Study Finds Opening Love Field to Long-Haul flying would have Serious Conserquences

[Dangerkitty]

OK, I've been reading this long enough. DangerKitty you sound like the democrats trying to shoot down Chief Justice Roberts in the senate confirmation hearings. If you don't care about AA or SWA, go away. It is obvious you have some emotion over this issue. While you are busy throwing stones here you should remember that AA has always been the king of dirty pool! They don't have an ethical bone in their managerial body. Don't even try to justify the Legend thing. What goes around comes around and it's time to lower fares in North Texas. At least you have Eddie Berniece Johnson or whatever her name is in your corner!

It's time to lower Fares in North Texas? Have you seen what AA is charging to fly out of DFW. Cheaper than Greyhound.

 

[enigma]

My turn to call BS!

AA never flew 56 eat MD80s out of DAL - they were 56 seat F100s, that can only seat 86 in normal configuration. Just like Legend's DC9s that could seat 100+.

AA's MD80s can't even seat 172, we only have 136 seats.

Fairness and equity? Dude, are you in the airline industry?

It really doesn't matter whether AA brought Fokkers or Douglas's into Love, what matters is that AA came in, ran another airline out, then left.

As for the MD80's into Love, that came from an article I read in Aviation Week back at the time. Apparently, AA initially used Maddogs, then switched to the little Fokkers.

As for fairness and equity, OF COURSE AA isn't interested in fairness and equity, so why does all of the pro WA crowd try and force SWA to be interested in something that they themselves disregard?

enigma

 

[Dangerkitty]

It really doesn't matter whether AA brought Fokkers or Douglas's into Love, what matters is that AA came in, ran another airline out, then left.

As for the MD80's into Love, that came from an article I read in Aviation Week back at the time. Apparently, AA initially used Maddogs, then switched to the little Fokkers.

As for fairness and equity, OF COURSE AA isn't interested in fairness and equity, so why does all of the pro WA crowd try and force SWA to be interested in something that they themselves disregard?

enigma

AA did fly 140 seat S-80's in an out of DAL for some time. I know they did the AUS-DAL route for awhile.

However, they respectfully flew under the rules of the Wright Amendment.

 

[enigma]

I have no problem with SWA trying to make money and protecting their flying in their backyard. However, if SWA wants to fly beyond the boundries of the WA then why can't they do it out of DFW? Just like every other airline is required to do?

What would you say to SWA moving to, say, Grand Prairie? Arlington? Maybe Denton? How about Waxahachie? If SWA was willing to build their own terminal at Seattle, what makes you think that they can't do the same thing at a non-DFW metroplex airport? How would your distaste for SWA reveal itself in that scenario? BTW, every other airline is not required to fly out of DFW. To my knowledge there is nothing stopping AA or anyone else from serving the other metroplex airports.

 

[aa73]

It really doesn't matter whether AA brought Fokkers or Douglas's into Love, what matters is that AA came in, ran another airline out, then left.

kinda like what SWA was doing in PHL, PIT, etc...

As for fairness and equity, OF COURSE AA isn't interested in fairness and equity, so why does all of the pro WA crowd try and force SWA to be interested in something that they themselves disregard?

enigma

NO airline in this country, or the world for that matter, is interested in fairness and equity. That is the nature of corporate America. It is all about pleasing the shareholders and making money... yes, even SWA!

 

[Dangerkitty]

What would you say to SWA moving to, say, Grand Prairie? Arlington? Maybe Denton? How about Waxahachie? If SWA was willing to build their own terminal at Seattle, what makes you think that they can't do the same thing at a non-DFW metroplex airport? How would your distaste for SWA reveal itself in that scenario? BTW, every other airline is not required to fly out of DFW. To my knowledge there is nothing stopping AA or anyone else from serving the other metroplex airports.

I have no distaste for SWA. I am not going to re-type my arguments why SWA should either come to DFW or stay at DAL and fly under the restrictions of the WA. My opinion is here on this thread for you to read. No sense in going round and round with this.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Dangerkitty,

You suffer from a lack of vision. Many of those open gates will get filled soon. I don't know when, but sooner than most of us think. The airspace will get busier and busier. The delays will worsen. The last thing we need to do is limit North Texas to one airport.

BTW, why did DFW build so many gates if they knew they would be hard to fill? Now they need to fill them so you can pay for them. Why do we have to pay for DFW's poor planning and waste?

I don't reward government waste if I can help it. I'm reminded of that knights of the round table commercial where they want to build a huge catapult and place a giant bag of gold on it. "Do you propose we throw money at the problem?"

 

[enigma]

kinda like what SWA was doing in PHL, PIT, etc...

You failed your debate course in college didn't you? If you'll please revisit my post, you'll see that I said that AA ran out a competitor then left. Vamoosed, ran, vacated the market, left the customers high and dry. He##, even WalMart has the decency to stay in an area after they kill off all of the mom and pop shops. (Just to be sure, I just checked southwest.com and found that they still fly out of both Philly and Pittsburg.) There is no comparison between SWA in Pennsylvania and AA at Love. Please show me one market that SWA has entered just to bury a competitor to their (SWA's) fortress hub.

Observation shows me that SWA enters markets in which their management believes money can be made, they don't appear to enter markets solely for the purpost of squashing competitors.

NO airline in this country, or the world for that matter, is interested in fairness and equity. That is the nature of corporate America. It is all about pleasing the shareholders and making money... yes, even SWA!

Absolutely, but the main argument most of you pro WA apologist seem to be making is based upon morality, ie fairness. There has not been a cogent argument made for business sense, the best most can come up with is the old "a deal is a deal" bit. BTW, I wish flopgut would substantiate his allegations about Herb making a deal with Ladybird Johnson, because I would be willing to rethink this if that were true, but for now I stick to this position. A deal is not a deal if you didn't make it. The written history of the WA does not show that SWA agreed to the deal. Until then, let's do the best for the metroplex, not just the best for the DFW airport board and by extension, AA.

enigma

 

[Dangerkitty]

Dangerkitty,

You suffer from a lack of vision. Many of those open gates will get filled soon. I don't know when, but sooner than most of us think. The airspace will get busier and busier. The delays will worsen. The last thing we need to do is limit North Texas to one airport.

BTW, why did DFW build so many gates if they knew they would be hard to fill? Now they need to fill them so you can pay for them. Why do we have to pay for DFW's poor planning and waste?

I don't reward government waste if I can help it. I'm reminded of that knights of the round table commercial where they want to build a huge catapult and place a giant bag of gold on it. "Do you propose we throw money at the problem?"

If I suffer from a lack of vision then maybe I can be the CEO of a Legacy Airline!! I will make millions!!

 

[aa73]

You failed your debate course in college didn't you? If you'll please revisit my post, you'll see that I said that AA ran out a competitor then left. Vamoosed, ran, vacated the market, left the customers high and dry. He##, even WalMart has the decency to stay in an area after they kill off all of the mom and pop shops. (Just to be sure, I just checked southwest.com and found that they still fly out of both Philly and Pittsburg.) There is no comparison between SWA in Pennsylvania and AA at Love. Please show me one market that SWA has entered just to bury a competitor to their (SWA's) fortress hub.



Observation shows me that SWA enters markets in which their management believes money can be made, they don't appear to enter markets solely for the purpost of squashing competitors.

R-i-ight, they never before considered PHL or PIT until, gee, some big airline there seemed to be on there last breath. Then suddenly they decide there's "money to be made"? Gimme a break, if USAir had died at PIT/PHL, SWA would've bailed at the first chance.

Absolutely, but the main argument most of you pro WA apologist seem to be making is based upon morality, ie fairness. There has not been a cogent argument made for business sense, the best most can come up with is the old "a deal is a deal" bit. BTW, I wish flopgut would substantiate his allegations about Herb making a deal with Ladybird Johnson, because I would be willing to rethink this if that were true, but for now I stick to this position. A deal is not a deal if you didn't make it. The written history of the WA does not show that SWA agreed to the deal. Until then, let's do the best for the metroplex, not just the best for the DFW airport board and by extension, AA.

enigma

I'm not the one that subscribes to the "moral, ethical issue" - this is corporate America and any airline will do what's in their best interest.

SWA has enjoyed a windfall out of DAL because of the WA while everyone else had to move, and now they're once again up to their dirty old tricks trying to change the law so they can have their way. You can't expect this not to go to a big fight. AMR is just trying to keep the playing field level and open to all competition. What's SWA so scared about - after all, competing with AMR shouldn't be that big of a deal, right?

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

If I suffer from a lack of vision then maybe I can be the CEO of a Legacy Airline!! I will make millions!!

Finally something we can agree on. Well said.

 

[chase]

kinda like what SWA was doing in PHL, PIT, etc...





NO airline in this country, or the world for that matter, is interested in fairness and equity. That is the nature of corporate America. It is all about pleasing the shareholders and making money... yes, even SWA!

AA,

Your top statement is a bit misleading....AA came to Love to compete against Legend & then left shortly after they went out of business...that is a business decision, I agree, no harm, no foul....however, SWA has gone into PHL, PIT but we haven't left....in fact it would be interesting to compare the number of cities/employees that AA vs SWA have left/furloughed over the years....would that say something about the corporate culture/ethics/value system the company has? Just as folks have some core human instincts, businesses do also but beyond that there are some indivduals/businesses that standout for their unique character, ability to handle adversity & treat people/employees-customers wouldn't you agree? While no one or any one business is perfect, it can't be concluded that since AA & SWA are businesses, they view how they go about dealing with competition/customers the same way...that generality doesn't quite fit I believe & if one is to conclude that we will do in PHL/PIT what AA did at Love against Legend & SWA will leave....that isn't completely accurate in my opinion. If AA had decided to stay around Love to compete I'd say, "attaboy, bring it on" but they haven't but no one took them to the woodshed for leaving like they are trying to take SWA to the same woodshed for simply allowing "the company" to decide where they wish to make money? My apologies for the long rant...I wish you well at AA & hope you prosper....my apolgoies if I misread your post...


BTW, if it can be classified as "dirty 'ole tricks" to try to get a law changed, the WA...what is it if one tries to get a new law passed? Just wondering....I wasn't good in civics so help me out here please...

 

[aa73]

Well said Chase.

 

[chase]

AA73,

Thanks...here is my solution & it has been partially bantered about before...

1. Lift immediately the ban that prohibits through ticketing....I know you understand what that means AA but to the casual reader let me illustrate what type of conversation could get SWA fined or have a reservation/customer service agent do something that is illegal.

Res Agent:"Hello this is SWA reservations."

Customer: "I'd like to fly from Dallas Love to LAX."

RA: "Sorry sir, we don't show that routing in our system."

Cust.: "Don't you fly out of Love and LAX."

RA: "Yes."

Cust.: "But you can't sell me a ticket to fly between those cities, is that correct?"

RA: Yes.

Cust: I see on your website where the same restriction applies but it looks like I can book a ticket between DAL-ABQ & then ABQ-LAX....is that correct?

RA: I can book you on those two flights if you'd like.

Cust: Will I have to get off the airplane & change planes?

RA: Yes you will & you will be purchasing two tickets, not one sir but I can't sell you a ticket all the way through...that would be illegal.

Cust: Is this more expensive than if I was to ticket it all the way through?

RA: I don't know sir (the answer is normally yes) but I'll be happy to book you on that route if you'd like.
(my apologies for the long illustration but it proves the point at how stupid not just the entire WA but how even smaller portions were put into make it more expensive/painful for the consumer....no regards at all for the consumer were considered when the WA was put in....I think you would agree AA73)
_____________________________

How many passengers aren't smart enough to realize on the web that when they see no connections between DAL-LAX they give up & go somewhere else to look for connections?

Currently SWA probably gets more money from these type of passengers booking two seperate flights going & coming than if we could thru-ticket folks yet we're willing to take that chance & ask for thru-ticketing so our RA & customer service folks could sell the tickets....BTW, we can't even advertise a DAL-LAX price or flight to even show folks if it is cheaper to fly even in this convulted way out to LAX vs. flying on a competitor......

Sooooo, lift that ban immediately, period dot, overnight & see what that does to DFW & AA. BTW, that restriction applies to not just SWA but to any carrier who is flying out Love, even AA.

2. Since AA has stated they will come to Love if the WA goes away, assess if AA decides to come with this lifting of the thru-ticketing....you'll begin to gauge how serious they are about competing if they decide to come over immediately....they have 3 gates right now but don't use any of them. AA's choice to come to Love would be completely voluntary; not passing any laws to make it mandatory but if they think it is such a big deal to allow this to happen we'll see by either their presence or their lack of movement to Love.

3. Have the airlines who wish to compete out of Love all pick 4-5 airports a piece to compete on....they could choose the same cities or different cities....pick whatever market they wish & all put their bids in (no one would know in advance) & start flying from Love. You would be locked in for a year.....build up your base or whatever....if you got lucky & no one was competing with you, oh well....good on ya...if there was competition on your route, oh well, unlucky....Each year the carriers could add 4-5 more airports to their route structure......see which cities would lobby for the extra flights would be very interesting...a free market system not completely but better than what is out there now.....again based upon what the airline thought was most profitable...do this for 3-5 years adding new cities & allowing DFW to absorb the market forces & allowing competition to still occur. AA will determine very quickly the profitability or not of coming to Love.....if not, they can go back to DFW & do their best to compete....I'm confident they can....BTW, if an airline chose to cutback service from a city that was added when they moved into Love, then they would have one less city to add to the next year as a "punishment" for closing a city...kind of like losing a draft choice in sports when one doesn't something deemed harmful.....this would insure cities aren't just added or dropped at a whime & without some penalty. ....once the initial list of carriers were chosen no new carriers could be be added for a year until the following year. Then more could be added.

4. After a 3 year period Love would be up to 15 cities per airline & we'd let the normal economic whims take hold....let the best company win....oh, BTW, SWA would be restricted from cutting back service to any of their cities as has been predicted by a couple of "studies"....quite frankly I would expect to see the smaller TX cities sending more traffic to Love instead of to DFW & not seeing the traffic be reduced, exactly the othe way in my view but that restriction would appease those who believe that SWA will dump shorthall completely & go longhaul only out of Love....I think SWA has shown in the past they have pretty good loyalty to their customers at smaller cities.

Cap total flights out of Love at 250-300....SWA would keep its current flight schedule but not be allowed to add anymore cities than what they current have....the number of flights to these "new cities" could be unlimited...1 flight, 2 or more....it is all up to the airline completely, whatever they deem profitable.

Lots of holes in the idea so please go ahead & blow it out of the water.....the WA is going to go away in my view regardless....instead of wasting time & making lawyers rich, why not compromise early & get the low fares to folks earlier......GK & those guys have my full support & SWA has nothing to do with this idea....I provide it more to the opposition to eliminating the WA & say this type of compromise might be a starting point for something that could allow market forces to be minimized vs. having to deal overnight with the abandonmment of the WA...that truly would disrupt operations significantly everywhere but at SWA....trust me, I'm sure SWA has their "Overnight" plan in place....and SWA's will be far more successful in my view than what other carriers could "plan for" .......just one FO's view from the right seat.....

 

[Flopgut]

I've got to call BS on this one. Legend was well financed and well managed. The market did NOT determine their fate, the court battles they were force to fight used up all of their cash and AA's obviously predatory competition was too much. If AA were still flying fifty six seat MD80's out of Love, I might be on your side, but they aren't. To my logic, the very fact that AA flew aircraft capable of seating 172 pax out of Love, and then stopped as soon as Legend went out proves to me that AA isn't interested in fairness and equity.

enigma

I think your doing a good job of backing my point: they would have done better out of DFW. You can't just mimic the most incendiary SWA type fundamental in the metroplex and NOT think AA is going to act. Legend's plan needed to account for the extra expense of an all-out AA retaliation and obviously they did not. Did they think that just by showing up at Love they would automatically be "Loved"? So much so that the metroplex would patronize and protect them? Hardly.

They should have gone to DFW. Thats where the premium customers arrive from international flights and the potential affiliations exist. Or, instead of crushing them, AA might have bought them.

 

[enigma]

I think your doing a good job of backing my point: they would have done better out of DFW. You can't just mimic the most incendiary SWA type fundamental in the metroplex and NOT think AA is going to act. Legend's plan needed to account for the extra expense of an all-out AA retaliation and obviously they did not. Did they think that just by showing up at Love they would automatically be "Loved"? So much so that the metroplex would patronize and protect them? Hardly.

They should have gone to DFW. Thats where the premium customers arrive from international flights and the potential affiliations exist. Or, instead of crushing them, AA might have bought them.

Flopgut, this topic has exceeded my attention span. I'm going to have to ask you to restate your point. In return, I'm going to put my thinking cap so that I may return with a precise position as well.

engima, a man with a one track mind (unfortunately, it has a lot of hidden sidings.)

 

[Flopgut]

AA,

Your top statement is a bit misleading....AA came to Love to compete against Legend & then left shortly after they went out of business...that is a business decision, I agree, no harm, no foul....however, SWA has gone into PHL, PIT but we haven't left....in fact it would be interesting to compare the number of cities/employees that AA vs SWA have left/furloughed over the years....would that say something about the corporate culture/ethics/value system the company has? Just as folks have some core human instincts, businesses do also but beyond that there are some indivduals/businesses that standout for their unique character, ability to handle adversity & treat people/employees-customers wouldn't you agree? While no one or any one business is perfect, it can't be concluded that since AA & SWA are businesses, they view how they go about dealing with competition/customers the same way...that generality doesn't quite fit I believe & if one is to conclude that we will do in PHL/PIT what AA did at Love against Legend & SWA will leave....that isn't completely accurate in my opinion. If AA had decided to stay around Love to compete I'd say, "attaboy, bring it on" but they haven't but no one took them to the woodshed for leaving like they are trying to take SWA to the same woodshed for simply allowing "the company" to decide where they wish to make money? My apologies for the long rant...I wish you well at AA & hope you prosper....my apolgoies if I misread your post...

Chase,

It is obvious you are bright. But your posts often ignore the larger truths. What do you mean "attaboy, bring it on"? Bring it on? Its on! It is on at DFW! BTW, the last time it was "on" with your airline at Love it was with Braniff and your patriarch had them thrown off the airport with a trumped up court order! Braniff stayed at Love to match you on every leg. Man I would have liked that fight! How do you think that would have played out?


I can solve this entire issue. Lets get SWA to buy Love field. Along with the sale we can end the WA. SWA can fly anywhere they want to and throw every other airplane out. The city can take take the monies from the sale and finance the remainder of municipal airport operations. The money can also go to lowering costs at DFW and offer incentives for new airline tenants. This would provide an equitable resolution (restitution) to the airport problems of years past and let the city focus energy on DFW and not worry about getting "shaken down" by SWA in the future. SWA can shoulder the costs of Love: utilities, parking, ATC, airway facilities, security, taxes, etc. Shouldn't be too bad...SWA doesn't regard these as very large issues...as long as someone else is paying for it. Would that change if they were to pay for it themselves?

I'm thinking 20-30 billion.

 

[mdf]

Chase,



I can solve this entire issue. Lets get SWA to buy Love field. Along with the sale we can end the WA. SWA can fly anywhere they want to and throw every other airplane out. The city can take take the monies from the sale and finance the remainder of municipal airport operations. The money can also go to lowering costs at DFW and offer incentives for new airline tenants. This would provide an equitable resolution (restitution) to the airport problems of years past and let the city focus energy on DFW and not worry about getting "shaken down" by SWA in the future. SWA can shoulder the costs of Love: utilities, parking, ATC, airway facilities, security, taxes, etc. Shouldn't be too bad...SWA doesn't regard these as very large issues...as long as someone else is paying for it. Would that change if they were to pay for it themselves?

I'm thinking 20-30 billion.

I like the idea, but the price is way out of whack. The price cannot include value created by SWA operations.

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut, this topic has exceeded my attention span. I'm going to have to ask you to restate your point. In return, I'm going to put my thinking cap so that I may return with a precise position as well.

engima, a man with a one track mind (unfortunately, it has a lot of hidden sidings.)

Current point: Legend should have chosen DFW as their Dallas airport.

Past point: Yes, I need to be able to substantiate the Lady Bird/Herb connection. I'm working on this. I have been told this is how it went down by both Braniff and Central (the old Central from GSW) airlines pilots. I put it out there just to see what the SWA systemites would respond with. You are the only one who has called me on it; makes me wonder. When/if I find it, it is going on here pronto.

 

[Flopgut]

I like the idea, but the price is way out of whack. The price cannot include value created by SWA operations.

The environment is changing, but a simple repeal of the WA is going backward, not forward. Offering SWA the chance to buy the airport goes forward. For that matter, let them buy Midway too, or they could have been sold Mueller in Austin. (it is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the transportation system when a municipality has to destoy infrastucture to keep from being extorted by one airline[AUS]) If they really feel that their brand alone is what has gotten them this far then they shouldn't hesitate to want to add infrastructure/capital investment. ABX has their own airport. It opens the discussion to whether or not SWA is serious or just wants a continued free ride at Love.

Whats a good price? What is the real estate worth? I think real estate has gone up. There may be other bidders...someone else may buy it and throw SWA out...how strangely appropriate that would be.