I suppose a detour to discuss terminal facilities is reasonable...
.
Not sure why ATL, MSP, and JFK were picked as the airports of comparison for DFW but.
.
I personally think AA's facilities at DFW are more than just a bit "dated" which implies "old" ... DFW is also worn and the fact that the airport is spending as much as ATL is spending for a whole new int'l terminal at ATL shows they need to do more than just put some current colors on the walls.... glad the oil wells might help pay for some of the cost of moving walls.
.
I don't think ATL or MSP appear worn or dated..... I personally am not much a fan of the layout of MSP airport which is a great place to spend a few hours walking off calories to get around the entire complex but MSP is a combination of concourses, some of which are quiet modern (probably half of DL's ops are on the newest concourse) while even the F concourse which is heavily used by DL is fresh even if it isn't completely new.
.
ATL is just plain simply the most efficient design to move 75M passengers a year through of any airport in the world... there is NO wasted space and if ATL has a fault it is that the middle terminal complex should be increased in size by about 125% in order to accommodate the huge volums of people that move through it. But ATL is constantly upgrading and it is kept clean and decent appearing and is generally highly functional. ATL has added more security positions and continues to add more; I rarely spend more time in line for security in ATL than I do anywhere else although the fact that the fact that almost the entire airport goes through one security checkpoint area removes any sense of privacy you might wish for.
.
DL's terminals at JFK are the well known achille's heel among all US airport terminals but it should also be kept in mind that the Worldport was built before the age of airport screening which is why a big part of the problem is that it just doesn't work from a passenger and workflow standpoint - undoubtedly why DL and the PANYNJ have decided just to blow it up and start over. DL clearly has alot of work to do to have decent facilities at JFK but keep in mind that DL has still managed to nearly double its JFK operation in the past 5 years, including attractive enough premium traffic to improve their average fares in alot of key markets where DL historically was not as strong.
.
Returning to the topic of finances and BK, it is very possible that AA could reduce its airport lease expenses in BK. DL and NW both rejected and/or insert language in many of their airport contracts allowing them to later reduce the size of their facilities and they acted on many of those after the merger was completed. UA/CO won't be able to do that as easily and AA obviously isn't working through a merger but still has a lot of facility leases that are mismatched to AA's current or potential future needs. AA also just finished an expense overhaul of LAX and JFK and is about ready to finish MIA which will add alot of expense.... it is possible that AA could renegotiate some of those leases to reduce their near term payments while the company is getting back on its feet.
.
Finallly, while there might be a desire to compare the quality of terminals among airlines, there is plenty of factual evidence that DL's terminal costs at its hubs are some of the lowest among the US carriers. ATL is now a 30 year old terminal so there are no huge costs on DL's books for ATL which is why they can accept the new int'l terminal even though DL will not pay for all of it, MSP has been incrementally increased in size and expenditures, NW did a masterful job of designing and constructing DTW at low costs, and MEM and SLC fall under the "dated, functional, but cheap" category. The ability of airlines to control costs at their hubs is directly related to how competitive they can be in serving connecting passengers which is a key part of traffic carried by every US airline and is absolutely necessary to support int'l operations. ORD is embarking on an expensive overhaul that will add alot of costs to AA and UA and will particularly impact their ability to handle connecting passengers. MIA will be a very nice but expensive airport.... AA's costs at MIA already are about $18/passenger based on 2009 MIA data and will jump as the new terminal costs are added. In contrast, ATL, DTW, and MSP costs are less than $5 per domestic passenger and $10 per int'l passenger, some of the lowest costs at large airports in the US.
.
BTW, airport costs by carrier can be calculated from the annual reports for each airport... they are all public entities and thus have pretty open books. They also generally report their receipts by carrier as well as boardings by carrier so it isn't hard to calculate total costs per carrier. It is also possible based on construction contracts to know how much each carrier will have to spend in the future based on their current boardings.
.
Bottom line is that pretty is nice when it comes to buildings but airlines must have low costs on their terminals if they want to be able to compete effectively.
My late wife and I were traveling from IAH to BHM via DFW at Christmas. (Is that snickering I hear in the back?) We arrived from IAH in Terminal A. We had 30 minutes to make our flight to BHM which was departing from a high-numbered gate in C. This was before the trAAin was even built. We had to run from one terminal to the other carrying Christmas presents (we had checked our bags) with my wife in high-heels. (Remember when people use to dress to travel? I was wearing a suit and tie. Of course, we would need those for the midnight Eucharist on Christmas Eve.)
