swa4life From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 369 posts, RR: 1 Posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15684 times:
Can someone explain to me why another carrier can just enter Love Field today and begin service to DEN, but for years Southwest has been limited by the Wright Amendment that prohibits them from flying from LUV to anywhere except adjacent states? To this day Southwest would STILL be prohibited to fly from LUV to DEN if they decided they would like to compete on that route, and I bet they likely would. So how could that be? How is it that Southwest is being held to this relic of a law that was created in an era when Southwest was being bullied by large carriers with strong influence on capitol hill?
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21245 posts, RR: 19 Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15645 times:
Quoting BizJet (Reply 1): Southwest can get some 50 seat RJs and fly to anywhere in the country from Love if they wanted to.
...and could have under any version of the Wright Amendment, I believe. The ability to use sub-56 seat aircraft to airports outside the perimeter is not new.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4906 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15612 times:
You should do some searching on the legalities of this. Southwest can sell through seats now from DAL and in 2014 they will be able to fly where they want to...if I am not mistaken. Continental, Delta, and anyone else that flies 56seats or less into Love can sell through tickets via their hubs.
H53Epilot From Israel, joined Mar 2004, 177 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15561 times:
56 seats or less, southwest can fly it all day long. Regarding being bullied, southwest is the one doing it all around the country. They've pretty much killed frontier in DEN and put a hurt on UAL. They also seem to receive favorable treatment by the DOT, vis-a-vis their slot issuance at EWR when the DOT claims anti-competitive the request for DAL-US to trade slots between each other. Meanwhile, southwest walked in the NYC back door with the airtran purchase.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21245 posts, RR: 19 Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15533 times:
Quoting H53Epilot (Reply 5): Regarding being bullied, southwest is the one doing it all around the country.
Vigorous competition is bullying? That's nonsense.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
KGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 622 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15434 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6): Quoting H53Epilot (Reply 5):
Regarding being bullied, southwest is the one doing it all around the country.
Vigorous competition is bullying? That's nonsense.
Southwest isn't a bully, but they sure do like to play the victim a lot. WN could have used DFW from the get go, but they chose not to. They stick it out at DAL, while the other airlines are basically forced to move. Then they whine about the Wright Amendment, saying it's "unfair" and demanding that it's repealed.
Everyone else has to play by the rules, Southwest gets them changed...
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19719 posts, RR: 56 Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15381 times:
Quoting swa4life (Thread starter): Can someone explain to me why another carrier can just enter Love Field today and begin service to DEN, but for years Southwest has been limited by the Wright Amendment
UA is also limited by the Wright Amendment. That's why they're putting 50-seat RJs on the route. Do you really think their route planners decided that was the optimal airplane for that route? It would at least merit a CR7 with first class. But they can't fly anything with more than 56 seats into DAL from DEN because of the Wright Amendment, so they have to work with what they can.
Quoting swa4life (Thread starter): To this day Southwest would STILL be prohibited to fly from LUV to DEN if they decided they would like to compete on that route, and I bet they likely would.
This is wrong. Southwest could use some planes with less than 56 seats and fly to wherever they wanted from DAL. Apparently they don't want to do that, and I don't blame them - it isn't worth it. They're doing fine without DAL-DEN service.
Considering how much was made of WN's fight against the Wright Amendment, one would think that their fans would have a better idea of what it actually says, and what the restrictions actually are. In this case, the majors have an advantage over WN. One of the few times they do. Let it go.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21245 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15346 times:
Quoting KGRB (Reply 7): WN could have used DFW from the get go, but they chose not to. They stick it out at DAL, while the other airlines are basically forced to move. Then they whine about the Wright Amendment, saying it's "unfair" and demanding that it's repealed.
...and why shouldn't they? It's not like everyone left DCA for IAD, and with AA's massive hub at DFW, the Wright Amendment had at least arguably outlived its purpose. I'm not saying you have to agree with WN's positions, but disagreeing with WN is a lot different from attacking them ad hominem.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
USXGuy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 832 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14968 times:
American Airlines went as far as to convert some Fukker 100s in all First Class, 56 seat configuration out of DAL to ORD, LAX, IAD, and a few other markets when they wanted to (and successfully) kill off Legend Airlines.
FWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3179 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14884 times:
Quoting USXGuy (Reply 11): American Airlines went as far as to convert some Fukker 100s in all First Class, 56 seat configuration out of DAL to ORD, LAX, IAD, and a few other markets when they wanted to (and successfully) kill off Legend Airlines.
And they killed them before Legend could even launch their MDW-DAL service.
AA later tried ORD-DAL again (with Eagle ER4s) during the "Stop and Think" campaign days. It was funny: AA was saying that WN should use DFW while sending Wright-exempt Eagle RJs to their second-biggest hub from DAL. Shortly after the compromise bill was reached and signed into law by a (then) president from Texas, AA "suspended" all DAL service and said "See ya when the new terminal is open!"
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22728 posts, RR: 88 Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14010 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6): Vigorous competition is bullying? That's nonsense.
I think what AA did to Legend at DAL come sunder the heading of bullying, but it's a value judgement, I guess, and may depend on whether you support the bully or the bullied.
I think this a good move by United and I'm as intrigued that they're starting DEN-AMA. It's a two-pronged assault and I wonder if Mr. Smisek is sending a message.
Longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 36 Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13898 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 13): I think what AA did to Legend at DAL come sunder the heading of bullying, but it's a value judgement, I guess, and may depend on whether you support the bully or the bullied.
I thought the same thing ... along with what AA did to Vanguard Airlines when they entered the MCI-DFW market. However a judge did rule (twice) that a company has the right to protect its market, and AA's actions were not "predatory".
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21245 posts, RR: 19 Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13835 times:
Quoting Longhauler (Reply 14): However a judge did rule (twice) that a company has the right to protect its market, and AA's actions were not "predatory".
To be fair, I think the Ozark 2 case (against AA) is the only time any US court has found that an airline acted predatorily.
Quoting mariner (Reply 13): I think what AA did to Legend at DAL come sunder the heading of bullying, but it's a value judgement, I guess, and may depend on whether you support the bully or the bullied.
I'd agree that there's a line, and that that line isn't always clear. But I have a hard time arguing with a straight face that anything WN did at DEN is over the line - wherever the line is.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
jmw99ttu From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13779 times:
The original Wright Amendment of 1979 doesn't include limitations for any one specific airline. It applies to all airlines. The only restriction placed specifically SWA in any subsequent amendments to Wright is that they cannot fly into DFW. That was something SWA agreed to as part of the compromise with AA.
Seems like someone with a screen name of swa4life not knowing the ins and outs of Wright is like a nun not knowing the rosary.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22728 posts, RR: 88 Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13728 times:
Quoting Longhauler (Reply 14): I thought the same thing ... along with what AA did to Vanguard Airlines when they entered the MCI-DFW market. However a judge did rule (twice) that a company has the right to protect its market, and AA's actions were not "predatory".
I think there are many examples of predatory actions that are entirely legal and fall into that category.
I think the AA/Vanguard was bullying, but in it's loosest and possibly acceptable sense - "aggressive competition". The judge was right, I think, AA does have a right to protect its market.
The trouble is, it's a value call again, even by a judge, and judges are not immune to subjective rulings.
Was what NWA did to Frontier over LAX-MSP bullying or protecting its market, given that it had no market on DEN-LAX? But then I think Frontier was a fool to put itself in that position.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15): I'd agree that there's a line, and that that line isn't always clear. But I have a hard time arguing with a straight face that anything WN did at DEN is over the line - wherever the line is.
atrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5613 posts, RR: 54 Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 13238 times:
Quoting N809FR (Reply 18): Good job, United. Glad to see not everyone is content with the way WN operates, and wants their own piece of the pie.
They could have had the pie awhile back when Wright 2 was being created, why didn't they jump in then? What is happening now that is making United come in? It's the merger with CO that's now allowing them access to DAL.
United on their own would never have started up DAL, this is CO's doing I am quite sure.
swa4life-As you have figured by now, the Wright Amendment was indeed created for ALL airlines for future traveling into DAL, however this was not initiated until WN attempted to start DAL-MSY, their first intra state route out of DAL. (WN already was flying HOU-MSY).
So yes, the law WAS created in reaction to WN expanding beyond Texas out of DAL, but in the end it was created for all airlines, though because no arcft existed that seated more than 56 at the time of the law that SWA actually had, they set the number of seats at 56 knowing WN would at the time never have that aircraft.
It was definitely to go against WN specifically, and in the end it didn't deter the future of DFW.
Alex
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22728 posts, RR: 88 Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 13067 times:
Quoting atrude777 (Reply 19): United on their own would never have started up DAL, this is CO's doing I am quite sure.
It's all one now, there's only one CEO now.
I think the OP is quite right, I think this is a slap in the face to Southwest and, in conjunction with DEN-AMA, is sending a clear message to Southwest - that whatever United at DEN was, it is different now.
blueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3129 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 12777 times:
Quoting jmw99ttu (Reply 16): The only restriction placed specifically SWA in any subsequent amendments to Wright is that they cannot fly into DFW.
Incorrect. WN can fly into DFW anytime they want. What the repeal agreement says is that for every gate WN gets at DFW, it gives one up at DAL (up to 8). Despite what has been written several times, FL does not have to leave DFW as soon as the merger is complete, but WN would have to give up an equivalent number of gates at DAL, which WN has already chosen not to do (as is their right).
I think it is a small but important distinction especially when I read comments elsewhere that WN is prevented from offering consumers more competition at DFW. They could do it any time, but it would come at the cost of more competition at DAL, something WN is very keen to prevent.
Quoting atrude777 (Reply 19): It was definitely to go against WN specifically, and in the end it didn't deter the future of DFW.
But WN was also the only airline that didn't agree to move to DFW. Nothing wrong with choosing to be an outsider, but sometimes there's a price to pay, and Wright was that price. I can't believe that even back then, WN would have been naive to think there wouldn't be any repercussion to their choice not to move to DFW.
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12600 times:
Quoting atrude777 (Reply 19): United on their own would never have started up DAL, this is CO's doing I am quite sure.
In the new WA agreement CO,AA & WN are considered the 'legacy' carriers at DAL. I've always hated the WA just because I'm a free market guy but I hate the new agreement even more because after 2014 DAL will be limited to just 20 gates (DAL will tear down the old 12-gate Legend terminal). I assume that means FTW can't build one any bigger than that either if they ever get their act together.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21245 posts, RR: 19 Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12318 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 17): Then you are a generous and charitable man, Cubs.
What would you point to?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
I don't think this is the right thread to discuss it - and anyway, I think it is far too subjective to arrive at any conclusions because, ultimately, it is a value judgement.
The OP's thread title is, in itself, a value judgement. I happen to agree with it, but I'm sure many others would say it is simply aggressive competition.
mariner
aeternum nauta
25 Cubsrule: I'd agree - maybe the right question (so as to avoid the line drawing problem) is what the worst action WN took in DEN was.
26 mariner: That's an easy one to answer, if kicking an airline when it appears to be down for the count is considered bullying, but even that is a completely su
27 hiflyer: UA has done well at DFW over the years with what was called the ' i hate aa' travelers. Taking it to DAL shows what can be done with a few spare rj's.
28 OzarkD9S: If the world wants to gang up on WN at DAL, they can do so in 2014. WN will have 16 gates but must make space available for new entrants. Imagine the
29 N200WN: Dude, that is funny! swa4life must be fairly new to the scene - both airliners.net and SWA.
30 IrishAyes: I disagree entirely here. Southwest plays by the rules. Wright put them unfairly at a very competitive disadvantage. Wait and see - when DAL is opene
31 Antoniemey: Hardly. Yep... and as far as I know, they could just do it with 737s reconfigured to only have 56 seats. Technically United could have had access to
32 Mir: If I'm not mistaken, they had no problem with it back when it was implemented. So it's tough to say it wasn't fair. -Mir
33 Goldenshield: Nope. American will take them to court for that---just like they took Legend to court, despite the fact that at the same time, they were hypocritical
34 Cubsrule: What law is stopping WN from configuring some 735s (or 712s in a couple of years) with 56 seats and directly answering? Yes - if WN had gone in to MS
35 Antoniemey: Yes, but unlike Legend, WN can afford to pay the attorney fees long enough for a judge to say "If Southwest wants to fly their planes at less than ha
36 Goldenshield: They could, but they wouldn't win. The whole reason why AA went to court against Legend was to test whether Legend, and eventually AA themselves afte
37 mariner: No law of which I am aware. I think the chances of it happening are low, but hey, what do I know? The point is, that in order to directly respond, So
38 Cubsrule: Yes - as they would have to do to fly BWI-LHR. But how does the law prohibit WN from directly responding, as you asserted in Reply No. 26? You are be
39 Goldenshield: Because WN doesn't have planes with less than 56 seats, and AA would most likely attempt such litigation again if they attempted it.
40 mariner: Oh, I thought I'd explained that. Only to the extent that they would have to change their model to do so. Southwest - as it is - cannot compete on th
41 Cubsrule: So you're saying AA would sue WN if WN tried to fly a 137 seat 73G on DAL-DEN? What's that got to do with anything? I guess you've lost me. Are you i
42 mariner: No. I am simply saying that United has used the chink in the armor of DAL. In order to compete, Southwest would have to change their model, which is
43 Goldenshield: Please stop playing stupid. You know exactly what I've been saying. But since you'd probably just question it anyhow since you can't grasp what I've
44 Cubsrule: Maybe this is too fine a distinction, but doesn't that mean that it's WN's model and not the law that is the problem?
45 LoneStarMike: What could stop them is the language in the competion plan CO, AA & WN are all signatory carriers and their gates are leased on a preferential-us
46 Cubsrule: Thanks for the explanation - you hadn't previously explained that it was the certificated capacity of the CRJ (under 56) versus a 737 (over 56) that
47 sldispatcher: To me, this is just one example of many yet to come that no one seems to want to admit: If the "new" United can finesse customer favorite services (up
48 mariner: I suppose that distinction is there if you really want to win the point. But as I see it, the law would require a change in the model and that's a fa
49 LoneStarMike: AA would be stupid to sue because that matter was settled 10 years ago. Entries from Dallas Love Field Chronology of Events By the time Legend began
50 United1: Kind of....LGA has no customs/immigration facilities and as all passengers, by law, must pass through those services before entering the US they can'
51 swa4life: Indeed, and to reiterate once again I was not clear on the law in regards to the 56 seat rule. That being said I am sort of sitting here with egg on
52 United1: No worries mate....we have all done it... As for anyone tearing you a new one shame on them...none of us are expected to know everything.
53 mariner: Why does it have to be from CDG? There is no law that I know of that would prevent Air France from applying for 5th Freedom rights from YUL, which ha
54 BMI727: No, it doesn't. As long as they stop somewhere that is withing the perimeter and has customs I don't see why not. I would assume that the stopover po
55 kingcavalier: Didn't the WN pilots ratify a new contract in March that stated no domestic codeshare? I don't think WN pilots would allow management to contract out
56 United1: There would be no law against that at all....just as there is no law that says that WN can't operate 50 seat jets. No idea...
57 mariner: I think that was established some time ago. mariner
58 United1: While there would be no issue with AF operating CDG-YUL-LGA AF would be unable to operate CDG-LGA for multiple reasons that have already been discuss
59 mariner: Cubsrule and I have disagreed on a number of things over the years. We usually sort it out - between us. Yes, I know. I have always known that. The p
60 LouieP2186: Rememeber Continental's DAL-CLE service....... To add my 2 cents I do see DAL-DEN going to a CR7 in 2014 and I think "United" (who is now the company
61 Cubsrule: Maybe it's a distinction without a difference, but to me, the Wright Amendment is different from something like the US ownership rules. At one point,
62 mariner: Yes, it may be. But I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of Wright. Like most things in life I take the view that it is what it is - and there isn't
64 drerx7: The Wright Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_Amendment
65 bjorn14: FTW has lots of space available and a good 7500' rnwy
66 Cubsrule: That's exactly the message I see - UA isn't going to treat WN any differently from any other competitor. At the same time, it's not "a slap in the fa
67 enilria: I probably caused that on the other thread. You are right. LUV is the WN stock ticker which refers to Southwest's original heart branding, Hot Pants,
68 Goldenshield: WAPL (LUV) - Dumatubin Airport - Langgur - Indonesia And for operators: LUV Luxembourg Air Rescue
69 incitatus: As a principle, I am for free markets as well. But if my neighbor decides to open a nightclub in his house, my concern for my well-being trumps my at
70 mariner: Here's Cranky Flier's take on it, which pretty much mirrors my own: http://crankyflier.com/2010/10/26/un...o-dallas-love-field-route-reality/ I like t
71 Cubsrule: To me, the question about this part is whether it's worth trying only because there's an existing station and the risk is basically zero or worth try
72 mariner: Both, perhaps. One does not necessarily preclude the other. mariner
73 Cubsrule: I think that's right - and what's hard is that the change in management and the change in station costs at DAL happened simultaneously, so there's no
74 exFATboy: The only incident with WN that might qualify as "bullying" was when they tried to get Seattle to let them build a new terminal at Boeing Field. I'm n
75 bjorn14: The City of Ft. Worth which owns Meacham has always been a signatory to any WA agreement. In fact it was Congress who told the two cities to work out
76 exFATboy: I agree, Fort Worth is a big supporter of DFW, but Meacham is not mentioned in the Wright Amendment, the laws amending it, or the five-party agreemen
77 bjorn14: You were also correct. I was reading Meacham's 2004 Master Plan and they pointed out one of the advantages of serving FTW was to avoid DAL WA restric
78 FlyingSicilian: New UA service to IAH would be fantastic. I know scores of people who could use this service, and I think the backing of US would work better than th
79 mogandoCI: What's so particularly unfair? It's all part of business Do you see people crying because UA can have a DEN-LGA shuttle but everyone else is stuck wit
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 369 posts, 
From Israel, joined Mar 2004, 177 posts, 
in all First Class, 56 seat configuration out of DAL to ORD, LAX, IAD, and a few other markets when they wanted to (and successfully) kill off Legend Airlines.
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22728 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, 
From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
