"come Out And Fly With The Big Boys"

[wnbubbleboy]

Not Quite, what I wanted but good try. Tell us why it benefits the community to have WN at DAL instead of DFW. Remember your business plan does not count. The public does not care. No justification of how you do business. No low fares BS. Just tell us why it is better for WN to stay at DAL than move to DFW.

[post="307484"][/post]​

Let me take a crack at it:

I know you flick a switch and a light comes on you don't want to know the inner workings the power company on how they get it to work.

So here you go. It's cheaper for us to operate from DAL since all our infastructure is already set up. And here's the light coming on:

The lower our costs the cheaper your tickets.

 

[mga707]

My guess is that the first states to be added to the WA would be ND, SD, and perhaps IA.

[post="308179"][/post]​

As I've opined several times before, if one were to be fair about it, AZ, CO, and TN should also be added to the list if MO is added. Then it would be legal to fly to all states bordering states that border Texas (plus AL, which doesn't really matter to anyone).
Of course, politics certainly ain't fair...

 

[ngneer]

Just how much of a WN effect are you hoping for and you cannot deny that the same WN effect can be had at DFW that can be had at DAL. Hell even your CEO has said so.

[post="308095"][/post]​

I don't work for WN, but no, not that's not what Gary Kelly said. He said WN could operate at DFW. He didn't say WN could operate at DFW with the same costs and pricing as at DAL.

 

[Oneflyer]

So here you go. It's cheaper for us to operate from DAL since all our infastructure is already set up. And here's the light coming on:

The lower our costs the cheaper your tickets.

Everything you need is already available at DFW, so where is the cost increase. And actually, long term, funding the infastructure at two airports instead of one, will raise costs not lower them.

 

[corl737]

Everything you need is already available at DFW, so where is the cost increase?

Lets start when an arrval from the east is cleared to land on runway 36R (DFW's eastern-most runway) then has to taxi over two miles to the E terminal while being stuck in the quagmire of AA's notoriously tortise-like ground operations.* At today's $1.80/gallon it cost $8.06 per minute to taxi with the engines at idle (burning 1900 pounds/hr)! A 10-minute delay could nearly wipe out the entire profitability for the flight! Meanwhile, taxi times of 20+ minutes are not uncommon at DFW.

Contrast this to Love Field where I never had more than 4 minutes of taxi time going to the gate after landing. Any questions about why smaller airports are preferred when they are available? (ps: fuel hedges don't offset the cash we need to buy fuel at the pump. They only apply on paper as an accountant's procedure to report investment results.)

And actually, long term, funding the infastructure at two airports instead of one, will raise costs not lower them.

[post="308458"][/post]​

That's 100% correct and the prime reason Southwest has no intention of serving two airports in the same market. Interesting how AA says if the Wright Amendment is repealed they'd be "forced" to move flights to Love to compete yet the folley of this act is clearly apparent! Egos tend to make companies do strange things, huh?

--------------------------------------

*Does AA taxi slow? Here's an example: When in Baltimore (BWI) I was cleared to taxi to runway 15R by following an AA757. After minutes of creeping along, the Ground Controller, frustrated by the inability to expedite the traffic flow, radioed "American XXX, are you moving?" AA replied "affirmative" but maintained its snail's pace. Finally the Controller had enough and told me to turn onto the runway at the next intersection, taxi to the departure end and advise the tower when I was ready to takeoff. I complied, turned around, tookoff, and was already airborne headed the other direction before AAXXX reached the end of the taxiway.

To their credit, AA is getting better (or at least less bad) since this example happened late last year.

 

[Ch. 12]

As I've opined several times before, if one were to be fair about it, AZ, CO, and TN should also be added to the list if MO is added. Then it would be legal to fly to all states bordering states that border Texas (plus AL, which doesn't really matter to anyone).
Of course, politics certainly ain't fair...

[post="308386"][/post]​

I was just being facecious as it is obvious that those three states were omitted for a reason (b/c maybe they have real mkts like PHX, DEN, and BNA!!)

 

[ngneer]

Does AA taxi slow?...

To their credit, AA is getting better (or at least less bad) since this example happened late last year.

[post="308497"][/post]​

To be fair, last week I flew LGA-DFW and back on AA and was surprised at how fast the pilots taxied at DFW. It was very Southwest-like. It seems with the high cost of fuel, AA has taken a page from WN's book. Good for them, it's a smart move.

Now, having said that, it still took a good 10 minutes to taxi from the runway to the gate just because DFW is so freakin' big. If you have to stop at an intersecting runway to wait for traffic, it takes longer. I was there under optimal weather conditions. I imagine under less favorable conditions things can bog down some more.

 

[LoneStarMike]

Just thinking outside the box here.

In light of Katrina's aftermath, I see two needs. MSY needs to slowly start rebuilding it's air traffic into and out of the airport. Southwest needs to replace some of the flights they've lost from Love Field post 9/11. Prior to 9/11 WN had operated 139 daily departures from DAL. With this latest cut of the 7 DAL-MSY flights, Southwest's departures from DAL have fallen to 110 - a 20% drop from their pre-9/11 schedule.

If the federal government were interested in helping increase air traffic at MSY, they could certainly help move things along with a repeal of the Wright Amendment.

I was looking at a Southwest pre-Katrina HOU schedule the other day (the one that came out in June) and noticed that of the 17 daily HOU-MSY flights Southwest operated pre-Katrina, 10 of them went on to Florida cities - 1 to JAX, 4 to TPA, and 5 to MCO. In my mind, HOU passengers were at least partly helping to support WN's MSY-Florida flights.

I believe JAN's BWI nonstops are also supported partly by HOU passengers as those flights run HOU-JAN-BWI. JAN's HOU service is supported by BWI-HOU folks travelng in the opposite direction.

Likewise, OKC's and TUL's service to MCI is also supported in part by HOU passengers. All 7 of Southwest's daily flights out of HOU to MCI stop in either OKC or TUL. The last time I checked (Q3 2003 O&D statistics?) I think there were 740 pax per day between Houston and MCI and Southwest carried about 20% of them or about 150 per day.

Since every single one of WN's 7 daily HOU-MCI departures stopped in either OKC or TUL, those 150 passengers per day were helping to support TUL's and OKC' service to MCI. And MCI folks going the opposite direction help support OKC's and TUL's nonstop service to HOU.

Southwest is often able to bring nonstop service to smaller "weaker" cities that couldn't support such nonstop service on their own, by making the smaller city an intermediate stop on a high-demand, busier city pair that demands a choice of multiple daily departures.

Most price-conscious passengers don't mind a one-stop direct flight if the intermediate stop is only 30 minutes at a smaller uncongested airport. And with only 24 commercial flights per day right now, MSY would seem to be anything but congested. That's probably why Southwest is able to operate their current schedule at MSY with 20 minute turns where 25-30 minutes has become the norm at other WN stations.

Post Katrina, through no fault of it's own, MSY has unfortunately become a weaker city with regards to demand for air travel, like OKC or TUL or JAN. It no longer has the population it once did and tourism hasn't come back in full force yet.

If the Wright Amendment were repealed, I believe that DAL passengers could help support more nonstop service out of MSY especially to other cities in Florida just like HOU helps other smaller cities in Southwest's point-to-point network. And it would provide another option besides HOU for MSY folks needing to get to the West Coast providing WN flew to the West Coast in the event of Wright's demise, which I'm sure they would.

Additionally it would enable Southwest to add some departures back at Love Field.

New Orleans residents and business leaders truly interested in increasing Southwest Airlines service back into their city should seriously consider urging their legislators to support Wright's repeal. IMO.

And Southwest folks truly interested in a repeal of the Wright Amendment should point out to Congress the benefit of Southwest being able to better help rebuild MSY's air traffic (and local economy) should Wright be repealed.

(Hope that all made sense)

LoneStarMike