Big-name politicians line up behind Southwest in Dallas flight battle

[FlyBoeingJets]

Now that Southwest is the healthiest US carrier they want to change the rules.


I've never been to DAL and don't know how big the airport is, but would WN be so eager to change the rules if it meant giving up gates? What if it meant being slot restricted?

I think Mugs' post authored by Jim Wright says it all. The ammendment should not be repealed.

GP

That Jim Wright article has been posted on this site many times. The more I read it the more the contradictions stand out. Sure, praise Jim Wright for doing something that was needed back in the day. You miss the whole point of the Wright Amendment if you support it now. It was meant to protect a young new airport and the bond holders. DFW has made and is still making TONS of cash. It is not only viable but dominant and monopolistic. And it wants to stay that way.

Assuming an amendment should stand unchanged until the end of the world is ridiculous.

This argument is pure politics with facts and tales from the past thrown in to confuse folks. I've had enough of it. Please stop this "Deal is Deal" nonsense


The hatred of Southwest is alive and well and you'all are hiding behind this less than useful Jim Wright article. Give it up.

 

[SWA/FO]

Our F/As would never make an announcement like that. I believe they have even been told not to talk about the wright admendment on the PAs.

 

[Buckaroo]

Our F/As would never make an announcement like that. I believe they have even been told not to talk about the wright admendment on the PAs.

That's a bunch of crap. Colleen sent out a memo stating that she wants all F/A's to address the 'Set Love Free' website and bring attention to the issues regarding the Wright Amendment. The only thing she asked them not to do is pass the TX petition around since only TX residents can sign it.

 

[SWAnnabee]

If I am wrong on some of these facts then I appologize. I have done a lot of research on this and one of the things that makes this issue so polarizing is that there are many points of view on just what the actual reason for creating the WA is.


The way I understand it, an agreement was made, before SWA even existed, to close the airports in the D/FW area to commercial traffic and build DFW international. SWA came into existence after these agreements but, due to the wording of these agreements and changes to the structure of the US air traffic and regulation system, SWA, due to esentially a loophole, was able to claim that these agreements did not apply to them. So, there is an issue of fairness to other business entities and communities in the DFW area that made financial commitments to building and operating from DFW that SWA was getting out of haveing to ALSO commit to.

The WA was a way of making a compromise that all parties could live with while not giving anyone an advantage. SWA would be allowed to operate out of Love, where others had agreed to move from, but in exchange for this BENEFIT, would be restricted in the connections out of Love Field. It's kind of like the saying, "If both parties are not happy, then its a fair deal". I just see it as SWA trying to have its cake and eat it too.

Yes, it might not seem fair that SWA is restricted in its flights from Love, but it would also not be fair to let one airline operate unrestricted from Love when others were made to leave. And remember, the WA was not written to specifically restrict SWA, its a restriction on ANY carrier operating from LOVE. ANd besides, isn't the same type of thing in effect at other airports throughout the nation that have similar circumstances?

If I am wrong on any of this please correct me but, it just seems that SWA is breaking an agreement. Whether SWA likes it or not is not the point. Heck, I don't like paying property tax, but I AGREED to it when I made the decision to buy a house. If I didn't like it, I didn't have to buy, just like SWA didn't have to operate from Love. Now many will argue that the alternative was to operate from DFW where SWA would have faced more competition and probably not survive, so the decided to stay at Love. This was the benefit, and the restrictions on Love were the compromise. Take it or leave it. Just like I could rent if I don't like paying the taxes. I made my bed and have to lie in it. SWA should also. Again, if I am wrong on any of this then please correct me.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Heck, I don't like paying property tax, but I AGREED to it when I made the decision to buy a house. If I didn't like it, I didn't have to buy...

....Just like I could rent if I don't like paying the taxes. I made my bed and have to lie in it.

I don't agree with your analogy. In California you pay property taxes based on the purchase price of your home. If you've lived there 30 years you pay 1/10 the tax someone will pay buying the house next to you.

This is due to how the law was changed and the aggressiveness of those who wanted it changed. If you are active enough you too can work changes to how your property taxes are assessed.

If you choose to be passive, that's o.k. But don't expect everyone to be that way.

 

[beytzim]

Talk about living in the past. This bozo, Jim Wright, was obviously quite against deregulation. Just listen to him:

"Then came 1978. A movement -- quietly supported by the economically dominant airlines and a group of laissez-faire economists -- to deregulate U.S. aviation was gathering steam.

The CAB saw to it that all markets were served, that fares were reasonable and that no airline was allowed to monopolize service.
A bill to effectively abolish the CAB's work swept through the House. Suddenly, prevailing aviation laws would expire, and we'd simply let any airline fly from and to wherever it wished and charge whatever fares it might choose."

Jim Wright just made an amendment to bypass deregulation for his consituent's interests. Twenty six years later and he still thinks the aviation industry needs to be regulated. What a crock!

I can't believe anyone in his right mind actually agrees with this guy. If you do then you obviously support REregulation of the aviation industry.

 

[J3CubCapt]

[size=+2] Wright says law is fine as is [/size] [size=-1] 12:16 AM CDT on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 Dallas Morning News [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

WASHINGTON – Former House Speaker Jim Wright, the Fort Worth Democrat whose name is on the 1979 law restricting flights at Dallas Love Field, remains skeptical of any attempt to alter the law.

He recalled this week that when Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport was planned, the Federal Aviation Administration was so concerned about crowding that it tried to withhold funding unless Love Field was closed.

Even now, Mr. Wright said, "I think it's inherently unsafe" to have two airports so close together offering long-haul flights.

Mr. Wright said he is also concerned that the controversy is hurting relations between Dallas and Fort Worth, which joined forces to open D/FW in 1974.

"I thought when we got D/FW that we had outgrown that phase, and the dawn of cooperation had scattered the dark sides and competitiveness. I don't like the idea of there being bad feeling between our sides. I think it's childish."

Todd J. Gillman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey Jim, Have you ever heard of LGA, JFK and EWR? Is is really safe to have all three of those airports operating? Jim SHUT THE %^($ UP!


J3

 

[J3CubCapt]

Put in your vote at this poll!

http://www.nbc5.com/news/4740589/detail.html

J3

 

[aa73]

aa73,
Can you name PM me the flight number and the name of the FA that made the PA's. If you cannot, then I suggest you quit spreading things around that you cannot verify. I can only imagine what the PA will sound like next week!

No, I can't do that because it is second hand info from one of our pilots who was riding as a non rev on an ID90 with family, and he didn't release the flight #... but a letter was written to the People Dept quoting those exact PAs. I also hope it's not true because both of them are pretty lame things to say, especially the first one.... and especially considering our FAs don't "demean the competition" during important safety briefings.

If that person went ahead and sent the letter, I believe it has some credibility, otherwise it's our guy that's messed up for going through that kind of trouble.

Regards,
73

 

[SWAnnabee]

Please stop this "Deal is Deal" nonsense

*sigh* I weep for the future.

The hatred of Southwest is alive and well and you'all are hiding behind this less than useful Jim Wright article. Give it up.

I made a point of going out of my way to praise SWA for their superior business and operating practices. But, because I disagree with one particular decision on the part of SWA management, then it's "hatred". And by the way, deals can and do last forever. And some also change. The difference is that the ones that change do so at the consent of all parties involved. If you entered a deal to purchase a home for X amount of dollars at a fixed interest rate, I'll dang sure bet you would expect that to last forever, unless you too agreed to a change. Otherwise it should stand.



Weather you agree with the WA or not is not the point. The point is that an agreement was made that not only benefited the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and the other air carriers at the time but also SWA. It allowed SWA to operate out of Love Field which was slated to BE CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL AIR TRAFFIC. You guys that hate the WA so much fail to realize or admit that it was probably a major factor in SWA's initial survival. The alternative was to tell SWA it must operate out of DFW. An exception was made for SWA but with it came a restriction. Seems like a fair deal to me and one that SWA should continue to honor.



Again, if I am wrong on these details I would sincerely like to hear it and I can be persuaded to change my opinion.