Luv And War In The Dfw Metroplex

[corl737]

Somebody posted the following link on the LUV stockboard, and it's a must-read. It's from 1997, and it deals primarily with the obstacles that Legend was facing at the time (before they eventually failed), but the article also delves into the Wright/Shelby Amendments, the local politics, and the responses of a certain airline at DFW. With respect to the current Wright issue, many of the things in this article will seem very familar...

It's a long read, but well worth it...

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1997-...ws/feature.html

[post="277635"][/post]​

You're right! This should be mandatory reading for anyone who isn't firmly convinced that American Airlines earned their "Sky Nazi" nickname.

I flew out of Love Field from 1997-2005. Watching AA in action would have been amusing if it wasn't so downright nasty. :down:

-- C

 

[OPNLguy]

You're right! This should be mandatory reading for anyone who isn't firmly convinced that American Airlines earned their "Sky Nazi" nickname.

I flew out of Love Field from 1997-2005. Watching AA in action would have been amusing if it wasn't so downright nasty. :down:

-- C

[post="277659"][/post]​

Here's something else interesting...

Lawmaker suggests Wright summit
Southwest, American, D/FW Airport invited; compromise sought

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...t.1d911f1e.html

(Use www.bugmenot if you don't want to register)

A couple of excerpts...

U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson said Friday that she wants to put all the parties in the Wright amendment debate in the same room next month, with hopes of working out a compromise to resolve the dispute over the law.

"I'd really much rather have a local agreement," said Ms. Johnson, D-Dallas, in a meeting with The Dallas Morning News' editorial board.

Of particular note...

Ms. Johnson, whose district includes Love Field, said she wants a local compromise "because, to be quite honest with you, if [a bill] hits the [House] floor it's going to pass to repeal it."

This should prove interesting...

 

[LoneStarMike]

Somebody posted the following link on the LUV stockboard, and it's a must-read. It's from 1997, and it deals primarily with the obstacles that Legend was facing at the time (before they eventually failed), but the article also delves into the Wright/Shelby Amendments, the local politics, and the responses of a certain airline at DFW. With respect to the current Wright issue, many of the things in this article will seem very familar...

It's a long read, but well worth it...

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1997-...ws/feature.html

[post="277635"][/post]​

There was a related article around the same time in the Dallas Observer that dealt with the issue of Alliance Airport.

Hypocritic oath
Minutes of a power brokers' meeting show that Fort Worth is guilty of what it accuses Dallas of doing--breaking an agreement over D/FW airport

Link

Here's some other good reading.

This is the old "Dogfight Over Dallas" article that ran in D Magazine in 2000. Although it's archived off of D Magazine's website, you can still read it throught the internet archives. (Note: each of the 5 pages is archived separately)

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

And in a 2001 article about perimeter restrictions at Washington's Reagan National Airport (scroll down to second article) it notes:

Mark Slitt, a spokesman for American Airlines, said American's planes on the Los Angeles route are more modern and quiet than older aircraft. American is already flying the type of plane that would be used between Washington and Los Angeles -- a 737 or 757 -- in and out of National, he said. "Once the airplane wheels leave the tarmac, it's sort of irrelevant where that plane goes," Slitt said.

Isn't that the same arguement Southwest is making regarding flights out of Love Field?

 

[JS]

JS-

I think that the others were right...I think you just like to argue.  What does that have to do with anything?  The metroplex hasn't grown at all since 1973 is what I get from your underlining that line.  Amazing!!!

Thanks as always.

-Ch. 12

And TRULY thank you to corl737 for taking the time to adequately cite history, sources, etc.  This is truly refreshing in the never-ending grudge match.

[post="277197"][/post]​

Who pissed in your cheerios this morning? I took the time to delete attachments from old posts (I had zero bytes available for attachments), for which I received helpful advice from someone via PM, I shrank my pictures down to an acceptable size for this message board without making it too small to read, and post them here for you, and that's the "thanks" I get?

If you want to be a ####, fine, I guess I won't bother posting the picture of the historical marker right next to it that, in fact, does mention the 1963 event. :down:

 

[ngneer]

The movement to repeal the Wright Amendment has really gathered steam. The "American Right to Fly Act" is being introduced in the Senate today by Nevada Republican John Ensign. He'll have some high-profile support at a press conference announcing the bill, where he's expected to be joined by legislation cosponsors John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.).

Bill to repeal Wright Amendment to be introduced today.

 

[jimntx]

(Was it just a coincidence that American moved its headquarters from New York City to Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas in 1979? The new headquarters complex also included The Learning Center, a training facility; the Flight Academy, the pilot training facility, and the Southern Reservations Office. What a way to say "Thanks, Jim!" ... IMHO, of course!)

[post="277073"][/post]​

Nice try in the shady political dealings arena, but no cigar. As a matter of fact, it was during that same period that a LOT of corporations began to realize that they no longer needed to be headquartered in NYC in order to have access to the major financial markets. Exxon moved its headquarters to Texas during that period. Gulf moved its headquarters to Houston from NYC. There are many other examples.

 

[jimntx]

You're right! This should be mandatory reading for anyone who isn't firmly convinced that American Airlines earned their "Sky Nazi" nickname.

I flew out of Love Field from 1997-2005. Watching AA in action would have been amusing if it wasn't so downright nasty. :down:

-- C

[post="277659"][/post]​

And, if SW starts flying from DAL to LAX and BWI, etc, will you continue your Sky Nazi moaning if AA puts 757s on those routes with F/C available and takes away the business that SWA is really going after?

 

[swflyer]

And, if SW starts flying from DAL to LAX and BWI, etc, will you continue your Sky Nazi moaning if AA puts 757s on those routes with F/C available and takes away the business that SWA is really going after?

[post="282580"][/post]​

Jim, Jim, Jim!! <_<

Even you know the "sky nazi" title is more attributable to the Bob Crandall time period (and related "business decisions" around Vanguard and Legend). Fun reading is, "Hard Landing" by Thomas Pretinger (sp?).

I had a jumpseating AA pilot, years ago, in response to the statement from me, "Oh, you're an American guy" respond with:

"Yes, I work for Darth Crandall and the Evil Empire"

How did this loose cannon ever make it through your interview process??

In response to your post??

Southwest expects American to do everything in its power to compete, including making it's own choices on how much money to lose on a dual airport operation. Southwest has chosen to spend it's money fighting an outdated law, IMHO, and enjoying the full use of it's Dallas home, as American is enjoying theirs.

The Wright Amendment IS going away, IMHO, and American will be dealing with a much stronger competitor than Delta, at an alternate airport, just like it does in Chicago and Miami (S. Florida).

Respectfully.

 

[KCFlyer]

Southwest expects American to do everything in its power to compete, including making it's own choices on how much money to lose on a dual airport operation.

[post="282594"][/post]​

Why is this so difficult for so many to see....AA going head to head on routes like DAL-LAX would be no different than SWA going head to head with AA on DFW-LAX. With the WA gone, DAL can become a transfer point (hub if you will) for SWA. They can get O&D traffic AND connection traffic to fill their plane. AA will be depending strictly on O&D traffic, since their connecting hub is just a few miles down the road. It's no different that SWA trying run a handful of flights out of DFW...they'd depend solely on O&D traffic since the bulk of their potential connecting passengers will be landing in the Dallas city limits. IMHO, should the WA be repealed, AA would have a better opportunity to compete by staying put at DFW. But, if they feel that it's the airport and not the city that is important, I won't stop them from running up their costs with a dual operation.

 

[bwipilot]

And, if SW starts flying from DAL to LAX and BWI, etc, will you continue your Sky Nazi moaning if AA puts 757s on those routes with F/C available and takes away the business that SWA is really going after?

[post="282580"][/post]​

Bring it on. SWA would love to increase the number of passangers flying between DAL/DFW and LAX--and LIT/DAL/LAX and OKC/DAL/LAX and BHM/DAL/LAX and JAN/DAL/LAX and . . . . .

 

[jimntx]

IMHO, should the WA be repealed, AA would have a better opportunity to compete by staying put at DFW.  But, if they feel that it's the airport and not the city that is important, I won't stop them from running up their costs with a dual operation.

[post="282608"][/post]​

Or, how about SWA competing on a level playing field by paying the same landing fees and gate rentals as AA has to pay. And, don't give me the cr*p about the DFW facilities being better than Love. SW chooses to subject its passengers to inferior facilities--just like it's trying to do in SEA. It should not get a price break on operational costs for that reason.

Or, how about SWA give up control of about half its gates and landing slots at Love so that other airlines CAN compete equally there?

Truth is, SW doesn't want to COMPETE in DFW area. It wants exclusive use of a low-cost airport while making sure that its competitors are forced to pay higher costs.

 

[KCFlyer]

SW chooses to subject its passengers to inferior facilities--just like it's trying to do in SEA.

[post="282633"][/post]​

Um....I've been thru both DFW and DAL, and quite honestly, I don't find DAL to be "inferior" at all. In fact, I find it to be superior to DFW.

And....I think AA would want to see SWA operate out of DFW just about as much as they'd want to see the WA fall. But why is there no outrage on your part about SWA operations at MDW and AA's operation at ORD?

 

[FWAAA]

Or, how about SWA competing on a level playing field by paying the same landing fees and gate rentals as AA has to pay. And, don't give me the cr*p about the DFW facilities being better than Love. SW chooses to subject its passengers to inferior facilities--just like it's trying to do in SEA. It should not get a price break on operational costs for that reason.

Or, how about SWA give up control of about half its gates and landing slots at Love so that other airlines CAN compete equally there?

Truth is, SW doesn't want to COMPETE in DFW area. It wants exclusive use of a low-cost airport while making sure that its competitors are forced to pay higher costs.

[post="282633"][/post]​

DFW management and AA have teamed up to spend like drunken sailors at DFW. No wonder DFW can't find any airlines stupid enough to take advantage of the one year rent/landing fee holiday to move to all that vacant space; after the free year, it gets really expensive there.

The WA should be repealed and the Master Plan should be scrapped. Open competiton should rule. If it means that DAL has 70 gates again, so be it.

 

[FWAAA]

More whining from AA this morning:

American Airlines Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Will Ris said today:

"American Airlines strongly opposes the bill introduced today by U.S. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) in a press conference held immediately prior to a press briefing by Southwest Airlines Chairman Herb Kelleher.

"The bill is misnamed -- it should be called the 'Southwest Airlines Right to Fly Act.' Senator Ensign proposes to give Southwest Airlines the unlimited ability to fly anywhere from Love Field in Dallas, Texas, and then guarantee it an unprecedented federal monopoly by limiting the right of other carriers to acquire facilities and operate flights from Love. He does so by assuring that the Love Field Master Plan, which limits growth and competition at Love, remains in place while Southwest is free to fly anywhere from an airport in which it already has a virtual monopoly today.

"Senator Ensign ignores the fact that North Texas airline service has been completely open to competition for decades. Southwest has chosen not to fly nationally from DFW International Airport for the past 30 years.

"There are no provisions in the bill that would facilitate the introduction of service by other carriers at Love, assure equal access to the airport, provide for the building of new gates or terminals, require Southwest to make facilities available to other carriers in the absence of new gates, or in any way encourage competitors to enter the market. It makes no reference to the fact that, in stark contrast, more than 20 gates remain immediately available just a few miles away at DFW International Airport for the benefit of Southwest or any other carrier that wants to fly from that facility.

"Moreover, the bill only responds to the intense lobbying effort of Southwest to change the rules that it once agreed should never be changed. It does not propose to lift operating restrictions imposed on other airports in the nation, such as Washington's Reagan National and New York's LaGuardia airports. In short, the bill exclusively benefits one airline, while limiting the ability of all others to compete with that airline on its home turf."

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050719/datu048.html?.v=12

 

[jimntx]

Um....I've been thru both DFW and DAL, and quite honestly, I don't find DAL to be "inferior" at all.  In fact, I find it to be superior to DFW.

[post="282635"][/post]​

Maybe, you do. But, the last time I brought up the subject of SWA lower landing fees and gate rentals at DAL as being an unfair advantage, one of the other volunteer SWA cheerleaders used the "inferior" facilities argument to justify the difference in fees.

BTW, I'm fairly certain that the WA will be repealed and soon. However, for those of you who live in "secondary cities" who think repeal of the WA will be the coming of Jubilee, be careful what you wish for. I'm betting that the day that WA is repealed, SWA will pull service from places like STL, MCI, OKC, and BHM to have the a/c and crews to stick it to AA.

You might be able to connect at DAL to LAX from MCI, but I bet the schedule won't be nearly as convenient as you think. And, having flown SWA, all I can say is you are welcome to that DAL-LAX flight on SWA. I'll pass.

Most of my family live in BHM. My sister's son is based at Nellis outside of LAS. To visit him and his family, she can fly through DFW on AA or non-stop on SW. She goes AA every time since the one time she tried the non-stop on SW.