What if SWA was to Move from Dallas? Pt 1

[Wingsweep]

This isn't rocket science

I say run the buisness like you fly the airplane: If you can save one mile, one gallon of gas, one minute, or one dollar, while keeping the customers happy, then do it if it's safe and legal. If I were a Texas legislator, I'd spend about 5 minutes on the same calculations SWA management is looking at. Then, I would do the right thing...so to speak...

 

[SWAnnabee]

Chase,
Yes, it was just a question of the tone. Thanks for not comming out with both barrels blasting. It was an honest question. I think that it would be ill advised to bring this issue up as a "repeal or we will leave" platform. Just wanted to illustrate how it was sounding. Regardless of anyone's position on the WA, please help SWA keep its integrity. It's one of the few carriers that hasn't compromised that.

 

[NTXPilot]

Not counting any crazy incentive being offered like the article talks about, if you had to guess at this point, what do you think the order for new cities would be? If SWA did move just curious if they would stay in Texas.

1)SAT
2)HOU
3)MDW

 

[chase]

Botz45,

I would agree the tone or I should say, the approach that SWA is taking in this endeavor is definitely different & some would say, aggressive in how it has been marketed....SWA has developed over the years a reputation of good will & being an honest broker with a smile on their face whenever they have dealt with difficult issues. I hope our customer service is done with a smile but as illustrated with the recent incident with the lady who was removed from the flight for wearing an obscene shirt, SWA isn't afraid to wave the "logic test" flag to say...this doesn't make sense....sorry if we offend you but you've got to get off our airplane.


To some that would appear to be "non-luvish" when in reality it staying true to what the company believes in...the golden rule (no we're not puritanical & holy-than-though I believe)......I wouldn't want my mother to see me wearing a shirt like that so why would I want my customers to see it!!!!

We're trying our best to work with the local folks/companies to come around to our view but at the end of the day Southwest will do what it has to do to honor its shareholders, employees & customers....I'm glad they do have the courage & not be "blackmailed" by the city of Dallas into doing something that doesn't make economic sense.

We'd still fly out of Dallas & DFW would grow, Love would shrink & more LLC would go into DFW but what happened then if we decided to move into Alliance Field...does anyone think for a moment that Ross Perot wouldn't love to have a major airline out there? What would Dallas say then? We let the Cowboys get away & now SWA? What were we thinking? (BTW, I'm not for public spending to keep the Cowboys inside of Dallas, many are)...the bottom line is that the city of Dallas & the residents of North Texas need to keep all of this in mind...would you prefer to depend on AA to continue providing air service to everywhere in the US with some marginal LLC flying out there or would folks rather have a healthy LLC like SWA flying out Love to all over, have other carriers out of Love & probably in turn have more competition & lower air fares at DFW in the long run to points around....the choice will be made for them if they don't speak up & out....the sad thing is that folks in other parts of the country who fly into DFW don't realized they are being taken...they aren't even aware they are paying some of the highest fares in the country.

Sorry for the long windedness & thanks again for taking my comments the right way....I believe most of us at SWA are very grateful & thankful for the fortunate situation we're in...we are constantly reminded of it & recognize the blessing I believe. I think we'd just like to be left alone to do what we do best, compete with as few restrictions as possible.....if that is unfair to AA I'd like to understand why if it is wrong to change the rules now, why they didn't feel that way years ago when the rules were "changed" to benefit them? Seems a return to status quo would be a "fair" thing to do but that argument is still going on....good luck to you in your aviation pursuit & thanks for the open & honest debate...cheers,

 

[erj-145mech]

Ummm, Southwest began operations in 1971, the Wright Ammendment was enacted in response to de-regulation in 1978. Southwest DID NOT know about if from the get go.

They were bound by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) regs until de-regulation which happened in 1978. The Wright Ammendment is an extension of the CAB.

Some people love the taste of company kool aid.

 

[Rex Kramer]

Chase,

I appreciate all your insight. You are a voice of reason in a world gone awry.

C

 

[chase]

They were bound by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) regs until deregulation which happened in 1978. The Wright Amendment is an extension of the CAB.

Some people love the taste of company kool aid.

ERJ-145mech,

I saw your comment and find it puzzling but it brings up an opportunity for me to learn something....I went off & did some research (thanks for the motivation) and found the clip I posted below. Yes the CAB remained in existence until 1984 when it was finally dissolved since it was no longer regulating anything (amazing it took nearly 6 years for a government entity to finally go out of existence even when it was legislated out 6 years earlier!).

However your statement that the restrictions imposed by the WA were an extension of the CAB governance is not completely true I believe. The intent of what the Deregulation Act was suppose to do is stated below along with some history (I highlighted in red the key phrase).

In late 1978, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, legislation that had been principally authored by Senators Edward Kennedy and Howard Cannon. There was stiff opposition to the bill—from the major airlines who feared free competition, from labor unions who feared nonunion employees, and from safety advocates who feared that safety would be sacrificed. Public support was, however, strong enough to pass the Act. The Act appeased the major airlines by offering generous subsidies and it pleased workers by offering high unemployment benefits if they lost their jobs as a result. The most important effect of the Act, whose laws were slowly phased in, was on the passenger market. For the first time in 40 years, airlines could enter the market or (from 1981) expand their routes as they saw fit. Airlines (from 1982) also had full freedom to set their fares. In 1984, the CAB was finally abolished since its primary duty, that of regulating the airline industry, was no longer necessary.
(source http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Commercial_Aviation/Dereg/Tran8.htm )

Deregulation was going to occur and freedom to fly around the country was going to occur without the previous restrictions except for ONE airline, and this was to implemented via the WA which was anathema to the Deregulation Bill of 1978...seems odd wouldn't you think? The Deregulation bill passed & became law in 1978, the WA was passed in 1979 & was in effect on 1 Nov 1979, a year after the Deregulation Bill became law...they were two very separate issues I believe. I didn't want you to leave the reader with the view they were "linked" together or were contained within the same law/bill...they are clearly not. If you weren't trying to link them then my apologies.

It does seem rather ironic that a bill that was to deregulate flying around the country was the impetus to restrict SWA...SWA did have to apply to the CAB prior to 1978 for each route they flew & get prior approval. After that period of time until today we don't have to but a "law" that was passed as a favor to Jim Wright, Speaker of the House & a favor to AA, Braniff & other carriers prevented a carrier from flying to states beyond those touching its border is somehow OK alludes me.....history is what it is but SWA & certainly the consumer didn't think this up on its own as a part of sound business plan or a way to save money.....call it what it is...a restriction to commerce....please don't try to convince the reader this was something that was in place & agreed to by all parties as being something "good" and "fair"....it was forced upon SWA & we had no choice in the matter...now we do & we're exercising "your free to move around the country" theme. If that is company koolaid then I would say it is based upon historical fact vs. what others may recall from poor memory banks (such as mine or others)....thanks again for getting me to learn a little more about what an arcane law this is & further testament of why it needs to go...cheers,

 

[Tejas-Jet]

They were bound by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) regs until de-regulation which happened in 1978. The Wright Ammendment is an extension of the CAB.

Actually, SWA was bound by the Texas Aeronautics Commission, not the CAB as SWA was not a "certificated" airline....meaning, they did not get or need approval from the CAB since SWA only flew within the state of Texas(=Tejas, ahem)

The CAB was dissolved with the implementation of Deregulation in 1978....the Wright Amendment was imposed in 1979, when the CAB no longer had any authority.

Tejas

 

[erj-145mech]

Thanks, I forgot about that one. At the time, I was working for Rio Airways and we were TAC also, although we serviced Texarkana, and the airport is in Arkansas. Don't remember how that worked. Reciprocal agreement maybe?

 

[vc10]

Not true at all. Jim Wright (then Speaker of the House---a very powerful position) represented Ft Worth (and DFW and AMR). When it became clear that deregulation would permit Southwest to fly from DAL to anywhere in the US, Ft Worth, DFW and AMR pitched a fit. Wright's first move was to restrict SWA from flying out of state from DAL. He "compromised" at restricting DAL flying to the surrounding five states.

It was a piece of blatantly protectionist legislation in favor of Ft Worth, DFW and AMR.

DFW has grown to the point where it's not in danger from DAL competition. The only party here that would be hurt by repealing the Wright Amendment is AMR, which would make less money on tickets to places outside of the current 8 state Wright Amendment area.

Even DFW would benefit from elimination of the Wright Amendment, it's just too stupid to realize it. There's no room for significant AMR flights from DAL and AMR is not going to dismantle the second largest hub in the world at DFW. Permitting flights to the rest of the US from DAL would drop fares into the Metroplex, which would goose traffic in/out of the Metroplex. There's limited room for additional traffic at DAL, so most of the stimulated traffic has to go into DFW...

They were bound by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) regs until de-regulation which happened in 1978. The Wright Ammendment is an extension of the CAB.

Some people love the taste of company kool aid.

 

[FastCargo]

SWA to SAT

Personally, I'd think I would be great if SWA moved it's HQ down here to SAT. Besides what was mentioned in the article, Washington Mutual just moved it's HQ down here, and of course Clear Channel is based here.

However, there wouldn't be much expansion at SAT airport though...it's pretty land locked as well. I think you could add maybe one more runway on the 12/30 axis. That would be about it.

Unless all us freight guys started flying out of Kelly Annex....

FastCargo

 

[flyhi92]

SWA to SAT

FastCargo, isn't there a plan to extend 12L at SAT? Would there be room for a third, or was the extension what you meant?

In any case, bring 'em down - what a great match SWA and SAT would be.

 

[hoover]

Let's cut to the chase shall we?

DFW and AMR want the Wright Amendment to remain in place, because it protects them from having to compete for business. (BTW this is the way AMR has always operated: It turns to the government for solutions to its problems)

SWA want's the Wright Amendment repealed so it can more effectively compete for business (This is how SWA has always operated: It competes in the market place)

The Wright Amendment should be repealed, if for no other reason, to remove government restrictions to allow for free market competition (Which, BTW is how the United States of America has always operated)

Debate settled. On to the next!

 

[SWAnnabee]

Let's cut to the chase shall we?

DFW and AMR want the Wright Amendment to remain in place, because it protects them from having to compete for business. (BTW this is the way AMR has always operated: It turns to the government for solutions to its problems)

SWA want's the Wright Amendment repealed so it can more effectively compete for business (This is how SWA has always operated: It competes in the market place)

The Wright Amendment should be repealed, if for no other reason, to remove government restrictions to allow for free market competition (Which, BTW is how the United States of America has always operated)

Debate settled. On to the next!

But aren't they competing now? Same city, just different fields. And they want SWA to move to DFW, even offering deals on the gates. So wouldn't THAT also be competing? Sorry, but there are many sides to the WA, both pro and con, but the assertion that "AMR doesnt want to compete" is a bit thin and inacurate, considering the above stated facts.

As far as government restrictions to allow free competition, what would you consider the US anti-monopoly laws?

 

[414Flyer]

Ironically DFW airport is built almost on top of the old greater southwest airport.