Dallas Rep. Eb Johnson's View:

[KCFlyer]

I like the dedicated terminal/parking on the east side adjacent to runway 17L/35R and an agreement by ATC to never assign SWA takeoffs/landings on any runways other than the east complex.

SWA will retain it's "small, efficient airport environment" existing within the property boundaries of DFW. AA will still be permitted to taxi for 29 minutes if they so desire.

[post="289449"][/post]​

I recall in John Nance's "Splash of Colors" that although AA had the east terminal and Braniff had the west...a lot of AA flights started operating off the west runways. I am sure that AA would cite "safety concerns" and request dual runway operations...and while some criticize the taxi speed of some SWA pilots, I watched a sloth beat a taxiing AA MD80 a while back at DFW....

 

[air_guy]

Wrong-o buddy! The vast majority of the Anti-Wright Amendment publicity has been FREE! Can you say nation-wide columns written by people who have no emotional tie to the issue but can see it clearly as an anti-competitive measure that no longer serves any purpose in a free market economy? Can you say mobilizing the citizens who are tired of being raped by AA's fare structure?

[post="289452"][/post]​

People that probably have no idea on why Wright was created. This is a local public policy issue. It should not be an airline dispute but Southwest intense lobbying TV ads and billboards, trying to correct for the mistake they made 30 years ago It is easy to sell the concept of more competition when you omit the cost. Congestion at Mockinbird, Lemmon etc, more noise at highland park, uptown/downton Dallas, etc. One of the great things of DFW is tha tis located far from densely populated areas. Why do we need to loose that ...so just we can please Southwest. Those lower fares are going to ruin the value of our properties. I don't want that tradeoff. I rather pay a little bit more and have WN and everyone else fly out of DFW.



The only money SWA is throwing is in it's employees paychecks! Keep the employees happy and the customers will be happy. That, my friend, is vision!

Then the happines is almost over. WN has been for years using its appreciating stock to compensate ist employees with options and funding retirement plans. Guess what the stock has not appreciated significantly in years, so compensation is stalling and retirement is almost frozen. That is why they are so desperate trying to drive US out of business and fight for every growth opportunity they can find. They are running out of gas. Speaking of gas that is slowly going away too.


Just as AA says SWA can move to DFW anytime they want, AA is also able to move flights to Love at any time, too. Why don't they? Because is isn't necessary to be co-located to compete in a market. SWA didn't have to move flights to DFW to successfully compete in the intra-texas markets, why should AA have to move flights to Love to compete for long-haul?


In order to support a strong hub all flights have to be on the same place. As long as there are limitations the trade-off of moving is not worth it. But if you remove them, then protecting local market share becomes more important, becuase without local traffic the hub does not work.

DAL can not fit all of AA's operations but DFW can perfectly fit all of WN. Besides when and an airport has a location advantage for a large pocket of population colocation does matter....

 

[Ch. 12]

Not very correct, Airguy. The WA is not so much a "local policy issue" anymore (DFW has more than proven that it has grown out of its infancy and can sustain itself.) The WA was to ensure that DFW would survive. Now AMR is using it as a tool to ensure that they maintain a virtual monopoly in one of the nation's largest metro areas.

Also...DFW CANNOT fit into WN's plans b/c the high cost (don't throw the "free lease" stuff at me b/c we all know that DFW's costs are far above DAL and that "free lease" stuff is just for the media) and the delays. DFW does fit AMR quite nicely but not WN. Also...look at any airport that AMR has "controlled" and you will see that competition is always stifled or run out.

 

[JS]

Like what? RDU? BNA? Those AA hubs didn't work out too well.

I don't buy this nonsense that AA can run off Southwest. Southwest is just too cheap to fly out of DFW. Fine with me, but that means you are stuck with the Love limitations. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[KCFlyer]

Like what? RDU? BNA? Those AA hubs didn't work out too well.

I don't buy this nonsense that AA can run off Southwest. Southwest is just too cheap to fly out of DFW. Fine with me, but that means you are stuck with the Love limitations. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[post="289533"][/post]​

Yes by golly...a rule is a rule and that's that. But using that logic, I am having a tough time figuring out why women and minorities are allowed to vote since the laws had been in place for years. Perhaps times changed and so did the laws.

 

[corl737]

... People that probably have no idea on why Wright was created.

Why the Wright Amendment was created is 100% irrelevant. The ONLY consideration should be whether or not it is reasonable to have the law continue to exist. We live in a dynamic country. Situations change. If it makes sense to keep the Wright Amendment, then keep it. If not, get rid of it. This applies to every law on every book in the nation. To criticize today's airline passengers for not knowing the WA history is ignoring the reality that no one cares why it was created. They only know that it allows DFW's carriers to charge premium fares to non-WA markets at their expense.

You have a say in the process as a voter. The issue will boil down to whether or not the politicians listen to the majority of their constituents or the powerful (aka $) AA/DFW lobbyists.

That is why they [SWA] are so desperate trying to drive US out of business and fight for every growth opportunity they can find. They are running out of gas.

Geez, get off your paranoid horse. No one want to run you out of business. SWA doesn't subscribe to predatory practices. They simply want to do what every other company aspires to -- increase their revenues at the lowest possible cost. In the Dallas market it is much cheaper to persue a Wright Amendment repeal than move to the high-cost/high-congestion airport. It's called business.

As for "running out of gas," the Dallas market has been stagnant for a decade. All of SWA's expansion is outside Texas. Pittsburgh has been phenomenal and is preparing for a doubling of flight operations this fall. Philadelphia, similarly, is huge! Dallas, meanwhile, has nearly dropped off of the list top 10 revenue generating cities for SWA.

By the way, if SWA really wanted to put AA (or any other domestic airline) out of business all they'd have to do is BUY the fricking company. The entire market cap of the other major airlines is so low and SWA's cash balance is so high that it would be quite easy to acquire a controlling interest in any one (or more) of them. (Remember that fact the next time someone says "SWA should move to DFW and compete with the big dogs.")

In order to support a strong hub all flights have to be on the same place. As long as there are limitations the trade-off of moving is not worth it. But if you remove them, then protecting local market share becomes more important, becuase without local traffic the hub does not work.

I agree with your analysis. AA doesn't currently split their operations because the cost to do so is enormous. This is the same reason SWA doesn't want to split their operations. The incremental revenue gain with a DFW presence doesn't provide enough revenue to offset the cost of the split operation. Repeal the Wright Amendment and AA's traffic will GROW at DFW because more people will be flying out of that airport as well!

DAL can not fit all of AA's operations but DFW can perfectly fit all of WN. Besides when and an airport has a location advantage for a large pocket of population colocation does matter....

Again, no one is asking AA to move their operations to Love. Their myopic focus on "market share" instead of "revenue" is why they have earned the title "Prince of the Predators." If AA management would spend more time on their financials instead of stroking their egos they'd be fine.

Physically, yes, DFW can hold SWA. Financially, it can't. Businesses run on the balance sheet.

[Thanks for a nice discussion. I appreciate your views though I obviously don't agree with them all!]

 

[JS]

Why the Wright Amendment was created is 100% irrelevant. The ONLY consideration should be whether or not it is reasonable to have the law continue to exist. We live in a dynamic country. Situations change. If it makes sense to keep the Wright Amendment, then keep it. If not, get rid of it. This applies to every law on every book in the nation. To criticize today's airline passengers for not knowing the WA history is ignoring the reality that no one cares why it was created. They only know that it allows DFW's carriers to charge premium fares to non-WA markets at their expense.

You have a say in the process as a voter. The issue will boil down to whether or not the politicians listen to the majority of their constituents or the powerful (aka $) AA/DFW lobbyists.

A lot of people aren't even aware that Southwest has assigned seating. I kid you not; you are assuming people (mostly voters) know 1,000 times as much as we do on this board. This is why so many letters to the editor deride Congress for "regulating" Southwest or "keeping" Southwest out of DFW. They are talking out their butts.

Geez, get off your paranoid horse. No one want to run you out of business. SWA doesn't subscribe to predatory practices. They simply want to do what every other company aspires to -- increase their revenues at the lowest possible cost. In the Dallas market it is much cheaper to persue a Wright Amendment repeal than move to the high-cost/high-congestion airport. It's called business.

As for "running out of gas," the Dallas market has been stagnant for a decade. All of SWA's expansion is outside Texas. Pittsburgh has been phenomenal and is preparing for a doubling of flight operations this fall. Philadelphia, similarly, is huge! Dallas, meanwhile, has nearly dropped off of the list top 10 revenue generating cities for SWA.

Fly out of DFW, and Dallas will be back in the top 10 whenever you're ready.

By the way, if SWA really wanted to put AA (or any other domestic airline) out of business all they'd have to do is BUY the fricking company. The entire market cap of the other major airlines is so low and SWA's cash balance is so high that it would be quite easy to acquire a controlling interest in any one (or more) of them. (Remember that fact the next time someone says "SWA should move to DFW and compete with the big dogs.")

Well, not quite. First of all, there are anti-trust concerns. You can't buy out a competitor just to dismantle it (hmm... that doesn't explain AA buying QQ and several other examples), but theoretically that is not allowed, and the DOJ would pay a lot more attention if Southwest tried to buy AA just to dismantle it.

Secondly, it's not as cheap as just market cap. The market cap is based on the current trading price. If you want to buy the company, the price will go up. Southwest could probably still afford it, though.

I agree with your analysis. AA doesn't currently split their operations because the cost to do so is enormous. This is the same reason SWA doesn't want to split their operations. The incremental revenue gain with a DFW presence doesn't provide enough revenue to offset the cost of the split operation. Repeal the Wright Amendment and AA's traffic will GROW at DFW because more people will be flying out of that airport as well!

But Southwest doesn't have hubs. It's all local, with the opportunity for some connections. AA would have a hard time splitting up DFW into DFW and DAL because the connections plus the local traffic would not support DFW. Southwest, on the other hand, could fly long haul only out of DFW and keep today's schedule out of DAL. Why would anyone need to stop in Dallas from one place to another (aside from city pairs like AMA/LBB and stuff like that, but those are within the Wright Amendment anyway).

AA's traffic will grow at DFW if Southwest flies out of DFW. For the 50th time, it is not the fault of the Wright Amendment that Southwest does not fly out of DFW. It is their *choice*. Contrary to popular belief, TX 161 or I-35E is not an international border where regulations come into play.

When I first moved to Dallas (actually, Tarrant County), that is when I discovered that Southwest flew out of Love Field while all the other airlines flew out of DFW. It was a while before I realized the reason. Initially I thought there was some law that prevented Southwest from flying out of DFW. It never made any sense to me.

Again, no one is asking AA to move their operations to Love. Their myopic focus on "market share" instead of "revenue" is why they have earned the title "Prince of the Predators." If AA management would spend more time on their financials instead of stroking their egos they'd be fine.

Physically, yes, DFW can hold SWA. Financially, it can't. Businesses run on the balance sheet.

[Thanks for a nice discussion. I appreciate your views though I obviously don't agree with them all!]

[post="289556"][/post]​

In the airline business, market share = revenue. The sunk costs of running an airline, especially a major airline, require that revenue/market share be maximized at all times.

 

[JS]

Yes by golly...a rule is a rule and that's that. But using that logic, I am having a tough time figuring out why women and minorities are allowed to vote since the laws had been in place for years. Perhaps times changed and so did the laws.

[post="289538"][/post]​

My point was that it is patently false that AA can run off Southwest. Your anti-discrimination law analogy is totally irrelevant.

 

[luver41]

A lot of people aren't even aware that Southwest has assigned seating.

When I flew Southwest last week they didn't have assigned seating. Personally, I prefer it that way.


"

In the airline business, market share = revenue.  The sunk costs of running an airline, especially a major airline, require that revenue/market share be maximized at all times.

In the airline business, RASM (Revenue per Average Seat Mile) minus CASM (Cost per Average Seat Mile) = profit, which is more important than revenue. It's worse than pointless to increase revenue if it costs more to do it than earnings from it.

 

[corl737]

When I first moved to Dallas (actually, Tarrant County), that is when I discovered that Southwest flew out of Love Field while all the other airlines flew out of DFW. It was a while before I realized the reason. Initially I thought there was some law that prevented Southwest from flying out of DFW. It never made any sense to me.

There IS a law that keeps Southwest from flying out of DFW. It's called the law of economics!

BTW, as a Tarrant County resident you'll be interested in reading a website created by a fellow TC resident. It's called FightWright.org. You may also be interested to know that Mitchell Schnurman, business columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is quite open to the repeal efforts and emphasises that DFW's proclaimed self-worth is way overstated.

You can't buy out a competitor just to dismantle it (hmm... that doesn't explain AA buying QQ and several other examples) ....

... TWA?

 

[KCFlyer]

My point was that it is patently false that AA can run off Southwest. Your anti-discrimination law analogy is totally irrelevant.

[post="289601"][/post]​

No, it's not. The right denying women and minorities the right to vote was in the constitution. Something changed and that law was changed. The WA was created to protect DFW. Times have changed.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Closing DAL to interstate traffic was to protect DFW.. something that all parties agreed to. Didn't the Wright Amendment lessen that protection for the benefit of WN? (WN wanting to fly to New Orleans?)

 

[KCFlyer]

Closing DAL to interstate traffic was to protect DFW.. something that all parties agreed to. Didn't the Wright Amendment lessen that protection for the benefit of WN? (WN wanting to fly to New Orleans?)

[post="289625"][/post]​

The Wright Amendment didn't take effect until AFTER SWA started serving New Orleans. That was the threat to DFW. Southwest agreed to a comprimise of states bordering Texas.

 

[JS]

When I flew Southwest last week they didn't have assigned seating. Personally, I prefer it that way.

Oops, make that "no assigned seating". I was overhearing a conversation behind me in the B line and two people were talking about how it's "so weird" that Southwest has no assigned seating. You also see it on the plane, with people bewildered as to where to sit (same thing happens on the Delta shuttle's open seating).

In the airline business, RASM (Revenue per Average Seat Mile) minus CASM (Cost per Average Seat Mile) = profit, which is more important than revenue. It's worse than pointless to increase revenue if it costs more to do it than earnings from it.

[post="289609"][/post]​

CASM is basically a constant. I agree, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to increase costs significantly just to chase more revenue, but most costs are non-negotiable for years on end (aircraft purchase/leasing, employee wages, and fuel being almost all of it).

 

[JS]

The Wright Amendment didn't take effect until AFTER SWA started serving New Orleans.    That was the threat to DFW.  Southwest agreed to a comprimise of states bordering Texas.

[post="289629"][/post]​

And all of a sudden the compromise is no fair?

I don't think it's fair that I bought a new car two years ago before the employee pricing deals this year. I want to trade it in for a new car at the employee price and get the cash back. It is not fair. Times change, the competitive landscape has changed ...