Wright Amendment

[funguy2]

I specifically only noted the airports to which LUV flies. Apparently the folks who put this report together feel these airports share similar qualities. If BUF, ALB, JAN, and ABQ were on the list, then I would have included those too...

LUV had flown to DET before flying to DTW (hey did I miss DTW on that list?? I'll add it...) And I would not be surprised if they considered other alternatives in other cities.

Regardless, LUV's on-time performance could be better if they added time to their flights. For whatever reason they don't. An argument could be made that the relatively poor performance at LAS, for example, is directly related to the relatively poor performance of WN at LAS.

And while, one could argue, that DFW is a very complex, thus costly, airport to operate at, so are other airports in the WN network, such as DTW, LAX, and PHL.

In my mind, there is little reason to believe that if WN moved to DFW tomorrow, that they would be unsuccessful. WN has been able to compete with whomever it chooses to. It has successfully taken on AA at SJC and BNA in the past... And across town from ORD at MDW. There is no reason for me to believe that LUV would not be successful from DFW. The only thing is that they would no longer benefit from a "de facto" monopoly. But, as far as I can tell, WN can compete and win more often than not.

 

[mweiss]

Apparently the folks who put this report together feel these airports share similar qualities.

Um...OK. About the only things those airports have in common: WN flies there, they're airports in the lower 48, and they have scheduled jet service. Of course, with the first of those three, the other two come part and parcel.

In every other respect, those airports have nothing in common. The sizes of the cities is quite different. The amount of competition from nearby airports is different. The ground facilities are different. The runway configurations are different. The climate is different. Need I go on?

LUV had flown to DET before flying to DTW (hey did I miss DTW on that list?? I'll add it...) And I would not be surprised if they considered other alternatives in other cities.

I'm sure they did. My point is that they have historically chosen their airports mighty carefully.

An argument could be made that the relatively poor performance at LAS, for example, is directly related to the relatively poor performance of WN at LAS.

That argument could be made, but it'd fall apart mighty quickly. WN's ontime performance at LAS is above average. Therefore, if you took WN out of the picture, the ontime performance would fall, not rise.

And while, one could argue, that DFW is a very complex, thus costly, airport to operate at, so are other airports in the WN network, such as DTW, LAX, and PHL.

DTW was chosen because DET's longest runway is a mighty short 5,090 feet. DAL's shortest runway is 20% longer than that, and they go up to 75% longer from there. Even BUR, famous for the "unscheduled fuel stop," has runways about the length of DAL's. In short (no pun intended), DET's runways don't work for WN.

In my mind, there is little reason to believe that if WN moved to DFW tomorrow, that they would be unsuccessful.

I agree with that. However, there is also little reason to believe that if WN moved to DFW tomorrow, they'd be less successful (i.e., less profitable) than they are at DAL.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

I think the City of Dallas should close DAL to commercial traffic.

Just one problem with that comment.

They can't.

As I recall, the verbage of the court order upholding Southwest's right to serve Love Field read something like "Southwest Airlines Co is authorized to serve Love Field so long as Love Field remains open as an airport."

The city of Dallas could close Love Field as an airport, but that would be their only way to circumvent the court ruling....and I don't think they want to do that.

Although they might offer to do just that if Fort Worth would close Alliance and Meacham.

 

[JS]

...
I agree with that. However, there is also little reason to believe that if WN moved to DFW tomorrow, they'd be less successful (i.e., less profitable) than they are at DAL.

[post="260054"][/post]​

The two are not comparable. Whatever profit they make at DFW (assuming they would fly long-haul) stands alone, because there is no long-haul service at DAL. Only if DFW turns out to be a money-losing operation should they cease service.

 

[mweiss]

The two are not comparable.

[post="260376"][/post]​

"If AA moved all operations from DFW to DAL" is not comparable to "If WN moved all operations from DAL to DFW"??? What are you smoking?

 

[JS]

Neither airline is going to move all operations from one airport to the other.

 

[mweiss]

Neither airline is going to move all operations from one airport to the other.

[post="260399"][/post]​

Of course they're not. So why bring up the rhetorical concept in the first place?

But, if you are going to bring it up, at least defend it.

 

[Ch. 12]

Regardless, LUV's on-time performance could be better if they added time to their flights. For whatever reason they don't. An argument could be made that the relatively poor performance at LAS, for example, is directly related to the relatively poor performance of WN at LAS.

[post="260044"][/post]​

They are an efficient operation therefore don't inflate flight times. Other carriers bolster flight times just to reduce delays but WN can adhere to the realistic flight times they have created. Consider flight times as goals...WN just sets theirs a little higher (shorter) and they meet their goals more often than the other carriers that have less lofty goals. Why add time and reduce the number of flights? That decreases revenue and makes WN no better than any legacy carrier. Seems to counter what has made them successful.

I just simply think that is the spirit of the law and agreements originally approved, regardless of whether or not Southwest signed the agreement way back when..

[post="260044"][/post]​

It is scary to have the stance of static laws...especially those that were created over a quarter century ago. Laws are constantly changed to meet the current conditions (or whatever lobbyists have successfully put on the plate of legislatures) and the argument that the Wright Amendment should remain just b/c it exists is a very weak one. It is bad for the economy, bad for the consumer, and bad for fair practices. I still have seen no good argument to keep it in existence.

 

[JS]

Of course they're not. So why bring up the rhetorical concept in the first place?

But, if you are going to bring it up, at least defend it.

[post="260400"][/post]​

I didn't bring it up. I can only envision three possibilities: 1) status quo; 2) no Wright Amendment, and 3) WN operates long-haul flights from DFW, while maintaining DAL just the way it is. WN closing down DAL and moving everything to DFW won't happen.

If we are to compare profits from operating at DFW with DAL, only #3 above would apply, in which case comparing profits from operating long haul flights from DFW with profits from operating long haul flights from DAL can't be done since there are no long haul flights from DAL.

 

[funguy2]

A few comments:

The fact that the list I provided has all WN-served airports is not a coincidence. I chose, from the Air Travel Consumer Report, DFW and every LUV-served airport listed. DEN, JFK, LGA, DCA, MSP were all on the list too, but were less relevent to the conversation since I was comparing DFW to other LUV served airports. DFW has certain things in common with these other airports, as opposed to say, AMA. Yes there are differences, but that doesn't mean that there are not similarities... like the amount of traffic, relative size of market, etc. Many of the items you noted as differences (such as runway configuraton, gate location, weather, etc) are generally anticipated factors in scheduling. Thus, part of the reason why block times to DFW are longer than DAL is that DFW is a more complicated airport to taxi around, not because it is any further in flight time.

On the point of LAS WN vs airport... I did misread the data I provided.

Ch. 12 brings up a good point... That scheduled flight times are essentially a goal, and LUV's are generally fairly agressive. And LUV meets their agressive goals very often.

I bought up that LUV could be successful at DFW if it chooses to operate there. I believe they can be. They have a very well respected brand in Texas and probably a whole bunch of frequent flyers. Some people already fly LUV in such as was as to side-step the Wright Amendment rules. LUV is successful at flying to other relatively crowded, complex airports... LAX, PHL, DTW, MCO, and PHX to name a few. If LUV choses to fly to DFW at some point, I believe they can be successful there.

I am fine with change. So, if the wishes of the people of Dallas has changed, let them change the law. I have no problem with that. As of today, the Wright Amendment stands, and the spirit of that law is that DAL should be closed to commercial traffic. The Wright Amendment is an exception to permit commercial airline operations at DAL, which would have otherwise ended. Its an exception, it is not the rule.

And as to the court ruling authorizing LUV to fly to DAL as long as it is open, that can be over turned, just as legislators can change laws. Why is it that Southwest Airlines is authorized to provide commercial service to Love Airport as long as it remains open instead of all certificated passenger airlines? I am certain it has to do with Southwest Airlines bring the case to court, as opposed to the ATA or some other industry group. My point is, if that is the ruling, it certainly looks like favoritism (not that anyone would use it in that manner - to say LUV and only LUV, but it looks that way on paper).

 

[mweiss]

LUV is successful at flying to other relatively crowded, complex airports... LAX, PHL, DTW, MCO, and PHX to name a few. If LUV choses to fly to DFW at some point, I believe they can be successful there.

No doubt. But their block times would necessarily be higher for DFW than DAL. This means fewer ASMs/hr from their 737s at DFW than at DAL. This means higher CASM at DFW than at DAL. This means lower profits out of DFW than at DAL.

Sure, they could be successful at DFW, but they're clearly more successful at DAL. So why move?

My point is, if that is the ruling, it certainly looks like favoritism (not that anyone would use it in that manner - to say LUV and only LUV, but it looks that way on paper).

[post="260414"][/post]​

That's the nature of court rulings. They examine the case before them. Since no two cases are identical, they don't typically extend beyond the facts presented. However, it is highly unlikely that another court would rule that another carrier would be subject to different conditions.

 

[swflyer]

I am fine with change.  So, if the wishes of the people of Dallas has changed, let them change the law.  I have no problem with that.  As of today, the Wright Amendment stands, and the spirit of that law is that DAL should be closed to commercial traffic.  The Wright Amendment is an exception to permit commercial airline operations at DAL, which would have otherwise ended.  Its an exception, it is not the rule. 

And as to the court ruling authorizing LUV to fly to DAL as long as it is open, that can be over turned, just as legislators can change laws.  Why is it that Southwest Airlines is authorized to provide commercial service to Love Airport as long as it remains open instead of all certificated passenger airlines?  I am certain it has to do with Southwest Airlines bring the case to court, as opposed to the ATA or some other industry group.  My point is, if that is the ruling, it certainly looks like favoritism (not that anyone would use it in that manner - to say LUV and only LUV, but it looks that way on paper).

[post="260414"][/post]​

Funguy2, I believe the bolded text is incorrect.

My understanding is that the Wright Amendment, as passed, only restricts what flying is allowed. Jim Wright may have originally intended to try to legislatively close DAL, but was unsuccessful. The courts have consistantly upheld SWA's right to operate service. I continue to believe they're separate, and certainly are, based on date. Courts ('67-'78) = DAL open, Wright ('79) = restrict interstate commerce.

You are correct to see that, legally SWA has been authorized to operate at DAL, but the only restriction for other airlines, per se, is the compact that other airlines signed moving them to DFW. As the last 30 years have revealed, even that document has had no effect in preventing AA, DL, and CO from operating at DAL at one time or another. (This is another personal favorite. Ft. Worth "forgot" to sue AA for violating the DFW Bond Covenant, <_< )

If you haven't been there, this site offers a pretty complete picture of the battles over DAL, and isn't necessarily pro-SWA.

 

[funguy2]

swflyer:

Ok... I did not realize the WA came so "late" into the game.

But IIRC, the argument for LUV flying from DAL is that LUV did not sign an agreement to move to DFW, which was signed by every other airline operating at DAL prior to DFW's construction. As such, it seems to me that the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth were in agreement to close their individual airports to commercial traffic to bolster DFW.

If all of the airlines of the time refused to sign the agreement to move to end ops at DAL, would DFW even have been built?

Obviously, a legal error was made, based on the intentions of the time. The error is this: When LUV signed a lease at DAL, they should have also been "forced" to sign the compact to move to DFW. The world would be a different place... Ok, at least the MetroPlex would be.

 

[KCFlyer]

swflyer:

Ok... I did not realize the WA came so "late" into the game.

But IIRC, the argument for LUV flying from DAL is that LUV did not sign an agreement to move to DFW, which was signed by every other airline operating at DAL prior to DFW's construction. As such, it seems to me that the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth were in agreement to close their individual airports to commercial traffic to bolster DFW.

If all of the airlines of the time refused to sign the agreement to move to end ops at DAL, would DFW even have been built?

Obviously, a legal error was made, based on the intentions of the time. The error is this: When LUV signed a lease at DAL, they should have also been "forced" to sign the compact to move to DFW. The world would be a different place... Ok, at least the MetroPlex would be.

[post="260649"][/post]​

Thank Braniff and Texas International (now Continental)...Had they not tied up Southwest in court, preventing them from operating when they originally planned, they might have been one of the "operating" carriers who were "forced" to sign the compact to move to DFW. As it was, they were just a "paper airline" when those compacts were signed. I guess it could serve Braniff as a lesson in "be careful what you wish for...you just might get it". ELP-WN-PSGR gave me a photo several years ago that depicts the spirit of LUV towards Harding Lawrence lo those many years ago.

 

[sfb]

As such, it seems to me that the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth were in agreement to close their individual airports to commercial traffic to bolster DFW.

Yes, they were in agreement to do so (or at least to do nothing which would hinder the success of the new regional airport), but this portion was unenforceable since it conflicted with Federal law. Neither city could "close their individual airports to commercial traffic" without closing the airports entirely (this is why DEN and AUS were completely closed). Well, actually, they can -- but only if they repay funds received from the Federal government for airport improvements.

Just because the cities agreed to do something illegal doesn't mean that they could actually do so in practice.

If all of the airlines of the time refused to sign the agreement to move to end ops at DAL, would DFW even have been built?

To be honest, it would likely have been more cost-effective at the time to take property around DAL to expand the airfield and come up with a runway configuration similar to ATL and LAX. At some point, the terminal complex would have required replacement, but DFW ended up building all-new terminals anyway. GSW/ACF could have been used for cargo and/or passenger operations as demand required

The problem is that there was no way that Fort Worth would have agreed to the vast majority of passenger operations being concentrated at an expanded DAL, since that would just have fed the historic Fort Worth inferiority complex.

Obviously, a legal error was made, based on the intentions of the time. The error is this: When LUV signed a lease at DAL, they should have also been "forced" to sign the compact to move to DFW. The world would be a different place... Ok, at least the MetroPlex would be.

Well, it isn't entirely clear to me that a legal error was ever made. I'm not even sure that the City of Dallas could have legally forced Southwest to sign such an agreement without the acquiescence of the Federal government.