tcole

As would my Godparents.

OK. And SMU, Tulane, and UT are in Houston. At least all three have "branches" here... It is indeed. But Arlington is lumped into FW's statistical area and is completely in Tarrant County whose seat is in...Fort Worth. The debate would definitely be commuting patterns which favor Dallas...and DFW Airport, whose pricipal operations are also located in...Tarrant County. The literature you cite is typical in that it exposes the assumption that anything in the metroplex is part of the "Dallas" universe, and therefore either no one elses or not on its own.

Be a little nervous Houstonians. I know Terry; used to work for him. I like Terry, but I don't trust that he is going to come through with anything that most on this board are going to particularly be impressed with or necessarily like.

Ah....no. It is in Tarrant County. If anyone gets to claim it, that would have to be Fort Worth. But seeing that the University of Texas system has identified it as being "the University of Texas at ARLINGTON", I think Arlington gets to claim it. Just being in the metroplex does not mean that something automatically gets to be claimed as part of the overall "Dallas" universe. Prairie View A&M is similarly located in an adjacent county to Harris County, yet I doubt you would necessarily hear any Houstonian claim that it was in "Houston"; although a good number of its students commute to classes there from Houston proper. Neither for that matter is The University of Dallas.

UNT is in Denton. UTA is in Arlington. Both are NOT in Dallas. Not even in Dallas County. But you did omit UoD and Paul Quinn College in Dallas. As to Houston, you forgot HBU, UST, TXSouthern, and STexCollege of Law As to Atlanta, you forgot Morehouse and Spellman.

Interestingly, there is NO "square" (public/park/greenspace) in Sundance Square. The Tarrant Co. courthouse is two blocks away from the SS developement, and not really a congregation point; although aesthetically one of Texas' best examples of 19th century courthouse architecture.

Good. Put it to bed. The title of this thread does not have the name "Dallas" in it.

Some good points. But do not for a moment think that people in FW join in the Metroplex (It is actually Dallas) vs. Houston rivalry. Quite the contrary, most in Fort Worth look to Houston as a much larger cousin that shares a good number of similarities, both good and bad.

Except that Jack, Kyle, and Kirk are having a bear of a time filling the ground level retail space...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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)

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. 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.

Unfortunately for Dallas (and the metroplex by unfortunate association), that question is far from settled...

In nmain's defense, he was not completely partisan...

Should Houston have to endure a Katrina-like strike; I suggest Houstonians just by-pass Dallas and y'all just head on up and over and enjoy the unquestioning hospitality of FORT WORTH. You're ALL welcome.

I think you are absolutely correct. It is a matter of geography. If it is so important for the Karnes City kid to play at the "higher" competitive level of 5A, that family can move to another district. The same is true for HPISD residents. But is the competitive level between 4A and 5A THAT different? And what benefit does that "tougher competition" provide if HP is still able to produce Div I college caliber players? I think that that would be a better metric for the caliber of competition in the end. Besides, with the exception of Football, just looking through the HPISD althletic schedules will reveal that most athletic programs have 5A competition on the schedule.

4A, 5A? What about the kid in Karnes City who wants to play 5A? That dog don't hunt. And it isn't like HPHS isn't creating Div.I college talent, because it is and always has. As to your second point; whereas it may be factually acurate (I honestly do not know), I still would find such "facts" surprising. And if true would constitute such a super-minority as to not really support your proposal. And would actually provide the solution to that issue.

Except your "question" is superceded by a more primary question: Why would a resident of the Park Cities want to send their children to a Dallas school assuming your quetion bears merit in the search for more detailed "specialization" when a more diverse option is available to such affluent families in the form of either a number of the diverse types of private schools in Dallas or boarding schools? In fact, the question I pose is being answered today in that a number of Park Cities families send their children to St Marks, ESD, Hockaday, Jesuit, Greenhill, etc. plus a handful that attend shool at places like Exeter, Lawrenceville, or Deerfiled that do have the capacity to accomodate a broader spectrum of options that you see as beneficial to some cross district program. Do these families have access to such programs for essentially the cost of their property tax dollars today? No, but by and large, Park Cities individuals/families are more likely to desire the diversification/specialization that you propose in an even stronger form and are thus willing and able to pay for it (and I am not even considering that scholarship aspect).

You missed Scoot26's points. The endowment will allow HP to reduce its class sizes as well as develop programs similar to those offered at the specialized DISD magnets. In essence, HP can become its own cafeteria. DISD does not really offer HPISD any quid pro quo in this issue. And your egalitarian argument is preposterous. If HPISD had only three students (read extreme under-capacity), it would still have absolutely NO obligation to the citizens of Dallas (DISD) for the education of Dallas' children, save for the constarints of the "robin hood" plan. I think you are forgetting that the "I" in HPISD does stand for "independent"; and in HP's case as opposed to most others in the state, it can legitimately claim such.

They would have to merge with the two banks just behind them in terms of asset rankings just to reach approximate parity. And I don't see Dimon giving in that easily.