Mayor's Agreement on Wright

[jimntx]

How much did AA pay for the naming rights for that center, and has that it generated enough income to pay for itself? Don't know how old you are, but the Love Field/Harry Hines area was pretty seedy even before Southwest started flying. So one could argue that the legacy airlines attracted those?

Well, having a SWA city-subsidized operation for 25 years sure didn't clean it up either, did it?

 

[jimntx]

Well, let's see, if I remember correctly, the landing fee was 55 cents per 1000, rather than 15 cents per thousand.

And I did not see anyone shedding a tear when Southwest was paying 5 cents per thousand and, in one fell swoop, had that increased to 55 cents (a 1000% increase) shortly after most of the other airlines vacated Love Field.
Jim, bottom line here is if you want to paint a picture, at least try to get the facts straight.

I just went back and re-read your post. Talk about your revisionist history!

In the first place, SWA did not exist when the other airlines vacated Love Field. Remember, Herb's main argument for forcing a re-opening of Love and Hobby was that he was not engaged in interstate commerce. That he only wanted to fly between Dallas and Houston, and therefore the Federal law that said that 2 airports in the same area--with exception for huge cities like NYC, Los Angeles, and Chicago--could not receive Federal funds did not apply. And, let's not forget that the wording of the Wright Amendment was given to Jim Wright by none other than Herb K. himself.

Also, the landing fees were $0.55/1000 lbs 20 years ago, and the city LOWERED them to $0.35/1000 at that time for none other than SWA, and they remained there until February of this year when the little deal became accidentally public.

 

[KCFlyer]

I just went back and re-read your post. Talk about your revisionist history!

In the first place, SWA did not exist when the other airlines vacated Love Field.

Ouick math lesson - Southwest's first flight flew out of Love Field in 1971...DFW opened...and the other airlines vacated Love Field...in 1974.

Also...the argument was that at that time (1974), intrastate carriers were not under the jurisdiction of the CAB, and therefore SWA was not subject to the direction of the CAB. In the deregulation act of 1978, the CAB was eliminated, so an intrastate carrier that became an interstate carrier was not only allowed...it was encouraged - until the Wright Amendment in 1979.

 

[jimntx]

Interesting how all of you get really technical about facts when it's in your favor, but you seem to ignore statements that suggest that SWA is not necessarily without sin and error--according to you the only entity other than the Virgin Mary to be so.

So, SWA did begin flying before the others moved to Love Field. That does not in anyway change the fact that the city of Dallas has been subsidizing--and still is--SWA operations at Love with unrealistically low landing fees, and that SWA now wants to renege on an agreement that Herb drafted.

But, all of you keep on. I still say that SWA is going to rue the day they got the Wright Amendment lifted when the other lcc's come in there and start flying to the destinations that SWA wants to hold a monopoly on from Love Field. Federal law says that gates have to be made available, and SW is going to control 16 of the 20 gates under the new agreement. Guess who gets to give up gates?

SWA wants fair and open competition as long as they have exclusive use of Love Field and everyone else uses DFW.

 

[swflyer]

Also, the landing fees were $0.55/1000 lbs 20 years ago, and the city LOWERED them to $0.35/1000 at that time for none other than SWA, and they remained there until February of this year when the little deal became accidentally public.

Uh, one more revision for you, Jim

The landing fee going down was tied to SWA going all Stage Three noise compliant, being a good neighbor and EARNING the reduction in landing fees.

Currently, the only scheduled carrier operating comparatively noisy jets at Love is...


:blink:


:blink:


:blink:


(aw, you know what's coming)











... AMERICAN!!!

Thanks for the lob across the net, though. Appreciate the opportunity to win the point.

BTW, of course SWA isn't "without sin". But you're posting on a board where the majority is going to answer your posts with SWA's side of the story. I expect no less when I read the American board. <_<

 

[KCFlyer]

But, all of you keep on. I still say that SWA is going to rue the day they got the Wright Amendment lifted when the other lcc's come in there and start flying to the destinations that SWA wants to hold a monopoly on from Love Field. Federal law says that gates have to be made available, and SW is going to control 16 of the 20 gates under the new agreement. Guess who gets to give up gates?

SWA wants fair and open competition as long as they have exclusive use of Love Field and everyone else uses DFW.

You mean monopolies like Harlingen? Southwest has never been one to seek a "monopoly" on a route, nor to they seem to put a real high priority on being a "market share" leader. It seems to work well for them in Chicago. If Southwest is "limited" to 16 gates, that works out to about 160 flights. Not gonna win a market share war with those...nosiree. But a profit war? We'll have to see. IMHO, the "thru ticketing" deal is bigger than the unrestricted nonstop issue. They can start that as soon as the agreement is approved. Unless you're flying American, and want to get to Dallas from the hinterlands of America...you're gonna change planes somewhere.

 

[jimntx]

Uh, one more revision for you, Jim

The landing fee going down was tied to SWA going all Stage Three noise compliant, being a good neighbor and EARNING the reduction in landing fees.

And stayed down for 20 years. Did any of your expenses associated with your business remain the same for 20 years? Nice to know that the city Aviation department found Love Field to be inflation-free. Wish I could say the same for my expenses.

You all don't seem to understand that I admire SWA immensely. You can not argue with success. What I don't admire is the dissembling that they have been indulging in with the ridiculous local ads to "bring open and fair competition to the N. Texas air market." What they mean is they want exclusive use of Love Field with its practically non-existent landing fees and for all the rest of the competition to use DFW. That is neither open nor fair nor is it competition.

 

[ramper_in_las]

Interesting how all of you get really technical about facts when it's in your favor, but you seem to ignore statements that suggest that SWA is not necessarily without sin and error--according to you the only entity other than the Virgin Mary to be so.

So, SWA did begin flying before the others moved to Love Field. That does not in anyway change the fact that the city of Dallas has been subsidizing--and still is--SWA operations at Love with unrealistically low landing fees, and that SWA now wants to renege on an agreement that Herb drafted.

But, all of you keep on. I still say that SWA is going to rue the day they got the Wright Amendment lifted when the other lcc's come in there and start flying to the destinations that SWA wants to hold a monopoly on from Love Field. Federal law says that gates have to be made available, and SW is going to control 16 of the 20 gates under the new agreement. Guess who gets to give up gates?

SWA wants fair and open competition as long as they have exclusive use of Love Field and everyone else uses DFW.

So i guess I would ask you who is going to be brave enough to take on a profitable airline out of DAL. The same airlines that are willing to take on AA and its 800 aday flights at DFW... I venture to say NONE!!!

You mean monopolies like Harlingen? Southwest has never been one to seek a "monopoly" on a route, nor to they seem to put a real high priority on being a "market share" leader. It seems to work well for them in Chicago. If Southwest is "limited" to 16 gates, that works out to about 160 flights. Not gonna win a market share war with those...nosiree. But a profit war? We'll have to see. IMHO, the "thru ticketing" deal is bigger than the unrestricted nonstop issue. They can start that as soon as the agreement is approved. Unless you're flying American, and want to get to Dallas from the hinterlands of America...you're gonna change planes somewhere.

I think your estimate is a little low of 10 flights a day per gate. LAS 18 gates 215 flights. SWA squeezes every bit of time it can out of each gate. And the word on the street is we are adding a bunch more flights out of LAS by the end of the year. I suspect the same frame of mind will be utilized out of DAL.

 

[KCFlyer]

So i guess I would ask you who is going to be brave enough to take on a profitable airline out of DAL. The same airlines that are willing to take on AA and its 800 aday flights at DFW... I venture to say NONE!!!

You know...I read on other boards that the reason that Southwest isn't in Atlanta is because of the dominant presence of Airtran in that market. Does Jim think Airtran will decide to load up operations in DAL to go against Southwest? Airtran does a damn fine job of competing without trying to engage a powerful rival in a pissing contest in their own backyard. I don't see that changing, because the fact of the matter is - Dallas is not the center of the universe...it's just another city to 90% of the rest of the population.

 

[jimntx]

I don't see that changing, because the fact of the matter is - Dallas is not the center of the universe...it's just another city to 90% of the rest of the population.

True, but those routes that SWA wants to fly nonstop from DAL--such as, DAL-LAX, DAL-LAS, and DAL-FLL--would be very attractive to Airtran and to JetBlue. They have no desire to do DAL right now because they don't wish to service the available destinations. Absent the WA, they might very well be interested in bringing their brands of lcc into the market.

Airtran already flies into DFW, but given a choice of $4.94/1000 vs. $0.55/1000 landing fees, why would a lcc want the more expensive option? AA needs DFW because of the connections to their International ops. Airtran doesn't necessarily.

JetBlue might be interested in making DAL a mid-continent stop. Not necessarily through flights, but the a/c just happens to fly JFK-DAL, then be used on a DAL-LGB flight.

 

[KCFlyer]

AA needs DFW because of the connections to their International ops.

And that fact really made me wonder about all the dire predictions AA was laying out, should Wright go away...do they REALLY want to operate from 2 different airports? I'll tell you this...if I live in Arlington and can get a comparable fare on AA from DFW, why on earth would I drive to Love? But as it stands now...to get a comparable fare on AA, I HAVE to drive to Love. Utilizing the more convenient airport is considerably more expensive. What's the thought process there??

 

[ngneer]

I still say that SWA is going to rue the day they got the Wright Amendment lifted when the other lcc's come in there and start flying to the destinations that SWA wants to hold a monopoly on from Love Field. Federal law says that gates have to be made available, and SW is going to control 16 of the 20 gates under the new agreement. Guess who gets to give up gates?

I don't think your interpretation of the law is correct. For instance, I know Spirit waited for years to get gate space at LGA, so they served ISP in the meantime. No one was suddenly forced to allow gate space to Spirit. When space eventually became available and their name made it to the top of the waiting list Spirit moved to LGA.

I think the rule is that airlines can't hoard gates but they aren't forced to give up what they're actually using. But someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[mga707]

I think the rule is that airlines can't hoard gates but they aren't forced to give up what they're actually using. But someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're right. Use 'em (gates) or lose 'em...

 

[jimntx]

I don't think your interpretation of the law is correct. For instance, I know Spirit waited for years to get gate space at LGA, so they served ISP in the meantime. No one was suddenly forced to allow gate space to Spirit. When space eventually became available and their name made it to the top of the waiting list Spirit moved to LGA.

I think the rule is that airlines can't hoard gates but they aren't forced to give up what they're actually using. But someone correct me if I'm wrong.

LGA is a traffic-restricted airport like ORD. Certain airports in the U.S. are sorta kinda exempted from the law simply because there would be no way to handle all the airlines that might want to fly there.

LGA is one; ORD is another; DCA another. You not only need gates, you also need landing slots at those airports. Not all the rules apply in those cases.

Such would not be the case at Love Field. In any case, since AA and CO don't have their gates booked all day long everyday, they might be willing to "work" a few flights for other airlines that might want to fly out of Love. We're doing maintenance for other airlines now; why not sling a few of their bags while we are at it?

Oh, and you are correct about the fact that you also can not hoard gates, but that's only enforced at space restricted airports. For instance, BHM has a lot more gates at their "new" terminal than are needed for the amount of commercial air traffic. The FAA does not care if you want to pay rent on gates at an airport like that. Keeps the FEDS from having to actually pay up on the airport bonds they guarantee.

But, seems like awhile back, there was an airline that managed to lease or sub-lease some gates at LGA or DCA, but could never get landing slots; so, eventually they had to give up the gate leases.

 

[KCFlyer]

Wasn't it LGB where AA was forced to use gates or lose them, so they started using them to throw a wrench at JetBlue? Seems I recall SOME California airports where AA was hoarding some gates.