New Legislation To Eradicate Wright/shelby

[swflyer]

Wow, we are really grasping at straws here, aren't we?  Operating flights out of both LGA and JFK is the cause of all the legacy carriers' losses and JetBlue's decreasing profits?

I suppose if AA had decided to either fly only out of LGA and whine about the perimeter rule that prevents them from flying LGA-LAX (or moved everything to JFK and shut down LGA conconcourse D), they would have made money every quarter for the last four years?

[post="276700"][/post]​

I'm glad you used the JS, because it was a stretch to get to your comment from mine. <_<
Come on, play fair.

You were responding to CH.12's post that operating two different operations from two different airports was "ridiculous", by saying that it worked for other airlines. I was merely pointing out that these other airlines aren't profitable, as a way of validating WN's reasoning for not choosing to start a DFW operation.

Duplicating layers of operation, at any level, in any business, raises costs, costs profits, and that money as to come from somewhere.

BTW, is was posted earlier that AA DID challenge Washington National's perimeter rule, much like WN is doing in Dallas but, of course, this is an entirely different case.

Respectfully,

P.S. Are you being contrary just for fun??

 

[JS]

I'm glad you used the JS, because it was a stretch to get to your comment from mine. <_<
Come on, play fair.

You were responding to CH.12's post that operating two different operations from two different airports was "ridiculous", by saying that it worked for other airlines. I was merely pointing out that these other airlines aren't profitable, as a way of validating WN's reasoning for not choosing to start a DFW operation.

Duplicating layers of operation, at any level, in any business, raises costs, costs profits, and that money as to come from somewhere.

I don't disagree that duplication costs money. However, when one airport has a limited amount of space and cannot be expanded while another nearby airport has plenty of space, the only logical thing to do is ensure that usage is evenly distributed. This is the reason why LGA and DCA still have perimeter rules, even though the range issues of aircraft are gone.

BTW, is was posted earlier that AA DID challenge Washington National's perimeter rule, much like WN is doing in Dallas but, of course, this is an entirely different case.

I had not heard about that. I must disagree with AA on that issue.

Respectfully,

P.S. Are you being contrary just for fun??

[post="277009"][/post]​

Nope.

 

[swflyer]

I don't disagree that duplication costs money.  However, when one airport has a limited amount of space and cannot be expanded while another nearby airport has plenty of space, the only logical thing to do is ensure that usage is evenly distributed.  This is the reason why LGA and DCA still have perimeter rules, even though the range issues of aircraft are gone.

[post="277031"][/post]​

JS,

It's incorrect to say that DAL is limited and cannot be expanded. There are currently 17 gates in use in the main terminal, 6 mothballed gates in the Legend facility, and the Love Field Master Plan allows for 9 more gates on the North Concourse for a field total of 32. Like DFW, DAL has gates available right now for an operator desiring to be ham-strung by the Wright Amendment. Yes, DFW has more space available, both built and potential, but DAL is currently not at it's maximum, master planned potential.

In strict numbers, DFW had 175 gates to DAL's potential of 32. Taking only the two major tenants of each airport, American has 847 daily flights (including Eagle) to Southwest's 117. "Usage" is not evenly distributed now, pointing to the reason SWA wants to stay at DAL, less congestion.

The perimeter rules at LGA and DCA are only about rationing scarce assets. (study includes slot history in Part 4A). If I accept your statement about "usage", perimeter rules supporting the larger, nearby airport (JFK and IAD), these "rules" have been changed when political winds have shifted (sound familiar???). Again, DAL is not in the scarce resource, nor restricted airspace, position of LGA or DCA.

I'm appreciating the discussion, JS, but don't see the "logic" in continuing to protect DFW's "plenty" of space. Why is it not okay for Southwest to look to realize the maximum potential of it's assets at DAL???

Sources:
DFW gate count: Googled and counted Site 1 and Site 2
American and Southwest flights: Dallas Morning News article

 

[JS]

JS,

It's incorrect to say that DAL is limited and cannot be expanded.  There are currently 17 gates in use in the main terminal, 6 mothballed gates in the Legend facility, and the Love Field Master Plan allows for 9 more gates on the North Concourse for a field total of 32.  Like DFW, DAL has gates available right now for an operator desiring to be ham-strung by the Wright Amendment.  Yes, DFW has more space available, both built and potential, but DAL is currently not at it's maximum, master planned potential.

In strict numbers, DFW had 175 gates to DAL's potential of 32.  Taking only the two major tenants of each airport, American has 847 daily flights (including Eagle) to Southwest's 117.  "Usage" is not evenly distributed now, pointing to the reason SWA wants to stay at DAL, less congestion.

The perimeter rules at LGA and DCA are only about rationing scarce assets. (study includes slot history in Part 4A).  If I accept your statement about "usage", perimeter rules supporting the larger, nearby airport (JFK and IAD), these "rules" have been changed when political winds have shifted (sound familiar???).  Again, DAL is not in the scarce resource, nor restricted airspace, position of LGA or DCA.

I was with you up until this point:

I'm appreciating the discussion, JS, but don't see the "logic" in continuing to protect DFW's "plenty" of space.  Why is it not okay for Southwest to look to realize the maximum potential of it's assets at DAL???

Sources:
DFW gate count:  Googled and counted Site 1 and Site 2
American and Southwest flights:  Dallas Morning News article

[post="277055"][/post]​

"It's assets"? Love Field is a public airport. It is not owned by Southwest.

Maybe this is what it all boils down to -- Southwest assumes that Love Field is their airport, and it's not fair that their airport is restricted while AA's airport is not. This is not the case. It is Love Field, the public facility, that is restricted, while DFW, the other public facility, is not.

For example, my yard is pretty big, and instead of mowing a large swath of grass, I would like to build a townhouse on the yard (make some money and mow a lot less grass). Unfortunately, the city (and the homeowner's association) won't let me do that. Just because it's my land doesn't mean I can do anything I please. Whether I want to build a townhouse, or I sell the house to someone else who then wants to build a townhouse, the fact of the matter is that no one is allowed to build a townhouse right next to a detached house in this neighborhood, regardless of who owns the house and the yard.

 

[lowfareair]

I was with you up until this point:
"It's assets"? Love Field is a public airport. It is not owned by Southwest.

Maybe this is what it all boils down to -- Southwest assumes that Love Field is their airport, and it's not fair that their airport is restricted while AA's airport is not. This is not the case. It is Love Field, the public facility, that is restricted, while DFW, the other public facility, is not.

For example, my yard is pretty big, and instead of mowing a large swath of grass, I would like to build a townhouse on the yard (make some money and mow a lot less grass). Unfortunately, the city (and the homeowner's association) won't let me do that. Just because it's my land doesn't mean I can do anything I please. Whether I want to build a townhouse, or I sell the house to someone else who then wants to build a townhouse, the fact of the matter is that no one is allowed to build a townhouse right next to a detached house in this neighborhood, regardless of who owns the house and the yard.

[post="277090"][/post]​

Southwest still has plenty of assets there, including a hangar, ticket counters and gates that are on leases, etc.

That analogy makes perfect sense. It is not LUV's airport, and neither they, AA, nor any other airline can add more gates once the total is at 32, which I agree with. It is not a good analogy for the Wright Amendment though. A good analogy would be that you can only drive your car from your townhouse to the townhouses in a two-block radius. Any further than that, and you must walk 10 minutes to the subway stop and take public transportation anywhere else in the country. Now how can a gov't be allowed to regulate that aspect of it? It's unethical, unconstitutional, and illegal.

EDIT: fixed a couple grammar mistakes.

 

[JS]

Southwest still has plenty of assets there, including a hangar, ticket counters and gates that are on leases, etc.

That analogy makes perfect sense. It is not LUV's airport, and neither they, AA, nor any other airline can add more gates once the total is at 32, which I agree with. It is not a good analogy for the Wright Amendment though. A good analogy would be that you can only drive your car from your townhouse to the townhouses in a two-block radius. Any further than that, and you must walk 10 minutes to the subway stop and take public transportation anywhere else in the country. Now how can a gov't be allowed to regulate that aspect of it? It's unethical, unconstitutional, and illegal.

EDIT: fixed a couple grammar mistakes.

[post="277156"][/post]​

Can you drive through a neighborhood when a sign is posted "No through traffic" because you just don't feel like taking the highway around it? Hmm.....

 

[Ch. 12]

JS-

I am not able to fully understand your true reasoning behind defending the WA as we have debuked all arguments. That being said...would you still be opposed to having a perimeter rule that is "fair" such as those in LGA/DCA? By "fair", I mean allowing flight to REAL cities where there is REAL demand. Maybe a 1250-1500 mile radius? I believe that would get to LAX and SFO at the long end (1470). Can we say that it is fair to maintain the WA if we have a real perimiter? Don't be fooled into thinking that the states chosen were objective. Just look at the bountiful markets that Shelby added to the WA. I think that Shelby displayed what the real (current...not original) intention of the WA is b/c if it were truly to save poor, poor DFW from becoming the next ghost town, they would have a mileage perimiter.

So would you agree to a radius? Please...no more "just move to DFW" arguments b/c that is not a real argument about whether or not the WA is necessary given current market conditions. Be reasonable...I have been.

 

[lowfareair]

Can you drive through a neighborhood when a sign is posted "No through traffic" because you just don't feel like taking the highway around it? Hmm.....

[post="277176"][/post]​

Again, a wrong analogy. That would imply that DAL can have flights anywhere as long as traffic does not connect through there, but only goes to/from DAL. The correct analogy would be a law for the neighborhood requiring that cars from the neighborhood can only go to the 7-11 down the street, pizza shop 1/2 mile away, and the cleaners across the street from the pizza shop, unless there is only two seats or less in the car. If you want to go to the mall, you must either take the bus from the bus stop 10 minutes away, or drive your car to 7-11, park, and take another car to the mall.

 

[mga707]

Can you drive through a neighborhood when a sign is posted "No through traffic" because you just don't feel like taking the highway around it? Hmm.....

[post="277176"][/post]​

Sure you can! Just make sure you watch your speed, and, on the slim chance that a cop actually stops you, just say that you're checking out the houses for "For Sale" signs!

 

[Ch. 12]

Again, a wrong analogy. That would imply that DAL can have flights anywhere as long as traffic does not connect through there, but only goes to/from DAL. The correct analogy would be a law for the neighborhood requiring that cars from the neighborhood can only go to the 7-11 down the street, pizza shop 1/2 mile away, and the cleaners across the street from the pizza shop, unless there is only two seats or less in the car. If you want to go to the mall, you must either take the bus from the bus stop 10 minutes away, or drive your car to 7-11, park, and take another car to the mall.

[post="277216"][/post]​

Actually...to correctly do the analogy to the Wright Amendment, there would be no 7-11, cleaners, or pizza shop within the alloted perimiter. You could maybe drive to the drainage gate at the end of the street or to the big willow tree in the other direction. Oh wait...Shelby has come along and you can now go 100 feet further to the tire swing in the Smith's yard. How wonderful!

 

[JS]

JS-

I am not able to fully understand your true reasoning behind defending the WA as we have debuked all arguments.  That being said...would you still be opposed to having a perimeter rule that is "fair" such as those in LGA/DCA?  By "fair", I mean allowing flight to REAL cities where there is REAL demand.  Maybe a 1250-1500 mile radius?  I believe that would get to LAX and SFO at the long end (1470).  Can we say that it is fair to maintain the WA if we have a real perimiter?  Don't be fooled into thinking that the states chosen were objective.  Just look at the bountiful    markets that Shelby added to the WA.  I think that Shelby displayed what the real (current...not original) intention of the WA is b/c if it were truly to save poor, poor DFW from becoming the next ghost town, they would have a mileage perimiter.

So would you agree to a radius?  Please...no more "just move to DFW" arguments b/c that is not a real argument about whether or not the WA is necessary given current market conditions.  Be reasonable...I have been.

[post="277177"][/post]​

How about the same states as today? 1500 miles works okay for LGA and DCA because they're on the eastern edge of the country. DAL is in the middle, so a mileage limit would have to be pretty short, which seems silly.

The reason why Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi were added was because the Senators who sponsored the law actually represented Kansas and Alabama (I think Shelby was from Kansas but I'm not positive). Mississippi was added because that would be pretty stupid to allow flights to Alabama but not Mississippi.

Actually...to correctly do the analogy to the Wright Amendment, there would be no 7-11, cleaners, or pizza shop within the alloted perimiter.  You could maybe drive to the drainage gate at the end of the street or to the big willow tree in the other direction.  Oh wait...Shelby has come along and you can now go 100 feet further to the tire swing in the Smith's yard.  How wonderful!

[post="277255"][/post]​

I'm sure the people of Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sure appreciate your comments. :down: Are you one of those snotty New Yorkers or Californicators?

 

[swflyer]

The reason why Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi were added was because the Senators who sponsored the law actually represented Kansas and Alabama (I think Shelby was from Kansas but I'm not positive).  Mississippi was added because that would be pretty stupid to allow flights to Alabama but not Mississippi.

Shelby was Alabama, Trent Lott was Mississippi, and Bob Dole was Kansas. Kansas only adds Wichita, as MCI is in Missouri.

I'm sure the people of Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sure appreciate your comments. :down: Are you one of those snotty New Yorkers or Californicators?

[post="278516"][/post]​

You're the one making that personal comment a slam on the surrounding states. Another way to look at the comment is we're comfortable in the old neighborhood, but the commercial establishments we'd like to utilize are more than across the street.

BTW, can you go ahead and answer my previously avoided question??

"I'm appreciating the discussion, JS, but don't see the "logic" in continuing to protect DFW's "plenty" of space. Why is it not okay for Southwest to look to realize the maximum potential of it's assets at DAL???"

swflyer <--thinks tire swings are sweet!!!

 

[JS]

I agree it is okay for Southwest to lobby for Wright removal. I just don't happen to agree.

 

[swflyer]

I agree it is okay for Southwest to lobby for Wright removal. I just don't happen to agree.

[post="278544"][/post]​

It's alright to disagree, I'm still interested in why. Specifics of your position would be great.

 

[JS]

It's alright to disagree, I'm still interested in why.  Specifics of your position would be great.

[post="278597"][/post]​

What it boils down to is consistency in government. Laws need to be stable in order to have a stable society and economy. Going all the way up to the law of the land, the Constitution, you will see that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in such a way that it is very difficult (but not impossible) to change it.

They knew that just one rogue Congress could put the nation on a path to destruction. Congress almost unanimously passed the Patriot Act with no debate in late 2001, Constitutional protections be damned. Look at the result -- paranoia is at levels not seen since the nuclear scare of the 1950's, cigarette lighters are banned at the airport security checkpoint, and airlines are going under the tubes because flying is such a royal pain in the ass that people won't buy airline tickets unless it's a giveaway. With the House's recent passage of Patriot Act amendments, it looks like Congress is finally waking up to common sense, thank goodness.

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. :angry:

On to the specifics -- DFW was built under the assumption that it alone would serve the air travel needs of the entire Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex, not just Fort Worth like the old useless Amon Carter. The Wright Amendment was a compromise between the original plan and Southwest's desire to have Love Field serve Dallas and let DFW serve Tarrant County.

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. If that had happened, who knows what DFW would be like today. It might be a thriving airport, or it could be totally mothballed (there is no way to know unless you have a time machine and a parallel universe) as white elephant #2.

Repealing the Wright Amendment when DFW has space just does not make any sense. Forget about the fare studies -- that is a reflection of what individual airlines choose to charge. It is only tangentionally related to airports in that airports are needed for airlines to exist and thus to charge fares that end up in fare studies. Fares at PIT are going downhill now that Southwest flies there even though there is no change at all to PIT regulations (there aren't any, just like DFW) and there is no secondary airport for Pittsburgh unless you count BFD or JST which seems silly. What's even more interesting is that PIT was designed to be a connecting airport while DFW was designed to be an O&D airport, yet now it's the opposite -- AA uses DFW as a connecting hub while the PIT airlines are using PIT as mostly O&D.

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). If Southwest were to fly out of DFW (it's safe to say that would be in addition to Love Field just like LAX is in addition to ONT and BUR), DFW fares would fall just like they are at PIT.


Let me close by saying that when government changes regulations to suit the low-price leader without considering the overall industry, you risk finding yourself observing insane practices such as municipal governments trying to evict people from their homes so that Wal-Mart can build another store. Government is supposed to look out for what's best for the people, not what's best for the world's largest corporation.

We got rid of the CAB so that airlines could compete with one another without government interference, and here we are debating why Congress should open up Love Field and let DFW risk defaulting on its bonds because Southwest is at one airport while AA is at another. This is going backwards. Let Southwest compete with AA at the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex's region-wide airport. Quit playing favorites.

If DFW once again becomes fully utilized, then, I say repeal the Wright Amendment. If that actually happens, it means either the federal security pigs are gone or the Metroplex is going to need a lot more rail transit, because that is going to require an awful lot of people living and traveling there.