New Legislation To Eradicate Wright/shelby

[mrman]

Currently only 20 of 32 gates are in use. W/o Wright new gates will come on-line up to the max w/o changing the master plan. That is unnecessary new capacity, when the airport were all the cites have invested has 30 open gates.

[post="276236"][/post]​

What's wrong with more capasity? Cheaper flights, more airservice choices, more jobs, more tax for the city. Studies have shown DFW airfares will fall on average $150 a flight. Both AA & WN will increase passengers. Basically as it stands now DFW passengers are paying $150 tax or fee per flight for the honor of having one airport.

 

[AirplaneFan]

My bad I meant east .... but my point is pretty obvious

[post="276280"][/post]​

Your biases are obvious, but your points are frequntly not obvious.

Your point is that there is over capacity in the metroplex. Your solution is to keep Wright restrictions in place to keep airfares high and make it less likely that you can absorb the extra capacity.

So its dizzying and counterintuitive to argue that since there is an over supply of capacity in metroplex that the solution is to keep restrictions in place to hold down demand.

And yes, it IMHO, that no one will care if Ft. Worth decides to build an airport in response to the Wright restrictions being removed from Love. It is interesting that SW could have gone to Ft. Worth back in the 1970's, but instead chose to go to Midland, Amarillo, Harlingen, Lubbock etc.

 

[ngneer]

You know, the more you poke around on the internet, the more goodies you find. This tidbit is excerpted from The Washington Post, back in July of 2001:

Additional Long Flights Are Sought At National Bill by Sen. Boxer Revives Va. Worries About Noise By Katherine Shaver
Washington Post Staff Writers
Washington Post-

Sen. Barbara Boxer is attempting to add two cross-country flights at Reagan National Airport, reopening a year-old compromise in Congress that permitted more flights at National but capped the number of long-distance routes.

Some Virginia lawmakers and residents say Boxer's bill confirms their worries that last year's agreement was just the first step toward far more long-distance air traffic at National. The crowded airport's short runways were not designed for the larger airplanes used on cross-country flights, and nearby neighbors say the airspace above their homes is already plenty noisy.

National is one of four U.S. airports that limit the number of takeoffs and landings and one of the few that cap the number of transcontinental flights. The perimeter rule went into effect in 1966, when flights were limited to 650 miles. As demand for commercial jet service increased, Congress expanded the airport's perimeter. Airport officials say that relatively small National was always intended for shorter trips along the East Coast. The much larger Dulles International Airport was designed to accommodate future growth and cross-country flights, in addition to international travel.

Mark Slitt, a spokesman for American Airlines, said American's planes on the Los Angeles route are more modern and quiet than older aircraft. American is already flying the type of plane that would be used between Washington and Los Angeles -- a 737 or 757 -- in and out of National, he said. "Once the airplane wheels leave the tarmac, it's sort of irrelevant where that plane goes," Slitt said.

Hmmm. So it's irrelevant where the plane goes if it benefits AA but relevant if it's an AA competitor. And it's ok to get help from Washington to change perimeter limits if you're AA but not if you're a competitor.

 

[Ch. 12]

AA's planes are the most quiet in the industry. They actually fly in stealth mode. So quiet, all you can hear is their lobbyists wasting countless dollars on fights for meaningless legislation that only costs taxpayers more and more.

 

[ngneer]

SWA should try to get Barbara Boxer to help them lift the Wright Amendment since she was so helpful to AA getting around DCA's perimeter limit.

 

[JS]

Yes...my crystal ball called history.  AA ADDED flights to DAL when Legend was around...didn't MOVE flights.  If they compete for NEW traffic (again...the demand will not remain the same...this is simple market stimulation), they will not subract flights from DFW.

And let's stop with the more flights issue already.  There is a huge issue that is just a through-ticketing issue.  Why can't WN sell a ticket to CA or FL...that won't add any flights?  Artificial limitations are no longer necessary and the sky will not fall if the WA is repealed.

[post="276297"][/post]​

Allowing through-ticketing without changing the restrictions on non-stop destinations will require more flights. Southwest does not fly empty planes to ABQ and LIT just to be nice, or because DAL to ABQ and LIT are EAS routes. Adding the PHX, LAS, LAX, OAK, etc., passengers to the ABQ passengers on the DAL-ABQ route will require at least a doubling of the number of flights.

 

[KCFlyer]

Allowing through-ticketing without changing the restrictions on non-stop destinations will require more flights. Southwest does not fly empty planes to ABQ and LIT just to be nice, or because DAL to ABQ and LIT are EAS routes. Adding the PHX, LAS, LAX, OAK, etc., passengers to the ABQ passengers on the DAL-ABQ route will require at least a doubling of the number of flights.

[post="276366"][/post]​

JS...that ain't necessarily so. Take DAL-MCI via OKC. My last trip there were 40 (count 'em - 40) people who got off the DAL-OKC flight and walked over to the OKC MCI flight. It that were allowed to be a "thru" flight, they wouldn't need to add a thing.

 

[JS]

JS...that ain't necessarily so. Take DAL-MCI via OKC. My last trip there were 40 (count 'em - 40) people who got off the DAL-OKC flight and walked over to the OKC MCI flight. It that were allowed to be a "thru" flight, they wouldn't need to add a thing.

[post="276382"][/post]​

I'm sure you're aware that doing the Texas two-step is more expensive than buying one ticket from DAL to MCI if such a thing existed. Don't you think that there would be more people stopping in OKC if the price to MCI were 1/3 less?

 

[KCFlyer]

I'm sure you're aware that doing the Texas two-step is more expensive than buying one ticket from DAL to MCI if such a thing existed. Don't you think that there would be more people stopping in OKC if the price to MCI were 1/3 less?

[post="276416"][/post]​

JS - doing the Texas two step on a last minute flight saved me over $400. The "regular" fare on (then) Delta or American was $872. Two stepping was $400, and had the WA not been in place the fare would have been more in the neighborhood of $200, which further goes to show that the WA is keeping airfares higher in Dallas. Considering that about 2/3's of those 40 folks were dressed in "business" attire, I can only assume that they too were taking advantage of a similar $400 savings.

 

[Ch. 12]

I'm sure you're aware that doing the Texas two-step is more expensive than buying one ticket from DAL to MCI if such a thing existed. Don't you think that there would be more people stopping in OKC if the price to MCI were 1/3 less?

[post="276416"][/post]​

What are we protecting, JS? Pax would get to the destination they want to go to and at a reasonable price? Sounds like a free market to me.

 

[air_guy]

Your biases are obvious, but your points are frequntly not obvious.

Your point is that there is over capacity in the metroplex. Your solution is to keep Wright restrictions in place to keep airfares high and make it less likely that you can absorb the extra capacity.

So its dizzying and counterintuitive to argue that since there is an over supply of capacity in metroplex that the solution is to keep restrictions in place to hold down demand.

And yes, it IMHO, that no one will care if Ft. Worth decides to build an airport in response to the Wright restrictions being removed from Love. It is interesting that SW could have gone to Ft. Worth back in the 1970's, but instead chose to go to Midland, Amarillo, Harlingen, Lubbock etc.

[post="276340"][/post]​

Again, what prohibits WN or Airtran or any other low cost carrier to fly our of DFW more. Right now Airtran has not expanded flights at DFW for fear that Wright may be repealed. We could be enjoying the lower fares right now. WN could have moved flights to DFW and we could be enjoying lower fares ... right now. But because of WN stubborn fight will have to wait another two years or more to get those lower fares and DFW will bleed money in the meantime and worse if Wright gets repealed. That argument that we need another airport to lower fares is completely ridiculous if the one you have already has plenty of space. To lower fares you need a willing supplier, and I assure you there are plenty as long as the rules and commitments are maintained. As I said before I am not afraid of competition, I think competition is good. If additional competiton at DFW drives more pax I would rather build terminal F that open DAL. Expanding the DART to a future terminal F is part of DFW's master planning. That would make DFW more attractive and a better gateway for Pax. That creates scale and creates jobs. Ah but not jobs for Soutwest at DAL ... and that all they care about.

 

[swflyer]

Give Me A Break!!!

Again, what prohibits WN or Airtran or any other low cost carrier to fly our of DFW more.  American Airlines' size at DFW (hello, 800lb gorilla)

Right now Airtran has not expanded flights at DFW for fear that Wright may be repealed.  Source please, preferrably a newspaper quote or press release

We could be enjoying the lower fares right now.  Had the Shelby amendment gone farther. 

WN could have moved flights to DFW and we could be enjoying lower fares ... right now.  But SWA made the tactical business decision that DFW airport didn't meet it's criteria for sound business practice = making the most money from it's assets. 

But because of WN stubborn fight will have to wait another two years or more to get those lower fares and DFW will bleed money in the meantime and worse if Wright gets repealed.    Does this mean that DFW's money to tie this up in the courts/Congress runs out in two years??  Is DFW bleeding money right now??  If so, what faulty business decisions led to the current bleeding (which must have begun around the time Delta decided to leave and WAY before this discussion of Wright began 

That argument that we need another airport to lower fares is completely ridiculous if the one you have already has plenty of space.  Based on what??  Source??  Actually,  IMHO, overbuilt space causes costs to rise existing tenants, resulting in a need for higher fares. 

To lower fares you need a willing supplier, and I assure you there are plenty as long as the rules and commitments are maintained.  Thanks for the "assurance", I feel better.  Please list "plenty" and their quoted/stated for the record need for "rules and commitments" 

As I said before I am not afraid of competition, I think competition is good.  If additional competiton at DFW drives more pax I would rather build terminal F that open DAL.  Expanding the DART to a future terminal F is part of DFW's master planning.   That would make DFW more attractive and a better gateway for Pax.  That creates scale and creates jobs.  If you build it, they will come.  Right, ask Mid-America airport how they're doing with that philosophy.  Your comment states that you are FOR competition, as long as everyone complies with YOUR terms.  But any other/alternative plan is bad, bad, bad.  Do I have that right??

Ah but not jobs for Soutwest at DAL ... and that all they care about.
Er, SoutHwest should  :blink: not??? :blink:  care about jobs for it's employees??  Southwest Unions have supported sister/brother union employee struggles at other airline carriers, but Management's job is to run the airline and get the maximum benefit for it's shareholders (including employees).  This is basic business 101.

[post="276456"][/post]​

 

[Ch. 12]

air guy-

I can't agree with swflyer more. Give us a break! I am glad that you have been able to single-handedly draw a conclusion as to the reason that FL is not expanding more agressively at DFW. You must have some innate knowledge. From what I have been able to tell, they are worried about DL, not Wright. With DL out of DFW, why should FL keep trying to fight them there? And when did they ever state that they (FL) were trying to establish a mega-hub, there? Again...looking at history, we have been taught "do not try to fight AMR on their turf." That is why I would say FL is not going to waste putting alot of resources into DFW b/c the way that AMR fights, the ROA would be quite dismal (quite negative).

And you really can't figure out that relocating ops to a different airport adds costs? And then the fact that DFW is that much more expensive just goes nowhere to support what you are saying. Look at the report that came out and then come back. Please let the experts make conclusions based on facts...not your twisted perception of what guides fares and carriers' actions.

 

[Ch. 12]

I guess Oakland should be closed as it is within 10 miles from SFO. I guess longbeach should be closed, what about SNA and Burbank?

Also should we close FTW Alliance. Note it was built after Wright. Should AA close their maintenance base and move to DFW?

[post="276295"][/post]​

I vote to close everything but DFW, MIA, and ORD. Why can't all carriers fly only from those airports?

 

[JS]

What are we protecting, JS?  Pax would get to the destination they want to go to and at a reasonable price?

You missed the point, which is that allowing through-ticketing but making no changes to non-stop destinations would require more flights. I have nothing against more flights per se (regardless of carrier), but I would like to, once again, remind the audience that Love Field does not have an enormous amount of space to expand like DFW does.

Sounds like a free market to me.

No, actually the free market would be Southwest starting up long-haul flights from DFW. Lobbying Congress to change the rules to suit them while supporting arbitrary restrictions that exclude others from expanding at Love Field (the Master Plan) is called corporate favoritism, not free markets.