Southwest Airlines' Executive Chairman Herb Kelleher Testifies at Senate Subcommittee

[mdf]

I don't know why I bother, but here goes. For people who live in a free country there is no logical, I repeat no logical argument for the Wright Ammendment!:smash:

 

[Snoopy58]

Gotta comment on the "majority of citizens want SWA to fly out of DFW" line.

First, those numbers come from surveys taken at DFW by people already physically there to fly. Not couched as "do you favor repealing Wright or SWA coming here," but simply "would you like to see SWA at DFW?" Well, in the absence of any reason for the average Joe to say "no," since it wouldn't seem to cost him anything, everyone who doesn't recognize this as a Wright argument is disguise is strongly prone to say, well, sure, why not, seems good to me. A more honest question would be, "would you prefer to fly longhauls on SWA from Love Field, or from DFW?"

Second, it's a pointless question. There are bills in both houses of Congress to repeal the Wright Amendment. There is no plan on the table anywhere that would force SWA to operate out of DFW. A couple of loonytoon legislators propose to shut down SWA at Love Field (and they're receiving exactly zero serious attention in Congress), but even that wouldn't force them to DFW, and "Would you like SWA to fly out of DFW" is NOT the same question as "Would you like to see SWA shut down at Love Field," and the results would be vastly different if the question were phrased that way.

Repealing Wright is a decision before Congress. Southwest operating out of DFW has been considered by Southwest & rejected, and they're the ones with the (well-established) right to make that decision. Trying to reject a bill before Congress because people seem to (also) like an idea that's not under consideration and won't happen (even if Wright remains) is pretty flawed logic.

The reporter at the Dallas News who writes on SWA & DFW & North Texas commercial aviation has said that if it were put to a vote, 85% of North Texans would vote to repeal Wright. Why? Lower fares, plain & simple.

"Would you like to see SWA flying out of DFW?" is about as relevant as asking "Would you like to inherit a million dollars?" when nobody you know has that kind of money.

 

[sf260pilot]

I think that if Eddie Bernice Johnson and the Moron from Tulsa got their way, and shut down Love field to "All Commercial Traffic" that SWA might just leave and wait for Dallas and Ft. Worth to come begging for the service that they used to have. This won't happen of course, but, SWA or WN, if you are so inclined, really feel that this is based on Free Market Economies, Free Trade, and basic American Values. I have had many retired AA pilots make this arguement for me. What Jim Wright did back in the late 70's was for all pratical purposes, with regards to business in the USA, illegal.
This is all Braniffs fault. They refused to move to Greater Southwest in the 60's and Ft. Worths own Jim Wright made sure that another Dallas based airline would not screw it up again. I have lived in both Ft. Worth as well as Dallas and I have one thing to say about this little rivalry. Dallas seems to love what Ft. Worth has to offer, Museums, Art, The Stockyards, Joe T's , and a downtown area that they want in Dallas. People in Ft. Worth really have a huge chip on their shoulder about being in the shadow of Dallas. Amon Carter is the reason. The terminal at GSW was called Amon Carter Field. YaDaYaDaYaDa!.......

 

[Hamburgler]

I agree that stats can be skewed any way you want them to be - and that people in a lot of polls either a) don't have/receive all the info they need to make a sound decision or are b) asked an unfair question.

Annnyway, that being said, I stand by my points from earlier. I think the hearings were an interesting insight into the players and their strategies - I just happen to believe that a deal is a deal, and that the economy, neighborhoods and airline customers would benefit from direct competition at DFW.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

I think the simple standard is this: If it were not a law today, would it merit being made into law?

I believe the answer for both the WA and age 60 is no.

 

[indiglo]

I agree that stats can be skewed any way you want them to be - and that people in a lot of polls either a) don't have/receive all the info they need to make a sound decision or are b) asked an unfair question.

Annnyway, that being said, I stand by my points from earlier. I think the hearings were an interesting insight into the players and their strategies - I just happen to believe that a deal is a deal, and that the economy, neighborhoods and airline customers would benefit from direct competition at DFW.

Hamburgler, I'll make you a deal. If you can prove that SWA made a "deal", I'll start a thread in your honor.

However, I don't believe that you can do so. SWA did NOT make a deal. Fort Worths own Jim Wright snuck the limitation language into another bill. SWA complied with the law, but was not in agreement with the law.

 

[Hamburgler]

Ok, that was a good one and you really got me thinking!! It's hard to look back that way though b/c it was all done b/c the community wanted to support one strong airport.

I think if SWA wants to keep short service at Love they should go for it, but come over to DFW and help consumers out by offering tons more flights from 2 airports and compete with other airlines so prices stay low for those of us flying!

I have to say that these threads DO make you really think about the issue inside and out - and I think we all appreciate it when comments stay above board and don't get nasty!

 

[canyonblue]

but come over to DFW and help consumers out by offering tons more flights from 2 airports and compete with other airlines so prices stay low for those of us flying!

Ok. But the so called "splitting of the hub" is detrimental to American, but ok for Southwest to operate out of 2 airports. uke:

 

[Hamburgler]

Hamburgler, I'll make you a deal. If you can prove that SWA made a "deal", I'll start a thread in your honor.

http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=208&search=Kelleher quotes

Very interesting article in its entirety, I think at the very least it shows that Herb didn't exactly get the wool pulled over his eyes and knows the issues that this presents - and at the time Wright was passed issued some statements to the effect that SWA was pleased with the outcome - as the alternative was them getting booted to DFW to compete with the then-current big guns. Wright was born out of community interests around Love Field and to support DFW - two claims which I think stand today.

More recently (11/05) from the Dallas Star-Telegram:
"Kelleher, who maintains that he accepted the Wright Amendment in 1979 to keep his airline together, has been leading the campaign to repeal the law that limits long-haul flying out of Love Field."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/13141291.htm

And to SWA's credit, look where they are today - I think SWA dodged a bullet back in the day, and maybe it's finally time for them to compete with everyone else at DFW.

Ok, I have my Kevlar body armor on...

 

[flyingitalian]

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/13141291.htm

And to SWA's credit, look where they are today - I think SWA dodged a bullet back in the day, and maybe it's finally time for them to compete with everyone else at DFW.

If you call two victorious trips to the supreme court dodging a bullet only to be shot down by legislation pushed by the congressional rep from the area who also happend to be the mojority leader....OK.

Listen these other carriers would have moved to a bigger airport anyway, because of the size of Love field and the desire to fly equipment that requires a longer runway. Dont think this would have happened? They why did it happen at every other large city in the united states?

As far as Herbs comments about two full fledged hubs not being a good thing, I believe he stood by those comments and rightly said hey we are not a hub and spoke operator. We dont hub. If Amerian wants to split their hub well they are certainly free to do so, but it would not be positive for their profitability. They can operate just like they do in Houston, Chicago, New York, Miami, San Fran, Boston and in the past Dallas when they killed Legend.

The wright ammendment in wrong ,un american, un competitive, and antiquated...it needs to die.

 

[indiglo]

http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=208&search=Kelleher%20quotes

Very interesting article in its entirety, I think at the very least it shows that Herb didn't exactly get the wool pulled over his eyes and knows the issues that this presents - and at the time Wright was passed issued some statements to the effect that SWA was pleased with the outcome - as the alternative was them getting booted to DFW to compete with the then-current big guns. Wright was born out of community interests around Love Field and to support DFW - two claims which I think stand today.

More recently (11/05) from the Dallas Star-Telegram:
"Kelleher, who maintains that he accepted the Wright Amendment in 1979 to keep his airline together, has been leading the campaign to repeal the law that limits long-haul flying out of Love Field."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/13141291.htm

And to SWA's credit, look where they are today - I think SWA dodged a bullet back in the day, and maybe it's finally time for them to compete with everyone else at DFW.

Ok, I have my Kevlar body armor on...

'

"very interesting article in it's entirety"?????? Did you read it all? I started out with a Kevin Cox assertion, then proceeded to rebut said assertion for the next four paragraphs.

Next, accepting a situation is one hell of a long way away from agreeing to that situation.

Finally, words mean things. Read with a critical mind and you'll go far.

 

[Hamburgler]

I do fine with critical reading, just because we don't come out on the same side doesn't mean that either of us have comprehension issues.

I was careful to say that what I posted did not prove Kelleher signed off on Wright, but the *stand alone* quotes do show a modicum of understanding (at the least!) of the other side of the issue on the part of SWA. (It also shows, there ARE two sides to everything and everyone is entitled to their opinion, even on Flight Info!!

 

[Snoopy58]

Like Herb said in the hearings, he "accepted" the WA the same way the Germans "accepted" the end of World War One, i.e. with a gun to his head. To the extent that it didn't kill his airline, the WA was a compromise that he didn't have to oppose in order to survive, but that's a far, far cry from "a deal is a deal" and "agreeing" to never ever seek to have Congress relook the issue 25 years later!

The WA is a law, not a "deal," and a darned poor one at that. American opearating out of Love Field (when they came over to kill Legend) was a "deal." Delta operating a hub at DFW was a "deal." Circumstances change, and deals get renegotiated. Circumstances change, years pass, and laws get changed -- happens all the time. The WA got amended by Shelby, and now by Bond. Hopefully the next amendment will get rid of it entirely.

Set Love Free!

 

[Skyboss]

hey furloughed dude, SWA existed for about ten years before the WA came into being. The WA wasn't a part of the SWA business plan, it couldn't have been since it didn't exist when SWA was planned. SWA never asked for the WA, and it can be argued that the WA NEVER helped SWA. So why do you continue to try and spin the WA? I can be won over by a logical, well thought out, well presented argument; I'll never be persuaded by incorrect, unsubstantiated stuff like you write. Are you trying to make a point, or just being difficult?

The region never asked for DAL to stay open either, a lawyer did. A judge made a ruling on intrastate air travel for an airport that at the time making it a State issue. Times have changed, air commerce is now a Federal issue. Southwest is the one that didn't adapt. They should have been smacked 20+ years ago.

That do it for you???

 

[Skyboss]

The people who are pro-Wright Amendment......DFW, Ft. Worth, etc. are using the argument that DFW airport will suffer from repeal, and that the cities had a deal back in 1968. They keep stating this but yet they do not make their case very well. They sound like a bunch of little kids who keep saying,"that's not fair".

Isn't that what happened to keep the DAL money pit open in the first place. Someone stomping like a little kid who kept saying "that's not fair", and is to this day others saying "that's not fair".

I don't buy the "we're the little guy BS" either anymore.

 

[Hamburgler]

The "gun" to Herb's head was moving to DFW at a time when SWA arguably could not have played ball with the big boys. The "deal" allowed them to stay there and continue to grow, and I think everyone can agree that they made out on that front back in the day.

 

[canyonblue]

The "deal" allowed them to stay there and continue to grow,

Please stop using this stupid statement. There are 2 things that happened to SWA at Love.

1. We were asked to leave Love and go over to DFW. We said no and it stood up in court numerous times. That is an incontestable argument, the courts gave us the right to fly out of Love, no "deal".

2. The Speaker of the House Jimbob Wright helped his buddies at AA by squashing the new open skies of deregulation by regulating an airport, Love. We had to stay a Texas and a few select state airline for many years to come. Had the WA not taken place and we could fly non-stop to MDW, LAS, LAX etc. out of Love, I agree SWA would be a different airline today. We would be much bigger.

And who are you, Lowecurs son?

 

[Hamburgler]

haha, hardly! I've just kept up with this issue and am the vocal minority apparently!

Your two points are fact and are not disputable.

But, Wright was put in place for a reason, to support DFW and the local economy that stems from the airport. While DFW has grown a ton and is now a major airport, it is still important to support that. In the hearings, didn't they talk about how cities with one major airport (Minneapolis) in fact get more traffic than cities like Chicago and Washington? There is something to be said for the economy of an airport/community having everyone in one spot.

 

[ivauir]

. Southwest is the one that didn't adapt.

Riiiiiight.... too bad the facts don't back this hair brained opinions up AT ALL.

 

[canyonblue]

There is something to be said for the economy of an airport/community having everyone in one spot.

Yes, if you are the dominant carrier at that airport. The traveling public does not see it your way however, but feel free to continue to take up oxygen on this planet. Whats your background again? Insurance.uke: