SWAmay move HDQRS

[mga707]

Where DFW was built was in the boonies at the time. Everyone knew that given a choice of driving all the way to DFW or to Love Field or to (I forget the name of Ft. Worth's airport--Meacham?) they would pick the shorter route; so, all airlines at the time had to agree to move to the new airport when it opened.

Not getting into the Wright politics (although I am for its repeal), just correcting a slight factual error: Meacham Field, which still exists, was replaced as Ft. Worth's commercial airport in the early 1950s by Amon Carter Field, later renamed Greater Southwest International Airport. ACF/GSW was located just south of where DFW now sprawls, on the far eastern edge of Tarrant County (Fort Worth extended their city limits out to encompass it). The terminal, torn down in the late 1970s, was located just southeast of the present junction of the 183 and 360 freeways, just east of where FAA Road ends.
Until quite recently there was still a section of old ACF/GSW runway still extant just northeast of the 183/360 interchange (it was used for law enforcement vehicle training), but I beleive it has finally been removed.

 

[corl737]

Meacham Field, which still exists, was replaced as Ft. Worth's commercial airport in the early 1950s by Amon Carter Field, later renamed Greater Southwest International Airport.

Here's a link to the GSIA page of the website of abandonded airfields:
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/TX/Airfie...E.htm#greaterSW

Fascinating reading and great photos including the short extension of the old runway that exists just north of Hwy 183. (Unless, as mga707 thought, that part has been recently removed.)

 

[jimntx]

Jim -- you and I are simply never going to see eye to eye on the Wright Amendment, but I truly enjoy watching the tactics "pro-Wrighters" use to try and justify keeping this way-outdated law intact.

Chink, chink, chink ...

Ok, let's repeal the Wright Amendment, but Southwest at Love has to pay at least 50% of the landing fees that DFW airlines have to pay--that would be a minimum of $2.47/per 1000 lbs. You all blather about honest competition. Ok, let's have it. But not at the ridiculous $0.55/per 1000 that SWA pays at Love and that only for the last week or so. You should pay grown-up landing fees now.

The days of being subsidized by the taxpayers of Dallas should be over if you want "true competition."

 

[corl737]

You should pay grown-up landing fees now.

Tell me you're not serious, Jim! How can you say with a straight face that it is SWA's fault that DFW spent billions on a terminal upgrade and gave the bill to AA through hefty landing fees? Is there some macho factor involved that makes AA proud to pay "grown up landing fees?"

Let's keep the facts straight, Jim. SWA's fees at Love were right in line with maintaining a profitable airport. Here is the quote from the Dallas Morning News article (link to the entire story follows):

"The [Dallas Aviation] department would run a healthy surplus had the city not decided to finance a new parking garage at Love that opened in 2003, said Dallas Aviation Director Kenneth Gwyn. The city chose to finance the garage with bonds to take advantage of low interest rates. If Dallas had used cash from the department's surplus fund, the airport would be running $4 million-a-year in the black.

"The losses are covered by the department's aviation surplus fund that sits at $46 million, an amount that includes no taxpayer dollars. It can cover all of Love's current debt of $38 million. By comparison, D/FW has more than $3 billion in long-term debt."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...ve.4e2cdd1.html

I think that DFW finds itself in a proverbial pickle of a spot. Now that Dallas has raised it's landing fees at Love it's going to have additional funds that must be poured back into the airport. With no room for physically expanding the runway complex, the terminal and other passenger-convenience facilities are the likely beneficiaries. Thus, by whining about "low fees" DFW has asked Love to become an even better customer experience and give passengers even more incentive not to use DFW.

 

[OPNLguy]

Ok, let's repeal the Wright Amendment, but Southwest at Love has to pay at least 50% of the landing fees that DFW airlines have to pay--that would be a minimum of $2.47/per 1000 lbs. You all blather about honest competition. Ok, let's have it. But not at the ridiculous $0.55/per 1000 that SWA pays at Love and that only for the last week or so. You should pay grown-up landing fees now.

The days of being subsidized by the taxpayers of Dallas should be over if you want "true competition."

The newly-increased landing fees go into effect on April 1st.. CO and AA will pay them too...

As far as raising them to $2.47/1000, or $3.47/1000, or $4.47/1000 or whatever number someone feels like pulling out of thin air for the heck of it, that's not how it's done. Landing fees are set to cover the anticipated costs--not whatever one "feels like", or to "level the playing field" between 2 different airports. You'd think that some Dallas City Council folks (especially) would know this.

The reason that DFW's are higher is that they're paying off the international terminal and the Skylink system. By contrast, Love doesn't have any big capital programs either in progress or on the drawing board, hence there's nothing to pay off, and the fees are lower. I can assure you that if Love had similar big-buck projects happening their landing fees would reflect that, and be closer to DFW's.

 

[OPNLguy]

First off the Wright Amendment is what made DFW airport possible.

Only if you used Mr. Peabody's Way-Back Machine, and took the 1979 Wright Amendment back to 1974 (When DFW opened), or even earlier than that...

 

[jimntx]

As far as raising them to $2.47/1000, or $3.47/1000, or $4.47/1000 or whatever number someone feels like pulling out of thin air for the heck of it, that's not how it's done. Landing fees are set to cover the anticipated costs--not whatever one "feels like", or to "level the playing field" between 2 different airports. You'd think that some Dallas City Council folks (especially) would know this.

What the City Council does know is that the nationwide average landing fees for airports comparable to Love is over $2/1000 lbs. What the City Council also knows is that the airport bonds had been downgraded by the rating services because the city was not collecting enough in revenue to assure repayment of its existing bonds--forget any plans to float more bonds for these supposed improvements they would "have" to make.

The airport revenue does NOT have to be spent on the airport in the future. That is a current city ordinance. Ordinances can change. The city might see landing fees at Love as a way to do something about the shortage of police officers and firemen that Dallas seems to perennially have.

It's a long and "honored" tradition among government agencies to make those who are just passing through pay the tab. Higher landing fees at Love would hit the people passing through more than the average taxpayer in the city.

(See also, the outrageous car rental fees paid at IAH. When I go down to Houston to check on property there or go to the doctor, a 3-day rental at $18/day at Enterprise ends up being more like $25-30/day by the time the fees are added. And, that's only if I use the airport pickup and dropoff facility. If I have a friend pick me up and drive me to the Enterprise location in Humble 3 miles from the terminal, the fees end up being between $1-$2/day over the rental rate. )

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

The airport revenue does NOT have to be spent on the airport in the future. That is a current city ordinance. Ordinances can change. The city might see landing fees at Love as a way to do something about the shortage of police officers and firemen that Dallas seems to perennially have.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken, but if I remember correctly...that's not a city ordnance. Nope, that's a federal requirement tied to airports having taken federal dollars.

Federal dollars bought the runways at Love Field, for all intents and purposes.

Those federal dollars were not taken from taxpayers in Little Rock and Tulsa and Grand Island, Nebraska in order to provide a runway for Dallas to use as a cash cow to pay for police officers or a new wardrobe for Laura Miller.

Money generated thru airport operations must be spent on the airport or returned to the companies/agencies who paid those user fees.

That explains why, when DFW generates a surplus due to their rather high landing fees, American (and the lesser airlines at DFW) all get a rebate check.

I think Charlotte's landing fee is in the ballpark as Love Field's actually. I think 77 cents/1000. Therefore, it is not universally true that all airports served by big airlines have to have very high landing fees.

Airports featuring OMG-ostentatious international terminals with magical people mover systems to enhance hub operations need high landing fees.

Airports with 8800' runways that have been there since Braniff was using them for their 707s which have modest terminal buildings do not need such high landing fees.

But let's cut to the chase. If Love Field does business like DFW, and they raise landing fees, and generate a surplus in the process, then they would be on the hook to do like DFW, namely, rebate the overpayment back to Southwest Airlines.

So, instead of that nutroll, better just to set the landing fee at a level that will eliminate any deficit.

 

[jimntx]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken, but if I remember correctly...that's not a city ordnance. Nope, that's a federal requirement tied to airports having taken federal dollars.
Money generated thru airport operations must be spent on the airport or returned to the companies/agencies who paid those user fees.

Perhaps you could direct me to the part of the Federal Register requiring this. All I could find in a search of the FAA website is that IF the city sells off any Love Field property deemed surplus AND that property was purchased with Federal dollars, then the proceeds must be used on the remaining airport property.

 

[corl737]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken, but if I remember correctly...that's not a city ordnance. Nope, that's a federal requirement tied to airports having taken federal dollars.

I'm not even going to claim semi-expert on the FAA's fine print regarding airport financing. However, that being said, here is an excerpt from the FAA's Airport Improvement Program "Airport Sponsor Assurances" document ...

"All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport; the local airport system; or other local facilities which are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and which are directly and substantially related to the actual air transportation of passengers or property; or for noise mitigation purposes on or off the airport."

Note: There is a provision allowing for non-aviation use of revenue provided such city ordinances were in place prior to September 3, 1982.

Reference:
FAA Airport Improvement Program website


-------------------------------

The City of Dallas uses Love Field revenue to underwrite the operation of the non-revenue downtown Dallas Heliport and for improvements at Dallas Executive (formerly Redbird) Airport. It does not, however, used Love Field funds for non-aviation activities.

Perhaps Dallas can implement a Noise Abatement Program similar in scope to that used in Los Angeles? It's a real crock (IMHO) paying folks money who moved in right under final approach, but it does make sense to compensate those who truly were there first.


Now, back to the thread topic --

It makes absolutely no difference to the observer on the ground whether the aircraft flying overhead is going to Albuquerque (Wright permitted) or Nashville (Wright prohibited) as the distances are viturally identical and thus so are the aircraft weights. It does, however, make a huge difference to the costs for passengers and SWA corporate operations to be restricted to the minute Wright boundaries. The takeoff is the most expensive part of any flight and having to go through two cycles to reach Nashville only adds to the expenses. With more and more employees needing to travel to/from Dallas, moving the HQ would cost a lot initially but may be recovered through lower operational expenses.

 

[jimntx]

Perhaps Dallas can implement a Noise Abatement Program similar in scope to that used in Los Angeles? It's a real crock (IMHO) paying folks money who moved in right under final approach, but it does make sense to compensate those who truly were there first.

If that happens you will have me in your corner protesting any such decision. I agree that after the fact law-making is a crock--particularly when it comes to people who have moved next to an airport and then decide to protest about the noise.

The reality is, though, that the people most objecting to the possibility of a noise increase don't even live in Dallas. They live in Highland Park, TX--an enclave city completely surrounded by Dallas--which abuts the airport and is sorta, kinda under the glide path. The further reality is that they are the people with the money in this town; therefore, they are the people with the power in this town. This is Texas, after all. Stay tuned.

 

[OPNLguy]

The reality is, though, that the people most objecting to the possibility of a noise increase don't even live in Dallas. They live in Highland Park, TX--an enclave city completely surrounded by Dallas--which abuts the airport and is sorta, kinda under the glide path.

One of the Love Field Citizen's Action Committee actually lives in Terrell, of all places... :blink:

Highland Park isn't really "kinda" under the glidepath--they're much more perpendicular to the runway centerlines (moreso to 13L-31R) and get "sideline" noise. Most airline flights land on the other runway (13R-31L) on the west side of the airport, which is even further away. Not saying that airliners never use the runway on the east side (they do, usually for landing since the ILS for 13L has better minimums than the one on 13R), but departures usually run off 13R since it's longer. Landing to the north, most aircraft land on 31L, on the west side.

See: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/dallas_love.html

 

[Harold]

With now over 200 departures per day from MDW being the most from any location, certainly more integration with ATA to come,and the central location in the US with Boeing HQ there already, CHICAGO makes the most sense as the new HQ for SWA. Can anyone come up with a reason mot for SWA to move there?

 

[corl737]

With now over 200 departures per day from MDW being the most from any location, certainly more integration with ATA to come,and the central location in the US with Boeing HQ there already, CHICAGO makes the most sense as the new HQ for SWA. Can anyone come up with a reason mot for SWA to move there?

It is just way too much fun to watch Fort Worth, DFW, and AA get spun around the axel with Wright-repeal efforts. To move to Chicago would be to give up a front row seat on the comedy show!

 

[mga707]

With now over 200 departures per day from MDW being the most from any location,

Not quite, yet, anyway--Here's the daily departure totals, as of March 17:
1) LAS--217
2) PHX--201
3) MDW--200

IIRC, MDW will add about 15 more daily departures by June, so that will put them within striking distance of Vegas for the "most flights" bragging rights. Of course, LAS will probably add at least a couple by then as well.