Wright Amendment

[Ch. 12]

I was always under the impression that the amendment protected DFW from DAL, not AA from WN. Clearly, AA benefits from the amendment, as AA, not WN, has invested billions over the years in DFW - something WN was free to do or not do.

orwell-

You are right that the primary purpose of the amendment was to protect DFW from DAL. As a result, that is why they city of Ft Worth, Braniff, and AMR were and are (with the exception of Braniff, of course) the biggest supporters for the WA. They all benefit from the unethical restriction of competition.

But as with the nuclear silos in the Dakotas, the threat is long over and the WA can be dismantled now. DFW can more than stand on its own now. DAL is enveloped and cannot grow to the size of DFW so there is no reason to maintain artificial limitations on the choices and prices that consumers in Dallas are faced with.

 

[mga707]

I'm quite certain that SWA could not have flow DAL-HOU every hour with 3 props like they did with 737s. Muse explains it quite well in his book.

They also couldn't have transitioned to 737s because they wouldn't have made it more than about 6 months.

Point 1: Why not? On a short haul like DAL-HOU the block time difference between a 400-mph Electra and a 500-mph 737 is minimal.

Point 2: Your opinion. I disagree. As I stated, the airline that WN was modeled after, PSA, did quite well with an all-Electra fleet for some years in the '60s. Had Southwest become operational in 1968 rather than 1971 I think that Electras (or even the Viscount 800s that CO was retiring at the same time) would have been a logical initial equipment choice.
One other point: There was no 'stigma' against turboprops in the '60s. Due to successful marketing efforts (PSA's "Electra Jets"; "Fly Eastern's Jet-prop Electra", etc.), turboprops were considered in the public consciousness to be much closer to jets than to the pistons that they replaced.

 

[Oneflyer]

I'm strictly stating Lamar Muse's opinion, I wasn't around and don't know. He claims there was a stigma to the prop and that the difference in flight would have been enough to make a difference. There is no doubt that SWA had almost no money left when he took over he raised a lot himself.

My point is that Muse did a hell of a lot for SWA and much of what he did is credited to Herb. In fact, Herb's early contribution, other than his legal help, is largely overblown.

 

[sfb]

There's no doubt that Lamar Muse did a lot for Southwest back in the early days -- ELP_WN I think would probably agree with you there and he was there in the very early days AFAIK. But I suspect that at least some of the revisionist history with respect to Lamar Muse is due to the fact that he and his son went off and started an airline that competed directly with Southwest on many routes. Not to mention that (at least according to the Handbook of Texas Online) he tried to take control of LUV's board at one point.

 

[funguy2]

To ignore the fact that AA invested billions at DFW under the honest understanding that the amendment would continue to prevail going forward and to bellow about AMR's reluctance (not to mention DFW and Ft. Worth's) to see the amendment go bye-bye seems intellectually dishonest at best and, at worst, to expose an unbridled hope that AMR will just cooperate and go bye bye along with the amendment - like all legacy carriers are supposed to do in the "new world order" in which the industry now operates.

Well... Not to be a jerk here, but... slave-owners invested money in slavery under the understanding that slavery would always be legal. They even fought a war which, in the end, was at least partially about retaining the slavery system.

So the point here is that times change. Yes, AMR invested a lot of money in DFW. In exchange, AMR has become the world's largest airline, and a relatively profitable one at that (over time AMR has outperformed its competitors). Furthermore, the MetroPlex developed, filled in you might say, due to the investment of Dallas, Ft. Worth, AMR, Braniff, DAL, etc.

But, times change. The times changed on the slave-owners (when a "majority" of the country deemed slavery as unacceptable), and times are changing now. To make the argument that laws should never change just because its the law is naive.

Would AMR potentially be hurt by the repeal of the WA? Yes, as fares would be decrease. Could AMR benefit from the repeal of the WA? Yes, as lower fares drives more volume, AMR would be able to compete for, and likely get a share, of the new passengers, which come with the reduction in fares.

 

[JS]

Saying "times change" would be appropriate if Southwest were going to start flying out of DFW. That would be a change.

Times do change, indeed, just not overnight as the anti-Wright folks would like. Eventually AA will have low-cost competition on the same number of routes that WN would serve out of an unrestricted Love Field. AirTran is flying DFW-LAX and is growing, Frontier is growing, etc.

Maybe someday Southwest will move to DFW. No one thought Southwest would ever serve PHL, yet they do now. Times change!

 

[Ch. 12]

What a waste of a perfectly good (and well-situated, I might add) airport to hope that all carriers would someday move to DFW. Why not relocate all MDW traffic to ORD? LGA to JFK? DCA to IAD? HOU to IAH? ...you get the picture. With so many cities wishing that they could have only one reliever airport, it is amazing that there is such a mass that wants no relief in Dallas and only for all traffic to go through the mega-hub's domain.