Wright Amendment
- Thread starter luver41
- Start date
Correction: That should be Amon Carter Field/Greater Southwest Int'l rather than Meacham Field. ACF replaced Meacham as Fort Worth's commercial airport in 1953, and had dwindling scheduled service up until about 1970, when DFW construction began ramping up.Ch. 12 said:
ACF/GSW was located just south of where DFW sprawls today. Amon Carter Blvd. follows the alignment of the main N-S runway, with a little bit of abandoned runway still extant today north of where Amon Carter Blvd. ends at the 183 freeway. No other trace of the former "ghost airport" remains today, although the terminal sat forlornly empty for nearly a decade after DFW was opened in '74.
Meacham Field remained open as a general aviation field after ACF/GSW replaced it for commercial flights, and remains so today. Check out the art deco-styled 1930s-vintage former AA hangar if you're ever there. Meacham is subject to the same Wright Amendment restrictions as DAL, and has had several carriers take stabs at scheduled service, most recently Mesa with CRJs in the late '90s. None have succeeded.
I think Terminal A still has 20 jet gates, though the redesign (similar to Terminal C's concourses) does allow for expansion on both the north and south sides. That's probably why A21-A23 don't exist and why A20 is only a stairway used by Delta to access their RJ's.mweiss said:
Terminal B still retains the old "flight station" design with corridors emanating from the corners of the terminal crossing the access roads and leading to circular gate areas. When CO converted it to the CO Express terminal (NW is also in B), they added a slew of gates since the ERJ's don't require as much space. Terminal B has close to 40 (small) gates, most with jetways. Unfortunately, it's not a great design for connections unless you actually connect within the same flight station to another COEx flight. It really reflects the air travel market at the time, when there were very few connecting hubs and most airlines serving IAH had a handful of gates. Still, I always enjoyed walking through those corridors to the flight stations as a kid. And it can't be any worse than DFW's design for connecting traffic, though hopefully the new train at DFW will help. But I digress
The Wright Amendment. Always an interesting topic! I wonder why its come up again? Other than tweaking it here and there I think it should stay in place. Everyone knew the rules when they established operations at DFW or DAL so if WN wishes to expand their offerings in the Dallas Market they can go lease space at DFW. WN is the most powerfull airline in the world. They have the money and talent to do so very easily. Airtran is already there and JB is on the way. Eventually they're going to have to have a presence at DFW.
BTW-The WA originally had a "one or the other" provision. If you used DAL you couldn't use DFW and vice versa. I can't remember when but it was thrown out by some court. That is why AA could offer DAL-AUS service. Also the gates are leased with a provision that requires them to be shared if needed. This wouldn't be a problem for WN as AA's gates are not used at all and they would have to be shared first. But if the situation warrented, WN could be required to make room for a competitor and they are VERY much opposed to that!
BTW-The WA originally had a "one or the other" provision. If you used DAL you couldn't use DFW and vice versa. I can't remember when but it was thrown out by some court. That is why AA could offer DAL-AUS service. Also the gates are leased with a provision that requires them to be shared if needed. This wouldn't be a problem for WN as AA's gates are not used at all and they would have to be shared first. But if the situation warrented, WN could be required to make room for a competitor and they are VERY much opposed to that!
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,283
- 1,427
I would not be surprised if LUV leased a couple of gates at DFW and started service from MDW, OAK, LAX, PHX, PHL and PVD or MHT. I can also imagine the howls of protest coming from Amon Carter Blvd and an immediate attempt to reinstitute the "either/or" provision of the Wright Amendment.AAmech said:
LoneStarMike
Advanced
Southwest began serving Dallas in 1971. The Wright Amendment didn't change the rules until it was signed into law in February, 1980.
So you're saying that Southwest knew the rules were going to be changing at DAL nearly nine years after they began service? I don't think so.
Well it must have been thrown out decades ago considering that both Braniff and Continental had limited service at Love Field in the mid 1970's after they had moved operations to Dallas. And that still doesn't change the fact that in the late 1960's American, as well as Braniff, Continental, Delta, Eastern, Frontier, Ozark and Texas International all signed agreements that they would move ALL operations to DFW once it was opened.
The fact that AA went back to Love Field in 1998 wasn't in vioation of the Wright Amendment. It was in violation of the agreement they signed in the late 1960's (An agreement that was NOT signed by Southwest) and yes, Ft. Worth should have sued them over it.
LoneStarMike
All of this talk about WN having to give up space to AA if DAL were opened up through abolishing the wright amendment reminds me of how blatantly obvious it is that AA is the major beneficiary and defender of the WA. Remember when they began converting office space to gates once Legend began ops at DAL? Seems that wasn't quite legal and they ended up having to stop midstream (good thing that Legend went away at the same time). It just interests me the lengths that AA will go to defend the WA and people still say that WN is the main beneficiary.
And the point of repealing the WA is not to aid WN but rather to aid any competition in DFW/DAL since competition is healthy and AA has gotten away with unhealthy limits to competition far too long. And the health of the Dallas area as well since DFW has drawn the growth away from the city and turned large swaths of downtown vacant. Having a choice, it can be argued, may help Dallas grow more evenly once again as businesses will have incentives within the city as well. And last but not least...the airways congestion that we all seem so worried about does not benefit by running nearly all traffic through one airport in a large metroplex when there are alternates to help thin the traffic. The WA serves no logical purpose and shouldn't have been passed in the first place. Now that DFW can sustain itself (and that was the reason for it) it should be repealed and I can't think of any logical argument against that (other than to hold WN down which, as I mentioned, WN is not the main beneficiary of getting rid of the WA...there is so much more to be gained).
mga707- Thank you very much for correcting my statements on Ft. Worth. I was slightly outdated there...
And the point of repealing the WA is not to aid WN but rather to aid any competition in DFW/DAL since competition is healthy and AA has gotten away with unhealthy limits to competition far too long. And the health of the Dallas area as well since DFW has drawn the growth away from the city and turned large swaths of downtown vacant. Having a choice, it can be argued, may help Dallas grow more evenly once again as businesses will have incentives within the city as well. And last but not least...the airways congestion that we all seem so worried about does not benefit by running nearly all traffic through one airport in a large metroplex when there are alternates to help thin the traffic. The WA serves no logical purpose and shouldn't have been passed in the first place. Now that DFW can sustain itself (and that was the reason for it) it should be repealed and I can't think of any logical argument against that (other than to hold WN down which, as I mentioned, WN is not the main beneficiary of getting rid of the WA...there is so much more to be gained).
mga707- Thank you very much for correcting my statements on Ft. Worth. I was slightly outdated there...
Ch 12:
With all due respect, the Wright Amendment did serve a purpose. The building of DFW and following Wright Amendment allowed DFW and the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metro-Plex to become a HUGE player in the international aviation scene. Certainly, if DFW had never been built, there would be no huge Dallas area airline hub, as there is today. Love and Meecham would probably both have a variety of point-to-point and other hub services. However, I am thinking that neither airport would have the capability to have been expanded to accomodate the amount of traffic currently handled by DFW.
Also, the building of DFW broght two decent sized cities into one huge catchment area. This has helped fuel the growth of the MetroPlex, which in turn, fueled the growth in Air Traffic to the area.
However, the fact that growth of traffic to the MetroPlex has not grown in relation to the industry and other large cities, certainly suggests that the Wright Amendment has out-lived its usefulness. I would think that at a minimum, single-ticketing to states beyond the current restriction would be appropriate. In fact, if such legislation were introduced, there would be very little increase in service anyway. The only hubs within the WA perimeter are DFW and IAH. I would expect that Southwest would add more one-stop flights (i.e. DAL-LIT-BWI and DAL-ABQ-LAX and DAL-OKC-MDW, etc), but I would guess that this would not be too many flights initially. The important thing here is that it would bring some price competition to the legacies at DFW.
Of course, the MetroPlex could just encourage AirTran to continue their expansion... Didn't they get four gates? They certainly don't seem to be using those gates as efficiently as they could... Maybe they are waiting for more 737-700 deliveries to expand?
With all due respect, the Wright Amendment did serve a purpose. The building of DFW and following Wright Amendment allowed DFW and the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metro-Plex to become a HUGE player in the international aviation scene. Certainly, if DFW had never been built, there would be no huge Dallas area airline hub, as there is today. Love and Meecham would probably both have a variety of point-to-point and other hub services. However, I am thinking that neither airport would have the capability to have been expanded to accomodate the amount of traffic currently handled by DFW.
Also, the building of DFW broght two decent sized cities into one huge catchment area. This has helped fuel the growth of the MetroPlex, which in turn, fueled the growth in Air Traffic to the area.
However, the fact that growth of traffic to the MetroPlex has not grown in relation to the industry and other large cities, certainly suggests that the Wright Amendment has out-lived its usefulness. I would think that at a minimum, single-ticketing to states beyond the current restriction would be appropriate. In fact, if such legislation were introduced, there would be very little increase in service anyway. The only hubs within the WA perimeter are DFW and IAH. I would expect that Southwest would add more one-stop flights (i.e. DAL-LIT-BWI and DAL-ABQ-LAX and DAL-OKC-MDW, etc), but I would guess that this would not be too many flights initially. The important thing here is that it would bring some price competition to the legacies at DFW.
Of course, the MetroPlex could just encourage AirTran to continue their expansion... Didn't they get four gates? They certainly don't seem to be using those gates as efficiently as they could... Maybe they are waiting for more 737-700 deliveries to expand?
A couple problems with your statement. Nobody said anything about AA sharing WN's gates. There's no need for that as AA has its own gates at DAL and would probably offer limited service anyway. Its more likely that should the WA be tossed WN would end up having to share gates with the likes of JB, Airtran and ATA! It would be great for consumers to have some competition in DAL but it would be a very bitter pill for WN to swallow.Ch. 12 said:
As far as AA converting office space, AA was allowed to do whatever they pleased with that space as they held the lease. The only restriction was they could not use the area for scheduled service.
I think this argument is sort of silly. We learned first hand from Legend, AA and DL that demand for long haul service from DAL is GREATLY exaggerated!
I am not so sure this is true.AAmech said:
What we learned from the Legend/AA battle was that demand for $1200-$2000 one-way fare, premium service to NYC, WAS, and LA was greatly exaggerated.
Furthermore, we have learned from the RJ operators (DL and CO) that many folks will opt not to fly two RJs with a connection in CLE to NYC when they can fly a 757 nonstop from DFW. (Part of me thinks this is partially a result of "legacy carrier" pricing inhibiting market development... It works at lower fares, but not at a premium to DFW, the premium being required by the legacy to recoup the higher CASM of the RJ).
However, the number of people who do the "Texas Two-Step" as I call it, by buying two separate tickets from DAL to places like MCI, MDW, PHX, via places like OKC, LIT, and ABQ, shows that there is demand for relief from the Wright Amendment, at the right prices.
The $1200 to $2000 fares were but a dream! Legend was only weeks into its new operation and they were offering these fabulous $300.00 RTs. Even with these great fares, great first class service and DL FF plan miles, they were averaging something like a 55% load factor! And thats on a 56 seat aircraft!!! AA did a little better but nothing like the 95%-100% LF you'd think you would get on such a small plane. After all the hollering about getting long haul flights out of DAL I couldn't belive how few takers there were.funguy2 said:
About the "Texas Two Step". I personally feel the Thru Ticketing requirements are too strict. A simple stop before the perimiter should sufice.
jimntx
Veteran
Hey, maybe it's the City of Houston that is the major supporter of the WA! I mean, without it, would the WN operation at HOU even exist; or, if it existed would it be anywhere near as large as it is today?
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that there aren't some people out to get you.)
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that there aren't some people out to get you.)
AA Mech:
I never stated anything about sharing gates. I think you're confusing me with somebody else.
Also, I noted AA's history of when the tried to convert office space for SCHEDULED service to compete against Legend and were told to cease construction mid-stream. The fact that AA will defend DAL so readily tells you that there is demand there...especially to large markets (which are obviously strategically excluded from the WA).
And the failure of Legend didn't mean that there was an exaggerated demand. It meant that AA (which could afford to bleed some $$ at the time) came into the fray at DAL of high-cost, mid-fare service. It was a matter of who could sustain losses longer. Of course AA would win that battle with decades of putting money into the coffers for such instances. IIRC, the loads were pretty good on the DAL (I don't know where your figures come from) flights and it was the high cost and low return on <56 seaters that did in Legend.
I am not stating that to repeal the WA is to create an influx of demand that has been sitting idly for 30 years waiting for it to be repealled. I am saying that there is absolutely no good justification for keeping it (other than to limit competition...and that isn't a "good" justification). Repealling the WA will not double the demand at DFW through choice in airport but it will increase demand substantially by finally allowing a carrier to compete against AA. Dallas is the most primely located for a mid-continent hub (of course, I am only including cities that can substantiate a large hub...hence the exclusion of MCI, OKC, etc) and it is a shame that all of the low-cost/lowfare competition has been kept out through a legal document such as the WA. And don't tell me that "competition can go to DFW" b/c why does that have to be the case? There is a perfectly good, under-utilized, well-situated airport in DAL that could relieve congestion, bolster the area served, and provide healthy competition. Unfortunately, it is the healthy competition that is being kept out via ruthless tactic such as the WA.
Not that I have any strong feelings about illegitimate constraints on competition or anything.
I never stated anything about sharing gates. I think you're confusing me with somebody else.
Also, I noted AA's history of when the tried to convert office space for SCHEDULED service to compete against Legend and were told to cease construction mid-stream. The fact that AA will defend DAL so readily tells you that there is demand there...especially to large markets (which are obviously strategically excluded from the WA).
And the failure of Legend didn't mean that there was an exaggerated demand. It meant that AA (which could afford to bleed some $$ at the time) came into the fray at DAL of high-cost, mid-fare service. It was a matter of who could sustain losses longer. Of course AA would win that battle with decades of putting money into the coffers for such instances. IIRC, the loads were pretty good on the DAL (I don't know where your figures come from) flights and it was the high cost and low return on <56 seaters that did in Legend.
I am not stating that to repeal the WA is to create an influx of demand that has been sitting idly for 30 years waiting for it to be repealled. I am saying that there is absolutely no good justification for keeping it (other than to limit competition...and that isn't a "good" justification). Repealling the WA will not double the demand at DFW through choice in airport but it will increase demand substantially by finally allowing a carrier to compete against AA. Dallas is the most primely located for a mid-continent hub (of course, I am only including cities that can substantiate a large hub...hence the exclusion of MCI, OKC, etc) and it is a shame that all of the low-cost/lowfare competition has been kept out through a legal document such as the WA. And don't tell me that "competition can go to DFW" b/c why does that have to be the case? There is a perfectly good, under-utilized, well-situated airport in DAL that could relieve congestion, bolster the area served, and provide healthy competition. Unfortunately, it is the healthy competition that is being kept out via ruthless tactic such as the WA.
Not that I have any strong feelings about illegitimate constraints on competition or anything.
