Aa Wright Amendment Study Released
- Thread starter FA Mikey
- Start date
FA Mikey said:
Know what the great thing about this "study" is? It finally shows who is really behind maintaining the Wright Amendment. AA is one of Eclat's largest clients and DFW is not even on their client list. Hmmmmm..........
Talk about throwing alot of money into a ridiculous battle (AA) in a time when you are taking it from your employees. I thought the industry was in a survival mode now and that fringe expenses like this at a time of wage/cost cuts would be just plain idiotic. Apparently AMR sees the value in the protectionist legislation.
What pathetic BS.
:down: to Arpey for allowing this childish nonsense to be published.
It's one thing to claim that AA's revenues would be harmed if WN were allowed to fly anywhere it wants from DAL.
It's quite another to make up doom and gloom BS nonsense to try to scare everyone in the Metroplex.
Time to write an email to the AA executives.
:down: to Arpey for allowing this childish nonsense to be published.
It's one thing to claim that AA's revenues would be harmed if WN were allowed to fly anywhere it wants from DAL.
It's quite another to make up doom and gloom BS nonsense to try to scare everyone in the Metroplex.
Time to write an email to the AA executives.
Now this rocks. ECLAT, the same firm that was used by the compAAny to prep the unions on the concessions in the summer of 2002, used by the twu to sell the concessions to the membership in 2003, and assisted in the anti-AMFA campaign, which included an appearance by Captain Randy himself in a AMFA meeting in Tulsa in 2004, is back again to talk about the Wright Ammendment.FA Mikey said:
It's the same report we got from the twu via ECLAT about AA during the concessions. Same BS ECLAT wrote on behalf of the twu and quite possibly AA during the election campaign. I still wonder who flew Captain Randy to Tulsa, AA or the twu????Afterall Captain Randy don't drive.FWAAA said:
LoneStarMike
Advanced
You gotta love Southwest*s response to this latest study.
Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Beth Harbin said that the study is nothing new.
"It*s along the lines of what they have always said," Harbin said. "It*s really less of a study and more of a bold threat that they*re making to their smallest markets, which is unfortunate."
[SNIP]
Southwest said the study has not swayed its position.
" ... D/FW is best for American and Southwest is best for Love Field ... We*re two different animals and we have two very different locations for a good reason," Harbin said. "We thank them (American) for their advice. If we sought their advice for all of our operational moves, we*d certainly go out of business."
source
LoneStarMike
Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Beth Harbin said that the study is nothing new.
"It*s along the lines of what they have always said," Harbin said. "It*s really less of a study and more of a bold threat that they*re making to their smallest markets, which is unfortunate."
[SNIP]
Southwest said the study has not swayed its position.
" ... D/FW is best for American and Southwest is best for Love Field ... We*re two different animals and we have two very different locations for a good reason," Harbin said. "We thank them (American) for their advice. If we sought their advice for all of our operational moves, we*d certainly go out of business."
source
LoneStarMike
LoneStarMike said:You gotta love Southwest*s response to this latest study.
" ... D/FW is best for American and Southwest is best for Love Field ... We*re two different animals and we have two very different locations for a good reason," Harbin said. "We thank them (American) for their advice. If we sought their advice for all of our operational moves, we*d certainly go out of business."[/i]
source
LoneStarMike
[post="310894"][/post]
LMAO!
WN certainly has a way with words sometimes.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #9
<_< Now that's a profond statement!!!!!!TWAnr said:
JungleClone
Senior
- Jan 9, 2004
- 338
- 0
Talk about self-serving. How is it even remotely possible to justify the Wright Amendment as anything more than restraint of trade? While the Amendment had its justification when enacted, in order to safeguard the opening of DFW and protect its' early growth, it's long outlived that justification. It's funny how the Federal Government is always screaming about the need to ensure adequate competition. Yet, they allow the Wright Amendment to continue. You all may as well get used to the fact that eventually the Wright Amendment will go away. AA might be lucky enough to stave it off this time, but sooner or later, it'll be gone.
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
Veteran
- Oct 9, 2003
- 1,401
- 2
Arpey wants the employees of AA to do what the AA legal dept. and the City of Ft. Worth should be doing or should have done years ago. If the Wright amendment is repealed ,The City of Dallas should be sued for violating the bond covenant agreements that created DFW International. Actually the City of Dallas has been violating the bond agreements for years. This really is not a fight for AA employees to fight. This something that AA management and the City of Ft. Worth should have been fighting tooth and nail. They let the little roach(SWA) grow into a 5,000 lb. roach over at Love field(with the assistance of Dallas) and now AA wants the employees to try and step on it for them. Sorry, but my foot just isn't big enough. This just another example of too little,too late.
LoneStarMike
Advanced
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
If you're referring to the part of the concurrent bond ordinance which stated Love Field would be closed to commercial traffic, I don't think the lawsuit would get very far. Dallas tried to make it a crime for Southwest to land at Love Field back in the mid-1970's and even went so far as to impose a $200 fine for each landing Southwest made there.
Back in January of this year there was an article about this ongoing issue. One part of the article gave a history of Wright's origins.
The conflict dates to the mid-1960s, when Dallas and Fort Worth -- at the prodding of the federal government -- agreed to work together and build a giant new airport to serve the entire region.
Both cities agreed to end commercial airline service at their individual airports once D/FW was completed. The ordinance allowing the sale of bonds to build the airport contained a provision intended to give the cities the legal means to close airports to airlines.
But along came Southwest, which incorporated in 1967 and announced its intention to fly from Love Field to San Antonio and Houston. Because it planned to fly only within Texas, Southwest operated under the regulatory eye of the Texas Aeronautics Commission.
Southwest didn't become airborne until June 1971, after fighting off regulatory appeals and lawsuits initiated by its future competitors. Shortly thereafter, Dallas and Fort Worth filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking to evict Southwest from Love Field.
What followed was the first of a series of court losses for the cities. U.S. District Judge William Taylor ruled that the cities could not legally force Southwest to abandon Love Field.
Dallas and Fort Worth appealed, and lost again. When they could not win in federal court, the D/FW supporters tried an end run and sued in state court. The federal courts intervened, saying the state courts did not have jurisdiction.
At times, the judges expressed irritation that the two cities and their attorneys didn't understand the meaning of "no." In a January 1977 ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote:
"This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field. Precisely worded holdings and deference to state authorities have only generated more suits, appeals and petitions for rehearings. Once again, we repeat, Southwest Airlines has a federally declared right to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open."
If the courts ruled that the provision requiring Love Field to close to commercial traffic was illegal to begin with, what good will another lawsuit do other than waste more of AA's and Fort Worth's money?
LoneStarMike
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
Bravo! Bravo!! (applause). You sure epitomize the AA-protectionism that this legislation provides and you don't even try to hide it!! It's like seeing the Wizard of Oz being revealed. Others on these boards try to mask the true intent of the WA when they defend it but you are honest enough to just say that it is there (today...not originally) to protect AA. Thank you for your honesty. I have so much more respect for you than the others (even if I stand totally opposed to any protection of an airline, I have alot of respect for your genuity.)
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
Veteran
- Oct 9, 2003
- 1,401
- 2
Your right it's all about attitude. When my 17.5% paycut is rescinded with back pay and our sick time,vacation,doubletime clause,etc. is restored. I might consider helping out poor mister Arpey(the guy who has a bankruptcy proof pension and was one of the idiots who wanted to buy TWA), until then forget it! What will be the reward for fighting SWA for AA? Another paycut? More concessions?
Similar threads
