Could this be a possible solution?
As everyone knows by now,
Southwest seeks control of ATA
As I was reading the article, this section kind of jumped out at me
Southwest's offer for six ATA gates at Midway startled industry analysts because it included a code-share provision -- for only the second time in Southwest's history.
This would allow ATA to sell Southwest tickets to travelers who use both airlines on one trip, such as a passenger going to Indianapolis from Fort Worth, Texas, flying the first leg on Southwest and changing at Midway to an ATA flight.
"This is part of a defensive move" by Southwest, Field said, noting Southwest is offering the arrangement on fewer than 10 routes out of Midway. "They saw it as the only way to match what AirTran was offering" in code-sharing.
Anyway, I can't seem to get past that code sharing example that was used in the indystar article. It specifically stated:
This would allow ATA to sell Southwest tickets to travelers who use both airlines on one trip, such as a passenger going to Indianapolis from Fort Worth, Texas, flying the first leg on Southwest and changing at Midway to an ATA flight.
At first, I assumed they had it backwards. I assumed that the DFW - MDW leg would be on ATA, not Southwest (because Southwest doesn't fly DFW- MDW), and that the second MDW - IND leg would be on Southwest not ATA.
But now I'm starting to wonder if that example might have been a clue as to Southwest's plans.
There's been lots of screaming from Fort Worth and AA about why can't Southwest come to DFW and offer some low fare competition. "DFW airport needs the revenue. We have all those empty Delta gates."
They are trying to paint Southwest as the villain, saying that Southwest is looking out for its own best interests rather than that of the entire region at large (which I don't blame Southwest for doing -- after all their first responsibility is to their shareholders, not the City of Fort Worth or DFW)
So what if Southwest were to say "Fine, you want us to come to DFW, we'll come to DFW. Give us 4 gates." That would be enough for 40 daily departures.
Now initially, they would probably concentrate on DFW - MDW flights. The way I understand it is that if ATA operates the DFW-MDW flights, then once Southwest customers got to MDW, they'd only be able to connect to other cities that Southwest serves out of MDW. They wouldn't be able to connect to other ATA flights that served cities not currently in Southwest's system.
Well, actually they would be able to, but it wouldn't benefit Southwest as both flights would be on ATA so I don't see where Southwest would get any revenue out of that.
But if Southwest flew DFW - MDW
themselves, then passengers could still connect to other cities that Southwest serves out of MDW. That would be just a Southwest to Southwest connection. But they could now ALSO connect DFW fliers to the other destinations out of MDW that ATA flies to but Southwest does not with the codesahre agreement.
Not only would it open DFW up to places like BWI, Chicago Midway, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Hartford, Manchester, Providence, and other cities currently in Southwest's system, but because of the codeshare agreement, It could also add additional destinations like Boston, La Guardia, Washington -- places Southwest doesn't fly to itself, but ones that are served by ATA. Not only would Dallas and Fort Worth benefit, so would Southwest customers in other cities as long as the connection was made in MDW.
Talk about puttin' a hurt on AA and the other legacy carriers. And then, as long as Southwest was at DFW, they could later add more nonstops to places like Kansas City, Nashville, Phoenix, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Tampa, Orlando, etc. -- places which wouldn't be logically served via a connection in Chicago.
So is this idea too farfetched? It seems like it would take care of a lot of things. It would get Southwest the gates it wants at MDW and would help to keep AirTran out of MDW. If Southwest and ATA were partners at MDW, ATA could fill in at the extra gate space for now, and Southwest could then focus it's expansion towards other areas, like HOU, BWI, ISP and other airports where new gates have been or will be completed.
Although it might not be in the best interests of the North Texas region at large, speaking from a Southwest business perpective, It would help keep AirTran in check at DFW, and it might be enough of a threat to deter others (like jetBlue) from coming into DFW.
It could also potentially add 9 new destinations to the ENTIRE Southwest system via the codeshare agreement with ATA.
And it would FINALLY provide low fare service to all the residents of North Texas and maybe Fort Worth and AA and Southwest and Dallas and DFW would stop all this bickering and whining all the time. Hopefully the lower fares would stimlate more demand and with more flyers, DFW would begin to see increased revenues from landing fees, parking, gate rentals, concessions, etc.
It seems like it could be a win/win situation for everyone involved. (except maybe for American Airlines, who would now have to compete in price on more routes.) And actually, since Southwest doesn't have assigned seating or first class or VIP clubs or offer international service, while AA does, AA might be able to justifiably charge a small premium for these services and the individual customer could make the decision as to whether or not the higher price was worth the extra value.
Then, if there was a large jump in passengers at DFW (and there should be -- that's what always happens when Southwest enters a high priced market) then perhaps the Wright Amendment could finally be repealed.
I think Southwest's codeshare opportunity with ATA (if their bid is approved) would provide Southwest the means to achieve a bigger return on their investment should they decide to begin serving DFW, whereas if they try to do it without ATA's help, I don't think they'd be as successful.
Look at it this way. Dallas and Fort Worth both have a joint interest in DFW, and then Fort Worth has it's airports (Meacham and Alliance) and Dallas has Love Field. Since Dallas has the larger population, why can't Love Field be more concentrated on serving passengers? Since Fort Wort has the better cargo facility at Alliance, they can remain the premier cargo airport for the region.
As Fort Worth grows, additional commercial flights could be added at either Alliance or Meacham or both as determined by the DFW Airport Board.
For those dreaming of long haul service out of Meacham or Alliance, while I wish you the best of luck, it will never ever happen until the Wright Amendment is repealed. Although the Wright Amendment doesn't place any restrictions on passenger service at either Meacham or Alliance, the 1968 Bond Ordinance does.
If you think for one minute that Dallas would allow long haul commercial passenger service at Meacham/Alliance, while Dallas remains boxed in at Love Field, you can guess again. Dallas may have let Fort Worth get away with building Alliance, but I'm sure that if Fort Worth tried to get long haul passenger service at its secondary airports, Dallas would insist upon the matter being voted upon by the DFW Board and I don't think it would pass unless the Wright Amendment was gone.
If Southwest is going to take the risk with the codeshare ageement they might as well get the most bang for the buck and they could do that if they (WN) operated the DFW - MDW flights themselves, rather than ATA.
Here's an additional option to the one mentioned. Suppose Ft. Worth and AA agreed to quit opposing the Wright Amendment and it was repealed. And suppose Southwest pledged to add one flight at DFW for every 4 flights it operated at Love Field. If Southwest went back up to 140 departures per day at Love Field, they'd also be required to operate 35 daily departures from DFW. The bigger they got at Love Field, the more flights they'd have to start at DFW.
Now I'm not saying that Southwest would agree to this or if it would even be possible from a legal standpoint, but if they did, would this be enough to satisfy Fort Worth on this issue?
What does everyone else think?
LoneStarMike
