New Legislation To Eradicate Wright/shelby

[Ch. 12]

Airplane fan you will now be considered a liar because you do not back up everything that LUV stands for. They seem to think AA is the reason for the Wright.

Get real if Southwest wanted to fly non stop from the Dallas area move to DFW but they wont

[post="274850"][/post]​

First off, AA is not the reason for the CREATION of the WA, they are the reason for UPHOLDING it. They carry much political clout in DC and if you were to read any of the recent press releases by them, you would know that they are throwing any excuse out there to support keeping it.

And please get back to my past questions to you...why should WN be forced to relocate, add to their costs (both one-time for the move and on-going for the added expense of DFW) and subsequently their fares just to meet AA's model? Do you not agree that the intent of the WA is no longer valid? I think that DFW is old enough to be weaned from the unfair trade policy it has been granted. Baby doesn't need the crib and bottle anymore. You don't know how sick I am of the arguement that WN should relocate. Why doesn't AA completely relocate its fortress? It must be cheap and easy if WN should have to do it...

Tell me what logical sense it makes to keep the WA.

 

[TheDog2004]

With regaurd to comments about Southwest and its' markets having limited competitivness with those that fly to SFO, LGA, JFK, MSP... i foresee the relationship with ATA and its presence in these markets, to intensify in Dallas. Is it possible that ATA will leave DFW for LUV? Makes sense to me!

[post="274053"][/post]​

ATA only flies DFW-MDW. Why should they start flying DAL-LGA? Even if they did (and did so at a loss most likely), Southwest would still be shut out of the O/D traffic on the route. Why would anyone choose to connect in DAL over any other mega-hub?

So basically the scenario you mention cannot happen unless ATA starts flying DAL-LGA/BOS/DCA, and then they would be competing directly against Southwest's service to BWI/PVD/MHT/ISP and potentially taking business from Southwest!

Certainly makes sense for ATA, but not for Southwest!

 

[skyguy25]

ATA and WN are in a codeshare agreement. With WN controlling the fate of ATA, for sake of arguement, I think that WN could use ATA and her gates in LGA, MSP, DCA, CUN, ERW,and HNL to make a very nice profit out of DAL. Remeber that ATA is NOT in direct competition with WN and that could benefit both companies in DAL. ATA could also use DAL as a codeshare hub, if you will, for their Carribean/Hawaii routes. ATA just might become WN's international division right at home in DAL.

 

[TheDog2004]

ATA and WN are in a codeshare agreement. With WN controlling the fate of ATA, for sake of arguement, I think that WN could use ATA and her gates in LGA, MSP, DCA, CUN, ERW,and HNL to make a very nice profit out of DAL. Remeber that ATA is NOT in direct competition with WN and that could benefit both companies in DAL. ATA could also use DAL as a codeshare hub, if you will, for their Carribean/Hawaii routes. ATA just might become WN's international division right at home in DAL.

[post="274886"][/post]​

skyguy, WN cannot sell domestic codeshares on nonstop flights FWIU. It can only be for connecting passengers.

For example, if WN were to codeshare on a DAL-LGA flight operated by ATA, then they could sell ELP-DAL-LGA but could not sell DAL-LGA. It's similar to what Northwest and Continental have on many of their routes. While you can buy a codeshare for a flight on Northwest from Continental on a MSP-DTW-ORD route, Continental cannot sell inventory on either the MSP-DTW or DTW-ORD portions of the route.

And don't try to argue that DAL-ISP and DAL-LGA are not competing routes. From Southwest's point of view they are very much so. Southwest's MO over the years has been to fly passengers to alternate airports rather than compete with the 'network carriers' at the most popular airports. what has changed is that LCCs have been able to move into these airports and that will be a MAJOR challenge to Southwest's ability to grow in the east. it's why Southwest fought so hard to help ATA and keep AirTran out of Midway and has been so aggressive in PHL and PIT.

Remember we have LCCs bumping into each other here in the east coast. They are looking for new markets and DAL would be a great place to attack the biggest bully on the LCC block - Southwest!

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Support growing.

Salt Lake Area supporting dropping W/A

Salt Lake Tribune

 

[jimmyd]

Pretty smart of the SLC Airport to let the Chamber of Commerce lead the charge in repealing the WA. Would not want to tick off your hubbing carrier, Delta, who has been silent on the matter anyway.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Pretty smart of the SLC Airport to let the Chamber of Commerce lead the charge in repealing the WA.  Would not want to tick off your hubbing carrier, Delta, who has been silent on the matter anyway.

[post="275442"][/post]​

WN's no threat to Delta in SLC. If WN gets one or two directs from DAL how could it hurt them.

Speaking of SLC, I worked in SLC after we took over Morris operations. It wasn't unsual to see Delta make a missed approach with one of their heavy's, what a sight to see. I'd seen us make missed approaches there too, but not as impressive.

 

[Ch. 12]

First off, AA is not the reason for the CREATION of the WA, they are the reason for UPHOLDING it. They carry much political clout in DC and if you were to read any of the recent press releases by them, you would know that they are throwing any excuse out there to support keeping it.

And please get back to my past questions to you...why should WN be forced to relocate, add to their costs (both one-time for the move and on-going for the added expense of DFW) and subsequently their fares just to meet AA's model? Do you not agree that the intent of the WA is no longer valid? I think that DFW is old enough to be weaned from the unfair trade policy it has been granted. Baby doesn't need the crib and bottle anymore. You don't know how sick I am of the arguement that WN should relocate. Why doesn't AA completely relocate its fortress? It must be cheap and easy if WN should have to do it...

Tell me what logical sense it makes to keep the WA.

[post="274864"][/post]​

Operaations? I see you have been lurking here but haven't seen a response... Is that b/c there is no reason in today's world to keep the WA? Sounds right to me.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Great article by George Will of the Washington Post.......


The Wrongs of the Wright Rule

By George F. Will

Sunday, June 5, 2005; Page B07

DALLAS -- Some things, said Marx, appear in history twice, first as tragedy, then as farce. The airport here named Love Field entered America's consciousness through the tragedy of assassination: Lyndon Johnson took the presidential oath aboard Air Force One on Love Field's tarmac. Today Love Field is again in the news, this time illustrating the farcical consequences of the government's 10-thumbed attempt to manage an industry.

In 1971, after years of harassing litigation by two airlines averse to competition, Southwest Airlines was born. It had just three aircraft and flew only intrastate, between Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. This first of the no-frills, low-cost airlines, under the leadership of its ebullient founder Herb Kelleher, was to democratize air travel and revolutionize the airline industry.


The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, and the Dallas/Fort Worth airport, which opened in 1974, tried unsuccessfully to force Southwest to move its operations from close-in Love Field out to DFW, arguing that the new airport depended on this. Today Kelleher laughingly recalls telling a judge: "If a three-aircraft airline can bankrupt an 18,000-acre, nine-miles-long airport, then that airport probably should not have been built in the first place."

But in Washington, reasonableness is no match for the routine and lucrative corruption known as rent-seeking -- economic interests getting government to impose handicaps on competitors. House Majority Leader Jim Wright, from Fort Worth, rode to the rescue of the strong -- DFW and Fort Worth-based American Airlines. In 1979 he muscled through Congress a measure designed to stifle the growth of Southwest and punish it for not moving out to DFW -- an expensive move that would have made it sensible for many Southwest customers to drive rather than fly to their destinations.

The Wright Amendment restricted interstate service from Love Field to cities in just four states -- Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. In 1997 senators wanting to bring Southwest's low fares to their constituents amended the Wright Amendment to allow flights to Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi. Today, if you want to fly Southwest from Love Field to Los Angeles, you must buy a ticket to Albuquerque, collect your baggage there, buy another ticket, go through security again and board another plane.

Today DFW is the world's sixth-busiest airport, and American Airlines is the world's largest carrier. American is, like all the older airlines, losing money. But is that a reason to punish Southwest? Unlike other airlines, Southwest is not asking Washington to take on its pension burdens or to give it other subsidies. It is asking only for liberation.

Southwest, which is now using only 14 gates for 117 flights a day at Love Field, says it could use only 21 gates if the Wright restrictions were repealed. This would put some downward pressure on the fares of American, which by the end of the year may have almost 1,000 flights a day out of DFW.

That pressure would be good for travelers -- and probably for American, too. When Southwest entered the Fort Lauderdale market, forcing American to cut fares to and from Miami, American's passengers and revenue increased. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that since Southwest entered the Philadelphia market just last May, driving down the fares of previously unchallenged US Airways, travelers through that airport have saved $1.2 billion.

The Wright Amendment is now functioning in the context of an airline industry crisis aggravated by government policies. The government is subsidizing airlines that have unsustainable business models. By allowing them to use bankruptcy as a strategy for enhancing competitiveness against other high-cost airlines, it creates an incentive -- even a necessity -- for those rivals to enter bankruptcy and dump pension burdens on Washington.

Government is preserving precisely what ails the industry -- excess capacity. Suppose a major carrier were to go out of business. A salient fact about the airline industry is, Kelleher says, that "its principal capital asset travels at over 500 miles per hour." Which means: If one airline fails, unserved markets will be served swiftly. He notes that on the afternoon of May 12, 1982, Dallas-based Braniff Airlines -- one of those that had urged government to strangle Southwest in its cradle -- went out of business. The next morning at least five airlines started up on some Braniff routes.

Ronald Reagan said that Washington's approach to intervening in industries is: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it. Regarding airlines, the policy is: If they are failing, keep them flying; if they are prospering, burden them. But surely Washington, although difficult to embarrass, is embarrassed enough to repeal the Wright Amendment.

 

[OPNLguy]

Another good article is the one on the Ft. Worth paper today from their business columnist...

Posted on Sun, Jun. 05, 2005

D/FW avoids key issue in Wright fight

By Mitchell Schnurman

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Who would spend $100,000 on a study and not bother to read it?

That's the claim of the top executive at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, who is trying to explain why his organization didn't tell us about the potential savings from repealing the Wright Amendment.

D/FW released a much-ballyhooed study last month that showed the airport suffering a crippling blow if Dallas Love Field is opened to long-distance air service.

What executives didn't mention was that the report also had details about likely fare cuts on dozens of routes. It's the first time that the consumer benefits of open competition were cited in such a detailed way.

Reporters asked about the effect on fares and were told that they would generally decline.

Why no specifics?

Jeff Fegan, the chief executive of D/FW Airport, says he didn't know about them, even though they're detailed in the report commissioned by the airport.

"I had no knowledge of the data generated for the study," Fegan told me in a phone interview last week, adding that his staff didn't know, either.

Talk about a blind spot.

To millions of North Texans, fares are the No. 1 issue in the Wright Amendment debate. I accept that D/FW is more worried about losing passengers and flights, but weren't airport officials curious enough about fares to see what their report uncovered?

Fegan said he shouldn't be expected to know what's in statistical tables provided by the research firm that conducted the study.

"Only the most experienced analyst could look at this and even decipher what it represents," he said.

My colleague, Trebor Banstetter, managed to find the fare numbers in the documents and crunch them in time for a story published May 27. He reported that the study found that average fares would drop more than 30 percent here, and prices on some routes would be even lower.

Take Fegan at his word -- "I know nothing" -- and that means he and his staff learned of the fare savings from a Star-Telegram reporter.

Of course, Banstetter had one advantage: He's interested in fares, because they're central to the Wright Amendment debate.

D/FW managers don't see it that way. They assume that fares will drop with or without the Wright Amendment -- a hopeful sentiment, considering that American Airlines' dominance is growing at D/FW and that discounters are still wary of expanding here.

Fegan says that even if he had known the fare numbers, he still would not have included them in the 42-page summary given to the public.

"I don't know if we'd do anything differently today," Fegan said.

If D/FW wants to be more than a one-dimensional advocate in the Wright debate, it needs to see the bigger picture. Otherwise, its credibility is shot.

We expect American, Southwest Airlines and other for-profit companies to spin data to their advantage. D/FW has always done its share of spinning, but the community needs it to behave like an honest broker now.

Repealing Wright could have serious long-term effects on the airport. If D/FW has fewer passengers, there will be less revenue to cover the airport's rising costs, including almost $3 billion in debt from a new terminal and people mover.

But it's hard for the public to know what to believe when it comes to D/FW pronouncements.

Is it reasonable that opening little Love Field could cost D/FW 21 million passengers a year? Can we accept D/FW's contention that if Wright remains, other discount airlines will take on American at D/FW and finally bring low fares here?

Are we supposed to believe that D/FW executives didn't know what was included in a study they ordered and paid for?

Don't bank on D/FW's board of directors exerting a firmer grip. Dallas and Fort Worth, which together hold 11 of 12 board seats, were cut loose from their financial obligations when the airport sold the bonds for its latest capital project.

Without the financial ties, the staff has become more insulated and the board more ceremonial.

I called all 12 board members last week to gauge their reaction to the airport's handling of the study. Only three talked with me: Chairman Jeff Wentworth, Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief and longtime board member Max Wells.

One director, Lillie Biggins of Harris Methodist Fort Worth hospital, said Wednesday that she would call me back -- after she talked with the airport's public affairs chief.

By late Friday afternoon, the call hadn't come in.

It's not unusual for administrators to develop agendas and keep their boards or councils in the dark. Elected and appointed officials always have to probe to see what they're not being told.

If the mayors of Dallas and Fort Worth, who dominate the D/FW board, were aware of the fare numbers, their political instincts may have pushed for fuller disclosure of the study.

It's not only the right thing to do; it's the smart strategy.

D/FW doesn't want to turn the Wright fight into a debate on fares, because Southwest owns that turf. But it's counterproductive to duck the matter.

Fegan passed some blame onto the consulting firm that conducted the study, and an author told me that she didn't think fares were a top issue, either. Her charge was to assess the impact on D/FW.

Fair enough, but D/FW should know better. It's no coincidence that the first question at the news conference releasing the study wasn't about flights fleeing D/FW; it was about fares.

Airport officials should confront the issue head-on and explain why the costs of disrupting the airports will be greater than the benefit of lower fares. But can they make a credible argument?

They've been wrong a lot lately. Airport officials downplayed Delta Air Line's financial troubles last summer and then cried about a huge hit when Delta closed its hub at D/FW.

The airport's chief operating officer, Kevin Cox, publicly attacked Southwest -- the most coveted potential recruit -- when it rejected an offer to move to D/FW.

Six months ago, the airport publicized a big incentive package to recruit low-cost airlines, but it hasn't produced anything yet. And now it releases a study that predicts doom and gloom for D/FW without bothering to mention that consumers would save millions.

I criticized the airport for ignoring consumers in a recent column, and its vice president of public affairs, Ken Capps, requested my data. In an e-mail, he wrote that D/FW has one of the most comprehensive research departments of any airport, and that its researchers believed that I was wrong.

"It is imperative," Capps wrote, "that accurate information be presented to your readers."

Three days later, the Star-Telegram published an op-ed piece from Capps that claimed D/FW passenger totals included pockets of strength. But the article didn't address the consumer question that was the theme of the column.

If those crack researchers had put some time into reviewing their study on the Wright Amendment, Capps could have broken a real story.

Fegan said Capps didn't go there, because he also didn't know about the fare details.

Perhaps he had a premonition.

A few hours after the news conference on the study, Capps urged me to cite some of the claims.

"This was not done as a snow job for D/FW," Capps wrote in an e-mail. "We've got a lot more integrity than that."

What they need is a little more credibility.

 

[OPNLguy]

Airplane fan you will now be considered a liar because you do not back up everything that LUV stands for. They seem to think AA is the reason for the Wright.

Get real if Southwest wanted to fly non stop from the Dallas area move to DFW but they wont

[post="274850"][/post]​

You know, we could make things simplier if we could make auto and jet engines run on sea water instead of petroleum-based fuels, but alas, some things are not as "simple" as they seem. Neither is forcing Southwest to move to DFW...

Some folks see Southwest moving to DFW as the "simple" solution, i.e. a one-on-one "plug and play" replacement of Delta's former operation with Southwest's. To those who like "simple" solutions, especially on paper, sure, it looks reasonable, but the reality is that, from the business aspect to Southwest, those pesky details clearly show that it's not a good deal at all, and would increase Southwest's costs above what they would see operating unrestricted from Love:

1/ Southwest doesn't want to have its flights #33 for takeoff behind AA's 32 flights ahead in line.

2/ Sure, DFW has economic incentives out there for taking some/all of Delta's former 22 gates (10 minimum). It's a "loss-leader" in that it's only for the first year. Oh, by the way, did anyone notice the onerous restrictions on where new service from these DFW gates is limited to? What business sense does it make for Southwest to trade one set of restrictions at Love for another at DFW?

3/ Southwest has a sizeable investment in various facilities at Love. A big HDQ building that was just expanded for a 3rd time, and now includes a F/A training facility. A training/sim building that's in the process of adding 3 or 4 sim bays. Various maintenance hangars that can hold a total of 10-12 aircraft. Is Southwest expected to abandon these expensive facilities and replace them with new equally expensive facilities at DFW? If Southwest gets to retain use of them at Love, how is that beneficial to Southwest when Southwest will be incurring additional expenses to routinely ferry multiple aircraft in/out of Love for overnight maintenance? Sure, Braniff (v1.0) ferried aircraft from their Love facilities to DFW and back once DFW opened in 1974, but the 1974-1978 period was prior to airline deregulation, when increased costs could be easily recouped via higher ticket prices. In the post-deregulation era post-1978, wasteful ferrying became a cost item, which Braniff paid right up until they went under in 1982. That's not the only thing, or even the main thing that killed them, but the point is that all costs today have to make economic sense, and the routine ferrying of multiple aircraft between Love and DFW doesn't.

Folks (including the pro-Wright politicians) can have all the opinions they want about Southwest moving to DFW, but those and .50 cents will get them a cup of coffee. It's Southwest's inherent right as a business to make business decisions as it sees fit, and moving to DFW doesn't make economic sense.

Of course, if you're AA/DFW, and can't control your costs, increasing Southwest's costs can be the next best thing...

 

[AirplaneFan]

Airplane fan you will now be considered a liar because you do not back up everything that LUV stands for. They seem to think AA is the reason for the Wright.

Get real if Southwest wanted to fly non stop from the Dallas area move to DFW but they wont

[post="274850"][/post]​

I am not sure how to read this post. Am I being called a liar, or just thought of as a liar because I don't parrot whet the poster believes SW is saying.

LUV can fly nonstops from DAL now. Just not to 42 of the the 50 states.

LUV does want to fly nonstops from DAL across the country, just not from the white(Wright) elephant of DFW.

 

[JS]

Ch. 12 and OPNLguy, where are you two getting the idea that some people want Southwest to close Love Field and move everything to DFW? That is ludicrous, and no one has suggested it, so stop wasting your time arguing against a nonexistent point of view.

Starting service to DFW is really not any different than starting service to RIC or DAY or DEN or any other airport that Southwest does not serve today. It's called "expansion". It requires nothing other than the usage of one or more gates.

 

[OPNLguy]

Ch. 12 and OPNLguy, where are you two getting the idea that some people want Southwest to close Love Field and move everything to DFW? That is ludicrous, and no one has suggested it, so stop wasting your time arguing against a nonexistent point of view.

Starting service to DFW is really not any different than starting service to RIC or DAY or DEN or any other airport that Southwest does not serve today. It's called "expansion". It requires nothing other than the usage of one or more gates.

[post="275655"][/post]​

Some folks down here have suggested just that, as if forcing Southwest to DFW was some kind of "plug and play" replacement for Delta's former operation. It's not.

DFW service would be radically different than starting RIC, DAY, or DEN, both in terms of scale (117 flights) and the fact that there are major facilities involved as mentioned in my earlier post.

 

[Ch. 12]

Ch. 12 and OPNLguy, where are you two getting the idea that some people want Southwest to close Love Field and move everything to DFW? That is ludicrous, and no one has suggested it, so stop wasting your time arguing against a nonexistent point of view.

Starting service to DFW is really not any different than starting service to RIC or DAY or DEN or any other airport that Southwest does not serve today. It's called "expansion". It requires nothing other than the usage of one or more gates.

[post="275655"][/post]​

JS- Why "expand" to a city you already serve if the only reason you cannot serve real markets is b/c your airport is restricted? Without adding any flights, WN could immediately serve LA, Chicago, Flordia, NE, just by eliminating the pointless ticketing restrictions. It is ludicrous to expect them to have to "expand" to their own city. Why doesn't AA have to "expand" back to DAL to serve high-revenue markets?

And DL pulling out of DFW is a definite indicator of how difficult it will be for anyone to penetrate the AA fortress. I don't care how many gates there are...it is a costly and unneccessary venture to have to "expand" to Dallas!!