What After Wright?

[jimntx]

Oh, I have no problem with the Wright Amendment being repealed or there being "more competition" in the DFW area. What I have a problem with is the fact that SWA has control of the great majority of gates at DAL, wants to keep that control, and everyone else "compete" with them from the safe distance of DFW with its higher gate and landing fees.

Several people have tried to use the argument of "how many gates does AA control at DFW". Well, a lot of them, not almost 90% like SW at DAL, but a lot. And, there is still almost a full terminal of gates available for anyone who wants them at DFW, very much unlike DAL.

Now if SW were willing to give up enough of its gates at DAL that another airline could mount a meaningful competition, or if SW was willing to pay the same gate and landing fees that everyone else pays at DFW. Now that would be competition on a level playing field. Truth is that competition on a truly level playing field is not what SW wants.

It's just like the Boeing Field thing. If Alaska gets some financing to build its own terminal there, I bet SW will be a LOT less interested in moving there.

 

[KCFlyer]

Oh, I have no problem with the Wright Amendment being repealed or there being "more competition" in the DFW area. What I have a problem with is the fact that SWA has control of the great majority of gates at DAL, wants to keep that control, and everyone else "compete" with them from the safe distance of DFW with its higher gate and landing fees.

Several people have tried to use the argument of "how many gates does AA control at DFW". Well, a lot of them, not almost 90% like SW at DAL, but a lot. And, there is still almost a full terminal of gates available for anyone who wants them at DFW, very much unlike DAL.

Now if SW were willing to give up enough of its gates at DAL that another airline could mount a meaningful competition, or if SW was willing to pay the same gate and landing fees that everyone else pays at DFW. Now that would be competition on a level playing field. Truth is that competition on a truly level playing field is not what SW wants.

It's just like the Boeing Field thing. If Alaska gets some financing to build its own terminal there, I bet SW will be a LOT less interested in moving there.

[post="283929"][/post]​

Jim...I believe that if the WA is repealed, SWA would have the same or less (percentage wise) of the gates at DAL that AA has at DFW. So anyone is free to move into those "spare" gates. I think the city would have a problem if someone took one gate for one daily flight. And on the other hand, who said anyone had to have a hub at DAL to compete? AA could do at DAL exactly what they do at Midway - they seem to be doing okay there. Why is DAL so special?

 

[TechBoy]

For the umpteenth time--another indication of the SWA cheerleader...if the facts do not fit the theory, they must be discarded. How many times have SWA-philes pointed out that AA illegally flew from DAL just to destroy Legend?

Fact 1: AA has 3 gates at DAL.
Fact 2: AA's agreement with the city of Dallas is that the gates will be used only for office space. In fact, I think the jetbridges have been removed.
Fact 3: AA leased gate space from another airline--CO, I think--during the Legend episode.
Fact 4: AA's aircraft used during the Legend episode did not violate the Wright Amendment because they had fewer than 56 seats. (Granted, they had 55 seats, but that is less than 56. )
Fact 5: SWA can fly to all those places like LAX and LAS today. All they have to do is use aircraft with less than 56 seats.

And, once again, the "very stupid law" as you put it was the idea put forth by a SWA attorney. What about the old saying, "You made your bed, now lie in it."

[post="283896"][/post]​

OK, Jim, let's look at the facts.

First off, I'm no "SWA-phile." In fact, I've never flown them and hope never to have to. Maybe if they start assigning seats. Generally, I prefer my F seat on UA.

Second, it was you who contended that AA was following its agreement not to fly from DAL, not me. I merely pointed out that that was not true.

Third, I don't think that AA's F100 flights from DAL were illegal. They were just as legal as WN's. They may have been part of an AA strategy to restrict competition in violation of the Sherman Act, but that is a matter of opinion -- and not relevant to the legality of the flights themselves.

Fourth, Southwest had a gun to its head when it proposed the compromise in 1979. The alternative was to have DAL closed. I don't think that they made their bed. Not to mention that 25+ years have passed. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate that law, no?

 

[jimntx]

Why is DAL so special?

[post="283935"][/post]​

Precisely. So why is SWA so determined to change the Wright Amendment if there is nothing special about DAL? Can you or anyone else compare where SWA was in 1979 and where they are today honestly say that SWA has been damaged in any way by the Wright Amendment?

And, don't give me the baloney that SW is just trying to see that the good people of Dallas deserve low fares. I read a statement a long time ago in graduate school that said something like, "Beware any corporation which says its motives are altruistic." SW, like every other successful company is U.S. history, was founded and exists today to make a profit. End of story. SW could care less about whether or not the good people of Dallas have access to low fares.

And, again, the percentage of gates that AA holds at DFW is of no consequence as long as there is a whole terminal available for rent. Now, if airlines were complaining that they would start service to DFW if only they could get some gate space from AA, that would be a different issue. But, they ain't. The DFW board all but offered Terminal E free of charge to anyone who would come in there. No one wanted to.

I reiterate, SW wants "competition" in the DFW market, but on their terms...them with near exclusive use of DAL (I don't think they are worried about CoEx's shuttle to IAH) and everyone else competing from DFW.

 

[corl737]

Ok everybody. Let's stop accusing everyone else of distorting the truth and straigten a few things up.

1) Statement: The Wright Amendment was Southwest's idea.
Truth: FALSE. The Wright Amendment, as originally written by Jim Wright, sought to close Love Field to all commercial air traffic. This stood absolutely no chance of passing but there was momentum for some restriction in order to preserve the federal investment in DFW. Thus, SWA proposed the perimeter restrictions and those were agreed to. It was better for SWA to offer something they could live with rather than risk getting a more restrictive deal from an unknown congressional committee. Thus, the "Wright Amendment" was solely Jim Wright's doing. The wording, however, had SWA input as a measure of survival.

2) Statement: Southwest is attempting to back out on a deal.
Truth: FALSE. If you look at the Wright Amendment document you will find that there is absolutely no mention of Southwest Airlines anywhere. It applies without prejudice to every commercial passenger air carrier that operates from Dallas Love Field. Furthermore, it isn't a "contract", it is a Federal Law. Congress doesn't offer contracts, they impose mandates.

3) Statement: If the Wright Amendment is repealed Southwest Airlines will control 90% (or whatever percentage you want to insert) of the gates.
Truth: FALSE. 100% of the gates at Love Field are controlled by the City of Dallas. Federal Law requires that each airport develop and submit to the FAA, an Airport Competition Plan. This is a document that explains a lot about how the business side of the airport operates but also includes how gate space will be made available to all parties desiring such space and how existing leases can be modified to make underutilized gates more productive through gate sharing. If you're interested in learning more about Love Field's plan, take a look at the Love Field Homepage then click on the Airport News link.

4) Statement: Alliance Airport violates the Wright Amendment.
Truth: FALSE. There is confusion between the Wright Amendment (which applies only to commercial passenger air carriers at Dallas Love Field) and the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance. Alliance does not violate the Bond Ordinance either because it (1) proposes service limits at only four specific airports (Dallas Love, Dallas Redbird, Ft. Worth Meacham, and Greater Southwest International Airport). Furthermore, the Bond Ordinance only addresses passenger service, not air freight.

5) Statement: Alliance Airport diverts air cargo revenue from DFW Airport.
Truth: TRUE. There is a large amount of air freight handled by FedEx and others at Alliance.
Each commercial operation pays a landing fee as well as a fee for each gallon of fuel pumped into every aircraft. Alliance airport is in the process of extending its primary runway to 13,000 feet. This should enable FedEx to operate the Airbus A380 at Alliance when (if) that humongous aircraft comes on line and permit non-stop flights to virtually any location in the world.

6) Statement: Alliance Airport is privately owned.
Truth: FALSE. Alliance Airport is owned by the City of Fort Worth. (Here's the link to the Public 5010 Website that is the FAA's official airport data page.) The airport is managed under contract for the City of Fort Worth and the city receives revenue from the profits of its operation.

Hillwood is the single owner and developer for the AllianceTexas project which consists of 17,000 acres surrounding the airport. It does not, however, own the airport.


Whew!!! Hopefully this will help dispel some of the misinformation floating about.

I'm still trying to locate the official "offer" DFW presented to SWA regarding moving into gate space there for "free." I'll bet there are more strings attached than the press is letting on.

 

[corl737]

Can you or anyone else compare where SWA was in 1979 and where they are today honestly say that SWA has been damaged in any way by the Wright Amendment?

Ok, I'll take your challenge! Yes, SWA has been damaged by the Wright Amendment. Granted, from 1979 to 2001 it wasn't a big hurt. Originally AA pretty much conceded the intra-Texas markets to SWA so growth instate was good. However, once intra-WA geography was maximized SWA had to look elsewhere.
For a while the opportunities lost by not being able to fly long-haul from DAL were mitigated by opportunities to expand elsewhere. The short-haul was profitable but remained flat.
Following September 2001, the short-haul market took a huge hit as the hassles associated with air travel security meant many former flying trips were often replaced by the automobile. Without the opportunity to implement growth in any other markets from DAL total passenger count and revenue from DAL decreased. (Care to guess why there were no alternative growth opportunities from DAL?)

I read a statement a long time ago in graduate school that said something like, "Beware any corporation which says its motives are altruistic." SW, like every other successful company is U.S. history, was founded and exists today to make a profit. End of story. SW could care less about whether or not the good people of Dallas have access to low fares.

Actually you're right on this to a point. SW genuinely does care about giving the people of Dallas low fares. Without low fares to compare against the other local offerings, SW would have no competitive advantage needed to generate revenue. Interestingly, in this case, SW doesn't win unless the passengers win. (Gary Kelly recently said that his reason for wanting repeal of the WA is for the growth of the company. Again, growth happens because the fares are low enough to attract passengers.)

The DFW board all but offered Terminal E free of charge to anyone who would come in there. No one wanted to.

That's because the offer was only free on the surface. The fine print and strings attached were so rediculous that no one in their right business mind would accept the requirements. (I'm still trying to track down the official agreement to learn more but the parts that were released to the press included: 1) must start with 10 gates. (Who does that?) 2) Must increase to 22 gates within a short time period (reports varied from 1-3 years so I don't have the fact on that.) 3) A majority of the flights initiated must be on routes not currently served from DFW. (Who wants to start with flights to non-markets?)

I reiterate, SW wants "competition" in the DFW market, but on their terms...

AA also wants competition in the DFW market, but on their terms. The difference in terms is simply which side of the Wright Amendment you're on.

(Thanks for the intelligent conversation, Jim. I appreciate educated banter!)

 

[jimntx]

I'm still trying to locate the official "offer" DFW presented to SWA regarding moving into gate space there for "free." I'll bet there are more strings attached than the press is letting on.

[post="283976"][/post]​

Don't twist what I said. I never said that DFW offered anything to SWA. They tried to get several LCCs to move into the abandoned DL gates. They extended a public invitation to SWA as one of the airlines they were interested in attracting. SWA responded that they had no interest is moving operations to DFW. They did however start their anti-Wright amendment activity about the same time. Could be they don't want to compete with AA nearly as much as they want to discourage the Airtrans and the JetBlues of the world from moving into the DFW area in a big way.

Oh, you are going to get your repeal of the Wright Amendment. I have no doubt. I'm just not convinced that the eventual outcome will be what SWA or the SWA cheerleaders want. If SWA has to give up some gates at DAL in return for the repeal, and someone like JetBlue moves in, it may result in consequences that SWA does not like. If the great unwashed get offered a low fare AND a free TV screen so that they don't have to miss a single episode of Bowling for Furniture and an assigned seat, guess which airline they will pick.

 

[corl737]

Don't twist what I said. I never said that DFW offered anything to SWA.

Not quite true. Here's the excerpt from the June 10, 2005 article in the Dallas Morning News [free registration] titled Drawing a Line in the Tarmac:


D/FW officials say they're willing to do just about anything to lure the nation's top low-fare carrier to fill space left when Delta Air Lines Inc. cut its schedule by 90 percent in January.

That includes building a custom terminal and parking facility close enough to any of D/FW's seven runways to help Southwest be as efficient as possible, said Kevin Cox, the airport's chief operating officer.

"We'll build them whatever they want," he said. "We will literally put them on a taxiway where they're a hop, skip and a jump to a runway.

"We are as serious as a heart attack; we want Southwest Airlines to come here," he added.

(The Dallas Morning News has the most thorough collection of articles and reports on the Wright Amendment. Visit their "Tracking the Wright Amendment" section.)

I'm just not convinced that the eventual outcome will be what SWA or the SWA cheerleaders want. If SWA has to give up some gates at DAL in return for the repeal, and someone like JetBlue moves in, it may result in consequences that SWA does not like.

You're right. The repeal effort comes with some degree of risk. The hope is that the majority of low-fare competition will not be on head-to-head routes. JetBlue to JFK, LGA, EWR; AirTran to ATL, none of which SWA flies to.

(Bowling for furniture? My personal favorite! Did you see Bubba win the last event?)

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Not quite true. Here's the excerpt from the June 10, 2005 article in the Dallas Morning News [free registration] titled Drawing a Line in the Tarmac:

That includes building a custom terminal and parking facility close enough to any of D/FW's seven runways to help Southwest be as efficient as possible, said Kevin Cox, the airport's chief operating officer.

"We'll build them whatever they want," he said. "We will literally put them on a taxiway where they're a hop, skip and a jump to a runway.

"We are as serious as a heart attack; we want Southwest Airlines to come here," he added.

(

[post="284234"][/post]​

That's interesting. hmmmm..

The need for growth is the achilles heal of WN's business model. They are beginning to see the end of the lowing hanging fruit, or "peak yield" or more appropriately, 'peak profit.'

Opening up DAL is just one possibility to sustain the same kind of cheap growth that propels LUV's profits. However, I do think that some of WN's arguments are pretty self-serving.

 

[mrman]

That's interesting. hmmmm..

The need for growth is the achilles heal of WN's business model. They are beginning to see the end of the lowing hanging fruit, or "peak yield" or more appropriately, 'peak profit.'

Opening up DAL is just one possibility to sustain the same kind of cheap growth that propels LUV's profits. However, I do think that some of WN's arguments are pretty self-serving.

[post="284376"][/post]​

Please, WN has plenty of midsize and large markets to grow into as they have in Texas. They are getting plenty of cash paid new planes to serve those markets and "connect the dots" with more frequency and direct service

 

[wnbubbleboy]

That's interesting. hmmmm..

The need for growth is the achilles heal of WN's business model. They are beginning to see the end of the lowing hanging fruit, or "peak yield" or more appropriately, 'peak profit.'

Opening up DAL is just one possibility to sustain the same kind of cheap growth that propels LUV's profits. However, I do think that some of WN's arguments are pretty self-serving.

[post="284376"][/post]​

A Corporation's sole purpose of being is profit. ALL retoric from every company shill from IBM, McDonalds, Microsoft, GE, and WN is to add to the bottom line. Of course our arguments are going to be self serving.

 

[LoneStarMike]

Fact 1: AA has 3 gates at DAL.

Fact 2: AA's agreement with the city of Dallas is that the gates will be used only for office space. In fact, I think the jetbridges have been removed.

[post="283896"][/post]​

Fact 1 is true.

Fact 2 is no longer true. That whole issue was resolved years ago when the current master plan was adopted. AA had a long term-lease on the entire East Concourse through Septmber of 2023 believe. That particular lease stated that the area could only be used for office spae.

As part of the master plan, the City of Dallas excused AA from the remainder of that lease with the understanding that AA would be financially responsible for demolition of the part of the East Concourse that was torn down. In exchange, AA got to keep the three gates it had refurbished and signed a ten year lease on them.

The competition plan (pdf file) for Love Field mentions:

By January 2002, at the completion of some interim reshuffling, Dallas anticipates that there will be 19 operational gates in the Main Terminal, as depicted on Exhibit B (Terminal Plan - January 2002). Southwest's gate usage will remain unchanged. The other 5 gates will be leased as follows:

Continental (2); American (2); and a sublease by American to ASA (1). The operational Main Terminal gates are under preferential use leases with gate sharing provisions that can be invoked by the Director of Aviation.

I also remember AA putting out a press release in late August, 2001 saying that the gates were opening the following month somewhere around the 26th or so, but after 9/11 AA discontinued all DAL service and the gates were ultimately never used.

I don't think they would have issued that press release back then if their lease hadn't already been amended.

Also from this old thread on Flyertalk:

American wants out of Love Field lease
Airline's gates were completed but never used after 9/11 attacks
06/25/2003
By CHRIS HEINBAUGH / WFAA-TV

American Airlines officials said Tuesday that the airline wants out of its lease at Dallas Love Field.

The move could allow the financially-troubled American to save several million dollars over the next few years.

Almost two years ago, American decided to ramp up service at the City of Dallas-owned airport, and signed a ten-year lease for three gates. The airline had made about $20 million in improvements, when everything stopped.
American had planned to begin using the renovated gates in late 2001, but then came the 9/11 attacks. The airline stopped all service out of Love Field, and the gates have never been used.

AA got their waivers to use those gates long ago.

LoneStarMike

 

[LoneStarMike]

4) Statement: Alliance Airport violates the Wright Amendment.

Truth: FALSE. There is confusion between the Wright Amendment (which applies only to commercial passenger air carriers at Dallas Love Field) and the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance. Alliance does not violate the Bond Ordinance either because it (1) proposes service limits at only four specific airports (Dallas Love, Dallas Redbird, Ft. Worth Meacham, and Greater Southwest International Airport). Furthermore, the Bond Ordinance only addresses passenger service, not air freight.

[post="283976"][/post]​

Regarding whether or not Alliance is in violation of the bond ordinance, do you have a source that would support your claims? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but research I've done suggests that it is.

There was a feature article about the Wright/Shelby Amendments and what part they played in AA's battle with Legend -- written by the Dallas Observer back on
October 16, 1997 called The (W)right to Fly

Although lengthy, it's a good read for someone wanting to get some background info. Regarding the issue of Alliance Airport, here is the relevant quote:

A close reading of the bond ordinance reveals that, technically, Fort Worth's Alliance Airport violates the bond covenant. Alliance is the main Southwest hub for Federal Express, which is a certificated carrier, according to FAA guidelines. And the covenant specifically protects D/FW airport from competition by certificated carriers at other regional airports--unless otherwise permitted by law or voted for by a majority of the D/FW board.

The board did not vote on Alliance, according to D/FW spokesman Joe Dealey. He argues--incorrectly--that the covenant refers to passenger service.

Link to Story

About three weeks after The Dallas Observer ran that feature article, they published another article about Alliance Airport.

November 6, 1997
Hypocritic oath
Minutes of a power brokers' meeting show that Fort Worth is guilty of what it accuses Dallas of doing--breaking an agreement over D/FW airport

Here's the first several paragraphs of the story with a link to rest.

Explosive" and "heartbreaking" are what former Dallas City Council member Jerry Bartos calls a secret meeting Fort Worth power brokers held several years ago to discuss strategies in combating Dallas on issues regarding the Wright Amendment.

The meeting's five-page transcript, a copy of which was obtained by the Dallas Observer, shows three Fort Worth former mayors, the head of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, plus several heads of large corporations and an American Airlines vice president discussing Fort Worth's potential legal exposure from the construction of Alliance Airport.

Alliance arguably is in violation of the 1968 bond agreement that Dallas and Fort Worth entered into in order to build D/FW Airport.

The transcript also indicates that Ray Hutchison, Dallas' bond counsel, advised Fort Worth on their position regarding Alliance Airport--a possible conflict of interest. In addition, the transcript shows that former Dallas Mayor Jack Evans was advising Fort Worth power brokers about potentially privileged Dallas information while the two cities were embroiled in a lawsuit.

The meeting took place in May 1992, shortly after Fort Worth filed a lawsuit against Dallas to prevent Dallas from holding hearings on repealing the Wright Amendment, which limits flights from Love Field to cities within Texas and its four adjoining states. The suit was similar to one Fort Worth filed against Dallas last month after Congress voted to exempt three additional states from the Wright Amendment and to allow unlimited long-distance flights to reconfigured jets with 56 or fewer seats ["The (W)right to fly," October 16].

Both suits claim that any changes to the Wright Amendment violate an agreement the two cities entered into in 1968 to issue bonds for building D/FW Airport. The 1968 bond covenant prevents certificated air service--both passenger and cargo--at Dallas and Fort Worth municipal airports and calls for both cities to do nothing that would impede the growth at D/FW.

But shortly after Fort Worth filed suit against Dallas in 1992, Fort Worth city fathers were highly nervous about Alliance Airport, located north of Fort Worth, which houses Federal Express' Southwest hub. They were worried that Dallas might sue Fort Worth, according to minutes of the May 11, 1992, meeting called by then-Fort Worth Mayor Kay Granger.

Link to full story

Eleven months later, the Dallas Business Journal asks the same thing.

October 9, 1998
Alliance and D/FW: Do they really compete?

Fort Worth's arguments to the contrary, there's no question in Jeff Fegan's mind that Cow Town's Alliance Airport competes against Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

"We compete with everything that moves out there," said Fegan, executive director at D/FW.

[SNIP]

Fort Worth claims that if Big D allows expanded passenger service out of Love, the city will violate the 1968 bond covenants that funded construction of the jointly owned airport.

In the covenants, the two cities agreed to protect D/FW from competition by prohibiting scheduled interstate flights from all other Metroplex airports in their control.

In the meantime, Fort Worth built Alliance Airport, which has already stolen one of D/FW's primary cargo customers.

That contradiction has had residents in Dallas scratching their heads for some time.

So, does "competition" refer only to passenger service, or to cargo service also?

Fort Worth, of course, claims it refers only to passenger service. But experts who helped write the original bond covenants have said "competition" refers to all competition.

Up to now, Fort Worth has been able to sidestep accusations that Alliance competes with D/FW for cargo. But the issue reached the limelight Oct. 1, when startup Legend Airlines Inc. filed a countersuit in Tarrant County State Court against the city of Fort Worth over the topic.

Link to full story

So whatever became of this lawsuit? Was the matter decided in court? Was it dismissed? Was it dropped? My guess is that the case hadn't made it to court by the time Legend filed for bankruptcy and it was probably dropped.

Fort Worth had a whole series of pages on the Wright Amendment several years ago at fortworthgov.org. It's archived, but still accessible through the internet archives. This was the text on the page that talked about the 1968 Bond Ordinance the cities signed:

1968 Regional Airport
Concurrent Bond Ordinance

In Section 9.5 of the Bond Ordinance, the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth agreed to phase out all Certificated Air Carrier Services from the airports operated by both cities and to transfer such services to the regional airport. "Certificated Air Carrier Services" means intrastate, interstate, or foreign air carrier services operating according to published flight schedules and holding operating certificates from the appropriate state or federal authorities.

The Airport Board was given the authority to review the effect and application of such covenant and, by a vote of not less than eight of its eleven members, the Board may determine the need for decentralization of Certificated Air Carrier Services in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.

The Board may reasonably limit the scope and effect of the covenant and waive its application based on public safety and prudent and safe operations at D/FW Airport.

Additionally, the cities agreed that they would through every legal and reasonable means- promote the optimum development of the lands and facilities at the regional airport at the earliest practicable date.The City of Fort Worth immediately closed GISA. Love Field remained open.

Excerpt from the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance Section 9.5. Competition, Optimum Airport Development

" Accordingly, the Cities, each with respect to its own individually owned airport facilities, as above named, hereby covenant and agree that from and after the effective date of this Ordinance, shall take such steps as may be necessary, appropriate, and legally permissible (without violating presently outstanding legal commitments or covenants prohibiting such action), to provide for the orderly, efficient and effective put at Love Field, Redbird, GSIA and Meacham Field, of any and all Certificated Air Carrier Services, and to transfer such activities to the Regional Airport effective upon the beginning of operations at the Regional Airport.

From time to time hereafter, the Board may review the effect and application of such covenant, and, by concurring action of not less than eight (8) of its members, the Board may reasonably limit its scope and effect and may waive its application in specific instances if it shall first determine that such action is necessary (1) in the interest of the public safety; (2) in the interest of prudent and efficient operations at the Regional Airport; or (3) in the interest of satisfying an overriding public need for decentralized Certificated Air Carrier Services in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan region considered as a whole."

Link to archived page

Now, keeping all that in mind, what does Fort Worth have to say about Alliance on their FAQ page?

QUESTION:

Doesn't Alliance Airport and the Mesa Airline service at Meacham Airport violate the 1968 agreement?

ANSWER:

No, on both counts. Certificated Air Passenger Service is not provided at Alliance Airport nor will the City of Fort Worth allow such service without the approval of the D/FW Airport Board. When the construction of Alliance Airport was being planned, the plans were shared with the D/FW Airport Board and the City of Dallas. Neither the Board nor Dallas opposed the construction of Alliance. The service that is being provided by Mesa at Meacham Airport is intrastate service. In the case City of Dallas v. Southwest Airlines (1973), the court ruled the intrastate service was not covered (in) the 1968 Bond Ordinance.

Link to archived page

It doesn't matter that Alliance doesn't offer Certtificated Air Passenger Service. It does offer Certificated Air Freight Service. And the 1968 bond ordinance does not limit competition to Certificated Air Passenger Service only. It says ALL Certificated Air Carrier Services.

As far as Fort Worth sharing its plans for Alliance with the City of Dallas and the DFW Airport Board and then saying it's ok because no one opposed it -- that's not good enough. The fact is, no one approved it either. The matter was never brought to the Board for a vote at all, nor does Ft. Worth have a written waiver from the DFW Board. and that, in and of itself would seem to be a violation of the bond covenant,

Most of the above info is fairly old and I was wondering if perhaps you had more current info that that would support your claim and dispute mine. Thanks.

LoneStarMike

 

[LoneStarMike]

I'm still trying to locate the official "offer" DFW presented to SWA regarding moving into gate space there for "free." I'll bet there are more strings attached than the press is letting on.

[post="283976"][/post]​

This might help some. It's the text of the press release DFW issued when they announced the incentive plan.

VICE PRESIDENT PUBLIC AFFAIRS: KEN CAPPS 972-574-8080
KCAPPS@DFWAIRPORT.COM
DFW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ANNOUNCES MAJOR INCENTIVE
PACKAGE TO ATTRACT NEW AIR SERVICE AND EXPAND TRAVEL
CHOICES FOR CUSTOMERS
Offer Includes Free Rent and Marketing Dollars for Terminal E
Gates

DFW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (January 6, 2005) DFW International Airport, the world's third-busiest, announced today a multi-million dollar incentive and stimulus package that will be offered to all major U.S. air carriers which initiate or expand service at the Airport. The plan includes free rent in Terminal E for one year and up to
$22M in other financial aid. The Airport Board voted unanimously today to approve the incentive package.

The Airport is moving aggressively to find a new tenant or expand service by existing carriers following the decision last year by Delta Airlines to dehubÂ￾ its DFW operations.

DFW announced earlier today that it had secured 24 of Delta's 28 gates and the new incentive package is being offered to fill those gates and create new flying choices for North Texas.

"This is an outstanding financial package and an unprecedented opportunity for a
carrier to provide new or expanded service in our very strong Dallas-Fort Worth travel market"Â￾ said Max Wells, Chairman of the DFW Airport Board. "It is a bold initiative that signals the Airport will continue to compete aggressively to bring more choices to our customers. And in today's airline market, it's a great business deal and a win-win for the Airport, our customers and the carrier"Â￾

Mr. Wells also praised American Airlines for its commitment to lease an additional four gates in Terminal B as the airline expands service from North Texas. Last September, American Airlines made the announcement of 90 additional daily departures from DFW starting in 2005.

The Terminal E Leasing and Air Service Incentive Program is based on a carrier
agreeing to lease from 10 to 22 gates in Terminal E. To be eligible for the package, a carrier must agree to lease a minimum of 10 gates in the first year of operation and commit to this level of service through 2009.

The carrier would also be required to meet certain departure levels, based on the number of gates leased, with at least 70% of new seats dedicated to markets listed in DFW's Top 50 destinations and currently not served by the airline from DFW.

"This is an exceptional opportunity for a carrier to serve the region and do it with virtually no start-up costs," says Dallas Mayor Laura Miller. "I strongly support our
board's quick response to assure the continued financial stability of DFW."

In return for the agreement to lease 10-22 gates in Terminal E, DFW guarantees free
terminal rent to the carrier for one year, and the Airport will purchase all required
ground service equipment and provide it free of charge for the first year.

The Airport will also make any necessary facility improvements to Terminal E, with a minimum investment of $4M and up to $6M if all 22 gates are leased. Finally, the Airport will bolster cooperative marketing funds under its Carrier Support Program for new service previously unserved by the carrier from DFW, with up to $1M a year in eligible funds. In total, a carrier would be eligible for up to $12.2M in assistance for a 10-gate operation, while a 22-gate operation would be eligible for an estimated $22.2M.

"More choices and more service" that's good for our passengers." said Fort Worth
Mayor Mike Moncrief. "This is a great deal to motivate an airline to come here or
expand service here. I would also like to thank American Airlines for their continued support of DFW and North Texas by agreeing to lease additional gates in Terminal B as it expands service from DFW."

"It is very clear to business and community leaders that DFW International Airport is the economic engine of North Texas and must remain strong for our region to continue to grow and attract new international business and tourism," said Dan S. Petty, President/CEO of the North Texas Commission, a regional non-profit consortium of business and economic development entities in the North Texas region. "It's the best of all worlds for a carrier wanting to build a significant presence and for travelers wanting more flight choices at competitive prices."

The Airport will pay for the incentive package by using its discretionary funds or other authorized and eligible bond funds that may be available.

The incentive package will be open to any qualified U.S. carrier and will be formally
sent to more than 40 airlines today.

About DFW International Airport
Located halfway between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, DFW International Airport is the world's third-busiest, offering nearly 2,000 flights per day and serving 57 million passengers a year. Currently, DFW International Airport provides non-stop service to 136 domestic and 32 international destinations worldwide. For the latest news, real-time flight information, parking availability or further details regarding the many services provided at DFW International Airport, log on to www.dfwairport.com.
Editors: To arrange interviews, contact Ken Capps, Vice President, Public Affairs at 972-574-8080 or kcapps@dfwairport.com.

Link to pdf file

I think the departure level per gate was 8 per day based on another article which mentioned an airline doing the 10 gate deal would have to be up to 80 flights within a year.

I also remember reading somewhere else about a specific 10 gate plan, a 13 gate plan, and a 22 gate plan, although I'm sure the airline could have negotiated.

Since DFW is a residual airport, if the airport comes in over budget at the end of the year, don't the airlines have to make up the difference and wouldn't that kind of offset some of the "free" rent?

LoneStarMike

 

[JS]

...
That's because the offer was only free on the surface. The fine print and strings attached were so rediculous that no one in their right business mind would accept the requirements. (I'm still trying to track down the official agreement to learn more but the parts that were released to the press included: 1) must start with 10 gates. (Who does that?) 2) Must increase to 22 gates within a short time period (reports varied from 1-3 years so I don't have the fact on that.) 3) A majority of the flights initiated must be on routes not currently served from DFW. (Who wants to start with flights to non-markets?)

The DFW offer isn't a "take it or leave it" one. You can always negotiate.

One of the offer's requirements is that the new flights not already be served by the airline accepting the offer, which means AA isn't eligible at all, and UA would not be eligible unless they want to start flying 737's to ATL, LGA, etc. Southwest doesn't fly anywhere out of DFW, so that piece of the offer is easily met.