'wrong' Amendment Back In The News

[JS]

JS...you blatantly lie or are grossly misinformed. Whichever it is, you should know that WN has no priveleges at DAL that AA does not. The "agreement" restricted DAL for ALL carriers and ANY carrier can serve DAL. I'm not asking you to go back very far to see that AA has served DAL in recent history.

And what kind of argument is it to say that "letting Southwest fly anywhere...out of Love Field would be unfair to AA"?!?! That is exactly the point and you demonstrated right there the intention of the WA (not original, but current).

And protect DFW?? DFW is the 5th largest metro area in the US...ahead of MIA-FLL (no restrictions on alternate airports), DCA-IAD (practical restrictiions...meaning that the perimeter contains REAL markets...not BHM/MCI equivalents), HOU-IAH (no restrictions), DTW/DET (no restrictions), and BOS/MHT/PVD (no restrictions). DFW is even larger than SFO-OAK which...once again...has no restrictions.

The numbers speak volumes and the 5th largest metro area should be able to allow free competition among its two airports when #6, 7, 8, 9, 10... have free or reasonable competition.

Again...tell me a non-protectionist reason on why the WA exists? If the #5 metro area in the US cannot support free competition, we are in trouble. AA is benefiting greatly from regulated competition...but what is new?

[post="229010"][/post]​

MIA and FLL is the closest analogy, at 21 miles distance. Lucky for them, there is no need to restrict MIA or FLL. IAH and HOU are 24 miles apart and on opposite sides of downtown Houston.

SFO and OAK are separated by a bay, and BOS-MHT and BOS-PVD are each more than 40 miles apart. You may as well compare CRP and HRL.

The fact of the matter is that, as pointed out earlier in this thread, DAL is *the* preferred airport of the D/FW Metroplex. They are only 11 miles apart and DFW is more convenient for almost no one.

Without the Wright Amendment, DFW will become a taxpayer liability.

 

[KCFlyer]

The fact of the matter is that, as pointed out earlier in this thread, DAL is *the* preferred airport of the D/FW Metroplex. They are only 11 miles apart and DFW is more convenient for almost no one.

[post="229064"][/post]​

Pure bullsh*t. When was the last time you were in Dallas? Have you seen the growth...both residential and corporate in places like Las Colinas, Freeport, Valley Ranch, and north and west of the Dallas area? DAL is more convenient to downtown Dallas - but they are both just as convenient to a big corporate park (Las Colinas). Hell...DFW ABUTS Las Colinas. The "convenience" argument is lame....I beleive I pointed out that the "metroplex" has over a half million MORE people where DFW is far more convenient. And....unlike Manhattan....not everybody in that area works in downtown Dallas.

 

[LoneStarMike]

Could this be a possible solution?

As everyone knows by now,

Southwest seeks control of ATA

As I was reading the article, this section kind of jumped out at me

Southwest's offer for six ATA gates at Midway startled industry analysts because it included a code-share provision -- for only the second time in Southwest's history.

This would allow ATA to sell Southwest tickets to travelers who use both airlines on one trip, such as a passenger going to Indianapolis from Fort Worth, Texas, flying the first leg on Southwest and changing at Midway to an ATA flight.

"This is part of a defensive move" by Southwest, Field said, noting Southwest is offering the arrangement on fewer than 10 routes out of Midway. "They saw it as the only way to match what AirTran was offering" in code-sharing.

Anyway, I can't seem to get past that code sharing example that was used in the indystar article. It specifically stated:

This would allow ATA to sell Southwest tickets to travelers who use both airlines on one trip, such as a passenger going to Indianapolis from Fort Worth, Texas, flying the first leg on Southwest and changing at Midway to an ATA flight.

At first, I assumed they had it backwards. I assumed that the DFW - MDW leg would be on ATA, not Southwest (because Southwest doesn't fly DFW- MDW), and that the second MDW - IND leg would be on Southwest not ATA.

But now I'm starting to wonder if that example might have been a clue as to Southwest's plans.

There's been lots of screaming from Fort Worth and AA about why can't Southwest come to DFW and offer some low fare competition. "DFW airport needs the revenue. We have all those empty Delta gates."

They are trying to paint Southwest as the villain, saying that Southwest is looking out for its own best interests rather than that of the entire region at large (which I don't blame Southwest for doing -- after all their first responsibility is to their shareholders, not the City of Fort Worth or DFW)

So what if Southwest were to say "Fine, you want us to come to DFW, we'll come to DFW. Give us 4 gates." That would be enough for 40 daily departures.

Now initially, they would probably concentrate on DFW - MDW flights. The way I understand it is that if ATA operates the DFW-MDW flights, then once Southwest customers got to MDW, they'd only be able to connect to other cities that Southwest serves out of MDW. They wouldn't be able to connect to other ATA flights that served cities not currently in Southwest's system.

Well, actually they would be able to, but it wouldn't benefit Southwest as both flights would be on ATA so I don't see where Southwest would get any revenue out of that.

But if Southwest flew DFW - MDW themselves, then passengers could still connect to other cities that Southwest serves out of MDW. That would be just a Southwest to Southwest connection. But they could now ALSO connect DFW fliers to the other destinations out of MDW that ATA flies to but Southwest does not with the codesahre agreement.

Not only would it open DFW up to places like BWI, Chicago Midway, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Hartford, Manchester, Providence, and other cities currently in Southwest's system, but because of the codeshare agreement, It could also add additional destinations like Boston, La Guardia, Washington -- places Southwest doesn't fly to itself, but ones that are served by ATA. Not only would Dallas and Fort Worth benefit, so would Southwest customers in other cities as long as the connection was made in MDW.

Talk about puttin' a hurt on AA and the other legacy carriers. And then, as long as Southwest was at DFW, they could later add more nonstops to places like Kansas City, Nashville, Phoenix, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Tampa, Orlando, etc. -- places which wouldn't be logically served via a connection in Chicago.

So is this idea too farfetched? It seems like it would take care of a lot of things. It would get Southwest the gates it wants at MDW and would help to keep AirTran out of MDW. If Southwest and ATA were partners at MDW, ATA could fill in at the extra gate space for now, and Southwest could then focus it's expansion towards other areas, like HOU, BWI, ISP and other airports where new gates have been or will be completed.

Although it might not be in the best interests of the North Texas region at large, speaking from a Southwest business perpective, It would help keep AirTran in check at DFW, and it might be enough of a threat to deter others (like jetBlue) from coming into DFW.

It could also potentially add 9 new destinations to the ENTIRE Southwest system via the codeshare agreement with ATA.

And it would FINALLY provide low fare service to all the residents of North Texas and maybe Fort Worth and AA and Southwest and Dallas and DFW would stop all this bickering and whining all the time. Hopefully the lower fares would stimlate more demand and with more flyers, DFW would begin to see increased revenues from landing fees, parking, gate rentals, concessions, etc.

It seems like it could be a win/win situation for everyone involved. (except maybe for American Airlines, who would now have to compete in price on more routes.) And actually, since Southwest doesn't have assigned seating or first class or VIP clubs or offer international service, while AA does, AA might be able to justifiably charge a small premium for these services and the individual customer could make the decision as to whether or not the higher price was worth the extra value.

Then, if there was a large jump in passengers at DFW (and there should be -- that's what always happens when Southwest enters a high priced market) then perhaps the Wright Amendment could finally be repealed.

I think Southwest's codeshare opportunity with ATA (if their bid is approved) would provide Southwest the means to achieve a bigger return on their investment should they decide to begin serving DFW, whereas if they try to do it without ATA's help, I don't think they'd be as successful.

Look at it this way. Dallas and Fort Worth both have a joint interest in DFW, and then Fort Worth has it's airports (Meacham and Alliance) and Dallas has Love Field. Since Dallas has the larger population, why can't Love Field be more concentrated on serving passengers? Since Fort Wort has the better cargo facility at Alliance, they can remain the premier cargo airport for the region.

As Fort Worth grows, additional commercial flights could be added at either Alliance or Meacham or both as determined by the DFW Airport Board.

For those dreaming of long haul service out of Meacham or Alliance, while I wish you the best of luck, it will never ever happen until the Wright Amendment is repealed. Although the Wright Amendment doesn't place any restrictions on passenger service at either Meacham or Alliance, the 1968 Bond Ordinance does.

If you think for one minute that Dallas would allow long haul commercial passenger service at Meacham/Alliance, while Dallas remains boxed in at Love Field, you can guess again. Dallas may have let Fort Worth get away with building Alliance, but I'm sure that if Fort Worth tried to get long haul passenger service at its secondary airports, Dallas would insist upon the matter being voted upon by the DFW Board and I don't think it would pass unless the Wright Amendment was gone.

If Southwest is going to take the risk with the codeshare ageement they might as well get the most bang for the buck and they could do that if they (WN) operated the DFW - MDW flights themselves, rather than ATA.

Here's an additional option to the one mentioned. Suppose Ft. Worth and AA agreed to quit opposing the Wright Amendment and it was repealed. And suppose Southwest pledged to add one flight at DFW for every 4 flights it operated at Love Field. If Southwest went back up to 140 departures per day at Love Field, they'd also be required to operate 35 daily departures from DFW. The bigger they got at Love Field, the more flights they'd have to start at DFW.

Now I'm not saying that Southwest would agree to this or if it would even be possible from a legal standpoint, but if they did, would this be enough to satisfy Fort Worth on this issue?

What does everyone else think?

LoneStarMike

 

[jimntx]

The ONLY reason SWA is offering the "codeshare" with ATA is because they want those gates at MDW. SWA is betting that before too much longer there won't be an ATA to codeshare with.

The lessor for ATA's a/c has found a better deal for the a/c in Asia (IIRC). Judging from his past history, I don't see Mickelson(sp?) (ATA's founder and CEO) giving up control of "his" airline. My guess is that he would rather see it pass into the pages of history. From what I can tell from the news/rumors I get from friends who work at ATA, Mickelson wants to pull back ATA to the charter business he started in. He would be able to get rid of over half his pilots and f/as.

 

[ngneer]

Interesting idea, but Gary Kelley recently stated, rather vehemently, that SWA has no interest in serving DFW, so I don't think it's going to happen. However, through their proposed ATA codeshare, SWA could gain passenger feed into their system from ATA's DFW-MDW flights, thereby tapping into DFW without actually serving the airport. SWA would continue to insulate themselves from the higher operating costs of DFW, yet pick up DFW traffic. That, plus the other benefits already mentioned of expanding at MDW while limiting AirTran's growth, sounds like a smart plan to me. I believe your original thought, that the newspaper article had it backwards, is correct.

As also mentioned, ATA could go away entirely, in which case the proposed codeshare doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[jimntx]

Maybe I'm different from most folks, but if DFW was closer to me than DAL, I don't think my thought processes would include the idea that "I can fly SWA to BWI/PVD/OAK/fill in the blank. All I have to do is fly to MDW first on a 737 that has 176 seats crammed onto it."

It's not that hard to get to DAL from almost anywhere in the greater DFW area. And, the connecting flight to HOU is only 45 minutes instead of 2 hours. It's all on the same airline and SW has HOU running like a clock.

 

[JS]

Pure bullsh*t. When was the last time you were in Dallas? Have you seen the growth...both residential and corporate in places like Las Colinas, Freeport, Valley Ranch, and north and west of the Dallas area? DAL is more convenient to downtown Dallas - but they are both just as convenient to a big corporate park (Las Colinas). Hell...DFW ABUTS Las Colinas. The "convenience" argument is lame....I beleive I pointed out that the "metroplex" has over a half million MORE people where DFW is far more convenient. And....unlike Manhattan....not everybody in that area works in downtown Dallas.

[post="229074"][/post]​

I used to live there! I lived in Dallas, Arlington, and North Richland Hills. DFW may be closer for many people, but is it more convenient? Hardly. DFW is OK if you're flying Delta (only six weeks left) or some airline out of terminal B, but on AA, you never know which terminal you're going to return to, and the place is really busy (no surprise, most large airports are busy).

Love Field is a lot more convenient to use, which is why Southwest has a larger market share than AA on the overlapping routes. Repeal the Wright Amendment, and much of the crowds of DFW will migrate over to Love Field, rendering Love Field a not-so-convenient, congested airport that can't handle the traffic.

 

[swflyer]

Emphasis added in quote

I USED to live there! I lived in Dallas, Arlington, and North Richland Hills. DFW may be closer for many people, but is it more convenient? Hardly. DFW is OK if you're flying Delta (only six weeks left) or some airline out of terminal B, but on AA, you never know which terminal you're going to return to, and the place is really busy (no surprise, most large airports are busy).

JS, are you kidding w/this??? <_< You can always get gate info for your American flight on AA.com. Going to ANY airport w/o having an idea of where you're going is only for the truly uninitiated. Yes, gates can change, and SWA currently doesn't provide gate info on the website (Res DOES frequently have the info), but you specifically mentioned American and DFW.

Love Field is a lot more convenient to use, which is why Southwest has a larger market share than AA on the overlapping routes. Repeal the Wright Amendment, and much of the crowds of DFW will migrate over to Love Field, rendering Love Field a not-so-convenient, congested airport that can't handle the traffic.

[post="229105"][/post]​

This totally ignores the previous post about the Love Field plan being restricted to 32 gates, hardly the Chicken Little, "The Sky Is Falling" scenario you've posted, repeatedly, since this thread began. But thanks for caring about SWA and Love Field's welfare

 

[LoneStarMike]

Emphasis added in quote
JS, are you kidding w/this??? <_< You can always get gate info for your American flight on AA.com. Going to ANY airport w/o having an idea of where you're going is only for the truly uninitiated. Yes, gates can change, and SWA currently doesn't provide gate info on the website (Res DOES frequently have the info), but you specifically mentioned American and DFW.

[post="229159"][/post]​

I think you missed his point. Yes, you can get gate info on AA.com on the day of departure, but if you're flying back to DFW a week later, you don't have any guarantee that you'll be returning to the same gate (or one nearby).

This is a common complaint from folks who drive to DFW to catch their flights and leave their cars at the airport. what happens is they park over at Terminal A near Gate 3 because that's where their flight is departing from, and then a week later they end up returning to Gate C 21 -- nowhere near where they left their car.

Then they have to claim their baggage and ride a train to get back to their cars. It wastes a lot of time.

LoneStarMike

 

[swflyer]

Ah, thanks for clarifying Mike.

 

[KCFlyer]

Then they have to claim their baggage and ride a train to get back to their cars. It wastes a lot of time.

LoneStarMike

[post="229177"][/post]​

Hence the justification of the Wright Amendment...for one traveling at the last minute from Kansas City to Dallas, you either pay $872 and hassle with the parking at DFW, or pay $400 and lay over in Tulsa for an hour.

 

[jimntx]

This is a common complaint from folks who drive to DFW to catch their flights and leave their cars at the airport. what happens is they park over at Terminal A near Gate 3 because that's where their flight is departing from, and then a week later they end up returning to Gate C 21 -- nowhere near where they left their car.

Then they have to claim their baggage and ride a train to get back to their cars. It wastes a lot of time.

LoneStarMike

[post="229177"][/post]​

If they can afford to park at the terminal for a week at $16/day, why don't they just have the chauffeur ride the train over and drive it back to C21 while they are waiting for the luggage?

Puhleeze, to expect to come back to the same terminal that you departed from in an airport the size of DFW??? Boo-frickin-hoo. The train is down an escalator from the baggage claim, runs every 2 minutes, and takes about 3 minutes tops from one terminal to the next.

 

[Ch. 12]

I used to live there! I lived in Dallas, Arlington, and North Richland Hills. DFW may be closer for many people, but is it more convenient? Hardly. DFW is OK if you're flying Delta (only six weeks left) or some airline out of terminal B, but on AA, you never know which terminal you're going to return to, and the place is really busy (no surprise, most large airports are busy).

[post="229105"][/post]​

Convenience is measured by the distance of the airport from your home/destination...not the distance of the gate to the car. I would rather take the train for a 10 minute ride to another terminal than drive the extra 1/2 hour+ to my place in Southlake.

Weak argument again.

Perhaps you should just say..."don't let other carriers effectively compete against AA". In fact...I wonder what AA would look like today if it weren't for 30 years of fortress hub protection. Had it not been for the WA, Braniff may not have been the only Dallas carrier to be extinct today. Look at DL vs. FL and the shape that DL is in now. But at the same time, the customers are benefitting and FL is turning profits.

But again...we need to protect DFW b/c it is such a new, feable airport. And in such a small market (can you believe that 4 whole other markets are bigger)?!

 

[JS]

This totally ignores the previous post about the Love Field plan being restricted to 32 gates, hardly the Chicken Little, "The Sky Is Falling" scenario you've posted, repeatedly, since this thread began. But thanks for caring about SWA and Love Field's welfare

[post="229159"][/post]​

I have been operating under the assumption that if the Wright Amendment were to be repealed, so would the 32-gate limit. They are basically dealing with the same issue, are they not?

 

[JS]

Convenience is measured by the distance of the airport from your home/destination...not the distance of the gate to the car. I would rather take the train for a 10 minute ride to another terminal than drive the extra 1/2 hour+ to my place in Southlake.

Weak argument again.

Perhaps you should just say..."don't let other carriers effectively compete against AA". In fact...I wonder what AA would look like today if it weren't for 30 years of fortress hub protection. Had it not been for the WA, Braniff may not have been the only Dallas carrier to be extinct today. Look at DL vs. FL and the shape that DL is in now. But at the same time, the customers are benefitting and FL is turning profits.

But again...we need to protect DFW b/c it is such a new, feable airport. And in such a small market (can you believe that 4 whole other markets are bigger)?!

[post="229245"][/post]​

I never said that other carriers should not be allowed to compete against AA. For the 50th time, fly out of DFW and you can compete with AA all you like!

Had it not been for the WA, I don't think DFW would still be here today. It would be airport #2 to be mothballed between Dallas and Ft Worth, and I doubt the feds would want to give it a third try.

Result? LGA-like congestion with no JFK-like alternative, thousands of jobs that wouldn't exist, but on the bright side, some really cheap homes 20 miles northeast of Dallas no different than Denton or Mesquite.