'wrong' Amendment Back In The News

[jimntx]

Odd, I thought NIMBY's were liberals.

What a crock statement! Ask Wal-Mart that paragon of free enterprise about the store they wanted to build in Dallas, but near one edge of Highland Park. The Dallas City Council denied them a permit because of objections from HP residents. Ask the oil companies about the retired folk who mostly vote Republican on the east coast of Florida--ably assisted by their governor, who I believe is named Bush--who blocked oil drilling off the coast of Florida, though they thought it was ok for it to continue off the coasts of all the other Gulf states.

The 200's will be gone soon, and from what I've seen, approaches to runway 13 bring the Southwest jets in over the White Rock area, where truth be told, you see them more than hear them.

White Rock is in East Dallas on the other side of downtown from Love. I almost felt the need to duck the other day on Lemmon Avenue as a SW flight passed over on final approach. Lemmon Avenue from North and west of Oaklawn almost to Love Field forms the southwestern boundary of HP. The planes tend to be on the HP side of Lemmon on approach.

I think it is pretty obvious in this day and age that proof--such as noise tests--don't carry much weight against major contributions. (And, I'm not exempting the Dems here either. A pox on both their houses.) You can prove all you want, but if the good, major donation people of HP don't want more flights at Love Field, there won't be more flights--at least for the next 4 years.

Besides, Kelly's argument about providing competition for the people of Dallas is specious. If he wanted to provide "competition" he would move his long-haul flights to DFW, or accept a rise in landing fees and gate rentals at Love to equal the charges at DFW. He doesn't want competition. He wants unfair advantage. He's worried about unused gates at Love when there is about to be an unused terminal at DFW. The fiscal health of the city of Dallas is a lot more threatened by that lack of use than by a few unused gates at Love.

 

[KCFlyer]

Besides, Kelly's argument about providing competition for the people of Dallas is specious. If he wanted to provide "competition" he would move his long-haul flights to DFW, or accept a rise in landing fees and gate rentals at Love to equal the charges at DFW. He doesn't want competition. He wants unfair advantage. He's worried about unused gates at Love when there is about to be an unused terminal at DFW. The fiscal health of the city of Dallas is a lot more threatened by that lack of use than by a few unused gates at Love.

[post="204895"][/post]​

Of course, you can ask the managment at AA why they chose to pull their intra-Texas flights from Love Field...it cost too damn much. But....it's okay for Southwest to bear the burden of those costs so that they can fly outside the WA states. What's so special about Love Field? AA competes with Southwest in Chicago, don't they? CO competes with Southwest in Houston, don't they? So what makes Love so darn special? Oh....it's "unfair" to be able to fly out of a "more convenient" airport. But a quick look at the 2000 census shows me some interesting numbers. Dallas City proper has a population of 1,121,131 folks, and for the sake of argument, I'll say that Love Field is far more convenient for them. But I haven't lived in Dallas in 20 years...but in that time, I noticed a heckuva lot of development to points north and west of Dallas. That would make DFW far more convenient for them. Here's a little of what I found, population wise:

Arlington - 332,969
Hurst/Euless/Bedford - 129,430
Irving - 191,615
Grapevine - 42,059
Carrollton - 109,576
Lewisville - 77,737
Flower Mound - 50,702
Coppell - 35,958
And last but not least Ft Worth - 534,694

Add them up and it shows that DFW is more convenient to 1,504,740 people. So...dropping the Wright Amendment amount to an "unfair advantage" in what way? More people are closer to the home of AA...Are you saying they'd drive on by DFW on their way to catch a Southwest flight out of Love Field? I can only assume that if that happens, it would mean that AA wouldn't bring their fares to a competitive level in Dallas like they have in Chicago. Do you think AA would do that? Or, perhaps a better question is this - would AA do anything different (other than funnel all their planes over to the "Southwest Side" of DFW) if the WA were repealed than they would if Southwest set up shop in the old Delta terminals?

I'm really trying hard to figure out what's unfair about it...Best I understand, more people pass thru the AA terminal at DFW who are changing planes than are O&D passengers....the only thing I see as being "unfair" is that AA can no longer get away with charging a businessperson $1200 to fly from Dallas to Nashville on a moments notice.

 

[jimntx]

I'm really trying hard to figure out what's unfair about it...Best I understand, more people pass thru the AA terminal at DFW who are changing planes than are O&D passengers....the only thing I see as being "unfair" is that AA can no longer get away with charging a businessperson $1200 to fly from Dallas to Nashville on a moments notice.

[post="204916"][/post]​

Well, I explained in my first post what was unfair--difference in landing fees and gate rentals. SW wants to fly the long haul routes that AA flies, but does not want to pay the landing fees that AA pays at DFW or the gate rentals that AA does. It has nothing to do with proximity of customers.

Even if 90% of the area customers lived nearer to DFW, if SW is paying $5 for one landing and AA is paying $10, SW has an unfair cost advantage. The trade-off is the WA. I don't care about the WA as long as everyone has an equal chance. Perhaps if SW gave up some of its gates at Love--AA only has 3, I think--or they could just pay the increased landing fees and gate rentals (equal to DFW) on their long-haul flights, then let's see how anxious SW is to get into that market.

 

[KCFlyer]

Well, I explained in my first post what was unfair--difference in landing fees and gate rentals. SW wants to fly the long haul routes that AA flies, but does not want to pay the landing fees that AA pays at DFW or the gate rentals that AA does. It has nothing to do with proximity of customers.

Even if 90% of the area customers lived nearer to DFW, if SW is paying $5 for one landing and AA is paying $10, SW has an unfair cost advantage. The trade-off is the WA. I don't care about the WA as long as everyone has an equal chance. Perhaps if SW gave up some of its gates at Love--AA only has 3, I think--or they could just pay the increased landing fees and gate rentals (equal to DFW) on their long-haul flights, then let's see how anxious SW is to get into that market.

[post="204979"][/post]​

Help me out here...what are the landing fees at MDW versus ORD? Are they the same? If not, why is that fair in Chicago, but not in Dallas? Same thing for Houston...are the landing fees equal for IAH and HOU? If not, why is it fair in HOU, but not Dallas?

 

[JS]

What is the deal with using Houston as an example? Hello, Southwest flies out of IAH! Ergo, Southwest can fly out of DFW, too.

 

[KCFlyer]

What is the deal with using Houston as an example? Hello, Southwest flies out of IAH! Ergo, Southwest can fly out of DFW, too.

[post="204996"][/post]​

Yes...and AA could fly out of DAL to HOU if they wanted to also...nothing stopping them...it's even in the scope of the WA. Southwest sees enough of a demand between Dallas and North Houston that they offer a handful of flights. AA tried a handful of flights at DALto AUS while "hubbing" at DFW. They didn't find it to be very beneficial. And the fact remains...why aren't Houstonians raising the cry that Southwest should operate the majority of their flights out of Houston's "real" airport? Or is it just a Dallas thing? Why don't Chicagoans fight the good fight to get Southwest over to ORD (with the higher landing fees that go with it)....MDW and ORD are about the same distance apart as DFW and DAL. Why just Dallas?

 

[AA80Driver]

Yes...and AA could fly out of DAL to HOU if they wanted to also...nothing stopping them...it's even in the scope of the WA. Southwest sees enough of a demand between Dallas and North Houston that they offer a handful of flights. AA tried a handful of flights at DALto AUS while "hubbing" at DFW. They didn't find it to be very beneficial. And the fact remains...why aren't Houstonians raising the cry that Southwest should operate the majority of their flights out of Houston's "real" airport? Or is it just a Dallas thing? Why don't Chicagoans fight the good fight to get Southwest over to ORD (with the higher landing fees that go with it)....MDW and ORD are about the same distance apart as DFW and DAL. Why just Dallas?

[post="205005"][/post]​

Is it just Dallas? Other major cities have limits on their secondary airports as well to protect the new airport-DCA, LGA.

 

[ngneer]

Well, I explained in my first post what was unfair--difference in landing fees and gate rentals.

I don't see anything "unfair" about WN having unrestricted operations at DAL just because their costs are lower at DAL. One could say that AA has an "unfair" advantage at DFW since they can operate far more flights from there than WN can from DAL.

WN has operations at PVD and MHT instead of BOS because of lower costs. Is that unfair? (I know the airports aren't in the same city, but they are in relatively close proximity and, for a large portion of the population, it's just as convenient to use PVD or MHT as to use BOS.)

 

[KCFlyer]

Is it just Dallas? Other major cities have limits on their secondary airports as well to protect the new airport-DCA, LGA.

[post="205069"][/post]​

Great...implement a "perimeter rule" for Love...which the WA certainly is NOT. Under the WA, the current maximum "perimeter" is ABQ...a bit over 700 miles. But...the WA has "gerrymandered" the perimeter so that even though MCI is about 300 miles closer to Dallas than ABQ, I can't fly there on Southwest...and that 700 mile "perimeter" is about half that of LGA or DCA, which I believe are 1500 miles. If DFW feels so threatened by eliminating the WA, why not suggest a 1500 mile perimeter rule...oh yeah...Dallas is pretty much in the center of the country, so a 1500 mile rule would be about as good as abolishing the amendment.

In the LA area, there are several commercial airports. Chicago has 2, New York has 3, The San Francisco area has 2, Houston has 2, there are two alternative airports in the Boston Area (MHT and PVD), and the Miami/Fort Lauderdale area has two (3 if you want to count West Palm). All of these cities seem to support air service to the "secondary" airports - despite differences in landing fees and facilities charges at all of those airports. So I don't get what isn't "fair" about repealing the WA. And I'm having a heckuva time trying to figure out why Southwests "perimeter rule" is so much stricter than DCA's or LGA's.

 

[swflyer]

In the LA area, there are several commercial airports. Chicago has 2, New York has 3, The San Francisco area has 2, Houston has 2, there are two alternative airports in the Boston Area (MHT and PVD), and the Miami/Fort Lauderdale area has two (3 if you want to count West Palm). All of these cities seem to support air service to the "secondary" airports - despite differences in landing fees and facilities charges at all of those airports. So I don't get what isn't "fair" about repealing the WA. And I'm having a heckuva time trying to figure out why Southwests "perimeter rule" is so much stricter than DCA's or LGA's.

[post="205113"][/post]​

KCFlyer,
You're leaving San Jose Mineta out of your SFO Bay Area airports count.
Bachman Lake is the body of water you remember, on the north side of the airport.

I almost felt the need to duck the other day on Lemmon Avenue as a SW flight passed over on final approach. Lemmon Avenue from North and west of Oaklawn almost to Love Field forms the southwestern boundary of HP. The planes tend to be on the HP side of Lemmon on approach.

Jim,
Hop on one of your AA flights into MDW, from DFW, and watch how low you are over Cicero, 55th, or 63rd on final. How about the Rio Salado Parkway or Loop 202 in PHX?? Hwy 101, when SJC is landing from the north?? This is typical of any close in city airport, and I think KC answered this already, people get used to it. In the case of Chicago, people wecome it. It's the sound of jobs.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that this legislative piece of pork has served it's purpose (support the development of the new airport) and, in the interest of 'fairness' (open market), should be repealed.

BTW, ya'll keep mentioning AA's gates at Love forgetting that, according to the lease American signed, can only be used for office space. American got themselves slapped w/an injunction when they tried to hang jetways, in violation of the 'agreement' they signed for the space.

Note: Some words in found in quotes may have been used previously to support alternative points of view which do not reflect the opinions of this poster, thankyouverymuch <_<

 

[Ch. 12]

Is it just Dallas? Other major cities have limits on their secondary airports as well to protect the new airport-DCA, LGA.

[post="205069"][/post]​

DCA and LGA actually have realistic markets within their perimiter (BOS, DCA/LGA, PHL, BDL,...and scores more). DAL is in the middle of nowhere and the reason that states were chosen instead of a perimiter for DAL is b/c how much of a threat is it when the biggest markets would be ABQ, OKC, LIT, and MSY? Not quite the same caliber of what can be reached out of LGA/DCA. And if you notice, when Shelby looked at going one state further out, we ended up with AL and KS. What happened to AZ (PHX/TUS), CO (IAD), MO (STL/MCI), and TN (BNA/TYS/MEM)?? It's b/c those states have real cities and AA had lobbied against allowing other carriers to compete with them. Don't know if I'm crazy, but to me, that blatantly shows the true function of the WA...to artifically limit competition. Give a 1500 mile + perimiter rule to DAL and that would be just fine.

 

[jimntx]

Jim,
Hop on one of your AA flights into MDW, from DFW, and watch how low you are over Cicero, 55th, or 63rd on final. How about the Rio Salado Parkway or Loop 202 in PHX?? Hwy 101, when SJC is landing from the north?? This is typical of any close in city airport, and I think KC answered this already, people get used to it. In the case of Chicago, people wecome it. It's the sound of jobs.
<_<

[post="205373"][/post]​

My point had nothing to do with the altitude of the a/c. You stated that SW a/c fly over White Rock and implied that they do not fly over Highland Park. I was simply pointing out that the a/c crossing Lemmon Ave was over HP at the time. Lemmon is one of the boundaries of HP and the a/c was over the HP side of Lemmon.

Like I said, when you put all those good rich Repubs comfort and quiet against the needs of the great traveling unwashed, we'll see who wins.

 

[KCFlyer]

My point had nothing to do with the altitude of the a/c. You stated that SW a/c fly over White Rock and implied that they do not fly over Highland Park. I was simply pointing out that the a/c crossing Lemmon Ave was over HP at the time. Lemmon is one of the boundaries of HP and the a/c was over the HP side of Lemmon.

Like I said, when you put all those good rich Repubs comfort and quiet against the needs of the great traveling unwashed, we'll see who wins.

[post="205447"][/post]​

Sorry to nitpick, but if it was a Southwest jet coming in over Lemmon Avenue, then I can only summise that weather conditions at the time had to play some part. Reason being that to cross Lemmon, the landing would have to be on either 31R or 18. Southwest generally uses runway 31L. Now bizjets tend to like the other side of the airport, and those bizjets are often times occupied by the HP NIMBY's. Those bizjets are also much louder than the vast majority of Southwest jets.

But...all that is beside the point - I have presented you with several cities with multiple airports, none of them as restricted as Love Field is, and just about all of them with lower landing fees than the "primary" airports in those cities. Yet - all seems to be well. So....please explain that given all that, why is repealing the WA amendment "unfair"? And I hate to harp on the MDW-ORD thing, but your airline operates a pretty fair sized hub operation in Chicago...how come MDW accepting flights from all points is not unfair, but giving DAL the same opportunity IS unfair?

 

[JS]

Yes...and AA could fly out of DAL to HOU if they wanted to also...nothing stopping them...it's even in the scope of the WA. Southwest sees enough of a demand between Dallas and North Houston that they offer a handful of flights. AA tried a handful of flights at DALto AUS while "hubbing" at DFW. They didn't find it to be very beneficial. And the fact remains...why aren't Houstonians raising the cry that Southwest should operate the majority of their flights out of Houston's "real" airport? Or is it just a Dallas thing? Why don't Chicagoans fight the good fight to get Southwest over to ORD (with the higher landing fees that go with it)....MDW and ORD are about the same distance apart as DFW and DAL. Why just Dallas?

[post="205005"][/post]​

AA is not allowed to fly out of Love Field. They, along with all the other airlines in operation at the time, were forced to "agree" to move to DFW and never fly out of Love Field again.

Southwest has benefited from the Wright Amendment, not only because they weren't forced to move to DFW, but because it also allows them and no other legacy carrier to use a very convenient airport. AA tried some Eagle flights out of Love Field because American Airlines (AA, not MQ) is prohibited from using Love Field. Of course it didn't work; you need MD-80s to AUS, not regional jets.

Look, if Southwest is interested in fairness, the fair thing to do is not just add 42 more states to some list and leave everything else alone. The fair thing to do is abolish all regulations on North Texas commercial air traffic (the bond agreements, the master plan, everything).

Forget about DFW for a moment. Do you really think DAL having 60 gates in use at all times, with its attendant ATC and ramp delays, is a good idea?

 

[JS]

Great...implement a "perimeter rule" for Love...which the WA certainly is NOT. Under the WA, the current maximum "perimeter" is ABQ...a bit over 700 miles. But...the WA has "gerrymandered" the perimeter so that even though MCI is about 300 miles closer to Dallas than ABQ, I can't fly there on Southwest...and that 700 mile "perimeter" is about half that of LGA or DCA, which I believe are 1500 miles. If DFW feels so threatened by eliminating the WA, why not suggest a 1500 mile perimeter rule...oh yeah...Dallas is pretty much in the center of the country, so a 1500 mile rule would be about as good as abolishing the amendment.

In the LA area, there are several commercial airports. Chicago has 2, New York has 3, The San Francisco area has 2, Houston has 2, there are two alternative airports in the Boston Area (MHT and PVD), and the Miami/Fort Lauderdale area has two (3 if you want to count West Palm). All of these cities seem to support air service to the "secondary" airports - despite differences in landing fees and facilities charges at all of those airports. So I don't get what isn't "fair" about repealing the WA. And I'm having a heckuva time trying to figure out why Southwests "perimeter rule" is so much stricter than DCA's or LGA's.

[post="205113"][/post]​

Do any of the large airports you listed have an empty terminal?