SWALoveField From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 168 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4981 times:
In an interview on local news in Dallas, AA's Gerard Arpey says the Wright Amendment debate should include everything from closing Love Field to repealing the Wright Amendment.
Is he serious? Close Love Field? I'm sure the mayor of Dallas does not want to lose the revenue of Love Field even though she supports the Wright Amendment.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4956 times:
Quoting SWALoveField (Thread starter): In an interview on local news in Dallas, AA's Gerard Arpey says the Wright Amendment debate should include everything from closing Love Field to repealing the Wright Amendment.
By the same token, closing Alliance should also be on the table...
More smoke and FUD; neither are going to happen...
AEroc From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 292 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4771 times:
Quoting Jdaniel001 (Reply 2): Arpey will never get DAL closed. Who is he trying to kid?
Well WN will never move to DFW to serve more cities out of Dallas, and Arpey will never take AA back to DAL. So things will stay the way they are. Case closed and next topic please.......PS Arpey will have no say about DAL until he opens the gates again and WN will have no say on the Wright Am. until they move some flights to DFW. Just my 2 cents
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 24124 posts, RR: 86 Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4765 times:
Guess what, Ft. Worth AND the airlines lost on this years ago. DAL will not be closing. In fact, they are collaterally estopped from even trying to litigate this again
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Aloha73G From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2140 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4764 times:
WN can survive without Dallas. It would be sad, but they should one-up all this Wright Amendment crap and move out of Dallas completely (all flights, headquarters, etc). Then see how fast things will change.....
Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
Jdaniel001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4739 times:
Quoting AEroc (Reply 3): Well WN will never move to DFW to serve more cities out of Dallas, and Arpey will never take AA back to DAL. So things will stay the way they are. Case closed and next topic please.......PS Arpey will have no say about DAL until he opens the gates again and WN will have no say on the Wright Am. until they move some flights to DFW. Just my 2 cents
No need to get upset. I actually started to gain a little respect for Arpey. But if he thinks that he can make blanket statements about closing DAL, then he is just as bad as his predecessors. And that is what makes the evil empire...well, evil.
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 3855 posts, RR: 29 Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4611 times:
New AA leadership, same old crAApola.
Didn't Crandall once try the same thing with MDW? I believe the claim was somthing to the effect that due to the increasing traffic at MDW, ATC was having to readjust flight patterns in and out of ORD, causing "delays". I don't think it was ever brought to the legal process, just a statement or a "suggestion" to some government body or other.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 6953 posts, RR: 59 Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4587 times:
Quoting Jdaniel001 (Reply 6): No need to get upset. I actually started to gain a little respect for Arpey. But if he thinks that he can make blanket statements about closing DAL, then he is just as bad as his predecessors. And that is what makes the evil empire...well, evil.
For those who want to hear what he said with context, he simply stated (paraphrasing) that if WN wants to have the public policy debate again, then it should not be framed (by WN) as only from a) where we are today to b) repealing the Wright Amendment, but rather from a) closing DAL to b) repealing the Wright Amendment. He simply said that if public policy is going to be reopened, the entire issue from one spectrum to another should be debated, and not just the part of the debate WN wants to dominate and control.
CasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4536 times:
Closing love field is a Dallas Fort Worth issue.
Wright is Federal, and it hinders interstate commerce. end of discussion.
As far as wright goes, it needs to go.
As to the other mitigating factors such as landing fees,empty gates, bonds and AA's monopoly let those get sorted by the free market economy.
Jblake1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 285 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4506 times:
Close Love Field and guess what happens?
Southwest moves headquarters to either Phoenix or Chicago.
AA7573E From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 475 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4456 times:
@OPNLguy
What the hell does Alliance have to do with anything? There is no commercial service there at all? I assume you meant DFW.
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 3876 posts, RR: 32 Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4357 times:
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4345 times:
OPNLguy is right....if DFW airport and the city of Fort Worth are concerned about the financial impact of keeping Love Field open - enough to get a federal regulation passed to address it, what is their take on the lucrative freight business that an airport in Fort Worth is taking away from DFW?
BTW, am I the only person who finds it unusual that the Wright Amendment, a device to regulate air travel into a specific airport, was enacted one year after that same congress passed the airline deregualtion act?
STLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 32 Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4314 times:
Quoting SWALoveField (Thread starter): In an interview on local news in Dallas, AA's Gerard Arpey says the Wright Amendment debate should include everything from closing Love Field to repealing the Wright Amendment.
Commavia---thank you!
Arpey said NOTHING about moving to close Love Field. He said if the Wright Amendment is going to be DEBATED, all possible solutions to the problem should be addressed, including the closure of Love Field in it's entirety. It's a proper part of legislative due process format.
What part of reading comprehension did you all miss in grade school?
Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
STLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 32 Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4288 times:
Quoting SWALoveField (Thread starter): I'm sure the mayor of Dallas does not want to lose the revenue of Love Field even though she supports the Wright Amendment.
Of course she is going to support the Wright Amendment. Appealing the Wright Amendment could create a big legal mess between the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth, due to their agreement with the creation of the DFW Airport.
Dallas would probably get sued to repay for Ft. Worth's half of the cost of building the DFW Airport and Ft. Worth would probably set up shop with its own airport.
Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4270 times:
Quoting SWALoveField (Thread starter): I'm sure the mayor of Dallas does not want to lose the revenue of Love Field even though she supports the Wright Amendment.
1. Revenue diversion to the city is irrelivant, it's not permitted so the loss of the airport only means the loss of airport jobs not a city revenue source.
2. SWA never should have been permitted to stay in the first place.
SWALoveField From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4241 times:
Quoting STLGph (Reply 15): Arpey said NOTHING about moving to close Love Field. He said if the Wright Amendment is going to be DEBATED, all possible solutions to the problem should be addressed, including the closure of Love Field in it's entirety. It's a proper part of legislative due process format.
I will let your post speak for itself.
My original post states the exact same thing. Arpey contends that the debate should include everything from the closure of Love Field to repeal of the Wright Amendment.
Furthermore, it has nothing to do with READING comprehension since it was a taped interview and not a written press release.
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4212 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 19): Why, of course not. Everyone knows Boeing7E7's opinion outranks the Supreme Court's...
Dallas: We're building DFW to replace DAL and everyone has to move.
SWA: Hell no, we're staying and we're suing.
Supreme Court: Okay SWA you win. Kinda like spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing over it, but you win.
So my question: You going to pull that crap in San Diego?
STLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 32 Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4189 times:
Quoting SWALoveField (Reply 18): Furthermore, it has nothing to do with READING comprehension since it was a taped interview and not a written press release.
reading....what you wrote on here.
Quoting SWALoveField (Reply 18): My original post states the exact same thing. Arpey contends that the debate should include everything from the closure of Love Field to repeal of the Wright Amendment.
that's nice. and everything. but then you followed it up with this...
"Is he serious? Close Love Field?"
Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
SWALoveField From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4161 times:
Quoting SWALoveField (Thread starter): that's nice. and everything. but then you followed it up with this...
"Is he serious? Close Love Field?"
I respectfully disagree.
I won't give in to the ugly trend of personal attacks on this forum. I will state opinions and facts about airline travel and not about the members who wish to discuss it.
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4145 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 22): Sorry, but your logic escapes me...but that's a good thing...
They knew DFW was coming. Kinda like being handed a hot cup of coffee.
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 22): Gotta go plan those minimum 10-knot headwind departures off SAN 09 now...
That's a 10 knot tailwind causing your problem.
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 22): By the time the NIMBYs quit fighting over the issue there and make some decisions, I will have been retired for a couple of years...
Bastard!
[Edited 2005-05-05 16:31:26]
25 Pope: How is suing to ensure that consumers have the right to choose the same as spilling coffee over yourself and then suing? The Wright amendment is a pr
26 Goingboeing: They knew DFW was coming, but the other airlines kept them from operating at that time. Should everyone who was operating a "paper airline" be forced
27 Boeing7E7: Or that jousting is fun and some people should stay out of the conversation.
28 STLGph: what the hell? Is he serious? Close Love Field? you wrote it! and now you are disagreeing with yourself? wow! "Is he serious?" is not an opinion. or
29 Pope: I'd love to see AA's arguments: (1) SWA is making too much money; (2) If given the choice between high fares and low fares, passengers choose low far
30 SATX: I agree that they should leave, but I completely disagree that anything would change as a result of that. It sounds like any other 'compassionate con
32 Boeing7E7: In that case, enjoy your dream of freedom that isn't going to happen. You're really going to hate life when airports start saying no. Evolving airpor
33 BHMNONREV: I would honestly have to agree with you sir. I am an AA guy thru and thru, but I think Arpey just needs to keep his mouth shut and let everything tak
34 Midway2AirTran: You bet it would happen, might even happen if the WA cannot be repealed. It is out of date and needs to go! Considering AA's anti-competitive history
35 Apodino: I have a solution to help get the Wright Amendment repealed. Boycott AA. Thats right, boycott AA. Think about it, everytime you guys fly AA, you give
36 PHLBOS: No, you weren't the only one. Hypocricy in Congress is nothing new. Rough time-line here: -WN started flying in 1971 w/3 732s.. -DFW opened in 1974.
37 Stirling: From another thread.....in case you missed it: If anyone has ever read my posts, you'll know full well I try to be a voice of reason on A.net, giving
38 Goingboeing: One addition to the timeline...all the other airlines signed the agreement to move to DFW in 1968 - Southwest was trying to operate, but got tied up
39 Pope: Some of the nicest neighborhoods in Dallas are directly under the approach path to DAL. I think they would love to see LUV disappear.
40 Goingboeing: Not necessarily. Some of the folks in those neighborhoods keep their Citations and Gulfstreams parked at Love...gas prices what they are, I can't see
41 SATX: Say whatever you want about Kay Bailey Hutchison, but at least she's consistent. She has been completely against my views on 99% of the issues I've w
42 Stirling: To the north, it's Farmers Branch, Carrollton, Addison, Plano, Richardson, North Dallas. Some nice, some not, depends. Pops was a member of Brookhave
43 Travelin man: Frankly, most of who live outside the W/S Ammendment "chosen few" states would appreciate a mere lifting of the ticketing restrictions. I would love t
44 Boeing7E7: It sets a precidence for an airline suing to remain at an airport when a new one is built to serve the community. San Diego cannot support two airpor
45 Sv11: Has the Wright Amendment ever gone before the US Supreme Court? I would think the court would rule it illegal. sv11
46 Jsnww81: I grew up in Carrollton and attended school in Farmers Branch. All day long we had Southwest 737s making low-altitude turns overhead, snaking back and
47 Brons2: Who says there's ever going to be a new airport in San Diego?
48 Goingboeing: I think he is saying that Southwest is the reason there isn't a new airport in San Diego...although I can't quite figure out why.
49 SATX: http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/lovenotes/lovechrono.html June 29, 2000 - The U.S. Supreme Court denies petitions by Fort Worth, D/FW Airport Board a
50 Drdivo: You have both just hit my respected user list.
51 Commavia: Actually, AA's arguments consist more of: 1) Dallas and Fort Worth agreed in 1968 that DAL would close 2) Dallas went back on the agreement, and WN h
52 Goingboeing: Source please - my recollection is that they just had the airlines agree to move to DFW - but not close DAL as an airport.
53 Commavia: Both Dallas and Fort Worth agreed to close their respective airports. The reason we know this is true is because D/FW exists today. D/FW would never
54 Mainland: Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I can elaborate, but I don't think the legality/constitutionality of the Wright Amendment itself has e
55 Travelin man: Please explain this sentence. I don't see the logic in saying "if we allow more freedom of interstate commerce, our city will suffer", which is basic
56 OPNLguy: Assuming DAL maxs out the number of gates (and thus flights) as per the Master Plan, DAL will still be a -fraction- of the size of DFW as far as the
57 Commavia: The advantage to an international hub offering thousands of flights per day to hundreds of cities nonstop. Well, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and
58 OPNLguy: A lovely theory, but do you have any earthly idea of the ATC problems that would ensue if IAH was expected to handle all of HOU's traffic volume?
59 SATX: Wow, I must be really dense because I just can't figure this out. How does having two airports preclude having additional service to additional desti
60 Travelin man: But the whole point of this is that both IAH and HOU are THRIVING. CO is continuing to add destinations from IAH, and HOU keeps adding additional cit
61 Commavia: It doesn't necessarily preclude it, but stronger hubs are just that -- stonger. If the local O&D traffic in a market is split between two airports, i
62 Aa777jr: It may be just your opinion, but it makes perfect sense. Don't all the DAL lovers get your panties in a bunch, just because Arpey made this statement
63 TxAgKuwait: >> HOU does great because of WN, and IAH does great because of the CO hub and the international oil business in Houston, but the Houston area would ha
65 Goingboeing: Read the text in your citation : That doesn't say anything about closing Love Field.
66 TxAgKuwait: OPNL_Guy....never my intent to slay, I just call them like I saw them. Right after the Buffalo tragedy it got to where it was very tough to get a seat
67 Sllevin: And, by law, at that time they could only operate inside Texas (i.e., even more restricted than the Wright Amendment). I feel that giving Southwest L
68 OPNLguy: If I might ask, where do you get the idea that anyone is "giving" Love Field to SWA? The Love Master Plan calls for a maximum of 32 gates; you're not
70 Jr: I think this is AA's way of starting a filibuster even before things get near the floor. Actually AA's real underlying argument is more like... we ju
71 Goingboeing: A little different. Southwest was operating within the rules and was not subject to the regulation of the CAB since they were an intrastate carrier.
72 Sllevin: I'll take the analogy slightly further. In your example, it would be a state f federal government change, and then the city passing a local ordnance
73 Boeing7E7: No. What I am saying is a new airport is going to be built in San Diego, however if an airline sues to stay it will adversley impact the bond rating
74 TxAgKuwait: >> Southwest, the primary cause of San Diego's congestion, has voiced opposition to a move and even proposed a dual airport situation. San Diego canno
75 OPNLguy: On that aspect, check this out.... An old article from the Dallas Observer... (Does the name "Ray Hutchison" ring a bell? It should, He's Senator Kay
76 Boeing7E7: Ummm... Let me think... I'm involved in the study and a former employee. That do it for you? It's been looked at. It would be akin to having DFW and
77 Goingboeing: do you know who is responsible for that in large part? I'll give you a clue...they used to have really ugly planes. What you just described is what h
78 Pope: Now only if they could get a court to agree with them on that. The problem is that the City of Dallas doesn't get to regulate interstate commerce.
79 Boeing7E7: San Diego is a cornered market. Even without Southwest loads would be strong and someone else would be offering the service. Given that yields are al
80 ScottB: But why is it a good thing for people in the San Diego area to be forced to pay more to travel? Lower airfares are good for businesses, good for fami
81 SATX: Neither does the assertion that Southwest harms San Diego's air service; at least so far as I can tell. Boeing7E7, I would support the view that WN s
82 Apodino: If I am not mistaken he is also the husband of US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. A big conflict of interest if you ask me. Even without the special in
84 Boeing7E7: I don't think high fares are a good thing, but that is where San Diego is headed without a new airport, and as I stated, San Diego can only support o
85 ContnlEliteCMH: I can only assume you're joking here. On the one hand, you're talking about people with so much money that they use Citations and Gulfstreams instead
86 Stirling: I believe GoingBoeing was referring to travel time to these other Dallas area airports....rather than these 'elites' unwillingness to spend more on p
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 168 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
