DFW, it's that DAL has been running a deficit because of it. The city of Dallas has been subsidizing SWA's famous low fares for years. Problem is that the Mayor and the City Council were not aware that they were in business with SWA (or, at least that's what they are claiming now that the information is public.) Mayor is promising an investigation into why DAL landing fees do not cover costs.

How is it spin? Airports have several sources of revenue and the landing fees never cover the operations completely. You sure are stretching on this one. I don't think this will end up being the big scandal you see it as being. As SWA is currently DAL's main source of income, they would be making most of their $$ off of them and not funding them as you claim. Again...just b/c the landing fees don't cover costs, that doesn't mean that the cargo revenue, facility leases, facility fees, etc don't make up for it. Give me a break! If you want to look at a real subsidy, look at DFW subsidizing AMR's legal battles and PR tirades.

Talk about spin! You could get a job with Fox News!!

 

[swflyer]

:blink:

Uh, just for clarification, MCI - Kansas City International is located on the Missouri side of the river.

The only city of size, in the Wright-included state of Kansas, is Wichita.
Before anyone jumps on it, Topeka is a fifth of the size (wikipedia)

[poke] Gee Jim. What happened with Vanguard on the Wichita-DFW routes?? <_< [/poke]

 

[USstew23]

AAAWWW..... Is senator Bond mad because AA couldn't force it's unions to give the TWAers dovetail? AA could stick it up his hind end by closing STL and MCI completly and laying off the few thousand that are left. Or they can cut some flights out of STL and layoff. They could also layoff at MCI to have the bare minimum number of employees required for the state/city aid in reparing the base. If AA decides to, they could very well do this and just decide to let SW have STL all to itself.

Well good riddens. The people of STL are sick of it anyway. Most of the ex-TWA Frequent Fliers are over it. Stop threatening us with it and MOVE ON. Most of us would welcome SW or anybody else for that matter to take over. Prime example of the continuous abuse taken is how they recently told all of the ground staff for Chautauqua that they have been kicked to the curb because Trash States will be taking over. How nice of them since most of those people to lose a job will be ex-TWA. AA has screwed Vanguard, Legend, Reno, AirCal, most of the TWA employees and probably countless others in this business without even a nod, so ya know what, I hope the Wright Ammendment is scrapped, so now SW and everybody else in this industry can look over and say "KISS THIS". I'm sorry in advance and this is not a personal attack on anyone, there are alot of good people that work for AA, but come on.

 

[corl737]

And, it would be interesting to know what SWA promised to the Congressmen from KS to get them to vote for the last expansion of the WA boundaries.

Point to note: The Kansas City International Airport (MCI) is on the Missouri side of the river. Thus, DAL-MCI service was not permitted under the Kansas exemption. The only viable Kansas airport is Wichita and, being only 2 hrs from OKC didn't warrant its own service at the time.

Nancy Kassebaum and Bob Dole, the KS Senators, simply did their part to get the exemption when they had the opportunity. At the time, they were two of the most senior members of the Senate and would both be retiring in the next couple of years. (Political clout created the Wright Amendment, political clout will bring it down!)

By the way, I noticed none of you have had much to say about the recent revelation that the Love Field OA has been subsidizing SWA by charging minuscule landing fees.

I wouldn't say Dallas was subsidizing the operation but it definitely wasn't reaping the payday it could have. It is reasonable to see landing fees increase at DAL. As SWA is less than 1/3 of the air traffic at Love Field, most of the funds are recouped through fuel flowage fees, hangar rents, etc. It is likely fair, however, for SWA to pay more than they have.

If we want to keep conspiracy theories alive ... I think Love Field revenue was kept artifically low in the past primarily to avoid more rhetoric from the Ft. Worth crowd. If Dallas claimed they were making money off Love Field it would have been another dagger in the back of the folks who are still bitter about DAL even being open. (Those FTW'ers just can't come to grips that the "legally permissible" clause of the '68 Bond Ordinance was what kept DAL open!)


Also, could it be that landing fees at Love Field are going up just in time for AA to join the fray? :blink:

 

[mrman]

You're spinning so fast it's making my head swim. The point is not that DAL has been charging SWA less than DFW charges airlines using DFW, it's that DAL has been running a deficit because of it. The city of Dallas has been subsidizing SWA's famous low fares for years. Problem is that the Mayor and the City Council were not aware that they were in business with SWA (or, at least that's what they are claiming now that the information is public.) Mayor is promising an investigation into why DAL landing fees do not cover costs.

Jim,

Don't forget WN headquarters there. City is making $$ on property taxes on building and aircraft. WN can easily "home" those aircraft in another city for tax purposes.

 

[aafsc]

Well good riddens. The people of STL are sick of it anyway. Most of the ex-TWA Frequent Fliers are over it. Stop threatening us with it and MOVE ON. Most of us would welcome SW or anybody else for that matter to take over. Prime example of the continuous abuse taken is how they recently told all of the ground staff for Chautauqua that they have been kicked to the curb because Trash States will be taking over. How nice of them since most of those people to lose a job will be ex-TWA. AA has screwed Vanguard, Legend, Reno, AirCal, most of the TWA employees and probably countless others in this business without even a nod, so ya know what, I hope the Wright Ammendment is scrapped, so now SW and everybody else in this industry can look over and say "KISS THIS". I'm sorry in advance and this is not a personal attack on anyone, there are alot of good people that work for AA, but come on.

If I'm not mistaken, the AirCal and Reno people are still employed at AA. However, you are correct about the fact that AA bought both Reno and AirCal and dismantled them. AA also dismantled their self built hubs at RDU and BNA. AA puts it's assets (aircraft) where they can generate the most revenue. Time will tell if the Wright Amendment is fully lifted as well as what happens at DFW, DAL, and STL.

 

[MCI transplant]

If I'm not mistaken, the AirCal and Reno people are still employed at AA. However, you are correct about the fact that AA bought both Reno and AirCal and dismantled them. AA also dismantled their self built hubs at RDU and BNA. AA puts it's assets (aircraft) where they can generate the most revenue. Time will tell if the Wright Amendment is fully lifted as well as what happens at DFW, DAL, and STL.

<_< Thank you aa for not mentioning TWA!!! What a refeashing thing!!!!

 

[jimntx]

How is it spin? Airports have several sources of revenue and the landing fees never cover the operations completely. You sure are stretching on this one. I don't think this will end up being the big scandal you see it as being. As SWA is currently DAL's main source of income, they would be making most of their $$ off of them and not funding them as you claim. Again...just b/c the landing fees don't cover costs, that doesn't mean that the cargo revenue, facility leases, facility fees, etc don't make up for it. Give me a break! If you want to look at a real subsidy, look at DFW subsidizing AMR's legal battles and PR tirades.

Talk about spin! You could get a job with Fox News!!

Well, my, my, my! Not only are you an expert on what pilots should be paid and what their "real" work hours are (see also the Delta forum), you also are the dernier cri on airport finance also. Well, you need to call the Dallas Morning News and the City Council and tell them that the deficit that has been turned up at DAL is not really a deficit.

That was just the point. DAL had been trying to cover losses from the minuscule landing fees with all the other sources of revenue that you mentioned. However, the house of cards has come crashing down because the city is going to have to step up now and cover some bills.

 

[Ch. 12]

Well, my, my, my! Not only are you an expert on what pilots should be paid and what their "real" work hours are (see also the Delta forum), you also are the dernier cri on airport finance also. Well, you need to call the Dallas Morning News and the City Council and tell them that the deficit that has been turned up at DAL is not really a deficit.

That was just the point. DAL had been trying to cover losses from the minuscule landing fees with all the other sources of revenue that you mentioned. However, the house of cards has come crashing down because the city is going to have to step up now and cover some bills.

Yes, Jim...I guess if pointing out that making wages that are not financially viable while blatantly ignoring the fact that the industry has been battered on several fronts outside of the control of anyone...count me in as an expert of anything. If that is all it takes (since I never alluded to anything else).

Now...back to this...why don't you post your story? I would LOVE to have the facts but your blessed DMN returns nothing when searching for any Love Field Deficit stories. Even looking for "Love Field" pulls nothing other than the WA changes. I would truly like to have your "facts". Outside of that, I can only go on your historical position on the WA debate and failure to ever produce facts and say I still cannot believe it until I see it. As DFW and AMR have proven...it is possible to spin any story and it would surely surprise me if DAL was deliberately losing $$ to help out WN. I have a common sense side of me that says yes...they may deliberately lose money in one area but pick up financing in another. And yes...I have had experience with airport finance though I do not pretend to be an expert at it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that landing fees are only one of a plethora of funding sources utilized by an airport.

 

[eolesen]

Now...back to this...why don't you post your story? I would LOVE to have the facts but your blessed DMN returns nothing when searching for any Love Field Deficit stories.

Try the Fort Worth paper next time --- DNM will never print anything remotely critical of Love Field's existance.

Fort Worth Star Telegram

Airport officials using reserves to pay off deficits

By DAVID WETHE

STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER


Several Dallas City Council members, including Mayor Laura Miller, say they are surprised and upset that Dallas Love Field has been dipping into its reserves to pay off deficits.

Now they want answers.

Airport officials say they are trying to cut costs and raise revenues, looking at everything from parking rates to landing fees.

Funny that WN has argued that DAL's low costs are why they stay there and can't afford to go out to high cost DFW, and now it appears that they're on the verge of bankrupting the airport... Perhaps if DAL had priced their product to cover their costs, as opposed to giving WN low fares, this wouldn't be an issue!

 

[jimntx]

Now...back to this...why don't you post your story? I would LOVE to have the facts but your blessed DMN returns nothing when searching for any Love Field Deficit stories. Even looking for "Love Field" pulls nothing other than the WA changes. I would truly like to have your "facts".

Oh, does ums head hurt from all that effort?

Try this link
Dal Landing Fees story (There's a video of the story if reading the article is too difficult.)

I misquoted the landing fees in my earlier post. Turns out that airlines using DFW pay only $4.94/lb. I thought I had read that it was over $8.00. On the other hand, SWA is paying $.35/lb at DAL. And you say that the people of Dallas aren't subsidizing SWA's DAL operations?

 

[FWAAA]

Those landing fees are per 1,000 pounds, right? Otherwise, even WN would go broke paying $0.35/lb (and AA would have already liquidated paying nearly $5.00/lb. Don't some aircraft weight several hundred thousand pounds? B)

 

[TWU informer]

... Perhaps if DAL had priced their product to cover their costs, as opposed to giving WN low fares, this wouldn't be an issue!

Same can be said about American Airlines.

One should not be so critical of an airport doing the same thing that AA is.