DFW Study Shows Consumers will Save Mega$$$

[canyonblue]

We know SWA is not going to further this business meaningfully.

In 1970, before Southwest, only a small fraction of Americans could afford to fly, Southwest changed that figure and is reaping the rewards from that now. The other US carriers could care less about that majority of citizens that could not afford a airplane ticket, now they all fight over them. You don't list where you currently are employed, either you are embarrassed or a coward.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

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.

You misread what Herb was and is doing. He looks at all the options, does what he can to change the outcome and makes lemonaide out of lemons if that is all he can do. Herb put a great spin on the Wright amendment. That doesn't mean he liked it.

Gary Kelly taking advantage? Guess what, that is the role of management. They have a moral and fiduciary responsibility to work toward furthering the interests of the company, employees and stakeholders.

The difference between SWA and some other managements is they have done more for the company and employees than for themselves.

 

[canyonblue]

Gary Kelly taking advantage? Guess what, that is the role of management. They have a moral and fiduciary responsibility to work toward furthering the interests of the company, employees and stakeholders.

If Gary Kelly did not pursue the elimination of the Wright Amendment, and the possible flow of an additional 500M in revenue, then he would not be doing the job the shareholders entrust him with. The shareholders could care less about DFW, AA or any other entity, they just want a return on investment. Fair?, life is not fair.

 

[Spudbud]

Where ever Flopgut works, they must not have a very effective substance abuse screening program . . .

 

[enigma]

Flopgut and other DFW supporters, do you think that LGA and EWR should be limited to 56 seats or the five surrounding states? How about Burbank, Ontario, John Wayne, should they also have Wright amendments enacted to protect LAX?

In essence, this is your argument; that no large metropolitan area needs more than one airport with transcon style service. It's obvious that DFW has been paid for, for a long time and it's also obvious that the metroplex can support more than a single airport. Most importantly, KDFW can NOT provide efficient operations for all of the flights that the local market can support. Meaning that delays and losses are inevitable.

It's time for the metroplex to do the wright thing for its citizens. We are no longer an emerging economy. The DFW area is one of the largest econmies in the nation. The WA is a millstone hanging around our collective necks. It needs to go. BTW, I don't work for SWA, as if anyone didn't know that.


enigma

 

[Flopgut]

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.

I certainly agree with what you said about UAL.

I want to very clearly state that I'm trying not to speak to the "airline" slant on this issue, so much as the "municipal" side of this. We all pay a lot in taxes and if we try to project that inner taxpayer into this issue and forget that we are pilots things will look different. A taxpayer might think: Why be sold this deal by SWA on the WA and KDAL at all? The most financially successful airline in the industry refuses to locate operations at DFW because AA has too great an advantage there. However, SWA does want unrestricted use of Love which will grant them the same advantage! DFW has vacancy and SWA can go anywhere they want from there and they have had that available to them for years. So we forego more schools, pools, parks, or anything else and pour money into Love, so SWA can make more money....

It is complicated and expensive to run an airport. Money is very tight these days (SWA pilots will have to take my word on this). A city has a chamber of commerce to try to promote industry. "We want your business" is the battlecry. In the case of SWA it is going to be a one sided deal. SWA's folksy, pseudo-genuine campaign "set Love free" is just plane tacky. Pick up your crap and get over to DFW! is what I think the average person who is interested in promoting the community is thinking.

To be clear, I like SWA. In my past endeavors I have been a business traveler and I liked riding SWA. I was in Rapid Rewards and got many free flights. Additionally, I would never want anything to go wrong for SWA. I hope things keep going great and growth, hiring and upgrades abound. I have experienced airline career meltdown and I would not wish it on anyone. I would, however, like to respectfully disagree with many of you on the WA soon being repealed. And, I rather enjoy poking fun (good naturedly) and the "Disneyesque cast member" like behavior of the average SWA employee. It is cute and fun and it works for you...but you'll have to tolerate a little light-hearted crack from me on that. And in an attempt to show a bit of that light-heartedness I'm going to put one of these smilie icons on here, which I hate.

 

[Flopgut]

And in an attempt to show a bit of that light-heartedness I'm going to one of these smilie icons on here, which I hate.

Which did not work, my html skills suck.

 

[chase]

Flopgut,

I believe you bring up many good points that average taxpayers do have a hard time understanding...."why should we have to pay for two airports with our taxes?" I agree with you 100% I don't want my money going to the government if the benefit is to one particular business, i.e. SWA. We've had enough of that with bailouts & the like. It would appear as if your thoughts are along those lines? Am I correct? Secondly, to the average layman it would appear to make sense to consolidate flight operations at DFW & consolidate the flying there so all of the low fair competition could occur there? Close Love or restrict it to private flights.

Several points about that. SWA is the 5th largest taxpayer to the city of Dallas. So there is certainly a vested interest in what SWA has to say to the City of Dallas in terms of a constituency, just as any taxpaying citizen does. Should it have more? The elected officials need to make that decision, not Ft Worth, DFW officials or folks in DC.

I don't have the figures in front of me but Love receives federal tax money & therefore local residents of N. Texas do have a right to support where their money should go. Their taxes pay for Love as well as some of DFW operations. Again I don't have the figures in front of me but much of the Love operations if funded by the fees that folks who fly from Love must pay & is paid by the carriers who use Love Field. Again there is a choice being made by the consumers about where they wish to have their dollars spent. The same can be said of DFW. The market system is working.

The savings according to Campbell & Hill (video presentation link http://www.videonewswire.com/event.asp?id=29245 .pdf file link http://www.setlovefree.com/pdf/Campbell_Hill_Study.pdf) would total $1.7 B for just folks in N. Texas ($4B for folks in Dallas, N. Texas & other cities served by SWA). Let me offer up this comparison:

A politician is offered up a new company coming into its district. It has two choices in which to locate, one that would generate $850M in local revenue & savings or it could choose a location that would benefit the local economy by $1.7B. The reason for the lesser amount would be higher fees from taxes, higher logistical costs (equated to taxi time, lost efficiencies, one-time moving costs from Love, etc)....oh, BTW, the shareholders of this company say they want the most efficient operations around & want the lowest costs associated with this new business coming in. Moving to the less profitable (still profitable but less profitable mind you) does offer unlimited growth but at higher costs to the consumer & lower profits overall. Customers of this company want it to be more conveniently located to them & to not move to a less desirable location. What should the politician/taxpayer/consumer consider when supporting one of the two choices?

What is a local official to do? Who would want to cut in half (my numbers, not SWA's) possible the potential gain of a new company coming to one's community, particularly if it was benefit the community by over $1B?

All of the talk of the WA from the likes of SWA folks does sound like we don't have a sense of humor...trust me most of us do....the issue does strike at a specific core element our SWA's origin that is deeply emotional for some since the WA was solely put into place to keep SWA from growing....it obviously hasn't worked & SWA has done OK (thank goodness). Please accept my apologies if the tone from me or others comes across as "in your face".....it is nice to work for a company that does care about the consumer & takes great pride in knowing that grandparents, grandkids & others visit folks twice as often (or more) solely due to the lower fares SWA offers over what other carriers do....I can't tell you the number of times those types of thank yous have been thrown my way so for some of us the thought that we could offer those type of low fares to the N. Texas area & to the other 85% of the US is something we all take very seriously & are fighting for with a lot of energy....we're still a very easy going group overall ....thanks for the debate.

 

[race#53]

pride in knowing that grandparents, grandkids & others visit folks twice as often (or more) solely due to the lower fares SWA offers over what other carriers do....I can't tell you the number of times those types of thank yous have been thrown my way so for some of us the thought that we could offer those type of low fares to the N. Texas area & to the other 85% of the US is something we all take very seriously & are fighting for with a lot of energy....we're still a very easy going group overall ....thanks for the debate.[/QUOTE]

Chase,
The quote above hit home, i just flew from Orlando to New Orleans to Houston to Dallas, Love. 8am to 1pm trip thanks to the WA.
On the Houston to Dallas leg i talked with a retired teacher that visits her Daughter once a week at $109 RT.
Think of all the others beyond the WA states that would do likewise.