Gerard Arpey's Take

[swflyer]

The same people who are spewing the blather about reducing governmental interference in the marketplace as an argument for lifting the WA are the same people who think Congress should continue the corporate welfare of trade restrictions on foreign competitors, farm subsidies (but only for major agribusiness entities), tax benefits for offshore incorporation, no-bid contracts for the "rebuilding of Iraq." and, coincidentally, involvement in the private affairs of families when there is political hay to be made (see also T. Schiavo case).  But, don't get me started.

[post="260006"][/post]​

Funny you should mention Congress getting involved in corporate welfare <_< You do realize that the Wright Amendment had nothing to do with AA's move to DFW??? The way it's been posted made me wonder.

History: All airlines, save Southwest, were forced to move to the new DFW in 1974. The airlines forced to move, because they signed a contract to do so before Southwest came into being, were not happy.

In January 1977, the Fifth 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 the federally declared right to continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open."

[Undaunted, they] asked the court for a rehearing and were denied. They asked the US Supreme Court to review the case, but it was refused. Twice.

Five years after DFW opened,

Newspaper articles from the time portray a heated conflict in fall 1979, with Jim Wright repeatedly attaching amendments to bills in the House that would have either closed Love Field to all airline traffic or limited Southwest only to flights serving Texas.

Herb Kelleher lobbied against the measures. A bill backed by Wright that contained restrictive language passed the House, but the Senate refused to go along. Kelleher had allies there, including Senators Russel Long of Louisiana, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, and John Tower of Texas.

A House-Senate conference committee argued for weeks over what to do about Southwest and Love Field.

The legislative stalemate was broken by the proposal to allow Southwest to serve just Texas and the adjoining states of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas from Love Field. It was a classic compromise: less restrictive than Fort Worth wanted, but more so than Southwest would have liked.

"I said, 'This is terrible,'" Kelleher said. "We wanted to go to more than the four contiguous states."

He said he agreed to the compromise, but only out of fear that Jim Wright would succeed in imposing far more draconian limits on Southwest. Other members of Congress warned him, Kelleher says, "If you don't take this, you won't get anything."

One Senator, "repeatedly attaching amendments" to assist one corporate entity over another sounds like what you were describing, to a "T". :down:

BTW, Southwest didn't get it's 22nd aircraft until the next year (1980). SWA a threat?? Or just behavior from others that would be exhibited time and time again??

Both quotes from an article in the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, Jan. 23, 2005, authored by Bob Cox

 

[tulswa]

Now, to be honest, the 55 seat service didn't really end until after 9/11. Keep a secret between you and me, but truth be known, AA would have liked nothing better than to keep the 55 seat service going--not to take business away from WN (though killing off Legend was the original intent). They would have liked to keep it going so that we could say we were the only airline ever to offer premium-cabin-only service and succeed.

[post="260102"][/post]​

I doubt that you could call it a success by any standard other than driving another company out of business. I challenge anyone to show that AAs F100 service out of DAL ever came close to break-even, let alone a profit.

 

[FWAAA]

I doubt that you could call it a success by any standard other than driving another company out of business. I challenge anyone to show that AAs F100 service out of DAL ever came close to break-even, let alone a profit.

[post="260169"][/post]​

Of course it didn't. But then again, neither did Legend and its screwy business model.

When an undercapitalized company publicly declares that its target market consists of your highest paying customers, you respond, just like AA responded. It's called competition.

AA matched Legend at every turn, and soon Legend was out of money. Several months later, after September 11, AA gave up on DAL service.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

When an undercapitalized company publicly declares that its target market consists of your highest paying customers, you respond, just like AA responded. It's called competition.

Do not misunderstand me, I too thought Legend's business model would fail.

But I would ask this question:

How undercapitalized would Legend have been if Legend had not been forced to spend a whole bunch of money fighting lawsuits which were, at best, frivolous, just to commence operations?

Tell me (with a straight face) that the city of Fort Worth and the DFW airport board were not keeping Legend tied up in court primarily for the benefit of American Airlines.

The cities dis the same thing, nearly 30 yrs eariler, for the benefit of Braniff. That didn't do much for Braniff in the long run.

And there is one of two things that is going to happen here: American will stay at DFW and Southwest will open up non-Wright-Amendment state service from Love Field and both can co-exist, or American will move service in to Love Field to compete with Southwest and American will get their butt handed to them.

People might like to think that riding Southwest is akin to "Voyage of the Damned" but the real truth is - it's a better coach product than American's, assigned seat or not.

 

[luver41]

but the real truth is - it's a better coach product than American's, assigned seat or not.

[post="260177"][/post]​

You just succintly stated the most important reason Southwest is continually profitable, while the legacy carriers are not.

 

[JS]

Ultimately, this all going to boil down to one simple question:

How badly does Dallas want to keep Southwest Airlines' corporate headquarters and the taxes they pay inside the city of Dallas?

It behooves city leaders to listen to Southwest when they say things. They generally say what they mean and mean what they say. El Paso is a prime example.

Several years back, El Paso "socked it to" the airlines serving my fair city with increased landing fees and terminal rentals. Southwest sort of suggested they ease up or it was going to cost them service. the city did not listen.

Since then, El Paso has kept the same amount of Southwest service. Albuquerque, a similarly sized market with similar demographics, has gotten nonstops to MCI, STL, SLC, PDX, SEA, OAK, TPA, MCO, and MDW.

Southwest will move from Dallas if they have to, to make a point. Is the city of Dallas willing to lose that tax revenue to placate the city fo Fort Worth?

[post="260053"][/post]​

The City of Dallas can't do anything. The Wright Amendment is a federal law.

 

[KCFlyer]

The City of Dallas can't do anything. The Wright Amendment is a federal law.

[post="260379"][/post]​

I suppose what he means, JS, is that if Dallas opts to remain "passionately neutral" while their "sister city" was quite active in getting this "federal law" passed, then SWA might look it as though Dallas doesn't appreciate the revenues that Southwest brings into their fair city.

 

[JS]

I suppose what he means, JS, is that if Dallas opts to remain "passionately neutral" while their "sister city" was quite active in getting this "federal law" passed, then SWA might look it as though Dallas doesn't appreciate the revenues that Southwest brings into their fair city.

[post="260382"][/post]​

Maybe so, but isn't that that overkill? "Don't burn your bridges" as they say.

 

[mweiss]

They would have liked to keep it going so that we could say we were the only airline ever to offer premium-cabin-only service and succeed.

[post="260102"][/post]​

And that's why the only place they served with this premium cabin was DAL? I'm sure they wouldn't have found anyone interested in paying the extra money for, say, LAX-ORD, would they? Or LAX-JFK (no, not on a 100)? Of all the markets in the country, DAL is hardly the best choice for starting out if you have the facilities elsewhere.