Wright fight getting ugly!

[Chest Rockwell]

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

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

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!

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

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.

 

[CitationLover]

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?

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

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.

 

[CitationLover]

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.

 

[Chronic Jetlag]

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

 

[J3CubCapt]

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

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

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.

 

[CitationLover]

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?

 

[scoreboard]

And...?

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

But only for snacks...

SWA is a shrewed business player, so whats your point Yoda?

 

[CitationLover]

But only for snacks...

SWA is a shrewed business player, so whats your point Yoda?

the point is exactly that.

why is AMR, or any OTHER airline, "engaging in unfair business practices", while SWA (the little angel that could) would never stoop to that level? it's that mentality i'm trying to point out.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Citationlover,

Nobody is a perfect little angel but, I would put SWA's business and lobbying practices up against anyones. They want the ability to compete freely. They are not asking for subsidies or for legislation that is focused on being anti- any other carrier. I know of one carrier that, at least pre 9-11, employed one lobbyist that focused only on raising costs forSWA. If Wright goes away, I am sure other carriers will enter the market at Love.

CR

 

[CitationLover]

Citationlover,

Nobody is a perfect little angel but, I would put SWA's business and lobbying practices up against anyones. They want the ability to compete freely. They are not asking for subsidies or for legislation that is focused on being anti- any other carrier. I know of one carrier that, at least pre 9-11, employed one lobbyist that focused only on raising costs forSWA. If Wright goes away, I am sure other carriers will enter the market at Love.

CR

however those carriers are at the SAME disadvantage SWA uses for not moving to DFW, ie being second fiddle to a dominant carrier.

 

[NEDude]

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).

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

SWA was allowed to operate out of Love after several years of legal battles. It was the courts that ruled SWA could use Love, nobody else.

The Wright Ammendment was in resonse to de-regulation, nearly five years after the court battle over SWA and Love was done. While under regulation, SWA could not fly outside of Texas. After de-regulation in 1978, SWA began to expand outside of Texas (New Orleans being the first destination). As the powers that be in Dallas - American, Braniff and Texas International - realized that SWA could do to them outside of Texas as they had done inside of Texas, they used their political clout to stiffle the growth of SWA outside of Texas - thus the Wright Ammendment.

If you want to blame anyone about SWA being able to use Love while others could not, blame the people that used poorly written language in the bond covenants for DFW. It was their oversight in the language that allowed SWA to operate out of Love.

There are a few very good books that cover the subject.

 

[Flopgut]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

SWA was allowed to operate out of Love after several years of legal battles. It was the courts that ruled SWA could use Love, nobody else.

The Wright Ammendment was in resonse to de-regulation, nearly five years after the court battle over SWA and Love was done. While under regulation, SWA could not fly outside of Texas. After de-regulation in 1978, SWA began to expand outside of Texas (New Orleans being the first destination). As the powers that be in Dallas - American, Braniff and Texas International - realized that SWA could do to them outside of Texas as they had done inside of Texas, they used their political clout to stiffle the growth of SWA outside of Texas - thus the Wright Ammendment.

If you want to blame anyone about SWA being able to use Love while others could not, blame the people that used poorly written language in the bond covenants for DFW. It was their oversight in the language that allowed SWA to operate out of Love.

There are a few very good books that cover the subject.

RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.....WRIGHT!!

That statement you take issue with is correct. Remember, SWA could have gone anywhere they wanted to....from DFW! With regard to the current context this fight has assumed, your point is irrelevant. You say as much when you mention the authors of the bond covenants. SWA benefited from an ill-gotten strategic advantage at LUV and now they want to completely exploit the deal.

No airline would have left LUV if they had understood what would be going on today. If SWA wants to operate from LUV in an unrestricted manner that would be representative of a world where DFW was never built, then they can pay back every taxpayer, every airline worker, every share[bond]holder, etc. etc. that paid for DFW, with interest and surrender the valuable ground they have been squatting on to the rightful owners.

It could matter less if SWA was a party to the original deal or not. Because the truth of the matter is this: If the Metroplex could truly scale the economies of both airports and recoup the proper fees from Love Field that SWA should be paying, SWA would betray that deal as well and try to move to ADS or Alliance (or some dirt strip for that matter). Anywhere, where they can ply their folksy, pseudo-hick "SWA effect".

 

[scoreboard]

Resistance is futile

the point is exactly that.

why is AMR, or any OTHER airline, "engaging in unfair business practices", while SWA (the little angel that could) would never stoop to that level? it's that mentality i'm trying to point out.

Their not, so please don't play the "Evil SWA Empire" card when we try to correct an unconstitutional anticompetitive piece of legislation

We are not "stooping" to any level other than what is legal, ethical, and smart business

 

[Flopgut]

CitationLover,

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

Quite proud of yourselves, aren't you? Polish your nickels, stick them in your pocket and shut your trap. A better position? Is that what it is termed? That is what it is when you are not directly affected? Each of you SWA employees that responded to this thread disgust me.

I am pissed off at this reply more than I can air here.

 

[Flopgut]

Great Analogy -
AA and the rest of the legacies are toast.

The real SWA spirit.

 

[AAflyer]

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.

Just make sure you say that when you come up to ask for the jumpseat.

I would LUV to tell you were to stick it.

Have a nice DAAy.

AA

SWA the poor under-dog... my A$$..