JonnyGT From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 241 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5580 times:
Excellent news. I'm a Texas liberal (we're rare outside of Austin) but I wholly support the repeal of the Wright Amendment. My girlfriend and I wanted to fly to Manchester, NH in August but since we can't out of DFW for cheap (it's 460 bucks on AA), we are flying out of Austin for 280 on WN.
Plus, I live just 2 miles from Love Field and it would be MUCH more convenient to fly out of Love. WN should really put their corporate back into this. Threaten to seriously move their HQ out of the D/FW area unless Wright is repealed.
PS, that "report" that DFW commissioned is a SHAM. It's 10 power point slides, with no actual research or hard facts to back up it's dubious claims. Ask DFW to show you the report. They will send you a 24k PowerPoint file. That's it.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5545 times:
As you might expect, Baghdad Bob and the other minions at DFW came out with a news release on keepdfwstrong.com in which they pooped all over the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce's recommendation to dump the Wright Amendment.
One particularly great quote (from Jeff Fegan) was:
"We know people are beginning to understand that is not about low fares, but about a single airline trying to dictate
public policy and keep new airline competition out of
1. It -is- about fares, as in lowering them, but *they don't want to talk about that* at all. The study that DFW released last week doen't mention fares at all, yet it's -supposed- to be an economic impact study?
2. What they should do is to ask all the Metroplex travelers (who are stuck with the higher priced fares from DFW) who -they- think is truly the "single airline trying to dictate public policy and keep new [low fare] airline competition out of North Texas." I'd bet that their aircraft would be polished aluminum, and not Desert Tan/Canyon Blue.
Jr From United States of America, joined May 1999, 965 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5465 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4): We know people are beginning to understand that is not about low fares, but about a single airline trying to dictate
public policy and keep new airline competition out of
Is it just me, or do some of these guys at DFW just wanna make you puke? Do they really believe people are that ignorant or do they need more classes in business and economics? There are going to be some real wise fools out there when Wright becomes a write-off.
Padcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5448 times:
There are valid aruguments for the DFW position.
1) If WN is is being so generous in wanting to bring low fares to more people (out of the goodness of their own hearts of course) they can surely do it out of DFW.
2) DFW is more able to handle larger volumes of traffic.
3) Unlike LUV, a build up in DFW creates more incentive for International service.
3) If LUV is opened up. AA should be granted an equal opportunity and this would just add to the congestion.
This is about WN wanting to capitalize on it's monopoly at LUV. They are more than capable of flying into DFW...The low fare argument is bullshit, Texas style.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 858 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5428 times:
Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 6): 1) If WN is is being so generous in wanting to bring low fares to more people (out of the goodness of their own hearts of course) they can surely do it out of DFW.
Which would force them to split opperations, or completly abandon DAL all together. You can't seriously expect them to do either, can you? I thought our capitalist system meant freedom of enterprise?
To turn the question back on you: why should the W.A. be there in the first place? Other major cities have secondary airports SFO/OAK, ORD/MDW, MIA/FLL, JFK/LGA.... why should WN be forced to abandon their proven business model for the absurdity of a law tacked onto a bill that Congress had virtually no choice but to pass?
Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 6): 3) If LUV is opened up. AA should be granted an equal opportunity and this would just add to the congestion.
DFW is a congested airport.
DAL is not. Traffic in 2004 and 2003 has been down and WN has been cutting flights on the inter-Texas routes.
Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 6): This is about WN wanting to capitalize on it's monopoly at LUV
WN opperates from 14 of the 32 gates at DAL, 43% of available space. WN is also capped to control no more than 62.5% of all DAL gates.
DFW has no such cap, and AA controls more that of 75% of gates.
Who has the monopoly again? Why in WN's right mind would they abandon DAL to enter DFW??
Of course, by their own admission. But here's the beauty of the capitalist system: they don't have to. WN has an inextricable right to do business wherever, whenever, and however they see fit... so long as it does not exploit or harm the innocent. To DFW/AA's chargin, that might mean a little bit more competition, but it's time for the metroplex to step out of the closet, and embrace DAL as a legitimate airport.
The "bullshit" is the arbitrary Wright Ammendment tacked to critical legislation for Congressmen Wright's own political capital... but being the DFW pawn that you are, I guess you skipped right over that part...
Padcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5413 times:
DFW is not a congested airport it has plenty of space. It could handle what WN has in LUV x 4 easy. And it is not delay prone.
If WN doesn't want to split operations they can come over to an airport and go head to head with other carriers. ""This ensures low fares"" - not WN's mythical good will towards men.
This is about WN wanting to get a competitive advantage over other carriers by providing a more convent departure point rather than going head to head.
Your figures about AA are misleading. AA has put in jetbriges that double the amount of their gate space. They have 1 1/2 terminals now and will have a little less than half the Intl terminal. E is yours for the taking
Please some of us are not that naive. They were fine with Wright when they were small and it gave them protection, now that they are large the want to enshrine their monopoly.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5384 times:
>>>Padcrasher Reply #6
>>>This is about SA)">WN wanting to capitalize on it's monopoly at LUV.
>>>Padcrasher Reply #9
>>>now that they are large the want to enshrine their monopoly.
I see that you seem to be fixated on Southwest's monopoly at Love, currently 97% of the departures. Alright, let's run some common sense numbers...
The only reason that Southwest has that 97% after all this time is that nobody (other than CoEx, who has the other 3%) is dumb enough to come into Love and have to put up with the WA/SA restrictions. DFW/AA and other pro-Wright folks like to parrot that 97% figure around every chance they get, but doing so is disingenuous.
Why? That 97% is a PRE-repeal number, not a "forever" POST-repeal number as folks like to infer. Once the WA/SA are history, sure, Southwest will add some flights to connect the dots to existing cities. Other airlines will have other flights of their own, and Southwest's relative share of the total flights at Love will decline from 97% to something less. I don't have the exact number, but in the study that DFW released last week, they projected that Southwest would have 201 of 362 Love departures, and if my math is correct, that's 55%, and nowhere near the 97% it is now.
So, why do folks like to keep throwing the 97% number out? Two reasons. First, it makes Southwest look bad, like greedy folks who want it all, i.e. "monopoly bad = Southwest bad. The other reason is that the 97% figure makes AA's 75%-80% at DFW look less objectionable in comparison. Of course, if that 55% ends up being the case, AA's 75%-80% would look worse, again...
Southwest doesn't want 97% of the post-repeal traffic--it just wants to run its business as it (and not AA, and not DFW, or anyone else) sees fit, for the benefit of its employees, shareholders, and customers. In our capitalist society, I don't think that's asking too much.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5376 times:
>>>1) If SA)">WN is is being so generous in wanting to bring low fares to more people (out of the goodness of their own hearts of course) they can surely do it out of DFW.
There's no denying that Southwest is a business, but certainly history, and the appearance of the "Southwest Effect" on fares demonstrates that Southwest can concurrently have low fares and be profitable. Why ahould they be precluded from doing so at their home base?
>>>2) DFW is more able to handle larger volumes of traffic.
But even with American's de-peaking, there's still alot of traffic, still traffic "spikes" throught the day, and airborne holding occurs. Southwest prefers, where this doesn't occur, amongst other reasons.
>>>3) Unlike LUV, a build up in DFW creates more incentive for International service.
A complete non-issue. Southwest doesn't interline (ATA code share aside). Besides, with Wright/Shelby gone and resultant competition lowering fares, the folks who need to connect to ionternational flights will be able to do so on DFW airlines, and make DFW-DFW connections versus DAL-DFW connections.
>>>3) If LUV is opened up. SA)">AA should be granted an equal opportunity and this would just add to the congestion.
When Wright/Shelby are repealed, American and other airlines will get access to Love, and this has never been an issue. Sure, Love would be more congested than it is now, but it'd still be better than being #33 in line for takeoff behind 32 silver jets at DFW.
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2159 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5360 times:
Last time I connected at DFW, our taxi time alone was long enough for Southwest to turn an airplane twice. If you aren't running a hub operation, DFW offers nothing. Compared to other passenger terminals I'm in fairly often, I found DFW to be untidy and lacking in amenities. And what's with these electric carts rushing about and acting as though we passengers were walking in "their" street. These were not for handicapped people, they were carrying AAL employees and perfectly fit looking people.
No thanks. Don't care to fly through there.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
SATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5360 times:
Quoting Jr (Reply 5): Do they really believe people are that ignorant
It's known as the 'Carl Rove Method'. You attack reality, logic, and fundamental reasoning instead of just attacking your opponent on the facts alone. Then you let the media present both sides as if they are both valid and thus continually confuse the average citizenry until you're left with a mix of bloodthirsty brainwashed activists and complacent apathetic couch potatoes.
In wintertime my local news shows DFW with all sorts of delays. I have no idea if DAL is also delayed at those times because my news doesn't list DAL separately.
Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 9): This is about WN wanting to get a competitive advantage over other carriers by providing a more convent departure point rather than going head to head.
What the heck does a convent have to do with air travel?
1. WN providing a more convenient & efficient departure point sounds like a reasonable business motive to me.
2. 'Going head to head' is accomplished by repealing the Wright amendment. What would stop AA from using DAL?
Maybe you should let go of the Wright Amendment and start pushing for a new DAL master plan that allows for massive expansion so AA can move their whole operation in, if they so chose. Would that satisfy you?
Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 9): Please some of us are not that naive. They were fine with Wright when they were small and it gave them protection, now that they are large the want to enshrine their monopoly.
Maybe you just think the rest of us are naive. I don't think anyone is so blind as to assume that WN is doing this purely for the good of the public. Obviously WN expects to get some substantial financial and operational benefits out of this change, presumably much more so now than before they were so large. However, they have not gone out of their way to hide this obvious fact and I don't see how it would have any bearing on the legalities of the WA anyway. WN is merely trying to sell the public and the politicians on the idea that helping WN will also be helping them. What, in-and-of itself, is so unfair about that?
Look, there may be many valid reasons for keeping the Wright Amendment in place, but so far it doesn't look as though you or anyone else has managed to find any. I figure that if the WA supporters can't find any good reasons themselves to keep it in place, then what are the chances that any such reasons even exist to begin with? So, ironically, you've actually helped solidify my view that the Wright Amendment is wrong simply because all your efforts to prove otherwise seem to be grasping at straws.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 62 Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5330 times:
I have the utmost respect for Southwest Airlines and Herb Kelleher in particular and I think Southwest is one of the greatest success stories of American capitalism and freedom. I admire the company and its people tremendously. That being said, I disagree with the North Dallas Chamber and oppose the Wright Amendment's repeal for several reasons:
1) It's not fair -- Every other airline for thirty years has been stuck at DFW without the choice of operating out Love, which has given Southwest a virtual monopoly at Love and provided a chance for them to survive. I fully believe that Southwest would not exist today if other airlines were allowed to fly to Love Field for the last thirty years. Back in the late 1960s, every U.S. airline (American, Delta, Braniff, Texas International, etc.) was forced to sign bond agreements and move their Dallas operations over to DFW (yes, they had no choice in the matter). WN, which came along after, took advantage of the fact that they had never signed a bond agreement and decided to fly out of DAL despite the City of Dallas' promise that DAL would be closed to commercial traffic. WN was allowed to grow and expand at DAL unfettered because they were guaranteed not competition. WN owes its existence today to the fact that they faced no competition at the beginning.
2) It will wreck DFW -- After billions in spending on new capital improvements, better customer service and more technology at DFW, opening up Love would make all of that virtually worthless. DFW, AA, DL and every other airline would never have signed on to spend billions on constructing the new Terminal D or the SkyLink train if they thought for one second that the Wright Amendment was in doubt. It would never have happened.
3) Southwest is preserving its monopoly -- Even though Southwest is generally regarded as the savior of all saviors in America, it is a company like any other and as such is trying, extremely unfairly and disingenuously, to preserve its near-total (I believe around 98%) monopoly at Love Field by refusing to even discuss a redrawing of the airport's Master Plan. This plan artificially caps the number of gates and flights the airport can handle -- based on the Wright Amendment being in place -- and essentially guarantees that no airline could ever truly give Southwest a run for their money with equal frequency, capacity or facilities.
4) Southwest can use DFW -- If Southwest really wants to offer longhaul flying from the Dallas area, they can use DFW easily. The entire argument about offering connections over DAL is pretty much moot in my view because there is not a single city in the Southwest system that can't currently connect over a different point (probably AUS or HOU) instead of DAL. Southwest's real motivation for opening up DAL is to capture Dallas-originating O&D traffic, not offer new connections, and if they wan't to do that they can do it just fine from DFW. Customers don't have to connect from RDU to SAN over DAL, they can already do it over BNA, for example. So, splitting the two Dallas area operations is not really cutting down on too many connections as customers can already connect over many other midcontinent points like MDW, BNA, STL, HOU, ASU, LAS, PHX, etc.
5) It would hurt the Metroplex -- Just look at the closest metropolitan area in size and scope to DFW that has two airports, the Houston area. Houston has Hobby, where Southwest dominates, and Bush, where CO dominates. As a result of this split operation, IAH is a fraction of a hub compared to DFW with fewer flights with smaller planes. DFW is the world's sixth largest airport for a reason. Because of the limited growth at DAL, DFW has been able to consolidate virtually all of the flying in one of the nation's largest and fastest growth metropolitan areas and offer passengers and prospective corporations millions of seats to hundreds of cities. That would no doubt be greatly diminished if DFW was forced to compete against an airport that should have been shut down thirty years ago.
Well, I know that many of you now think I'm crazy, but just my opinion!
Aa777flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5308 times:
Commavia- Could not agree more.
The Wright Ammendment needs to stay in place. WN has an open invetation to move to DFW, if they want long haul out of North Texas. WN has a strong hold on the majority of the gates at DAL, so if the Wright is repealed they will still have a virtual monopoly at the airport.
If the Wright is repealed it will cost thousands of jobs in the DFW area as AA would be forced to cut over 200 flights a day at DFW.
WN is not the sweet little low fare airline that every one makes them out to be. They are a self centered arrogant bunch of snobs.
Too bad they did not have an airplane fly into the side of a building on 9/11.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5299 times:
Quoting Aa777flyer (Reply 17): WN is not the sweet little low fare airline that every one makes them out to be. They are a self centered arrogant bunch of snobs.
I wouldn't call them "snobs" but I definitely think it's unfair that everyone automatically assumes they have the moral high ground on this issue. They are a company just like all other companies, defending their interests above all others. That's their job, and I don't blame them for it one bit.
Quoting Aa777flyer (Reply 17): Too bad they did not have an airplane fly into the side of a building on 9/11.
Now, that is going way too far. I may not like WN's position on Love Field, but there is no justification for wishing the atrocities of September 11 on anyone or any airline.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5279 times:
>>>Too bad they did not have an airplane fly into the side of a building on 9/11.
You know, I can halfway understand your ire towards Southwest since your profile indicates you were "LAAID Off" and you perhaps somehow blame Southwest for that. That said, as an ex-employee of AA (who lost two flights on 9/11), for you to wish that Southwest had one of their flights flown into a building on 9/11, well, that just demonstrates that you have some serious issues that you need to deal with.
And to think, you called Southwest folks (all 30,000+ of us?) "a self centered arrogant bunch of snobs." What do you call -your- attitude?
This thread is about The North Dallas Chamber of Commerce's support for Wright/Shelby Amendment repeal, and comments pertaining thereto. If you want to spew, I respectfully suggest that you find someplace else to do so.
Slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6625 posts, RR: 36 Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4): "We know people are beginning to understand that is not about low fares, but about a single airline trying to dictate
public policy and keep new airline competition out of
"We AAre opposed to AAny AAction that will mean increAAsed competition for AA."
Clearly, the Wright Amendment absolutely has to go. However, I would also say that in the interest of fairness and leveling the playing field, that WN should divest several gates at Love in conjunction with the elimination of Wright.
SWACLE From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5256 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 16): 3) Southwest is preserving its monopoly -- Even though Southwest is generally regarded as the savior of all saviors in America, it is a company like any other and as such is trying, extremely unfairly and disingenuously, to preserve its near-total (I believe around 98%) monopoly at Love Field by refusing to even discuss a redrawing of the airport's Master Plan. This plan artificially caps the number of gates and flights the airport can handle -- based on the Wright Amendment being in place -- and essentially guarantees that no airline could ever truly give Southwest a run for their money with equal frequency, capacity or facilities.
Have you paid attention to nothing in this thread? WN is legally limited to 62.5% of the available gates at DAL...again, AA controls about 75% at DFW. Estimates guess that WN would operate about 201 of the limit of 362 flights out of DAL, or about 55%.....Hardly a monopoly when compared with AA at DFW...that 97% BS is pre-wright-repeal...after, all WILL have a fair chance to compete.
BTW--would WN really have a FAIR chance to compete with AA at DFW, with 75-80% of the gates controled by AA? Seems to me that the competition would be much more equal at DAL...
Texan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4242 posts, RR: 53 Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5254 times:
AA777flyer, that is an extremely immature and completely horrible response. You don't like WN, obviously, and as your name indicates you will agree with AA's position. Yes, WN is waging a propaganda war right now, but they tend to use cold hard facts. AA tends to shoot themselves in the foot with some of their arguments, but not even they would stoop to the level of saying something like
Too bad they did not have an airplane fly into the side of a building on 9/11.
AA has stated that the majority of the Metroplex lives closer to DFW, who would presumably still be using DFW. Why, then, would they be so concerned with having DAL open up? AA has reduced fares in a couple markets: DFW-BNA specifically. But only after the Tennessee delegation stated that they would support a repeal of the Wright Amendment in order to have lower fares between Nashville and Dallas. DAL is extraordinarily convenient for me and many others in the Metroplex. Many of us are tired of not being able to travel because we can't afford the high fAAres out of DFW. AA will have their opportunity to move flights into DAL if they so desire: maybe to ORD, LGA, DEN, DCA, etc. But if it didn't make money the first time when the only competition they had was a weak Legend Airlines...
AA has a good thing going at DFW. They control the market out of the Metroplex and gauge us consumers like no other. Maybe if AA had made flying affordable for the majority of us we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The Wright Amendment will be repealed, likely in a similar way to what the North Dallas Chamber outlined. Perhaps it is time for AA to start devoting more money to figuring out what they want to do when Wright is repealed than spending money on a losing propaganda battle.
And if you are looking for a bunch of "self centered arrogant snobs," look at who is trying to keep their monopoly in place instead of the airline that is looking to allow more competition
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2159 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5247 times:
Aa777flyer said......"Too bad they did not have an airplane fly into the side of a building on 9/11."
With that remark, you basically shot any credibility anything you have said, or will now say, could ever have. Wishing death upon others? You have some desperation issues that Mental Health professionals can help you with. You must seek them out for treatment, as they will not seek you out. Pick up the phone book, go to the yellow pages, and pick one close by. It's that simple.
This is not a "slam" or "flame job" on you. I'm serious. You need to take a look at where you are right now, and how you got yourself there.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
25 Commavia: Where, exactly, are all of these extra Love Field gates that AA or any other airline could presumably use? From the Love Field Master Plan: "Prior to
26 Jm017: Maybe someone can answer me this question: what percentage of DFW traffic is O&D?
27 Jm017: Let me rephrase: what percentage of AA's traffic at DFW is O&D?
28 Padcrasher: I have no problem with WN. They are just trying to grow the business as they should. But opening LUV is not all about what's good for WN, or what's go
29 SWALoveField: While we have different views on Wright/Shelby, I think your thoughts are logical and well-supported. I just happen to respectfully disagree with the
30 Commavia: If I am understanding your point correctly, than I totally agree. I think the first step in this public policy debate is for everyone to calm down a
31 OPNLguy: >>>when WN alone will have control over at least 21 Someone previously said that Southwest was restricted to 62.5% of the airport's 32 gates (under th
32 Commavia: According to the Master Plan text I quoted, which is available here (page 4-5), Southwest is right now operating 14 gates on the West Concourse and h
33 OPNLguy: >>>I think it is even more unfair if they are going to be aloud [allowed?] to use the existing facilities and resources they have in place at DAL to o
34 RamerinianAir: You can't spell Wright Amendment without WN either. Almost all the other airlines have paid higher fees and developed their operations in a more expen
35 CasInterest: I think the chamber has it right, Allow a phase in over 2 to 5 years. Maybe allow 1 more state a month to connect through DAL for awhile. The state wo
36 KarlB737: Commavia, Has Southwest's operations at MDW wrecked ORD? Last I heard ORD was going to be expanded.
37 Commavia: I completely disagree. In fact, in the entire U.S., Dallas and Denver are among the only two cities where a second airport will probably not be neces
38 CasInterest: Dallas and Denver? Dallas is 3 times the MSA of Denver. Dallas will need it long before Denver will. Also Dallas is a much more attractive Hub locatio
39 BHMNONREV: I have tried to keep myself away from these WA arguments, but I figure I will throw my .02 in anyway... IMHO, I think there should be a semi-repeal of
40 TxAgKuwait: If any of you patronized Holly Hegeman's Planebusiness board back in the late 90s and in to the year 2000 you;d remember that I am (among other things
41 Stirling: Robb Buddy, I am gonna tell you something that is gonna break your heart.....that NBC affliate of which you speak, KXAS, (once known as WBAP-TV) the
42 Apodino: One thing that hasn't been mentioned. Under the wright amendment, aren't other airlines free to run 50 Seat RJ's into DAL? I would love to see UA run
43 JM017: From what I have read here, DAL is limited to 32 gates. So opening up this airport to traffic all over the country (repealing the Wright Amendment) wi
44 William: TxAg,I remember you from Plane business. I will also state that nothing will change,except possible what TXAG has stated. SWA has another problem. If
45 PassBureauMgr: AA needs to get off it. AT DFW, they have less competing flights than they have ever had since they moved there. BN is gone, DL is all but gone, The o
46 Stirling: Hey TX, Down on the farm in Hopkins County (Sulphur Springs!) We have a similar sayin, "Even A Blind Dog Finds A Bone Once In Awhile". That is correc
47 PassBureauMgr: If I'm not mistaken, didn't AA fly some F100's a few years back and attempt to enter the Love Market, to IAH, SAT & TUL but failed miserably?
48 Commavia: It was only to AUS, and yes, it failed miserably as they could never compete with WN on costs. Then, when Legend started up in 1999, they competed wi
49 OPNLguy: >>>Then, when Legend started up in 1999, they competed with all-First Class F100s on routes to ORD, LAX and LGA, which were also a financial disaster
50 Milemaster: My opinion is simple really. I am not anti-competition. I am anti-two-airports-within-14-miles-of-each-other-for-no-reason. Come to DFW Southwest.. It
51 Hiflyer: 3 airports in the bay area 4 in the lax basin 3 in the dc area 3 in the nyc area 2 in the ord area 2 in the iah area 2 in the mia/fll area I really do
52 Cactus739: I think this is the first time I've added my two pennies to a WA thread. I've fortunate to be able to fly my preferred carrier to pretty much anywhere
53 Skymileman: It is about time. I am yet to see any real true reason for that law to begin with. It should have never been made. Unless I missed something, it never
54 OPNLguy: >>>There needs to be a clear reason why DAL and DFW need to co-exist... Actually, there are several. The Courts established long ago that Southwest (a
55 Skymileman: I couldn't agree more with OPNLguy. He hit the nail right on the head. Love and DFW do need to co-exist and I think they should do so on a level playi
56 Stirling: I don't see how using Houston helps your argument. How is IAH hurt by HOU's existence? Does Continental suffer because of this, the main utilizer of
57 Commavia: Now, after decades of litigation and fighting, they can. But for decades following DFW's opening in 1974, no other airlines were allowed to land at L
58 Texan: How well run was Continental in the 1980s and early 1990s? How financially stable was Continental? How revolutionary were Continental's pricing polic
59 OPNLguy: >>>Now, after decades of litigation and fighting, they can. But for decades following DFW's opening in 1974, no other airlines were allowed to land at
60 TxAgKuwait: >> How large is IAH compared to DFW? How big is CO's IAH hub compared to AA's hub at DFW?
61 Jr: Didn't AA first start with MD80's that needed like 1000 feet of runway to get airborne? And then when that failed, they went to eagle ERJs, and then
62 SWALoveField: Thanks, but I know this. This area is called Dallas (as I am sure you are aware which makes your statement even more puzzling). There aren't separate
63 Texan: Thus we have one of the major reasons that Ft. Worth loves to file lawsuits against DAL yet has no problem operating a cargo hub at AFW Us Dallasites
64 William: I am still waiting for someone to explain how SWA has the majority...........errrr......just about ALL of the useable gates,yet will somehow comply wi
65 Milemaster: I think I just find this whole ordeal annoying.. One side of me is torn because my father working for AA is the reason I moved to Dallas from NY in 19
66 OPNLguy: >>>All it took was Airtran to get a few gates at DFW and now Southwest springs into a fit of action. Nice. Don't you think Delta's wiping out a couple
67 Stirling: I was JOKING!!!! This whole Wright Amendment thing makes me bonkers! All this petty bickering that originates out of Tarrant county is just PLANE(
68 Aaway: On the basis of this argument, Soutwest didn't have to "agree" to restrictions. The issue could've been settled in the early 70s by Southwest's move
69 Atmx2000: Antitrust laws in this country aren't designed to protect competition, they are designed to protect the consumer. If a company has a monopoly, but it
70 SATX: To me, AA's and DFW's behavior is strikingly similar to what you'd expect from the Machiavellian megalomaniac Karl Rove. Also, irrelevent is actually
71 OPNLguy: >>>the problem with this argument is the supposition that other businesses/entities have not made business decisions based upon the status quo there i
72 BHMNONREV: Sorry Stirling, did not mean to pee on your nostalgic memories of Love, since I have the same ones of Lambert in St. Louis while growing up. But Love
73 Stirling: I don't expect everyone to share my views, so your comments offended me not. St Louis can be included in my "trip" down memory lane...Except somethin
74 KC135TopBoom: Just because you do not have accurate facts, you do not have to call yourself "naive". The Wright Admendment was never about protecting WN (or DFW Ai
75 Jsnww81: Stirling - Excellent post. I grew up in Dallas in the 1980s and 1990s and consequently missed out on the real "glory days" of Love Field in the early
76 Aaway: Hey, WN started the current flap. Couldn't agree with you more. This right manifested itself in 1972 when WN fought for the right to remain at Love.
77 SWALoveField: Of course. We both love Love! Robb Dallas, TX "You can't spell win without WN!"
78 OPNLguy: >>>Yes, WN has indeed made business decisions for the benefit of its customers, stockholders, and employees despite the hindrances of operating at Lov
79 Sccutler: I always love reading these threads. You get, basically, two groups who oppose repeal of the Wright Amendment: 1. Children who have never had to, say
80 Aaway: Yet, this hindrance does not prevent it from operating beyond-Wright flights to/from the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Apparently an arrangement that had s
81 SATX: When I was a kid, I always tried to avoid WN out of sheer vanity. Of course I wasn't paying for the tickets anyway, so the cost wasn't much of an iss
82 Incitatus: This comparison is absolute fluff. AA hubs at DFW - that means lots of connecting traffic. So at DFW 75% of gates does not equate to 75% of local tra
83 Incitatus: Then there are the flyers out there like me who have flown more than 500,000 miles on US majors and don't suffer from ADD. That means we always book
84 Swacle: Hey OPNLguy...any idea what % of WN pax at DAL are local vs Connection? Anyone have figures for AA at DFW? DC
85 LTBEWR: The Wright Amendment goes back to the 1970's as a deal (payoff to then Texas US Senator Wright) by AA to hold down the upstart WN. I think the WA is n
86 Padcrasher: The bottom line is consumers in North Texas are better served by two large airlines going head to head in one airport. The convenience of having two l
87 Stirling: Jsnww81- Thanks for the kind words! By the WAY! I was looking for the link to your thread about old airport terminal maps yesterday, but couldn't loca
88 Padcrasher: Also as mentioned earlier about the DFW "congestion". DFW has the #1 on-time percentage of 31 major airports in the Nation. The best in the Nation.
89 Tom in NO: http://oldterminals.topcities.com/STLmap1964.jpg Tom at MSY
90 OPNLguy: >>>The bottom line is consumers in North Texas are better served by two large airlines going head to head in one airport. The convenience of having tw
91 LY4XELD: You have to admit that KXAS's polls aren't exactly the most scientific measurements on earth considering you can vote over and over again.
92 Mainland: Every thread about Wright always includes the position that a repeal will lead to thousands of lost jobs and the negative economic impact caused afte
93 Goingboeing: Funny...I didn't see that implied in his post. The point you seem to miss is that a lot of businesses book their travel based on...price. When they d
94 FlyingTexan: Unfortunately some of us are required – by the nature of the business we are in – to book last minute tickets. That means paying the most expensi
95 Stirling: The "bottom line" is, American is the only airline in this particular discussion that uses it's monopoly to extract higher fares out of the consumer.
96 BHMNONREV: Funny you should bring up this particular city pair. Here is a blurb from today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch.. "AIRLINES: The Texas two-step 05/23/2005
97 Stirling: I am wondering which "Dallas" they are referring to? Since it is painfully obvious they are not talking about the verdant rolling prairie of lush Nor
98 Aloha717200: Good, I'm glad they're opposing Wright. I just joined the list on setlovefree.com. I hope Southwest wins this battle. DFW should not be allowed to hol
99 BHMNONREV: The writer has probably never been to Dallas, or just watched too many westerns as a kid. Or maybe he has confused Dallas with say, Abilene...now the
100 DCA-ROCguy: Excellent arguments, OPNLguy and Stirling. I don't have time this week to wade into detail, but just wanted to back you up. Wright is wrong, and it's
101 Commavia: That's just the point, though! Those decisions DFW took were not "bad decisions" -- they were excellent decisions based on the way DFW thought the ma
102 OPNLguy: Well, there's this... http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/...nists/mitch_schnurman/11675539.htm Same guy wrote another good column the week before...
103 Commavia: I was actually just being sarcastic in reference to DCA-ROCguy's comments in reply 100, but if we are specifically talking about this article, I thin
104 DCA-ROCguy: That's just the point, though! Those decisions DFW took were not "bad decisions" -- they were excellent decisions based on the way DFW thought the mar
105 Commavia: "Operationally, [the Wright Amendment] extremely difficult, but I pledged we wouldn’t seek to overturn it.” --Interview with Mr. Herb Kelleher co
106 Travelin man: Ummm... the law was AMMENDED in 1997 -- the Shelby Ammendment. It added Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi to the "permitted states" list. Obviously th
107 Commavia: Obviously it can, since the original agreement was for DAL to be closed completely. I agree, which is why that is not my argument. Believe me, I have
108 DfwRevolution: So? A population of 4.5 million insufficent for two airports? What about: MIA/FLL SFO/OAK etc? Because said law has served its purpose and is now bei
109 Travelin man: See, I think this is where you are losing people. Fares out of DFW are amongst the highest in the nation (especially on routes where there is no comp
110 Milemaster: I'm personally not all that concerned that this will be repealed. I'm fairly certain it's here to stay as long as there is a Love Field.
111 Commavia: You're absolutely right and I don't dispute what you are saying for a moment. I have said this many times -- I think everything in this free-market c
112 AirFrnt: You would have a lot more creditability if you actually spelled "Karl Rove" correctly. Actually, reading your post, you probably would not.. Sooner o
113 Aaway: On the basis of this statement, I think one could just as easily argue that AA and DFW shouldn't have accommodate WN just because WN made the "bad de
114 DCA-ROCguy: On the basis of this statement, I think one could just as easily argue that AA and DFW shouldn't have accommodate WN just because WN made the "bad dec
115 Stirling: Before DFW opened, A, B, C, D, E, F* (plus some others) connected Dallas to every major business center in the nation. This notion (or insinuation) t
116 Commavia: Not to anywhere close to the level that the area now receives thanks to AA and DFW. How many flights did DAL have to PDX, ORF, RNO, RSW, COS, CDG, NR
117 LY4XELD: It's not necessarily American Airlines...all of this is indicative of WN's abandonment of the Love Field Master plan, which limits the airport to 32
118 FlyingTexan: Yea, but you have to understand this is a federal law. The only way to change it is to get congress involved.
119 Stirling: Comm- The only statement in my post that was intended for you, is the one directly under my quote of your text. 2 spaces. Then the rest, is directed
120 OPNLguy: Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that Southwest is abandoning the Master Plan? From http://www.setlovefree.com [My emphasis] "Love Field is
121 LY4XELD: Because the master plan is based around the assumption that the Wright Amendment will be in place.
122 DfwRevolution: True... but WN's stance and the Master Plan are not mutually exclusive. The finer point I believe OPNL was trying to make is WN can do anything and e
123 Dadoftyler: LY4X, I'm curious. You and a number of pro-Wrong Amendment posters here and elsewhere keep saying that "the Master Plan is based around the assumption
124 SATX: Live and learn, as they say. Next time I'll save it for another thread. Happy now? Is the loss of the DL hub and a newfound persona from WN enough to
125 OPNLguy: I don't necessarily see that as a "hard" linkage. The Master Plan deals with things in the general context of how increased Love Field operations (by
126 FlyingTexan: SATX is a member that I give utmost creditability. I enjoy and respect his postings. I’m sure a trivial spelling error is as trifling to him as it
127 Aaway: Then perhaps this is why Southwest is singing the new tune. After all, the master plan capped gates at Love. The allocation is as follows: (1) West C
128 OPNLguy: >>>Funny how WN remained "passionately neutral" on Wright until the completion of the initial phases of the master plan - the removal of terminal faci
129 Commavia: Point taken, and I appreciate the words. I suppose we can agree to respectfully disagree, then?
130 Stirling: Southwest wasn't around at the time of the signing and wasn't yet a tenant of Love Field.
131 Commavia: Absolutely true -- an ironic twist of aviation fate that is largely the cause of all of these problems and disagreements! If Southwest had existed ba
132 Aaway: Wrong answer. How about 1997/1998 when AA first threatened to move 200 flights from DFW to DAL?
133 OPNLguy: >>>How about 1997/1998 when AA first threatened to move 200 flights from DFW to DAL? Why, based on the rhetoric flying today, that'll DESTROY the DFW
134 Aaway: As a result of the Legend Airlines flap (and to dismiss any notion of pro-AA bias, AA was indeed the "heavy" in that imbroglio) and how that issue mo
135 OPNLguy: >>>Then, as now, AA expressed misgivings of having to split ops between DAL and DFW. A case of selective memory, my friend? Gee, when SWA expressed th
136 Travelin man: I still cannot figure out how people think opening up DAL will somehow risk DFW's international flights to FRA, GRU, NRT, etc. So, because you can tak
137 Apodino: Here is one question to ponder about, and I think the answer is very relevant to the discussion. How much of the AA traffic at DFW is O & D and how mu
138 DCA-ROCguy: Here is one question to ponder about, and I think the answer is very relevant to the discussion. How much of the AA traffic at DFW is O & D and how mu
139 Thecamel67: Here is the bottom line on the Wright Amendment. Booked today (2 week advance/no Saturday night stay): Depart June 7/Return June 10 DFW-LAS AA=$1278.4
140 ScottB: This is false. The original agreement was for DAL to be closed to commercial airlines, not closed completely. Problem is, the City of Dallas didn't h
141 Milemaster: Here is the bottom line on the Wright Amendment. Booked today (2 week advance/no Saturday night stay): Depart June 7/Return June 10 DFW-LAS AA=$1278.4
142 OPNLguy: There are some people that find it curious that the Wright Amendment and American's decision to move their HQ from NYC to DFW both came about in 1979
143 Travelin man: And thanks to the idiotic Wright Ammendment, WN cannot offer DAL-LAS service, which is the whole point of this thread. If Wright was abolished, the f
144 Milemaster: It doesn't stop other LCC's who play ball at DFW like Airtran & America West who have roughly 12 combined daily non-stop LAS flights as well. Southwe
145 OPNLguy: ,,,As opposed to AA's thinking laws should be -created- for their sake, right? Oh, one was...
146 Commavia: How large is CO's IAH hub compared to AA's DFW hub? It is about half the size, with roughly half the flights on most major routes. Once again, I have
147 OPNLguy: Apparently, some folks thought it was an issue at the time... (From the DallasObserver.com) A Hypocritic oath Minutes of a power brokers' meeting sho
148 ScottB: Again, it is arguable tha the IAH hub is smaller for several reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with Southwest's presence at HOU: * Continen
149 OPNLguy: I think this one was covered back in replies #59 and #60...
150 Aaway: A misnomer. While it may benefit one carrier now, let me remind you that when Wright became law in 79, Braniff had the most to lose since it was the
151 Incitatus: No. They paid $500 million more because Southwest refuses to serve DFW. Write a letter to Southwest and ask for DFW service to get lower fares.
152 DfwRevolution: A very circular attempt at logic, mi amigo. You can't possibly vilify WN alone and still maintain a shred of credibility...
153 Sllevin: I'm all for getting rid of the Wright Amendment as long as Southwest only hass 62.5% of the usable gates. Steve
154 Aaway: Position statement of North Dallas Camber of Commerce: http://www.ndcc.org/news/wright_release.html Interesting paragraphs regarding DFW and in the co
155 Incitatus: A very circular attempt at logic, my friend. You can't possibly vilify every party except Southwest and still maintain a shred of credibility....
156 Aaway: In the thread starter, this link: http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4509640/detail.html takes you to the story. The streaming A/V portion features Sam Coats r
157 ScottB: You mean the difference between allowing consumers to choose whether they wish to fly from DAL or DFW? Repealing the Wright Amendment doesn't automat
158 Aaway: Having followed this issue since the late 80s, I can comfortably say that Southwest accepted Wright under "duress". But, did this admittedly absurd p
159 LY4XELD: Here's an interesting letter from former AMR CEO Crandall from the Wall Street Journal (5/24/05): Promise Unfulfilled Created A Monopoly for Southwest
160 ORD: An airline, whether Southwest or anybody else, should not be forced to fly somewhere they don't want to. To the contrary, any airline should be allow
161 OPNLguy: Isn't it amazing? On May 16th, he Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition that restricted wine sales via the internet was unconstitutional because it
162 DCA-ROCguy: Do you want my password, because you seem to be able to speak so well for me! I suppose that because I support the "Wrong Amendment" as you put it, th
163 OPNLguy: >>>In retrospect, it was a mistake for American and others to agree to the compromise that the Wright Amendment represented, for Southwest and others
164 OPNLguy: >>>OPNLguy--maybe Southwest should arrange with the DAL main lobby gift shop to sell bottles of out-of-state wines, as a way to ridicule the WA. Featu
165 Sllevin: More accurately, until 1978, the only airline to opt out of the agreement to move to DFW was an airline limited to flying within the state of Texas.
166 Goingboeing: Why would this be necessary? Would AA be so foolish as to try to run two good sized operations 11 miles apart? They only have a handful of flights in
167 Apodino: I am going to take a different perspective on this. In other cities where there are more than one airport, the airports are run by the same operator.
168 DCA-ROCguy: Does anyone have the PDF file of the Love Field Master Plan? I'd like to read the whole thing for myself (light bedtime reading ) and the Master Plan