Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Arpey on the WA in the American Way Magazine

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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.
 
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!
 
[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 If wright is repealed Arpey has stated that AA will resume flights out of DAL.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?
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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?
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top