Results 1 to 46 of 46

Thread: DFW Joint Board and MWOB contracts

  1. #1
    Mid-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    342

    DFWIA DFW Joint Board and MWOB contracts

    The following is in regard to HOUSTON (to avoid any potential confusion):

    Sept. 12, 2007, 2:14PM
    Council delays no-bid airport contract
    By CAROLYN FEIBEL
    Houston Chronicle

    City Council today delayed a vote on Mayor Bill White's plan to extend a lucrative airport concession contract another eight years without putting the matter out for competitive bidding.

    Councilwoman Anne Clutterbuck exercised her one-time right to delay the item, saying there should have been a public bidding process for the food and beverage concession in Terminal C at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

    "It's essential to open it up," Clutterbuck said. "Let's have a competition."
    In full: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/5129312.html

  2. #2
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by interestedobserver
    The following is in regard to HOUSTON (to avoid any potential confusion):

    Sept. 12, 2007, 2:14PM
    Council delays no-bid airport contract
    By CAROLYN FEIBEL
    Houston Chronicle


    In full: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/5129312.html
    Interesting. The difference with respect to DFW Airport is that there is little probability of something like this ever making it into the news.

    Indeed, I don't believe there is any competitive bidding for airport concession contracts at DFW.

    Also, it is worth noting that DFW Airport enjoys unique exemptions to competitive bidding in many cases under Texas law, something that an unscrupulous board could use as a means of wielding heavy influence (i.e. leaning on recipients of no-bid contracts to lobby on the airport board's behalf).

  3. #3
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Interesting. The difference with respect to DFW Airport is that there is little probability of something like this ever making it into the news.

    Indeed, I don't believe there is any competitive bidding for airport concession contracts at DFW.

    Also, it is worth noting that DFW Airport enjoys unique exemptions to competitive bidding in many cases under Texas law, something that an unscrupulous board could use as a means of wielding heavy influence (i.e. leaning on recipients of no-bid contracts to lobby on the airport board's behalf).

    Please document these exemptions you site for us.

  4. #4
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Please document these exemptions you site(sp) for us.


    DFW Airport's unique government is dealt with under Chapter 22, Subchapter D, of the Texas State Transportation Code. Subchapter D deals exclusively with "joint boards" operating airports in Texas. Guess how many "joint boards" there are?

    As illustrated below, under § 22.084 and § 22.088, DFW Airport appears to be effectively exempted from all competitive bidding so long as the bidder is a MWOB or the property is leased to a third party. No rules, no standards, no nothing. The Airport Board can seemingly give MWOB contracts out as it sees fit.

    This is very different from the rules which apply to Texas municipalities and and airports in general, which set MWOB targets and require good faith efforts to reach those targets.

    There is a huge difference. When government agencies are allowed to award contracts without following competitive bidding, all sorts of unsavory things tend to follow. That is why it is generally not allowed. One has to wonder why the DFW Airport merits special treatment with respect to competitive bidding under the law.


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    TRANSPORTATION CODE

    CHAPTER 22. COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL AIRPORTS

    SUBCHAPTER D. JOINT OPERATIONS

    § 22.084. AIRPORT REVENUE AND REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS; CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES.
    (a) If constituent agencies or a nonprofit corporation created under Section 22.152 issues revenue bonds to finance the construction or acquisition of a facility or other improvement at an airport, the proceeds of the bonds and any other airport income or revenue may be spent on projects for which the proceeds, income, or revenue may otherwise be spent. An agreement may be made to spend all or a portion of the proceeds, income, or revenue for the planning, construction, or acquisition of facilities authorized by Sections 22.011(a)-(c) and 22.012 without inviting, advertising for, or otherwise requiring competitive bids. A contract wholly or partly funded with proceeds, income, or revenue under this subsection shall be let in accordance with the joint board's rules and policies relating to creation of contracting opportunities for minority- and women-owned businesses
    .
    § 22.088. EXPENDITURE OF BOND REVENUE BY JOINT BOARD WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING.
    (a) A joint board may spend or agree to spend the proceeds of revenue bonds under its control to acquire and install furniture, fixtures, and equipment to be used at an airport operated by the joint board without inviting, advertising for, or otherwise requiring competitive bids or requiring or obtaining a payment or performance bond.
    (b) This section applies to furniture, fixtures, and equipment purchased by the joint board or a private entity that will lease the furniture, fixtures, and equipment in accordance with this section.
    (c) The furniture, fixtures, and equipment must be, before the delivery of the bonds, the subject of a lease from the joint board to a private entity under the terms of which the lessee is:
    (1) obligated to maintain the furniture, fixtures, and equipment solely at its expense; and
    (2) unconditionally obligated throughout the term of the bonds to make payments of net rent in amounts and at times sufficient to provide for the timely payment of all principal, interest, redemption premiums, and other costs and expenses arising or to arise in connection with the payment of the bonds.
    (d) This section does not apply to the expenditure of the proceeds of bonds:
    (1) unless the bonds provide by their own terms that:
    (A) they are payable solely from the net rents required by Subsection (c)(2); and
    (B) they are not payable in any circumstances from tax revenue; or
    (2) that provide for the creation of a contractual mortgage lien against real property owned by the public agencies creating the joint board.
    (e) A joint board may adopt rules it finds to be in the public interest to govern the method and installation of the properties to which this section relates.
    Last edited by UptownDallas; 13 September 2007 at 01:53 PM.

  5. #5
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    898
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Also, it is worth noting that DFW Airport enjoys unique exemptions to competitive bidding in many cases under Texas law, something that an unscrupulous board could use as a means of wielding heavy influence (i.e. leaning on recipients of no-bid contracts to lobby on the airport board's behalf).
    Yes, we saw many examples of DFW calling in favors from holders of no-bid contacts all during the recent Set Love Free campaign. Lots of those examples are documented on various threads within this forum.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Note for PH: Anyone interested in seeing them again, has only to do a search on this site. :gnoob:
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  6. #6
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    DFW Airport's unique government is dealt with under Chapter 22, Subchapter D, of the Texas State Transportation Code. Subchapter D deals exclusively with "joint boards" operating airports in Texas. Guess how many "joint boards" there are?

    As illustrated below, under § 22.084 and § 22.088, DFW Airport appears to be effectively exempted from all competitive bidding so long as the bidder is a MWOB or the property is leased to a third party. No rules, no standards, no nothing. The Airport Board can seemingly give MWOB contracts out as it sees fit.

    This is very different from the rules which apply to Texas municipalities and and airports in general, which set MWOB targets and require good faith efforts to reach those targets.
    :
    So what point are you making?

    Is the DFW board excluding minority business owners?

    Or are you suggesting that the DFW board is not allowing non MWOB concessions at the airport?

    Or are you questioning or suggesting graft on the part of the board?


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus
    Yes, we saw many examples of DFW calling in favors from holders of no-bid contacts all during the recent Set Love Free campaign. Lots of those examples are documented on various threads within this forum.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Note for PH: Anyone interested in seeing them again, has only to do a search on this site. :gnoob:
    Yeah we remember.

    Wasn't the prevailing pro repeal position that if you came out against repeal you must have been paid for your opinion and then it could be discounted.

    So much for respecting diversity!
    Last edited by PuddinHead; 19 September 2007 at 11:50 PM.

  7. #7
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    898
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Wasn't the prevailing pro repeal position that if you came out against repeal you must have been paid for your opinion and then it could be discounted.
    No, not at all....do you have any examples where anyone other than you said that?
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  8. #8
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    :gnoob:
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus
    No, not at all....do you have any examples where anyone other than you said that?

  9. #9
    The Urban Pragmatist Mballar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,953
    PHead, do you ever tire from being the soledefender of all things D/FW Airport and American Airlines?
    A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato

  10. #10
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    898
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    :gnoob:
    As per your suggestion I goggled this site with the following result:


    Google

    Web dallasmetropolis.com

    Your search - prevailing pro repeal position that if you came out against repeal you must have been paid for your opinion and then it could be discounted - did not match any documents.

    Suggestions:

    * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    * Try different keywords.
    * Try more general keywords.
    * Try fewer keywords.



    1997 - 2006 DallasMetropolis.com
    C. Troy Mathis
    PrairieCiti™ | MetropolypseNow™ | Skylinegruve™


    Trying several shorter versions of your search term produced the same (non)result...

    :smokecld: My conclusion is your attempts at fact invention and the rewriting of history will never change.

    Time to put you back on the ignore list...
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  11. #11
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus
    As per your suggestion I goggled this site with the following result:


    Google

    Web dallasmetropolis.com

    Your search - prevailing pro repeal position that if you came out against repeal you must have been paid for your opinion and then it could be discounted - did not match any documents.

    Suggestions:

    * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    * Try different keywords.
    * Try more general keywords.
    * Try fewer keywords.



    1997 - 2006 DallasMetropolis.com
    C. Troy Mathis
    PrairieCiti™ | MetropolypseNow™ | Skylinegruve™


    Trying several shorter versions of your search term produced the same (non)result...

    :smokecld: My conclusion is your attempts at fact invention and the rewriting of history will never change.

    Time to put you back on the ignore list...
    http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=4781

    You are of course able to draw your own conclusion TP.

    Here is something else try a search on the Limit Love Field Org and oh of course Lulac in support of the Wright Amendment.

  12. #12
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    TP here are some more for you.

    05-23-2006, 09:48 PM
    #2905

    UptownDallas
    High-Rise Member


    Status: Offline
    Posts: 758
    Join Date: Jun 2003
    Location: Uptown Quote:
    Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    I have a question for the media myself.

    1. Is Southwest Airlines encouraging its employees to disrupt the meetings and press conferences of neighborhood groups concerned with the effect of the repeal of the Wright Amendment on the Love Field area?

    The post below is the basis for this question.
    Judging by the names mentioned on the letterhead, the Committee to Protect the Children is not a "neighborhood group" as you suggest. Rather, it appears to primarily consist of a coalition of DFW Airport contractors who have received contracts exempt from a normal competitive bid process.

    Moreover, the Southwest employees I have witnessed at these functions have always been exceedingly polite and friendly. Ironically, the only questions which could be perceived as "disruptive" have come from neighborhood residents, not Southwest employees.







    05-09-2006, 08:06 PM
    #2750

    UptownDallas
    High-Rise Member


    Status: Offline
    Posts: 758
    Join Date: Jun 2003
    Location: Uptown Quote:
    Originally Posted by OPNLguy
    Speaking of stupid mistakes, there's another pro-Wright group out there:

    http://www.limitlovefieldflights.org/

    Don't know who's behind them, but I see a photo on their site that was also used in the Committee To Protect The Chidren's flyer, and some of the language seems similar. Maybe a reformulated CTPTC under a new name to make it appear that many "more" people" support Wright?
    I think this is actually the same "group" (if you consider a group or committee to be one woman, Adelfa Callejo, being funded by an organization she refuses to identify).

    The return address on the mailer is her office, and I believe (as discussed here previously) that she got Brenda Reyes to register the website address on her behalf.

  13. #13
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Sure as hell got real quiet on this thread guess the cat got TP's toungue.



    Guess Uptown does not want to answer either.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    DFW Airport's unique government is dealt with under Chapter 22, Subchapter D, of the Texas State Transportation Code. Subchapter D deals exclusively with "joint boards" operating airports in Texas. Guess how many "joint boards" there are?

    As illustrated below, under § 22.084 and § 22.088, DFW Airport appears to be effectively exempted from all competitive bidding so long as the bidder is a MWOB or the property is leased to a third party. No rules, no standards, no nothing. The Airport Board can seemingly give MWOB contracts out as it sees fit.

    This is very different from the rules which apply to Texas municipalities and and airports in general, which set MWOB targets and require good faith efforts to reach those targets.
    :



    So what point are you making?

    Is the DFW board excluding minority business owners?

    Or are you suggesting that the DFW board is not allowing non MWOB concessions at the airport?

    Or are you questioning or suggesting graft on the part of the board?

  14. #14
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Sure as hell got real quiet on this thread guess the cat got TP's toungue.



    Guess Uptown does not want to answer either.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    DFW Airport's unique government is dealt with under Chapter 22, Subchapter D, of the Texas State Transportation Code. Subchapter D deals exclusively with "joint boards" operating airports in Texas. Guess how many "joint boards" there are?

    As illustrated below, under § 22.084 and § 22.088, DFW Airport appears to be effectively exempted from all competitive bidding so long as the bidder is a MWOB or the property is leased to a third party. No rules, no standards, no nothing. The Airport Board can seemingly give MWOB contracts out as it sees fit.

    This is very different from the rules which apply to Texas municipalities and and airports in general, which set MWOB targets and require good faith efforts to reach those targets.
    :



    So what point are you making?

    Is the DFW board excluding minority business owners?

    Or are you suggesting that the DFW board is not allowing non MWOB concessions at the airport?

    Or are you questioning or suggesting graft on the part of the board?
    I'm suggesting that the DFW Airport Board has perverted the legitimate intent of the MWOB contracting goals. The unique exemption from competitive bidding DFW Airport enjoys gives them an effective means to reward supplicant cronies and punish those who "step out of line."

    Think about it... if I were a minority vendor with a sweetheart lease at DFW who was able to simply turn around and release the space at a profit to a third-party, white-owned corporation at a profit, I'd be the first one screaming about "protecting the economic engine" everytime AA or the DFW Airport Board so much as twitched.

    Rather than take my word for it, why not read the following excellent article by Ann Zimmerman (now a reporter with the Wall Street Journal) which explains how the system works (or doesn't work).

    http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues...s/feature.html

  15. #15
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    I'm suggesting that the DFW Airport Board has perverted the legitimate intent of the MWOB contracting goals. The unique exemption from competitive bidding DFW Airport enjoys gives them an effective means to reward supplicant cronies and punish those who "step out of line."

    Think about it... if I were a minority vendor with a sweetheart lease at DFW who was able to simply turn around and release the space at a profit to a third-party, white-owned corporation at a profit, I'd be the first one screaming about "protecting the economic engine" everytime AA or the DFW Airport Board so much as twitched.

    Rather than take my word for it, why not read the following excellent article by Ann Zimmerman (now a reporter with the Wall Street Journal) which explains how the system works (or doesn't work).

    http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues...s/feature.html
    Well folks there is again! You cannot be a minority and be in support of DFW or American Airlines if you don't have your fingers in the pie.

  16. #16
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Well folks there is again! You cannot be a minority and be in support of DFW or American Airlines if you don't have your fingers in the pie.
    Ummm.... no, that's not even remotely close to what I said/implied.

  17. #17
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,977
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Well folks there is again! You cannot be a minority and be in support of DFW or American Airlines if you don't have your fingers in the pie.
    PuddinHead, even for you and your history of seemingly automatic disagreement with and/or efforts to discredit anything UptownDallas says, that's a baffling interpretation.

  18. #18
    Feisty Ol' Coot hamiltonpl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Lakewood
    Posts
    2,041
    Quote Originally Posted by tamtagon
    PuddinHead, even for you and your history of seemingly automatic disagreement with and/or efforts to discredit anything UptownDallas says, that's a baffling interpretation.
    Agreed.
    DAGNABBIT!

  19. #19
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Ummm.... no, that's not even remotely close to what I said/implied.
    Really, re-read the quote below to us and tell us again how it should have been interpreted.


    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas

    Think about it... if I were a minority vendor with a sweetheart lease at DFW who was able to simply turn around and release the space at a profit to a third-party, white-owned corporation at a profit, I'd be the first one screaming about "protecting the economic engine" everytime AA or the DFW Airport Board so much as twitched.

    Quote Originally Posted by tamtagon
    PuddinHead, even for you and your history of seemingly automatic disagreement with and/or efforts to discredit anything UptownDallas says, that's a baffling interpretation.
    I disagree, it is dead on based not only on this comment of his but his past posts on this subject as well.

  20. #20
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Really, re-read the quote below to us and tell us again how it should have been interpreted.
    Well, let me give you a real world example: Rep. E.B. Johnson.... yes, she is a minority, and yes, she is a woman. However, prior to obtaining her two retail concessions (without having to compete against any other vendors, including other MWOB vendors), she had no relevant work experience... she was a nurse and mid-level government bureaucrat.

    We know for a fact that she doesn't manage the businesses (her spokesperson recently stated that the interests are held in a blind trust). Also, renewal of these concessions is entirely at the whim of the DFW Airport Board.

    Now, put yourself in her shoes, the Wright Amendment comes up for debate, and she knows that the DFW Airport Board feels passionately about the issue... the same Board that will decide whether or not to renew her concessions when the come up for renewal. If the concessions are cancelled, a material portion of her retirement income goes away.... do you think that might influence her decision making? Also, if the DFW Airport Board is so interested in enhancing MWOB opportunities, why choose her, rather than one of the numerous existing MWOB retailers in the DFW area with legitimate retail experience?

    To cite another example of an odd MWOB concession holder, look at Dr. Jim Rodriguez.... he's a dentist, albeit a well-connected one. What the heck is he doing being in partnership with the TieRack, when TieRack was more than happy to sign a lease directly with the Airport Board.

    Now, to your point... are there minorities who might support the Wright Amendment without having their fingers in the pie? Without a doubt. Minorities living in or around Grapevine, Euless or Irving might support keeping the Wright Amendment in place in the hopes that this would keep more economic growth centered on their communities, thereby enhancing the tax base... which would lead to better schools, police, parks, etc. (ironically, however, DFW Airport just came off of one of its best years ever.... concession and parking revenues way up on a 5% increase in local O & D traffic... this higher traffic was driven by AA charging lower fares as a result of it being forced to compete on a limited basis with Southwest in some long haul markets).

    It is difficult, however, to imagine why any minorities in South Dallas would support keeping the Wright Amendment in place unless they had a direct economic stake in a business out there. The 55,000 on-airport jobs are virtually inaccessible to South Dallas jobseekers (the airport is over 15 miles away from many parts of South Dallas and virtually inaccessible via public transportation). Also, the protectionist nature of the Wright Amendment keeps airfares high, which harms lower-income minority residents disproportionately.

  21. #21
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Uptown you really cannot help yourself can you?

    So what other groups besides minorities do you discount as well?

  22. #22
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,977
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    So what other groups besides minorities do you discount as well?
    I disagree on what group Uptown is trying to discount. I think Uptown is showing how what was initially intended as a tactic to ensure the new DFW airport survived has now become a glaring absence of open market place practices. In my opinion, you have injected race and/or ethnicity into this stream of dialogue as a way piss off Uptown and sidestep the issue.

    PuddinHead, do you think concession operators at DFW should be selected through a bidding process?

    ---Hopefully soon I'll be able to move this recent off-topic string of comments to a more appropriate thread... we're not talking about International traffic at Houston's airport.

  23. #23
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by tamtagon
    I disagree on what group Uptown is trying to discount. I think Uptown is showing how what was initially intended as a tactic to ensure the new DFW airport survived has now become a glaring absence of open market place practices. In my opinion, you have injected race and/or ethnicity into this stream of dialogue as a way piss off Uptown and sidestep the issue.

    PuddinHead, do you think concession operators at DFW should be selected through a bidding process?

    ---Hopefully soon I'll be able to move this recent off-topic string of comments to a more appropriate thread... we're not talking about International traffic at Houston's airport.
    You do not pay enough attention to the threads if you have formed the opinion that this is an effort to piss off anyone by interjecting race in order to sidestep the issues. I am merely drawing attention to posts made previously by others on this forum in related threads in response to a post made in this thread by another poster.

    While I am not an attorney one should assume that the language in the charter of DFW dealing with MWOB or DBE business/concessions is in direct response to Federal Laws regarding such business opportunities at public buildings supported by Federal Tax Dollars and not a conspiracy to fill the pockets of the DFW board members or AA or any person Uptown would characterize as a quasi undeserving minority. If the allegations of Uptown and crew concerning wrong doing in awarding concessions contracts at DFW are so blatant why haven’t the authorities investigated and corrected this supposed problem?

    Take into context that this same effort to discount the opinion of minority groups has been prevalent all through the Wright debate from the pro repeal crowd. That effort was and is still offensive.

    It is certain that the efforts to obey with the Federal Laws concerning MWOB and DBE business in public buildings preclude an absolute free market they are intended to level the playing field. Do I agree that concession operators at DFW should be selected through a bidding process? In a perfect world yes, concessions should be open to open bids without regards to ethnicity but Federal Laws prevent that option and the constant effort to paint DFW as duplicitous in this regard needs to stop.

  24. #24
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    While I am not an attorney one should assume that the language in the charter of DFW dealing with MWOB or DBE business/concessions is in direct response to Federal Laws regarding such business opportunities at public buildings supported by Federal Tax Dollars and not a conspiracy to fill the pockets of the DFW board members or AA or any person Uptown would characterize as a quasi undeserving minority.
    First of all, the law in question... which I posted at your request... is a State law, not a Federal law.

    Second, generally speaking, Federal and State laws tend to prohibit, not permit the award of contracts without competitive bidding. Why? Because, left unchecked, government agencies operating without a profit motive and strong corporate governance would tend to use overly generous contracts as a means to "buy" influence among certain constituencies, reward and punish political supporters, etc. It's simply too strong a temptation.

    Again, the unusual, one-of-a-kind competitive bidding exemption under which the DFW Airport Board operates is contrary to accepted MWOB public policies adopted at the federal, state and local levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    If the allegations of Uptown and crew concerning wrong doing in awarding concessions contracts at DFW are so blatant why haven’t the authorities investigated and corrected this supposed problem?
    Because, as is the case with Wright Amendment and Wright Amendment II, the policies avoid violations of the law due to carefully targeted exemptions which only fit DFW Airport.

    Under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which applies everywhere in the U.S. except in the North Texas market, airlines are free to choose which routes they fly from whichever commercial airports they choose. The Wright Amendment exempted Love Field from this Act, in large part, by reinstating geographic restrictions on air routes, but only from the only airport which competes with DFW Airport, Love Field.

    Similarly, under the Sherman Antitrust Act and various other anti-monopolistic laws, companies and generally not allowed to carve up markets into oligopolies. Absent the special provisions of the Wright Amendment Reform Act to the contrary, the DFW Airport, Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, etc. could likely be prosecuted for the creation of a cartel in the North Texas air transportation market.

    Finally, under numerous existing state laws, the DFW Airport Board could likely be prosecuted for violations of competitive bidding provisions. Again, however, they sought and received an exemption from this law (the text of which I previously cited).

    In each case, although the behavior is generally regarded as illegal, the DFW Airport Board has obtained exemptions from the applicable statutes. The behavior, although abhorrent, is not illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Take into context that this same effort to discount the opinion of minority groups has been prevalent all through the Wright debate from the pro repeal crowd. That effort was and is still offensive.
    No, what is offensive is when certain groups which purport to represent minorities as a whole, allow their votes to be effectively "purchased" via the award of special contracts, favors, etc. to a select group of the controlling membership.

    Again, the Dallas Observer has previously run a terrific article detailing exactly this kind of behavior by the Greater Dallas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

    In contrast, consider the efforts of the nearly 100% Hispanic West Love Field Neighborhood Association, who tirelessly lobbied for the repeal of the Wright Amendment, hoping to win back a fraction of the economic benefits (jobs, shopping, entertainment, etc.) they enjoyed (and now enjoyed by Grapevine, Euless, Irving and Ft. Worth) prior to the wholesale relocation of companies associated with the opening of DFW Airport. It was disheartening, to say the least, to see the door slammed in the face of these people by all of their supposed advocates.

    It is certain that the efforts to obey with the Federal Laws concerning MWOB and DBE business in public buildings preclude an absolute free market they are intended to level the playing field. Do I agree that concession operators at DFW should be selected through a bidding process? In a perfect world yes, concessions should be open to open bids without regards to ethnicity but Federal Laws prevent that option and the constant effort to paint DFW as duplicitous in this regard needs to stop.
    Federal laws absolutely do not encourage the award of contracts to vendors without well-defined criteria, be they MWOB or non-MWOB bidders. The manner in which DFW Airport awards MWOB contracts is different than that practiced by nearly every other public body in the state of Texas, including all the other major airports.

  25. #25
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    First of all, the law in question... which I posted at your request... is a State law, not a Federal law.

    Second, generally speaking, Federal and State laws tend to prohibit, not permit the award of contracts without competitive bidding. Why? Because, left unchecked, government agencies operating without a profit motive and strong corporate governance would tend to use overly generous contracts as a means to "buy" influence among certain constituencies, reward and punish political supporters, etc. It's simply too strong a temptation.

    Again, the unusual, one-of-a-kind competitive bidding exemption under which the DFW Airport Board operates is contrary to accepted MWOB public policies adopted at the federal, state and local levels.
    public body in the state of Texas, including all the other major airports.[/indent]
    Good try but did I reference the law you posted? No I did not. But since you bring up this state law dealing with;

    AIRPORT REVENUE AND REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS; CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES.

    You should remember that this state law that applies to all airports in the state of Texas not just DFW.

    Since this law applies to all airports in the state how does this law allow DFW to operate differently than say IAH?

    Logic would dictate that the charter of DFW would have to be in agreement of both state and Federal Laws. And that the sections of the charter of DFW dealing with MWOB or DBE business/concessions is in direct response to Federal Laws regarding such business opportunities at public buildings supported by Federal Tax Dollars.


    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Because, as is the case with Wright Amendment and Wright Amendment II, the policies avoid violations of the law due to carefully targeted exemptions which only fit DFW Airport.

    Under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which applies everywhere in the U.S. except in the North Texas market, airlines are free to choose which routes they fly from whichever commercial airports they choose. The Wright Amendment exempted Love Field from this Act, in large part, by reinstating geographic restrictions on air routes, but only from the only airport which competes with DFW Airport, Love Field.

    Similarly, under the Sherman Antitrust Act and various other anti-monopolistic laws, companies and generally not allowed to carve up markets into oligopolies. Absent the special provisions of the Wright Amendment Reform Act to the contrary, the DFW Airport, Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, etc. could likely be prosecuted for the creation of a cartel in the North Texas air transportation market. public body in the state of Texas, including all the other major airports.
    What in the world does the Wright Amendment or Wright II have anything to do with the letting of concessions contracts at DFW? Stay on subject please.

    The question was;

    If the allegations of Uptown and crew concerning wrong doing in awarding concessions contracts at DFW are so blatant why haven’t the authorities investigated and corrected this supposed problem?


    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Finally, under numerous existing state laws, the DFW Airport Board could likely be prosecuted for violations of competitive bidding provisions. Again, however, they sought and received an exemption from this law (the text of which I previously cited).

    In each case, although the behavior is generally regarded as illegal, the DFW Airport Board has obtained exemptions from the applicable statutes. The behavior, although abhorrent, is not illegal.[/indent]public body in the state of Texas, including all the other major airports.[/indent]
    What state laws?

    You have been asked before to cite the language in the DFW charter which gives them this golden bullet exemption that you claim and you have not produced it yet.

    All of this brings the question if things are so bad and blatant why haven’t the authorities investigated and corrected this supposed problem with MWOB concessions contracting at DFW?


    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    No, what is offensive is when certain groups which purport to represent minorities as a whole, allow their votes to be effectively "purchased" via the award of special contracts, favors, etc. to a select group of the controlling membership.

    Again, the Dallas Observer has previously run a terrific article detailing exactly this kind of behavior by the Greater Dallas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

    In contrast, consider the efforts of the nearly 100% Hispanic West Love Field Neighborhood Association, who tirelessly lobbied for the repeal of the Wright Amendment, hoping to win back a fraction of the economic benefits (jobs, shopping, entertainment, etc.) they enjoyed (and now enjoyed by Grapevine, Euless, Irving and Ft. Worth) prior to the wholesale relocation of companies associated with the opening of DFW Airport. It was disheartening, to say the least, to see the door slammed in the face of these people by all of their supposed advocates.
    public body in the state of Texas, including all the other major airports.[/indent]
    Once again you really cannot help yourself can you. Here you say again that NO minority group could have possibly been against repeal of Wright unless they received payment or favors for their opinions on the issue. And on top of your insistance that NO minority group could have been in favor of Wright without compensation the one minority group that you cite as being in favor of repeal you say expected economic gain for their support.



    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Federal laws absolutely do not encourage the award of contracts to vendors without well-defined criteria, be they MWOB or non-MWOB bidders. The manner in which DFW Airport awards MWOB contracts is different than that practiced by nearly every other public body in the state of Texas, including all the other major airports.
    No doubt about it Federal laws do establish well-defined criteria concerning contracts to vendors no one said they did not.

    How is the manner in which DFW airport awards MWOB contracts different from what is practiced at other airports in Texas?

    Give us examples not just general allegations.
    Last edited by PuddinHead; 30 September 2007 at 09:15 PM.

  26. #26
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Good try but did I reference the law you posted? No I did not.
    The enforceability and validity of laws is not determined by your choice to reference (or not reference) them in an online internet forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    But since you bring up this state law dealing with;

    AIRPORT REVENUE AND REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS; CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES.

    You should remember that this state law that applies to all airports in the state of Texas not just DFW.

    Since this law applies to all airports in the state how does this law allow DFW to operate differently than say IAH?
    I previously explained this in detail in post #188 above. State law creates a bizarre exemption to competitive bidding laws for airports governed by a "joint board." Guess how many airports in Texas are governed by a joint board?

    So, yes, DFW does "operate differently than say IAH." It also operates differently than DAL, AUS, SAT, AMA and every other commercial airport in the state of Texas.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Logic would dictate that the charter of DFW would have to be in agreement of both state and Federal Laws.
    I have never stated otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    And that the sections of the charter of DFW dealing with MWOB or DBE business/concessions is in direct response to Federal Laws regarding such business opportunities at public buildings supported by Federal Tax Dollars.
    On a technical note, it is state law which is determinative with respect to the governance of muncipal bodies. The charters of public bodies are created pursuant to state law and broadly outline the rights of such bodies, but state laws provide additional specifics.

    With respect to the laws themselves, they really don't have to follow any logic... it is just that state laws can't contradict federal laws (when they do, federal laws trump state laws).

    As I previously stated, under Texas state law, public bodies (including airport boards) are required to use competitive bidding with respect to nearly all contracts (including MWOB contracts). Municipalities are encouraged to set targets for MWOB participation, but they can't use MWOB vendor participation as a mechanism to circumvent the competitive bidding process.

    The DFW Airport Board, using lobbyists, sought and obtained an exemption from this law. The exemption is codified in the sections of state law I previously cited.

    It is unclear to me why this one body, the DFW Airport Board, shouldn't be held to the same standards of transparency and accountability in the award of contracts which apply to virtually every other public body in Texas.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    What in the world does the Wright Amendment or Wright II have anything to do with the letting of concessions contracts at DFW?
    They illustrate a pattern of behavior on the part of the DFW Airport Board. A consistent pattern over time of seeking to obtain special treatment under laws which they consider to be inconvenient.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Stay on subject please.
    I'll let you know when I want your help in framing my posts on this board. But, thanks for the offer!

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    The question was;

    If the allegations of Uptown and crew concerning wrong doing in awarding concessions contracts at DFW are so blatant why haven’t the authorities investigated and corrected this supposed problem?
    Again, the issue at hand is that the DFW Airport Board has repeatedly sought and obtained special legislative favors which produce undesirable outcomes (exclusion of legitimate MWOB business that don't have the right political connections, high airfares, influence peddling, oligopolies, etc.).

    Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is sensible.

    A law could be drafted which allow all states with five letters in their names commencing with the letter T to be exempt from clean air regulation. Then, companies within the state of Texas could pollute the air as much as they wanted, without spending money on costly clean-air devices.

    While such behavior would be legal, it could well be regarded as reprehensible, and worthy of public criticism in an effort to change said laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    What state laws?

    You have been asked before to cite the language in the DFW charter which gives them this golden bullet exemption that you claim and you have not produced it yet.
    Errr.... yes, I have. It's not in the Airport Board's charter, however. It is in sections 22.084 and 22.088 of the State Transportation Code, which I produced verbatim in post 188 above.

    Unfortunately, I can't reach through the computer and physical force you to read and acknowlege reading information which has previously been posted.


    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    All of this brings the question if things are so bad and blatant why haven’t the authorities investigated and corrected this supposed problem with MWOB concessions contracting at DFW?
    Probably for the same reasons DISD and the City of Dallas haven't been cleaned up and corrected. It takes strong leadership... something entirely in absence in the City of Dallas.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Once again you really cannot help yourself can you. Here you say again that NO minority group could have possibly been against repeal of Wright unless they received payment or favors for their opinions on the issue.
    No, I never made that statement and actually disagree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    And on top of your insistance that NO minority group could have been in favor of Wright without compensation the one minority group that you cite as being in favor of repeal you say expected economic gain for their support.
    I think most people support things they expect would result in net economic gains to them.... that's not particularly shocking.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    No doubt about it Federal laws do establish well-defined criteria concerning contracts to vendors no one said they did not.

    How is the manner in which DFW airport awards MWOB contracts different from what is practiced at other airports in Texas?

    Give us examples not just general allegations.
    Again, I've given you the specific examples... just read Sections 22.084 and 22.088 of the Texas Transportation Code.
    Last edited by UptownDallas; 01 October 2007 at 03:19 PM.

  27. #27
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    898
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    The enforceability and validity of laws is not determined by your choice to reference (or not reference) them in an online internet forum.

    ...
    {Clipped out for brevity}
    ...


    Again, I've given you the specific examples... just read Sections 22.084 and 22.088 of the Texas Transportation Code.
    I applaud your attempts to hold these rational conversations with PH. Your points are always well researched, logical, factual, and I agree with almost all of them.
    But as has been pointed out previously, attempting to hold rational conversations with obviously irrational persons such as PH is always an exercise in futility.

    Just remember on this forum we have the option to put any poster on ignore, and never have to suffer through any of their Original posts.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  28. #28
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    [[indent]I previously explained this in detail in post #188 above. State law creates a bizarre exemption to competitive bidding laws for airports governed by a "joint board." Guess how many airports in Texas are governed by a joint board?
    A cursory search shows these municipalities with Joint Airport Boards.

    Lubbock, TX
    Travis County Airport Board – Austin, TX
    Laredo, TX
    Killeen, TX
    El Paso, TX
    Harlingen, TX
    San Antonio, TX
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Amarillo, TX

    And of Course DFW

    How many did you guess?

    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    [[indent]
    So, yes, DFW does "operate differently than say IAH." It also operates differently than DAL, AUS, SAT, AMA and every other commercial airport in the state of Texas.[/indent ]
    22.084. AIRPORT REVENUE AND REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS;
    CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED
    BUSINESSES. (a) If constituent agencies or a nonprofit
    corporation created under Section 22.152 issues revenue bonds to
    finance the construction or acquisition of a facility or other
    improvement at an airport, the proceeds of the bonds and any other
    airport income or revenue may be spent on projects for which the
    proceeds, income, or revenue may otherwise be spent. An agreement
    may be made to spend all or a portion of the proceeds, income, or
    revenue for the planning, construction, or acquisition of
    facilities authorized by Sections 22.011(a)-(c) and 22.012 without
    inviting, advertising for, or otherwise requiring competitive
    bids. A contract wholly or partly funded with proceeds, income, or
    revenue under this subsection shall be let in accordance with the
    joint board's rules and policies relating to creation of
    contracting opportunities for minority- and women-owned
    businesses.


    All airports in Texas must fall under the guise of constituent agency (City owned and operated airport) or non profit corporation (Joint Board) so all airports in Texas do not have to solicit competing bids if they choose not to.

    So tell us again how DFW operates differently from other airports in Texas!




    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas

    It is unclear to me why this one body, the DFW Airport Board, shouldn't be held to the same standards of transparency and accountability in the award of contracts which apply to virtually every other public body in Texas.
    DFW is held to the same standards of transparency and accountability as every public body in the state of Texas.


    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    They illustrate a pattern of behavior on the part of the DFW Airport Board. A consistent pattern over time of seeking to obtain special treatment under laws which they consider to be inconvenient.
    Wright I; was the result of the two cities of Dallas and Ft Worth seeking relief from Southwest Airlines actions at DAL.

    Wright II; is about Southwest insisting upon its supposed right to its own airport at DAL.

    Your prejudice towards DFW is clouding your thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    [indent]Again, the issue at hand is that the DFW Airport Board has repeatedly sought and obtained special legislative favors which produce undesirable outcomes (exclusion of legitimate MWOB business that don't have the right political connections, high airfares, influence peddling, oligopolies, etc.).
    There you go again with the unsupported allegations against DFW.

  29. #29
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    A cursory search shows these municipalities with Joint Airport Boards.

    Lubbock, TX
    Travis County Airport Board – Austin, TX
    Laredo, TX
    Killeen, TX
    El Paso, TX
    Harlingen, TX
    San Antonio, TX
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Amarillo, TX

    And of Course DFW
    I can see that your search was cursory... and incorrect.

    "Travis County Airport Board - Austin, TX" - No such agency exists, Austin-Bergstrom International Airport is managed by the City of Austin, Department of Aviation.

    "Laredo, TX" - No joint board exists, Laredo International Airport is administered by the City of Laredo, Airport Department

    "Killeen, TX" - No joint board exists, Killeen-Ft. Hood Regional Airport is administered by the City of Killeen, Airport Department

    "El Paso, TX" - No joint board exists, El Paso International Airport is administered by the City of El Paso, Aviation Department

    "Harlingen, TX" - No joint board exists, Valley International Airport is administered by the Airport Board, the entire membership of which is appointed by the Mayor of the City or Harlingen

    "San Antonio, TX" - No joint board exists, San Antonio International Airport is administered by the City of San Antonio, Aviation Department, with the City's Air Transportation Advisory Commission playing an advisory role

    "Corpus Christi, TX" - No joint board exists, Corpus Christi International Airport is administered by the City of Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi International Airport Department

    "Amarillo, TX" - No joint board exists, Amarillo International Airport is administered by the City of Amarillo, Airport Department

    In other words, all of the "information" relating to these supposed joint boards which you published was entirely false.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    How many did you guess?
    One. It appears I was correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    22.084. AIRPORT REVENUE AND REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS;
    CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED
    BUSINESSES. (a) If constituent agencies or a nonprofit
    corporation created under Section 22.152 issues revenue bonds to finance the construction or acquisition of a facility or other improvement at an airport, the proceeds of the bonds and any other airport income or revenue may be spent on projects for which the
    proceeds, income, or revenue may otherwise be spent. An agreement may be made to spend all or a portion of the proceeds, income, or revenue for the planning, construction, or acquisition of facilities authorized by Sections 22.011(a)-(c) and 22.012 without inviting, advertising for, or otherwise requiring competitive
    bids. A contract wholly or partly funded with proceeds, income, or revenue under this subsection shall be let in accordance with the joint board's rules and policies relating to creation of contracting opportunities for minority- and women-owned businesses.
    The provision you cite relates exclusively to airports governed by joint boards. DFW Airport appears to be the only airport in Texas governed by a joint board.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    All airports in Texas must fall under the guise of constituent agency (City owned and operated airport) or non profit corporation (Joint Board) so all airports in Texas do not have to solicit competing bids if they choose not to.
    Again, the only airports in Texas exempted from competitive bidding (according to the legislation both you and I cited) are those governed by joint boards.

    Depsite your false representation to the contrary, none of the airports you mention are, in fact, governed by joint boards.

    So tell us again how DFW operates differently from other airports in Texas!
    First, as an airport governed by a "joint board," is exempted from competitive bidding regulations which apply to all other Texas airports.

    Second, under the Wright Amendment, it is protected from long haul competition from Love Field, a protection afforded to no other airport in the state of Texas.

    Third, under the Wright Amendment Reform Act, it is party to an monopolistic agreement to discourage all competition (other than from a limited number of gates at Love Field) within the North Texas area, a protection afforded to no other airport in the state of Texas.
    DFW is held to the same standards of transparency and accountability as every public body in the state of Texas.
    Untrue. Under state law, it has been granted the special privilege of awarding contracts without competitive bidding, something which reduces transparency in the contract award process.

    Under federal law, it is protected from competition, which reduces accountability to passengers, since they have limited options other than to use the designated airport.

    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Wright I; was the result of the two cities of Dallas and Ft Worth seeking relief from Southwest Airlines actions at DAL.
    It is unclear what "relief" could be provided by preventing an airline from providing low-cost air service desired by passengers. In contrast, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (which the Wright Amendment contradicts) is generally accepted as having provided substantial relief to passengers throughout the rest of the U.S.
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Wright II; is about Southwest insisting upon its supposed right to its own airport at DAL.
    There were never any restrictions on the ability of other airlines to operate out of Love Field. Indeed, American, American Eagle, Continental Express, Delta Express and Legend have all operated out of Love Field. Both JetBlue and Pinnacle also expressed interest in operating out of Love Field, something which was welcomed by Southwest, yet opposed by American and the DFW Airport Board.
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Your prejudice towards DFW is clouding your thinking.

    There you go again with the unsupported allegations against DFW.
    Please clarify.

  30. #30
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelley USA
    Two downstairs eateries pitched at D/FW Airport
    By David Wethe
    Star-Telegram Staff Writer
    The successful Pappas restaurant family of Houston is gambling that its good name will draw hungry travelers downstairs to a couple of unusual locations at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.

    The cost to refurbish the space would be borne by the concessionaire, said Johnnie King, president of The King Group, a Dallas-based airport concessionaire that is a part owner in the three proposed restaurants. The King Group would own 35 percent of the restaurants while The Pappas Group would own the majority, King said.
    Riddle me this: Why does Pappas brothers need "Johnnie King" and the "King Group" (which is actually a Dallas-based advertising agency) to be its "partner?" It seems like Pappa Bros already has plenty of experience running restaurants and running restaurants in airports. What value does Johnnie King bring to the table?

  31. #31
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Riddle me this: Why does Pappas brothers need "Johnnie King" and the "King Group" (which is actually a Dallas-based advertising agency) to be its "partner?" It seems like Pappa Bros already has plenty of experience running restaurants and running restaurants in airports. What value does Johnnie King bring to the table?

    Hmmmm... interesting question. Could it be minority-ness (to coin a word)?

  32. #32
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucy
    Hmmmm... interesting question. Could it be minority-ness (to coin a word)?
    The King Group is a MWOB-owned ad agency based in Dallas. It's owner, Johnnie King, lives in DeSoto.

    He also happened to write $1,250 in checks to two South Dallas city council candidates earlier this year.

    What I don't understand is this: if the DFW Airport Board wants to encourage MWOB-owned retailers at DFW, why don't they find MWOB-owned retailers in the DFW area and encourage them to set up operations at the airport.

    Instead, they appear to "pour" politically connected minorities into ownership stakes in white-owned businesses operating at DFW Airport.

    This article provides further info on the controversial manner in which MWOB contracts are awarded at DFW:

    http://news.dallasobserver.com/1998-...un-an-airport/

  33. #33
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas

    This article provides further info on the controversial manner in which MWOB contracts are awarded at DFW:

    http://news.dallasobserver.com/1998-...un-an-airport/

    Just in case anyone cares this much ballyhooed case Uptown is so fond of trotting out was dimissed and settled.

    That is right no court judgment against DFW in the case.

    Settlements are not generally part of court records so I can't say who bailed. Maybe Uptown with his intimit knowledge of alleged DFW cupability concerning this matter can tell us.
    Last edited by PuddinHead; 09 October 2007 at 09:59 AM.

  34. #34
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Just in case anyone cares this much ballyhooed case Uptown is so fond of trotting out was dimissed and settled.

    That is right no court judgment against DFW in the case.

    Settlements are not generally part of court records so I can't say who bailed. Maybe Uptown with his intimit knowledge of alleged DFW cupability concerning this matter can tell us.
    Good grief. First of all, as I'm sure you know, anytime a case is "settled" it is "dismissed" and there is no "court judgment."

    Second, after reading all the facts and allegations recited in the article, are you seriously implying that the plaintiff (the entrepreneurial black businessman who appears to have lost substantial sums of money as a result of the irregular procedures followed by the DFW Airport Board) ended by paying the defendants (primarily the DFW Airport Board) to settle?

    Give me a break.

    As an aside, I've never claimed to have any sort of "inside" knowledge on how the DFW Airport Board operates, I just read a lot.

  35. #35
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Mballar
    Since most of DFW's passenger traffic does not originate at, nor depart from the airport, I can't see how this will be a profitable venture. "Layover Passengers" would have to leave the secure area to get to the restaurants, then back in to catch their plane. Passengers who would be most likely to purchase food from these locations would be those passengers being dropped off, or parking at the airport. But IMHO, not many people are going to stop to grab something to eat before they check their bags and make it past TSA to the secure side of the terminal. That leave taxi cab, limo and shuttle drivers as the people probably most likely to eat at these restaurants. . .if the price is right.
    I believe that these locations would be within the secure area. If you'll recall, the old TrAAin stations were accessible directly from the secure area via escalators down to the lower level... I assume they would retain this configuration. The Pappadeaux @ Houston Intercontinental does gangbusters business, even though it is located up a stairwell/elevator from the main concourse.

    The bigger question in my mind (which I've raised previously) is what the heck is "Johnnie King" doing in the middle of all this? I mean, it's not like the Pappa Bros. need any "help" in figuring out how to operate restaurants in airports. This Johnnie King guy appears to already have a piece of the action in two T.G.I. Fridays (which would be direct competitors) as a well as a duty free store @ DFW. How does a small Dallas-based ad agency (The King Group) warrant such special treatment? Can anyone get considered for such a deal? What are the terms associated with his investment and what does he bring to the table?

    If Johnnie King obtained his interest on less than market rate terms, then that becomes an indirect tax on Pappa Bros which is ultimately borne by the restaurant's customers.

  36. #36
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Good grief. First of all, as I'm sure you know, anytime a case is "settled" it is "dismissed" and there is no "court judgment."

    Second, after reading all the facts and allegations recited in the article, are you seriously implying that the plaintiff (the entrepreneurial black businessman who appears to have lost substantial sums of money as a result of the irregular procedures followed by the DFW Airport Board) ended by paying the defendants (primarily the DFW Airport Board) to settle?

    Give me a break.

    As an aside, I've never claimed to have any sort of "inside" knowledge on how the DFW Airport Board operates, I just read a lot.

    What is implied in a settlement is that one side quit and asked the other side to settle. Nothing more and nothing less.

    If the plaintiff quit most likely the settlement was that the plaintiff pay attorney fees and court costs of the party they sued. If the defense quit they most likely agreed to pay damages to the plaintiff to make the case go away.

    On the aside, you sure could have fooled me. As often as you trot out this tired article and point to this case as proof of DFW's wrong doing you would have to have absolute proof of DFW guilt. After all the article reflects only one side of the conflict between the parties the plaintiffs.

  37. #37
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    As often as you trot out this tired article and point to this case as proof of DFW's wrong doing you would have to have absolute proof of DFW guilt.
    To my knowledge the DFW Airport Board has never alleged that any of the numerous facts cited in the article are incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by puddinhead
    After all the article reflects only one side of the conflict between the parties the plaintiffs.
    No, that's really untrue. The Dallas Observer certainly didn't have a dog in that hunt and went to great lengths to discuss the issue with numerous parties on both sides.

    Again, the reporter, Ann Zimmerman, has an excellent reputation for journalistic integrity and now works for the Wall Street Journal.

  38. #38
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    To my knowledge the DFW Airport Board has never alleged that any of the numerous facts cited in the article are incorrect.
    They obviously went to court to dispute the alleged facts cited in the article with the party that made them.

    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    No, that's really untrue. The Dallas Observer certainly didn't have a dog in that hunt and went to great lengths to discuss the issue with numerous parties on both sides.


    The Observer makes it mettle by reporting against the powers that be no matter who or what the powers represent or whether the powers that be are right or wrong. It is obvious from the article the person who said the most to the reporter is the plaintiff who had the most to gain from the publicity. The Observer was probably the only media outlet that considered this story worthy to be published.



    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Again, the reporter, Ann Zimmerman, has an excellent reputation for journalistic integrity and now works for the Wall Street Journal.
    She may well be respected nonetheless how can you say with any certainty whether or not the reporter had an issue to grind with DFW when she wrote the article?

    Do you really believe the press is unbiased in every situation and always sticks to the facts?

    Do you believe in Leprechans too?
    Last edited by PuddinHead; 10 October 2007 at 08:05 AM.

  39. #39
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    So.... any theories as to how (DeSoto resident) Johnnie King and the King Group (a small Dallas-based advertising agency) ended up in the middle of Pappas Bros. proposed restaurant deal at DFW Airport?

  40. #40
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,977
    Quote Originally Posted by tamtagon
    ---Hopefully soon I'll be able to move this recent off-topic string of comments to a more appropriate thread... we're not talking about International traffic at Houston's airport.

    Okay, so, here's a new thread consolidated the MWOB discussion.

  41. #41
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by tamtagon
    Okay, so, here's a new thread consolidated the MWOB discussion.
    Thanks for the administration, administrator!

  42. #42
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    So.... any theories as to how (DeSoto resident) Johnnie King and the King Group (a small Dallas-based advertising agency) ended up in the middle of Pappas Bros. proposed restaurant deal at DFW Airport?

    Just a hunch but they may have been the only person/group with the fudiciary ability and pre-requisite status to qualify as MWOB and willing to take the risk and responsibilities of partnering with Pappas on this venture.

  43. #43
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Just a hunch but they may have been the only person/group with the fudiciary ability and pre-requisite status to qualify as MWOB and willing to take the risk and responsibilities of partnering with Pappas on this venture.
    If Johnnie King has a good concept for an MWOB retail concession at DFW, I say great, bring it on! DFW should provide some opportunities for MWOB retailers... and there are plenty of successful ones from which to choose in the DFW area.

    As to this stuff about taking on "risk and responsiblities," well.... you know, Pappas Bros. is one of the largest restaurant operations in the Southwestern U.S., and they seem to do just fine without partners. It's hard to envision a scenario under which they would identify DeSoto's Johnnie King as someone as they want to partner with to ensure success at DFW:

    1) he's in the advertising business, not retailing,

    2) he already has an ownership interest in two direct competitors (T.G.I. Friday's) at DFW.

    Something doesn't make sense.
    Last edited by UptownDallas; 11 October 2007 at 12:42 PM.

  44. #44
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    If Johnnie King has a good concept for an MWOB retail concession at DFW, I say great, bring it on! DFW should provide some opportunities for MWOB retailers... and there are plenty of successful ones from which to choose in the DFW area.

    As to this stuff about taking on "risk and responsiblities," well.... you know, Pappas Bros. is one of the largest restaurant operations in the Southwestern U.S., and they seem to do just fine without partners. It's hard to envision a scenario under which they would identify DeSoto's Johnnie King as someone as they want to partner with to ensure success at DFW:

    1) he's in the advertising business, not retailing,

    2) he already has an ownership interest in two direct competitors (T.G.I. Friday's) at DFW.

    Something doesn't make sense.
    Be specific what does not make sense?

    That the Pappas Brothers wants to open a business at DFW or their choice of partners?

    Or is there something else that has you twisted up?

  45. #45
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Uptown
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead
    Be specific what does not make sense?

    That the Pappas Brothers wants to open a business at DFW or their choice of partners?
    Their interest in opening a restaurant at DFW totally makes sense... their restaurant at Houston Intercontinental does extremely well.

    What I don't understand is why they need a partner to be successful at DFW Airport when they don't normally take on partners when they open restaurants.

  46. #46
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas "OLH"
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by UptownDallas
    Their interest in opening a restaurant at DFW totally makes sense... their restaurant at Houston Intercontinental does extremely well.

    What I don't understand is why they need a partner to be successful at DFW Airport when they don't normally take on partners when they open restaurants.

    Why don't you just ask them?

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
  •