DFW takes SWA to task because of Denver

[Jim Smyth]

Well the numbers on this deal certainly make ol Herb and Gary look rather silly.

Same guy always stiring the Southwest Pot. Why dont you go on vacation for a while or just go away period!

 

[lowecur]

Same guy always stiring the Southwest Pot. Why dont you go on vacation for a while or just go away period!

I'm the straw that stirs the drink, Jimmy!

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Well the numbers on this deal certainly make ol Herb and Gary look rather silly.

:smash:

Its just the DFW spin masters that look silly.

The debate has reached ridiculous speed. You miss the whole point. DFW is a larger market and markets their size have 2 or more major airports with passenger service.

There is no good reason to restrict North Texas to one airport. It's not strictly a zero sum game. DFW and even AA will easily survive the repeal. North Texas, I'm predicting, will have an economic boom related from the repeal that will float all boats, even DFW's and AA's.

 

[koko nw]

North Texas, I'm predicting, will have an economic boom related from the repeal that will float all boats, even DFW's and AA's.

Economic boom for North Texas???.... A bit over the top wouldn't you say.
SWA's will certainly benefit, AA...yea right.

But joe blow north texan and it's economy....BOOM?

Hardly, SWA's ability to fly long haul from love will not equate to a Boom for North Texas. It will benefit YOU...and your bottom line, and please none of this "we'll save the consumer XXX amount of monies from those nasty price gougers", that argument is disingenuous and tiring....Honestly, would you be saying that if you were hired by a legacy? I thought so.

Cheers

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Economic boom for North Texas???.... A bit over the top wouldn't you say.
SWA's will certainly benefit, AA...yea right.

But joe blow north texan and it's economy....BOOM?

Hardly, SWA's ability to fly long haul from love will not equate to a Boom for North Texas. It will benefit YOU...and your bottom line, and please none of this "we'll save the consumer XXX amount of monies from those nasty price gougers", that argument is disingenuous and tiring....Honestly, would you be saying that if you were hired by a legacy? I thought so.

Cheers

Yes, a boom. It may take a little while but it will happen. That is what competition breeds. I have a 2-3 year outlook. Allowing DFW to continue to dictate fees and authorize huge projects with no checks or balances will cause their fees to continue to rise. DFW is not fighting for survival, they are fighting for total control over their destiny. I don't want to give them the room to continue to flex their arrogant attitude.

If I worked for AA I would be upset at the BK protection my competitors are getting. I would wish for a SWA like management/employee relationship. I would like everyone to fly out of the airport my business model demands. I, of course, would try to force everyone to come to DFW so AA could put them out of business. What's your point?

I don't expect you to like the truth of the logic. But if you just want to spew out opinions contrary to logic and claim it is sound, I will point that out.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

C'mon folks. Do all you Wright supporters really buy all the BS DFW management puts out? Tell me its not insulting to your intelligence.

And be honest. As an originating passenger, do you prefer DFW's layout or Love's layout? As a connecting passenger, tell me DFW doesn't make you crazy if you need to get to another terminal.

 

[SKC]

As a connecting passenger, tell me DFW doesn't make you crazy if you need to get to another terminal.

While I'm not a DFW apologist, the Skylink train at DFW has made things 1000% easier to transit between terminals than the old airport train.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

While I'm not a DFW apologist, the Skylink train at DFW has made things 1000% easier to transit between terminals than the old airport train.

Apparently I am out of date, I haven't been to DFW in awhile. All I remember is the old train.

 

[koko nw]

Yes, a boom. It may take a little while but it will happen. That is what competition breeds. I have a 2-3 year outlook. Allowing DFW to continue to dictate fees and authorize huge projects with no checks or balances will cause their fees to continue to rise. DFW is not fighting for survival, they are fighting for total control over their destiny. I don't want to give them the room to continue to flex their arrogant attitude.

Like what you guy's do at LUV? But it's OK for you guy's right? Because SWA's is the the benevolent carrier.


If I worked for AA I would be upset at the BK protection my competitors are getting. I would wish for a SWA like management/employee relationship. I would like everyone to fly out of the airport my business model demands. I, of course, would try to force everyone to come to DFW so AA could put them out of business. What's your point?

My point is you have SWA's blinders on. You should check in the mirror to see who has the arrogant attitude. But your dead on accurate on the mgt/employee relationship, theirs none better.


I don't expect you to like the truth of the logic. But if you just want to spew out opinions contrary to logic and claim it is sound, I will point that out.

Whatever dude, your logic? Again please explain how N. Texas economy will BOOM 2-3 years from now?

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Like what you guy's do at LUV? But it's OK for you guy's right? Because SWA's is the the benevolent carrier.

My point is you have SWA's blinders on. You should check in the mirror to see who has the arrogant attitude. But your dead on accurate on the mgt/employee relationship, theirs none better.

Whatever dude, your logic? Again please explain how N. Texas economy will BOOM 2-3 years from now?

If AA keeps the long haul monopoly at DFW fares will go up more than if Love gets to do long haul. Higher fares = fewer passengers. Fewer passengers = fewer airplanes and less money to be made by vendors, hotels, etc. More passengers = more revenue for both aviation and other industries in North Texas. Some would call this the Southwest effect.

I would love to see higher fares. They are going up too slowly and should be higher because of fuel prices. I would love for the hub and spoke guys to be making money along with Southwest, Airtran, Continental and Alaska. If oil were just a little lower AA would be making money. Then cost cutting would stop and non-fuel CASMs would stop falling. But one problem with fares rising too high or too quickly would be reduced travel. That I don't want to see. The hub and spoke guys are getting more and more efficient as SWA fuel hedges are starting to become less of a factor. SWA already announced fuel costs will be $400 million more next year. Some say $500 million. Cost cutting is around the corner for Southwest. Without it I predict at least one quarterly loss unless fares rise or fuel retreats in 2006.

There is a balance out there where hub and spoke and LCCs can both make money. I wish we would find it and stay there. But I fear the pendulum will swing when international flying can subsidize domestic flying again. Then there is that 100 seater thing that I predict will come to some or all of the big carriers. Low cost 100 seater operators will challenge the LCCs and swing the pendulum back toward those that have them and international flying.

But I don't think arrogant airport management types will help any of us. Its like dealing with the government.

You think I'm arrogant?? You don't know me very well. I am looking in the mirror. The rearview mirror that is.

 

[koko nw]

Ok Flyboeingjets, you win. I see your point.

Forgive my "arrogant spew" it's been a long 3+ years of shite after shite.

Your pilots and FA's where nothing but accommodating and a class act when I commuted to SFO via OAK from SEA. Your mgt/employee relations should be copied and envied.

Best

Koko

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

1) ...Southwest, which would be able to keep its short haul flights at Love Field and initiate long-haul traffic from DFW.

2) "It is beyond my understanding why Southwest would choose to go 650 miles away to do business in Denver, when they can go eight miles up the road to existing empty gates where a $22-million dollar incentive offer awaits them," said Mayor Mike Moncrief of Fort Worth.

Mayer Moncrief cracks me up. Nowhere does he mention that costs at Denver have improved relative to other airports. The bag eating automatic baggage system is no more and the front range has grown so much that Colorado Springs no longer looks as attractive.

1) Sounds like a great deal if AA would also move its RJ flying to Love and keep the big planes at DFW. The passenger would love that too. Lets start a light rail project from DFW to Love. Great idea from DFW, and cheap too!

2) Someone should explain to the good Mayor that in order to serve North COLORADO passengers a carrier has to go to an airport closer than DFW. I guess the world revolves around North Texas.



On a more serious note, I hope no one gets too upset by this issue. Politics is always an imperfect compromise made by imperfect people. I tend to debate the faulty logic I see in WA arguments.

I personally don't think the WA is protecting jobs at AA anymore. With Delta reduced at DFW and competitors with costs as low as SWA at DFW I think it would be a small blip to AA. But it would put the DFW planners on notice and they would find more innovative ways to operate. DFW would eventually get to be a better airport for airlines to operate out of with WA repeal. DFW is offering $22 million only becuase they value their monopoly much more than that.

 

[chase]

Southwest Responds to DFW Criticisms

DEN Service: DFW Reacts, SWA Responds
Our announcement of service to DEN beginning in early 2006 triggered a reaction from DFW Airport officials. In response to their claim that our flying to DEN should prove that we are also capable of providing service at DFW, Southwest says the following:
• Regarding the existence of an entrenched hub carrier at DEN, Southwest already serves airports dominated by one carrier–perfect examples are DTW, PHL, and PIT. The difference between DEN and DFW is that United has more than 40 percent of the market share and operates over 400 daily nonstops at DEN, while American has more than 80 percent of the market share and almost 900 flights at DFW.
• One of the attractive qualities of DEN is the reduction of United’s service. DFW has not been able to maintain a consistently profitable low-fare carrier in its history, due to American’s mega-hub. (For example, see AirTran story at right.)
• The average taxi-out time at DFW is two minutes higher than at DEN, and the taxi-in time at DFW is almost twice the time it takes at DEN.
• Additionally, there is no additional airport in Denver. Southwest has a choice of airports in the DFW metroplex, and we choose DAL, our home for the last 34 years.
"We want to serve Love Field; it’s efficient, it’s here, it’s our home base, and it fits us perfectly," said Gary. "Most businesses have the right to choose where they operate. I don’t know why it would be any different for an airline."

_______________________________________________________

I was looking for a following up article that Eric Torbenson (writes for Dallas Morning News) in which he debunks a common argument that folks use but I couldn't find it. I'll summarize: "Taxpayers would have their money wasted if DFW shrinks & would be hit with a rising failure rate & the loses would be absorbed by the government." He reponded by saying that the government isn't liable for DFW, DFW is run like a business...airlines, vendors, other businesses pay for the operation of DFW....yes there is money from the government paid to some government workers who work there but the bulk of the operational money comes from the airlines that operate from there....if DFW was to take a hit financiailly, the government isn't out money, the users are....that's the way it is at most airports & is wise (the government should be funding airport operations)....bondholders are the financiing sources for most expansion & operation so for these entities to be protected from competition he argues is a bit different than what occurs in most businesses.

One last article posted below on the WA issue.

________________________
Senate may OK Love bill


[SIZE=+1]Provision to allow flights to Missouri must also pass House


[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]12:00 AM CDT on Friday, October 21, 2005

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

WASHINGTON – The Senate was poised Thursday to approve a provision that would allow commercial flights between Dallas Love Field and cities in Missouri.
The provision is contained in a $142 billion fiscal 2006 transportation spending bill.
But Missouri remains a long way from becoming the eighth state that can be served with interstate flights from Love Field.
The spending bill now goes to a conference committee where congressional negotiators must reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions before final approval.
The Missouri provision, sponsored by Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., is not in the House version.
Commercial service at Love Field is restricted by the Wright amendment, a 1979 federal law that limits service to Texas and its four adjacent states – Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
The 1997 Shelby amendment added three more states – Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi. _________________________

 

[Flopgut]

Recap

An agreement was made that DFW be built and supported. SWA declined to oblige the agreement claiming they were not a party to it. This agreement was determined to be of enough importance that when Braniff did not fully comply with the terms they were forced to do so, by a court order. (Braniff stayed at Love and matched SWA on every leg, they were forced by a court to stop and leave)

The WA is the agreement in place now for Love Field, and SWA is most certainly a party to it this time. The terms of that agreement should be continuously and vehemently imposed on SWA. No less than they were on Braniff.

Remember the bumper sticker that read: "Fly SWA, Herb needs the money". This is the only thing that has really changed. Herb (SWA) doesn't need the money. DFW does! DFW needs revenue and renewal. SWA wants to legislate an inappropriate advantage, again. Unfortunately, these days SWA still has the momentum. They are a political juggernaught and somehow still make the public believe they are the underdog. It will be enormously inequitable, but I'm afraid the WA might be lifted.

Beyond just normal bickering with you SWA folks I'm wondering if you are at all worried about a backlash? Herb was quite content with the situation at Love because I think he new how badly it screwed everyone else at the time. Some municipalities have already acted to preclude the dilemna your airline creates with airport problems (like AUS) and BFI just recently rebuffed you. In the time after the WA is repealed there is going to be a frenzy in the Dallas aviation world an a lot of expense and problems for everyone, except you...with your nice little empire. The tide may already be turning. The SWA effect could have a new meaning.

Chase: It is probably just me, but those articles you just posted I think illustrate the fact that SWA will not truly compete in the Dallas marketplace, to everyone elses detriment. SWA is actually afraid of a free market in Dallas outside of its protected Love Field enclave.

FBJ: People don't dislike riding on Legacy airlines and large airports as much as you think. I think the big airports have a sort of renesance (sp) coming. I have put on here before so maybe you have heard it from me and maybe not. I used to fly a lot on airlines in my former career. I was a SWA Rapid Rewards customer and earned about 4 or 5 tickets or so, I think I ran about 50k through that deal in about 3 years so I was a pretty good SWA customer. I took the family to California and we had a great time, but... A coworker of mine focused on AA miles. I got my rewards much quicker than he did but when he did earn the free stuff it was far better than what I got. He went to Africa and then later he went to Octoberfest in Germany. Man did I feel cheated! You see, on some level, it is not about what you pay, it about what you get. When your in business your travel dollars are really just money that is already spent, so if either airline can get you from A to B you start to focus on what this money can reward you with. Except, when the non-market, geopolitical craziness is going on, like it has been. When that is no longer a factor people will gravitate back to Legacies and hub airports.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Except, when the non-market, geopolitical craziness is going on, like it has been. When that is no longer a factor people will gravitate back to Legacies and hub airports.

I too think Legacies will see a renaissance of sorts. It will definitely start in earnest in 2006, and it will be even stronger if oil goes down as predicted.

I respect your opinion but we do differ on what is right for DFW and Love field. I also think right now, in 2005, SWA is asking for repeal when it looks like they have too much of an advantage. SWA has had a big advantage in the years after 9/11. It looks bad from that point of view. But times are once again changing. 2006 going forward it doesn't look that way to me. The playing field will begin leveling out and the perks being offered by Legacies will once again allow them to attract passengers at a higher RASM. Populations are going up everywhere and even RJ loads are improving and contributing more to the bottom line. Since legislation takes so long to work out, this is the right time to work on repealing the WA to allow an all domestic carrier a chance to stay viable at Love field. Particularly as international legacies regain their dominance. It's only going to get tougher for SWA after their unprecedented period of success after 9/11.