Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:02 am

So Jay why don't you elighten us all with your version of the history of the WA and why it should be repealed.

Remember deal only with the facts. No personal attacks either.

Put up or shut up got it!
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
JayDavis
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:08 am

It wouldn't be worth my time.................

Soooooooo many people on this board have TOTALLY blown all your hype and theories out of the water, I'm surprised you're still standing. From reading your view of the world, I'd say if we were to take you to a blood-bank, you'd be bleeding red, white and blue, the sAAme colors of your beloved AA.......

Do you draw a paycheck from them? Are you sleeping with someone who works for them or DFW????? You just TRULY have no absolute clue about this subject and it amazes me that you are sooooo blind to the fact that people are just NUKING you right and left yet you can't admit you are wrong.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:51 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 51):
Consider the distance you have to drive to reach the next Southwest city from the cities they presently serve at DAL. People opted to drive from PHL to PIT. Totally different dynamic.

I used to drive to EWR and BWI regularly to save money when I lived outside PHL. Things got much better when Airtran came to town for ATL and Florida routes. WN extended this to much of the rest of the country.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 80):
In english, you forgot that the failure of Delta Air Lines proved the market Dallas cannot sustain enough origin/destination traffic for two connecting carriers.

More to it than this. Delta did a lot of things wrong. In the days of DL at DFW, the scheduling was poor and more often than not I would end up connecting in ATL rather than DFW when flying west coast from BHM. Not my preference, just the way they worked their schedule. Also, it really sucked having to stop in Jackson or Shreveport on the rare occasions I could work things through DFW. Not to mentionthat my chances of arriving on time are much worse on DL than AA or WN.

Delta blew it with DFW. Rather than balance the traffic with ATL they blindly pushed it to ATL even though their customers(ask any southerner) prefer to avoid ATL when possible. They're making the same mistake to some extent with MCO now.

Here's some more food for thought. Beyond the fact that O & D will increase if Wright is repealed, connectiing traffic will also increase. Due to Wright, WN has to use lots of non-ideal connections from cities like BNA. Many of these connections would transition to Love with the repeal. More business for Dallas without taking anything from AA.

Now, add better fares on routes not currently served due to Wright and you are adding even more traffic. Some at AA's expense, probably more at other carrier's expense, and then some new incremental traffic. Definitely more traffic for Dallas, probably a short term drop for AA but I have great faith in our free market system.

For the record, I fly AA, WN, and DL regularly. AA is my favorite but WN is also good and has better connections from BHM to many places. I've also had a few nice flights lately on NW and will probably be using them more in the future through MEM and MSP.

My opinion, nuke Wright. I like this both on selfish grounds and on the principle that free trade and deregulation are meaningless in the context of flights through Dallas for many.

Semi off topic, if AA needs to re-arrange after Wright is removed, please add BHM-MIA. I have no doubt that they could make this route work well.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
sccutler
Posts: 5839
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:01 pm

There is much about the Wright Amendment and its history that is changing as time passes.

It was not passed as a carefully-constructed and well-debated piece of legislation to address a broadly-recognized need.

It was a political favor to Braniff, AA, Delta and Texas International, after they failed in their attempts to shut down WN at DAL.

Even if, for the sake of discussion, we presumed it was actually passed to protect DFW from failure (a laughable notion, if you look at the relative positions of WN and the rest of the airline players at the time, as well as DAL, whose main hall was still configured as an amusement park- Really!), the change in times and the dynamics of air travel in north Texas make it apparent that the real need for protection now is for protection for north Texas consumers from abusive airfare policies and monopolistic and predatory practices. Times change, and so can laws. Even stupid laws.

=============

All that said, while I disagree with CJPark on this issue, at least he is one of very few in this debate who (presuming he is truthful in his profile, which I do), while opposing the repeal of the WA, at least has standing to assert his position, as he actually lives here, and is of age to actually spend real money on travel while also supporting himself.

=============

Nice day for flying. Took my bride up to LakeMurray State Park, near Ardmore, for a tasty supper. Nice airport at the state park (Oklahoma seems to like having air strips at state parks, why won't Texas?).
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
apodino
Posts: 3986
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:02 pm

From the US Constitution:

"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.:

This is a very interesting bit from the constitution. This could easily be interpreted in the wright amendment debate to say that the regulation gives preference to DFW over DAL. Interpreted in this way, the wright amendment could be ruled as unconstitutional, if Dallas and Fort Worth are treated as states in the same way that texas and oklahoma are.

The only reason I think Southwest hasn't challenged this in court is because the agreement they signed way back when said they wouldn't challenge anything else in court. Now if some sort of advocacy or grass roots organization were to try this, who knows.
 
JayDavis
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:45 pm

CJPark,

I know a LOT more about the Wright Amendment than you EVER will.
You see, I am involved in the airline and transportation industry. Plus,
although I don't have enough time to participate on these boards as much
as a lot of people. I look at your "respect" level and that tells me a lot about you and your level of stature on this forum.


Jay
 
FlewGSW
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:45 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Mon Aug 01, 2005 6:06 am

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12263937.htm

From Sundays, Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper editorial page.

"No middle ground.
It's such sweet music, with lyrics that float through the air on wings of beautiful little butterflies: Fort Worth and Dallas officials who are at odds over Wright Amendment flight restrictions at Dallas Love Field should just sit down, be nice and work out their differences. It would be a very, very, very fine thing.
And, goodness, local leaders had better do so soon, or that mean old Congress will take this decision away from them.
Nice folk song. Kum-ba-yah. But there's not a shred of the real world in it."

And the editorial goes on.

I don't agree enough with newspaper. There reasons are sound. But I think there are ideas out there that need to discussed. And this attempt to stop cold all discussions is, well, anti- everything.

I side with those who want just one airport for all of Dallas/Fort Worth metro area to service commercial and charter passenger air transport needs. That is what the federal government forced upon the area in the 1960s that resulted in today's DFW International Airport. And it was a big win-win for the area and global transportation. If some other metro areas what more than one airport, that's their choice. But D/FW was forced to make that choice and it had to be just one airport. The cities did, and that's that. 40 years later, the issue has evolved, and new looks at a closed issue need to be aired, discussed, and thought.

I welcome Southwest to fly to/from any communities airport that wants their service. For the D/FW area, there is just one airport to serve, and that is DFW.
 
OPNLguy
Topic Author
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Mon Aug 01, 2005 6:57 am

Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 107):
I welcome Southwest to fly to/from any communities airport that wants their service. For the D/FW area, there is just one airport to serve, and that is DFW.

The fact that Southwest has been flying from Love since 1971 would tend to disprove that statement....

Here's something from the same editorial that you apparently chouse not to quote:

"D/FW just doesn't fit Southwest's business plan, those executives say, even though their airline operates profitably at many other busy and competitive airports.

That's their choice. They get to run their airline."


This last point is something that those who simplistically say "Southwest should move to DFW" fail to accept. Whether one agrees with the decision or not, it's still Southwest's to make....

I even got CJ to admit that once...   Wink

[Edited 2005-08-01 00:09:32]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:54 am

OPNL,

You drew that inference from a question shaped to get a yes answer. What I said was that any airlines dependence on public facilities negated its choice as to where it can do business. I went on further to say that regardless of what WN thinks or Congress does the final decision whether WN stays at Love Field or moves out to DFW or even leaves the area belongs to the City of Dallas. Why because it owns the airport.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
FlewGSW
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:45 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:05 am

So, one topic that could be discussed is....

Change the ownership of DAL, DFW, FTW, AFW, Addison, executive,...... setup something like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. An area body that has area airports to serve the interest of, WOW, the area.

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

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:30 am

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Dallas Love Field is closed down as an airport. Somebody takes an excavator to the runways and the airport becomes a big vacant field. (The Park Cities lose their buffer zone between them and the hot pillow motels of Harry Hines, but that's a whole 'nother problem).

First of all....who is going to reimburse Southwest Airlines Co for the loss of all their investment at Love Field...the corporate headquarters, the improvements they have made to the gates and terminal facilities, the hangars and maintenance facility...you name it. Where is that money going to come from?

Secondly, I think you can forget Southwest moving to DFW. That just won't happen. They may set up shop at McKinney.....or Greenville, for that matter...but you can pretty much bank on Southwest not serving DFW. What do all of our so-called airline and airport experts think that will do to the fares to plaves like MAF, LBB, HOU, SAT, AUS? Hint: go look at what AA charges on a walk up basis in markets where their is no LCC competition. MCI-DFW post-Vanguard might be a good place to start.

As far as any complaint about Southwest's new metroplex airport being too far out....as someone who has spent what seemed like an hour to taxi across DFW behind a herd of creeping MD80s...only to arrive at an occupied gate where I sat for another 30 minutes...only to get off and find that it took longer to get my bag from the aircraft to baggage claim than it did to fly from OKC to DFW....as long as the commute to whatever new airport is selected is under two hours, the passenger still comes out ahead time-wise by driving to where Southwest is.

That, in essence, is why Southwest won;t go to DFW. It isn't the fact that it is a bad airport, or even an expensive airport. The problem with DFW is that it was designed with AA-type operations in mind.....and to hell with folks that operate like WN.

Had DFW constructed an airport with terminal buildings that were efficient.....that lent themselves to efficient point-to-point operations, Southwest would probably suck it up and pay the rent and move some stuff to DFW. But DFW was not built with Southwest's needs in mind, ever.....so why in the world would anyone expect Southwest to operate there?
 
OPNLguy
Topic Author
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:52 am

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 110):
First of all....who is going to reimburse Southwest Airlines Co for the loss of all their investment at Love Field...the corporate headquarters, the improvements they have made to the gates and terminal facilities, the hangars and maintenance facility...you name it. Where is that money going to come from?

Precisely...

Pro-Wright folks will undoubtedly claim that:

1/ DFW offered to build them a terminal. (Ok, what about the other facilities that you mentioned, plus the training center with multiple simulators? If DFW can afford to replicate all that, maybe they're not really on the edge of financial ruin as they seem to want us to believe...)

2/ Southwest can serve DFW and retain the use of its existing facilities at Love. Why, just fly the nightly terminating aircraft from DFW to Love, have work done, and fly them back again early in the morning--it's not that long a flight... (OK, but the costs of cross-ferrying 12-15 aircraft EVERY night are cumulative, and times 365, would unnecessarily add to Southwest's cost of doing business at DFW. But hey, DFW/AA know that, and if you (AA) can't get your own costs down, the next best thing is seeing Southwest's go up...)
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:20 pm

TxAgKuwait,

Good post but let’s think about what you just said.

The Harry Hines Area has been cleaned up considerably. Granted there are a few hot sheet hotels in the area but the streetwalker problem has been moved to other parts of town. The area has changed considerably the Korean Business district has taken over that part of town. It is sort of like an Iteawon District with cars and parking lots. The topless bar near the area of DAL has been closed due to the recent SOB ordinances in effect now. The rash of Saunas and bath houses will be cleared up by state law regulating the operation of the massage business. The Bill by State Representative Rafael Achina HB2696 takes effect in September. Northwest Dallas is much cleaner vice wise than it used to be. That will pretty much be the end of the old Harry Hines area.

Your concern about who will pay Southwest for their facilities is humorous to me. The question should be who will reimburse the city of Dallas for the cost of litigation incurred after the bills are passed to enable or force the city to close the airport. Or in the event that the WA is repealed pay the expense of litigation on the Love Field Master Plan or from DFW and Ft Worth trying to sue Dallas into closing the airport anyway. Stop and think about it for a short while. Southwest Airlines has sued the City to a standstill to continue its operations at DAL. Ft Worth and DFW have sued the City of Dallas to close it down. That was the basis of relief that the WA provided for to begin with. Stop the litigation! Let Southwest continue to use the airport but with restrictions. The area obviously thought that Southwest would accept the restrictions for ever or eventually move to DFW to grow its company.

Now imagine the lawsuits start up again because Congress has either lifted the WA or arranged to close DAL. Do you honestly think that Southwest will pay the City for its legal expenses? Why should it? Southwest all ready has court judgments allowing it to stay at DAL. Knowing Southwest it will probably file concurrent litigation to make the City keep the airport open.

Whether or not WN will serve the area at DFW who knows? There will be hearings in both the House and the Senate and issues from both sides will be laid out for examination. Will airlines be forced to submit to regulation of airfares maybe/hopefully? Will airlines be forced to submit to regulation concerning what airports they can operate from hopefully?

One thing is certain if WN had to serve from DFW it would take the steps required to get the operations there as close to its operations at other airports. Look at Philly for an example. As far as Southwest moving their operations to another city in the area do you think another city in this area would be willing to put up with the liabilities that allowing operations at their local airport could entail?


If the airport is forced closed then Southwest would be able to sell its property to whoever would buy it. Do I think that WN should be compensated beyond fair market value? No.

[Edited 2005-08-01 05:23:16]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
FlewGSW
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:45 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:17 pm

TxAgKuwait
"Had DFW constructed an airport with terminal buildings that were efficient.....that lent themselves to efficient point-to-point operations."

What? DFW was built for the point-to-point world of regulated airlines. At the time of its opening in 1974 over 80% of travelers started and ended their trips at DFW. That is why the gates are so close to the parking lot, why there is among the shortest walks to baggage claim. The only major airline that continues to operate that way is WN.
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:22 pm

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 87):
My arguments have never changed but you and yours never stop dodging the real issue of competition between airports and when any one points that out to you, you go and hide behind the low fares farce and start flaming away. Anybody who disagrees with the WN point of view gets the same treatment.

Out of respect for you and your personal stake in this issue and the fact that I could very well be doing just as you say, I went back and I looked at every WA post I have made. I have a a few apologies to make.

There have been times when I have not been completely objective. For that I apologize to the following people:
Cjpark
Boeing7E7
Avek00
STLGph
And any others I may have offended.

Please accept my abject apologies for any insult I have offered.  sorry 

However, as a result of my search, I have also found, Cjpark, that the other part of your post, about the dodging and weaving, is untrue.

I have always made an effort to replay to anything that has been said to me, even if I have no counter I will say so, usually in the form of 'good point' or 'I stand corrected'. This is to let you know that I have no response to a comment that has been made and I cede the point.

On the subject of airport competition, I do not want to flood this thread with links to my other posts on what I think about airport competition. If you would please take the time to actually read my history of posts on this issue, I am sure you will find some information that will suit your need for an argument that does not 'hide' within low fares.

I consider you a rude individual and completely unable to realize that my attempts at levity are not meant to hurt you personally, but to make light of a very heavy debate. I apologize for any personal offense you may have taken. While I realize my remarks were inflammatory, they were only so in response to yours. A mirror is a good tool. When you go to accuse someone of something, make sure you don't make a hypocrite out of yourself by checking the mirror first.

I apologize to all for having to read that, but some things had to be said.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2804
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:02 am

I think AA's fear-mongering may have worked on some of the delegates with regards to the bill in the House, The Right to Fly Act.

As of this morning there are 31 co-sponsors to the Right to Fly Act, but when you look

here

there were 9 additional delegates who all signed on as co-sponsors on 06/17/05 (a Friday) and withdrew on 06/20/05 (the following Monday)

Coincidentally, that was the same weekend an article came out about AA going to Longview, TX and telling them that if Wright were repealed, they might lose some/all air service.

I wonder if those 9 delegates got some phone cAAlls that weekend.

What's everyone else's take on this?

LoneStarMike

 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2804
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:49 am

never mind.

Here is the text from the Congressional Record:

"Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on June 17, the following Members were inadvertently added as cosponsors of H.R. 2646 : the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

I ask unanimous consent to have their names removed as cosponsors of H.R. 2646 at this time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection."

LoneStarMike

 
JayDavis
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:32 am

What, no reply from CL????
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:07 pm

One more time Jay

Why don't you enlighten us all with your version of the history of the WA and why it should be repealed.

Remember deal only with the facts. No personal attacks or flaming either.

You said that you are actually in the airline and transportation business, so what do you do?

Remember once I told you if you could post one original thought with no insults or flaming I would increase your respect level by one? Well you have not disappointed me.
"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: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:36 pm




Quoting Cjpark (Reply 119):
Remember deal only with the facts. No personal attacks or flaming either.



...You mean like you got into here?


2H4,

Your not getting to me. You are just some guy from Michigan with a chip on his shoulder who wants to work for a big airline but lacks the skills to do so. I wish you luck on your career choice maybe you will get there someday. How many bikes did you sell today?




 Wink



2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:46 pm

Touche.

But while you are here lets try this question again. Maybe you will answer this time.

2H4 this one is for you.

What I am trying to figure out about you 2H4 is that you admit the WA will not affect air travel in your local market. Yet you feel compelled to tell a whole region that it should take a chance on damaging its local economy and transportation infrastructure in order to assist an airline that does not and probably will not ever serve your local market. What personal gain do you expect from this?

You can’t honestly say lower fares for two reasons no service to your local market and that WN has always had the ability to compete and drive down airfares in the DFW market for years but has chosen not to do so. You know that the WA is meant to keep two airports from competing against each other and not to keep the airlines from competing.

I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery.
"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: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:59 pm




Quoting Cjpark (Reply 120):
What personal gain do you expect from this?



I've already addressed that question, Cj. My personal life is of no concern to you.


2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:14 pm

You are on permanent Spin Cycle

I am beginning to think you don't have an answer for the question.


Lets reword the question so you won't think this question is about your personal life.

2H4 this one is for you.

What I am trying to figure out about you 2H4 is that you admit the WA will not affect air travel in your local market. Yet you feel compelled to tell a whole region that it should take a chance on damaging its local economy and transportation infrastructure in order to assist an airline that does not and probably will not ever serve your local market. What (personal removed and replaced with what do you expect to gain from this?) do you expect to gain from this?

You can’t honestly say lower fares for two reasons no service to your local market and that WN has always had the ability to compete and drive down airfares in the DFW market for years but has chosen not to do so. You know that the WA is meant to keep two airports from competing against each other and not to keep the airlines from competing.

I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
OPNLguy
Topic Author
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:06 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 120):
I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery.



Quoting Cjpark (Reply 122):
I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery.

The above two quotes are in addition to the dozen or I've seen from you in various Wright-related threads, and it gives me pause to wonder: Are you -really- an American employee posting/reposting boilerplate stuff anyplace you see a pro-repeal message? How many canned responses and talking points do you have to choose from when you cut-and-paste?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:39 am

OPNL,

I am not affliated with any airline unless you count being a Rapid Rewards, AAdvantage, Mileage Plus, World Perks and or Asia Miles member as being affliated with an airline.

I have been trying to get 2H4 to answer this question but so far he has refused to answer. I think I have chased him with this question through at least 4 threads. This is the only question I have copied and pasted to anyone. The question is directed at a person who lives in an area that WN does not even serve. All of the low fares claims and or competition claims will not affect his local market. I just want to know why this is so important to him. As I said I can understand your reasoning.

Canned responses nope don't use them. Don't need them. There are only two facts that actually pertain to this discussion.

1. The WA deals only with competition between airports.
2. The Dallas, Ft Worth region is better served with one airport DFW than two airports DFW and DAL.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
OPNLguy
Topic Author
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:52 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 124):
Canned responses nope don't use them.



Quoting Cjpark (Reply 120):
I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery.



Quoting Cjpark (Reply 122):
I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery.

Yeah, sure...  sarcastic 
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:01 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 122):
I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery.

Let me try to answer this question as it applies to me. I do have WN in all three of the markets that I fly out of (sorta, DAB has MCO, CLE and IND) although I make no flights to the D/FW region. For me, it is important to get the WA repealed because it is now in conflict with something that I believe very strongly in.

I agree with Boeing7E7 when he points out the airspace restriction issue that occur between the two airports, it is an ugly situation. I agree with all of you when you talk about how DFW is under-utilized at the moment. I agree with you specifically when you worry about aircraft noise, as yes, the ambient noise of the region will go up, no doubt about it. I even go as far as to agree that this whole issue could be avoided if WN were presented a package that would make moving to DFW a profitable experience that allowed them to get set up for little or no cost with all of the infrastructure that they currently have at DAL. The odds on this happening are about the same as I have to win the lottery tonight, and I have not bought a ticket.  

The reason that I want the WA amendment repealed is that it violates the spirit of deregulation, if not the specific legal points of deregulation. And I am well aware of the intentions that were assumed when it was put into effect. The situation has changed however, and the world is not the same as it was when the amendment was penned. I will not get bogged down in the 'how the world is different' arguments. I know that DAL was supposed to be closed long ago to commercial traffic. I can even sympathize with the headache that will be created when it is repealed. But that does not make the WA any more 'right' in my eyes. I see it as a back room politics resolution to a sticky political situation, and I don't think either side is clean of that one. But as far as the WA goes, it was the original marginal action, and therefore it should be removed.

And it is no longer simple. With WN being as big as it is now, and a direct competitor to AA, the situation is far from simple. We are not trying to encourage competition between the airports, that is actually an undesirable side-effect of the thing we are trying to encourage, which is even competition between AA and WN in the D/FW region. Right now, they don't compete there as WN cannot from its airport. If WN moves to DFW and incurs the cost of moving all of its operation there, AA will beat the heck out of them as all of their ready cash will be used in the move rather then in the fight to obtain a foothold at AA's fortress hub. Only if WN gets a free pass over to DFW with all of the infrastructure that it currently has at DAL would it be 'even,' with both of them at DFW. Since that isn't likely, we support option #2, the less desirable one. The one where the WA is repealed, the skies are open and crowded, and the two of them can compete on the most level playing field that we can provide them otherwise, which is unrestricted status quo.

And when you rag on people who seem to have no stake in this remember one thing. We as Americans aren't required to have a stake in something to fight for it. Just ask all of the Caucasian folks who marched with the African Americans during the sixties to gain them their freedom. They had no stake in the fight, but felt strongly on it all the same, so they did something about it. Such is our right, and I would even say our duty as Americans to speak up and let our hopefully educated voices be heard.

That is what I am doing, that is what I believe that 2H4 is doing, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Edited for wording, I found a few spots where I am an idiot and it could be better.  Wink

[Edited 2005-08-03 18:07:02]
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:51 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 125):
Quoting Cjpark (Reply 124):
Canned responses nope don't use them.



Quoting Cjpark (Reply 124):
Canned responses nope don't use them. Don't need them. There are only two facts that actually pertain to this discussion.

1. The WA deals only with competition between airports.
2. The Dallas, Ft Worth region is better served with one airport DFW than two airports DFW and DAL.

OPNL why didn't you use the whole quote?
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
OPNLguy
Topic Author
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:56 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 127):
OPNL why didn't you use the whole quote?

Because your items #1 and #2 didn't have anything to do with your repeating:

"I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery."

"I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery."

"I really am curious about your reasoning. OPNL is an employee of WN I can understand his reasons but yours are a mystery."

...over and over again.

Sure sounds "canned" to me.....
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:57 am

Spin Cycle WN style? Hide behind details and ignore the real issue. Tell others and self that opposing view point is canned as to allow yourself to duck a response.

Like I said earlier I am just trying to get our friend to answer a question that is all.

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 126):
Only if WN gets a free pass over to DFW with all of the infrastructure that it currently has at DAL would it be 'even,' with both of them at DFW. Since that isn't likely, we support option #2, the less desirable one. The one where the WA is repealed, the skies are open and crowded, and the two of them can compete on the most level playing field that we can provide them otherwise, which is unrestricted status quo.

WN made a sound business decision to start out at DAL. They made a bad business decision to stay at DAL with a Federal Law in place to limit competition between airports. Now they are asking for special priviledge to continue to operate at DAL that will allow them to fly long distance routes.
Why should WN expect the public or the government to give them a handout and compensate them for making and maintaining an untenable position in the first place. WN deserves no such compensation.

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 126):
And when you rag on people who seem to have no stake in this remember one thing. We as Americans aren't required to have a stake in something to fight for it. Just ask all of the Caucasian folks who marched with the African Americans during the sixties to gain them their freedom. They had no stake in the fight, but felt strongly on it all the same, so they did something about it. Such is our right, and I would even say our duty as Americans to speak up and let our hopefully educated voices be heard.

You are right when you say that Americans are not required to have a stake in something to fight for it. However to compare the efforts of the people in the fight for equal rights to a case of people appealling to affect corporate welfare for a wealthy corporation is insulting. Sorry that is just my opinion.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
OPNLguy
Topic Author
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:27 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 129):
Spin Cycle WN style? Hide behind details and ignore the real issue. Tell others and self that opposing view point is canned as to allow yourself to duck a response.

Now -there's- the pot calling the kettle black....

You were probably confused by all that aircraft noise you're "getting" over there.... (not....)  Wink

Keep plugging; you might make sense to somebody...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: More Fear-Mongering Re: Wright Amendment

Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:56 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 129):
However to compare the efforts of the people in the fight for equal rights to a case of people appealling to affect corporate welfare for a wealthy corporation is insulting.

I agree completely. I was not comparing, just illustrating. I would never, ever, deem to belittle that awesome effort by comparing it to this cockfight.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 129):
WN made a sound business decision to start out at DAL. They made a bad business decision to stay at DAL with a Federal Law in place to limit competition between airports. Now they are asking for special priviledge to continue to operate at DAL that will allow them to fly long distance routes.

This point, however, is where I disagree with you. I believe that the business move to stay at DAL when the WA was put into place was the only intelligent business move they had. They already were under intense legal pressure from the large airlines out of DFW and to attempt to go fight them on their own turf business-wise would have been the death knell. So from a business standpoint, staying at DAL was the only chocie availiable to stay alive. You know full well the tactics that would have been used against WN had they moved by the likes of AA and Braniff.

And as for special favors, they are only asking that the spirit of deregulation be carried out in north Texas. Nothing more, nothing less. To accuse them of asking for special favors would be grossly unfair. The arguements that they use to persuade others to do so are also irrelevant (this is where the low fares thing comes in, the big bad AA thing, the poor underdog WN thing, it is all a load of marketing BS if you ask me). They have not called in special favors, in fact, the only special favors that I have seen called in were on the part of AA to all of the people who have voted for the WA, or changed their votes to supporting the WA after AA did its thing. However, none of this matters at all, because all of this is the political crap that I hate, crap that got the WA passed in the first place. And for that reason, I favor following the unbiased federal piece of legislation governing this issue, the Airline Deregulation Act, and unrestricting ops at DAL.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos