Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:56 pm

From the Dallas Morning News:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...es/081005dnbuswright.5d1b7454.html

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson said Wednesday that she supported the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport position to keep the Wright amendment in place.
Ms. Johnson said she would help sponsor legislation to close Dallas Love Field to commercial traffic if the Wright amendment is repealed.
Love is in Ms. Johnson's district. In announcing her position, she cited the potential harm to minority contractors at D/FW if the Wright Amendment were to be repealed. D/FW officials worry that Love Field will syphon traffic away from D/FW, which would hurt concessioners.
"I deeply regret that this issue has been divisive," Ms. Johnson said.
Southwest Airlines Co. has been pushing for repeal of the amendment, which restricts long-haul flights from its homebase at Love Field.
More details to come.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:05 am

Quoting Cjpark (Thread starter):
In announcing her position, she cited the potential harm to minority contractors

She’s in their pocket.

I’ve already placed several phone calls and sent multiple letters to both her district and DC offices. I urge my fellow a.netters to do the same.

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson
1511 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-8885


3102 Maple Avenue
Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 922-8885

Wright is WRONG!
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:12 am

Let's see, which are there more of, minority contractors (that have something to do with DFW) and airport concessionaires, or folks who fly from DFW and pay a fare premium to do so?

With all due respect to the Congresswomen, she doesn't have a clue...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:15 am

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 1):
I’ve already placed several phone calls and sent multiple letters to both her district and DC offices. I urge my fellow a.netters to do the same.

I did. And explained reasoning for supporting her actions. I hope you were packing more ammo than the emotional responses to the issue you display in here.
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:21 am

She obviously, as an elected representative official, is free to form her opinion.

I'm just sort of unsure that her view actually supports the majority of the people whe represents.

We have discussed, hashed, and rehashed the very core arguments of the Wright Ammendment over and over again here on this website. At this point, no one is really changing their minds.

However, whether we are for or against the Wright Ammendment, it is important that we contact people like Ms. Johnson, to make sure she has all the details.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
texan
Posts: 4071
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:24 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 3):
I did. And explained reasoning for supporting her actions. I hope you were packing more ammo than the emotional responses to the issue you display in here.

He does, and so do I. I have called and explained the economic benefit to her district as well as the whole of Dallas County, and urged her to reconsider her position. The amount of jobs voters in her district will receive if DAL is opened is greater than the amount of jobs in her district generated by DFW. And since DAL will have to be renovated in order to increase the amount of flights, there will be more opportunities for minority contractors in the Dallas area. I am hopeful that she will change her position.

Also, if she votes to ban commercial flights at DAL, then she will be greatly reducing the economic strength of her district, something that will not go over well with voters. Not that she will ever lose an election in District 30, but still.

Texan

[Edited 2005-08-10 17:28:29]
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:35 am

Quoting Texan (Reply 5):
And since DAL will have to be renovated in order to increase the amount of flights, there will be more opportunities for minority contractors in the Dallas area. I am hopeful that she will change her position.

Temporary jobs vs. permanent ones  bigthumbsup 
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:47 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 3):
I hope you were packing more ammo than the emotional responses to the issue you display in here.

It is emotional to me; I take pride in what I do and the political battles I choose to fight.

Members of Congress have been receiving logical reasoning from me; not emotion.

Quoting Texan (Reply 5):
more opportunities for minority contractors in the Dallas area



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 6):
Temporary jobs vs. permanent ones

Skycap contacts, wheelchair contracts, food service contracts, and even those contracted ID checkers at the security checkpoint.

I tend to think those are permanent jobs.


 spin 
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:03 am

I was wondering when this issue would flare again. I guess this Wednesday is as good as any.  biggrin 

Quoting Cjpark (Thread starter):
Ms. Johnson said she would help sponsor legislation to close Dallas Love Field to commercial traffic if the Wright amendment is repealed.
Love is in Ms. Johnson's district. In announcing her position, she cited the potential harm to minority contractors at D/FW if the Wright Amendment were to be repealed. D/FW officials worry that Love Field will syphon traffic away from D/FW, which would hurt concessioners.

What is going to hurt her district's employees more, the closing of DAL to commercial service, probably causing the loss of hundreds of jobs at DAL, or a very small hiccup in traffic amounts at DFW with an increase at DAL?

Come on, how high can the BS be piled before someone stands up and screams "WTF??!!"

Anyone who would believe she has the employees of her district at heart by making this move is pretty gullible. The pax numbers at DFW will never fall far enough to hurt the concessionaires there. I would bet a lot of good money on that one.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
User avatar
FlyPIJets
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:32 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:07 am

Kind of sounds like Ms. Johnson wants something from SWA.

My opinions of the Wright Amendment aside, it makes little sense for the congresswoman who has both Love Field and SWA HQ in her district to be in favor of closing DAL. That would equal a lot of lost jobs.

That, or she is well aware that the Wright's days are numbered and closing DAL is not likely, at least not on the federal level, therefore she is fighting for constituents that see themselves as losers in the most likely outcome of the W-A. Could be a case of political posturing that will have little effect except to firm up her base of voters.

hmmm
Rex Kramer: Get that finger out of your ear! You don't know where that finger's been!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:20 am

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 7):
Skycap contacts, wheelchair contracts, food service contracts, and even those contracted ID checkers at the security checkpoint.

The only decent paying job there is the Skycap which SWA provides using their own employees in the form of curbside check-in do they not? Other than that... Minimum wage... Yummie!
 
cjpark
Topic Author
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:23 am

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 1):
She’s in their pocket.

Well that explains everything then. Did you ever stop to think that in representing her predominately minority populated district that protecting minority owned business and preventing a further deterioration of the quality of life in her district might just be more important than cheap tickets to Las Vegas out of Dallas,TX?

Quoting Texan (Reply 5):
He does, and so do I. I have called and explained the economic benefit to her district as well as the whole of Dallas County, and urged her to reconsider her position. The amount of jobs voters in her district will receive if DAL is opened is greater than the amount of jobs in her district generated by DFW. And since DAL will have to be renovated in order to increase the amount of flights, there will be more opportunities for minority contractors in the Dallas area. I am hopeful that she will change her position.

Why should we pay have to pay to renovate DAL when we have an airport 8 miles due west that can handle any and all of WN's expansion needs?


Just one question for all of the WN employees on the forum. Can anyone of you provide a list of charitable actions/donations by WN to the neighborhoods/schools nearest to DAL? Other than the donations to the dredging project for Bachman Lake?
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:51 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
The only decent paying job there is the Skycap which SWA provides using their own employees in the form of curbside check-in do they not? Other than that... Minimum wage... Yummie!

These are details that ignore the major issue, which is the fact that this load of BS doesn’t fly. DFW will not be that hurt by this move. Pax numbers through there will not drop at all, let alone enough to hurt the concessionaires... That is just more political smoke and mirrors. I wonder what her real reason is.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 11):
Why should we pay have to pay to renovate DAL when we have an airport 8 miles due west that can handle any and all of WN's expansion needs?

Why should WN have to pay the massive amount to move there operation to DFW in a post-regulation era where all the airports should be open. It seems to me that the D/FW taxpayers have a choice. Foot the bill to move WN, or get rid of the WA. WN broke no laws to stay at Love and they have a right to be there, even the government has denied efforts to close the airport. So if you want WN moved, move them and foot the bill to do so. Other than that, do the right thing and get rid of that outdated and borderline unethical piece of legislation.

You think WN wouldn’t move if the city built them a brand new state of the art headquarters and maintenance facility at DFW and charged them the same amount to be there as they are being charged at DAL? I think they would jump at the chance. Assuming it was done quickly and to WN's specs.

Don’t cloud the issue with crap. WN doesn’t want to move because it will be very expensive to do so. And in an era where as much cash as possible needs to be saved in the airline industry, I don’t blame them for not wanting to go. All this low fare crap they push is just a public screen for the real reason, because the public won’t respect WN if it said, "We don’t want to move because it would cost to much for us." That may be the truth, but the people would hate it. This way the image spin carries the appearance that AA is against low fares, which are a thing the public loves. So WN sets it self up on high moral ground in the press.

AA is working the opposite public lever, which is FEAR. If the people cannot be won through a positive means, then they can be scared into doing what AA wants them too. Threaten small town America, preach doom and the dread harvest to the working class, incite the minorities by warning them of hard times and hint at discrimination, et cetera, et cetera. All of these tactics are used on a regular basis in the political arena, and I have to say that this debate has become very political.

So which is it. Are you for the WA because you don’t want the noise in your neighborhood? Or are you for the WA because somewhere along the line you started believing this political bull-crap that was being tossed around and decided to cave in to the pressure?

I think it is high time to cut the talk and do something, cause the longer we wait, the harder it will be to find the truth at the end.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
texan
Posts: 4071
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:56 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 11):
Why should we pay have to pay to renovate DAL when we have an airport 8 miles due west that can handle any and all of WN's expansion needs?

WN has stated that they will foot the bill for renovating the terminal and all aspects related to it. DAL can also handle all of WN's expansion needs.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:57 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 11):
Just one question for all of the WN employees on the forum. Can anyone of you provide a list of charitable actions/donations by WN to the neighborhoods/schools nearest to DAL? Other than the donations to the dredging project for Bachman Lake?

There's an elementary school or two in the area, but for a complete accounting, you might call 214-792-4000 and ask.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
MattRB
Posts: 1357
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:01 am

Quoting FlyPIJets (Reply 9):
Kind of sounds like Ms. Johnson wants something from SWA.

Like double or better what she got from AMR ..
Aviation is proof that, given the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:07 am

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 12):
I wonder what her real reason is.



Quoting MattRB (Reply 15):
Like double or better what she got from AMR ..

Ahhhh... The plot thickens...

Seriously though, this is the kind of political crap that I hate about our government. The whole "Well, we need this bill passed, lets see how much it will cost us." So much for voting with your head, or heart or constituents rather than with your pocketbook.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
cjpark
Topic Author
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:16 am

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 12):
You think WN wouldn’t move if the city built them a brand new state of the art headquarters and maintenance facility at DFW and charged them the same amount to be there as they are being charged at DAL? I think they would jump at the chance. Assuming it was done quickly and to WN's specs.

That has been offered to WN by DFW. Guess what WN has turned it down.

Why should WN have to pay? Because they made a decision to stay at DAL knowing they could not fly long distance from that airport. No one forced them to stay. It was a bad business decision and the public should not be expected to bail them out.

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 12):
I think it is high time to cut the talk and do something, cause the longer we wait, the harder it will be to find the truth at the end.

I agree with you there. Just try telling WN they need to return to the bargaining table with DFW.

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 12):
So which is it. Are you for the WA because you don’t want the noise in your neighborhood? Or are you for the WA because somewhere along the line you started believing this political bull-crap that was being tossed around and decided to cave in to the pressure?

I am for the WA because of the impact on the community that competition at DAL would create. Besides a deal is a deal WN agreed to the compromise that the WA represented. If you want to fly long distance buck it up and move.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 14):
There's an elementary school or two in the area, but for a complete accounting, you might call 214-792-4000 and ask.

The question has been asked to the WN PR department. No list was provided. That either means that WN did not take the request seriously or that they have not done much to support the area near the airport. If it is the latter do you think that the lack of support to the local area around the airport could have played a role in Congresswoman Johnson's decision to support the WA and DFW?
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
texan
Posts: 4071
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:36 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
I am for the WA because of the impact on the community that competition at DAL would create. Besides a deal is a deal WN agreed to the compromise that the WA represented.

Good lord knows that competition is bad for everybody. I know that I would never want to get a better product for less money  Smile

And about that, "a deal is a deal" thing...what about AA's bullying to get the perimeter rule at DCA expanded to include DFW? What about their promise to never again serve DAL, which they broke when Legend Airlines entered the market? Airlines compete, airports compete, customers win. Competition is a good thing, I like it. Why don't you?

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
cjpark
Topic Author
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: A New Twist On The Wright Amendment Debate

Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:50 am

Explain to me what in the world the DCA perimeter rule has to do with the WA.

No one said WN could not lobby to change the WA. However no one has given any reason to change the rule other than to suit WN's business plan. Give us a real reason why it should be changed. Right now this is nothing more than a plea for corporate welfare by WN.

We in North Texas have always had the capacity for competition between airlines and the opportunity for low fares. The key is and always has been Southwest Airlines reluctance to compete with the other airlines at DFW.

The deal is a deal, Southwest accepted the WA as a compromise.

[Edited 2005-08-10 22:51:05]

[Edited 2005-08-10 22:52:02]
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:56 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 19):
The deal is a deal, Southwest accepted the WA as a compromise.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson once pledged that she'd only serve two Senate terms, yet she just announced her intentions to run for a third.

Things change...
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: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:02 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
The question has been asked to the WN PR department. No list was provided. That either means that WN did not take the request seriously or that they have not done much to support the area near the airport. If it is the latter do you think that the lack of support to the local area around the airport could have played a role in Congresswoman Johnson's decision to support the WA and DFW?

Pure "conclusion" that it means this or that is pure speculation upon your part--it could just have easily been for another reason, like maybe calling the correct department.

Call back and ask for someone about corporate donations...
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: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:16 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
Guess what WN has turned it down

No need to guess, WN turned down an offer for gate space and free rent, not facilities. It seems that you have not been reading again.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
Why should WN have to pay? Because they made a decision to stay at DAL knowing they could not fly long distance from that airport. No one forced them to stay. It was a bad business decision and the public should not be expected to bail them out.

And I see we are still playing this old harp, even when we have repeatedly told you to look at the facilities that WN had at DAL past and present. It would have been business suicide to move their large op at DAL to DFW in liu of the high prices for the space and gates they would have to pay there. It was a smart BUSINESS move, not a dumb one. In terms of the WA ONLY, yes, it was a bad move to stay and now they have to deal with it. But if it were ONLY the restriction on the line, WN would have moved ages ago. However, the world is not that cut and dried, and WN is fully set up at DAL, so much so that it is cost prohibitive to move anywhere, let alone DFW.

And as far as the poor public bailing WN out, it is you who wants to put them in a situation where they need bailing out in the first place. So the least you can do is buy them a shovel and a bucket. If they don’t move they still make profit, but you want them to move, adding extra costs. It is then your responsibility to pay for the extra costs of the move you want. Period. That is the business of it.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
I agree with you there. Just try telling WN they need to return to the bargaining table with DFW.

Show me that DFW has set out the bargaining table and that Southwest has refused. And the deal they offered doesn’t count. DFW has not come to negotiate, it has offered an unsatisfactory deal to WN and they refused. Where is the bargaining?

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
I am for the WA because of the impact on the community that competition at DAL would create. Besides a deal is a deal WN agreed to the compromise that the WA represented. If you want to fly long distance buck it up and move.

Bull crap they did. The WA was put in place without WNs approval at all, they simply were overlooked as they didn’t have ops outside Texas anyway. The Shelby Amendment to the WA was garnered with WNs approval, but that is only because they couldn't get the whole thing repealed in the first place. And now WN is speaking up about this stupid piece of corrupt, grandfathered legislature again because they have a legit shot at getting it removed. So don’t go playing like WN has bound itself with any deal. The government cant honor a deal past 30 seconds anyway, so why should this one be any different.

Your fatalistic, 'my way or the highway' attitude is the sort of attitude that got the WA created in the first place. And it is that sort of inadaptability to change that I am fighting so hard to get rid of. Face it D/FW region, your lives are much different then they were even 5 years ago, let alone 3 decades. Stop being resistant and change where it is appropriate, and it most definitely is here.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
7e72004
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:15 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:19 am

Just get rid of the damn thing...there are other cities with multiple airports that do fine...the amendment is old and outdated!  irked 
The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:27 am

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 12):
These are details that ignore the major issue, which is the fact that this load of BS doesn’t fly. DFW will not be that hurt by this move. Pax numbers through there will not drop at all, let alone enough to hurt the concessionaires... That is just more political smoke and mirrors. I wonder what her real reason is.

So what you're saying is you're ready to eat crow if it's repealed?
 
typhaerion
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:27 am

Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 23):
...there are other cities with multiple airports that do fine...

Boeing7E7 has already done a fabulous job of refuting this perticular argument as the situation here is much different than other cities with multiple airports. While I agree with you in spirit, look at the history of these debates and you will find the specific info he has brought up.

I only post this to forstall others argument to the same that may occur in response to your post.
For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
 
travelin man
Posts: 3239
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:53 am

I absolutely hope that Wright is kept. And then I hope WN packs up and moves to a city much more friendly to its business interest, bet it SAT, HOU, or even LAS. Take the jobs, take the low fares, and let the unfortunate residents in DAL remain under AA's thumb forever.

Remember, they are YOUR "representatives" voting with DFW and AA. You elected them. And then CJPark, Boeing7E7, et al, will be able to sleep blissfully and pay the $1,600 walk-up fares to LA.

Go Congresswoman!

(And oh what fun it would be to watch WN move its HQ to HOU.)
 
swadispatcher
Posts: 420
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:04 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
If it is the latter do you think that the lack of support to the local area around the airport could have played a role in Congresswoman Johnson's decision to support the WA and DFW?

No.. I think the $2000 she got from AA on March 1st is the reason she's supporting the WA..
Maintain 2300 until Boiler, cleared for the VOR-A approach, report BATLE inbound..
 
FlewGSW
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:45 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:26 am

Her decision was based on one groups input: The local Dallas Minority Business Owners Group that last month came out against the WA.
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

Wright Is Plane Wrong!

Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:00 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 11):
Why should we pay have to pay to renovate DAL when we have an airport 8 miles due west that can handle any and all of WN's expansion needs?

 rotfl 

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 12):
post-regulation era

 checkmark 

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
have not done much to support the area near the airport.

like employing I don’t know how many thousands of people and 100+ daily flights.

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):
The question has been asked to the WN PR department. No list was provided.

For your reading pleasure, ask again. They’ve got nothing to hide; unlike their arch nemesis on Amon Carter Blvd in Fort Worth.

Quoting Texan (Reply 18):
Good lord knows that competition is bad for everybody.

Buckaroo Arpey has me believing competition is bad.  Wink

Quoting Swadispatcher (Reply 27):
No.. I think the $2000 she got from AA on March 1st is the reason she's supporting the WA..

Along with minority contractors scared they will lose skycap contracts, wheelchair contracts, food court contracts, etc. along with those excellent deals on YCADCA* (and other govt fares) extended to Rep. EB Johnson and her staff by AA.


YCADCA and other government fares: fully refundable, fully changeable, no rip off change fee all for a discount price
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
milemaster
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:19 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:30 am

Everyone calm down.. It's beyond likely the repeal isn't going to happen.

Must be the heat is getting to everyone. Two airports functioning 8 miles apart is enough reason alone, but there are more factors in play here that will kill this repeal movement. I do enjoy listening to the militant WN cool-aid drinkers though. They remind me of brainwashed Amway and Mary Kay consultants.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9306
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:01 am

>> Two airports functioning 8 miles apart is enough reason alone.

That argument is entirely false as the Dallas airspace was reconfigured years ago so as to seperate DAL and DFW airspace. Traffic does not conflict to any degree.

>> Boeing7E7 has already done a fabulous job of refuting this perticular argument as the situation here is much different than other cities with multiple airports.

Boeing7E7 brings up the defense of bond covenants from 1968. Well, isn't that pertinent nearly four decades later, even after DFW has been fully established? DFW has undertaken multiple expansion projects and DAL has shrunken in its ability to handle large sums of commercial traffic, yet the W.A. is still in issue? How does that compute?
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
vegasplanes
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:22 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:26 am

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 17):

I am for the WA because of the impact on the community that competition at DAL would create.

Cjpark, according to your user profile you are not 80 years old, so DAL was in YOUR community long before you moved to that community.

If you can not stand DAL being there than move, it was there long before you, I bet your one of them NIMBY guys.  Wink
 
cjpark
Topic Author
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:37 am

Tyhpaerion,
Show me that DFW has set out the bargaining table and that Southwest has refused. And the deal they offered doesn’t count. DFW has not come to negotiate, it has offered an unsatisfactory deal to WN and they refused. Where is the bargaining?
>>>>>In lieu of providing the service and fares they are so well known for, Southwest Airlines is asking Congress for special treatment. Every other carrier that serves this Metroplex does it from a level playing field at DFW International Airport.

Southwest has the freedom to fly today, and it does not require an act of Congress. We urge Southwest Airlines to do what is best for all of North Texas and the flying public by initiating service today from the airport that was built by our two great cities to handle regional growth and competition for decades to come.

Today, we once again reiterate our offer to Southwest Airlines to initiate service here at DFW, complete with free rent and other incentives valued at $22 million which the North Texas congressional delegation previously urged Southwest to consider. If this offer is not sufficient or needs to be amended, then we stand ready, willing, and able to negotiate with Southwest Airlines in an effort to determine what it will take to bring them to DFW.

http://www.keepdfwstrong.com/news/05/06/060705-cox.html

>>>>D/FW officials say they're willing to do just about anything to lure the nation's top low-fare carrier to fill space left when Delta Air Lines Inc. cut its schedule by 90 percent in January.
That includes building a custom terminal and parking facility close enough to any of D/FW's seven runways to help Southwest be as efficient as possible, said Kevin Cox, the airport's chief operating officer.
"We'll build them whatever they want," he said. "We will literally put them on a taxiway where they're a hop, skip and a jump to a runway.
"We are as serious as a heart attack; we want Southwest Airlines to come here," he added.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s/060905dnbuswright.12c0ebf7a.html

>>>>>But Southwest executives maintain that the decision has already been made -- they will not serve D/FW anytime in the foreseeable future.
"We've probably studied D/FW more than any airport out there," said Ed Stewart, a Southwest spokesman. "We've tried to come up with ways to make it work."
Ultimately, he said, the negatives at D/FW outweigh potential profits.
"It just doesn't make sense for us," he said. "And we are not going to change our minds."
The only way Southwest will offer long-haul service from North Texas, Stewart said, is if the Wright Amendment -- the law that restricts flights from Dallas Love Field to states surrounding Texas and three others -- is repealed. That would allow the airline to fly unrestricted from Love, its home base.

http://www.airportbusiness.com/artic.../article.jsp?id=2724&siteSection=3


Your fatalistic, 'my way or the highway' attitude is the sort of attitude that got the WA created in the first place. And it is that sort of inadaptability to change that I am fighting so hard to get rid of. Face it D/FW region, your lives are much different then they were even 5 years ago, let alone 3 decades. Stop being resistant and change where it is appropriate, and it most definitely is here.

>>>>>Gee that sounds strikingly close to the path that Southwest has set for itself. Southwest has made it clear they get their way or they will hit the highway.


SWADispatcher,

Can you give a source for your allegations on donations to the Congresswoman?

Vegasplanes,

You say NIMBY like it is a bad thing?

FlyingTexan,

Well you are definitely a legend in your own mind. Keep up the good work.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9306
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:56 am

>> You say NIMBY like it is a bad thing?

Because often times it is a bad thing. When you live in an urban community, there comes a high probability that you will be asked (or rather, forced) to accept some unsightly reminder of the society you live in. Some people just don't get that, when everyday we profit from a compromise some other "NIMBY" made. Hell we are all in someone else's backyard.

I happen to have a high-voltage power line corridor that runs right behind my backyard. It's incredibly unsightly, you can see them from any view from any window on the north side of my house. When TXU informed our neighborhood that they would be replacing the high-voltage lines for maintenance reasons, my neighbor thought it a good opportunity to protest TXU and force them to take an alternative route.

I refused to join said group and even sabatoged him from being successful in his protest. My logic was simple:

1. Some community benefits from those power lines directly. I am only raising the cost of someone elses utility bills in protesting this pre-existing power line.

2. It's counter-intuitive to raise the cost for TXU to build power lines when they will simply distribute the cost on all their customers, including me.

3. I benefit greatly from the power lines. Had they not been there before the neighborhood was built, the developer would have inevitibly put an extra row of houses where the corridor stands. Instead, the City of Plano bought the land from TXU, leased back the power-lines, and put a bike path and park along the power lines. Not the most scenic bike route, but it provides me 40 continuous miles of jogging and biking trails.

There is always a simmilar parallel whether it be airports, shopping centers, freeways, or nuclear power plants. This is especially the case when the public facility was opperational before the NIMBY in question moves in.

Maybe you should take a page out of the Midlothian book and take a look at citizens who actually managed to work with TXI Cement to find a compromise that (1) helped keep the Ennis County economy strong and (2) helped the entire metroplex slash air pollution. NIMBYS took the equivilent of 60,000 SUVs off the road this week by being open minded and accepting that there is no perfect solution. That is the best we can hope for and that is a public good.

[Edited 2005-08-11 04:58:49]
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
swadispatcher
Posts: 420
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:05 pm

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 33):
SWADispatcher,

Can you give a source for your allegations on donations to the Congresswoman?

See reply #15 for the link..
Maintain 2300 until Boiler, cleared for the VOR-A approach, report BATLE inbound..
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:13 pm

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 33):
FlyingTexan,

Well you are definitely a legend in your own mind. Keep up the good work.

And AA has a history of punishing Legends.

 spin 
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:14 pm

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 36):

And AA has a history of punishing Legends.

..and other "Vanguards" of low-fare outfits...  Wink
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
aaway
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:10 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 31):
Boeing7E7 brings up the defense of bond covenants from 1968. Well, isn't that pertinent nearly four decades later, even after DFW has been fully established? DFW has undertaken multiple expansion projects and DAL has shrunken in its ability to handle large sums of commercial traffic, yet the W.A. is still in issue? How does that compute?

In simple terms, DFW issued revenue bonds for many of the multiple expansion projects DFW that you allude to. Some are still being paid today:

http://fitchratings.com/corporate/ra...d=§or_flag=&marketsector=3&detail=

Here's a primer on the criteria used to rate airport revenue bonds. It may answer your question regarding the pertinence of Wright today:

http://fitchratings.com/corporate/re...=3418§or_flag=&marketsector=3#

[Edited 2005-08-11 06:22:25]
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
vegasplanes
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:22 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:38 pm

Quoting Cjpark (Reply 33):

You say NIMBY like it is a bad thing?


See DfwRevolution, he beat me to the punch.

Quoting Aaway (Reply 38):

In simple terms, DFW issued revenue bonds for many of the multiple expansion projects DFW that you allude to. Some are still being paid today:

http://fitchratings.com/corporate/ra...d=§or_flag=&marketsector=3&detail=

Here's a primer on the criteria used to rate airport revenue bonds. It may answer your question regarding the pertinence of Wright today:

http://fitchratings.com/corporate/re...or=3#

Here's the problem with your argument, muni bonds are normally fixed rate debt instruments, what is important to the authority issuing the bonds is the rating the bonds are carrying at time of issuance, the higher the rating, the lower the interest rate. The fact that down the road conditions change (repeal of WA) and the ratings of the DFW bonds are downgraded, this does not affect the issuer as to how much interest is paid on existing bonds. The market will price the bonds lower to increase the yield, the only people this affects is DFW bondholders, it does not increase the cost of interest on existing bonds to the DFW authority.

The downgrade of DFW debt would hinder their ability to finance future projects at DFW or refinance (is the DFW authority responsible for creating a sinking fund from revenues to retire the bonds as they mature?) the existing bonds. Being that DFW just completed a major expansion and from what the WA supporters say, there will be drastic reductions in service to DFW, than DFW does not need to ever issue new bonds to expand as the place will be a ghost town, so who cares about the need to finance future projects? If the WA is repealed there is nothing for DFW bond holders to worry about, what is AA going to move all their flights to DAL, impossible, their are only 32 total gates at DAL, not all of which are even usable without renovation, their is no way DFW could possibly be hurt in any meaningful way from repeal of the WA. If anything the fact that lower fares might be available elsewhere (DAL) carriers serving DFW might lower their fares, low and behold more passengers will fly through DFW than ever before. And how does DFW make their money, on landing fees, parking fees, PAX. Fees, etc. More passengers flying through DFW provides more revenue to DFW and their "minority vendors" regardless of what fare the passenger is paying to fly to/from/through DFW.
 
cjpark
Topic Author
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:41 pm

Swadispatcher,

Is there any difference between the money Southwest gave to Hensarling and Ensign and the money AA gave to EBJ?

DfwRevolution,

Interesting that you admit to living in Plano. Yet you take the position that you actually have a say in what Dallas does with its airport. Yes I am a NIMBY on the WA who actually lives and owns property in the City and County of Dallas, TX and I pay the taxes that enable me to voice my opinion and work to shape public policy concerning DAL.

Do you vote in Dallas County or pay property taxes in Dallas County?
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
sllevin
Posts: 3314
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:57 pm

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 12):

Why should WN have to pay the massive amount to move there operation to DFW in a post-regulation era where all the airports should be open.

Actually, Love Field should be closed to commercial traffic. It is only fancy legal manuvering that Southwest's commercial service exists there at all.

I suspect her decision has a lot more to do with feeling that the people in her district do NOT want to see Love "open." Clearly, she feels her constiuents, the people who elected her, would prefer to finally see the airport closed after 30+ years of dragging out this legal farce.

Steve
 
midex461
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2000 11:08 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:24 pm

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 41):
I suspect her decision has a lot more to do with feeling that the people in her district do NOT want to see Love "open."

Yeah, but I'm sure that the 2 grand she got from AMR helped her mAAke up her mind.
Opinions and views expressed are MINE and do NOT represent the views of US Airways
 
vegasplanes
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:22 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:28 pm

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 41):

Actually, Love Field should be closed to commercial traffic. It is only fancy legal manuvering that Southwest's commercial service exists there at all.

I suspect her decision has a lot more to do with feeling that the people in her district do NOT want to see Love "open." Clearly, she feels her constiuents, the people who elected her, would prefer to finally see the airport closed after 30+ years of dragging out this legal farce.

Sure, lets close DFW also while were at it and make AMA the official airport of North Texas. Pretty ridicules, the Federal involvement over the years in what should be at best a state issue, more like a city issue. The Feds (CAB) forced Dallas and Ft. Worth to build DFW in the first place. The Feds (Supreme Court) upheld WN's right to fly from DAL. A congressman (Feds) by the name of Jim Wright of Texas managed to enact his Amendment, watered down from original form.

The lesson, keep the Feds out of the municipal government business, because in the end, they have no idea what they want, hence todays debate.
 
aaway
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:33 pm

Quoting Vegasplanes (Reply 39):
Here's the problem with your argument, muni bonds are normally fixed rate debt instruments...

The intent of my initial post was to illustrate the significance of Wright on the bearing of development @ DFW from a financial market perspective. Simply stated, the investment in DFW financial instruments didn't cease once the initial (1968) bonds were paid off. The restrictions placed on WN and/or DAL helped make investment at DFW more attractive.

Overall, your post is good. However, I'll take issue with a portion of it:

Quoting Vegasplanes (Reply 39):
If anything the fact that lower fares might be available elsewhere (DAL) carriers serving DFW might lower their fares, low and behold more passengers will fly through DFW than ever before. And how does DFW make their money, on landing fees, parking fees, PAX. Fees, etc. More passengers flying through DFW provides more revenue to DFW and their "minority vendors" regardless of what fare the passenger is paying to fly to/from/through DFW.

This of course is a 'best-case' scenario. The ability of DFW to attract more passengers will depend largely on the extent of leakage to DAL. Bear in mind, this battle is for the O & D market, so increased revenues from concessions (excepting parking) will probably be negligible...and possibly decrease depending on the amount of traffic diversion.

If the leakage is as great as the prognosticators indicate, your growth in movements will be at DAL, not DFW. Landing fees as a revenue stream decrease as well at DFW.

Digressing back to your 'best-case' scenario for a moment...any traffic growth @ DFW, as a result of repeal, will come on the back of depressed yields. DOT studies of the vaunted "Southwest effect" indicated an average 30 percent reduction in yields in markets where WN competes with legacy carriers. Think DFW carriers can make that up on O & D traffic growth?

Inherently, DFW becomes more expensive to operate at. Since DFW is a spoke for other domestic carriers and DAL becomes more attractive on the basis of costs, what incentive is there for UA, NW and the like to stay @ DFW?

From the investment standpoint, not a good situation. The burden of bond service increasingly shifts to the remaining stakeholders (AA, OA international carriers and cargo operators?) therefore, increasing the level of risk associated with investment in DFW.

[Edited 2005-08-11 08:36:29]

[Edited 2005-08-11 08:47:20]
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
aaway
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:43 pm

the link associated with the primer on airport bonds requires a login. Therefore, I copied and posted the overview from Fitch Ratings below:

Overview
Fitch’s prospective approach to rating airport
revenue bonds reflects the changes and challenges
the U.S. airport system currently
faces. As the airport network continues to
evolve in an environment in which regulatory,
financial, and technological changes
inherently affect the way airports operate
and, subsequently, constrain airport operational
and financial flexibility, innovations for
meeting infrastructure needs must be developed
and expanded.
Furthermore, airports increasingly have
become important economic components as
well as integral elements in defining future
growth patterns in their respective service
areas. Similarly, understanding an airport’s
essentiality to its geographic region and the
U.S.’s overall airport system, along with the
strength of its market and service areas, has
become an increasingly important factor in
airport revenue bond analysis. This is particularly
important as industry trends (i.e.
megacarriers, airline alliances, and bankruptcies)
and market patterns (i.e. hub and
spoke systems, point-to-point service, and regional
airports) continue to evolve. However,
an airport with a strong service area, a
proven market, and/or that is an important
cog in the U.S. airport system should be able
to withstand short-term economic and industry
fluctuations.
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
vegasplanes
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:22 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:10 pm

Quoting Aaway (Reply 44):

The intent of my initial post was to illustrate the significance of Wright on the bearing of development @ DFW from a financial market perspective. Simply stated, the investment in DFW financial instruments didn't cease once the initial (1968) bonds were paid off. The restrictions placed on WN and/or DAL helped make investment at DFW more attract

Agreed, the WA does bear on DFW bonds, nor did investment cease after 1968, agree that the "restrictions" did have something to do with the WA, but not all, do not forget that Braniff had DFW hub, hometown airline, AA had DFW hub, just relocated from NYC (headquarters) at the time, heavy hitters politically speaking, compared to circa. 1978 WN.

Quoting Aaway (Reply 44):
Bear in mind, this battle is for the O & D market, so increased revenues from concessions (excepting parking) will probably be negligible...and possibly decrease depending on the amount of traffic diversion.

As I stated, maybe unclearly, that the Passenger Fees, i.e. $ 3 per take off and landing would provide sufficient additional revenue to DFW. Not sure on the $ 3 number, just an example. By the way, what is the passenger fee at DFW?

Quoting Aaway (Reply 44):


If the leakage is as great as the pronosticators indicate, your growth in movements will be at DAL, not DFW.

The Love Field masterplan is still in force, and from what I have seen nothing is being done to change that. Therefore until the Love masterplan is changed DAL is limited to 32 total gates, with WN having 21 of them. That leaves 11 gates open, lets assume that maybe 12 flights a day from any non-WN airlines can operate from those gates, that is only a possible 132 flights a day that can be moved from DFW to DAL or new service on non-WN carriers that can be added to DAL as opposed to DFW.

Quoting Aaway (Reply 44):

Inherently, DFW becomes more expensive to operate at. Since DFW is a spoke for other domestic carriers and DAL becomes more attractive on the basis of costs, what incentive is there for UA, NW and the like to stay @ DFW?

The incentive is that most likely these airlines have leases with DFW that can not be broken, outside of Ch. 11, therefore if the airline has to pay the lease to DFW and pay DAL when they move to DAL, most likely they will be spending more than they were at DFW canceling any cost savings. These are more than likely long term leases that these carriers have with DFW. Also, what about the 1968 bond covenants that are so popular, did it not state that airline serving DAL had to move to DFW and could NOT fly from DAL. What's the chance DFW trys to pull that one out of a hat if the carriers that agreed to the covenants tried to move to DAL.

Quoting Aaway (Reply 44):

From the investment standpoint, not a good situation. The burden of bond service increasingly shifts to the remaining stakeholders (AA, OA international carriers and cargo operators?) therefore, increasing the level of risk associated with investment in DFW.

Granted this is true, but how does this really effect DFW, if the prognoses the WA supporters give, than DFW might never need to be expanded again, therefore no need for new bonds. The question lies within the DFW Authority, do the existing bonds have a "sinking fund", or are they paid off slowly each year like an EETC? Or does DFW "blow" all there cash and hope to refinance the bonds for eternity? If the bonds are paid back, and all this traffic has moved to DAL as WA supporters expect, than what would stop DFW from dropping their rates to the floor to gain service from DAL as they would now have no debt left to service, only operating expenses. How's that for a twist.  Wink

My guess is that post DL, DFW is getting apporx. 90% of revenue through AA anyhow, if alot of O & D did move to DAL, AA still would have their # 1 hub at DFW as it is a good location for a Hub, the weather is mild most of the time (compared to ORD and STL.) and the same reason WN will not leave DAL, all their maintenance, offices, etc. are at DFW, too expensive to move.
 
vegasplanes
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:22 pm

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:17 pm

Quoting Aaway (Reply 45):
the link associated with the primer on airport bonds requires a login. Therefore, I copied and posted the overview from Fitch Ratings below:

I Appreciate the post, pretty much the same way corp. bonds are rated, industry trends, sub. regional importance, for financial position for a private co.

If I was a DFW bondholder, I would wait for the WA to be repealed, let the bonds drop to 85-90 cents on the dollar, and pick up some tax free interest at 8-8 1/2%. AA is going nowhere, thats the 900lb. Gorilla that ensures DFW pays their interest and their bonds. Kinda reminds me of what happened with GM and GMAC bonds in the last few months.
 
cjpark
Topic Author
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:44 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 21):
Pure "conclusion" that it means this or that is pure speculation upon your part--it could just have easily been for another reason, like maybe calling the correct department.

Call back and ask for someone about corporate donations...

You could provide the list to us since you are in a position to know who to contact. I will even say please get us a list of donations to the local area.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
cjpark
Topic Author
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

RE: Johnson Wants To Keep Wright In Place

Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:49 pm

Quoting Vegasplanes (Reply 43):
Sure, lets close DFW also while were at it and make AMA the official airport of North Texas. Pretty ridicules, the Federal involvement over the years in what should be at best a state issue, more like a city issue. The Feds (CAB) forced Dallas and Ft. Worth to build DFW in the first place. The Feds (Supreme Court) upheld WN's right to fly from DAL. A congressman (Feds) by the name of Jim Wright of Texas managed to enact his Amendment, watered down from original form.

The lesson, keep the Feds out of the municipal government business, because in the end, they have no idea what they want, hence todays debate.

Lets see the airline business is regulated by the Federal Government. The DOT/FAA has final say on all routes, safety issues etc. What you should be saying is that the local municipalities should have final say on whether or not Commercial Airservice is allowed a local airports. Not the Feds or the Courts right?
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart

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