Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

DFW takes SWA to task because of Denver

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
All I have to say is if AA were trying to change the law or any law, it would be OK. Funny how this works!
 
michael707767 said:
it was imposed on you and every other airline in 1979. If you did not want to be impeded by the WA, you could have moved to DFW back then just like every other airline did. You chose not too. I think 26 years later is too late to complain about it. However, I agree, you are responsible to your shareholders, no one else. I don't fault you for pursuing this. I will, however, fault the government if they change the rules now.

Rules were made to be bended, stretched, broken, etc. WN will win with the WA and then move on to other topics of interest such as the age 60 thing.
 
michael707767 said:
it was imposed on you and every other airline in 1979. If you did not want to be impeded by the WA, you could have moved to DFW back then just like every other airline did. You chose not too. I think 26 years later is too late to complain about it. However, I agree, you are responsible to your shareholders, no one else. I don't fault you for pursuing this. I will, however, fault the government if they change the rules now.

Well the same could be said about Pension Legislation. Funding rules are rules. I will, however, fault the government if they change the rules now.
 
michael707767 said:
it was imposed on you and every other airline in 1979. If you did not want to be impeded by the WA, you could have moved to DFW back then just like every other airline did. You chose not too. I think 26 years later is too late to complain about it. However, I agree, you are responsible to your shareholders, no one else. I don't fault you for pursuing this. I will, however, fault the government if they change the rules now.


Guess it's okay that National Airport changed it's laws a few years ago though but not okay to change the Love field laws? McCain spearheaded that change and was successful. This is no different. When National Airport was going through the change you didn't hear United crying in their beer like AA. If AA spent as much time as making their product better as they are on fighting an antiquated law they wouldn't have to worry.
 
Last edited:
The WA in North Texas is a one of a kind rule... Sure everyone can point out where we operate in the country and how much it costs us. However, give me another example of this rule, anywhere? Your talking apples and oranges..
 
If Southwest is willing to give competitors gates at LUV, then I see no reason why they shoudn't be allowed to do whatever they want at LUV field.

A350
 
The WA was formed to ensure airlines transfered their flying from Love to DFW after it was built......to make sure this big, new airport would be paid for through operating costs.

SWA decided to stay at Love field.

It's been almost 30 years.......DFW is "up and running". It has a huge operation. Hasn't the WA run it's course ? Let SWA fly anywhere out of Love. AMR can handle the competition....like when they used to compete with Braniff out of DFW...they just don't want to.

320AV8R
 
DFW Business School

In My Opinion,

The original story is a comparison of apples and oranges.

This topic is great fodder for current and future economists (macro/required credit, etc.) and will no doubt be a discussion well past all of our lifetimes.

-vic
 
Last edited:
The taxpayers ought to close Love Field and tell SWA to pound sand and operate out of DFW just like everyone else. SW justs wants it's private airport at taxpayer expense.
 
Draginass said:
The taxpayers ought to close Love Field and tell SWA to pound sand and operate out of DFW just like everyone else. SW justs wants it's private airport at taxpayer expense.


Looking out for the shareholder, if you ask me. And THAT is SWA's primary responsibility.

I got no problem with that.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top