Virgin Awarded Love Field Gates

[vixin]

That is common for SWA.

 

[redflyer65]

In fact SWA doesn't even have their flight schedules available for booking beyond Oct 31st. Is this common? Most airlines can go out 10-11 months in advance.

Usually SW can be booked for the same time period, but they've been slow to list farther out than Oct.31st this year because of two big events just beyond that.

Flying non-stop to/from Love throughout the system, and
Adding more international destinations in the Fall.

Bookings beyond Oct should be out shortly.

 

[Tomct]

We look forward to your Southern Hospitality at Luv.

And Scoreboard, we already turned a yearly profit for 2013, good to see you pay attention. It's only going to get better on the cash flow front, especially with IPO coming this year.

Now onto getting ALPA on the property and getting other things going in the right direction.

 

[HDA]

Like I said, it won't be a big deal for SW.

Buck,

You might want to do a little more homework. SW is already lower than VA prices out of DFW. For SW to lower it even more will create an even more stark contrast. Throw in some extra FF miles on those legs and you get the picture.

Up 37% in 6 years? You mean like the price of oil?

Stage lengths are not comparable.....there is nothing that SWA flies out of DAL that compares to VAs flights to the west coast. Of course SWA looks better. You should do your homework a little better and not just quote from a consultants report. And what was SWA doing when oil was selling at record highs in 2008? Selling 19$ tickets out of Denver to try and kill off Frontier. You should really be more careful throwing things around inside your glass house.

 

[scoreboardII]

Stage lengths are not comparable.....there is nothing that SWA flies out of DAL that compares to VAs flights to the west coast. Of course SWA looks better. QUOTE]YGBFSM.

SWA DAL-LAX 11 May, there are 21 departures, 1/3rd of which are sold out. The schedule is similar to every other West Coast destination.
Fares start at $228.

VA DFW-LAX, same day only 6 flights. Fare starts at $422.

 

[Tomct]

Stage lengths are not comparable.....there is nothing that SWA flies out of DAL that compares to VAs flights to the west coast. Of course SWA looks better. QUOTE]YGBFSM.

SWA DAL-LAX 11 May, there are 21 departures, 1/3rd of which are sold out. The schedule is similar to every other West Coast destination.
Fares start at $228.

VA DFW-LAX, same day only 6 flights. Fare starts at $422.

Yep, and our flights will sell out as well. So WHO is the stupid one? Both airlines are going to make money, Virgin is going to give the people of down town Dallas what they want....CHOICES for First Class and Fantastic service or the Southwest side of the coin. Either way, Virgin will do very well there as will SWA. It's a win/win.

 

[Flopgut]

VX guys: You've got nothing yet. GK is no doubt working some angle on the DOJ story and reminding AC (city manager) of what SWA expects. It is not good that the answer didn't come yesterday. Good link with interesting posts at the end:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...d-gates-were-all-waiting-for-a-decision.html/

 

[HDA]

Stage lengths are not comparable.....there is nothing that SWA flies out of DAL that compares to VAs flights to the west coast. Of course SWA looks better. QUOTE]YGBFSM.

SWA DAL-LAX 11 May, there are 21 departures, 1/3rd of which are sold out. The schedule is similar to every other West Coast destination.
Fares start at $228.

VA DFW-LAX, same day only 6 flights. Fare starts at $422.

Not the same.....a nonstop flight is much more desirable than stopping in ABQ for an hour or so unless you want to get some green chile chicken stew on your way to LA. I would imagine that there are some flights that take 2 stops to get you there! So there really is not a comparison until Southwest can post their fares for a non stop flight to LAX/SFO. I bet they are gonna be about the same as Virgin America. Look at the seats for sale on Virgin America DAL-LAX in November.

 

[N1atEcon]

I enjoy reading the VX "we're kicking butt and wait for our ipo" posts. In your entire existance you have made what SWA made in two weeks last year. I hope you get the gates but I think it is a blunder on your part.
I also think GK is going to make VA pay dearly for those city pairs.

 

[BuckMurdock1]

Like I said, it won't be a big deal for SW.

Buck,

You might want to do a little more homework. SW is already lower than VA prices out of DFW. For SW to lower it even more will create an even more stark contrast. Throw in some extra FF miles on those legs and you get the picture.

Up 37% in 6 years? You mean like the price of oil?

Here's what i was loosely citing (reality is actually stronger toward the 'gouging/monopoly' argument);

The impact of Southwest?s DAL monopoly is already in effect: An August 2013 study conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers found that of airports in its size class, DAL had the largest increase in average fares from 2007-2012 ? a 37% jump.[1]

--article from Terry Maxon; dallas news business section.

Nothing new, I suppose..you get a veritable monopoly in a market and you start really soaking your consumers (because you can/they have no alternative). Utility companies do it all the time. NWA did it in the MSP market for decades.

 

[Flopgut]

I enjoy reading the VX "we're kicking butt and wait for our ipo" posts. In your entire existance you have made what SWA made in two weeks last year. I hope you get the gates but I think it is a blunder on your part.
I also think GK is going to make VA pay dearly for those city pairs.

I think it's better to compare SWA's first years to VX (or any airline's first few for that matter) for an accurate measure.

 

[redflyer65]

Flop,

I think the only loss was the first 18 months then 41 years of consecutive profits.

 

[slaquer5]

Not the same.....a nonstop flight is much more desirable than stopping in ABQ for an hour or so unless you want to get some green chile chicken stew on your way to LA. I would imagine that there are some flights that take 2 stops to get you there! So there really is not a comparison until Southwest can post their fares for a non stop flight to LAX/SFO. I bet they are gonna be about the same as Virgin America. Look at the seats for sale on Virgin America DAL-LAX in November.

How have other airlines priced there fares when competition comes in ?

CAL. Vs. kiwi. EWR

USAir. Vs. Midways Airlines out of.PHL


DAL. Vs. AirTran




The list can go on ...

I am guessing by your post they just match the fares

 

[Tomct]

I enjoy reading the VX "we're kicking butt and wait for our ipo" posts. In your entire existance you have made what SWA made in two weeks last year. I hope you get the gates but I think it is a blunder on your part.
I also think GK is going to make VA pay dearly for those city pairs.

GK isn't going to be able to do anything! The DOJ has already said that if the city tries to give the gates to anyone BUT VX, they along with VX and AA will sue the city of Dallas. Not sure they want to get into that kind of mess.

As far as GK making us pay, he will have to be careful because your costs are escalating faster than you guys can compensate for....be careful what you wish for. Like I have said before, this is going to be a win/win for both. Don't be foolish like UA our of EWR, they paid dearly for trying to hurt us and in the end, it cost them a TON of money and we STILL kicked their trash and are making money hand over fist out of EWR.

Good Luck and stay safe out there.

 

[scoreboardII]

until Southwest can post their fares for a non stop flight to LAX/SFO. I bet they are gonna be about the same as Virgin America. .

So, your not worried until say oh, August then when they can fly nonstop

Interesting, why didn't VX desire any LUV gates before the WA was removed? So if it is so desirable and customer appreciating that VX provides their superior service, where was that service before? And yes, they could have leased those gates from AA long ago.

I don't dispute the right of VX to compete out of LUV, just the blatant audacity they won the gates before DAL city says they get them.

That, and the outright flaunt of US law when Sir R states VA is HIS airline.

 

[HDA]

So, your not worried until say oh, August then when they can fly nonstop

Interesting, why didn't VX desire any LUV gates before the WA was removed? So if it is so desirable and customer appreciating that VX provides their superior service, where was that service before? And yes, they could have leased those gates from AA long ago.

I don't dispute the right of VX to compete out of LUV, just the blatant audacity they won the gates before DAL city says they get them.

That, and the outright flaunt of US law when Sir R states VA is HIS airline.

Im not worried. Also, its October that an airline can fly out of DAL without the WA constraints. SWA has their fares advertised for all other routes through October 2014? Why not those new nonstops? They KNOW they will be doing them.
VX didnt desire any LUV gates until the WA was removed for one obvious reason...the same reason SWA would like to not have VX operating there in the fall. VA will never fly to Lubbock, Corpus, Amarillo, Midland, Little Rock, and many of the other cities to which SWA flies. Their business model doesnt work that way.

I would imagine that Sir RB does think of Virgin America as HIS airline....he has alot of money invested and the plane has his brand painted on the side. The Virgin brand is HIS......Virgin America is only 25% his. The argument that Richard Branson and the Virgin Group own more that what is allowed by US law is over.

Both SWA and VA can and will do well out of Dallas Love Field. I just find it funny that SWA is trying to stop what they have been doing themselves for years.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop,

I think the only loss was the first 18 months then 41 years of consecutive profits.

Sure, and credit to you [SWA] that's a great thing. But you got a big leg up with the exact issue we're dealing with right now. Imagine the city requires SWA move to DFW and gives the entire Love Field terminal to VX. That would be a check mate for VX, just as it was for SWA. Take a moment and let this register in your mind: there is so much lopsided favor for SWA at this airport that the City of Dallas can't even deliver a timely answer on 2 [two] gates because it doesn't favor SWA!! Frankly I still think it could go the other way, and Dallas either makes them common use or to SWA.

 

[redflyer65]

A big leg up? You still trying to spin the Wright Amendment as help for SW? After SW fought tooth and nail just to get off the ground?

How would that have worked at Intercontinental if you guys had to stop at Texas cities before leaving the state? Would that have 'helped you'?

Southwest worked around it and became successful DESPITE this restriction. I guess something you just can't understand.

 

[bri5150]

I don't think it was despite. I think it molded SWA into the airline it is today...shorthaul with quick turns because that is what they were forced to do to be successful. It made them different than any other airline out there, which is just one of the reasons they were successful

 

[Flopgut]

A big leg up? You still trying to spin the Wright Amendment as help for SW? After SW fought tooth and nail just to get off the ground?

How would that have worked at Intercontinental if you guys had to stop at Texas cities before leaving the state? Would that have 'helped you'?

Southwest worked around it and became successful DESPITE this restriction. I guess something you just can't understand.

I know you'll never give that up, but I'm sure its starting to sink in

Hey, why did the WA stop at TX back then? Because when SWA launched that's as far as they wanted to go! Actually, it's as far as you were certificated to go. Texas only back then for SWA.

So VX was formulated to do long flights and serve both coasts. And since they had the discipline and expertise to see that certification thru, they ought to keep it. But what if Love Field was handed to them and you all were forced to DFW? It was handed to SWA, right? I say we give it to VX, let them do the flying out of there they were formulated to do (no more,no less) we'll all sit back and see what they can do, ok? You never know what a scrappy upstart with a charismatic patriarch that likes to party could turn a Love Field franchise into right?

 

[humveedriver]

I don't think it was despite. I think it molded SWA into the airline it is today...shorthaul with quick turns because that is what they were forced to do to be successful. It made them different than any other airline out there, which is just one of the reasons they were successful

All the same. That's ancient history.

With or without the extra two gates SWA has a near monopoly on Love field. This means the short haul that the airline started with is going to be sacrificed for more cost effective longer stage length flights. The situation for SWA is fantastic. The new terminal is great, Love field is more convenient to the Dallas side. I predict the cities that SWA promised with the extra two gates will come eventually anyway.

 

[redflyer65]

I know you'll never give that up, but I'm sure its starting to sink in

Hey, why did the WA stop at TX back then? Because when SWA launched that's as far as they wanted to go!

Flop,

You just make this stuff up as you go?

Here are the facts..

Southwest didn't sign up to go to DFW because it happened before they were even around. Once started, they had to file lawsuits to keep Love open because it was looking like the FAA was going to push for closure.

Then after deregulation in 1978, Southwest was looking to fly Interstate in 1979. That pissed off DFW, Ft Worth and the other airlines at DFW. They lobbied Jim Wright to get this intrastate restriction passed.

It didn't pass the Congress by itself. It was voted down. Mr Wright decided to add it to the Air Transportation Act of 1979. It was the only way he could get it enacted. Basically a restriction of Southwest, but not of American. Why not restrict American Flop?

So your still saying Mr Wright's amendment was for the betterment of SW? Your delusional if you think that's true.


As far as VX goes, I don't have any issue with their business model. The long haul transcon has worked well for them. They seem to be trying to figure out where they fit in the big scheme of things. I think they still do some short haul themselves.

Humvee,

I think your correct. The people at the GO have been looking at this for at least 6 years. They will maximize every gate, everyday. Even at 30 minute turns we'll be flying to any city we want to. And yes, it's a great terminal. Desperately needed by the way.

 

[scoreboardII]

Why not just build two more gates, really?

 

[waveflyer]

I know you'll never give that up, but I'm sure its starting to sink in

Hey, why did the WA stop at TX back then? Because when SWA launched that's as far as they wanted to go! Actually, it's as far as you were certificated to go. Texas only back then for SWA.

So VX was formulated to do long flights and serve both coasts. And since they had the discipline and expertise to see that certification thru, they ought to keep it. But what if Love Field was handed to them and you all were forced to DFW? It was handed to SWA, right? I say we give it to VX, let them do the flying out of there they were formulated to do (no more,no less) we'll all sit back and see what they can do, ok? You never know what a scrappy upstart with a charismatic patriarch that likes to party could turn a Love Field franchise into right?

First, get it right

This revisionist crazy version of history needs to stop.
So a review is in order

"Since 1938, the federal Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) had regulated all domestic interstate air transport routes as a public utility, setting fares, routes, and schedules. Airlines that flew only intrastate routes, however, were not regulated by the CAB. Those airlines were regulated by the governments of the states in which they operated. The CAB promoted air travel, for instance by generally attempting to hold fares down in the short-haul market, to be subsidized by higher fares in the long-haul market. The CAB also was obliged to ensure that the airlines had a reasonable rate of return.

The CAB earned a reputation for bureaucratic complacency; airlines were subject to lengthy delays when applying for new routes or fare changes, which were not often approved. For example, World Airways applied to begin a low-fare New York City to Los Angeles route in 1967; the CAB studied the request for over six years only to dismiss it because the record was "stale." Continental Airlines began service between Denver and San Diego after eight years only because a United States Court of Appeals ordered the CAB to approve the application.[1]

This rigid system encountered tremendous pressure in the 1970s. The 1973 oil crisis and stagflation radically changed the economic environment, and technological advances such as the jumbo jet did the same thing. Most of the major airlines, whose profits were virtually guaranteed, favored the rigid system, but passengers forced to pay escalating fares were against it and were joined by communities that subsidized air service at ever-higher rates. Congress became concerned that air transport in the long run might follow the nation's railroads into trouble. In 1970 the Penn Central Railroad had collapsed in what was then the largest bankruptcy in history, resulting in a huge taxpayer bailout (with the creation of Conrail) in 1976.[2]

Leading economists had argued for several decades that this sort of regulation led to inefficiency and higher costs. The Carter administration argued that the industry and its customers would benefit from new entrants, the end of price regulation, and reduced control over routes and hub cities[3]

In 1970 and 1971, the Council of Economic Advisers in the Richard Nixon administration, along with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and other agencies, proposed legislation to diminish price collusion and entry barriers in rail and truck transportation. While this initiative was in process in the Gerald Ford administration, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, which had jurisdiction over antitrust law, began hearings on airline deregulation in 1975. Senator Ted Kennedy took the lead in these hearings.

The committee was deemed a more friendly forum than what likely would have been the more appropriate venue, the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. The Gerald Ford administration supported the Judiciary Committee initiative.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed Alfred E. Kahn, a professor of economics at Cornell University, to be chair of the CAB. A concerted push for the legislation had developed, drawing on leading economists, leading think tanks in Washington, a civil society coalition advocating the reform (patterned on a coalition earlier developed for the truck-and-rail-reform efforts), the head of the regulatory agency, Senate leadership, the Carter administration, and even some in the airline industry. This coalition swiftly gained legislative results in 1978.[citation needed]

Dan McKinnon would be the last chairman of the CAB and would oversee its final closure on January 1, 1985"

 

[waveflyer]

Southwest Airlines traces their roots to the March 15, 1967 incorporation of Air Southwest Co. by Rollin King and Herb Kelleher to provide service within the state of Texas.[2][3]

Kelleher believed that by providing intrastate service within Texas, the airline could avoid federal regulation.[8] Three airlines (Braniff, Trans-Texas, and Continental Airlines) started legal action which was not resolved for three years. Air Southwest prevailed in 1970 when the Texas Supreme Court upheld Air Southwest’s right to fly within Texas.[9] The Texas decision became final on December 7, 1970 when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, without comment.[10]
Southwest Airlines founder Herb Kelleher studied California-based Pacific Southwest Airlines and used many of PSA’s ideas to form the corporate culture at Southwest. Early flights used the same "Long Legs And Short Nights" theme for stewardesses on board typical Southwest Airlines flights. A committee including the same person who had selected hostesses for Hugh Hefner's Playboy jet selected the first flight attendants, females described as long-legged dancers, majorettes, and cheerleaders with "unique personalities." Southwest Airlines and Herb Kelleher dressed them in hot pants and go-go boots.[12]

When airline deregulation came in 1978, Southwest began to plan interstate flights from Love Field, causing interest groups affiliated with Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, including the city of Fort Worth, Texas, to push the Wright Amendment through Congress to restrict such flights.[17] Under the amendment, Southwest and other airlines were barred from operating or even ticketing passengers on flights from Love Field to destinations beyond the states that border Texas. The Wright Amendment’s restrictions did not apply to aircraft with 56 or fewer seats. Southwest did not use the 56 seat loophole.[18]

 

[waveflyer]

Why not just build two more gates, really?

Wright Amendment


The Wright Amendment of 1979 is a federal law governing traffic at Dallas Love Field, an airport in Dallas, Texas, USA, with some provisions also applying to other airfields in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex including Fort Worth Meacham International Airport, and Addison Airport. It originally limited most non-stop flights to destinations within Texas and neighboring states. Additional states were added to the permissible area in 1997 and 2005. In 2006, the amendment was repealed but left some restrictions intact until October 13, 2014 but with an added restriction on the number of gates



Repeal compromise[edit]
On June 15, 2006, it was announced that American, Southwest, DFW Airport and the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth had all agreed to seek full repeal of the Wright Amendment, with several conditions. Among them: The ban on nonstop flights outside the Wright zone would stay in place until 2014; through-ticketing to domestic and foreign airports (allowing connecting flights to long-haul destinations without requiring the previous workaround of buying separate tickets) would be allowed immediately; Love Field's maximum gate capacity would be lowered from 32 to 20 gates; and Love would handle only domestic flights non-stop.

The proposed compromise was opposed by JetBlue Airways and other low-fare carriers, who argued that the gate reductions at Love would harm their ability to begin service there, and by area congressmen who opposed provisions of the deal that they believed would restrict competition in passenger service at other airports within an 80-mile (130 km) radius of DFW and Love, including Collin County Regional Airport in the nearby city of McKinney. The compromise was also opposed by Love Field Terminal Partners who own the old Legend Airlines terminal. They claimed that the announcement of the compromise prevented them from selling the six gate terminal to Pinnacle Airlines who had shown interest in purchasing or leasing the gates and have several lawsuits to prevent the compromise's implementation.

On July 25, 2006, a leaked memorandum from an employee of the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division raised concerns about airline competition in North Texas and urged legislators to force a renegotiation of the deal. It also stated that the removal of gates and a cap of 20 gates for the airport would violate federal anti-trust legislation. This capping of gates would affect the other airlines that might be attracted to getting gates at Dallas Love Field airport.[2]

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison responded to the memorandum by stating "They [Justice] are not taking a position at all on the legislation... That memo did not go through the channels. And it probably was one person's view, but it's not the Justice Department's."

Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner also had some complaints about the anti-trust issues that he thought would arise from the proposed legislation since Southwest will be able to operate from 16 gates, American 2 gates, and Continental 2 gates without further gates available for other carriers.

After extensive negotiations with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the compromise bill passed both Houses of Congress on Friday, September 29, 2006, just before the 109th Congress adjourned for the November elections. Hutchison led the effort to pass the bill in the Senate while Rep. Kay Granger led a bipartisan Texas House coalition to see the bill through to a successful conclusion in the House. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 13, 2006, including the 20-gate cap.[3] Southwest and American airlines then required approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to begin one-stop flights from Love Field to destinations outside the Wright limits.[4]

Even though non-stop flights are restricted until October 16, 2014,[5] Southwest Airlines announced on October 17, 2006 that it would begin direct flight (same plane with one stop) and connecting service between Love Field and 25 destinations outside the Wright zone on October 19, 2006.[6] American Airlines also made indirect connecting travel between Love Field and locations outside the Wright zone available by October 18, 2006.[7]

 

[SWA Bubba]

I don't think it was despite. I think it molded SWA into the airline it is today...shorthaul with quick turns because that is what they were forced to do to be successful. It made them different than any other airline out there, which is just one of the reasons they were successful

Sorry, more revisionist history. Or at least some of Flopgut's anti-SWA talking points. It most certainly was "despite."

We started with short haul because we were strictly an intra-Texas airline, and did quick turns because or financial needs required it. We had fought for three years, and finally got to start flying in 1971. When the Deregulation Act passed, we were already making steady profits for years, and wanted to expand out of Texas. This led to the second round of anti-Southwest litigation starting in 1978, which was also consistently dismissed, and finally resulted in the WA in 1979--basically Speaker Wright changed the law to hobble us, since the existing law allowed us to do the flying we wanted.

We expanded pretty quickly after that, despite the anti-SWA restrictions imposed on us in DAL alone. Lots of interstate flying for other airports, with legs getting longer and longer.

So, no, the WA did NOT "help" or "mold" us into a successful airline. Since it only hobbled us at one airport in the entire country, I don't see where you get off even saying that. It was strictly a political ploy to keep American Airlines and other DFW airlines from having to compete with us out of the city of Dallas. Nothing more. If Jim Wright had been a Representative from Houston instead of from Ft Worth, the Wright Amendment probably would have restricted us at Houston Hobby instead. Ditto if he had represented any other city in the country that we wanted to fly out of.

Passing a law strictly to prevent a company from doing what the want to do within their business model, in one location only, is not exactly a "helping hand," you know?

This has been explained over and over again. Are you sure you're not related to Flopgut?

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Hey, why did the WA stop at TX back then? Because when SWA launched that's as far as they wanted to go! Actually, it's as far as you were certificated to go. Texas only back then for SWA.

Completely false. Seriously, Flop, you really don't know anything about the Wright Amendment, do you? Not the first thing.

The WA didn't even exist when Texas was "as far as [we] wanted to go." It was when we tried to fly out of Texas that the second round of frivolous legal attacks began. And when they all failed (again), that's when Speaker Wright snuck the WA into an unrelated bill. It was specifically designed to prevent us from going where we wanted, after we announced interstate service.

For God's sake, Flop, do a little research for once before you drunk-post!

Bubba

 

[canyonblue]

Interesting, why didn't VX desire any LUV gates before the WA was removed?

Because they are getting their butts kicked at DFW by American, and they don't have the network to launch a one stop out of DAL. If they get the gates great, we haven't had anybody we wanted to destroy in years. And they thought American was tough to compete against, I hope Kelly buries them.

 

[scoreboardII]

Wave, I know the agreement, but my point is, if the agreement was meant to be a solution at the time, times are different. Have VX build two more gates in a new agreement. Apparently the DOJ loves to stick their nose in this, so let them stick it in further.