'wrong' Amendment Back In The News

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

Another thought.

Southwest is the little engine that could.

American is in the position of "better be careful what you ask for, you might get it."

American is also in the position of having to pick the least nasty of three options:

Option 1: Southwest starts some longer haul flying out of Dallas Love Field. It won't be unlimited, as there is a limit to the number of gates they have. Dallas Love Field has some physical limitations, too....Southwest is committed to keeping their operation reasonably on time so is not going to "poop in their cage" so to speak...by overburdening Love Field with numbers of flights it can't deal with. Love Field is not apt to have the sort of dramatic national feed that AA enjoys over at DFW....so instead of hoursly departured to Chicago....out of Love Field you might see 3 or 4 a day for O&D traffic on 137 seat airplanes. This is apt to siphon some passengers from AA, but NOT THAT MANY.

Option 2: Another low fare carrier moves out to DFW. This might be really bad or not so bad, depending upon who it is. If it's America West, AA executives can say, "what...me worry?". If it's AirTran, they need to worry a bit more, keeping in mind "remember what AAtlanta was like before Airtran did a baby Jane to Delta?" If it's JetBlue, AA needs to be AAfraid, be very very AAfraid. JetBlue has the costs and they have the equipment coming to make American very miserable. (see American at Long Beach).

Option 3: Southwest reverses course and moves long haul flying to DFW. They can do this. And despite the fact they don't want to, they can do it without spending massive sums of money. They are already known in the marketplace. They have a crew base and all the necessary infrastructure in the area. This, to my way of thinking, would be the last thing American should want to have happen. It's one thing when Southwest is over at Love Field with 4 trips a day to Phoenix and 3 to midway and 2 to St Louis and 4 to Nashville. It's something else when they are at the same airport, laying right on top of you, with a walkup fare that is 1/3rd to 1/4th what AA charges....so when a plane breaks down...folks can run over and hop on the ugly plane and find out they can ride Southwest and not die. If American is smart, they will want to keep Southwest as far away as possible, and that is Love Field.

To those who have minimized the congestion or turn time issues at DFW.....I would suggest to you that the BIGGEST problem with DFW is that it is a miserable airport from a passenger perspective.

Take the folks at my office as an example. We periodically have to go see the Army Corps of Engineers Regional Office in downtown Fort Worth.

Going to Fort Worth? Downtown? You'd think we would want to fly into DFW since it is closer. You would be wrong.

You land ay DFW and taxi forever and finally get to a gate, and let's assume for a change that it is not occupied by another airplane. You get off, get your bag, and head to the rent car desk. 1 hr from wheels down to rent car is a good day.....it's usually more like an hour and a half and I have seen it take two hours to get a car and start moving.

Wheels down at Love Field to being in your rent car and on Mockingbird Lane or maybe even Stemmons is 20 minutes and I have done it in 15. You can do your rent car paperwork IN THE TERMINAL, go grab your bag, and then catch the shuttlebus. There aren;t 8 dozen airlines all emtying in to the same rent car facility which is staffed as if it serves the rent car demand of Abilene or maybe Wichita Fallas instead of DFW.

I am a die hard red state center right Republican. My correspondence to our beloved Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison (with a cc to Cornyn, Pete Sessions, et al) will hopefully reinforce the attitude that they give us, the tax paying, fare paying, every election voting public the right to choose our airline and airport OR they should get ready for retirement and watching a democratic congress serve Madame Presidentress Hillary in 2008.

 

[JS]

...
"A deal is a deal, and it is our belief that Southwest should continue to operate within the limits of the deal to which it agreed," says the letter, signed by mayors Laura Miller of Dallas and Mike Moncrief of Fort Worth.

Southwest says that the law was imposed on it by Congress and that the Dallas-based discount carrier hopes to sway the opinions of lawmakers and local officials.

...

Actually, there were four deals:

1) Everyone was going to fly out of DFW and Love Field would be closed

2) Then, Southwest was allowed to fly intra-Texas flights from Love Field

3) Then, when Southwest decided to fly to MSY, they were allowed to fly from Love Field to the four states bordering Texas

4) Then, Southwest was allowed to fly to Mississippi, Alabama and Kansas


If Southwest were flying non-stop from Love Field to JAN, GPT, BHM, MOB and ICT, then, maybe, I could see expanding the destinations from Love Field.

Since they don't, it is apparent to me that Southwest wants to serve just the huge cities from Love Field and to hell with everyone else.

Move to DFW and you can fly anywhere you want. Otherwise, quit your bitching and just stick to OKC and MAF.

 

[KCFlyer]

Actually, there were four deals:

1) Everyone was going to fly out of DFW and Love Field would be closed

2) Then, Southwest was allowed to fly intra-Texas flights from Love Field

3) Then, when Southwest decided to fly to MSY, they were allowed to fly from Love Field to the four states bordering Texas

4) Then, Southwest was allowed to fly to Mississippi, Alabama and Kansas
If Southwest were flying non-stop from Love Field to JAN, GPT, BHM, MOB and ICT, then, maybe, I could see expanding the destinations from Love Field.

Since they don't, it is apparent to me that Southwest wants to serve just the huge cities from Love Field and to hell with everyone else.

Move to DFW and you can fly anywhere you want. Otherwise, quit your bitching and just stick to OKC and MAF.

[post="202857"][/post]​

YOu forgot to mention that had Braniff and Texas International not fought so damn hard to keep Southwest from taking to the skies, they might well have been required to sign the agreement to use DFW. But, the tactics worked to keep Southwest grounded...the others signed, Southwest finally was able to commence operations, and that was that. Just goes to show that you'd better be careful what you wish for....you just might get it.

 

[hobbes]

"Actually, there were four deals:

1) Everyone was going to fly out of DFW and Love Field would be closed"

KCFlyer is right here. All the carriers flying out of Love signed an agreement in 1968, agreeing to move to DFW. Southwest didn't sign the deal, because we weren't in business at the time. We should have been flying back in 1966, but because Braniff and TI chose to keep us tied up in court battles, we didn't fly until 1971. If they'd just let us fly back in 1966, we likely would have ended up signing that agreement to move to DFW, just like every other airline.

Funny how that worked.

And somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Wright Amendment a rider on another "sure to pass" bill in Congress?

And one last question: Wasn't Wright booted out of the legislature for ethics violations? Talk about poetic justice.

 

[mga707]

I've always thought that the "Wrong" Amendment was particularily capricious and arbitrary simply because state boundaries are used to determine what is and is not allowed.
Example: DAL--ABQ/ELP/BHM are all OK, but DAL--MEM/MCI/STL are not, even though the latter three destinations are shorter in mileage terms than some or all of the former.
Uisng primitive tools (a DL timetable--which lists mileage--and a AAA road atlas), it seems that if a 600-mile radius were to be the cutoff point then all six of the above destinations would fit (just barely in the case of DAL-BHM).
Wouldn't a mileage limit be a fairer determination than a state boundary?

 

[firstamendment]

Doesn't anyone remember what happened when Bill Clinton signed legislation removing all slot restrictions on regional aircraft flying out of LGA?





Hello? Hello? Someone help us....still waiting to take off at LGA. What day is it? Is it 2003 yet?

 

[JS]

I've always thought that the "Wrong" Amendment was particularily capricious and arbitrary simply because state boundaries are used to determine what is and is not allowed.
Example: DAL--ABQ/ELP/BHM are all OK, but DAL--MEM/MCI/STL are not, even though the latter three destinations are shorter in mileage terms than some or all of the former.
Uisng primitive tools (a DL timetable--which lists mileage--and a AAA road atlas), it seems that if a 600-mile radius were to be the cutoff point then all six of the above destinations would fit (just barely in the case of DAL-BHM).
Wouldn't a mileage limit be a fairer determination than a state boundary?

[post="203307"][/post]​

The Constitution creates a United States that is more of a quilt of states than it is a nation with 50 cute borders. That is why we have the Electoral College, a Senate (each state getting the same representation regardless of geographical or demographic size), the Wright Amendment, and so on. It's a good thing to recognize the importance of states, especially in this day and age where the feds want to usurp more and more power from the people/states.

The LGA 1500 mile perimeter rule was influenced by the fact that heavy aircraft could damage the over-water surfaces of the field, and of course the fuel needed to fly more than 1500 miles weighs the same regardless of the state in which the destination is located (weather deviations excepted).

 

[mga707]

The Constitution creates a United States that is more of a quilt of states than it is a nation with 50 cute borders. That is why we have the Electoral College, a Senate (each state getting the same representation regardless of geographical or demographic size), the Wright Amendment, and so on. It's a good thing to recognize the importance of states, especially in this day and age where the feds want to usurp more and more power from the people/states.

Fine. But that has nothing to do with why Alabama and Kansas are OK, but Missouri and Tennessee are not, especially when parts of the latter two states are closer to Love Field than parts of the former two, or New Mexico, or even parts of Texas itself...

 

[jimntx]

Why are you all going on about SW's ability to fly nonstop to BHM? The only way to get to BHM from DAL on SW is with a change of planes at HOU or MSY.

Route authorities are wonderful things, but SERVING the friggin' route is what is important to the passenger.

 

[mga707]

Why are you all going on about SW's ability to fly nonstop to BHM? The only way to get to BHM from DAL on SW is with a change of planes at HOU or MSY.

Route authorities are wonderful things, but SERVING the friggin' route is what is important to the passenger.

[post="203479"][/post]​

Not "going on" about it, merely noting that Alabama seems a strange state to have been allowed direct access from DAL, as it isn't even a state bordering a state that borders Texas. At least Miss. and Kansas meet that definition, although by that criteria Ariz., Colo., Mo., and Tenn. should also have been granted dispensation.
On top of which, as I've previously noted, BHM is definitely farther from DAL than either MEM or MCI, and even a bit farther than STL.
Obviously it's apparent that political decisions often have no logical basis!

 

[luver41]

Can someone post the text of yesterdays article in the Wall Street Journal about the Wright Amendment? Thanks in advance.

 

[swflyer]

This if Gary Kelly's Opinion piece from the Dallas Morning News. I'll try to get the Wall St. article.

Gary Kelly: Is the Wright Amendment wrong?
Times have changed, and so must this legislation
10:48 AM CST on Saturday, November 27, 2004

The Wright amendment is protectionist, anti-competitive and
anti-consumer. It is outdated, too. It's time for a change.

Two recent events led to Southwest's decision to seek a
change to the 25-year-old Wright amendment at Dallas Love
Field, which limited flights to Texas and adjacent states.

One, the Tennessee congressional delegation put the Wright
amendment in play by introducing legislation adding
Tennessee.

Two, Delta Air Lines announced it would vacate 23 gates at
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and reduce its daily
flights by more than 200. Delta will leave a huge void for
travelers, which creates an opportunity for another airline
to expand. Southwest wants to expand the availability of its
low fares, and room is available at Love and D/FW.

The Wright amendment is a 1979 federal law designed to
protect D/FW Airport by restricting Love. Commercial airline
use of Love was established long ago through years of
litigation, ultimately before the U.S. Supreme Court
(twice).

In 1979, after all the litigation, then-House Majority
Leader Jim Wright of Fort Worth spearheaded this legislation
over Southwest's vehement objections and strenuous lobbying
efforts. Southwest and Herb Kelleher, after years of
litigation over Love, agreed they would not challenge the
Wright amendment in court, but Southwest never committed to
avoid legislatively challenging the Wright amendment.

Others have challenged the Wright amendment before,
culminating in the 1997 Shelby amendment, which added three
more states. Many predicted then that the Wright amendment
eventually would be repealed.

After Shelby, the city of Dallas underscored its commitment
to D/FW and addressed local noise concerns with the
limitations set forth in the March 2001 Dallas Love Field
Master Plan that should completely satisfy D/FW.

Circumstances have changed dramatically since 1979. D/FW,
one of the world's largest and most successful airports, is
no longer a child. Love is one-fifth its size and limited,
by the master plan, to 32 gates. D/FW has more than 140
gates and hardly needs federal government protection to
succeed. If it does, something must be wrong.

Most major U.S. cities have multiple airports. North Texas
should be proud, not upset, to have two. Tiny Love is no
threat to mighty D/FW. Plus, Southwest had no service beyond
the "Wright amendment area" in 1979. Today, we serve much of
the United States.

D/FW has idle gate capacity, and officials are legitimately
motivated to lease that space. Love has idle gates and an
underutilized new parking garage. Anyone worried about that?
As a city of Dallas, Dallas County and Dallas school
district taxpayer, Southwest is.

Our corporate headquarters are in Dallas. We employ more
than 5,500 people in our various Dallas operations. Although
we're a growth airline, we're unable to grow at Love because
of the Wright amendment. In fact, our Love business and
flights have been shrinking since 9-11.

Delta's planned exit will leave a void that we could help
fill, except for the Wright amendment. Consumers would
benefit twice because we could add flights to new markets
from Love at significantly lower fares, and D/FW fares would
then come down, too. The lack of competition from Southwest
is why D/FW is one of the highest average fare airports in
the country.

As proof, American Airlines announced that it was offering
dramatically lower fares from its Miami hub. Why? To regain
customers attracted to the nearby Fort Lauderdale airport,
served by several low-fare carriers, including Southwest.
American said that the pricing move would increase
passengers in Miami and give American more revenue. That's
the beauty of competition – and what's missing in North
Texas.

After much thought, we decided Southwest service at D/FW too
risky. It would split our operation unnecessarily between
two airports, break our network and drive our costs up. We
would have to reduce service further at Love to make that
work, creating even more idle capacity, which isn't good for
Dallas.

Southwest avoids most fortress hub airports like D/FW, where
we face significant risk from the 700-departure-a-day
gorilla, American Airlines. Delta decided the risk and the
losses were too great. That's why no other airline has
jumped at the chance to take on American at D/FW. Even D/FW
called it a "monopoly."

Avoiding fortress hubs has worked well for us. For example,
we serve Chicago Midway, not O'Hare, and Fort Lauderdale,
not Miami; there are many more. It's no coincidence we are
the most profitable airline with the lowest fares over the
last 31 years.

Finally, with respect to concerns about unbridled growth at
Love, that has been thoroughly addressed by the Love Field
Master Plan. As D/FW Airport and its constituents well know,
it allows for no more than 32 gates. That's all the
protection D/FW needs, and it limits noise, pollution and
ground traffic congestion to acceptable levels. The
destinations we choose to serve from Love are completely
irrelevant.

Just look down the road at our Houston Hobby operation.
Unrestricted, it has only 16 more daily departures than
Love. Change Love's restrictions and, like Hobby, you'll
have more airline competition. And by the way, Houston's
George Bush Intercontinental Airport seems to do just fine
competing with an unrestricted Hobby. We have to face brutal
competition as an airline. Why shouldn't D/FW face a little
competition from Love?

North Texas will thrive with changes to the Wright
amendment. More competition is good. Lower fares are good.
Replacing flights lost from Delta's exit is good. More jobs
are good. Utilizing idle facilities is good.

This is simple. Don't let someone try to tell you this is
complicated. Times change, as do laws. This is a free
country. Let's give North Texans the freedom to fly on
Southwest.

Gary Kelly is chief executive officer of Southwest Airlines.
His e-mail address is [email protected].

 

[jimntx]

Others have challenged the Wright amendment before,
culminating in the 1997 Shelby amendment, which added three
more states. Many predicted then that the Wright amendment
eventually would be repealed.

As in Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL. Does anyone else have any questions as to why BHM was included in the exceptions?

Just look down the road at our Houston Hobby operation.
Unrestricted, it has only 16 more daily departures than
Love. Change Love's restrictions and, like Hobby, you'll
have more airline competition. And by the way, Houston's
George Bush Intercontinental Airport seems to do just fine
competing with an unrestricted Hobby. We have to face brutal
competition as an airline. Why shouldn't D/FW face a little
competition from Love?

[post="204854"][/post]​

There are a couple of unmentioned little problems with Mr. Kelly's arguments. First off, if you look at IAH, to say that it does just fine is to say that a CO fortress hub is ok for Houston, but we don't want anything like that for AA in Dallas. Yes, Hobby is unrestricted, but then it is located in an area of Houston that is predominantly populated by Hispanics and African Americans--lower middle to lower economic class. Love is located on the edge of Highland Park--white upper-middle to upper class whites who donate heavily to the Republican Party. NIMBY arguments are already beginning as to increased noise at Love. Let's see who wins this one.

 

[KCFlyer]

Love is located on the edge of Highland Park--white upper-middle to upper class whites who donate heavily to the Republican Party. NIMBY arguments are already beginning as to increased noise at Love. Let's see who wins this one.

[post="204867"][/post]​

Odd, I thought NIMBY's were liberals. But I digress. If the NIMBY's do want to put up a fight, all Southwest needs to do is have a noise study conducted. I think that they will find that the noise they despise isn't coming from the Southwest fleet....instead, it's coming from the Gulfstream jets that many of those same Highland Park NIMBY's prefer to fly on. If noise is the issue, then maybe they can move their corporate jets out to DFW instead.

The 200's will be gone soon, and from what I've seen, approaches to runway 13 bring the Southwest jets in over the White Rock area, where truth be told, you see them more than hear them. Arrivals on 31 seem to come in over Oak Cliff, and have to stay a bit high since they cross over downtown, and again, noise from the Southwest jets is minimal. Departures take them out over Harry Hines to the north...mostly industrial, and over downtown to the South. Seems to me that it's not so much as being in Highland Parks back yard as it is being in their side yard.

FWIW - several years ago, I lived in an apartment on Lombardy Lane, right under the flight path for 13R. Those were the days of the 200's - and truth be told, you sort of got used to it. I also lived for a time in Grapevine, just west of the approach ends of runways 17/18...much closer than Highland Park is to Love - and again, you saw the planes...but it was rare to actually ever hear them.

 

[swflyer]

As in Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL. Does anyone else have any questions as to why BHM was included in the exceptions?
There are a couple of unmentioned little problems with Mr. Kelly's arguments. First off, if you look at IAH, to say that it does just fine is to say that a CO fortress hub is ok for Houston, but we don't want anything like that for AA in Dallas. Yes, Hobby is unrestricted, but then it is located in an area of Houston that is predominantly populated by Hispanics and African Americans--lower middle to lower economic class. Love is located on the edge of Highland Park--white upper-middle to upper class whites who donate heavily to the Republican Party. NIMBY arguments are already beginning as to increased noise at Love. Let's see who wins this one.

[post="204867"][/post]​

BHM was included because Mr. Shelby was a member of the Aviation Sub-Committee. Partisian politics like Mr. Wright?? Nah, that'd never happen.

I didn't see where Gary said a CO fortress was okay in IAH. I thought he was pointing out the parallel of two Majors, both with fortress hubs, but only one city had an open second airport hosting low fare service.

As far as the location arguement, add that MDW is located in a working class, Polish neighborhood and we have a wide variety of socio-economic classes, so what?? Are you saying Republicans don't like to pay less for air travel?? Of course you're not. And in truth, the largest noise makers at Love aren't the 737's, they're the corporate jets. I'm always surprised by this, hearing a loud jet noise, and seeing it's not an about to be retired -200.

IMHO, and here's the Wall St. article.

THE MIDDLE SEAT By SCOTT MCCARTNEY

Wright Amendment Is Wrong
November 30, 2004; Page D7

You may have never heard of the Wright Amendment, but if you've ever flown to Dallas, you've probably paid for it.

The Wright Amendment is a federal law that puts heavy limits on commercial flights out of Dallas Love Field: Airlines can fly large planes from Love Field only to states that surround Texas. This bizarre rule was established in 1979 to protect the big new international airport built 10 miles west of Love Field, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.

The discount carrier Southwest Airlines, preferring Dallas Love for its closer location to the city, refused to move its operations to DFW. So a regulatory fence was built around Dallas Love.

For years, the status quo was comfortable for everyone -- but now as Delta Air Lines closes its DFW hub and low-cost airlines gain clout, Southwest is challenging the law. It's a move that has significant ramifications for air travel nationwide since Dallas is a key destination.

The law is one of the strange quirks of aviation that sometimes confound and cost travelers. For instance, if you need to travel between Nashville, Tenn., and Dallas, the lowest unrestricted, nonstop fare is $1,291 on American Airlines. But if you want to fly between Nashville and Houston nonstop, you'd pay no more than $356 for a round-trip ticket on Southwest. Southwest can fly to Nashville from Houston, but not from Dallas.

Studies have shown repeatedly that travelers going to and from Dallas pay a hefty premium for the lack of a free market. In fact, from Dallas, Southwest can't even sell a connecting ticket to cities outside the bounds of the Wright Amendment.

Southwest's decision to try to tear down this regulatory fence is sparking a nasty debate in the industry. Local officials, DFW Airport and AMR Corp.'s American are fighting to keep it; some in Congress living outside the fence are trying to punch holes in it. It's another case where the interests of airlines and airports clash with consumers. Congress will get to decide.

Over the years, the Dallas restriction has benefited both American and Southwest. American's huge hub at DFW has been protected against long-haul competition from Southwest, and American has been able to charge higher prices.

At the same time, Southwest has benefited because the restriction has left it a virtual monopoly at Love Field. The inability to fly longer trips beyond Texas and nearby states kept other airlines out, and helped Southwest make a lot of money shuttling folks between Dallas and Houston, and points nearby. For years Southwest has professed to be "passionately neutral" about the fence.

Now, however, with Delta closing its DFW hub, Southwest sees a big opportunity to grow in Dallas. With Delta's move remaking the landscape, Southwest now says the Wright Amendment has outlived its purpose of protecting DFW Airport and should be killed.

"It is anticompetitive," says Southwest Chief Executive Gary Kelly.

At the least, a new hole is likely to be cut in the fence. In 1997, Congress added Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi to Love Field's large-plane reach. This fall, the Tennessee congressional delegation, which includes Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, introduced a measure to allow flights from Love Field to Tennessee. That would bring cheaper fares to Nashville.

DFW Airport, on the other hand, has rallied local politicians to oppose any change. Even Republicans who tend to loathe government interference in business embrace this restriction. "A deal is a deal," says Kevin Cox, DFW's chief operating officer.

Mr. Cox claims that Southwest's rumblings have already hurt DFW's chances to bring in new discount-airline service. Right after Mr. Kelly told a local chamber-of-commerce breakfast he wanted changes, one discount airline quashed talks with DFW about leasing some of Delta's soon-to-be-vacant gates, Mr. Cox says.

"None of the low-cost carriers are interested in a substantial increase in service as long as Southwest is threatening to end the Wright Amendment," he says.

That reluctance has a lot more to do with American than with Southwest, however. Executives from the likely suspects -- America West Airlines, Spirit Airlines and JetBlue Airways -- all said in interviews they had no interest in building a DFW hub, regardless of the Wright Amendment. Battling American at its home fortress is a tough challenge.

AirTran Airways is tangling with American right now, bringing inexpensive fares on some routes like Dallas-Los Angeles. But AirTran has seen a very strong response from American. AirTran's prospects might improve once Delta shuts down its hub, but for now, AirTran has pinned its growth prospects on Chicago, where it is trying to buy gates currently leased to bankrupt ATA Airlines. AirTran will have to battle Southwest at Midway, preferable to battling American at DFW.

Rather than banking on another discounter tangling with American, Dallas would be better served letting Southwest pick up the slack left by Delta's pullout. If Southwest were able to offer cheaper long-haul service, American would be forced to bring its prices down. That would stimulate more traffic, which, in the long run, is good for both airports and consumers.

After all, airports collect more revenue when more people are traveling. Standard & Poor's airports analyst Kurt Forsgren says opening up Love wouldn't have a big impact on DFW's credit. And UBS airline analyst Robert Ashcroft goes further: "DFW's objections seem particularly odd to us -- we believe eliminating the Wright Amendment might be the best thing that ever happened to DFW."

But the biggest beneficiary "would be John Q. Business Traveler," says Tom Parsons, president of Bestfares.com. "I'm not sure why we have to protect the third-largest airport in the world [in terms of flights]."

Many big metropolitan areas, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Washington, have extensive service from two or more airports. Growth at Long Beach, Calif., hasn't hurt Los Angeles International; growth at Chicago Midway hasn't caused a shortage of service at Chicago O'Hare. Often a nearby airport is the best way to give people a low-cost carrier option even when there's a fortress hub in town.

Competition is good for businesses, and for travelers. It's time for aviation fences, and artificially high fares, to come down.

• Write to Scott McCartney at [email protected]