Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+  
User currently offlineTxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 43
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6878 times:

We left off with 7E7 saying something to the effect that the Love Field Master Plan will collapse as other airlines will demand that they get access to Love Field.

Well, maybe that will happen, or maybe it won't.

Lots of folks have come on to tell us how DFW is "only" 8 miles further from downtown Dallas than Love Field.....that the freeway architecture in the DFW Metroplex is much evolved since DFW opened up and now, in fact, DFW is more convenient to folks in the metro area than is Love Field.

We are told, by these experts, that Love Field as a secondary airport is not needed since DFW is so much more convenient. I still would like to know who appointed them God....and gave them carte blanche to determine whether or not any particular city or geographical area should enjoy the luxury of a secondary airport. Still, they say that Dallas doesn't need one and I guess that means we should believe it without asking questions.

But here is my big question du jour:

If DFW is more centrally located to a modified Metroplex....

If the freeway network supporting DFW Airport is so much better and convenient to consumers of air travel....

then why in the world would anyone expect other airlines, who have no investment in Love Field...to opt to go to Love Field instead of the more convenient airport?

Delta's flights in and out of Love Field to Hotlanta did not work real well. Continental's flights in and out of Love Field to Cleveland did not work well.
American's flights in and out of Love Field to Austin did not work well.

Maybe everybody has a bass ackwards view - maybe Southwest does well not because they are at Love Field....maybe Love Field continues to do well because they have Southwest.

So the real deal is Love Field service may not, in fact, be all that big of a deal. Other carriers may very well do the prudent thing and opt for the big airport rather than the backwater secondary airport.

Maybe Southwest is just making do with Love Field because they are already set up there and it would just be too big of a pain in the butt to move.

215 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5638 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6848 times:

Hmmm... That's all very interesting, and a view I had not previously considered.

User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6838 times:

I thought I would transfer this post over from the old thread in case anyone is interested in reading the story in today's Dallas Morning News regarding the status of Wright.


Wright, in its last days?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...ies/020906dnbuswright.b13c7a0.html

....The Texas Republicans have delivered a clear and sober warning: Figure out a solution that is acceptable to the region, or Congress might overturn the Wright amendment in a fashion that could be distasteful to almost everyone.

"It is time for the local people who are affected to come together where we are driving this rather than being surprised every year," Ms. Hutchison said.

The senators pointed to last year's surprise – the addition of Missouri as the eighth state that can be served with interstate commercial flights from Love – as evidence that Congress is ready and willing to act.

"We are outnumbered," Mr. Cornyn said......

....With American and Southwest now competing for passengers for flights between North Texas and Missouri, lawmakers and industry lobbyists think other senators will be eager to add their states.....

....Mr. Cornyn urged the chief executives of American and Southwest to reach a compromise last year. Asked about American's continued unwillingness to negotiate, he said: " I do not think that is realistic." .....


Booyahh!



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1234 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6789 times:

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Thread starter):
We are told, by these experts, that Love Field as a secondary airport is not needed since DFW is so much more convenient. I still would like to know who appointed them God....and gave them carte blanche to determine whether or not any particular city or geographical area should enjoy the luxury of a secondary airport. Still, they say that Dallas doesn't need one and I guess that means we should believe it without asking questions.

I guess it is pretty obvious to any one who is not an Aggie. Count the runways at DFW and the gates and the area of the airport then tell us that the region actually needs another commercial airport.

But alas counting the gates might be a problem for an aggie since you only have 20 digits.

Sorry but had to get that aggie joke in there somewhere. But honestly based on the resources availble at DFW and its central location to the whole of the Metroplex then it should be obvious why DFW is the better choice in airports.

Concerning why any other carrier would want to move to DAL instead of operating from the obvious airport DFW, do you think it might be the unrealistic low costs of operation afforded to WN at DAL?



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineTxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 43
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6778 times:

>>Concerning why any other carrier would want to move to DAL instead of operating from the obvious airport DFW, do you think it might be the unrealistic low costs of operation afforded to WN at DAL?<<

Unrealistic low costs? The charges that, up until a decline in short haul airline passenger movements after 11 Sep, resulted in a SURPLUS at Love Field?

But let's look at it another way. DFW is centrally located and convenient to the Metroplex. Love Field is stuck off Mockingbird Lane. DFW has new, modern, state-of-the art international terminals. Love Field's architecture is Really 50s.....the color scheme was once described as hospital red and gangrene green.

Maybe the costs associated with each airport are actually reflecting what the market will bear. Maybe Love Field is cheaper...because it isn't worth as much.

So, when other airlines ponder whether to move flights to Love or leave them at DFW...they will look at the costs associated with operating at a particular airport. They are also liable to look at the COST of losing traffic by moving their operation to the older, less desirable, and less centrally located secondary airport.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6749 times:

I just had to bring along TxAg's excellent and concise post from the tail end of the previous thread...

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 238):
>>"We are outnumbered," Mr. Cornyn said......

....With American and Southwest now competing for passengers for flights between North Texas and Missouri, lawmakers and industry lobbyists think other senators will be eager to add their states.....

....Mr. Cornyn urged the chief executives of American and Southwest to reach a compromise last year. Asked about American's continued unwillingness to negotiate, he said: " I do not think that is realistic." .....<<

I feel like Diogenes. Or Dionysius. Or whoever it was that ran across an honest man, once.

This whole imbroglio would have taken a radically different path had American, via its puppets at the DFW Airport Board, been willing to negotiate with just a little bit of good faith and willingness to compromise. They wouldn't, and it is ultimately going to cost them Wright en toto.

Had they been willing to compromise, we might have seen something along the lines of geographical limits to the current states plus maybe TN, AZ, and CO. Or a mileage limit. With legal thru ticketing. Southwest would have jumped on an offer like that like a duck on a june bug. Customers get lower fares, although sometimes with one stop in Phoeniz or Albuquerque or Nashville, or Birmingham...and American can still fleece the nonstop business traveler addicted to AAdvantage miles.

A compromise might have brought about a phased withdrawal of the Wright Amendment. A state a year. Or something like that.

But no, American said it had to be the whole enchilada. They are going to get the whole enchilada, or so it seems, it is just getting poked someplace uncomfortable for them.

Senator Cornyn is many things but he is no fool. It appears he has a good handle on how this will ultimately play out.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6743 times:

Did anyone notice the other little gem in the Dallas Morning News, from yesterday? An excerpt:

D/FW bonds get favorable rating

Citing a favorable market position and strong financial management, Fitch Ratings Inc. has assigned an "A+" rating to $325 million in Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport joint revenue refunding bonds.

The bonds, whose proceeds will be used to pay down debt, are scheduled for sale later this month and will be designated with a "stable outlook." Fitch also affirmed its "A+" rating for D/FW's $3.76 billion of outstanding joint revenue bones.

The ratings agency said significant credit risks to the airport include American Airlines Inc.'s dominant position and its high percentage of connecting traffic.

The ratings agency said future loosening of flight restrictions at Dallas Love Field could pose a credit concern. But Fitch added that the city airport's physical constraints would also limit the number of operations that could occur there, and that American would likely capitalize on its established network at D/FW as part of any competitive response to changes in the Wright amendment.


Full article at:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s/020906dnbusdfwbonds.9677f98.html (Use http://www.bugmenot.com if you don't want to register...)


User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6739 times:

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 3):
Count the runways at DFW and the gates and the area of the airport then tell us that the region actually needs another commercial airport.

Count the number of silver planes at DFW and tell us how much competition exist? DAL is a necessary enabler of a competitive marketplace. The question of needing DAL for capacity is mute because facilities and optimal airspace efficiency are not the end game. The goal is competitive air service. If that takes one airport or fifty airports, I could care less. If you want one airport, that's fine by me so long as no single airline controls more than 40% of the gates or has more than 40% of the seats leaving the one airport. Until your willing to reduce the market presence of AA below 40%, alternate facilities are a necessity.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6739 times:

It says in the current law that "a six year old wrote" that no changes to the Love Field Master Plan would be made.


'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6736 times:

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Thread starter):
If the freeway network supporting DFW Airport is so much better and convenient to consumers of air travel....

then why in the world would anyone expect other airlines, who have no investment in Love Field...to opt to go to Love Field instead of the more convenient airport?

Because roadway infrastructure standards would be tied to being able to meet the demand at the facility making it more accessible.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 7):
Count the number of silver planes at DFW and tell us how much competition exist? DAL is a necessary enabler of a competitive marketplace. The question of needing DAL for capacity is mute because facilities and optimal airspace efficiency are not the end game. The goal is competitive air service. If that takes one airport or fifty airports, I could care less. If you want one airport, that's fine by me so long as no single airline controls more than 40% of the gates or has more than 40% of the seats leaving the one airport. Until your willing to reduce the market presence of AA below 40%, alternate facilities are a necessity.

AirTran doesn't have this problem in ATL do they? I mean, they do pretty well and they don't call ATL Delta Mecca for nothing.

Quoting N908AW (Reply 8):
It says in the current law that "a six year old wrote" that no changes to the Love Field Master Plan would be made.


What unconstitutional law limiting access to an independent facility absent a congressional restriction would that be?

To answer.... Not for about 10 years when demand dictates more gates. Master Plans are living documents, they change with the airport. There's nothing finite about them other than the airfield expandability limit, which in it's present state supports 60 gates comfortably, 90 delay impacted. I mean, like you all say, there's no airspace problem between DAL and DFW right? So DAL should be able to handle what Seattle does at least. You have better runway separation so DAL should be able to handle more flights.

Or... Maybe, just maybe, I'm right about the capacity limiting surface construction issue. Hmmmm...

[Edited 2006-02-10 01:00:13]

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6699 times:

Such a competitive issue, yet AirTran does just fine at ATL....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztra...el/2005-02-01-clockwork-usat_x.htm

"Operation Clockwork," Delta's name for the schedule overhaul, could bring up to $100 million a year in new revenue through more efficient use of its planes. No. 3 Delta posted a $5.2 billion loss for 2004, and Clockwork is an important element in a broader strategy to get the airline back on track.

The changeover makes the world's biggest airline hub even bigger. Now, with 1,051 daily domestic departures, Hartsfield-Jackson easily eclipses American Airlines' 751 daily flights from its home of Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago-based United Airlines' 572 from O'Hare.


Need a better argument.....


User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6697 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 9):
What unconstitutional law limiting access to an independent facility absent a congressional restriction would that be?

Ah shoot...you just made me look like an idiot again...
But I get a perk...you're absolutely right, federal government can't do that...Fed can only control Interstate trade.


But in any case, the rule still shouldn't be in place. (See? We're just as hostile about it.)



'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6690 times:

Quoting N908AW (Reply 11):
But I get a perk...you're absolutely right, federal government can't do that...Fed can only control Interstate trade

The legislature can do as it chooses and it did, and the Supreme Court agreed by not interfering. Live with it and move on.

[Edited 2006-02-10 01:30:04]

User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6684 times:

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Thread starter):

then why in the world would anyone expect other airlines, who have no investment in Love Field...to opt to go to Love Field instead of the more convenient airport?

15 cents on the dollar fees versus DFW. When you can cut your overhead by that much... why not move?

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 7):
Count the number of silver planes at DFW and tell us how much competition exist?

Likewise, count the number of non-Canyon blue planes at DAL and tell us how much competition exists?


User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6655 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
Such a competitive issue, yet AirTran does just fine at ATL....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztra...el/2005-02-01-clockwork-usat_x.htm

"Operation Clockwork," Delta's name for the schedule overhaul, could bring up to $100 million a year in new revenue through more efficient use of its planes. No. 3 Delta posted a $5.2 billion loss for 2004, and Clockwork is an important element in a broader strategy to get the airline back on track.

The changeover makes the world's biggest airline hub even bigger. Now, with 1,051 daily domestic departures, Hartsfield-Jackson easily eclipses American Airlines' 751 daily flights from its home of Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago-based United Airlines' 572 from O'Hare.

Need a better argument.....

Are you saying consumers wanting more choice in air travel is a bad argument? Because that's all that I'm saying. I'm saying AA has 85% of the DFW traffic and that my best shot at more choice is a repeal of Wright.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6619 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 14):
Are you saying consumers wanting more choice in air travel is a bad argument? Because that's all that I'm saying. I'm saying AA has 85% of the DFW traffic and that my best shot at more choice is a repeal of Wright.

Your argument-

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 7):
Count the number of silver planes at DFW and tell us how much competition exist? DAL is a necessary enabler of a competitive marketplace. The question of needing DAL for capacity is mute because facilities and optimal airspace efficiency are not the end game. The goal is competitive air service. If that takes one airport or fifty airports, I could care less. If you want one airport, that's fine by me so long as no single airline controls more than 40% of the gates or has more than 40% of the seats leaving the one airport. Until your willing to reduce the market presence of AA below 40%, alternate facilities are a necessity.

A company so strong and mighty as Southwest can certainly fare better at DFW than AirTran at ATL against DL I should think. After all, they grew at ATL while Delta was leading the industry in enplanments and revenues, most of it via ATL. Certainly a better position than AA is in today.

People in Atlanta appear to have plenty of choice. If I recall, Delta/DLC had an 82% share in 2000, AirTran had less than 10%. Now it's Delta/DLC 72% to 16%. Seems AirTran has done rather well. Kinda like Southwest would do given their hometown status and brand recognition. Heck, I'm pretty certain they'd do even better.

[Edited 2006-02-10 04:12:03]

User currently offlineTxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6588 times:

All the talk about forcing Southwest to DFW is silly posturing & grandstanding.

The handwriting is on the wall.

Wright is going away, one way or another. Southwest will expand at Love, one way or another.

Nothing we write here or argue about here will change that immutable fact.

It matters not if you agree or disagree. It's going to happen. Like the tides, like the changing of seasons, likes sands through the hourglass....

In 5 or 10 yrs we can step back and see who was correct in their predictions of what would happen if Wright went away. Let's all plan to get back together in this forum in February of 2016.


User currently offlineIowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4312 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6566 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 13):
Likewise, count the number of non-Canyon blue planes at DAL and tell us how much competition exists?

Quite a few CO ERJ's. Anyone with 50 seat RJ's is welcome to come to DAL to compete with WN and benefit from connecting traffic. Also if you notice WN fares out of DAL are extremely cheap compared to most DFW flights.

I think as said in this thread earlier this outdated law will be repealed sooner or later.



Next fights: WN DSM-LAS-PHX, US PHX-SJD. Return: US SJD-PHX, WN PHX-MDW-DSM
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6551 times:

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 13):
Likewise, count the number of non-Canyon blue planes at DAL and tell us how much competition exists?

The reason for the lack of non-Canyon Blue aircraft at DAL is because historically, nobody (other than SWA and CO) have wanted to put up with Wright's restriction, resulting in that 97% "monopoly" that you're alluding to. Once AA starts DAL service in March, Southwest's relative share will decline from that 97%, and will do so even more radically once Wright is repealed and other airlines start service. Love's eventual share? 55%-65% maybe? Sure won't be 85% like a certain outfit at DFW (today) I know of.

I'm glad to see you concede that Wright restricts competition. The surest way to get rid of Southwest's nasty evil old 97% "default" monopoly is via more competetion an an unrestricted DAL...


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6519 times:

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 17):
Quite a few CO ERJ's.

Somehow Kevin, looking at the schedule, I bet it's never more than 1 at a time on the ground there, unless there are delays/wx affecting them.

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 17):
Anyone with 50 seat RJ's is welcome to come to DAL to compete with WN and benefit from connecting traffic. Also if you notice WN fares out of DAL are extremely cheap compared to most DFW flights.

"Come to DAL" No sorry, you live in Iowa, not Dallas. sarcastic  WN is allowed to buy 56 seat jets and go anywhere in the world, too, just the same as they're allowed to move to DFW.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 18):
I'm glad to see you concede that Wright restricts competition.

More word twisting, but I do concede Wright restricts competition... Competition with DFW, the region's designated commercial airport! PANYNJ restricts competiton at Teterboro, Allegheny County at AGC, etc. Why does Southwest think they're above the same policies in dozens of other cities in the nation?


User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6513 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
A company so strong and mighty as Southwest can certainly fare better at DFW than AirTran at ATL against DL I should think. After all, they grew at ATL while Delta was leading the industry in enplanments and revenues, most of it via ATL. Certainly a better position than AA is in today.

People in Atlanta appear to have plenty of choice. If I recall, Delta/DLC had an 82% share in 2000, AirTran had less than 10%. Now it's Delta/DLC 72% to 16%. Seems AirTran has done rather well. Kinda like Southwest would do given their hometown status and brand recognition. Heck, I'm pretty certain they'd do even better.

How well WN would do at DFW is pure speculation, not that that has stopped any of us before. I think we could all agree that WN would be better off serving DAL and either not moving all of its operations to DFW or not splitting its operations. That being said, and the fact that WN has repeatedly and increasingly said it will not serve DFW, we are all still left with a very uncompetitive marketplace beyond the Wright states. We know WN will expand service from DAL if Wright is lifted, we know other airlines have not accepted "free gates" at DFW, so the best and most effective route to a competitive marketplace is lifting Wright.

So the argument still stands. The need for a competitive marketplace takes precedence over optimal airspace efficiency and egos engraved in the floor of one airport.



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6492 times:

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 20):
So the argument still stands. The need for a competitive marketplace takes precedence over optimal airspace efficiency and egos engraved in the floor of one airport.

If that's the case, then DAL must be able to expand to it's maximum potential far beyond it's 10 year outlook master plan. Name one multi airport region where multiple agencies operate the airports independently of each other where restrictions are placed on the number of operations, outside archaic noise abatement policies created in a time of hysteria such as those at SJC and SNA. I'll give you the answer. None. It's all or nothing or a change in operational control. Take your pick.

Optimum airspace and airport use increases competitive opportunity and choice. They go hand in hand.


User currently offlineDALNeighbor From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6458 times:

Another update from the FWST:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/13838891.htm

...."I have been talking to different people," Hutchison said. "There are several options. I'm trying to push for what can be a local consensus rather than a piecemeal approach to the Wright Amendment." Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, also backs a local solution.

Hutchison said she decided that a local solution is needed after Missouri was exempted last year from the law, which limits flights from Love to Texas and eight other nearby states.

"It was what happened with Missouri," she said, referring to the effort by Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., to exempt his home state. Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., made a last-minute attempt to add Tennessee to the appropriations bill that included the Missouri exception but was rebuffed by a House subcommittee chairman, Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., in conference.
Hutchison said she thinks that other states may try to copy the Missouri approach.

"I think Tennessee is going to make a large effort, and Nevada, to get in this next time," she said. "If we're going to have a plan for the whole area, we need to have a united, local position."......



Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
User currently offlineCjpark From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1234 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6429 times:

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 4):
Maybe the costs associated with each airport are actually reflecting what the market will bear. Maybe Love Field is cheaper...because it isn't worth as much.

Do you honestly think that without WN at DAL the airport would still be open today? That brings up an interesting question. If the value is not there why do we have to keep it open. Oh yea those stiff arm tactics from WN backed by the US Court system. Otherwise there is no reason for DAL to exist.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 20):
That being said, and the fact that WN has repeatedly and increasingly said it will not serve DFW, we are all still left with a very uncompetitive marketplace beyond the Wright states. We know WN will expand service from DAL if Wright is lifted, we know other airlines have not accepted "free gates" at DFW, so the best and most effective route to a competitive marketplace is lifting Wright.

Never say never, if Wright goes away so does DAL. Do you honestly think that WN would walk away from this market? They will move if they have to.


Quoted from the article in the Ft Worth Paper:

Southwest spokesperson Beth Harbin said that company is open to discussions.
"We have been willing and open to talk to anybody. We stand at the ready. We're willing to negotiate, but we're the only ones at the table," she said.

And this quote from the Dallas paper,

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...es/021006dnbuswright.10393c06.html


Southwest Airlines spokesman Ed Stewart said the Dallas-based carrier would have to see the details of how a regional airport authority is structured before officials there would have an opinion. For instance, he said, any plan that would force Southwest to operate at D/FW would be unacceptable.

"The minute you say we are going to D/FW, that ends the conversation," Mr. Stewart said.

Southwest backs repeal of the Wright law so it can fly nationwide from its home airport, Love Field.

A spokesman for American Airlines repeated the Fort Worth-based carrier's stance that the Wright amendment is the compromise.

"Any discussion about the Wright amendment needs to include the full spectrum of options, including closing Love Field," spokesman Tim Wagner said.

And this quote from this article;

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...ies/020906dnbuswright.b13c7a0.html

"You need to look at the history of this issue ... and you need to talk about all the options including closing Love Field as was originally intended," said Tim Wagner, a spokesman for the Fort Worth-based carrier.

Southwest said it was willing to negotiate but had no one to talk to.

"Unfortunately, no one other than Southwest has been willing to come to the table," said Ed Stewart, a spokesman for the discounter, which wants to serve its nationwide network from Love Field, its home airport.


Somehow WN's statements do not jive with published statements from DFW and AA? Why is that?

Please read the article listed below;

http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas...ries/2005/09/26/story1.html?page=2

DBJ: Southwest also argues that it would incur "double costs" operating from both airports.

COX: They do that now in Los Angeles and in southern Florida. Plus, we have offered Southwest free rent, and we'll buy their equipment and pay their electricity. Their start-up costs the first year are basically zero at D/FW. I personally had a conversation with (CEO Gary) Kelly and said, "Come on out; we will make you a deal." We are open to negotiation. But we've been stiff-armed since the day they announced they want repeal.

Just thought I would point out that the BS is flying from both sides. More so from WN but that is normal.



"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6409 times:

Man.... a new Operating Authority in control of both airports. I'm so glad I'm out of touch about this situation....  

Such an agency would in fact be able to re-align DAL and limit it's operations to prevent the operation from adversely impacting the operations of DFW. And it woud protect the regions needs, say 40-50 years out.

Who's your daddy?  

[Edited 2006-02-10 21:44:01]

25 BigB : I say ban all DAL and DFW threads as it is until a deal is made. Its tiresome to see these pissing matches
26 Iowaman : Then don't click on them.
27 DALNeighbor : Do you honestly think the City of Dallas would walk away from the "economic engine" of Dallas? DAL closes when Hell freezes over.
28 Boeing7E7 : Umm yeah, what Iowaman said...
29 Boeing7E7 : Being that the airport is nothing more than a ghetto port loaded with Bandaids to keep it operational and the fact that the revenues generated by the
30 TxAgKuwait : HP LAS Ops I am going to answer your post, mainly because it aggravated me somewhat. Here's the bottom line up front: I am not associated with WN, I a
31 Tornado82 : Considering he works for US/HP... I somehow doubt they give much of a blip on the radar to SWA in DAL. Their main competition is AA to PHX/LAS/PHL/PI
32 N200WN : I can't believe you'd even bother.
33 Cjpark : Just a comment here for you TX, you do realize that LAS is leisure destination right? And that all ready from DFW on 2 airlines there are 14 non stop
34 DALNeighbor : Reading from the book entitled The AA Way - Chapter 1: Lie, Scare, and Deceive at all cost to protect your monopolies. Hoo Hoo DFW is the economic mi
35 TxAgKuwait : The argument that Love Field was supposed to close is disingenuous at best, and actually has no merit at all. Love Field was never supposed to close "
36 SCCutler : ...like a Soviet history book, that one (and I know, CJ, that this is a quote, not ascribing the falshood to you personally). The law (note the word,
37 Post contains links OPNLguy : More commentary from the congresscritters... Note the comments on allowing through ticketing... http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.ART.State.Edi
38 Tornado82 : Even I wouldn't have a prob. with allowing through ticketing... bring it on par with LGA/DCA, and then it's over. SWA will have absolutely no right t
39 Post contains links Cjpark : Do you agree to any of the points below from? http://www.dallasblogs.com/timeline/ Key Chronology for DFW and the Wright Amendment 1964: Civil Aerona
40 SCCutler : Procedurally, very similar. Well, a couple of things to clarify. My quoted comment was in response to the query as to why WN's statements did not "ji
41 Post contains images OPNLguy : Speaking of which, notice anything missing from that timeline a couple of messages back, like, say in about 2004 and 2005? Funny how Delta's 2004 ann
42 TxAgKuwait : The omission I found most pertinent (in the chronology above) was that, while technically correct that Southwest Airlines commenced flight operations
43 Cjpark : Yes take a minute and look at the two men. One is a decorated WWII Veteran (Distinguish Flying Cross) and Public Servant having held elected office i
44 Cjpark : I know this has come up before but how does free rent for a year on 22 gates plus Millions of dollars in incentives to start service become blatantly
45 DALNeighbor : How? Because DFW management does not work to create a competitive marketplace, but instead serves at the pleasure of AA. The offer was calculated bec
46 Tornado82 : Since when are there slots or time restrictions a la ORD @ DFW?
47 Ejmmsu : The "scheduling control" aspect of the "deal" offered by DFW didn't have to do with slots. It required that a certain number of the largest destinati
48 OPNLguy : The DFW "offer" was alot like the unsolicited credit card offers we all get in the mail: great "intro" rate (the first year), but then the reality of
49 Cjpark : Prove your statement. Real facts, sources and not your usual hyperbole. Isn't that what WN is trying to do from DAL? Trying to go head to head with A
50 DALNeighbor : We can start with the topic at hand. The "free gate" offer. Nobody has accepted the offer because its a terrible one designed to fail. How about the
51 Tornado82 : Doesn't the gate offer involve taking like a dozen gates? How many airlines have ever opened a station with a dozen gates? I can think of 1, FlyI. Ho
52 2H4 : It's called free-market economy, and it's a primary element of capitalism. You know, it's funny. DFW/AA supporters try to use the argument that the r
53 Cjpark : The offer was made to any and all airlines to begin service and the terms are the same for everyone. Now that WN has come out an said they will not a
54 Tornado82 : Yes, because the government, airlines, and everyone else approved that construction of DFW/agreement to leave DAL decades ago.. before Southwest exis
55 2H4 : Well, that didn't happen, and as such, WN cannot be faulted for remaining at DAL and pursuing the business plan of their liking. Your point would onl
56 Boeing7E7 : All things considered, airports are regulated in their use. That's not socialism, thats minimizing government expense for transportation infrastructu
57 2H4 : Call it what you want, but it's certainly not a free market environment. The market should decide what is needed...not the government. 2H4
58 DALNeighbor : Righhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt.... Just like WN is at fault for the prices AA charges on its monopoly routes from DFW. Lie, deceive and scare just like
59 Tornado82 : False. As I CAN plainly see, Dallas and Fort Worth agreed to establish DFW and CLOSE DAL TO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC PRIOR TO WN'S EXISTANCE. The City of D
60 2H4 : Oh really? Show me the contract they signed. WN is paying a perfectly fair price, especially given the restrictions in place at DAL. 2H4
61 TxAgKuwait : >>As I CAN plainly see, Dallas and Fort Worth agreed to establish DFW and CLOSE DAL TO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC PRIOR TO WN'S EXISTANCE. The City of Dallas
62 2H4 : Does WN have an exclusivity agreement with DAL for their fees, or are all other airlines (current and potential) operating at DAL subject to the same
63 Tornado82 : Who cares? It's still Intra-Texas. I was Falseing your "WN came first" line. I click/dragged too far I guess. You love the fact that WN didn't sign t
64 DALNeighbor : If this was 1968, you would have a point. Which no doubt is why DFW was ordered by the FAA, designed, built and opened in a regulated airline environ
65 OPNLguy : How has it been Dallas' "fault" for "30 years now?" A selective closure was attempted, it was contested in the courts, and the Supreme Court ruled in
66 2H4 : My "love" for WN doesn't even come close to your apparent hatred of them. As for the city of Dallas, have they broken any laws, or have they been ope
67 Tornado82 : For not doing what most other cities in the country did... a joint airport authority. Why have 2 separate airport authorities, with all the excess ove
68 OPNLguy : Two separate issues, and ones not having anything to do with the other.
69 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : One facility means simplified resources = lower overall cost for everyone, not just one particular customer or business. Monopoly pricing power.... H
70 Goingboeing : Yes, I think it would be open today. You ever see the corporate jets flying out of there? Southwest wasn't operating at the time because Braniff kept
71 ScottB : Of course, you conveniently leave out the fact that the "one...ultimately rising to be the Speaker of the House" was also forced to resign in disgrac
72 Tornado82 : You missed the word MONTHLY. Their high per-passenger costs were arguably due to the high fees AT their PIT hub, regardless of the length of contract
73 ScottB : I am fairly certain that Southwest's leases at DAL are long-term; however, they expire in roughly ten months. Again, the reason the per-passenger cos
74 Cjpark : It means that I have to spend an extra 6 to 8 hours flying to a city with international service to Asia and Europe for my job. Because when the fligh
75 DALNeighbor : Why do you think AA will move enough flights to unravel their hub? Their flights at secondary airports they serve in their other hub cities doesn't s
76 DALNeighbor : So why hasn't DFW sued the city of Ft. Worth to shutdown AFW and protect its cargo revenue, much less spend money on a PR campaign to get the cargo p
77 Cjpark : There you go trying to diminish what you cannot defend against. Why do we think AA will move that many flights from DFW to DAL. Could it be that AA w
78 Tornado82 : How? If DFW were so anti-other-airlines and pro-AA, you can rest assured DL, FL, and other airlines would have sued the hell out of DFW by now. Other
79 Cjpark : Do you think that companies have the right to set prices for goods and services? Why is AA any different? Do you really think that WN can maintain th
80 DALNeighbor : The only way AA could benefit from the cost basis at DAL is by ending service at DFW and concentrating all service at DAL. Otherwise, the cost of dup
81 Tornado82 : Wrong. Cars are obviously least efficient at a standstill in a traffic jam than while moving. Highway infrastructure exists for DFW to handle traffic
82 DALNeighbor : So the answer is to force more cars into one place creating more congestion? That doesn't make sense jive turkey jones. The answer should be spreadin
83 DALNeighbor : Of course I think companies have the right to set prices for goods and services. I don't blame AA for trying to squeeze out every last penny from cus
84 Tornado82 : You're obviously missing the main point, on purpose, so I'm done with that. Anyone else with a reasonable mind can see that Infrastructure exists at
85 DALNeighbor : If there is not infrastructure, then how are people getting to DAL right now? How did people get to DAL when there were 50+ gates in use? Why do you
86 OPNLguy : There is, of course, infrastructure in place at Love... One of the continual tendencies of some of the pro-Wright posters here are the characterizati
87 DALNeighbor : I'm trying desperately to find the justification for Wright today. What's been floated out there is for the most part grasping at straws and just a s
88 Tornado82 : Funny, I look at Mapquest, Atlases, and everything else and see no direct limited-access highway that leads to DAL like any other easily accessible ai
89 DALNeighbor : Let's start with HOU......
90 Tornado82 : The Rand McNally atlas in my hands right now shows it within 3/4 mile of I-45
91 Boeing7E7 : It's all or nothing unless both airports are operated by one agency in which the secondary airport can be manipulated to benefit the capacity of the
92 Stirling : Vivid, yet effective. The same can be said for those clinging to the 70's era Wright legislation. Any law restricting or defining commerce is bound t
93 DALNeighbor : Are you declaring 3/4 mile the acceptable limit for terminal access from a highway?
94 Boeing7E7 : That's a hub not a monopoly. Higher "average fares" are only indicative of large masses of passengers traveling and enjoying non-stop service to abou
95 DALNeighbor : Lowest or highest monopoly price is an oxymoron. In a monopoly there is only THE price. That's the point, there is no competition to offer a lower or
96 ScottB : 3/4 mile and 5 or 6 traffic lights on Airport Blvd or Broadway to my best recollection. DAL's maybe a quarter mile farther from both I-35E and the Da
97 Tornado82 : Not Newark, well not from the outside anyways, I don't know about getting to it from NYC. As for Newark, going to or from there in rush hour from her
98 Ejmmsu : CLT is more than a mile from its nearest freeway.
99 SCCutler : The most important part of advocacy is providing persuasive information, and competent persuasion never includes insulting or abusing those who promot
100 Stirling : I wouldn't exactly use the word *Enjoy*. Issue of semantics; hub or monopoly?...the end result to the consumer is the same; higher airfares paid for
101 HPLASOps : Nice statement, however it would sound better if it were spoken by someone who has not chosen a side in this debate.
102 SCCutler : With all due respect, sir, if one had no chosen side, what would be the point of participating? The distinction is whether one chooses to promote ide
103 Stirling : I don't think so. The way I see it, his comments apply to both sides of the debate here...so far, from the 2,000 or so posts I've read as far on the
104 HPLASOps : I understand what you're trying to say, and I have seen a few neutral "let's try to return to civility, sensibility, and order" statements mixed in a
105 OPNLguy : Your Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging signature about says it all...with mine as a close second. In the most simple, condense
106 HPLASOps : Okay, 2 things about this I would care to mention: 1. When I hear everyone talking about AA's price gouging, I get the impression that you think it's
107 TxAgKuwait : Some comments on HP_LAS_Ops post: >>>When I hear everyone talking about AA's price gouging, I get the impression that you think it's okay for every ot
108 HPLASOps : Can you tell me how well the route was marketed? How much advertising was done to support it? Sometimes a market underperforms due to a lack of aware
109 TxAgKuwait : How did American market their Dallas - Austin stuff? They waaaaay underbid Southwest to get the state government contract for about $35 each way. They
110 DALNeighbor : I agree 100%. So the question becomes, should the government enact or retain legislation to protect one company from competition? Clearly the answer
111 Boeing7E7 : Considering other carriers operate to those markets just fine and have for decades demonstrates the lack of a monopoly. If the shoe fits. I don't cal
112 Cjpark : You have had that ability to walk to the other airlines counter and vote with your wallet forever. Once again there are not any market restrictions i
113 DALNeighbor : There is nothing stoping elected officials from closing DAL. If the public wanted to end service at DAL, it would have been done by now. The public w
114 Cjpark : Lets see could it be a 5th Circuit of Appeals Ruling? That pretty much tied the hands of the public that is why the City of Dallas and the City of Ft
115 Post contains images DALNeighbor : The 5th circuit ruling only said you couldn't have selective closure. DAL could close completely anytime public officials think it is a good idea. Wh
116 Tornado82 : Then what's stopping WN besides their pride? And don't give me that business model bullcrap, it's tired, old, and worn out. You want to serve the who
117 OPNLguy : I don't think SWA makes business decisions based on "pride" or other emotionalized criteria, just on business factors. You may think the business mod
118 Post contains links DALNeighbor : So I came across the following link http://www.dfwairport.com/genius/. Clicking on the link that says learn more about the advantages of DFW will give
119 Tornado82 : I can win Powerball tonight, which is a gamble, and win $300 million, after the cash-only option, and taxes, I'd clear around $90 million. I can win
120 SMUDFWflyer : I know it's been a while since I have posted, but I am always happy to jump into the Wright Amendment foray and again offer my support for a regional
121 OPNLguy : That's nice and all, but it has nothing to do with my point. The point remains that Southwest's historical record of sound business decisions is more
122 Tornado82 : And back then so were alot of other airlines.
123 OPNLguy : Yes. (I must profess to not be seeing your point...)
124 Boeing7E7 : And the capacity is based on the IMC rate. So no, you can't BS your way up to a 4,000+ flight figure. Next. And if you were paying the same price for
125 Post contains images 2H4 : The fact is, they didn't. It's called "sound management". At what point does stating facts become boasting? I'm curious. Then perhaps you should spen
126 Post contains images OPNLguy : I'd tell him that we've never had any pension plans (just a profitsharing plan, and a nice 401K with a generous match..), but I'm afraid he'd take it
127 Boeing7E7 : And the reality is they will lose, especially considering they burn more gas per pax than any other carrier. Hedging is a bet. As such, attaining the
128 Cjpark : You mean the statements coming from WN telling the area what is acceptable and what is not concerning DFW as we will never move to DFW is not an emot
129 Tornado82 : Look at Pittsburgh for a shining example of what happens to a city that loses international. Yeah yeah, O&D is up (mainly at expense of markets like
130 Boeing7E7 : That international traffic will never return, the hub is the only thing that made the service possible. If US rebuilds the hub perhaps, but I don't s
131 TxAgKuwait : >>The question posed to the region is why is we should eliminate restrictions that protect DFW to subsidize one airline that has so far refused to acc
132 Tornado82 : Not denying it, though I could see a 3x weekly PIT-FRA service, similar to that solitary int'l flight from RDU, because the pharma-freight alone woul
133 NateDAL : Well said. The excuses for protecting AA are just nonsense. Let them continue to decive. The public is not buying it. Repeal is favored by the overwh
134 Cjpark : When the communities voted for all those bonds required to build DFW that is when they said we want one airport. Dallas included. Yes wheels are in m
135 TxAgKuwait : >>Bottom line is the so called support your claiming is not there.
136 Tornado82 : And like I said above. Give them that, nothing more, and then everyone shuts up whether they're @ DFW or DAL because it'll be damn near identical to
137 TxAgKuwait : Yep, since the aircraft leaving Love Field has less than 56 seats there has never been any question about the legality of Continental doing "thru-tick
138 Tornado82 : Which shows yet another way that the Wright Amendment is flexible to other airlines not named SWA.
139 Cjpark : Just how many North Texas Area Congressional Representatives are in favor of a repeal of the WA? Will the WA go away? No I actually think when it all
140 Boeing7E7 : Airports were national policy at the time thus the public was everyone at the time, the CAB being the decision making party. Choosing to ignore this
141 SCCutler : Much has changed in the nearly 40 years since... No, it will not. Well, actually, the Wright Amendment serves to protect public investment in certain
142 Aaway : ...and rightfully so, for the CAB (and FAA) were the primary entities that viewed the issue logically. The fact of the matter is (A) the FAA was unwi
143 DALNeighbor : That point was made in response to a post claiming that the PR campaign to protect AA from competition at DAL was really about protecting DFW's facil
144 Tornado82 : AFW isn't stealing a source of revenue to pay for the new PASSENGER terminal at DFW. DAL is.
145 DALNeighbor : The value of a dollar is the same whether or not it is a passenger generated dollar or a cargo generated dollar.
146 Tornado82 : Umm.... since when do freight carriers pay gate leases and counter space leases?
147 SCCutler : ...nor should it be artificially constrained by legislation supported by that market's primary carrier.. (...shakes head in wonder...) Freight carrie
148 Post contains links Aaway : Revenue which is at DFW actually. Opportunity cost...the Fed Ex plant @ AFW is mitigated by the UPS plant @ DFW. Both are of similiar scale and scope
149 DALNeighbor : Wouldn't it be better to have all cargo operations at DFW? Then maybe those cargo lines on DFW's financials would look much better. If it is ok to ha
150 Cjpark : Until WN won its court awarded squatters rights at DAL what was the remaining purpose for DAL to remain open? Since you are a lawyer and an expert in
151 SCCutler : DalFort Aviation. TXI. Regal Aviation. Jet Aviation. Business Jet Center. Landmark Aviation. Signature Flight Support. Raytheon Aircraft Services. Bo
152 HPLASOps : I know what you're saying, I haven't advocated the closing of DAL, just for WN to move to DFW. Sure, me playing on a Kindergarten playground would be
153 2H4 : At least you have the freedom to make that decision for yourself... 2H4
154 TxAgKuwait : >> know what you're saying, I haven't advocated the closing of DAL, just for WN to move to DFW. Sure, me playing on a Kindergarten playground would be
155 Cjpark : You have ignored the question or drawn a conclusion to suit your personal position. None of those businesses you have listed above with the exception
156 TxAgKuwait : >>I want to close Love Field period.
157 DALNeighbor : Once again a very nice post from TxAgKuwait. I admire your stamina in explaining over and over again in a patient way the truth and history of the Wri
158 TxAgKuwait : >>What in the world does the Houston have to do with the situation in North Texas. Is this your attempt to find an excuse to have 2 airports when only
159 Aaway : Respectfully sir, I feel your rationale is out of context in suggesting that EFD and PMD are somehow redundant. For historic, and accurate, context,
160 TxAgKuwait : AAway, you're right...to an extent. I understand where the service went to/from Ellington Field. My issue was that you had a perfectly good, already u
161 Cjpark : First of all lets clear the air about Continentals service at Ellington Field. The only destination served was IAH. It was a commuter flight set up f
162 SCCutler : CJ, given time, seasoning, and the maturity which inevitably accompany each, you will gain a greater understanding of the difference between disputin
163 Cjpark : That may be true from the lawyers standpoint but from an engineering standpoint it either works or it doesn't. The point was that none of those busin
164 Floorrunner : You keep forgetting that Jim Wright made it a Federal Issue with his amendment.
165 SCCutler : Nice touch.
166 Post contains links DALNeighbor : You still don't get it. I don't give a rat's a$$ what the FAA needs. Consumers need DAL. The city, and county of Dallas need DAL. We the people of Da
167 Post contains images OPNLguy : I rather doubt that he will.. So too do the politicians that chirp "it's a local issue" every chance they get... What's funny about this is that the
168 Boeing7E7 : Oh I don't know, perhaps it's because DFW's role is to serve as a Primary Large Hub Commerical Passenger Service Airport. I don't recall such a rulin
169 DALNeighbor : Let's explore that path. Let's assume that our Congressional delegation can push through a single operating authority so that the heat is off of them
170 OPNLguy : Nicely stated... There's no telling how much time that "different form" would waste...
171 Post contains links SCCutler : Good gracious, someone needs to tell DFW Airport management about that! They seem to have this (apparently delusional?) idea that DFW should be a car
172 Cjpark : Then should we notify the FAA and tell them that their jurisdiction over airports and airspace has been assumed by Dal Neighbor? Yes the City owns DA
173 Boeing7E7 : There are already in place DOT rulings favoring capacity constraints of a secondary airport to benefit the primary use airport which have been found
174 Post contains links DALNeighbor : I ran across some interesting reference material from another Website discussing Wright. First, this link is to part 1 of a show dedicated to discussi
175 Cjpark : I wonder why you chose to omit this sentence from your summary? Stipulates that the Federal Government shall have preemptive rights with regard to int
176 SCCutler : No legal question posited, hence, no legal response offered. The essence of your prior statement appeared to be that AFW's facilities were not compet
177 DALNeighbor : Because nobody is questioning that. I think we all agree that is the case. However, the Pro-Wrighters have consistently said that it is good public p
178 Boeing7E7 : Quoting Cjpark (Reply 175): I wonder why you chose to omit this sentence from your summary? Stipulates that the Federal Government shall have preempti
179 Texan : Except the only four Senators really being outspoken against Wright are Hutchison, whose husband works on the DFW Airport bond commission (can you sa
180 Tornado82 : Anyone who's ever been to PIT recently will see exactly what you mean by this these days.
181 Cjpark : Wrong again. The act encourages air service at Secondary Airports or satellite airports in major urban areas yes, but the Pro Wright side suggests th
182 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : Air 21: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:6:./temp/~c106zKPZpy::[Edited 2006-02-21 15:24:11]
183 TxAgKuwait : >>Obviously the FAA is remiss in dealing with point 4. There is no reason why WN should have a 97% monopoly of DAL regardless of the restrictions impo
184 Tornado82 : No. It would be to make companies that have found backhanded loopholes in laws known as the Wright Amendment to go to the mandated airport in the met
185 TxAgKuwait : >>No. It would be to make companies that have found backhanded loopholes in laws known as the Wright Amendment to go to the mandated airport in the me
186 DALNeighbor : DAL was built to enhance capacity and it did. DAL preceeded the construction of DFW, so if you have a problem with that then take it up with the plan
187 Post contains images OPNLguy : You know, with AA and Eagle starting up what, 16 daily flights next month, Southwest's relative share is going to decline from that e-vil 97% to some
188 Tornado82 : Doubtful, because Southwest will be adding flights just as fast as anyone else. They can't keep all their promises when they're talking out of both c
189 OPNLguy : Oh Good Lord, not this again. Hasn't this question been answered a couple of hundred times before in one of the zillion Wright threads?
190 Tornado82 : Never in a non-contradictory manner.
191 NateDAL : This whole subject has been beat to death. I don't think that there can be compromise on the Wright issue, nor do I think compromise is just.
192 Cjpark : When WN took this to the courts and recieved the ruling that let them stay at DAL as squatters it became a Federal Issue. The because the court rulin
193 TxAgKuwait : I will attempt to answer this in a non-contradictory manner. ATA is an independent company. It is not owned by Southwest Airlines Company. I don't rec
194 Tornado82 : Route decisions made by ATA immediately after the SWA/ATA financial deal seem to point otherwise. I'm talking PIT, PHL, etc. Seems too fishy to be co
195 TxAgKuwait : >>Then let them abide by the RULES of Love Field
196 NateDAL : The rules can be changed. Just like AA and Braniff imposed the Wright Amendment on WN YEARS AFTER they began service from DAL. All WN wants is to hav
197 Boeing7E7 : Thanks for the comic relief. I needed that.
198 OPNLguy : Well, if you define "contradictory" as something you disagree with or you'd prefer not to hear, I can't help that... SWA doesn't want to serve DFW be
199 Post contains links LoneStarMike : Quoting Boeing7E7 Reply #168Oh I don't know, perhaps it's because DFW's role is to serve as a Primary Large Hub Commerical Passenger Service Airport.D
200 Boeing7E7 : The only issue deemed germane was airport use regulation throwing out the rest of the argument. Read the whole thing. "Their statement" was irrelivan
201 Post contains links LoneStarMike : Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 200)The only issue deemed germane was airport use regulation throwing out the rest of the argument. Read the whole thing. "Th
202 Boeing7E7 : Oh, I see. A recount of a statement in a case from 1977 that was overturned on the basis of a DOT ruling concerning airport use restrictions where th
203 HPLASOps : Can we all agree on these 2 facts: 1) The origination of the WA was not designed to be anti-WN (since they were not an interstate carrier at the time)
204 SCCutler : ...no, no, trying to secure removal of a legislative disadvantage. The distinction matters. Eye on the ball, champ. You asserted (in essence) that AF
205 Post contains links LoneStarMike : Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 202)Now, I'll explain relevance. The Court doesn't have the authority to rule on airport use, the DOT does. The Court then de
206 DALNeighbor : I do not agree. The origin of the Wright Amendment was the last of a multitude of attempts to shutdown WN operations if not in total at least in Dall
207 Tornado82 : Umm... why not? You're wrong. An Airport Authority can put any limits they want to on one airport under their control, as long as another is wide ope
208 Boeing7E7 : Capping flights at a single airport by a single agency is not reasonable because it is discriminatory by it's nature and by extension regulated route
209 Cjpark : How is it a legislative disadvantage to WN when the law applies to everry airline that chooses to operate at DAL? WN made that choice to remain at DA
210 Boeing7E7 : Really? While the district court held that airport owners could regulate subjects other than noise, such as congestion, 658 F. Supp. at 956-957, the
211 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : New Thread: Wright Thread #4,286 - Last One Another +200 (by Boeing7E7 Feb 22 2006 in Civil Aviation)
212 DALNeighbor : In both the DCA and LGA case, it sounds like limits were deemed reasonable because DCA and LGA were at capacity. DAL is not at capacity and while DFW
213 Post contains images Boeing7E7 : In DCA, IAD was underutilized just as DFW now is which support the diversion of arguments. The example of intersecting surfaces will allow a constric
214 DALNeighbor : I'm very uneasy about giving any amount of control over DAL to anybody west of Denton Road. I'm sure if it was up to DFW, "limited" flights would be
215 Post contains links Sabena332 : Please continue here: Wright Thread #4,286 - Last One Another +200 (by Boeing7E7 Feb 22 2006 in Civil Aviation) Patrick
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...
New Wright Amendment Study posted Mon Jun 6 2005 20:36:58 by OPNLguy
Official Wright Amendment Deal Thread posted Thu Jun 15 2006 20:57:00 by Dartland
New H Pier @ Schiphol. How Many People At One Time posted Fri Sep 30 2005 19:48:30 by Gr325
A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate posted Wed Jun 22 2005 02:14:10 by OPNLguy
Air India: New Livery Or Old One Better? posted Wed Jul 16 2003 20:45:35 by A330Fan1
Old Air Force One At Dayton OH? posted Wed Feb 16 2000 23:23:06 by AmtrakGuy
The Good Old Days At JFK posted Wed Nov 8 2006 01:44:24 by AIRBUSRIDER
20/20 Vision - The New Irish Aviation Thread! posted Tue Nov 7 2006 20:01:40 by Kaitak
Old Runways At JFK? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 05:39:48 by CoolGuy
Wright Amendment Repeal Signed Into Law posted Fri Oct 13 2006 19:56:55 by TeamAmerica