The Battle Of Love Field

[DJ V Lawrence]

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/disp/story...nt/3973389.html

So you have two main airports in DFW with DFW International and Love Field. Southwest and American Airlines have been fighting for control of Love Field. In this deal, Southwest would retain 16 of the remaining 21 gates, and be allowed to sell multi-flight plans, as opposed to in the past where you had to buy separate tickets. American Airlines would still LIMIT the airport to flights within nine states, keeping Love Field from becoming international for at least the next 8 years.

If Love Field's closer to Dallas than DFW International, wouldn't Dallas's business travelers and residents want to see Love Field become a second international airport? And if so, how much say do the mayors of DFW or the public have? And would DFW International really be in trouble if Love Field became international? Could Dallas handle two international airports?

Lastly, could Houston handle two international airports if Hobby became more than domestic?

[MidtownCoog]

Internationl flights would require larger jetways than DAL has in place. And bigger planes require bigger councourses for you to sit and watch CNN while you wait, security checkpoints, yada, yada, yada.

DAL can handle 747s but only via stairway on the Lemmon Ave. side of the field.

And don't even get me started on noise abatement procedures and runway length.

DAL is maxed out.

Roger, copy!

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

To have a lot of INTL traffic, you need a major airline providing "hub" feed. Southwest isnt in the arena with the full service carriers. If they ever decide to move into that ball game, thier cost savings will be NIL and the cost of operating will rise significantly. The Wright Amendment is in place to grow DFW and protect its largest tenant American Airlines. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The city of Dallas and Ft Worth would do right by protecting the DFW operations. They get larger landing fees from AA and its alliance partners....the larger the plane and the larger number of flights, the larger the revenue :)

[tamtagon]

Sounds to me like those folks are working exceptionally hard to come up with a compromise/plan to replace the most of the Wright Amendment restrictions on Love Field. If it becomes law, all that hard work might last 20 years, at which time, the details of the agreement would have become inhibitive and another expensive compromise is needed.

Truly, Metroplex politicians are whacked out.

[tcole]

DAL can handle 747s but only via stairway on the Lemmon Ave. side of the field.

Not true. DAL could handle 747s in the main terminal areas in 1972, so it still should be able to accomodate them there today, although some re-fitting of different jetways would be needed as you suggest.

That is a Delta 747 at the Yellow Concourse (now closed) in 1970. The Green Concourse (American's before 1974 and currectly occupied by Southwest's operations) allowed for 747 parking at the "elbow" where all the Hobby flights depart from today.

As to runway length, 13R/31L is long enough for operations but not for a "fully loaded" 747 and especially in the middle of an August day. Modern wide-bodies like a 777 could more easily utilize 13R/31L in that it does not need as much length to get airborne.

If Love Field's closer to Dallas than DFW International, wouldn't Dallas's business travelers and residents want to see Love Field become a second international airport? And if so, how much say do the mayors of DFW or the public have? And would DFW International really be in trouble if Love Field became international? Could Dallas handle two international airports?

Remember, the city of Dallas has a major vested interest in DFW airport as well. In fact, the value of said investment far supercedes its investment in Love. So it has an interest in not cannibalizing DFW for the sake of Love.

[MidtownCoog]

And don't forget the Customs area you'd need to build.

At any rate, the poor folk on Denton drive have it bad enough.

No way Love will ever go international again.

[tcole]

And don't forget the Customs area you'd need to build.

At any rate, the poor folk on Denton drive have it bad enough.

No way Love will ever go international again.

The customs/imm. issue is the deal killer as you suggest. It is also why Hobby will not go "international" anytime in the near future (maybe when the population in Houston metro exceeds 12 mil). DAL has limited customs/imm. facilities on field (as does FTW and AFW - so does HOU for that matter) but the facilities cater to business and private aviation needs, not serious commercial arrivals. The only areas with multiple major international capacity in the US today are the NYC area, LA, SF Bay, and Miami metro (LA still has the vast concentration of international activity at LAX and the Miami area has some activity at FLL and PBI, but nothing approaching the activity at MIA - same can be said for SF area)

[Houston19514]

I was surprised SW was willing to settle for 16 gates at DAL. Don't they have 20 at HOU?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I was surprised SW was willing to settle for 16 gates at DAL. Don't they have 20 at HOU?

Operating a large scale operation with fewer gates is not a problem for them. They are a very efficient lean well oiled machine :):)

[Houston19514]

Operating a large scale operation with fewer gates is not a problem for them. They are a very efficient lean well oiled machine :):)

Yes, but even SW has limits on how many flights they can handle per day per gate. The fact they are willing to settle for 16 gates at DAL while having just built themselves a 20-gate concourse at HOU suggests they envision a bigger operation at HOU for the long term than they have or will ever have at DAL, as much as 25% bigger (and with no contractual limit on expanding even more at HOU).

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Yes, but even SW has limits on how many flights they can handle per day per gate. The fact they are willing to settle for 16 gates at DAL while having just built themselves a 20-gate concourse at HOU suggests they envision a bigger operation at HOU for the long term than they have or will ever have at DAL, as much as 25% bigger (and with no contractual limit on expanding even more at HOU).

Interesting point, but keep in mind when the decision on HOU expansion was made, The Wright Amendment was in full force with no sign of being discontinued or altered. Now it looks as though the playing field is going to change a bit. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[tcole]

Yes, but even SW has limits on how many flights they can handle per day per gate.

From say 6:30 am every morning to 11:30 pm every night, each gate will be able to cycle roughly 35 operations per day. Take out 20% for realism due to a whole host of factors and you are left with about 28 turns for each gate per day. That times 16 gives you 448 turns per day (or 224 flight ops). That allows for Southwest to potentially increase it daily ops out of DAL by almost 80%, if utilized to its maximum potential, from where it stands today (about 125 flight ops/day).

[TxDave]

From the very beginning of its fight to repeal Wright, Southwest said that it only wanted its Dallas operation to resemble what it currently has at Hobby - not flying an outrageous number of flights everywhere, but rather strategic flights to strategic markets. This should be achievable with 16 well utilized gates (an increase from the 14 currently operational, but probably not optimized).

The fact that Southwest, American, Dallas, and Fort Worth have all signed off on this agreement makes it a pretty powerful proposition.

[TxDave]

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/disp/story...nt/3973389.html

So you have two main airports in DFW with DFW International and Love Field. Southwest and American Airlines have been fighting for control of Love Field. In this deal, Southwest would retain 16 of the remaining 21 gates, and be allowed to sell multi-flight plans, as opposed to in the past where you had to buy separate tickets. American Airlines would still LIMIT the airport to flights within nine states, keeping Love Field from becoming international for at least the next 8 years.

If Love Field's closer to Dallas than DFW International, wouldn't Dallas's business travelers and residents want to see Love Field become a second international airport? And if so, how much say do the mayors of DFW or the public have? And would DFW International really be in trouble if Love Field became international? Could Dallas handle two international airports?

Lastly, could Houston handle two international airports if Hobby became more than domestic?

In response to a couple of issues in this post:

1) Southwest and American are not actually fighting for control of Love Field. American controls DFW airport (similar to how Continental controls IAH) and Southwest controls Love, although it is currently restricted to where it can fly based on the Wright amendment. American has only entered Love to try to protect its Dallas customer "turf" in this battle.

2) Love Field is closer to downtown Dallas because it it located halfway between downtown and DFW airport. It is NOT necessarily closer to all of the DFW area traveling public. New affluent growth farther to the north is making this less of an issue - the distance to both airports becomes similar.

3) DFW and Love are different from IAH and Hobby given that DFW and Love are on the same side of town (NW of downtown Dallas, approx. 6 miles apart), whereas IAH and Hobby are on opposite sides of the region, much more sensible and logical. Perhaps both Houston airports could support international service, but I think it is best for the region to consolidate it at one facility.

4) There is no need for Love to handle international flights. The resident international carriers (American, Continental) handle them much better from other locations, and DFW is sufficiently close enough to handle any international travel demand. There is no need (or desire) for two international airports.

5) Ultimately this decision now relies on Congress. The Wright Amendment is a Federal law that would have to be repealed and replaced. The local delegation seems generally behind the compromise, but they may have some challeneges convincing Congressmen from some states (e.g. Nebraska, Nevada) that want direct acces to Love Field immediately.

All, in all, I think this is a great compromise by several conflicting parties, and should be respected.

[Houston19514]

From say 6:30 am every morning to 11:30 pm every night, each gate will be able to cycle roughly 35 operations per day. Take out 20% for realism due to a whole host of factors and you are left with about 28 turns for each gate per day. That times 16 gives you 448 turns per day (or 224 flight ops). That allows for Southwest to potentially increase it daily ops out of DAL by almost 80%, if utilized to its maximum potential, from where it stands today (about 125 flight ops/day).

Of course the flights are probably not evenly spaced from 6:30 to 11:30 pm. And whatever number of flights Southwest might be able to theoretically handle with 16 gates at DAL (and their actual gate usage at other airports suggests you are exaggerating the possibilities... as someone mentioned earlier, they run a lean mean machine. So I'm thinking they are not likely to pay for a lot of gates they don't need or anticipate needing).

My point is, they are agreeing to a limitation at DAL that they do NOT have at their other major airports, and they have already built quite a few airport terminals to have a good deal more capacity than they will ever have at DAL under this agreement. To me, that suggests they don't plan a great amount of growth of their DAL service.

They have recently completed a 20 gate terminal at HOU from which they operate 137 flights a day. Thay have 19 gates at BWI from which they operate 166 flights a day. 29 gates at Chicago Midway - 203 flights. 21 gates in Las Vegas - 219 flights. 24 gates in Phoenix - 201 flights. (According to your calculations, Southwest has built themselves sufficient capacity at HOU, just to take one example, to more than double their service. I'm not seeing any airline do that, let alone lean mean Southwest.)

[slfunk]

Personally, being a Dallas residence this compromise is better then nothing. I do disagree with skrinking the size of the airport. Traffic and all those other concerns can and should be addressed. The airport is already less then half the size of the original Love Field. I am having my fingers crossed that congress will look at this and just repeal the whole thing.

The great news out of this is Love Field is going to be rebuilt and funded by Southwest. They will be rebuilding the terminal space, building a people mover to connect with the nearby Dart Rail station (so both Love field and DFW will be connected via DART, and all of this will be done within the 8 yrs before all the restrictions are lifted. So that means as soon as congress passes this resolution one similar construction must start almost immediately. Avation projects take forever.

[tcole]

Of course the flights are probably not evenly spaced from 6:30 to 11:30 pm. And whatever number of flights Southwest might be able to theoretically handle with 16 gates at DAL (and their actual gate usage at other airports suggests you are exaggerating the possibilities... as someone mentioned earlier, they run a lean mean machine. So I'm thinking they are not likely to pay for a lot of gates they don't need or anticipate needing).

My point is, they are agreeing to a limitation at DAL that they do NOT have at their other major airports, and they have already built quite a few airport terminals to have a good deal more capacity than they will ever have at DAL under this agreement. To me, that suggests they don't plan a great amount of growth of their DAL service.

They have recently completed a 20 gate terminal at HOU from which they operate 137 flights a day. Thay have 19 gates at BWI from which they operate 166 flights a day. 29 gates at Chicago Midway - 203 flights. 21 gates in Las Vegas - 219 flights. 24 gates in Phoenix - 201 flights. (According to your calculations, Southwest has built themselves sufficient capacity at HOU, just to take one example, to more than double their service. I'm not seeing any airline do that, let alone lean mean Southwest.)

Re-read my post. I am suggesting that if SW exercised those 16 gates to their capacity within the system they operate (they aim for a less than 30 minute turn), that those gates would still allow for them to expand operations by at almost 80% over what they currently fly from DAL. The 14 gates they use today are not maximized as to turns. Also, SW does not have/operate from all 20 of the gates at HOU today in that 2-3 of those facing pier C are not accessable and thus not yet open.

[Houston19514]

Re-read my post. I am suggesting that if SW exercised those 16 gates to their capacity within the system they operate (they aim for a less than 30 minute turn), that those gates would still allow for them to expand operations by at almost 80% over what they currently fly from DAL. The 14 gates they use today are not maximized as to turns. Also, SW does not have/operate from all 20 of the gates at HOU today in that 2-3 of those facing pier C are not accessable and thus not yet open.

No need to re-read your post. I completely and thoroughly understood everything you said. I understand you are saying this plan allows them to grow. And clearly, since they will be gaining 2 gates above what they have now, that is the case.

My only point was that this plan limits how much they will ever be able to grow DAL. I also understand that SW does not yet use all 20 of their gates at HOU. (And if your flights/gate/day numbers are anywhere near accurate, SW won't need those other 3 gates for many many years. I am skeptical of the reality of your numbers. I know SW aims for a 30 minute turnaround, but they don't always make it, and as I mentioned before, flights are not evenly spaced throughout the day, so there is going to be SOME dead time at gates. If they were achieving anything close to those numbers, I doubt they would be building all of those 20-and more-gate terminals at their "hubs" around the country. As you know, lean mean Southwest does not tend to invest capital in facilities they don't need.)

But regardless of the numbers the bottom line is: whatever number of flights they can handle per gate per day, SW is permanently limiting their operations at DAL to a number that is 20% smaller than what they will be able to handle at HOU as soon as those remaining 3 gates are available, and much smaller than they can handle with current gates at Midway, Phoenix, BWI, Las Vegas, and even St. Louis. (And they are not restricted from further expansions of their facilities at any of those airports.) So it appears to me that they do not have huge growth in mind for DAL, at least relative to their other "hub" airports.

[tcole]

But regardless of the numbers the bottom line is: whatever number of flights they can handle per gate per day, SW is permanently limiting their operations at DAL to a number that is 20% smaller than what they will be able to handle at HOU as soon as those remaining 3 gates are available, and much smaller than they can handle with current gates at Midway, Phoenix, BWI, Las Vegas, and even St. Louis. (And they are not restricted from further expansions of their facilities at any of those airports.) So it appears to me that they do not have huge growth in mind for DAL, at least relative to their other "hub" airports.

True and then again, not true. I agree with your initial point, but SW's ability to grow at say Midway or STL is limited. In both cases, by the number of either available gates not used by other carriers (many in the case of STL) or space to construct (as in MDW). SW does not own any of its terminals and are thus the prisoner of the municipality of airport authority as to new space construction for expansion. If Dallas wants to limit it terminal to 20 gates, it has that perogative. What is really interesting is the option never mentioned in the press. That is that SW's gate lease at DAL was scheduled to expire in December of this year - and Dallas very easily could have elected to not re-new that lease and just close the terminal altogether. Of course, Dallas would have needed to get AA and Continental to agree to forgo the remainder of their respective leases as well in that theirs extend for another 20-40 years. Such a move would have forced SW to choose between dropping service in Dallas altogether or moving ops to DFW.

[Houston19514]

True and then again, not true. I agree with your initial point, but SW's ability to grow at say Midway or STL is limited. In both cases, by the number of either available gates not used by other carriers (many in the case of STL) or space to construct (as in MDW). SW does not own any of its terminals and are thus the prisoner of the municipality of airport authority as to new space construction for expansion. If Dallas wants to limit it terminal to 20 gates, it has that perogative. What is really interesting is the option never mentioned in the press. That is that SW's gate lease at DAL was scheduled to expire in December of this year - and Dallas very easily could have elected to not re-new that lease and just close the terminal altogether. Of course, Dallas would have needed to get AA and Continental to agree to forgo the remainder of their respective leases as well in that theirs extend for another 20-40 years. Such a move would have forced SW to choose between dropping service in Dallas altogether or moving ops to DFW.

Exactly which part of that was "not true"? Whatever, the other thing we haven't mentioned is ...

the actual reality at Hobby... While they may currently only be using 17 gates in the new Central Concourse, SW also still uses gates in the A Concourse. Additionally, even before the new Central Councourse was completed, SW asked for it to be expanded from the originally planned 20 gates to 24 gates. So whatever number of flights they can handle per day per gate, they will start with 50% more capacity at HOU than they will EVER have at DAL. I know SW does not own any of their terminals, but it is a rare airport that will not make arrangements to add gates for Southwest (or any other airline with the capacity to pay rent). And while there may in fact be physical limitations at some airports, there are usually ways around that (witness SW's recent investment in ATA to get access to more gates at Midway). Being subject to some limitations at some airports due to physical constraints is quite different than agreeing to permanently limit yourself to a relatively small number of gates. Your estimate of 14 flights per day per gate seems wildly optimistic compared to SW's actual operations. Of their major "hub" airports, They only have one operating more than 10 flights per day per gate (Las Vegas @ 10.4 flights per day per gate). The others all operate more in the range of 7-8 flights per gate per day. (I read on-line that SW was operating 10 flights per day per gate at HOU, PRE-EXPANSION.) If they realistically thought they could operate at that level (and in deed 40% above that level) for the long term I highly doubt they would have agreed to the large expansion project (and while they do not own the terminal, rest assured, they largely pay for it).

Thus, it seems more realistic to estimate that SW anticipates nothing more than 160 flights per day from DAL (16 gates at 10 flights per day per gate).

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Exactly which part of that was "not true"? Whatever, the other thing we haven't mentioned is ...

the actual reality at Hobby... While they may currently only be using 17 gates in the new Central Concourse, SW also still uses gates in the A Concourse. Additionally, even before the new Central Councourse was completed, SW asked for it to be expanded from the originally planned 20 gates to 24 gates. So whatever number of flights they can handle per day per gate, they will start with 50% more capacity at HOU than they will EVER have at DAL. I know SW does not own any of their terminals, but it is a rare airport that will not make arrangements to add gates for Southwest (or any other airline with the capacity to pay rent). And while there may in fact be physical limitations at some airports, there are usually ways around that (witness SW's recent investment in ATA to get access to more gates at Midway). Being subject to some limitations at some airports due to physical constraints is quite different than agreeing to permanently limit yourself to a relatively small number of gates. Your estimate of 14 flights per day per gate seems wildly optimistic compared to SW's actual operations. Of their major "hub" airports, They only have one operating more than 10 flights per day per gate (Las Vegas @ 10.4 flights per day per gate). The others all operate more in the range of 7-8 flights per gate per day. (I read on-line that SW was operating 10 flights per day per gate at HOU, PRE-EXPANSION.) If they realistically thought they could operate at that level (and in deed 40% above that level) for the long term I highly doubt they would have agreed to the large expansion project (and while they do not own the terminal, rest assured, they largely pay for it).

Thus, it seems more realistic to estimate that SW anticipates nothing more than 160 flights per day from DAL (16 gates at 10 flights per day per gate).

As i said before, this will be very interesting when all the details are laid out. At current HOU allows SWA lots more opportunity for growth, with the new proposal in the works, some changes might be made....

[KinkaidAlum]

WN just announced non-stop service to Denver this week. Will move to 3 times a day by early fall. Also adding a third daily non-stop to Tampa.

I just wish they'd bring the non-stop to Providence back from HOU. That was a great way for folks to get to the Cape and Islands for the summer. A much easier trip than flying to BOS.

[tcole]

Exactly which part of that was "not true"? Whatever, the other thing we haven't mentioned is ...

the actual reality at Hobby... While they may currently only be using 17 gates in the new Central Concourse, SW also still uses gates in the A Concourse. Additionally, even before the new Central Councourse was completed, SW asked for it to be expanded from the originally planned 20 gates to 24 gates. So whatever number of flights they can handle per day per gate, they will start with 50% more capacity at HOU than they will EVER have at DAL. I know SW does not own any of their terminals, but it is a rare airport that will not make arrangements to add gates for Southwest (or any other airline with the capacity to pay rent). And while there may in fact be physical limitations at some airports, there are usually ways around that (witness SW's recent investment in ATA to get access to more gates at Midway). Being subject to some limitations at some airports due to physical constraints is quite different than agreeing to permanently limit yourself to a relatively small number of gates. Your estimate of 14 flights per day per gate seems wildly optimistic compared to SW's actual operations. Of their major "hub" airports, They only have one operating more than 10 flights per day per gate (Las Vegas @ 10.4 flights per day per gate). The others all operate more in the range of 7-8 flights per gate per day. (I read on-line that SW was operating 10 flights per day per gate at HOU, PRE-EXPANSION.) If they realistically thought they could operate at that level (and in deed 40% above that level) for the long term I highly doubt they would have agreed to the large expansion project (and while they do not own the terminal, rest assured, they largely pay for it).

Thus, it seems more realistic to estimate that SW anticipates nothing more than 160 flights per day from DAL (16 gates at 10 flights per day per gate).

Agreed Houston, the numbers I provided are based on perfect execution in perfect weather and maximizing the available real estate. And then I did not factor gate shuttling. But I thought that I had made that clear. Nevertheless, SW has slack in the system at both HOU and DAL but as you suggest, Dallas the city will be limiting SW's total potential growth at DAL.

BTW, have you seen SW's experimental jet bridge at Love? It has a flying "wing" second connection point that is cantilevered over the aircraft wing to mate at the rear door. Deplaning passengers exit rear and emplaning passengers fill in from the front. If they are able to put these in at all 16 of their gates, it very well could allow for a significant decrease in turn time.

[TxDave]

BTW, have you seen SW's experimental jet bridge at Love? It has a flying "wing" second connection point that is cantilevered over the aircraft wing to mate at the rear door. Deplaning passengers exit rear and emplaning passengers fill in from the front. If they are able to put these in at all 16 of their gates, it very well could allow for a significant decrease in turn time.

I remember that experiment from a few years ago (maybe 3-4). Are they even still doing it?

It did seem like it might be a good idea -- let people out two ways rather than one. However, my experience showed that the problem was really with carry-on bags. People in the rear who did want to exit through the back were blocked by those who needed to go forward to get their carry-on bags (based on where they put them upon entry).

It probably would have worked better if they had tried 2 entrances as well as two exits.

[tcole]

I remember that experiment from a few years ago (maybe 3-4). Are they even still doing it?

It did seem like it might be a good idea -- let people out two ways rather than one. However, my experience showed that the problem was really with carry-on bags. People in the rear who did want to exit through the back were blocked by those who needed to go forward to get their carry-on bags (based on where they put them upon entry).

It probably would have worked better if they had tried 2 entrances as well as two exits.

The concept was not to use the two plane exits for either/both deplaning and emplaning at the same time. The rear was used exclusively for deplaning. The front for emplaning. You had no "choice" to exit front or rear, but rather were mandated to use the exit/bridge offered. On occasion they tinkered with utilizing both for either emplaning or deplaning but that option proved less efficient. The bridges were actually separated. Below is a photo showing the concept bridge - it is in the far right of the image.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I thought that was what you may have been speaking about. Thanks for the pic. I have seen these widely used in some airports for widebody aircraft. I have experienced it often in FRA-Frankfurt. First and business class through one and economy through the other. Speeds up the boarding process and allows a more intimate first/business class cabin without all the flow through traffic to economy

[tcole]

I thought that was what you may have been speaking about. Thanks for the pic. I have seen these widely used in some airports for widebody aircraft. I have experienced it often in FRA-Frankfurt. First and business class through one and economy through the other. Speeds up the boarding process and allows a more intimate first/business class cabin without all the flow through traffic to economy

JFK used to have something similar in the old Intl. Terminal. Only theirs had three access points (two up front and one that "flew" over the wing to a rear exit.

[slfunk]

Southwest celebrates freedom at Love

11:54 PM CDT on Tuesday, October 17, 2006

By TERRY MAXON and SUZANNE MARTA / The Dallas Morning News

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...st.84ed18.html

"Southwest Airlines can't make quick changes to its Dallas schedule. It can't build a new Love Field terminal overnight. It won't be able to fly nonstop to much of the country for eight more years....But Southwest, which made its name with low prices, can cut airfares immediately out of Dallas. And that's what the airline is doing to promote its newfound freedom and service at the Dallas airport.

Chief executive Gary Kelly said Tuesday that Southwest will offer nonstop or one-stop service to 43 cities out of Love Field beginning Thursday, compared with only 18 cities previously available from the airport....."

"..Mr. Kelly, who launched Southwest's campaign in late 2004 to seek repeal of the Wright amendment, which limited operations at Love Field, thanked Congress, local political leaders, employees and customers for helping get the law phased out over eight years.

"Twenty-three months ago, Southwest Airlines set out to free Love Field. We'd made a promise to lower fares. By Thursday of this week, we're going to deliver on that promise," Mr. Kelly said at a morning news conference at the carrier's headquarters next to Love Field...."

"...The new law, which went into effect Monday, allows Southwest and others to sell through tickets immediately and eliminates the nonstop prohibition after eight years..."

"..Now that Southwest knows that it will be able to expand its Dallas market, it's ready to invest in aircraft, flights and facilities at Love Field, Mr. Kelly said...."Because we have certainty with the Wright amendment and we are confident in our ability to serve this market, we're assuming that we will need more airplanes next year," he said, "and we're all very excited about that."...Mr. Kelly said Love Field is "in need of an investment. This is our headquarters. This is our home. We've very anxious to help rebuild Love Field.".....Southwest has committed to spend up to $200 million by 2014 on Love Field improvements....."

"...Ryan Evans, first assistant city manager for Dallas, said staff members are beginning a process with airport users to coordinate the renovation plan of Love Field..."