'wrong' Amendment Back In The News
- Thread starter swflyer
- Start date
jimntx
Veteran
Maybe so in the fancy markets, but the last one that flew over my house in Oak Cliff on its way to Houston was ARNGE.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,283
- 1,427
JS said:
DFW is 30 years old...how much more protection does it need? DAL doesn't have anywere near the capacity to pose any kind of threat to DFW, but isn't it strange that the airports that pose the greatest "threat" to DFW are located in Fort Worth? I mean...as it was pointed out by LSM - Alliance was pretty much built to siphon off cargo business from DFW..that's a pretty fair chunk of money...why no restrictions on that?
Is O'hare not large enough to serve Chicago? Is IAH not large enough to serve Houston? After all, ATL seems to be large enough to serve Atlanta and PHL seems liarge enough to serve Philly? I have to ask again...what makes DFW so darn special?
jimntx said:
Enjoy em while they last...like the -200s they are a "dying" breed. I've heard they are leaving 3 aircraft in the old livery to represent the 3 original SWA cities. I hope so...I would hate to see such an integral part of our history and corporate indentity slip away completely. Although, the new livery has grown on me. The matching "Canyon Blue" uniform shirt they want me to wear, now that is a different story all together. :down:
JS said:
Sure and the industry was regulated to allow it to grow. It seems hypocritical that they restrict flights out of Love Field to only the state of Texas. Its not like they would need customs or anything like that. Here in NY we have LGA and JFK. LGA was the major airport until Idlewild(JFK) opened up. There is more than enough traffic not only for the two of them but for EWR, Stewart and Islip as well.
This is nothing more than state protectionsm for the corporate interests of AMR. Too bad none of these governments will do anything to protect workers.
The best thing that could happen to airline workers is to see SWA continue to expand. A business plan that includes good sevice at an affordable price while also paying their workers a decent wage is one that we all should favor.
KCFlyer said:
DAL most certainly has the capacity to threaten DFW with extinction. The Master Plan limits DAL to 32 gates, which is more than double SWA's current usage. If you built out DAL to its limits (like LGA), using the runways to their full capacity, you could downsize DFW to just two terminals.
For the 50th time... Chicago is a much larger city, ORD does not have any empty terminals, IAH does not have any empty terminals, and HOU is on the other side of downtown Houston and will never draw much traffic from the 50% of the Houston metro area that is closer to IAH.
What makes DFW so darn special is that a metropolitan airport was built in the 1950's in almost the same spot, and it failed. Amon Carter Field is all gone now except for one little piece of concrete and a ring of trees.
To avoid another white elephant, the powers that be decided that Love Field needed to be closed to ensure the success of DFW. The Wright Amendment was a *compromise* between the original plan of closing Love Field and Southwest's desire to fly anywhere they want out of DAL.
If it weren't for AA's hub operation at DFW, the situation would be even more dire. There really isn't that much O&D traffic in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex to support two large airports.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
funguy2 said:
Well, not exactly. Dallas cannot shut down DAL without Federal approval because of the millions of dollars of trust fund monies in the airport. The Feds would have to agree to allow the closure and there are no rules compelling agreement. There are those that prevent the Feds from agreeing for closure prior to the expiration of whatever agreements might exist at DAL. There may be some inperpetuity.
And JS is correct re: DFW/DAL. However, it is true that airlines have had decades to develop a business plan that fits with the status quo. Changing the status quo could be done in many ways that would could benefit one party over the other. So, it's not surprising that fortress hubs (to the extent they are still relevant) have built up around the 'regulatory' infrastructure that was, and to a certain extent, still is designed to preserve the viability of DFW as the 'regional' airport. This has already frayed on the edges by DOT/Court decisions, including the Alliance development. Any other changes would likely require legislation.
Bob Owens said:
What is your point? New York has around five times as many people in the metro area. Mentioning SWF is about as useful as mentioning ACT or SPS in this discussion -- it's a dinky little airport 90 miles out in the country.
Why do you always have to end your posts with a labor rant? This topic has nothing to do with labor.
jimntx said:With Ahnuld now in charge in Kahleeforneeah, I'm guessing the next change to the WA will allow flights from DAL to LAX, but only if flown in an aircraft built by any American company starting with a B and painted orange.
[post="228498"][/post]
Yes b/c the WA has always been in the best interests of said company.
JS said:
Yes, while the original legislation was to ensure that DFW could sustain given the huge investement, that is no longer the aim. Now, with an international gateway at DFW, a not-so-insignificant fortress hub, and the need to expand capacity there, it is no longer a question of whether or not DFW can sustain against a very limited capacity of DAL. You see, there is no reason for the WA today when you look at the big picture. Does SFO need protection from OAK? Does LAX need protection from SNA/BUR/ONT? Does MIA need protection from FLL/PBI? Does DFW need protection from DAL? Answer in all cases is "no" and it truly is about AA now because they are the prime beneficiary of limits to competition in Dallas. Of course DFW still supports the WA, but they also get a free ride in an anticompetitive environment.
Thanks for the history lesson, but you know as well as the rest of us that DAL is limited and besides that, DFW is here to stay and won't be over-run by piddly DAL or FTW. That is just the scapegoat used by AA/DFW to keep an outdated WA from being erased from the books.
You tell me that it's fair, though. How is that?
It is fair because Southwest gets to use Love Field while AA cannot. In exchange for being allowed to use a more convenient airport with lower costs comes the restriction of destinations served.
Letting Southwest fly anywhere they want out of Love Field would be unfair to AA, and letting both WN and AA fly anywhere out of DAL would be unfair to DFW.
Letting Southwest fly anywhere they want out of Love Field would be unfair to AA, and letting both WN and AA fly anywhere out of DAL would be unfair to DFW.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #87
AA can use Love. This statement is untrue.JS said:
SWA was 'allowed' to use the airport because it wasn't a signatory of the DFW bond agreement. This was upheld by the US Supreme Court. The 'restriction' was designed to protect bond covenants that have more than matured.
Actually, this is called 'business', or 'best use of available assets', or 'eliminating protectionist legislation/pork'.
Fair is in the eye of the beholder but, IMHO, your explanation doesn't hold water.
swflyer said:
Not according to the bond agreements they signed. Yes, the DFW airport board let them fly a few MD-80's out of DAL, but that doesn't make it right. Would the DFW airport board let them fly 50 times a day to LAX, SEA, ORD, LGA and BOS? I doubt it.
The bond covenants have matured? What was the maturity date? Somehow I missed that one.
business -- running a business (a legitimate one to be precise) requires that one be able to operate within the physical, regulatory, and competitive environment. Southwest has proven that it can deal with all three (though in some markets it chooses not to participate, which is fine).
best use of available assets -- Southwest does not own DAL or DFW. Case closed.
eliminating protectionist legislation -- I agree. Prohibiting Southwest from being able to use DFW would be protectionist, because it wouldn't allow Southwest to compete with AA on long-haul flights. However, under existing legislation, Southwest can fly out of the same airport as AA. What's so unfair about that?
JS said:
JS your right on the money!!! Of course DFW still needs protection. Terminal B is grossly underused and now most of Terminal E is about to be abandoned! And don't forget DFW will open a NEW terminal next year which will be underused as well! Why in the world would we need DAL opened up NOW? Theres PLENTY of room at the Inn!
This is not Chicago or Houston. The comparisons are rediculous. Both of those cities are much larger and have airports which are either full or bursting at the seams (ORD). The Chicago market is so much bigger they're considering building a THIRD airport to relive the other two!
jimntx
Veteran
JS said:
Actually, it wasn't MD-80s. AA was flying F-100s which had been configured with 56 F/C seats--the same seating capacity as the Legend airplanes. The seat limit--which, when written, was asssumed to restrict out of perimeter flying to RJs--is in the WA.
Now, if SWA wants to configure a plane with no more than 56 seats they could fly anywhere they want to from DAL.
