lowecur
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Posts
- 2,317
The Wrong Amendment plays on at DFW, as the clerisy at SWA looks to manumit the flying public at SEA with a move to Boeing Field.
It's absolutely amazing to me that some pliant politicians feel it's in the best interests of their claque to allow the possibility of jeopardizing the fiscal stability of Sea-tac in order to establish their cabal.
Here are two articles that give an overall perspective of the possible guise of SWA and what the overall monetary ramifications to each metroplex might be. Note the sign off by SWA on the expansion of SEA not long ago, and now they want to leave the metroplex and other airlines with this excess monetary baggage to satisfy their cormorant behavior. Do they surely believe that other airlines won't follow their lead to Boeing Field, thus leaving the bond holders and taxpayers of the Metroplex holding the bag at Sea-Tac.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002339786_wested19.html
Sun, Jun. 19,
Pondering a mess of pottage at Love Field
By Paul Harral
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. Esau said to Jacob, "Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!" …
Jacob said, "First sell me your birthright." Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?" Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob.
Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.
-- Genesis 25:29-34, Revised Standard Version
I've always been a little confused by the above story -- not the meaning but the content. It's pretty clear from the phrase "red stuff" that we're talking about chili. But that part about lentils -- well, everyone knows that only a barbarian would eat chili with beans in it.
Maybe that is the point: Esau was a barbarian who lacked a penchant for what social scientists called "deferred gratification" and, for the sake of immediate satisfaction of a relatively minor need, gave away his future.
Why does this make me think of the Wright Amendment and the shortsighted effort by Southwest Airlines and some members of the Dallas establishment to undo it?
Because some of us are apparently willing to trade short-term satisfaction for a sure birthright.
Modern political and marketing strategy teaches us that the quick sound bite beats the reasoned argument. This doesn't necessarily make for good decision-making, good public policy or good politicians, but it works.
You buy soap, deodorant, underwear, beer, candidates, whatever because someone smart and slick packaged the product in a way that appeals to your gut instincts and lizard-brain desires.
But the arguments to counter the quick-hit emotional appeal often involve complicated discussions that can't be captured in 30 seconds or on a billboard.
Everyone who cares to know knows that lifting the restrictions on flights from Dallas Love Field would result in lower air fares for the region. Two different studies by competing interests say so -- and so does simple common sense.
But that's half the question. The other half is: "At what price?"
Potential loss of good-paying Tarrant County jobs? Reduced choice of easily accessible destinations from Dallas/Fort Worth Airport? Financial problems for Tarrant County's largest employer, American Airlines? Difficulty in paying off the bonds issued that financed a new international terminal and an airport people-moving system?.
The Star-Telegram Editorial Board met earlier this month with members of the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce, which is proposing that the Wright Amendment be repealed, opening Love Field to long-haul flights.
Never mind that when the federal government forced the shotgun marriage of Dallas and Fort Worth that built D/FW, its intent was to have a single major airport serve the region.
Never mind that the Dallas master plan for Love Field limiting it to 32 gates is just paper and could be changed at will by Dallas -- or through legal action if another carrier besides Southwest decides it wants more gates at Love.
Never mind that in fact -- although I've heard the "economic engine" phrase so many times that it makes me want to hurl -- it was D/FW that opened the western side of the Metroplex and the northern tier of counties above Dallas and Tarrant counties to development.
You hear this argument played out as cheap seats vs. expensive seats. And that is where the proponents would like to fight it -- because that's easy.
But that is only part of the issue.
You also hear that this isn't a Fort Worth-vs.-Dallas issue. But it is. The stakes are different on the west side of the Metroplex, and Dallasites sometimes seem surprised at the reaction that this issue stirs in Fort Worth.
It's simple history.
Fort Worth lived in the shadow of Dallas until the development of D/FW. The expansion on the west side of the Metroplex might have happened without the airport, but certainly not with the speed with which it has occurred.
The initial mistake was made in the original bond covenants, which restricted commercial traffic that was governed by the old Civil Aeronautics Board to D/FW. Southwest was not required to sign. It was flying only in Texas and operating under the Texas Aeronautics Commission.
Here's how it looks from a Fort Worth perspective: Love Field stayed open, and Greater Southwest International Airport was shut down.
The Wright Amendment worked around that. Sort of.
The initial mistake was compounded by D/FW management and the airport board in 1999 when they amended the 1968 bond covenant that established D/FW. The change removed the provision that obligated Dallas and Fort Worth to impose additional city taxes if the airport were unable to pay for its own operation and maintenance expenses.
That provision had never been used, nor was it likely to be. But it did keep the cities on the hook financially -- and financial responsibility tends to focus your attention.
The Star-Telegram said editorially at the time:
"[T]his change is not crucial to the ability to issue new bonds and therefore is an unnecessary change of public policy. It is not wise for the owner cities to have too little responsibility toward the airport."
Earlier this month, North Dallas Chamber member Stephen Joiner said that Dallas owns one airport 100 percent and D/FW 70 percent -- actually it is seven-11ths, or 63.6 percent -- and needs to manage its assets well.
And Fort Worth owns … what? Four-11ths of D/FW -- and no other airport that has scheduled commercial passenger traffic.
Without financial responsibility, I'm not sure that the cities really own anything except the right to name people to the airport board.
Joiner is apparently a nice man, and I'm sure he didn't mean his words the way that Fort Worth ears heard them: We own the airports, and we'll do what's best for Dallas -- and never mind the region.
Unknown or perhaps disregarded is the impact that a weakened D/FW might have on corporate locations and relocations. I don't think downtown Dallas is the option that it once was. So maybe they go somewhere else.
And the operations at Love would certainly ramp up. Right now, the majority of American Airlines' frequent fliers live closer to Love than to D/FW.
That won't be the case in the future. But in the short term, the very aggressive and competitive managers at American will do what they have to do to serve those customers.
They've already said they will move flights from D/FW to Love, and they also are ready to sue, if necessary, for gate access.
Maybe there would be no general regional impact, although most everyone agrees that there would be a short-term and severe one at D/FW.
But -- if you live in the western half of the Metroplex -- do you want to gamble on that?
I don't -- especially in this economic climate.
It's absolutely amazing to me that some pliant politicians feel it's in the best interests of their claque to allow the possibility of jeopardizing the fiscal stability of Sea-tac in order to establish their cabal.
Here are two articles that give an overall perspective of the possible guise of SWA and what the overall monetary ramifications to each metroplex might be. Note the sign off by SWA on the expansion of SEA not long ago, and now they want to leave the metroplex and other airlines with this excess monetary baggage to satisfy their cormorant behavior. Do they surely believe that other airlines won't follow their lead to Boeing Field, thus leaving the bond holders and taxpayers of the Metroplex holding the bag at Sea-Tac.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002339786_wested19.html
Sun, Jun. 19,
Pondering a mess of pottage at Love Field
By Paul Harral
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. Esau said to Jacob, "Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!" …
Jacob said, "First sell me your birthright." Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?" Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob.
Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.
-- Genesis 25:29-34, Revised Standard Version
I've always been a little confused by the above story -- not the meaning but the content. It's pretty clear from the phrase "red stuff" that we're talking about chili. But that part about lentils -- well, everyone knows that only a barbarian would eat chili with beans in it.
Maybe that is the point: Esau was a barbarian who lacked a penchant for what social scientists called "deferred gratification" and, for the sake of immediate satisfaction of a relatively minor need, gave away his future.
Why does this make me think of the Wright Amendment and the shortsighted effort by Southwest Airlines and some members of the Dallas establishment to undo it?
Because some of us are apparently willing to trade short-term satisfaction for a sure birthright.
Modern political and marketing strategy teaches us that the quick sound bite beats the reasoned argument. This doesn't necessarily make for good decision-making, good public policy or good politicians, but it works.
You buy soap, deodorant, underwear, beer, candidates, whatever because someone smart and slick packaged the product in a way that appeals to your gut instincts and lizard-brain desires.
But the arguments to counter the quick-hit emotional appeal often involve complicated discussions that can't be captured in 30 seconds or on a billboard.
Everyone who cares to know knows that lifting the restrictions on flights from Dallas Love Field would result in lower air fares for the region. Two different studies by competing interests say so -- and so does simple common sense.
But that's half the question. The other half is: "At what price?"
Potential loss of good-paying Tarrant County jobs? Reduced choice of easily accessible destinations from Dallas/Fort Worth Airport? Financial problems for Tarrant County's largest employer, American Airlines? Difficulty in paying off the bonds issued that financed a new international terminal and an airport people-moving system?.
The Star-Telegram Editorial Board met earlier this month with members of the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce, which is proposing that the Wright Amendment be repealed, opening Love Field to long-haul flights.
Never mind that when the federal government forced the shotgun marriage of Dallas and Fort Worth that built D/FW, its intent was to have a single major airport serve the region.
Never mind that the Dallas master plan for Love Field limiting it to 32 gates is just paper and could be changed at will by Dallas -- or through legal action if another carrier besides Southwest decides it wants more gates at Love.
Never mind that in fact -- although I've heard the "economic engine" phrase so many times that it makes me want to hurl -- it was D/FW that opened the western side of the Metroplex and the northern tier of counties above Dallas and Tarrant counties to development.
You hear this argument played out as cheap seats vs. expensive seats. And that is where the proponents would like to fight it -- because that's easy.
But that is only part of the issue.
You also hear that this isn't a Fort Worth-vs.-Dallas issue. But it is. The stakes are different on the west side of the Metroplex, and Dallasites sometimes seem surprised at the reaction that this issue stirs in Fort Worth.
It's simple history.
Fort Worth lived in the shadow of Dallas until the development of D/FW. The expansion on the west side of the Metroplex might have happened without the airport, but certainly not with the speed with which it has occurred.
The initial mistake was made in the original bond covenants, which restricted commercial traffic that was governed by the old Civil Aeronautics Board to D/FW. Southwest was not required to sign. It was flying only in Texas and operating under the Texas Aeronautics Commission.
Here's how it looks from a Fort Worth perspective: Love Field stayed open, and Greater Southwest International Airport was shut down.
The Wright Amendment worked around that. Sort of.
The initial mistake was compounded by D/FW management and the airport board in 1999 when they amended the 1968 bond covenant that established D/FW. The change removed the provision that obligated Dallas and Fort Worth to impose additional city taxes if the airport were unable to pay for its own operation and maintenance expenses.
That provision had never been used, nor was it likely to be. But it did keep the cities on the hook financially -- and financial responsibility tends to focus your attention.
The Star-Telegram said editorially at the time:
"[T]his change is not crucial to the ability to issue new bonds and therefore is an unnecessary change of public policy. It is not wise for the owner cities to have too little responsibility toward the airport."
Earlier this month, North Dallas Chamber member Stephen Joiner said that Dallas owns one airport 100 percent and D/FW 70 percent -- actually it is seven-11ths, or 63.6 percent -- and needs to manage its assets well.
And Fort Worth owns … what? Four-11ths of D/FW -- and no other airport that has scheduled commercial passenger traffic.
Without financial responsibility, I'm not sure that the cities really own anything except the right to name people to the airport board.
Joiner is apparently a nice man, and I'm sure he didn't mean his words the way that Fort Worth ears heard them: We own the airports, and we'll do what's best for Dallas -- and never mind the region.
Unknown or perhaps disregarded is the impact that a weakened D/FW might have on corporate locations and relocations. I don't think downtown Dallas is the option that it once was. So maybe they go somewhere else.
And the operations at Love would certainly ramp up. Right now, the majority of American Airlines' frequent fliers live closer to Love than to D/FW.
That won't be the case in the future. But in the short term, the very aggressive and competitive managers at American will do what they have to do to serve those customers.
They've already said they will move flights from D/FW to Love, and they also are ready to sue, if necessary, for gate access.
Maybe there would be no general regional impact, although most everyone agrees that there would be a short-term and severe one at D/FW.
But -- if you live in the western half of the Metroplex -- do you want to gamble on that?
I don't -- especially in this economic climate.
Last edited:
