New Legislation To Eradicate Wright/shelby

[JS]

Some folks down here have suggested just that, as if forcing Southwest to DFW was some kind of "plug and play" replacement for Delta's former operation. It's not.

DFW service would be radically different than starting RIC, DAY, or DEN, both in terms of scale (117 flights) and the fact that there are major facilities involved as mentioned in my earlier post.

[post="275668"][/post]​

You mentioned 117 flights, which "coincidentally" is the same number of flights that Southwest now operates at Love Field. Once again, you miss the point I was trying to make. Southwest does not need to operate 117 flights at DFW. They could operate fewer flights or more flights, and all of them can be flights not allowed today at Love Field.

 

[JS]

JS- Why "expand" to a city you already serve if the only reason you cannot serve real markets is b/c your airport is restricted? Without adding any flights, WN could immediately serve LA, Chicago, Flordia, NE, just by eliminating the pointless ticketing restrictions. It is ludicrous to expect them to have to "expand" to their own city. Why doesn't AA have to "expand" back to DAL to serve high-revenue markets?

And DL pulling out of DFW is a definite indicator of how difficult it will be for anyone to penetrate the AA fortress. I don't care how many gates there are...it is a costly and unneccessary venture to have to "expand" to Dallas!!

[post="275670"][/post]​

Delta pulled out of DFW because they are skirting on the edge of bankrupcty, and they are throwing their resources at their home airport of ATL, where AirTran is growing. Southwest is not in this situation.

 

[AirplaneFan]

Delta pulled out of DFW because they are skirting on the edge of bankrupcty, and they are throwing their resources at their home airport of ATL, where AirTran is growing. Southwest is not in this situation.

[post="275698"][/post]​

So you are saying that Delta was at DFW and is now skirting bankruptcy. Why would SW want to go to DFW?

BTW, this is a red herring issue. SW has always been free to go to DFW they have chosen not to go. The Wright Amendment makes as much sense as saying that its okay to restrict flying in Newark because airlines could always move over to JFK. Why is it ever okay to restrict competition/market forces?

 

[air_guy]

So you are saying that Delta was at DFW and is now skirting bankruptcy. Why would SW want to go to DFW?

BTW, this is a red herring issue. SW has always been free to go to DFW they have chosen not to go. The Wright Amendment makes as much sense as saying that its okay to restrict flying in Newark because airlines could always move over to JFK. Why is it ever okay to restrict competition/market forces?

[post="275707"][/post]​

So you would agree that the LUV Master Plan gets revised as well to 50 - 60 gates so every airline that chooses, incluiding American, can fly into Love, right? Otherwise pretending to have 21 out 32 gates sound monopolistic to me.....

 

[JS]

So you are saying that Delta was at DFW and is now skirting bankruptcy. Why would SW want to go to DFW?

BTW, this is a red herring issue. SW has always been free to go to DFW they have chosen not to go. The Wright Amendment makes as much sense as saying that its okay to restrict flying in Newark because airlines could always move over to JFK. Why is it ever okay to restrict competition/market forces?

[post="275707"][/post]​

Delta had been operating a hub at DFW for years. Delta ran into financial problems, and one of the elements of their recovery plan was to close the DFW hub to concentrate their resources on other markets.

No, it's not OK to restrict competition. Southwest is free to fly out of DFW's terminal E any day they want. There are no barriers to entry whatsoever.

 

[OPNLguy]

You mentioned 117 flights, which "coincidentally" is the same number of flights that Southwest now operates at Love Field. Once again, you miss the point I was trying to make. Southwest does not need to operate 117 flights at DFW. They could operate fewer flights or more flights, and all of them can be flights not allowed today at Love Field.

[post="275696"][/post]​

Your point was not missed--I just used today's 117 DAL number as a comparison, since you said starting DFW service wouldn't be any different starting RIC, DEN, or that other one. We sure as heck would start any of those with 117 flights, nor even half that.

My earlier point remains that forcing Southwest to DFW increases Southwest's costs over and above what it experiences at Love. Accordingly, it makes poor business sense to go to DFW, hence why we're not. If Granger, Barton, and Marchant, et. al. want to run Southwest, they should resign from Congress and go apply for the jobs at the HDQ. Until they do, their opinions are nice and all that, but it's still ultimately Southwest's responsibility to make its own business decisions.

 

[JS]

Your point was not missed--I just used today's 117 DAL number as a comparison, since you said starting DFW service wouldn't be any different starting RIC, DEN, or that other one. We sure as heck would start any of those with 117 flights, nor even half that.

My earlier point remains that forcing Southwest to DFW increases Southwest's costs over and above what it experiences at Love. Accordingly, it makes poor business sense to go to DFW, hence why we're not. If Granger, Barton, and Marchant, et. al. want to run Southwest, they should resign from Congress and go apply for the jobs at the HDQ. Until they do, their opinions are nice and all that, but it's still ultimately Southwest's responsibility to make its own business decisions.

[post="275717"][/post]​

OK, so you don't have to start with 117 flights on day 1. Start with 10 like any other new station and build the market from there. Or stay at Love Field and whine, your choice.

 

[KCFlyer]

So you would agree that the LUV Master Plan gets revised as well to 50 - 60 gates so every airline that chooses, incluiding American, can fly into Love, right? Otherwise pretending to have 21 out 32 gates sound monopolistic to me.....

[post="275709"][/post]​

Why would American even want to fly into DAL except for a handful of flights depending solely on O&D traffic? Let them if they have a mssive buildup if they want, but they most likely would stay out of DAL for the same reason SWA wants to stay out of DFW -it would simply cost too much.

 

[air_guy]

OK, so you don't have to start with 117 flights on day 1. Start with 10 like any other new station and build the market from there. Or stay at Love Field and whine, your choice.

[post="275719"][/post]​

WN is using the free market argument over a city planning issue. If a city can not manage how many airports to have, its location and size, because of litigation (preciselly why LUV has not been closed yet) I guess a law is needed. In perfect market conditions this is what should happen.

1) Wright gets repealed.
2) All the airlines that were moved to DFW, incluiding American, request to have some flights to LUV becase is closer to many of its customers.
3) The city takes un -built gates from Southwest and allocate to OAs or get forced to lift the master plan restriction and DAL grows to 50 - 60 gates.
4) DFW has to tear appart terminal E due to lack of usage. All sorounding communities will see their property taxes soar due to reduced airport tax revenue.

Either way WN gets more competition at LUV. They want Wright repealed. Why they don't go all the way and also request the master plan to be revised. That is the most pro-consumer decision. So far all they want is Wright repaled so Southwest can benefit from most of the new flying. That is a called a monopoly.

 

[OPNLguy]

OK, so you don't have to start with 117 flights on day 1. Start with 10 like any other new station and build the market from there. Or stay at Love Field and whine, your choice.

[post="275719"][/post]​

It doesn't make economic sense for Southwest to operate any flights at DFW.

We'll stay at Love, thank you very much...

 

[OPNLguy]

They want Wright repealed. Why they don't go all the way and also request the master plan to be revised. That is the most pro-consumer decision. So far all they want is Wright repaled so Southwest can benefit from most of the new flying. That is a called a monopoly.

[post="275730"][/post]​

It's simply amazing how the pro-Wright contingent continue to parrot "Southwest has a monopoly! Southwest has a monopoly!" without thinking the issue through and telling the full story...

It's absolutely true that Southwest does indeed have 97% of today's traffic at Love. A large part of that is due to the fact that no other airline in their right mind (other than CoEx) wants to come into to Love and have to put up with the inherent restrictions upon where they can fly, and on top of that, having to compete with Southwest's lower cost structure.

What the pro-Wright folks don't want folks to realize is that Southwest's current 97% (PRE-repeal) is not a future value POST-repeal. Common sense and some basic math should indicate that with POST-repeal competition at Love, Southwest's share relative to the total would DECREASE from that 97%. In DFW's study (released 5/10), even it mentioned Southwest with an estimated 201 of 362 daily flights, or 55%. I think the only reasons the pro-Wright folks bleat out 97% at every opportunity is to (1) make Southwest look like some greedy corporate entity that wants it all (we don't), and (2) that the current 97% makes AA's current 75%-80% at DFW seem reasonable by comparison. The Love Master Plan mentions Southwest with 20 of the 32 permissible gates, or 62.5%, so if Southwest was so interested in keeping its "monopoly" why would it be in favor of supporting something that was going to reduce it? Moreover, if the pro-Wright contingent is -so- concerned about monopolies, why aren't they thrilled that Southwest is trying to do something to reduce that 97%.

 

[Ch. 12]

OK, so you don't have to start with 117 flights on day 1. Start with 10 like any other new station and build the market from there. Or stay at Love Field and whine, your choice.

[post="275719"][/post]​

JS-

Are you aware of economies of scale? It would cost even more on a unit basis for WN to operate a few flights out of DFW than it would be for them to operate many, many flights. That is why AA would have the advantage. Same reason why AA pulled out of DAL (oh yeah...also that they ran out of business the only airline that could compete with them in real markets from DAL). It simply is more expensive on a unit basis to operate a handful from an airport. The airlines and consumers would benefit if AA was able to operate their plethora of options from DFW and WN could actually offer something reputable from DAL. Both would have the cheapest unit costs possible.

And why are you so afraid of repealling the WA? I have heard no arguement from ANYONE that makes any logical sense. Forget what WN can do (i.e. move flights and add costs to be attacked by AA at their fortress) and let me know why you are so afraid that this outlived legislation may need to be done away with.

 

[JS]

JS-

Are you aware of economies of scale?  It would cost even more on a unit basis for WN to operate a few flights out of DFW than it would be for them to operate many, many flights.  That is why AA would have the advantage.  Same reason why AA pulled out of DAL (oh yeah...also that they ran out of business the only airline that could compete with them in real markets from DAL).  It simply is more expensive on a unit basis to operate a handful from an airport.  The airlines and consumers would benefit if AA was able to operate their plethora of options from DFW and WN could actually offer something reputable from DAL.  Both would have the cheapest unit costs possible.

I disagree. The cost of operating three flights a day from one gate -- that I would agree is expensive. But Southwest does not open stations with three flights a day. They never open a station unless they can operate 10 flights a day so that the gate is not underutilized and there is enough work to create full-time jobs.

The unit cost reduction in operating something the size of MDW or HOU must be pretty small, or Southwest would be flying solely among MDW, HOU, BWI, PHX and LAS. Southwest flies to lots of places with (on a Southwest scale) few flights such as OMA and MAF.

And why are you so afraid of repealling the WA?  I have heard no arguement from ANYONE that makes any logical sense.  Forget what WN can do (i.e. move flights and add costs to be attacked by AA at their fortress) and let me know why you are so afraid that this outlived legislation may need to be done away with.

[post="275736"][/post]​

The problem, which was recognized by people 50 years ago, is that Love Field cannot handle a large amount of traffic. That's why DFW was built! DFW was built as a very large airport because the intent was to close Love Field to commercial aviation.

When Southwest says they will add, at most, 50 flights if the Wright Amendment is repealed, all I can do is laugh. That is absurd to believe that they will operate 117 short-haul flights and only 50 long-haul flights in their own hometown. Southwest could easily do an average of 10 flights a day to the popular destinations of MCO, TPA, FLL, BWI, MDW, LAS, LAX and OAK, with an average of 3 flights a day to MCI, BNA, MHT, ISP, RDU, IND, OMA, SAN, SNA, BUR, ONT, SJC, SMF, PDX and SEA. That is 125 right there, and 3 flights a day to MCI or BNA is probably too low.

I think what Southwest is planning to do (long term) is operate 100 short-haul flights and 150 long-haul flights. This would require using 25 of the 32 maximum gates, which is 25 of the 26 gates that aren't way over on Lemmon Ave -- the last gate can be shared by Continental Express and AA if they want to fly anything out of Love Field.

That is what I object to -- going backwards and moving activity from wide-open DFW to landlocked Love Field while handing Southwest the keys to Love Field, leaving everyone else with the bill for a half-empty DFW.

 

[Ch. 12]

JS-

Yes...economies of scale do matter if WN were to move 10 flights to DFW, the unit cost would be far greater than 117 at DAL. You speak of gate utilization but there are still fixed costs beyond the gate that carriers are faced with at any new airport. The fact that they arleady serve Dallas make "expansion" into DFW a ridiculous notion.

And your argument against repealling the WA is full of your own assumptions and is not based on fact. In fact, did you know that the consumer can benefit immediately even if WN were to add no flights and change no flight routings? The ticketing restrictions forced by the WA show that its only intention isn't just to spare poor DAL from ending up with too many flights (which, by the way, a master plan can handle in any other facility...why would this be different for DAL?). No...the intention is to limit competition. If your argument is that there should be no more flights at DAL, why can't WN simply sell a through ticket to LAX or MDW?

But no...we shouldn't look to uphold the WA based on your baseless assumptions that seem to be far exaggerated. Just b/c JS says that WN will take all but one useable gate is no reason to uphold. We don't need to have legislation barring any realistic competition from Love Field to ensure that WN doesn't take all the gates...we just need control of the gates to ensure that WN doesn't take all of them.

Read OPNLguy's post on gate utilization and tell me if anyone can compete against AA if they hold 3/4 of all gates at the fortress of DFW? Now you tell me what is fair. And remember...that is based on FACT and your ASSUMPTION is not.

 

[ngneer]

Ch. 12 and OPNLguy, where are you two getting the idea that some people want Southwest to close Love Field and move everything to DFW? That is ludicrous, and no one has suggested it, so stop wasting your time arguing against a nonexistent point of view.

[post="275655"][/post]​

The following is excerpted from an interview with American Airlines CEO Gerard Arpey in the April 1, 2005 edition of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram:

Arpey said it would be better to ban all commercial flights at Love Field. That would force Southwest to move to D/FW, he said and guarantee the larger airport's stability. "That's as much of an option as a full repeal," he said.