Anti-wright Amendment Website

[swflyer]

Just to be fair, here's a DFW side story. Watch the Brad Watson video from the "also online" box, however, and you'll hear some of the "facts" in the print version overturned. <_<

P.S. Don't bother arguing for this study until you've watched the video. Thankyouverymuch

Dallas Morning News Story Link


Wright repeal would hurt D/FW, study says
May 10, 2005

By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News

Repealing the Wright amendment would lower airfares in North Texas but also cut service domestically and internationally from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, according to a study released Tuesday.

D/FW would lose 204 flights a day and 21 million passengers per year in the worst-case scenario outlined in the study paid for by D/FW officials.

The study modeled four scenarios relating to different outcomes from the current effort to repeal the Wright amendment.

D/FW Chief Operating Officer Kevin Cox invoked Southwest Airlines Chairman Herb Kelleher's own words in defending the utility of the Wright amendment during a news conference Tuesday. Mr. Cox quoted Mr. Kelleher as saying that two hub airports competing against each other would hurt North Texas.

"The study provides further evidence that repealing the Wright amendment would be a devastating economic blow to the entire North Texas region," Mr. Cox said. "D/FW is a world-class airport equipped to meet the needs of both domestic and international travelers and grow new business and tourism for Dallas and Fort Worth. Repealing the Wright amendment not only means a huge loss of air traffic, it means a loss of jobs, convention business and economic growth. We need competition between airlines, not airports that are a mere eight miles apart."

Southwest Airlines has said lower fares would benefit the local economy, and it's having its own study prepared. Southwest Airlines officials were not immediately available for comment.

The $100,000 study was done by New York-based Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, an airline consulting firm.
Findings include:

D/FW will lose substantial traffic — The airport could lose up to 204 daily flights and up to 21 million passengers annually, representing a 35 percent decline. With this substantial loss, D/FW airport passenger levels will decrease to levels last seen 20 years ago and it will take up to 19 years for traffic to recover to current levels.

Traffic at Love Field could triple — Love Field operations could triple and Love Field passengers could increase by as many as 16 million passengers a year. Tripling Love Field's use would strain older existing facilities and cause local traffic gridlock.

D/FW will lose international air service — Current international air service would be substantially reduced because of a loss of international connecting traffic through D/FW. Flights to Latin America are particularly vulnerable.

D/FW would lose domestic destinations — With the repeal of the Wright amendment, up to 15 current markets with low frequency could see service cuts or elimination.

D/FW has significant growth capacity — D/FW airport was designed and built to handle 100 million passengers and 1.4 million airport operations annually and can accommodate low-cost carrier growth that won't cost taxpayers more money. In contrast, if the Wright amendment is repealed, costly improvements will be needed at Love Field to accommodate increases in traffic; meanwhile, airport capacity investments already made at D/FW airport will sit idle.

Growth at D/FW is the preferred option — The growth of low-cost carrier service at D/FW will add more passengers and more long-term economic growth to the Dallas-Fort Worth area than any scenario in which the Wright amendment is repealed - without disrupting facilities, neighborhoods or taxpayer commitments.

 

[swflyer]

Find the whiny Kevin Cox quote!! <_<

Southwest's Dallas Duel
Discounter Attacks Old Law That Crimps Its Operations;
American, DFW Fight Back
By SUSAN WARREN and MELANIE TROTTMAN
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 10, 2005; Page B1

DALLAS -- After more than a quarter century of living under the restrictions of an arcane federal law, Southwest Airlines has declared war on a statute that has stifled its growth at its hometown airport.

Under the 1979 law, the only flights Southwest may schedule at its headquarters at Dallas Love Field are those to and from seven states. Since the law's enactment, Southwest has grown up to fly more passengers than any other U.S. carrier and is one of the few that is profitable. Still, anyone who wants to fly Southwest from Dallas to a location beyond a nearby state must first fly to a nearby city, wait at least an hour in the airport, then change planes. Southwest is forbidden to sell tickets to and from these faraway cities and can't even advertise such long-haul flights under the statute.

The law, called the Wright Amendment after its sponsor, former Fort Worth congressman and House speaker Jim Wright, was designed to protect rival Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, located about 11 miles away, from competition by carriers at Love Field. The law has protected AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, which is based in Fort Worth and has become DFW's dominant carrier and chief moneymaker. It also has pushed up fares to and from Dallas and kept Southwest from expanding in its hometown even as it has spread to 59 other cities, where it typically offers long-haul flights to many destinations and has prompted rivals to cut their fares.

Now, Southwest's new chief executive officer, Gary Kelly, has embarked on a battle to overturn the Wright Amendment -- emboldened by the growing clout of discount airlines and the decline of traditional carriers. Last week, Southwest launched a Web site, www.setlovefree.com1, appealing directly to consumers nationwide to fight a law "that creates higher fares for you." It even festooned its airport gates with balloons promoting the site.

Mr. Kelly's move pits the feisty Southwest against its much-larger hometown rival, American. The Wright Amendment helped American build DFW into its largest hub, and American isn't going to give up that advantage without a fight.

Both American and DFW warn that expanding flights out of Love Field will hurt them badly. They also claim it will have dire consequences for the region's economy. In the past, that warning has been heeded. But for the first time, Southwest has convinced some key Texas politicians, including Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, to at least consider helping ditch the Wright Amendment.

"Citizens are screaming to lift the Wright Amendment," says the mayor, who sits on the board of DFW airport and hasn't yet completely backed the idea. "It's only one giant airline and one giant airport that don't want it to happen."

At base, the fight is over money. Southwest could gain as much as $500 million in annual revenue, by some estimates, by offering nonstop flights out of Love to destinations around the country. By contrast, American likely would see its profits hurt if it has to compete with its crosstown rival on long-haul flights. In other cities where Southwest competes with American, American's fares are generally lower than at DFW, but still higher than Southwest's.

The move to repeal the amendment couldn't come at a worse time for American. Buffeted by high fuel prices and low fares, the airline posted a loss of $761 million last year and $162 million in the first quarter. AMR Chief Executive Gerard Arpey has promised legal action to force Love Field to accommodate American operations there if the amendment is repealed by Congress. Among other things, he says, American will counter by invading Love Field with a flood of its own flights, which could create a noise and traffic nightmare for Dallas.

When DFW opened in 1974, located squarely between Dallas and Fort Worth, both cities pledged to nurture its development by steering all passenger traffic to the new airport. But Southwest, then a tiny, upstart commuter airline, refused to move from the smaller, urban Love Field, which was more convenient for its Dallas-area business customers.

After years of court battles waged by the two cities and major airlines failed to pry Southwest from Love Field, the cities turned to the then-powerful House speaker for help. The Democratic Rep. Wright tacked on an amendment to an aviation law then making its way through Congress that limited all flights out of Love to four nearby states; it was expanded to seven states in a 1997 revision. The law didn't specifically mention Southwest or any other airline, but it has had the effect of steering nearly all long-haul passenger service to DFW, building it into one of the five busiest airports in the world. While Southwest has expanded unimpeded throughout the rest of the nation, Dallas travelers have faced hassles and delays if they want to fly the low-fare carrier farther than those seven states.

Brian Sewell, a senior vice president of Nashville real estate developer Southern Land Co., quickly tired of the several extra hours added to his frequent daytrips to Dallas when he flew Southwest. So he switched to American's nonstop flights, even though they cost more. "The bottom line for us is the convenience," Mr. Sewell says.

When Southwest's CEO, Mr. Kelly, first joined the discount airline as controller in 1986, he had a hard time understanding why the company refused to fight a law he views as patently anticompetitive. "Can't we do something about this Wright Amendment?" he says he complained to Southwest's former CEO, Herb Kelleher, and other executives. "It's just ridiculous."

Southwest refused to join in periodic efforts by Dallas groups to overturn the law. American Airlines was a powerful financial and political force, and congressional support for the Wright Amendment remained solid. Southwest ducked the fight, explained Mr. Kelly, "because we couldn't win."

The rise of the discounters in the past five years has turned the industry power structure topsy-turvy, giving Southwest the muscle to take on American. When the law was passed, Southwest was a tiny airline flying to only four cities. Today, while the U.S. airline industry has posted losses of $30 billion in the past four years, Southwest has remained solidly profitable, earning $79 million in the first quarter.

Overall, the discounters' market share has grown to nearly 25% of all U.S. airline traffic, and their popularity hadn't been lost on legislators. "The low-cost carriers have a lot of friends in Congress now," says Patrick Murphy, an airline lobbyist in Washington who doesn't do work for either Southwest or AMR.

After being named CEO last July, Mr. Kelly at first focused on boosting Southwest's presence in Chicago, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. At home in Dallas, Southwest's operations were shrinking and he needed to take action. Mr. Kelly had rejected suggestions simply to start serving DFW, where Southwest would face no restrictions on where it could fly. Operating out of two airports in the region would be too expensive, he believed. He announced publicly last November that he was going to fight the Wright Amendment, and the airline began to lobby local officials and legislators around the country.

The decision sent shock waves through the community and quickly split Dallas and Fort Worth into opposing camps. While Dallas stands to gain from a busier Love Field, Fort Worth worries that a migration of passengers from DFW, that city's main airport, to Love would suck much-needed revenue from DFW and American, hurting the Fort Worth-area economy.

DFW, American Airlines and Fort Worth officials have waged a blistering attack on Southwest, warning the area will lose tax income and thousands of people will lose their jobs if Southwest gets its way. Previous studies have estimated the DFW airport contributes more than $10 billion to the regional economy, including more than 200,000 jobs in direct and spinoff employment.

"For a little bit of incremental money to its bottom line, [Southwest] is going to put at risk a major airport and American Airline's health," charges Kevin Cox, chief operating officer of DFW airport.

Southwest, and indeed, most industry consultants, dispute that claim. They say more passengers, not fewer, would end up flying to and from Dallas absent the Wright Amendment thanks to a phenomenon dubbed "the Southwest effect" seen in other cities, in which lower fares generated by Southwest's entry into a market prompts more people to fly.

Mr. Kelleher, who is leading Southwest's Washington campaign to repeal the law, worries that Southwest's financial strength may work against it if legislators are loathe to do anything to damage the more frail American. But, he argues, "Would you want a healthy carrier to become ill trying to protect a sick carrier? That doesn't make economic sense."

Southwest is concentrating on wooing out-of-state legislators to push its cause, fearing that the controversy is too hot for the Texas congressional delegation to handle. Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican, has been mulling whether to introduce a bill to repeal the law. Local officials in other states, including Colorado and Florida, also have begun speaking out against the amendment, since cheaper flights to and from Dallas could help their regions.

It may take time, but Southwest is convinced the Wright Amendment eventually will be history. "For 26 years there's been a solid wall of opposition to change," says Ron Ricks, Southwest's chief in-house lobbyist. "All we need is one crack and that sucker is going to fall like the Berlin Wall."

 

[Skyhungry]

I'm not feeling the Luv.





Who wrote this?

Archived Quote on the Wright Amendment:

The Love Field Legislation was intended to settle once and for all the ‘dispute’ that has raged in the Dallas/Fort Worth area for many years. Now, TI (Texas International) seeks to reopen that fight and upset the delicate balance which has brought peace for the first time in over a decade. Congressional intent to the contrary is clear. Southwest does not object to TI using Love for intrastate flights (which apparently is all it wants to do) so long as the law is obeyed and TI’s certificate properly reflects what it may and may not do. There is simply no reason for the [Civil Aeronautics] Board to raise again the spectre of full scale commercial use of Love Field which has exacerbated this situation for so long, and which Congress has been to such pains to exorcise.†*



Answer: Southwest Airlines Company, August 23, 1980


* Response of Southwest Airlines Co. to Reply to Texas International Airlines, Inc. in Civil Aeronautics Board’s Review of Texas International Airlines, Inc. proposed service at Love Field, filed August 23, 1980, by Paul Y. Seligson, Attorney for Southwest Airlines, Co. at p.



How about this,


-- Dallas Times Herald, February 2, 1990

“We think that there is some merit to the position that there is no city in the United States that has two full-fledged hubs competing against one another successfully. There are cities that have a main airport and satellite airports which live well in a complimentary relationship, harmonious relationship, and we have to agree as a matter of logic and principle that if you allowed Love Field to come up as a full-fledged hub in opposition to DFW Airport that indeed air service to the Metroplex would suffer to some extent because basically a hub-and-spoke system depends for its success upon attracting passengers from a multitude of spokes that will fill up an airplane going to another destination. If you divide that type of operation between two airports, you’re likely to service to some of the smaller cities.†(Emphasis added)


Answer: Herb Kelleher, October 8, 1990


and old Herb also stated (same circa),

“…Southwest President Herbert Kelleher said he does not support outright repeal of the Wright Amendment because a rivalry and competition with DFW would be unhealthy.†:blink:

Hmmm. So why the change of heart? :huh:

 

[mga707]

Hmmm. So why the change of heart? :huh:

[post="268713"][/post]​

Simple. In '80 WN was worried about AA, BN, and probably even TI.
In '90 they were still concerned about riling AA.
Now, in '05, they really don't care what AA does in response.
Situations change.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

Mga said it best, things change. If things never changed, we'd be worried about how to put IFE in a Ford Trimotor.

 

[AirplaneFan]

Just to be fair, here's a DFW side story.  Watch the Brad Watson video from the "also online" box, however, and you'll hear some of the "facts" in the print version overturned.  <_<

P.S.  Don't bother arguing for this study until you've watched the video.  Thankyouverymuch 

Dallas Morning News Story Link
Wright repeal would hurt D/FW, study says
May 10, 2005

By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News

Repealing the Wright amendment would lower airfares in North Texas but also cut service domestically and internationally from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, according to a study released Tuesday.

....

The $100,000 study was done by New York-based Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, an airline consulting firm.
Findings include:

D/FW will lose substantial traffic — The airport could lose up to 204 daily flights and up to 21 million passengers annually, representing a 35 percent decline. With this substantial loss, D/FW airport passenger levels will decrease to levels last seen 20 years ago and it will take up to 19 years for traffic to recover to current levels.

Traffic at Love Field could triple — Love Field operations could triple and Love Field passengers could increase by as many as 16 million passengers a year. Tripling Love Field's use would strain older existing facilities and cause local traffic gridlock.

D/FW will lose international air service — Current international air service would be substantially reduced because of a loss of international connecting traffic through D/FW. Flights to Latin America are particularly vulnerable.

D/FW would lose domestic destinations — With the repeal of the Wright amendment, up to 15 current markets with low frequency could see service cuts or elimination.

D/FW has significant growth capacity — D/FW airport was designed and built to handle 100 million passengers and 1.4 million airport operations annually and can accommodate low-cost carrier growth that won't cost taxpayers more money. In contrast, if the Wright amendment is repealed, costly improvements will be needed at Love Field to accommodate increases in traffic; meanwhile, airport capacity investments already made at D/FW airport will sit idle.

Growth at D/FW is the preferred option — The growth of low-cost carrier service at D/FW will add more passengers and more long-term economic growth to the Dallas-Fort Worth area than any scenario in which the Wright amendment is repealed - without disrupting facilities, neighborhoods or taxpayer commitments.

[post="268538"][/post]​

.... Gee who do you think paid for this study?

The argument here is stupifying. If the Wright Amendment is revoked, Love Field will be so popular that passengers will stay away from DFW in droves. So therefore lets protect our investment in a bad choice and keep the Wright Amendment in place. Sounds like Soviet Union style thinking to me.

So the bottom line is that DFW was built to handle 100 million passengers, but wasn't built to compete with Love Field.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

Sky Hungry writes in, and I quote :

Who wrote this?

Archived Quote on the Wright Amendment:

The Love Field Legislation was intended to settle once and for all the ‘dispute’ that has raged in the Dallas/Fort Worth area for many years. Now, TI (Texas International) seeks to reopen that fight and upset the delicate balance which has brought peace for the first time in over a decade. Congressional intent to the contrary is clear. Southwest does not object to TI using Love for intrastate flights (which apparently is all it wants to do) so long as the law is obeyed and TI’s certificate properly reflects what it may and may not do. There is simply no reason for the [Civil Aeronautics] Board to raise again the spectre of full scale commercial use of Love Field which has exacerbated this situation for so long, and which Congress has been to such pains to exorcise.â€￾ *



Answer: Southwest Airlines Company, August 23, 1980

Having made a few phone calls, let me put this into context for you (and everyone else).

This was after the Wright Amendment had been put into place and Southwest was obeying it.

Texas International wanted to move some flights from DFW into Love Field.

If we all remember correctly, Texas International was one of the airlines that had signed the letter promising to move everything over to DFW once it opened with serious penalties if they didn't.....worse even than if you remove the "DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW" tag from a pillow or mattress.

Now that I think of it, every mattress in my house has one of those tags. So I guess I'm not headed to jail.

At any rate, the crux of the Southwest statement was "even though Texas International signed an agreement to move to DFW, and even though we (Southwest) and we alone have borne the burden of litigating the right for our airline to continue serving Love Field, we do not plan to object to Texas International operating flights in and out of Love so long as they are bound by the same restrictions we are."

If you want to know what someone meant when they said something, it is usually wise to go to the source, or at the very least someone close to the source.

 

[Skyhungry]

ELP WN Psgr,

After you made some phone calls. OK I’m impressed. <_<

You quoted, and I also quote:

“This was after the Wright Amendment had been put into place and Southwest was obeying it.â€￾

Thanks for proving my point.
Re-read what you just posted. And if you don’t get it, well I guess I’m wasting my time. B)

 

[KCFlyer]

skyhuyngry...so maybe you could enlighten me...the purpose and benefit of the wright amendment TODAY is:


Eagerly awaiting your reply.

Also, if you read one paragraph below that statement, you'll notice that he cites that TI, who signed an agreement to move all flights to DFW moved flights back to DAL. That was after a change was made. So if a change could be made to the agreements signed 10 years prior, why shouldn't the WA be subject to some changes 25 years after the fact?

 

[Skyhungry]

skyhuyngry...so maybe you could enlighten me...the purpose and benefit of the wright amendment TODAY is:
Eagerly awaiting your reply.

Also, if you read one paragraph below that statement, you'll notice that he cites that TI, who signed an agreement to move all flights to DFW moved flights back to DAL. That was after a change was made. So if a change could be made to the agreements signed 10 years prior, why shouldn't the WA be subject to some changes 25 years after the fact?

[post="269160"][/post]​

Sorry. You'll have to wait a while. You see it's like I said, if you don't get it I'm not going to waste my time. <_< I have a life and a job to tend to. See ya. B)

 

[KCFlyer]

Sorry. You'll have to wait a while. You see it's like I said, if you don't get it I'm not going to waste my time. <_< I have a life and a job to tend to. See ya. B)

[post="269341"][/post]​

I'll help you then...the purpose of the Wright Amendment today is to protect the largest tenent at DFW airport.

 

[Vortilon]

AA doesn't have to go into Love field - they can simply use the less expensive Eagle. If the pax will pay to fly on WNs smelly cattle cars, they will damn sure ride on a confirmed seat RJ.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

AA doesn't have to go into Love field - they can simply use the less expensive Eagle. If the pax will pay to fly on WNs smelly cattle cars, they will damn sure ride on a confirmed seat RJ.

Riddle me this, Batman:

1. If that were the case, then why aren;t they over there with the Eagle RJs now? There is nothing to keep them from running 50 seat RJs from DAL to every city in the country.

2. If that were the case, why did AA get their AAss handed to them when they (a) started out running 14 RTs a day between Love Field and Austin with MD80s and (B) continue to get their AAsses handed to them when they threw American Eagle at Southwest from Love to Austin?

Moral of the story: There are a whole lot of people who prefer real jetliners rather than Barbie Dream Jets. And calling them smelly cattle cars doesn't make it true. Pretending business travelers prefer a legacy carrier en masse over Southwest doesn't make it true either.

And as far as "the less expensive Eagle" is concerned...on the basis of ASM cost those Barbie Dream Jets cost a lot more to run than those 737s...especially when fuel is as high as it is. For those that failed to hedge, anyway.

 

[swflyer]

Ahhhhhhh, someone seeing the "study" for what it was, and in the 'startle-gram' even!!!!

Ft. Worth Star Telegram link

Wright Amendment study ignores public
By Mitchell Schnurman, Star-Telegram Staff Writer
May 11, 2005

Dallas/Fort Worth Airport spent $100,000 for a study on repealing the Wright Amendment and ducked the most important question: What's it mean to consumers?

Under the study's doomsday scenario, D/FW shrinks by a third and traffic at Love Field triples. Obviously, that wouldn't be the best use of public facilities, considering that Love is cramped and D/FW has vast empty spaces and an enormous debt load.

But maybe it's not a bad trade-off if the rest of us save $500 million a year on airfares.

The D/FW study doesn't touch this issue, but it's worthy of community debate: Does the public benefit of lifting the Wright Amendment outweigh the disruptions to the two airports?

In response to a reporter's question, the study's author conceded that airfares would probably decline. Unfortunately, the 42-page report released Tuesday doesn't evaluate consumer gains, ticket prices or the vaunted "Southwest effect." That's when a low-cost carrier enters a market, incumbents match the fares and traffic surges for everyone.

Many believe that Love Field competition would do exactly that -- spur lower prices at D/FW and more business at both airports. The study looks at four scenarios, and none contemplates a free Love Field boosting D/FW traffic.

Too far-fetched? How about the crazy idea of Love adding 21 million passengers?

The study does conclude that repealing the Wright Amendment might lead to fewer D/FW flights to smaller cities such as Green Bay, Wis., and Fort Wayne, Ind. And if American Airlines shrinks its hub, as threatened, there could be less service to Montreal, Seoul, South Korea, and other international cities.

That may happen, but so what? Airlines make such decisions all the time, presumably to deploy their planes on more lucrative routes.

There are some bragging rights -- and convenience -- with having a large hub and many nonstop flights to exotic locations. But if the flying public cares more about lower prices, so be it.

Deregulation was supposed to settle such questions a generation ago. Instead of having bureaucrats or politicians dictate air service, we let the markets rule, and they usually tilt with demand.

Should we keep the Wright Amendment in place because it helps American Airlines maintain a hub that wouldn't make economic sense otherwise?

That's not a decision the public ought to make, and it's not the purview of D/FW bureaucrats or local politicians, either.

Besides, what's so great about the status quo?

At Tuesday's news conference, local leaders parroted the usual line about D/FW being the area's economic engine. If that's still true, it needs a tuneup.

Since 1994, air passenger traffic has grown almost 33 percent across the nation, according to the Transportation Department's statistics on originating traffic.

But D/FW is up just 8 percent by that measure, and that's before Delta pulled 200 flights this year. Love Field passengers declined 13.5 percent over the same period, as flight restrictions prompted Southwest to shrink in its hometown and expand elsewhere.

Combined, this measure of passenger traffic in the Metroplex rose just 5.4 percent from 1994 to 2004.

That stinks.

But that's what happens when you miss the discount revolution, when long-haul fares are almost 40 percent higher than the national average.

Miami did worse than D/FW, but at least Fort Lauderdale doubled. Together, 40 percent more people flew out of South Florida in 2004 than in 1994.

Houston's two airports were up a combined 44 percent; Chicago's two airports were up 26 percent. Atlanta was up 53 percent and Phoenix, 50 percent.

In short, the Metroplex aviation market isn't growing like the rest of the country's. Not even close.

The best explanation is that we've put a regulatory fence around Southwest at Love Field, and American's dominance at D/FW is so lucrative that it vanquishes any challenger.

With limited competition, there's been limited growth.

Would it be ideal if Southwest would move from Love to D/FW, take a bunch of those vacant gates and help pay off the billions in bonds? Sure, but Southwest says D/FW doesn't fit its business model.

Like most of the industry, it doesn't want to take on a dominant carrier at its fortress hub.

D/FW officials say that's hogwash, but how do they think Southwest has managed to make a profit every year for three decades?

So we're at a stalemate. D/FW can't attract much low-cost competition because of American's muscle and Southwest's challenge of the Wright Amendment.

And Southwest can't offer its low fares beyond seven nearby states.

Here's an idea for the next study: How much money is the public losing while D/FW is stuck in neutral?

 

[lpbrian]

Look at all the facilities at Stapleton. Guess what happened to them? They are home to praire dogs now.