Big-name politicians line up behind Southwest in Dallas flight battle

[SWAnnabee]

I say it is the greed of AA and CAL that will benefit from WA support, not SWA and the repeal. Repeal will just make the marketplace more competitively neutral.

Believe me, I don't believe for a second that AA or CAL have anyones best interests at heart but their own and I laugh at some of their attempts to justify the support of the WA. I just think that it was a deal presented to SWA as a "take it or leave it" and SWA took it. They could have refused it but that would have meant operating out of DFW.

I see the WA as an exception to an already agreed to course of action (ie ending commercial traffic from Love Field). In this respect I think SWA should be a little grateful that this exception was made and just accept the restrictions that came with it.

In spite of that restriction, SWA has grown and prospered. If it was a case of SWA going out of business unless the WA is repealed, then I would probably agree that it should go. But that's not the case and SWA's financial history proves that the WA has not hurt them much. Which is why I think it's just greed.

Should a business be greedy? ABSOLUTELY. Some would just call it being "motivated to turn a profit". But when that motivation requires the breaking of an agreement, thats when I call it greed. And I think that, in this particular case, SWA is breaking an agreement.

And again, yes SWA did agree. They had an option, to operate from DFW, but decided that accepting the restrictions of the WA was a better deal. How would SWA like it if the added states that have been attached to the original WA were taken back? Wouldn't you then also say that a deal was made and should be honored?

Again, if someone with more knowledge of the subject finds that I am incorrect on any of the facts, please say so.

 

[enigma]

Maybe we should be trying to look at the metroplex airport issue from another perspective.

Here's a quote from Business Facilities - The Location advisor. http://www.facilitycity.com/busfac/bf_05_02_news1.asp

Of the 12 largest cities in Texas, six are located in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Metroplex-a 12-county area surrounding the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. The eight counties of the Dallas Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), together with the four counties of the Fort Worth PMSA, make up the Metroplex. From a political point of view, the 12-county area is considered a Consolidated Metropolitan statistical Area (CMSA). With a population well over 5.5 million, the Metroplex is the largest market in the Southern U.S. and ninth largest in the nation. Nine Metroplex cities have populations of more than 100,000: Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Plano, Garland, Irving, Grand Prairie, Mesquite, and Carrollton.

Between 2000 and 2030, the diversified population of the Metroplex is expected to grow by 2.7 million people to almost eight million. DFW has a large working-age population. According to Census 2000, the median age of the Metroplex is 32.1, while the national median age is 35.3. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex tends to attract bright, energetic people. DFW added more than one million residents in the 1990s, making it third in population gained, behind New York and Los Angeles.


Does anyone who has any amount of experience operating at DFW airport truly believe that DFW can provide all of the runway space that the metroplex will require over the next few years if not decades? I don't. Heck, DFW couldn't even run on time when both Delta and American were hubbed there. I've sat for fourty-five minutes just waiting to get to the terminal side of the inner runway on more than one occasion. (Both operating into DFW and jumpseating in on my commute) DFW may have excess terminal space, but my experiences show me (and maybe only me) that DFW doesn't have an excess of efficient runway and taxi space.


It seems inevitable to me, that the metroplex will require more runways in the near future. If that is an accurate assesment, then why not use the ones that we've already got? Why not allow Love to be utilized to the fullest? As has been previously stated, AA and CO already have gate space at DAL and there is nothing keeping them from operating there now. If DFW were a vast wasteland, with weeds growing from the joints because of a lack of use, then I'd say that SWA maybe should move, but DFW isn't sitting there going to waste.


Again it is my somewhat less than humble opinion that the metroplex will need more capacity in the near future, and that the best use of taxpayer money is to allow increased operations out of Love. Even at that, we all know that Love will not be allowed to run at full capacity. Restrictions will arise. Noise laws and local concerns will restrict operations and operational delays will eventually require slots. Twenty years from now, the fight will be over where to build the new third and fourth metroplex airports.


For all of you, "a deal is a deal" people, I must say this.... The world has changed since 1969 and 1979. The regulatory, economic and political environments have all changed. Supporting the WA with a "deal is a deal" argument makes about as much sense as does defending slavery because it was legal when you bought the slaves.

Finally, why should the North Texas economy be forced to eat the cost of monopolistic ticket pricing just to support the DFW board? Personally, I'm quite surprised that the DFW board hasn't made a play to establish a NY/NJ style port authority under which all metroplex airports are placed. Because, ultimately, that is their argument against dropping the WA. They don't want anyone else in the metroplex to be able to operate terminals/runways.


regards,
enigma


PS, ppppppppppsssssssssssssssssst SWA. Call me

 

[canyonblue]

Does anyone who has any amount of experience operating at DFW airport truly believe that DFW can provide all of the runway space that the metroplex will require over the next few years if not decades?

Sounds like they need a reliever airport.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

And by the way, deals can and do last forever. And some also change. The difference is that the ones that change do so at the consent of all parties involved. If you entered a deal to purchase a home for X amount of dollars at a fixed interest rate, I'll dang sure bet you would expect that to last forever, unless you too agreed to a change. Otherwise it should stand.

Weather you agree with the WA or not is not the point. The point is that an agreement was made that not only benefited the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and the other air carriers at the time but also SWA. It allowed SWA to operate out of Love Field which was slated to BE CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL AIR TRAFFIC. You guys that hate the WA so much fail to realize or admit that it was probably a major factor in SWA's initial survival. The alternative was to tell SWA it must operate out of DFW. An exception was made for SWA but with it came a restriction. Seems like a fair deal to me and one that SWA should continue to honor.

I do realize SWA's survival was tied to Love field. Anyone who knows anything about SWA realizes it.

Sure, they could have slammed the door shut on Love and SWA. SWA will continue to honor the WA as long as it is in place. But lobbying efforts aside, it is the public and lawmakers who will decide if the WA should be modified. SWA is not lying or doing anything under the table in that effort.


BTW, I bought a house a few years ago and got a mortgage with interest rate for 30 years. I just "violated" that agreement by refinancing the mortgage with another one. I don't think the first mortgage company was too happy about losing my business. Should I feel bad about that too?

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

I made a point of going out of my way to praise SWA for their superior business and operating practices. But, because I disagree with one particular decision on the part of SWA management, then it's "hatred".

Again, if I am wrong on these details I would sincerely like to hear it and I can be persuaded to change my opinion.

I reacted too strong to the language in your previous post (and other posters). My apologies.

Hatred is too strong of a word as well. I was responding to the grand sum of posts lambasting SWA for challenging WA, not focused on your one post.

This is not a good day for Flyboeingjets to be posting on flightinfo. Too much stress.

 

[SWAnging]

"...smoking in the lavatories may subject you to a fine. If you can afford the fine, you could afford American Airlines. But you wouldn't want to get in a terrorist attack."
"Tampering with or disabling a lavatory smoke detector could result in a $2,000 ticket...and if you want that, you can just fly on American Airlines."[/QUOTE]

I also find that 1st comment very hard to believe and could only imagine the # of pax who would write in about that comment about terrorist. I hear funny rhymes like the second one all the time and know it is always done in fun.

Repealing the Wright Amendment is not SWA against AA-it has nothing to do with that. It's about doing what is right and fair for all airlines and the people who fly in and out of the Dallas area. No one should be throwing stones. We're all trying to make a living doing what we love at companies we are passionate about. This is not a personal attack towards anyone.

 

[canyonblue]

"and the words of the prophet were written on the studio wall"

 

[xanderman]

"and the words of the prophet were written on the studio wall"

Excellent Band my SWA friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[aa73]

"and the words of the prophet were written on the studio wall"

"..and echoes... with the sound... of salesmen..."

 

[AAflyer]

Put in your vote at this poll!

http://www.nbc5.com/news/4740589/detail.html

J3

Thanks, will do!!

AA