Virgin Awarded Love Field Gates

[Flopgut]

Untrue, the legacies signed the agreement to leave LUV, you can't make it look like they lost something. They could easily have stayed, but they fell for the shiny new airport syndrome and signed a contract saying they would never go back.

If it were that simple you'd have a lot more than 20 gates there and be able to do international flights. You'll live with those limits because the legacy (and the City of Ft Worth's) cases against you have merit.

 

[Flopgut]

Wait, wait wait.... your saying United sucks because any good CEO who could do the job is afraid to go against SWA?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

True to say for any of us in this industry: You have to love airplanes. You have to want to be around them. It's not the same as it once was. There's likely potential CEO types out there who might like to get started in this business, but will decide it's not worth the BS (We see that with pilots. Young people are going into other careers). They're not scared of SWA; Far from it. What they don't want to deal with is the sort of govt that will take gates from them for competitive market reasons, and then give (potentially) them to one airline that will control 90% of one airport.

How would you like to be at Virgin right now? They haven't F'd anything up, been following the rules and doing their own thing pretty well. DOJ says the gates are theirs and they think they're catching a break-but wait! The City of Dallas wants to step in?!

If it was eventually a good thing for Dallas to give Love Field to Southwest 40 years ago, then it ought to be a good deal to give Virgin 2 gates today. The consultants aren't measuring the potential in the longer term, and the mayor/city council are hoping to pull this stunt and no one notices.

 

[Flopgut]

Wow. You won't see BS this deep too often. SWA has quite an opinion of themselves.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...merica-rebuttal-of-city-of-dallas-study.html/

 

[scoreboardII]

True to say for any of us in this industry: You have to love airplanes. You have to want to be around them. It's not the same as it once was. There's likely potential CEO types out there who might like to get started in this business, but will decide it's not worth the BS (We see that with pilots. Young people are going into other careers). They're not scared of SWA; Far from it. What they don't want to deal with is the sort of govt that will take gates from them for competitive market reasons, and then give (potentially) them to one airline that will control 90% of one airport.

How would you like to be at Virgin right now? They haven't F'd anything up, been following the rules and doing their own thing pretty well. DOJ says the gates are theirs and they think they're catching a break-but wait! The City of Dallas wants to step in?!

If it was eventually a good thing for Dallas to give Love Field to Southwest 40 years ago, then it ought to be a good deal to give Virgin 2 gates today. The consultants aren't measuring the potential in the longer term, and the mayor/city council are hoping to pull this stunt and no one notices.

First, the DOJ has no say who can get the gates, just who cannot. The city owns the gates, so they have final say, period.

Second, VA has screwed it up by the numbers since they started, continuing to need capital injections to remain viable. Announcing they won without city approval, really? That's one big corporate misstep by someone inside their operation, otherwise known as a screw up.


Third, VA, or any carrier for that matter, can march right over to DFW and play ball with as many gates as they can buy. SWA was fenced in from the beginning, at LUV and is not about to move a portion of the operation to DFW. You want that "conspiracy" to end, fine, get the whole law repealed. Then it's fair.

Full of themselves? They sound like they have the winning and compelling argument to get those two gates:

Here goes the Southwest response:
1. Love Field (DAL) is not a separate market isolated from the rest of Dallas, and Southwest has no ?monopoly? on Dallas gates or air service. DAL and DFW make up a single Dallas air service market that is dominated by American, not Southwest. Even with 2 additional Love Field gates, Southwest would have only 10% of all gates in the Dallas market. American would have 67%.
2. The DOJ?s lawsuit which ultimately forced American to divest its Love Field gates was intended to increase competition against American at DFW. It was not concerned about competition at Love Field. Southwest will provide more competition to American if it secures two additional gates at Love Field. Virgin is primarily seeking to move its service from DFW to DAL rather than add new competition in the Dallas market.
3. Virgin America?s current Dallas fares are higher than Southwest?s fares once Virgin?s fees for checked baggage ($25 on both first and second bags) and ticket changes ($150) are included. Southwest does not charge passengers those fees. Southwest?s estimated fares from DAL to LAX and SFO would be 7% to 9% below Virgin America?s current fares.
4. Virgin America has increased its fares at DFW much more than Southwest has at DAL. Last year Virgin increased its DFW fares over 18% while Southwest increased its DAL fares only 3.6%. Since starting service to DFW in 2011 Virgin America has increased its fares 37% while Southwest increased its fares at DAL less than 4% over the same period.
5. Virgin America?s claims about Southwest not fully utilizing its DAL gates are untrue. Southwest is currently limited to the equivalent of 13 gates at Love Field due to construction at the airport and and Wright Amendment limitations. Once the Wright Amendment is repealed and construction completed, Southwest will operate an average of 10 flights per gate per day on 16 gates (160 flights), and will add 20 more daily flights if it is able to operate on the two American gates.
6. Southwest?s use of 2 additional gates at Love Field will create six times more jobs in Dallas than would Virgin America?s proposal. The airline that brings in the most passengers will create the most jobs, and Southwest will bring in almost six times more passengers to Dallas than Virgin America. The job creation comes from new visitors spending money in the local economy, and most of the new jobs will be created outside the airline industry. The LEK study did not factor in in non-airline jobs and thus significantly under-estimated Southwest?s impact on creating new jobs.
7. The fact that the DOJ directed American to lease its gates to Virgin America in no way obligates the City of Dallas to approve such a transaction. The City was not a party to the DOJ?s lawsuit against American, and its responsibility is to manage its airport in a way that is best for the City, its residents, and businesses.
8. Therefore the key question is what is best for the City of Dallas? Southwest?s proposal for the two gates would produce head-and-shoulders the greatest benefits for the City, in terms of the number passengers carried, new travel options for consumers, jobs created, and new competition provided in Dallas. Virgin America is trying to elevate its private corporate goals (to move from one Dallas airport to another) over the welfare of the City.
9. Southwest?s proposal for the two gates is the only option that would allow all three interested airlines the ability to grow in Dallas. Assigning the gates to any other carrier will block Southwest from expanding in Dallas and result in less air service to the City than would be provided under Southwest?s proposal. Southwest is the only airline whose growth in Dallas is restricted to Love Field.
10. The Five Party Agreement which granted Southwest the rights to 16 gates at Love Field did not in any way bar Southwest from expanding service at DAL if additional gates became available. Two additional gates are now available, and the City should assign them consistent with the goals of the Five Party Agreement as well as to further the City?s economic interests. Assigning the gates to Southwest Airlines is the only clear way to achieve those objectives.

 

[Flopgut]

Announcing they won without city approval, really? That's one big corporate misstep by someone inside their operation, otherwise known as a screw up.

I'll tell you a WAY bigger misstep than that from the SWA rebuttal:

"1. Love Field (DAL) is not a separate market isolated from the rest of Dallas, and Southwest has no ?monopoly? on Dallas gates or air service. DAL and DFW make up a single Dallas air service market that is dominated by American, not Southwest. Even with 2 additional Love Field gates, Southwest would have only 10% of all gates in the Dallas market. American would have 67%."

That is hugely false. DFW was suppose to be the single market. LUV [Dallas Love] was not ever meant to be in that equation. Not ever! That's just pure SWA arrogance right there and will tear open the old WA wound with lots of politicians, Feds, and the city of Ft Worth. Really big screw up and paints the rest of the rebuttal as pure arrogance and entitlement.

Say anything about Virgin you want, I'm not their biggest fan really. But you need to understand the context here. When SWA was in the same place they are now (trying to shoehorn into LUV) it was an utterly pathetic 2 airplane operation that barely left the ground each day. There is no modern comparison, or probably no historical comparison at all. All these airlines you see these days brought a better more deserving effort to the equation than SWA did. Understanding that is to understand the whole history of the WA and how much more it was about taking care of and protecting SWA than it was about anything else. You have always made money but you weren't ready to swim in the deep end for decades.

 

[redflyer65]

Jim Wright was really just trying to help and take care of Southwest? Wow. Who knew Flop. Thanks for setting the record straight!

Unbelievable.

 

[scoreboardII]

Barely left the ground each day, with ten minute turns, flying 15 or so legs per jet per day. Barely. How the heck did they ever survive?

 

[Hose A. Jiminez]

The Southwest argument, right or wrong, is pragmatic. Flopgut's argument is emotional.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

First, the DOJ has no say who can get the gates, just who cannot. The city owns the gates, so they have final say, period.

That's a stupid comment. The DOJ told AA that VX was the only eligible bidder, so does that not rule out WN and DL?

I guess the minor fact that AA holds the lease with right to sublet with only the duty to "consult" with the city can be swept aside with a pizza party?

There is going to be lawsuits galore no matter what happens when the city council offers it's direction to the city manager. Gotta love Texas politics!

 

[scoreboardII]

That's a stupid comment. The DOJ told AA that VX was the only eligible bidder, so does that not rule out WN and DL?

I guess the minor fact that AA holds the lease with right to sublet with only the duty to "consult" with the city can be swept aside with a pizza party?

There is going to be lawsuits galore no matter what happens when the city council offers it's direction to the city manager. Gotta love Texas politics!

No, the DOJ told VA they could have it because that is who AA wanted the gates to go to if AA couldn't have them for themselves.

And yes, the city owns the property, last time I checked, that meant something in Texas, and the US of A. The DOJ can suck it.