Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?  
User currently offlineMrPhoo From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8265 times:

I've just read about the Wright Amendment from a link on WN's website. What I don't understand is the lack of support (from state senators) for doing away with what seems to be a fairly out-dated law. Could anyone here help shed an objective light on the matter?

My apologies if this had already been discussed in the past. (I'm sure it has....)

244 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8251 times:

This is not a Texas state senate issue.

The Wright Amendment is a federal law. And at the risk of getting MASSIVELY flamed, it is well known that AA is quite willing to use strong-arm tactics to keep communities (and their elected representatives) in line supporting the Wright Amendment.

The Wright Amendment will have to be dealt with at a federal level, and many state representatives would like to be federal representatives - ergo, deal with it at that level.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8219 times:

Quoting MrPhoo (Thread starter):
My apologies if this had already been discussed in the past. (I'm sure it has....)

Only about 4,312 times, or so it seems...

Quoting MrPhoo (Thread starter):
Could anyone here help shed an objective light on the matter?

Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder, or the eye of the operator of the website... You've already mentioned SWA's http://www.setlovefree.com site, and of course, DFW (and by extension, AA) has their point-of-view on http://www.keepdfwstrong.com. There's another site out there (http://www.fightwright.org) that's run by a John Q. Citizen who has no connection to either airline or airport.

Between those three sites, and some searchs of past Anet threads, I'm sure you'll get enough info and other feedback that will answer your questions. If they don't, I'm sure the other 200 posts that will follow this one of mine and re-hash the issue (with all the usual suspects (pro and con) taking part) will.

Good luck!

[Edited 2006-01-31 21:09:01]

User currently offlineLegion242 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8143 times:

"What's the deal with...?" Sounds like the start of a Seinfeld joke!!  Wink


Don't make me release the monkeys!!
User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8131 times:

Thanks, OPNL for summing that up so well. I don't have time to insert my editorial (anti-Wright, pro-FREEDOM). Hang around, MrPhoo, and you'll gain info - at least by osmosis.


FlyingTexan ~ Fightin' Wright from within walking distance of NY, Paris, Egypt, Venice, and a Roman Empire


User currently offlineMrPhoo From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8092 times:

Thanks OPNL. Between those 3 sites, I should receive enuff info on this here Wright Amendment to satisfy my curiosities.

Once again, sorry to re-open what seems to be another can-o-worms...


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8080 times:

Quoting MrPhoo (Reply 5):
Thanks OPNL. Between those 3 sites, I should receive enuff info on this here Wright Amendment to satisfy my curiosities.

Glad to help; ask questions any time...


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8073 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting MrPhoo (Reply 5):
Once again, sorry to re-open what seems to be another can-o-worms...

Please don't ever be afraid to ask questions, MrPhoo...just try to ingore the handful of members who are unable (or unwilling) to communicate in a respectful and courteous manner.

Every so often, I'll go to news.yahoo.com and search for keywords "Wright Amendment" (with the quotes). Sort the results by date, and you'll find up-to-date developments from several news sources.

Finally, welcome to the forums!




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8057 times:

Quoting Legion242 (Reply 3):
"What's the deal with...?" Sounds like the start of a Seinfeld joke!!

Heh, anybody heard of the Wright Amendment? Geez, what's the deal with that thing? I mean c'mon, not even Microsoft sees a need for that kind of protection from competition from the government.



'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offlineGokmengs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1123 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8034 times:

Actually I didn't have good knowledge of the subject and I couldn't follow the arguments here on anet because they were discussing different aspects of the whole issue.
Godbless wikipedia for making it very understandable and unbiased here is the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_amendment
read it and you should have a better idea of government's role in protecting certain companies, in exchange of what is of great mystery to me(couldn't help inserting my opinion my apologies)



Gercekleri Tarih Yazar Tarihide Galatasaray
User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8010 times:

Quoting Gokmengs (Reply 9):
read it and you should have a better idea of government's role in protecting certain companies, in exchange of what is of great mystery to me(couldn't help inserting my opinion my apologies)

It is not in any way, shape, or form the government's job to protect certain companies in laissez faire capitalism. Of course, U.S.'s economy is farrrrrrr from the utopian laissez faire idea. However, as a conservative I believe we need to discourage government intervention except for these areas: safety, minimum wage, and ways of inhibiting monopoly--more or less all ways to slightly level the playing surface and to avoid the substantial differences in living conditions (see Standard Oil Co., late 1800's). The Wright Amendment does not satisfy any of these. This allows AA to have a monopoly, something the government fascinatingly shows disgust at (see:Microsoft). The argument "WN should move to DFW", no matter how much that idea might actually work, does not hold water in this discussion. WN wants to save money now, not maybe save money after they blow a ton of money moving somewhere they don't want. WN to DFW is not in any way a viable concept on the WA table right now.



'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7990 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting N908AW (Reply 10):
The Wright Amendment does not satisfy any of these.

Furthermore, the W/A thoroughly opposes the intent of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Some Wright supporters claim the legislation is only there to regulate competition between airports, but you simply can't regulate airports without also regulating airlines. The two go hand in hand.




2H4




[Edited 2006-02-01 01:37:02]


Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7969 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
Some Wright supporters claim the legislation is only there to regulate competition between airports, but you simply can't regulate airports without also regulating airlines. The two go hand in hand.


Only if you believe that such infrastructure cost is designed to satisfy the cost structure of each individual airline within a market. It is simply naive to think that building airports on every corner to support a philosophy of airport competition. It simply does not serve the public good in any way, shape or form.

Airport competition requires full privatization of national infrastructure, and we all know how well that worked out for the rail business. Great for private operators, crap for the public.

[Edited 2006-02-01 02:12:36]

User currently offlineBigJimFX From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7942 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1):
it is well known that AA is quite willing to use strong-arm tactics to keep communities (and their elected representatives) in line supporting the Wright Amendment

You hit the nail on the head! Ever think about how many registered voters work for AA in the DFW area... Not to mention the nation?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
Some Wright supporters claim the legislation is only there to regulate competition between airports, but you simply can't regulate airports without also regulating airlines. The two go hand in hand.


Only if you believe that such infrastructure cost is designed to satisfy the cost structure of each individual airline within a market. It is simply naive to think that building airports on every corner to support a philosophy of airport competition.

Thats why DAL has a special price for WN for landing fees... And "That Other Airport" has it's own for "That Other N. Texas Airline"



I'd like to thank me for flying Me Airways...
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7940 times:

Quoting BigJimFX (Reply 13):
And "That Other Airport" has it's own for "That Other N. Texas Airline"

And every other carrier at that "other airport". Ever heard of signatory agreements? That's one of those thingy's where everyone pays the same rates and charges. It's required by law, you know... Regulated.

http://www.dfwairport.com/airport/pd...ations/competition/04/plan2004.pdf

Air 21 requires airports to take control away from the carriers of their facilities as existing use agreements ran out. This was not the case prior to Air-21 where airlines could own and operate facilities on an airport. Some projects in the pipeline remained grandfathered, but as time progresses, current airline airport assets will become wholly owned airport assets so that construction/expansion is tied to a demand model vs. an airlines personal desires which by extension create an anti-competitive environment by providing operational cost advantages for one carrier over another within a market.

For example. When Terminal F gets around to being built it will be based on a demand model or a replacement requirement (DFW's terminals are near the end fo their useful life and generally don't comply with new standards of space). When this occurs, they will issue bonds to build it based on this model which are repaid through rates and charges thus keeping costs in line.

[Edited 2006-02-01 02:49:38]

User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1521 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7818 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 2):
Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder, or the eye of the operator of the website... You've already mentioned SWA's http://www.setlovefree.com site, and of course, DFW (and by extension, AA) has their point-of-view on http://www.keepdfwstrong.com. There's another site out there (http://www.fightwright.org) that's run by a John Q. Citizen who has no connection to either airline or airport.

Other sites:

http://www.mscottb1.squarespace.com/wright-amendment-discussion/
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/wright/index.html
http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/sh...a251440b3be90b&t=2073&page=1&pp=50



With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7803 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
Airport competition requires full privatization of national infrastructure, and we all know how well that worked out for the rail business. Great for private operators, crap for the public.

Two different issues.
Travel by rail in this country was effectively *Over* in this country by 1960; courtesy of the automobile on short distances; air for long distances...
The public isn't shedding too many tears for the loss of rail, except in a few isolated corners of the US.



Delete this User
User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7739 times:

I'm guessing these Wright threads have worn out their welcome on this board. Postings are disappearing faster than AE service to TYR.

A story in the Dallas Business Journal, thoroughly covers the DAL landing fee issue: http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7722 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 16):
Travel by rail in this country was effectively *Over* in this country by 1960; courtesy of the automobile on short distances; air for long distances...

No high speed option due to privatization.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7715 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 17):
I'm guessing these Wright threads have worn out their welcome on this board. Postings are disappearing faster than AE service to TYR.

Zinger! LUVed it...  Wink


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7714 times:

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 4):
you'll gain info - at least by osmosis.

Please don't take this one as nitpicking but what you mean is diffusion. Osmosis is specific to the diffusion of water across a membrane. All osmosis is diffusion but not all diffusion is osmosis. Just something that stuck with me from HS Biology class when the teacher called me out on it one day.

As for the thread starter...welcome to A.net and as said, don't be afraid to ask questions. Unless of course it is when the NW DC-9s will be retired then you're free game for a flaming.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1248 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7694 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
Please don't ever be afraid to ask questions, MrPhoo...just try to ingore the handful of members who are unable (or unwilling) to communicate in a respectful and courteous manner.

MrPhoo,

Please pardon our friend 2h4. He is referring to those of us who disagree with the WN party line and want to maintain the law in place and even strengthen the law.

Quoting N908AW (Reply 10):
The Wright Amendment does not satisfy any of these. This allows AA to have a monopoly, something the government fascinatingly shows disgust at (see:Microsoft). The argument "WN should move to DFW", no matter how much that idea might actually work, does not hold water in this discussion. WN wants to save money now, not maybe save money after they blow a ton of money moving somewhere they don't want. WN to DFW is not in any way a viable concept on the WA table right now.

The Wright Admendment in no way allows any company to have a monopoly at either airport. Both airports are open to any carrier that chooses to operate under the restrictions at DAL or with no restrictions at DFW. WN made a terrible business decision not to move to DFW. WN is now asking for special consideration to avoid the consequences of that decision.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
Furthermore, the W/A thoroughly opposes the intent of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Wrong!!!

The Government never gave up the right of refusal of routes served or started.

Remember the government owns the air whether it is airspace you fly in or frequency or bandwidth for communications. They also own the airports.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7659 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Cjpark (Reply 21):
Wrong!!!

The Government never gave up the right of refusal of routes served or started.

I, of course, wasn't referring to the powers and rights of the government, or suggesting the W/A is illegal. I was pointing out that, while perfectly legal, the legislation is contradictory to the environment the Deregulation Act of 1978 intended to cultivate.

So, in fact, I am not wrong.  Wink




Quoting Cjpark (Reply 21):
Remember the government owns the air whether it is airspace you fly in or frequency or bandwidth for communications. They also own the airports.

This statement is a textbook example of someone making assumptions to suit a particular argument, and is not 100% correct. Although it is presented as fact, it is not accurate. As with many aspects of the aviation world, there are all kinds of exceptions. None were acknowledged or taken into account here.




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7606 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 23):
I didn't know the ADA deregulated airports. I must have been mistaken all these years. I apologize

So you contend Cj's statement is 100% accurate? Interesting.




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7597 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 24):
So you contend Cj's statement is 100% accurate? Interesting.

Further legislation has pre-empted the airport issues not properly addressed by ADA. Such legislation has to do with justification of facility use. Neither of you are 100% accurate, however his interpretation is more accurate in todays environment.


25 Incitatus : At least two items are questionable. Love Field has very limited area, so yes, it is prone to a monopoly because lack of space prevents new entry. DF
26 Boeing7E7 : You are so going to get flammed. The safety issue of intersecting surfaces is addressed by limiting the capacity where the intersections occur to mak
27 DALNeighbor : Can I do it? Dude, put the AA playbook down and never open it again. Compare the saftey record of DFW and DAL and you'll find a historically safer op
28 Cjpark : Yes you are wrong and no matter how hard you squeal about the ADA it does not apply here. The law was written to protect the investment of North Texa
29 Post contains images 2H4 : That's precisely the problem. 2H4
30 N908AW : The only reason it is a terrible business decision is because of the dumb law. WN had just spent millions of dollars and hours of work to just stay a
31 Cjpark : So why do you continually bring it up? There are three questions in my last post for you to answer. Are you going to answer or claim a personal reaso
32 Tornado82 : And that was decades ago. Just a few years ago USAirways was hubbed heavily in Pittsburgh. Just a few months ago ATA was heavily in IND. Delta was in
33 2H4 : Do you have a source for this "agreement" signed by WN? 2H4
34 Post contains links DALNeighbor : There were 49 just in the Wright Amendment protected states, as of the publish date on the Campbell Hill study IIRC was June of 2005. Since then, AA
35 Tornado82 : Oh get off it. Common sense here, or just a BS use of semantics when you have no answer for the simple facts... If they didn't "agree" to it, they wo
36 Post contains images 2H4 : Actually, Tornado, "details" like these tend to hold some water from a legal standpoint. 2H4
37 Post contains images Tornado82 : I wouldn't know anything about how business contracts work in the real world, I wasn't an intern for Southwest... Where's the law the says Southwest
38 DALNeighbor : WN started operations at DAL 8 years before the Wright was used to stop them from growing. It was a punitive law specifically aimed at WN and was not
39 Tornado82 : Yeah... because AA's hundreds of flights a day could have fit, and international 777's could have taken off, at that little craphole DAL. Right. And
40 Post contains images 2H4 : I'm not claiming (nor have I ever claimed) to have above average knowledge of business contracts. It's just that most people who have progressed beyo
41 Post contains images 2H4 : It's ok, Tornado. I still think you're a swell guy. 2H4
42 Post contains images FlyingTexan : Another common definition: os•mo•sis Pronunciation: (oz-mô'sis, os-) —n. subtle or gradual absorption or mingling Example: He never studies bu
43 Tornado82 : And those decisions were flawed. DAL has laws that affect any carrier in the world. If not, you'd see USAirways flying there instead of DFW. What goo
44 N908AW : Pure BS, in 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "so long as Love Field remained open as an airport, the City of Dallas could not preclude Southwes
45 Tornado82 : Yeah, but their whole business plan was flawed because of their heavy dependence on regional jets and their horrendous overhead by having the, highes
46 Tornado82 : With the blood of tens of thousands of men laying down their lives for something they believe in, regardless of what side they're on. Somehow I doubt
47 Post contains images 2H4 : Ah, running one's business they way they see fit....if only that was applicable to all airports... 2H4 [Edited 2006-02-02 00:52:56]
48 Tornado82 : If it was, then you'd never have a ground stop at LGA either, and all airports would have a terminal like PIT. Like I said...
49 MDorBust : Because of queer buisness plans that call for large quarterly losses?
50 Tornado82 : Yeah, DFW is the reason why every airline in the nation lost money. Including US with less than a dozen a day, and even JetBlue... riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
51 MDorBust : It's rather hard to think of a domestic airline operating out of DFW that did turn profit. Expand a failing solution to Multiple points and a pattern
52 Texan : Ladies and gentelmen, MrPhoo asked for an objective look at Wright. We all have our opinions here and they have been hashed and rehashed more times th
53 Tornado82 : It doesn't add up. Let's take Delta for example. They probably lost more money in ONE QUARTER than their entire operating budget for the DFW "hub" wh
54 Post contains images MDorBust : I think this post finally proves that supporters of the WA are in fact on mind altering narcotics. What I'm really trying to say is expressed in this
55 Tornado82 : Damn, I was beaten to the 3rd worthless post in a row, so I'll be #4 here then reminding you that in 3 posts nobody has contributed a damn thing.[Edi
56 DALNeighbor : I applaud your effort to give an unbiased historical account of the region's commercial aviation development. However, I'd like to attempt to provide
57 Incitatus : Compare the outcome of a short landing or a runway overun in both airports. At DAL the result will be similar to what happened with Southwest at Midw
58 Incitatus : That was a quite amusing post I have to say. Thanks. You left out the part that Dallas city leaders are willing to sell out and fill their pockets wi
59 DALNeighbor : Just because there is a choice of airports does not mean that there is more than one market. Just like I could choose to buy a Ford from a dealer in
60 Boeing7E7 : BS. The Supreme Court considered operational control and authority of the agencies involved. You said it, not me.
61 Post contains images N908AW : What? It's their JOB to consider all parts of the case and apply the constitution to it. Confused as to what the hell you're talking about...
62 Post contains images N908AW : Keep up the good work...
63 MDorBust : You mean like a certain Delta aircraft at DFW? When posting a partial quote, it's proper to include "..." to designate where an edit has been made. B
64 OPNLguy : Just an opinion, but these kinds of "what if the ABC crash had occurred at XYZ" are really pretty meaningless in the big scheme of things. If we took
65 Tornado82 : I agree. No proximity to any airport is "safe." And inherrent risk decreases as you move away from the airport. And yes, an airport like MDW is more
66 SPREE34 : " The new Y-95 reminds you, when you drink, drink responsibly. KOY FM Phoenix"
67 Texan : You have a sick fascination with planes running off the end of runways. At BUR the landing was made long in inclement weather on a very short runway.
68 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : The competition issue was not germane to the over riding factor of DFW's attempt to overtly gain operational control of the facility which was under
69 Cjpark : Glad you are back MD. Your sarcasm and obtuse attempts at a logical argument have been missed. And yes converting DAL to an commercially developed ar
70 DALNeighbor : Oh wow, and there is no difference between non stop service and connecting service. I guess DFW-SLC-TUS or DFW-MSP-TUS is just the same as DFW-TUS. U
71 Tornado82 : That's a pointless piece of rhetoric, it's their major HUB!!! PIT has non-stop monopoly routes to markets nowhere else in the nation has, they're cal
72 DALNeighbor : My response about monopolies was in response to the suggestion that WN operates a monopoly at DAL. That is not true and that's what my post illustrat
73 Tornado82 : I had a Teddy Ruxpin doll when I was a kid, if you didn't change the tape in it, it told the same story over, and over again... even though they were
74 DALNeighbor : Do you realize the irony of your post? One of your Teddy Ruxpin tapes titled DFW would go something like this: "They've already got equal access to D
75 Tornado82 : Obviously I realize the irony. Do you realize I did it on purpose? Sorry if irony, sarcasm, and cynicism are too advanced for you.
76 ScottB : As DALNeighbor said, your analogy doesn't hold water. If company QQQ or whatever is operating their acquired-at-some-distant-point-in-the-past asset
77 Tornado82 : No longer horses/carriages on the roads, we can go 65 now without being in danger of hitting one, unless you're going between LNS-RDG, or maybe GSH-F
78 OPNLguy : Not really an issue. On paper maybe, but in real life, DAL's ops don't impact DFW's ops lile some of the NYC Metro airports do.
79 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : Must be why their capacity planning throughput calculation is 180-190 vs 230-250. You just keep on thinking that. Spelled out (Yet again) in black an
80 DALNeighbor : The most efficient use of the airspace does not trump best use of the public's assets in serving the public. The is no airspace problem in Dallas, on
81 OPNLguy : Absolutely true. If it hadn't have been constrained by Wright, SWA's 1982 expansion to PHX, SAN, LAX, LAS and SFO likely would have included some new
82 Tornado82 : At its conception, WN was linking DAL, HOU, AUS, and some other cities in Texas. They never left the backyard. 1982 is 24 years ago. If WN has been h
83 Cjpark : The best use of the publics assets in serving the public would have all passenger airlines operating from DFW and DAL being closed and the land used
84 Post contains images 2H4 : As a resident of the real world, you should understand that your imaginary airspace wonderland, where airports all coexist in harmonious bliss simply
85 Tornado82 : Well then THEY should adapt, not expect the rest of the world to change for them.
86 Boeing7E7 : Plenty of that was addressed by the construction of DFW. If you have a problem with that it's "your" problem, not mine because there is nothing imagi
87 Tornado82 : PNE, AGC, TEB?? The possibilities are endless.
88 OPNLguy : The decision came after Delta's 2004 announcement that Delta was gutting their DFW hub effective in early 2005--it sort of changed the competitive en
89 2H4 : You're right. None of those things are imaginary. A keen reader will note that I never claimed they were. I referred only to your constant suggestion
90 DALNeighbor : You are right, currently it is my problem and I'm hell bent on doing something about it. And after we the people have removed Wright restrictions fro
91 Cjpark : Well said. But you are wrong. WN could have responded at DFW ( You know do the right thing for the community) but chose not to. The choice opted for
92 DALNeighbor : A legislative change to Wright has no bearing on previous or even future court decisions. Wright is not being challenged in the courts, it is being a
93 Cjpark : Remember that other We The People are hell bent on keeping Wright in place. If it was such a sure thing don't you think it would have been repealed a
94 Boeing7E7 : It absolutely does, and if you view that as a conspiracy you are naive. Post deregulation effectively seized the decision making process concerning a
95 OPNLguy : ...and SWA did keep its promise not to challenge it in the courts. Of course, attempting to get the legislation changed is another matter, but obviou
96 Post contains images N908AW : Ah yes...I feel like I've heard this one before. DAL is (as of Nov 12) ranked 8th out of all of WN's cities in terms of flights at 112. One could rea
97 Tornado82 : So what you're saying is that a repeal of Wright will lead to less service for the smaller cities on the fringes of the right perimeter? But yet, was
98 N908AW : Cutting service to second-tier airports shouldn't be surprising, its all that's been done to medium sized airports since 9/11. There are still a numb
99 N908AW : It's not the rest of the world, it's a silly little rule that 99% of the world doesn't even know exists.
100 Post contains links and images Tornado82 : I'm sure Gary Kelly doesn't give a flying rat's ass what I say, or that I'll never fly his airline... although my convective snowburst research could
101 Tornado82 : The rest of the nation then. I live in Pennsylvania, if my Senators and Representatives have to take even 1 second of the time I put them in office f
102 N908AW : God forbid us actually thinking about competition in the DFW metroplex...geez.
103 OPNLguy : I find it amazing that this still gets framed as purely a SWA issue. With repeal, the benefits also apply to any other airlines that choose to operat
104 DALNeighbor : A repeal of Wright, which only restricts destination from one airport, would not change anything related to who controls airport construction or faci
105 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : 1. There are 234 operations, aircraft don't depart without replentishment (at least most of the time). 2. Your 170 departure figure would represent a
106 Post contains links DALNeighbor : AirTran grew at ATL because Delta did not employ the same brute force that AA uses to destroy new entrants at DFW. Check the following link to read a
107 Post contains links DALNeighbor : The pressure continues to mount.. Full story:http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=46&u_sid=2108907 ....."Now it's up to us in the delegation to get Epp
108 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : You mean this thing a five year old could put together? http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/s1424.pdf
109 OPNLguy : Substituting "Americans" for "Nebraskans" makes the statement equally as true...
110 DALNeighbor : " target=_blank>http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills...4.pdf Funny how it makes perfect sense to a five year old yet some allegedly "smart" people hav
111 Boeing7E7 : Especially ficticious definitions such as yours.
112 Tornado82 : But why would they move? After all, Southwest says how much it costs to move over to DFW, so why would those other airlines in much worse financial s
113 N908AW : com·pe·ti·tion n. 1. The act of competing, as for profit or a prize; rivalry. 2. A test of skill or ability; a contest: a skating competition. 3.
114 OPNLguy : Any business decision for an airline to move from DFW to DAL is theirs alone, and the due dilligence as to whether it makes financial sense to is the
115 DALNeighbor : 250 departures per day is what the city, neighbors and airlines all agreed to. And no that does not mean that WN agreed to the destination and market
116 N908AW : And again, the day DAL grows bigger than LAS will be the same day B7E7 agrees with me on something.
117 Tornado82 : The only one of any significance left is JetBlue. Don't spin it to suit you once again. The point is that most of the nation couldn't give two shits
118 OPNLguy : There could be others, maybe not "signifcant" in your mind, but others nonetheless. Virgin American? Sun Country? The point remains unchanged that it
119 Post contains images 2H4 : Nah, just those flying to , flying from, or connecting through Dallas, Texas. If you want to illustrate a solid history of running competitors out of
120 Tornado82 : Virgin isn't going to a secondary airport, period. Sorry to burst your bubble. For that matter, that assumes Virgin is even going to fly. Sun Country
121 Post contains images 2H4 : Tornado, when discussing airline networks, route structures, anticompetitive legislation, and the concept of a free market economy, it's important to
122 OPNLguy : You work for Virgin and know this as an absolute fact? The point remains that other airlines (other than SWA) could start Love service post-Wright, i
123 DALNeighbor : I don't hate AA. I hate that I don't have any other choice but AA for the vast majority of destinations from my home. I hate that AA has incredible p
124 OPNLguy : Is that what's apparently driving your ire, the fact that SWA didn't fly PIT-MDW in the 4 years that you needed to travel between those two points, a
125 DALNeighbor : If anything, WN is altruistic. They treat all thier customers the same regardless of color, creed, wealth, or number of miles they have. BFI was an i
126 OPNLguy : The fact that DAL was the HDQ and hub from the airline's very inception has nothing to do with it? Why wouldn't a low-cost airline want an airport wi
127 Tornado82 : Oh so you're saying that US or AA or CO treat their customers differently because of color or creed? Funny, my last flight on CO mainline I sat next
128 Post contains images Incitatus : The answer to the first one is no. Companies are not sentimental beings, and their being blindly attached to roots ultimately bites them back. That i
129 DALNeighbor : No, I am not saying that. You are saying that. Why do you make something up and then argue against your own statement? Are you ok? I'm serious, I hop
130 Tornado82 : You're the one who said color and creed!!!! Jesus God. Ah yes, when someone has a legitimate beef with Southwest, they have "alot of issues going on"
131 N908AW : Why do you even say this?? God, I love discussing the Wright Amendment with Tornado and Boeing. They know what they're talking about. I disagree with
132 OPNLguy : While I respect the right of anyone to have a differing opinion on the various WA-related points, I think it's pretty pathetic to resort to invoking
133 Boeing7E7 : Let me know when they pass the Airport Deregulation Act.
134 Cjpark : The concern of the US Senators from the state of Texas is valid. When you realize that an airport (DFW) has helped to facilitate the change from a Co
135 DALNeighbor : Nobody is advocating tearning down DFW. That is a lie. Lies, and more damn lies are standard AA practices to maintain government protection from comp
136 Post contains images OPNLguy : Precisely. The revisionist history aside, if one goes back to the Metroplex airline environment of 1978-1979, they'd see that AA's main competition a
137 Apodino : From the US Constitution "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor
138 Boeing7E7 : This is the reason the court ruled on the operational control issue between DFW and the City of Dallas and exaclty why perimeter rules are allowed to
139 Post contains images Tismfu : You're joking, right? Braniff ran itself out of business with such brilliant decisions as running nearly-empty Concordes (!) between DFW and D.C. Del
140 DALNeighbor : This doesn't give me any heartburn. If the primary airport did a better job of recruiting and retaining airlines that provide better customer value t
141 Boeing7E7 : Yes, but you are one person vs. the masses that benefit from the efficiencies that would be derived from ignoring your personal desires. So your beef
142 DALNeighbor : No, its based on economics. Its grounded in the reality of airports serving people and not the abstract concept of optimum airspace efficiency.
143 Post contains links DALNeighbor : Interesting letter to the editor from today's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/opinion/letters?mod=2_0048 (subscription required) Federal Overregulation Hel
144 Post contains images Vegasplanes : Have a good time in LAS
145 Boeing7E7 : Re-align your runway from the approach end of 13L to the departure end of 13R - this will net you a 15/33 heading compatible with DFW and you only ne
146 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Am I the only one who noticed this shocker??? This is truly a red letter day . -Dave
147 OPNLguy : Fair enough... How about "..and AA helped run all the competition (Braniff, Delta, Vanguard, WestPac) out of DFW.
148 DALNeighbor : I could see this working. Obviously, the rub is going to be who pays for it. The only way it would get done is if it is 100% funded through the Feds.
149 Cjpark : The point is there is no need to tear down or erode service at the one airport that provides international service and all the benefits that internat
150 DALNeighbor : Why do you think service will be eroded? Who is to say that the International flight is more important than the domestic flight? The market is suppos
151 Boeing7E7 : Build the new terminals where I propose along with the roadside access and decomission 13R/33L as part of the Master Plan. When 13L/33R nears the end
152 Post contains images Lightsaber : ??? This I don't understand. Onn one side of DAL is a lake (as Texan noted), the other long grassy overrun areas. Unless the shot on Google earth is
153 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : GPS doesn't change surface construction. I explained the surface vs. procedure issue above. Futhermore, GPS lateral tolerance is no better than ILS.
154 Incitatus : The answer to that question is tied to what the Dallas area wants for its future. If linking DAL to St. Louis is more important than linking DFW to L
155 DALNeighbor : Why can't both thrive? I know Wright supporters would love to frame the debate as win-lose, but that's simply not the case. Increased competition low
156 Incitatus : I never posed the question of international versus domestic flights. You did. So why don't you offer your own answer? Notice connecting passengers wo
157 Cjpark : International service is better for the local economy. Service to and from Asia and Europe enable the Largest Tax Payers in the City to move people a
158 DALNeighbor : You're calling restrictions on flights to only 9 states a special circumstance that benefits WN? If that is the case, then by all means take away the
159 OPNLguy : I don't know that it's the sole reason. Perhaps there are others... Over on Mitch Schnurman's blog the other day (Jan 25th) some chick named Kathy co
160 DALNeighbor : Yes, there is some benefit to having ops at DAL as insurance against a full repeal. Under a repeal scenario, AA will want to have ops in place to blu
161 Ckfred : I think that WN has some good arguments for repealing the Wright Amendment, but AA/DFW have some good reasons for keeping it in place. On the other ha
162 DALNeighbor : WN still tries to avoid high cost and delay prone airports. Given a choice they pick the low cost, on-time airports with short tax times. Relative to
163 Incitatus : If DFW has to rely on local demand to support longhaul international service then there will be very little of it.
164 OPNLguy : The problem at both SFO and Stapleton at the time wasn't so much "bad weather" per se, but the inability of each airport to run parallel ILS or simul
165 OPNLguy : True... Pretty self-destructive threat, in the big scheme of things...
166 DALNeighbor : quote=Cjpark,reply=164]What is the benefit to the region for WN to stay at DAL instead of moving to DFW where it can compete without special circumsta
167 Apodino : I agree with what you said on this issue, my comment was directed at CJPark who said other reliever airports in other locations need a wright amendme
168 Cjpark : Here we have another WN supporter telling us what is best for WN is best for the region. You really cannot say that WN could not compete at DFW why d
169 TxAgKuwait : >>Realigning the runway at DAL is an interesting idea. Its been done in the past at other airports (Can anyone say ATL). However this would require la
170 SCCutler : Specious nonsense. WN's presence at either airport makes not one whit of difference to international passengers; WN does not interline and, even at f
171 Incitatus : Your claim is that shorthaul flights deserve a special infrastructure usage fee break in order to survive. True? And if so, shouldn't that be accompl
172 TxAgKuwait : >>Your claim is that shorthaul flights deserve a special infrastructure usage fee break in order to survive. True? And if so, shouldn't that be accomp
173 Post contains images Incitatus : No, I would not think of that for a minute, not even for a millisecond. Ideally cities should have a single airport connected to different points of
174 Post contains images OPNLguy : Ah, the memories of that Falstaff beer commerical...   The neat thing (for AA) about attributing every service change/cut to the Wright Amendment is
175 Cjpark : Come on SC the WA is nothing more that a Federal Law regulating land and airspace use at DAL. Every airline that chooses to operate at DAL must accep
176 Boeing7E7 : At some point, runway rehabilitation will have to occur. Runways don't last forever, they should take advantage of the opportunity when that rehabili
177 Apodino : Hell has officially frozen over. Me and you actually agree on something for a change. Traffic at DAL doesn't justify two runways, so if you rehab it,
178 Boeing7E7 : In a "nut" shell, and all of the DFW airspace issues get resolved as do the surface limiting capacity issues. O'hare modernization will accomplish th
179 Cjpark : Unless the money is free gratis from the FAA to redo the runways don't expect Dallas Voters to approve the bonds.
180 Apodino : I was thinking long and hard about this issue for a while. Can DFW absorb the DAL traffic? Yes. Would WN be harmed significantly if they moved to DFW?
181 Boeing7E7 : Airports have financing and bond ratings independent of other departments within the cities. AIR-21 implemented this change. While DAL is grandfather
182 Cjpark : Build up Red Bird or McKinney airports neither of which interfere with DFW traffic. Bottom line is that no landing or take off at any taxpayer owned a
183 Apodino : I totally agree with this, and think southwest should be paying more to use DAL.
184 OPNLguy : Been there, done that, have the T-shirt. The Supreme Court ruled on this years ago, and a "selective closure" a dead issue... Nor is Southwest going
185 DALNeighbor : Well WN could move its operations to DFW.... and WN could split its operation between DFW and DAL.... Haven't you learned that anything that could ha
186 Post contains images OPNLguy : Could, but won't... Could, but won't... Sorry, I missed that one in Philosophy 101... It could be, and I personally think it will be, eventually... T
187 NateDAL : I've debated whether to post in this thread or not. I don't think that one side is going to convince the other, so debating the issue is largely point
188 SCCutler : (Shakes head in wonderment). Send one of the top employers and top property tax-payers in the CITY of Dallas away. Lose a substantial source of high-
189 Boeing7E7 : They ruled DFW Airport Authority couldn't tell the City of Dallas what to do with their airport. A quick State bill and a vote can change that overni
190 Post contains images OPNLguy : You're not alone there... Oddly enough, were this to happen, you know who the first folks to lash out and lament the loss of tax revenue would be...
191 Cjpark : All it takes is another Bill in Congress to do away with your playground. Easier and smarter for WN to move to DFW. High paying jobs only matter if t
192 Apodino : But CJ, like I have said, if WN moves to DFW them and American will likely have a Duopoly with no one wanting to pick a fight with either carrier sin
193 Tornado82 : To add to it... the "old" US was based in Arlington, VA... while hubbed PIT/PHL/CLT. Skywest is based in St. George, UT, even before they lost EAS th
194 Cjpark : But there is one fact that everyone overlooks. While AA does not face much competition from DFW it is still competing with other airlines there. Wher
195 NateDAL : CO has 13 daily flights to IAH. WN stopped serving IAH in 2004, but for years CO and WN both did DAL-IAH. I don't think that I would ever fly to Hous
196 Apodino : Your sipping the DFW kool aid again. AA is not beatable at DFW right now. And if WN moved to DFW, while their costs would increase slightly, they wou
197 Tornado82 : But that's irrelevant to Wright. Closing DAL outright would be germane to that situation, but not Wright. CO is more than happy running those ERJ's t
198 Saxman66 : AA did not have alot to do with the WA being implemented. AA was not even a hub at DFW until 1981 while the WA was formed in 1973 or 74. In my opinio
199 OPNLguy : It's a common error, but you appear to be confusing the legal fight to stay at Love as DFW opened (in 1974), and the Wright Amendment (1979). Two sep
200 SCCutler : Not sure what you are getting at here... every good job is of value. No, sport, it is not about "kool aid," at least, not for me. I simply want a uni
201 Cjpark : No SC, you are a prisoner of that airline at DAL that has refused to offer the region its long haul services for 27 years. There have been no restric
202 Post contains links DALNeighbor : Put the AA playbook down and step away. Consumers are NOT buying into that horse dung. WN has been, has always wanted to and would if allowed to offe
203 Apodino : You forget one thing. They have always been allowed to offer service to the region. They just have to go to DFW to do it. The fact that they can't do
204 Tornado82 : A friend of mine lives in Northern Mississippi (GTR) and drives to Memphis for low fares at times. Considering he's one of the cheapest people I know
205 OPNLguy : The fact that they can't do it from DAL isn't moot--it's the crux of the matter, and one that runs contrary to the intent to the Airline Deregulation
206 Cjpark : There you go off into that fantasy world of yours again. No one has limited WN except WN. "DING" You are now free to move to DFW. Again so much crap.
207 DALNeighbor : If that were a true statement, then you would not have any problem with removing the Wright Amendment.
208 NateDAL : No one denies that WN COULD move to DFW. Just like no one denies that WN could buy a fleet of 56 passenger A340s and fly N/S DAL-CGK. But neither mak
209 Tornado82 : Ah yes, when all else fails, lash out at people and twist their words. I never said to plow up DAL because MEM is cheap, what I'm saying is that thes
210 DALNeighbor : The American public doesn't have any problem paying for the cost to fly. Conversely, what they and especially those of us in Dallas have a problem wi
211 Tornado82 : Almost every hub in the nation has the exact same issue. ALB-PIT is $401 while ALB-PIT-IND is $198 last I checked, for rides on the same plane, same
212 DALNeighbor : If Wright has no impact on the competitive landscape then you shouldn't have any objections to removing a law that does not effect anything.
213 Cjpark : There you go again trying to construe facts where there are none. But to answer your comment no I would still be in favor of the WA to prevent DAL fr
214 NateDAL : I agree with you that we should not grant exeptions, which is why I don't like the Wright Amendemnt. Southwest (or any airline that flies 56pax+ airc
215 DALNeighbor : How is it an exception to ask that DAL be treated like every other commercial airport in the Country? And economics for consumers is what will drive
216 Tornado82 : Quit twisting everyone's statements to fit your agenda, we tell you that your theories are wrong, unbased, or exaggerated... and somehow you construe
217 Cjpark : Why isn't it an exception for WN not to act like other airlines and fly from the airport the communities determined would be the regional airport for
218 DALNeighbor : I could care less if it meets the FAA's definition of a reliever airport. The fact is that is has been providing relief for consumers for 32 years. T
219 Post contains images OPNLguy : Oh, but they do... If I am to understand you correctly, it's somehow Southwest's "fault" that it has lower cost mousetrap? The fuel hedging and Love
220 Tornado82 : Well, you didn't. Nope. But it IS their fault that they can't serve the rest of the country. If they were to keep DAL for intra-Texas and then do the
221 NateDAL : Of course all airlines face the same limitations, I said that in my last post. However, everyone knows that the Wright Amendment was meant to limit t
222 OPNLguy : So, the Wright Amendment is Southwest's fault? In order to serve the rest of the country, all we have to do is get rid of this pesky federal law that
223 Floorrunner : Where did you hear this? The Wright Amendment is not part of the Airline deregulation act. Patrick
224 NateDAL : That doesn't seem like a huge waste of resources to you? WN already has the infastructure to support long-haul flights out of DAL. They would have to
225 Tornado82 : No, I never said that either. Once again, nice work twisting my words. It's Southwest's fault they didn't comply with the original wishes of the metr
226 OPNLguy : At someone's behest, it would appear... I expect repeal this year or next...
227 Tornado82 : Be careful what you wish for, it might just come true. Enjoy the bankrupt airport authority, and the near instantaneous GDP's which will occur at DAL
228 OPNLguy : One can only hope... When exactly did they file? With a 250-flight daily cap over roughly a 14-hour operating day, I somehow doubt ATCSCC is going to
229 DALNeighbor : DFW won't be hurt and AA won't be going anywhere. Put down the AA playbook and step away. We don't scare.
230 2H4 : Tornado, you're overreacting. The traffic limitations of DAL prevent it from destroying DFW. All AA/DFW need to do is realign their "strategy" and ba
231 Tornado82 : Well then they better EQUALLY distribute the slots, because methinks there will be alot more than 250 planes in line for those 250 slots when it come
232 Cjpark : Yet another made up fact to suit your position. A reliever airport is designated to relieve overcrowding of air traffic at one airport. Nate the law
233 Boeing7E7 : So let me get this straight...Remove Wright and implement a flight limit restriction creating a new barrier to entry leaving Southwest with a competi
234 DALNeighbor : That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The current DAL Master Plan limits gates to 32 and departures to 250. You insist that an equal access suit wo
235 Post contains links DALNeighbor : Wright, in its last days? http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...ies/020906dnbuswright.b13c7a0.html ....The Texas Republicans have delivered a clear a
236 Boeing7E7 : An independent operating agency does not have the right to place an artifical limit on it's operations. There are only two ways to make such limitati
237 NateDAL : Staying at DAL was not a mistake. The Wright Amendment was a mistake. The only people that are paying for Wright are consumers. Why can't the model t
238 TxAgKuwait : >>"We are outnumbered," Mr. Cornyn said...... ....With American and Southwest now competing for passengers for flights between North Texas and Missour
239 DALNeighbor : Dallas Aviation Department does have a system of airports. It controls Executive airport in south Dallas and DAL. Would that give them the right to l
240 Boeing7E7 : The issue is commercial airport access between DAL and DFW. This is why LGA and DCA are permitted to be limited. Two or more airports, one operating
241 Cjpark : When you lose the WA you open the airport to long distance competition. There is this thing called competitive access. The airport cannot by law limi
242 ScottB : The only thing Kevin Cox has "offered to negotiate" is the number of gates rented by Southwest (and by extension, the amount of subsidization of the
243 Floorrunner : CJ you still did not answer my question. Where did you get that the Wright Amendment is part of the ADA. Patrick
244 Post contains links Garnetpalmetto : Since this thread is getting bulky, I'm locking it up - please continue discussion at the second thread, at http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ner
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...
What's The Deal With Z-ARL At EMA? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 21:32:00 by NoelG
What's The Deal With These Pilot Seats? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 21:52:40 by Cumulus
What's The Deal With FLG611A? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 05:32:38 by AlexPorter
What Is The Deal With CO110? posted Sat Jul 22 2006 10:30:46 by Moparman
What Is The Deal With Citelynx C/s? posted Sat Jun 3 2006 06:31:44 by GREATANSETT
What's The Deal With This Picture? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 23:42:14 by SkyHigh777
What's The Deal With Australian Airlines? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 01:43:13 by Bakestar
What's The Deal With GoJet Airlines? posted Wed Oct 5 2005 16:13:15 by WestIndian425
WN And The Anti-Wright Amendment Announcements posted Sat Aug 13 2005 04:38:06 by UAL747
What's The Deal With Engine Choices? posted Wed Jul 27 2005 19:04:52 by Glom