Aa Will Hub Dal If Wa Overturned

[Bob Owens]

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

[post="250493"][/post]​

Here in NY we have LGA, JFK and EWR. All really serve the metro NY area. In addition to that we have ISP, Stewart and a few others that handle commercial traffic as well. The only limitations that I know of out of the three majors are no International flights, except to Canada,and weight restrictions in to LGA-due to no customs facilities and the short runway.

If Dallas has the volume of traffic to support two airports then why stifle growth with laws that are really nothing more than corporate welfare? The move to DFW was made over 20 years ago. Is Dallas a bigger city now than it was then? Would AA really want SWA to move their entire DAL operation into DFW? If so then shouldnt SWA be awarded the same finincial incentives to do so that AA got twenty years ago?

The fact is that both sides are simply looking out for what is best for them, ultimately the decision should rest on what is best for the citizens of Dallas.

 

[JS]

Here in NY we have LGA, JFK and EWR. All really serve the metro NY area. In addition to that we have ISP, Stewart and a few others that handle commercial traffic as well. The only limitations that I know of out of the three majors are no International flights, except to Canada,and weight restrictions in to LGA-due to no customs facilities and the short runway.

If Dallas has the volume of traffic to support two airports then why stifle growth with laws that are really nothing more than corporate welfare?

I don't know about that. Plenty of cities have just one airport, such as Atlanta, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver and Las Vegas. DFW has one empty terminal now and is finishing the addition of another.

The move to DFW was made over 20 years ago. Is Dallas a bigger city now than it was then? Would AA really want SWA to move their entire DAL operation into DFW?

Everyone knows that Southwest would not move their entire DAL operation into DFW. There is nothing wrong with operating flights from both airports. Most of the major airlines operate flights at both LGA and JFK (plus EWR), and even JetBlue now flies from both LGA and JFK.

If so then shouldnt SWA be awarded the same finincial incentives to do so that AA got twenty years ago?

Quite the opposite -- Southwest can get free rent at DFW today, something that I'm pretty sure AA did not get 35 years ago. There were no financial incentives to move to DFW. It was more like a shotgun wedding.

The fact is that both sides are simply looking out for what is best for them, ultimately the decision should rest on what is best for the citizens of Dallas.

[post="250506"][/post]​

I agree, and giving Southwest an unrestricted monopoly is not best for airline passengers. Either giving Southwest the option to move to DFW under current law, or releasing ALL restrictions on Love Field -- the bond agreements, the 32 DAL gate limit, everything -- would be best for customers.

Southwest is banking on keeping their DAL monopoly (well, almost, since there are a handful of CO Express flights) but without the flight restrictions. Maybe they will get their way, and maybe it will backfire and DAL will be opened up to other carriers.

 

[mweiss]

Plenty of cities have just one airport, such as Atlanta, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver and Las Vegas.

The Seattle metropolitan area (from Tacoma to Everett) may have a higher per-capita concentration of jet-capable runways than any other region of the country. There's SeaTac, Boeing Field, Renton, and Everett. Of course, there's also a good reason for that. 😉 But in fact WN did consider flying out of BFI, and chose not to. If someone wants to start offering commercial service from BFI or PAI, they're welcome to. In fact, one of the considerations for air and ground traffic reduction around Seattle has been to offload some traffic to PAI. Moreover, Puget Sound has a smaller population than the Metroplex and is not well positioned geographically as a domestic hub.

But is your point that the Metroplex doesn't need two airports? I doubt anyone here is claiming that it does. For that matter, NYC doesn't need three of them.

Either giving Southwest the option to move to DFW under current law, or releasing ALL restrictions on Love Field -- the bond agreements, the 32 DAL gate limit, everything -- would be best for customers.

There are reasons to maintain restrictions on the number of gates. DAL doesn't have the physical capacity to handle more than about 60 movements per hour. 32 gates, plus GA, comes perilously close to maxing out the airport's capacity. Why build gates that the runways can't support? It's just a recipe for gridlock. I'm fine with dumping the rest, though.

 

[LoneStarMike]

Quite the opposite -- Southwest can get free rent at DFW today,

[post="250516"][/post]​

About that "free" rent. In order to qualify, Southwest would have to lease a minimum of 10 gates and would have to be up to 80 departures per day by 3Q 2006. Since when have they ever grown that fast at a new station? To date PHL has been Southwest's fastest growing city and a year after inaugurating service they'll only be up to 45 departures per day. They'd have to grow twice as fast at DFW to even qualify for the minimum amount of incentives DFW is offering.

Also, DFW is a residual airport, which means the airlines are ultimately responsible for any and all debts. Conversely, these airlines also receive a refund at the end of the fiscal year if DFW's revenues exceed its expenses.

For the past several years, DFW has indeed issued a refund to it's carriers. I think that will soon change, though. So what good is "free" rent, when there is a very good possibility the airport will turn around and bill you at the end of the year because they went over budget?

Southwest doesn*t interline with other carriers and they wouldn't have gates in multiple terminals, so of what use is a state-of-the-art people mover system to them? Southwest doesn't offer international flights, so of what use would the new international terminal be to them?

Why should Southwest move to a more expensive airport further away from their core base of travelers, undertake a rapid expansion and increase their costs of doing business all so they can help pay for airport improvements that primarily serve to benefit their main competitor in the Metroplex -- and are of NO benefit to Southwest -- at an airport that has sued Southwest Airlines multiple times throughout its existence?

LoneStarMike

 

[JS]

But is your point that the Metroplex doesn't need two airports? I doubt anyone here is claiming that it does. For that matter, NYC doesn't need three of them.

The Metroplex cannot fill two airports with the amount of capacity the two airports have. DFW is a huge airport, and while DAL is smaller than DFW, it's no Arlington Municipal, either. It's a decent size airport but not large enough to support the entire Metroplex on its own (hence the creation of DFW).

Imagine if the original purpose of DFW had been reality, namely O&D only. DFW would be half empty instead of 1/4 empty. Even with AA's significant hub operation, there just isn't the traffic to fill up both DFW and DAL. Just my opinion of course.

Let's get real, NYC needs three airports because there are a bazillion people who live there and fly out and another bazillion people who fly there for business or leisure. If Bush succeeds in bankrupting Amtrak, there will be even more people flying out of NYC.

There are reasons to maintain restrictions on the number of gates. DAL doesn't have the physical capacity to handle more than about 60 movements per hour. 32 gates, plus GA, comes perilously close to maxing out the airport's capacity. Why build gates that the runways can't support? It's just a recipe for gridlock. I'm fine with dumping the rest, though.

[post="250542"][/post]​

One flight per hour would be very aggressive, so the 32 gates represents only half the airport's runway capacity. Some of the GA flights can use runway 4/22 (I think that's the crosswind runway).

LGA has two runways that intersect, and while I don't know how many gates there are, I'm sure it's more than 32.

If I had to guess, I would say that 60 gates would fit (assuming they aren't all used by Southwest with 20 minute turns 18 hours a day).

The question then becomes -- what happens to DFW if DAL is sending out one commercial flight every 90 seconds? That was the purpose of the Wright Amendment, and there is a risk that DFW will default on its bonds if it sits half empty all day.

 

[mweiss]

...there just isn't the traffic to fill up both DFW and DAL.

And they both have to be filled up because...?

One flight per hour would be very aggressive

For whom? WN can do two flights in an hour from one gate without breaking a sweat. If they really push it, they can just fit three.

Some of the GA flights can use runway 4/22 (I think that's the crosswind runway).

When they do, it increases the spacing on the other two runways, reducing their capacity. Trust me, 60 is pretty much as good as it gets there.

LGA has two runways that intersect, and while I don't know how many gates there are, it's a lot more than 32.

Exactly my point. Ever see the taxi delays there? Is that something you suggest DAL should encourage?

 

[JS]

About that "free" rent. In order to qualify, Southwest would have to lease a minimum of 10 gates and would have to be up to 80 departures per day by 3Q 2006. Since when have they ever grown that fast at a new station? To date PHL has been Southwest's fastest growing city and a year after inaugurating service they'll only be up to 45 departures per day. They'd have to grow twice as fast at DFW to even qualify for the minimum amount of incentives DFW is offering.

That was DFW's offer. Negotiate.

Also, DFW is a residual airport, which means the airlines are ultimately responsible for any and all debts. Conversely, these airlines also receive a refund at the end of the fiscal year if DFW's revenues exceed its expenses.

For the past several years, DFW has indeed issued a refund to it's carriers. I think that will soon change, though. So what good is "free" rent, when there is a very good possibility the airport will turn around and bill you at the end of the year because they went over budget?

Isn't that less likely to occur if there are more landings and more passengers paying PFC's, airport snacks, parking, rental cars, etc.?

Southwest doesn*t interline with other carriers and they wouldn't have gates in multiple terminals, so of what use is a state-of-the-art people mover system to them? Southwest doesn't offer international flights, so of what use would the new international terminal be to them?

So what? Southwest flies to a lot of airports offering connection and international facilities that Southwest doesn't need.

Why should Southwest move to a more expensive airport further away from their core base of travelers, undertake a rapid expansion and increase their costs of doing business all so they can help pay for airport improvements that primarily serve to benefit their main competitor in the Metroplex -- and are of NO benefit to Southwest -- at an airport that has sued Southwest Airlines multiple times throughout its existence?

LoneStarMike

[post="250545"][/post]​

DFW airport improvements benefit everyone using DFW, not just AA.

About the lawsuits, well that's business. Don't take it personally and go off the deep end like Independence Air and burn your bridges; you might be sorry.