If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Hacker" wrote in message .com...
By coming out in favor of repealing the Wright Amendment, Southwest simply kept AirTran, JetBlue, Frontier, etc. from coming in. It is bad enough to have to compete with American at DFW; to compete with American and Southwest (whether out of Love Field or DFW) would be an absolute killer. Hmmmm. Not sure the logic there. They already compete with WN on such routes, where WN doesn't fly into those specific airports. AA is vunerable to these airlines. With Delta pulling back, the existence of WN at another airport wouldn't seem particularly different from many of their other routes. AirTran seems to be doing pretty well out of DFW these days, with flights to BWI, LAX, LAS, MCO, and now FLL as well as Atlanta. But they'll need to add frequencies to all of the routes to compete with American. Technically they don't have to "compete" with AA. They just need to get their own market share. A decent compromise might be to allow flights up to a specified distance from Love Field, but onward flights (direct and/or connecting) could be allowed, like out of LGA and DCA. This would allow Southwest to offer through fares and would offer an option to those who don't mind a connection or stop. Frankly, I live in Dallas and would argue that the Wright Amendment is anti-competitive, unnecessary, and a restraint on trade, as well as costing the local passengers a significant penalty, which may well increase now that AA will essentially have a monopoly at DFW with Delta's retreat from the market. [snip] The loser in all of this is basically Fort Worth. DFW was built to supposedly replace BOTH the Dallas (Love) and Fort Worth airports. The Wright Amendment was part of a deal to ensure that DFW would be THE airport for both cities. Fort Worth followed through and actually plowed under their airport. But Dallas never really committed to DFW. Now that there is plenty of traffic for both airports, Fort Worth is left with 1/2 an airport and Dallas has effectively 1.5. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Hacker" wrote in message .com...
By coming out in favor of repealing the Wright Amendment, Southwest simply kept AirTran, JetBlue, Frontier, etc. from coming in. It is bad enough to have to compete with American at DFW; to compete with American and Southwest (whether out of Love Field or DFW) would be an absolute killer. Hmmmm. Not sure the logic there. They already compete with WN on such routes, where WN doesn't fly into those specific airports. AA is vunerable to these airlines. With Delta pulling back, the existence of WN at another airport wouldn't seem particularly different from many of their other routes. AirTran seems to be doing pretty well out of DFW these days, with flights to BWI, LAX, LAS, MCO, and now FLL as well as Atlanta. But they'll need to add frequencies to all of the routes to compete with American. Technically they don't have to "compete" with AA. They just need to get their own market share. A decent compromise might be to allow flights up to a specified distance from Love Field, but onward flights (direct and/or connecting) could be allowed, like out of LGA and DCA. This would allow Southwest to offer through fares and would offer an option to those who don't mind a connection or stop. Frankly, I live in Dallas and would argue that the Wright Amendment is anti-competitive, unnecessary, and a restraint on trade, as well as costing the local passengers a significant penalty, which may well increase now that AA will essentially have a monopoly at DFW with Delta's retreat from the market. [snip] The loser in all of this is basically Fort Worth. DFW was built to supposedly replace BOTH the Dallas (Love) and Fort Worth airports. The Wright Amendment was part of a deal to ensure that DFW would be THE airport for both cities. Fort Worth followed through and actually plowed under their airport. But Dallas never really committed to DFW. Now that there is plenty of traffic for both airports, Fort Worth is left with 1/2 an airport and Dallas has effectively 1.5. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"me" wrote in message om... "Jeff Hacker" wrote in message .com... By coming out in favor of repealing the Wright Amendment, Southwest simply kept AirTran, JetBlue, Frontier, etc. from coming in. It is bad enough to have to compete with American at DFW; to compete with American and Southwest (whether out of Love Field or DFW) would be an absolute killer. Hmmmm. Not sure the logic there. They already compete with WN on such routes, where WN doesn't fly into those specific airports. AA is vunerable to these airlines. With Delta pulling back, the existence of WN at another airport wouldn't seem particularly different from many of their other routes. Problem is that Southwest has a fortress hub at DAL and American has a fortress hub at DFW. It would be hard for anybody else to mount the volume of flights out of DFW to adequately compete. AirTran seems to be doing pretty well out of DFW these days, with flights to BWI, LAX, LAS, MCO, and now FLL as well as Atlanta. But they'll need to add frequencies to all of the routes to compete with American. Technically they don't have to "compete" with AA. They just need to get their own market share. But AA's feed sure helps them; FL doesn't have that at DFW. A decent compromise might be to allow flights up to a specified distance from Love Field, but onward flights (direct and/or connecting) could be allowed, like out of LGA and DCA. This would allow Southwest to offer through fares and would offer an option to those who don't mind a connection or stop. Frankly, I live in Dallas and would argue that the Wright Amendment is anti-competitive, unnecessary, and a restraint on trade, as well as costing the local passengers a significant penalty, which may well increase now that AA will essentially have a monopoly at DFW with Delta's retreat from the market. [snip] The loser in all of this is basically Fort Worth. DFW was built to supposedly replace BOTH the Dallas (Love) and Fort Worth airports. The Wright Amendment was part of a deal to ensure that DFW would be THE airport for both cities. Fort Worth followed through and actually plowed under their airport. But Dallas never really committed to DFW. Now that there is plenty of traffic for both airports, Fort Worth is left with 1/2 an airport and Dallas has effectively 1.5. But, when DFW was planned, Dallas and Fort Worth were about the same size. Today, the population of Dallas is many times that of Fort Worth. Indeed, certain of Dallas' suburbs are as big or bigger than the City of Fort Worth. And GSW (the old Fort Worth airport), just south of DFW, never supported the volume of flights Love Field did. On a couple of occasions, airlines tried to operate out of Meacham Field in Fort Worth (Fort Worth Air and Mesa), without success. I think largely a function of population. Much to the chagrin of Fort Worth residents. But the fact is that the population basis is in Dallas, not Fort Worth. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"me" wrote in message om... "Jeff Hacker" wrote in message .com... By coming out in favor of repealing the Wright Amendment, Southwest simply kept AirTran, JetBlue, Frontier, etc. from coming in. It is bad enough to have to compete with American at DFW; to compete with American and Southwest (whether out of Love Field or DFW) would be an absolute killer. Hmmmm. Not sure the logic there. They already compete with WN on such routes, where WN doesn't fly into those specific airports. AA is vunerable to these airlines. With Delta pulling back, the existence of WN at another airport wouldn't seem particularly different from many of their other routes. Problem is that Southwest has a fortress hub at DAL and American has a fortress hub at DFW. It would be hard for anybody else to mount the volume of flights out of DFW to adequately compete. AirTran seems to be doing pretty well out of DFW these days, with flights to BWI, LAX, LAS, MCO, and now FLL as well as Atlanta. But they'll need to add frequencies to all of the routes to compete with American. Technically they don't have to "compete" with AA. They just need to get their own market share. But AA's feed sure helps them; FL doesn't have that at DFW. A decent compromise might be to allow flights up to a specified distance from Love Field, but onward flights (direct and/or connecting) could be allowed, like out of LGA and DCA. This would allow Southwest to offer through fares and would offer an option to those who don't mind a connection or stop. Frankly, I live in Dallas and would argue that the Wright Amendment is anti-competitive, unnecessary, and a restraint on trade, as well as costing the local passengers a significant penalty, which may well increase now that AA will essentially have a monopoly at DFW with Delta's retreat from the market. [snip] The loser in all of this is basically Fort Worth. DFW was built to supposedly replace BOTH the Dallas (Love) and Fort Worth airports. The Wright Amendment was part of a deal to ensure that DFW would be THE airport for both cities. Fort Worth followed through and actually plowed under their airport. But Dallas never really committed to DFW. Now that there is plenty of traffic for both airports, Fort Worth is left with 1/2 an airport and Dallas has effectively 1.5. But, when DFW was planned, Dallas and Fort Worth were about the same size. Today, the population of Dallas is many times that of Fort Worth. Indeed, certain of Dallas' suburbs are as big or bigger than the City of Fort Worth. And GSW (the old Fort Worth airport), just south of DFW, never supported the volume of flights Love Field did. On a couple of occasions, airlines tried to operate out of Meacham Field in Fort Worth (Fort Worth Air and Mesa), without success. I think largely a function of population. Much to the chagrin of Fort Worth residents. But the fact is that the population basis is in Dallas, not Fort Worth. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
- HAL9000 wrote:
Ok. So the wright amendment was to protect airlines which operated out of DFW. Apparently the amendment was not enough as one airline has pulled out of DFW. If the wright amendment is removed seems like DFW has to fail as an airport. That wouldn't be a such a bad thing. DFW is probably the worst airport I've ever been to as far as facilities go, except maybe for EMA which is a small regional airport. Considering it's the worlds 3rd busiest (I think), their shopping and restaurant selection is poor. There's very little to do once you have actually checked in and gone through security control. Regards Nigel -- www.myoldcontacts.com - Tell your friends to tell their friends and reconnect with you lost internet friends. http://www.sysadmininc.com (My daytime job) http://www.british-expats.com (My spare time) "Right you are, Ken" --Vic Romano |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
- HAL9000 wrote:
Ok. So the wright amendment was to protect airlines which operated out of DFW. Apparently the amendment was not enough as one airline has pulled out of DFW. If the wright amendment is removed seems like DFW has to fail as an airport. That wouldn't be a such a bad thing. DFW is probably the worst airport I've ever been to as far as facilities go, except maybe for EMA which is a small regional airport. Considering it's the worlds 3rd busiest (I think), their shopping and restaurant selection is poor. There's very little to do once you have actually checked in and gone through security control. Regards Nigel -- www.myoldcontacts.com - Tell your friends to tell their friends and reconnect with you lost internet friends. http://www.sysadmininc.com (My daytime job) http://www.british-expats.com (My spare time) "Right you are, Ken" --Vic Romano |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Wright Amendment was intended to protect DFW, not the airlines flying
out of there. Here in Dallas, on this evening's news, there's been a bunch of speculation on the amount of the loss to be incurred as a result of Delta's de-hubbing. It is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. DFW won't fail as an airport - it is one of the busiest ones in the world. But there will be something like 24 empty gates, closed shops, etc. "- HAL9000" wrote in message ... Ok. So the wright amendment was to protect airlines which operated out of DFW. Apparently the amendment was not enough as one airline has pulled out of DFW. If the wright amendment is removed seems like DFW has to fail as an airport. On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:28:15 GMT, Cyrus Afzali wrote: On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:26:05 GMT, - HAL9000 wrote: I guess I don't understand. SW air fares (out of dallas) are already low. Did you mean to title it "Time for DFW air fares to come down"? Yes, that's what people are talking about. There's no longer a need for artificial government intervention to hold up traffic at DFW. It's been the largest airport in the area for ages, so now it seems to function only as a gift to AA. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Wright Amendment was intended to protect DFW, not the airlines flying
out of there. Here in Dallas, on this evening's news, there's been a bunch of speculation on the amount of the loss to be incurred as a result of Delta's de-hubbing. It is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. DFW won't fail as an airport - it is one of the busiest ones in the world. But there will be something like 24 empty gates, closed shops, etc. "- HAL9000" wrote in message ... Ok. So the wright amendment was to protect airlines which operated out of DFW. Apparently the amendment was not enough as one airline has pulled out of DFW. If the wright amendment is removed seems like DFW has to fail as an airport. On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:28:15 GMT, Cyrus Afzali wrote: On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:26:05 GMT, - HAL9000 wrote: I guess I don't understand. SW air fares (out of dallas) are already low. Did you mean to title it "Time for DFW air fares to come down"? Yes, that's what people are talking about. There's no longer a need for artificial government intervention to hold up traffic at DFW. It's been the largest airport in the area for ages, so now it seems to function only as a gift to AA. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
- HAL9000 wrote in
: So is 24 gates enough for all of SW to move to DFW? Seems like that would be the ideal (ignoring cost) solution. It's more than enough, but the point is that DFW is too busy for SWAir. It depends on *quick* turnaround times to make money. You aren't going to get that at DFW. Because of the taxi distance after landing there can be as much as 25 minutes spent just navigating the airport and waiting for gates. That's an extra flight a day for short flights. AA gouges folks at DFW and the rest of the airlines follow suit there. Compare a round trip to NYC from Houston vs. NYC from DFW and you'll see. The other problem is that DFW is looking at a couple billion in debt and they're building yet another terminal while one is about to get vacated. -- Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte! Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!. Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo. I am not familiar with this particular work, but I think all astrological applications to be valid." - Wollmann displays his vast knowledge of astrology and grammar. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Celebrity Constellation Review 8/26/04 Baltics | Jeff Stieglitz | Cruises | 40 | September 12th, 2004 04:07 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | June 28th, 2004 07:44 PM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | April 17th, 2004 12:28 PM |
Spirit of Tasmania II and on time running | Tony Bailey | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | February 14th, 2004 04:20 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Backpacking and Budget travel | 0 | October 10th, 2003 09:44 AM |