Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wright Ammendment "Third Way"  
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

The past few W.A. threads have had a rather nasty tendency to rapidly unravel into an "it's either my way or the highway" slug-fest with little room for compromise on either side. If you need any confirmation, I'll point out some of these past and current threads-

WN Just As Guilty As AA, DFW (by SonOfACaptain Jul 16 2005 in Civil Aviation)
Mike Boyd On DFW's Recent Poll (by OPNLguy Jul 11 2005 in Civil Aviation)
RE: DFW Survey Says 85% Want WN At DFW (by Boeing7E7 Jul 11 2005 in Civil Aviation)

Today, the Dallas Morning News published an editorial called "The Third Way," in which they reject the "Freedom to Fly Act" proposed by Rep. Sam Johnson and lobby for a compromised plan to deregulate the metroplex airports. The article is available on page 2F of the Sunday paper, or available here.

I think it has a good degree of rationality that has certainly made me reconsider my stance on the W.A., so I thought I would open the topic up for discussion:

The Wright Amendment: We propose phase-out of restrictions

Saturday, July 16, 2005

The numbers grow so large they make our heads hurt. Hundreds and thousands. Millions and billions. Dollars to doughnuts, this can't be so complicated.

The Dallas Morning News editorial board plowed through columns of figures, bar graphs, fever tables and pie charts and spent hours in detailed, passionate conversation with interested parties, all to seek an answer to what has become an intractable riddle:

What to do, if anything, about the Wright amendment?

Human instinct is to seek a simple, straightforward answer to a complicated question. Isn't a deal, after all, a deal? Don't changed and changing times require a change in law? Isn't American Airlines vs. Southwest Airlines the same as Coke vs. Pepsi, McDonald's vs. Burger King, Wal-Mart vs. Target? Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Lift Wright. Leave Wright alone.

There's another way. Forced to choose between the interests of the nation's two leading airlines, two of our region's outstanding corporate citizens, we pick both.

We propose a two-year moratorium on attempts to alter the Wright amendment, followed by a common-sense three-year phase-out of its restrictions – a five-year program that provides a stable road to an unfettered air market.

We therefore reject the Jeb Hensarling-Sam Johnson bill that would immediately abolish the Wright amendment, which (with its Shelby cousin) restricts flights from Dallas Love Field to Texas and seven neighboring states. We agree with American and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport that such a dramatic change would significantly damage the region's economy.

We also reject the idea that a law written is a law forever. Remember when it was illegal in Texas to sell frying pans and Popsicles on a Sunday? Is Ma Bell still the only telephone company?

Our timetable would allow American and D/FW Airport two years to prepare for the phase-out – time to restructure their business models and recalibrate their future plans. An orderly implementation would assure the region adapts constructively to the effects of the coming change.

Recognizing that the details are better left to the legislators who would write this law – led, we hope, by members of the North Texas delegation – allow us to suggest:

•After the moratorium, the first thing to go is the through-ticketing and checked-baggage restrictions from Love Field. A passenger who wants to fly beyond the current Wright/Shelby boundaries should not have to buy two tickets or fight through two security checks.

•All parties sign a binding document to affirm the Love Field Master Plan as written, including the 32-gate maximum and restrictions on late-night takeoffs and landings. Love's neighbors, who endured years of dish-rattling noise and elevated pollution concerns, have a higher stake than other North Texans and should be included in the solution.

•As part of the phase-out, a gradual increase in the number of states an airline could serve from Love, perhaps by one region per year, until the entire continental U.S. is open.
Good for airlines

The Wright amendment was a sane, logical step when enacted in 1979. It brought a shaky peace to the North Texas air market. It allowed Southwest to carve a niche at Love while American built the nation's premier airline and its fortress hub at D/FW.

This newspaper has long supported Wright as the proper way to support D/FW's growth and development. The airport, in turn, has done its part by fueling the region's growth and development.

Today, D/FW is far from a start-up airport. Its influence isn't limited to jobs and aviation-related economic activity. As an international airport, it's a major player in markets that other airlines would not serve from Love Field.

D/FW is the world's third-busiest airport measured by landings and the sixth-busiest for passengers. It served 59.4 million passengers last year from about 140 gates and continues to grow. American's traffic has increased since Delta's downsizing.

American is expected to have more than 800 daily flights from D/FW this year, up from 700 in 2004, in effect replacing most of the daily flights lost. (Southwest offers about 120 daily departures from Love Field.)

The quality and quantity of American's service will help it survive the transition period and emerge stronger and more competitive. We appreciate its concerns that any change to Wright will diminish its D/FW hub, but we believe it will adapt to the new, freer landscape and thrive. Similarly, an overall increase in passengers to and from North Texas can only help D/FW Airport in the long run.
And for consumers

When fares fall – and this is one of the few facts not in dispute – travelers from Weatherford to Tyler and Sherman to Hillsboro will benefit.

Although American argues that multiple-airport regions offer fewer flight choices, we believe North Texas' growth will attract more point-to-point airline competition to the big airport. Travelers in markets dominated by a single carrier at a single airport also face the nation's highest airfares.

As it turns out, the equation is not so complicated. Lower fares will make air travel a more logical option for more people. More demand will drive up the number of flights. Heightened competition, as always, will spawn innovation and more efficient use of resources.

The Wright amendment unnaturally restrains free-market competition, which amounts to protectionism. Love, already limited by the Master Plan and a landlocked location, is the only U.S. airport that dramatically limits how airlines serve other cities. Consumers are the losers.

Ultimately, when asked to choose between American and Southwest, we choose both airlines' ability to compete in a freer market for the air-travel dollars of North Texans.

In the long run, everyone wins.


61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEjmmsu From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

This does make a lot of sense, and I have no doubt that WN would go for this if it were offered to them.

However, DFW would not agree to this, or anything else that would ever end the Wright Ammendment Restrictions.

WN has already stated they would support a gradual phase-out of the restrictions, and DFW is staunchly opposed to any changes.



"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
User currently offlineAloha73G From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2372 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3430 times:

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 1):
This does make a lot of sense, and I have no doubt that WN would go for this if it were offered to them.

However, DFW would not agree to this, or anything else that would ever end the Wright Ammendment Restrictions.

WN has already stated they would support a gradual phase-out of the restrictions, and DFW is staunchly opposed to any changes.

This shows, as I believe, the DFW is the selfish party in this equation. WN is much more willing to compromise, and this plan, as outlined by the DMN is about what I had in my head for what would be a good idea. I think though, that they should allow connections from DAL to non-WA states through WA states immediately.

DFW should see the writing on the wall and try to compormise with a plan like this before it is simply elimated in one fell swoop--which they seem to be deathly afraid of.



Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4417 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3423 times:

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 2):
This shows, as I believe, the DFW is the selfish party in this equation.

Bull - SOUTHWEST is the idiosyncratic party that is raising a fuss because it doesn't want to play by the rule that EVERY OTHER AIRLINE lives with.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineWorkbench From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3413 times:

As soon as AA and DFW can get over the fact that the WA IS going away, the sooner all this needless bickering will stop. The WA should have never been put in place. It is AAnti competitive and it serves no purpose other than to protect AArogant AAirways. I flew on WN this weekend to SAN and the flight attendant made an announcement that about the WA being repealed would lead to airfares nation wide dropping up to 50%.! Now that is a company looking out for its customers.! Bravo WN.

User currently offlineExFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3413 times:

While I'd prefer to see the Federal government simply repeal Wright and Shelby with a two or three-year delay, and let the local leadership sort out what's to be done with DAL and DFW without any further Federal involvement* (which is what should have happened in 1979), a phased repeal like this would be a reasonable comprimise.

I wouldn't have the Feds incorporate the acceptance of the Love master plan or anything like that in the phase-out, though - again, those are local issues and should be dealt with locally, with Federal involvement limited to safety or environmental issues, just as they are at all other airports.


User currently offlineWorkbench From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3403 times:

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 5):
a phased repeal like this would be a reasonable comprimise.

I disagree, I think it should be dropped overnight. A phased in approach would be natrual, because it would take WN a year or so any way to take delivery of new airplanes and build up DAL.


User currently offlineAloha73G From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2372 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days ago) and read 3382 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
Bull - SOUTHWEST is the idiosyncratic party that is raising a fuss because it doesn't want to play by the rule that EVERY OTHER AIRLINE lives with.

What other airlines operate in airports with such idiosyncratic rules as DAL has, thanks to Wright? The answer is none. What is so wrong with WN fighting for the same rights other airlines get everywhere else, with some LOCAL restrictions (LGA, DCA permiters)?

-Aloha!



Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3143 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Another disguise to continue to CONTROL FLIGHT LENGTHS for passengers in the other states. Proponents of the continuation of Wright believe that no one will realize that in fact they are controlling an airport that passengers want to use to save money.

They would have you believe that jobs will be lost if more flights came to the overall Dallas area. They would have you believe that their economy would suffer if more tourists came in and spent money. They would have you believe that by controlling another airport that an open and free market still exists.

And finally isn't it funny how this overt attempt at manipulation of another airport isn't practiced anywhere else, and that passengers can't see what they are doing.


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4417 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 7):
What is so wrong with WN fighting for the same rights other airlines get everywhere else, with some LOCAL restrictions (LGA, DCA permiters)?

Southwest is free to use DFW for its longer-haul operations like everyone else. If they want to remain a solely short-haul Dallas player, then they can continue to operate at Love under the current rules.

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 8):
And finally isn't it funny how this overt attempt at manipulation of another airport isn't practiced anywhere else

Not at all true - DCA, LGA, LHR, and NRT are examples of airports that are subjected to manipulative government regulatory controls.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2951 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

I believe that when and if the WA goes away, there will be compromises. Since this requires federal approval, right now there's a war, Patriot Act revisions, and a supreme court seat to fill. Let's face it - there are far too many pressing issues to be dealt with and this is more than likely a very low priority. IMO, the Hill is not going to spend a lot of time on this issue thus there will be compromises which usually happens when things get worked quickly and are not a matter of national importance.

I am sure some die-hards here will argue WA is of national importance, but I have news for you, it isn't. Despite the fact the president is a Texan he is not going to bend over backwards for this.


User currently offlineSwatpamike From United States of America, joined May 2004, 581 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

Hello all

DfwRevolution, very good post. I only had a minute to check out some of the article (busy trying to get flights out) but it will give most people who have open minds something to think about.

Now if this thread can keep from going WN v/s everyone else maybe we can all get along.

Cheers

swapamike


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9508 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

Quoting Workbench (Reply 4):
flew on WN this weekend to SAN and the flight attendant made an announcement that about the WA being repealed would lead to airfares nation wide dropping up to 50%.!

a flight attendant eh?

that's a good one!

i am looking forward to St. Louis - Boston dropping 50%. thank you, Southwest!

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 3):
Bull - SOUTHWEST is the idiosyncratic party that is raising a fuss because it doesn't want to play by the rule that EVERY OTHER AIRLINE lives with.

agreed



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

Now this is something I have long said should be done, although I also said that the "process" shouldn't start for another couple years. This is something hopefully everybody could agree on.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 9):
Not at all true - DCA, LGA, LHR, and NRT are examples of airports that are subjected to manipulative government regulatory controls.

All these airports are controled for capacity and safety reasons that do not exist at Love. Basically, all these other airports are tiny in terms of physical size for the markets they serve.

Time moves on, we aren't bound forever by a rule that made sense in the 1970s.

The article's idea is a very fair compromise, although an immediate end to thru-ticketing restrictions would offer some relief from AA's monopoly prices to cities they alone control with nonstop service from Dallas.

It's amazing to me that the DMNews came out with this editorial, whcih is basically a pro-WN piece, even though they have traditionally supported AA. The political power in the world is changing.

Cairo


User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 9):
Not at all true - DCA, LGA, LHR, and NRT are examples of airports that are subjected to manipulative government regulatory controls.

All these airports are controled for capacity and safety reasons that do not exist at Love. Basically, all these other airports are tiny in terms of physical size for the markets they serve.

Time moves on, we aren't bound forever by a rule that made sense in the 1970s.

The article's idea is a very fair compromise, although an immediate end to thru-ticketing restrictions would offer some relief from AA's monopoly prices to cities they alone control with nonstop service from Dallas.

It's amazing to me that the DMNews came out with this editorial, whcih is basically a pro-WN piece, even though they have traditionally supported AA. The political power in the world is changing.

No Cairo, The politics are not changing only the size of the checks being written. WN has a lot of bank these days. Belo Corporation will publish or say anything as long as it is paid for it.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineLuvfa From United States of America, joined May 2005, 447 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 3):
Bull - SOUTHWEST is the idiosyncratic party that is raising a fuss because it doesn't want to play by the rule that EVERY OTHER AIRLINE lives with.

Bull- The rule was enacted solely for controlling Southwest!

I do agree however, that the Wright Amendment phase-out will definitely be compromised. Probably something like N/S flights will be less than 1000nm, but allowing through flights/connections. Thus, DAL-MSY-TPA would be allowed. This way DFW could be the long range airport and DAL the short range. Sort of like JFK vs. LGA.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

>> It's amazing to me that the DMNews came out with this editorial, whcih is basically a pro-WN piece, even though they have traditionally supported AA.

Supported AA or supported DFW? There is a tremendous difference there, and I would question how much support the DMN has voiced for the former.

It's the difference between supporting another private corperation (to the end that I doubt the DMN would side with either WN or AA) versus supporting a public infastructure investment.

>> It's amazing to me that the DMNews came out with this editorial, whcih is basically a pro-WN piece, even though they have traditionally supported AA. The political power in the world is changing.

First, when have they ever "supported" American Airlines? I would challenge you to find one editorial, column, or story that would allude to such a conclusion. The editors have voiced their support for DFW as the primary airport for the metroplex, but that is 180 degrees different than supporting AA.

Second, how does it ammount to a pro-WN piece? Because it's a change in the status quo? If anything, the editorial is very clear that it's their opinion that all parties stand to benefit from a reduction/elimination of the W.A.

>> The politics are not changing only the size of the checks being written. WN has a lot of bank these days. Belo Corporation will publish or say anything as long as it is paid for it.

So you're asserting that WN paid off the Dallas Morning News? If that were true, people would likely go to jail. The system isn't moving fast enough so WN resorts to fraud?

I was under the impression that you were actually making some progress toward a middle ground, but now you believe anytime someone changes their mind and offers a compromise, a conspiracy is involved?


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5792 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 3):
idiosyncratic

You sure do love this word  Smile.

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 2):
This shows, as I believe, the DFW is the selfish party in this equation.

In their eyes, they have the most to lose. Why shouldn't they fight? Just as WN should be looking out for it's own interests, so too should DFW. They may be wrong, but oh well.

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 5):
I wouldn't have the Feds incorporate the acceptance of the Love master plan or anything like that in the phase-out, though - again, those are local issues and should be dealt with locally, with Federal involvement limited to safety or environmental issues, just as they are at all other airports.

I agree 100%.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
We also reject the idea that a law written is a law forever.

Nice. So the press thinks this? Let's just toss out the constitution. It's law.

On a side note. I'm really sick of these threads. You all wanna tow the freemarketbullshit line go ahead. This is freakin' ridiculous.

[Edited 2005-07-18 14:20:20]

User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2963 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17):
>> The politics are not changing only the size of the checks being written. WN has a lot of bank these days. Belo Corporation will publish or say anything as long as it is paid for it.

So you're asserting that WN paid off the Dallas Morning News? If that were true, people would likely go to jail. The system isn't moving fast enough so WN resorts to fraud?

I was under the impression that you were actually making some progress toward a middle ground, but now you believe anytime someone changes their mind and offers a compromise, a conspiracy is involved?

You pay off a public official its a bribe. You pay a media outlet for a published or opinion on the air it is an advertisement. People go to jail for bribery. How do you figure this is fraud. I hear the same type of BS from the AM talk radio hosts in Dallas. Surely someone is getting paid. Yes there are paid editorials whether they are declared as being paid for the opinion or not. This sort of thing has been going on forever.

Please explain your assertion of this as being fraudulent.

My personal opinion is that WN is getting desperate.

This is a way of acknowledging the City of Dallas position with the issue. It pretty much parrots what the Mayor of Dallas has been hinting at
look at the recent messages from the Mayor. (The City should take action now to prevent DAL from becoming a bigger problem to the city.) She wants to bulldoze the old Legend Terminal and cut back on the number of gates for lease to 26. She wants a Federal law to limit competition at DAL. She has not said no to the prospect of long distance flights only to the prospect of a miniature DFW next to Downtown.

WN has realized that they cannot take the city for granted.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7557 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 15):
Time moves on, we aren't bound forever by a rule that made sense in the 1970s.

The article's idea is a very fair compromise, although an immediate end to thru-ticketing restrictions would offer some relief from AA's monopoly prices to cities they alone control with nonstop service from Dallas.

 Wow!  faint 

STOP THE PRESSES, LADIES & GENTLEMEN!

I do believe we have an A.net first on these W/S A threads:

Cjpark is now in agreement that the original W.A. is now longer a rabbinical degree that can not be changed, altered or repealed; and agrees that thru-ticketing for DAL should be allowed.

No offense, Cjpark; but everytime I or anyone else mentioned a recommendation for abolishing the thru-ticketing ban at DAL (which causes traveler to do the Texas 2-step booking) in past threads; you've either ignored those comments or pooh-poohed any restriction ease at DAL regarding W/S A.

Just out of curiousity, did you recently have a change of heart or is someone else using your username?  stirthepot 



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 21):


STOP THE PRESSES, LADIES & GENTLEMEN!

I do believe we have an A.net first on these W/S A threads:

Cjpark is now in agreement that the original W.A. is now longer a rabbinical degree that can not be changed, altered or repealed; and agrees that thru-ticketing for DAL should be allowed.

No offense, Cjpark; but everytime I or anyone else mentioned a recommendation for abolishing the thru-ticketing ban at DAL (which causes traveler to do the Texas 2-step booking) in past threads; you've either ignored those comments or pooh-poohed any restriction ease at DAL regarding W/S A.

Just out of curiousity, did you recently have a change of heart or is someone else using your username?

Hold on PHLBOS,

I never said that I agreed with the proposal. My personal opinion is that WN should forget about long distance service from DAL and pack up and go out to DFW and play nice with the rest of the children.

I only pointed out that the city still has a say in this matter and that possibly WN pulled its head out long enought to realize it.

[Edited 2005-07-18 15:47:53]


"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineWorkbench From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2896 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 22):
My personal opinion is that WN should forget about long distance service from DAL and pack up and go out to DFW and play nice with the rest of the children.

Any why exactly should they do that. DFW does not fit with their business plan? What right does the federal government have to tell the people who live in a specific area where they can or cannot fly or what airline they must fly for that matter. CJpark, the WA is a bunch of crap that should have never been put in place at all. Its anti competitive, it gave AA a monopoly in the area, it is just plain wrong. And it WILL come down.


User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18):
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 3):
idiosyncratic

You sure do love this word

I’ve seen that in about 4 or 5 of his posts.

Avek – Find a new dollar buzzword du jour.

 spin 


25 Cjpark : Sorry to dissappoint you but the Federal Government (Congress) does have the right to regulate commerce. I will also remind you that the law was enac
26 Post contains images 2H4 : Not quite. WN is free to use DFW as American/DFW see fit. The restrictions on flights and routes WN would be subject to would make it virtually impos
27 Hz747300 : You're Wright! What's with all those silly ammendments to the Constitution?! - Freedom of the press, religion, speech - Come on, who needs this??? -
28 BigGSFO : Does any body know where this is at in Congress? Any chance it will be resolved before the August recess on July 30th? I am guessing it's not on the "
29 AAgent : You may be referring to the special offer made by DFW offering free gates, etc., albeit with huge restrictions. However, it is my understanding that
30 Boeing7E7 : You're foolishly assuming they take the free rent deal and the Fed doesn't step on DFW's pecker for illegal placement of route restrictions. Better f
31 Apodino : I am going to make a bold prediction here. If wright remains in place and for whatever reason DAL is closed to commercial traffic forever here is what
32 Incitatus : You should have let the flight attendant know that Southwest charges on average MORE per mile than American. Pathetic.
33 LTBEWR : At least someone in Dallas is thinking with this 'phase out' repeal of the WA. My only difference would be an immediate end to the rule that prevents
34 Workbench : Where did you get this info? Not true at all. WN fares are way lower than AA. And their service is way better.
35 2H4 : You're right..I was referring to the "special deal", and not the option of leasing the gates outright. Was the latter option determined to be economi
36 Boeing7E7 : Southwest RPM Yield - 2004 Annual Report: 11.76 Cents AA RPM Yield - 2004 Annual Report: 11.54 Cents Delta is the highest in the industry are 12.7 ce
37 PlanesNTrains : I imagine the vast majority of routes served by WN out of DAL or DFW, in any scenario, would have overlap with the AA/AE system. I'm not completely u
38 PHLBOS : Maybe not on this particular thread; but on past threads on this subject, the mention of the impact/reaction of other carriers have been briefly disc
39 BigGSFO : And there this is thought - what if WN got their way and WA is repealed. How much more traffic can DAL take if WN starts to expand beyond the perimete
40 Boeing7E7 : Let's see... PAY RENT. Yes. Most likely candidates: JetBlue and Frontier, plus DL to CVG/SLC RJ - AA to ORD RJ, UA to ORD/DEN - RJ, CO to EWR/CLE RJ.
41 Travelin man : Why not end the thru-ticketing restrictions right away? Honestly, that is a bigger pain for those of us wanting to fly to DAL than the lack of non-sto
42 Boeing7E7 : That will probably be step 1. Followed by a permiter rule of 750-1,000 miles.[Edited 2005-07-18 19:44:38]
43 Typhaerion : These numbers are jacked anyway. When you charging 1200 dollars for a large number of 3000 mile flights internationally you will have lower RPM then
44 Cjpark : That would be poetic justice!
45 Post contains images FlyingTexan : I don’t think any other carrier has ever succeeded sucking the ever living life out of SWA.
46 Boeing7E7 : SkyWest has with RJ's. BOI to SLC comes to mind where SWA had a thorough ass whipping.
47 Post contains images FlyingTexan : Ok, Canyon Blue plane still does it reasonably 3 times a day (twice on Sat) for $100 walk up. On Delta, you can still do it for a c-note but you are
48 SPREE34 : What kind of ass whipping is Skywest going to take when Delta goes Ch.11? Passengers pay for Southwest planes to fly. Delta pays for Skywest planes to
49 Post contains images 2H4 : 2H4
50 Cjpark : Texan, Yes you can buy a ticket to Europe for that $500. But you still would have to pay that outrageous change fee that you harp on so much. Should
51 Sllevin : I believe a gradual phase-out which is tied to the availability of gates for other carriers would be fair. That would also allow Southwest the option
52 Post contains links PHLBOS : If it were only that simple. From Keep DFWStrong's website: For an airline that leased a minimum of 10 gates, the carrier would have been eligible fo
53 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Actually, as usual, they will likely steal from the incumbent legacy (AA) or their own DFW operation. Kind of like how building light rail tends to s
54 TxAgKuwait : >> Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 45): I don’t think any other carrier has ever succeeded sucking the ever living life out of SWA. SkyWest has with RJ's
55 HZ747300 : Actually, it does, the first ten ammendments (changes) spell out "freedom" of the press, religion, to associate, speech, etc.., among other ammendmen
56 Boeing7E7 : DAL gate rents are about 5% lower, landing fees 10% lower. How's that? Unit costs are unit costs as are unit yields. Due to SWA's shorter hops, they
57 Post contains images Typhaerion : Thanks, just checking to see if what I thought was true about the costs of operating out of major international airports being more expensive than ou
58 Boeing7E7 : It's the way the Southwest fare basis is determined. With them you're paying an O&D fare with about a 20-30% premium over seat cost. When you buy a c
59 Boeing7E7 : Here are the top 20 markets from the Dallas Region and the problem for Southwest as far as reasonable expansion: Destination - Competitive Carriers-Pr
60 Post contains images Typhaerion : I am not sure I fully understand the concept of unit yield, but I will do some research and see if I cant wizen up.   But generally what you are say
61 FlyingTexan : Alas, alas, why is FlyingTexan such a Southwest Stalwart… One of the keys [as I’m sure most know] to success is frugality. Like, if you don’t ne
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...
Third "Close Call" Investigation At ORD posted Wed Mar 29 2006 22:37:12 by Airwave
"Wright And Shelby Amendments". Any Info? posted Thu Dec 6 2001 18:50:00 by Parra
Is This Iran Air's "new" 747? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 18:00:25 by ZakHH
Why Did I Get The "ssss" Extra Security At SFO? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 19:15:14 by Deaphen
Thai (TG) "May" Cancel A380 And Studying 748i posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:50:19 by YLWbased
G-REDX, The Ultimate Personal "Starship"? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 07:18:45 by DEVILFISH
Airline "Classes" Do A Complete 360! posted Mon Nov 20 2006 23:15:52 by RoyalAtlantis
Can Someone Explain "O&D"? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 16:04:14 by Avi8tir
Do Seaplane Landing "strips" Have Designators/code posted Sun Nov 19 2006 18:50:35 by HansieAMS
Can You Become A "medallion" Without Flying? posted Sun Nov 19 2006 14:28:53 by Zsx81