Love Field Discussion: 28 Nov

[chase]

Local fliers are crucial in airport equation



[size=+1]Business traveler loyalties at stake in Love Field battle
[/size]

[size=-1]09:49 AM CST on Saturday, November 27, 2004 [/size]

[size=-1]By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News [/size]

Bill Geiser loves that he can take American Airlines Inc. from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to virtually anywhere he does business, even catching flights on the hour to most big cities.

But like many corporate fliers, he's not so happy about paying for that privilege.

"I want more competition here to lower prices," said Mr. Geiser, who helps develop technology for watches and accessories. "And American has a pretty tight grip on us here."

Passengers flying to and from major hub airports such as D/FW are among American's most profitable customers.

But the Fort Worth-based carrier's dependence on lucrative local hub traffic has come under increased pressure as discount rivals attract more travelers to secondary airports.

In south Florida, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport is taking business away from Miami International. In the Chicago area, Midway Airport has been growing at the expense of O'Hare International.

Now, in North Texas, Southwest Airlines Co. may turn up the heat on American if it's allowed to add long-distance flying from Dallas Love Field.

D/FW, which is American's largest and most profitable hub, is protected by the 1979 Wright amendment, a federal law that limits Love Field to short-haul commercial flights.

Southwest began to reconsider its long-held neutral position on the restrictions in September after Delta Air Lines Inc. said that it plans to pull its D/FW hub, opening opportunities for other carriers.

On Nov. 12, Southwest declared that after some consideration, it didn't want to expand at D/FW but would like to start flying longer routes from Love Field.

"If Southwest could better infiltrate the Dallas market, you could potentially look forward to significant savings for airfares," said Debra Taphouse, project manager at American Express Co.'s eClipse Advisors.

Although that may be good news for travelers, the move could harm American, analysts say.

"It would really knock American back a bit in the short term" if the Wright amendment were lifted, said Ray Neidl, airline analyst for Calyon Securities in New York.

"I think they'd be OK in the long term, but the stock would definitely take a hit."

The Wright amendment limits flights from Love Field to Texas' adjoining states for planes with more than 56 seats. A counterpart, the 1997 Shelby amendment, allows flights to Mississippi, Alabama and Kansas.



Protective effect


In effect, the restrictions protect American's North Texas market as well as D/FW because the carrier's presence is so strong at the airport.

While business travelers in many parts of the United States are experiencing lower fares courtesy of intense competition from the discounters, prices in North Texas have been climbing.

Business fares rose 2 percent on flights from the Dallas area during the third quarter compared with the same period last year, according to eClipse Advisors.

That compares with a price decline of 4 percent for North American markets overall.

Dallas' typical business fare, $593, is 48 percent higher than the $402 paid on average in North America.

The research, based on prices for tickets purchased within three days of departure, includes some data from Love Field, which is dominated by Southwest, a discounter serving only short flights.

The average fare would probably be higher if it were drawn only from D/FW.

Mr. Geiser wants American to stay healthy, in part because he likes the frequency of its flights.

But looking out for his own business, he's also sensitive to getting the best fare he can. For example, he's flown through Austin to save $1,700 on a round-trip ticket to San Jose, Calif.

Why do Dallas corporate fliers pay more?

"Two words: American Airlines," said Brian Rynott, air procurement manager for eClipse.

Atlanta has AirTran Airways, and Chicago has competition from Midway, he said. "D/FW is more insulated from low-cost carrier competition than other markets."

American said it faces stiff competition everywhere, including D/FW. The carrier has been simplifying its pricing. At its Miami hub, American recently restructured fares to win back business fliers from Fort Lauderdale.

"Competition among carriers is almost always good for the customer," said Tim Wagner, an American spokesman.

"Competition makes us examine and streamline our business to provide the best value for our customers," he said. "There's plenty of room for airlines to compete at D/FW."

But Southwest doesn't want to compete at D/FW, where it would have to re-create much of the infrastructure that already exists at Love Field while losing the advantages of having a concentration of traffic at one airport.



Stiff challenge?


Some industry experts believe the Wright amendment faces its strongest challenge yet, and that should alarm American.

At a presentation to American pilots this month, consultant Mike Boyd of the Boyd Group advised American to "declare open warfare on any attempts to abridge" the law because of D/FW's importance to the airline.

American would lose some D/FW customers, agreed Jon Ash of the Washington consulting firm Intervistas. He studied the North Texas market when Legend Airlines attempted service from Love Field in the late 1990s.

"American has all the ZIP codes for its very best premium customers in the area, and most of them are in ZIP codes closer to Love Field than to D/FW," Mr. Ash said. "They'd lose some of those from D/FW."

Data show that local passengers – those who start or end their journey at a hub city – are more profitable to an airline than those who connect at the hub on their way to another city.

"The studies show the premium for local traffic is somewhere between 15 and 25 percent over the connecting traffic," Mr. Ash said.

American executives said this month that the difference can be as much as 50 percent more revenue, adjusted for distance flown, compared with connecting fliers.

As American's results have eroded at its Chicago and Miami hubs, the carrier has been beefing up its D/FW operation.

American plans to increase its D/FW schedule 13 percent next year – up to nearly 800 flights a day for the carrier and its regional affiliate, American Eagle.



Local revenue


Just how much of American's $19 billion in annual revenue comes from D/FW isn't clear. The airline won't break down its financial results by airport.

American has a commanding presence that even D/FW officials admit is a monopoly. Once Delta abandons its D/FW hub, American's market share at the airport is expected to climb to 82 percent.

With that kind of market position, American faces less low-cost competition at the airport than its big rivals face at their mega-hubs.

About one in 10 local passengers fly on a low-cost carrier at D/FW, the airport said. Officials say they would like the figure to be higher, though they noted it has been growing as AirTran Airways Inc. adds flights.

At Delta's mega-hub at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, 14 percent of traffic flies on low-cost alternatives, mostly AirTran.

And at United Airlines Inc.'s hub at Denver International Airport, Frontier Airlines Inc. and others account for nearly 20 percent of traffic.

American may consider fighting Southwest from its three gates at Love Field, as it did when Legend launched service there.

But American would face the same challenges cited by Southwest in attempting to split its operations between D/FW and Love Field.

Also, the Legend fight was expensive; American is in weaker financial shape now.

What's more, as D/FW completes a new international terminal, the airport is a key part of American's future.

In just about any scenario under discussion, American stands to lose if flight restrictions are eased at Love Field.

"It could really create a vicious cycle for both American and for D/FW," Mr. Ash said.

 

[chase]

Pro Side - Why Wright Amendment is Fair

Max Wells: Law made Southwest successful





[size=-1]10:50 AM CST on Saturday, November 27, 2004 [/size]

[size=-1][/size]

Let me be clear: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and I respect Southwest Airlines very much and would like it to offer service from our great facility. But in recent days, Southwest has reopened a decades-old debate that brought our two great cities of Dallas and Fort Worth together 30 years ago: the Wright amendment.

And what Southwest has told you about why it will not fly out of D/FW and why it wants the Wright amendment repealed is misleading. It is not like Southwest.

Of course, the Wright amendment is the stuff of urban myth.

What the Wright amendment did almost three decades ago was make Dallas and North Texas a global transportation and business center that is the envy of the world. It also gave Southwest a chance to grow at Love Field – which originally was slated to be shut down completely.

And it allowed, with the great cooperation of our two owner cities, D/FW Airport to grow into the undisputed economic engine of North Texas. Southwest has said that "it didn't sign anything," so it is not obligated to support the Wright amendment. Signature or not, Southwest agreed to this deal, and its company leaders know it. It's right there in the Federal Register: Conference Report, Section 29 of the International Aviation Transportation Act of 1979. And the agreement also allowed Southwest to grow a great airline.

Still, myths abound that the Wright amendment keeps a good airline down and protects D/FW from low-cost competition. Nothing could be further from the truth. So let's set the record straight about what the amendment is not.



It has not kept Southwest Airlines from growing or given an unfair advantage to D/FW.

Southwest Airlines can trace its early existence and 30 years of success to the Wright amendment. Without it, Love Field would have been closed, and Southwest would have been forced to compete with the major airlines on a level playing field at D/FW. Obviously, the Wright amendment also helped D/FW prosper – to become the world's third-busiest airport, to create $14 billion annually in economic power for North Texas and to support more than 268,000 jobs.





It does not prohibit Southwest Airlines from flying long-haul service out of North Texas.

Southwest Airlines can fly long haul out of D/FW right now. D/FW has made repeated attempts to persuade Southwest to create a profitable operation at D/FW, and it has declined. One of D/FW's strategic priorities is to bring more low-fare service to you.



Right now, more than 10 percent of all travelers coming to or leaving D/FW fly on one of five low-cost carriers – that's a record 170,000 passengers per month and growing at a brisk pace. AirTran is leading the way with great low fares to both coasts, and American is matching the price.



It is not good for competition.

To the contrary, Southwest's latest announcement is designed to freeze out competition. It is also important to understand that American Airlines has a number of low-fare competitors at D/FW, while Southwest has a 97 percent monopoly on flights out of Love Field. Southwest declined to fly out of D/FW and compete on an equal playing field for your business. And now, by raising flags about the Wright amendment, it is trying to keep other low-fare competitors out of the market to compete for your travel dollar.



The facts are tough for some to accept because for decades Southwest has been viewed as the white knight of low fares and competition.

This month, Southwest showed interest in flying out of D/FW and inquired about taking over gates left vacant by Delta Air Lines' departure. D/FW worked hard to make it happen. Southwest has now acknowledged publicly that there are no real operational constraints keeping it from flying out of D/FW and further admitted it could be profitable here.

But when Southwest learned that some of its low-fare competitors were showing similar interest, it raised the red flag of the Wright amendment to scare them away. It is not hard to understand that most low-fare competitors might not want to take on American and face Southwest in the same market.

As it stands now, the ploy has worked. And that is not good for you or me.

We wanted Southwest to come out now and compete. But what Southwest chose to do was try to avoid low-fare competition at D/FW so it could finance its expansion efforts at Chicago Midway and Philadelphia. It appears Southwest wants to put this market on hold for two years or longer and decide later if it is a priority.

That divisive approach does not bring you or me lower fares, does not bring any new low-fare carriers and does not help the economic engine of North Texas bring new business to our region.

With all due respect to my longtime friend and a great airline, Southwest does not own the high ground on this one. This is not about repealing an unpopular law; it is about keeping low-fare competition out. And to argue, "D/FW is big, so it will be OK," is inaccurate as well – we are indeed vulnerable as American announces it is slashing costs even further by tossing pillows off planes and delaying aircraft orders.

The Wright amendment has benefited both Southwest Airlines and D/FW and should be kept in place. We will continue to urge Southwest to keep its end of the deal for the success of our region, and we will continue to keep the door open for Southwest to serve you at D/FW. And we will keep looking hard for another low-fare airline to serve all of us.

So next time you hear someone talk about the Wright amendment, check the facts. Too much is riding on our economy to continue to believe in urban myths.



Max Wells, chairman of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board, is a former member and mayor pro tem of the Dallas City Council and is chairman of the Oaks Bank & Trust Co. His e-mail address is [email protected].

 

[chase]

Con - Wright is Wrong - Gary Kelly CEO Southwest

Gary Kelly: Is the Wright amendment wrong?

Times have changed, and so must this legislation

10:48 AM CST on Saturday, November 27, 2004

The Wright amendment is protectionist, anti-competitive and anti-consumer. It is outdated, too. It's time for a change.

Two recent events led to Southwest's decision to seek a change to the 25-year-old Wright amendment at Dallas Love Field, which limited flights to Texas and adjacent states.

One, the Tennessee congressional delegation put the Wright amendment in play by introducing legislation adding Tennessee.

Two, Delta Air Lines announced it would vacate 23 gates at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and reduce its daily flights by more than 200. Delta will leave a huge void for travelers, which creates an opportunity for another airline to expand. Southwest wants to expand the availability of its low fares, and room is available at Love and D/FW.

The Wright amendment is a 1979 federal law designed to protect D/FW Airport by restricting Love. Commercial airline use of Love was established long ago through years of litigation, ultimately before the U.S. Supreme Court (twice).

In 1979, after all the litigation, then-House Majority Leader Jim Wright of Fort Worth spearheaded this legislation over Southwest's vehement objections and strenuous lobbying efforts. Southwest and Herb Kelleher, after years of litigation over Love, agreed they would not challenge the Wright amendment in court, but Southwest never committed to avoid legislatively challenging the Wright amendment.

Others have challenged the Wright amendment before, culminating in the 1997 Shelby amendment, which added three more states. Many predicted then that the Wright amendment eventually would be repealed.

After Shelby, the city of Dallas underscored its commitment to D/FW and addressed local noise concerns with the limitations set forth in the March 2001 Dallas Love Field Master Plan that should completely satisfy D/FW.

Circumstances have changed dramatically since 1979. D/FW, one of the world's largest and most successful airports, is no longer a child. Love is one-fifth its size and limited, by the master plan, to 32 gates. D/FW has more than 140 gates and hardly needs federal government protection to succeed. If it does, something must be wrong.

Most major U.S. cities have multiple airports. North Texas should be proud, not upset, to have two. Tiny Love is no threat to mighty D/FW. Plus, Southwest had no service beyond the "Wright amendment area" in 1979. Today, we serve much of the United States.

D/FW has idle gate capacity, and officials are legitimately motivated to lease that space. Love has idle gates and an underutilized new parking garage. Anyone worried about that? As a city of Dallas, Dallas County and Dallas school district taxpayer, Southwest is.

Our corporate headquarters are in Dallas. We employ more than 5,500 people in our various Dallas operations. Although we're a growth airline, we're unable to grow at Love because of the Wright amendment. In fact, our Love business and flights have been shrinking since 9-11.

Delta's planned exit will leave a void that we could help fill, except for the Wright amendment. Consumers would benefit twice because we could add flights to new markets from Love at significantly lower fares, and D/FW fares would then come down, too. The lack of competition from Southwest is why D/FW is one of the highest average fare airports in the country.

As proof, American Airlines announced that it was offering dramatically lower fares from its Miami hub. Why? To regain customers attracted to the nearby Fort Lauderdale airport, served by several low-fare carriers, including Southwest. American said that the pricing move would increase passengers in Miami and give American more revenue. That's the beauty of competition – and what's missing in North Texas.

After much thought, we decided Southwest service at D/FW too risky. It would split our operation unnecessarily between two airports, break our network and drive our costs up. We would have to reduce service further at Love to make that work, creating even more idle capacity, which isn't good for Dallas.

Southwest avoids most fortress hub airports like D/FW, where we face significant risk from the 700-departure-a-day gorilla, American Airlines. Delta decided the risk and the losses were too great. That's why no other airline has jumped at the chance to take on American at D/FW. Even D/FW called it a "monopoly."

Avoiding fortress hubs has worked well for us. For example, we serve Chicago Midway, not O'Hare, and Fort Lauderdale, not Miami; there are many more. It's no coincidence we are the most profitable airline with the lowest fares over the last 31 years.

Finally, with respect to concerns about unbridled growth at Love, that has been thoroughly addressed by the Love Field Master Plan. As D/FW Airport and its constituents well know, it allows for no more than 32 gates. That's all the protection D/FW needs, and it limits noise, pollution and ground traffic congestion to acceptable levels. The destinations we choose to serve from Love are completely irrelevant.

Just look down the road at our Houston Hobby operation. Unrestricted, it has only 16 more daily departures than Love. Change Love's restrictions and, like Hobby, you'll have more airline competition. And by the way, Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport seems to do just fine competing with an unrestricted Hobby. We have to face brutal competition as an airline. Why shouldn't D/FW face a little competition from Love?

North Texas will thrive with changes to the Wright amendment. More competition is good. Lower fares are good. Replacing flights lost from Delta's exit is good. More jobs are good. Utilizing idle facilities is good.

This is simple. Don't let someone try to tell you this is complicated. Times change, as do laws. This is a free country. Let's give North Texans the freedom to fly on Southwest.

Gary Kelly is chief executive officer of Southwest Airlines. His e-mail address is [email protected].

 

[lowecur]

Another smart move by SWA. If I understand it correctly, if the Wright amendment is repealed, then any LCC would have to compete from DFW, which is at a geographic disadvantage to Love.

Here's a simple answer. Repeal the Wright amendment, but make it mandatory that SWA cannot control anymore than 50% of the gates at Love. If SWA is owed any money for it's investment in those gates, then pay them cost plus interest. That way SWA would be forced to open gates at DFW, and an equitable LCC share would exist a both airports.

 

[Juvat]

[From the Max Wells opinion]:
The Wright amendment has benefited both Southwest Airlines and D/FW and should be kept in place. We will continue to urge Southwest to keep its end of the deal for the success of our region...

I don't understand what he means by Southwest's "end of the deal" in the Wright Amendment. Is he referring to SWA's agreement to not challenge the amendment in court?

 

[Juvat]

Here's a simple answer. Repeal the Wright amendment, but make it mandatory that SWA cannot control anymore than 50% of the gates at Love. If SWA is owed any money for it's investment in those gates, then pay them cost plus interest. That way SWA would be forced to open gates at DFW, and an equitable LCC share would exist a both airports.

Lowecur, I have highlighted the words in your text above that seem to show your preference for, at best, a return to the bygone days of airline regulation, and at worst, outright socialism. Concepts of "mandatory forced equity" might work in France, but such ideas are offensive to a free market economy and the American way of business.

 

[lowecur]

Lowecur, I have highlighted the words in your text above that seem to show your preference for, at best, a return to the bygone days of airline regulation, and at worst, outright socialism. Concepts of "mandatory forced equity" might work in France, but such ideas are offensive to a free market economy and the American way of business.

You're kidding me, Wright? Repeal the Right Amendment and watch how quickly Southwest tries to gobble up those unused gates at Love so no one else can use them. Then watch the bond rating on DFW go down the tubes, as it turns into a semi ghost town.

The Wright Amendment was the right thing for the times, and repealing it in today's marketplace will take compromise. If SWA is unwilling to compromise on no growth at Love, then keep the amendment in place until Jetblue or AirTran is large enough to go in and compete on a level playing field.

 

[The_Russian]

The free market system is killing the airline industry. The low fare carriers are popping up everywhere and lowering the bar for the industry. I love it when a group of white- trashers get on my airplane in ripped up clothes and smell like eggs. Everyone can fly when the prices are $49 for a round trip.

Hey, then we can pay the pilot half of what he was making yesterday because the quality airlines can't compete with the airline who doesn't pay for their airplanes and gets everything for free. In fact, once we cut your pay we need to add more job duties such as : clean the cabin, dump the lav, and throw bags.

I went through a toll at MIA the other day. Foolish as it was for me to do this, I realized I had no change or cash. I told the toll (troll) man this. He said I am a pilot and I am rich so he is going to give me a ticket. I asked which airline he regularly flies on. He said &*^*^$$% (name of low fare trash-ways). Go figure. Thats why I have no money a$$hole.

Folks: you are now FREE to move about the country.


Sorry for the rant.

 

[MedFlyer]

You're kidding me, Wright? Repeal the Right Amendment and watch how quickly Southwest tries to gobble up those unused gates at Love so no one else can use them. Then watch the bond rating on DFW go down the tubes, as it turns into a semi ghost town.

The Wright Amendment was the right thing for the times, and repealing it in today's marketplace will take compromise. If SWA is unwilling to compromise on no growth at Love, then keep the amendment in place until Jetblue or AirTran is large enough to go in and compete on a level playing field.

Give me a break. WN has grown at BWI for years (with no restrictions) and that hasn't hurt the bond ratings at DCA/IAD. WN has grown for years (with no restrictions) at MDW and that hasn't hurt the bond ratings at ORD. The Dallas/Fort Worth metro region is large enough to support two airports that are unrestricted by outdated, backwater laws.

JetBlue and Airtran are capable of taking on WN whenever they want. If Airtran was so afraid of WN, why would they want to setup a large operation at MDW? If WN consumes all the gates at Love, so be it. Trust me, not everyone wants to fly WN and there are still hundreds of destinations that WN does not serve (and never will). That leaves plenty of traffic for DFW.

The only real problem is that the DFW authorities expanded the airport under the assumption that it would always have two hub carriers (AA/DL). It was a dangerous assumption and now it is backfiring. However, it has little to do with the Wright Amendment and everything to do with poor planning by the people who manage DFW.

 

[The_Russian]

Oh and my theory of longetivity is that the low fare butt monkeys are going to scrape up all the business for a while. Then when they are the main structure of the transportation system they will run out of money and colapse along with the majors proving you can't survive on $100 LAX to JFK prices. Once the entire transportation system falls the government will realize it is time to return to regulation and subsidization.

 

[LUVChild]

Lowecur, your post is the funniest thing I've ever read. You just completely supported Juvat's argument that you are a borderline socialist who longs for the days of regulation.

"Repeal the Wright amendment, but make it mandatory that SWA cannot control anymore than 50% of the gates at Love."

But it's okay for AA to have 85% of the departures going out of DFW, right? You seemed to miss the point that growth at Love is capped to 32 gates, whereas DFW is still growing, adding gates, and lacks such a cap. So in other words, AA can continue to add gates as they please at DFW, but Southwest can only add a limited number at Love. Seems to me that's a fair control factor right there.

"If SWA is unwilling to compromise on no growth at Love, then keep the amendment in place until Jetblue or AirTran is large enough to go in and compete on a level playing field."

What a great idea! Let's limit place another limit on Southwest until some other carrier is big enough to come in and really make it difficult for us. What another great idea on your part! (sarcasm intended)

Lowecur, the playing field has NEVER been level. Time and again, it's been slanted against Southwest (Wright Amendment and per-segment taxes). However, we actually have smart enough company leaders who know how to run an airline, and not just line their own pockets. Why are we being punished for being successful?

"The Wright Amendment was the right thing for the times, and repealing it in today's marketplace will take compromise."

The Wright Amendment was NOT the right thing for time. That statement is little more than your point of view, so don't go stating it like it was a fact. Read up on some of the background about the Wright Amendment: it was more a political move than a morally correct one, as you make it sound. In 1979, Southwest was a tiny little blip on the radar...hardly a threat against the likes of some of the other carriers. We succeed in spite of it, not because of it (as some spin doctors would like you to believe).

Lowecur, I've read several of your posts on this board, and besides the fact that your know-it-all arrogance and blind love for the ERJ is completely annoying, you seem to have a bone up your butt about Southwest. What gives? Be truthful now!

 

[Juvat]

Alright, I know I'm responding to an apparent wack-job who came out of the woodwork when he did a web search on the word "socialist," but this witless character needs to be called out...

The free market system is killing the airline industry.

Would you care to enlighten us all on how you came up with this ridiculous and totally indefensible conclusion?

I love it when a group of white- trashers get on my airplane in ripped up clothes and smell like eggs.

You should love it. Their money is as green as anybody else's. These people are paying your salary. You should be kissing the ground they walk on because they put food on your table.

Everyone can fly when the prices are $49 for a round trip.

Exactly! Give the man a cigar. He just stumbled onto the secret. Create commodity demand with affordable prices. Target the largest base of willing consumers, and boom! You've got a business miracle. It works whether you're selling toilet paper or airline seats. Just one proviso--you have to live in a free market economy.

Hey, then we can pay the pilot half of what he was making yesterday because the quality airlines can't compete with the airline who doesn't pay for their airplanes and gets everything for free.

What's your definition of quality? Pillows for passengers? Good looking FAs? Aeroflot's admirable safety record? By the way, which quality airlines are you referring to in the hyperbole above?

Sorry for the rant.

Rant? No. More like jibberish.

 

[enigma]

I don't exactly live in the Fort Worth/Dallas metromess, but I live close enough to read the papers and listen to their local news. People this battle is all political. Dallas hates Fort Worth. Tarrent county hates Dallas County. Etc., etc. If the area had any real leaders, they would get together and work together. As a Texan, I'm saddened by the fact that Fort Worth and Dallas get along worse than NY/NJ. If two states can get together and run a port authority, why can't two counties in Texas?

What I see happening here, is the political infrastructure of DFW airport circling the wagons in an attempt to protect their little kingdom. I feel quite certain that Max Wells is NOT looking to protect the economic interests of metroplex travelers; he's looking to protect DFW airport and the massive spending (i.e. bureaucracy) that defines the airport.

Gary Kelly, on the other hand, is defending a company (SWA) that has a proven track record of offering low fares and truly enabling the masses to "move about the country".

To me, Mr. Kelly and SWA have credibility and Mr. Wells/DFW don't. I know who I believe.



Personally, I think that the area can support three passenger airports. Now if only the counties could work together.

enigma

 

[vc10]

Watch DFW turn into a ghost town? What are you smoking?

Do you know how big DFW is, and how small DAL is? Do you know how limited is the road access to DAL? Do you know how much more convenient DFW is to most of the Metroplex?

Try arguing from a position of knowledge.

If DAL is deregulated, then the only thing that will happen is that airfares will go down from the Metroplex to cities beyond the current Wright Amendment/Shelby Amendment area. If that happens, more people will travel through DFW, not less. There's not remotely the infrastructure available at DAL to accommodate the likely stimulation.

You're kidding me, Wright? Repeal the Right Amendment and watch how quickly Southwest tries to gobble up those unused gates at Love so no one else can use them. Then watch the bond rating on DFW go down the tubes, as it turns into a semi ghost town.

The Wright Amendment was the right thing for the times, and repealing it in today's marketplace will take compromise. If SWA is unwilling to compromise on no growth at Love, then keep the amendment in place until Jetblue or AirTran is large enough to go in and compete on a level playing field.

 

[lowecur]

Give me a break. WN has grown at BWI for years (with no restrictions) and that hasn't hurt the bond ratings at DCA/IAD. WN has grown for years (with no restrictions) at MDW and that hasn't hurt the bond ratings at ORD. The Dallas/Fort Worth metro region is large enough to support two airports that are unrestricted by outdated, backwater laws.

JetBlue and Airtran are capable of taking on WN whenever they want. If Airtran was so afraid of WN, why would they want to setup a large operation at MDW? If WN consumes all the gates at Love, so be it. Trust me, not everyone wants to fly WN and there are still hundreds of destinations that WN does not serve (and never will). That leaves plenty of traffic for DFW.

The only real problem is that the DFW authorities expanded the airport under the assumption that it would always have two hub carriers (AA/DL). It was a dangerous assumption and now it is backfiring. However, it has little to do with the Wright Amendment and everything to do with poor planning by the people who manage DFW.

Let me bring AMR into the equation. It is mandatory that they survive the next 10 years. They are wounded at present, and Love Field with a repealed Wright Amendment would have 15 open gates for SWA, and the ability to further damage AMR. I think AMR has around 27,000 employees in the greater Dallas/Ft. Worth area. If AMR goes in DFW, who is large enough to step to the plate in the next few years?

Airline travel in the USA is at a crossroads in the next 12 months. Is there a good chance we will lose one of the top 4 carriers in the next few years? The problem is we could lose 2 or 3, and that would be a disaster for our economy.

 

[lowecur]

Lowecur, your post is the funniest thing I've ever read. You just completely supported Juvat's argument that you are a borderline socialist who longs for the days of regulation. I'm all for beating the Legacy's at a game they played so ruthlessly for so many years. The problem is having so many weak players at one time is a formula for complete capitulation if another terrorist attack happens in the next few years. We cannot allow that to happen in this country until either the LCC's are larger, or some of the Legacy's have morphed and gotten stronger.

Lowecur, I've read several of your posts on this board, and besides the fact that your know-it-all arrogance and blind love for the ERJ is completely annoying, you seem to have a bone up your butt about Southwest. What gives? Be truthful now. Most of my posts on LUV are tongue in cheek. I have great admiration for the mgt team at LUV. I also take great pleasure in being an analcyst to those who take my posts too seriously.

.....

 

[SWA/FO]

Hey Russian,

U R A A$$. SWA Pilots have not lowered any bar. Our bar continues to rise. We have not given any money back like many other pilots have.

Go back to Russia if you don't like it.

Peace~out

 

[lowecur]

I don't exactly live in the Fort Worth/Dallas metromess, but I live close enough to read the papers and listen to their local news. People this battle is all political. Dallas hates Fort Worth. Tarrent county hates Dallas County. Etc., etc. If the area had any real leaders, they would get together and work together. As a Texan, I'm saddened by the fact that Fort Worth and Dallas get along worse than NY/NJ. If two states can get together and run a port authority, why can't two counties in Texas?

What I see happening here, is the political infrastructure of DFW airport circling the wagons in an attempt to protect their little kingdom. I feel quite certain that Max Wells is NOT looking to protect the economic interests of metroplex travelers; he's looking to protect DFW airport and the massive spending (i.e. bureaucracy) that defines the airport.

Gary Kelly, on the other hand, is defending a company (SWA) that has a proven track record of offering low fares and truly enabling the masses to "move about the country".

To me, Mr. Kelly and SWA have credibility and Mr. Wells/DFW don't. I know who I believe.



Personally, I think that the area can support three passenger airports. Now if only the counties could work together.

enigma

There is a good chance that SWA will not get the extra gates at MDW, and will have one devil of a time with expanded growth in PHL if UAIR doesn't liquidate. This really limits SWA with lots of planes on the way. I think Gary Kelly understands that he will be forced to go into DFW if all of the above occurs in the next 12 months. Lets face it, it's cheaper to operate out of Love Field with 30 something gates, than pay the piper at DFW. Who has more political clout in the area, Gary or Max? I think Max spelled it out perfectly:

"We wanted Southwest to come out now and compete. But what Southwest chose to do was try to avoid low-fare competition at D/FW so it could finance its expansion efforts at Chicago Midway and Philadelphia. It appears Southwest wants to put this market on hold for two years or longer and decide later if it is a priority."

 

[flynryan15]

Hey Becky A.K.A. THE RUSSIAN stop CRYING you LIL BIOTCH!!!

 

[labbats]

I just want to congratulate the original poster on showing both sides of this argument. It's refreshing to make up my own mind.