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
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 The ammendment should not be repealed.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.
 
GuppyPuppy said:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
SWA/FO said:
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.
 
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.
 
bozt45 said:
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.
 
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.
 
[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
 
FlyinGuy said:
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
 
FlyBoeingJets said:
Please stop this "Deal is Deal" nonsense

*sigh* I weep for the future.


FlyBoeingJets said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top