Anti-wright Amendment Website

[wnbubbleboy]

If the pax will pay to fly on WNs smelly cattle cars, they will damn sure ride on a confirmed seat RJ.

[post="269550"][/post]​

Vortilon,

I would like to clarify that our planes are very clean and contain very little oder.

That smell was me...You see it all started with Dinner at Pappa's Barbeque, then a trip to the Men's Club with 25 one dollar bills, then it gets a little blurry. The next thing I remember is I'm on a flight back to Baltimore being spritzed by the flight attendant with perfume to make me smell better. There I am with an really bad headache and two empty rows of seats around me with people looking over there shoulder every so often whispering to each other.

You must have been on that flight, and I would like to apoligize.

bboy

 

[Ch. 12]

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

[post="269617"][/post]​

It was decided to close Stapleton. They never tried to operate two major airports in DEN. That is not a matter of natural process but rather the prarie dogs took over by design.

 

[Ch. 12]

I'm not feeling the Luv.
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.

[post="268713"][/post]​

Skyhungry-

Thanks for enlightening us with nothing in your response to KC Flyer. Please...do waste your time for 10 seconds to tell us what good the WA is doing today and for whom. If you have enough time to search for articles from 2 decades ago, you can easily sum up your thoughts in one sentence, am I wright? (sorry...couldn't resist)

So to your quote above...I do not see anything wrong with it at all. Braniff, TI, and AMR have had (and in the case of AMR, continue to have) reputations of circumventing rules however possible and when I read the WN quote for what it is worth, it is just stating that TI should have to be held to the same rules as WN. Is that not fair? AMR got into alot of trouble by trying to circumvent some WA rules when Legend began operations and AA suddenly had a high interest in "meeting the business demand" with a new "hub" at DAL. Suddenly that demand shriveled after Legend fell? So...the quote you gave does nothing more than substantiate the arguments of all of the anti-WA people in that WHILE IT STILL EXISTS, ALL CARRIERS should be held to it...not just those that it is economically restraining throught artificial limitations.

And why the change of heart? Herb Kelleher never did want to fight to repeal it b/c there were other places for WN to serve. They couldn't have the ultimate route network in one day so they focused on the cheapest opportunites...first california and the west, then Florida, then the NE. All along, the customers in Dallas have been harmed by having no choice on where to fly.

So...please tell me why the WA should remain and who it benefits. I hope it doesn't take too much of your precious time, but like I said...if you can quote things from eons ago (and multiple ones at that), you should have more than enough time to back up your stance. I tend to think you don't have much ground to stand on and that is why you have avoided KC.

 

[WNjetdoc]

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.

[post="269550"][/post]​

Hey jerkyboy, what you're smelling is your breath blowing back in your face....try brushing your tooth more than once a week, LOL, NICE!!! :blink:

 

[jimmyd]

Among the many strategic opportunities in front of Southwest, where does repealing the Wright Ammendment rank? The cynic in me is wondering if Southwest is ultimately trying to keep other low fare carriers out of DFW by putting up a show of force. AirTran has supposedely shelved expansion plans at DFW until the current situation with the Wright Amend is resolved.

 

[Ch. 12]

Among the many strategic opportunities in front of Southwest, where does repealing the Wright Ammendment rank? The cynic in me is wondering if Southwest is ultimately trying to keep other low fare carriers out of DFW by putting up a show of force. AirTran has supposedely shelved expansion plans at DFW until the current situation with the Wright Amend is resolved.

[post="269780"][/post]​

It ranks very highly. What confuses people is that this wasn't as big of a deal during Herb Kelleher's tenure as CEO because they were focusing on expanding in other areas. With Gary Kelly in charge (whom has never supported the WA and has always had intentions of working to repeal it) the fight has been stepped up.

Now as far as your allegations about why FL has stopped their DFW expansion...I would venture to say that a $9.4M loss this year vs. a $10.2M gain last is probably why...not WN. AND...if you were to look to a carrier that is keeping them from expanding...I would look at AA (not that they would ever go over the top to defend their turf. They do, after all, rigourously fight to keep this lame legislation in place).

The cynic in me is wondering if American is ultimately trying to keep other low fare carriers out of Dallas by putting up a show of force (in support of the WA).

 

[jimmyd]

Believe me, I have no vested interest in how the WA shakes out. I find all of the press releases, lobbying, studies, and debate incredibly interesting. Maybe I need to get out more often. A few points about previous posts.

DFW represents only 3% of AirTran's system-wide departures. I would argue the large operating loss quoted is more the result of the tough competetion at ATL. I believe AirTran is doing ok at DFW, with decent loads.

I would agree that AA certainly wants to keep low-fare competetion out of DFW, contrary to the Airport Authority's mission, which creates some intrigue also. But lets assume that expanded low-fare service will occur in Dallas, whether it's the repeal of the WA, or someone expands at DFW, wouldn't AA be better off with the repeal of WA since that might keep low-fare carriers from entering DFW in a large way.

 

[Ch. 12]

Don't get me wrong. I didn't intend for it to sound like I meant that the FL losses were due to DFW. Rather I meant that whenever the picture changes so quickly (decent gain to not-insignificant loss), expansion plans are usually scuttled or at least trimmed back. DFW expansion would be agressive for FL in the sense that it (southwest/west) is a region where they have very little presence. They have invested their new resources into "closer-to-home" markets like IND. This is much less of a drain on resources than would be expansion into fairly uncharted regions.

In reference to AA and wouldn't they want the WA repealled to protect DFW...

No is the answer. They are trying to protect Dallas-Ft Worth...not a particular airport. They do not want anyone near their protected fortress and repealling the WA would allow an established carrier (WN) to compete with them without having to take on exhorbenant costs relocating all ops to DFW. No...AA wants carriers to pay the penalty if they want to compete.

 

[I'mRayFlyMe]

This recent letter to the editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram says it all:

Pro and con on the Wright Amendment


Star-Telegram

I plan to open a gas station at a major intersection. I get my congressman to enact legislation to prohibit my competitor across the street from advertising, selling or pumping gas into any vehicle made by General Motors, Ford or Daimler-Chrysler.

Motorists who buy gas from my competitor must, under federal law, park their vehicles off-premises, walk to the station with a gas can, pump the gas and carry it back to their vehicles.

Does that sound like stupid, self-serving legislation that slaps the face of free trade? You're right. Does it sound like a law that Congress wouldn't be stupid enough to pass? You're wrong. Let me introduce you to the Wright Amendment.

Enacted in 1979 and named for its author, then-Rep. Jim Wright of Fort Worth, the amendment prohibits air carriers operating planes with more than 56 seats from advertising, offering or suggesting direct or nonstop service to and from Dallas Love Field, beyond Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

If passengers want to fly to or from Love Field to outside the "Love Field service area" they must:

• Buy a point-to-point fare and change planes in an intermediate city.

• Have a minimum layover of 45 minutes.

• Claim their bags from the originating flight, re-enter the airport as a new passenger and re-check the bags to the destination city.

A point-to-point fare means that you pay one fare from Dallas to the intermediate city and a second fare from that city to your destination, thus rendering any sale fares null and void and prohibiting booking on the Internet for special fares or extra frequent-flier points.

Why the absurdity? Because when Dallas/Fort Worth Airport was being planned, authorities were concerned about its financial stability. When Southwest Airlines declined to participate in D/FW's funding scheme, Wright put together the law that bears his name.

Even then it was an arrogant violation of free trade. Today, D/FW is thriving and financially sound. After 9-11, I thought Congress wanted to "help" the airline industry. It's time to repeal the Wright Amendment. That would help the airline industry, keeping in mind that the "industry" is more than just American Airlines.

It doesn't sound quite that ridiculous now, does it?

 

[swflyer]

Wall St. Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Free Love
May 19, 2005

Given how often Congress has tried to bail out failing airlines, it'd be nice if it felt as strongly about giving healthy carriers access to a freer market. It could start by repealing an arcane law that serves no purpose other than to restrict low-cost Southwest Airlines from competing against its more traditional rivals.

The law in question limits Southwest to running flights to and from its headquarters in Love Field, in Dallas, to seven states. This anticompetitive statute was jammed into legislation back in 1979 by then-Democratic House Speaker (and Fort Worth Congressman) Jim Wright. Contrary to some claims, the law was not intended to "help" Southwest by graciously allowing it a few destinations outside Texas, but was a naked attempt to protect nearby Dallas-Forth Worth airport from competition after numerous lawsuits to shut down Southwest and rival Love Field had failed.

And it's worked like a charm. American Airlines, based out of DFW, has become an uncontested giant in the market. It flies some 850 departures a day from DFW. (Southwest, in comparison, flies closer to 115 out of Love). American is so dominant that other airlines have scaled back Dallas operations; Delta quit using DFW as a hub in January, canceling more than 225 daily flights.

Airline passengers suffer from this holding pattern, with higher fares and fewer choices. The Wright Amendment means Southwest is currently able to carry passengers from Love to only 14 cities and cannot route flights from its 45 other cities, such as Pittsburgh or Seattle, into Dallas. Other commercial carriers at Love are held to the same seven-state restrictions. On flights in which Southwest competes with DFW carriers out of the Dallas area, Love Field fares are an average of 15% cheaper.

Difficult as it is to argue against market fairness, American (which lost $761 million last year) and its proxies are giving it a stellar try. A favorite warning is that allowing more competition in the already fragile airline industry would do irreparable "damage" to DFW airport, American, and the local economy. But it is not Congress's job to support one airline over another. If DFW (currently one of the five busiest airports in the world) and American offer travelers what they need, they'll both succeed. If they can't, then jobs and business will migrate to more efficient competitors. Many large cities sport more than one large airport, and the competition has only benefited local economies and consumers.

An even stranger argument is that if Southwest wants to expand, it should have to do so at DFW -- which has excess capacity. But that would force Southwest to invest in a separate costly operation across town, rather than expand from its headquarters of 34 years. As for the contention that Southwest's expansion would "strain" Love Field, the city of Dallas years ago decided to cap the number of gates at Love to the 32 that already exist.

Everyone laments the dismal state of the airline industry, but the reality is that the government has contributed as much as anyone to its problems. Antitrust limits on mergers, obstacles to foreign investment, high taxes, labor rules and other policies have prevented the kind of competition that would produce a healthier industry. The Love field limits illustrate once again that when government attempts to protect one competitor at the expense of another, it ends up hurting everyone. We'd have thought Congress would be relieved to see an airline asking not for a loan guarantee or a pension giveaway, but simply the right to roll up its sleeves and compete.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

From the Online version of "Dallas Morning News".

Two Texas Republican Congressmen will introduce legislation to repeal the Wright amendment on Thursday, according to their Washington, D.C. representatives.

Tracking the Wright amendment
Rep. Sam Johnson of Dallas and Jeb Hensarling of district five in Texas will introduce The Right to Fly Act that would immediately repeal the 25-year-old federal law that restricts flights from Dallas Love Field to the adjoining states of Texas.

The two Congressmen intend to hold a press conference Thursday in Washington, D.C., to discuss the bill. Southwest Airlines Co. started a campaign to get the law repealed in November, and the bill would be the first introduced to change the federal restrictions.

 

[swflyer]

Front page on the Dallas Morning News website

Repeal Wright

It also contains a survey and place for comments. FUN!!

 

[ngneer]

DALLAS, May 26 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV - News) today applauds two Texas Republican congressmen who have introduced a bill to immediately repeal the Wright Amendment. U.S. Reps. Jeb Hensarling and Sam Johnson call their bill "The Right to Fly Act," which is the first to be introduced since the need for the Wright Amendment was last called into question in November 2004.
Southwest Airlines applauds the tremendous leadership and vision of these two Texas congressmen who have tapped into the true will of the people. This is a significant step toward the ultimate goal of opening the skies for greater access to low fares through unfettered airline competition. In addition, these two Texas congressman recognize the importance of cracking the 26-year deadbolt that has artificially suppressed access to the Dallas/Ft. Worth market because of high air fares.

While this is a major step forward, it is just the beginning, and our People will remain steadfast in their efforts to educate the public on the importance of stimulating the economy through greater access to low fare air travel. We are gratified by this mobilizing effort in the House and look forward to a similar effort in the Senate.

 

[swflyer]

Kevin Cox seems a little unbalanced in this article, and RUDE for using a cellphone during a speech. <_<


Southwest sowed seeds of Wright fight
Bombshell before N. Dallas chamber got ball rolling last fall

Friday, May 27, 2005
By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News

Along with the eggs and fried potatoes, Gary Kelly served up a shocker at a chamber of commerce breakfast last fall.

Southwest Airlines Co.'s new chief executive attacked the Wright amendment, which limits carriers at Dallas Love Field to flying only short routes.

It was anti-competitive, he said, and wrong.

Mr. Kelly's abrupt departure from a quarter-century of "passionate neutrality" generated considerable buzz, though many wondered whether Southwest would actually champion the cause. And even if it did, why would this drive succeed when others had failed?

Now, six months later, it's clear that Mr. Kelly's remarks unleashed pent-up passion among North Texans who want access to Southwest's nationwide low-fare network from Love Field.

For the first time, a major effort is under way to nix the law named for former House Speaker Jim Wright. It's not from out-of-state lawmakers trying to get new service here, but from two local congressmen, Sam Johnson of Plano and Jeb Hensarling of Dallas.

Filing the bill on Thursday, they "decided to strike while the iron was hot," Mr. Johnson said.

Southwest had been quietly stoking the fire for months. Executives dropped in for coffee with editorial writers. They called on airport officials from Florida to California. And while Southwest's flamboyant chairman, Herb Kelleher, kept a low public profile, he was busy lobbying in Washington.

Officials at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, which the Wright law is designed to protect, and at American Airlines Inc. say the new bill would damage two of the region's top economic engines.

By fighting for the law's repeal, D/FW says, Southwest has broken a decades-old promise, scared off airlines that might fill gates vacated in January by Delta Air Lines Inc., and threatened the airport's financial footing just as it's unveiling a nearly $3 billion expansion.

But for those in the Southwest camp, the argument is simpler: Plane tickets would be cheaper.

Golden opportunity
On Sept. 8, Delta announced it would slash its D/FW operations by 92 percent in a restructuring. The news presented a golden opportunity for Southwest.

"But we didn't have any way to get at those customers," said Ed Stewart, the carrier's spokesman.

Executives held a strategy session at Southwest's Love Field headquarters. Attending the meeting were Mr. Kelleher, Mr. Kelly, president Colleen Barrett and Ron Ricks, the carrier's top lobbyist as senior vice president for law, airports and public affairs.

Southwest had studied moving some of its flights to D/FW before and took another look in the fall.

According to Mr. Kelleher, the airline concluded it would have to raise fares by as much as 50 percent to make up for lost time its planes would spend on the ground at the sprawling regional facility.

In early November, Southwest told D/FW it wouldn't go there.

D/FW chief operating officer Kevin Cox pleaded with Southwest officials on the phone, asking how he could get them on board.

About that time, Mr. Kelly asked his staff to ditch the "passionately neutral" line that the carrier had stood by for years in response to Wright questions.

The opportunity to drop the bomb came on Nov. 12, when Mr. Kelly was speaking at a breakfast with the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Cox attended and sat in the back row.

Even before Mr. Kelly finished speaking, Mr. Cox started calling elected officials on his mobile phone. "It was the most shocking day of my life," Mr. Cox recalled.

The sides began to draw battle lines.

In public, D/FW officials dismissed Mr. Kelly's comments as a smokescreen intended to keep rival low-cost carriers out of North Texas.

'Educating' public
Southwest crafted a strategy of "educating" lawmakers, newspapers and airport executives, starting first in Texas and moving quickly to Florida, California and other Western states.

Many regional papers knew nothing of the Wright law; several didn't even realize that Southwest, now the nation's largest domestic carrier in terms of passengers, flies from coast to coast, Mr. Stewart said. "We had one person ask us, 'Why do you care about this if the farthest you fly is to New Orleans?' "

For Southwest, a visit to Tampa, Fla., marked a turning point.

The director of Tampa International Airport accompanied Mr. Ricks and Mr. Stewart to local papers with the airport's own slideshow showing how the Wright law was affecting the west-central Florida economy.

"That's the passion you want to see," Mr. Stewart said.

Southwest tracked anti-Wright newspaper editorials in daily e-mail tallies. But getting congressional backers to sponsor a bill was another story.

For that, Southwest dispatched Mr. Kelleher, an industry icon who says he's been energized working Capitol Hill. "I feel like a wild mustang in spring," he said this week.

Southwest was significantly outspent and out-staffed in the Wright battle, Mr. Kelleher said.

D/FW's Mr. Cox walked into the fight with verbal guns blazing, repeating his contention that Southwest didn't really intend to add long-haul service from Love. He grew intense in Wright discussions, his voice shaking. Once, at a news conference, he bit down hard on his finger while listening to a question he didn't like.

D/FW officials sent letters to other airports asking them to stay out of North Texas affairs. They portrayed Southwest as backing out of a "deal" that Mr. Kelleher promised never to touch.

And mostly, D/FW and Fort Worth-based American framed their keep-Wright argument around a longstanding vision for a regional airport designed to power the North Texas economy.

D/FW commissioned a study that showed the airport could lose up to 35 percent of its passenger traffic and 204 daily flights if Love Field were opened to long-haul flights. The consultants also concluded that lifting Wright would mean lower airfares for the region.

American kept quiet on the issue at first, using its lobbying muscle to solidify support and parry Southwest's efforts.

The world's largest airline has tried to reframe the Wright debate. At an aviation symposium in Phoenix in late April, American Chairman Gerard Arpey said everything should be on the table in the Wright debate, including closing Love Field. "We should be looking at the entire spectrum of options," he told reporters.

An influential ally
Earlier this month, while visiting New York newspapers, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Stewart found themselves in the lobby of Dow Jones & Co., with a few extra minutes on their hands.

On a whim, Mr. Stewart phoned The Wall Street Journal editorial page, even though the pair hadn't scheduled an appointment. It turned into a nearly hour-long conversation over coffee.

On May 19, the influential business publication ran an editorial, calling Wright "an arcane law that serves no purpose other than to restrict low-cost Southwest Airlines from competing against its more traditional rivals."

Over at the North Dallas chamber, the group that had hosted Mr. Kelly in November, a six-month examination of the Wright issue had come to a similar conclusion.

The chamber, which studied airfares and the role of airports in the region's economy, determined Dallas was at a disadvantage to other cities because of higher ticket prices.

Bill brought forth
The confluence of the chamber study and the mounting editorials was enough for Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hensarling, both Republicans, to announce their bill.

"I guess we were a little more disappointed than surprised," said Dan Garton, American's executive vice president of marketing.

Officials for D/FW and American say the bill remains a long way from becoming law, and the congressmen sponsoring the bill admit they've got an uphill fight on their hands.

"Our strategy now is to find a lot more advocates for our position," Mr. Garton said.

Some Texas lawmakers are taking sides, while others are staying on the fence.

Joe Barton, the powerful Ennis Republican who serves as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has vowed to kill the bill.

But Mr. Kelleher, in a rare news conference, said the carrier may have succeeded at least in framing the issue in its own way.

The Southwest team "showed results that are much more successful than you might expect," he said. "All they have on their side is truth, right and justice."

Staff writers Robert Dodge in Washington and Suzanne Marta in Dallas contributed to this report