DFW Study Shows Consumers will Save Mega$$$

[chase]

In an effort to understand your point a little better I'd be interested to know some further thoughts behind your comments above. I've highlighted my questions/comments in your original comments below.

Crandall's main point is that SWA did not shoulder the substantial long term cost of financing DFW. The decision to build DFW was made & agreed to before SWA was even created. SWA had made no promises to move to DFW, the assumption was that they would but declined to. SWA didn't ask anyone to "shoulder" these costs at DFW & certainly the other carriers did everything they could to thwart SWA's continued existance...no wonder SWA was happy to have the competition leave...they weren't exactly friendly neighbors I think you'd agree. They chose to abide by the WA so they would not have to (I'm not sure but you seem to imply that the WA is what kept SWA from going to DFW...DFW opened in '74, everyone left, WA occurrred in '79....SWA had no intentions of going to DFW & utilize a "built-up" infrastructure in my opinion...if I'm misread your comments then my apologies. and thus allowed the competition to foot that bill. Now that the competition has done its part, SWA wants to change the rules. Again not sure what the point is...what did the competition do that has now caused SWA to change the rules? Again my apologies for being slow to your point. If SWA was on the other side of a similar situation, they would be hollering about it too. I can't recall a time in which SWA has asked for governmental protection to protect a route structure...if there is an example of that of behavior that would great...what SWA does do is simply allow competition to be the cure for low prices...FLL & MIA, MDW & ORD, BWI & IAD...in fact SWA has come out to abolish the 1250 mile restriction around National, an airport SWA doesn't even fly into....one would think other carriers would support that point of view but there doesn't seem to be much interest in doing that. The free market system is a wonderful thing but one can fail if one isn't careful...that is risk that SWA is willing to take & other carriers appear to be resistant to in my view.

Nice response Juvat to Illinipilot's opinion. Did your 12 year old hijack your computer or are you just watching alot of Beavis and Buthead these days?

 

[Ex737Driver]

It is a great example of how the WA spin machine to keep higher fares for North Texas residents is rather brazen in how they wish to keep competitive low fares away from local residents & folks in other cities.

I agree with you to an extent. As individuals though, we don't want OUR pay lowered or OUR quality of life to be degraded in any way form or fashion. I'm quite sure there are quite a number of businesses that aren't represented here that would affected that don't either. I agree competetion is good, but the "greyhound of airlines" should not be given their way like a spolied child just because they don't like they way the game is being played.

 

[FlyinHigh737]

Labbats
That would be Kay Bailey Hutchison, the senior U.S. senator from Texas, and U.S. Reps. Kay Granger and Joe Barton. Granger is a former Fort Worth mayor and a ferocious supporter of the Wright Amendment. Barton, an Ennis Republican, is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Barton has already told Fort Worth leaders that he will thwart any effort to repeal the Wright Amendment. Hutchison is on record as opposing repeal.

I predict that Fort Worth will win this one -- and the win will be good for the entire region, not just our city. But the victory will carry a price, monetarily and emotionally.

Just a question and then respond how you see fit: Do you realy think that SWA would have started this if it was "just a shot in the dark" sorry for the metaphor? Greg Napp talked about all this today and I wish you could have called in, so I could here your responces. You seem to be sure of yourself, so you don't lack confidence about your above statement, but I have to ask one last question: When did SWA do anything that just didn't make money sense? And we wonder why Delta pulled out of DFW, well I do believe that SWA has come this far by being smart, not foolish!!!

 

[scoreboard]

And how has SWA lowered your wage?

I agree with you to an extent. As individuals though, we don't want OUR pay lowered or OUR quality of life to be degraded in any way form or fashion. I'm quite sure there are quite a number of businesses that aren't represented here that would affected that don't either. I agree competetion is good, but the "greyhound of airlines" should not be given their way like a spolied child just because they don't like they way the game is being played.

Ex, understand the sentiment, but just to be fair, how does SWA lower your wages? Is it because your company cannot keep costs in control? Is it because your company doesn't do smart things? I think Conti is doing fine right now, be happy. The problem with your statement is that it appears you and other pilots feel you are owed something, more than what your worth to the company. Your owed a fair market value paycheck, or your comapny becomes another Pan Am, TWA, etc... SWA didn't do this, the market did.

Ciao,

 

[TexaSWA]

... the "greyhound of airlines" should not be given their way like a spolied child just because they don't like they way the game is being played.

I know nothing of grey hounds, only purple dinosaurs. We have recently had a few ex CAL captains go thru new hire training. Ill ask them. Maybe they know what the he11 you are talking about.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Labbats
That would be Kay Bailey Hutchison, the senior U.S. senator from Texas, and U.S. Reps. Kay Granger and Joe Barton. Granger is a former Fort Worth mayor and a ferocious supporter of the Wright Amendment. Barton, an Ennis Republican, is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Barton has already told Fort Worth leaders that he will thwart any effort to repeal the Wright Amendment. Hutchison is on record as opposing repeal.

I predict that Fort Worth will win this one -- and the win will be good for the entire region, not just our city. But the victory will carry a price, monetarily and emotionally.

Thanks for the info. I will write these congressmen and pass along my desire to repeal the wright amendment. REPEAL will be good for the region and the city. Repeal MAY hurt workers at DFW becasue of the bureaucratic, wasteful managers of DFW. They couldn't, in all these years of wright amendment protection, figure out a way to trim their costs and take advantage of being the international hub of North Texas. Very short sighted.

But you are right that keeping the wright amendment intact will carry a price. The price of ill conceived/managed construction projects at DFW. The price exacted by DFW planners on the citizens of North Texas. The giant sucking sound you hear is DFW vacuuming out your wallet.

Hopefully the price of keeping the wright will also be the seats of Hutchison, Barton and Granger.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Crandall's main point is that SWA did not shoulder the substantial long term cost of financing DFW. They chose to abide by the WA so they would not have to and thus allowed the competition to foot that bill. Now that the competition has done its part, SWA wants to change the rules. If SWA was on the other side of a similar situation, they would be hollering about it too.

Crandall's point, like all others, has some spin. The spin in this case is he is an old man digging up his past battles over 20 years ago. The fiancing of DFW should no longer be used to punish Southwest for not following "the plan". DFW carriers have made enough profit from international and long flights during that time to offset their costs. DFW has kept its fees high during that time. The debt has been paid and the statute of limitations has reasonably run out. DFW's expensive construction project has been paid off, or should have been, by now. The question is, what is fair NOW and for WHOM.

Why is Chicago not belly aching about O'hare being hurt by Midway? In fact, they are talking about building a 3rd airport. There is no Daley amendment to protect anyone. They did destroy Meigs field, but that doesn't count

The go-go 1990's was a time that AA, DAL and DFW managers took advantage of SWA with the Wright Ammendment. Debt paid. You all had a chance to come up with a winning plan for a possible repeal. What happened?

I think you Wright amendment supporters are trying to tell us that every major city should have a Wright Amendment. All who want that say I.

 

[OffHot]

EX737driver, you must be kidding. How has Southwest every lowered your standard?

 

[SWAnnabee]

Everyone is so focused on the savings for the consumer on the ticket price that you are overlooking all the other savings that will be created through competition between DFW and Love Field if the WA is repealed. With two competing airports in the region, you could see reductions at both airports in areas such as parking, food, services, etc.

I think that, at the time of its creation, the WA was appropriate. SWA didn't want to join the other airlines at the (then) new DFW airport (with good reason because they probably couldn't compete). Fine, don't come to DFW like all the others not only had to but also had to help fund. SWA wasn't forced to move or make the same financial contributions as the others, BUT, in fairness and an attempt to compensate the airlines that did, the restrictions in the WA were imposed to attempt to level the field a bit. At the time I think this actually helped SWA and allowed them to continue to operate from Love Field with relatively little competition and stay in business as opposed to being forced to operate at DFW, which surely would have been the nail in the coffin. In this sense, the WA can actually be seen as having benefited SWA.

The WA, as I understand it, was not so much a penalty for SWA as it was a way of compensating the other airlines who agreed to move, and paid a substantial financial sum to do so, by restricting SWA from out of state flights from Love. If it was an attempt to hurt SWA, as some have insinuated, why not similar restrictions on SWA operations out of Houston and San Antonio?

Now SWA is strong, and doesn't need any protection from competition, so they are getting vocal about repeal of the WA. Well, times change and nothing lasts forever. As stated in their commissioned study, it might even help the consumer. Also fine. If SWA want's to now repeal the WA, thats fine too, but just make some form of compromise for the acception to the rule ("everyone must move to DFW") that was given to them back when DFW was being established. Giving up some gates at Love Field has be proposed, but SWA is opposed to this. I think this is a bit monopolistic. I am in agreement with SWA on the idea of repeal, but at the same time I feel that they are not being very fair about it and trying to have their cake and eat it too. Compromise is the issue here.

 

[Captainjerky]

thanks CHase, Great points. I always appreciate the idea volley that a thread like this starts, and its nice to see it not decintigrating into name calling.

 

[FatesPawn]

.....

 

[Flopgut]

Repeal the WA. But first, assign a dollar figure to the impact of the DFW airport being built. A total sum that can account for, with interest of course, decades of monetary affect North Texas and all taxpayers have sustained in the DFW endeavor. Include all public costs of construction, maintenance, planning, etc. Then form a fee for use structure for Love Field as a means to pay back these monies in full. After all, it doesn't matter in the least if one airline wanted to exclude itself from the agreement made at the time. Taxpayers very much like us decided to make an economic committment to a new airport (for two cities) long ago. The decision going forward should not negate [exploit] previous generations monetary committments without reparation. We are talking about a huge sum of money here, more than any airline is worth and more than low airfares will ever pay back.

Lift the WA and institute (huge) fee for departure charges on the users of Love Field. If you want to use that airport, fine, you owe a lot of people a lot of money first. The only difference in the economic burden visited upon the taxpaying worker (current and past) between the PBGC covering UAL pensions and lifting the WA for SWA is the UAL pensions are cheaper.

 

[TexaSWA]

Repeal the WA. But first, assign a dollar figure to the impact of the DFW airport being built. A total sum that can account for, with interest of course, decades of monetary affect North Texas and all taxpayers have sustained in the DFW endeavor. Include all public costs of construction, maintenance, planning, etc. Then form a fee for use structure for Love Field as a means to pay back these monies in full. After all, it doesn't matter in the least if one airline wanted to exclude itself from the agreement made at the time. Taxpayers very much like us decided to make an economic committment to a new airport (for two cities) long ago. The decision going forward should not negate [exploit] previous generations monetary committments without reparation. We are talking about a huge sum of money here, more than any airline is worth and more than low airfares will ever pay back.

Lift the WA and institute (huge) fee for departure charges on the users of Love Field. If you want to use that airport, fine, you owe a lot of people a lot of money first. The only difference in the economic burden visited upon the taxpaying worker (current and past) between the PBGC covering UAL pensions and lifting the WA for SWA is the UAL pensions are cheaper.

Thats like cutting the balls off a champion blood line hunting dog before breeding him.

If you want to do the taxpayers a favor, give them a fair price on airtravel and an economic boost to North Texas that will follow opening DAL to the rest of the country.

Read the reports. Even the ones sanctioned by AA/DFW confirm it. AMR/DFW omitted that part of the report . The FortWorth paper released it all.

 

[Flopgut]

Hm, Right. I think everyone agrees it is not an awful idea. I think AA would rather have never moved in the first place if the outcome was to be an unchanged Love Field. Anyone disagree?

The problem is that as soon as you agree on airport costs, DAL or DFW, SWA will want a special deal at ADS or even Northwest Regional! I think the reason Herb was less confrontational on the WA issue (than GK) is because he knew SWA was getting a better deal than what they were actually paying for. Cheap airfares are not going to pay any of this back.

 

[TexaSWA]

Cheap airfares are not going to pay any of this back.

Pay what back and to who? (or is it whom)

 

[Flopgut]

Pay what back and to who? (or is it whom)

The legions of past taxpayers who funded the billions of dollars it took to create and maintain DFW.

 

[TexaSWA]

The legions of past taxpayers who funded the billions of dollars it took to create and maintain DFW.

The taxpayers are speaking from both the Dallas and Ft. Worth side, the majority want the ammendment lifted.

Only AA, DFW, a few politicians and the vocal minority who have been fooled AA, DFW and the politicians are for upholding Wright.

Dropping the ammendment will bring $Billions to the North Texas economy. That includes the west not just the east.(win for taxpayers)

The incumbant at DFW will be forced to compete, making DFW more attractive for other carriers.(win for DFW, Dallas and Ft. Worth)

Lower fares will be offered from DAL and DFW to other parts of the country.(win for other cities, and one more for the taxpayers)

Southwest will no longer have to compete from its home with one hand tied.(win for SWA)

AA will be forced to find a competetive solution to getting people from point "A" to "B". When they do, the will have found a way to be profitable in their own right. (win for AA)

 

[enigma]

The legions of past taxpayers who funded the billions of dollars it took to create and maintain DFW.

What makes you think that DFW hasn't already been paid for? The airport has been open for thirty years man. The bureaucrats and politicians who run DFW know that WA repeal will end up highlighting their DFW mismanagement, that's why they fight. They don't give a rats arse about AA, or an airline pilots wages for that matter, they only want to preserve their golden goose.

enigma

BTW, if I've read everything correctly, the reason SWA wants the WA replealed probably has more to do with post 9-11 security causing short haul travel to lose pax to the auto. I'll predict that DAL will lose big time, if the WA stays in place.

 

[Flopgut]

I'm not saying that it is going to be a bad thing, going forward, to repeal the WA. However, to repeal [recind] the WA means it should have never been in the first place. The problem is that the financial effects of this decades old agreement are still with us. If DFW were never built AA and no other airline would have left Love, or would have left it under entirely different circumstances [costs] than it did. There are citizens who lost their property to imminent domain for the airport, farmers that endured higher taxes for it, families that did with less to pay taxes for DFW. There has been a huge transfer of wealth in this process. Far too much than can be recouped (by a relative few) through lower airfares. Users of a new, post WA, Love Field should be surcharged to make restitution to those affected. Damages, really, to a large group of taxpayers whose past contributions should be refunded, with interest. And again, lower airfares and a small number of jobs are not going to cut it.

 

[enigma]

Flopgut, you write is if you believe that the WA is somehow connected to the building of DFW. It was not. The WA came about five, or so, years AFTER DFW opened, and ten years after the original DFW construction building plan was approved. The WA is protectionism after the fact.

Your "let's don't screw the tax payers who built DFW" argument is just a straw man.

The true issue here is one of governmental monopoly. Can Fort Worth and the DFW board force the rest of the metroplex to pay extra so that Fort Worth et al can maintain it's power, that's the issue.

regards,
enigma