Wright Amendment

[jimntx]

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.

Actually, I have a friend at AA who had the seniority to fly the DAL service when it was offered. We were flying an F-100 with 56 F/C seats staffed with 4 flight attendants. A std config F-100 has an FAA minimum of 2 f/as. According to her, she loved working these trips because the flights were rarely more than half full; so, you had 4 flight attendants to serve about 30 people.

Don't know what Legend's loads were like, but evidently not sufficient to keep them in business.

Do you really think that WN would let other LCCs move into DAL without a fight? Personally, I think it would be a bloodbath for almost any of them who tried to challenge WN at DAL. The LCCs are hurting from the fuel costs also; and I don't think you could have a more textbook example than WN of an airline that could afford to lose money for a long while on competitive routes in order to trash the yields of another airline. Talk about your fortress hubs!!!

 

[KCFlyer]

Do you really think that WN would let other LCCs move into DAL without a fight? Personally, I think it would be a bloodbath for almost any of them who tried to challenge WN at DAL. The LCCs are hurting from the fuel costs also; and I don't think you could have a more textbook example than WN of an airline that could afford to lose money for a long while on competitive routes in order to trash the yields of another airline. Talk about your fortress hubs!!!

Other LCC's seem to coexist rather nicely with WN at MDW. Other LCC's and some majors seem to coexist nicely with WN at HOU. Should the WA ever get repealed, I'd see DAL as being a "MDW South" kind of setup...the LCC's might use it as a "destination" for their flights, but I can't see anyone trying to make it a hub. Heck....I wouldn't have a problem if they just allowed "thru ticketing" from outside the WA states..I already stop in OKC or TUL, it'd be nice if I could just stay on a plane going MCI-OKC-DAL rather than getting off and waiting an hour for DAL flight.

 

[jimntx]

Other LCC's seem to coexist rather nicely with WN at MDW. Other LCC's and some majors seem to coexist nicely with WN at HOU. Should the WA ever get repealed, I'd see DAL as being a "MDW South" kind of setup...the LCC's might use it as a "destination" for their flights, but I can't see anyone trying to make it a hub. Heck....I wouldn't have a problem if they just allowed "thru ticketing" from outside the WA states..I already stop in OKC or TUL, it'd be nice if I could just stay on a plane going MCI-OKC-DAL rather than getting off and waiting an hour for DAL flight.

Yes, but WN never "controlled" HOU or MDW like they do DAL--the primary carrier, yes, but not the only carrier. Why does everyone bash AA for defending DFW and U for defending DEN, but they seem to think that WN will be a nice guy and let other LCCs move into their exclusive territory? Particularly since those other LCCs would more than likely not be interested in competing on the DAL-OKC or DAL-MCI routes. They would want the DAL-ORD, DAL-LAX, and DAL to some NYC airport routes. If WN ever was able to sell those flights, I do not believe for a second that they would cede business willingly. Nor should they.

P.S. Yes, I know that there are other carriers at DAL besides WN, but CoEx flights to IAH (and other regionals) are not exactly major competition for WN.

 

[funguy2]

jimntx:

You are right, that LUV would vigorously defend an "opened" DAL from other airlines (LCC and Legacy alike). However, I think the issue here is not the response from LUV, or even AA. The issue is that any airline that wants to go head-to-head with AMR at DFW has the right to do so. They can do it by trying to match AMR flight-for-flight, or route-for-route, or they could try to fly to only select markets, or they could try to fly the few places AMR doesn't fly already.

However, this "right" to compete from the Dallas area by offering a different, perhaps more convenient airport, from DFW is currently infringed upon. That is the issue... Not that other airlines would or could sustain a battle with LUV... The issue is that they are essentially not allowed to, except on routes which are not very lucrative to anyone other than LUV.

For as much as LUV is "hamstrung" on the WA, they also benefit. I am sure the top execs at LUV know how much more revenue they could add by removing the WA (Econ 101: Opportunity Cost). I am also sure they are aware how much revenue they "protect" by virtue of the restrictions and economic conditions created by WA. I expect that LUV will begin to lobby against the WA when:
1. The amount of revenue lost via Opportunity Costs is much greater than the revenue "protection" of the WA.
2. When LUV runs out of PHL's and BWI's and PVD's to add to their network (thus enhancing the value of an opened up DAL, since other opportunities don't exist).

 

[jimntx]

I wonder if the example of DAL vs. DFW has taught a lesson to other cities, such as Denver. Instead of worrying about some LCC suing for the right to "re-open" Stapleton, they just dug up the runways and converted the property to other uses.

If the WA gets repealed, or even substantially modified, I don't see how AA can NOT afford to move a lot of operations back there and compete. Hell, I worked for AA, and if given a choice of driving < 5 miles on 2 streets to Love vs. 17 miles on eternally-under-construction, gridlocked freeways, I know which one I would pick.

 

[KCFlyer]

If the WA gets repealed, or even substantially modified, I don't see how AA can NOT afford to move a lot of operations back there and compete. Hell, I worked for AA, and if given a choice of driving < 5 miles on 2 streets to Love vs. 17 miles on eternally-under-construction, gridlocked freeways, I know which one I would pick.

DAL doesn't have anywhere near the capability to handle AA's capacity. And they really CAN'T move a lot of their operations over there...The most they could do is for O&D traffic - I don't think they really want to run TWO hubs from the same city. That's what I mean by "Midway South"...sure AA might run a flight or two into DAL, but the vast majority of their flights would still go into DFW. Look at MDW...they've got a total of 8 flights a day into Midway. Why would DAL be any different?

 

[Ch. 12]

Excellent post, Funguy.

jimntx-

I think it's safe to say that the reason that LUV has a near monopoly out of DAL is that the markets to ABQ, SHV, XNA, LIT, MSY, OKC, AMA, etc, etc don't warrant additional traffic. However...if carriers were allowed to fly to say...ATL, FL would be there, JFK/LGB would bring JB, IAD would bring ACA, and DEN would bring F9 not to mention other interest. MDW-DAL would be opportune for ATA. So while WN may enjoy a "near monopoly", I can assure you that this has happened naturally and not by particular design from WN. They just happen to be the first to take up the capacity to the WA restricted cities b/c they were already at DAL when the WA came into play.

And even though it is inconsequential to the points that we're really trying to get at here, my sources on the DAL loads during the short-lived Legend days came from Legend personnel. That is until these routes began to be cherry-picked by AA's loss-leader fares on the Fokkers. I guess what interests me the most is that AA claimed at the time that their move wasn't in response to Legend but rather b/c they saw the customer demand/need out of DAL. And then the tore down the service almost immediately after Legend's demise.

But that is another story for another day. I say forget thru ticketing and allow nonstops to come in and out of DAL. I beg you to give me a reason why this should not happen. There isn't one.

KC- I agree that DAL would most closely resemble MDW...an old, limited capacity, forgotten about airport that is actually conveniently located. In fact...DAL is much more convenient than MDW to their respective cities.

Tear down that wall. If it serves no ethical purpose - which it doesn't - the WA should not be allowed to exist.

 

[oldiesfan]

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.

Taking this slightly O.T., but since MegaOldies707 mentioned the "Ghost Town International Airport"--as it was titled in an Airliners (or was it Airways?) story some years back--you'll want to check out this great site that's all about ACF/GSW and the how and why "it was all plowed into the ground":

ACF/GSW History

Pics, maps and diagrams, too.

 

[jimntx]

Excellent post, Funguy.

jimntx-

I think it's safe to say that the reason that LUV has a near monopoly out of DAL is that the markets to ABQ, SHV, XNA, LIT, MSY, OKC, AMA, etc, etc don't warrant additional traffic. However...if carriers were allowed to fly to say...ATL, FL would be there, JFK/LGB would bring JB, IAD would bring ACA, and DEN would bring F9 not to mention other interest. MDW-DAL would be opportune for ATA. So while WN may enjoy a "near monopoly", I can assure you that this has happened naturally and not by particular design from WN. They just happen to be the first to take up the capacity to the WA restricted cities b/c they were already at DAL when the WA came into play..

So, are you saying that if DAL-IAD became possible, ACA would move in to compete, but AA would stand idly by and let some of their DFW-IAD business be bled off to ACA? Or, to new WN service? And, DAL-MDW should only go to ATA or WN? AA has gates and long-term leases at DAL. If the WA is repealed, I believe AA will compete for its share of the new business. After all, as you say AA has flights to MDW, and ORD is a major hub. Why should DFW and DAL be any different?

And even though it is inconsequential to the points that we're really trying to get at here, my sources on the DAL loads during the short-lived Legend days came from Legend personnel. That is until these routes began to be cherry-picked by AA's loss-leader fares on the Fokkers. I guess what interests me the most is that AA claimed at the time that their move wasn't in response to Legend but rather b/c they saw the customer demand/need out of DAL. And then the tore down the service almost immediately after Legend's demise.

Regardless of the loads Legend had, it didn't last long enough to "prove" the market. When Legend went under and AA terminated the DAL service, did you see a giant outcry from those who had been using the service for someone to come in and fill the gap? As I said on the Primaris thread, no one has ever shown that there is a long-term sustainable market for all F/C service. Once the novelty of not having to fly with the Great Unwashed wears off, they start looking at the number of Lexus payments they could make by paying less for their tickets.

Also, you seem to imply that AA cherry-picking Legend's routes was bad, but I haven't seen you railing against WN, ATA, FRNT, or JB cherrypicking AA and UA moneymaking routes. Is there a subtle ethical conceit that I am missing here?

Tear down that wall. If it serves no ethical purpose - which it doesn't - the WA should not be allowed to exist

Yeah, well after 1500 years of fighting among those Balkan hill tribes there should not be strife in Yugoslavia, either. I don't particularly care about the WA one way or another. It's just a current fact of life. I suggest you write your congressman, but I think you will find that is more than just big, bad, ole AMR that opposes it's repeal.

 

[mga707]

P.S. Yes, I know that there are other carriers at DAL besides WN, but CoEx flights to IAH (and other regionals) are not exactly major competition for WN.

Actually, right now there aren't any other regionals at DAL besides CO Ex. DL/ASA and AA Eagle both have given up on Love.
WN has had DAL competition before. It's been +/-20 years, but Muse Air did compete directly with them in the 80s on DAL-AUS/MAF/MSY/HOU/TUL.
WN defended their turf vigorously, and wound up buying Muse out, renaming it TranStar, and then shutting it down.

 

[AAmech]

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.

Throwing out the WA while allowing the incumbant carrier to hold 90%+ of the gates would hardly help competition. SW was able to establish themselfs at DAL BECAUSE of the WA. They agreed to the terms and were able to gobble up the gates and facilities. How could this be good for JB, Airtran and Frontier? They would be pretty much be stuck. If the WA is to be removed there would have to be a reallocation of gates. I'm sure JB, Airtran, Frontier and ATA would all jump at the chance to serve DAL and THEN we would have true competition.

 

[KCFlyer]

Throwing out the WA while allowing the incumbant carrier to hold 90%+ of the gates would hardly help competition.

Maybe, but SWA could easily prove that it is USING those gates (quite heavily I might add). There IS another terminal at DAL...it just needs to be "remodeled" to accomodate airliners. Would it be "fair" to tell the incumbent that they had to give up X number of gates out of some sense of "fairness"? Would AA be willing to give up a few gates at DFW for SWA to start service there?

 

[jimntx]

Would AA be willing to give up a few gates at DFW for SWA to start service there?

Well, I guess we'll see next year when the new International Terminal opens at DFW. AA uses a LOT of gates in A for International. I'm guessing they will not want to keep paying for all that expensive infrastructure--the interior hallways that keep people headed toward Customs, etc--when it ain't needed. Nor will they want to pay for remodeling if they don't have to.

But, I still say that I don't think any of the newer LCCs is going to be nearly as ready as everyone seems to think to challenge WN in their fortress hub at DAL(intentional or accidental, da place belongs to WN). Maybe we've all seen too many Kung Fu movies where esteemed little cricket challenges the Master and wins.

JB, ATA, and FRNT would much rather challenge the weakened legacy carriers. On the African savannah, given a choice of a healthy zebra or an injured one, the lions ALWAYS go after the injured one. They don't have to run as fast or as long to get the same result.

 

[funguy2]

Technically, airports which receive federal funding must, by law, make reasonable accomodations for new entrants, or face losing funding. Its kind of a "corporate discrimination" thing. The city of Dallas, which I beleive operates DAL, would be on the hook for developing facilities and making room for new entrants. The easiest short term answer is to force LUV out of gates, but at DAL, I understand they have some gate areas converted to office space. So, I suspect DAL could come up with the space...

Same for DFW... They seemed to come up with some space to give to AirTran and America West recently, without AA giving up any.

So, are you saying that if DAL-IAD became possible, ACA would move in to compete, but AA would stand idly by and let some of their DFW-IAD business be bled off to ACA? Or, to new WN service? And, DAL-MDW should only go to ATA or WN? AA has gates and long-term leases at DAL. If the WA is repealed, I believe AA will compete for its share of the new business. After all, as you say AA has flights to MDW, and ORD is a major hub. Why should DFW and DAL be any different?

jimntx: Again, the point is not whether or not ACA would be successful in their challenge to other DFW/DAL airlines. The issue is that currently, if they wanted to serve the MetroPlex from IAD, and they felt their best chance at success was at DAL, they do not have the right to do it (with aircraft larger than 56 seats). When LUV felt their best chance at NYC success was ISP, nothing restricted that. When JB thought their best LA area chance of success was LGB, they were able to work with the airport and restrictions. Why should the hypothetical ACA/DAL situation (with aircraft larger than CRJs) be any different?

 

[jimntx]

jimntx: Again, the point is not whether or not ACA would be successful in their challenge to other DFW/DAL airlines. The issue is that currently, if they wanted to serve the MetroPlex from IAD, and they felt their best chance at success was at DAL, they do not have the right to do it (with aircraft larger than 56 seats). When LUV felt their best chance at NYC success was ISP, nothing restricted that. When JB thought their best LA area chance of success was LGB, they were able to work with the airport and restrictions. Why should the hypothetical ACA/DAL situation (with aircraft larger than CRJs) be any different?

Yeah well hypotheticals are like theories; it's where the rubber meets the sky. All this railing against the barriers to free enterprise is fine, but IMHO the reality is that repealing WA will do nothing more for Dallas than increase WN's flying from DAL and cut into the business of the network carriers like AA who are stuck at DFW.

Of course, ACA, ATA, JB, and all gods chillun should have access to DAL and be able to provide service all the way to Singapore if they wish. My point is I don't think it will happen. The managements of those companies are not stupid. Why ever should they try to steal business from WN when the low-hanging fruit of the legacy carriers is there for the plucking. If WA is repealed, WN will have non-stop service to all those supposedly underserved destinations like MDW and IAD before ACA or ATA got their ads in the paper.

We all worship at the altar of free enterprise as long as it lowers my cost, but not my salary or my profits. How many pilots or flight attendants do you know that think it would be a good idea to repeal the laws that prevent the airlines from hiring foreign nationals for U.S. domestic service? Pharmaceutical companies want the Govt to stay out of their hair and let competition reign unless that includes allowing retired people to cross the border to Canada to get the same drugs from the same companies at 1/4 the price they have to pay in the U.S. We all rail against WELFARE, but government subsidies for rich tobacco,rice and corn farmers (who are mostly big corporations today, not family farmers) are ok.

If those of you who oppose the WA are really only concerned about the principle of unfettered free enterprise, then why are you not manning the barricades to oppose the laws that prevent Sir Richard from starting up Virgin America without giving up voting and ownership control? Or, how about allowing Ryanair, Air France, BA, and Lufthansa to provide domestic point to point service in the U.S. Now that would really be true free enterprise. And, let the chips fall where they may.

If DFW no longer needs the protection of the WA, then all you have to do is convince a majority of Congress to repeal it. Again, I say that I think you will be surprised to learn that it ain't just mean ole AMR that opposes repeal.