Did the Other Shoe Just Drop at AA?
Nov 18, 2015, 12:52 pm
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Exactly, the more competition, the better off we will all be. The cities of New York, Newark, Washington DC, and Dallas should also face collusion charges for their artificial gate limits, slot system, and perimeter rules. They have no place in a free market and all the do is prohibit competition.
If it were up to Dallas and Southwest, they'd be planning a 50-gate terminal right now, but they can't because of the political compromise in North Texas.
Is the 20 gate cap at DAL good for consumers nationwide? Of course not. But it serves the interests of AA, Fort Worth and DFW - the parties responsible for the Wright Amendment that limited where WN could fly from DAL for all those years.
Nov 18, 2015, 1:48 pm
#47
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
The City of Dallas and Southwest aren't to blame for the 20-gate cap at DAL; the guilty parties are American Airlines, the City of Fort Worth and the DFW Airport bondholders. They're the parties that demanded that the 32-gate DAL master plan be reduced to a max of 20 gates as a condition of their consent to changes in the Wright Amendment. Congress and the President enacted a federal law capping DAL at 20 gates as AA, Fort Worth and DFW requested.
If it were up to Dallas and Southwest, they'd be planning a 50-gate terminal right now, but they can't because of the political compromise in North Texas.
Is the 20 gate cap at DAL good for consumers nationwide? Of course not. But it serves the interests of AA, Fort Worth and DFW - the parties responsible for the Wright Amendment that limited where WN could fly from DAL for all those years.
If it were up to Dallas and Southwest, they'd be planning a 50-gate terminal right now, but they can't because of the political compromise in North Texas.
Is the 20 gate cap at DAL good for consumers nationwide? Of course not. But it serves the interests of AA, Fort Worth and DFW - the parties responsible for the Wright Amendment that limited where WN could fly from DAL for all those years.
Indeed, the issue isn't that DAL could have 50 gates, but that it couldn't have 200 gates. This isn't just about DFW, it is about whether the Dallas area was going to be a major hub or not. DAL was never going to be that.
Splitting traffic between airports is sub-optimal. It simply doesn't serve the interests of the city/region as much as a single, very strong airport. They should have shut down DAL decades ago.
Nov 18, 2015, 2:04 pm
#48
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
To be fair, WN could have operated to anywhere they wanted from DFW. They were simply unwilling to accept the rules that everyone else abided by. I don't have much sympathy for them.
Indeed, the issue isn't that DAL could have 50 gates, but that it couldn't have 200 gates. This isn't just about DFW, it is about whether the Dallas area was going to be a major hub or not. DAL was never going to be that.
Splitting traffic between airports is sub-optimal. It simply doesn't serve the interests of the city/region as much as a single, very strong airport. They should have shut down DAL decades ago.
Indeed, the issue isn't that DAL could have 50 gates, but that it couldn't have 200 gates. This isn't just about DFW, it is about whether the Dallas area was going to be a major hub or not. DAL was never going to be that.
Splitting traffic between airports is sub-optimal. It simply doesn't serve the interests of the city/region as much as a single, very strong airport. They should have shut down DAL decades ago.
NYC: JFK, LGA, EWR, ISP
DC: DCA, IAD, BWI
Boston: BOS, MHT
Chicago: ORD, MDW
Orlando: MCO, SFB
Miami: MIA, FLL
Houston: IAH, HOU
Dallas: DFW, DAL
Phoenix: PHX, IWA
Los Angeles: LAX, ONT, LGB
San Francisco: SFO, OAK
So there is nothing new with Dallas having two major airports.
Nov 18, 2015, 2:33 pm
#49
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,601
EC is better and thus more premium than the main cabin.
It might not be by a ton, yet(internationally at least) but it is still a more premium product.
You want that IATA to do something they simply can't do.
Anyways, back to the normal crying over Delta.
Nov 18, 2015, 2:36 pm
#50
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Most major cities have two or more airports with commercial air traffic. Atlanta is the glaring exception.
NYC: JFK, LGA, EWR, ISP
DC: DCA, IAD, BWI
Boston: BOS, MHT
Chicago: ORD, MDW
Orlando: MCO, SFB
Miami: MIA, FLL
Houston: IAH, HOU
Dallas: DFW, DAL
Phoenix: PHX, IWA
Los Angeles: LAX, ONT, LGB
San Francisco: SFO, OAK
So there is nothing new with Dallas having two major airports.
NYC: JFK, LGA, EWR, ISP
DC: DCA, IAD, BWI
Boston: BOS, MHT
Chicago: ORD, MDW
Orlando: MCO, SFB
Miami: MIA, FLL
Houston: IAH, HOU
Dallas: DFW, DAL
Phoenix: PHX, IWA
Los Angeles: LAX, ONT, LGB
San Francisco: SFO, OAK
So there is nothing new with Dallas having two major airports.
New York is about the only market that supports multiple large airports. Indeed, I'd contend that DC and SF, in particular, have only seen the levels of service (esp. in terms of destinations) when SFO and IAD emerged as sizable hubs.
Nov 18, 2015, 2:40 pm
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Back in Reds Country (DAY/CVG). Previously: SEA & SAT.
Programs: DL PM 1MM, AA PLAT, UA Silver, Marriott Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 10,411
Most major cities have two or more airports with commercial air traffic. Atlanta is the glaring exception.
NYC: JFK, LGA, EWR, ISP
DC: DCA, IAD, BWI
Boston: BOS, MHT
Chicago: ORD, MDW
Orlando: MCO, SFB
Miami: MIA, FLL
Houston: IAH, HOU
Dallas: DFW, DAL
Phoenix: PHX, IWA
Los Angeles: LAX, ONT, LGB
San Francisco: SFO, OAK
So there is nothing new with Dallas having two major airports.
NYC: JFK, LGA, EWR, ISP
DC: DCA, IAD, BWI
Boston: BOS, MHT
Chicago: ORD, MDW
Orlando: MCO, SFB
Miami: MIA, FLL
Houston: IAH, HOU
Dallas: DFW, DAL
Phoenix: PHX, IWA
Los Angeles: LAX, ONT, LGB
San Francisco: SFO, OAK
So there is nothing new with Dallas having two major airports.
And if ONT will count for the LA area, certainly BUR and SNA should count as well, and SJC should count for San Francisco?
Nov 18, 2015, 2:50 pm
#52
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
Nov 18, 2015, 3:18 pm
#53
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Canada
Programs: AS, DL, UA, Hyatt, SPG
Posts: 2,575
Oh wait, wrong airline.
Nov 18, 2015, 3:24 pm
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Nov 18, 2015, 3:29 pm
#55
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: PBI/FLL/MIA
Programs: DL DM/2MM, MR Ambassador, National EE
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbarnette
To be fair, WN could have operated to anywhere they wanted from DFW. They were simply unwilling to accept the rules that everyone else abided by. I don't have much sympathy for them.
Indeed, the issue isn't that DAL could have 50 gates, but that it couldn't have 200 gates. This isn't just about DFW, it is about whether the Dallas area was going to be a major hub or not. DAL was never going to be that.
Splitting traffic between airports is sub-optimal. It simply doesn't serve the interests of the city/region as much as a single, very strong airport. They should have shut down DAL decades ago.
Most major cities have two or more airports with commercial air traffic. Atlanta is the glaring exception.
NYC: JFK, LGA, EWR, ISP
DC: DCA, IAD, BWI
Boston: BOS, MHT
Chicago: ORD, MDW
Orlando: MCO, SFB
Miami: MIA, FLL
Houston: IAH, HOU
Dallas: DFW, DAL
Phoenix: PHX, IWA
Los Angeles: LAX, ONT, LGB
San Francisco: SFO, OAK
So there is nothing new with Dallas having two major airports.
Originally Posted by pbarnette
To be fair, WN could have operated to anywhere they wanted from DFW. They were simply unwilling to accept the rules that everyone else abided by. I don't have much sympathy for them.
Indeed, the issue isn't that DAL could have 50 gates, but that it couldn't have 200 gates. This isn't just about DFW, it is about whether the Dallas area was going to be a major hub or not. DAL was never going to be that.
Splitting traffic between airports is sub-optimal. It simply doesn't serve the interests of the city/region as much as a single, very strong airport. They should have shut down DAL decades ago.
Most major cities have two or more airports with commercial air traffic. Atlanta is the glaring exception.
NYC: JFK, LGA, EWR, ISP
DC: DCA, IAD, BWI
Boston: BOS, MHT
Chicago: ORD, MDW
Orlando: MCO, SFB
Miami: MIA, FLL
Houston: IAH, HOU
Dallas: DFW, DAL
Phoenix: PHX, IWA
Los Angeles: LAX, ONT, LGB
San Francisco: SFO, OAK
So there is nothing new with Dallas having two major airports.
Nov 18, 2015, 3:42 pm
#56
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
I'm not sure about PBI, maybe but it's quite a drive. SFB has a large Allegiant and discount European carrier presence that primarily serves Orlando.
Nov 18, 2015, 4:53 pm
#57
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: PBI/FLL/MIA
Programs: DL DM/2MM, MR Ambassador, National EE
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by krlcomm
I'd add SNA to Los Angeles and PBI to MIA but bounce SFB (Orlando) and IWA (Phoenix)...
I thought about SNA but thought the snooty people of Orange County, CA would throw a fit. I'm not sure about PBI, maybe but it's quite a drive. SFB has a large Allegiant and discount European carrier presence that primarily serves Orlando.
Originally Posted by krlcomm
I'd add SNA to Los Angeles and PBI to MIA but bounce SFB (Orlando) and IWA (Phoenix)...
I thought about SNA but thought the snooty people of Orange County, CA would throw a fit. I'm not sure about PBI, maybe but it's quite a drive. SFB has a large Allegiant and discount European carrier presence that primarily serves Orlando.
Nov 18, 2015, 5:14 pm
#58
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Norway, Maine
Programs: United Silver and HH Diamond
Posts: 1,474
TBH, personally waiting for the day when tons of fifth-freedom routes will be started by different European/ME3/Asian carriers WITHIN the US. It'd be lovely to see the US3's (especially DL's) reaction then. But that's wishing for the moon and will probably never happen!
Nov 18, 2015, 5:15 pm
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Southwest's former secondary airports (used before WN began to love the crowded expensive primary airports) like MHT aren't really viable full-service alternatives, and neither are the airports like Mesa where Allegiant flies a couple times a week from a few cities.
Nov 18, 2015, 5:26 pm
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
Yes, most major metro areas have more than one viable, full-service commercial airport where the airports are reasonable substitutes. Notable exceptions include Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, Phoenix (Mesa is NOT a viable, full-service alternative), Denver, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, MSP, Indianapolis, Columbus, Atlanta, Charlotte, Tampa and, I'd argue, Boston (an airport in New Hampshire isn't a viable, full-service alternative).
Southwest's former secondary airports (used before WN began to love the crowded expensive primary airports) like MHT aren't really viable full-service alternatives, and neither are the airports like Mesa where Allegiant flies a couple times a week from a few cities.
Southwest's former secondary airports (used before WN began to love the crowded expensive primary airports) like MHT aren't really viable full-service alternatives, and neither are the airports like Mesa where Allegiant flies a couple times a week from a few cities.