DAL

[bingobilly]

I say set Love free, down :down: with the wright amendment. On one condition. Love is to be open to the lower 48 states to all airlines except WN. Afterall it was WN who signed the original agrrement to fly only within Tx. so set love to all but WN . I wonder if WN will go back on its word. Seems WN wants cake and eat it too. Open Love when they control 90% of the gates. :down: . YEAH! WRIGHT

 

[corl737]

I say set Love free, down :down: with the wright amendment. On one condition. Love is to be open to the lower 48 states to all airlines except WN. Afterall it was WN who signed the original agrrement to fly only within Tx. so set love to all but WN . I wonder if WN will go back on its word. Seems WN wants cake and eat it too. Open Love when they control 90% of the gates. :down: . YEAH! WRIGHT

Before I go about replying to your rantings that are unsupportable by history and fact, please let me know if you actually want to learn about the Wright Amendment and Southwest Airlines' history or would prefer to continue your appearance as an opinionated person that is uninformed on the issue and doesn't care about facts as long as he gets to use all those cute, smiley emoticons?

SWA's operating certificate was granted by the Texas Aeronautics Commission and as such SWA could only operate intrastate routes within the State of Texas.

The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act removed the requirement for interstate airlines to receive certification from the Civil Aeronautics Board. SWA sought route approval to serve New Orleans from Dallas Love Field. The CAB approved the request partially because under the new Federal Law it did not have the authority to deny it.

Sensing a competitive commercial threat to his personal consituency, Jim Wright, then speaker of the house, penned The Wright Amendment, a measure that selectively reintroduced airline regulation. The law, ironically tacked on to a worthy piece of legislation that actually promoted international airline competition, passed because of the political power wielded by Rep. Wright. (SWA never signed a single document agreeing to the amendment. Accepting the conditions imposed by a Federal Law does not equate to agreeing with them.)

The Wright Amendment was born through the political process and it will die by the same hand.

 

[coolflyingfool]

Didn't the airlines that moved to DFW when it opened sign an agreement not to serve DAL? IF they did, wouldn't AA and CO violated that agreement when they reurned to DAL in the 90's? Just wondering...........

 

[bingobilly]

Before I go about replying to your rantings that are unsupportable by history and fact, please let me know if you actually want to learn about the Wright Amendment and Southwest Airlines' history or would prefer to continue your appearance as an opinionated person that is uninformed on the issue and doesn't care about facts as long as he gets to use all those cute, smiley emoticons?

SWA's operating certificate was granted by the Texas Aeronautics Commission and as such SWA could only operate intrastate routes within the State of Texas.

The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act removed the requirement for interstate airlines to receive certification from the Civil Aeronautics Board. SWA sought route approval to serve New Orleans from Dallas Love Field. The CAB approved the request partially because under the new Federal Law it did not have the authority to deny it.

Sensing a competitive commercial threat to his personal consituency, Jim Wright, then speaker of the house, penned The Wright Amendment, a measure that selectively reintroduced airline regulation. The law, ironically tacked on to a worthy piece of legislation that actually promoted international airline competition, passed because of the political power wielded by Rep. Wright. (SWA never signed a single document agreeing to the amendment. Accepting the conditions imposed by a Federal Law does not equate to agreeing with them.)

The Wright Amendment was born through the political process and it will die by the same hand.

hey man drink your kool-aid, if your drive in any state you don't have to sign an agreement for every law. "if you drive you obey, if you fly you obey" fly in tx only

hey man drink your kool-aid, if your drive in any state you don't have to sign an agreement for every law. "if you drive you obey, if you fly you obey" fly in tx only

why can't you people stick with your original agreement? hmmmm? you want the change to the wa when you can benefit. therefore for the people and to show your altruism allow only lcc other than sw or your pansy ata or whoever it is that you purchased to fly unfettered at love. again only sw and its subsiduary should be limited at love to intrastate tx. everyone fly whereever

 

[Ch. 12]

hey man drink your kool-aid, if your drive in any state you don't have to sign an agreement for every law. "if you drive you obey, if you fly you obey" fly in tx only
why can't you people stick with your original agreement? hmmmm? you want the change to the wa when you can benefit. therefore for the people and to show your altruism allow only lcc other than sw or your pansy ata or whoever it is that you purchased to fly unfettered at love. again only sw and its subsiduary should be limited at love to intrastate tx. everyone fly whereever

bingo-

Take your flame bait elsewhere. You aren't even worth responding to b/c you apparently just heard about the wa and don't know what it is about or the history, as corl737 points out. Also...please sober up before your next post. Your incoherent babble is pretty difficult to read.

 

[corl737]

why can't you people stick with your original agreement? hmmmm?

Apparently you have forgotten that our system of government is based on dynamic laws. SWA isn't the first to petition the government to have an outdated rule changed.

Continental and American airlines lobbied to have Washington National Airport's perimeter rule changed to the current limit of 1250 miles -- just far enough to encompass DFW and IAH. (IAH is slightly farther than DFW from DCA so Houston was leading the charge to have the rule changed. AA was if full support of Houston's actions, of course!)

If you want to become educated on the facts of that rule visit this site on the History of DCA.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

You want the change to the wa when you can benefit. therefore for the people and to show your altruism allow only lcc other than sw or your pansy ata or whoever it is that you purchased to fly unfettered at love. again only sw and its subsiduary should be limited at love to intrastate tx. everyone fly whereever

Duh!?

Also, don't you mean "Patsy" ATA.

I say set Love free, down :down: with the wright amendment. On one condition. Love is to be open to the lower 48 states to all airlines except WN. Afterall it was WN who signed the original agrrement to fly only within Tx. so set love to all but WN . I wonder if WN will go back on its word. Seems WN wants cake and eat it too. Open Love when they control 90% of the gates. :down: . YEAH! WRIGHT

snicker. snicker. ha. Ha. HA! HA! Billy you crack me up. Keep em coming.

 

[robbedagain]

is LGA the same way with the perimeter rules? How long has SWA been fighting to get the DAL rules change?

 

[Ch. 12]

is LGA the same way with the perimeter rules? How long has SWA been fighting to get the DAL rules change?

LGA is a mileage-based perimeter (with some exceptions outside of the perimeter over the past few year) of 1,500 miles (except on Saturdays when I believe it is lifted??) The DAL restrictions are by state (first the states bordering TX and then MS, AL, KS, and now MO were added through amendments. Given the geography around DAL vs. that around LGA, the LGA perimeter allows a much stronger market base than does DAL.

THAT explains the perimeter HOWEVER the big difference between LGA and DAL restrictions is the through-ticketing restrictions from DAL. While there is a perimeter at LGA, an airline can still sell a LGA-DFW-LAX or LGA-ORD-SEA flight to a pax willing to connect. The DAL restrictions, however, do not allow tickets to be sold for pax flying beyond the perimeter (i.e. DAL-OKC-MDW would not be allowed) therefore you can basically only carry local pax out of DAL (unless you wanted to fly DAL-OKC-TUL which I don't think would sell that well ).

DAL has made comments in the past but has only recently begun agressively working to get rid of the WA. We can all speculate all we want but the obvious points the the fact that WN has expanded through nearly all other "typical" WN markets (east coast, florida) and the next best place to expand would be Dallas...their HDQ.

Hope that helps.

 

[corl737]

How long has SWA been fighting to get the DAL rules change?

Since 1979, when the Wright Amendment became law, SWA grudglinigly complied with its prohibitive and anti-competitive requirements. Tired of years of legal wrangling, SWA adopted a position of "passionate neutrality" through which it would neither seek to overturn the rule nor accept that it was worthwhile.

In November of 2004 Southwest Airlines announced that it would no longer remain silent regarding the Wright Amendment and would lend corporate support to the effort to repeal the rule.

You can learn more at this website: www.setlovefree.com.

 

[robbedagain]

thank you both for the answers!

 

[formeraa]

Since 1979, when the Wright Amendment became law, SWA grudglinigly complied with its prohibitive and anti-competitive requirements. Tired of years of legal wrangling, SWA adopted a position of "passionate neutrality" through which it would neither seek to overturn the rule nor accept that it was worthwhile.

In November of 2004 Southwest Airlines announced that it would no longer remain silent regarding the Wright Amendment and would lend corporate support to the effort to repeal the rule.

You can learn more at this website: www.setlovefree.com.

Well, if you want revisionist history, I guess you're correct. If you want the truth, WN AT THAT TIME wanted the WA to protect its little monopoly at LOVE Field. It absolutely would have been put out of business if AA, Braniff, and Delta had all put substantial numbers of flights into Love Field.

Plus, WN has made sure that gates at Love are blocked and terminals demolished so that no other airlines could start service there. That being said, may the BEST airline prevail!

 

[Ch. 12]

Well, if you want revisionist history, I guess you're correct. If you want the truth, WN AT THAT TIME wanted the WA to protect its little monopoly at LOVE Field. It absolutely would have been put out of business if AA, Braniff, and Delta had all put substantial numbers of flights into Love Field.

Plus, WN has made sure that gates at Love are blocked and terminals demolished so that no other airlines could start service there. That being said, may the BEST airline prevail!

Thanks for such a factual, non-revisionist viewpoint. Yours was truly an objective, factual post.

Please review the history of the WA...and you don't have to go to "setlovefree" but please seek out facts such as the documents themselves. It will save you alot of ignorant remarks in the future.

I find it funny that people call it a "monopoly" at DAL even though ANY airline can fly there under the same rules as WN AND...your beloved AA already flies to all DAL markets out of DFW...just a few miles (literally) up the street. They really aren't that different of markets and I don't think that WN's "monopoly" of DAL-AMA flights are what made them successful. On that note...doesn't AA have monopolies on most WN DAL routes out of DFW? Think so.

The "monopoly" thing is the only issue I'll even discuss. Thanks to our current political scene, it seems that "revisionist history" is the keyword thrown out everytime one side of the arguement either cannot or does not want to look at the facts. Present some real facts (such as the many that Corl has put out there) rather than unbased notions and we can discuss this more. I'd say that if you include little things called "facts", you'd see things a little more clearly. Read up and come back!

 

[corl737]

Well, if you want revisionist history, I guess you're correct. If you want the truth, WN AT THAT TIME wanted the WA to protect its little monopoly at LOVE Field. It absolutely would have been put out of business if AA, Braniff, and Delta had all put substantial numbers of flights into Love Field.

I'm not an expert but I do my homework:

The Wright Amendment did absolutely nothing to give Southwest exclusive operating rights at Love Field. In fact, the Wright Amendment allowed for unfettered competition at Love Field as long as it met the geographical or seat-number restrictions.

You're confusing the WA with the document signed by Love Field's CAB-certified airlines in 1968 promising to move their operations to DFW upon its opening. This was the key element leading to the establishment of the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance that funded the construction of DFW.

SWA did not begin operations until 1971 and was not a signatory party to this agreement. Thus, when everyone else headed west to the barren prairie, SWA legally remained at Love Field (as ruled by numerous state and federal courts).

Remember that Continental Express ran RJ's to Cleveland and ASA flew RJs to Atlanta, all within the limits of the WA and outside of the DFW Airport Use Agreement.

After AA's successful legal wrangling in the late 1990s it was ruled that the limitations imposed by the DFW Airport Use Agreement were no longer valid. Thus AA was permitted to return to Love Field and flew MD80s - then F100s - then RJs to AUS for a while. Of course, let's not forget the granddaddy of all 56-seat operations, the Legend/AA episiodes of 2000.

It's interesting to speculate that had Braniff, Trans-Texas, and Continental not entered repetitive legal challenges against SWA's certification by the Texas Aeronautics Commission, SWA may have gotten off the ground in time to have been a party to the 1968 agreement and all would be right in the DFW-view of the world!

Plus, WN has made sure that gates at Love are blocked and terminals demolished so that no other airlines could start service there. That being said, may the BEST airline prevail!

The modifications of Love Field were conducted under the provisions of the Love Field Master Plan. That document is controlled by the City of Dallas, not Southwest Airlines. Also see the Dallas Love Field Competition Plan to discover the method of gate allocation and accomodation of new entrant air carriers.


Here's your homework assignment:

Read the following then get back to me if you discover any of the information I stated is incorrect. That's the only way I can be assured that I am not spreading untruths!

1. Dallas Love Field Master Plan. (Unfortunately the www.dallaslovefieldmasterplan.com website was recently hacked by some Turkish organization. Hopefully it will be operational again soon.)
2. Dallas Love Field Compeition Plan.
3. Section 29© of the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (the Wright Amendment).
4. The Handbook of Texas Online article regarding Southwest Airline's history.

Obvioulsy there are a lot of other references but this is a good start!

 

[mrman]

Well, if you want revisionist history, I guess you're correct. If you want the truth, WN AT THAT TIME wanted the WA to protect its little monopoly at LOVE Field. It absolutely would have been put out of business if AA, Braniff, and Delta had all put substantial numbers of flights into Love Field.

Plus, WN has made sure that gates at Love are blocked and terminals demolished so that no other airlines could start service there. That being said, may the BEST airline prevail!

Dont forget when in 1971 Braniff AA and WN were all at Love competing. AA has been paying for unused gatespace for years. There are still empty gates at Main terminal and Legend terminal