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

Wright fight getting ugly!

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

aa73

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Posts
2,075
Fight over Wright takes a new turn



[size=+1]American says it may cut flights to small towns if law is repealed
[/size]

[size=-1]11:57 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 [/size]

[size=-1]By ROBERT DODGE, TODD J. GILLMAN and ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News [/size]

American Airlines Inc. officials have begun telling small communities that they may lose highly prized air service if Dallas Love Field is opened to long-haul flights.

The nation's largest airline is dispatching executives from its subsidiary regional carrier, American Eagle, to warn city officials at its 69 destinations about the dangers of repealing the Wright amendment.

DallasNews.com/extra Tracking the Wright amendment: History, opinions, links and FAQs



And they are starting with Texas communities.

Waco City Manager Larry Groth said American Eagle officials met Tuesday with him and Waco Mayor Virginia DuPuy. They asked the two officials to persuade the City Council to approve a resolution opposing the repeal of the Wright amendment.

American says moving flights to Love Field would force it to shrink its D/FW hub. A smaller hub, it says, wouldn't support as many regional passenger flights from smaller cities.

American's tactic is the latest wrinkle in an increasingly hard-fought struggle with Southwest Airlines Co.

The battle over repealing the 25-year-old Wright amendment is now being waged from local city councils to the House and Senate in Washington.

Competing bills to repeal the Wright amendment or close Love Field are pending in Congress.

With the Texas delegation split on the issue, American and Southwest are pitted in a struggle that some participants said could last into next year and beyond.

American spokesman Tim Wagner said the airline is trying to explain the consequences of splitting its 800 daily flights at D/FW Airport with Love Field.

"It is a complicated issue," he said, explaining the carrier wants to show how "pulling just one string on a sweater can start the process of unraveling" D/FW.

A spokesman for Southwest brushed off American's tactic.

"If American threatens to abandon all the cities they've talked about leaving, they might as well liquidate the airline," said Southwest's Ed Stewart. "When you have to resort to these types of scare tactics, it shows that their message isn't getting through."

American's strategy also drew fire from Capitol Hill.

"American Airlines would be far more effective in lobbying if they talked directly to members of Congress rather than blindsiding them with veiled threats of service cutbacks in our districts," said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco.

Mr. Edwards said he was still researching the issue and would ultimately do what is best for his district and the state. And he had some added advice for American: "I would encourage them to stick to the facts in their lobbying."



Turning up the heat


For smaller cities, regional jet service represents a vital economic link to the world at large. And American's latest strategy is designed to turn up the heat on members of Congress by enlisting the support of local officials.

"It is important to us to have adequate service, and we are always looking for enhanced service," Mr. Groth, the Waco city manager, said.

"I did not feel any kind of strong-arm threats," he said.

Mr. Wagner said American executives aren't trying to pressure local communities: "This is not an issue of making threats or promises."



Calling cards


American officials also have left their calling card in at least Midland, San Angelo and Tyler.

City Manager Harold Dominguez said the San Angelo City Council voted July 19 to oppose the repeal of the Wright amendment.

The council also instructed Mr. Dominguez to contact Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Midland, and the state's two Republican senators.

So far, Mr. Conaway said, the inquiries have not reached his desk. The West Texas Republican said he is still trying to understand both sides of the debate.

Mr. Conaway is also focusing on Midland, which is in a different position from some smaller cities: It enjoys service from both American and Southwest.

"I can paint a scenario where you eliminate the Wright amendment, and Southwest redeploys its planes to someplace that doesn't include Midland," he said.

The same thing could be true for American; it is forced to "change its business model from hub-and-spoke to point-to-point."

Mr. Stewart said cities like Midland needn't worry: "We've said we don't abandon our friends. Our objective is not to shrink service, but to grow new opportunities."

But Mr. Dominguez, the San Angelo city manager, does not see the debate as a competitive issue between American and Southwest.

He is worried about retaining long-sought regional jet service, as well as getting federal funds to build passenger waiting areas and loading ramps.

"We are looking at it more as an airport issue," he said.

Davis Dickson, manager of the Tyler Pounds Regional Airport, said local business and civic leaders in his East Texas community have met with American twice.

"They were hoping to get any kind of support from individuals that might want to respond to their congressman," Mr. Dickson said.

Tyler's congressman, Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert, declined to discuss the issue Wednesday.

Not all local officials are immediately buying American's pitch.

Tyler's Mr. Dickson wonders why American would reduce service to Tyler.

He said the airline's eight daily regional jet flights carry high passenger loads, including many businessmen paying top dollar to travel to East Coast cities.

Indeed, American depends on feeder traffic to fill its long-haul flights from D/FW Airport. According to American's Web site, a midweek roundtrip fare from Tyler to New York's LaGuardia Airport would be $1,346.90.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with AA's tactics here. If they really feel that strongly they should just stick with the lobbying.... they are starting to sound like DFW's desperate pleading last week.
 
Anyone remember Scott Farcuss? (A Christmas story) He bullied Ralphie for years until Ralphie stood up and poped him in the nose. Then he cried like a baby. I guess American finally got popped in the nose and now they are crying like babies.
 
AA is not going to cut a route if it makes money, sources of revenue are becoming more and more scarce. If Tyler makes money, it'll stay. If Waco and San Angelo don't, they're gone. Sounds like AA's using Wright as an excuse to reevaluate marginal routes. Most likely has nothing to do with Wright. Arrogance is sometimes justified but overall is a sh1tty quality.
 
roughneck said:
Anyone remember Scott Farcuss? (A Christmas story) He bullied Ralphie for years until Ralphie stood up and poped him in the nose. Then he cried like a baby. I guess American finally got popped in the nose and now they are crying like babies.

Great Analogy -
AA and the rest of the legacies are toast.
 
AA what a bunch of crying babies. That is fine more cities for SWA to fly to I wish AA would just bring it or not already.
 
Has this been SWA's strategy from the beginning? To get so big and strong that they now want to change the rules?


Or, do they really think that this is unfair? If they do think it is unfair then why did they agree to continue operations at DAL knowing that they would be under the restrictions of the Wright ammendment?

The fact is that SWA will be profitable with or without the Wright ammendment. On the other hand, it will be very difficult for AA to remain profitable if the ammendment is repealed. Just an observation.

GP
 
This is over kill, but here goes. First the rules were changed more than five years after DFW was completed. Deregulation, AA, and Braniff led to the rule change. This is not about AA's bottom line, the federal government nor north Texas should be in the business of favoring one airline over the other. They do, which is obvious by reading quotes from Rep Barton or Sen Hutchinson. DFW wants SWA money, SWA doens't want DFW, nor does AA, even though they say come on over. If AA or DFW truely wanted SWA then, AA would move all their operations to the east side of the field and let everyone else use the west, to include the runways. This won't happen of course because AA needs to clog up both sides of the field. AA wants SWA out of North Texas. Hopefully, SWA will contniue operations in Dallas and move it HQ to Houston or Chicago.
 
OffHot said:
...This won't happen of course because AA needs to clog up both sides of the field. AA wants SWA out of North Texas....

and the reverse isn't true for SWA?!?!

SWA has become what it initially despised, a powerful force that uses political clout to get what it wants.
 
Small towns better wise up. The days of subsidising very high cost RJs flying out of hick towns is being re-evaluated. Tell these hick town mayors to call Southwest.
 
Does not make and sense. ACT and SJT are full. Always full. And with little competition, they should be very profitable. I smell crap.
 
Perhaps Continental should propose more RJ flights from these smaller cities through IAH if AA continues this tactic. Good PR for CAL.
 
Any company trying to grow will use whatever power it can to make things happen. SWA is just doing what any company would. What is wrong with equal treatment? Why restrict any company from growth? Will it cut into profits at DFW and AA? Sure, but that's what competition is all about. Fighting "nonsense" rules is part of human nature right?
 
If American Eagle leaves Waco and other similar communities, you know that carriers like Mesa and others will pick up the slack - especially if a market exists. Who knows, maybe JetBlue would start E190 service to Waco - you never know given its low operating costs (i.e., low pilot wages)...

AA is a dinosaur resorting to empty threats. It's pretty pathetic...
 
Also, SWA doesn't despise pwerful companies. It despises companies that use unfair tactics to keep competition at bay.
 
Donald said:
Any company trying to grow will use whatever power it can to make things happen. SWA is just doing what any company would. What is wrong with equal treatment? Why restrict any company from growth? Will it cut into profits at DFW and AA? Sure, but that's what competition is all about. Fighting "nonsense" rules is part of human nature right?

i don't buy it. you argue for competition, yet have had a monopoly on DAL for almost 30 years now.

SWA can have equal treatment at DFW. SWA can have it's cake and eat it by beginning service out of DFW, while continuing it's monopoly at DAL.

it doesn't manner anyways as whoever greases the politicians the most (and SWA has recently become quite the greaser) will get what they want.
 
Donald said:
Also, SWA doesn't despise pwerful companies. It despises companies that use unfair tactics to keep competition at bay.

right....sure....

SWA, like any other economic entity, is out for #1. It undercuts other airlines and uses its lower cost structure to underprice tickets in order to gain a market share. AA lost a lot of money on 9/11. you don't think SWA, or any other airline for that matter, doesn't take advantage of this?
 
CitationLover:i don't buy it. you argue for competition, yet have had a monopoly on DAL for almost 30 years now.

SWA can have equal treatment at DFW. SWA can have it's cake and eat it by beginning service out of DFW, while continuing it's monopoly at DAL.

it doesn't manner anyways as whoever greases the politicians the most (and SWA has recently become quite the greaser) will get what they want.

Please tell me what AA has at DFW? Tell me that AA does not have over 60% of the gates at DFW, compared to 48% of (possible) gates at DAL for SWA.That dawg won't hunt CitationLover, furthermore SWA has NEVER indicated to anyone that this was nothing more than a chance to compete like other large metro area's in the country. You should read "Hard Landing", the read would do you good, not to mention the edumication you would get on the business of aviation.
Fair is fair, an objective view is absolutly what is needed here, so sit back and think about it the next time you get in your aicraft and live this dream we all call aviation.
 
CitationLover,

Specifically, who do you know that SWA has greased of late? How much?

Marketshare has its importance, but profits are all that really matters. I believe that any of the top three airlines in terms of market share would gladly trade their position for SWA's profits.

Every airline lost a lot of money on 9-11. AA and UAL lost much more in the crews and passengers that were lost. SWA was in better position to react quickly to the changes in the industry.

BTW, I believe that SWA was the only airline to pay all its employees for the days they were shut down.

CR
 
From previous WA thread

The Wright Ammendment came to be after getting the existing airlines at the time to leave Love Field and move to DFW. The existing airlines at the time had to sign an agreement not to operate out of Love.

SWA enters the picture and starts operating out of LOVE. The airlines that signed the agreement protest. Thus the Wright Agreement as a compromise. The spin was since SWA didn't sign the agreement, was not operating at that time, that they would be allowed to operate within Texas, or at least have to land some where in TX before continuing.

The agreement all the other airlines signed was in effect to have ALL Dallas airline operations move to the new facility at DFW. SWA worked a deal around the agreement. That's about as simple as it can be explained.

DIA/DEN: Remember all the problems with DIA, cost over-runs, delayed opening, the white-elephant luggage system that failed, etc. The cost to the airlines that operated out of Stapleton more than tripled to move to DIA. Many of the airlines didn't want to move to DIA with all the troubles and increased expense. So in stead of working out a Wright-type Ammendment, they chisled up the runways and now are building over priced housing in it's place. I guess if they had bulldozed Love Field, we might not have LUV today?! It's all subjective.

I like SWA and they a great airline. I am just tired of the spin of the Wright Ammendment and they failure to explain how and why it exists. It wasn't to stiffle SWA. It was to give SWA an exemption to operate out of LOVE, while all others had to move to DFW and cease all operations out of Love Field (DAL).

So in effect, SWA was given an unfair or uneven advantage to compete by being allowed to operate out of DAL. This is a prime example of the government manipulating the airlines like a public utility and then saying you are private industry and must make a profit on your own.

Now, if you say the Wright Ammendment is antiquated and should be abolished, then make that arguement, but don't distort the facts. All the spin about the Wright Ammendment is just a little hard-ball to improve SWA business model. SWA rocks with or with out Wright. It's ironic though, that the argument was SWA only has three little planes and will only operated within Texas; they are small and need the exemption to compete. They needed the Wright Ammendment to get started. Now SWA want Wright to disappear and the argument is the big guys......or the guys that used to be big can't compete!

Where are the midnight bulldozers when you need them! I should have bought a condo at Stapleton; now I'm priced out of the market.

Again, this isn't flamebait. SWA is a great airline. I say who cares about Wright. Let them build up ATA, code share to Hawaii, buy more widebodies and bring the troops and other PAX from Europe to BWI and feed their system......."I think I just said, don't mess with Texas!?" Bring back all the ATA furloughees and show the world how a merger/buy-out is done. Make a profit, utilize all your resources for total world domination. All this while maintaining happy employees......exept for a few of you Morris Air guys that were stapled, but those retirement accounts should ease your pain.

It's the wright thing to do!

__________________
I love the smell of Jet A in the morning, it's the smell of victory!
 
More from previous WA thread

I agree with you about the WA was to make Love unattractive and that is help mold the SWA model of point-to-point flying. However, the WA was a protectionism/exemption to allow SWA to operate out of Love in the first place. The government was trying to help create competition in the private sector.

As far as AA goes, (and I am not coming to their defense, trust me on this one!) try to see the WA from AA's point of view. The government has them and all other airlines sign an agreement not to fly out of Love and move to DFW. SWA starts with 3 planes, AA and others say hey no fair, the gov. says they are small and we (big "G") will only allow them to puddle jump, etc. Now, SWA is huge in AA's backyard and AA is not happy. SWA is using it's political clout as is AA to try to promote their respective positions.
 
FlyinHigh737 said:
CitationLover:i don't buy it. you argue for competition, yet have had a monopoly on DAL for almost 30 years now.

SWA can have equal treatment at DFW. SWA can have it's cake and eat it by beginning service out of DFW, while continuing it's monopoly at DAL.

it doesn't manner anyways as whoever greases the politicians the most (and SWA has recently become quite the greaser) will get what they want.

Please tell me what AA has at DFW? Tell me that AA does not have over 60% of the gates at DFW, compared to 48% of (possible) gates at DAL for SWA.That dawg won't hunt CitationLover, furthermore SWA has NEVER indicated to anyone that this was nothing more than a chance to compete like other large metro area's in the country. You should read "Hard Landing", the read would do you good, not to mention the edumication you would get on the business of aviation.
Fair is fair, an objective view is absolutly what is needed here, so sit back and think about it the next time you get in your aicraft and live this dream we all call aviation.

i have read it, you're condescending tone is noted. where is your sw spirit?
 
Current reply

SWA was able to get around the agreement the other airlines signed when they left Love Field. The WA was a compromise to allow SWA to operate out of Love with limitations. Now SWA is using it's political might to abolish the WA and maximize profits just like any other major airline. Welcome to the majors.

If AA really does pull out of some of the smaller cities with the RJs (once served by MD80s, etc.), then LCCs will continue to increase with point-to-point service, capturing more market share.
 
Chest Rockwell said:
CitationLover,

Specifically, who do you know that SWA has greased of late? How much?

Marketshare has its importance, but profits are all that really matters. I believe that any of the top three airlines in terms of market share would gladly trade their position for SWA's profits.

Every airline lost a lot of money on 9-11. AA and UAL lost much more in the crews and passengers that were lost. SWA was in better position to react quickly to the changes in the industry.

BTW, I believe that SWA was the only airline to pay all its employees for the days they were shut down.

CR

chest,

you cannot really believe that these politicians "out of the goodness of their hearts" all of a sudden want the wright amendment gone. SWA is big business and i'm sure enhances the coffers of many a politician (as does ANY large business AMR included)

if SWA compensated its employees then it deserves a pat on the back during 9/11. no one is arguing they are not a wonderful company to work for.
 
I don't fly for either AA or SWA so I can be somewhat objective. Remember what happened when Legend tried to operate DC9's with only 56 biz class seats out of DAL back in 99? AA went in there, stripped their planes down to 56 seats, matched Legends routes with lots of frequencies and predatory pricing. It took only 11 months to drive Legend out of business. The Wright Amendment was put in place to promote DFW after it was built. Imagine in todays aviation environment if satellite airports around other major hubs were subject to the same type of restrictions as DAL. What would that do for (OAK/SJC around SFO), (BUR/ONT/LGB around LAX), (FLL/PBI around MIA)...I could go on and on. Urban sprawl have had a profound change in both geography and demography and it underscores the growth of satellite airports.
The Wright Amendment should be abolished and allow all carriers to compete and let market forces determine the rest. Just my two cents worth
 
Who cares about the past and what "Wright" meant to do. The fact is that SWA is a profitable airline that has not lost billions in recent years. SWA is strong and this is an outdated, anti-competitive law. I will do my part to get rid of it.

J3
 
CitationLover said:
and the reverse isn't true for SWA?!?!

SWA has become what it initially despised, a powerful force that uses political clout to get what it wants.


Lay off the drugs! They will be the end of you.
 
hey fly,

i see you have been in "AF World" and now have rejoined corporate america. wake up! SWA is as cutthroat and can "play the game" with the best of them. if you believe that then lay off their kool-aid.

oh yeah, f-PETA. do you know they kill over 1500 strays a year?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom