Branson wants to try and sway Dallas for DAL gates

[eolesen]

Is WN's practice only to publish schedules ONLY FIVE months in advance?

Yep. Anyone who has followed WN for longer than a few months would know that already...

It started out as a limitation of their archaic PSS, and they've chosen to hold onto the practice (even though Amadeus gives them the ability to publish 11 months out). They see it as advantage in that they don't tip their hand quite as early as other airlines seem to.

"Dates subject to change" is an escape clause in case they need to hold off a day or three for unforseen reasons.

 

[WorldTraveler]

so, when was last year's fall schedule loaded? and the year before?

I certainly haven't memorized WN's schedule release schedule but less than 5 months before departure seems to me to be less than usual but perhaps you can share details that would show otherwise.

BTW, every other legacy airline CRS/GDS loads schedules 11 months out +/- a week or two.

 

[eolesen]

As a guideline, the minimum they'll have available for sale is 120 days, the maximum is between 180 and 200 days. Sometimes they slip by a week or two.

October-March is released for sale in mid-May, and March-October is released in mid-November.

From a efficiency standpoint, it works well for them. They don't get caught up in a lot of schedule change processing that other airlines do.

When airlines have a 300+ day booking window, they'll average one change every 45 days for bookings that are more than 60 days out. On a booking 300 days out, that's 5 schedule changes that need to be processed. Not all airlines work changes outside of 100 days, but many do, particularly during peak travel days.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Isn't the issue that WN doesn't have schedule reaccommodation functionality which most airlines have?

I believe the real issue is that WN can't decide what to do with its schedule because it doesn't know how many flights will have at DAL.

Not only does WN not pull back flights like other airlines do but it appears that WN also doesn't add flights where demand might exist.

And as much as you would like to argue otherwise, WN still is avoiding committing to a schedule as long as it doesn't know its competition.

Further, the argument that WN doesn't have to accommodate other carriers is completely a moot point because other carriers filed their schedules before WN did.

It would be very hard for WN to argue legally that they can avoid accommodation when they didn't have a published schedule and then saw the schedules for other carriers.

I still think that this whole decision regarding what will happen at DAL is a whole lot more complicated and a lot more than just a VX vs WN issue like a lot of people think it is..

 

[eolesen]

Isn't the issue that WN doesn't have schedule reaccommodation functionality which most airlines have?

No, Skippy. They do have some automated reacc capability, and Sabre also plugged their reissue functionality into WN's e-ticket server.
 

I believe the real issue is that WN can't decide what to do with its schedule because it doesn't know how many flights will have at DAL.

And as much as you would like to argue otherwise, WN still is avoiding committing to a schedule as long as it doesn't know its competition.

It's hardly unusual to have shorter booking windows, even in North America. NK only has 9 months of availability, B6 does 9 months, Ryanair has 10 months, and AS & VX have 11 months (which is the defacto standard for large high-cost carriers).

The trend is there long before there was any dispute over gates at DAL... They've done May-October window openings since 2010.
 
May 19, 2014 (planned)

 October 14, 2013
 May 6, 2013

 October 22, 2012
 June 4, 2012

 October 3, 2011
 May 24, 2011

 October 7, 2010
 June 15, 2010

 October 13, 2009
 June 23, 2009
 
 
 
 

Further, the argument that WN doesn't have to accommodate other carriers is completely a moot point because other carriers filed their schedules before WN did.

It would be very hard for WN to argue legally that they can avoid accommodation when they didn't have a published schedule and then saw the schedules for other carriers.

Yeah, that just sounds like a lot of you projecting your bias into the reality of the situation.

Just because DL and VX chose to tip their hand, WN's not under any obligation to publish their schedule.

How far in advance an airline publishes its schedules and fares is a business decision left to each airline. You love to quote the Airline Deregulation Act, so I'm sure you're more than aware it would be a violation to place such a requirement on airlines.
 
 
a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.
 
 
 

Further, WN doesn't need to "legally argue" anything. Their lease *and* the Scarce Resource Provision clearly state that in the event of a conflict between a carrier requesting accommodation, and a Lessee, the Lessee's right to use their Terminal Lease Area won't be infringed.

If asked, I'm sure they'd provide a planned schedule to the City under a NDA to review.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Except there is no conflict based on their current schedule. they could host a buffet breakfast and tea from 2-4 using their present schedule.

It really doesn't matter as far as the number of gates whether WN shows its schedule now or not. They're not getting access to any more gates. You and swamt can take that to the bank. just don't fight among yourselves as to whose account the check goes into. I'm only writing it once.

you're sure about that NDA?

 

[swamt]

C'mon E, are you really gonna keep going with him?   He still thinks SWA is afraid of compatition and this is why SWA has not posted a schedule yet.  Little does he know SWA will not sell tickets for something they have "no idea if they will have"  on a whim, like Delta and VA both did.   Typical of him to say the least though.  And BTW, 5-14-14 will be exactly 5 months from W/A going away, not today as he posted,  hehe,  have a good one and thx for keeping him company this weekend...

 

[WorldTraveler]

the difference is that DL and Virgin both have services already from DAL or DFW operating nonstop right now; DL has a full network over which they could reroute traffic if they did not get the ability to add the flights the don't want.

WN does not have the same capabilities or willingness to reaccommodate bookings that other carriers have as part of the usual schedule change process.

While Oct is not a strong period for leisure bookings, WN is not accepting bookings ANYWHERE on its system right now and, if they wait for resolution on what they have or don't have regarding Wright in order to publish a schedule, it will have an effect on the rest of their system.

Further, even if this is not a route case under which a carrier has to prove the best use of the DAL gates - and WN has indeed done the same thing without selling seats - by showing the cities that would be served, it becomes highly questionable legally for WN to argue that they can't accommodate other carriers under DAL's lease agreement when WN is NOT using its assets to the point that they couldn't accommodate other carriers and yet now knows the markets and proposed schedules for other carriers.

As much as you or anyone else wants to argue otherwise, WN is in a position to further concentrate its market power in N. Texas and at DAL to the exclusion of other carriers and arguing that they are exempt from having to participate in an agreement they signed simply won't work. There is nothing in any of DAL's airline accommodation requirements or in any other US airport accommodation requirement that ties access to an airport for one airline to what exists at another airport, including in the same region.

DOJ's attempt to call DAL and DFW a single market in order to increase access for low cost carriers at one airport or another and exclude other carriers is an interpretation of law and ALL interpretations of law are subject to interpretation in courts based on the laws that exist and whatever precedent might have been set.

I still believe the outcome will be that the Wright revisions will be repealed, all carriers except AA will be free to serve both airports as exists in every other multi airport city, and that the price for WN being free to either add int'l capabilities at DAL or access to DFW without losing gates at DAL (which I think they should have) is for other carriers to be able to enter DAL with ease.

BTW, just to point out, Virgin America's code is VX. Virgin Australia is VA and Virgin Atlantic is VS. because the abbreviation of all of these airlines is VA in the English language but that duplicates Virgin Australia's code, I have referred in this thread just to Virgin since the other two have nothing do with DAL.

it is worth one more time noting the service that exists at Chicago Midway, an airport that is equally in high demand in a multiairport city.

DL has 20 flights/day and is the 2nd largest airline at MDW. There were two decent sized competitors to WN at MDW but WN bought one of them. To argue that UA's current 6 or 7 flights/day plus VX's proposed schedule is viable competition in the MDW market compared to what has existed in the past and what exists today and considering that other carriers can gain access to MDW is highly problematic from an antitrust perspective.

No other airport, including the slot controlled airports are similarly as concentrated and without access for other carriers.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The comment about WN's inability to compete comes directly from their own experience in other markets. There isn't a single other airline hub where WN has less than 20% of the market such as they do in ATL, DTW, MSP, PHL, and SLC where they have tried to build a hub or major focus city (more than just spokes to their other focus cities) and succeeded.

Even at multi-airport cities such as Houston, Chicago, and Washington, DC, WN has a far higher percentage of the combined market than 20% and they also have a higher percentage even in the market sin which they compete.

WN's business plan, whether you can accept it or not, is not built around operating in markets where it is number 3 or worse.

General Electric adopted the same philosophy as do many companies so it isn't a bad thing. But it is a reality that WN has largely not tried to stay and fight their way into the top 1 or 2 in a market and instead has sought to find markets where it can be the top 1 or may be from the beginning.

 

[swamt]

Key the Jeopardy music.  Still no final word as of yet.  Although no announcement on Fri., still wondering why?  Me thinks they are still trying to hammer out who will share gates with whom?  I am pretty positive they are still going to VA.  Although it would be a pleasant shocker to see them go to SWA, but I am just as positive that they are not.
 
I just saw on the morning news that Delta can now have another option.  Just announced this morning, that McKinney airport will now seek airlines to start flying out of their airport as an alternative to LF.  McKinney is just 30-40 minutes from DTD.  And once hwy 75 is completed it will be quicker.  Although it is 30-40 mins pretty sure it's about the same as coming from DFW to DTD, do to all the traffic from DFW area and into Dallas is very busy roads on that side,  just a thought.
 
To be very honest I think this is the hold up for the announcement not coming forth as of yet.  I think they are trying to work out the sharing of gates to try and get all airlines to use LF.  But I would be willing to also take a stab that VA may be showing signs that they may not want to share gates as they might grow a little more as time goes on.  So the COD may be in talks with other gate owners and or leasees to discuss sharing issues.  I assure you we will hear something by or on 5-14-14, this gives 5 months for SWA to post in case they are the winners of said gates, know what I mean???

 

[Kev3188]

I just saw on the morning news that Delta can now have another option.  Just announced this morning, that McKinney airport will now seek airlines to start flying out of their airport as an alternative to LF.  McKinney is just 30-40 minutes from DTD.  And once hwy 75 is completed it will be quicker.  Although it is 30-40 mins pretty sure it's about the same as coming from DFW to DTD, do to all the traffic from DFW area and into Dallas is very busy roads on that side,  just a thought.

Interesting theory, but I can't see that ending any differently than when YV tried to start service out at FTW...

 

[WorldTraveler]

To be very honest I think this is the hold up for the announcement not coming forth as of yet.  I think they are trying to work out the sharing of gates to try and get all airlines to use LF.  But I would be willing to also take a stab that VA may be showing signs that they may not want to share gates as they might grow a little more as time goes on.  So the COD may be in talks with other gate owners and or leasees to discuss sharing issues.  I assure you we will hear something by or on 5-14-14, this gives 5 months for SWA to post in case they are the winners of said gates, know what I mean???

this would be ideal and also would eliminate the possibility of lawsuit that would come with any other choice.

and then WN can start working on dismantling the Wright amendment in its entirety and obtain gates at DFW as well as finish that FIS facility that you have said they built as part of the DAL terminal.

 

[eolesen]

While Oct is not a strong period for leisure bookings, WN is not accepting bookings ANYWHERE on its system right now and, if they wait for resolution on what they have or don't have regarding Wright in order to publish a schedule, it will have an effect on the rest of their system.

Considering that WN is one of the few airlines who consistently makes money in 4Q and 1Q, their limited booking window doesn't appear to have hurt them in the past.

More importantly, the booking curve for most airlines doesn't really require availability beyond 120 days. WN's established customers know that if they hit the website on the day that the window expands, they're likely to get the flights they want for the holidays. It's simply part of the brand and the culture.

it becomes highly questionable legally for WN to argue that they can't accommodate other carriers under DAL's lease agreement when WN is NOT using its assets to the point that they couldn't accommodate other carriers and yet now knows the markets and proposed schedules for other carriers.

Anything is legal until it's prohibited. That's how our legal system works.

Your arguments about their current utilisation is also quite specious. WN might not get 10 flights a day out of every gate, but they certainly are fully allocated during the peak morning and afternoon hours.

I suspect they already have an 85% confidence in what they intend to fly a year from now. They just choose not to disclose it until they're ready to do so.

Likewise, it's a business decision on the part of DL, AA, and VX to publish 11 months of availability. They could easily roll back the dial to 8 or 9 months like Jetblue and Spirit do, but their model goes by the theory it's better to have a lot of items on the shelf. It's of negligible cost to have all that extra inventory on the shelf, but as I already pointed out, there most certainly is a cost associated with servicing those sales which WN smartly avoids.

I still believe the outcome will be that the Wright revisions will be repealed, all carriers except AA will be free to serve both airports as exists in every other multi airport city, and that the price for WN being free to either add int'l capabilities at DAL or access to DFW without losing gates at DAL (which I think they should have) is for other carriers to be able to enter DAL with ease.

If Wright does indeed fall, and more gates added to the airport, then the underpinnings for AA's gate divestiture also fall.

You also will have the noise issue come back up, something that was sidelined with the compromise.

At the end of the day, the airport belongs to the citizens of Dallas. Federal grant money in no way takes away the rights of those citizens to limit the number of flights there due to noise.

it is worth one more time noting the service that exists at Chicago Midway, an airport that is equally in high demand in a multiairport city.

Can you show us the part where the City of Chicago agreed for MDW to be closed in favor of a new airport?...

How about pointing out where all the demand for added service at MDW has been in the past 10 years?

Seems to me it's been fairly stagnant:

In 2006, the airlines serving MDW were CO, DL, F9, FL, TZ, and WN.

In 2014, the airlines serving MDW are DL, F9, PD, SY and WN...

Try as you may, it's not helping your argument much.

 

[WorldTraveler]

your argument on seasonal profitability is based on a paradigm that chose to limit to anything except the most recent couple of years.

The reason why DL is receiving the business press that it has (and there were a number of articles published just this weekend) is precisely because DL is redefining the legacy carrier segment in ways that neither AA or UA are doing. Specific to seasonality, DL is no longer a 2 quarter a year airline when it comes to profitability. The fact that WN has a track record of profitability doesn't mean that others haven't matched and exceeded what WN did for years.

that is honestly not a key part of the discussion and is best left out of it.

I doubt seriously that further gates will be added at DAL precisely because of the noise issue. You have repeatedly noted that SNA and other California cities have successful limited airport size and there is no reason to think that Texas is going to be any different. DAL is the size it will be. The residents of Dallas have a right to limit the size of DAL. The issue is not the size of the airport but the allocation of resources. Being bigger does not necessarily solve the problem. WN does not want a bigger airport either. They want to control as much of DAL regardless of the size; no other airline at their hub airports want anything any different.

WN has a published schedule TODAY for 128 flights. Regardless of whether they have an NDA or not, they have not published their schedule for their competitors to see who have every right to argue - and likely will if denied access - that WN does have the ability to fit its published schedule within its existing facility and would be using its monopolistic position at DAL to limit competitors who want to enter the market by scheduling on top of those competitors. There is ample space in WN's current schedule to fit in many of DL's morning launch schedule. DL has many flights between 0600-0630 on its system esp. from the central time zone to DL's hubs in the east. DL has flights leaving DFW before 0600.

Feel free to argue otherwise but the chances of WN gaining access to any more gates at DAL is ZERO as long as other carriers want to serve the airport. ZERO.


MDW and HOU are both valid arguments because both airports can accommodate new entrants and other carriers who want to serve the airport.

I fully expect this will all blow over with DL and Virgin all serving DAL with approximately 20 flights/day each alongside WN at its 16 gates which is more than enough for DAL to still be one of the largest airports on WN's system. They can further maximize their gates by using 738s and limiting connecting traffic.

And then they will either end up with an FIS or be at DFW. AA would far rather they have an FIS and whether the plane comes from MEX or MEM has no effect on the neighbors. The FIS limitation was solely an attempt by AA to limit WN which is why it is the easiest part of the whole equation to ditch.

 

[WNMECH]

The FIS limitation was solely an attempt by AA to limit WN which is why it is the easiest part of the whole equation to ditch.

DFW airport was a member of the five party agreement.
That part of the agreement was to protect DFW airport and their international terminal, not AA.

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/dal_ResolveWrightAmendment.pdf