Time for Dallas airfares to come down

Chris Bellomy wrote:

In any event, more *flights* will *definitely* generate
more noise, which will upset the neighbors around Love
all by itself.


It's too bad we can't bring back water - assisted take - offs at Love, that
would *really* set 'em off...

--
Best
Gre

Chris Bellomy wrote:

In any event, more *flights* will *definitely* generate
more noise, which will upset the neighbors around Love
all by itself.


It's too bad we can't bring back water - assisted take - offs at Love, that
would *really* set 'em off...

--
Best
Gre

"Gregory Morrow"

wrote in message
. net...

Chris Bellomy wrote:

In any event, more *flights* will *definitely*
generate
more noise, which will upset the neighbors
around Love
all by itself.

It's too bad we can't bring back water -
assisted take - offs at Love, that
would *really* set 'em off...

Back in those days I kept a small sailboat at the
Washington Sailing Marina, just off the south end
of Washington National Airport (DCA). The
Constellations struggling to get into the air
vibrated the whole boat from stem to stern. Really
deafening since the channel out of the marina was
just a half-mile off the end of the runway. People
forget how loud they were and how slowly the
piston planes climbed.

"Gregory Morrow"

wrote in message
. net...

Chris Bellomy wrote:

In any event, more *flights* will *definitely*
generate
more noise, which will upset the neighbors
around Love
all by itself.

It's too bad we can't bring back water -
assisted take - offs at Love, that
would *really* set 'em off...

Back in those days I kept a small sailboat at the
Washington Sailing Marina, just off the south end
of Washington National Airport (DCA). The
Constellations struggling to get into the air
vibrated the whole boat from stem to stern. Really
deafening since the channel out of the marina was
just a half-mile off the end of the runway. People
forget how loud they were and how slowly the
piston planes climbed.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote:

- HAL9000 wrote:


So is 24 gates enough for all of SW to move to DFW? Seems like that
would be the ideal (ignoring cost) solution.



I doubt SWA would move all their flights to DFW. Too expensive (landing
fees and
turn times). Those 20 minute taxis to the runway in western Arkansas can
really
eat up a schedule.

They would probably just use it for long haul flights and keep the
regional ones
at Love. Much the way the do things in Houston.


I would not describe that as their method in Houston. While they do offer
some flights from IAH instead of HOU most of their long haul flights are
from HOU. I suspect that the IAH flights are simply connections to hubs
that they want to attract folks changing at IAH together with a few folks
from the north side who don't like to go to HOU.

The only flights Southwest has out of IAH are to Dallas Love Field, where
they offer connections to other cities within the Wright Amendment limits
(LIT, AMA,LBB,MAF,ELP,OKC,TUL,ABQ, etc.).

It is interesting to watch the structures of other airlines in Houston.
Delta, for example, often offers flights from both airports to their hubs
at about the same time. I have to watch myself carefully to keep track of
which airport I booked out of. At least when I'm using Continental or
Southwest I know where to head for. I've never seen one of their flights
that was more convenient from an nonstandard airport.

Neither Hobby nor Love is a "nonstandard" airport. They are each secondary
airports in major metropolitan areas. Southwest's services out of Hobby go
just about everywhere they fly, which shows by itself that the Wright
Amendment is antiquated and obsolete. Southwest doesn't have that much more
service out of Hobby than out of Love, and Intercontinental hasn't been hurt
by it.

I think that you have to understand the sheer size of both the Houston and
Dallas Fort Worth areas - they are both very large cities, area-wise, and
the distance between Hobby and Love is about a full hour by car. Between
Love and DFW is about 1/2 an hour, but neither of these cities is as compact
as to create any duplication by having two airports. Many people in Houston
are much better served by Hobby's location than by Intercontinental/Bush's.
That's why Delta and American, for example, serve both airports. Even
Continental has some flights out of Hobby. These duplicate services out of
Hobby include nonstops on CO to their Newark hub, and service on AA to
LaGuardia in New York, as well as to Miami.

Look at other cities with multiple airports, and you'll see that that
populations and areas of cities such as Chicago (O'Hare and Midway), Los
Angeles (LAX, Burbank, Orange County, etc) aren't very different from Dallas
or Houston.

There are better ways to protect DFW than the Wright Amendment.

1. Limit the distance from which one can fly nonstop from Love Field;
2. Limit the kinds of aircraft to Stage 3 twinjets.
3. Nighttime curfews

just to name three.

The only reason American opposes repeal of the Wright Amendment is because
they don't want to have to compete with Southwest any more than absolutely
necessary. The only reason Southwest came out against the Wright Amendment
was solely to scare potential low cost competitors (AirTran, ATA, Frontier,
Independence, JetBule) from expanding there. BTW, even though it is now in
bankruptcy, ATA recently added service from DFW to IND, their home base.

Jeff

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote:

- HAL9000 wrote:


So is 24 gates enough for all of SW to move to DFW? Seems like that
would be the ideal (ignoring cost) solution.



I doubt SWA would move all their flights to DFW. Too expensive (landing
fees and
turn times). Those 20 minute taxis to the runway in western Arkansas can
really
eat up a schedule.

They would probably just use it for long haul flights and keep the
regional ones
at Love. Much the way the do things in Houston.


I would not describe that as their method in Houston. While they do offer
some flights from IAH instead of HOU most of their long haul flights are
from HOU. I suspect that the IAH flights are simply connections to hubs
that they want to attract folks changing at IAH together with a few folks
from the north side who don't like to go to HOU.

The only flights Southwest has out of IAH are to Dallas Love Field, where
they offer connections to other cities within the Wright Amendment limits
(LIT, AMA,LBB,MAF,ELP,OKC,TUL,ABQ, etc.).

It is interesting to watch the structures of other airlines in Houston.
Delta, for example, often offers flights from both airports to their hubs
at about the same time. I have to watch myself carefully to keep track of
which airport I booked out of. At least when I'm using Continental or
Southwest I know where to head for. I've never seen one of their flights
that was more convenient from an nonstandard airport.

Neither Hobby nor Love is a "nonstandard" airport. They are each secondary
airports in major metropolitan areas. Southwest's services out of Hobby go
just about everywhere they fly, which shows by itself that the Wright
Amendment is antiquated and obsolete. Southwest doesn't have that much more
service out of Hobby than out of Love, and Intercontinental hasn't been hurt
by it.

I think that you have to understand the sheer size of both the Houston and
Dallas Fort Worth areas - they are both very large cities, area-wise, and
the distance between Hobby and Love is about a full hour by car. Between
Love and DFW is about 1/2 an hour, but neither of these cities is as compact
as to create any duplication by having two airports. Many people in Houston
are much better served by Hobby's location than by Intercontinental/Bush's.
That's why Delta and American, for example, serve both airports. Even
Continental has some flights out of Hobby. These duplicate services out of
Hobby include nonstops on CO to their Newark hub, and service on AA to
LaGuardia in New York, as well as to Miami.

Look at other cities with multiple airports, and you'll see that that
populations and areas of cities such as Chicago (O'Hare and Midway), Los
Angeles (LAX, Burbank, Orange County, etc) aren't very different from Dallas
or Houston.

There are better ways to protect DFW than the Wright Amendment.

1. Limit the distance from which one can fly nonstop from Love Field;
2. Limit the kinds of aircraft to Stage 3 twinjets.
3. Nighttime curfews

just to name three.

The only reason American opposes repeal of the Wright Amendment is because
they don't want to have to compete with Southwest any more than absolutely
necessary. The only reason Southwest came out against the Wright Amendment
was solely to scare potential low cost competitors (AirTran, ATA, Frontier,
Independence, JetBule) from expanding there. BTW, even though it is now in
bankruptcy, ATA recently added service from DFW to IND, their home base.

Jeff

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote in message
...
Chris Bellomy wrote:

Here's what I don't get: Why does Southwest so piggishly
refuse to operate any gates out of DFW?


There is nothing "piggish" about it. Landing fees at DFW are significantly
higher, as are taxi times. SWA uses quick turns to keep costs down.
Opertaing
out of DFW makes things more expensive for everyone.

They operate out of Hobby and Intercontinental, don't they?
Why is Houston special?

The geographic layout of Houston - many of the most affluent sections are
closer to Hobby. The distance from South Houston (where Hobby is) to
Intercontinental is about an hour by car, and Houston traffic is notorious.


The airports are not nearly as large.

I do think that the Wright Amendment long ago outlasted its
purpose -- I *think*. At any rate, the neighborhoods surrounding
Love Field aren't going to be pleased if a bunch of jets bearing
enough fuel for longhaul traffic start taking off from there
again. It just seems like Southwest could operate its longhaul
business from DFW just as profitably if it wanted.

Southwest started out at Dallas, and had to fight like hell (all the way to
the U.S. supreme court) to stay at Love Field. On that ground alone, they
won't leave.

Fuel loads have nothing to do with noise.

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote in message
...
Chris Bellomy wrote:

Here's what I don't get: Why does Southwest so piggishly
refuse to operate any gates out of DFW?


There is nothing "piggish" about it. Landing fees at DFW are significantly
higher, as are taxi times. SWA uses quick turns to keep costs down.
Opertaing
out of DFW makes things more expensive for everyone.

They operate out of Hobby and Intercontinental, don't they?
Why is Houston special?

The geographic layout of Houston - many of the most affluent sections are
closer to Hobby. The distance from South Houston (where Hobby is) to
Intercontinental is about an hour by car, and Houston traffic is notorious.


The airports are not nearly as large.

I do think that the Wright Amendment long ago outlasted its
purpose -- I *think*. At any rate, the neighborhoods surrounding
Love Field aren't going to be pleased if a bunch of jets bearing
enough fuel for longhaul traffic start taking off from there
again. It just seems like Southwest could operate its longhaul
business from DFW just as profitably if it wanted.

Southwest started out at Dallas, and had to fight like hell (all the way to
the U.S. supreme court) to stay at Love Field. On that ground alone, they
won't leave.

Fuel loads have nothing to do with noise.

In dfw.general Jeff Hacker wrote:

: I think that you have to understand the sheer size of both the Houston and
: Dallas Fort Worth areas - they are both very large cities, area-wise, and
: the distance between Hobby and Love is about a full hour by car.

That's a pretty fast car!

cb
(yeah, i'm lame, i know)

sorry, i meant Hobby and Intercontinental :-)

"Chris Bellomy" wrote in message
...
In dfw.general Jeff Hacker wrote:

: I think that you have to understand the sheer size of both the Houston
and
: Dallas Fort Worth areas - they are both very large cities, area-wise,
and
: the distance between Hobby and Love is about a full hour by car.

That's a pretty fast car!

cb
(yeah, i'm lame, i know)