What New Routes From Dfw / Post Wright

[HGIEFOswitch]

If Wright is removed, SWA should be forced to give back gates to the original airlines that moved to DFW. If not, than SWA should move some operations to DFW like everybody else did.

 

[jimntx]

Okay, you've said it twice, and your math is still off.

16 gates in main terminal, SWA has 14 for a total of 87.5%
Include the 6 gates in the Legend facility (the master plan does), which American can start service out of tomorrow w/o insisting SWA give anything up, brings SWA's portion to 14/22 = 64%

OOO! I was off by 2.5%! Well, obviously I should never be allowed to quote numbers again! I've got a better idea. Why not have SWA give up half it's gates in the Main Terminal, and SW can begin service tomorrow from the former Legend terminal!

Build the 10 additional gates allowed in the Master Plan and see SWA's total go to 14/32 = 44%

We'll see if the Dallas power brokers (i.e., the people with the money) ever allow those gates to be built. There is a lot of opposition to the Love Field expansion from the people who live near the airport. I grant you that they actually live in Highland Park, TX, but they work in and control the city of Dallas. BTW, a lot of the people who oppose the expansion also donated heavily to GWB. The Feds may find a reason for blocking the expansion as well. Funny how that works.

What did you say American's portion of DFW was??? <_<

There are approximately 150 gates at DFW. ( I know that the highest gate number in A & C is 39, but when you walk the concourses you discover that some of the gate numbers are missing. For instance, there is no Gate 1 in A or C.) American Airlines controls all the gates in A & C and will have 14 gates (IIRC) in the new Terminal D. You can't count any of the American Eagle gates. That's a different airline owned by the same corporation that owns AA. Besides AA can't use the AE gates anymore than they could use SW gates at DAL.

Ok. According to my calculator ( I didn't want to be off by the unconscionable error of 2.5% again by guessing) 74/150 = 49.3333% (is 4 decimal places exact enough for you?). Now I would say that there is a much bigger difference between 49.33% and 87.5% (your number) than between 87.5% and 90%. But, that's just me.

While you're finding that number Jim, can you go ahead and post your source for SWA saying, "They want exclusive use of DAL while everyone else pays the higher landing fees and gate rentals at DFW" I haven't found this anywhere.

[post="282739"][/post]​

Oh yes you have. You found it here on USAviation.com. The source is me. Haven't you noticed that SWA is trumpeting the unfairness to the traveling public of the Wright Amendment and about how competition is good for everyone? Yet, they never seem to go so far as to say that everyone should have an equal chance to compete at DAL--and don't even try to say that everyone else has the chance to compete fairly at DAL if SWA controls 14 of 16 gates. They want everyone else to compete "fairly" from DFW.

The Wright Amendment WAS the compromise that made SWA possible. If you will try to forget the evil empire of AA for just a minute (I'm aware that you believe that AA is responsible for the Wright Amendment, SARS, and heart disease), it was the CITY OF FT. WORTH that was suing to close Love because they said that the city of Dallas had reneged on the agreement that both Alliance and Love would close when DFW opened.

 

[lpbrian]

Alliance? That is a privately operated airport built in the late 80's. I don't see how that figures in.

 

[jimntx]

Alliance? That is a privately operated airport built in the late 80's. I don't see how that figures in.

[post="282833"][/post]​

Sorry, since Alliance is now "the" airport in Ft. Worth I just forgot. The airport that Ft. Worth was supposed to close was Greater Southwest International (nee Amon Carter Field) which was pretty much abandoned anyway by the time that DFW began construction. Ft. Worth had transferred all their commercial traffic from Meacham to GSIA in 1953 to try to compete with Love Field. Didn't work. GSIA and DAL were only 12 miles apart (GSIA was just south of the current DFW).

Main impetus for development of DFW was the fact that by 1961, the FAA refused to invest any more money in separate airports for two cities so close together and DAL was hopelessly congested by then. The agreement to sell bonds and co-develop DFW included a condition that both cities would close their existing airports to commercial traffic.

 

[swflyer]

(I'm aware that you believe that AA is responsible for the Wright Amendment, SARS, and heart disease

[post="282820"][/post]​

Jim, honey, I think your Zoloft perscription has run out. 😀 I mean, re-read your post and ask yourself if you'd want that person on your plane, at altitude??

You got so far into your rant, you talked about power brokers keeping Love closed, and then contradicted yourself saying only Ft. Worth was responsible for Wright (American has no influence over Ft. Worth??) You brought up Alliance instead of GSW. You didn't count Eagle in American's total?? AMR does when bragging about 800 flights/day at DFW.

AND I asked for SWA's quote about keeping everyone else out of Love and you could only quote yourself. I believe Continental is currently operating at Love. Delta, American and Legend have all operated at Love.

EVERYTHING you bring up requires change by Southwest, but not American. Remember, if Wright is repealed, American already has three, count 'em, THREE gates at Love, that it previously tried to sneak under the radar during the Legend period (sneak because it was forbidden in their lease, in case you forgot).

Thanks for saying, earlier that you expect Wright to be repealed. Now how about some real discussion about what this looks like moving forward, w/o all the "The Sky Is Falling" stuff. In '61, the Metroplex only needed one airport. It is now much larger, and like other big cities, can easily support more than one airport.

 

[jimntx]

Jim, honey, I think your Zoloft perscription has run out.  😀  I mean, re-read your post and ask yourself if you'd want that person on your plane, at altitude??

You got so far into your rant, you talked about power brokers keeping Love closed, and then contradicted yourself saying only Ft. Worth was responsible for Wright (American has no influence over Ft. Worth??)  You brought up Alliance instead of GSW.  You didn't count Eagle in American's total??  AMR does when bragging about 800 flights/day at DFW. 

True, but AA can not use any of the AE gates. The question was how many gates does American control at DFW. But, let's not go down that road. Even if you include AE, AMR does not control the same percentage of gates at DFW that SW controls at DAL, or MDW, or BWI, or HOU.

Maybe you need to have an adult re-read my post to you. I did not contradict myself. The Wright Amendment came about as a compromise to mollify Ft. Worth back in the 70's. The Dallas power brokers who live in Highland Park are the ones opposed to the enlarging of Love Field today. There is a time span difference of about 30 years there for those who can read.

AND I asked for SWA's quote about keeping everyone else out of Love and you could only quote yourself.  I believe Continental is currently operating at Love.

Duh! Are you saying that no one but a SWA exec (or you) is capable of independent thought? My statement was based upon reading between the lines. There is a definite omission from SWA's statements in opposition to the Wright Amendment. They never mention a desire for increased competition at DAL--only in the DFW area. There is a small, but telling difference there.

Continental Express operates from DAL and only to IAH with RJ135s and RJ145s. I don't think you could stretch that to "competition" with SWA at DAL--particularly since SWA pulled out of IAH. Gee, do you think they couldn't compete with CoEx?

 

[ngneer]

The Wright Amendment WAS the compromise that made SWA possible. If you will try to forget the evil empire of AA for just a minute (I'm aware that you believe that AA is responsible for the Wright Amendment, SARS, and heart disease), it was the CITY OF FT. WORTH that was suing to close Love because they said that the city of Dallas had reneged on the agreement that both Alliance and Love would close when DFW opened.

[post="282820"][/post]​

What agreement to close Love Field? If you look at Southwest Airlines Company v. Texas International, Inc., you will see that the "agreement" (actually the bond ordinance) called for allowing "continued service at Love Field by commercial air taxis, unscheduled charters, unscheduled cargo planes, and even intrastate planes of the CAB carriers." (Scroll down to Note 7.) You will also see that the "agreement" was illegal because "The Ordinance violated state law by usurping the power of the TAC [Texas Aeronautics Commission]. After construing the TAC certification and order as authorization to serve Love Field specifically, the court held that the cities had no authority to order contrary performance." If you wade through the court decision further, you will see that the courts ruled that the City of Dallas did not have the legal authority to close Love Field, even if it wanted to.

 

[KCFlyer]

In todays Kansas City Star (front page) Missouri Senator Kit Bond has proposed another change to the Wright Amendment to include Missouri as a WA state. That would allow flights from MCI and STL to DAL. Who know....

 

[Ch. 12]

And, when was the last time you saw someone actually pay the walk-up ONE WAY fare? Nobody flying on my AA flights. Hell, the one's I'm working...even the F/C passengers are upgrades or discounted fares.

The reason to fly hub to hub is because one hub offers connections the other does not. If people have to fly to PHX to make a connection from DAL to ???, they probably would just as soon fly down to Houston then connect--which is what they do now. Shorter first leg, don't you know.

Also, I see a definite reduction in either PHX or HOU or both. Having 3 hubs within that close proximity is a non-starter. The longest distance is 2.5 hours and PHX and HOU serve a lot of the same cities non-stop which would also be served non-stop from DAL.

[post="282711"][/post]​

Always a doomsday scenario with you, Jim. First I would like to thank you for posting to this thread and mentioning the "flights that you work for AA" when you have vehemently denied having a vested interest in AA and their maintenance of the WA. We can now see that you are, in fact, swayed by the AA argument and nothing practical.

Back to your doomsday for PHX and HOU...you see, the wonderful thing about WN is that they don't hub just to hub. They hub where there is LOCAL demand. That means they are in PHX b/c there is LOCAL demand...not b/c they just feel like routing all of their a/c through a particular city. They will NOT "greatly reduce" PHX as your end-of-the-world projection states but rather fly to cities from DAL where there is local demand. Would you please quit taking your arguments to extremes and be rational, Mr. AA?

 

[KCFlyer]

And, when was the last time you saw someone actually pay the walk-up ONE WAY fare? Nobody flying on my AA flights. Hell, the one's I'm working...even the F/C passengers are upgrades or discounted fares.

[post="282711"][/post]​

You're right Jim...you didn't see me on your AA flight paying the $870 to fly from MCI to Dallas when my mom had emergency surgery. That's because I two stepped on Southwest for $400. In fairness, when my dad passed away 4 years ago and mom passed away last year, American offered me a breavement fare - refundable and changeable for about $450. But when there isn't any bereavement - just a last minute trip for whatever reason - $870 is a bit steep.

 

[lowfareair]

There are approximately 150 gates at DFW. ( I know that the highest gate number in A & C is 39, but when you walk the concourses you discover that some of the gate numbers are missing. For instance, there is no Gate 1 in A or C.) American Airlines controls all the gates in A & C and will have 14 gates (IIRC) in the new Terminal D. You can't count any of the American Eagle gates. That's a different airline owned by the same corporation that owns AA. Besides AA can't use the AE gates anymore than they could use SW gates at DAL.

Some questions for ya slick:

-Who owns American Eagle?
-What two letter code are all American Eagle flights sold as, and marketed as to pax?
-What is the only company you can buy American Eagle tickets from?
-What company pays American Eagle to operate the flights on a per flight, NOT per pax, basis?
-What company directs American Eagle where to fly with what aircraft and when?

Answers:

AMR Corp
AA
American Airlines
American Airlines
American Airlines

While you may argue that AA can't use AE gates, how many AA flights have been replaced by AE flights over the last ten years? If AA wanted AE to shut down all flights in Dallas tomorrow, it would happen. If AE didn't need gates anymore, they would be transferred to AA.

So let's see here: right now at this very moment, AMR Corp. controls 94 gates out of a current 141, or 67%. Southwest, by regulation of DAL, can only control 21 of the 32 gate maximum at DAL. Right now they only have 14 out of 22, so about the same amount. The Legend Terminal is still available to those who want to start service. With 6 gates, 60 flights a day is feasible.

And lest you forget that AA has 3 gates at Love mothballed, last time I checked. If AA kept service there, those gates would still be open, givnig WN 14 out of 25, or 56% of all gate space there.

 

[IORFA]

IIRC Delta still sells tickets on AE out of LAX, and I think AS does as well. I also think at sometime not that long ago, if not today, someone else sold tickets on AE out of BOS.

 

[jimntx]

Always a doomsday scenario with you, Jim. First I would like to thank you for posting to this thread and mentioning the "flights that you work for AA" when you have vehemently denied having a vested interest in AA and their maintenance of the WA. (emphasis mine) We can now see that you are, in fact, swayed by the AA argument and nothing practical.

[post="282869"][/post]​

It's nice that once your mind is made up, you don't allow yourself to be confused by facts. I dare you to try to find anywhere on this Bulletin Board or its archives where I have denied having a vested interest in AA. FYI, Brainboy, from the first day I joined USAviation over 2 years ago, my signature on all my posts has been as noted below. I fail to see how signing my name as an AA flight attendant constitutes denying a vested interest in AA.

 

[jimntx]

While you may argue that AA can't use AE gates, how many AA flights have been replaced by AE flights over the last ten years? If AA wanted AE to shut down all flights in Dallas tomorrow, it would happen. If AE didn't need gates anymore, they would be transferred to AA.

So let's see here: right now at this very moment, AMR Corp. controls 94 gates out of a current 141, or 67%.

[post="282898"][/post]​

Actually, you're wrong but that's ok. Even if you count the "gates" (aka covered walkways) at the satellite terminal, we don't have 94 gates. Also, it's my understanding that the jetbridges at the gates in Terminal B have been modified for use on the RJs that AE uses. You can't even pull a S80 up to one anymore. By the way, the satellite terminal is being demolished when International flights move to Terminal D.

And lest you forget that AA has 3 gates at Love mothballed, last time I checked. If AA kept service there, those gates would still be open, givnig WN 14 out of 25, or 56% of all gate space there.

Yes, and as many of the SWA cheerleaders have pointed out, it is "illegal" for AA to use those gates for anything other than office space. We "borrowed" gate space from another airline (CO?) to operate the flights competing with Legend. Funny how SWA wants AA to toe the mark on every Love/DFW agreement made in the last 40 years, but wants to overturn the ones they originally agreed to and are a party to.

 

[corl737]

Funny how SWA wants AA to toe the mark on every Love/DFW agreement made in the last 40 years, but wants to overturn the ones they originally agreed to and are a party to.

[post="282916"][/post]​

This is exactly the point. All entities involved should toe the mark precisely in so far as they are engaged in the issue. American Airlines was a signatory party to the agreement to move to DFW as prescribed by the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance. Southwest Airlines was not. (Because of legal challenges to their startup brought by competing airlines, SWA did not begin operartions until after the agreement documents had been completed. Had SWA been permitted to begin as they planned they would probably have been encouraged to move and things would have been a whole lot different.) Thus, SWA is not attempting to back out on a deal.

Contrasting the Bond Ordinance, I have never found any indication that the Wright Amendment is a "sign on the line" type of agreement. Being a federal law mandated through an act of congress and applicable to any and all airlines that desire to conduct operations from Love Field I am virtually certain that not every carrier has a signature attached. In fact, the FAA was required to reissues every airline operating certificate contains a requirement that they operate in accordance with the provisions of the Wright Amendment ... and most of today's airlines weren't even around when that Agreement was enacted!

Southwest has operated by the book since the passage of the Wright Amendment (and subsequent Shelby Amendment) and continues to do so to this day. What is being ignored by the Pro-Wright crowd however, is that it is not only appropriate but expected that as times change and established rules become questionable their continued existence is discussed. Southwest's effort to have this rule changed and modified as appropriate just makes sense in their business model. I would expect AA to do the same thing when it is to their benefit. (Didn't AA lobby successfully in 1986 to get the Washington National Airport perimeter rule increased from 650 to 1,250 miles so they could serve DCA nonstop from DFW? DCA->DFW is 1188 miles!)

The current effort by Southwest to gain support for the repeal of the Wright Amendment is a by-the-book legal effort. There is no attempt by the airline to operate illegally nor sidestep current rules while the process is underway. That doesn't mean they can't be very vocal!

-- C

BTW, if anyone has information indicating that the Wright Amendment was in fact a signed document I'd sure like to learn about it. It still doesn't mean squat regarding SWA's repeal efforts since, as I said before, times have changed and questioning existing rules is an essential part of running a successful business.

(edited to correct DCA perimeter rule change date and original mileage. Sometimes I have to go back and look these things up to refresh the brain!)