Wright Deal in Trouble

[jimntx]

And, if you believe all that you just posted, I must say I find that level of naivete refreshing in an adult.

But then, I sometimes forget. SWA is like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error.

I loved all your reputeds and should have beens. After 5000 years of fighting among those Semitic first cousins there should be peace in the Middle East, but there's not.

SWA knew exactly what it was doing when it went into PHL and DEN. It was hoping to kill off one or the other airline. If they are so willing to attack the fortress hub of a strong airline, why don't they come out to DFW?

 

[KCFlyer]

And, if you believe all that you just posted, I must say I find that level of naivete refreshing in an adult.

But then, I sometimes forget. SWA is like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error.

What was incorrect in his post? Please be specific.

 

[skyguy25]

OK here's a compromise-------open up all the gates for bidding of all airlines and let the highest bidder win! It's been done at other airports and/or for slot rights......so who has roughly 4 billion in unresticted cash??? and who has a market value of close to 14 billion? AA and SWA respectivly! let the bidding begin...

 

[sfb]

And, if you believe all that you just posted, I must say I find that level of naivete refreshing in an adult.

But then, I sometimes forget. SWA is like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error.

Then give specifics as to where I've stated something that's factually incorrect or unsupported by the track record.

Let me pose this question to you: If Southwest's goal had been to "lock up" DAL for itself, why wouldn't the proposal to reduce and cap the number of gates at DAL have come from Southwest at the outset? Remember, before the KBH-sponsored proposal came to light, Southwest wanted nothing less than outright repeal of the Wright restrictions. The only limitations on DAL supported by LUV were the proprietary rights of the city to determine how many gates would be available as per the Love Field Master Plan.

I haven't claimed they're "without sin or error" at all. I personally think the deal stinks and I wish Southwest had kept fighting for an unfettered Love Field. I believe we would have seen NV, TN, AZ, and NE (at the very least) added to the Wright Perimeter by the Congressmen/Senators from those states just as Kit Bond added MO.

SWA knew exactly what it was doing when it went into PHL and DEN. It was hoping to kill off one or the other airline. If they are so willing to attack the fortress hub of a strong airline, why don't they come out to DFW?

My view on PHL is that Southwest looked at what US Airways was doing after its first restructuring and came to the obvious conclusion that US hadn't changed one bit aside from cutting pay and eviscerating the pilots' pension (and ordering more RJ's). US Airways still had the same old high-fare business model in its monopoly markets, and the PHL market was ripe for low-fare competition. Lo and behold, O&D traffic from PHL increased 34% between the fourth quarter of 2003 and the fourth quarter of 2005. Why PHL? Because even in spite of having "restructured" in bankruptcy, US Airways was still the least efficient network carrier!

To be perfectly frank, I don't think Southwest truly anticipated how quickly US Airways would implode. It was never in their best interest to see US Airways disappear overnight -- but rather to see them continue as a struggling, ineffective competitor.

As for DEN, I still don't see exactly how their intent was to "kill off" United or Frontier. DEN was a high-fare market with extremely robust travel demand. United supposedly had a strong business plan for its emergence from Chapter 11, and Frontier has a good cost structure and its own loyal customers in Denver. I just don't see the secret intent to knock either out of the market.

 

[swflyer]

But then, I sometimes forget. SWA is like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error.

If you read back, you'll see you're the only one posting this opinion. <_<
For balance, why do you seem to post only the opinion that SWA is "evil and must be destroyed"?? [paraphrased] :blink:

If they are so willing to attack the fortress hub of a strong airline, why don't they come out to DFW?

I give you SO much more credit than this, as this has been hashed over many times on this board. It's not American, it's the airport that doesn't work for SWA's operation.

SWA competes with American in Dallas the same way it competes with them in Chicago. Why isn't SWA allowed to make this business decision for itself??? :blink:

 

[QA4Jet-A]

The fact that Southwest would have 80% of the gates at DAL isn't what is advantageous to AA; the fact that Southwest would be essentially capped at 16 gates at DAL (compared to 100+ for AA at DFW) is why AA and DFW are pushing this stinker of a deal. AA also wants to make certain that jetBlue, Airtran, Frontier, etc. will be forced to compete from DFW instead of DAL, since AA has a strong competitive and operational advantage over any new entrants into DFW.

Southwest has the majority of gates at HOU, and yet somehow space has been found there for competitors like FL, YX, and B6. They will survive like they always do -- by being an effective competitor.
US Airways was nearly a decade away from its first bankruptcy filing when Southwest announced BWI. They saw a market opportunity in a hub city with a strong local market that was being de-emphasized by an inefficient competitor.

When Southwest announced PHL, US Airways had emerged from its first bankruptcy nearly seven months earlier. US had supposedly restructured itself to be competitive with the low-cost carriers invading its high-fare franchise markets. When PIT was announced, US had already chosen to dramatically scale back that hub to one-third or less of its previous capacity. And when DEN was chosen as a new city, United was reputed to be on the path to emerging from its bankruptcy reorganization as a more efficient competitor.

JMHO here... I don't see FL considering DAL as a new Station. Whatever the Wright A goes to, I can't see adding flights there. DFW is working so why fix whats not broken? The saving solution is... SW does not fly to ATL. I hope it stays that way as it is crowded enough already.

 

[tug_slug]

And, if you believe all that you just posted, I must say I find that level of naivete refreshing in an adult.

But then, I sometimes forget. SWA is like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error.

I loved all your reputeds and should have beens. After 5000 years of fighting among those Semitic first cousins there should be peace in the Middle East, but there's not.

SWA knew exactly what it was doing when it went into PHL and DEN. It was hoping to kill off one or the other airline. If they are so willing to attack the fortress hub of a strong airline, why don't they come out to DFW?

Jim,

Dont hate the player, hate the game.

 

[AirwAr]

For this mess, I blame the idiot who forgot to have Southwest sign the agreement that would have forced them to move to DFW just like every other carrier.

The metroplex leaders knew back then that they needed a larger airport to handle the future travel needs of the region. In doing so, they made all the carriers sign an agreement to move to DFW so that one carrier would not have a geographic advantage over another. They knew having one regional airport would create a level playing field for all carriers that wanted to slug it out for D/FW traffic.

SWA chose to stay at Love field, even knowing the restrictions.

To solve this problem, 1 of the 2 airports should be closed.

 

[CapnCockroach]

For this mess, I blame the idiot who forgot to have Southwest sign the agreement that would have forced them to move to DFW just like every other carrier.

The metroplex leaders knew back then that they needed a larger airport to handle the future travel needs of the region. In doing so, they made all the carriers sign an agreement to move to DFW so that one carrier would not have a geographic advantage over another. They knew having one regional airport would create a level playing field for all carriers that wanted to slug it out for D/FW traffic.

SWA chose to stay at Love field, even knowing the restrictions.

To solve this problem, 1 of the 2 airports should be closed.

Geez. You need to do a little "due diligence".

 

[jimntx]

For this mess, I blame the idiot who forgot to have Southwest sign the agreement that would have forced them to move to DFW just like every other carrier.
.....
SWA chose to stay at Love field, even knowing the restrictions.

To solve this problem, 1 of the 2 airports should be closed.

To be fair, SWA did not exist at the time that the "DFW Agreement" was signed.

SWA didn't choose to stay at Love Field, they used the courts to force the City of Dallas to re-open Love for their use on the argument that SWA was only involved in intra-state commerce--flying only between Dallas and Houston--and therefore were not subject to the DFW restrictions imposed on other airlines. The fact that they didn't remain in intra-state commerce somehow or another is supposed to allow them to now have the same rights from Love Field that everyone else has from DFW but without having to open up Love Field and its substantially lower costs to anyone else.

I agree with you, though, for the solution.

 

[KCFlyer]

To be fair, SWA did not exist at the time that the "DFW Agreement" was signed.

SWA didn't choose to stay at Love Field, they used the courts to force the City of Dallas to re-open Love for their use on the argument that SWA was only involved in intra-state commerce--flying only between Dallas and Houston--and therefore were not subject to the DFW restrictions imposed on other airlines. The fact that they didn't remain in intra-state commerce somehow or another is supposed to allow them to now have the same rights from Love Field that everyone else has from DFW but without having to open up Love Field and its substantially lower costs to anyone else.

I agree with you, though, for the solution.

Quite correct at the time...because of something called the "civil aeronautics board" that determined who flew where and when. And the CAB didn't have jurisdiction over intrastate carriers. So SWA was just following the law in place at the time. Then along came this little thing that was designed to spur competition of the airlines, and which eliminated the CAB because it pretty much eliminated the rules that the CAB was enforcing. That little thing was called "the airline deregulation act of 1978" - and as I said - it's intent was to spur competition all over the U S of A - in pretty much any city or airport that an airline wanted to operate from. That was all fine and good, but when they decided to again follow the law that was in force...indeed, when they embodied the SPIRIT of the deregulation act by beginning service outside the borders of Texas - along came the first act of regulation under the deregulated era.

 

[ngneer]

SWA didn't choose to stay at Love Field, they used the courts to force the City of Dallas to re-open Love for their use on the argument that SWA was only involved in intra-state commerce--flying only between Dallas and Houston--and therefore were not subject to the DFW restrictions imposed on other airlines.

What do you mean re-open Love Field? Who says it was ever closed to commercial traffic? The bond agreement of 1968 didn't stop commercial traffic, it just limited it. The following summary of the 1968 bond ordinance comes from the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Texas International vs. Southwest Airlines:

In 1968, the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas executed a concurrent bond ordinance and a contract to establish a regional airport, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. Their agreements limited subsequent interstate flights out of local airports such as Love Field Airport in Dallas. The cities amended their agreement in the late 1970s to allow "turn around flights" to states adjacent to Texas from Love Field. At about the same time, the Wright Amendment was passed incorporating many of the same terms into federal law. See Act of Feb. 15, 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-192, § 29©, 94 Stat. 28 (1980) (amended 1997). However, Congress enacted the Shelby Amendment in 1997, which eased some of the restrictions of the Wright Act. See Act of Oct. 27, 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-66, § 337, 111 Stat. 1447 (1997).