Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Southwest- No Longer "Neutral" On Wright Amendment  
User currently offlineSccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5392 posts, RR: 26
Posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7917 times:

The gloves are off!

See:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/111204dnbusswa.4d20f93a.html

Southwest has abandoned their long-standing stance of being "passionately neutral" on the issue of the Wright Amendment. This announcement, coupled with their specific announcement that they would not seek to serve DFW, tells me taht WN intends to actively seek to eliminate the Wright Amendment, and (for the first time) create meaningful low-fare competition in teh north Texas air travel marketplace.

Senator Hutchison's statement is very revealing. Southwest's political clout may have just overcome AA's (as their financial clout did years ago).

Game on; I'd not bet against Southwest.


...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNotdownnlocked From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 919 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7855 times:

I'm interested to read and hear but I don't want to register at DMN. Perhaps if you could explain the story in more detail for us that don't want to register.

Thanks.


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7844 times:

One needs to 'subscribe' in order to read the web-link article, but I think most people get the general gist. If Wright/Shelby is repealed, I would not be surprised that this could cause FL to rethink its future expansion over at DFW.


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2849 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7801 times:

Maybe others beside myself see the connection along with another active post about WN not going to DFW.

You see about as many AA flights at ATL as you will soon the number of DL flights at DFW and I doubt that you will see many flights of other carriers at DAL. There is just not much gate space left in the terminal at DAL that has not been turned in to WN corporate areas.

The announcement that WN is not going to DFW in the near future may be a way to not have AA fight against WN trying to shelve the Wright Amendment.

One of those you don't poop in my front yard I won't poop in yours unwritten agreements.

Okie


User currently offlineFlyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7762 times:

I hope they can get rid of the Wright Ammendment. I really don't see why it's been around for as long as it has. I think it's original purpose is now rather mute.

User currently offlineSccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7708 times:

Okie- your speculation mirrors my predictions of several months ago.

For those who do not want to register with DMN, here's the story (at least until it gets deleted):

===

Wright Amendment outdated, SWA's Kelly says
Kelly also says Southwest uninterested in serving D/FW, wants to expand Love Field

11:42 AM CST on Friday, November 12, 2004

By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News


Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport no longer needs the support of the “anticompetitive, outdated” Wright Amendment, said Southwest Airlines Co. chief executive Gary Kelly Friday morning.

The remarks represent a shift in the Dallas-based discounter’s approach toward the law that restricts how far its planes can fly from Dallas Love Field.


FILE PHOTO
Southwest is uninterested in serving D/FW and is looking to expand Love Field.
“We’ve said before that we were passionately neutral about it,” Mr. Kelly told the North Texas Chamber of Commerce. “I am now not saying we are passionately neutral about it - that is off the table.”

“It does seem like it’s outdated,” he continued. “Even Jim Wright has been quoted as saying - and I’m paraphrasing here - but he said that it’s not needed.”

It's unclear whether the legislative landscape that keeps the Wright Amendment in place has changed, though one long-time defender appeared to shift her stance Friday.

"Maybe it is time to do away with the Wright Amendment," said U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, adding that further study should be done before a final decision is made.

The senator lauded the goal of the amendment, which helped ensure that D/FW Airport would be the region's primary airport and not be a financial strain on Dallas and Fort Worth.

"I think it's definitely time to look at the financial picture at D/FW," the senator said, noting that Love Field has a number of idle gates that could serve long-distance passengers. "I would love to see the convenience of it if they can open Love Field."

The law prevents Southwest from serving cities beyond the adjoining states of Texas. A second amendment allows Southwest to serve Mississippi, Alabama and Kansas from Love Field. The amendments have allowed D/FW to grow to the third largest airport in the world.

But Delta Air Lines Inc.’s imminent departure from D/FW is ample evidence, Mr. Kelly said, that D/FW no longer needs the protection. Delta’s reduction of flights from 250 a day to 21 a day “completely changes the competitive landscape” for North Texas flying, and Southwest would like to be able to grow its Love Field flying to pick up the slack.

Mr. Kelly stopped short of saying Southwest would actively lobby to have the Wright Amendment appealed. “We’re not going to stand in anybody’s way” in terms of efforts to modify the amendment.

The congressional delegation from Tennessee has introduced legislation to become one of the states exempted from the restrictions.

“It’s not just a Dallas issue,” Mr. Kelly said to reporters after the breakfast. “It affects Fort Worth too. It’s a regional issue.”

Southwest has no intention of serving D/FW after having closely studied the options, Mr. Kelly said. It wants to expand Love Field flying, where traffic has actually dropped about 10 percent in recent years. But no politicians at the City of Dallas, which owns Love Field, have brought up the issue in part because of a strong legal response that would come from Fort Worth.

Staff Writer Tony Hartzel contributed to this repo



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineAZjetgeek From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 235 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7682 times:

I applaud WN for finally taking a stand to get rid of the Wright/Shelby Amendment. It was a bad idea at the time and it's time has long since passed. DFW is well established, so WN's service at DAL is no longer a threat to DFW's existence.

If WN does succeed in getting Wright repealed, the folks at DAL might have to look into negotiations with WN to relinquish some of their gate space to other airlines that would be willing to move over to Love Field in order to relieve delays and congestion at DFW.



Long live the RJ!
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 3512 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7642 times:

if this does happen, look for DAL to become the next MDW, except with longer runways but less gates.


Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7616 times:

For future reference, on sites that require a log in, go to www.bugmenot.com. Then key in the URL for the site you want and it will give you an id and password for that site.

[Edited 2004-11-12 20:25:19]

User currently offlineDagolden1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7506 times:

Goingboeing,

That's sweet, I hate sites that make you register just to read an article, I'm going to have to add that one to my favorites! Thanks for the link!


The Wright Amendment is very outdated and I do hope that WN can successfully get rid of it, I'm very glad that they have finally changed there stance on it, wonder what took so long.

Let's just say hypothetically that the amendment is lifted, can anybody speculate on what new routes WN would introduce from Love Field? I'd be interested in everyone's opinions.

dagolden1





[Edited 2004-11-12 21:39:23]

User currently offlineBigB From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 593 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7441 times:

Good news for the Dallas area.


ETSN Baber, USN
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 3512 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7445 times:

oh jeez that is at least 50-75 flights or so a day in itself.

the obvious:

DAL-BWI
DAL-LAX
DAL-MDW
DAL-OAK
DAL-MCO
DAL-PHX
DAL-LAS
DAL-SEA
DAL-PHL

the maybes:
DAL-TPA
DAL-PBI
DAL-ISP
DAL-TUS
DAL-SAN
DAL-ORF
DAL-MHT
DAL-PVD
DAL-BUF
DAL-MCI


probably more i haven't even thought of.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7340 times:

If Wright/Shelby were repealed, DAL-TPA and DAL-SAN would almost definitely start. WN operates these routes out of AUS, there's no reason they couldn't make them work from DAL. Especially now that DL is gone.


"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineAZjetgeek From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 235 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7233 times:

I, for one, would love to see DAL-PHX. My sister lives in Dallas. I might actually get to visit her once in a while. Three years ago, I did fly PHX-ELP-DAL. It's so absurd to have to change planes in ELP. A 733 or 73G are perfectly capable of making the trip non-stop DAL-PHX.



Long live the RJ!
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3042 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7211 times:

Wall Street Journal Has Opened Their Site For Today:


http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110029748760372895,00.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo


User currently offlineGD727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 925 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7189 times:

I'm glad WN is stepping up to the plate on the Wright Amendment. The population of Dallas alone is something like 1.2 million, I don't think an expansion of DAL will hurt DFW. Hell, Boston's population is half of Dallas and we have TWO reliever airports (PVD and MHT) and BOS is doing fine, in fact every gate is being used! Same thing with Houston (even though it's a bigger city) HOU isn't restricted, but IAH certainly isn't hurting!


Mmmm forbidden donut.
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7161 times:

The trouble WN will have, and will likely not overcome, will be the people around Love Field that will fight tooth and nail against expansion.

It should be interesting to watch, though.

Steve


User currently offlineFlairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7154 times:

I can also see DAL-FLL in competion with FL.

User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 40
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7094 times:

The trouble WN will have, and will likely not overcome, will be the people around Love Field that will fight tooth and nail against expansion.

People living around DAL have no political clout. The area immediately surrounding Love Field is largely low-income and the area could use a boost that would come from increased traffic. For the 75th time, the DAL arrival/departure patterns avoid the nicer neighborhoods of Dallas. The Park Cities are immediately to the east of Love, but there is little noise impact at all.

if this does happen, look for DAL to become the next MDW, except with longer runways but less gates.

Actually, DAL has significant space availible for more gates, there is an entire terminal without any gates left over from the Braniff era.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7031 times:

As I recall, AA did not want to leave Love because DFW was a pain to get to. The benefit of Love is not WN, but the convenience for business travelers. DFW wasn't convenient when it started and it still isn't. If the Wright Amendment is repealed then other airlines (including AA) are going to be looking for access as part of the price and I don't think that WN will move offices in order to get the deal done.

User currently offlineJr From United States of America, joined May 1999, 966 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6941 times:

"American Airlines disagrees. In a statement issued Friday, the Fort Worth, Texas-based carrier said the Wright Amendment is just as relevant today as it was when it first passed and helps preserve DFW's position as the principle aviation gateway for North Texas.

"Repealing the Wright Amendment would undermine the success of DFW, whose contribution to the region's growth and prosperity continues to be substantial," American said.

American also said it is opposed to the "Tennessee Amendment" to the Wright Amendment".


Imagine that... who would have thought. About time that someone wants to slap them!






I've flown on 9V-SPK.
User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6788 times:

Well out of my own selfish needs I'll say it again. I wish WN (and maybe CO at least) would serve Ft Worth -Meacham. A few Non-stops to OKC-AUS-HOU/IAH-ELP and ABQ would be more convenient for me, and it is all about me  Big grin

Oh well...

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Veni, Vidi, Bibi

[Edited 2004-11-13 05:41:33]

User currently offlineGD727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 925 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6758 times:

"American Airlines disagrees. In a statement issued Friday, the Fort Worth, Texas-based carrier said the Wright Amendment is just as relevant today as it was when it first passed and helps preserve DFW's position as the principle aviation gateway for North Texas.

"Repealing the Wright Amendment would undermine the success of DFW, whose contribution to the region's growth and prosperity continues to be substantial," American said.

American also said it is opposed to the "Tennessee Amendment" to the Wright Amendment".


Oh right. All 5.7 million people in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area are going to stop using DFW because DAL will allow unrestricted flights, riiight. You know, I mean no disrespect to AA, they are a good carrier, but their logic on this situation is just plain stupid. I know DFW is their stronghold, but to think that a metropolitan area of 5.7 million people should only have one airport is completely ridiculous! Really, DFW has around 2,100 movements a day and they think opening up another airport for decent service will be a problem? Get real.

Another example would be MDW, it has a good amount of service, but is ORD not still the 1st or 2nd busiest airport in the world? See? ORD wasn't hurt by MDW! Chicago is a city of comparable size to Dallas too, so this example fits well.



Mmmm forbidden donut.
User currently offlineTiger119 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days ago) and read 6431 times:

Planespotting, add DAL-IND.

KarlB737, their server was out of service, what did the WSJ article say?

Is there enough area around DAL to expand the runways? Reason I ask is I wonder if carriers would want to start bringing in larger equipment to DAL if the amendment is repelled or changed.



Flying is the second greatest thrill known to mankind, landing is the first!
User currently offlineSccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days ago) and read 6408 times:

Is there enough area around DAL to expand the runways? Reason I ask is I wonder if carriers would want to start bringing in larger equipment to DAL if the amendment is repelled or changed.

No need. DAL's runways have plenty of length for whatever might come by, though I do not realistically see much chance of a resumption of widebody passenger service.

Old times, Delta and Braniff both served DAL with 747s; AA had DC-10 service out of DAL; and Airborne has a daily 767 cargo run even now. Only regular widebody visitor with pax anymore is Air Force One.

13R/31L is 8,800 feet;
13L/31R is 7,752 feet;
18/36 is 6,147 feet (and almost never used....)

Both of the parallel 13/31 runways have ILS approaches, on both ends.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
25 Post contains links LoneStarMike : If this does happen, look for DAL to become the next MDW, except with longer runways but less gates.Actually, DAL has significant space availible for
26 Scotron11 : Not that it will effect myself, but I completely agree with WN on this one. But then again, it goes to the heart of all protectionist goings on that h
27 Swardu : Actually, I have done a study on this Wright Amendment stuff, as I had submitted a proposal to WN (my employer) to DO exactly that....beat the Wright
28 Dagolden1 : Well put Swardu! That's exactly how I feel, WN doesn't want to create a major airport out of Love Field, they just want to have the option of adding m
29 Ssides : People living around DAL have no political clout. The area immediately surrounding Love Field is largely low-income and the area could use a boost tha
30 Post contains images DfwRevolution : People living around DAL have no political clout. The area immediately surrounding Love Field is largely low-income and the area could use a boost tha
31 Sllevin : You cannot simply eliminate the Wright Amendment and leave WN in control of the majority of gates at DAL. If you are going to re-open DAL as a "umlimi
32 DfwRevolution : If you are going to re-open DAL as a "umlimited" airport, then you also have to re-open all its gates to an open bid, or else this is simply handling
33 OzarkD9S : Although a Democrat (socially speaking), I believe the restrictions placed on Love Field are anti-business. (Same with the perimeter rules at DCA and
34 DfwRevolution : I would, however be opposed to WN snapping up 90% of available gate space if the repeals went into effect. Talk about limiting competition! First, if
35 Post contains links and images Okie : View Large View MediumPhoto © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages Here is a overview of DAL Most of the BN concourse has been converted to other use. Oki
36 Swadispatcher : From what I've read on this subject, DAL only has 150 or so available takeoff/landing spots per day for use.. Does anyone else know of this? As for th
37 Sllevin : So are you suggesting a complete re-allocation of all the gates? How would that be fair? WN has payed the leases on these gates for the last 30 years,
38 TxAgKuwait : Silevin: Nice try. Nice hypothesis. Too bad you're wrong. >>Because that's exactly what happened. No one wanted to move to DFW at the time. The only r
39 Post contains images DfwRevolution : So yes, go ahead and open DAL, but the gates should be re-bid as they now have a far different value. If it were not for WN... those gates would have
40 Sccutler : Steve: Simmer down, ol' boy. WN has always played "by the rules." Southwest did not move to DFW, because they did not agree to do so (as did all the o
41 Planespotting : I Think AA does fail to realize that if we (WN) are forced into DFW, that a long and prolonged price war will erupt, ugly on both sides. However, who
42 Post contains images Sllevin : The imposition of such restrictions on Love Field cannot be reconciled with any form of fairness; no other metropolitan area which has multiple airpor
43 Scotron11 : Lets get the Wright amendment annulled first then argue about who, what and where afterwards.
44 DCA-ROCguy : What legal basis would there be for "bidding" on gates at DAL? Whatever gates Southwest holds leases on at DAL, they hold leases. No other airline is
45 Dagolden1 : If AA is "so" interested in operating out of DAL, then why aren't they there now?
46 LV : What is the status with the Legend terminal? Is it still privatly owned or does the airport own it now? What are the chances someone could come in and
47 DfwRevolution : What is the status with the Legend terminal? Is it still privatly owned or does the airport own it now? What are the chances someone could come in and
48 Post contains images Sllevin : If AA is "so" interested in operating out of DAL, then why aren't they there now? Because of the Wright Amendment, perhaps? Eliminating the Wright Ame
49 DfwRevolution : I'd have a bit more sympathy for Southwest if they had held all the leases and gates they do now prior to the Wright Amendment. *THAT* would say "hey,
50 Dagolden1 : Amen...DfwRevolution. My point was that Wright Amendment or not there's nothing stopping AA from operating out of DAL, they sure had no qualms about d
51 N6376m : The rebidding issue is a red herring. AA couldn't afford to outbid WN - it simply doesn't have the money or the cost structure to support any further
52 N6376m : Let's not forget politics, the unions made their bed supporting JFK for the presidency therefore the traditional leverage air carriers could use to st
53 OzarkD9S : Defending my statement that WN should not be allowed to snap up 90% of the gates if restrictions are eased: The limit on the number of gates DAL is al
54 ACAfan : ACA, excuse me, Independence Air has the CRJ. They can already fly it IAD-DAL under current rules.
55 Swardu : Sllevin, The reason why AA is no longer at Love Field, is there is no longer any competition. Legend Air went bankrupt due to all te legal hassle AA,
56 JeffLAS : I am really surprised that the Wright Amendment has not been challenged sooner. Seems very anti-competitive to me, in a country that prides itself on
57 Sllevin : They only have a token presence at MDW, which is the same premise they will use at Love Field when/if it ever opens up I agree that they'd likely only
58 ScottB : The argument that Southwest should be forced to "bid" for gates at DAL is utterly ludicrous. By the same token, the network carriers (or even LCC's) w
59 BHMNONREV : Having Southwest take over 15 ex-Delta gates in Terminal E at DFW is AA's worst nightmare. They're much better off with limited expansion in Southwest
60 Bucky707 : "You cannot simply eliminate the Wright Amendment and leave WN in control of the majority of gates at DAL. If you are going to re-open DAL as a "umlim
61 ScottB : No, the other airlines left DAL because they signed an agreement to leave DAL. The Wright Amendment restrictions were put into place just after deregu
62 JayDavis : What I haven't seen mentioned here but was in the Dallas Morning News article was the fact that Fort Worth City leaders have tried and tried and tried
63 JayDavis : In today's (Nov. 18, 2004) edition of the Dallas Morning News, DFW Officials accuse Southwest officials of trying to "chill" other low cost carriers o
64 PHLBOS : Jay, I wonder if this new LCC DFW officials are referring to could be another one of those 'carriers within a carrier' a la Song or Ted? Could AA be s
65 AAtakeMeAway : Isn't it also true that DAL cannot actively market itself to airlines? Is this part of the Wright Amendment?
66 ScottB : Actually, I believe that the City of Dallas is prohibited from promoting Love Field by the 1968 bond covenants establishing DFW Airport. The quote I f
67 JayDavis : I wonder if the bond agreements have already been fulfilled? I mean DFW "is" 30 years old now. Not like its success is still being determined.........
68 ScottB : If you want my cynical viewpoint... One of the prime reasons for the recent "Capital Development Program" was to issue more bonds and lock the City of
69 Cactus739 : JayDavis....Something doesn't seem right does it? DFW is saying that an un-named carrier wanted to purchase and move into all 24 gates Delta is abando
70 JayDavis : ScottyB, I think most of the bonds are for the new International Terminal, along with the new SkyMover people system, plus some general upkeep on the
71 ScottB : JayDavis- Oh, I understand what the stated purpose of the bonds is; I just don't buy into believing that's the only reason for the Capital Development
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
ASA Is No Longer "Candler" And Now "Acey"? posted Wed Mar 15 2006 13:47:07 by DocChaos
Interesting Mike Boyd Article On Wright Amendment posted Thu Jun 1 2006 05:44:14 by Apodino
DL Skymiles NO Longer Can Be Redeemed On MH posted Sat Apr 1 2006 18:50:05 by Abrelosojos
Opinions On Wright Amendment posted Tue Jul 19 2005 07:12:51 by Jae172
Ft. Worth's View On Wright Amendment posted Tue Jun 7 2005 18:24:26 by LY4XELD
No More "beverage Only" In FC On Northwest posted Wed Sep 6 2006 22:59:02 by Burnsie28
"No Liquids Rule" Effect On Retailers posted Sun Sep 3 2006 23:55:23 by Triley1057
"Delta And Florida: No Longer So Happy Together" posted Fri Sep 16 2005 14:49:25 by STT757
Dallas Chamber "Repeal Wright Amendment" posted Sat May 21 2005 03:16:35 by SWALoveField
What Is "Wright Amendment" posted Tue Feb 11 2003 19:29:17 by Mandargb