Arpey on the WA in the American Way Magazine

J3CubCapt

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
144
Total Time
10,300
[font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=-1] http://americanwaymag.com/aw/images/buttons/printer_button.gif [size=+1]The Truth about the Wright Amendment[/size] [/size][/font] [font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=-1][size=-1]We�d love to hear what you think about our airline and our employees. Please write to us at www.aa.com/customerrelations.[/size][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=-1] [/size][/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=-1]http://americanwaymag.com/aw/images/headshots/hs_vntgpt_arpey.jpg[size=-1]As we approach the homestretch of 2005, we still have some big things in store for our customers this year. One of the biggest is the brand-new Terminal D at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, which will be home to American Airlines� international operation starting this fall. This state-of-the-art facility � which covers 29 acres and includes 2.1 million square feet of interior space � is the cornerstone of a $2.7 billion initiative that also includes Skylink, the world�s largest high-speed airport train.

Terminal D represents the next leap forward in North Texas�s ongoing evolution as a hub of international commerce and culture. Today, everyone understands that, in a global economy, integration and connectivity are the keys to prosperity. The leaders
of Dallas and Fort Worth actually realized this way back in the late 1960s, when they decided to join together and invest their resources in one world-class airport rather than in two inferior facilities. The results speak for themselves, as DFW has grown into a major international gateway � American and American Eagle alone provide nonstop service to 28 international destinations � and the engine that drives the regional economy.

Unfortunately, despite our excitement about Terminal D, our optimism about DFW�s future is clouded at the moment by the ongoing effort to expand the service offered at Love Field, a smaller airport near downtown Dallas. I�m sure many of you are aware of the controversy surrounding legislation widely known as the Wright Amendment. Passed in 1979, the law allowed Love Field to remain open (despite both cities� desire that it be closed) and granted one carrier a near monopoly there in return for permanent restrictions on where it could fly. Local citizens were relieved that the long and sometimes acrimonious debate over Love Field had ended, and they appreciated the compromise. In subsequent years, DFW, the airlines serving it, and local taxpayers invested billions of dollars under the assumption that the law would remain in effect. The $2.7 billion Terminal D project is a perfect example of this investment.

If the restrictions on Love Field are lifted, American and other airlines, to serve the needs of their customers, will have no choice but to shift a lot of flights from DFW to Dallas�s closer-in airport. That�s bad news for us, for DFW, and for the North Texas community that enjoys the robust international schedule that our hub makes possible. It�s a fact of life in this business that cities with large hubs receive more service, and more international service in particular, than they would attract on their own. It is the connecting traffic, by and large, that makes most international flights economically feasible. The desirability of international flights is one reason so many cities with new hub airports go to great lengths to make sure these facilities are not undermined by the old airports they replace. But the harm of shifting flights from DFW to Love Field would extend beyond North Texas. Fliers across the country rely on the connecting opportunities our DFW hub creates to Mexico, Central and South America, and elsewhere, and a reduced DFW schedule would make many of those flights hard to justify.

Please don�t be fooled into thinking that this debate is about low fares. In contrast to Love Field, there are lots of airlines competing for your business at DFW, and as a result, there are more low fares to more places than ever before. Both Economics 101 and logic tell us that prices are lowest where competition is vigorous and the playing field is level. Love Field is facility-constrained and single-carrier dominated, but there are plenty of available gates at DFW, which means any carrier willing to compete can fly wherever, and charge whatever, they wish.

This is a complex issue, one that�s hard to do justice to in this space. But it is also critically important to our airline, to our hometown, and to our future. If you would like to learn more, please visit www.keepdfwstrong.com. Thank you for your support and for flying with us today.


GERARD J. ARPEY
Chairman & CEO
American Airlines
[/size]
[/size][/font]
 

Paul R. Smith

Fender Bender
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Posts
722
Total Time
4:30
So your saying you don't like the Wright ammendment? :)
 

linecheck

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Posts
153
Total Time
1
If LUV wants to "compete" then why don't they start flights out of DFW and compete on an even platform with everybody else? That's what DFW was designed and built to do.

And don't tell me that DFW doesn't "fit" into the SWA business model because SWA serves LAX, as well as Burbank etc....

Ohh but wait, SWA would have to "compete" with AA, as well as all the other airlines that serve DFW.. what a concept. There's certainly plenty of gates at DFW to take over.

J3 and all the other LUV cheer leaders, why don't you lay your pom poms down for a second, stop drinking the cool aid and understand that LUV's argument is pure and simple hypocrisy.
 

J3CubCapt

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
144
Total Time
10,300
linecheck said:
If LUV wants to "compete" then why don't they start flights out of DFW and compete on an even platform with everybody else? That's what DFW was designed and built to do.

And don't tell me that DFW doesn't "fit" into the SWA business model because SWA serves LAX, as well as Burbank etc....

Ohh but wait, SWA would have to "compete" with AA, as well as all the other airlines that serve DFW.. what a concept. There's certainly plenty of gates at DFW to take over.

J3 and all the other LUV cheer leaders, why don't you lay your pom poms down for a second, stop drinking the cool aid and understand that LUV's argument is pure and simple hypocrisy.
Boy, I have loved this cool aid for years and I'll continue to drink it.

Even Platform? We pay our bills and others file Capt 11. Are we playing on an even platform now?

It's not that DFW doesn't fit into the SWA business model, Why should we move and entire airline to DFW? We do serve many large airports and with all of the Chap 11's we will probably serve more, but moving our whole operations 12 miles for the sake of AA, I say NO.

If you are at all familiar with the Love field master plan, there is plenty of room for AA and others at Love.

J3
 

SWAnnabee

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Posts
241
Total Time
1900
Can you please post a link to the Love Field Master Plan. Thanks.
 

labbats

Zulu who?
Joined
May 25, 2003
Posts
2,593
Total Time
9000
It's his magazine on his airline, he can say whatever he feels like.
 

linecheck

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Posts
153
Total Time
1
When DFW was constructed years ago, LUV was given the choice to move to DFW and enjoy the benefits that DFW offered. (central location, easy access and no wright amendment.) For a while, DFW was offering free leases on gates for a period of time.

But LUV chose not to move to DFW. To me, this decision is something LUV should be held accountable for, and LUV should not be asking its employees to campaign for a mistake that was made years ago. This issue is not about the "sake for AA," this is about abiding by the law that was created.

And by the way, LUV doesn't need to move the whole company to DFW. They can simply put flights out of there just like they do in LAX and Burbank.

I agree with you that LUV deserves great respect for running a reputable operation. They do pay their bills, and treat their employees fairly. I think many Legacy airlines and companies could take some good notes in the SWA success, especially in today's climate.

However, the wright amendment issue isn't about competition, its about monopilization. LUV wants a monopoly in DAL just like they enjoy in MDW and soon will enjoy in BFI. I don't think its right.
 

AlbieF15

F15 Ret/FDX/InterviewPrep
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
1,764
Total Time
6000
Fact is, taxpayer money DID go to build DFW. The Wright Amendment, whether or not you agree with it, was not some huge conspiracy to protect (or hurt) an airline. It was a way to try make a slightly more inconvenient airport for Dallas citizens a better airport for ALL of North Texas--especially Ft Worth.

If you look at how Austin handled getting Bergstrom AFB, they didn't even try to compromise or work something out. They CLOSED the old airport (much to the chargrin of GA enthusiasts like me) and put a big yellow X on the runways. Why not keep it open and use part of the facilities there? Well...the City of Dallas kept Love Field and its been a battle ever since. No airline would want to offer a flight to AUS with a 20 minute ride into town when the old airport was a short jaunt to the State Capital. Like it or hate it, Austin has no airport controversy now--they just killed off the old field. Now Austin needs more GA space, but the closest best field (Georgetown) is a long drive from downtown, and getting into AUS in an ASEL type plane ain't that great of an option either.

Love Field was kept open in a compromise that everyone agreed to. Now SWA wants to change the rules. Whether or not it is "fair" or the "right thing" will be left up to local politicians, the judges, and whoever else comes along. I have no dog in the this fight, but I do get to work with some SWA hopefuls along the way and I've never had a DAL or AA client--so if SWA wins it is ultimately good for MY business. However, I just wanted to make the case that if you ever wonder WHY your favorite little reliever field got shut down, you have some insights as to "why". New airport development boards and major airlines can see existing fields as a potential threat and will do all they can in their power to get them closed. So...Love Field stays open for business, but all around the country other folks will try to prevent future "Loves" from being allowed to hurt their cash cows.

Just a fighter pilot...and may be wrong...
 
Last edited:

Chest Rockwell

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Posts
432
Total Time
>250
Linecheck,

Get your facts straight. There are gates available to any airline that wants to come into DAL. MDW was a ghost town in 1991 after the original Midway shutdown. None of the lagacy carriers were waiting in line to get gates there. If you compare ticket prices out of DFW to cities that SWA does not serve, the consumer has paid a much, much higher price for the past 30 years.

DFW is an inefficient airport. The taxi times there are probably 8-10 more that at DAL. That taxi time compounded on 100-150 flights a day adds up to many more airplanes required to fly the same schedule, less productive employees, etc. It doesn't fit the business model for a "hub"/crew & maint base.We frequently taxi in at LAX without ever setting the parking brake.

I honestly do not believe that Mr. Arpey wants to see SWA at DFW either.
 

Whataburger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Posts
2,961
Total Time
40teen
linecheck said:
If LUV wants to "compete" then why don't they start flights out of DFW and compete on an even platform with everybody else? That's what DFW was designed and built to do.

If the other airlines are so miffed about SWA wanting to lift the Wright Amendment, why don't the other airlines move to DAL to "compete." The road runs both ways. "Competition" involves beating your opponent, which does not require moving into his backyard.

Set Luv Free!
 

linecheck

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Posts
153
Total Time
1
[quote: whataburger] "If the other airlines are so miffed about SWA wanting to lift the Wright Amendment, why don't the other airlines move to DAL to "compete." The road runs both ways. "Competition" involves beating your opponent, which does not require moving into his backyard."

You're right, the road does go both ways. If wright is repealed Arpey has stated that AA will resume flights out of DAL.

As far as taxi times are concerned, PHL didn't stop SWA from going there, so what's wrong with 9 minutes at DFW?

Once again, this is not about airport efficiency, this is about being held accountable about a decision LUV made years ago. Why are you trying to make excuses and defend a mistake that SWA management made?
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
J3CubCapt said:
Boy, I have loved this cool aid for years and I'll continue to drink it.

Even Platform? We pay our bills and others file Capt 11. Are we playing on an even platform now?


J3
There are more airlines than just SWA that have to compete with Ch. 11 carriers.

Furthermore, SWA having to compete with these carriers is really no different than airlines having to compete with SWA's unique advantage at Love. An unearned, ill-gotten advantage.

The SWA penchant for not patronizing the traditional air transportation system in meaningful fashion is no different in spirit than these Ch. 11 airlines dropping their retirements on the taxpayers. Except that these carriers were all principal to the birth and heyday of the greatest transportation system in the world. SWA is not, never was, and never will be.
 
Last edited:

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
My post from the re-regulation thread

Here is a great website: www.braniffpages.com

Braniff CEO Harding Lawrence thought de-regulation would fail. He believed that Braniff needed to agressively grow when de-regulation started because it would quickly fail and that any new route launched during that time would be allowed to remain part of the airlines' system. Braniff launched [gambled] over 100 new routes around the world when de-regulation started. Braniff failed, but Harding Lawrence may still be right, just off by 20+ years.

Here is where I'm coming from:

Continuing with Braniff: Braniff didn't want to go to DFW. They considered Love their home no less than SWA does now. Moving to DFW disturded their operations and was expensive. In doing so they relented market share to SWA, but not without a fight. Braniff matched each route SWA flew out of Love in a very expensive fight. SWA did not run Braniff out of Love, far from it. Braniff was forced to cease Love Field operations by a court order! So in a new "de-regulated" environment, Braniff was very much "regulated" out of Love Field. SWA was very much "regulated" into a durable advantage in a strategic market. De-regulation did not account for the SWA special interest. Free market? My a$$!

I wonder if Alfred Kahn's research accounted for this possibility:

The SWA "phenomenon" makes money, but does not throw off a lot of money. They only fly one model of airplane, and if they are the future then I guess we won't need to engineer/design any new airplanes. They aren't going to support any new airports or terminals that cost them any money, so forget about that. And they aren't going to do any complicated flying that perserves our air transportation system. For instance: If SWA is able to erode Alaska's route system/profit base to the point that they can no longer do the important flying in the Alaskan wilderness that service will be lost forever. SWA is not going to do it. Project that example onto the whole country and you can see the long term effect of de-regulation.

Is this business de-regulated? Not truly. DOJ has to intervene in anything majors do.

Is what we call de-regulation going to advance our standard of living, build up the middle class in earnest? Perhaps, it seems so at this moment. Long term? Maybe not. Look over the website at the top of the page, and then try to find anything similiar about SWA. Try to use that sort of reasoning and see where you think the US air transportation system is headed. In 20 years we might end up with the most primitive and limited transportation system in the world.
 

Chest Rockwell

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Posts
432
Total Time
>250
Not making excuses. SWA management did not write the WA. PHL is not a crew base, mx base, or hub (I think we have 3 or 4 gates there). 9 minutes times 100 flights is 15 unproductive hours a day.

If you want airline mgmt to be held accountable better start with those underfunding pensions and then dumping them on the taxpayers (I applaud AA for not going this route).

SWA has evolved into more of a long-haul carrier, at least to the extent the B737 will allow. In the post 9/11 world, short-haul is loosing to the automobile due to the airport security time/hassle factor. SWA has reacted to the market demands and opportunities with the capabilities of the B737-700W.

As far as patronizing traditional air transportation, ask any airport manager which always airline pays their bills on time.
 

CitationLover

Aw, Nuts!
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Posts
3,316
Total Time
1500+
Chest Rockwell said:
DFW is an inefficient airport. The taxi times there are probably 8-10 more that at DAL. That taxi time compounded on 100-150 flights a day adds up to many more airplanes required to fly the same schedule, less productive employees, etc. It doesn't fit the business model for a "hub"/crew & maint base.We frequently taxi in at LAX without ever setting the parking brake.
this is pure BS. case in point: PHL. talk about inefficient, yet SWA is there.

SWA effect? how about other carriers being put on long downwinds to "squeeze" a SW plane in?
 
Last edited:

Benhuntn

Deer Fear Me
Joined
Jul 2, 2002
Posts
1,127
Total Time
>11000
Just one question for Linecheck... Do you have a window in your stomach so you can lift your shirt and see where you are going occasionally?
 

Chest Rockwell

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Posts
432
Total Time
>250
CitationLover said:
this is pure BS. case in point: PHL. talk about inefficient, yet SWA is there.

SWA effect? how about other carriers being put on long downwinds to "squeeze" a SW plane in?
Read again, PHL is inefficient and will not be a major hub of operations unless it improves. DAL is a base with 100+- flights.

You'll have to take that up with your ATC friends.
 
Top