All
← Back to Squawk list
Virgin America Plans Expansion of Service out of Dallas
Virgin America announced that it plans to expand and increase its service out of Dallas. The airline hopes to secure two gates that American Airlines is losing at Dallas’ Love Field, and if successful, will move its current operations from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to Dallas Love Field this October. (www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com) More...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
V
The 20 gate limit was part of an agreement between DFW/DAL/WN/AA and cities of Dallas & Fort Worth. I think there's also language in the agreement about international flights being limited to DFW but I could be wrong ( been a long time since I read all of that ).
In return WN supervised the building of a new terminal (like they did at HOU) this was reported to help speed along the process.
I believe all of the old gates except two have been demolished and those will be once construction is complete on the west part of the new terminal.
In return WN supervised the building of a new terminal (like they did at HOU) this was reported to help speed along the process.
I believe all of the old gates except two have been demolished and those will be once construction is complete on the west part of the new terminal.
I can see the restrictions on International flights as that is about how it is at DCA and IAH, whether written or not. With WN holding 16 gates though, I am hard pressed to see how all this other that has been announced is going to take place in just 4 gates, although if I understand it correctly, Virgin does not have those 2 AA gates yet but has just bid on them.
And all this is happening in 2 gates (the AA gates that are up for bid). The other 2 gates belong to United, since the time that Continental went to court to fly out of DAL. They retained the 2 gates as part of the repeal compromise.
There are int'l flights from DCA and LGA. Those airports just have a perimeter rule that limits flight distance. But there are increasing exceptions that are being allowed. But there are int'l destinations that fall within the perimeter.
At HOU and DAL, all flights were moved over to IAH and DFW respectively. Southwest filled in at DAL, because they weren't there and didn't sign te agreement to abandon DAL in favor of DFW, so didn't. The Wright amendment severely restricted their operations at DAL. Then when SW filled in at HOU, they stuck with the same short-haul domestic concept.
SW is now adding int'l destinations to thier network after merging AirTran. They are building out gates at HOU, but flying at DAL is restricted to domestic from the compromise that reeks the Wright amendment.
The other airports, though, debt have any such restriction on int'l flying.
At HOU and DAL, all flights were moved over to IAH and DFW respectively. Southwest filled in at DAL, because they weren't there and didn't sign te agreement to abandon DAL in favor of DFW, so didn't. The Wright amendment severely restricted their operations at DAL. Then when SW filled in at HOU, they stuck with the same short-haul domestic concept.
SW is now adding int'l destinations to thier network after merging AirTran. They are building out gates at HOU, but flying at DAL is restricted to domestic from the compromise that reeks the Wright amendment.
The other airports, though, debt have any such restriction on int'l flying.
Personally, they ought to throw all the restrictions out the window and let 'em duke it out, and people fly on who they want to, from where they want to.
Agreed.
Except when these older close to midtown airports have extremely testeficred approaches and shirt runways. Then it makes sense to limit aircraft by their ability to land at these short fields.
Destistion distance should only come in as it relates to takeoff weight.
But people wanting to take off at he most conveniently located airports may push airlines to push the limits and/or the airlines desire to collect that premium income may push themselves.
As long as the lifting of restrictions doesn't create an environment that can lead to more accidents like the SW nose first crash at LGA.
But worse than a hard landing would be to go past the end of the runway and into the river, like has happened at some airports.
Safety first. But as long as there aren't any safety concerns, let competition fly.
Destistion distance should only come in as it relates to takeoff weight.
But people wanting to take off at he most conveniently located airports may push airlines to push the limits and/or the airlines desire to collect that premium income may push themselves.
As long as the lifting of restrictions doesn't create an environment that can lead to more accidents like the SW nose first crash at LGA.
But worse than a hard landing would be to go past the end of the runway and into the river, like has happened at some airports.
Safety first. But as long as there aren't any safety concerns, let competition fly.
one airport... TGU Honduras :) 757s
Well, DAL ain't the longest in the world, but I remember being on an AA707 in 68 or 69, with a full pax and fuel load, going to TUS and onto LAX load. Pilot was worried as they should have lightened fuel and refuel at TUS but fuelers screwed up. A good bit of bouncing as he tried to get up and finally did. We didn't have the quickest climb out but we got off. If he could do that, I never worried about DAL anymore. LOL