txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:01 am

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.
 
AA737-823
Posts: 4905
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:12 am

Hmmm... That's all very interesting, and a view I had not previously considered.
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:45 am

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

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:02 am

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
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:12 am

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:03 am

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.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:10 am

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...)
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:18 am

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
 
N908AW
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:19 am

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:22 am

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:08 am

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.....
 
N908AW
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:10 am

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:22 am

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:26 am

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:17 am

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:04 pm

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]
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:46 pm

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.
 
iowaman
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:48 pm

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:41 pm

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...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:37 pm

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:56 pm

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:36 am

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:09 am

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

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:55 am

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

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:32 am

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]
 
bigb
Posts: 731
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:04 am

I say ban all DAL and DFW threads as it is until a deal is made. Its tiresome to see these pissing matches
ETSN Baber, USN
 
iowaman
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:59 am

Quoting BigB (Reply 25):
I say ban all DAL and DFW threads as it is until a deal is made. Its tiresome to see these pissing matches

Then don't click on them.
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:14 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 23):
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.

Do you honestly think the City of Dallas would walk away from the "economic engine" of Dallas? DAL closes when Hell freezes over.
Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:57 am

Quoting BigB (Reply 25):
I say ban all DAL and DFW threads as it is until a deal is made. Its tiresome to see these pissing matches

Umm yeah, what Iowaman said...
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:00 am

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 27):
Do you honestly think the City of Dallas would walk away from the "economic engine" of Dallas? DAL closes when Hell freezes over.

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 operation (where the real money is) stay with the airport and can't be diverted away, that's not much of an engine.

If a bill is passed changing operational control, hell might just do that.

[Edited 2006-02-11 00:01:26]
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:33 pm

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 am not a "kool aid drinker". I do, however, know a heckuva lot more about the airline business in general and Southwest Airlines Co in particular than you do or ever will.

>>They claim to have low fares when they're not significantly lower than most airlines (and I've called you out before on that and you give me the walk up fare rhetoric, which is not a market that I choose to represent). <<

You probably choose not to "represent" the walk up fare market because your employer is still guilty of extortion or rape when it comes to walk up fares. If your firm sold reasonable walk up fares, they might do like Southwest....sell 35 to 40% of their seats at that level.

The walk up fare DOES matter, because there is something the BTS arrives at called "average fare in a market." Not surprisingly, the average fare is the average price of all the tickets sold in a market. The average fares, on a cost per mile travelled basis, are invariably lower in markets where Southwest is, regardless of whether or not Southwest is the carrier that has the lowest fare in that market. I wonder why that is?

Here's the real deal. Southwest has never, to the best of my knowledge, run around and told customers they always have "the lowest fare." They claim to have a low fare. And they do. The term "Low" is relative. I think $150 walk up fare for a flight of 1 hr 40 mins (a little over 600 miles) is okay. I wish it were ten bucks, but I try to be realistic.

But back to basics. Walk up fare, despite your willingness to think it unimportant, is VERY important. Business travelers have to pay that fare in many cases. And a reasonable walk up fare is why Southwest does extraordinarily well with business travelers, despite the shortsighted view f other airline managers and a.netters who seem to allocate Southwest nothing more than the tank-topped leisure crowd.

>>They claim to be an airline about growth in both frequency and general coverage of the US, but they still tend to shy away from select airports because of "cost" and "taxi times." <<

Southwest is interested in making a profit for their shareholders, providing a reasonably priced ticket to the customer, and paying their employees a whole lot more than you make. The way they determine which markets to serve or not serve is, based on their financials, hard to dispute. Have you ever been in the military? Look at the growth of Southwest over the last 35 years from a strategic perspective. You never attack the enemy where he is strongest. You attack the weak points. Rather than plop a whole bunch of flights into MSP, it makes a lot more sense to surround it with thriving stations on every side...Chicago, Detroit, Omaha, St Louis, Denver......and THEN open a station at MSP when you have a ready-made and loyal clientele in those cities. It's why Denver is nothing to worry about. United and Frontier are big and strong in Denver. But Southwest is strong in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Chi-Midway, Albuquerque, and Omaha....the places they will fly to Denver from. Thus, if Southwest picked up only negligible numbers of passengers from Denver itself, they would still do well since they have such a good base of traffic in the "other" city.

>>They still tend to shy away from competing with the legacies and choose to trounce on markets traditionally serviced by regional jets to gain market share and pump themselves up to be a bigger airline than they really are. <<

You can look at this differently. One way to look at this is that once Southwest comes in, and steals traffic due to their better service, the legacy carrier has no alternative other than to pull off their mainline jet and substitute a regional jet --- either that or abandon the market altogether. Or you can look at it as Southwest being benevolent---using lower prices to stimulate a market sufficiently to where it needs a larger aircraft. You have missed the point entirely, though, that at Southwest it is not and has never been about market share. It's about making money. Another fallacy in your argument is that Southwest "steals" traffic in regional jet markets. How is that possible? If there were only enough traffic to support regional jets, what sorts of loads would you have on a 137 seat 737? Not very good ones, I am afraid. No, what Southwest really does is massively expand a market with a lower average fare to where it is large enough to support la larger plane.

>>As for their unwillingness to move from DAL to DFW, I know they have the money to do it, what else are they doing with all those profits they've been making? We all like the idea of clinging to the house we grew up in, but when they started out at DAL, they were infants. They have now grown to adulthood, and like most kids, need to move into a bigger house. Instead of viewing this as an eviction, view it as an opportunity to upgrade your house (while you still have the cash flow to do so), an opportunity to allow yourselves unlimited opportunity to grow, and a chance to really PROVE to the world that you're about growing and being a major airline by taking on AA directly instead of throwing rocks over the wall. Time for WN to put their money where their mouth is.<<

I am nearly 50 yrs of age, and over 50 yrs you have the opportunity to read some very stupid commentary. Congratulations, with that we may have a new winner.

I have no idea how much time you have ever spent in the Dallas/Ft Worth area. I don't know if you are familiar at all with the geography or the location of business and industry within the area. I am guessing your experience there is fairly limited.

Southwest Airlines Co does not need to prove to the world, or anyone else, that they are a major airline by moving to DFW. They need to continue to prove to their shareholders that their management is smarter than everyone else's by continuing to do what they do - carrying lots of passengers and making lots of money.

For any number of reasons, Love Field is a much more suitable location for Southwest's operations than is DFW. It has nothing to do with bigger or newer. It has everything to do with what best fits their operation. Since the management at Southwest has a reasonably good track record of making a buck every now and then, let's leave the decision as to which airports best fit their plans to them.

I will caution you as to what is going to happen, though. Missouri has fallen. Las Vegas, Arizona, Tennessee, and Colorado are not far behind. What you "might" want to be thinking about is what your firm is going to do when they are forced to compete with DAL-LAS and DAL-PHX nonstops on Southwest.....non extortionary walk up fares and all. That day is coming and it is coming sooner than you think.

And one last note....you might want to apologize to our LDS friends out there in A.net land, they might have taken some small offense to the religious connotations embedded in your post. Now, I'm not Mormon....I don't even play one on television....but I know some folks are. I'm sure they will be waiting to hear from you that you were teasing and there was no intent to ridicule their chosen faith.

Other than that, have a great weekend.

TxAgQ8
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:56 pm

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 31):


I will caution you as to what is going to happen, though. Missouri has fallen. Las Vegas, Arizona, Tennessee, and Colorado are not far behind. What you "might" want to be thinking about is what your firm is going to do when they are forced to compete with DAL-LAS and DAL-PHX nonstops on Southwest.....non extortionary walk up fares and all. That day is coming and it is coming sooner than you think.

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/PIT from Dallas, and Southwest doesn't even go to CLT (some may say "yet"). There's only one airline that needs to be worried about Wright falling and that's AA, the others just frankly don't care about DFW/DAL. Need proof of that opinion from the US camp? US could easily be running 50 seat RJ's to CLT from DAL, and they already dropped PIT from DFW, and PHL is a primarily E70 route. In each of PHL, PHX, LAS, and CLT AA is already offering more seats than US/HP, and in the case of PIT US doesn't even run the route anymore.

So at the end of the day, all reducing Wright will probably do is send Dallas from having 2 airlines with alliances and international services serving the aforementioned routes not to mention covering many cities in the NE on single connections that AA nor Southwest otherwise doesn't serve.. to having one legacy, and one LCC that can only get you to 60+ cities, because don't bet for a minute that US will stay in DFW if it gets THAT ugly of competition. Why stay in a city to battle TWO hubbed carriers and get your ass handed to you in the process?

...Reducing Wright is adding competition, and adding choices... OR IS IT????
 
N200WN
Posts: 695
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:09 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:07 pm

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 31):
HP LAS Ops

I am going to answer your post, mainly because it aggravated me somewhat.

I can't believe you'd even bother.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:12 pm

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 31):
I will caution you as to what is going to happen, though. Missouri has fallen. Las Vegas, Arizona, Tennessee, and Colorado are not far behind. What you "might" want to be thinking about is what your firm is going to do when they are forced to compete with DAL-LAS and DAL-PHX nonstops on Southwest.....non extortionary walk up fares and all. That day is coming and it is coming sooner than you think.

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 stops and 14 connecting flights to LAS? Most leisure trips are planned far in advance as to not have to worry about the last minute ticket cost. And even so the other LCC our friend represents the cost of a walk up round trip ticket is only $424. There are also 24 non stops from DFW to PHX all ready.

So just how much of a dent in those two markets do you think WN can make from DFW?

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 27):
Do you honestly think the City of Dallas would walk away from the "economic engine" of Dallas? DAL closes when Hell freezes over.

Here you go again making up facts. Hoo Hoo DAL is the economic miracle of Dallas. DAL is the economic engine of Dallas.

DAL exists only for WN. DAL would only be missed by people like you who would have to drive 12 miles farther to get to work.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:14 pm

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 34):
Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 27):
Do you honestly think the City of Dallas would walk away from the "economic engine" of Dallas? DAL closes when Hell freezes over.

Here you go again making up facts. Hoo Hoo DAL is the economic miracle of Dallas. DAL is the economic engine of Dallas.

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 miracle of the metroplex. DFW will be hurt if any consumer has a choice and that means that every business and home will be swallowed up into the center of the Earth.
Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:35 pm

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 "as an airport." Commercial airlines would presumably vacate it, but Love would be left to general and corporate aviation.

The problem, as we all know, is that the cities neglected to get Southwest to sign a letter agreement to move to DFW. And the even more painful truth is Southwest probably would have signed the letter, had they been asked. But they never were, until it was too late.

In the late 60s/early 70s Braniff occupied about the same "center of influence" in the Dallas area as American does now out at DFW. Braniff did not like Southwest very much. In fact, Harding Lawrence, then the prez/ceo over at Braniff, was bound and determined to run Southwest out of business. How much did Braniff hate Southwest? Enough to where Braniff pleaded nolo contendere when the anti-trust case got to court.

When Braniff yelled "frog" the city of Dallas jumped. Braniff did anything and everything to keep ticket counter and gate facilities at Love Field out of the hands of Southwest. Had the city agreed to lease Southwest some gate and counter space....all Southwest would have to do is sign this lease saying you'll move to DFW when it opens" they would have....in a heartbeat.

In order to commence operations as all Southwest was forced to sub-lease space from other airlines....at astronomical prices. The counter space they got from Frontier...about 10' of ticket counter at a price which probably paid all Frontier's terminal facility cost at Dallas. Gate 25 and 29 on the Delta concourse were made available to Southwest....by Delta....at a premium price also. Still, it was space from which to operate. And on June 18th, 1971, they started flying back and forth to Houston and San Antonio, and the rest, let's just say, is history.

But Braniff did not want anyone to treat Southwest as an airline, lest passengers start to think so too and start flocking to the 737s. Thus the city of Dallas failed to lease Southwest space at Love Field. Had they leased them space and imposed the requirement to sign the DFW memo, there would never have been any issue. Instead, Southwest had to beg, borrow, pay premium prices for, and acquire facilities outside normal city channels. And the decision of the city has certainly come home to roost.

And while we're looking at history, it is true Amon Carter Field/Greater Southwest closed, but for all intents and purposes it could have closed before it opened with no significant impact. A better comparison would be what is going on with Meacham Field.....and not only has it not closed I don't think there are any plans to close it.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5580
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:20 pm

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 23):
A spokesman for American Airlines repeated the Fort Worth-based carrier's stance that the Wright amendment is the compromise.

...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, "Amendment") was not passed in the routine manner of legislation proposed for its core purpose and reviewed, debated, etc.; it was an amendment to legislatoin which was (by comparison) very large and important legislation (legislation which actually and legitimately merited congressional action). Wright was never a "compromise," unless you consider a carjackinig, a "compromise" ("...give me your car, I let you live...").

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 23):
Somehow WN's statements do not jive with published statements from DFW and AA? Why is that?

Because DFW and AA have, at all times relevant to the debate, misrepresented the facts?

+++

Again, it is all about freeing DAL from unreasonable and anti-competetive restrictions. Fewer restrictions = more options and, hence, greater competition.

By the way, as much as it pains this ol' Longhorn to credit an Ag, TxAgKuwait's knowledge of airline history amounts to a Doctorate of Jetfuel, folks. For historical context and concise analysis, there is no one here who can touch him. Not with a ten-foot pole, not with a laser, not even with a JDAM.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:11 am

More commentary from the congresscritters...

Note the comments on allowing through ticketing...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.ART.State.Edition2.16b2ee7e.html

http://www.bugmenot.com if it asks you to register...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:37 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 38):

Note the comments on allowing through ticketing...

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 to whine at that point.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 36):
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 "as an airport." Commercial airlines would presumably vacate it, but Love would be left to general and corporate aviation.

The problem, as we all know, is that the cities neglected to get Southwest to sign a letter agreement to move to DFW. And the even more painful truth is Southwest probably would have signed the letter, had they been asked. But they never were, until it was too late.

In the late 60s/early 70s Braniff occupied about the same "center of influence" in the Dallas area as American does now out at DFW. Braniff did not like Southwest very much. In fact, Harding Lawrence, then the prez/ceo over at Braniff, was bound and determined to run Southwest out of business. How much did Braniff hate Southwest? Enough to where Braniff pleaded nolo contendere when the anti-trust case got to court.

When Braniff yelled "frog" the city of Dallas jumped. Braniff did anything and everything to keep ticket counter and gate facilities at Love Field out of the hands of Southwest. Had the city agreed to lease Southwest some gate and counter space....all Southwest would have to do is sign this lease saying you'll move to DFW when it opens" they would have....in a heartbeat.

In order to commence operations as all Southwest was forced to sub-lease space from other airlines....at astronomical prices. The counter space they got from Frontier...about 10' of ticket counter at a price which probably paid all Frontier's terminal facility cost at Dallas. Gate 25 and 29 on the Delta concourse were made available to Southwest....by Delta....at a premium price also. Still, it was space from which to operate. And on June 18th, 1971, they started flying back and forth to Houston and San Antonio, and the rest, let's just say, is history.

But Braniff did not want anyone to treat Southwest as an airline, lest passengers start to think so too and start flocking to the 737s. Thus the city of Dallas failed to lease Southwest space at Love Field. Had they leased them space and imposed the requirement to sign the DFW memo, there would never have been any issue. Instead, Southwest had to beg, borrow, pay premium prices for, and acquire facilities outside normal city channels. And the decision of the city has certainly come home to roost.

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 Aeronautics Board (CAB) orders Dallas and Fort Worth to establish a regional airport or risk losing funds and flights


1968: Dallas and Fort Worth agree to establish DFW International Airport and close all other airports to commercial traffic - including Love Field then the 6th busiest airport in the US
1970: All airlines then serving Love Field sign an agreement to move all operations to DFW and cease operations at Love Field - this policy mirrors that in other cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, Denver and Minneapolis/St. Paul. [Southwest did not sign the agreement because they did not exist at the time]
1971: SWA initiaties service as an INTRAstate carrier serving Dallas, Houston and San Antonio
1974: DFW AIrport opens and all carrier who are party to the agreement meet their commitment and cease operations at Love Field - DFW's largest tennant is Braniff. Southwest refuses to move from Love Field and later wins court permission to remain
1978: Southwest seeks to fly INTERstate from Love Field by offering service to New Orleans. Later that year the airline industry is deregulated.
1979: Fort Worth Congressman and House Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-FW) introduced legislation that will permit SWA to continue to operate from Love Field but restricts Love Field flights to destinations in Texas and contiguous states (New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana). According to Rep. Wright it is then SWA CEO Herb Kelleher who drafts the amendment.
1997: Sen. Shelby (R-Alabama) demands that the Wright Amendment be changed to allow flights to Mississippi and Alabama and Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas) asks that Kansas be added - all three states are added. SWA announces that it has no intention of offering flights from Love Field to destinations in those states.
2003: The DFW Airport Board invests $2.5 billion in a new International Terminal and state-of-the-art people mover system - this is the largest airport deal in the history of airport revenue bonding
2005: As DFW prepares to open its new terminal and start up its new people mover SWA announces they are abandoning their long held position of "passionate nuetrality" with regard to the Wright Amendment and will actively seek its repeal.

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 35):
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 miracle of the metroplex. DFW will be hurt if any consumer has a choice and that means that every business and home will be swallowed up into the center of the Earth.

You really should see an HUB extraction specialist. Your comments have become so much nanny nanny boo boo BS no one can read them anymore and take you seriously.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 37):
...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, "Amendment") was not passed in the routine manner of legislation proposed for its core purpose and reviewed, debated, etc.; it was an amendment to legislatoin which was (by comparison) very large and important legislation (legislation which actually and legitimately merited congressional action). Wright was never a "compromise," unless you consider a carjackinig, a "compromise" ("...give me your car, I let you live...").

You mean sort of like the change in the law to allow Missouri service? If you agree shouldn't we plow up the runways at DAL to keep them from coming through?

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 37):
Because DFW and AA have, at all times relevant to the debate, misrepresented the facts?

As a lawyer you are paid to accept the truth as your client says it is so. Are you representing WN here?

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 37):
By the way, as much as it pains this ol' Longhorn to credit an Ag, TxAgKuwait's knowledge of airline history amounts to a Doctorate of Jetfuel, folks. For historical context and concise analysis, there is no one here who can touch him. Not with a ten-foot pole, not with a laser, not even with a JDAM.

Revisionist history is great it allows you to point towards and sustain an argument and as much fun as it is for this Tech grad to plow through the UTTAM BS there was an actual agreement to close DAL to commercial airservice. However using Non Linear Logic that only jurist understand WN was able to convince the courts that it deserved the right to stay at DAL. Now that is the truth but I fail to see after all these years why a successful company like WN is holding on to the past as if it is the key to it's future.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
sccutler
Posts: 5580
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:14 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 40):
You mean sort of like the change in the law to allow Missouri service?

Procedurally, very similar.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 40):
Quoting SCCutler (Reply 37):
Because DFW and AA have, at all times relevant to the debate, misrepresented the facts?

As a lawyer you are paid to accept the truth as your client says it is so. Are you representing WN here?

Well, a couple of things to clarify.

My quoted comment was in response to the query as to why WN's statements did not "jive" with AA's and DFW's; DFW had (in turn) asserted that WN had "stiff-armed" them, when DFW's "offer" was blatantly calculated to be one which could be met only with rejection. Note also, the report prepared by DFW's experts of which, nonetheless, DFW released only the favorable elements.

And, as a lawyer, I am paid to advocate for my client, but most decidedly *not* to "accept the truth as [my] client says it is so"; if my client lies to me or withholds material information from me, he and I part ways. Clients come and go, but I have but one reputation with which to work.

And no, I do not represent WN, or AA, although I fly with each regularly.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:34 pm

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 42):
if my client lies to me or withholds material information from me, he and I part ways.

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 announcement that they were going to discontinue their DFW hub effective in early 2005, as well as Southwest's subsequent announcement in late 2004 (not 2005) that they were going after Wright somehow didn't both warrant at least a mention...  Yeah sure
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:59 pm

The omission I found most pertinent (in the chronology above) was that, while technically correct that Southwest Airlines commenced flight operations 18 Jun 71, it was incorporated and received its certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Texas Aeronautics Commission in the 1967-68 time frame.

Another correction, perhaps it is nit-picking, relates to this:

>> 1997: Sen. Shelby (R-Alabama) demands that the Wright Amendment be changed to allow flights to Mississippi and Alabama and Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas) asks that Kansas be added - all three states are added. SWA announces that it has no intention of offering flights from Love Field to destinations in those states. <<

The PR Newswire I saw stated that Southwest had no plans to offer NONSTOP service from Dallas to those destinations AT THAT TIME, but would offer thru-ticketing service to those destinations via Houston.

And while Jim Wright says Herb Kelleher wrote the amendment, I sure don't remember it that way. However, I was not around Herb 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, so I cannot testify that he did not.

As far as former-Congressman Wright's veracity (as to the bit about HK writing the amendment), I would just suggest folks research the whole of the congressman's career and draw their own conclusions.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 42):
As far as former-Congressman Wright's veracity (as to the bit about HK writing the amendment), I would just suggest folks research the whole of the congressman career and draw their own conclusions.

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 in the State of Texas and as a United States Congressman ultimately rising to be the Speaker of the House.

The other is a lawyer.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:03 am

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 40):
My quoted comment was in response to the query as to why WN's statements did not "jive" with AA's and DFW's; DFW had (in turn) asserted that WN had "stiff-armed" them, when DFW's "offer" was blatantly calculated to be one which could be met only with rejection. Note also, the report prepared by DFW's experts of which, nonetheless, DFW released only the favorable elements.

And, as a lawyer, I am paid to advocate for my client, but most decidedly *not* to "accept the truth as [my] client says it is so"; if my client lies to me or withholds material information from me, he and I part ways. Clients come and go, but I have but one reputation with which to work.

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 calculated? Remember that all negotiations start with a first offer. I guess the counter offer from WN was repeal the WA.

One Million Plus lawyers in this country and you can afford to be magnanimous. There is hope for the world.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
dalneighbor
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:59 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 44):
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 calculated?

How? Because DFW management does not work to create a competitive marketplace, but instead serves at the pleasure of AA. The offer was calculated because it was inteded to appear on the surface as a very generous and open attempt to attract WN or any other airline. It makes a nice headline, while in reality it requires the airline to relinquish control of scheduling the airline's operations. So DFW gets the PR and headlines whithout actually having to give away gates and upseting AA. If the deal was so great surely one airline would accept free gates in one of the largest most overpriced markets in the Country.
Wright Amendment = Federally Engineered AA Price Gouging
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:52 am

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 45):
It makes a nice headline, while in reality it requires the airline to relinquish control of scheduling the airline's operations.

Since when are there slots or time restrictions a la ORD @ DFW?
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:25 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 46):
Since when are there slots or time restrictions a la ORD @ DFW?

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 destinations be served by the airline that took up the gates from the get-go. It made sure that the new airline went head to head with AA in their most lucrative markets, which would be a death trap to do all at once. This is why NO-ONE, including WN, took them up on their offer. Even FL, whou was expected to build up DFW, realized it wasn't a good offer at all in reality.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: New Wright Amendment Thread-old One At 230+

Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:50 am

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 the high rates and the contractural "gotchas" kick-in. SWA, and other airlines were smart enough to see past the 1st year, and for SWA, it also made no sense whatsoever to trade an old set of restrictions at Love for a new set of restrictions at DFW.

In the minds of some, DFW's offer was designed to fail from the git-go, i.e. "we can't even give the gates away, so DFW needs protection from Love by retention of the Wright Amendment.... Boo hoo....
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:39 pm

Quoting DALNeighbor (Reply 45):
How? Because DFW management does not work to create a competitive marketplace, but instead serves at the pleasure of AA.

Prove your statement. Real facts, sources and not your usual hyperbole.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 47):
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 destinations be served by the airline that took up the gates from the get-go. It made sure that the new airline went head to head with AA in their most lucrative markets, which would be a death trap to do all at once. This is why NO-ONE, including WN, took them up on their offer. Even FL, whou was expected to build up DFW, realized it wasn't a good offer at all in reality.

Isn't that what WN is trying to do from DAL? Trying to go head to head with AA in the largest markets? Notice that WN was able to respond faster to STL and MCI than AA was.

But I guess WN can't compete without special considerations like abnormally low landing fees and cheap rent at their own airport.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 48):
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 the high rates and the contractural "gotchas" kick-in. SWA, and other airlines were smart enough to see past the 1st year, and for SWA, it also made no sense whatsoever to trade an old set of restrictions at Love for a new set of restrictions at DFW.

What restrictions at DFW?

[Edited 2006-02-13 07:45:23]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, adamh8297, AS512, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], blacksoviet, boefan, Cubsrule, flipdewaf, HALtheAI, JayBCNLON, josciak, KarelXWB, keitherson, KTPAFlyer, KVH68, LHRFlyer, LHRlocal, QF1607, qfflyer, rlwynn, SpoonNZ, trijetsonly, Yahoo [Bot] and 263 guests