1099 replies to this topic

[tcole]

OK guys:

The arguments for repeal are appealing to me b/c they appeal to my sense of free market economics (and I own a rather nice chunk of stock in LUV). In another vein, the arguments against have some merit - from the basis of airspace restrictions - something no one has really addressed (and something some of you may not truly understand). So far, this question is really only academic. Lets address the possibilities that the amendment actually could be repealed as opposed to whether it should be. Given Texas' current congressional makeup and where certain congressmen/women and senators sit on committee and subcommittee assignments, it does not look to me that the amendment has much of a chance of repeal any time soon (2-4 years). Another possibility is for the amendment to be "struck" by a court, but seeing that that has occurred in the past only to be overturned on appeal, it does not seem that such a procedure is very likely in the future.

So, getting back to rename's original musings regarding WN's strategies in light of Delta's abandonment, it seems to me that reversing Kelleher's long standing policy of remaining neutral on matters concerning the amendment is really only a trial balloon on the case of WN and possibly even a feint to cover some other tactical moves the airline may be planning.

[LoneStarMike]

The big secret that Dallas does not want known is that they would rather Southwest operate from DFW or at least maintain the status quo.  Your Mayor Miller said as much weeks ago. 

Well it looks like she may be having second thoughts for many of the same reasons that have been pointed out by participants in this thread.

Miller weighs Love Field stance
Mayor looks for 'win-win' after meeting with Southwest exec
Thursday, December 16, 2004
By EMILY RAMSHAW / The Dallas Morning News

Dallas Mayor Laura Miller may be softening her stance on efforts to eliminate flight restrictions at Dallas Love Field.

After meeting Thursday with Southwest Airlines Co. chairman Herb Kelleher, the mayor said she could envision some day lifting the Wright amendment if it wouldn't hurt Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

"I may stay opposed, I may not stay opposed," she said. "There's got to be a win-win."

Ms. Miller said she's concerned that airfares in the Dallas area are too high and that other cities are getting more tourist and convention business as a result.

So far, Ms. Miller has argued that the best way to keep airfares low is to bring a new low-cost carrier to D/FW to replace routes that Delta Air Lines Inc. plans to abandon next month.

As Dallas' mayor, Ms. Miller is a board member at D/FW, the nation's third-busiest airport.

But on Thursday, she seemed to be considering alternatives.

Southwest has "given me a lot of information to sort out," Ms. Miller said.

Mr. Kelleher and other airline officials compared a Dallas without the Wright amendment to Houston. It has a thriving international airport, Bush Intercontinental, and a strong inner city facility, Houston Hobby Airport.
Southwest officials also assured Ms. Miller that lifting the Wright amendment won't lead to a huge influx of flights from the discounter, creating a significant threat to D/FW.

The meeting was held in the Jim Wright conference room at Southwest's Love Field headquarters. Mr. Wright, a former speaker of the U.S. House from Fort Worth, spearheaded the Love Field legislation in 1979.

"The meeting was very productive," said Ron Ricks, senior vice president for law, airports and public affairs at Southwest.

"It was a refreshing change to have a discussion about facts, rather than the heated emotional rhetoric and historical baggage that usually comes with this issue," he said.

"We were not lobbying her in the political sense," Mr. Ricks said. "We asked her for no commitments, and she offered no commitments. She said she was open-minded about the issue."

Over the next two months, Ms. Miller said, she will research the issue and then discuss her findings with the City Council.
Positions

The Wright amendment limits flights from Love Field to cities in Texas and nearby states.

On Nov. 12, Southwest changed its long-held neutral position on the restrictions, saying D/FW no longer needs protection from competition.

Officials for D/FW and American Airlines Inc. said they continue to support the Wright amendment, as did city officials from Dallas and Fort Worth.

A week after Southwest's announcement, Ms. Miller and Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief sent letters to the Texas congressional delegation – on D/FW letterhead – expressing deep concerns about changing the amendment.
"A deal is a deal, and it is our belief that Southwest should continue to operate within the limits of the deal to which it agreed," the letter said.

Questions

On Thursday, Ms. Miller said Southwest's announcement caught her off guard.
She said she was already worried about Delta's decision to close its hub at D/FW, and she said the airport is strapped with debt from construction of a new terminal.

"I was alarmed by their announcement," she said. "I was happy at the urging of the D/FW Airport to sign a joint letter saying, don't lift the Wright amendment right now."

After sending the letter, Ms. Miller called Southwest and asked to set up a meeting.
She said she wanted to know details: whether lifting the amendment would bring more employees to Dallas, and what the economic impact would be on the city.
Ms. Miller was also concerned that it would bring a flood of new flights over the city.

The mayor said she told Mr. Moncrief she'd be meeting with both Southwest and American officials.

Mr. Moncrief couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

But Jim Lane, a Fort Worth City Council member, said he doesn't see how lifting the Wright amendment could be a "win-win." It wouldn't benefit either D/FW Airport or people living near Love Field, he said.

"The only thing Fort Worth is interested in is protecting D/FW," he said.

D/FW's chief operating officer, Kevin Cox, said: "The mayor has stated her support of the Wright amendment, and it will remain our top legislative priority."

Link to story

LoneStarMike

[Buck]

This board is beginning to read suspiciously like a Southwest propaganda campaign.

According to WHOIS, the website www.fightwright.org is registered to vacant agricultural land in Saginaw owned by a Dallas company.

LoneStarMike has posted useful links, but they have been misinterpreted.

When the DFW bond covenants were written, Federal Express had barely gotten off the ground.

The term "certificated air carrier" was intended to mean a passenger airline.

Nobody had anticipated a cargo airline such as FedEx.

Alliance is not in legal conflict with DFW.

[LoneStarMike]

When the DFW bond covenants were written, Federal Express had barely gotten off the ground.

The term "certificated air carrier" was intended to mean a passenger airline.

Nobody had anticipated a cargo airline such as FedEx.

Alliance is not in legal conflict with DFW.

I'm not sure why you would think that no on had ever anticipated a cargo airline like FedEx.

Flying Tiger Lines was all cargo carrier that was formed in 1946

Source

Seaboard World Airlines was formed in 1946. Although it transported some passengers, those were charter flights, not regularly scheduled passenger flights.
It was mostly a cargo carrier. From their history:

Regular scheduled freight flights between New York and Frankfurt, West Germany began on 10 April 1956 after the airline was awarded a scheduled operating certificate for the North Atlantic.

Source

Both of these airlines were Certificated Air Carriers and were in existance long before the 1968 Bond Ordinance.

LoneStarMike

[Buck]

The history of D/FW Airport is well-documented.

Nowhere is tll the controversy do I remember a discussion about whether Flying Tiger or Seaboard World Airlines should move to D/FW.

If cargo airports like Alliance were an issue, Dallas would have raised it long ago.

The discussion of cargo airports is irrelevant to the current issue.

[renamerusk]

If cargo airports like Alliance were an issue, Dallas would have raised it long ago.

The discussion of cargo airports is irrelevant to the current issue.

Yes, I sense that your opinion is salient.

Alliance is the envy of Dallas. Fort Worth because of an abundance of land to its north and west was able to create the Alliance/TMS area and develope a wholly new economic region for itself. This was impossible for Dallas because it is virtually landlocked by surrounding cities. Dallas once was and may still be planning to develop its own cargo airport in its southern sector modeled after Alliance; its is a scandal that Dallas has dragged its feet in getting somethind done for a depressed sector of its city. As I recall doing the time that Dallas proposed developing its own air cargo airport, Fort Worth was understanding; DFW Airport was "neutral" or at most very mildy concerned; and most importantly the City of Dallas was certain that its proposed cargo airport would be in the spirit of keeping its convenant to do no harm to DFW Airport.

"Keep Fort Worth Folksy!"

[LoneStarMike]

The history of D/FW Airport is well-documented.

Nowhere is tll the controversy do I remember a discussion about whether Flying Tiger or Seaboard World Airlines should move to D/FW.

If cargo airports like Alliance were an issue, Dallas would have raised it long ago.

The discussion of cargo airports is irrelevant to the current issue.

From the Book From Prairie to Planes:

Page 121

Whereas generally the new airport was considered in terms of passenger-carrying capabilities, the air cargo potential was astonishing in itself. With 200 cargo gates ultimately planned, Enginerring News Record magazine noted that if air cargo aircraft developed to match 747 capacity, the DFW Airport could handle more freight than any seaport in the world. A capacity of 90,000 tons would become 160,000 tons in 1975 and 410,000 tons in 1985.

Obviously the revenue realized from these cargo operations would play a role in paying for DFW. Later in the book on Page 202 it notes that after DFW opened:

Two new signatory airlines-- Air Canada and Flying Tiger Line-- joined the DFW family in 978, signing agreements to back and retire the revenue bonds that financed the airport and guarantee adequate revenues to operate and maintain the facility

And if you read the Dallas Business Journal that I posted upthread (biased as it may be) it reports that some of the people who helped write the original bond covenants confirm that competition referred to both passeger and cargo carriers.

I have no idea why the Dallas didn't question this, but that is beside the point. None of this is Southwest's fault, and that's why I think Southwest should be the ones to file a lawsuit. Rather than Dallas and Fort Worth arguing back and forth, this issue should be decided in the courts.

If cargo operations at Alliance are found to be in violation of the bond covenant because it competes with and takes away revenue from DFW, Fort Worth is gonna look kind of silly protesting the Wright Amendment's repeal by saying it would take away revenue from DFW and Dallas adding more long haul flights would be in violation of the bond covenant.

I personally don't care if Fort Worth has cargo service at Alliance. I'm sure it has been a boost to the local economy and brought more jobs and businesses to Fort Worth. It's a facility to be proud of and I hope Fort Worth can use it to its maximm benefit.

At the same time, though, long haul flights out of Love Field would help boost Dallas' economy and the carrier doing the flying would be bringing low fares and more visitors to the entire region. And American would have to find a way to compete.

I realize that American Airlines is Fort Worth's largest employer, but come on! Fort Worth is SO much more than American Airlines. The Water Gardens, Sundance Square, a newly renovated convention center, more hotels planned, Six Flags and the Ballpark at Arlington nearby, the CR Smith Museum, The Amon Carter Museum, and on and on and on.

Fort Worth is a great, inexpensive place for people to visit once they're here. All the conveniences of the big city, with the smalltown charm -- not as rushed and impersonal as Dallas. I'm sure most Fort Worthians would welcome more visitors with open arms.

The problem is long-haul fares into our region don't say "Welcome." They say "Go Away. We're too expensve. Don't visit unless you're rich."

Why can't the two cities work together on this -- to bring lower fares and morevisitors to both our cities. I just wish Fort Worth would stop looking at what's best for American Airlines and start looking at what's best for Fort Worth.

LoneStarMike

[tcole]

Mike:

I am going to have to give you some caution as to your source for airline history - it tends to be slightly inacurate to downright wrong on a number of lines.

As to FedEx and Alliance: as I understand it, FDX does not terminate cargo at AFW but only connects whereas all FDX shipments terminating into DFW go into DFW airport. And that remains true for all other cargo carriers. As to FDX and Alliance with regard to the 68 bond covenants, it is pretty much in the same boat as WN in that it did not exist until 5 years after those covenants were adopted and thus are not bound by them. And, when those covenants were drafted, NO ONE envisoned something like FDX (the orriginal idea came from a term paper in an econ class at Yale that if legend is correct recieved a fairly poor grade b/c the professor thought it so "far fetched").

[LoneStarMike]

As to FedEx and Alliance: as I understand it, FDX does not terminate cargo at AFW but only connects whereas all FDX shipments terminating into DFW go into DFW airport.  And that remains true for all other cargo carriers. 

That may be the case, but every time one of those planes lands at Alliance, it pays a landing fee regardless of whether it is terminating cargo or connecting cargo. Those landing fees, plus rental fees on whatever facilities they use there generates revenue for Alliance and not DFW. Alliance competes with DFW for revenue and that competition would seem to violate the spirirt of the 1968 bond covenant.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this aspect of the Wright Amendment debate. That's why I think the court should rule on the matter so it can be settled once and for all and the two cities can move forward.

I will say this, though. The whole issue of the Wright Amendment is a very hot topic and one that people feel very strongly about, regardless of which side they're on. I've participated in many Wright Amendment discussions over the years, and most of them end up deteriorating into hair-pulling, eye-gouging, purse-slinging, knock down drag out fights. I must say, this is by far one of the most civil discussions I've ever participated in regarding this subject.

LoneStarMike

[KevCoz]

Keep in mind that FedEx serves DFW, DAL, and AFW. UPS and DHL serve DFW and DAL. Following your logic, Love Field is more of a competitor to DFW than Alliance, since all three major freight airlines operate out of Love. Only FedEx operates out of Alliance.

[renamerusk]

I just wish Fort Worth would stop looking at what's best for American Airlines and start looking at what's best for Fort Worth. 

Lonestar, there you go again!!

If you cared to listen, you might have heard both DFW Airport and Fort Worth numerously and highly public proclaimed invitations to Southwest Airlines to operate out of DFW notwithstanding some understandable chagrin on the part of American Airlines. You ought not continue to pedal your baneful, slanderous conspiracy that Fort Worth wishes to perpetrate higher air fares upon the citizens of North Texas simply to line the pockets of American Airlines. It goes beyond reason and fails elementary scrutity. If this were so, how could AirTrans, Southwest's major competitor be allowed to operate at DFW? Would not the alleged "co-conspirators" Fort Worth and American Airlines had had a fallen-out as of now because of that?

"Keep Fort Worth Folksy!"

[LoneStarMike]

Keep in mind that FedEx serves DFW, DAL, and AFW.  UPS and DHL serve DFW and DAL.  Following your logic, Love Field is more of a competitor to DFW than Alliance, since all three major freight airlines operate out of Love.  Only FedEx operates out of Alliance.

It's one thing to have a few originating and terminating cargo flights operate at an airport that was in existance long before DFW was built. It's another thing altogether when a city goes out and builds a completely new airport that now serves as a regional hub for a major cargo carrier, and a maintanence facility for the wrold's largest airline, and then turns around and complains that more passengers using Love Field would "hurt" DFW.

LoneStarMike

[LoneStarMike]

If you cared to listen, you might have heard  both DFW Airport and Fort Worth numerously and highly public proclaimed invitations to Southwest Airlines to operate out of DFW notwithstanding some understandable chagrin on the part of American Airlines. 
"Keep Fort Worth Folksy!"

And I've already listed numerous reasons
why Love Field is a better option for Southwest. They have a limited number of aircraft with which to expand. Long haul flights out of DFW would do well I'm sure, but Southwest wouldn't have the benefit of connecting passengers unless they duplicated the feeder service they have at Love Field over at DFW and they just don't have enough spare planes to do that.

Having said that, I think Southwest will be competing for passengers at DFW via their proposed codeshare agreement with ATA. Both AirTran and Southwest submitted bids for parts of ATA. ATA has chosen Southwest's bid and has submitted it to the bankruptcy court. I believe the judge makes a final decision on December 21.

You ought not continue to pedal your baneful, slanderous conspiracy that Fort Worth wishes to perpetrate higher air fares upon the citizens of North Texas simply to line the pockets of American Airlines.

I don't think it's a conspiracy on Fort Worth's part. I think they're just trying to do what they feel is best to protect the interests of both DFW Airport and their largest employer, and I certainly don't blame them for that. I just wish Fort Worth would step back and look at the overall picture.

Lower fares would bring increased traffic. That's good for DFW and good for Fort Worth, too. (And Dallas). American Airlines is not going to offer low fares out of DFW unless they are forced to. A repeal of the Wright Amendment would force them to do that. American Airlines is a very innovative company. They'd find a way to compete.

LoneStarMike

[mosteijn]

Do we have to repeal the entire amendment? How about giving Southwest unlimited flights to anywhere they want out of Love, but not letting Love add gates (I guess we could let them renovate gates if they wanted to). Would that work towards lowering airfares while at the same time giving DFW somewhat of an advantage in terms of overall volume? Just an idea, feel free to rip it apart, I don't really know 100% what I'm talking about.

[renamerusk]

Southwest wouldn't have the benefit of connecting passengers unless they duplicated the feeder service they have at Love Field over at DFW and they just don't have enough spare planes to do that.

I just wish Fort Worth would step back and look at the overall picture.

It is my admittedly limited understanding of Southwest's operating plan what I do read and understand is that Southwest Airlines does not generally operate a feeder/hub system but instead pioneered and operates an efficient point to point system operation. This makes your point about Southwest's connecting passenger problem irrelevant. Unless, Southwest's intends to reinvent itself into becoming a predominantly hub to hub system like the American Airlines' model, Southwest could perform just as efficiently from DFW as it presently does from Love Field.

There is no reason, as Air Trans is beginning to demonstrate from DFW, that the point to point model coupled with lower fares is can work at DFW.

By the way, Southwest's is aware that Air Trans poses a greater danger to it than does American at this time. As Air Trans and American, through its American Eagle subsidiary, each began to compete on more and more routes and a reduction in fares began to develope from DFW, Southwest will feel the squeeze. Southwest is playing a dangerous game indeed. At some point, American, Air Trans and one or two additional lower fare carriers will be able to effectively shut this window of opportunity for Southwest to relocate to DFW. All airlines then at DFW will make certain that Southwest is stuck permanently at Love Field under the duress of the Wright Admendment.

IMHO, Southwest may have also made a tactical blunder by increasing its gates in Chicago leaving Air Trans with the option of using its resoures to incease its presence at DFW. Comparing the yearly operating conditions in Texas to Chicago, I will venture a guess that Air Trans will suffer less flight delays, cancellations and costs in Texas than will Southwest in Chicago.

Regarding your comments about Fort Worth stepping back to take at the overall picture demonstrates that you do not appreciate or understand the art of making a deal. As I stated in an earlier response to you, DFW is a compromise, a deal struck in faith and trust to encourage other and badly needed efforts of cooperation between Fort Worth and Dallas. Dallas is split on this deal; Fort Worth is not. Because of Dallas' wavering, cooperation in a number of other efforts in the region is being, if not already, damaged. The long lasting adverse affect could be generational in a time when regional planning is solely needed.

Personally, I am in favor of less regional cooperation in light of the actions of Dallas. I, for example, am less in favor of TRE than I once was. I am certainly going to be in opposition to a creating regional transit authority with DART. The Love Field/Wright Admendment will be front and center in a campaign to persuade and make the leaders in Fort Worth beware of entering into agreements with cities beyond Tarrant, Johnson, Parker, Wise and Hood Counties.

"Keep Fort Worth Folksy!"

[LoneStarMike]

Do we have to repeal the entire amendment? How about giving Southwest unlimited flights to anywhere they want out of Love, but not letting Love add gates (I guess we could let them renovate gates if they wanted to).

Although I'm against it, this is what I would consider to be a true compromise. Keep the Wright Amendment in place, but drop the provision that prohibits through-ticketing.

Right now, if I wanted to fly from Love Field to Tampa, FL, I could do so. I could book a flight on Continental Express and fly on a regional jet down to Houston Intercontinental, and make a connection there to a large jet. I could purchase the entire itinerary on one ticket, and Continental would transfer my bag from one plane to another in Houston. Continental can legally offer this routing because the first leg of the trip out of Love Field is on a regional jet with 50 seats.

I can't do that on Southwest, even though Southwest flies from Love Field to Houston Hobby, and even though they have flights from Hobby to Tampa. I have to purchase a DAL-HOU ticket and a separate HOU-TPA ticket and when I get to Houston Hobby, I have to go down and claim my luggage and take it back up to the ticket counter and check in for the onward flight and then re-clear security.

If they were to eliminate the clause in the Wright Amendment that prohibits through-ticketing, I could now go anywhere from Dallas on Southwest. I might not be able to get there nonstop, but I could still get there.

Southwest already has over 25 lights a day to Houston taking off from Love Field. What difference should it make if a few more people were on those planes flying to Houston to transfer to somewhere else?

Doing that, and limiting Love Field to 32 gates would ensure that DFW Airport remains the premier airport for the region.
Love Field would be the low-cost airport and if you wanted to go outside the Wright Amendment, you'd have to make a connection.

DFW would still be the premier airport offering nonstop flights and first class service to ALL destinations.

Doing that, though would sort of be unfair to the other airlines because it would put Continental and Southwest at an advantage. Most of the other airlines are hub and spoke carriers, so they'd probably want to run flights from Love Field to their hubs. The problem is, all of the other airlines hubs are outside the Wright Amendment. Northwest would still have to use regional jets to fly from Love Field to Memphis, Detroit, and Minneapolis. Delta would still have to use regional jets to fly to Atlanta and Cincinnatti and Salt Lake City.

Meanwhile, Southwest and Continental could offer large jet service to their hubs, because at least some of their hubs are within the Wright Amendment.

Continental at IAH, and to a lesser extent, Southwest at Albuquerque, Houston, and New Orleans.

On the one hand, it would discourage the other airlines from leaving DFW for Love Field. And that's good for DFW. On the other hand, since it would discourage airlines from going to Love Field, it would protect Southwest and Continental at Love Field, and I don't think that's fair.

LoneStarMike

[LoneStarMike]

It is my admittedly limited understanding of Southwest's operating plan what I do read and understand is that Southwest Airlines does not generally operate a feeder/hub system but instead pioneered and operates an efficient point to point system operation.  This makes your point about Southwest's connecting passenger problem irrelevant. 

I remember reading an article a year or so ago about this. The article said that as Southwest grew, it's percentage of connecting passengers was also growing. Southwest was quoted as saying something along the lines of "Once we get up to 100 daily deparures out of a particlular city, more and more connection opportunities become available in that city"

Love Field has 123 departures and a lot of traffic already connects there now for passengers traveling wholly within the Wright Amendment.

Also, Southwest's CEO, Gary Kelly wrote in an editorial which ran in the Dallas Morning News. In it he writes:

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.

Source

Aviation expert Mike Boyd also wrote a column on the Wright Amendment. He wrote:

True, Southwest going national from Love would do a number to American's yields in a lot of nonstop markets. And, true, WN would have the benefit of connecting traffic at DAL, just like AA does at DFW, providing an on-segment premium of feed revenue. No doubt, letting WN fly anywhere from DAL would be a hit to American.

Source (Scroll down to read the story.)

I keep saying that if Southwest were able to offer lower prices to more places out of Love Field, American would have to match their prices out of DFW. Gary Kelly also touched on that in his editorial when he wrote:

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.

IMHO, Southwest may have also made a tactical blunder by increasing its gates in Chicago leaving Air Trans with the option of using its resoures to incease its presence at DFW. Comparing the yearly operating conditions in Texas to Chicago, I will venture a guess that Air Trans will suffer less flight delays, cancellations and costs in Texas than will Southwest in Chicago.

I think it was an absolutely brilliant move on Southwest's part. It got them more gates in Chicage, it kept AirTran out of Chicago, and due to its codesharing agreement with ATA (who does operate out of DFW,) Southwest will now have the opportunity to compete with AA, AirTran and everyone else at DFW without actually having to use their own equipment or employees. Don't be suprised if ATA's traffic starts to increase and they start adding more DFW-MDW flights.

As for flight delays, cancellations and costs in Texas vs. Chicago, I wouldn't worry about Southwest too much. They've been flying into Chicago Midway for nearly 20 years and have done just fine.

LoneStarMike

[LoneStarMike]

One more thing regarding connecting passengers versus point-to-point. The Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University conducted a study on this very issue. In chapter 6, they note:

This study involves analyzing the Southwest network for connectivity offered on its network. The data gathered was analyzed to study the Southwest network. The revenue generated from the connecting passengers on its network was also analyzed.  The conclusion reached was that Southwest is a network carrier, not a point-to-point.

Link to study

Southwest doesn't call their hubs "hubs." They call them "focus cities," but they act as mini-hubs in that they provide lots of connection opportunities.

LoneStarMike

[mosteijn]

On the one hand, it would discourage the other airlines from  leaving DFW for Love Field. And that's good for DFW. On the other hand, since it would discourage airlines from going to Love Field, it would protect Southwest and Continental at Love Field, and I don't think that's fair.

Ah, I see. Just though I'd throw that out there. Thanks for the well thought out response, Mike.

[tcole]

Getting back to rename's original posting, and having thought about this while following the arguments presented here over the weeks, it seems to me that the argument that the Wright Amendment is a hindrance to lower airfares from the DFW area is moot with Delta's abandonment of DFW (something I think rename is arguing - correct me if I have gotten your premise wrong rename).

Regardless of whether the amendment is scrapped or not (and I have stated earlier that the political prospects for its repeal do not look bright at this moment) airfares in DFW could be dropped by WN moving some or ALL operations to DFW, taking a considerable chunk of the gate space DAL is abandoning. I think that the argument that operating from DFW for WN is inefficiant and cost prohibitive is a red herring. They currently operate about 125 flights a day out of LAX (about their daily schedule out of DAL) and LAX experiences more traffic AND weather delays than DFW – as well as having 3 fewer runways. Similarly, JetBlue and AirTran are able to offer low fares while operating from JFK and ATL respectively (airports that are more delay prone and with respect to ATL, busier), so I do not buy the argument that WN's ops would be hampered by moving operations to DFW.

Now, is DFW less convenient than DAL to a number of originating metroplex travelers? Yes. But that does not mean that those travelers would not venture to DFW to catch a $79 flight to MDW or LAX. That “inconvenience” also does not lend credibility to the argument that the amendment is to blame for the higher fares in DFW given the dynamics change effective in January. So rename has a very valid point in asking why the Wright Amendment is bearing the blame for higher airfares here given the change about to be thrust upon the dynamics with DAL's significant reduction of flights out of DFW, although I am not necessarily ready to agree with rename that the amendment is a good thing (I am similarly not ready to accept the premise that it is necessarily bad for reasons stated in a previous posting).

[tamtagon]

Once DART reaches DFW Airport, the convenience factor of Love Field may be less of an issue for many travelers destined for Dallas proper - both DART and TRE must work toward a seamless interface with the new billion dollar people mover; and Fort Worth/Tarrant county hopefull will act ASAP to expand commuter rail. However, in the long run, I think the metroplex will be better served by at least three passenger airports rather than one.

With the opening of the International Terminal, this is the time DFW would be most able to sustain up to a 15% decrease in domestic travel caused by maximizing the usage of Love Field. Futhermore, with the departure of Delta, this is the time AA could avoid a net loss of domestic passengers at DFW despite the increase traffic through Love Field (that is, American will gain more Delta passengers than it loses to Southwest.).

[Urbndwlr]

If Fort Worth is preparing to offer some concessions (assuming it can offer some), the City should require that the airport name chance to Fort Worth/Dallas International Airport. Sounds trivial, right? It would actually have tremendous marketing value for us, and would come at $0 face value to Dallas. It would take a while for the public to adopt the new name, but imagine the symbolic impact over the next 20 years. If we are granting them full use of their own airport, it's only fair that Fort Worth's name gains greater prominance on out mutually owned airport.

I think we should start to negotiate for those types of deal points when negotiating with regional entities such as D/FW.

[tcole]

dweller:

not a bad idea (in that FW may represent the largest pop. in the area at some time in the future). But with that change, the composition of the board should also be changed. Today Dallas controls 5 seats to FW's 4.

[tamtagon]

airport name chance to Fort Worth/Dallas International Airport. 
...
If we are granting them full use of their own airport, it's only fair that Fort Worth's name gains greater prominance on out mutually owned airport.

That might be something to consider when the majority of final destinations are in Fort Worth/Tarrant Co. rather than Dallas; as long as the airport is named after the region, the primary destination should have top billing. Hopefully the dramatic population growth projections for Tarrant County will result in equally substantial growth of downtown Fort Worth as a regional job center.

It does seem inevitable that Love Field will see the easing of restrictions, and Fort Worth must balance the ease of business travel to Love Field through quick & convenient train service from DFW to DTFW. The 'strength' of the metroplex will be based more than ever on the ability of Tarrant County job centers to grow. To that end, elected officials should abandon the fight over the airport (especially since requests for change have historically come from the Federal Reps of other states), and focus on bringing more jobs into the central city.

[cjyoung]

If Fort Worth is preparing to offer some concessions (assuming it can offer some), the City should require that the airport name chance to Fort Worth/Dallas International Airport.  Sounds trivial, right?  It would actually have tremendous marketing value for us, and would come at $0 face value to Dallas.  It would take a while for the public to adopt the new name, but imagine the symbolic impact over the next 20 years.  If we are granting them full use of their own airport, it's only fair that Fort Worth's name gains greater prominance on out mutually owned airport.

I think we should start to negotiate for those types of deal points when negotiating with regional entities such as D/FW.

I'm on board with that idea.

[mosteijn]

Me too! I'm so incredibly sick of hearing my destination being "Dallas International Airport". Outside of DFW, no one even bothers to write the Fort Worth on the end, and American Airlines is based here!!! If it wasn't for Fort Worth, the damn thing wouldn't even exist. At the least our name should be mentioned on airport flight schedules and whatnot. Otherwise, I'll just stick with rudely correcting any airline official who mislabels it.

[cjyoung]

It we stay steadfast it will happen.

[LoneStarMike]

Regardless of whether the amendment is scrapped or not (and I have stated earlier that the political prospects for its repeal do not look bright at this moment) airfares in DFW could be dropped by WN moving some or ALL operations to DFW, taking a considerable chunk of the gate space DAL is abandoning. 
I think that the argument that operating from DFW for WN is inefficiant and cost prohibitive is a red herring.  They currently operate about 125 flights a day out of LAX (about their daily schedule out of DAL) and LAX experiences more traffic AND weather delays than DFW – as well as having 3 fewer runways.   

Maybe, but LAX isn't a fortress hub for any one airline. Also. Southwest operates out of Terminal One at LAX and it's right next to the runway they primarily use so they normally don't have long taxi times from the gate to the runway.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics keeps records of delays by airline and airport. For the period Aug 1 through October 31, 2004, this was Southwest's on-time departure record at LAX.

For All Southwest Flights:

Avg. Departure Delay - 10.32 min.
Avg. Taxi Out Time- 8.79 min.
Avg. Departure to Takeoff - 19.11 min.

23.45% of WN's flights at LAX were late.
The late flights had an average departure delay of 36.98 minutes, an average taxi-out time of 8.61 minutes. and an average departure to takeoff time at 45.58 minutes.

From what I've read and heard in the past, many of Southwest's delayed flights at LAX are due to some of the gates in Terminal One not being configured to handle Southwest's Boeing 737-700's

While it's not an ideal situation, these statistics are something Southwest feels it can live with for now, especially since they've been there for over 20 years and have developed a loyal base of travelers.

Similarly, JetBlue and AirTran are able to offer low fares while operating from JFK and ATL respectively (airports that are more delay prone and with respect to ATL, busier), so I do not buy the argument that WN's ops would be hampered by moving operations to DFW.

JFK is also not a fortress hub for any one airline and the only time it's really congested are during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. when the bulk of all international arrivals and departures occur. JFK is only slot controlled during that 5 hour period. The rest of the time, things run fairly smoothly.

On-time departure statistics for jetBlue at JFK:

For All jetBlue Flights:

Avg. Departure Delay - 6.88 min.
Avg. Taxi Out Time- 22.29 min.
Avg. Departure to Takeoff - 29.17 min.

15.38% of jetBlue's flights at JFK were late. The late flights had an average departure delay of 40.19 minutes, an average taxi out time of 26.89 minutes. and an average departure to takeoff time at 67.08 minutes.

On-time departure statistics for Air Tran at ATL

For All Air Tran Flights:

Avg. Departure Delay - 10.00 min.
Avg. Taxi Out Time- 17.31 min.
Avg. Departure to Takeoff - 27.21 min.

20.35% of Air Tran's flights at ATL were late. The late flights had an average departure delay of 51.13 minutes, an average taxi-out time of 19.08 minutes. and an average departure to takeoff time at 70.22 minutes.

Now let's compare on time statistics for Southwest at Love Field, versus Air Tran at DFW for the same time period of August 1, 2004 through October 31, 2004.
For this comparison, I looked at both departure and arrival on-time statistics.

On-time departure statistics for Southwest at DAL:

For All Southwest Flights:

Avg. Departure Delay - 8.37 min.
Avg. Taxi Out - 8.24 min.
Avg. Departure to Takeoff - 16.61 min.

17.39% of Southwest's flights at DAL were late. The late flights had an average departure delay of 40.38 minutes, an average taxi-out time of 9.23 minutes. and an average departure to takeoff time at 49.61 minutes.

On-time arrival statistics for Southwest at DAL:

For All Southwest Flights:

Avg. Arrival Delay - 5.30 min.
Avg. Taxi In Time - 3.05 min.

13.89% of Southwest's flights at DAL arrived late, with an average arrival delay time of 46.32 minutes and an average taxi in time of 3.33 minutes.

On time departure statistics for Air Tran at DFW:

For All Air Tran Flights:

Avg. Departure Delay - 6.98 min.
Avg. Taxi Out - 17.61 min.
Avg. Departure to Takeoff - 24.59 min.

13.98% of Air Tran's flights at DFW were late. The late flights had an average departure delay of 66.25 minutes, an average taxi-out time of 23.74 minutes. and an average departure to takeoff time of 89.99 minutes.

On-time arrival statistics for Air Tran at DFW:

For All Air Tran Flights:

Avg. Arrival Delay - 0.80 min.
Avg. Taxi In Time - 7.90 min.

14.19% of Air Tran's flights at DFW arrived late, with an average arrival delay time of 62.75 minutes and an average taxi in time of 7.70 minutes.


Southwest's average departure to takeoff time at DAL was 8 minutes less than that of Air tran's at DFW. Southwest's average taxi in time at DAL was nearly 5 minutes shorter than that of Air Tran's at DFW. So this decreases their overall turn-around time by nearly 13 minutes per turn. Because of this time savings, Southwest is able to squeeze in an extra flight or two per aircraft per day.

Percentage-wise, Southwest had about 3.5% more late departing flights than did Air Tran at DFW, but the average delay of these flights was 40 minutes less than Air Tran's late flights at DFW.

Percentage-wise, Southwest arrivals were late 13.89% of the time compared to Air Tran's 14.19%. The two are pretty close. But at 62.75 minutes, Air Tran's avg. arrival delay on those late flights was about 16 minutes more than Southwest's avg. arrival delay of 46.32 minutes.

And Air Tran operates from Terminal B right now. I wonder if their on time statistics would change if they moved over to Terminal E where they'd either have to compete for runway space with the other airlines in Terminals A and C, or face a longer taxi to the runways on the less congested "Terminal B Side" of the airport.

All these minutes saved here and there help increase Southwest's bottom line.

Plus, with Delta's departure from DFW, AA will control 85% of the market, making it a very strong fortress hub for AA. I think Southwest doesn't want to have to deal with the possibility of delays and a strong competitor like AA at the same time, epecially when they're already at a perfectly good airport that's cheaper to fly out of and suits their needs and they have a loyal base of travelers who've been using Southwest at Love Field for over 30 years.

LoneStarMi

[LoneStarMike]

not a bad idea (in that FW may represent the largest pop. in the area at some time in the future).  But with that change, the composition of the board should also be changed.  Today Dallas controls 5 seats to FW's 4.

Minor correction from fortworth.gov

COMPOSITION: Eleven members, with seven members from the City of Dallas and four members from the City of Fort Worth.

METHOD OF APPOINTMENT: Members to fill Place Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 8 are appointed by the City Council by the adoption of a resolution. (Place Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 are filled by appointments from the City of Dallas.) By resolution adopted January 31, 1978, Place 3 is to be filled at all times by the City of Fort Worth's incumbent Mayor.

Source

LoneStarMike

[tamtagon]

Does anyone follow politics closely enough to say when the folks in Washington D.C. might approach a vote on The Wright Amendment?

[tcole]

YES.

The prospects do not look that good. Kay Granger and Kay Hutchinson, both proponents of the ammendment sit on either transportation or appropriations committees or subcommittees in their respective houses with Burgess (represents AA's home district) sitting on the aviation subcommittee of the house transportation (it may be the commerce committee, cannot remember) committee.

[tamtagon]

YES.

The prospects do not look that good.  Kay Granger and Kay Hutchinson, both proponents of the ammendment sit on either transportation or appropriations committees or subcommittees in their respective houses with Burgess (represents AA's home district) sitting on the aviation subcommittee of the house transportation (it may be the commerce committee, cannot remember) committee.

So, this vote will probably come up sometime this year?

I have a personal distaste for the way political issues like this drag on and on. It's never about what is really best, the fight become more about defending a position. It doesnt seem like any of the Texas Reps have ever been the ones to call attention to this Amendment. Now we've got Southwest taking sides, and even the mayor of Dallas is taking jabs at AA for inflating ticket prices at DFW. With so many politicians involved, the motive for expanding economic benefit to the whole metroplex is rarely the central theme of these discusstions. If the metroplex economy would grow by keeping the restrictions, the keep it, if the metroplex economy would grow by repealing the restrictions, then get rid of them.

[redhead]

I consider myself a friend of Kay Granger---and she SINCERELY listens to her constituents. Even though we differ on our current views of this situation, I believe that if enough people wrote her to say "WRIGHT IS WRONG"; she would listen. After all, we tell her if we agree with her stance at the ballot box. I have a hard time believing Kay Bailey is any different!

[redhead]

PS---at 20, we reach the "law of large numbers" In lay terms that means that we would emulate the general population. Just look at the pros and cons!

[tcole]

Tamtagon:

"So, this vote will probably come up sometime this year?"

Greg is pretty much on. I would not lay bets on it emerging from subcommittee discussions if "raised" at all this year. Best bet would be after 2006 should KBH resign from the senate to run for gov. As much as I think L. Miller is "not quite ready for 'prime-time'", she is pretty much on target in asserting that Delta's de-facto departure from DFW significantly changes the dynamics of the argument. WN's decision to call for the amendment’s repeal now is probably motivated by the argument that moving to DFW is now reasonably feasible for them.

Red: you lost me on that last comment.

[tcole]

Oh. Not having participated in the poll as of yet, I do not see the results, only the poll questions. That said, 20 responses is hardly significant of the larger population not to mention the probable sampling error inherent in "participation" in the poll much less the forums in general.

[John T Roberts]

Thomas, I believe that you can click on the box "Show Results" to see the votes before you have voted.

[tcole]

Thanks John. I really never paid that much attention to the poll aspect of the thread I guess and just went to the bottom of the page to read the latest posts.

[tamtagon]

http://www.bizjourna...y7.html?f=et184



SW exec: Love flights to be cut if amendment stands

Margaret Allen

Staff Writer

Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co. will further cut flights at Dallas Love Field if lawmakers don't lift federal restrictions that limit long-haul service from the close-in airport.

Without long-haul flights, the airline's Boeing 737s from Dallas to its 13 short-haul destinations are underutilized, Ron Ricks, vice president of Southwest, told the Dallas Business Journal.

Ricks declined to say how many flights could be cut, or how soon.

The airline last trimmed its Dallas schedule by seven flights, from 130 to 123, in October of 2004. It normally makes such decisions on a semi-annual basis, he said.

The warning comes as Southwest has announced it will fight to get the federal Wright Amendment lifted. The 1979 law -- meant to protect Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from competition -- limits scheduled, commercial service at Love Field to short-haul flights to nearby states.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly shook a bitter 20-year truce in December when he announced the airline was no longer neutral on the law and would lobby legislators. Ricks said the turning point was Southwest's inability to revive short-haul traffic after recession and 9/11 stalled the nation's airline traffic.

Short-haul suffers

Southwest operates 123 flights from 14 gates at Love Field, which falls below the 10-flights-per-gate national average. Before 9/11, Southwest operated 147 flights from Love.

"After 9/11, short-haul traffic was decimated and it hasn't come back," he said. "The most aggressive marketer in airline history with the lowest fares cannot grow at Love Field. If we can't grow at Love Field, no one can."

The airline has tried everything, Ricks said, but the automobile has re-emerged as a serious competitor on short-haul flights.

Southwest must use its planes where they can generate the most revenue, and that's not Love Field, Ricks said.

"There is no point in continuing to invest, or grow at Love Field, and hence in Dallas, absent change in the Wright Amendment," he said. "Stasis at Love Field, combined with significant growth elsewhere, means that, over time, Dallas becomes less important to our business plan. As that continues, Dallas becomes less competitive for future investment in terms of planes, people and capital investment."

Southwest began more than 35 years ago as a short-haul carrier serving Texas. It then picked up its low-cost, quick turnaround model and applied it to long-haul flights in 60 markets. Since 9/11, Southwest has been the only consistently profitable carrier among the major airlines.

If Southwest flew long-haul flights from Love, the competition could drive down D/FW's fares by up to 70%, Ricks said.

D/FW Airport has declared war against eliminating the Wright Amendment. The airport is deeply in debt with the cost of a new multibillion-dollar international terminal, built primarily for fortress carrier American Airlines Inc. (NYSE: AMR). Delta Air Lines Inc.'s massive flight cuts have also freed up more than 20 gates."We are reluctantly being brought into this battle," said Kevin Cox, D/FW's chief operating officer. "It will be costly and inevitably a divisive battle."

In the past, Kansas and Tennessee sought to repeal the Wright Amendment, seeking lower air fares for their cities. Also, Southwest's arrival usually increases traffic up to five times. Ricks hopes Texas will lead.

But U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, didn't have encouraging words for Southwest.

"The Texas delegation might be split," Hutchison said. "Members in some areas are concerned about high fares. So they could have support for repeal in some areas. But North Texas members would be concerned about any kind of (revenue bond) default at D/FW because it would have such ramifications on our taxpayers."

Some say Southwest should be forced to move to D/FW. Hutchison said that wouldn't be right. During the previous legal battle over flights from Love Field, federal courts refused eight times to evict Southwest from city-owned Love.

After having fought for years to win the right to fly from Love, Ricks said the airline will now wage a grass-roots battle.

"We're very patient. It may take many years," Ricks said. "This is not about Southwest. It's about the freedom to fly."

mallen@bizjournals.com

[renamerusk]

"By the way, Southwest's is aware that Air Trans poses a greater danger to it than does American at this time. As Air Trans and American, through its American Eagle subsidiary, each began to compete on more and more routes and a reduction in fares began to develope from DFW, Southwest will feel the squeeze. Southwest is playing a dangerous game indeed. At some point, American, Air Trans and one or two additional lower fare carriers will be able to effectively shut this window of opportunity for Southwest to relocate to DFW. All airlines then at DFW will make certain that Southwest is stuck permanently at Love Field under the duress of the Wright Admendment.

IMHO, Southwest may have also made a tactical blunder by increasing its gates in Chicago leaving Air Trans with the option of using its resoures to incease its presence at DFW". Renamerusk, 12/19/04

The walls are beginning to close in on Southwest Airlines in this market; and Southwest shall have no one to blame but itself. The recently annouced incentives that the DFW Airport Board is offerring to lure new carriers to Terminal E will be taken up I suspect. These new carriers will bring their own Congressional delegations to combine with that of American Airlines, DFW Airport, City of Fort Worth and other formiable delegations with them to protect their newly found interest and investments at DFW Airport; thus dwindling the number of Congressional delegations that Southwest purports it will be able to lobby. Eventually, there will be no availability for Southwest at DFW; and the Board is not going to build additional space for Southwest once the gates are locked up. With Airtrans proving that lower fares are possible from DFW and other airlines, including American doing the same, who will want to suffer the Love Field Shuttle Connection via Houston/Anywhere Route?

Now I admit that this is big stakes..who knows whether which of the two sides, the Pro or Anti-Wright Admendment side, will prevail. However, I sense that the corner that Southwest is painting itself in has gotten much smaller due to recent developments.

"Keep Fort Worth Folksy"

[John T Roberts]

This article was in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

http://www.dfw.com/m...ss/10714227.htm

[tamtagon]

Whew! This topic is going to get pretty deep. Each side is going to commission economic impact reports, "grass-roots" politics will attempt to shape anecdotal perceptions through advertising, and best case scenerio will not be possible because influential individuals will refuse to compromise. What a mess.

[LoneStarMike]

The walls are beginning to close in on Southwest Airlines in this market; and Southwest shall have no one to blame but itself. The recently annouced incentives that the DFW Airport Board is offerring to lure new carriers to Terminal E will be taken up I suspect. 

I think you're wrong. If any new airlines are lured to DFW or if any of DFW's existing carriers expand their service, I don't think it will be because of DFW's incentives.

To be eligible for the incentive, a carrier must agree to lease a minimum of 10 gates in the first year of operation and commit to this level of service through 2009.

The carrier would also be required to meet certain departure levels, based on the number of gates leased, with at least 70% of new seats dedicated to markets listed in DFW's Top 50 destinations and currently not served by the airline from DFW.

There are very few airlines that have the extra resources needed (planes, employees and most importantly, cash) to undertake such a large initial operation.

In Southwest's 33 year history they have never started service at a new city and been up to ten gates within a year. To date, Philadelphia has been Southwest's fastest growing city and they started there with 14 daily departures out of 4 gates. Nine months later, they're up to 41 daily departures out of 6 gates. In order to receive the minimum amount of incentives that DFW is offering, Southwest would have to grow nearly twice as fast at DFW as they are at PHL and that's not Southwest's style. No wonder they weren't swayed by DFW's offer.

If DFW were really serious about filling that vacant space, they'd have better luck if they tried to get several airlines to take one or two gates apiece, giving each carrier a million in incentives for every gate leased. Instead, they're only offering incentives to the few carriers that might have the resources to undertake a large initial operation of 10 or more gates. Or at least that is what is being reported in the media.

Other than AirTran, what other airline(s) could make the kind of commitment DFW is asking for? Certainly not any of the legacy carriers. They're all losing money. Frontier has indicated they're not interested. Spirit is too small to launch a 10-22 gate operation at DFW. Although jetBlue is getting more aircraft next year, they've already made a commitment to expand at Boston going from their current 2 gates to 5 and expanding to 11 gates over the next several years. So who is left that could fill the void at DFW by taking 10 or more gates?

These new carriers will bring their own Congressional delegations to combine with that of American Airlines, DFW Airport, City of Fort Worth and other formiable delegations with them to protect their newly found interest and investments at DFW Airport; thus dwindling the number of Congressional delegations that Southwest purports it will be able to lobby.

Well, let's see if DFW can GET any new carriers first, and then we can talk about what kind of Congressional delegations they may or may not bring with them. Are AirTran's Congressional delegates helping AirTran fight the Wright Amendment? (I'm asking because I truly don't know.) I know that AA's delegates are assisting AA. For that matter are ANY of the other carriers operating out of DFW seeking assistance from their Congressional delegates to keep the Wright Amendment in place or is it just AA?

I don't hear much these days about what Southwest may or may not be doing behind the scenes, although there was a recent article that mentioned Southwest had turned to Tampa, Florida for help.

The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority is considering giving its support to Southwest Airlines' quest to repeal a federal amendment so it can fly nonstop between Dallas Love Field and Tampa.

The issue appears to be a no-brainer from Tampa's end, where Southwest is Tampa International Airport's No. 1 carrier and construction is nearly complete on a new Airside C that primarily will serve the Dallas-based airline.

The $134 million airside is expected to open in mid-April.

``If the act is repealed, it would allow Southwest to fly anywhere in the United States from Love Field, including Tampa,´´ TIA Director Louis Miller said Thursday.

That could increase competition among carriers and lower air fares on the Tampa-Dallas route, Miller said. Those fares generally rank between the second- and fourth- most expensive among major destinations served from Tampa because of the dominance that American Airlines and Delta Air Lines have enjoyed on the route.

The average one-way fare between Tampa and Dallas in the first quarter of 2004 was $183.

The fare is surpassed only by those for flights serving Tampa and Cincinnati, Memphis, Tenn., and San Francisco, among major destinations.

Southwest is precluded from flying from its headquarters at Dallas Love Field to states beyond those contiguous to Texas, plus Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi, by The Wright Act.

The law is named after sponsor Jim Wright, a Texas Democrat and former majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The politically inspired federal legislation was enacted in 1979 to protect then-new Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, which is less convenient to people in Dallas than Love Field.

Southwest declined an incentive-laden offer to move some of its flights to Dallas- Fort Worth International.

Now that Delta has reduced its flights, Southwest has said that it sees a greater opportunity for long-distance growth from Dallas Love Field, Miller said.

The airline has asked the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority for its support in backing a legislative sponsor to repeal the act.

Dallas-Fort Worth International also has sought Tampa's support for maintaining the act, especially since Delta last month reduced its daily departures there from 258 to 21 and the airport has been left with empty gates.

The aviation authority is expected to decide at its monthly meeting in March whether to support the big Texas airport or Southwest on The Wright Amendment issue.

Source

It will be interesting to see who they end up supporting. I suspect Southwest is working behind the scenes trying to drum up support from other communities they currently serve.

Eventually, there will be no availability for Southwest at DFW; and the Board is not going to build additional space for Southwest once the gates are locked up. With Airtrans proving that lower fares are possible from DFW and other airlines, including American doing the same, who will want to suffer the Love Field Shuttle Connection via Houston/Anywhere Route?

Lower airfares have always been "possible" at DFW. The question is can the airlines offering those low fares do so at a profit? AA apparently can't as they haven't posted a profit in quite some time. AirTran's profit for 2004 was only 12.4 milion dollars, but at least it's a start.

Southwest HAS proven it can offer low fares out of Love Field and do so at a profit (to the tune of 313 million in 2004 alone.)

I sense that the corner that Southwest is painting itself in has gotten much smaller due to recent developments.

And what about the corner that DFW has painted itself into? There was a very extensive article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, D/FW loses it's bet on airline recovery a few days ago and it mentions, among other things:

The financial concerns are mounting:

. On Tuesday, Delta leaves 24 gates empty, and D/FW loses its elite status as one of two U.S. airports -- with Chicago O'Hare -- to boast two hubs run by large, traditional carriers.

. The $1 billion, 2-million-square-foot Terminal D, which opens in July, increases terminal space by 52 percent, but it is not fully leased.

. This year's operational budget is $494.1 million, up 50 percent from last year. Net debt service and mandatory reserves account for nearly half the budget.

. Energy costs are doubling this year.

. Debt, held below $700 million before the Terminal D expansion, is more than $3.8 billion.

. D/FW's low cost to airlines -- its biggest selling point in attracting carriers -- will more than double by 2009, according to airport consultant Leigh Fischer.

. Most of what would have been Delta's share of the debt payments will probably fall on American in the form of higher landing fees and charges.

. The Wright Amendment, which limits growth at rival Dallas Love Field, is under siege. Southwest Airlines' attempts to start long-haul service at Dallas Love Field could siphon additional revenues from D/FW.

Source

Southwest doesn't want to go to DFW because they don't want to take on DFW's problems (among other things.)

Southwest doesn't interline and they don't fly internationally so why should they move to a more expensive airport further away from their core base of travelers and increase their costs all so they can help pay for an international terminal and a people mover that primarily benefits their main competitor in the Metroplex and is of NO benefit to Southwest?

The article also has quotes from aviation analysts saying they were surprised that DFW thought it could get an airline to open a hub at DFW in today's market when most carriers are simply struggling to survive. Some speculate that DFW will renegotiate for smaller deals involving fewer gates. It also says that DFW's cost per passenger will go from $4.24 in 2004 to $8.93 in 2009. It also mentions the option DFW has of sectioning off portions of Terminal E and closing them if the gates don't get rented.

I think it will be quite some time before there's "no more
room at the inn" at DFW.

And despite their current problems, DFW is not going to shrivel up and blow away in the dust if the Wright Amendment is repealed.

LoneStarMike

[tcole]

"Other than AirTran, what other airline(s) could make the kind of commitment DFW is asking for?"

The inside skinny is that Richard Branson is considering making DFW the central hub for Virgin America.

Good investigative analysis LS. The only caution I would give you is that CW is usually wrong in the long run. That approach has typically served WN well in the past, the question is whether WN is now deviating from that course.

[LoneStarMike]

The inside skinny is that Richard Branson is considering making DFW the central hub for Virgin America. 

I thought the decision had been made that Virgin America would have its headquarters in New York and the bulk of their operations in San Francisco. At any rate, Virgin America won't be coming to DFW any time soon as their startup date has been pushed back to 2006 at the earliest.

Virgin America faces delays
Financing, federal OK likely to push takeoff to 2006
By Eric Young
San Francisco Business Times

Virgin America, the startup low-cost airline with operational headquarters in the Bay Area, likely won't get off the ground until 2006.

After agreeing last year to base most of its business on the Peninsula, Virgin America said service was scheduled to begin this year. But before it can take to the air, Virgin America must line up U.S. investors and get approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation -- a task that involves answering more than 22,000 questions.

"Our research shows that in the best-case scenario, we could launch between nine and 12 months after we file with DOT," said Virgin America spokeswoman Stacy Geagan. "We still have a few months when we could launch in 2005, but as we get later in the year it's possible it will be in 2006" before Virgin America carries its first passengers.

Conceived by British billionaire Richard Branson, Virgin America has said it will hire more than 1,500 flight attendants, pilots, maintenance technicians, engineers, dispatchers and other workers at its operational headquarters along the Peninsula. Another 300 people are expected to work in executive offices in New York. Anxious to attract those promised jobs, Bay Area and California officials last year offered Virgin America more than $15 million in grants and financial incentives to locate here.

Link to Full Story

Here's another thing Southwest probably took into consideration regarding DFW's offer of "free" rent. DFW is a residual airport, which means the airlines are ultimately responsible for any and all debts. Conversely, these airlines also receive a refund at the end of the fiscal year if DFW's revenues exceed its expenses.

For the past several years, DFW has indeed issued a refund to it's carriers. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram above mentioned that DFW hasn't billed the airlines since 1996. I think that will soon change, though. So what good is "free" rent, when there is a very good possibility the airport will turn around and bill you at the end of the year because they went over budget?

I think Terminal E's gates will eventually be backfilled but not nearly as quickly as DFW is hoping for. And in the meantime, American will be the one making up the bulk of DFW's revenue shortfalls, which is only fair since the improvements primarily benefit them.

As it is now, this whole incentive program is just asking for trouble. The worst thing any company can do is to try to expand too rapidly. And yet that's exactly the type of airline DFW is hoping to entice.

And on an amusing little side note, one of the airlines DFW sent info to was American Airlines. What was the point of that? Under the terms for the incentives, AA wouldn't qualify. Remember -- 70% of the new seats must be to a destination in DFW's top 50 markets and one which the airline isn't currently serving. Someone may wish to inform the DFW Airport Board that their flagship carrier, AA currently flies nonstop to all of DFW's top 50 destinations (and then some) so it would appear they couldn't qualify for the incentive program.

LoneStarMike

[LoneStarMike]

Love flights outperform D/FW*s, study says
Southwest Airlines more efficient than American, study finds
Margaret Allen
Staff Writer
February 4, 2005

Dallas Love Field beats Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport hands down, according to a new report from transportation consultant Unisys R2A.
While Love Field carriers may have fewer seats going to the cities they serve, they almost always exceed their expected share of passenger revenue, said the report.

Southwest Airlines Co. is the monopoly carrier at Love. American Airlines Inc. is the sole hub carrier at D/FW.

"In essence, (Southwest) is doing more with their resources than D/FW," said Ron Kuhlmann, vice president at Unisys.

When compared to D/FW Airport in 13 "city-pair" markets both serve, Love Field*s share of revenue consistently exceeds its share of seats. For example, Love Field has 58.9% of the seats between Dallas and Albuquerque, but 68.3% of passenger revenue. In the Dallas-Austin market, Love has 63.7% of seats, but 74.5% of passenger revenue, the report said.

In only one city pair -- between the Metroplex and the West Texas city of Midland -- did D/FW capture a higher percentage of passenger revenue than seats flown, the report said.

On the Midland route, Love has 87.9% of seats, but gets only 87.1% of passenger revenue, while D/FW has 12.1% of seats to Midland and gets 12.9% of revenue. The comparison is adjusted to exclude passengers flying through D/FW to connect to another flight.

Higher fares at D/FW

California-based Unisys also found that average fares are higher at D/FW Airport to and from each of the 13 markets where the two airports both provide service.

That*s despite the fact that flight operations, by definition, are more expensive from Love, Kuhlmann said. From Love, Southwest -- by federal law -- can only fly limited, short-haul routes within Texas and neighboring states. Short-haul flights typically generate less passenger revenue, because the cost of flying decreases as the flight length increases, he said.

Yet average fares at Love are 86% of what they are D/FW, the report stated.
Unisys found that not only are Southwest*s fares lower, but its airplanes, on average, don*t fly as full as do flights from D/FW. And while Southwest is offering only two-thirds of the seats out of the Metroplex, it gets three-fourths of the passengers, Kuhlmann said.

At D/FW, industry load factors -- how full the plane is -- are typically 72%, the report said. At Love, they are an "abysmal" 59%. Yet Southwest is the only airline in the industry consistently turning a profit, while its D/FW competitor, legacy carrier American has reported numerous losses.

"(Southwest) has created a cost base that allows them to make money on lower fares," Kuhlmann said. "That compares to legacy carriers with record load factors -- and they are still losing money."

Even so, it looks likely that Southwest in April will cut six flights out of Love Field when it discontinues service to Houston*s George Bush Intercontinental Airport, according to Linda Rutherford, a Southwest spokeswoman.

It*s likely Southwest will redeploy the flights elsewhere, as the low-cost, low-fare airline is expanding service in other markets, particularly in the eastern United States, Kuhlmann said.

"Southwest is in a very interesting time right now," he said. "All of a sudden they are the top dog. They have a lot of opportunity. They*re going across their system and saying *Let*s throw our resources into the places that will give us
the best return on our money.* "

Source

With their 14 current gates and 117 daily departures effective April 2, they could comfortably add an additional 23 daily departures before they would have to start redeveloping their space in the North Concourse.

Were the Wright Amendment to be repealed I think they would add the flights over a two year period while the work remaining to be done in Phase 1 of the Love Field Master Plan was completed. Once all that was done, then Southwest could start redeveloping the North Concourse as that work is slated for Phase 2.

renamerusk has already correctly pointed out that the leases on Southwest*s gates at Love Field expire December 16, 2006. My guess is that right now, Southwest will slowly make more flight cuts at Love Field to redeploy the aircraft elsewhere and if the Wright Amendment has not been repealed when Southwest*s lease expires they most likely will give up some of their gates.

I don*t think they*ll ever leave Love Field alltogether, but I could see them cutting back an additional 2 or 3 departures in the current current markets it serves from Love Field, thereby needing fewer gates.

LoneStarMike

[LoneStarMike]

D/FW launches pro-Wright site
By Bryon Okada
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
February 7, 2005

D/FW AIRPORT - In defense of the Wright Amendment, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport plans to launch a Web site today in an attempt to sway support locally -- and on Capitol Hill.

Airport officials say the site, www.keepdfwstrong.com, is intended to be informational and to detail historical events.

"The site is not all about D/FW -- it's about the region," D/FW spokesman Ken Capps said.

But the information highlights the importance of the Wright Amendment, which limits flights at Dallas Love Field, and points to possible dangers to D/FW if the limits are repealed.

In a bit of Internet gamesmanship, Southwest Airlines, which is calling for the repeal of the amendment, has registered more than 30 pro-Wright Amendment domain names with various extensions such as .com or .org. They include wrightfordfw, keepwright, keepwrightamendment, and wrightisright.

The names are registered to Southwest, according to Network Solutions' WHOIS directory. Most were registered on Dec. 3.
That is two days after D/FW upped the political ante in the Wright Amendment debate by unveiling a University of North Texas study that estimated that the loss of Delta Air Lines' hub at D/FW would cost the region 7,000 jobs.

Eight days later, Gary Kelly, Southwest's top executive, said the study was biased and exaggerated how much D/FW would be hurt by Delta's downsizing. Kelly had first called for the repeal of the Wright Amendment on Nov. 12; five days later, D/FW Chief Operating Officer Kevin Cox said Kelly's comments ruined a potential deal with an airline looking to move to D/FW.

Southwest has no immediate plans to launch an anti-Wright Amendment Web site, spokeswoman Ginger Hardage said Friday.

"It is a tactic we realize we may want to use," Hardage said. "So when we were purchasing potential names, it was wise to purchase the alter egos of those sites."

Political battles involving airlines often result in the creation of "rogue" sites, which mock the airline or the cause involved. Hardage cited an anti-United Airlines site, www.untied.com, as an example of what Southwest was trying to prevent.

D/FW officials acknowledge that they have also registered about a dozen unused domain names with various extensions: keepdfwstrong, choosedfw, unitethemetroplex, unitenorthtexas, wright4dfw and flywrightDFW.

But, they say, they did not take up names that would be desirable to the other side.

"They all support our position and are positive in message," Capps said. "We're not trying to cybersquat on a name Southwest Airlines or someone else might use. We believe this is an issue that needs clarity, not confusion."

IN THE KNOW

Learn more online

• Dallas/Fort Worth Airport: www.dfwairport.com

• D/FW views on the Wright Amendment: www.keepdfwstrong.com

• Directory of domain names: select "WHOIS" at www.networksolutions.com


Link to full story

keepdfwstong.com

LoneStarMike