Aa Will Hub Dal If Wa Overturned
- Thread starter jj
- Start date
AA717driver
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 0
Someone had better tell Arpey that SWA is no Legacy...TC
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
AA717driver said:
I saw that article in the Dallas Morning News, and it's laughable to think that AA would hub at DAL. Somewhat shoddy reporting, although I think that's the norm these days...
DAL is a spoke, an O&D airport much like MDW and HPN, both of which operate in the shadows of larger AA operations at ORD and LGA.
Assuming Wright is revoked, it's entirely appropriate for a couple of nonstops to be added to LAX, LGA, DCA, and ORD from DAL. Even if WN flew the same routes, you'd have a fair number of people willing to chose AA for the F cabin and miles. It's pretty much assumed that prices would be the same...
Hey JS, please come over to DAL and build a hub--it's a great idea to have two hubs/split operations. It will help AA compete against LUV.
Sorry, just got tired of the irrational arguments that it's agreat idea for LUV to start flying out of DFW. I won't be making the same arguments for AA flying out of DAL. If the wrong amendment gets repealed I predict the following:
1. LUV will increase DAL flying significantly and make lots of money.
2. AA will start DAL flying and lose more money due to increased costs and competing against itself.
3. AA will leave DAL after five years of beating its head against the wall.
I don't think AA is a bad company and has OK management (compared to other legacies). Their WA arguments, however, are 99% legal/political posturing. AA understands having the WA is the only way to protect its backside and making all efforts to keep it.
Last, AA states that it wouldn't have made the investments in DFW if it had known the WA would ever be repealed. The fact that AA and DFW didn't plan on the WA getting repealed means that it must remain in place. Parallel arguments: sorry slaves, people bought slaves according to current laws so were going to have to keep the slavery laws. I have limited intellect to think of more examples of poor legislation being overturned and hurting companies that had banked on the laws existence. Still, the WA is one and can't wait for it to be gone.
Sorry, just got tired of the irrational arguments that it's agreat idea for LUV to start flying out of DFW. I won't be making the same arguments for AA flying out of DAL. If the wrong amendment gets repealed I predict the following:
1. LUV will increase DAL flying significantly and make lots of money.
2. AA will start DAL flying and lose more money due to increased costs and competing against itself.
3. AA will leave DAL after five years of beating its head against the wall.
I don't think AA is a bad company and has OK management (compared to other legacies). Their WA arguments, however, are 99% legal/political posturing. AA understands having the WA is the only way to protect its backside and making all efforts to keep it.
Last, AA states that it wouldn't have made the investments in DFW if it had known the WA would ever be repealed. The fact that AA and DFW didn't plan on the WA getting repealed means that it must remain in place. Parallel arguments: sorry slaves, people bought slaves according to current laws so were going to have to keep the slavery laws. I have limited intellect to think of more examples of poor legislation being overturned and hurting companies that had banked on the laws existence. Still, the WA is one and can't wait for it to be gone.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
bwipilot said:
The point is that DFW and AA expected Dallas and WN to honor the contract between the various parties. But, since you admit that you have limited intellect, it's probably best not to try and recap up 35 years of history.
Taking out Wright and leaving artificial facility constraints in place at DAL is a contradictory solution.
If you take out Wright, and leave the door open to additional gates for those who want to add service, I don't think you'll find too many people who are against it, including me.
But WN's position wright now is to let them fly anywhere, and not to add any gates for competitor use. WN only wants competition on their terms, which is the wright solution for their shareholders, but I don't know that it does a whole lot for the other parties involved...
I agree with Former ModerAAtor and with AA on this one.
The "Master Plan" was designed with the assumption that the Wrong Amendment ruled the traffic that could be flown at DAL. Fundamental changes to the rules means the Master Plan is no longer.
And I give a rare D+ to Arpey for the childish statements in the various articles late this week on this issue (assuming he was quoted accurately).
Forced to Hub at DAL? Gimmee a break. O & D flights to several key business markets? Yes. Probably the ones mentioned by Former ModerAAtor. Those flights could work where the Legend business plan could not.
The "Master Plan" was designed with the assumption that the Wrong Amendment ruled the traffic that could be flown at DAL. Fundamental changes to the rules means the Master Plan is no longer.
And I give a rare D+ to Arpey for the childish statements in the various articles late this week on this issue (assuming he was quoted accurately).
Forced to Hub at DAL? Gimmee a break. O & D flights to several key business markets? Yes. Probably the ones mentioned by Former ModerAAtor. Those flights could work where the Legend business plan could not.
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 2
I wonder what the city of DALLAS would think if AA started flying non-stops out of Addison Airport? A lot more business people are using Addison over Love for Biz Jets. Addison would be much more convenient than Love for business or even leisure travelers. AA should never have agreed to go to DFW unless Love was closed. Love field should have been shut down permanently in 1975.
coolflyingfool
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,192
- Reaction score
- 1
Why try to have 2 hubs in the same city? I wonder what the logic is behind that. Doesn't SWA only have 16 gates at DAL? People keep saying they have more. I wonder if the city of Fort Worth would take AA to court if AA moved 75 flights from DFW to DAL? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.............
Former ModerAAtor,
My limited intellect can't recall the contract LUV supposedly signed to fly out of DFW or to not fly outside of the WA limits. Congress imposed the Wrong Amendment with legislation--not something to be signed. All I recall is that LUV did not fight the Wrong Amendment in the courts. Could you please produce the contract LUV agreed to concerning DFW/DAL and LUV?
I do agree with the Princess's comment that AA should have required DAL to be closed as part of its agreement to move to DFW. Bad lawyering/management I would guess.
My limited intellect can't recall the contract LUV supposedly signed to fly out of DFW or to not fly outside of the WA limits. Congress imposed the Wrong Amendment with legislation--not something to be signed. All I recall is that LUV did not fight the Wrong Amendment in the courts. Could you please produce the contract LUV agreed to concerning DFW/DAL and LUV?
I do agree with the Princess's comment that AA should have required DAL to be closed as part of its agreement to move to DFW. Bad lawyering/management I would guess.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
bwipilot said:
What you forget is that AA wasn't hubbed in Dallas back in 1971. It was home to our training center, but other than that, it was just a large spoke up until 1979 or so.
There are a dozen or so websites devoted to the Wright Amendment's history. Do a Google search and you'll probably find the documents you're looking for.
The short version is that all carriers operating at DAL at the time DFW signed agreements to vacate DAL. That's the DFW Use Agreement you hear about, and it became a key piece of the covenants used to sell DFW's construction bonds to the financial community.
The catch-22 is that WN wasn't operating at the time those contracts were executed, so they didn't have to sign one. Had Braniff and Texas International (now CO) not been so worried about stopping WN from launching service, they'd have been forced to move to DFW along with everyone else.
November 12, 1968
Dallas and Fort Worth establish a bond agreement to build Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport -
Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance. D/FW Airport Use Agreement: Agreements were obtained from all eight CAB certificated air carriers to move all flights to the new regional airport. Southwest Airlines began its intrastate service, later, and subsequently notified the Airport Board that it would remain at Love Field.
1972
The Regional Airport Board and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth sue Southwest Airlines over their decision to remain at Love Field.
1973
Love Field enplanements peak at 6,668,398. The court grants Southwest Airlines the right to remain and offer intrastate air service at Love Field.
1979
Southwest Airlines begins interstate service to New Orleans, Lousiana. Congress passes the Wright Amendment to the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979. WN lobbied hard against the creation of the Wright Amendment, but accepted it once passed into law
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 2
That's just it Southwest should have been required to sign for those bond covenants also or lose their gates at Love,and/or the city of Dallas should have shut Love field down just like Denver did to Stapleton. The city of Dallas is in my opinion biggest problem in this whole Wright amendment thing. Dallas has in my opinion failed to keep their part of the bargain with Ft.Worth. If I were Ft. Worth, I would sue Dallas for the costs involved in building DFW and the costs of closing Ft. Worth's Great Southwest Airport which used to be just the south of DFW.
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
If I remember correctly, the Wright Amendment does not specifically limit Love Field, but rather any Dallas/Ft Worth metroplex airport that is not DFW. So, without the Wright Amendment, AA could start flying from Addison, as well as Red Bird, Arlington, Grand Prarie, anyplace they want, although some of those places might not be useful for AA.
Wasn't Love Field slated to be turned into a skating rink? AA agreed to move to DFW along with everyone else because the plan was for Love Field to be closed. I don't fault AA for not having a crystal ball to see that Love Field would still be in operation to this day with interstate air service.
Should the Wright Amendment be repealed, while it might not seem to make sense to have significant operations at both airports, AA does not have much choice in the matter if it wishes to be a going concern. If I were AA, I would fly as many flights out of DAL as possible. Flood the place with flights and give Southwest exactly what they want -- competition!
LoneStarMike
Advanced
JS said:
The Wright Amendment ws originally called the Love Field Amendment and it only applies to Love Field and not any other airport in the Metroplex.
And the plan was for Love Field to be closed to commercial traffic, but it was to remain open for general aviation. It was the courts who ruled that as long as Love Field remained opened, Southwest could continue to operate out of there.
Ad btw, Love Field did become an ice skating rink. It was part of an entertainment complex called Llove. I believe it opened in 1975 and closed in May of 1978.
LoneStarMike
Similar threads
