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

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

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
TexaSWA said:
The glass that our house is constructed of is much thicker than that of our cross town competitor. And we dont throw nearly as many rocks.

In all seriousness though, the gate and flight limits are compromise brought on by politicians who were initially (and some who still are) opposed to the repeal.

Canyonblue,

I love SWA, have many friends there and I do not agree with the WA, at all. However, regarding the "throwing of rocks", I must note that lately some of your FAs have been making rather "low" PAs against AA in their pax briefings.
They are pretty lame, and hopefully they'll stop because our FAs certainly don't stoop this low:

"...smoking in the lavatories may subject you to a fine. If you can afford the fine, you could afford American Airlines. But you wouldn't want to get in a terrorist attack."

"Tampering with or disabling a lavatory smoke detector could result in a $2,000 ticket...and if you want that, you can just fly on American Airlines."
 
Last edited:
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!
 
aa73 said:
"...smoking in the lavatories may subject you to a fine. If you can afford the fine, you could afford American Airlines. But you wouldn't want to get in a terrorist attack."

I do find that one hard to believe. That would be pathetic and uncalled for.

"Tampering with or disabling a lavatory smoke detector could result in a $2,000 ticket...and if you want that, you can just fly on American Airlines."

I HAVE heard that one. But it not with AA, but Delta and that IS rather comical.
 
A deal is a deal

By Jim Wright

Special to the Star-Telegram
July 3, 2005

After spending 35 years in Congress, I long ago lost count of the number of sundry amendments I offered to various bills. Surely more than 100 of them became law. But these days, whenever people in Texas ask me to explain "the Wright Amendment," I know the one they mean.

That law was a 1979 effort to keep faith with the people of Fort Worth and Dallas, whose cities had acted in unison to build -- with the help of some $96 million from the federal government -- a truly world-class airport.

Our government had granted that money and its official sanction on the clearly stated condition that both cities pass legal ordinances permanently closing Dallas Love Field and Fort Worth's Meacham Field and Greater Southwest International Airport to all commercial passenger traffic.

Both city councils had done precisely that. Wanting something far better, safer, more modern and more serviceable for everyone in the region, they formally shut down the two old nearby airports to all but private flights.

Greater Southwest, an earlier attempt to popularize a midway airport for the two cities, would be subsumed as a sort of southerly appendage to the new Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, and it of course would no longer independently originate any commercial passenger flights.

The Federal Aviation Administration correctly foresaw the growth of long-distance and international travel, requiring larger and larger aircraft with longer radius-of-maneuver requirements that would create dangerously overlapping takeoff and landing patterns if both D/FW and Love were initializing passenger flights in large aircraft.

Concerned for safety and fearful of aerial traffic jams, the FAA demanded wider separation than the close physical proximity of Love and D/FW runways.

FAA spokesmen insisted, before signing off on the ambitious development plans for D/FW, that commercial passenger service at Love, Meacham and Greater Southwest be terminated altogether.

Those conditions having been met by the closing of the two old commercial airports, bonds were sold, guaranteeing their purchasers -- in writing, on the good faith and credit of the two cities -- that there would be no commercial passenger flights at Love, Greater Southwest or Meacham.

In 1974, residents of our two largest cities and other nearby towns celebrated the grand opening of D/FW Airport. It was a triumph of reason over greed, we told one another. It proved that we'd outgrown our childish feuds and finally buried our hatchets -- elsewhere than in one another's skulls.

Progressive leadership in both towns hailed the dawn of cooperation to drive away the long night of feuding. That old rivalry had fed for more than a century on a colorful if flinty-hearted past.

In the days when wagon trains were bringing settlers westward, Dallas merchants would regale westbound migrants with lurid tales of mortal danger and/or lethal boredom that lay in wait to devour them if they ventured as far as Fort Worth. They'd be scalped by Indians, eaten alive by wild animals or condemned to terminal stagnation.

Fort Worth, aside from being dangerous, was described as already dead itself -- so sleepy, according to one warning, that a panther had been seen dozing languidly in the middle of a downtown street.

To counter this verbal roadblock, Fort Worth organized teams of outriders to intercept the wagon trains east of Dallas and escort them to Fort Worth by a circuitous route that skirted any sight of the rival village.

Both towns whetted their competitive skills and reveled overly long in the two-way surfeit of one-upmanship.

When Dallas in 1936 hosted a yearlong exposition in honor of the Texas Centennial, Fort Worth countered with a gaudy Frontier Exposition of its own.

"Come to Dallas for culture," Fort Worth sloganeered, "but come to Fort Worth for fun."

An earlier attempt to operate a mutual airport had faltered in the late 1940s and early '50s. Runways had been located meticulously halfway between Fort Worth's Texas Hotel corner and the Adolphus Hotel corner in Dallas. Then Dallas discovered that the terminal building would face west from the centerline toward Fort Worth, and the deal was off!

Legend says that Fort Worth's No. 1 booster, publishing icon Amon G. Carter, carried his lunch in a paper sack when going to Dallas to avoid patronizing any Dallas eatery. And Dallas' merchant prince, Stanley Marcus, refused to order merchandise from any company whose salesman had flown into the midway airport, known variously as "Greater Southwest Regional Airport" and "Amon Carter Field."

But in 1974, we all mutually rejoiced that we were, at last, singing from the same hymn book and working together!

In this euphoric spirit, things rested -- until the intercession of a state agency known as the Texas Aeronautics Commission. That now-defunct commission, on being petitioned by Southwest Airlines, ordered Dallas to reopen Love Field for use by Southwest, which then was headed by Lamar Muse.

The state commission's edict had to be obeyed by the cited city, but it had no jurisdiction outside Texas.

If Southwest had wanted to establish out-of-state schedules, it could have done so by flying from D/FW, just as all the other airlines were doing. At the time, however, Southwest was principally interested in launching flights linking Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

Meanwhile, freed from certain landing fees that helped pay off the D/FW bonds, Southwest adopted "no-frill" service, advertised low rates and began to flourish. Its owners began to dream of interstate flights.

All its Love Field destinations were in Texas. Invited to use D/FW, the management expressed little interest.

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.

From the birth of the federally subsidized industry, scheduled passenger flights and fares had been approved and closely monitored in the interest of the flying public by the Civil Aeronautics Board, just as safety matters were monitored by the FAA. The CAB saw to it that all markets were served, that fares were reasonable and that no airline was allowed to monopolize service.

President Carter, somewhat surprisingly, endorsed the concept of deregulation. 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.

Civic leaders, frequent travelers, mayors and city council members from Fort Worth and Dallas saw this as a potential danger to D/FW's contractual agreements. If any company could fly anywhere it wanted out of a reopened Love Field, this could easily renew all the old cutthroat battles that the international airport had been created to settle.

In 1979, this group of concerned citizens came to me for help.

My original amendment, the one that initially passed the House, would have prohibited any interstate commercial passenger flights to or from any airport within a 20-mile radius of D/FW. It was enthusiastically supported by the official leadership of Fort Worth and Dallas.

It set off, however, a massive lobbying effort in the Senate, which rejected the amendment as written and called for a conference committee to resolve differences.

It was at this point that my office participated in discussions with every party at interest, seeking a solution that everyone would recognize as fair. Through these negotiations, we ultimately reached an agreement that all parties embraced.

It allowed Love Field to serve interstate traffic limited to turnaround service between Love and the contiguous states: Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. This restriction applied equally to Southwest and all airlines.

Southwest was not singled out in any way.

Herb Kelleher -- founder, legal counsel and longtime leader of Southwest -- expressed satisfaction. He'd won a significant victory. And he was welcome, even overtly encouraged, to expand into other states with longer-range flights into and out of D/FW Airport.

Southwest is still welcome there. That Southwest has chosen not to accept the invitation has been entirely of its own volition.

That's about all there is to the "Wright Amendment." This compromise was designed to be in perpetuity, to settle once and for all this very divisive issue.

Continued, next post.....
 
(Continued from previous post)


Although I was not personally involved in all of the negotiations with the parties, which included the Dallas and Fort Worth city councils, affected airlines and federal agency representatives, my office was represented in all of them.

It was well understood by each and every party, including Southwest Airlines, that this was an agreement that was to put this issue to rest once and for all, that all parties would abide by it and that none would attempt to unravel it.

At least, this was my understanding. My friend Herb Kelleher remembers it somewhat differently.

Herb, in my view, is a thoroughly honorable person. Who is to say that I am right and he is wrong?

I have no hostility toward Southwest. It offers splendid services -- well-run, on time, reasonably priced.

If its investors want to inaugurate long, cross-country flights from our market, that's fine with me. Just let them fly, like all the others, out of and into the airport that our region's taxpayers, and others, built for that precise purpose. Let them charge whatever fares they wish, be just as competitive as they can.

But we shouldn't need to pay for two international airports, or have to compromise regional passenger safety by overlapping takeoff and landing patterns.

Besides, a deal is a deal. And this one was a good deal.

A guy named Jim Wright has no proprietary ownership of this agreement. It was a compromise hammered out by a lot of people. Equally fair to everyone, it treats all airline carriers alike.

I don't have a current figure on just how much has been invested in D/FW Airport, but I'll assure you of this: It's well into the billions. And I can't tell you how exactly much it has brought to the economies of our neighboring counties, but this is certain: It's in the multiple billions!

Every resident of North Texas has a big investment in D/FW Airport and both a financial and civic interest in its future.

Sometimes I wish I were as wise as Solomon. Then maybe I'd know how to make everybody happy with our human efforts to compromise and get along. Unfortunately, Solomon was not on the faculty at Weatherford College or the University of Texas when I was a student at those institutions.

Who knows? Even if I had enrolled in his course, I might have flunked it.
Jim Wright is a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. PO Box 1413 Fort Worth, TX 76101
 
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
 
yaks said:
How hypocritical of SWA to support the repeal while also supporting the limits on gates and flights so they (still) won't really have to compete with anyone out of LUV. How ironic that they are now committing the same types of deeds they once railed against when they were getting started.

WTFO? Documentation to support your opinion please?
 
GuppyPuppy said:
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?

Would AA allow any of this at DFW? DAL is a tiny airport that cannot support much growth. I can't believe that anyone would believe Jim Wright, especially when his lips are moving.:rolleyes:
 
Mugs said:
or have to compromise regional passenger safety by overlapping takeoff and landing patterns.

uh ha haa hhahaa HA HHAA HA huh hu...

sorry, it just looked so funny seeing it in writing.
 
Last Thurs night we got on a UAL bus from DFW to ORD, i put on the headphones and listened to ground.
We were directed to 35L and got half way down when they switched us to 36L so we had to taxi accross the bridge to the other side of the airport.
All the while we are taxing they are telling planes to pull up and shut down.
Our Cpt. is really ripping DFW air traffic control but the pass. don't seem to care much.
We find 38 planes ahead of us with about a 2 hr. delay and 47 planes behind us on just this runway!
In between the pleas of crews with their wheels up times someone came on the freq. and said " And they want SWA to come here".
We were the last to get off 36L when they turned the airport around with a wind shift and T-storms to the South.
Anyone know what the rest of the night was like there and what caused the mess?
 
I have a lot of friends working at Southwest. I fly on Southwest when I travel. I think Southwest currently has the most viable business model in the industry. I think their work ethic, service, management, and style are examples of what EVERY industry in this country should attempt to emulate.

That being said, I am disappointed in Southwest Airlines' attempt to repeal the WA.

It's kind of like hearing a child tell his or her first lie. You still love them but are a little disappointed at the same time. The WA was an AGREEMENT that the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas, as well as Southwest Airlines and Herb, agreed to.

Those conditions having been met by the closing of the two old commercial airports, bonds were sold, guaranteeing their purchasers -- in writing, on the good faith and credit of the two cities -- that there would be no commercial passenger flights at Love, Greater Southwest or Meacham.


There was never any inclusion in the ammendment to set a time frame or a cut-off date. If there was ever any intent for such, Herb and Southwest Airlines management at the time would have asked for it, along with asking for the right to fly to the adjoining states. They did not.

It was well understood by each and every party, including Southwest Airlines, that this was an agreement that was to put this issue to rest once and for all, that all parties would abide by it and that none would attempt to unravel it.



So why should this agreement, signed off by Herb himsef, now be repealed? Like the above post stated, a deal is a deal. Southwest Airlines, asking to repeal the WA, is attempting to break a deal. And this, in my opinion, goes against all the claims to fairness and honest business practice that Southwest Airlines is known for.

I know you guys that work there have a vested interest to see your compamy prosper, as well you should. Well, your wish has been granted over these many years through your hard work and dedication to your company and it's customers. So why do this with the WA?

To continue with this campaign, to me, is a sign of greed and breaking your word. And if it continues, it will blemish an otherwise stellar image of a great airline.

There was a time in this country when a persons word was their bond. Two men could simply look each other in the eye, make a verbal agreement, and shake on it. Unfortunately, our society today is based more on what a person can get away with, regardless of their word. Even written legal contracts today are worth little more than the paper they are printed on.

I would never teach my kids to go back on their word or break a deal, regardless of the potential monetary gain. Some things, like integrity, are worth more than money. And lets all be very honest here. That is EXACTLY what the repeal of the WA is all about, breaking ones word to make an extra buck. Not safety, not better service, just greed. Sorry, but thats JMHO. Flame away.

Besides, a deal is a deal.
 
Last edited:
The WA was an AGREEMENT that the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas, as well as Southwest Airlines and Herb, agreed to.


SWA and Herb didn't agree with it, they had to live with it. The co. wasn't around when they made everyone sign an agreement to move to DFW. The WA did it's job. Now there is not purpose in it.
 
boz, I luv ya man, but I'd like to suggest that you research the history of DFW and the WA before you take Jim Wrights word as the last word on the subject.

The WA is an after the fact deal. The first phrase you quote was referencing the original agreement to build DFW, and SWA had no part of that agreement if I understand correctly. The WA itself came about ten or so years later, and SWA did "agree" to it. Most likely because they had NO choice.

There is a lot of good info right here on FI. Do a search, or google it. There's a whole lot more to the conflict between Ft. Worth, Dallas, AA, and SWA than Jim Wright leads you to believe.

enigma
 
bozt45 said:
I have a lot of friends working at Southwest. I fly on Southwest when I travel. I think Southwest currently has the most viable business model in the industry. I think their work ethic, service, management, and style are examples of what EVERY industry in this country should attempt to emulate.

That being said, I am disappointed in Southwest Airlines' attempt to repeal the WA.

It's kind of like hearing a child tell his or her first lie. You still love them but are a little disappointed at the same time. The WA was an AGREEMENT that the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas, as well as Southwest Airlines and Herb, agreed to.

Those conditions having been met by the closing of the two old commercial airports, bonds were sold, guaranteeing their purchasers -- in writing, on the good faith and credit of the two cities -- that there would be no commercial passenger flights at Love, Greater Southwest or Meacham.


There was never any inclusion in the ammendment to set a time frame or a cut-off date. If there was ever any intent for such, Herb and Southwest Airlines management at the time would have asked for it, along with asking for the right to fly to the adjoining states. They did not.

It was well understood by each and every party, including Southwest Airlines, that this was an agreement that was to put this issue to rest once and for all, that all parties would abide by it and that none would attempt to unravel it.



So why should this agreement, signed off by Herb himsef, now be repealed? Like the above post stated, a deal is a deal. Southwest Airlines, asking to repeal the WA, is attempting to break a deal. And this, in my opinion, goes against all the claims to fairness and honest business practice that Southwest Airlines is known for.

I know you guys that work there have a vested interest to see your compamy prosper, as well you should. Well, your wish has been granted over these many years through your hard work and dedication to your company and it's customers. So why do this with the WA?

To continue with this campaign, to me, is a sign of greed and breaking your word. And if it continues, it will blemish an otherwise stellar image of a great airline.

There was a time in this country when a persons word was their bond. Two men could simply look each other in the eye, make a verbal agreement, and shake on it. Unfortunately, our society today is based more on what a person can get away with, regardless of their word. Even written legal contracts today are worth little more than the paper they are printed on.

I would never teach my kids to go back on their word or break a deal, regardless of the potential monetary gain. Some things, like integrity, are worth more than money. And lets all be very honest here. That is EXACTLY what the repeal of the WA is all about, breaking ones word to make an extra buck. Not safety, not better service, just greed. Sorry, but thats JMHO. Flame away.

Besides, a deal is a deal.

I am very disappointed in your opinion. Not calling you a liar, just misguided and fearful of change.

Tell me where in the Wright Amendment it says no one should EVER challenge it?

A deal is a deal? Give me a break. You are trying to tell me every law and amendment passed should never be re-evaluated. Then you tell me its lying to try to legally and respectfully change a law or amendment. That is not how laws work in a Democracy.

You are right saying the WA had no time limit when passed. But that doesn't mean it should never be changed. Maybe it means it should have been changed when there was longer a need for it. And that date long since passed.
 
Last edited:
bozt45 said:
I know you guys that work there have a vested interest to see your compamy prosper, as well you should. Well, your wish has been granted over these many years through your hard work and dedication to your company and it's customers. So why do this with the WA?

To continue with this campaign, to me, is a sign of greed and breaking your word. And if it continues, it will blemish an otherwise stellar image of a great airline.

Greed? Look at the profit AA and CAL are now starting to pull down. The recovery is here and SWA needs fairness to STAY IN THE GAME. AA and CAL will profit handsomely every year the WA stays in force.

I say it is the greed of AA and CAL that will benefit from WA support, not SWA and the repeal. Repeal will just make the marketplace more competitively neutral.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom