Wright Amendment

[SWAFA30]

And, get real, iwho wants to use the Legend terminal gates? If they're so special, why isn't SWA making use of them?

[post="258929"][/post]​

Why no interest in the Legend Gates? Don't need em. Shorthaul travel...DAL's forte took a beating post 9/11 and has not completely recovered. Frequencies have been removed and in a couple of days IAH will fade into SWA history(again). Why do you think the whole "passionately neutral" stance has been reversed all of a sudden? The equation is quite simple. SWA's level of opposition to the Wright Ammendment is directly proportionate to their ability to make money flying short haul out of Love Field.

 

[mweiss]

If they're so special, why isn't SWA making use of them?

Maybe because it's a pain to split operations across terminals?

 

[funguy2]

And, are you saying that SWA would not want any of the additional gates?  I notice that you are reserving the possibility that SWA would get all 26 gates at the main terminal where all the parking is.  And, get real, iwho wants to use the Legend terminal gates?  If they're so special, why isn't SWA making use of them?  Limited parking and access come to mind.

I presume LUV would want additional facilities at LUV in the event the Wright Amendment was repealed. In fact, they have first right of refusal on converting certain areas of the North Concourse to additional gates, according to the link I provided. (AA has similar rights on other potential gate areas.)

In the event that things stay as they are, LUV probably doesn't need any additional gates... After all, they have recently been dropping flights from DAL... Not adding.

As mweiss said, A split operation between the two building would be less than ideal. While, occasionally, airlines tolerate this when it is required, it would not be required in the case of a WA repeal. For example, AA split its operation, for a time, at LAX between T3 and T4 because there were no other options to combine its operation with TWA's. At DAL, since what we are talking about is growth, not combining existing operations, the managers at the airport could presumably set it up such that LUV's operation need not be split, and still accomodate newcomers at the former Legend Terminal. I presume if airline XYZ said we want to fly to DAL tomorrow, the managers at DAL would say, "Let us show you a lovely terminal on Lemmon Ave..."

 

[swflyer]

I live less than 5 miles from DAL, but 17 from DFW.
-----------
And, are you saying that SWA would not want any of the additional gates? I notice that you are reserving the possibility that SWA would get all 26 gates at the main terminal where all the parking is. And, get real, iwho wants to use the Legend terminal gates? If they're so special, why isn't SWA making use of them? Limited parking and access come to mind.

[post="258929"][/post]​

You write this like you don't really live close by. Access off Lemmon is EASY and there's a five story parking garage right there. Perfect for any other carrier, and making absolutely no sense for SWA, at all.

SWA has gates. Your initial point was that there were no gates for other airlines. The Legend terminal has six brand new gates, a significant number by anyone's count, making your statement patently untrue. Before anyone tries, remember SWA utilization is 10 flights per gate, making the Legend terminal capable of 60 flights. "Insignificant"?? I think not.

Furthermore, the assertion that SWA is somehow responsible for the infrastructure decisions of the DFW Airport board, and should therefore pay as much as the cost of using that facility is off base. That'd be like telling your passengers, "We have first class in the front of this MD-80, so you'll be paying that much for your seat in coach".

Apples and oranges.

 

[swflyer]

Again, SWA doesn't have to "orchestrate" an effort to keep other carriers out, they just have to make sure they keep their lease payments current on the great majority of the DAL gates.  The statement about the DFW disadvantage is not really fair.  At the time DFW was built, the carriers that existed then, including AA, were not given a choice.  DAL was closed to commercial aviation, just as the city of Houston did with Hobby in June, 1969 when IAH opened.

[post="258910"][/post]​

Jim,

Don't want to seem like I'm just picking on you, but the bolded area was an error.

DAL carriers of the time were forced to sign an agreement to move to DFW, but SWA didn't exist at the time of the compacts. It could actually be said this was the consequences of AA, TI and Braniff fighting SWA's operating certificate. Since SWA didn't start until 6/1971, they were found to be exempt from the moving order (affirmed all the way to the Supreme Court in the '70's). DAL never "closed to commerical aviation".

I'm less familiar with the Hobby/Intercontinental situation, but this is from the Hobby site, and doesn't mention anyone being "forced". In fact, it says Braniff and TI came back to try a split operation:

In 1967, Houston International Airport was renamed William P. Hobby Airport in honor of the former governor. Besides his service to the state of Texas as lieutenant governor (1914-1917) and governor (1917-1920), Hobby was president and then owner of the Houston Post newspaper. On June 8, 1969, all scheduled airline operations were moved from William P. Hobby Airport to the new Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH) north of the city.

The City of Houston now operated a two-airport system. The status of Hobby Airport changed to that of a major general aviation airport. The total number of operations at Hobby stabilized between 1969 and 1973. Between 1963 and 1977, the number of operations increased 34 percent.

While general aviation activity remained predominant at Hobby, commercial air carriers were absent from 1969 to 1971, when Southwest Airlines initiated intrastate service. Commercial service increased as Braniff and Texas International Airlines returned to Hobby for a limited stay. During most of 1978, Southwest Airlines was the only major air carrier operating from Hobby. In October of 1978, the Federal Airline Deregulation Act became effective. Many certificated air carriers who had not served the City before sought new service in Houston. With the aid of Houston civic organizations, 12 air carriers recognized the viability of Hobby and initiated new Houston service from that airport.

 

[jimntx]

Jim,

Don't want to seem like I'm just picking on you, but the bolded area was an error.

DAL carriers of the time were forced to sign an agreement to move to DFW, but SWA didn't exist at the time of the compacts.  It could actually be said this was the consequences of AA, TI and Braniff fighting SWA's operating certificate.  Since SWA didn't start until 6/1971, they were found to be exempt from the moving order (affirmed all the way to the Supreme Court in the '70's).  DAL never "closed to commerical aviation".

And, exactly what was in error? Did you see SWA mentioned in the statement? I am well aware that SWA did not exist at the time. And, exactly what the h*** difference is there between "AA was not given a choice" and "AA was forced to sign an agreement to move to DFW." Result is the same regardless of the wording. Being open to private air services/general aviation is not what I meant, and I think you know that.

I'm less familiar with the Hobby/Intercontinental situation, but this is from the Hobby site, and doesn't mention anyone being "forced". 

From your own posting, "On June 8, 1969, all scheduled airline operations were moved from William P. Hobby Airport to the new Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH) north of the city." And, "commercial air carriers were absent from 1969 to 1971, when Southwest Airlines initiated intrastate service. Commercial service increased as Braniff and Texas International Airlines returned to Hobby for a limited stay." And, just to keep your shorts unwadded, the airlines which existed at the time which did not include SWA because it did not exist at the time were required to sign an agreement to move their operations to IAH from HOU.

The only reason that Braniff and TI moved any operations back to Hobby was because SWA had gotten a court order allowing them to fly there from DAL. The Dallas-Ft. Worth area to Houston area service was a bread-and-butter route for both TI and Braniff. Flying from DFW to IAH, both in the suburbs, only put them at a disadvantage to SWA which was beginning service from DAL to HOU which were both practically downtown.

But, let's just drop it. Obviously whatever SWA wants to do is good, pure, and in the public interest. AA, or any other airline that thinks that SWA should have to compete on a level playing field, is obviously the evil empire incarnate.

 

[KCFlyer]

But, let's just drop it. Obviously whatever SWA wants to do is good, pure, and in the public interest. AA, or any other airline that thinks that SWA should have to compete on a level playing field, is obviously the evil empire incarnate.

[post="258995"][/post]​

Jim...let's level the playing field and abolish Wright...deal?

 

[Ch. 12]

But, let's just drop it. Obviously whatever SWA wants to do is good, pure, and in the public interest. AA, or any other airline that thinks that SWA should have to compete on a level playing field, is obviously the evil empire incarnate.

[post="258995"][/post]​

What kind of level playing field is a blatantly poor perimeter at an airport that still has alot of long-haul demand? Seems about as anti-competitive as they come.

KC said it best...

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

TRUTH ALERT TRUTH ALERT TRUTH ALERT

The only reason that Braniff and TI moved any operations back to Hobby was because SWA had gotten a court order allowing them to fly there from DAL. The Dallas-Ft. Worth area to Houston area service was a bread-and-butter route for both TI and Braniff. Flying from DFW to IAH, both in the suburbs, only put them at a disadvantage to SWA which was beginning service from DAL to HOU which were both practically downtown.

Everyone knows how I detest erroneous statements.

Actually, Texas International had service to Hobby which preceded Southwest's entry there in November.

They ran, as I recall, a maintenance flight......which went DAL-BPT-HOU, in the evening and originated out of there in the morning.

A Southwest employee happened to ride it down one evening and noticed....wow.....despite the stop at BPT...and despite no advertising, no rent cars, no cabs, and the overall seediness that had become the area surrounding Hobby....that Texas Intl had a pretty good load on the plane.

Southwest started service to Hobby, and loads immediately improved. Originally, Southwest had 7 RTs a day DAL-IAH and 7 DAL-HOU.....but that was rapidly shifted to 10 Hobby and 4 Intercontinental.

This was not lost on Braniff, who immediately responded with a Boeing 720 they got from United (and may have been the noisiest Boeing aircraft ever manufactured). Braniff used this 720 to run back and forth between Hobby and DALLAS LOVE FIELD. DFW wasn't open yet, and Braniff was offering service between Hobby and Love.

The incursion of Braniff into Hobby, contrary to Jim's theory, had NOTHING to do with DFW and everything to do with trying to put Southwest Airlines Co out of business.

In fact, it's quite possible that Southwest would have signed the DFW agreement had they been given a chance early on. The deal is Harding Lawrence (over at Braniff) had told anyone who would listen that Southwest was not going to make it. Thus getting them to sign any agreement was pointless, because they would be history long before DFW opened its doors.

The spunky people with 3 airplanes and the Gremlins for company cars were just a little bit too smart....and by the time the DFW people started saying "sign this agreement" they had come to the realization that passengers wanted to go from Dallas to Houston instead of Grapevine to Conroe.

And that's the way it was back in the halcyon days of the early 70s.

 

[JS]

OK, guys, I finally flew to Love Field for the first time last week. I flew from MAF to DAL, rented a car and drove to DFW for my Delta flight to SLC. I had plenty of time between flights, so I drove through the Centerport office complex, took a picture of the piece of old runway from Amon Carter Field on the north side of 183 (the rest of it is now Amon Carter Blvd), and visited Founder's Plaza at DFW. Being outside, Founder's Plaza gives you a better idea of how huge DFW really is compared to being inside the terminals.

At Love Field, I walked from the terminal to Dollar rental cars rather than taking the shuttle. I did see the empty concourse on the east side of the parking garage that appears to be mothballed. I also noticed that this parking garage is huge. It extends from the terminal almost all the way back to the threshold of runway 31L.

My question is -- if the Wright Amendment is repealed, how will Love Field handle the inevitable increase in traffic? I think the place will run out of room for cars for parking and pick-up/drop-off before the runways run out of room for airplanes.

The reason for building DFW in the first place was because it was clear that Love Field would not be able to handle the air traffic of the Dallas/Ft Worth Metroplex, and here we are wanting to do just that. How will that work?

 

[Ch. 12]

JS-

Repealling the Wright Amendment would not mean that Love would open and DFW would close. DAL would be very minor compared to DFW and I'm sure that noise abatements would ensure that it doesn't even operate at capacity (meaning no parking issues, etc).

Let both airports run to unrestricted destinations (though obviously have capacity-based restrictions). What you then end up with is a major (DFW) airport and a "minor" (DAL) one just as in IAH/HOU, ORD/MDW, DCA/IAD and JFK/LGA. In all of these instances, there is an airport surrounded by downtown or near-downtown sprawl and those airports (HOU, MDW, DCA, LGA) are quite restricted on total traffic. However...they do not need to be restricted to meaningless markets just so that a fortress hub in the suburban airport of that city can prevail.

So I don't agree that there would be a capacity problem b/c that would obviously be controlled.

 

[SVQLBA]

JS-

Repealling the Wright Amendment would not mean that Love would open and DFW would close. DAL would be very minor compared to DFW and I'm sure that noise abatements would ensure that it doesn't even operate at capacity (meaning no parking issues, etc).

Let both airports run to unrestricted destinations (though obviously have capacity-based restrictions). What you then end up with is a major (DFW) airport and a "minor" (DAL) one just as in IAH/HOU, ORD/MDW, DCA/IAD and JFK/LGA. In all of these instances, there is an airport surrounded by downtown or near-downtown sprawl and those airports (HOU, MDW, DCA, LGA) are quite restricted on total traffic. However...they do not need to be restricted to meaningless markets just so that a fortress hub in the suburban airport of that city can prevail.

So I don't agree that there would be a capacity problem b/c that would obviously be controlled.

[post="259054"][/post]​

Agreed, although ORD/MDW is probably the best example of a healthy, competitive, vibrant 2-airport system in the US. With all the residential and business development around DFW in the last 30 years, I think they have nothing to fear from growth at DAL. And economic growth for the whole D/FW region, and growth in travel, can only be good for the whole metroplex which is hardly setting the economic gauges on fire at the moment.

 

[mweiss]

The reason for building DFW in the first place was because it was clear that Love Field would not be able to handle the air traffic of the Dallas/Ft Worth Metroplex...

[post="259021"][/post]​

That's not entirely accurate. It was built for much the same reason that Amon Carter had been built before that. The competition between Dallas and Fort Worth was resulting in market confusion, and hurting the overall development of the Metroplex. In the thirty years hence, the Metroplex has grown to the point where that is no longer the case.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

I think Ft. Worth would, in the end, fight repealling Wright.

 

[mweiss]

I think Ft. Worth would, in the end, fight repealling Wright.

I think they would, too, mainly because they end up worse off without Wright. Dallas ends up better off.