New Legislation To Eradicate Wright/shelby

[corl737]

I wonder if Southwest would be content with the Wright Amendment if it weren't for the TSA pigs destroying the viability of short-haul travel.

I think you're on to something! Perhaps SWA should follow the lead of the other legacy carriers and request a Federal subsidy because it is the TSA, a Federal agency, that is inflicting economic harm. Of course, it would be a lot easier to take a pen, repeal the Wright Amendment, and let SWA recoup its lost revenue through free-market forces.

Now, if DFW were full, like it was in the 1990's, then I would agree that the Wright Amendment has served its purpose and can be laid to rest. ....

So the Wright Amendment should be treated like a window shade that can be implemented or repealed at will depending on DFW's ability - or lack thereof - to be competitive enough to attract tenents?

The fact of the matter is that DFW has the space for Southwest to operate long-haul flights (or any length of flight Southwest chooses to operate).

Yes, DFW has physical space. However, have you looked at the "fine print" attached to the gate space offers DFW is promoting:

From the Wright Chat conducted by the Dallas Morning News on June 9th:
"The free rent offer by D/FW includes several stipulations. The biggest one has to do with the level of service that a new, or expanding airline would provide. To receive the $22 million in free rent (plus other benefits such as ground equipment and marketing assistance), a carrier would have to commit to taking over 22 gates and offer a certain minimum of flights. At a minimum, a carrier would have to take over 10 gates within the first year. There are also some expectations that the carrier would devote much of the service to markets not already being served. Aviation industry consultants have said that the minimum 10 gates would high for any carrier to take on over the course of the year."

For perspective, Southwest has only 8 gates at Sacramento yet flies 76 flights a day from there. Thus, if SWA were to agree to the terms of the move to DFW, the loser might well be American Airlines because, based on efficient gate utilization rates, SWA would have to operate at least 100 flights the first year and eventually up to 220. This would saturate AA's markets with an abundance of low fare seats which they would feel compelled to match ... and probably lose revenue in the process.

I don't think the opposition to repeal the Wright Amendment really is so much about economics as it is ego. DFW wants to keep it's title as the "Prima Dona of North Texas" and prove that it has the power to call the shots for the region's economy.

... when government changes regulations to suit the low-price leader without considering the overall industry, you risk finding yourself observing insane practices ....

I'd agree IF SWA was the low price leader. They aren't. They are the most consistently lowest available fares. Other carriers routinely undercut SWA's prices but do so with so few seats that their prices are usually nothing more than "look at us" advertising promotions.

As for considering the overall industry, I have to think they don't give a ratz a**. Witness the favored treatment of US Airways vs. United regarding the approval of ATSB loan guarantees. United is a much more vital part of the nation's air transportation system yet it was left hanging high and dry while US Airways gets extensions and exceptions.

... here we are debating why Congress should open up Love Field and let DFW risk defaulting on its bonds ....

I haven't heard any complaint from Fort Worth about the revenue that their Alliance Airport is siphoning off from DFW. The huge FedEX sorting center generates a ton of income from landing fees and fuel sales that could easily be transferred to help DFW pay it's bonds. They're also in the process of a runway expansion that will permit even larger aircraft to fly more freight. Please explain to my why DFW supporters aren't outraged about this activity???

 

[JS]

I'd agree IF SWA was the low price leader. They aren't. They are the most consistently lowest available fares. Other carriers routinely undercut SWA's prices but do so with so few seats that their prices are usually nothing more than "look at us" advertising promotions.

Of course Southwest is the low price leader, meaning Southwest is the largest discount carrier in the U.S. AA is a legacy airline that charges high fares as a matter of policy, only offering low fares when forced to do so by the competition.

 

[corl737]

Of course Southwest is the low price leader, meaning Southwest is the largest discount carrier in the U.S. AA is a legacy airline that charges high fares as a matter of policy, only offering low fares when forced to do so by the competition.

[post="278637"][/post]​

While the AA business model may do well in prosperous economic times, airline travel is a highly discretionary activity for most people. The ability of individuals and industry to easily access and compare rates means it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who is taking them for a ride -- figuratively, of course.

 

[ngneer]

What it boils down to is consistency in government.

[post="278608"][/post]​

I agree with that, and the Wright Amendment is inconsistent with the Airline Deregulation Act which is supposed to allow airlines free and unfettered access to the nation's commercial airports.

 

[JS]

I agree with that, and the Wright Amendment is inconsistent with the Airline Deregulation Act which is supposed to allow airlines free and unfettered access to the nation's commercial airports.

[post="278649"][/post]​

Airline regulation dictated where airlines could fly and how much to charge. Southwest now has free and unfettered access to DFW and can fly anywhere they want and charge any fare they want. There is no inconsistency.

 

[ngneer]

Airline regulation dictated where airlines could fly and how much to charge.

[post="278664"][/post]​

And dictating by government fiat that airline service at DAL be restricted when it is a licensed commercial airport is de facto airline regulation.

It looks like WA repeal is gaining some important support. John Mica -- chairman of the House transportation and infrastructure subcommittee on aviation - said that he wants his panel to act on legislation introduced May 26 to repeal the law that limits service from Love Field to points in Texas and seven nearby states.

"There's no doubt it's an outdated provision," Mica said of the law, enacted in 1979 to protect Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. Asked whether he would like to examine the law or repeal it, Mica answered, "both." A few minutes later, he returned and said, "I want to examine repeal."

Key House Panel to Take Wright Amendment Action Soon

 

[KCFlyer]

And dictating by government fiat that airline service at DAL be restricted when it is a licensed commercial airport is de facto airline regulation.
Key House Panel to Take Wright Amendment Action Soon

[post="278685"][/post]​

Give that man a Kewpie doll....The Wright Amendment was the first regulation written after the airline deregulation act of 1978.

 

[luver41]

I really hate to interupt you guys while you continue bashing each other, but it really seems to me that AA is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. If I was AA management, the last thing in the world I'd want is Southwest flying 100 to 200 flights a day out of DFW. IMHO, that'd be a worst case scenario for AA. Seems to me that AA should be careful what they are wishing for.

 

[Ch. 12]

I really hate to interupt you guys while you continue bashing each other, but it really seems to me that AA is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. If I was AA management, the last thing in the world I'd want is Southwest flying 100 to 200 flights a day out of DFW. IMHO, that'd be a worst case scenario for AA. Seems to me that AA should be careful what they are wishing for.

[post="278716"][/post]​

They know that WN would not move to DFW anytime soon (but never say "never"). AA mgmt does not feel that by telling WN to move flights to DFW that they really will. It is an empty invite. They know that WN mgmt is smart enough to determine that it is quite costly to move a major hub of operations...even if it is just down the road.

 

[Ch. 12]

JS-

1) My analogy about the markets allowed by Wright and Shelby is not a snotty remark at all. It is common sense and relates to market demand. You must admit that BHM and ABQ do not have the draw of ORD and LAX. But nice effort into turning this into personal attacks.

2) Stable government?! What are you inferring? That repealling the WA will make our gov't fail? C'mon. Laws were made to be dymanic...not static. When their usefullness or correctness is outlived, they need to be re-assessed and changed. Our founding fathers never intended to not change any laws and those that are supposed to be difficult to change are in the constitution. They never said "gee...I hope that free competition is never allowed in Dallas if an amendment is ever created to stop it".

3) Airlines do not simply "choose" the fare levels...they are chosen by the consumer through a simple thing called demand. AA, however, has the model that you run at a monopoly (either by running the competition out of business or by supporting and fighting for legislation that gives them a monopoly). With their monopolies or oligopolies in some instances, they can gouge the pax...but that should not be what capitalism is. You don't seem to fight as hard for capitalism as you do for dictatorship, Mr. Patriot.

4) Regarding a perimiter...I'm sure they could work it just right to not allow flights to the NE but still allow some respectable markets such as DEN, LAX, ORD, etc.

5) You state that you are not aligned with AMR and that doesn't drive your arguements but you don't seem to have no problems with them fighting to break through the less-restrictive DCA perimiter while upholding the extremely limiting DAL "perimiter". Your story does not add up. Won't "destablizing" the gov't in the nation's capital be more detrimental that doing so halfway across the country?

I don't by the stable gov't arguement and honestly don't believe that you do, either. Any other reasons why you so are so vehemently against free comptition in Dallas?

 

[JS]

JS-

1) My analogy about the markets allowed by Wright and Shelby is not a snotty remark at all. It is common sense and relates to market demand. You must admit that BHM and ABQ do not have the draw of ORD and LAX. But nice effort into turning this into personal attacks.

2) Stable government?! What are you inferring? That repealling the WA will make our gov't fail? C'mon. Laws were made to be dymanic...not static. When their usefullness or correctness is outlived, they need to be re-assessed and changed. Our founding fathers never intended to not change any laws and those that are supposed to be difficult to change are in the constitution. They never said "gee...I hope that free competition is never allowed in Dallas if an amendment is ever created to stop it".

Yes, and what I am saying is that DFW has the space, and thus the Wright Amendment need not be lifted.

3) Airlines do not simply "choose" the fare levels...they are chosen by the consumer through a simple thing called demand. AA, however, has the model that you run at a monopoly (either by running the competition out of business or by supporting and fighting for legislation that gives them a monopoly). With their monopolies or oligopolies in some instances, they can gouge the pax...but that should not be what capitalism is. You don't seem to fight as hard for capitalism as you do for dictatorship, Mr. Patriot.

I'm all for competition. One post up, Ch. 12 wrote "They know that WN would not move to DFW anytime soon (but never say "never"). AA mgmt does not feel that by telling WN to move flights to DFW that they really will. It is an empty invite. They know that WN mgmt is smart enough to determine that it is quite costly to move a major hub of operations...even if it is just down the road.", to which my reply is:

Call AA's bluff

4) Regarding a perimiter...I'm sure they could work it just right to not allow flights to the NE but still allow some respectable markets such as DEN, LAX, ORD, etc.

5) You state that you are not aligned with AMR and that doesn't drive your arguements but you don't seem to have no problems with them fighting to break through the less-restrictive DCA perimiter while upholding the extremely limiting DAL "perimiter". Your story does not add up. Won't "destablizing" the gov't in the nation's capital be more detrimental that doing so halfway across the country?

I don't by the stable gov't arguement and honestly don't believe that you do, either. Any other reasons why you so are so vehemently against free comptition in Dallas?

[post="278896"][/post]​

I said that I was opposed to AA's arguments that DCA perimeter rules be lifted.

 

[Ch. 12]

Yes, and what I am saying is that DFW has the space, and thus the Wright Amendment need not be lifted.

Yes, and what I am saying is that will raise costs of airlines having to relocate and therefore put the industry in worse shape than it is in today. That is why a very intelligent business decision to not relocate has been made in this situation. If the WA were lifted, real market conditions would exist in Dallas and not only would it allow for balanced competition without increasing costs...it would also allow other carriers to fly long haul flights out of DAL and LOWER their costs. Net result...a healthier industry. So your option which weakens the industry or repealing the WA which strengthens it...now I'll let you choose.

I'm all for competition.  One post up, Ch. 12 wrote "They know that WN would not move to DFW anytime soon (but never say "never"). AA mgmt does not feel that by telling WN to move flights to DFW that they really will. It is an empty invite. They know that WN mgmt is smart enough to determine that it is quite costly to move a major hub of operations...even if it is just down the road.", to which my reply is:

Call AA's bluff

Didn't I?

I said that I was opposed to AA's arguments that DCA perimeter rules be lifted.

[post="279490"][/post]​

Oh yes...I do see that now...right there with the same notion that carriers need to increase their costs to relocate ops to a higher cost airport (with a dominant carrier which will only make it that much more impracticle). Sorry to have mis-quoted you on agreeing with opening up DCA. Guess that would be a foolish stance.