SWA...the sedition

[Palomino]

i read the same article today in our local FTW paper.

it went to the bottom of the recycle pile with the drained remnants of soda and beer cans.

Chicago, New York, Houston, Los Angeles all do fine with 2 or more major airports. should we shut down LaGuardia and Kennedy to strengthen Newark?

typical Texas politics clogging up the road to prosperity.

 

[lowecur]

lowecur, you added this article after my first response. Let me say that I'm a Tarrant county advocate. I actualy wish that Fort Worth would encourage scheculed service at FTW. But that doesn't effect my disdain for DFW management, and for the WA.

The mgt at D/FW seems to be the biggest bug up your arz. Like I guess they should have a hot poker stuck up theirs to teach them a lesson in humility. Well maybe they should, but not at the expense of the north and west part of the Metroplex.

Let me ask you a question, cuz I don't know. Who would get stuck paying the shortfalls if the budget goes red at DFW? I know you don't care about the bond holders cuz that doesn't come out of your pocket. Incidently, are you a property owner in Tarrant County?

My guess is the Wrong Amendment will be repealed gradually over the next 10 years. SWA will be allowed to maybe fly an extra city or two per year, and this will make everyone somewhat happy. It will also mean that AMR and other airlines will fight for a piece of an expansion at DAL, and you will see a slow fall from grace for DFW over that 10 year period. It is my guess that Jetblue will want into DAL, and you will see a petition from airlines that presently use DFW to gain gates at DAL due to the impending lopsided fees that will be passed along to remaining tenants at DFW.

Was DFW vision of their future too grandious?....Yes!!!! Have they built an airport to supply the total needs for the area?...Yes!!!! You talk about other cities with two airports, but I have my doubts if any of them offer the same demographics, connecting traffic, and O&D traffic that is particular to DFW. Each metro area is unique. A good example would be to go to Atlanta and open up a second airport. Do you think maybe Hartsfield would take a major hit even though it's the worlds busiest airport? When you have two or more airports in the area, you have to have master plans that are clear and understandable so that mgt can plan for the future..... you never had that in the metroplex area..........hence the present situation.

 

[ivauir]

Why shouldn't SWA, or any othe airline for that matter, attempt to utilize the lowest price runway/terminal supplier?

Lowcur, cloud the issue all you want but here it is in black and white. All of our suppliers must control their costs or we will pursue other vendors.

 

[chase]

Lowecur,

Airlines are somewhat at the mercy of local governments agencies in terms of where they bed down. Rarely do airlines have options in terms of refusing to go along with costly and usually overbudgeted expansion plans. Consumers on the other hand do have the options to make choices, i.e. fly or not fly from there. Dallas is a clear example. The growth of convention business is much lower in Dallas than in any other location in the country. Why is that? Many factors but certainly one of those is the costs associated with additional taxes (AA center downtown, other expansion) and the lack of convenient & affordable airfares into the immediate area.

These consumers are going other places & rightfully so. SWA is merely exercising its "rights" to move also. If their product is going to be increased at no fault of their own, they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders & customers to find a way to keep the costs down. If our fuel provider started to charge us excessively over a period of time for un-needed expansion of fuel trucks, costly infrastructure expansion that doesn't immediately benefit Southwest, no one would blame SWA for chosing another "fuel provider". SEA-TAC was told many years ago that excessive fees could result in such a consequence....they were willing to run the risk of SWA not leaving....SWA has called their bluff (as they did in ELP many years ago).

It is ironic that when major sports franchise negotiate with cities for huge tax-payer domes, stadiums, the supporters go out that this is good for cities (more taxes) but in many cases there is a vote on it....the citizens can decide on whether they wish to have higher taxes along with a sports franchise. Critics will say these sports teams are out for themselves & are only interested in gouging the public. However, on the opposite side when teams leave for other cities who promise ammenities above what is offered locally (Cowboys moving from Irving to Arlington is the perfect example) folks cheer that as the freemarket system.

Here you have a business entity (Southwest) that is trying to save consumers money, is interested in helping pay for a fair share of the infrastructure (terminals, etc) & is now questioned by government officials and other entities as being selfish and narrow-minded. The freemarket system is working here also. SEA-TAC officials have assumed SWA wouldn't look for cheaper options....wrong. Southwest is doing the same thing for the consumers in N. Texas over the Wright Amendment....editorials & forum posters can put whatever twist they wish on it but consumers will benefit from it in the long run IMHO.

We'll agree to differ Lowecur but a company that is truly interested in not letting outside economic forces (poorly run airport authorities) keep it from staying true to its business model is one that takes a lot of courage...the easy way would've been to just jack the prices up & keep quiet.....everyone would be happy except for the consumers....its nice to work for a company that has more loyalty to its customers & shareholders than to a poorly run government entity and is willing to stay true to one's model. Cheers,

 

[ironspud]

The Wrong Amendment plays on at DFW, as the clerisy at SWA looks to manumit the flying public at SEA with a move to Boeing Field.

It's absolutely amazing to me that some pliant politicians feel it's in the best interests of their claque to allow the possibility of jeopardizing the fiscal stability of Sea-tac in order to establish their cabal.

Here are two articles that give an overall perspective of the possible guise of SWA and what the overall monetary ramifications to each metroplex might be. Note the sign off by SWA on the expansion of SEA not long ago, and now they want to leave the metroplex and other airlines with this excess monetary baggage to satisfy their cormorant behavior. Do they surely believe that other airlines won't follow their lead to Boeing Field, thus leaving the bond holders and taxpayers of the Metroplex holding the bag at Sea-Tac.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002339786_wested19.html

Sun, Jun. 19,

Pondering a mess of pottage at Love Field

By Paul Harral
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. Esau said to Jacob, "Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!" …

Jacob said, "First sell me your birthright." Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?" Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob.

Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

-- Genesis 25:29-34, Revised Standard Version

I've always been a little confused by the above story -- not the meaning but the content. It's pretty clear from the phrase "red stuff" that we're talking about chili. But that part about lentils -- well, everyone knows that only a barbarian would eat chili with beans in it.

Maybe that is the point: Esau was a barbarian who lacked a penchant for what social scientists called "deferred gratification" and, for the sake of immediate satisfaction of a relatively minor need, gave away his future.

Why does this make me think of the Wright Amendment and the shortsighted effort by Southwest Airlines and some members of the Dallas establishment to undo it?

Because some of us are apparently willing to trade short-term satisfaction for a sure birthright.

Modern political and marketing strategy teaches us that the quick sound bite beats the reasoned argument. This doesn't necessarily make for good decision-making, good public policy or good politicians, but it works.

You buy soap, deodorant, underwear, beer, candidates, whatever because someone smart and slick packaged the product in a way that appeals to your gut instincts and lizard-brain desires.

But the arguments to counter the quick-hit emotional appeal often involve complicated discussions that can't be captured in 30 seconds or on a billboard.

Everyone who cares to know knows that lifting the restrictions on flights from Dallas Love Field would result in lower air fares for the region. Two different studies by competing interests say so -- and so does simple common sense.

But that's half the question. The other half is: "At what price?"

Potential loss of good-paying Tarrant County jobs? Reduced choice of easily accessible destinations from Dallas/Fort Worth Airport? Financial problems for Tarrant County's largest employer, American Airlines? Difficulty in paying off the bonds issued that financed a new international terminal and an airport people-moving system?.

The Star-Telegram Editorial Board met earlier this month with members of the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce, which is proposing that the Wright Amendment be repealed, opening Love Field to long-haul flights.

Never mind that when the federal government forced the shotgun marriage of Dallas and Fort Worth that built D/FW, its intent was to have a single major airport serve the region.

Never mind that the Dallas master plan for Love Field limiting it to 32 gates is just paper and could be changed at will by Dallas -- or through legal action if another carrier besides Southwest decides it wants more gates at Love.

Never mind that in fact -- although I've heard the "economic engine" phrase so many times that it makes me want to hurl -- it was D/FW that opened the western side of the Metroplex and the northern tier of counties above Dallas and Tarrant counties to development.

You hear this argument played out as cheap seats vs. expensive seats. And that is where the proponents would like to fight it -- because that's easy.

But that is only part of the issue.

You also hear that this isn't a Fort Worth-vs.-Dallas issue. But it is. The stakes are different on the west side of the Metroplex, and Dallasites sometimes seem surprised at the reaction that this issue stirs in Fort Worth.

It's simple history.

Fort Worth lived in the shadow of Dallas until the development of D/FW. The expansion on the west side of the Metroplex might have happened without the airport, but certainly not with the speed with which it has occurred.

The initial mistake was made in the original bond covenants, which restricted commercial traffic that was governed by the old Civil Aeronautics Board to D/FW. Southwest was not required to sign. It was flying only in Texas and operating under the Texas Aeronautics Commission.

Here's how it looks from a Fort Worth perspective: Love Field stayed open, and Greater Southwest International Airport was shut down.

The Wright Amendment worked around that. Sort of.

The initial mistake was compounded by D/FW management and the airport board in 1999 when they amended the 1968 bond covenant that established D/FW. The change removed the provision that obligated Dallas and Fort Worth to impose additional city taxes if the airport were unable to pay for its own operation and maintenance expenses.

That provision had never been used, nor was it likely to be. But it did keep the cities on the hook financially -- and financial responsibility tends to focus your attention.

The Star-Telegram said editorially at the time:

"[T]his change is not crucial to the ability to issue new bonds and therefore is an unnecessary change of public policy. It is not wise for the owner cities to have too little responsibility toward the airport."

Earlier this month, North Dallas Chamber member Stephen Joiner said that Dallas owns one airport 100 percent and D/FW 70 percent -- actually it is seven-11ths, or 63.6 percent -- and needs to manage its assets well.

And Fort Worth owns … what? Four-11ths of D/FW -- and no other airport that has scheduled commercial passenger traffic.

Without financial responsibility, I'm not sure that the cities really own anything except the right to name people to the airport board.

Joiner is apparently a nice man, and I'm sure he didn't mean his words the way that Fort Worth ears heard them: We own the airports, and we'll do what's best for Dallas -- and never mind the region.

Unknown or perhaps disregarded is the impact that a weakened D/FW might have on corporate locations and relocations. I don't think downtown Dallas is the option that it once was. So maybe they go somewhere else.

And the operations at Love would certainly ramp up. Right now, the majority of American Airlines' frequent fliers live closer to Love than to D/FW.

That won't be the case in the future. But in the short term, the very aggressive and competitive managers at American will do what they have to do to serve those customers.

They've already said they will move flights from D/FW to Love, and they also are ready to sue, if necessary, for gate access.

Maybe there would be no general regional impact, although most everyone agrees that there would be a short-term and severe one at D/FW.

But -- if you live in the western half of the Metroplex -- do you want to gamble on that?

I don't -- especially in this economic climate.

Ooooh! Aren't you special!

 

[lowecur]

We'll agree to differ Lowecur but a company that is truly interested in not letting outside economic forces (poorly run airport authorities) keep it from staying true to its business model is one that takes a lot of courage...the easy way would've been to just jack the prices up & keep quiet.....everyone would be happy except for the consumers....its nice to work for a company that has more loyalty to its customers & shareholders than to a poorly run government entity and is willing to stay true to one's model. Cheers,

Chase I believe SWA is probably getting a reputation in the Bond Community as a spoiler for future development at some Airports. You can rest assured that most underwriters of future airport projects will be looking at the Southwest factor.

What is most puzzling to me is SWA ability to adapt and thrive at such high cost airports as PHL, DET, SEA, MSY, STL, MCI, TPA, MCO, MDW, PDX, BWI, PHX, LAS, and probably PIT in the future. They go there because that's the only option if they want to serve that community. Do they make money at these airports?...sure they do! It's a matter of charging the public based on your operating costs into that airport. What's disturbing to me is their callous approach to turn a major viable airport unside down for their own nominal gains ie SEA and DFW. It also allows them to weaken the competitions balance sheet by increasing the cost to operate from these airports exponentially as they start the ball rolling on defections. The main losers will be the hub carriers like AMR and ALK who have huge investments.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the increase in fees at STL that will be passed along with the opening of the new runway. Are they looking for a secondary airport in the area, and is one available? You can bet your boots that if there is one available they wouldn't think twice about castrating STL in the phony guise of saving their passengers $5. to $10. per operation.

 

[Delphi]

Any thoughts about how the gates will be split up at DAL if the Wright Amendment is over tuned.

 

[enigma]

Chase I believe SWA is probably getting a reputation in the Bond Community as a spoiler for future development at some Airports. You can rest assured that most underwriters of future airport projects will be looking at the Southwest factor.

Are you suggesting that SWA is going to be a hinderance to future airport expansion?

What is most puzzling to me is SWA ability to adapt and thrive at such high cost airports as PHL, DET, SEA, MSY, STL, MCI, TPA, MCO, MDW, PDX, BWI, PHX, LAS, and probably PIT in the future. They go there because that's the only option if they want to serve that community. Do they make money at these airports?...sure they do! It's a matter of charging the public based on your operating costs into that airport. What's disturbing to me is their callous approach to turn a major viable airport unside down for their own nominal gains ie SEA and DFW. It also allows them to weaken the competitions balance sheet by increasing the cost to operate from these airports exponentially as they start the ball rolling on defections. The main losers will be the hub carriers like AMR and ALK who have huge investments.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the increase in fees at STL that will be passed along with the opening of the new runway. Are they looking for a secondary airport in the area, and is one available? You can bet your boots that if there is one available they wouldn't think twice about castrating STL in the phony guise of saving their passengers $5. to $10. per operation.

lowecur, it seems to me that your argument is this: governments shouldn't compete with each other in the runway/terminal business.

I'm beginning to think that you might have a lot more money in airport bonds than you do Embraer stock.

enigma

 

[scoreboard]

Low, you've lost it boy...

Chase I believe SWA is probably getting a reputation in the Bond Community as a spoiler for future development at some Airports. You can rest assured that most underwriters of future airport projects will be looking at the Southwest factor. SO WHAT?

What is most puzzling to me is SWA ability to adapt and thrive at such high cost airports as PHL, DET, SEA, MSY, STL, MCI, TPA, MCO, MDW, PDX, BWI, PHX, LAS, and probably PIT in the future. This puzzles you? They go there because that's the only option if they want to serve that community. Ah, you answered your own question... Do they make money at these airports?...sure they do! It's a matter of charging the public based on your operating costs into that airport. What's disturbing to me is their callous approach to turn a major viable airport unside down for their own nominal gains ie SEA and DFW. So, if i decided to buy at Sears because they had a better price instead of Walmart, would i be turning Wally world upside down? It also allows them to weaken the competitions balance sheet by increasing the cost to operate from these airports exponentially as they start the ball rolling on defections. The main losers will be the hub carriers like AMR and ALK who have huge investments. And that is somehow our responsibility, to make sure the hub carriers remain profitable? Makes absolutaly no sense.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the increase in fees at STL that will be passed along with the opening of the new runway. Are they looking for a secondary airport in the area, and is one available? You can bet your boots that if there is one available they wouldn't think twice about castrating STL in the phony guise of saving their passengers $5. to $10. per operation. We do not castrate anybody, they do that all by themselves...

.....

 

[lowecur]

.....

Plagerist. See if you can be original there, Opie!