MrPhoo
Topic Author
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:39 am

What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:48 am

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....)
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:58 am

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!
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:08 am

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]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
legion242
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:18 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:50 am

"What's the deal with...?" Sounds like the start of a Seinfeld joke!!  Wink
Don't make me release the monkeys!!
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:57 am

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
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
MrPhoo
Topic Author
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:39 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:06 am

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...
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:12 am

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...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:16 am




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
 
N908AW
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:28 am

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!
 
gokmengs
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:52 am

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
 
N908AW
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:22 am

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!
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:36 am




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
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:51 am

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]
 
BigJimFX
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:25 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:14 am

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...
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:16 am

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]
 
aaway
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

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
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:20 pm

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
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:02 pm

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
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:30 pm

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.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 pm

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
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:39 pm

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."
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:15 pm

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
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:19 pm




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
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:56 am




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
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:05 am

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.
 
incitatus
Posts: 2691
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:11 am

Quoting N908AW (Reply 10):
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.

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. DFW on the other hand has space to double the number of gates.

The other one is safety. DFW is a much safer airport than Love.
Stop pop up ads
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:24 am

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 26):
The other one is safety. DFW is a much safer airport than Love.

You are so going to get flammed.

The safety issue of intersecting surfaces is addressed by limiting the capacity where the intersections occur to make it perfectly safe. Safety is not the issue. Where the intersections occur, the two runways become one in the capacity model and their net throughput is cut at least in half depending on the minimums and design use aircraft.

Quoting N908AW (Reply 10):
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.

As a conservative, I view a limited capacity surplus Commercial facility as one that is a detriment to the free market, stiffles competition, creates a monopolistic opportunity and promotes waste. And as it be wastes a butt load of money in the courts and bandwidth on this site.

[Edited 2006-02-01 17:44:07]
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:57 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 27):
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 26):
The other one is safety. DFW is a much safer airport than Love.

You are so going to get flammed.

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 operation at DAL.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 26):
Love Field has very limited area, so yes, it is prone to a monopoly because lack of space prevents new entry. DFW on the other hand has space to double the number of gates.

The proximity of DAL and DFW make them one market. There is no service at DAL that does not have competition from DFW. There is no monopoly at DAL. All of the monopoly routes from the DFW-DAL market are located at DFW. Furthermore, a good number of these routes don't suffer from a lack of demand but are artificially created via Federal constraints on DFW-DAL market service via DAL.
Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:57 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 22):
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.

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.

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 Texas in DFW airport not to limit WN in anyway. After all that WN has to do is move service to DFW.



Question #1. What is the purpose and function of the FAA?

Question #2. What is the purpose and function of the FCC?

Question #3. How does the ADA fit into the regulation and management of the US Air Waves and of the US Airspace?

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 27):
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 operation at DAL.

You cannot ignore the fact operations at DAL carry the propensity for disaster based on the close proximity of domiciles, schools and large buildings packed full of people who could be the victims in the case of a crash whether it is AA or CO or WN as the company whose plane is involved.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 26):
Love Field has very limited area, so yes, it is prone to a monopoly because lack of space prevents new entry. DFW on the other hand has space to double the number of gates.

The proximity of DAL and DFW make them one market. There is no service at DAL that does not have competition from DFW. There is no monopoly at DAL. All of the monopoly routes from the DFW-DAL market are located at DFW. Furthermore, a good number of these routes don't suffer from a lack of demand but are artificially created via Federal constraints on DFW-DAL market service via DAL.

Can you name the routes and carriers at DFW that have a monopoly such as you suggest? I sincerely doubt that you will or can.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:12 am




Quoting Cjpark (Reply 28):
the ADA it does not apply here.

That's precisely the problem.  Wink




2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
N908AW
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:14 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 21):
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.

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 alive, their entire business plan was built on DAL, DFW was never in their business plan. Because of their exhausted funds, they decided to let the WA restrict them.
'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:26 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 29):
Quoting Cjpark (Reply 28):
the ADA it does not apply here.

That's precisely the problem.

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 reason as to why you won't answer them?

Quoting N908AW (Reply 30):
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 alive, their entire business plan was built on DAL, DFW was never in their business plan. Because of their exhausted funds, they decided to let the WA restrict them.

Pure BS, the WA was written into law to enable WN to fly interstate from DAL while limiting the impact of the allowance for WN on DFW. By not being farsighted enough to realize the limitations WN had placed on itself by staying at DAL that represents the bad business decision.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:28 am

Quoting N908AW (Reply 30):

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 alive, their entire business plan was built on DAL, DFW was never in their business plan. Because of their exhausted funds, they decided to let the WA restrict them.

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 DFW about a year ago. Just a few months ago America West was a small Phoenix based carrier who only ran transcons to a select few East-coast cities to tie into their network. About a decade or so ago Continental was a joke airline that everyone avoided for poor service. What's the link between these? Everyone else realized their mistakes of the past and adapted (or are adapting) to changing market conditions, why can't WN??

WN was a small primarily intra-Texas airline when they agreed to WA... they made the decision that was best for their business THEN. There was no such thing as a 73G with transcon range then, there was no such thing as a Southwest Effect, or any of that other bullcrap. There was just a little tiny cowboy airline in Texas, giving out free booze in hopes of getting people to ride their 737's a few hundred miles across the Lonestar state and some of the rest of the Southwest US (hence their name.) At the time, DAL perfectly fit their needs because they didn't want to go to PHL, MDW, or SEA from there, today, it doesn't. But when any other company would swallow their pride, admit their past wrong decisions, and adapt... WN would rather get federal laws that were specifically written to prevent EXACTLY what WN now wants (2 major airports in the metroplex) from happening changed, to suit their own interests. The taxpayers of the metroplex paid for one airport to suit all metroplex commercial aviation needs... DAL wasn't that airport... and DFW has more than enough capacity to welcome ANY operation WN would want there even if it's as big as their MDW operations.

They use the "Oh but AA crushes all competition in the metroplex" whine, but that's not viable in this case either. WN would be the crusher if they went to DFW just like they were in BWI to US, and in MDW to ATA (who they subsequently bailed out) and FL along with other areas. They can't compare them entering DFW to Delta's RJ mess there, nor to FL's little voyage there. It's like comparing a CRJ to a 737.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:34 am




Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 32):
WN was a small primarily intra-Texas airline when they agreed to WA

Do you have a source for this "agreement" signed by WN?




2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:36 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 28):
Can you name the routes and carriers at DFW that have a monopoly such as you suggest? I sincerely doubt that you will or can.

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 has added I believe 5 or 6 destinations that have no non-stop competition. Of course they were forced to drop a few cities because they had to start unprofitable service at DAL. If you wanted to account for all the AA DFW route monopolies you would need to add everything inside the Wright states.
Here is the link to the map and cities:
http://www.setlovefree.com/pdf/Campbell_Hill_Study.pdf
Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 33):

Do you have a source for this "agreement" signed by WN?

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 would have never fought to stay there and would have went to DFW to play in the sandbox with all the other kids way back when. Did you ever "sign" a hardcopy agreement to abide by the rules of A.net? I know I never did, but I still have to abide by them. Did you sign the speed limit sign today that you drove past on your daily duties? Doubt that too, but you still have to abide by it as well.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:48 am




Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 36):
just a BS use of semantics when you have no answer for the simple facts...

Actually, Tornado, "details" like these tend to hold some water from a legal standpoint.  Wink




2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:54 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 37):

Actually, Tornado, "details" like these tend to hold some water from a legal standpoint. Wink

I wouldn't know anything about how business contracts work in the real world, I wasn't an intern for Southwest...  sarcastic 

Where's the law the says Southwest has to stay by their oh-so-almighty business plan that involves NOT flying to DFW, and not flying a Wright-legal plane? Nobody is holding a gun to their head for that either.

Grandfather clauses have had quite alot of precedent in court trials in the past, by the way. When you do something and keep your mouth shut about it for 2 decades and then suddenly speak up about it, it's nobody's problem but your own.
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:56 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 36):
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 would have never fought to stay there and would have went to DFW to play in the sandbox with all the other kids way back when. Did you ever "sign" a hardcopy agreement to abide by the rules of A.net? I know I never did, but I still have to abide by them. Did you sign the speed limit sign today that you drove past on your daily duties? Doubt that too, but you still have to abide by it as well.

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 designed to benefit the public or create some magical world of protection for the neighborhoods surrounding DAL.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 32):
WN was a small primarily intra-Texas airline when they agreed to WA... they made the decision that was best for their business THEN. There was no such thing as a 73G with transcon range then, there was no such thing as a Southwest Effect, or any of that other bullcrap. There was just a little tiny cowboy airline in Texas, giving out free booze in hopes of getting people to ride their 737's a few hundred miles across the Lonestar state and some of the rest of the Southwest US (hence their name.) At the time, DAL perfectly fit their needs because they didn't want to go to PHL, MDW, or SEA from there, today, it doesn't. But when any other company would swallow their pride, admit their past wrong decisions, and adapt... WN would rather get federal laws that were specifically written to prevent EXACTLY what WN now wants (2 major airports in the metroplex) from happening changed, to suit their own interests. The taxpayers of the metroplex paid for one airport to suit all metroplex commercial aviation needs... DAL wasn't that airport... and DFW has more than enough capacity to welcome ANY operation WN would want there even if it's as big as their MDW operations.

AA made a bad decision investing in infrastructure at DFW because they knew that laws were amendable and that it was always possible that DAL could become unrestricted. Now DFW and crybaby AA wants special protection so that consumers don't have a choice. So when is AA going to admit their mistake and stop crying?
Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:07 am

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 39):

AA made a bad decision investing in infrastructure at DFW because they knew that laws were amendable and that it was always possible that DAL could become unrestricted. Now DFW and crybaby AA wants special protection so that consumers don't have a choice. So when is AA going to admit their mistake and stop crying?

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.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 39):

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 designed to benefit the public or create some magical world of protection for the neighborhoods surrounding DAL.

And at what time DFW didn't exist and basically everyone else moved into it when it did open, what's your point?
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:09 am




Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 38):
I wouldn't know anything about how business contracts work in the real world, I wasn't an intern for Southwest...

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 beyond the sixth grade understand that legal documents and signed agreements usually mean a thing or two in cases like this.




Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 38):
Where's the law the says Southwest has to stay by their oh-so-almighty business plan that involves NOT flying to DFW, and not flying a Wright-legal plane? Nobody is holding a gun to their head for that either.

You're right. There is currently no law that forces WN to make the specific business decisions they have made and continue to make.  sarcastic 




Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 38):
When you do something and keep your mouth shut about it for 2 decades and then suddenly speak up about it, it's nobody's problem but your own.

Ah, I see. So I guess if anyone ever has an objection to a law or regulation, they need to speak up about it within a certain period of time? Pray tell....what period of time would that be? A month? Three years? A week?

On that note, I believe several years passed before slavery was abolished. How did they swing that?




2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:15 am




Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 38):
I wasn't an intern for Southwest...

It's ok, Tornado. I still think you're a swell guy.  Wink




2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:34 am

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 20):
Osmosis is specific to the diffusion of water across a membrane. All osmosis is diffusion but not all diffusion is osmosis

Another common definition:

os•mo•sis

Pronunciation: (oz-mô'sis, os-) —n.

subtle or gradual absorption or mingling

Example:

He never studies but seems to learn by osmosis.

 Wink

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 38):
When you do something and keep your mouth shut about it for 2 decades and then suddenly speak up about it, it's nobody's problem but your own.

Did a large Atlanta-based not carrier pull their hub operation from DFW? (less competiton = higher airfares)




FlyingTexan ~ Fightin' Wright 24x7
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:41 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 41):

You're right. There is currently no law that forces WN to make the specific business decisions they have made and continue to make. sarcastic

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 good does DFW do them? they have no connection opportunities there.

You know why every airline not named WN goes to DFW? Because they were smart enough to know what they needed to do to run their business the way they wanted to. It's the same reason you don't see a widebody flying into MDW, because they know they couldn't fly it beyond SBN before needing a fuel stop. It's the same reason JetBlue went to JFK over LGA, they wanted to run transcons.

Real world analogy, but I'm going to keep it vague for many confidentiality reasons, i.e. I like my job just enough that I don't want to be fired yet. Maybe when I change positions in the future I'll give the less-vague description:

Company XYZ is a small regional company fighting in an industry of international companies who make quarterly profits greater with operations all over the world than XYZ's entire annual operating budget, but yet XYZ has a higher profit margin than any of their much larger competitors could ever dream of.

A couple years ago XYZ bought an asset. Due to the actions of the asset's former owners, Company ABC, (in this case making loads of mistakes, safety violations, and other bad decisions) this asset has a ton of extra federal regulations, inspections, etc on it which make this asset much more difficult to operate as compared to all of XYZ's other assets, less efficient, and more regulated... many of these regulations were pressed for by the competitors of ABC and XYZ.

When ABC initially wanted to sell that asset, nobody else in the industry wanted to buy it because of those stipulations, so they sold it for dirt cheap, and Company XYZ acquired it and makes it work despite the stipulations. XYZ knew about these rules, but didn't go whining to the Federal regulating boards for their industry trying to get the stipulations dropped despite the fact that company XYZ's excellence is well above the industry standards and would never be come down upon by the Feds like company ABC was, and even ABC has grown and changed so much that today this asset would have never had stipulations against it. XYZ knew that they bought into an asset that has additional stipulations, and lived with it, because they got it in the cheap. They could have bought the neighborinh, competing asset from Company DEF which was also for sale at the time, but since it cost significantly more money to buy, and was the most highly covetted asset for sale in that area so all of XYZ's competitors were bidding for it, they stuck with ABC's cheap, but restricted asset.

Because of recent changes in their industry, XYZ's Return of Investment on that asset they bought from ABC is well above what the purchaser of DEF's asset was on their much more expensive purchase, but since it is so heavily regulated it is the least efficient asset in XYZ's portfolio. XYZ isn't complaining, because they knew what they were getting into from the beginning, and the asset is still an integral part of their business plan.

If they were having a problem with that asset from ABC, DEF's old asset was for sale once again by its new owners... but XYZ didn't even blink at that possibility because they didn't want to have to compete with all the bigger companies in the purchase and whatnot.

Southwest could easily buy into the DEF asset, which in this case is DFW, and has had unlimited chances to do so but they chose to stay with the dirt cheap asset of ABC, in this case DAL. XYZ knew what they were getting into, and after all this time still does not complain. XYZ would much rather utilize their asset without any of those additional regulations which they didn't do anything to deserve... but they realize that it was a risk-reward thing. They could only have a cheap asset if they lived with the consequences, if they wanted freedoms that they have on all their other assets they needed to lay out ALOT more expense on that asset, and they chose against that.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Southwest.
 
N908AW
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:43 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 31):
Pure BS, the WA was written into law to enable WN to fly interstate from DAL while limiting the impact of the allowance for WN on DFW. By not being farsighted enough to realize the limitations WN had placed on itself by staying at DAL that represents the bad business decision.

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 Southwest from operating from the field." See the above post. I agree with you that WN erred in not realizing their future lied beyond TX, NM, LA, MO, OK, KS, AL, and MS, but it is hardly their fault that a ridiculously outdated law is still there.
'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:43 am

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 43):

Did a large Atlanta-based not carrier pull their hub operation from DFW? (less competiton = higher airfares)

Yeah, but their whole business plan was flawed because of their heavy dependence on regional jets and their horrendous overhead by having the, highest paid pilots and so forth in the industry.

Unless Southwest painted some God-awful crap-brown and canyon-blue on an equally God-awful CRJ, and doubled their CASM, I don't think that is germane to this discussion.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:46 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 41):

On that note, I believe several years passed before slavery was abolished. How did they swing that?

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 Gary Kelly will go to an actual war for this, if so he needs to go join Shrub's war in Iraq where he'll be a much better citizen for this nation than he ever would be fighting Wright to his death.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:52 am




Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 44):
You know why every airline not named WN goes to DFW? Because they were smart enough to know what they needed to do to run their business the way they wanted to.

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]
Intentionally Left Blank
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:01 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 48):

Ah, running one's business they way they see fit....if only that was applicable to all airports...

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...

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 44):

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Southwest.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: What's The Deal With The Wright Amendment?

Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:09 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 44):
You know why every airline not named WN goes to DFW?

Because of queer buisness plans that call for large quarterly losses?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, Alexpaok, Bing [Bot], CANPILOT, ChristopherS, concentriq, jaybird, jetblastdubai, jfk777, Miami, PA515, Stitch, Sylus, tcaeyx, TK787, unusualattitude and 286 guests