Page 9 of 25 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 450 of 1220

Thread: Southwest & American Airlines

  1. #401
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by psukhu
    I guess we all put up with AA since they are the best way to get back to Dallas when you're coming from the east or west coasts. I can't count the number of times I was in another city and I saw the Southwest ticket counter or gates and wished I could use them to get back to Dallas on a direct flight.

    It will be a whole new ballgame once long hauls are allowed from Love.
    Just a suggestion, but have you checked the SWA schedules lately?
    SWA has tweaked many of it's schedules to take advantage of the one-stop to-from Love Field now allowed, and continues to refine then.
    If a SWA itinerary shows one flight number then it is the same plane for the whole flight, IE no getting off and back on.

    I don't know what cities you fly between, but for example when I compared the flight duration time for LAX/DFW on AA with LAX/DAL on SWA for mid January 08, several of the SWA flights were at 3hr 50 min, vs 3hr 5min for AA. SWA cost less in in each case, and depending on your airport to home travel times, the total travel time may not be that different.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  2. #402
    Super Moderator Tnekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    7,318
    One thing I noticed this year over the last few years are some of the fares on AA. I travel to the Tucson area at Christmas and flew SW last year because the fares were so much cheaper....until this year. Now AA had SW beat by about 200 bucks. Granted I bought my tickets too late to take advantage of the cheaper fares on SW but even with all those tickets sold out on SW American still offered round trip tickets for $239....at Christmas! Obviously they are working harder to compete now than in the past. I also like Americans new pricing system....which looks very much like Southwest.

  3. #403
    Mid-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Tnekster
    Obviously they are working harder to compete now than in the past.
    Or, more likely, SW's been raising fares to keep up with the rising price of fuel and the airline's diminishing fuel hedges.

    Full fare (or last-minute) DAL-HOU is now $130. That's close to a 20% increase in about a year, and for part of that time Love was protected from fare increases by Southwest to help 'grow the market' post-Wright changes.

  4. #404
    Super Moderator Tnekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by interestedobserver
    Or, more likely, SW's been raising fares to keep up with the rising price of fuel and the airline's diminishing fuel hedges.

    Full fare (or last-minute) DAL-HOU is now $130. That's close to a 20% increase in about a year, and for part of that time Love was protected from fare increases by Southwest to help 'grow the market' post-Wright changes.
    I don't doubt that SW is raising fares to keep up with rising fuel prices but using that arguement runs completely opposite of what has happened to fares at AA. I could never get anything to Tucson at Chrsitmas near $239 in years past unless I booked on SW early enough. AA would never offer fares that cheap unless they were trying to fill seats at the last minute.

  5. #405
    Mid-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Tnekster
    I don't doubt that SW is raising fares to keep up with rising fuel prices but using that arguement runs completely opposite of what has happened to fares at AA. I could never get anything to Tucson at Chrsitmas near $239 in years past unless I booked on SW early enough. AA would never offer fares that cheap unless they were trying to fill seats at the last minute.
    I understand what you're saying, but I would chalk that up to AA's Tucson flights having lighter loads at this point in time this year, for whatever the reason. I don't think AA's slashing prices to better compete. In fact, they just raised fares $20. Fares for Christmas and New Year's are sky-high to many places. But the days of Southwest "always" being the cheapest are long since gone.

    As I mentioned about a month ago on this thread, I saved over $150 by flying Continental instead of Southwest on a recent flight. Is Continental competing better? Perhaps, but I think it was simply because on those flights which I wanted to take, the airline hadn't filled as many seats yet.

  6. #406
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by interestedobserver
    As I mentioned about a month ago on this thread, I saved over $150 by flying Continental instead of Southwest on a recent flight. Is Continental competing better? Perhaps, but I think it was simply because on those flights which I wanted to take, the airline hadn't filled as many seats yet.
    Effective November 8, 2007 Southwest announced several changes including simplified fair choices, take a look at: http://www.southwest.com/new/?ref=HP_hero_110707
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  7. #407
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    American Airlines Announces Codesharing With Jet Airways (India) Limited

    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071119/aqm083.html?.v=27

    FORT WORTH, Texas, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- American Airlines, a founding member of the global oneworld® Alliance, today announced it has applied to the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) for authorization to begin codeshare cooperation with Jet Airways (India) Limited. The application proposes that codesharing operations begin on Jan. 16, 2008.
    Good news.... Jet Airlines is a great airline.

  8. #408
    High-Rise Member VectorWega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    West Dallas
    Posts
    947
    Quote Originally Posted by interestedobserver
    I understand what you're saying, but I would chalk that up to AA's Tucson flights having lighter loads at this point in time this year, for whatever the reason. I don't think AA's slashing prices to better compete. In fact, they just raised fares $20. Fares for Christmas and New Year's are sky-high to many places. But the days of Southwest "always" being the cheapest are long since gone.

    As I mentioned about a month ago on this thread, I saved over $150 by flying Continental instead of Southwest on a recent flight. Is Continental competing better? Perhaps, but I think it was simply because on those flights which I wanted to take, the airline hadn't filled as many seats yet.
    Southwest has never "always" been the cheapest. However, they have had the lowest costs and that continues to be the case. However, since September 11th, the other airlines have done a lot of cost cutting which has leveled the playing field to a point.

  9. #409
    Mid-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by VectorWega
    Southwest has never "always" been the cheapest. However, they have had the lowest costs and that continues to be the case. However, since September 11th, the other airlines have done a lot of cost cutting which has leveled the playing field to a point.
    Right, hence the quotes around always. In the not too distant past, the collective psyche of flyers seemed to be that Southwest "always" had the cheapest fare. This notion appears to be fading as Southwest hikes fares to make up for waning fuel hedges and as other airlines cut costs.

  10. #410
    Administrator dfwcre8tive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,650
    American Airlines parent to divest American Eagle regional airline
    02:12 PM CST on Wednesday, November 28, 2007
    By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News
    tmaxon@dallasnews.com
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....4a0ace6a.html

    AMR Corp. said Wednesday it plans to spin off regional carrier American Eagle, saying it would be “the best interests of AMR and its shareholders and will be beneficial to American, American Eagle, their employees, and other stakeholders."

    "The decision comes after a careful and deliberate evaluation of the strategy that will best enable us to continue to create value for our shareholders said AMR chairman and chief executive officer Gerard Arpey said.

    ...

  11. #411
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    991

    An Airline Shrugs at Oil Prices

    New York Times

    November 29, 2007
    An Airline Shrugs at Oil Prices
    By JEFF BAILEY

    Southwest Airlines, in danger for much of this year of losing its quirky dominance in the domestic airline industry, could soon be standing, once again, head and shoulders above the competition.

    Better service? Happier and more productive workers?

    Not this time. The reason for Southwest’s rapidly increasing advantage over other big airlines is much simpler: it loaded up years ago on hedges against higher fuel prices. And with oil trading above $90 a barrel, most of the rest of the airline industry is facing a huge run-up in costs, and Southwest is not.

    Southwest owns long-term contracts to buy most of its fuel through 2009 for what it would cost if oil were $51 a barrel. The value of those hedges soared as oil raced above $90 a barrel, and they are now worth more than $2 billion. Those gains will mostly be realized over the next two years.

    Other major airlines passed on buying all but the shortest-term insurance against high fuel prices, allowing Southwest executives a bit of schadenfreude.

    “It’s true,” said Scott Topping, the treasurer of Southwest and the keeper of the hedges. “We’re not sure what to root for,” in terms of oil prices.

    Southwest is also hurt by higher fuel prices, but....[See The Rest of the article at]: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/bu...gewanted=print
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  12. #412
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    14,609
    Quote Originally Posted by DFWCRE8TIVE
    American Airlines parent to divest American Eagle regional airline
    02:12 PM CST on Wednesday, November 28, 2007
    By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News
    tmaxon@dallasnews.com
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....4a0ace6a.html

    AMR Corp. said Wednesday it plans to spin off regional carrier American Eagle, saying it would be “the best interests of AMR and its shareholders and will be beneficial to American, American Eagle, their employees, and other stakeholders."

    "The decision comes after a careful and deliberate evaluation of the strategy that will best enable us to continue to create value for our shareholders said AMR chairman and chief executive officer Gerard Arpey said.

    ...
    Hello Mecham Field!!

  13. #413
    -
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Back to Lakewood
    Posts
    3,430
    ^Hell no... not until 8 years and/or the full Wright Amendment is lifted.

  14. #414
    Moderator jsoto3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by DFWCRE8TIVE
    American Airlines parent to divest American Eagle regional airline
    http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=23048@ktvt.dayport.com

  15. #415
    Administrator dfwcre8tive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,650
    American's Love Field operation losing customers
    American Eagle struggles to get customers for Dallas airport flights

    09:06 AM CST on Thursday, December 13, 2007
    By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News
    tmaxon@dallasnews.com
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...d.2af6fd7.html

    American Airlines Inc. says it remains committed to providing service out of Dallas Love Field.

    But apparently its Love Field customers, with the option of only two destinations on regional affiliate American Eagle, aren't quite as committed.

    A Dallas Morning News analysis of passenger traffic at the Dallas airport indicates that American Eagle flights there were barely one-third full in November. Overall, American Eagle flights were nearly three-quarters full.

    While American spokesman Tim Wagner would not confirm The News' figures, he did not dispute them. He said the carrier doesn't discuss the fullness of flights – known in the industry as load factors – at its airports.

    However, he acknowledged that filling seats on the Love Field flights has been a challenge, with American and/or its American Eagle regional carrier competing against Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co.

    "We're going to continue to work on improving the consumer awareness of our schedule and our traffic at Love Field," Mr. Wagner said.

    "But it's difficult competing against a carrier that has really been entrenched there for 30 years," he said. "That's something that we've acknowledged all along. Just like anybody competing against an airline with a fortress hub, a term people like to use, the entrenched carrier at Love Field has a large schedule and a large network – and that's what we're up against."

    According to Flightstats.com, an Internet service that provides information on flight completions and delays, American Eagle operated 838 flights in November to and from its two Love Field destinations: Austin and Kansas City, Mo. Using 50-seat Embraer jets, the flights provided 41,900 seats for the month.

    The Dallas Aviation Department says American Eagle boarded or deplaned 14,865 passengers in November. That total means the average flight filled 35.5 percent of its seats, or about 18 passengers on every 50-seat jet – almost enough to give every customer his or her own row.

    Using U.S. Department of Transportation data, aviation consultant Michael Boyd found much the same results as The News. Looking at the 12 months ended July 31, Mr. Boyd said, the American or American Eagle flights to and from Austin averaged 38 percent load factors.

    During the same period, Southwest's Dallas-Austin flights filled 71 percent of their seats.

    In the Dallas-Kansas City market, American had 45 percent of seats filled, compared with Southwest's 77 percent.

    In two Love Field markets since abandoned by American – St. Louis and San Antonio – American fared no better.

    American averaged 43 percent load factors on its St. Louis flights, compared with 68 percent for Southwest. To and from San Antonio, American averaged 40 percent to Southwest's 71 percent.

    "They're having their heads handed to them," said Mr. Boyd, president of the Boyd Group of Evergreen, Colo. Despite what American officials have claimed, Mr. Boyd said, Love Field "is not the preferred airport" for American's customers.

    Strange doings are not unusual in the Love Field market, which carries some heavy political baggage.

    History of Wright

    A federal law known as the Wright amendment limits airline service out of Love Field. The law, passed in 1979 to protect Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, originally said airlines could not provide direct or connecting service from Love Field to any point beyond Texas and four contiguous states.

    In 1997, Congress added Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama to the Wright amendment perimeter.

    Over that same time period, Southwest Airlines, based out of Love Field, grew from an upstart Texas carrier to one of the biggest and most-feared competitors in the nation.

    It always declined to fly out of the much-larger D/FW Airport. That effectively insulated American from the low-cost competition in its back yard, at least on long-distance routes.

    But in 2004, Southwest officials for the first time began to actively lobby for repeal of the Wright amendment, arguing that it was an unfair restraint of trade.

    As part of its argument against the repeal, American officials said they would be forced to go heavily into Love Field, increasing congestion in the skies over Dallas neighborhoods.

    In late 2005, Congress added Missouri as a Wright amendment destination state. In response, American returned to Love Field to launch new service to Kansas City and St. Louis, following Southwest's lead.

    American's regional affiliate, American Eagle Airlines Inc., also launched flights to Austin and San Antonio out of Love Field.

    In June 2006, Southwest, American, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, and the D/FW Airport board agreed on a compromise to settle the long-festering dispute over Love Field service.

    That deal, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in October 2006, allows carriers to offer service to cities beyond the Wright amendment perimeter – initially with one-stop or connecting service passing through airports inside the perimeter and, after October 2014, with nonstop service to anywhere in the United States.

    Since then, average load factors on Southwest flights to and from Love Field have jumped by between 3 percentage points and 8 percentage points, Mr. Boyd said.

    "They got what they wanted," he said, referring to Southwest.

    Speaking to an investment conference last week, Southwest chief financial officer Laura Wright referred to Love Field as "a shining star in our route system all of 2007."

    Even if American did want to turn Love Field into a major operation, the 2006 compromise would not allow it to do so. The deal gives American only two gates out of 20 at the airport.

    Last April, American pulled its jets out of the Dallas airport. American Eagle and a regional partner, Trans States Airlines Inc., began providing all the service to the four cities from Dallas.

    Then, in September, the carrier stopped service to St. Louis and San Antonio and increased service to Austin and Kansas City, with all flights flown by American Eagle.

    Still, the strategy isn't working.

    With 34 percent load factors, "they're losing money on those routes," said Darryl Jenkins, another aviation consultant. "There's no doubt about it."

    Losing money

    Mr. Wagner of American acknowledged that flights with low load factors do lose money.

    "But for an airline, it's not unusual, when you're entering a market, to lose money," he said. "It's a process of educating customers and winning customers away from other airlines. In that light, you could say Love Field is a microcosm of the airline industry."

    Nothing is forever in the airline industry, particularly with crude oil prices exceeding $90 a barrel, Mr. Wagner said.

    "But we're in Love Field right now, and we're going to try to make that work," he said.

    Mr. Boyd suggested that American should end service at the Dallas airport and concentrate all its North Texas efforts on its D/FW Airport hub.

    "They backed themselves into a corner, and they have to get out of it, be graceful and leave," he said.

    Mr. Jenkins, a Virginia-based consultant, said American may be staying at Love Field, despite the pain, because it wants to hurt its rival.

    In the airline industry, "every time I hear them say they're doing it for strategic reasons, I presume they're saying they're losing money so they can screw people," Mr. Jenkins said.

    AT LOVE FIELD

    Here's a summary of American Eagle's operations at Love Field in November.

    Destinations: Austin and Kansas City

    Flights: 838

    Seats available: 41,900

    Passengers: 14,865

    Percentage of seats filled: 35.5%

    SOURCES: Flightstats.com; Dallas Aviation Department; American Eagle; Dallas Morning News research

  16. #416
    Incoherent Rambler grantboston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    1,297
    ^Isn't it obvious the only reason AA uses the gates at all is to prevent Southwest or anyone else from getting their hands on them and offer services that competes with their DFW service?

  17. #417
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    65
    This should really anger the AA employees that took significant pay cuts. AA management has been running a money losing operation at Love Field that's costing the organization tens of millions. Then that management team turns around and gives itself a bonus for brilliant management and tells the front line employees that it can't afford to pay them any more.

  18. #418
    Incoherent Rambler grantboston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    1,297
    I think there's some logic behind this gate squatting. If you assume Southwest would take AA's gates, they could offer more flights to more destinations (especially after 2014) that would more directly compete with AA at DFW.

    Moreover, AA is preventing jetBlue or others (NWA or expressjet) from entering the market and competing against AA to other destinations like NYC. Is this bad for competition? Of course, but less competition is good for AA (and for any airline in the industry in some markets).

  19. #419
    Frank Lloyd Wright Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cedars
    Posts
    4,697
    Once AA divests Eagle, how would they hold on to them? Eagle will not have the deep pockets to maintain a losing operation and bringing AA full cost structure to hold the gates would likely increase the losses. I assume that's why they shifted to Eagle.

  20. #420
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    65
    Eagle pilots are now saying that the APA contract at American prohibits any flying that is not to or from a hub by any airline that is not wholly owned by AMR. That would mean that Eagle would have to stop flying about 250 flights of their 1,700 including all of their flights at Love Field. At least its going to save them a lot of money.

  21. #421
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    991

    Age 60 Rule Granted as a Favor to AAmerican Finally Repealed

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus
    I saw this clip on channel 5 last night, comparing AAmerican and Southwest pilot unions.

    http://www.nbc5i.com/video/10673863/index.html

    I found it intersting that the TV reporter did not mention that ICAO, (pilots from the rest of the worlds airlines) started allowing Captains to fly to age 65 starting Nov. 2006, and the USA allows these over 60 age pilots to fly passengers in and out of the USA, at the same time preventing US pilots from doing the same.

    Recalling the story I heard several times about how AAmerican pulled in yet another political favor to bypass the system, getting the "Age 60 Rule" in place a few decades ago, I did some research. I found lots of data verifying that info. This link is perhaps the best in putting all the events together. http://www.ppf.org/chrono.htm


    Age 60 Rule Chronology


    Early 1950's Several airlines unilaterally established mandatory pilot retirements at age 60. ALPA objected, but enhanced retirement programs were then taking precedence in its contract negotiations, so did not actively resist the issue.

    1956-58 Pilots at three carriers (Western, TWA & American) challenged the mandatory retirement issue through the labor grievance machinery. All three were decided in the pilot's favor. TWA and American had defended on contractual grounds. Western defended exclusively on the safety issue, which was decisively rejected by the arbitrator.

    1956 In response to a general breakdown of the air traffic control system, leading to several dramatic mid-air collisions, near misses, etc., the Congress authorized (and funded) a full review of the airman medical certification standards. The Civil Aviation Administration assigned the review to the non -profit Flight Safety Foundation and requested a separate, expedited examination of the standards applying to air traffic controllers.

    1957 Congress created and funded the Airways Modernization Board to manage the restructuring of the airways traffic control system. Then President Eisenhower appointed Gen. Elwood Quesada, his war-time commander of the European Theater's Tactical Air Forces as Chairman.

    1958 Congress totally reorganized the CAA. Assigning economic regulation to the CAB, and creating the FAA to manage the air traffic systems and overall safety responsibilities. Eisenhower appointed Quesada as the FAA's first Administrator.

    1958 Two Flight Safety Foundation (medical) reports (the first on air traffic controllers, the second on pilots) were released. The first recommended a specific retirement age for air traffic controllers. The second, after considering impact of the newly introduced jet transport aircraft, specifically recommended no change to the pilot medical certification standards.

    1958 TWA and Western acceded to the labor arbitrations, reinstating their over age 60 pilots. American refused. On December 20, the pilots at American went out on strike (over both contract renewal and the retirement issues). The airline capitulated to the pilot's demands on Jan. 10, 1959, including acceptance of the arbitrator's ruling on reinstating the over age 60 pilots.

    Feb.5, 1959 C.R. Smith, Chairman of American (and a personal friend of Gen. Quesada) addressed a personal plea (that, by its typographical errors [FOIA] he seems to have prepared himself), to Gen. Quesada, acknowledging his loss on the age 60 retirement issue, and seeking an FAA regulation to solve his labor problem.

    Mar. 1959 FAA initiates a complete revision of airman medical certification standards in response to the recommendations of the Flight Safety Foundation reports. No concern for any aspect of pilot aging is included.

    April 17, 1959 FAA Administrator Quesada in a letter to the Reverend Theodore Hesburg: President of Notre Dame University; "There exists at present no sound scientific evidence that airline piloting, or any other aeronautical activity, becomes critical at any given age."

    June 1959 FAA initiates the regulatory process in response to the request by C.R. Smith for a mandatory age 60 pilot retirement. Although the stated arguments were medical in nature, no mention of, or reference to, the Flight Safety Foundation reports, or the concurrent revision of the medical certification standards was acknowledged.

    Sect. 602 of the Federal Aviation Act 49 USC 1422(b) Ref. Certificate denials: Appeals were intentionally included in the Federal Aviation Act mandating that the burden of proof was to rest upon the Administrator, not the appellant.

    Sept. 1959 Revision of medical certification standards completed and promulgated.

    Dec. 1959 Promulgation of the Age 60 Rule.

    Jan. 1960 Federal District Court refuses to enjoin enforcement of the Age 60 Rule with a ruling that begins by lauding Gen. Quesada's wartime exploits, cites a Washington Post editorial, and quotes an after dinner speech by socialite-philanthropist Harry F. Guggenheim (with Quesada in attendance). ALPA v Quesada, 182 F.Supp. 595 (S.D., N.Y., 1960)

    Jan. 1961 Gen Elwood Quesada retires from the FAA and is immediately elected to American Airlines Board of Directors.

    1961-62 FAA initiates the Georgetown Clinical Research Institutes Studies, advertised as a "long-term" (planned 30 year) search for objective criteria with which to replace the arbitrary Age 60 Rule. However, the protocol seems to have been patterned on the 1958 Flight Safety Foundation report on air traffic controllers, not pilots, and enrolled primarily air traffic controllers as subjects, not pilots.

    1965 FAA suddenly terminates the Georgetown study during an investigation by the House Government Operations Committee. The Committee found the FAA's study to have collected no usable data during its five years of operation, and no system or capability to analyze data if it had any. Total cost is reported to have been $2.5 million (in 1960 dollars).

    1968 Congress passes the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Secretary of Labor (administrator of the ADEA) declares the Age 60 Rule to be a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)

    1969-70 Relying on extremely favorable aging data of military pilots, flight test pilots, and air carrier pilots collected at the Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, N.M., in a study on normal human aging funded by the Nat'l. Institutes of Health (NIH), several pilots initiate petitions for exemptions to the Age 60 Rule.

    1972 As the action initiated above approaches the hearings and court stages, FAA "loses" the entire Age 60 "docket".

    1974 O'Donnell v Shaffer, 491 F.2d 59 is decided for the Agency by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis of the "record" on which the rule was promulgated. However, no acknowledgment of the missing docket appears.

    1978-79 Four challenges against the Rule are decided in four different circuit courts. Starr v FAA, 589 F.2d 307 (7th Cir., 1978). Rombough v FAA, 594 F.2d 893 (2nd Cir. 1979), Keating v FAA, 610 F. 2d 611 (9th Cir., 1979), Gray v FAA, 594 F.2d 793 (10th Cir., 1979) Decided on a "substantial evidence" basis, presumably relying on the complete "record" on which the rule had been founded, none acknowledge the missing docket.

    1979 Congress amends the ADEA, creating the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), for administration.

    1979 The Aviation Subcommittee recommends overturning the Age 60 Rule by legislation. The recommendation makes it to the floor of the House, but intense lobbying by ALPA (with massive organized labor assistance°), waters it down to a "study" by the NIH and the National Institute on Aging (NIA).

    1981 EEOC rescinds the Department of Labor declaration of the Age 60 Rule as a BFOQ.

    1981 The NIA/NIH study finds no medical basis for the Rule, but recommends keeping it in place temporarily, with the FAA agreeing to grant waivers to selected pilots to determine the feasibility of raising or eliminating the Rule.

    1981 In its response to the NIH/NIA recommendation, FAA proposes inclusion of Flight Engineers under the Age 60 Rule. This totally unrelated proposal was initiated at the request of United Airlines, then losing a court effort to force mandatory retirement of its Flight Engineers at age 60. (This is a repeat of the C.R. Smith/American Airlines appeal to Gen. Quesada in 1959.)

    1984 FAA reneges. The Directors of the NIA and NIH criticize the FAA for its refusal to follow the panel's recommendations. The Director of the NIA, after consultation with the NIH, formally rescinds the earlier panel's recommendation to retain the rule temporarily, and declares (in Congressional testimony) that the agency policy is that medical science can adequately identify disability and protect public safety.

    Nov. 24, 1984 Letter to Dr. Stan Mohler from Dr. Frank Austin, Federal Air Surgeon; "There is no medical basis for the Age 60 Rule." "I believe this and Admiral Engen (FAA Administrator) believes this." "It's an economic issue."

    1984-present EEOC embarks on a successful, long term effort to erase the non-airline industry's reliance on the Age 60 Rule as a BFOQ for non-air carrier piloting.

    1988 Aman v FAA, 856 F.2d 946 (7th Cir., 1988) The Seventh Circuit remands a pilot group petition for further findings on the issue of whether an older pilot's greater experience overcomes any immeasurable decrement of aging.

    Feb. 15, 1989 Dr. George Kidera, original member of panel promulgating the (letter) Age 60 Rule: "Granting qualified pilots over the age of 60 exemptions from the provisions of 14CFR 121.383(c), will not compromise safety."

    1989 GAO: By 1980, 365 airmen were recertified for alcoholism with an 18% relapse rate. Fact Sheet By 1983, there were 409 alcohol recertifications, with 40 issued after 1 relapse and 3 after the 2nd relapse.

    1990 Baker v FAA, 917 F.2d 318 (7th Cir., 1990) FAA relies on a 1983 statistical study examining age, experience and accidents to deny the inference of the Aman remand. In its presentation to the court, the FAA concealed the fact that the author of this study was an accountant, not a statistician, the report had been severely criticized throughout the scientific community when submitted, had been rejected by the FAA's own office of Aviation Safety, under whose authority and direction the study had been conducted, and had never been published.

    Quote from Petitioners Brief.

    ALPA President Henry Duffy: It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60: on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable.

    1993 FAA releases Hilton Study (also known as the CAMI study) [Civil AeroMedical Institute]. Study finds "no hint of an increase in accident rates as pilots near age 60" and concludes that the retirement age may safely be raised. FAA holds Public Meeting to gather comments on Hilton Study and the Age 60 Rule. Scheduled for a half day, meeting continues for two days, with 83% of speakers against the Age 60 Rule. Foreign airlines with waivers to the Rule attend. Professional Pilots Federation (PPF), formed in 1991 to eliminate the Rule, files a petition with the FAA to amend or eliminate the rule. Another petition asks for equal status for U.S. pilots given foreign aircrews flying into the United States, i.e., one pilot (not PIC) may be over age 60 if the other is below age 60.

    May 1995 Australian Chief Justice Wilcox: "Given the time and effort expended in America examining the age 60 rule, it is remarkable to say so, but it seems to me that none of the cited studies supports any conclusion about the relationship between that rule and aircraft safety." Australia drops Age 60 Rule.

    Dec. 1995 FAA issues "Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements" imposing an Age 60 Rule on pilots operating 10-30 seat aircraft. (formerly exempted) FAA also issued a "Disposition of Comments and Notice of Agency Decisions on the Age 60 Rule", announcing no action at this time. All petitions and individual exemption requests were denied on December 28.

    Dec. 1995 PPF files for a review of the FAA's action in the D.C. Court of Appeals.

    Jan. 1996 PPF files an age discrimination case against Fedex in Memphis, TN, on behalf of one of its members forcibly terminated for reaching age 60.

    Jan. 1996 European Union (12 nations) officially changes to age 65 retirement for airline pilots.

    June 1996 The House Appropriations Committee introduces an amendment giving the NTSB authority to study the necessity of the Age 60 Rule. ALPA rallies its forces and the amendment is dropped by a vote of 247 to 159.

    July 1997 D.C. Court of Appeals denies PPF petition for review by 2-1 decision. Dissenting Judge Patricia Wald states: "More importantly, the Age 60 Rule stands as an instance of government-mandated age discrimination for a particular group of employees."

    Aug. 1997 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rules in favor of Fedex, following quickly in lockstep with the decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals.

    Aug. 1997 PPF files for Rehearing with Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc, in D.C. Court of Appeals. In an unusual turn, the Court ordered the FAA to respond to our request for Rehearing. FAA responds (Oct.) with a rehash of arguments used in original filing.

    Nov. 1997 Request for rehearing/en banc denied.

    Dec. 1997 Filing date for Supreme Court certiorari (Request for Hearing) of Coup v. FedEx.

    Feb. 1998 Filing date for Supreme Court certiorari of PPF v. FAA.

    Mar. 1998 Supreme Court denies certiorari (hearing) of Coupe case.

    May 1998 Supreme Court denies certiorari of PPF v. FAA

    June 1998 Filing date for "request for rehearing" of PPF v. FAA, to Supreme Court.

    July 1998 Request for rehearing denied.

    July 1998 New legal action tactics being finalized.

    Nov 1998 Bell, Boyd and Lloyd engaged for new legal action.

    July 2000 After refusal by the FAA to grant exemptions to 69 petitioners, PPF files for review with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The issue presented is whether, given the safety record of experienced senior pilots, an individual age 60 pilot qualified in all areas of physiological and cognitive function identified by the FAA in granting exemptions to medically disqualified pilots under age 60, provides a level of safety equal to that under the FAA;s age 60 rule.

    Oct 2000 The Civil Aviation Medicine Association, an organization of FAA approved medical examiners states that: The consensus of the Association is that mandatory retirement for an airline pilot who has reached the age of 60 is without medical basis.

    August 2001 The Court of Appeals defers to the FAA, and our appeal is denied. PPF decides not to request certiori.

    October 2001 A new legal action is formulated, based on a point of administrative law that requires the court to defer to the agency (FAA) unless fraud or abuse of power is charged.

    Dec 2001 An attorney is hired and the wheels are placed into motion for another legal action based on FAA Fraud and Deceit.

    June 2002 A Petition for Exemption is filed with the FAA, requesting exemptions for 10 PPF members, based on the FAA's long and continuing efforts to deceive Congress, the public and the courts in order to justify the age 60 rule. Exhibits show proof of the intentional doctoring of studies, misinformation given to Congress and the courts, and documents from within the FAA describing the Rule as not a safety issue, but economic.

    Oct. 2003 FAA rejects the Petition of 12 (amended) pilots for exemptions claiming their facts are redundant and they are attempting to change the Age 60 Rule rather than be granted exemptions.

    Oct. 2003 Filed Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Aviation Administration with the D.C. Court of Appeals, Washington, D.C. Filed Counter-Statement of the case to the FAA, as required.

    Jan. 2004 The prestigious AeroSpace Medical Association issues a position paper concluding; "Upon review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone."

    Mar. 2004 Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) filed by the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association stating that "The Agency improperly based its decision on an erroneous construction of the data contained in the agency's Civil AeroMedical Institute's Pilot Age and Accident Rate Report 4". And that one Petitioner, "a SWAPA member, has provided the agency with the results of medical testing that proves his age does not justify application of the age 60 Rule to him".

    Sept. 2004 D.C. Court of Appeals denies Petition stating that Petitioners failed to include specific information required by 14 C.F.R. - 11.61 ("You must include the following information in your petition for an exemption...The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek the exemption....") It would logically seem that if the Petitioners are accusing the FAA of Fraud and Abuse of Power, and offering proof that the FAA doctored the books to make it appear as if the Rule is a safety rule when it isn't, then supplying reasons why exemptions would affect safety is surrendering to the very basics of the fraud Petitioners are alleging.

    Nov. 2004 Petitioners filed for Rehearing En Banc, a review by ALL members of the D.C. Court of Appeals.

    Dec. 2004 Petition for Rehearing En Banc denied.

    Jan. 2005 Preparations requesting hearing by the Supreme Court (certiori) underway. Petition must be filed by March 14, 2005.

    Jan. 2005 Senate bill S.65 introduced by Senator James Inhofe (OK), which would connect pilot retirement age with Social Security age.

    Jan. 2005 House bill H.65 introduced by Representative James Gibbons (NV), which mirrors the Senate bill .

    Mar. 2005 Certiori filed with Supreme Court.

    Mar. 2005 Southwest Airlines files supporting Amicus with Supreme Court.

    May 2, 2005 Supreme Court denies Certiori without explanation.

    Nov. 2005 Senate mark-up on S.65 is completed with an amendment by Senator Ted Stevens (AK), to mirror the ICAO resolution, effective November, 2006, allowing Captains to fly up to age 65, if the SIC is not over age 60. FAA would have to conform within 30 days of the ICAO changeover. ICAO, tentatively, will start allowing Captains to fly to age 65 starting Nov. 2006

    Organizations, Government Agencies and Airlines
    who have testified, written and/or otherwise
    supported changing the Age 60 Rule.

    1. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
    2. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    3. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
    4. U.S. Airways Retired Pilots Association
    5. National Air Carrier Association
    6. Joint Aviation Authorities for the European Union
    7. Civil Aeronautical Authority of the United Kingdom
    8. The French Representative to the JAA
    9. CorseAir International (French)
    10. Israel Air Line Pilots Association
    11. Experimental Aircraft Association
    12. Southwest Airlines
    13. Continental Air Lines
    14. America West Airlines
    15. World Airways
    16. Carnival Airlines
    17. Kiwi Airlines
    18. Emery International Airlines
    19. Society of Automotive Engineers
    20. Aircraft Ferry Group
    21. Southern Flyer, Inc.
    22. Mayo Clinic

    While all that Geographic Puffery has been taking place in another thread, the most important legislation to pilots in almost 50 years has sailed through both houses of congress and been signed into law by President Bush. The age 60 Rule granted as a favor to AAmerican has finally been repealed effective at it's signing.


    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...nt%20Age%20Act
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  22. #422
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    991

    Southwest Airlines Performs Christmas Miracle for 171 Texas Families

    Southwest Brings 171 Soldiers Home for the Holidays

    Last update: 11:00 a.m. EST Dec. 21, 2007

    DALLAS, Dec 21, 2007 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Southwest Airlines will fly 171 Texas Army National Guard soldiers from North Carolina to Texas on Sunday, Dec. 23. The 436th Chemical Company of the Texas Army National Guard is stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, waiting for deployment to Afghanistan. They recently got news that their deployment has been delayed, so now they are able to spend the holidays with their families, and Southwest Airlines is making it possible! The soldiers will arrive in Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio on Sunday courtesy of Southwest. Southwest Airlines Employees and Customers will be alongside their families to welcome home the soldiers!

    "Southwest Airlines is happy to be able to grant this Christmas wish for these troops to reunite with their families," said Southwest Airlines President Colleen Barrett. "We are so proud of what these soldiers are doing for our country, and we are blessed to give back."

    When the troops' scheduled departure to Afghanistan was delayed, the Commander said the soldiers could go home for the holidays if arrangements were possible for every soldier. Families scurried to raise money to fund everyone's trip to Texas, but were unsuccessful. Southwest Airlines learned of the effort and stepped in to offer flights to all 171 soldiers!

    "The support and generosity of Southwest Airlines is an unbelievable blessing to our soldiers and their families," said Dora Cortez, member of the 436th Chemical Company's Family Support Group. "Many of the children haven't asked for Christmas presents this year; they simply want their daddies home."

    Southwest Airlines is proud to support our troops. The airline has more than 700 of its own family who serve in the National Guard and Reserves. Southwest Airlines has gained recognition for its commitment to these Employees. In 2007, Southwest Airlines was named one of the Top 50 Military Friendly Employers. Also, Southwest Airlines was recognized by the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) in 2003 for its commitment and support of the airline's Employees who serve in the National Guard and Reserve.


    Full story at:
    http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...0A}&siteid=nbs
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  23. #423
    Mid-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    349
    "Southwest Airlines is happy to be able to grant this Christmas wish for these troops to reunite with their families," said Southwest Airlines President Colleen Barrett. "We are so proud of what these soldiers are doing for our country, and we are blessed to give back."

  24. #424
    Administrator dfwcre8tive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,650
    American Airlines next to last in on-time arrivals
    11:38 AM CST on Thursday, January 3, 2008
    By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News
    tmaxon@dallasnews.com
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.6c6fca1.html

    One in every five flights on U.S. airlines arrived late in November, a result that was still an improvement from October and the same period a year earlier.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation said U.S. airlines had 80 percent of their flights arrive on time in November, up 3.5 points from November 2006 and 1.8 points from October 2007.

    However, Fort Worth-based American Airlines Inc. came in 19th out of 20 carriers who report their results to the federal government finishing just ahead of United Airlines Inc.

    American saw 75.6 percent of its flights arrive within 15 minutes of schedule, down 1.3 points from November 2006. United posted a 75.5 percent record, down 3 points.

    Dallas-based Southwest Airlines finished fifth among the 20 carriers with a 84.5 percent on-time record, up 1.1 points from a year earlier.

    The overall leaders were Hawaiian Airlines, 92.4 percent, and Aloha Airlines, 91.6 percent. Among the nation’s 10 largest carriers, Delta led the pack with 85.6 percent, followed by Southwest.

    The Department of Transportation said that the 20 carriers received 4.89 reports of mishandled baggage per 1,000 passengers in November, down from 6.32 reports in November 2006.

    Worst among the carriers was American Eagle Airlines Inc., which had 9.24 reports per 1,000. Best was JetBlue Airways Corp. with a rate of 2.95. Southwest ranked 10th with 4.56 reports, while American finished 11th with 5.36 reports per 1,000.

    Aloha finished best in the industry on consumer complaints, receiving none in November, while US Airways brought up the tail with 2.26 complaints per 100,000 passengers. The industry average was 0.99 complaints.

    Southwest finished third with 0.24 complaints per 100,000, while American ranked 16th with 1.15.

    JetBlue bumped 0.01 passengers per 10,000 through involuntary “denied boardings,” best among the 20 carriers, with Atlantic Southeast Airlines the worst at 4.11 passengers per 10,000. American ranked sixth at 0.61, while Southwest placed 12th with 1.15 passengers per 10,000.

  25. #425
    Done
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497

    "Hic"

    Quote Originally Posted by DFWCRE8TIVE
    American Airlines next to last in on-time arrivals
    11:38 AM CST on Thursday, January 3, 2008
    By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News
    tmaxon@dallasnews.com
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.6c6fca1.html

    One in every five flights on U.S. airlines arrived late in November, a result that was still an improvement from October and the same period a year earlier.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation said U.S. airlines had 80 percent of their flights arrive on time in November, up 3.5 points from November 2006 and 1.8 points from October 2007.

    However, Fort Worth-based American Airlines Inc. came in 19th out of 20 carriers who report their results to the federal government finishing just ahead of United Airlines Inc.

    American saw 75.6 percent of its flights arrive within 15 minutes of schedule, down 1.3 points from November 2006. United posted a 75.5 percent record, down 3 points.

    Dallas-based Southwest Airlines finished fifth among the 20 carriers with a 84.5 percent on-time record, up 1.1 points from a year earlier.

    The overall leaders were Hawaiian Airlines, 92.4 percent, and Aloha Airlines, 91.6 percent. Among the nation’s 10 largest carriers, Delta led the pack with 85.6 percent, followed by Southwest.

    The Department of Transportation said that the 20 carriers received 4.89 reports of mishandled baggage per 1,000 passengers in November, down from 6.32 reports in November 2006.

    Worst among the carriers was American Eagle Airlines Inc., which had 9.24 reports per 1,000. Best was JetBlue Airways Corp. with a rate of 2.95. Southwest ranked 10th with 4.56 reports, while American finished 11th with 5.36 reports per 1,000.

    Aloha finished best in the industry on consumer complaints, receiving none in November, while US Airways brought up the tail with 2.26 complaints per 100,000 passengers. The industry average was 0.99 complaints.

    Southwest finished third with 0.24 complaints per 100,000, while American ranked 16th with 1.15.

    JetBlue bumped 0.01 passengers per 10,000 through involuntary “denied boardings,” best among the 20 carriers, with Atlantic Southeast Airlines the worst at 4.11 passengers per 10,000. American ranked sixth at 0.61, while Southwest placed 12th with 1.15 passengers per 10,000.
    With DFW airport further losing ground to the other 2 major airports in numbers of landings and takeoffs served and with the price of a barrel of oil reaching $100, we should be thankful just to arrive safely on a plane. Could someone please . . . PLEASE . . . send notifications to all those impatient bosses out there to give us a break? Thank you. Also, could the few people out there complaining about arriving late also give us a break? I know that there does exist a lot of germs in the closed confines of an airplane that could cause infections when passengers have to wait for hours in their seats because of delays. But it could be worse. You could be a patient in a hospital. So try to relax. Take it in stride. Have a drink or 7. Take this opportunity to relate and bond with your community.

  26. #426
    Mega-Tall Skyscraper Member AeroD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The County of Collin
    Posts
    3,437
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNifty
    With DFW airport further losing ground to the other 2 major airports in numbers of landings and takeoffs served and with the price of a barrel of oil reaching $100, we should be thankful just to arrive safely on a plane. Could someone please . . . PLEASE . . . send notifications to all those impatient bosses out there to give us a break? Thank you. Also, could the few people out there complaining about arriving late also give us a break? I know that there does exist a lot of germs in the closed confines of an airplane that could cause infections when passengers have to wait for hours in their seats because of delays. But it could be worse. You could be a patient in a hospital. So try to relax. Take it in stride. Have a drink or 7. Take this opportunity to relate and bond with your community.
    An American Airlines apologist.
    Tighten the female dog!

  27. #427
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNifty
    With DFW airport further losing ground to the other 2 major airports in numbers of landings and takeoffs served...
    What are you talking about? DFW just completed a record breaking year.

    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNifty
    and with the price of a barrel of oil reaching $100, we should be thankful just to arrive safely on a plane. Could someone please . . . PLEASE . . . send notifications to all those impatient bosses out there to give us a break? Thank you. Also, could the few people out there complaining about arriving late also give us a break? I know that there does exist a lot of germs in the closed confines of an airplane that could cause infections when passengers have to wait for hours in their seats because of delays. But it could be worse. You could be a patient in a hospital. So try to relax. Take it in stride. Have a drink or 7. Take this opportunity to relate and bond with your community.
    Irregular, unpredictable airline operating schedules impose millions upon millions of dollars of expense on the national economy in the form of lost productivity, needless expenditures on hotel rooms and rental cars, missed opportunities, etc.

  28. #428
    Administrator dfwcre8tive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,650
    American Airlines to test anti-missile system this spring
    12:44 PM CST on Friday, January 4, 2008
    Associated Press
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...te.6dfb9b.html

    Up to three American Airlines jets will be outfitted with anti-missile technology this spring in the latest phase of testing technology to protect commercial planes from attack.

    An American Airlines spokesman said Friday that the test will determine how well the anti-missile system holds up under the rigors of flight.

    The first Boeing 767-200 will be equipped in April or later, said the airline spokesman, Tim Wagner. American operates that Boeing model mostly between New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles.

    American said it is "not in favor" of putting anti-missile systems on commercial planes but agreed to take part in the tests to understand technologies that might be available in the future.

    The technology is intended to stop a missile attack by detecting heat given off from the rocket, then firing a laser beam that jams the missile's guidance system.

    The device on the belly of the Boeing 767-200 aircraft will be operational but won't be tested on regular flights, Wagner said. The use of a signal to mimic a missile attack has already been tested in the air, Wagner said.

    American, the nation's largest carrier, has been working with defense contractor BAE Systems PLC on the project for a couple years. In 2006, BAE installed its hardware on a Boeing 767 that wasn't used to fly paying passengers.

    About a year ago, reporters were invited to American's maintenance base in Fort Worth to see a jet outfitted with the laser-jamming device on its belly.

    "We are now entering the next phase," Wagner said, which is "to see how the system holds up on an aircraft in real-time conditions – weather, continuous takeoffs and landings, etc. – and to test its maintenance reliability."

    Wagner said American is also collecting more information on how the laser-jamming device affects fuel consumption.

    Congress has approved funding for anti-missile research partly out of fear that terrorists armed with shoulder-fired weapons could hit jetliners as they take off and land. U.K.-based BAE won a contract from the Homeland Security Department to test its technology.

    Fort Worth-based American, a unit of AMR Corp., has said anti-missile defense is best handled by stopping terrorists from getting missiles that could shoot down commercial jets and by improving security around airports.

  29. #429
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,684
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    What are you talking about? DFW just completed a record breaking year.
    Not true.

    "Coming in third was Dallas-Fort Worth International, with 686,711 flights in 2007, 2.3 percent less than its 2006 flights."

    http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009606177

  30. #430
    Done
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    What are you talking about? DFW just completed a record breaking year.
    Look, how long is the Metroplex going to be happy with DFW airport marketing itself as just a big thing that attracts millions of people? When considering it is operating now at the bottom of its potential having lost about as much business as it can to Denver and Houston, after Delta quit serving the airport, even a small percentage of growth by the airport should be considered a disappointment.

    The problem with judging performance at DFW is that it is an unfathomable task. Most are just happy with the airport serviing millions of passengers regardless of whether it is growing or not. What they don't realize is that the numbers have serious consequences on the overall health of the Metroplex economy. People should be concerned right now when the airport either doesn't grow or does so slightly. Especially since, as I pointed out, the business at the airport has shrank down to about as far as it is ever going to.

    DFW airport is supposed to be comparable to Hartsfield and O'hara. But the big engine that DFW is to the Metroplex just isn't working for the Metroplex as Hartsfield is for Atlanta or O'hara is for Chicago. Instead people in the Metroplex seem happy with the idea that the airport is more of a competitor with the airports in Denver or Houston.

    When an engine doesn't work in a Porshe there still exists a problem with the overall vehicle regardless of how fast the car goes. There is tremendous potential for growth at DFW airport even beyond the trickle of success that it is sputtering out right now.

    In my opinion the big dog isn't hunting for the Metroplex even when compared to the airports in the smaller markets of Denver and Houston.

    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Irregular, unpredictable airline operating schedules impose millions upon millions of dollars of expense on the national economy in the form of lost productivity, needless expenditures on hotel rooms and rental cars, missed opportunities, etc.
    Isn't this a good reason to have airlines based again at the hubs? Hopefully this will be how things work out again in the future to the benefit of DFW airport. The problem with considering so called lost productivity is that it is only one aspect of what airlines focus their expenditures on. Another focus is safety. The danger in considering the abstract economics you use above is that airlines would balance the benefits of safety with that of improving convenience for passengers. Safety and security are not inconvenient aspects of the airline business but necessities.

  31. #431
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter
    Not true.

    "Coming in third was Dallas-Fort Worth International, with 686,711 flights in 2007, 2.3 percent less than its 2006 flights."

    http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009606177
    True, but passenger counts were up, PFCs were up, airport revenues were up, and the airport ended up with a record surplus.

    In other words, yes, there was less flight activity, but this was more than offset by increased passenger loads and the ancillary revenues associated therewith.

    This is not surprising, as it reflects AA's overall strategy, which has been to shrink the airline but run higher loads.

  32. #432
    Done
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497

    Growth at DFW is not necessarily positive

    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    True, but passenger counts were up, PFCs were up, airport revenues were up, and the airport ended up with a record surplus.

    In other words, yes, there was less flight activity, but this was more than offset by increased passenger loads and the ancillary revenues associated therewith.

    This is not surprising, as it reflects AA's overall strategy, which has been to shrink the airline but run higher loads.
    Passenger counts had better be up considering the airport really can't shrink any more. A record surplus for the airport doesn't mean a thing for the metroplex considering it is sitting on top of what is believed to be the largest gas field in North America. If the airport isn't out there marketing as best it can against the likes of IAH in Houston and DIA in Denver for the estimated 600,000 plus millionaires in the southwest, then the overall economy of the Metroplex will suffer.
    I strongly disagree that DFW airport is doing well. The marketing game the airport plays is intentionally softball when compared to other major airports. What the airport really does big time is serve the interests of American Airlines and its 2 owner cities by branding itself as the same old myth -- as just a big, fat airport in the middle of the major city of Dallas and the less than major one of Fort Worth. All one has to do is listen to the other marketing departments at apposing major airports to realize what DFW truly is.
    In the meantime, the other more aggressive airports of Hartsfield and O'Hara are lights out taking care of the best interests of their respective metropolitan areas while its all DFW airport can do to keep from getting eaten alive by the 2 lessor airports in Houston and Denver.

  33. #433
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,450
    What really pisses me off about southwest is how they hold a plane for one or two people. My flight a few days ago was delayed 45 min so we could wait for one person. Granted it is nice if you are that one person, yet the rest of the plane is not so happy.

  34. #434
    Done
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497

    Southwest Airlines is just 1 worm in a rotting can of airport politics

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownguy25
    What really pisses me off about southwest is how they hold a plane for one or two people. My flight a few days ago was delayed 45 min so we could wait for one person. Granted it is nice if you are that one person, yet the rest of the plane is not so happy.
    When considering the rotten politics that is creating a poor market for airline service in the DFW metroplex, Southwest airlines should be considered just 1 of the many worms in the overall can. Also adding their slimey presence to the can are American Airlines and the 2 owner cities of DFW airport -- Dallas and Fort Worth. To all this large juicy bait, the added minor worms of the city of Irving, the FAA, the state of Texas and the usual corruption at DFW airport together help create the overall proverbial wriggling mass.
    Rather than discard all these worms, the better solution would be for them to realize that they would be fatter off economically if they wiggled together to the benefit of the Metroplex as a whole instead of to the benefit of their own singular best interests.
    Last edited by MisterNifty; 08 January 2008 at 01:58 PM. Reason: spelling and tweaking

  35. #435
    -
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Back to Lakewood
    Posts
    3,430
    ^ignore Ignore Ignore

  36. #436
    Done
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497

    Ingornance is not always blissful

    Quote Originally Posted by St-T
    ^ignore Ignore Ignore
    This thread was created with the premise that Southwest Airlines is competing somehow with American Airlines. In actuality, the 2 airlines are working with the 2 owner cities of Dallas and Fort Worth to the benefit of the 4 together. In the meantime, the DFW airport is falling further behind the big league airports of Hartsfield and O'Hara while it is having its lunch eaten by the lessor airports of IAH in Houston and DIA in Denver in regards to serving the estimated 600,000 plus millionaires in the southwest region.
    So, this is a business which should be taken seriously because it directly effects DFW's economy.
    Last edited by MisterNifty; 09 January 2008 at 12:00 AM. Reason: Edit out nonsense

  37. #437
    Mega-Tall Skyscraper Member AeroD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The County of Collin
    Posts
    3,437

    DMN: Southwest Airlines may expand Denver service

    Southwest Airlines may expand Denver service

    04:22 PM CST on Tuesday, January 8, 2008
    Associated Press

    Southwest Airlines has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday and is expected to announce an expansion of its Denver service.

    Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly will be joined for the announcement by Mayor John Hickenlooper. Southwest spokeswoman Marilee McInnis declined additional comment Tuesday.

    The airline said Denver is one of its fastest-growing cities with 56 daily flights, up from 13 when it launched service in January 2006 at Denver International Airport.

    Dallas-based Southwest competes with United and Frontier airlines at DIA, an aggressive battle which has benefited customers by forcing lower fares.
    Tighten the female dog!

  38. #438
    Done
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497

    A perfect example of what I speak

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroD
    Southwest Airlines may expand Denver service

    04:22 PM CST on Tuesday, January 8, 2008
    Associated Press

    Southwest Airlines has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday and is expected to announce an expansion of its Denver service.

    Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly will be joined for the announcement by Mayor John Hickenlooper. Southwest spokeswoman Marilee McInnis declined additional comment Tuesday.

    The airline said Denver is one of its fastest-growing cities with 56 daily flights, up from 13 when it launched service in January 2006 at Denver International Airport.

    Dallas-based Southwest competes with United and Frontier airlines at DIA, an aggressive battle which has benefited customers by forcing lower fares.
    Both the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth are handcuffed as headquarters to both Southwest Airlines and American Airlines respectively. So each has to kneel to the wishes of each company or they might bolt to elsewhere. At the same time, each city is the owner of DFW airport. All of this together goes far beyond just the classic conflict of interest. It has become a rotten political can of worms which is eroding away the airline industry from the DFW metroplex. This is just one example above.

  39. #439
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by St-T
    ^ignore Ignore Ignore
    Yes you are correct, although at first this one almost made a few valid points, but has now simply started inventing crap just to add to the noise level. This now makes two irrational noise makers on my ignore list, lets hope the other sensible folks here join us.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  40. #440
    Done
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497

    The point has nothing to do with rationality.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus
    Yes you are correct, although at first this one almost made a few valid points, but has now simply started inventing crap just to add to the noise level. This now makes two irrational noise makers on my ignore list, lets hope the other sensible folks here join us.
    If I'm not mistaken, seems Southwest Airlines plans on expanding Denver International Airport significantly as its base of operations. If I'm also not mistaken, Southwest Airlines does not operate out of DFW airport and can't expand any further at Love Field. This means that Southwest Airlines is going to be cutting deeply into the airline market of the DFW Metroplex in the future. So, do you have a plan on how to make them pay for such a policy, Mr. Sanity, or are you just happy complaining about crazy people?

    Okay, here is what I'd do to reverse the trend that is eroding airline business from the DFW Metroplex:

    First I'd encourage the city of Dallas to say goodbye to Southwest Airlines. The importance of DFW airport to the Metroplex and to the city of Dallas far exceeds that of Southwest Airlines so if it wants to leave the area, which the airline seems to be doing with this decision, then make them pay.

    I'd suggest the city of Fort Worth to say goodbye to American Airlines likewise. The importance of DFW airport likewise far exceeds that of American Airlines. If the airline can't take any new competition at the airport, which is vital for the health of the Metroplex as a whole, then let the airline also leave the area. The influences of both Southwest Airlines and American Airlines having headquarters here have combined to cheat the DFW metroplex area by eroding airline business from DFW airport.

    I'd allow DFW airport loose to market itself as the masterpiece it truly is. Most marketers from other major airports know the advantages that DFW airport has over all the other major airports in North America.
    While one advantage is its central location in North America and at the middle of the metropolitan are of DFW, the other is the development that has grown up around the airport as a result of an incredible infrastructure of freeways built to serve it.
    Last edited by MisterNifty; 09 January 2008 at 12:06 AM. Reason: Tweaking

  41. #441
    Mega-Tall Skyscraper Member AeroD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The County of Collin
    Posts
    3,437
    MisterNifty, it is not about benefitting airports, it is about benefitting customers. And customers like SWA and the convenience of Love Field.

    Besides, what is wrong with having several airports? New York is served by 3 airports, London is served by 3, Tokyo has 2 airports, and Paris has two airports. These cities are global players more so than Denver or Houston or Atlanta...and gasp...DFW.
    Tighten the female dog!

  42. #442
    Mid-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by AeroD
    Besides, what is wrong with having several airports? New York is served by 3 airports, London is served by 3, Tokyo has 2 airports, and Paris has two airports. These cities are global players more so than Denver or Houston or Atlanta...and gasp...DFW.
    Which is exactly the point. The Metroplex doesn't have a true need for multiple airports (yet) aside for passenger convenience (which I appreciate). DFW has the capacity to handle all of the region's air travel needs for years to come. Some would argue that it's ill-advised to fragment the market, preclude direct competition, create inefficiencies and spend public funds on two airports (security, ATC, etc.) when both are not needed.

    Of course this is moot, since Love will not be closed, and we likely will have a true need for the facility in the future.

  43. #443
    Done
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497

    Something is wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroD
    MisterNifty, it is not about benefitting airports, it is about benefitting customers. And customers like SWA and the convenience of Love Field.

    Besides, what is wrong with having several airports? New York is served by 3 airports, London is served by 3, Tokyo has 2 airports, and Paris has two airports. These cities are global players more so than Denver or Houston or Atlanta...and gasp...DFW.
    Look, this is a political can of worms that has nothing to do with having 2 airports.
    I will agree with you that both Southwest Airlines and American Airlines make business decisions based on their own selfish interests. While American Airlines thinks on an international level while not taking into account the health of the Metroplex, Southwest Airlines does likewise on the national level. The health of the Metroplex depends on state and municipal governments after all.

    It appears to me that both of these companies are going to ride the DFW area to death before jumping off once the resources dry up and the area is left with a trickle of an airline industry. Proof of this future phenomenon happening is being revealed as a policy now being implemented by Southwest Airlines who seems to be the first to make the decision to jump off the rotting corpse of the Metroplex in favor of the frozen tundra of Denver International Airport. After having taken full advantage of its position of being based in the Metroplex, Southwest Airlines now seems ready to abandon it.

    Likewise, American Airlines has used its position of being based in Fort Woth to keep an unfair advantage at DFW airport. How can it be in the best business interests of American Airlines for DFW airport to expand the numbers of airlines serving its terminals? As the city of Fort Worth is half owner of DFW airport, American Airlines is based in Fort Worth and the vast majority of the traffic at DFW airport is being handled by the airline. This recipe for failure here is why the Metroplex has strangled itself in regards to competing with other major airports on the international, national and regional levels.

    How can anyone deny that this has happened?

  44. #444
    Mega-Tall Skyscraper Member AeroD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The County of Collin
    Posts
    3,437
    There maybe mergers on the horizon, and potential bankruptcies nationally that will affect service for the DFW area more so than 2 airports.

    The Airline industry itself is less than free-market place regardless of airport or location. Airline bail-outs come to mind. So if you are going to be indicting AA and SWA for mercantilistic practices, you should go ahead indict other airlines as well.

    But that fact still remains, if SWA and Love Field are sooo God awful, nobody would be flying from there. But customers like SWA and Love Field.

    And you keeping talking about how IAH is eating DFW's lunch, how come IAH and Hobby can coexist, for that matter O'Hare and Midway?
    Tighten the female dog!

  45. #445
    Done
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by AeroD
    There maybe mergers on the horizon, and potential bankruptcies nationally that will affect service for the DFW area more so than 2 airports.

    The Airline industry itself is less than free-market place regardless of airport or location. Airline bail-outs come to mind. So if you are going to be indicting AA and SWA for mercantilistic practices, you should go ahead indict other airlines as well.

    But that fact still remains, if SWA and Love Field are sooo God awful, nobody would be flying from there. But customers like SWA and Love Field.

    And you keeping talking about how IAH is eating DFW's lunch, how come IAH and Hobby can coexist, for that matter O'Hare and Midway?
    IAH and Hobby exist totally within the city limits of Houston. O'Hare and Midway also exist totally within the city limits of Chicago. If the surrounding area of DFW airport was located within the city limits of Dallas, then the airport would be the busiest in the universe. I say this because then the city of Dallas wouldn't be competing against itself like it is now with the cities of Irving (Las Colinas) and Grapevine (Gaylord Resort.) The way the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth compete against the surrounding locations of the DFW area is by trumping them as the owner cities of the airport. They can do this by influencing the way the airport markets itself. This marketing has always been to brand the area as the major city of Dallas on one side with the less than major city of Fort Worth on the other with the really big, fat airport in the middle. For some reason potential tourists from around the world are supposed to buy into this concept.

  46. #446
    High-Rise Member GuerillaBlack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    732
    The busiest in the universe? I doubt it. Unless American routed most of its flights through DFW like Delta does for Atlanta (I highly doubt American would give up its Chicago and Miami markets, which handles more international traffic).

  47. #447
    Mega-Tall Skyscraper Member AeroD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The County of Collin
    Posts
    3,437
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNifty
    IAH and Hobby exist totally within the city limits of Houston. O'Hare and Midway also exist totally within the city limits of Chicago. If the surrounding area of DFW airport was located within the city limits of Dallas, then the airport would be the busiest in the universe. I say this because then the city of Dallas wouldn't be competing against itself like it is now with the cities of Irving (Las Colinas) and Grapevine (Gaylord Resort.) The way the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth compete against the surrounding locations of the DFW area is by trumping them as the owner cities of the airport. They can do this by influencing the way the airport markets itself. This marketing has always been to brand the area as the major city of Dallas on one side with the less than major city of Fort Worth on the other with the really big, fat airport in the middle. For some reason potential tourists from around the world are supposed to buy into this concept.
    I will solve the problem for you Nifty: Dallas annexes Irving, and Ft. Worth annexes Grapevine. It is settled.
    Tighten the female dog!

  48. #448
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by AeroD
    I will solve the problem for you Nifty: Dallas annexes Irving, and Ft. Worth annexes Grapevine. It is settled.
    Don't you folks already have threads on this stuff going on here
    http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=5006 and here http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=5006

    No use mucking up yet a third thread with more of this "My city/airports better than yours" stuff.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  49. #449
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    991

    American's Pilots Ask for Mediation

    Associated Press
    American's Pilots Ask for Mediation
    By DAVID KOENIG 01.10.08, 6:26 PM ET

    DALLAS -

    The pilots' union at American Airlines pushed Thursday for a federal mediator to help in contract negotiations, which after more than a year have produced few signs of progress.

    American, the nation's largest carrier, rejected a union proposal for pay raises of about 50 percent but hasn't made a counter offer, union officials say.

    The Allied Pilots Association asked American on Thursday to join its request for help from a federal mediator. The company indicated it was unlikely to go along.

    Union leaders said they would give management until late Monday to respond before contacting the National Mediation Board, which could take over negotiations or tell the parties to keep talking face-to-face.

    Union President Lloyd Hill said it was in the best interests of pilots, passengers and shareholders of American's parent, AMR Corp. (nyse: AMR - news - people ), to reach a quick agreement on a new contract.

    An airline spokeswoman, Sue Gordon, said company officials were "disappointed that we haven't been able to make more progress."

    But Gordon said officials "believe there are a number of areas where we can find common ground. We think direct bargaining (without a mediator) can continue to be a productive process."

    Pilots at Fort Worth-based American are working under a 2003 contract that included pay cuts to help the company avoid bankruptcy. The contract can be updated May 1.

    Talks on a new contract began in September 2006 but were delayed last summer when pilots elected Hill and other new leaders, who promised to take a harder line in negotiations.



    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/...partner=alerts
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  50. #450
    Mega-Tall Skyscraper Member AeroD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The County of Collin
    Posts
    3,437
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus
    Don't you folks already have threads on this stuff going on here
    http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=5006 and here http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=5006

    No use mucking up yet a third thread with more of this "My city/airports better than yours" stuff.
    True.

    Back on topic, Southwest is my bird of choice in the Lower 48.
    Tighten the female dog!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •