Dallas/Love Field Seems to be Preparing for a Very Unlikely Expansion

Oct 7, 2025

More Reading on This Topic: DAL – Dallas/Love Field

This month marks the 46th anniversary of Dallas/Love Field being subject to restrictions through a series of federal laws. The chance of big changes occurring that would enable further growth seems extremely unlikely, and that’s being generous. Yet in the airport’s latest use and lease agreement, it lays out some plans to do just that. I doubt that we’ll ever see this happen, but it sure is fun to ponder.

In 1979, the US Congress passed the mythical Wright Amendment which blocked airlines from using Love Field to fly anywhere but within Texas or to the four neighboring states. The idea was to support the use of Dallas/Fort Worth which opened five years earlier. Love was so much closer to Dallas that they should have really just shut the airport down. But since all the airlines then operating agreed to move over to DFW, it must not have seemed all that important to close just to inconvenience some private jets. It wasn’t until upstart Southwest decided to stay at Love that the outrage grew. That led us to the Wright Amendment.

The Wright Amendment was shockingly heavy-handed. Not only could airlines not fly beyond those states, but they couldn’t even sell tickets with a connection beyond. (There was an exception for aircraft with 56 seats or less, and that’s how a Legend was born.) The Shelby Amendment to the Wright Amendment was added in 1997 to add a couple of new states, including Missouri, but it wasn’t until the 2000s when Southwest decided it was time to blow the whole thing up. It wanted to be able to do more, so it started to push hard.

It was 2006 when the legendary Five-Party Agreement was signed between Southwest, American, Dallas, Fort Worth, and DFW Airport which would make sweeping changes once Congress passed it. This allowed through-ticketing and set the stage for all the restrictions to be abolished in 2014 after an eight-year wait. But there were tradeoffs.

DFW would remain the only commercial airport with international service in the Metroplex
Love would be “limited permanently to a maximum of 20 gates” which couldn’t be creatively subdivided to increase capacity
Southwest would get 16 gates, American 2 gates, and Expressjet 2 gates
Love would have a voluntary noise curfew from 11pm to 6am every night
Southwest could not fly or codeshare from another airport within 80 miles of Love without relinquishing gates at Love until 2025 when this provision expires
American had the same restriction as Southwest, though it could obviously keep flying to DFW without losing Love gates
The five parties involved agreed to “oppose any legislative effort that is inconsistent with the terms” of the agreement

With that, it would seem pretty iron-clad, no? Yes, this year marks the end of the restriction on flying to other airports in the Metroplex. Southwest has been expected to go into DFW at some point, and other airports have hoped to woo service away from the main airports in the region. Perhaps that is why Love Field is feeling a little bolder than it might otherwise be.

In the new Airline Use and Lease Agreement (AULA) which officially goes into effect on October 1, 2028, Love starts to sound pretty aggressive. It is already talking about the Love Field Expansion Airport Program (LEAP) which is in the “conceptual planning stage.” In this project, it will build a new headhouse on top of the existing garage A. (Think of it kind of like what they did at Midway back in the day when they moved the headhouse further outside the existing footprint to give more space, so get ready for a long walk to the gates.) The lease says that it can spend up to $800 million that will hit the airline rate base without any further airline approval.

Other than the new headhouse (shown as T1 below), there is also a project to expand the concourse by 50 feet to the north (T2) to make more room for existing gates and for an airline lounge. T3 expands the central utility plant, and A1 and A2 both create more ramp space for aircraft parking overnight. (The other projects are not airline-related.)

Beyond all the usual rental terms, we find in 4.12(b) some interesting language.

In the event that the City determines, in its sole and absolute discretion to seek, support, or not oppose, a change to federal law eliminating such Gate limits, Airline agrees that it will not take any action to oppose or hinder (or support an opposition to) such change.

It goes on to say that, if the laws change to allow it, Southwest (it is the only airline that qualifies as a “Majority-in-Interest” or “MII” at the airport) will allow the airport to build either 4, 8, or 12 additional gates without any further approval as long as the cost stays under $50 million per gate. If the airport builds 4 gates, Southwest gets 3. If it builds 8 gates, Southwest gets 6. And if it builds 12 gates, Southwest gets 8.

What the heck is Dallas thinking here? This seems to go against the whole Five-Party Agreement. I asked Southwest for a statement on this, and it was predictably non-committal but certainly not interested in pushing for expansion.

Southwest is not involved in any efforts to change the provisions of the current law, which caps the number of gates at Love Field at 20. We will continue to engage with the City of Dallas as it plans for the long-term future of the airport to ensure a positive experience for Southwest Customers.

I don’t doubt that the time is right if someone wanted to try and overturn it. I can’t imagine this Congress would have any objections (to anything, really). And Texas is in this current regime’s good graces. So if there was ever a time to push something through, this would probably be it.

But it seems pretty clear to me that the current Five-Party Agreement requires each party to fight against any overturning of the 20 gate limit. If Dallas is going to buck that, then this is just going to sit in court forever. It hardly seems worth the fight, but clearly the airport is cooking up plans in case it’s feeling spicy.

Brett

18 responses to “Dallas/Love Field Seems to be Preparing for a Very Unlikely Expansion”

Kenneth

Oct 7, 2025 at 4:31 am

Laugh at me if you must, but UA or DL should plant their flag on TKI while they have the opportunity. Collin County has a population of 2M by itself, mostly comprised of white collar professionals, and is still one of the fastest growing counties in the country courtesy of Texas’ “build whatever you want – we’ll figure out infrastructure later” ethos.

Reply
1. Julie
  
  Oct 7, 2025 at 5:01 am
  
  “still one of the fastest growing counties in the country courtesy of Texas’ “build whatever you want – we’ll figure out infrastructure later” ethos.”
  
  You’ve clearly never been to Collin County. That area of Texas is a part where the state has done a great job building the infrastructure first then the suburbs follow. It has surprisingly good infrastructure for an area that was ranches 15 years ago.
  
  You’re thinking of Austin where they build then hope the infrastructure doesn’t fall apart.
  
  Reply
  1. Kenneth
    
    Oct 7, 2025 at 5:24 am
    
    Admittedly I think more of Rockwall where my family is – you’re right, I haven’t ventured out into the northern reaches of the Metroplex, but looking at the satellite map, it sure does looks like they’re not big on green spaces at least.
    
    Reply
2. Skiplagger Wannabe
  
  Oct 7, 2025 at 5:37 am
  
  That seems a little far out of Dallas for either Delta or United, but what about Allegiant or Avelo or (probably the best option here) Breeze?
  
  Reply
Matt D

Oct 7, 2025 at 5:05 am

In my opinion, Texas has always been the corrupt, “Good Ole’ Boy” club capitol of the world. Nothing embodied that more than the Wrong, excuse me, Wright, when it was in place.

I’ve worked with a few Texans over the years and all were pretty much like that. Thus this Californian can’t stand people from that state.

The irony of the contradiction between their self proclaimed “Business Friendly” culture when talking versus their very protectionist cronyism driven in-practice culture has always been a head shaker for me.
In my opinion, Texas has always been the corrupt, “Good Ole’ Boy” club capitol of the world. Nothing embodied that more than the Wrong, excuse me, Wright, when it was in place.

I’ve worked with a few Texans over the years and all were pretty much like that. Thus this Californian can’t stand people from that state.

I’ve always been disgustingly amused by Texans when they tout their so-called “business friendly” way of doing things versus their actual in practice culture of cronyism.

Reply
1. SEASFO
  
  Oct 7, 2025 at 6:40 am
  
  Imagine the outrage that would happen if American were allowed to have a 95% market share at DCA and benefit from regulation that cements that monopolistic position.
  
  Reply
See_Bee

Oct 7, 2025 at 5:44 am

DAL is convenient, but it’s also a cluster at the gates. WN keeps increasing turns and gauge which makes the pax experience a nightmare. I look at it more like 2 different scenarios:
1) Downside – improve the passenger experience for larger gauge aircraft
2) Upside – win the lawsuit and build even more gates

Reply
Tim Dunn

Oct 7, 2025 at 6:52 am

Southwest is going to grow someplace in N. Texas. The City of Dallas would rather gain some of that traffic than lose it to DFW or TKI.

Also, addition of lounges and other amenities plays right into WN’s transformation strategies.

and AA does want back into Love Field which might force WN to start DFW while DL might take another crack at growth from Love Field.

or DL could wink at WN and tell them they can have Love Field minus ATL as long as WN decides to walk away from any growth plans for AUS

Reply
Pilotaaron1

Oct 7, 2025 at 7:29 am

I may be totally off base, but with DFW expanding and TKI trying to add commercial service, DAL should be able to add capacity. I understand that there is an agreement in place. But if the demand is there (which it looks that way to me), and DAL has the physical space, they should be able to. It would be silly to limit the ability for DAL to grow at this point unless the surrounding area doesn’t want it. Especially since it’s already in use.

Reply
Bob

Oct 7, 2025 at 8:25 am

The other issue everyone is ignoring is the airspace congestion. With DFW building Terminal F and the increase in gate within Terminals A and C there will be an increase in departures and arrivals per hour at DFW. The current Metroplex airspace and controller workload can only handles so many flights. Any change at DAL could restrict traffic at DFW and Addision and possible McKinney airports. DFW is already planning on increase international traffic (Fiji, Cathy, Eva) and existing airlines (Lufthansa, JAL, BA, Iberia) possibly increasing their flying. The ATC system is already operating near capacity so any change is going to need D.C.(FAA, DOT, and congress) approval to include NATCA and possible the pilots union.

Reply
txjim

Oct 7, 2025 at 8:26 am

A few corrections:
– The original intent of the WA was to shut down all scheduled airline traffic
– Southwest originally flew intra-Texas to skirt Federal requirements
– Adjoining state traffic came after Southwest established themselves
– DAL is and was too important to close entirely. My company had a mod center there and it supports a great deal of business traffic
– Nobody can say that DAL adversely impacts DFW growth. Biggest barrier to expansion now (other than the obvious federal restrictions) is homeowner objections

Reply
CraigTPA

Oct 7, 2025 at 10:09 am

(This is a lunchtime post, so I haven’t had time to find the statute that repeals the WA and implements the 5PA as federal law. So please excuse any technical errors.)

As I understand it, the Five-Party Agreement was embedded into federal law as part of the repeal of the Wright Amendment. So unless that law has in turn been amended or repealed, or that law deviates from the 5PA on the Love Field gate count and includes an expiration date, then the federal statute remains in force and Love can’t grow beyond 20 gates without Congressional action.

Without Congressional action, there are legal arguments against the “5PA Statute” (I can’t find the actual law at the moment) and the 5PA itself. But they’d rotate largely around “Congressional intent” and would require years of litigation and gigantic legal bills, and still stand likely to fail.

If Congress did repeal the “5PA Statute”, then Dallas (and Southwest, if it doesn’t mind straining relationships with DFW and the City of Fort Worth) can argue for it to continue as a private contract. This could be challenged, as the intent of the agreement (all those “whereas…” clauses) and the text itself all indicate that it is intended to be enacted into federal law, and with the law repealed the underlying basis for the contract is no longer valid. But even if Dallas prevailed in court (and that’s another big “if”), again…years of litigation and lots of billable hours.

My initial SWAG is that this is an opening shot to get the other parties (DFW, Fort Worth, American) to voluntarily agree to end the 5PA both as a matter of law and contract.

What I’m not seeing is what the other parties get in remain, unless American really wants to grow at DAL? Fort Worth would no longer be bound by the requirement to oppose anyone wanting to add service to Alliance or Meacham, but the sheer lack of effort on airlines to get this overturned (even in statute, the anti-competitive effect makes it a solid candidate for a court to overturn) suggests no airline is very interested.

This will be interesting, in a legal/political way. But I’ll bet a billion quatloos that this doesn’t lead to any new gates at DAL anytime in the 2020s or early 2030s, if ever.

Reply
1. CraigTPA
  
  Oct 7, 2025 at 10:21 am
  
  “remain” in the second-to-last paragraph should be “return”.
  
  I hate it when people call me about work stuff when I’m editing Cranky Flier posts and my five-minute window is almost up… :-)
  
  Reply
John

Oct 7, 2025 at 11:31 am

I find the plan for an airline lounge interesting. Southwest entering the lounge game? Or possibly an AMEX, Chase Sapphire, or other credit card lounge?

Reply
Exit Row Seat

Oct 7, 2025 at 11:31 am

Another factor is “what is the current mindset of Congress” concerning DAL. Does the city see an opportunity to amend 5PA? Is the current administration open to revision?
The DFW metroplex consists of 7.6 million (4th largest). If DAL continues to be encumbered, then other airports have the excuse to move from under 5PA or for TKI to become a reliever airport to address the growth. Also, too many eggs in one basket should DFW lock down due to a cyber or bomb attack, or other mayhem that ties up the airport for days.
The idea here is to nurture local grass roots support to amend 5PA. Local governments claim their growth is hampered by 5PA. Point out that some of the largest US companies and foreign headquarters are located in DFW area and require flexibility in transportation. Also, any reform of the addendum gives greater opportunity for future growth. The Texas legislature would have to jump on the bandwagon to deflect state opposition. A communications group (spin doctors) could lobby as well as spread the word for reform.
Lots of work ahead to make this change.

Reply
Mr Eric

Oct 7, 2025 at 11:49 am

Cranky – considering the 5 party agreement effectively ends, what’s the issue here?

Is it that 75% of the new gates will automatically be assigned to Southwest? This would be the only eyebrow raising issue in my mind.

Reply
1. Brett
  
  Oct 7, 2025 at 11:58 am
  
  Mr Eric – The Five-Party Agreement doesn’t end. Provisions sunset but not the 20 gate max.
  
  Reply
2. CraigTPA
  
  Oct 7, 2025 at 12:36 pm
  
  The 5PA effectively bans DAL from adding any new gates, that 75% allotment is something the airport is just making up in this new plan, presumably to get Southwest to support it politically.
  
  And even if everything else fell in place the way the City of Dallas wants it to, any airline (even ones at DAL already if they haven’t signed a lease under the new terms) is free to challenge it in court as being illegal on competition law grounds. Or the Feds could themselves if the administration opposes the idea.
  
  EDIT: Anyone else notice an occational glitch in how the site handles replies? I put this in as a reply to Mr. Eric, but it’s showing as a reply to Brett. Not a big deal, just wondering if anyone else has this happen.
  
  Reply