Comments on: American Pulls Out of Dallas/Love Field, Turns on the Spin Machine

By: Roundup - Playing Catchup | Flight Wisdom

Roundup - Playing Catchup | Flight Wisdom — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:31:24 +0000

[...] pulled out of Dallas-Love Field, with its last flight on June 11th. American returned to Love Field during [...]

By: JSP

JSP — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:30:45 +0000

@ David “AA must be liable for something if they decide not to use the gates after 2013. ”

I think there are actually two things at play here: proximity to “elite” clientele within Dallas, and the gate forfeiture agreement signed by all the parties which allowed for the eventual repeal of the Wright/Shelby Amendments restricting DAL.

First, a large number of highly affluent travelers and/or frequent business travelers live within the “Park Cities” (actually two totally independent municipalities within the city limits of Dallas) and in/around the downtown core that are MUCH closer to DAL than DFW. But, at present the Wright/Shelby amendments restricting the size of aircraft and/or the destinations are still in effect and may serve to make it–I’m guessing–pretty useless for AA to try to compete with SWA at present. They tried serving beyond the Wright/Shelby perimeter with 56-seat, single-class aircraft but that’s been a bust, particular in the current economic climate. However, once the restrictions are lifted and AA and SWA can fly wherever they like (read: major business cities) AA may find bringing their 2-class aircraft back worth it for some city pairs if they can bring those affluent/business travelers back to the “new and improved” DAL.

Second, the gate agreement for the post-Wright/Shelby era provides for SWA to make available one of their DAL gates to competitors on a 1-for-1 basis if they decide to begin service from DFW. So there’s a huge disincentive for SWA to attempt expansion that way. Instead, I believe they’d have to buy gates from a DAL competitor (like AA) and I’m betting that AA would make them pay through the nose knowing that’s SWA’s only option. SWA is, effectively, restricted to DAL and to the number of gates they were allotted in the accord.

By: Jeffrey Sigmon

Jeffrey Sigmon — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:33:02 +0000

It’s not unusual for an airline to sign a lease of 2+ years. Airports convince airlines to sign long leases to fund new projects or renovations and the airlines typically bite because it’s a mutual benefit.

By: The Traveling Optimist

The Traveling Optimist — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:46:42 +0000

Let’s see:
Gas at $2.25/gallon on a 15-gallon tank = $33.75
Two and a half tanks at the most, Dallas to Chicago if you can get 400 miles of highway = $85
Food = Depends on where and how much you eat. Say $50 for grins and giggles.
Time = 14 to 16 hours depending on who’s driving.
Benefits: No security, delays, cancellations, surly attitudes, middle seats, buy-on-board meals or rental car issues.
Two drawbacks: 15 hours of Sunday drivers and rush hour in St. Louis.

Not counting hotel, I’d say $135 one way to Chicago is a deal for a doable drive. Dallas to LA or New York? Not so much.

By: Voli Dublino

Voli Dublino — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:07:05 +0000

AA-WN saga, Empire strikes back :D

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:54:05 +0000

Actually, the release doesn’t seem SO misleading to me. As anyone in this industry knows, it’s rare for an airline to actually sign their name to a commitment for anything more than 6, 12 or 18 months out — let alone four years! They easily could have said they were suspending DAL service, but “remain committed to returning when the new terminal opens” — and left it at that. They didn’t, which I think is significant.

By: eponymous coward

eponymous coward — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:43:03 +0000

Right now it’s cheaper to drive from Dallas to Chicago. No fees, no security, just the open road and one night in a hotel if you don’t want to push all the way thru. And Lincolnland around Springfield seems to be enjoying a nice renaissance at the moment, too.

… and gas, and the cost of my time. TSA doesn’t usually have a 12 hour line.

By: David

David — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:00:15 +0000

AA must be liable for something if they decide not to use the gates after 2013. I’m sure Love could use the time to market the gates and possible routes to other airlines besides AA and Southwest. If not, Love have just given AA a free option lasting at least 3 years. Options on stock trading are never free…. options on gates should not be free either

By: Trent880

Trent880 — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:42:40 +0000

I don’t get it. It’s CLEAR AA has no business at DAL other than losing money, so why bother? What are they protecting? It would be like CO setting up a big operation at JFK to compete with DL, or AA dumping flights into MDW to protect ORD. Are they just doing it to save face now that they’ve made such a big stink? Adding flights to DAL has to be one of the worst decisions of the last few years, right up there with things like Ted and EOS.

By: CF

CF — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:32:17 +0000

David – I’m not sure. My guess is that every lease agreement is different in that regard, and I’m not sure the answer. I’d bet that American wouldn’t enter into this agreement if there wasn’t a way for them to get out.