What if SWA was to Move from Dallas? Pt 1

[mdf]

Here kitty kitty....Here kitty kitty....

 

[Dangerkitty]

http://www.thewrightamendment.net/timeline.html

A SWA financed propaganda website.

If I am going to get flamed for providing information sympathetic to AA I am going to take little truth from a website bought and paid for by SWA.

 

[Dangerkitty]

Here kitty kitty....Here kitty kitty....

I am right here. Whatcha need?

 

[Dangerkitty]

If you go to this website

http://www.keepdfwstrong.com/

You will find NO timeline of events, just rhetoric.

Goodnight one and all.

You will find a group of people trying to protect the airport that was supposed to be the one and only commercial carrier airport in the North Texas area.

Once again the Wright Amendment was put into place as an exception for SWA so that they could continue their operations from DAL while everyone else had to move to DFW. SWA can fly anywhere in the world that it wants to from North Texas. By law it has to be done from DFW. These people are only trying to protect the DFW airport. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Dangerkitty]

Or here, taken from the Boyd report, an unbiased analysis NOT funded by SWA.

Year Event​

1917​

• Army begins operations at Love Field
1928 • Love Field acquired by City of Dallas
1968 • Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport bond agreement
reached; all operating airlines agree to move operations to
DFW when new airport opens
1971 • Southwest Airlines begins intrastate operations within Texas
1972 • Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport Board, Fort Worth and
Dallas sue Southwest over decision to remain at Love Field
1974 • DFW opens
1979 • Southwest Airlines begins interstate flights from Love Field
with service to New Orleans
​

•​

Wright Amendment passed (see text below)
1989 • Dallas City Council passes resolution requesting U.S.
Congress to repeal Wright Amendment and replace with 650-
mile perimeter rule
​

•​

Fort Worth City Council passes own resolution opposing
repeal or modification of Wright Amendment
1990 • Dallas City Council passes new resolution in support of
Wright Amendment
1997 • Shelby Amendment approved in U.S. Congress (see text
below)
​

•​

American Airlines and City of Fort Worth sue Legend Airlines,
City of Dallas, and Continental to stop new service
​

•​

Texas state court grants motion to AA and Fort Worth stating
that Dallas was obligated to abide by initial bond ordinance
and bar service authorized by Shelby Amendment
​

•​

City of Dallas sues U.S. DOT and Fort Worth to authorize
services under Shelby Amendment
1998 • U.S. District Court in Fort Worth rules in favor of AA and Fort
Worth
​

•​

Legend appeals U.S. District Court ruling​

•​

U.S. DOT rules that Dallas cannot prevent airlines from
operating service authorized under Shelby Amendment
​

•​

AA and Fort Worth sue U.S. DOT in federal appeals court
2000 • 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of U.S. DOT
and upholds Shelby Amendment
​

•​

Fort Worth, AA and DFW appeal to U.S. Supreme Court;
petition subsequently denied
​

•​

Legend begins service to points outside Shelby
Amendment with DC-9 aircraft configured for 56-seats
​

•​

AA begins long-haul service from Love Field with Fokker
100 jets reconfigured for 56-seats
​

•​

Legend ceases operations; subsequently files for
bankruptcy
2001 • AA ceases operations at Love Field
2005 • Southwest initiates activities to repeal Wright Amendment
​

All that information is fine and dandy. However, I fail to see how that relates to the discussion at hand.

We have hashed it out a hundred times. The Wright Amendment was a compromise to allow SWA to continue its operations out of DAL. Jim Wright states that Herb was happy with the deal and was quoted as it being a win for SWA.

Now SWA wants the rules changed. I (and thousands of others) just dont happen to agree. I am biased with the viws of AA just like you are biased with the views of SWA.

It will be hashed out in the courts either way. Where ever the chips may fall it doesn't and will not have any affect on me or on my flying career.

Good luck to all parties involved. It will be interesting to be on the sidelines and see how this unfolds.

 

[canyonblue]

Hey erj-145mech and Dangerkitty look quick, there is a thread on another board with the words Southwest and Wright Amendment. Better hurry! uke: http://forums.flightinfo.com/member.php?u=5374

 

[Dangerkitty]

Hey erj-145mech and Dangerkitty look quick, there is a thread on another board with the words Southwest and Wright Amendment. Better hurry! uke:

And your point is?

Do you have anything to contribute? At all? Anything?

God forbid some people out there actually disagree with SWA and what is wants to accomplish in repealing the Wright Amendment.

 

[OffHot]

Dangerkitty, you are right in that SWA wants to change the rules. But the rules do change overtime. Lets see every legacy carrier except AA has filed for bankrupcy protection, oh yea this changes the rules on how and if they must repay debt, how they approach labor contracts, etc. But thats ok. AA is asking congress to change the pension funding laws, laws they knew about when they created their pension funds, so that they may keep additonal cash to fund the airline today, yet put the employee pension at risk. But again that is ok. SWA wants to lift the WA to increase revenue, but that isn't ok because all they have to do is go over to DFW and fly out of there, where costs will be higher, compition greater, delays, etc. Now the advantage of long haul is lost due to the increased costs. But again that is ok because SWA makes a profit and AA doesn't. We have two commercial airports in DFW, why can't we use them? The DFW board has recently, post 9-11, spent a lot of money like who knows what and now can't afford to have any compition from competing airports, that is what this is about. You say Herb was happy with this aggrement, maybe he was considering the alternative was to shut down DAL to all commerical air traffic, but that was the plan in the early 70's yet it never happened, why?

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

1) You will find a group of people trying to protect the airport that was supposed to be the one and only commercial carrier airport in the North Texas area.

2) Once again the Wright Amendment was put into place as an exception for SWA so that they could continue their operations from DAL while everyone else had to move to DFW. SWA can fly anywhere in the world that it wants to from North Texas. By law it has to be done from DFW. These people are only trying to protect the DFW airport. I see nothing wrong with that.

3) All that information is fine and dandy. However, I fail to see how that relates to the discussion at hand.

4) We have hashed it out a hundred times. The Wright Amendment was a compromise to allow SWA to continue its operations out of DAL. Jim Wright states that Herb was happy with the deal and was quoted as it being a win for SWA.

5) Now SWA wants the rules changed. I (and thousands of others) just dont happen to agree. I am biased with the viws of AA just like you are biased with the views of SWA.

6) It will be hashed out in the courts either way. Where ever the chips may fall it doesn't and will not have any affect on me or on my flying career. Good luck to all parties involved. It will be interesting to be on the sidelines and see how this unfolds.

1) This vision was from and for the bondholders. If you look at the lawsuit timeline you see its the bondholders who were the ones to be satisfied. The bondholders were afraid DFW would fail and be unable to pay off the bonds. DFW has been a huge success and paid off the bondholders years ago. DFW's future is now so secure the mechanism to protect them should be repealed. Yes, I know the same amendment protected SWA. But look at how AA did operate out of Love just to vanquish a competitor, Legend. Then they pulled out. Very ethical. I'm sure it maximized AA's profit quite nicely.

2) You assume every law made is the end all to be upheld forever. Some laws get repealed. DFW supporters have introduced another bill to shut down Dallas Love flying and force SWA to move. Which law is more sacrosanct? DFW is a very successful airport. It has an international terminal and space for feeder RJ's. Dallas Love will never have that. Bondholders are not the one's asking for protection now, its the DFW board members and AA who still want to see SWA fail for their profit. I see something wrong with that.

3) Yeah, its relevant. Look at some of the posts of WA supporters. They (you) need the education. Herb may have said he is happy with the WA, if you can trust Jim Wright, but that is just good spin. Who likes what hurts you?? WA was a compromise because DFW bondholders knew they couldn't dislodge SWA. If you look without prejudice you see SWA fought court battles just to stay alive. SWA is no longer the underdog, but the legacies still think SWA does not have the right to prosper like they have the right to prosper.

4) You can support the WA but I will call a spade a spade. It is a blatant attempt to keep AA's and DFW's monopoly. The expensive new international terminal at DFW should be paid for by those who use it, not SWA. It irks me that everyone wants SWA to help fund the expenses involved with international flying that will propel AA to huge profits very soon. Yeah, we have hashed it out a hundred times and you still get key points wrong. We can't go on like this. I'm leaving you.

5) Rules change all the time. Successful companies anticipate and deal with it.

6) I'm glad your comtempt for repeal is not critical to your wellbeing. I too wish DFW and AA good will. I just don't think they need the WA to succeed.

 

[SWAnnabee]

I know that SWA doesn't like the idea of the costs involved in having to move to DFW, but I am sure that the existing airlines in the Dallas/Fort Worth area , at the time, didn't like it either when they were forced to move to the new DFW airport.

How would SWA feel if they had to pay an expense that another airline got a pass on due to legislative technicalities? Probably wouldn't feel it was very fair and more biased to that airline.

To SWA's credit, if they were forced to move, they would have incurred the large expense AND probably would have withered under the competition, as SWA was in it's infancy at the time and could not survive against the larger airlines while operating out of DFW. I am sure the other competing airlines that had to move to DFW were not very happy about allowing SWA to operate out of the same field they had just moved from, just as SWA wasn't happy about the restrictions imposed on Love Field routes. So it was a draw, but probably allowed SWA to survive.

Now if SWA wants to change the WA, fine. Let them. They have every right to try, and probably an obligation to do so to their stockholders and customers. But I think there should be some form of reimbursement to the community that funded the construction of DFW, as well as to the existing airlines that had to incur that expense that SWA never had to absorb. But that is for the politicians and management of SWA to decide. It certainly won't be decided here. Good luck to SWA and as long as an arrangement is reached that makes all parties concerned happy, problem solved.

In the meantime though, can someone explain to me the argument that operating out of DFW is too expensive and doesn't fit SWA's business model, while they also operate out of LAX, BWI, LAS, LGA, STL, and PHL? Seems to me these ariports are no better than DFW as to infrastructure and operating expenses.