Travel Coalition Recommends Move to DFW

[wnbubbleboy]

Group Urges Mayors to Focus Strictly on Public Interest
Calls on Southwest to Move to DFW, but Cautions American to be Careful What
It Asks for

RADNOR, Pa., April 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The Business Travel Coalition
(BTC) today published analysis and conclusions regarding the Wright
Amendment controversy after a 5-month due diligence initiative. In a letter
to Dallas Mayor Laura Miller and Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief, BTC urged
the officials to consider BTC's findings as well as Senators James Inhofe's
(R-OK) and Tom Harkin's (D-IA) proposed legislation, S. 1425.
According to the Coalition, if the Mayors and City Councils pursue
what's in the highest and best public interest versus what's in American
Airlines' or Southwest Airlines' interest, then business travelers in Texas
and around the country will benefit enormously. It is BTC's conclusion that
the public interest is best served by Southwest Airlines moving to DFW, a
move advocated by DFW and American.
BTC Chairman Kevin Mitchell cautioned though, "Some may think such a
move would be a dancing-in-the-street solution for American, but the
airline should be careful what it asks for. Did US Airways invite Southwest
into its hubs at Baltimore, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; United, Denver and
Dulles? Of course not. Southwest's entry to DFW would be a serious threat
to American wherein the only winners who matter would be the consumer and
the taxpayer."
The BTC Report can be downloaded at http://btcweb.biz/wright.htm.
Founded in 1994, the mission of the Business Travel Coalition is to
lower the long-term cost structure of business travel. BTC seeks to bring
transparency to industry and government policies and practices so that
customers can influence issues of strategic importance to them.


Here's an article from the above's website:


Phaseout at Love seen as a solutionBy DAVID WETHE
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER
A Pennsylvania-based group representing business travelers across the country proposes phasing out commercial flights at Dallas Love Field over three years and letting the two Metroplex airlines battle it out at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport as a way to resolve the Wright Amendment dispute.




http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/14307667.htm

 

[AirwAr]

...Cautions American to be Careful What It Asks for

Closing DAL has always been AA's second choice. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that AA's real desire is status quo.

In my opinion, DAL should be closed. With DFW's near limitless growth potential, it would provide an equal footing to any airline choosing to compete in the DFW market. DAL, which has an advantage of being the close-in airport, does not have limitless growth and is not even close to being large enough to support the current flight demands of the metroplex.

 

[ramper_in_las]

Closing DAL has always been AA's second choice. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that AA's real desire is status quo.

In my opinion, DAL should be closed. With DFW's near limitless growth potential, it would provide an equal footing to any airline choosing to compete in the DFW market. DAL, which has an advantage of being the close-in airport, does not have limitless growth and is not even close to being large enough to support the current flight demands of the metroplex.

Sure is nice of you to come over and express your opinion as brainwashed as it may be.
Vegas odds are the Wright amendment repeal coming in the near future. Anyone want to bet on it???

 

[KCFlyer]

Sure is nice of you to come over and express your opinion as brainwashed as it may be.
Vegas odds are the Wright amendment repeal coming in the near future. Anyone want to bet on it???

Not me....I don't usually make bets I can't win

 

[AirwAr]

Sure is nice of you to come over and express your opinion as brainwashed as it may be.
Vegas odds are the Wright amendment repeal coming in the near future. Anyone want to bet on it???

Well, thanks for having me.

Actually, if I were brainwashed, I'ld be arguing for the status quo. AA wants to keep WN at DAL and fenced in. I, on the other hand, would like to see AA and WN go head-to-head on a level playing field. That would be the best possible outcome for the consumer. The problem is that DAL does not provide a level playing field.

You know, I could just as easily say your brainwashed, but I don't think you are. I think you know very well that WN wants to open DAL, versus moving to DFW, because it wants to maintain it's monopoly with no possibility of a serious challenger to its dominance. Smart business? Yes. Smart for the consumer? Maybe in the short run. In the long run, the consumer would get the most benefit from AA and WN slugging it out at DFW. Limitless flights mean limitless competition.

I think you've heard all this before, but you just discard it as crazy brainwash talk.

But don't you think it's possible that WN isn't as altruistic as they would have everyone believe. Admit it, WN has a huge advantage in DAL and does not want to give it up to compete on a level playing field. They are even fighting to keep the gate limits that were agreed to in the master plan so as to limit direct competition.

DFW provides the perfect environment that allows all carriers to compete. No one carrier has a geographic advantage. No one carrier as a lock on the majority of the gates.

If DAL could handle the region's air travel, I'ld be pushing for AA to move, but the fact is it can't.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

Well, thanks for having me.

Actually, if I were brainwashed, I'ld be arguing for the status quo. AA wants to keep WN at DAL and fenced in. I, on the other hand, would like to see AA and WN go head-to-head on a level playing field. That would be the best possible outcome for the consumer. The problem is that DAL does not provide a level playing field.

Well, as much as you would like to see it, I'm afraid you won't see WN competing against American from DFW.

Your options are:

Status quo: Southwest grows elsewhere, continues to deemphasize Dallas, eventually moves headquarters

Wright chipped away at, state by state: you'll see WN doing what they did vis-a-vis St Louis and Kansas City

Wright chipped away at and the prohibition to thru ticketing goes away: This would be pretty good, actually. You would see a whole lot of DAL-ELP-LAX, DAL-ABQ-OAK, DAL-LIT-BWI, DAL-MCI-MDW, DAL-MSY-MCO type stuff.

Wright totally repealed: You would swee some growth, but the end result would be pretty much like the previous example. The cities to benefit would not only be Dallas, but would be the first stop on a direct flight in WA territory.

Dallas Love Field closed: Southwest abandons the DFW market. AA starts charging $475 for walk up fare to Houston.

 

[AirwAr]

Dallas Love Field closed: Southwest abandons the DFW market. AA starts charging $475 for walk up fare to Houston.

I really find it hard to believe that WN would walk away from the DFW market. WN is about business. They know they have more than enough loyal flyers in the area to make it worthwhile to stay put. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I believe that this statement would only be used as a scare tactic to keep DAL open. As a matter of fact I have yet to hear any WN exec say they'll abandon the D/FW region if DAL is closed.

To me, there is only 1 clear solution, which neither carrier wants, in which greatest public benefit is had. All airlines serving the D/FW market should be able to compete on an equal footing, allowing unlimited flights, without any single airline having a geographic advantage. It just so happens that that location is DFW, not DAL.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

I really find it hard to believe that WN would walk away from the DFW market. WN is about business. They know they have more than enough loyal flyers in the area to make it worthwhile to stay put. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I believe that this statement would only be used as a scare tactic to keep DAL open. As a matter of fact I have yet to hear any WN exec say they'll abandon the D/FW region if DAL is closed.

To me, there is only 1 clear solution, which neither carrier wants, in which greatest public benefit is had. All airlines serving the D/FW market should be able to compete on an equal footing, allowing unlimited flights, without any single airline having a geographic advantage. It just so happens that that location is DFW, not DAL.

Please do not be offended by the rhetorical question I am about to ask.

WHO DIED AND LEFT YOU GOD?

Seriously, though. Who are you to tell the city of Dallas....or any city at all.....that they can not have multiple airports with commercial airline service?

New York has multiple airports. Chicago has multiple airports. The San Francisco Bay Area has multiple airports. South Florida (MIA/FLL/PBI) has multiple airports. Los Angeles has more airports than Liz Taylor had husbands.

Okay. What you are about to say now will be "those places are much bigger than Dallas."

Then I respond "Houston has multiple airports."

There is one way and one way only to find out if the Dallas area needs multiple airports.

Allow multiple airports to operate. If the area supports them, if the flights in and out of Love Field make money, then I guess Dallas needed multiple airports all along and never realized it.

As far as Dallas junking the DFW market.....it sort of goes back to an old Texas cliche that there are some people that you just don't want to piss off.

The city of El Paso learned the hard way that not listening to Southwest sometimes carries a penalty. El Paso has sat there and stagnated for years while 250 miles up the road in Albuquerque ( a town with similar population and demographics ) has picked up WN nonstops to OAK, PDX, SEA, TPA, MCO, MDW, BWI, MCI...

If the city, somehow, m anaged to evict Southwest from Love Field, I think you should expect to see Southwest turn their backs on the ungrateful. Folks in the mighty metroplexus would find out real quick how expensive and how crappy their airline service can become.

 

[TechBoy]

Wright totally repealed: You would swee some growth, but the end result would be pretty much like the previous example. The cities to benefit would not only be Dallas, but would be the first stop on a direct flight in WA territory.

I disagree. Under total repeal, WN would immediately start major operations to ISP, BWI, MDW, LAX, OAK, PHX, MCO at a minimum. These routes would be very popular and also profitable. If DAL lacked capacity to handle the new flights, WN would cut back on frequency in some of the smaller markets currently served. That is what makes business sense.

Not to mention that it would be great for consumers as well.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

I disagree. Under total repeal, WN would immediately start major operations to ISP, BWI, MDW, LAX, OAK, PHX, MCO at a minimum. These routes would be very popular and also profitable. If DAL lacked capacity to handle the new flights, WN would cut back on frequency in some of the smaller markets currently served. That is what makes business sense.

Not to mention that it would be great for consumers as well.

I know you believe what you posted, and I suppose you could be right.

However I have spent quite a few years around WN and the folks who work there and I may not know everything, but I do know a little bit about how their minds work.

Southwest believes in the one stop. It has made the basketloads of money over the years.

They also believe in frequency. The airline with the most frequency in any given market will have a disproportionately large slice of market share.

I think they would probably be up close to 180-200 flights a day in a short period of time.

You would see DAL-MAF-LAS, DAL-LBB-LAS, and DAL-AMA-LAS.

You would probably see DAL-ABQ-PDX and DAL-ABQ-SEA

I have no doubt but what you would see DAL-ELP-LAX

and DAL-JAN-MCO and DAL-BHM-BWI

DAL-LIT-BWI and DAL-MCI-MDW and DAL-STL-PHL

DAL-MSY-TPA AND DAL-MSY-FLL

Frequency is probably as important to WN's long term success as is the single plane fleet. Having a lot of flights allows you to spread your fixed costs over a larger base.

So, rather than 3 RTs a day to Las Vegas, you'd probably see 5 - 2 nonstops and 3 1 stops.

To Chicago you'd probably have about 12 flights a day to choose from....2 via OKC, 2 via TUL, 3 via MCI, 3 via STL, and 2 nonstops.

There are a lot of ways to slice and dice it.

But Southwest won't be pulling their horns in in the Texas Intrastate/WA area either.

The yields are far too good....and once Love Field becomes a place folks can make connections.....those flights going out with 70 folks on board will now have 100.

of course all this is conjecture. But Southwest for years has hauled the multitudes DAL-HOU-HRL, DAL-HOU-CRP, DAL-LBB-ELP, HOU-DAL-AMA, DAL-HOU-MSY, HOU-MSY-TPA, HOU-MSY-MCO and so on and so forth.

They REALLY like one stops.

Repealing Wright won't change that mindset.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Im wondering if the feds spend millions of dollars to improve Love Field for commercial use?

 

[JS]

I'm no fan of SWA, having said that the Wright Amendment should be repealed immediately if not sooner.

Government, in theory deregulated commercial aviation. If that's the case, why is there a law telling ONE airline where it can & can not fly?

IMO it is always better for the consumer when the Government stays out of things of which it has no knowledge.

Thing like generating a profit or provising shareholder value or customer satisfaction for 3 that come to mind.

There is no law telling one airline where it can and cannot fly. Federal law restricts flights out of Love Field because Love Field cannot handle the air traffic demands of the D/FW Metroplex. It is up to each airline to decide which airports to fly out of and which to ignore.

 

[TechBoy]

I know you believe what you posted, and I suppose you could be right.

However I have spent quite a few years around WN and the folks who work there and I may not know everything, but I do know a little bit about how their minds work.

Southwest believes in the one stop. It has made the basketloads of money over the years.

They also believe in frequency. The airline with the most frequency in any given market will have a disproportionately large slice of market share.

I don't disagree that they will run lots of one stops on the tail end of existing flights within the current perimeter. But the big change will be lots of nonstop flights to major markets currently served by WN. The nonstop flights will facilitate connections via DAL -- most pax will not do a double connect.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

There is no law telling one airline where it can and cannot fly. Federal law restricts flights out of Love Field because Love Field cannot handle the air traffic demands of the D/FW Metroplex.

JS, that is a little bit disingenious.....

But I appreciate you not wanting to let facts get in the way of an agenda.

Federal Law (aka "the Wright Amendment") did not limit or restrict Love Field due to its inability to handle air traffic demands of the region.

The Wright Amendment was put in to place for one reason and one reason only. To limit destinations that Southwest could fly to after the deregulation of the airline industry.

Strangely enough, shortly after Wright became law, a very large airline that now controls 85% of the traffic at DFW moved its corporate headquarters in to Jim Wright's congressional district. But I'm sure that was just a coincidence.

It is true that Love Field can not (today) handle all of the total air travel requirements of the entire region. Then again, I do not think anyone is advocating closing or restricting DFW in favor of a Love Field expansion.

But that isn't why the law was put on the books. Had nothing to do with it. The law went on the books to punish Southwest...for having the audacity to challenge a forced move to DFW that it had not agreed to.

Amon Carter and by extension the entire city of Fort Worth had a serious inferiority complex about Dallas. They tried to get the CAB to force everyone to Greater Southwest and when they failed to do so, GSW became a mounument to civic stupidity.

I can make a pretty good argument that the Wright Amendment is their revenge.

I like to think of the Dallas/Ft Worth area is a bustling, modern metro area with a lot of commerce...one that is at least as "big time" as Houston or Chicago....with designs to be as significant as El Lay, the SF Bay Area, the DC area, NYC, South Florida.

You know. Big time places that can support multiple commercial airports.

So either Dallas/Ft Worth have made the big time and can support multiple commercial airports or they are a little bitty backwater podunky metro area that can only support a single airport.

You cannot have it both ways. If you try to force all the airline service in a Metro Area you end up with Atlanta....and the only thing wrong with Atlanta is they rebuilt it after the Yankees burnt it down.

 

[AirwAr]

The Wright Amendment was put in to place for one reason and one reason only. To limit destinations that Southwest could fly to after the deregulation of the airline industry.

You see PineyBob, this is exactly what Southwest wants you to believe. This law is not in place to punish Southwest. It is in place for all airlines. AA flew from DAL to NYC to compete against Legend Airlines. Each of those carriers abided by the law and flew with less than 56 seats. Southwest, on the other hand, wants you to think that they are not allowed to compete on a level playing field. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Southwest, with its monopoly at DAL is looking to take advantage of the public. They don't want competition. It's understandable, but it's not exactly in the public's best interest.

Make no mistake, if DAL is opened up, there would be immediate benifits to the consumer. Not because the airports are competing, but because the airlines are competing. However, there is a limit to the benefit because DAL does not provide a level playing field for all airlines to compete. If, however, DAL is closed and WN is forced to move to DFW, there will be immediate and long lasting benefits for consumers. Tax payers only need to support 1 airport and airlines can expand at will, with no intervention from the governemnt. At DAL, the governement will have to decide the winners and the losers because of the capacity constraints.

PineyBob stated "IMO it is always better for the consumer when the Government stays out of things of which it has no knowledge." I agree with you wholeheartedly that government should stay out of competition, however, the government needs to provide a fair and equal playing field for all to compete. That is why DFW was created. To give all airlines a fighting chance to serve the D/FW market. If WN doesn't feel it can compete on a level playing field with everyone else, then it needs to stay at flight-restricted-DAL.

Please, make no mistake, the Wright Amendment is in affect for all airlines, not just Southwest.