Close Love Field

[lowecur]

Now here's a novel idea. It sure would create a level playing field in the metroplex. Of course LUV would then sue. My suggestion would be for the city to pay the moving costs. Give SWA the same cost structure that they have at DAL for 5 years (adjustment period). Sounds like a win, win. The field could then be turned into a business park, and even the new parking garage would find a tenant.

Posted on Sun, Dec. 12, 2004

It's time to close Love Field

By Bernard L. Weinstein and Terry L. Clower
Special to the Star-Telegram

Fifteen years ago, Dallas and Fort Worth were squabbling over a proposed modification to the Wright Amendment that would have permitted through ticketing, or one-stop service, from Love Field.

The usual parties lined up on the usual sides, with American Airlines threatening to sue everyone in sight should any change be implemented. American's threats held sway, and the Wright Amendment disappeared from the political radar screen -- until a few weeks ago.

Back then, the Metroplex missed a golden opportunity to stimulate a more competitive commercial aviation market. We pay the price today with virtual monopolies at both Love Field and Dallas/Fort Worth Airport and higher average fares than are found in most major markets.

Had the Wright Amendment been modified or repealed in the late 1980s, our air market today would probably look like Houston's, with two viable airports and a lot more competition at each.

But in today's distressed aviation environment, repeal or modification of the Wright Amendment would have little or no positive impact on competition and could do serious harm to North Texas' aviation infrastructure. A better course would be to prohibit scheduled air service at Love Field and concentrate the region's commercial aviation assets at D/FW.

Consider the following:

• Several legacy carriers are operating in bankruptcy while they and the rest have reduced service, wrested wage and work rule concessions from their employees and pursued other strategies to reduce expenses.

• Combined losses during the past three years have exceeded $30 billion, and recent increases in jet fuel costs will push these losses even higher.

• The so-called discount carriers have also encountered financial stress recently and, with the exception of Southwest, are only marginally profitable. None but Southwest is currently adding flights.

Against this backdrop, Delta Air Lines -- the No. 2 carrier at D/FW -- has decided to reduce the number of daily flights from more than 250 to only 21 by Jan. 31.

Delta's pullout has serious financial implications. The D/FW Airport board estimates that lost landing fees, gate rentals and concession revenues will total $35 million for the balance of fiscal 2004-2005. That's 7 percent of the airport's $494 million operating budget.

Unless other revenue sources are found, the airport may well have to implement cutbacks. Or worse, under agreements with the other airlines currently providing service at D/FW, those carriers could be forced to make up any operating revenue shortfalls.

Delta's pullout from D/FW also raises concerns about the airport's bonded indebtedness. Under D/FW's current capital development program, $2.7 billion is being invested to upgrade the airport's infrastructure, including a new international terminal, the SkyLink automated people mover and major road improvements.

With $3.8 billion of outstanding debt, D/FW probably will be under scrutiny by the financial community as a result of the Delta downsizing and the corresponding loss of revenue. Should this scenario lead to a downgrading of its bonds, D/FW would face higher borrowing costs for future capital improvements.

Today, the best hope for bringing more competition to the local air travel market would be for Southwest to relocate its operations from Love Field, where passenger traffic has been declining for years, to D/FW.

Southwest won't move voluntarily, so the only alternative is to close Love Field.

That would help fill the empty gates at DFW and generate additional landing fees while giving Southwest the "freedom to fly" anywhere it wants, with attendant benefits to the local traveling public. Love Field would remain an attractive airport for general aviation and industrial uses.

Yes, some north Dallas travelers would have to drive a bit farther to catch their flights. But most of the region's future population growth is projected to occur north of D/FW, suggesting that airport will be much more convenient for the majority of Metroplex passengers in the years ahead.

Dallas and Fort Worth have invested billions in Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, and we cannot afford to let it become a wasting economic asset like Love Field.

Closing Love to scheduled service, and putting Southwest Airlines and any new carriers at DFW, would help ensure that the Metroplex remains a competitive global aviation hub.

 

[flyingitalian]

Yea great idea. Just cover up mismangement by eliminating the alternative with some complicated formula for the tax payer to pick up. Any more bright ideas?

 

[ATLDRVR]

"None but Southwest is currently adding flights."

Do these reporters who obviously know very little, if anything about aviation,ever do any research before writing these articles. I believe AirTran and JetBlue have been adding flights!

 

[enigma]

I was busy setting my brilliance down on paper (this screen) for the masses when I accidentally closed the browser page. So much for my brilliance

Oh well, flyingitalian said all that I was trying to say and he used far fewer words.

If I were SWA, and I'm not, I'd leave the metroplex before I was forced to use DFW. The current DFW traffic management strategy is way too delay prone to allow SWA's efficient operations. I've sat on a taxiway for thirty minutes just waiting to cross a runway during IFR ops just because of their ground control philosophy.


What I'd really love to see would be a new commercial ops airport at either Lewisville or Denton. Hillsboro wouldn't be a bad spot either.

Let the Dallas and Tarrant county politicians continue their squabbles at their own expense.

enigma

 

[HalinTexas]

Lowecur, is the sky blue in your world?

The Ft.W "Startlegram" is playing out the local politics, just like the DMN.
What the article fails to mention is the Ft.W Alliance Airport. If you wanna get picky that airport violates the agreement the cities had about developing DFW.

The cost of moving SWA to DFW is stupid expensive. They just built a huge new HQ with training facilities on the field. The cost of moving the sims would be on the order of $3 mil. apiece and they'd be out of action from 60 - 90 days. I don't want my tax dollars paying for that. I'd rather repeal the WA, restrict Int'l flights to DFW, and give FTW a bunch of money to improve Meacham for airline service. If you were to compare present day DFW airport's master plan with what the origionally had in mind 35 years ago you would call it a failure. I've seen it, and DFW is no where near what the planners had invisioned.

 

[mach zero]

Lowecur, is the sky blue in your world?

The Ft.W "Startlegram" is playing out the local politics, just like the DMN.
What the article fails to mention is the Ft.W Alliance Airport. If you wanna get picky that airport violates the agreement the cities had about developing DFW.

The cost of moving SWA to DFW is stupid expensive. They just built a huge new HQ with training facilities on the field. The cost of moving the sims would be on the order of $3 mil. apiece and they'd be out of action from 60 - 90 days. I don't want my tax dollars paying for that. I'd rather repeal the WA, restrict Int'l flights to DFW, and give FTW a bunch of money to improve Meacham for airline service. If you were to compare present day DFW airport's master plan with what the origionally had in mind 35 years ago you would call it a failure. I've seen it, and DFW is no where near what the planners had invisioned.

FTW has had a couple of airlines try service out of there in recent years (Mesa and Forth Worth Air) and both failed at it. There just isn't the money or demand in Tarrant county to create another airline operation over there. The reporters for the Star Telegram can blow all the political hot air they want about the Wright Amendment. This doesn't change the fact that their part of the metromess isn't where a majority of the customer base is. I think those in power realize this. Lowely would too if he lived here and wasn't trying to peddle Embraer junk jets.

 

[lowecur]

Lowecur, is the sky blue in your world?

The Ft.W "Startlegram" is playing out the local politics, just like the DMN.
What the article fails to mention is the Ft.W Alliance Airport. If you wanna get picky that airport violates the agreement the cities had about developing DFW.

The cost of moving SWA to DFW is stupid expensive. They just built a huge new HQ with training facilities on the field. The cost of moving the sims would be on the order of $3 mil. apiece and they'd be out of action from 60 - 90 days. I don't want my tax dollars paying for that. I'd rather repeal the WA, restrict Int'l flights to DFW, and give FTW a bunch of money to improve Meacham for airline service. If you were to compare present day DFW airport's master plan with what the origionally had in mind 35 years ago you would call it a failure. I've seen it, and DFW is no where near what the planners had invisioned.

Let's see, $25M in lost revenue from gate leases and landing fees from DL, that was supposed to go to $38M in the coming fiscal year. That's only 4% of the budget for DFW. Since landing fees are based on weight, AMR is turning DFW into a regional jet mega airport, thus further reducing revenue. Economists project the loss of 7000 jobs at $340M in payroll, and a projected economic loss to the area of $800M. I think your taxes may be going up to makeup the shortfall. Hell, I'd even give AMR and any other carriers the same fees and gate leases that were offered to SWA for 5 years. The increased activity alone would more than make up the difference with the limited growth activity in the next few years.

SWA could still operate their headquarters at DAL if the field stays open as a General Aviation facility, and not need to move the sims. The delays caused by runways crossings could be alleviated if the perimeter taxiway project receives approval. Limit the use of regional jets at the airport, then forcing AMR to operate less flights with larger a/c.

 

[MedFlyer]

Since landing fees are based on weight, AMR is turning DFW into a regional jet mega airport, thus further reducing revenue.

AMR has frozen RJ deliveries, so I doubt they are going to turn DFW into an RJ mega hub. In fact, next year AMR will be adding almost 70 flights at DFW...many of which will be mainline.

Why is it that Dallas can't support two airports (one LCC airport and one traditional hub airport), when many other cities of similar size seem to manage it?

In just a few years, this industry will be facing serious airspace constraints (already happening in some markets), so the last thing we need are fewer airports and fewer runways.

 

[Peanut gallery]

LOve Field / Meigs

We do not need fewer airports close to downtown. The Corporate / 135 operators need Love field to serve the public just as they always have. The wright amendment was put in place to make the big carriers move to DFW when it was opened. My opinion is that it has served that purpose and that it should stay in place given the recent decrease in DFW traffic (Delta). Why should Corporate aviation suffer because of an air carrier debate. The biggest problem as I see it is that DFW stands for Dosn't F***ing Work and air carrier ops are to burdensome time wise. Leave Love field alone in my opinion.

 

[flyingitalian]

Let the market work, remove these artifical restrictions and let companies operate how they choose.

Lets not forget the history of the Wright amendment. In 79 SWA announce that it wanted to fly outside Texas, more specifically New Orleans. Wright wanted to protect his baby AA and challenged a deregulation clause of automatic entry, meaning did SWA actually have the right to fly where they wanted without the politicians deciding, after many contributions of course, if it was OK. Herb fired up the grass roots effort and delivered petitions to Washington and SWA won the right to fly outside Texas. So Wright, not to be defeated used his political power and legislation to limit SWA to stay inside Texas. Herb's buddy Packwood who was about to be the chairman of the senate finance committe helped out and they agreed on a compromise known today as the wright amendment. So if you look at it this way the wright amendment is as far as SWA was willing, or possibly able to fight in 1979. It was the best deal SWA could get and if it was not for the personal relationship of Packwood and Kelleher SWA would not even have what it has now. The wright amendment has always been a "pain in the arse" as Herb has been quoted as saying, but SWA has learned to live with it. Well I guess SWA is not willing to live with it any more. Its an abortion; a display of political power and corporate protection that has seen its day.

Get the government out of the way and let them play.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Oh boy, where do I start. This guy has lost all sense of logic. There is no way that closing Love field for commercial flights will bring any benefit to passengers. It will reduce the number of gates available for carriers and probably drive up fares.

Read what this guy says, "(Closing Love) would help fill the empty gates at DFW and generate additional landing fees" More fees and reduced competition results in HIGHER FARES!! Before you talk about leveling the playing field, consider how SWA would get a ton of gates at DFW. Do you think there would be enough for all carriers who want them?

He then calls Love field a wasting economic asset right now and says it would become an attractive airport for general aviation or industrial purposes. That is a lie, it would be critically hurt by the loss of SWA.

Don't be fooled. This is a Nazi trick. It's the big lie theory in practice. Those that support this rubbish are just trying to muddle the issue and make the Wright Amendment challenge go away.

Here is what this issue is really about:

....Delta's pullout has serious financial implications. The D/FW Airport board estimates that lost landing fees, gate rentals and concession revenues will total $35 million for the balance of fiscal 2004-2005. That's 7 percent of the airport's $494 million operating budget.

Unless other revenue sources are found, the airport may well have to implement cutbacks.

Under D/FW's current capital development program, $2.7 billion is being invested to upgrade the airport's infrastructure, including a new international terminal, the SkyLink automated people mover and major road improvements.

With $3.8 billion of outstanding debt, D/FW probably will be under scrutiny by the financial community as a result of the Delta downsizing and the corresponding loss of revenue. Should this scenario lead to a downgrading of its bonds, D/FW would face higher borrowing costs for future capital improvements....

DFW would love the monopoly and probably RAISE landing fees. JetBlue would get a kick out of operating the 190 all over Texas. Take those guys out of the mix and NO ONE has any interest in closing Love Field. Remember who wrote this article and ignore what he writes in the future.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Let's see, $25M in lost revenue from gate leases and landing fees from DL, that was supposed to go to $38M in the coming fiscal year. That's only 4% of the budget for DFW. Economists project the loss of 7000 jobs at $340M in payroll, and a projected economic loss to the area of $800M. I think your taxes may be going up to makeup the shortfall.

Hell, I'd even give AMR and any other carriers the same fees and gate leases that were offered to SWA for 5 years. The increased activity alone would more than make up the difference with the limited growth activity in the next few years.

SWA could still operate their headquarters at DAL if the field stays open as a General Aviation facility, and not need to move the sims. The Limit the use of regional jets at the airport, then forcing AMR to operate less flights with larger a/c.

Lowecur,

You are a funny man. Airlines can lose billions and we are supposed to freak out about DFW's mismanagement and proposed losses. I'm crying over here. Is the loss of jobs and money anymore important at DFW than at AA or DAL? What did the public think was going to happen with the industry in bad shape. Or does eveyone just hate "greedy" airline employees and love the TSA and government employees.

If DFW needs to scale back projects, then let them!

Very generous of you to let SWA to keep the HQ where it is. I feel like that allowance will help your deal work out.

Forcing gates to be used by larger aircraft and changing the price of gate leases based on your Orwellian vision of what is fair. Very nice.

Next you will make me goose step and yell "Heil Lowecur!" thru security

If DFW gates are such a darn good deal, why is DAL giving them up? Why is there talk of forcing SWA to move to them?

Give me a break,

FBJ

 

[lowecur]

Lowecur,

You are a funny man. Airlines can lose billions and we are supposed to freak out about DFW's mismanagement and proposed losses. Yes. I'm crying over here. Is the loss of jobs and money anymore important at DFW than at AA or DAL? Good point. What did the public think was going to happen with the industry in bad shape. Or does eveyone just hate "greedy" airline employees and love the TSA and government employees.

If DFW needs to scale back projects, then let them! Too late now, the new International Terminal is opening soon with very few tenants. Fortunately, mgt will allow domestic service from this terminal, as it doesn't look like the international carriers want anything to do with DFW due to a lack of code share partners.

Very generous of you to let SWA to keep the HQ where it is. I feel like that allowance will help your deal work out. It's not such a bad deal.

Forcing gates to be used by larger aircraft and changing the price of gate leases based on your Orwellian vision of what is fair. Very nice. Well you can't just give only SWA a break on leases and fees. Do you really believe Jetblue would show up there if SWA had this kind of cost advantage? And yes, the big crybaby AMR would no doubt want their share.

Next you will make me goose step and yell "Heil Lowecur!" thru security. No, but I would accept a "bust" of myself over the welcome to DFW.

If DFW gates are such a darn good deal, why is DAL giving them up? Too difficult to compete with AMR's size with DL's present cost structure. Why is there talk of forcing SWA to move to them? It would be great for Southwest and DFW.

Give me a break,

FBJ

Sounds like point, counterpoint. Do you wear a bowtie?

 

[Boeingman]

No, but I would accept a "bust" of myself over the welcome to DFW.

I can picture that. A large statue of the back end of a horse...complete with a pile of dung.

 

[On Your Six]

Dallas Love is more convenient to the business traveler. I say close down DFW and build an extra runway or two at Love. Gotta LOVE it... Yeah, that'll never happen.

 

[lowecur]

Hello, Boing!

 

[yaks]

I would support repealing the WA as long as the airlines that gave up gates at Love and were moved over to DFW got all their original gates back. A deal is a deal.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

I would support repealing the WA as long as the airlines that gave up gates at Love and were moved over to DFW got all their original gates back. A deal is a deal.

Excellent point.

I'm sure I'm missing something here. I wonder why SWA chose this moment in time to try to repeal the Wright Amendment. I imagine it would be easier when DFW wasn't having trouble filling the gates.

 

[lowecur]

I would support repealing the WA as long as the airlines that gave up gates at Love and were moved over to DFW got all their original gates back. A deal is a deal.

So closing DAL is OK with you? I believe SWA controls 14-16 gates at DAL, and there are only a couple of the remaining 16-18 occupied. So in essence you are talking about DFW giving LUV 14-16 of the 24 gates that DL is abandoning. I'm sure DFW would have no problem with that. Any LCC or legacy could then contract for the remaining gates, and if more gates were needed they could open up gates at the new international terminal (which is going to be very underutilized).

 

[mach zero]

Lowely,
They are not going to close Love Field. WN is not going to move to DFW. This is not even a worthwhile discussion and your posted article is political posturing by Tarrant county. You might as well consider the Star Telegram as being owned by Tarrant County.

 

[lowecur]

Lowely,
They are not going to close Love Field. WN is not going to move to DFW. This is not even a worthwhile discussion and your posted article is political posturing by Tarrant county. You might as well consider the Star Telegram as being owned by Tarrant County.

Just trying to stir discussion Zero. They will have to do something at DFW and soon. My guess is they will offer LUV these enticements. If not, they will elect Richard Daley, and he will close DAL.

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]D/FW facing AA dilemma[/font]
Big carrier a huge obstacle to much-needed low-cost rivals

By Margaret Allen
Dallas Business Journal
Updated: 7:00 p.m. ET Dec. 12, 2004

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport desperately wants a low-cost carrier to fill the 24 gates that will be vacated there next month, when Delta Air Lines Co. shutters its D/FW hub.

But good luck with that happening, industry analysts say. The big reasons: American Airlines Inc. (NYSE: AMR) and, to a lesser degree, Southwest Airlines Co.

Any carrier entering North Texas will be treading on the highly protected home turf of D/FW behemoth and fortress carrier American, which will have nearly 90% of the airport's flights once Delta is gone. And Southwest -- the undisputed King Kong of the low-cost segment -- has a hammerlock on the close-in regional routes allowed from Dallas Love Field.

Even so, it's critical that D/FW fill the vacant gates as quickly as possible. That's because Delta's pullback will open up about one-sixth of the airport's 137 total gates, and reduce the airport's total departures by more than 21%. The pullback will also slash D/FW's 2005 passenger volume by 10%, and cut the airport's estimated annual revenue by $35 million.

Ironically it all means that American -- which has a reputation for aggressively defending its turf -- is likely to scare off any potential low-fare carriers from taking the Delta gates, said airline analyst Jim Corridore, an equity analyst with New York-based ratings agency Standard & Poor's.

"With competition being brutal, it would be very difficult for a low-cost carrier to come in," said Corridore. "American Airlines is going to defend D/FW at all costs. American Airlines will price its fares below break-even, forcing another airline to match them, and gobble up losses."

Dallas is an especially competitive market, added Alan Sbarra, vice president with California-based Unisys R2A Transportation & Management Consultants.

"You have a dominant legacy carrier there, American Airlines, and they're going to defend their turf," said Sbarra. "A low-cost carrier can't come in and just pick off market share. What existing low-cost carrier would want to go in there and face that kind of competition?"

Only Southwest (NYSE: LUV), JetBlue Airways (Nasdaq: JBLU) and AirTran Airways (NYSE: AAI) would be likely to do so, say analysts including Boston-based Kevin Neels, director of the transportation practice at consulting firm Charles River Associates Inc.

But even those carriers are unrealistic candidates, Neels indicated.

"American Airlines has owned D/FW for a long time and you have to expect that if someone comes in, American is going to do something serious," said Neels. "The low-cost carriers tend to look for a place where they don't have to pick a fight."

Low fares more popular Currently, 10% of all the passenger fares for trips starting from and ending at D/FW are low-cost, according to Max Wells, chairman of the D/FW Airport board and chairman of Dallas-based The Oaks Bank & Trust Co. Two years ago, that number was just 3.5%. "So it's gone like a rocket and is growing," he said.

D/FW now has five low-cost carriers operating there. Besides AirTran, with 13 flights, there's ATA Airlines, with seven flights; America West Airlines, with 10 flights; Frontier Airlines Inc. with five flights; and Sun Country Airlines, also with five flights.

Southwest has already spurned D/FW's invitation to take Delta's gates, saying it wants instead to expand at Love.

And the low-cost carrier has once again set off an airline turf war in North Texas by saying it wants to roll back the long-standing, existing federal legislation that restricts long-haul flights from Love.

D/FW Airport officials say that kind of talk cost them a strong low-cost prospect that was recently close to signing on the dotted line for Delta's gates.

A JetBlue spokesman said the prospect wasn't JetBlue, and an America West spokesman said it wasn't America West. Meanwhile, Orlando, Fla.-based AirTran, which already has four gates at D/FW, declined to say whether the D/FW officials were talking about AirTrain or not.

But the discounter is comfortable with the level of service it currently has at D/FW, said Kevin Healy, AirTran's vice president of planning and sales. Just now, the airline clearly has other fish to fry.

AirTran is currently absorbed with a hoped-for acquisition of bankrupt ATA's assets, which would allow AirTran to expand in Chicago, the nation's second-largest airline market, at Chicago Midway Airport.

As for Frontier, the low-cost, Denver-based carrier already has a growing hub at Denver International Airport. And it's now in a huge market-share war with bankrupt United Airlines (OTC: UALAQ), the Colorado airport's increasingly shaky fortress carrier.

Similarly, D/FW shouldn't hold its breath waiting for New York-based JetBlue. That airline would like to come to Dallas at some point, said Todd Burke, a spokesman, but nothing's been accelerated as a result of Delta's departure, and nothing's going to happen anytime in 2005.

'Scary' competition Of all the low-cost carriers, only AirTran has experience staring into the mouth of the beast at D/FW.

Healy acknowledged it's "scary" going up against Fort Worth-based American.

From D/FW, AirTran offers discounted fares to Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Orlando and, soon, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. American has matched the discounter's fares on all routes.

For example, American added flights not only to Los Angeles International Airport, but also to that area's four nearby airports.

"For every one seat we offer, American offers 26 at discount prices," Healy said. "They match all of our fares, and all of our fare rules. ...We tend to bring out the best in our competitors. But that makes it tough."

The good news for consumers is that D/FW fares on those competitive routes have dropped by half, while passenger traffic has doubled, Healy said.

That kind of aggressive pricing might cripple a smaller carrier. But Healy said AirTran is big enough to withstand it.

 

[enigma]

For example, American added flights not only to Los Angeles International Airport, but also to that area's four nearby airports.

Did I just read something about four nearby airports? If I figure correctly, the LA basin has five airports for ten million peeps,or two million peeps per airport. If the DFW airport board were to get their way, the Fort Worth-Dallas metroplex would be down to one airport for four million people.

I wonder if the reporter who wrote story even realized the irony.

enigma

 

[lowecur]

Did I just read something about four nearby airports? If I figure correctly, the LA basin has five airports for ten million peeps,or two million peeps per airport. If the DFW airport board were to get their way, the Fort Worth-Dallas metroplex would be down to one airport for four million people.

I wonder if the reporter who wrote story even realized the irony.

enigma

Enigma:

LAX is the 800lb gorilla. The other airports all pale in comparison. Not a good example. Now if you want to compare Newark, JFK, LGA, or ORD & MDW, that would be valid.

 

[enigma]

Enigma:

LAX is the 800lb gorilla. The other airports all pale in comparison. Not a good comparison.

OK my friend. You've got a lot of time. Can you come up with a percentage breakdown of the business done by the LA area commercial airports and also of the metroplex?

Respectfully, unless you are a metroplex resident, you'll have a hard time understanding the political BS that goes around here every day. I'll guarantee you that fares will rise if DFW airport gets a monopoly on scheduled service.

enigma

 

[lowecur]

OK my friend. You've got a lot of time. Can you come up with a percentage breakdown of the business done by the LA area commercial airports and also of the metroplex? For what? Are you saying any of those airports even come close to LAX? Just off the top of my head, I believe Ontario has about 3M enplanements, Burbank has maybe 2M. The other commerical airport I believe is Long Beach, and that is rather insignificant.

Respectfully, unless you are a metroplex resident, you'll have a hard time understanding the political BS that goes around here every day. I'm sure there is plenty of political BS, but that happens in any metro area with two large cities. I'll guarantee you that fares will rise if DFW airport gets a monopoly on scheduled service. Not if you bring SWA into the frey. Just think of all those other destinations that SWA would be able to match up against AMR. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Gary Kelly brought up the WA as leverage to get the lease and landing fees he wants at DFW. Afterall, he was in discussions with them until the WA was brought up. He's an excellent negotiator.

enigma

.....

 

[enigma]

.....

lowecur, you note that Gary Kelly is an excellent negotiator. I have no doubt about that. Otherwise I'd not be trying to quit my present job in order to join his team. However, we're really not talking about SWA here; we're talking about the DFW airport. Once DFW gets a monopoly of runways in the metromess, I'll guarantee that costs will go up.

It may be that LUV will close, and that SWA will move to DFW airport. But being at DFW goes against most every tenent of the SWA business plan as I know it. PHL would be an example of them breaking their own mold, so anything is possible, but PHL was home to an airline with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. DFW is not the same, so it is my feeling that LUV is safe for now.

I still would like to see how much of the total basin market goes to LAX, and how much of the metroplex traffic goes to DFW.

With all of that said, SWA at DFW would be a boon for me and my present commute.

regards,
enigma

 

[lowecur]

lowecur, you note that Gary Kelly is an excellent negotiator. I have no doubt about that. Otherwise I'd not be trying to quit my present job in order to join his team. However, we're really not talking about SWA here; we're talking about the DFW airport. Once DFW gets a monopoly of runways in the metromess, I'll guarantee that costs will go up. I assume you mean to the airlines. If Southwest, Jetblue, AirTran, and other LCCs gobble up the new gates at DFW, you can bet airfares will bottom out. AMR will have no pricing power at all competing against all these LCCs, and will need to become more efficient.

It may be that DAL will close, and that SWA will move to DFW airport. But being at DFW goes against most every tenent of the SWA business plan as I know it. DFW and AMR are both very inefficient at the moment. Not just DFW, but all the hub airports need to force replacement of 4-10 flts per day on rjs to these small to mid sized markets, and replace them with 2 to 4 flts per day on mainline. Eagle and UAX run 6 flts each a day from SYR to ORD. What a complicated mess at ORD when they each could be flying two mainlines a day, Ibid for ROC, ALB, and BUF. PHL would be an example of them breaking their own mold, so anything is possible, but PHL was home to an airline with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. DFW is not the same, so it is my feeling that LUV is safe for now. Get the majority of rj's out of the airport, build the perimeter taxiways, reduce gate/landing fees, and watch the airport turn into all it was supposed to be 25 years ago.

I still would like to see how much of the total basin market goes to LAX, and how much of the metroplex traffic goes to DFW.

With all of that said, SWA at DFW would be a boon for me and my present commute. I wish you well.

regards,
enigma

.....

 

[HalinTexas]

Arguing with Lowecur is like trying to describe color to a blind man. And he's stubborn.

I think what he is advocating is the nationalization of the airlines as well as the federalization of all airports. Of course that would require all airlines to fly Tupolev's and Antonov's.

I submit, that if he were so smart he wouldn't be posting so much on this webpage.

 

[Boeingman]

I found some pictures of LowIQer

Arguing with Lowecur is like trying to describe color to a blind man. And he's stubborn. I submit, that if he were so smart he wouldn't be posting so much on this webpage.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame21.html

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame7.html

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.htmlhttp://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame21.html

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

...Eagle and UAX run 6 flts each a day from SYR to ORD. What a complicated mess at ORD when they each could be flying two mainlines a day, Ibid for ROC, ALB, and BUF...

...Get the majority of rj's out of the airport, build the perimeter taxiways, reduce gate/landing fees, and watch the airport turn into all it was supposed to be 25 years ago...


Lowecur,

1) The use of mainline is not as easy as you think. If those flying on RJs have to sit at O'hare for 4 hours for their connecting flight they will lose their minds. Some might pay $20-50 less to sit at the airport, but the more frequent and valuable traveler hates it. Remember, the legacy carriers want to paint themselves as higher service airlines.

2) Get the "majority of RJs out of the airport". Uh, oh, ok....Do you know how AA and DAL fill their mainline flights between hubs?? And these hub to hub flights make MONEY!! Efficiency is necessary, but you have heard these guys say it themselves, "We are not SW". With RJs in the fleet they have to figure out the best way to use them, not park them.

You can do your point-counterpoint thing, but I'm just trying to tell you how it is. Passengers publically demand things that they will then voluntarily (and quietly) give up to gain something else (service or price, depends on the traveler and level of pain). They think they are being good negotiaters.

Hub and spoke is not dead. Mainline fleets are continuing to shrink with an emphasis on hub to hub and international flights. This will be in response to more daily service that travelers will pay (a little) extra for. I predict that RJ fleets will get bigger airplanes unless ALPA creates another B scale for new 100 seaters. We'll see what happens.