DFW Study Shows Consumers will Save Mega$$$

[TexaSWA]

...to repeal [recind] the WA means it should have never been in the first place...QUOTE]

Give the man a cigar.

 

[TexaSWA]

...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...

While youre at it why dont you tax me another %15 because someone in my family 300 years ago was a slave owner.

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut, you write is if you believe that the WA is somehow connected to the building of DFW. It was not.

That is an easy distinction for us to make now. But I'm sure the two municipalities thought that what they were building was an airport that airlines would use. It has certainly been a good example for other municipal airport systems to learn from, like Denver plowing under Stapleton.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Wright Repeal Would Mean Millions in Savings, New Passengers

Posted on Wed, 06/08/05 09:05

A three-month study by an outside commercial aviation consulting firm commissioned by Southwest shows that local economies would gain at least $4.2 billion annually if the Wright Amendment was repealed. Using a list of 15 potential new nonstop markets from Dallas Love Field (DAL), the study (available at www.setlovefree.com) found that:

- North Texas would reap an additional $1.7 billion in economic activity annually due to increased air travel to the region.

- 3.7 million more passengers would travel in the 15 markets annually due to new competition and lower fares.

- Passengers would save nearly $700 million annually compared to airfares charged by American Airlines at DFW International.

- The total Wright Amendment burden on passengers, North Texas, and cities beyond the seven-state perimeter exceeds $4 billion per year.

The results of the study, which was prepared by Campbell-Hill Aviation Group to demonstrate the "Southwest Effect" in real numbers, were announced at a press conference Tuesday afternoon in Dallas. On hand to field questions from the press were Chairman Herb Kelleher; CEO Gary Kelly; President Colleen Barrett; and Senior Vice President Law, Airports, and Public Affairs Ron Ricks, as well as study leader Dr. Brian Campbell.

"There have been many attempts to confuse or scare the consumer into thinking that the best course of action is to do nothing about the Wright Amendment," Gary said. "This issue is about the fares, and the cost of doing nothing is just too great."

The findings essentially mirrored those reported in an economic analysis performed by Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. (SH&E) on behalf of DFW International Airport in May.

When discussing that study, however, DFW officials did not reveal the economic ramifications.

"In other words, the experts agree," Herb said. "Which, in a jury trial, means the trial is over."

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

I've enjoyed this discussion and points made by all.

But one question is bothering me...

If DFW has enjoyed increased usage and fees under the Wright Amendment and has now paid for itself, why is the Wright amendment still necessary?

I say the only reason it is still 'necessary' is to pay for the bloated salaries and projects approved by DFW management. Let there be a shakeout at DFW that will result in lower fees for everyone in the long run.

Why should we all be held hostage to the fat cats at DFW?

 

[chase]

Alliance Field has had unrestricted (to the best of my knowledge) growth in terms of cargo....DFW or the city of Ft Worth nor the representatives have voiced concerns about the money that has drifted toward that airport & well they shouldn't in my view. While it is exclusively cargo (at this time) there is no reason to prohobit commerce due to geographical location.

Certainly DFW could've benefited from the FEDEX flights that fly from this locations day in & day out but what has happened at DFW? There is more cargo traffic there now since Alliance opened up then when it wasn't there. Could it be competition that has spurred this growth? Why couldn't the same results occur with competition among passenger traffic? J

ust some other thoughts........in country where billions of dollars have been spent to help struggling airlines, provide assistance to airports since 911, to help struggling airline employees overcome dire financial struggles, the lone airline company that is a model of the capitalist system & is generally recoginized as treating its employees far better than most other airlines is prohibited from doing what it does best...provide low fares to the public & in turn provide for its employees......would this argument be more winnable in the eyes of some if we weren't making a profit? If we were near bankruptcy? Would the sympathy light be on for us if we simply asked for a free hand to compete than to help save our company with bailouts or pension reforms? How ironic that to be "helped" by the government one must be on welfare & struggling & begging to our congressman...if you're successful & merely wish to compete it comes across as "your not worthy"...gotta makes you wonder whether congressman & some public offiicals want beggers or successes in our economy....certainly one is more dependent on the government than others....I won't go into Democrat vs. Republican views here!!!

Imagine if the governemnet passed a law that pilots licensed before a certain date couldn't fly aircraft any larger than 56 seat aircraft....the glut of pilots has driven the demand for pilots too high & in order for the "major airline" pilots to get a higher pay it has become necessary for the government to restrict the number of pilots who are "qualified" to fly larger aircraft....in other words you can't compete for those other "major" airline jobs!!! The government wants to artifically create a demand for pilots who fly larger aircraft....now if you wish to move to this higher level you can pay a "surtax" of your own money to be eligible to fly larger aircraft but in essence then you would be working for the same amount of money...yea right.

I'm sure the analogy has some holes in but the market place is the best place I believe to allow market forces to best benefit the consumer.....this isn't about protecting jobs....the government isn't in the business of protecting jobs...its in the business of creating jobs, promoting job growth, removing restrictions so the unadulterated talent & imagination of businesses can figure out way to provide a profitable service with minimum intervention but with this comes risks on the business side....government shouldn't provide protectionist measures (even though it does all the time & Iwon't digress into international tarriffs & the like) generally among interstate commerce. Untie SWA's hands & other carriers who wish to compete from Love Field...it is the "right" thing to do.....again this isn't a bash against AA or other carriers....my apologies if some may feel I am...I wish other carriers nothing but the best & hope they find ways to compete & succeed....a rising tide lifts all boats I believe.

 

[canyonblue]

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=2972

 

[HalinTexas]

A couple of facts have been ignored by those that feel the WA should remain as is. Stating, "A deals a deal."

The origional master plan for DFW has changed a few times over the years. It was designed in the '60's. No deregulation in sight. Built in the '70's, completed/opened in 1974. There were only to be 4 North/South runways and 2 diagonals, with one executive runway where 35R/17L now exist. 35R/17L were to be part of a huge expansion to include a new 36L/18R. The west side runway (36L/18R) never came to be due to federal historical landmark laws that existed. Downtown Grapevine is a history landmark. The new runway would have run right up Main Street. DFW Airport Authority did NOT have eminent domain powers until around 1990 when the runway expansion was beginning. They got it after AMR and the DFW/AA petitioned the Texas legislature to allow such powers. Whole neighborhoods wiped out, but not on par with KSTL exansion. Lots of people lost money. I know of several that did. I also know of a family that made millions after their property was bought back in the '60's for the construction of DFW, but it's a pittence to what it's worth now, or what it was worth in 1980.

There were also plans for 10 terminals, yes, I said ten. Does anyone remember that the "B" terminal used to be "2W?" Terminal A used to be 2E? There were going to be 5 horshoe terminals on each side of DFW Parkway, and lots of developement around the perimiter of the airport. Never happened. Ft. Worth built Alliance (KAFW, I think) in the '80's. Fedex and AMR have significant operations out of there. Does anyone think this promotes KDFW in the spirit of the WA?

I've seen a few posts comparing KDIA with KDEN (Stapleton with Frederico's Folly). Doesn't compare. Dallas/Ft. Worth had three commercial airports before KDFW opened. Stapleton was a mess, and now KDEN is the most expensive airport in the country to operate out of with the worst/failed baggage handling system in history. Incidentally, it was designed and built out of a company in N. Dallas, Carrolton, that has since gone bankrupt.

The origional KDFW that was built and protected by the WA is long since bought and paid for by the DFW community (bonds) and by the passengers through landing fees. Let KDAL free, give KFTW money to expand/update, and the customer decide. It's disengenuous for AMR to say, "let them come over to DFW if they want long haul flying." They know, and SWA knows, that AMR has the upper hand there. Whatever DFW/AA offered for SWA to move to KDFW is not enought to recoup the losses they would encure in moving.

 

[Flopgut]

The origional KDFW that was built and protected by the WA is long since bought and paid for by the DFW community (bonds) and by the passengers through landing fees. Let KDAL free, give KFTW money to expand/update, and the customer decide. It's disengenuous for AMR to say, "let them come over to DFW if they want long haul flying." They know, and SWA knows, that AMR has the upper hand there. Whatever DFW/AA offered for SWA to move to KDFW is not enought to recoup the losses they would encure in moving.

OK, post WA repeal, lets load up KDAL with appropriate [large] landing and use fees and send the money to KFTW directly via a bond.

I can't disagree more with the commentary regarding AMR. SWA just won't enter a straight up fight with AMR. SWA will not part from the very sort of strategic advantage they want nullified for a competitor! In other words, SWA is now insisting they be granted an inordinate advantage over a competitor because normal competition is too much for them to bear. Its absurd, and it will probably be repealed. All I'm saying is, when it is repealed, SWA needs to start paying its fair share. Expanded opportunity via repeal of the WA is an ambush quite frankly, and should cost the airline dearly.

 

[Flopgut]

Alliance Field has had unrestricted (to the best of my knowledge) growth in terms of cargo....DFW or the city of Ft Worth nor the representatives have voiced concerns about the money that has drifted toward that airport & well they shouldn't in my view. While it is exclusively cargo (at this time) there is no reason to prohobit commerce due to geographical location.

Certainly DFW could've benefited from the FEDEX flights that fly from this locations day in & day out but what has happened at DFW? There is more cargo traffic there now since Alliance opened up then when it wasn't there. Could it be competition that has spurred this growth? Why couldn't the same results occur with competition among passenger traffic? J

ust some other thoughts........in country where billions of dollars have been spent to help struggling airlines, provide assistance to airports since 911, to help struggling airline employees overcome dire financial struggles, the lone airline company that is a model of the capitalist system & is generally recoginized as treating its employees far better than most other airlines is prohibited from doing what it does best...provide low fares to the public & in turn provide for its employees......would this argument be more winnable in the eyes of some if we weren't making a profit? If we were near bankruptcy? Would the sympathy light be on for us if we simply asked for a free hand to compete than to help save our company with bailouts or pension reforms? How ironic that to be "helped" by the government one must be on welfare & struggling & begging to our congressman...if you're successful & merely wish to compete it comes across as "your not worthy"...gotta makes you wonder whether congressman & some public offiicals want beggers or successes in our economy....certainly one is more dependent on the government than others....I won't go into Democrat vs. Republican views here!!!

Imagine if the governemnet passed a law that pilots licensed before a certain date couldn't fly aircraft any larger than 56 seat aircraft....the glut of pilots has driven the demand for pilots too high & in order for the "major airline" pilots to get a higher pay it has become necessary for the government to restrict the number of pilots who are "qualified" to fly larger aircraft....in other words you can't compete for those other "major" airline jobs!!! The government wants to artifically create a demand for pilots who fly larger aircraft....now if you wish to move to this higher level you can pay a "surtax" of your own money to be eligible to fly larger aircraft but in essence then you would be working for the same amount of money...yea right.

I'm sure the analogy has some holes in but the market place is the best place I believe to allow market forces to best benefit the consumer.....this isn't about protecting jobs....the government isn't in the business of protecting jobs...its in the business of creating jobs, promoting job growth, removing restrictions so the unadulterated talent & imagination of businesses can figure out way to provide a profitable service with minimum intervention but with this comes risks on the business side....government shouldn't provide protectionist measures (even though it does all the time & Iwon't digress into international tarriffs & the like) generally among interstate commerce. Untie SWA's hands & other carriers who wish to compete from Love Field...it is the "right" thing to do.....again this isn't a bash against AA or other carriers....my apologies if some may feel I am...I wish other carriers nothing but the best & hope they find ways to compete & succeed....a rising tide lifts all boats I believe.

OK, that was more than a little tough to sit through. Yes, of course, I know SWA is the magical land of free Bubble Up and and rainbow stew, but consider toning that down a little perhaps. Your enthusiasm is off the grid. Don't get me wrong, I love SWA. Often, I would rather buy a ticket on SWA than ride my own airline. And honestly, I would rather endure the goofy cheerleading SWA emplyees enjoy so much than have to see tham all live through the worst this business can deal out. Please understand however, that no matter how much you adore your employer, things can change. The companies you asail as being such burdens on this business are the very ones who built it, really. It was not that long ago that UAL traded at $60 per share, was a dow component, and their pensions were OVERfunded. And now, as much as I hate the thought of it, they could emerge from BK with enough money to buy another airline, even SWA!

Repealing the WA absent much expanded use fees for Love Field is bad business. It is, in effect, a bailout for SWA. Not that you need a bailout but the economics are the same; And is is not like the airline hasn't been offered a great deal at DFW. SWA needs to participate in the North Texas aviation business and stop trying to short circuit it.

 

[ivauir]

Repealing the WA absent much expanded use fees for Love Field is bad business. It is, in effect, a bailout for SWA. Not that you need a bailout but the economics are the same; And is is not like the airline hasn't been offered a great deal at DFW. SWA needs to participate in the North Texas aviation business and stop trying to short circuit it.

What a load of B$
A "bailout" - really? Go back and read my post re: fares from TuS to DFW vs DAL. AMR is enjoying huge protectionism and it is costing the consumer (and not just the Dallas consumer) dearly. What great deal SWA was offered? The last minute handful of gates at a rate that skyrockets in the furure, in a less convenient location than we already operate from? Wow tempting! There is a reason Delta puled out of DFW and it isn't because AMR is a gracious competetor. Chase is spot on and heaven forbid he become snide and cynical. The world needs more like him, and less of the WA. Tell me, how does the WA benefit passengers or the population at large. It is wrong, it needs to go. And it will, either now or later.

 

[chase]

Flopgut,

Sorry my writing style was over the top....just wondering though what parts of my argument/points you disagreed with & what moral/factual/ehtical/consumer centered reasons might make them not valid....thanks in advance for a thoughtful reply. Cheers,

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut,

Sorry my writing style was over the top....just wondering though what parts of my argument/points you disagreed with & what moral/factual/ehtical/consumer centered reasons might make them not valid....thanks in advance for a thoughtful reply. Cheers,

I must admit you are an eloquent writer, and I'm not your mental equal I'm sure. But I think I have seen a different side of this business that I don't think you have, both as a pilot and in municipal airport planning/management. Nothing you say can be termed erroneous, as long as you don't look at the big picture and you are biased toward SWA.

SWA and Walmart have a lot in common. Both are ruthless discounters fixated with satsfying the "consumer" (as long as that argument suits them) and both are now changing since the founders are gone and greed-racked hillbillys now call the shots. I had a chance to visit not long ago with a petroleum engineer with a large multi-national oil services company. His company had circulated a paper that indicated the western world should abandon all efforts at controlling pollution and protecting the environment. That China was polluting the environment so fast, with such recklessness that no amount of effort on behalf of the rest of the world will matter in the least, ever! Now hopefully we can change what is going on in China someday, but we know we can't count on Walmart to help change it. That $2 set of jumper cables may come back and bite us. Which is not unlike todays situation with SWA. We know SWA is not going to further this business meaningfully. SWA will not pioneer a new route, launch a new fleet of aircraft, bring the troops home, or at the very least, patronize a needed (albeit expensive) municipal airport. Bottom line, you can't run an economy on SWA alone. Herb had a different take on the WA than GK for a reason. I think he thought it was a pretty sweet deal that he didn't want to screw up. He may be backing his play now, but you have to admit things have changed over there. GK is taking advantage of todays environment and wants the agreement changed. Fine, it probably will be changed, but you should have to start to contribute. And, again, your low fares are NOT going to cut it.

 

[Flopgut]

What a load of B$
A "bailout" - really? Go back and read my post re: fares from TuS to DFW vs DAL. AMR is enjoying huge protectionism and it is costing the consumer (and not just the Dallas consumer) dearly. What great deal SWA was offered? The last minute handful of gates at a rate that skyrockets in the furure, in a less convenient location than we already operate from? Wow tempting! There is a reason Delta puled out of DFW and it isn't because AMR is a gracious competetor. Chase is spot on and heaven forbid he become snide and cynical. The world needs more like him, and less of the WA. Tell me, how does the WA benefit passengers or the population at large. It is wrong, it needs to go. And it will, either now or later.

I don't know. We won't settle this on here. Go ahead, be a savior to the consumer. They are getting a pretty good deal already. These airplanes and airports cost money. The problem is SWA doesn't want to pay its fair share. You want a freebie deal in DAL, which is not unlike UAL dumping pensions on the govt. Somebody else has to pay.

 

[TAZ MAN]

All I can say is that the guy in charge of the DFW TERPS process must have to stand pretty close to the urinal. . . . even closer than TAZMan.

Well the cowardly ty webb is back from his forced sabbatical from here.

Did they have to hide all the sharp objects from you? How did you cope? Crank phone calls? How did you satisfy your cowardly ways?

Keep hiding behind the mask super hero. After all, people think your good enough, your smart enough, and doggonit, people like you!

Keep telling yourself that Stuart. Keep telling yourself.

 

[scoreboard]

The death of Legacy...

SWA and Walmart have a lot in common. Both are ruthless discounters fixated with satsfying the "consumer" (as long as that argument suits them) and both are now changing since the founders are gone and greed-racked hillbillys now call the shots. I had a chance to visit not long ago with a petroleum engineer with a large multi-national oil services company. His company had circulated a paper that indicated the western world should abandon all efforts at controlling pollution and protecting the environment. That China was polluting the environment so fast, with such recklessness that no amount of effort on behalf of the rest of the world will matter in the least, ever! Now hopefully we can change what is going on in China someday, but we know we can't count on Walmart to help change it. That $2 set of jumper cables may come back and bite us. Which is not unlike todays situation with SWA. We know SWA is not going to further this business meaningfully. SWA will not pioneer a new route, launch a new fleet of aircraft, bring the troops home, or at the very least, patronize a needed (albeit expensive) municipal airport. Bottom line, you can't run an economy on SWA alone. Herb had a different take on the WA than GK for a reason. I think he thought it was a pretty sweet deal that he didn't want to screw up. He may be backing his play now, but you have to admit things have changed over there. GK is taking advantage of todays environment and wants the agreement changed. Fine, it probably will be changed, but you should have to start to contribute. And, again, your low fares are NOT going to cut it.

Flop, your joking? Pull the blinders off bud, come on out into the real world.
I noted a humerous aside while at the computer store the other day, the store clerk, 18 years if a day, chuckled at my "legacy" computer, noting it was an anachronism (my words) and would soon be dead and gone... "We" now refer to the Big Guys as Legacy... How apt.

We didn't sign on to the WA, we now want it changed, yes, we can now do something about it. This is business, pure and simple, and no, we are not going to pay for something we didn't get (DFW).

China? Run for office if you want that bull fixed...

ciao,

 

[Flopgut]

Flop, your joking?

Actually, I was joking about the "hillbilly" comment. I know your not run by hillbillys. The rest of it I feel pretty good about.

Regards.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

SWA and Walmart have a lot in common. Both are ruthless discounters fixated with satsfying the "consumer" (as long as that argument suits them) and both are now changing since the founders are gone and greed-racked hillbillys now call the shots. I had a chance to visit not long ago with a petroleum engineer with a large multi-national oil services company. His company had circulated a paper that indicated the western world should abandon all efforts at controlling pollution and protecting the environment. That China was polluting the environment so fast, with such recklessness that no amount of effort on behalf of the rest of the world will matter in the least, ever! Now hopefully we can change what is going on in China someday, but we know we can't count on Walmart to help change it. That $2 set of jumper cables may come back and bite us. Which is not unlike todays situation with SWA. We know SWA is not going to further this business meaningfully. SWA will not pioneer a new route, launch a new fleet of aircraft, bring the troops home, or at the very least, patronize a needed (albeit expensive) municipal airport. Bottom line, you can't run an economy on SWA alone. Herb had a different take on the WA than GK for a reason. I think he thought it was a pretty sweet deal that he didn't want to screw up. He may be backing his play now, but you have to admit things have changed over there. GK is taking advantage of todays environment and wants the agreement changed. Fine, it probably will be changed, but you should have to start to contribute. And, again, your low fares are NOT going to cut it.

I know you geared this toward Chase, but I would like to contribute--

1) If you think SWA is like Walmart.....

UAL will look like Kmart coming out of BK and buying sears. Many are predicting UAL's dominance post BK with low costs and new money. That is happening now with the AWA-USAir deal. DAL will do the same. NWA will use DAL's BK as a hammer to cut costs and may also emerge victorious. SWA will be challenged. The playing field is leveling very quickly. But I don't think this line of debate has anything to do with Love field, so lets move on.

2) If you think someone wants to run an economy on SWA alone....

I can't see how offering a different business model is un-American or wrong. I think this is just a shot at how SWA is 'lowering the bar'. So be it. I wanted to work for UAL, AA or DAL most of my adult life but I have to deal with the reality here and now. Your assertion that SWA lacks meaning and has an un-pioneer like attitude seems to indicate a prediction of their demise or just plain jealousy. Again, what does this have to do with sticking it to the fine folks who use and work at Love field.

This line of reasoning appears to be predicting AA's demise if Wright goes away. That will not happen. Just a scare tactic from unscrupulous DFW supporters.

3) You want SWA to contribute to DFW's budget....

I don't think SWA contributes to O'hare's budget. I don't think they contribute to La Guardia's or JFK's either. You worry about hurting DFW, thinking their dominance is tied to the success of North Texas. I submit that is wrong. Dallas Love field also has a place in the future of North Texas. There are construction projects and jobs to protect at Love field too. Love field can and should grow but is severely limited because DFW errored by overexpanding and overspending. DFW's growth should have been tied to some agreements of their use. At least an agreement that DAL wouldn't leave. Or did DFW intentionally overexpand to make the case that the Wright should stay in place to protect their existance? Both airports can, and will, survive. Sure some fees could be added at Love. But someone's feet should be held to the fire at DFW for their arrogance and stupidity. North Texas should look at how other metro areas operate more than one airport and learn how it should be done. They've had over 20 years to do so but I'm holding out hope it may still happen.

 

[HalinTexas]

Imagine if the governemnet passed a law that pilots licensed before a certain date couldn't fly aircraft any larger than 56 seat aircraft....the glut of pilots has driven the demand for pilots too high & in order for the "major airline" pilots to get a higher pay it has become necessary for the government to restrict the number of pilots who are "qualified" to fly larger aircraft....

How about a national seniority list? Based on date of the initial ATP certificate. Also, no Part 121 carrier could hire anyone without it. All pay and seniority would be based on that date.

(How's that for redirecting a thread?)

 

[Draginass]

Screw SW. Close Love Field.