With gasoline prices at over $2/gal, would the average consumer be willing to drive past Love field an additional 10 miles (20-30 minutes depending on traffic) for the same priced flight at Love field. Except for international departures or service to smaller communities that WN will not offer service to.
Senate Committee Hearing On Wright Amendment 11/10!
- Thread starter corl737
- Start date
OP
- Jun 13, 2005
- 565
- 6
- Thread Starter
- #17
From most parts of the metroplex, access to DFW is far and away easier. There are numerous freeways that converge right at the DFW access roads. To get to Love Field requires a minimum of several miles of city streets with stop-and-go traffic. As the metroplex grows toward the west (closer to DFW), more and more of the population will find the hassle of getting to Love Field less palatable. I've attached a small map of the DFW metroplex for those who aren't familiar with the geography of the area.
Interestingly, Boyd's study contends that SWA's insistence on staying at Love may backfire in the long run as they will not have as good an opportunity to get adequate facilities at DFW in the future when more of the market is closer to that airport. I'm not certain that I don't agree with his long-term prognosis.
As for your original statement, remember that you're dealing with Texans. In Dallas, a Chevy Suburban can fit in the "Compact Cars Only" parking spaces!
Attachments
I, too, thought Herb, as always, did an awesome job- I get physically excited every time I hear him speak.
This is a slam dunk case, IMHO.
OP
- Jun 13, 2005
- 565
- 6
wnbubbleboy
Veteran
wnbubbleboy
Veteran
At the risk of making WNforlife weak in the knees here's Herbs testimony from today:
HERB'S PERSONAL REMARKS:
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Aviation Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to be with you.
I started working on the birth of Southwest Airlines 39 years ago, when only about 15 percent of American adults had ever flown on even a single commercial airline flight. Today, that percentage is around 85 percent. According to DOT, the "Southwest Effect" played a crucial role in increasing that 15 percent to 85 percent.
Because the CAB of the 1960s did not welcome price competition against its carriers, Southwest applied to fly as an intrastate airline. Southwest's proposal was very simple: charge much lower fares and provide a higher quality of air service than the incumbent CAB carriers.
From the reaction, you might have thought that we had proposed to unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
The incumbents:
1. Threatened to withdraw service from every city we proposed to serve
-- sound familiar?
2. Contended that low fares would not produce any additional passengers
-- sound familiar?
3. Hired every politically connected lawyer and lobbyist in the State of
Texas to oppose us -- sound familiar?; and
4. Took us on a four-year journey through the courts before we could fly
our first flight.
Southwest commenced operations in Texas in 1971. What happened? Not one airline withdrew service from any city we served. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse did not ride-but a huge multitude of additional passengers did.
In 1972, Southwest was sued to oust us from Dallas Love Field-a move that would have obliterated Southwest. This resulted in five more years of litigation, including two more trips to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; and three proceedings before the U. S. District Court in Dallas. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals admonished:
"This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field ... "
What next? In 1978, the Airline Deregulation Act became law. The CAB authorized Southwest to provide interstate air service from Love Field.
Then fate intervened -- the Honorable Jim Wright was the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives and represented DFW Airport. Without notice or hearing, he amended a House bill to ban all interstate air service from Love Field. The Senate refused to concur. A political donnybrook ensued. Senator Goldwater commented: "I think we're acting like a bunch of yo-yos, why can't people fly to the airport they want to?" Finally, I was informed that the Conference Committee had agreed on a compromise: nonstop interstate service could be provided out of Love Field to only the four states contiguous to Texas. Moreover, Southwest could not provide one-stop, through ticketing, nor market, passenger service beyond those states. I protested bitterly until reminded of a self-evident truth: that Jim Wright was the Majority Leader and I was not.
Thus, airline deregulation passed in 1978 and Love Field was reregulated in 1979, when I was 48 and Jimmy Carter was President of the United States. In the ensuing 26 years, DFW Airport has gotten so big that I'm surprised it wasn't implicated in a BALCO steroid scandal:
1. 18,500-acre DFW now has 166 gates compared to 32 at 1,300-acre Love
Field;
2. DFW is the world's third busiest airport.
3. The world's largest air carrier, American Airlines, with about 850
daily DFW flights (almost eight times more than Southwest at Love
Field), controls 84 percent of the passenger traffic at DFW and does
not exactly welcome interlopers with warm milk and graham crackers.
4. Due to its dominance, American Airlines charges high fares at DFW --
its generally available one-way coach fare to St. Louis and Kansas
City is $599.00; Southwest's generally available coach fare would be
$129.00; and
5. Since 1979, the DFW side of the Metroplex has grown enormously, while
the Love Field side has lagged.
According to a study by Campbell-Hill, which we commissioned, AND a separate study by DFW (which it attempted to suppress), failure to repeal the Wright Amendment will cause approximately 3.7 million passengers per year not to fly each year and cost the American economy $4.2 billion each and every year. What policy supports such a result?
I firmly believe that the Wright Amendment must be repealed-and repealed now! But, a number of well-intentioned public officials, organizations, and private citizens have solicited a compromise proposal to phase out the Amendment over a period of time. As I have stated numerous times publicly, if the political leadership comes forward to advance any reasonable compromise proposal, Southwest Airlines will participate in that process in good faith -- THAT is my public pledge to this committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of competition; consumer choice; lower air fares for millions of Americans each year; and on behalf of the American public's Freedom to Fly.
Please visit http://www.commerce.senate.gov for additional information on the hearing or to access an archived copy of the webcast.
HERB'S PERSONAL REMARKS:
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Aviation Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to be with you.
I started working on the birth of Southwest Airlines 39 years ago, when only about 15 percent of American adults had ever flown on even a single commercial airline flight. Today, that percentage is around 85 percent. According to DOT, the "Southwest Effect" played a crucial role in increasing that 15 percent to 85 percent.
Because the CAB of the 1960s did not welcome price competition against its carriers, Southwest applied to fly as an intrastate airline. Southwest's proposal was very simple: charge much lower fares and provide a higher quality of air service than the incumbent CAB carriers.
From the reaction, you might have thought that we had proposed to unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
The incumbents:
1. Threatened to withdraw service from every city we proposed to serve
-- sound familiar?
2. Contended that low fares would not produce any additional passengers
-- sound familiar?
3. Hired every politically connected lawyer and lobbyist in the State of
Texas to oppose us -- sound familiar?; and
4. Took us on a four-year journey through the courts before we could fly
our first flight.
Southwest commenced operations in Texas in 1971. What happened? Not one airline withdrew service from any city we served. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse did not ride-but a huge multitude of additional passengers did.
In 1972, Southwest was sued to oust us from Dallas Love Field-a move that would have obliterated Southwest. This resulted in five more years of litigation, including two more trips to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; and three proceedings before the U. S. District Court in Dallas. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals admonished:
"This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field ... "
What next? In 1978, the Airline Deregulation Act became law. The CAB authorized Southwest to provide interstate air service from Love Field.
Then fate intervened -- the Honorable Jim Wright was the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives and represented DFW Airport. Without notice or hearing, he amended a House bill to ban all interstate air service from Love Field. The Senate refused to concur. A political donnybrook ensued. Senator Goldwater commented: "I think we're acting like a bunch of yo-yos, why can't people fly to the airport they want to?" Finally, I was informed that the Conference Committee had agreed on a compromise: nonstop interstate service could be provided out of Love Field to only the four states contiguous to Texas. Moreover, Southwest could not provide one-stop, through ticketing, nor market, passenger service beyond those states. I protested bitterly until reminded of a self-evident truth: that Jim Wright was the Majority Leader and I was not.
Thus, airline deregulation passed in 1978 and Love Field was reregulated in 1979, when I was 48 and Jimmy Carter was President of the United States. In the ensuing 26 years, DFW Airport has gotten so big that I'm surprised it wasn't implicated in a BALCO steroid scandal:
1. 18,500-acre DFW now has 166 gates compared to 32 at 1,300-acre Love
Field;
2. DFW is the world's third busiest airport.
3. The world's largest air carrier, American Airlines, with about 850
daily DFW flights (almost eight times more than Southwest at Love
Field), controls 84 percent of the passenger traffic at DFW and does
not exactly welcome interlopers with warm milk and graham crackers.
4. Due to its dominance, American Airlines charges high fares at DFW --
its generally available one-way coach fare to St. Louis and Kansas
City is $599.00; Southwest's generally available coach fare would be
$129.00; and
5. Since 1979, the DFW side of the Metroplex has grown enormously, while
the Love Field side has lagged.
According to a study by Campbell-Hill, which we commissioned, AND a separate study by DFW (which it attempted to suppress), failure to repeal the Wright Amendment will cause approximately 3.7 million passengers per year not to fly each year and cost the American economy $4.2 billion each and every year. What policy supports such a result?
I firmly believe that the Wright Amendment must be repealed-and repealed now! But, a number of well-intentioned public officials, organizations, and private citizens have solicited a compromise proposal to phase out the Amendment over a period of time. As I have stated numerous times publicly, if the political leadership comes forward to advance any reasonable compromise proposal, Southwest Airlines will participate in that process in good faith -- THAT is my public pledge to this committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of competition; consumer choice; lower air fares for millions of Americans each year; and on behalf of the American public's Freedom to Fly.
Please visit http://www.commerce.senate.gov for additional information on the hearing or to access an archived copy of the webcast.
wnbubbleboy
Veteran
I'll admit it, I was sitting here watching the Senate procedings.
Overall, fascinating. Some pretty good lobs were sent to the panelist the Senator liked and, of course, John McCain got pushy w/Gerald Arpy. It was fun watching Kevin Cox get busted for using only a portion of a quote from Herb, only to have Kay Bailey Hutchinson put a band aid on Kevin.
This won't surprise anyone, given my name and avatar, but I thought Herb was great. He used his leverage, as the only person present during the Wright genesis, to an advantage. He also had numbers to back up his arguments, which I didn't hear in the testimony of the other panelists.
I also thought Gerald Arpy did a great job. He looked like an effective leader, unbowed by the proceeding or company. He only tried the "noise and pollution" argument once and realized it wouldn't fly. He was also effective in referencing his fellow panelists during his answers. I wish I could remember one question where he was just shut down, forced to answer with a simple, "no".
I am no fan of Kevin Cox, found him to still be whiny, and the panel would have been better balanced between the two airline chairmen, who did a better job of arguing "on the same playing field".
It's going to be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.
Just watched the webcast and agree that Arpy did make a good case and presented himself well. Herb has a great persona. Our interests were well presented today. Cox on the other hand had all the looks of the Midlevel bureaucrat who looked stiff and well rehearsed but not genuine. Sorta like a used car saleman trying to get rid of his last AMC Gremlin on the lot by telling you it's a classic car and the Chicks will love it.
swflyer
Senior
Hey Cruel,
1. Thanks for putting Bananarama in my head. ['80s dancing]
2. All I know about Sen. Inhofe is that he's sponsoring a bill to close Love Field, which is probably a pretty steep, uphill climb. If Sen. Wright was unsuccessful in '79, I can't imagine Inhofe making it work.
3. I've yet to watch his testimony, but I think his number is arbitrary. He's not the chairman of an airline nor, to my knowledge, a student of aviation history.
What I did hear today was Gerald Arpy saying it was "possible to lose flights to smaller cities" (answering the Sen. from AR) and that AA "doesn't want to but would move flights to Love to compete, based on where SWA announced long-haul service" (opening statement).
4. DFW has already lost more than 200 flights with the closing of the Delta hub, and American has been the chief beneficiary (not sole, but chief) of the newly available traffic. SWA could not accomodate a single one of those Delta customers due to the Wright Amendment. [ / '80 dancing]
OP
- Jun 13, 2005
- 565
- 6
- Thread Starter
- #25
I don't envy Cox nor the DFW CEO Jeffrey Fegan. They're faced with trying to skewer the Wright Amendment at the same time as courting Southwest Airlines. It's a dichotomy and I don't think they have a ratz arse of succeeding at either. Still, as a consolation prize, they do have their names permanently emblazoned in the floor of the new Terminal D at DFW ...
Attachments
swflyer
Senior
It may be a little premature to open the bubbly, but CONGRATULATIONS may be in order for KCFLYER. The Missouri Wright exemption made it out of Committee.
Senators hear Kelleher, Arpey make flight-or-fight arguments
American, Southwest square off over Wright in D.C.
November 10, 2005 - By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON – Two of the airline industry's fiercest competitors did their best Thursday to charm and persuade senators eyeing the Wright amendment.
Each painted the other as a monopolistic predator and itself as an innocent victim.
In a hearing on flight restrictions at Dallas Love Field, Southwest Airlines chairman Herb Kelleher trumpeted free enterprise and low fares.
American Airlines chief Gerard Arpey, shoulder to shoulder with his rival, called the dispute over long-haul flights from Love a "manufactured controversy."
If there was any question which side gained ground Thursday, it was resolved by the evening with word that Missouri could become the eighth state that can be served with interstate commercial flights from Love. House and Senate negotiators finalized a transportation bill that includes an exemption for the state, potentially opening the door to Southwest to fly nonstop from Love to St. Louis and Kansas City.
The Wright arguments that unfolded earlier in public at a Senate aviation subcommittee hearing were familiar to anyone already following the controversy.
But for many senators, the hearing represented a first chance to weigh conflicting claims on an issue that has consumed North Texas: the complexities of hub-and-spoke economics.
Traffic snarls vs. free enterprise. The significance of a 1979 deal vs. lower fares. Regional rivalries.
"This is a more complicated matter than the general public understands," Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said after gaveling the hearing to a close, adding that legislation to repeal or alter Wright would move "next year at the earliest" – and that he found it hard to envision Texans forging their own consensus with so much dividing them.
"It has national implications, there's no doubt about it. But I wish the Texans could have worked it out," Mr. Burns said. "We start the debate here. And it looks like it's here it's going to have to be solved."
Southwest launched the latest fight to repeal Wright a year ago, aiming to serve its nationwide network from Love Field, its home airport. The federal law restricts interstate flights from Love to nearby states. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and American oppose any changes to the law.
Most senators who showed up had already made up their minds. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and John Ensign, R-Nev., want to end flight restrictions, for instance.
"D/FW is a world-class airport. I personally don't think it needs protection from anybody," Mr. Ensign said.
Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., who had sponsored the Missouri exemption, called the Wright law "outdated, anti-competitive, anti-consumer."
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Dallas Republican who sits on the aviation subcommittee and is reluctant to allow long-haul flights from Love, said she was pleased that senators got to learn about potential harm to neighborhoods and air service to smaller cities.
"There are so many components to this. I really think it should be the local communities' decision and I don't like Congress dictating something that is so key to the North Texas area," she said.
But the stars were clearly the airline chiefs.
Mr. Arpey dared Southwest to compete at D/FW, which he called the only "level playing field" around, instead of trying to overturn a deal that has let Mr. Kelleher's carrier prosper mightily.
"Southwest tends to depict the Wright amendment as an albatross around its neck," he said, "when in reality it was a victory for them."
Mr. Kelleher pointedly ignored Mr. Arpey's dare to take on American at D/FW, telling senators, "American Airlines does not exactly welcome interlopers with warm milk and graham crackers."
"You ever seen anybody survive at D/FW against American? It's like attacking a mother bear in her den with her cubs," he said during a break in the hearing.
There were plenty of lively exchanges, starting when Mr. Arpey, in his opening remarks, lauded Mr. Kelleher as "a charismatic leader." The Southwest chief puckered and blew a noisy kiss, inches from his counterpart's cheek.
Returning the compliment, Mr. Kelleher lauded his rival for doing a "fabulous job," noting that unlike many big carriers, American has avoided bankruptcy. Similarly, he said, D/FW is doing just fine, growing in a quarter-century into the world's third-busiest airport.
"D/FW Airport has gotten so big that I'm surprised it has not been implicated in a steroids scandal," he said, drawing a smile from Mr. McCain, who has held hearings on steroid use in professional baseball.
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., floated the idea of phasing out Wright over five years. Mr. Kelleher said he's open to any reasonable suggestions, but Mr. Arpey said he wasn't interested.
The transportation bill containing the Missouri provision still must be approved by the House and Senate and signed by the President.
A Southwest spokeswoman lauded the move. Southwest has said it would probably launch service from Dallas to Missouri if allowed to.
American spokesman Tim Smith declined to say what the carrier's plans would be if Southwest started flying from Love to Missouri.
Staff writer Eric Torbenson contributed to this report from Dallas.
Senators hear Kelleher, Arpey make flight-or-fight arguments
American, Southwest square off over Wright in D.C.
November 10, 2005 - By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON – Two of the airline industry's fiercest competitors did their best Thursday to charm and persuade senators eyeing the Wright amendment.
Each painted the other as a monopolistic predator and itself as an innocent victim.
In a hearing on flight restrictions at Dallas Love Field, Southwest Airlines chairman Herb Kelleher trumpeted free enterprise and low fares.
American Airlines chief Gerard Arpey, shoulder to shoulder with his rival, called the dispute over long-haul flights from Love a "manufactured controversy."
If there was any question which side gained ground Thursday, it was resolved by the evening with word that Missouri could become the eighth state that can be served with interstate commercial flights from Love. House and Senate negotiators finalized a transportation bill that includes an exemption for the state, potentially opening the door to Southwest to fly nonstop from Love to St. Louis and Kansas City.
The Wright arguments that unfolded earlier in public at a Senate aviation subcommittee hearing were familiar to anyone already following the controversy.
But for many senators, the hearing represented a first chance to weigh conflicting claims on an issue that has consumed North Texas: the complexities of hub-and-spoke economics.
Traffic snarls vs. free enterprise. The significance of a 1979 deal vs. lower fares. Regional rivalries.
"This is a more complicated matter than the general public understands," Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said after gaveling the hearing to a close, adding that legislation to repeal or alter Wright would move "next year at the earliest" – and that he found it hard to envision Texans forging their own consensus with so much dividing them.
"It has national implications, there's no doubt about it. But I wish the Texans could have worked it out," Mr. Burns said. "We start the debate here. And it looks like it's here it's going to have to be solved."
Southwest launched the latest fight to repeal Wright a year ago, aiming to serve its nationwide network from Love Field, its home airport. The federal law restricts interstate flights from Love to nearby states. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and American oppose any changes to the law.
Most senators who showed up had already made up their minds. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and John Ensign, R-Nev., want to end flight restrictions, for instance.
"D/FW is a world-class airport. I personally don't think it needs protection from anybody," Mr. Ensign said.
Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., who had sponsored the Missouri exemption, called the Wright law "outdated, anti-competitive, anti-consumer."
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Dallas Republican who sits on the aviation subcommittee and is reluctant to allow long-haul flights from Love, said she was pleased that senators got to learn about potential harm to neighborhoods and air service to smaller cities.
"There are so many components to this. I really think it should be the local communities' decision and I don't like Congress dictating something that is so key to the North Texas area," she said.
But the stars were clearly the airline chiefs.
Mr. Arpey dared Southwest to compete at D/FW, which he called the only "level playing field" around, instead of trying to overturn a deal that has let Mr. Kelleher's carrier prosper mightily.
"Southwest tends to depict the Wright amendment as an albatross around its neck," he said, "when in reality it was a victory for them."
Mr. Kelleher pointedly ignored Mr. Arpey's dare to take on American at D/FW, telling senators, "American Airlines does not exactly welcome interlopers with warm milk and graham crackers."
"You ever seen anybody survive at D/FW against American? It's like attacking a mother bear in her den with her cubs," he said during a break in the hearing.
There were plenty of lively exchanges, starting when Mr. Arpey, in his opening remarks, lauded Mr. Kelleher as "a charismatic leader." The Southwest chief puckered and blew a noisy kiss, inches from his counterpart's cheek.
Returning the compliment, Mr. Kelleher lauded his rival for doing a "fabulous job," noting that unlike many big carriers, American has avoided bankruptcy. Similarly, he said, D/FW is doing just fine, growing in a quarter-century into the world's third-busiest airport.
"D/FW Airport has gotten so big that I'm surprised it has not been implicated in a steroids scandal," he said, drawing a smile from Mr. McCain, who has held hearings on steroid use in professional baseball.
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., floated the idea of phasing out Wright over five years. Mr. Kelleher said he's open to any reasonable suggestions, but Mr. Arpey said he wasn't interested.
The transportation bill containing the Missouri provision still must be approved by the House and Senate and signed by the President.
A Southwest spokeswoman lauded the move. Southwest has said it would probably launch service from Dallas to Missouri if allowed to.
American spokesman Tim Smith declined to say what the carrier's plans would be if Southwest started flying from Love to Missouri.
Staff writer Eric Torbenson contributed to this report from Dallas.
KCFlyer
Veteran
Missouri opens up two pretty decent cities for travel to DAL - KC and St. Louis. I know from past experience that there were a LOT of people "two stepping" between KC and Dallas. One trip back from DAL, no fewer than 40 people got off the DAL-OKC flight and walked over to check in for the OKC-MCI flight. I was flying on a full fare ticket - $200 one way as opposed to a bit over $400 one way on the other guys. For that kind of savings, an extra hour and a half was worth it.
I wonder though, since AL and MS are WA states, but Southwest doesn't offer any nonstop service between those states and DAL, will they just to one stops in OKC or TUL or LIT and send the plane on to DAL instead or Houston, or will they start offering nonstops?
I wonder though, since AL and MS are WA states, but Southwest doesn't offer any nonstop service between those states and DAL, will they just to one stops in OKC or TUL or LIT and send the plane on to DAL instead or Houston, or will they start offering nonstops?
Am I the only one that finds it "amazing" that the one exemption that has a decent sized market (STL) is where there is an AA hub (i.e. already dominated)? What a friggen compromise.
swflyer
Senior
It's my understanding that the current, "same plane" schedule could be easily re-numbered for direct flights. I frequently use a DAL-LIT-STL to get thru to MDW. That'd be the easy start.
I'd bet on non-stops for MCI and STL, thought. The markets are bigger than JAN or BHM.
IMHO
Similar threads
