New Legislation To Eradicate Wright/shelby

[Ch. 12]

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.

[post="276478"][/post]​

Thanks for a wonderful supporting argument. Just change it to say Lobbying Congress to maintain outdated rules to suit them while supporting arbitrary restrictions that exclude others from serving real markets unless they are forced to wastefully allocate resouces (which are not plentiful in the airline industry) to relocate all operations is called corporate favoritism, not free markets.

So we have established in this thread that:
1) demand will INCREASE, not shift
2) fares will be more affordable to the consumer
3) competition will finally be allowed without false, outdated restrictions, and therefore more carriers can serve profitable routes.
4) DFW is in no danger of crumbling because a. it is well-established, b. DAL is not large enough to inflict that kind of damage, and c. see #1
5) If adding flights to DAL is bad for the environment and it has been pointed out that DFW and DAL are next door neighbors, why wouldn't adding flights to DFW do the same?
6) the WA was designed for a newly born airport without stable legs to stand on. That is no longer the case...so what exactly is the WA protecting (give you a hint...begins with an "A", ends with an "R", and "M" is in the middle)
7) the sky will not fall if the WA is repealled...customers will benefit, competition will increase, and carriers will have the chance to be in a better position.

I'm sure I could draw more conclusions but as you can see...your statement could easily be turned around. WA is no longer necessary and you know that as well as I. We need it about as much as we still need the red coats defending our poor 13 colonies.

 

[air_guy]

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)

DL size has not prevented Air Tran success at ATL or F9 at Denver or even B6 at JFK.
Right now Airtran has not expanded flights at DFW for fear that Wright may be repealed. Source please, preferably a newspaper quote or press release

Its speculation but it makes perfect sense. More sense than your old and proved wrong gorilla argument

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

Well WN has been quite silent about that for many years ... I wonder why? IF WN is so proconsumer they should have been fighting that ammendment all the time not just now.

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.

The same way it made the sound business decision to stat at place that was going to be restricted in the long run. And now it kicks the board and whines so the rules get changed, because WN does not like them any more.


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.

If the Wright discussions had not started I am convinced the DFW gates would have found a replacement carrier by now.

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.

Logic and economics, things you don't seem to have. Fares have come down at other cities without the need of other airport. Overbuilt space cost nothing if they are airlines willing to occupy it. Something that would be easy if the rules and commitments that have been made were respected.

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"

Is like the assurances that WN will not put too many flights out of DAL, or the assurances that AA won't try to move flights to DAL creating a big mess, or the assurances that traffic stimulation will solve all of our problems.


As I said before I am not afraid of competition, I think competition is good. If additional competition 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??

Nope, not my terms, the terms that were in place. If you buy a house in front of a park with the assurance that there is going to be a park there, that is one thing you will defend because impacts the value of your investment. That the same with DFW. They make investments under the assumptions that the laws and commitments were going to be in place. If SoutHwest (Thanks for helping me type the name correctly) had at least brought this up before terminal D, but right after, why??? that is so mean and inconsiderate.... oh wait they were triggered by the fear than an LCC could feel the void left by DL at DFW and WN would no longer be the unique Low cost Darling in the Metroplex .... Go figure......
Ah but not jobs for Soutwest at DAL ... and that all they care about.
Er, SoutHwest should not??? 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.

The same way the DFW airport will protect its interests, the same way Fort Worth, Grapevine, Irving will protect its interest, the same way, we, the residents surrounding DAL will protect our interests.

 

[swflyer]

I'll grade this paper, but I'm tired of trying with you. <_<

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)
DL size has not prevented Air Tran success at ATL or F9 at Denver or even B6 at JFK.
Ah, but we weren't talking about other airports or airlines, we were talking about DFW and American, and AA's well known defense of it's largest hub.

Right now Airtran has not expanded flights at DFW for fear that Wright may be repealed. Source please, preferably a newspaper quote or press release
Its speculation but it makes perfect sense. More sense than your old and proved wrong gorilla argument
Thank you for admitting the speculation (I found using IMHO works) and I dispute you "proved wrong" my gorilla argument (see above).

We could be enjoying the lower fares right now. Had the Shelby amendment gone farther.
Well WN has been quite silent about that for many years ... I wonder why? IF WN is so proconsumer they should have been fighting that ammendment all the time not just now.
Southwest, like all carriers, could afford some assets not producing at top value before 9-11 and higher fuel prices. This is no longer the case for ANY airline. DAL is also an ALL short haul flying base. Short haul flying has been dis-proportionally hit by a reduction in air travel since 9-11, with long haul travel making up the difference in total pax now flying. Gee, now you don't have to wonder why.

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.
The same way it made the sound business decision to stat at place that was going to be restricted in the long run. And now it kicks the board and whines so the rules get changed, because WN does not like them any more.
I have NO idea what you're trying to say in these two sentances. You do know you can edit your posts to clean up errors??

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.
If the Wright discussions had not started I am convinced the DFW gates would have found a replacement carrier by now.
Oops, once again, SOURCE please. Crystal balls don't count.

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.
Logic and economics, things you don't seem to have. Fares have come down at other cities without the need of other airport. Overbuilt space cost nothing if they are airlines willing to occupy it. Something that would be easy if the rules and commitments that have been made were respected.
Again, we're ONLY talking about DFW. However, I'm sure you'll find that American's (and any other DFW operator's) costs have risen since Delta's departure, as a result of having to cover the cost of the additional gates and Airtrain construction. What's illogical about this basic of economics?? One party leaves, the costs are spread over the remaining leaseholders.

BTW, if we were talking about other airports, fares have come down at BOS, IAD, MIA, IAH, ORD, SFO and LAX PRECISELY because of the "other airport" in the area. They came down in other airports because there was room at that airport for a new operator. NONE of these airports is the LARGEST hub of a major carrier, so I fail to see the "logic" in your argument.

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"
Is like the assurances that WN will not put too many flights out of DAL, or the assurances that AA won't try to move flights to DAL creating a big mess, or the assurances that traffic stimulation will solve all of our problems.
Ah, you failed to answer the question. <_<

As I said before I am not afraid of competition, I think competition is good. If additional competition 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??
Nope, not my terms, the terms that were in place. If you buy a house in front of a park with the assurance that there is going to be a park there, that is one thing you will defend because impacts the value of your investment. That the same with DFW. They make investments under the assumptions that the laws and commitments were going to be in place. If SoutHwest (Thanks for helping me type the name correctly) had at least brought this up before terminal D, but right after, why??? that is so mean and inconsiderate.... oh wait they were triggered by the fear than an LCC could feel the void left by DL at DFW and WN would no longer be the unique Low cost Darling in the Metroplex .... Go figure......
So "mean and inconsiderate" Southwest waited until DFW had gone 'all in' on it's bet for terminal space before changing it's position?? I have a hard time believing DFW is actually THAT paranoid. And I already answered the "Why?" question above.

I'll remind you that "your terms" were listed in the first paragraph here, "As I said before I am not afraid of competition, I think competition is good. If additional competition at DFW drives more pax I would rather build terminal F that open DAL. By stating DFW was the only option, it became "your terms".

Ah but not jobs for Soutwest at DAL ... and that all they care about.
Er, SoutHwest should not??? 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.
The same way the DFW airport will protect its interests, the same way Fort Worth, Grapevine, Irving will protect its interest, the same way, we, the residents surrounding DAL will protect our interests.
Okay, finally some agreement. It IS okay for SWA to care about it's employee's job security. Whew, that was close.

[post="276485"][/post]​

 

[AirplaneFan]

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.

[post="276355"][/post]​

Does AA make its own planes? How can AA planes be quieter than other's if they have the same manufacturer?

 

[AirplaneFan]

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.
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.

[post="276478"][/post]​

CHANGE THE RULES? The rules were unilaterally changed in 1979 when Jim Wright put in his Amendment. Before that SW was free to fly anywhere it wanted from Love.

If Love doesn't have a lot of space to expand than what is the worry? (P.S. I know why you are worried?) SWcan do a lot of damage to premium fares with just a few flights.

I don't know why the "why don't they all move to DFW" crowd doesn't address the fact that operating at DFW is SO MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than DAL. If DFW would match their DAL's costs, I am sure SW would move over. But DFW managment (just like AA) is grossly inefficient and that is the reason why SW won't move. You need to get market forces to work on both AA and DFW.

 

[Ch. 12]

Does AA make its own planes? How can AA planes be quieter than other's if they have the same manufacturer?

[post="276513"][/post]​

Sorry...I was being facetious in reference to the article that ngneer posted. Seems that AA says that noise isn't and shouldn't be considered an issue when they are looking to fly more out of DCA but it is their prime defense when fighting to keep the WA in place. Sorry if my sarcasm wasn't obvious.

 

[JS]

Thanks for a wonderful supporting argument.  Just change it to say Lobbying Congress to maintain outdated rules to suit them while supporting arbitrary restrictions that exclude others from serving real markets unless they are forced to wastefully allocate resouces (which are not plentiful in the airline industry) to relocate all operations is called corporate favoritism, not free markets.

blah blah blah

[post="276482"][/post]​

(emphasis added)

You are convinced that Southwest must either fly nothing from DFW or shut down Love Field and pack up & outright move to DFW. There is no point in continuing to discuss this topic with you.

 

[lowfareair]

(emphasis added)

You are convinced that Southwest must either fly nothing from DFW or shut down Love Field and pack up & outright move to DFW. There is no point in continuing to discuss this topic with you.

[post="276544"][/post]​

AFAIK, the "official" reason that they want DAL to stay restricted is because it is the greatest benefit to the North Texas economy. BUT, I would argue that lifting DAL restrictions would be the greatest benefit. Let's look at the three scenarios:

1) Close DAL. Not an option, since Dallas wants the bizjets and the people in the bizjets want the close-in airport. It was proven legally Dallas cannot ban commercial traffic as long as the airport is open.

2) Leave DAL as it is and WN starts DFW ops. Will hurt the economy in one of two ways: a) Southwest will only have longhaul flights out of DFW, not allowing the full potential for connecting traffic. Somebody traveling PIT-AUS will opt to go through Nashville or Midway instead, causing a loss of revenue for the North Texas airport the passenger would have traveled through, and any services s/he would utilize, such as food, alcohol, magazines, gifts, etc., further hurting the Dallas economy. The other option, B) that Southwest will move its entire operation to DFW, is ludicrous. As Herb said when initially defending why it wants to stay at DAL, nobody from Dallas would go to DFW for a 45-minute flight when the drive to the airport is at least that long. If Southwest moves all ops to DFW, an immense amount of traffic will dry up for them and cause fewer people to go through any Dallas airport.

3) Repeal the Wright Amendment. This brings the greatest economic benefit to the region. As proven time and time again in all markets WN has entered, total traffic will go up in the DFW region. Find me one city-pair where O/D traffic decreased after WN came in. More traffic means more money to the airports, who pro-Wright supporters have said several times 'this is about airports, not airlines'.
________________________________________________________

Air_guy stated that if the Wright Amendment was never brought up by WN, we would have a new carrier in DFW already. I would like to ask him which airline other than WN, since he said that they are scaring the other airlines ready to go in, would even be able to accomplish adding 150 daily flights to/from DFW in the 10 gates and have 70% of the new seats to destinations the airline currently does not serve in the top 50 D-FW O/D markets? United & US are such a clusterf*ck right now that serving Dallas is probably their last priority, especially with both returning aircraft. DL is the one that left. NW is currently building up their Midwest presence in MKE and IND to worry about yet another focus city, plus CO is 200 miles away in IAH so they wouldn't take it and NW codeshares with them anyway. HP is trying to deal with US, and before that they were not interested in openign a new hub. FL would have to dedicate all 19 aircraft they were receiving this year and another 5-6 from current ops to service DFW, meaning they would have to pull several existing routes and would not be able to add anything new to their schedule this year such as CLT, IND, and RIC or other routes they currently have. TZ is just trying to get back into profitability right now. All other carriers are way too small to add anything meaningful to DFW other than 2-3 cities. So can you name me one carrier that would start ops to DFW, and descrive how it is feasible air_guy?
________________________________________________________

"Is like the assurances that WN will not put too many flights out of DAL, or the assurances that AA won't try to move flights to DAL creating a big mess, or the assurances that traffic stimulation will solve all of our problems. "

Master Plan limits DAL to 32 gates, 20-21 for WN. WN won't have more than 200 flights there, and AA couldn't add more than 100 assuming they received EVERY open gate available, which will not be ready immediately. I love the rationale that people say AA will move their ops to DAL. I would pay money to watch AA try and operate 900 flights out of 11 gates. A couple dozen flights to business destinations such as LGA, DCA, PHL, BOS, LAX, SFO, ORD, etc. will not hurt DFW.

I addressed traffic stimulation earlier.

 

[Ch. 12]

(emphasis added)

You are convinced that Southwest must either fly nothing from DFW or shut down Love Field and pack up & outright move to DFW. There is no point in continuing to discuss this topic with you.

[post="276544"][/post]​

JS-

You're through b/c you don't have a leg to stand on in this race. You know as well as everyone else that the WA is no longer serving the purpose that it was originally designed for (to allow DFW the chance to get a strong footing) but is rather allowing AA to maintain its very large share in the long-haul oligopoly from Dallas. Your arguments about noise issues make no sense b/c as we keep hearing from the pro-wrighters, the airports aren't that much separated. Your arguments that DFW will collapse with the lifting of the WA is not valid b/c we all know that DAL has a maximum capacity and cannot take the place of DFW AND we all know that traffic would be ADDED...not DIVERTED.

But back to my moving "ALL" ops. How ridiculous is it to have to operate short-hauls from one airport and long-hauls from another. I am getting quite tired of constatly restating the same arguments that you ignore. There is this thing called economies of scale. Based on this little notion, it is utterly ridiculous for WN to have two bases in one city. YES...they should move ALL ops to DFW if they are forced to. But unfortunately that would mean that their costs go up (though not as signif as having two bases) and fares go up. That means demand goes down and North Texas is losing money. How hard is this to see? You have been brainwashed through your staunch and non-objective relationship with AMR. I am through talking to YOU about this unless you can truly make a case. You have stated nothing that hasn't been rebuked by FACT and your arguments are full of THEORY. It is and has been a propoganda campaign for as long as the WA has outlived its usefullness. And AMR is getting fatter every day. Too bad Legend was crushed by unfair practices and that, despite AMR's "dedication" to this market of high-amenity biz pax during the life of Legend, they have completely abandoned this "important market". This is how AMR works and this is why the WA remains intact despite serving no valid purpose today and the fact that you are too close to AMR, you will never see this issue from an objective point of view.

 

[JS]

JS-

You're through b/c you don't have a leg to stand on in this race.  You know as well as everyone else that the WA is no longer serving the purpose that it was originally designed for (to allow DFW the chance to get a strong footing) but is rather allowing AA to maintain its very large share in the long-haul oligopoly from Dallas.  Your arguments about noise issues make no sense b/c as we keep hearing from the pro-wrighters, the airports aren't that much separated.  Your arguments that DFW will collapse with the lifting of the WA is not valid b/c we all know that DAL has a maximum capacity and cannot take the place of DFW AND we all know that traffic would be ADDED...not DIVERTED.

But back to my moving "ALL" ops.  How ridiculous is it to have to operate short-hauls from one airport and long-hauls from another.

It seems to work for airlines serving both DCA/IAD and both LGA/JFK.

I am getting quite tired of constatly restating the same arguments that you ignore.  There is this thing called economies of scale.  Based on this little notion, it is utterly ridiculous for WN to have two bases in one city.  YES...they should move ALL ops to DFW if they are forced to.  But unfortunately that would mean that their costs go up (though not as signif as having two bases) and fares go up.  That means demand goes down and North Texas is losing money.  How hard is this to see?

How can long-haul WN fares from the Dallas/Ft Worth Metroplex go up when they don't exist? Fact is, the long-haul market fares will drop if WN were to start up long haul service from DFW (while changing nothing at DAL). That will help the North Texas economy, except for AA (which is fine with me).

You have been brainwashed through your staunch and non-objective relationship with AMR.  I am through talking to YOU about this unless you can truly make a case.  You have stated nothing that hasn't been rebuked by FACT and your arguments are full of THEORY.  It is and has been a propoganda campaign for as long as the WA has outlived its usefullness.  And AMR is getting fatter every day.  Too bad Legend was crushed by unfair practices and that, despite AMR's "dedication" to this market of high-amenity biz pax during the life of Legend, they have completely abandoned this "important market".  This is how AMR works and this is why the WA remains intact despite serving no valid purpose today and the fact that you are too close to AMR, you will never see this issue from an objective point of view.

[post="276566"][/post]​

Oh, man, you found me out... I'm in bed with AMR!

Actually, I have no relationship with AMR, other than a remaining balance of 4,500 AA miles. I guess it's just unfathomable to the pro-Southwest crowd that someone could be in favor of keeping the Wright Amendment while not being a mouthpiece of AA.

I don't particularly like AA because of their rude employees and not much service up and down the East Coast where I often fly. If Southwest moved to DFW and put AA out of business, I wouldn't shed a tear.

 

[swflyer]

It seems to work for airlines serving both DCA/IAD and both LGA/JFK.

[post="276590"][/post]​

The only airline I can think of, that's making money doing this, is jetBlue (LGA/JFK), and even their profits were down for the last quarter.

Is there another profitable example of this practice working???

 

[JS]

The only airline I can think of, that's making money doing this, is jetBlue (LGA/JFK), and even their profits were down for the last quarter.

Is there another profitable example of this practice working???

[post="276673"][/post]​

Wow, we are really grasping at straws here, aren't we? Operating flights out of both LGA and JFK is the cause of all the legacy carriers' losses and JetBlue's decreasing profits?

I suppose if AA had decided to either fly only out of LGA and whine about the perimeter rule that prevents them from flying LGA-LAX (or moved everything to JFK and shut down LGA conconcourse D), they would have made money every quarter for the last four years?

 

[AA1B]

Regardless of wether they are making money or not, the point is Southwest has decided they dont want to fly out of DFW or split operations between DAL & DFW period. They as a corporation have decided its more beneficial to just have one airport in the Dallas Metroplex, also if there are perimeter rules in effect for LGA & DCA its because those airports are alot more congested and had slot restrictions which is not the case with Dallas Love Field and they were not put in place to benefit one company over another or help one airport over another airport which is what the WA is all about. So should Southwest fight this? Of course they should it will help consumers and put everyone on an equal field and in the long run it will be good for the Dallas area.
I ve read many of your arguments and the dont understand if your pro AMR corp or just cant stand Southwest. But it seems if you were making decisions for Southwest you would run the company to the ground, please do more research on the wright ammendmant so you can get a better understanding of what its really about.

Wow, we are really grasping at straws here, aren't we? Operating flights out of both LGA and JFK is the cause of all the legacy carriers' losses and JetBlue's decreasing profits?

I suppose if AA had decided to either fly only out of LGA and whine about the perimeter rule that prevents them from flying LGA-LAX (or moved everything to JFK and shut down LGA conconcourse D), they would have made money every quarter for the last four years?

[post="276700"][/post]​

 

[JS]

Regardless of wether they are making money or not, the point is Southwest has decided they dont want to fly out of DFW or split operations between DAL & DFW period. They as a corporation have decided its more beneficial to just have one airport in the Dallas Metroplex, also if there are perimeter rules in effect for LGA & DCA its because those airports are alot more congested and had slot restrictions which is not the case with Dallas Love Field and they were not put in place to benefit one company over another or help one airport over another airport which is what the WA is all about. So should Southwest fight this? Of course they should it will help consumers and put everyone on an equal field and in the long run it will be good for the Dallas area.
I ve read many of your arguments and the dont understand if your pro AMR corp or just cant stand Southwest. But it seems if you were making decisions for Southwest you would run the company to the ground, please do more research on the wright ammendmant so you can get a better understanding of what its really about.

[post="276737"][/post]​

Actually, I like Southwest. I used to avoid them just because of the open seating, but having tried it, it's not so bad. It sure beats the pre-assigned middle seat that, while rare, I have gotten on the legacy carriers. I recently took a double connection on Southwest rather than a single connection in DFW just to stay away from AA. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Southwest wants to do.

 

[ngneer]

It seems to work for airlines serving both DCA/IAD and both LGA/JFK.

[post="276590"][/post]​

Forcing airlines to split their operation among separate airports has to raise costs and, therefore, fares. So it doesn't work for the consumer.