Dallas Rep. Eb Johnson's View:

[KCFlyer]

And all of a sudden the compromise is no fair?

I don't think it's fair that I bought a new car two years ago before the employee pricing deals this year. I want to trade it in for a new car at the employee price and get the cash back. It is not fair. Times change, the competitive landscape has changed ...

[post="289646"][/post]​

NO JS...it isn't fair that you bought a car two years ago...but with the employee pricing discounts, you have the RIGHT to buy a newer, better car for a better price. That's changing the rules, isn't it. Now that DFW is all grown up and can stand on it's own two feet, why should the WA remain in place to "protect" it?

At the time JS, the alternative was to close down DAL to all commercial traffic. Something is better than nothing. But as I said, DFW is a big boy now, so they really should start acting like one.

 

[corl737]

And all of a sudden the compromise is no fair?

I don't think it's fair that I bought a new car two years ago before the employee pricing deals this year. I want to trade it in for a new car at the employee price and get the cash back. It is not fair. Times change, the competitive landscape has changed ...

When you bought your car you agreed to whatever compromise you and the salesman established as fair. Now, however, you feel cheated because you could get a new one for less today. The difference is that you signed a legally binding purchase contract. You are liable for your action as defined by the terms in place at the time of that act.

Congress, however, doesn't work through normal business processes. They don't offer contracts, they issue mandates. There was never a contract nor written "agreement" signed by Southwest Airlines to never challenge the Wright Amendment. There is no promise to break, no "deal" to back out of.

It isn't that the compromise resulting in the Wright Amendment wasn't fair (or at least had a questionably justifiable purpose) when it was enacted in 1979. It's that it is now a more reasonable (and cost effective) strategy to increase revenues through a repeal of that law than move to DFW.

 

[JS]

When you bought your car you agreed to whatever compromise you and the salesman established as fair. Now, however, you feel cheated because you could get a new one for less today. The difference is that you signed a legally binding purchase contract. You are liable for your action as defined by the terms in place at the time of that act.

Congress, however, doesn't work through normal business processes. They don't offer contracts, they issue mandates. There was never a contract nor written "agreement" signed by Southwest Airlines to never challenge the Wright Amendment. There is no promise to break, no "deal" to back out of.

I'm aware of the distinction. The point is that if it weren't for Southwest willing to compromise, Love Field would have been closed, because that was the original plan. Think of it as the spirit of the law, and not just the technicalities.

If Congress passes a bill to overturn the Wright Amendment, so be it. We are debating the merits of such a bill, not whether the bill itself is legal.

It isn't that the compromise resulting in the Wright Amendment wasn't fair (or at least had a questionably justifiable purpose) when it was enacted in 1979. It's that it is now a more reasonable (and cost effective) strategy to increase revenues through a repeal of that law than move to DFW.

[post="289674"][/post]​

This is what it boils down to -- Southwest wants Congress to change the rules to benefit Southwest. In my book, that is called corporate welfare. :down:

 

[I'mRayFlyMe]

This is what it boils down to -- Southwest wants Congress to change the rules to benefit Southwest. In my book, that is called corporate welfare. :down:

[post="289702"][/post]​

Considering that the entire SWA fleet is taxed in the city of Dallas (at $15 million a year) while their operations are literally shackled in their home city, is that necessarily a wrong thing?

There's lots of debate on both sides of this issue and it's bound to get nasty, but I'm not sure the city of Dallas would be too keen on losing that $15 million in annual revenue should SWA decide to pull up stakes and relocate their headquarters elsewhere. Granted it would be a last resort, but with lots of other cities chomping at the bit to welcome a potential new home for SWA headquarters (and without those goofy restrictions on their airports) SWA is in a good position should it come to that.

 

[swflyer]

Oops, make that "no assigned seating".  I was overhearing a conversation behind me in the B line and two people were talking about how it's "so weird" that Southwest has no assigned seating.  You also see it on the plane, with people bewildered as to where to sit (same thing happens on the Delta shuttle's open seating).

[post="289645"][/post]​

You are overstating this "problem" to support your point. When necessary, the comment, "Sit where you'd like, just like the movies", alleviates any "bewildered" state. <_<

Corl737: It isn't that the compromise resulting in the Wright Amendment wasn't fair (or at least had a questionably justifiable purpose) when it was enacted in 1979. It's that it is now a more reasonable (and cost effective) strategy to increase revenues through a repeal of that law than move to DFW.
JS: This is what it boils down to -- Southwest wants Congress to change the rules to benefit Southwest. In my book, that is called corporate welfare. 

Here's a choice for you, JS:

A: No, it's not that simple, like the descrimination example you didn't like. Times and assumptions (the basis for the law) have changed, and a change in law is being asked for to reflect today's marketplace.

B: Yes, it is that simple. Southwest is asking for the end of "corporate welfare" that currently benefits DFW and AMR to..........wait for it.............."Level the Playing Field."

Gee, where have I heard that before??

 

[Human Freight]

Why should the area maintain another air cargo airport when both DFW and AFW are under utilized? maybe the answer is to close BOTH Love and Alliance? (Like the Perot's will let Fort Worth do that!)

Times change and the events call for reevaluating situations. I'm sure that SWA is planning for a possible contingency of Love being closed to commercial air traffic. Short of telling Dallas County to take a flying hike, perhaps calling DFW's offer of "we'll build whatever SWA wants if they'd only move to DFW" is an option. I like the dedicated terminal/parking on the east side adjacent to runway 17L/35R and an agreement by ATC to never assign SWA takeoffs/landings on any runways other than the east complex.

Remember that Alliance is a privately owned airport. It does not cost the area any taxes for it to operate. DAL is a publically owned airport the moneys from airport operations do not even cover the cost of operation. The airport lost something like 2.7 Million last year.

[post="289716"][/post][/right]

Hell, I wished my property taxes were that low. Go to the County Appraisal district and look up the W N properties. They are undervalued! Yet the appraisal on my home goes up every year. Concering whether or not WN leaves the City so what. Let them go. 15 million per year will not cover the cost of litigation against the city of Dallas if and when the WA is repealed any way.

Any other city that agrees to host WN will have to put up with the general nastiness of WN anyway. Why should Dallas have all the fun.

 

[I'mRayFlyMe]

Hell,  I wished my property taxes were that low. Go to the County Appraisal district and look up the W N properties. They are undervalued! Yet the appraisal on my home goes up every year. Concering whether or not WN leaves the City so what. Let them go. 15 million per year will not cover the cost of litigation against the city of Dallas if and when the WA is repealed any way.

Any other city that agrees to host WN will have to put up with the general nastiness of WN anyway. Why should Dallas have all the fun.

[post="289724"][/post]​

What is this "general nastiness" you speak of? And better yet, do you not know how to end an interrogative sentence with a question mark?

 

[corl737]

Remember that Alliance is a privately owned airport. It does not cost the area any taxes for it to operate. DAL is a publically owned airport the moneys from airport operations do not even cover the cost of operation. The airport lost something like 2.7 Million last year.

HumanFreight --

The Alliance development consisting of nearly 17,000 acres around the Alliance Airport is privately owned by Hillwood, a Perot company. The airport itself is owned by the City of Fort Worth. (Here is the link to the Airport Database if you don't want to take my word for it.)

The city contracts for the operation of the airport as revealed by this July 2005 document from the Fort Worth Council examining an extension of this contract:

"On December 15, 1993 (City Secretary Contract No. 20060), a twenty-year Management Agreement was executed with Alliance Air Management, Ltd. (Contractor) for the management, operation, and maintenance of the Fort Worth Alliance Airport."

(Read the full document by downloading the file HERE.)

You shouldn't feel bad that you have fallen for the same guise the City of Fort Worth tries to pull on the public to avoid the issue of having a conflict of interest with DFW. They often state that Alliance is privately owned but fail to differentiate between the real estate development (private) and the airport (city owned). In fact, the Alliance Airport does make money from its extensive air cargo operations ... operations that should be flying from the jointly-owned DFW Airport instead of solely to line Fort Worth's pockets.

So you see, to claim "foul" against Love field's legally permissable passenger ops is to also shine a light on over a decade's "foul" in air cargo operations.

 

[Human Freight]

HERE[/url].)

You shouldn't feel bad that you have fallen for the same guise the City of Fort Worth tries to pull on the public to avoid the issue of having a conflict of interest with DFW. They often state that Alliance is privately owned but fail to differentiate between the real estate development (private) and the airport (city owned). In fact, the Alliance Airport does make money from its extensive air cargo operations ... operations that should be flying from the jointly-owned DFW Airport instead of solely to line Fort Worth's pockets.

So you see, to claim "foul" against Love field's legally permissable passenger ops is to also shine a light on over a decade's "foul" in air cargo operations.

[post="289834"][/post]​

Do you actually think it would have been possible for the City of Dallas to prevent Ft Worth and Perot Jr. from building Alliance with WN continuing operations at DAL?

 

[corl737]

Do you actually think it would have been possible for the City of Dallas to prevent Ft Worth and Perot Jr. from building Alliance with WN continuing operations at DAL?

[post="289961"][/post]​

Absolutely not. There was no legal basis to oppose the construction of Alliance. However, it is quite hypocritical of Fort Worth to insist on the closure of Love Field based on the premise that it hurts DFW while they continue to siphon funds away from the jointly-owned DFW through their Alliance Airport air cargo operations. Fort Worth is not the helpless vicitm they attempt to portray themselves as being. They play the "have your cake and eat it too" games just as well as Dallas.

(By the way, I do recognize that Alliance is not specifically covered by any of the "agreements" that affect Love Field. Neither the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance nor the Wright Amendment specify Alliance in the text of those documents simply because it did not exist at the time of their writing.)

 

[corl737]

... The point is that if it weren't for Southwest willing to compromise, Love Field would have been closed, because that was the original plan. Think of it as the spirit of the law, and not just the technicalities.

[post="289702"][/post]​

Jim Wright's original idea to completely close Love Field would never have passed (by his own admission). The compromise was as much a way for him to save face with his constituents as it was a way for Southwest to expand a little beyond their previous intrastate limitations. (In 1979 this was tolerable because the small fleet size of SWA didn't permit much more than that anyway.)

If there was any "spirit" to the law it was an agreement to let DFW grow without undue competition from other airports regardless of the Supreme Court-approved nature of their operations. Now that the full spirit and intent have been realized (ranking in the top 5 in both total operations and passengers boarded) the law has changed from a spirit to a haunting. A good exorcisim is in order.

Will the WA go away? Good question. I suspect that the "war room" at SWA HQ already has multiple contigency plans in place for any outcome. Moving to DFW is undoubtedly way at the bottom of the list.

 

[hobbes]

Years of lawsuits, veiled threats to move the headquarters from Dallas, pulling registration of aircraft from Dallas County to protest tax rates and lack of local support for the area directly around the airport. Need more? Please feel free to correct my grammer anytime.

[post="289961"][/post]​

That's nastiness?

#1: Years of lawsuits? Care to clarify that? Seems to me like Southwest spent much of their early years FIGHTING the lawsuits against them, for no other reason than they wanted to exist and stay at the airport they started flying from. Remember, Southwest didn't sign the agreement to move to DFW. We probably would have, had we been flying in 1968 like we were supposed to. Of course, the existing carriers (Braniff and TI) saw to it that we didn't start flying until 1971.

#2: Veiled threats. The only veiled threats to leave I know of started this past year. And with good reason. If an airline has dropping traffic at its headquarters airport, and they can't get an arcane and anti-competitive law changed that would help that situation, why bother staying there? There are plenty of other cities that would love to have Southwest and the taxes they pay. I know of other companies, many of them, who've done the same thing. I would hardly call them "nasty" companies...just companies who made a smart decision for the sake of their business.

#3: Registration of aircraft. So what's wrong with that? It's our right as a business to do that.

You seem to have an axe to grind with Southwest. That's fine, but you need to be mature enough to separate emotion from business. Southwest's main leverage comes in the form of the money we pay to the city. And if we have to use that, we will. Any company would. Don't tell me that every other airline hasn't done something similar at one point or another. We both know you'd be lying.

 

[Human Freight]

That's nastiness?

#1: Years of lawsuits? Care to clarify that? Seems to me like Southwest spent much of their early years FIGHTING the lawsuits against them, for no other reason than they wanted to exist and stay at the airport they started flying from. Remember, Southwest didn't sign the agreement to move to DFW. We probably would have, had we been flying in 1968 like we were supposed to. Of course, the existing carriers (Braniff and TI) saw to it that we didn't start flying until 1971.

#2: Veiled threats. The only veiled threats to leave I know of started this past year. And with good reason. If an airline has dropping traffic at its headquarters airport, and they can't get an arcane and anti-competitive law changed that would help that situation, why bother staying there? There are plenty of other cities that would love to have Southwest and the taxes they pay. I know of other companies, many of them, who've done the same thing. I would hardly call them "nasty" companies...just companies who made a smart decision for the sake of their business.

#3: Registration of aircraft. So what's wrong with that? It's our right as a business to do that.

You seem to have an axe to grind with Southwest. That's fine, but you need to be mature enough to separate emotion from business. Southwest's main leverage comes in the form of the money we pay to the city. And if we have to use that, we will. Any company would. Don't tell me that every other airline hasn't done something similar at one point or another. We both know you'd be lying.

[post="290006"][/post]​

Ask yourself who has who over the barrel the city or the airline? Who has made it clear on numerous times that it would sue to protect its squatters rights at the airport.

 

[luver41]

Ask yourself who has who over the barrel the city or the airline? Who has made it clear on numerous times that it would sue to protect its squatters rights at the airport.

[post="290066"][/post]​

Dude, it was Southwest that was sued, but, since SWA wasn't a party to the bond agreement that all the other airlines signed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that as long as Love Field is open, Southwest may continue to fly from there.

 

[corl737]

Dude, it was Southwest that was sued, but, since SWA wasn't a party to the bond agreement that all the other airlines signed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that as long as Love Field is open, Southwest may continue to fly from there.

[post="290101"][/post]​

Let us also not forget that, like the Wright Amendment, all laws and legal interpretations are subject to review and revision. Granted, some, like Supreme Court decisions tend to be more difficult to overturn than reactionary legislative acts.

It is only fair to let all possible scenarios play out in this issue based not on the past but what is best for today and the future. That's what every rational person wants though they're often not at liberty to say so. I have my own opinion based on what I (a full and immediate repeal!) but I'm willing to listen to what the other side has to say. They do have some valid points that must be considered and addressed in whatever outcome evolves.

Reps. Johnson and Hensarling had the courage to get the discussions moving. Every other bill has been an emotional shot-from-the-hip retaliation done without fully vetting the situation. I (amazingly) agree with Sen. Hutchison's idea of taking a good, indepth, unbiased view of the effects of a repeal. The studies performed by DFW's and Southwest's henchmen showed agreement that air fares would plummet in the metroplex. From there they diverged significantly illustrating the ability of either side to provide "proof" to support their cause. I also support the idea by Mitchell Schnurman of the Star-Telegram of holding public hearings to get a better idea of where the population actually stands on the issue.