Wright Amendment Poll #2

[Garfield1966]

So no one has an answer? I would think the gate issue would need to be addressed before an informed decision could be reached. IF SWA gets to keep all their gates, then they do not have to worry about competition. Seems that is a big part of their argument to get rid of Wright. Sounds like SWA want to be the competition but not face it.

 

[dl764]

So no one has an answer? I would think the gate issue would need to be addressed before an informed decision could be reached. IF SWA gets to keep all their gates, then they do not have to worry about competition. Seems that is a big part of their argument to get rid of Wright. Sounds like SWA want to be the competition but not face it.

great point. SWA want to be the competition but not face it.

 

[KCFlyer]

great point. SWA want to be the competition but not face it.

How do they "not face it" in Chicago? The San Francisco Bay area? HOw is Dallas any different at all?

 

[JS]

How do they "not face it" in Chicago? The San Francisco Bay area? HOw is Dallas any different at all?

These arguments over the existence of multiple airports in other cities are getting tiring.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason DFW exists today, in its present location, at its present size (with seven runways) is because Love Field was supposed to be closed. It was supposed to have the same outcome as Denver International; Stapleton is now closed, bulldozed, gone forever (yet Southwest flies out of Denver Int'l now).

None of the large airports in multi-airport cities (SFO, ORD, etc.) were built contingent upon closing the original, smaller, close-in, municipal airport.

So, yes, Dallas/Fort Worth is different, case closed, end of story.

Southwest wants Love Field for itself while sticking the other carriers and the taxpayers with the bill for DFW. :down:

 

[Garfield1966]

My remarks had nothing to do with the multi airport issue. I was addressing the question of how the gates will be handed out to any new comers who wish to make a go of a Love Field operation. My understanding is that SWA controls a vast majority of the gates at Love Field. I was questioning if SWA has said they will surrender any of the gates and if so how many? Will Love Field be expanded? If so, How? If SWA is not willing to give up enough gates as to make it viable for multiple other carriers to come in to Love Field and make a go of it, then it would seem that SWA wants to be the competition and not have it. Seeing as there does not seem to be any statement out there that SWA will gladly surrender "x%" of gates in Love Field, I tend to think they do not want any competition in Love, they just want to compete with those who are not at Love.

 

[KCFlyer]

Southwest wants Love Field for itself while sticking the other carriers and the taxpayers with the bill for DFW. :down:

Okay...let's move Southwest to DFW. But since Southwest doesn't fly internationally, let's exempt them from improvements to the international terminal. And since Southwest doesn't interline, there's no need for a skylink system to get them to another airlines terminal...so no need for them to foot the bill for that one either.

You know...Love was never intended to be closed. There were GA planes and corporate jets landing and taking off while folks were ice skating in the lobby of the terminal building. Try landing a GA plane at Stapleton. Hell...try ice skating at Stapleton. And since Love isn't closed, and since DFW has certainly reached "maturity", why not let Dallas be the big city it's always wanted to be and have a second airport?

 

[Garfield1966]

Okay...let's move Southwest to DFW. But since Southwest doesn't fly internationally, let's exempt them from improvements to the international terminal. And since Southwest doesn't interline, there's no need for a skylink system to get them to another airlines terminal...so no need for them to foot the bill for that one either.

You know...Love was never intended to be closed. There were GA planes and corporate jets landing and taking off while folks were ice skating in the lobby of the terminal building. Try landing a GA plane at Stapleton. Hell...try ice skating at Stapleton. And since Love isn't closed, and since DFW has certainly reached "maturity", why not let Dallas be the big city it's always wanted to be and have a second airport?

And yet you still fail to answer my question. What is SWA going to give up to open up Love? How many of their gates and landing/take off slots are they willing to surrender so that other airlines may compete against them?

 

[mga707]

And yet you still fail to answer my question. What is SWA going to give up to open up Love? How many of their gates and landing/take off slots are they willing to surrender so that other airlines may compete against them?

If Love is slot controlled, that's news to me.
As far as gate space, all WN would have to do would be to vacate their office space in the old North (Yellow) concourse (originally the Braniff/Delta/Central gates, later Delta/Frontier/Eastern after Braniff built their new concourse on the east end of the terminal) and there would be an entire empty concourse available.

 

[mga707]

Love Field is not an airport that passenger jets should be flying out of. At Midway, we witnessed tragedy when there is an aircraft mishap because of short runways. A modern airport should not have streets and neighborhoods so close to runways with no room for error.

DFW was built for the jet age, Love Field was not, and should have been closed to passenger jets long ago.

Entirely ludicrous. Love's runways were lengthened in the late '50s--and the present terminal built--precisely FOR the 'jet age'!
707s (AA, Braniff) and DC-8s (Delta) had NO problems operating at Love, even the early turbojet versions with their notoriously labored and long takeoff runs. Not to mention DL's CV-880s!
MKC (Kansas City Downtown) may have been marginal for the early jets, and MDW was indeed unsuitable for them--which is why Chicago's commercial air traffic shifted entirely from MDW to ORD in the space of just a few years in the late 50s/early 60s, but Love never had those problems!

 

[swflyer]

Southwest wants Love Field for itself while sticking the other carriers and the taxpayers with the bill for DFW. :down:

The way you wrote this implies that SWA is currently part of the fee structure of DFW, which I know YOU know is not the case.

"Other carriers and taxpayers" decided to foot the bill for DFW before SWA existed, which you also know.

You're better than this, JS. IMHO

 

[KCFlyer]

And yet you still fail to answer my question. What is SWA going to give up to open up Love? How many of their gates and landing/take off slots are they willing to surrender so that other airlines may compete against them?

If SWA moved to DFW, would AA agree to keep their operations and their Eagle operations on the east side of the airport and let SWA and the other "non hubbing" carriers over on the west side? Didn't think so.

 

[bwipilot]

And yet you still fail to answer my question. What is SWA going to give up to open up Love? How many of their gates and landing/take off slots are they willing to surrender so that other airlines may compete against them?

As long as SW can force other carriers to give up gates at their hubs your biased argument would seem fair. I'm sure SW could give up a percentage of gates at Love in return for the same percentage of gates at PHL, LGA, BOS, DCA, LAX, or any other capacity limited airfield. That seems fair.

 

[ngneer]

The fact of the matter is that the only reason DFW exists today, in its present location, at its present size (with seven runways) is because Love Field was supposed to be closed.

I keep reading comments that Love Field was supposed to close after DFW opened, but I don't think it's true. In the judge's decision in Texas International vs. Southwest, he says that not allowing Southwest to operate at Love Field would amount to discrimination: "The discrimination resulted from the phase-out provisions in Section 2.1G of the Ordinance, which would have allowed continued service at Love Field by commercial air taxis, unscheduled charters, unscheduled cargo planes, and even intrastate planes of the CAB carriers." Therefore, Love Field was not to be closed to commercial traffic and the CAB carriers (AA, Braniff, etc.) could continue operating at Love Field also.

 

[JS]

The way you wrote this implies that SWA is currently part of the fee structure of DFW, which I know YOU know is not the case.

"Other carriers and taxpayers" decided to foot the bill for DFW before SWA existed, which you also know.

You're better than this, JS. IMHO

Does this mean JetBlue should also be able to fly from Love Field to whereever they wish (such as LGB or JFK)? Unlike Southwest, they didn't even exist on paper at the time DFW was built.

 

[sfb]

Does this mean JetBlue should also be able to fly from Love Field to whereever they wish (such as LGB or JFK)?

Absolutely. If Wright is repealed, JetBlue or anyone else should and would be allowed to fly from DAL to any airport their aircraft can safely reach (though international flights might be difficult due to the lack of CBP facilities...). Continental could fly EWR-DAL, AirTran could fly ATL-DAL, Frontier could fly DEN-DAL, US Airways could fly LAS/PHX/CLT/PIT/PHL/DCA/LGA/BOS-DAL, etc.

Love Field is not an airport that passenger jets should be flying out of. At Midway, we witnessed tragedy when there is an aircraft mishap because of short runways. A modern airport should not have streets and neighborhoods so close to runways with no room for error.

Except that DAL's two primary runways are 7700' and 8800'. Hardly short at all when compared to airports like DCA, LGA, SNA, HPN, OGG, SAT, PVD, half the runways at BOS, etc. Are you advocating that DCA, LGA, SNA, HPN, etc. should all be shut down due to their inadequate runways?

DFW was built for the jet age, Love Field was not, and should have been closed to passenger jets long ago.

Sure seems to me that you'd argue that DCA, BOS, and LGA ought to be closed, since they were built for props back in the day...