|Quoting Cjpark (Reply 57):|
How is a law that all players operate under anticompetitive?
Remember it is the Airlines that compete not airports.
It's not anticompetitive? It's a law that was crafted specifically to restrict WN
's operations at DAL
. Wright couched the amendment in terms of "protecting D/FW", but by 1979 that wasn't necessary any longer. The argument that WN
shouldn't be operating from there in the first place is specious. The Supreme Court, time and time again, resoundingly upheld WN
's rights to operate from DAL
. Faced with the spectre of deregulation, Jim Wright, at the behest of the airlines, created the Wright Amendment. As originally written, it could've impacted MDW
and many other reliever/satellite airports. Upon encountering intense pushback regarding that issue, he altered the agreement to specifically address Love Field.
Why's it anticompetitive? Because it limits the utility and usability of an airfield in a way that is unprecedented anywhere else in the nation. NO OTHER CASE of such restrictions exists. LGA
have perimiter fences but none have the restrictions that DAL
does which are specifically written to inhibit the operations of a specific carrier. Given that the highest court in the land
upheld the right of WN
to operate from DAL
, why then should DAL
be subject to restrictions no other airport
is? It's not that WN
can move to DFW
. They shouldn't have to.
If you are trying to state that the WA
is not anticompetitive, please explain why it is that the amendment was only enacted upon deregulation when WN
would've been free to fly wherever they pleased, and why this amendment only SPECIFICALLY refers to Love Field. I'm very surprised WN
didn't challenge the constitutionality of the amendment at the time. I have the feeling "passionate neutrality" was borne of a desire to stay out of the courts for a while even though WN
likely could've won a challenge to have the WA
struck down. AA
, etc got what they wanted in restricting competition out of DAL
could grow out of HOU
and elsewhere as they pleased and got to stay out of court for a while, thereby not bleeding legal fees. Now, we're 25 years past that, D/FW's status is set in stone as the airport for the region, and DAL
is still under the same restrictions it was back in 1979.
If you'll recall, D/FW opposed the Shelby amendment and predicted doom and gloom back in 1997. It hasn't come to pass. DL
's failure at DFW
has zero to do with the Wright Amendment and everything to do with an inability to compete with AA
at it's fortress hub. So, now that the WA
is on the verge of being repealed, D/FW and AA
are going to do everything they can to protect their back yard. That's only proper business and I would be disappointed if they DIDN'T. Still, even they see the writing on the wall. If they had a hope of keeping the WA
intact, they wouldn't be trying stalling tactics such as trying to get WN
to agree to take no action until October 2006 (when the session is over, effectively delaying action until 2007). They wouldn't be coming to the table. We'll see how it turns out but it's not looking very good for proponents of Wright.
You asked the question. I answered it. I don't fly WN
. I don't LIKE flying WN
. I've paid AA
$400 for a one way ticket specifically to avoid flying WN DAL
on a ticket already paid. Yet, I still support repeal of the WA
because it is wrong
. It won't have the disastrous effects predicted by D/FW and AA
. The sky didn't fall in 1997 with the Shelby amendment and it's not going to fall now. IMO repeal the f'ing thing, get it behind us, and let's roll on.