SWA now getting involved with slot (s) possibilities

[swamt]

If you click your heels together at the same time you keep saying that, it might increase your chances it will happen.

"would like to" doesn't mean they will be able to or will...

WN might want to run a little monopoly at DAL but it flies in the face of the whole reason for giving WN the ability to bid on slots at DCA and LGA as a small carrier in those markets.

There are people in the US who are smart enough to know that simply transferring a monopoly at one airport for another monopoly at another airport makes any kind of sense to the American people.

Here you go again WT. Not making any cense at all.
Click my heels to make what happen? In my post I said SWA wants those gates, I DID NOT say SWA was going to get them.

Where do you get "would like to" from my post?

Your a little off here WT...

 

[WorldTraveler]

There are a lot of people that WANT a whole lot more than they can have.


The simple fact is that it makes no sense for any carrier to try to compete for a part of the market in a WN-dominated airport when they have a sure path to profits in DFW which is dominated by AA, a higher CASM carrier and one where the market is already defined. It doesn't make sense to walk away from a sure bet at DFW to move to DAL.

Further, unlike DL, the rest of the LFCs are small carriers where operating a couple flights at each airport adds a lot of cost with little benefit.

DL loaded the schedules for its DAL service for a reason.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The simple fact is that it makes no sense for any carrier to try to compete for a part of the market in a WN-dominated airport when they have a sure path to profits in DFW which is dominated by AA, a higher CASM carrier and one where the market is already defined. It doesn't make sense to walk away from a sure bet at DFW to move to DAL.

Further, unlike DL, the rest of the LFCs are small carriers where operating a couple flights at each airport adds a lot of cost with little benefit.
 

If it is a fact that it makes no sense for any carrier to try to compete with WN at DAL, then why does it make sense for DL? 
 
If I were in a position of a marketing person or a PR person for DAL, I might be cheering for more LFC's at DAL to get the AA gates.  The reason being is that you then could sell the 'DAL is the all LFC airport in N. Texas' brand.

 

[eolesen]

There are a lot of people that WANT a whole lot more than they can have.
DL loaded the schedules for its DAL service for a reason.

Yes, they did.

They want to try and influence the process knowing that the deck has already been stacked against them.

They want to be able to play martyr when the slots go to someone else, and will likely wage a war in the press over how they're being discriminated against.

It's not like we've ever seen this before... AA did pretty much all the same stuff at LGB. And it didn't work there, either.

 

there you go with your character assassination because you can't logically answer a few Market-driven questions.

No, your "who else has applied" question has nothing to do with market driven questions.

You asking for proof that VX, B6, G4, or AS *haven't* asked for access is no different than me asking an equally ridiculous question about when you stopped molesting children. Neither one can really be proven either way, now can they?....


The fact remains you don't know who else is going to want to serve DAL, and unlike a route proceeding where you get to pick and choose the winners based on a "common good" argument, airports don't have to do that.

The only obligation that the City has is to provide equal access. Since DL is not signatory at the moment, they're not grandfathered, nor are they entitled to any preferential treatment over other airlines, regardless what their cost advantage/disadvantage is.

Then there's the politics....

DL has chosen to try and manipulate the process in public. They've also lobbied to get Congressional support from representatives and senators from other states...

At some point, that stuff backfires, and pisses off the local authorities, who don't particularly like the way Washington and other outsiders have successfully micro-managed their airport for the past 40 years.

If it were representatives from Texas who were intervening, perhaps it might carry some weight, but I seriously doubt that they're going to let anyone outside of Texas influence how their airport operates.

And then there's the history that DL has with North Texas... DL walked away and left a 20% vacancy rate at an airport where the City of Dallas is a 25% owner. Fortunately, they did it outside of bankruptcy, but stuff like this doesn't just get wished away.

 

[WorldTraveler]

If it is a fact that it makes no sense for any carrier to try to compete with WN at DAL, then why does it make sense for DL? 
 
If I were in a position of a marketing person or a PR person for DAL, I might be cheering for more LFC's at DAL to get the AA gates.  The reason being is that you then could sell the 'DAL is the all LFC airport in N. Texas' brand.

I said that it makes no sense for a carrier serving only one airport to try to divide their service in N. Texas.

DL already serves both airports and intends to continue that. Their schedules prove they are succeeding.
 
 

Yes, they did.

They want to try and influence the process knowing that the deck has already been stacked against them.

They want to be able to play martyr when the slots go to someone else, and will likely wage a war in the press over how they're being discriminated against.

It's not like we've ever seen this before... AA did pretty much all the same stuff at LGB. And it didn't work there, either.

flesh out your thoughts on how LGB and AA is similar to DAL.

Your description sounds just like the game WN has played for years.... they don't have a trademark on it.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The fact remains you don't know who else is going to want to serve DAL, and unlike a route proceeding where you get to pick and choose the winners based on a "common good" argument, airports don't have to do that.

The only obligation that the City has is to provide equal access. Since DL is not signatory at the moment, they're not grandfathered, nor are they entitled to any preferential treatment over other airlines, regardless what their cost advantage/disadvantage is.

 
+1

 

[eolesen]

If you click your heels together at the same time you keep saying that, it might increase your chances it will happen.
....
There are people in the US who are smart enough to know that simply transferring a monopoly at one airport for another monopoly at another airport makes any kind of sense to the American people.

You seem to be doing a lot of heel clicking yourself, Skippy...

What do you call giving all of the slots at DAL to three airlines who combined control over 80% of the domestic market?

People who are smart enough know that's not exactly good public policy.

Under federal, state and city procurement guidelines, a disadvantaged business enterprise gets a certain percentage of the work put out for bid.

In the airline world, that's anyone except for AA, DL, or UA.

Smart people know that.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I said that it makes no sense for a carrier serving only one airport to try to divide their service in N. Texas.

DL already serves both airports and intends to continue that. Their schedules prove they are succeeding.
 

 
I'm sorry I didn't catch the fine print and/or * in the 30+ pages.
But I did see this:   http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56327-swa-now-getting-involved-with-slot-s-possibilities/?p=1045733

 

[WorldTraveler]

this isn't a procurement procedure, E. And it doesn't change that there is no evidence that anyone else wants to use the gates. No other carrier is willing to put its assets at risk in a fight with WN.

You do realize that all of the LCCs are tripping over themselves trying to get slots at DCA and LGA which will tap out much of their growth for 2014?

Nor does DL's history at DFW have anything to do with this proceeding as much as you and WN's fans are desperate to try to keep DL out of DAL.

It is precisely because DL has a track record of successfully competing against AA and WN that both sides are pulling out their own stops to try to stop DL.

Problem is that a duopoly is still a duopoly and DL has a very legitimate and proven role in breaking it up as much as you two parties don't want DL to be able to do it.

I also find it amusing how badly you argue trying to keep DL out of DAL knowing full well that 2 more gates in WN's hands mean another 4 or so cities that WN could serve with 600 seats or more per day, more than enough to carry AA's entire local market from DFW to nearly every city it serves.

Your argument falls even further apart trying to argue that WN should get an additional 10% of the gates at an airport where it already controls 80% of the gates.

There is nothing disadvantaged about WN either on a national scale or at DAL.

WN is a small carrier at LGA and DCA because they failed to plan to expand there years ago. They are not a disadvantaged carrier in the US as a whole or at DAL.

If anything, anybody but WN deserves access to DAL.

And it also doesn't change that there is no evidence whatsoever that any besides DL has expressed an interest in the gates.

Can you provide an example of where another LCC has successfully begun service into a WN strength market....

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

And it also doesn't change that there is no evidence whatsoever that any besides DL has expressed an interest in the gates.

 
I wouldn't be so sure about that. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

but you really don't know or can show it, can you?

You have all tried for weeks to come up with a mythical competitor that would push DL out of an airport they already serve.

DL has loaded the flights... we don't have word one from any other carrier except WN about wanting those gates... or did I miss smoething?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

But you're posting on here "facts" as if you were either a part of DL or DAL management.  All you've got to go on is 1) your enthusiasm for DL and 2) a DL press release announcing the loading of the wished flights in their res system. 
Just because DL is very public about the desire for more gates & service at DAL, it doesn't necessarily mean that no other carrier (network or LCC) is expressing interest or studying the economics of obtaining the 2 gates / more service at DAL.

 

[WorldTraveler]

it is a fact that AA and WN and their respective fan clubs here have a whole lot of reason to keep DL out of DAL... problem is that there is no valid reason that meets any modicum of antitrust law to push the third largest carrier in the metroplex out of the market so the top two can get a bigger piece of the pie for themselves.

You and others have argued that there will be low cost carriers that will come along and should be given the nod over DL which currently serves the airport.

There is no other carrier besides WN that wants the gates.

Move on and realize that DL is outfoxing AA and WN at the Wright Amendment, the same game they have used to beat each other up for 40 years.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

But wait:  I believe that on numerous occasions you have stated that in D-FW metroplex the DL is the 2nd largest carrier*^ (local O/D).  Therefore, by your own definition, DL is hardly at a disadvantage, and there should be no reason to give it access to more scarce resources. 
* depending on whether this definition fits the theory you're trying to prove
^ definition may updated to fit the theory you're trying to prove
 
Fact is that until now, only DL and WN have publically expressed interest in the 2 DAL gates. 
You don't know if any other airline has also expressed interest in acquiring them.
And your guess at this point as to which carrier will be awarded the gates is almost as good as mine.

 

[700UW]

There is no other carrier besides WN that wants the gates.
 

So now you are privy to who wants what behind the scenes?
 
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make noise?
 
Give it a rest, you dont know what is going on, did you have any clue about VX wanting LGA slots?
 
Nope you didnt, now go back to being a sore loser.