'wrong' Amendment Back In The News

[continuous ignition]

JS
"Had it not been for the WA, I don't think DFW would still be here today. It would be airport #2 to be mothballed between Dallas and Ft Worth, and I doubt the feds would want to give it a third try."

I'm sure people said the same thing about IAD when it was built many years ago. That it was a waste of money and it was to far out to be of any use. But its quite busy now.. Who woulda thunk that the area would develop around it and make it where it wasnt so inconveient.

 

[JS]

JS
"Had it not been for the WA, I don't think DFW would still be here today. It would be airport #2 to be mothballed between Dallas and Ft Worth, and I doubt the feds would want to give it a third try."

I'm sure people said the same thing about IAD when it was built many years ago. That it was a waste of money and it was to far out to be of any use. But its quite busy now.. Who woulda thunk that the area would develop around it and make it where it wasnt so inconveient.

[post="229286"][/post]​

Very poor example. DCA has a 1000 mile perimeter (compare to LGA's 1500) and significant barriers to entry, with its FAA slots (slots that won't expire like LGA and JFK in 2007) and overbearing security regulations.

AA can add all the flights they want at DAL (I thought they were not allowed but have since been corrected). AA cannot add more flights to DCA unless they get the slots from someone else.

A few carriers have been able to add service to DCA such as Alaska Airlines' DCA-SEA flight (recall TWA's DCA-LAX disappeared once their operating certificate disappeared), but it's not easy. In terms of growth possibilities, I would say DCA is even more restrictive than DAL.

 

[continuous ignition]

JS,

Well you said SWA should just up and move our operation from its current location at DAL to DFW to be able to compete with AA.

Why should SWA have to add to its costs with a split operation when they have the infastructure to do it all at DAL?

Maybe its that people want that because they know how expensive it will be for them to make such a move? And in doing so it would put a ding in the armor of the LUV. Adding to its costs and giving an advantage to AA and other legacy carriers.

I hear that SWA is starting a grass roots drive to appeal the WA and I honestly think in this day and age it will fade into history. There is so much to be gained and so little lost in keeping it.

If AA can't compete then maybe they should just go away...

 

[swflyer]

I have been operating under the assumption that if the Wright Amendment were to be repealed, so would the 32-gate limit. They are basically dealing with the same issue, are they not?

[post="229255"][/post]​

JS,

Respectfully, no they are not. And I have a hard time believing this based on your posts from this thread.

Here's a 1996 editorial from the Dallas Business Journal, which offers a pretty good explanation of the Wright Amendment from an admittedly 'pro-Love' view.

The Dallas-Love Field Master Plan can be read to realize more info than you possibly want, particularly Chapter 4, Facility Requirements and Concept Development.

If nothing else, a good google search will really inform you about the VERY separate issues.

 

[swflyer]

Here's an interesting online Encyclopedia article on the history of Dallas-Love Field

 

[LoneStarMike]

Here's another fairly new site about the Wright Amendment that also includes a rather colorful account of the history of Dallas and Fort Worth's battles before DFW was built.

FightWright.org

I found out earlier this week that the website's administrator is from Fort Worth.

LoneStarMike

 

[JS]

JS,

Well you said SWA should just up and move our operation from its current location at DAL to DFW to be able to compete with AA.

Why should SWA have to add to its costs with a split operation when they have the infastructure to do it all at DAL?

Maybe its that people want that because they know how expensive it will be for them to make such a move? And in doing so it would put a ding in the armor of the LUV. Adding to its costs and giving an advantage to AA and other legacy carriers.

I hear that SWA is starting a grass roots drive to appeal the WA and I honestly think in this day and age it will fade into history. There is so much to be gained and so little lost in keeping it.

If AA can't compete then maybe they should just go away...

[post="229289"][/post]​

I never said that Southwest should move all flights away from Love Field. I said that Southwest should operate out of both airports.

Southwest manages to fly out of LAX, BUR, ONT and SNA, and there's certainly no law compelling them to do so. Southwest flies out of both PVD and MHT, both of which are inexplicably equated with Boston.

Southwest may be a simplified operation, but I give them more credit than that and believe they are capable of flying out of both DAL and DFW.

Since the two wouldn't have any markets in common, just pretend that DFW is 500 miles away from Love Field. Instead of flying to 60 airports, Southwest would fly to 61. What is the big deal?

 

[JS]

JS,

Respectfully, no they are not. And I have a hard time believing this based on your posts from this thread.

Here's a 1996 editorial from the Dallas Business Journal, which offers a pretty good explanation of the Wright Amendment from an admittedly 'pro-Love' view.

The Dallas-Love Field Master Plan can be read to realize more info than you possibly want, particularly Chapter 4, Facility Requirements and Concept Development.

If nothing else, a good google search will really inform you about the VERY separate issues.

[post="229290"][/post]​

1996? That was *eight* years ago! I'm surprised the thing is still available on the web.

DFW, like all other fortress hubs, has more LCC competition now. 1996 fare studies are worth the electricty used to download the document -- practically zero.

 

[swflyer]

1996? That was *eight* years ago! I'm surprised the thing is still available on the web.
DFW, like all other fortress hubs, has more LCC competition now. 1996 fare studies are worth the electricty used to download the document -- practically zero.

[post="229378"][/post]​

JS,
Thanks for ignoring any attempt to show you information answering your mistaken assumptions (your post #119). There were two sources in my post (three if you include google), and Lone Star Mike provided another. I posted the 1996 editorial because it had background historical references about the Wright Amendment which you erroneously grouped with the Dallas-Love Field master plan.

BTW, your answer to Continuous Ignition,

I never said that Southwest should move all flights away from Love Field. I said that Southwest should operate out of both airports. (post #127)

is refuted by your post #17 (still this topic)

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

 

[JS]

Sorry, poor choice of wording on my part. I didn't mean that Southwest should shut down Love Field operations.

 

[Ch. 12]

Sorry, poor choice of wording on my part. I didn't mean that Southwest should shut down Love Field operations.

[post="229532"][/post]​

...only add the cost of another hub in Dallas just to fit the "how to compete against AA" rules?

Why isn't AA mandated to fly all of their Beagle intrastate, and MS, NM, KS, LA, OK, and AR flights out of DAL? Sure...there is no cost in adding a 2nd hub just to fit antiquated legislation.

 

[swflyer]

Well, well, at least Laura Miller took a meeting over the Wright Amendment.

The article is great until the last two paragraphs, where the usual suspects beat their chests over the defense of Ft. Worth and DFW, ignoring their duplicity over Alliance (not that I have a strong opinion <_< )

Miller weighs Love Field stance
Mayor looks for 'win-win' after meeting with Southwest exec
01:34 PM CST on Friday, December 17, 2004
By EMILY RAMSHAW / The Dallas Morning News

Dallas Mayor Laura Miller may be softening her stance on efforts to eliminate flight restrictions at Dallas Love Field.

Miller said she's concerned that airfares in the Dallas area are too high
After meeting Thursday with Southwest Airlines Co. chairman Herb Kelleher, the mayor said she could envision some day lifting the Wright amendment if it wouldn't hurt Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

"I may stay opposed, I may not stay opposed," she said. "There's got to be a win-win."

Ms. Miller said she's concerned that airfares in the Dallas area are too high and that other cities are getting more tourist and convention business as a result.

So far, Ms. Miller has argued that the best way to keep airfares low is to bring a new low-cost carrier to D/FW to replace routes that Delta Air Lines Inc. plans to abandon next month.

As Dallas' mayor, Ms. Miller is a board member at D/FW, the nation's third-busiest airport.

But on Thursday, she seemed to be considering alternatives.

Southwest has "given me a lot of information to sort out," Ms. Miller said.

Mr. Kelleher and other airline officials compared a Dallas without the Wright amendment to Houston. It has a thriving international airport, Bush Intercontinental, and a strong inner city facility, Houston Hobby Airport.

Southwest officials also assured Ms. Miller that lifting the Wright amendment won't lead to a huge influx of flights from the discounter, creating a significant threat to D/FW.

The meeting was held in the Jim Wright conference room at Southwest's Love Field headquarters.

Mr. Wright, a former speaker of the U.S. House from Fort Worth, spearheaded the Love Field legislation in 1979.

"The meeting was very productive," said Ron Ricks, senior vice president for law, airports and public affairs at Southwest.

"It was a refreshing change to have a discussion about facts, rather than the heated emotional rhetoric and historical baggage that usually comes with this issue," he said.

"We were not lobbying her in the political sense," Mr. Ricks said. "We asked her for no commitments, and she offered no commitments. She said she was open-minded about the issue."

Over the next two months, Ms. Miller said, she will research the issue and then discuss her findings with the City Council.

Positions

The Wright amendment limits flights from Love Field to cities in Texas and nearby states.

On Nov. 12, Southwest changed its long-held neutral position on the restrictions, saying D/FW no longer needs protection from competition.

Officials for D/FW and American Airlines Inc. said they continue to support the Wright amendment, as did city officials from Dallas and Fort Worth.

A week after Southwest's announcement, Ms. Miller and Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief sent letters to the Texas congressional delegation – on D/FW letterhead – expressing deep concerns about changing the amendment.

"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," the letter said.

Questions

On Thursday, Ms. Miller said Southwest's announcement caught her off guard.

She said she was already worried about Delta's decision to close its hub at D/FW, and she said the airport is strapped with debt from construction of a new terminal.

"I was alarmed by their announcement," she said. "I was happy at the urging of the D/FW Airport to sign a joint letter saying, don't lift the Wright amendment right now."

After sending the letter, Ms. Miller called Southwest and asked to set up a meeting.

She said she wanted to know details: whether lifting the amendment would bring more employees to Dallas, and what the economic impact would be on the city.

Ms. Miller was also concerned that it would bring a flood of new flights over the city.

The mayor said she told Mr. Moncrief she'd be meeting with both Southwest and American officials.

Mr. Moncrief couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

But Jim Lane, a Fort Worth City Council member, said he doesn't see how lifting the Wright amendment could be a "win-win." It wouldn't benefit either D/FW Airport or people living near Love Field, he said.

"The only thing Fort Worth is interested in is protecting D/FW," he said.

D/FW's chief operating officer, Kevin Cox, said: "The mayor has stated her support of the Wright amendment, and it will remain our top legislative priority."

Chris Heinbaugh of WFAA and staff writers Suzanne Marta and Jeff Mosier contributed to this report.

 

[LoneStarMike]

Updates on this topic:

Miller backs Wright restrictions
Major airlines cut fares, but move not expected to affect airport debate
Friday January 7, 2005

Dallas Mayor Laura Miller is sticking with the embattled Wright Amendment for now.

"I'm still where I was before," Miller said Thursday, after meeting with Gerard Arpey, American Airlines' chief executive. "For right now, I don't want to lift the Wright Amendment because there's too much in flux."

Miller has supported keeping the Wright Amendment's federal restrictions on commercial flights from Dallas Love Field.

Link to full story

Will odd moves pay off for D/FW Airport?
Wednesday, January 12, 2005

What are we to make of the recent moves at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport?

. Delta Air Lines breaks a long-term lease, walking away from $65 million in rent, and D/FW gives Delta $7 million to take back 24 gates. Shouldn't Delta be paying us?

. D/FW orders a study on the effect of lifting the Wright Amendment, and before it's completed, the airport commits $1.5 million to fight repeal of the law. Any doubt about the study's conclusions?

. In November, D/FW's chief operating officer accused Southwest Airlines of sabotaging a major deal for a new tenant, all but calling Southwest's CEO a liar and a schemer. Last week, D/FW was knocking on Southwest's door again, hoping to entice the company with a year's free rent.

Seems a strange way to do business, but it's been a bizarre six months at the organization that likes to call itself the economic engine of North Texas.

Link to full story

Mayors appeal to airline
Tuesday, January 18, 2004

D/FW AIRPORT - Responding to an obvious snub, Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief and Dallas Mayor Laura Miller called for Southwest Airlines to include Dallas/Fort Worth Airport in its new agreement with ATA Airlines.

Moncrief and Miller, both D/FW Airport board members, also urged Southwest to accept D/FW's offer of free terminal rent and other financial incentives to start a new hub in Terminal E.

"With the flip of a switch, Southwest could offer code-share service from D/FW," Miller said, referring to agreements in which airlines sell travel on one another's flights.

"I hope that Southwest will reconsider its code-share decision. It's yet another simple way to get more low-fare travel choices for our hometown fliers. We also truly hope Southwest is still seriously considering the Terminal E incentive program."

Link to full story

SW exec: Love flights to be cut if amendment stands
Monday, January 17, 2004

Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co. will further cut flights at Dallas Love Field if lawmakers don't lift federal restrictions that limit long-haul service from the close-in airport.

Without long-haul flights, the airline's Boeing 737s from Dallas to its 13 short-haul destinations are underutilized, Ron Ricks, vice president of Southwest, told the Dallas Business Journal.
Ricks declined to say how many flights could be cut, or how soon.

The airline last trimmed its Dallas schedule by seven flights, from 130 to 123, in October of 2004. It normally makes such decisions on a semi-annual basis, he said.

The warning comes as Southwest has announced it will fight to get the federal Wright Amendment lifted. The 1979 law -- meant to protect Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from competition -- limits scheduled, commercial service at Love Field to short-haul flights to nearby states.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly shook a bitter 20-year truce in December when he announced the airline was no longer neutral on the law and would lobby legislators. Ricks said the turning point was Southwest's inability to revive short-haul traffic after recession and 9/11 stalled the nation's airline traffic.
Short-haul suffers

Southwest operates 123 flights from 14 gates at Love Field, which falls below the 10-flights-per-gate national average. Before 9/11, Southwest operated 147 flights from Love.

"After 9/11, short-haul traffic was decimated and it hasn't come back," he said. "The most aggressive marketer in airline history with the lowest fares cannot grow at Love Field. If we can't grow at Love Field, no one can."

The airline has tried everything, Ricks said, but the automobile has re-emerged as a serious competitor on short-haul flights.

Southwest must use its planes where they can generate the most revenue, and that's not Love Field, Ricks said.

Link to full story

The battle continues.

LoneStarMike

 

[mrman]

Dallas surely does not want WN to move out of DAL. Headquarters, Maintenance facilities, aircraft bring much $$ to Dallas in property taxes

 

[bwipilot]

Seems that the Dallas mayor has forgotten that SWA doesn't like to be pushed around. Oh, and SWA is stupid enough to fall for short term incentives: save money now even if you'll lose horribly to AA in the long term. The Dallas mayor should call the ELP mayor to find out what it's like to shove SWA around: lose at lot of flights. SWA has started to lay down the gauntlet in DAL with the release of quarterly earnings. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out, eh? Wonder when the DAL mayor is back up for reelection? I'm sure AA and DFW will give her plenty of contributions. Still, I wonder how that will play with the local taxpayers/travelers.