Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

AA cant take the heat

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Some of you need to read this...

History of the Wright Amendment

Southwest Airlines has been dedicated to providing low fares and dependable air travel to America for 38 years. In 1967, Southwest Airlines chose to liberate the City of Dallas from the exorbitant airfares that existed even then. Of all the cities and airports in the country, Dallas was picked to host the concept of a low-fare airline for all travelers. But no good deed goes unpunished, as they say, and for its efforts 38 years ago to bring affordable air travel to the Metroplex, Southwest Airlines suffered 12 years of nonstop litigation from DFW International Airport and its airline tenants. The first four years were spent just trying to begin service. Only after a final decision by the Texas Supreme Court, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, was Southwest able to begin service on June 18, 1971. By then, the litigation had cost Southwest millions of dollars, depleting virtually all of Southwest's financial capital-but not its will.

After losing the initial legal battle, competing airlines joined forces with DFW Airport and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth in a series of new legal bouts before administrative agencies and state and federal courts. The purpose of that litigation was to defeat Southwest by evicting it from Love Field in Dallas, the source of Southwest's competitive niche. That litigation continued, in numerous forms and before numerous forums, again including the U.S. Supreme Court. The last battle in this series was not settled until September of 1979, with one last regulatory ruling from a federal agency decreeing that Southwest could operate from Love Field, both for intrastate and interstate flights.

During this 12 year period, the city Southwest wanted to liberate from high airfares made it a crime for a commercial air carrier to land at Love Field (a law that was later overturned by a federal judge as an abuse of law). Along the way, two of Southwest's competitors were indicted by a federal criminal grand jury for their role in the conspiracy to bankrupt the fledgling carrier. It would have been much easier for Southwest to pack up and move its low fare airline to another city but Southwest believed in Dallas and knew the citizens of North Texas deserved the Freedom to Fly. They, too, wanted Love Field to be the cornerstone of a budding competitive niche that is not dependent upon monopoly, but founded on close-in, non-hub airports that allow for quick aircraft turns and high productivity for both airplanes and employees.

In 1978, Southwest saw a ray of hope; the U.S. Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act, establishing a national policy that would take the government out of the business of regulating which routes an airline could fly. Congress acknowledged that open competition is the best means of determining air routes and fares, but memories are short, and Love Field would soon be excluded from this freedom with the passage of the Wright Amendment less than a year later.

Unsuccessful in beating Southwest into submission via the courts, DFW supporters made this local issue a congressional issue. House Majority Leader Jim Wright, without notice, without hearings, and without opportunity for public comment or informed debate, attached an amendment that banned any airline from engaging in interstate air commerce from Love Field to an unrelated bill. The U.S. Senate refused to go along, and forced a compromise, today's Wright Amendment, whose admitted purpose is to protect DFW Airport (and the airlines which serve it) from competition.
 
labbats said:
The WA was an agreement by all parties at the time of construction of DFW. Southwest came along very shortly thereafter and thus got by with operating out of DAL. Had Dallas the foresight to shut down DAL or Southwest come along a year earlier this debate wouldn't be going on.


Dude, surf on down to message #41. Your assertion is just plain WRONG. What else are you wrong about?

Calvin
 
labbats said:
Scroll to the last two pages for the nitty-gritty.

Um what nitty gritty? The last two pages are just unfounded conclusions. This looks like the same BS that AA has been spewing for years, I don't buy it. I see no data to support thier conclusions and the ones that seem supportable still don't matter: any drop that DFW sees in traffic due to repeal of the WA was artificially supported by the WA.

Lets get nitty gritty ourselves: AA charges $499 to go from Tucson to DFW. They have no competition on this route, and they are gouging. If a passenger wanted to go from Tucson to DAL on SWA they could book two separate segments and they'd have to check bags twice. The fare to ABQ is $105 and the ABQ to DAL fare is 150 for a total of $255 (both are walk up, one way - highest fare). In order protect AA that passenger has to either pay twice as much or recheck bags in ABQ (if they even know enough to book this way). This is utterly ridiculus protection of one company above the needs of the consumer. And it doesn't just hurt Dallas, it hurts places like Tucson, where in order to go east you can get gouged by AA to DAL, Delta to ATL, or get good fares from SWA to MDW or PHL. Most folks just drive to PHX and go SWA or AWA, and the Tucson airport and economy suffer.

AA/DFW can commision all of the studies it wants, but it controls this market and has given itself a virtual monopoly. It then uses this monopoly power to abuse the consumer.
 
1. In the early 1960s, as a result of its finding that Dallas’ and Fort Worth’s operation of competing airports was harmful to the public interest, the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) ordered the cities to build a jointly owned airport to serve the area’s needs.

2. The cities responded by creating the DFW Board in 1968 and adopting a Bond Ordinance to finance the construction of DFW. As an essential part of the Bond Ordinance, the cities agreed to phase out passenger air service at their existing airports. The interstate carriers using the Dallas and Fort Worth airports agreed to move their operations to DFW (which opened in 1973).

3. Despite the clear intention of the Cities and the cooperation of all other air carriers, Southwest Airlines (which began operating solely intrastate service from DAL in 1971) steadfastly refused to move its operations to DFW, leading to a series of long and expensive law suits in the 1970s. Southwest, by arguing that the CAB determinations and Bond Ordinance provisions did not apply because it only served intrastate markets, successfully thwarted the efforts of Dallas, Fort Worth, and DFW to fulfill the Bond Ordinance objective of consolidating passenger service at DFW. As a result of this litigation, Southwest continued to offer intrastate service from Love Field.

4. Shortly after Congress deregulated the airline industry in 1978, Southwest applied for permission to provide interstate service between Love Field and New Orleans, in clear contravention of the intention of the Cities (as set out in the Bond Ordinance).This action threatened yet another round of litigation and controversy regarding Love Field.

5. In order to put an end to the dispute and resolve all legal challenges, Texas Congressman Jim Wright negotiated a settlement among the interested parties. To make it binding, the agreement was codified into the so-called Wright Amendment (section 29 of the International Aviation Transportation Act of 1979).The law allowed Love Field to stay open instead of being closed down to commercial aviation as originally intended.

6. With the agreement of Southwest Airlines, the City of Dallas, the City of Fort Worth, the DFW Airport Board, and other interested parties, the Wright Amendment allowed the airport to remain open only so long as service would be limited to points in Texas and the four contiguous states.Without this amendment, the city of Dallas would have continued the process of closing Love Field. Since 1979, the only change to the law was the 1998 “Shelby Amendment” to allow service to an additional three close-by states and unrestricted flights on aircraft with less than 56 seats.
 
80drvr,

I always thought the WA was unfair and wrong. At least thats how its portrayed in "Nuts". If what you posted is factual, it seems to me that SWA is going back on their word. Also makes me question how much of "Nuts" is spin.
Not trying to flame SWA. Have a lot of friends there and wish them well. The above post just makes me re-evaluate some of my notions of SWA. Can anyone confirm if the above post is true?
 
I think the above post by 80dvr and my own fumbling attempts are posted for exactly that reason. There's more to this story than apdsm posts. I'm sure you can see the obvious spin on both Southwest and AA's respective sides. I just ask that all of you dig a little deeper and form your own opinions.
 
boz, 80driver, etc. The WA is NOT a SWA vs AA thing. The WA is simply metroplex politics. It's about political power, money, clout, patronige, etc. I doubt that the DFW people care about AA, but they do care about DFW.

I don't know about the under the table deals that lead to the Wright Amendment, but as am observer of Texas politics, I'm fairly certain that the WA had more to do with his personal power than it did anything else.

From my perspective, even if SWA agreed to the terms of the WA, things do change and they should be allowed to attempt to adapt accordingly. SWA isn't just ignoring the WA and doing what they wish(like Crew Scheduling ignores a contract:)), they are attempting to use an above board process to change a regulation. I seen nothing disengenuous about trying to adapt to a changing business environment. If they resort to bribery or extortion, then I'll condem them.

Additionally, as I've previously stated; I wish that SWA would move it's HQ and metroplex operation to Midlothian or Waxahachie, or maybe Lancaster. The Dallas political machine doesn't appreciate SWA. I'd love to see the look on John Wiley Price's, et al, face if SWA pulled out of Love.

Maybe Waco would build Colleen a terminal, who knows.

regards, and don't forget this isn't about SWA vs AA, it's Dallas vs FtWorth, it's about Tarrant vs Dallas Counties, and it's about maintaining power for the DFW airport masters.

enigma
 

Latest resources

Back
Top