Senate Committee Hearing On Wright Amendment 11/10!

[corl737]

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.

The Missouri exemption doesn't appear to have anything to do with AA other than they happen to be there. Sen. Bond and the Missouri delegation have been trying to get MO onto the list of W-A exempt states for years, even before AA's disassembling (I just can't call it a merger!) of TWA's operations at STL and MCI. At STL, SWA now has nearly 30% of the traffic with its . SWA is the largest carrier in MCI.

STL and MCI are great first steps, not solely on their own, but because they give passengers decent access points to the WA area. In particular this is good for Chicago passengers trying to get to DAL. Why? SWA operates 12 MCI-MDW flights/day and 11 STL-MDW flights/day. Though still inconvenient to have to buy two tickets, the opportunity to get from Chicago to Dallas with only a short layover in MCI or STL is a huge improvement! (I think AA will wind up dropping their DFW-ORD fares as a result.)

 

[Ch. 12]

The Missouri exemption doesn't appear to have anything to do with AA other than they happen to be there. Sen. Bond and the Missouri delegation have been trying to get MO onto the list of W-A exempt states for years, even before AA's disassembling (I just can't call it a merger!) of TWA's operations at STL and MCI. At STL, SWA now has nearly 30% of the traffic with its . SWA is the largest carrier in MCI.

STL and MCI are great first steps, not solely on their own, but because they give passengers decent access points to the WA area. In particular this is good for Chicago passengers trying to get to DAL. Why? SWA operates 12 MCI-MDW flights/day and 11 STL-MDW flights/day. Though still inconvenient to have to buy two tickets, the opportunity to get from Chicago to Dallas with only a short layover in MCI or STL is a huge improvement! (I think AA will wind up dropping their DFW-ORD fares as a result.)

Sorry...just my conspiracy theory side coming out...especially since AMR has won similar battles in DC and NY.

As far as the "tricky-ticketing"...this is something that will probably take a short time to materialize as it is a new concept in markets outside of the traditional WA scope. People in PHX and LAX know it well but it will be a learning experience for the MDW folks.

 

[CruelSummer]

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.

I think Senator Johnson stated that DFW is 8 miles away from Love Field. According to her testimony, the Wright Amendment stated that no two airports would be closer than 21 miles from one another. The agreement was made with the idea that Love Field wouldn't be around forever.

Both sides make valid points. But it is interesting that Southwest came into the picture after the Amendment was signed and decided not to move over to DFW, but ultimately fight to get the Amendment revoked.

 

[KCFlyer]

I think Senator Johnson stated that DFW is 8 miles away from Love Field. According to her testimony, the Wright Amendment stated that no two airports would be closer than 21 miles from one another. The agreement was made with the idea that Love Field wouldn't be around forever.

Both sides make valid points. But it is interesting that Southwest came into the picture after the Amendment was signed and decided not to move over to DFW, but ultimately fight to get the Amendment revoked.

Not quite. Southwest had been in business a few years before the amendment was signed. The amendment was created because of Southwest. Now, there was an agreement that was signed by all operating airlines at Love Field. Southwest wasn't one of them. They would have been operating at that time, but for the efforts of Braniff, Texas International and Continental to keep them out of the skies. One has to wonder...had Southwest been around when the other airlines signed, would they have been compelled to sign as well??? One never knows.

 

[corl737]

I think Senator Johnson stated that DFW is 8 miles away from Love Field. According to her testimony, the Wright Amendment stated that no two airports would be closer than 21 miles from one another. The agreement was made with the idea that Love Field wouldn't be around forever.

Both sides make valid points. But it is interesting that Southwest came into the picture after the Amendment was signed and decided not to move over to DFW, but ultimately fight to get the Amendment revoked.

KCFlyer answered the inaccuracies in your post. Don't feel bad. The disemmination of false information is a major component of the pro-Wright side.

May I recommend a brief reading of this document from the University of Texas' Handbook of Texas Online project that gives a very concise history of the legal challenges from SWA initial intent to begin service in 1967 to its first flight in 1971 to the passage of the Wright Amendment in 1979 to current times.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...es/SS/eps1.html

In particular, note that SWA was certificated by the Texas Aeronautical Commission, not the Civil Aeronautics Board. This is a key factor leading to the numerous court decisions (including the US Supreme Court) supporting the illegality of Dallas to close Love Field to commercial traffic as well as the right of Southwest Airlines to operate from Love Field.

It is intriguing to play "what if" and ponder whether or not SWA would have been a "team player" had they not been subjected to four years of legal challenges just to get their first flight off the ground. My inclination is that they'd have signed on to the agreement to move purely for the PR reasons. Alas, by not being able to even be in existence at the time of the 1968 Regional Airport Bond Ordinance agreement that asked all airlines at DAL, GSW, FTW, and RBD to move, they were under no obligation to move, legally or morally. The CAB airlines brought the fight to SWA and shouldn't have been surprised when SWA returned fire!

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

I think Senator Johnson stated that DFW is 8 miles away from Love Field. According to her testimony, the Wright Amendment stated that no two airports would be closer than 21 miles from one another. The agreement was made with the idea that Love Field wouldn't be around forever.

Both sides make valid points. But it is interesting that Southwest came into the picture after the Amendment was signed and decided not to move over to DFW, but ultimately fight to get the Amendment revoked.

Herb does address this in his testimony:

"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."

Here's a complete copy of Herb's testimony yesterday:


http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/kelleher111005.pdf

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Here's the link to Mr Cox's testimony for DFW:

(Big file alert 25 pages PDF file)

http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cox111005.pdf

 

[MTSUSigEp430]

Does anyone know the exhorbatant landing and gate rental fees DFW charges its carriers? Additionally, does DFW operate its finances from a residual cost accounting or compensatory accounting method: meaning, who shoulders the most financial risk to operate the airport? I'm only a student of aviation (at Middle Tennessee State University), but from what I understand, DFW has the costly fees of any airport in the entire airport system of this country; a key reason why Delta ceased hub operations and a key reason why Southwest would not want to operate from the port.

 

[CruelSummer]

Herb does address this in his testimony:

"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."

Here's a complete copy of Herb's testimony yesterday:
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/kelleher111005.pdf

Thanks for the copy of the testimony - Herb is good with the turn of phrase. Obviously, the Wright Amendment wasn't his first choice, but in his testimony, he points to what it is intended to be - a compromise. Wright was created as a compromise to do what was best for the city, not any particular airport. I hope people keep that in mind as discussion on this continues...this debate should really be more about what is best for the city than which airlines wants what...

 

[Ch. 12]

Thanks for the copy of the testimony - Herb is good with the turn of phrase. Obviously, the Wright Amendment wasn't his first choice, but in his testimony, he points to what it is intended to be - a compromise. Wright was created as a compromise to do what was best for the city, not any particular airport. I hope people keep that in mind as discussion on this continues...this debate should really be more about what is best for the city than which airlines wants what...

You left out one important phrase..."at a point in time". Laws are not timeless entities and are allowed to be changed as time goes on. What was "right" (based on a bought politician, Jim Wright) at the opening of DFW is not "right" now. The city has grown and the airport it was meant to protect is doing just fine. It was done for what was best for the airport...not the city...and the airport is no longer an infant.

I hope you keep that in mind.

 

[SVQLBA]

Thanks for the copy of the testimony - Herb is good with the turn of phrase. Obviously, the Wright Amendment wasn't his first choice, but in his testimony, he points to what it is intended to be - a compromise. Wright was created as a compromise to do what was best for the city, not any particular airport. I hope people keep that in mind as discussion on this continues...this debate should really be more about what is best for the city than which airlines wants what...

If you heard Herb's testimony, you can't call the WA a "compromise." It was Jim Wright doing a favor for the Ft Worth crowd and DFW airlines. Having lost every other legal battle over Southwest's right to operate where and when it wanted, he finally found a way to limit what they could do -- pass an amendment without debate.

The only way it was compromise was in the fact that the House and Senate had to agree -- hence the original 4-state exemption. When people say it was a compromise, the inference is that Southwest agreed to the WA (it takes two camps to come to a compromise). They clearly never did -- this got shoved down their throats through the legislative process of which Wright was a master. It definitely was not something that Southwest ever agreed to -- even if they decided not to battle it for a couple of decades because they had plenty of growth opportunities anyway.

 

[CruelSummer]

You left out one important phrase..."at a point in time". Laws are not timeless entities and are allowed to be changed as time goes on. What was "right" (based on a bought politician, Jim Wright) at the opening of DFW is not "right" now. The city has grown and the airport it was meant to protect is doing just fine. It was done for what was best for the airport...not the city...and the airport is no longer an infant.

I hope you keep that in mind.

Isn't having a strong airport that has a good amount of international flights best for the city? No one wants to take away SW from Dallas...it is a great airline for the city to have. But if SW wants to take on longer distance flights, why can't it do it from DFW, so that Dallas wouldn't lose its international access?

 

[KCFlyer]

Isn't having a strong airport that has a good amount of international flights best for the city? No one wants to take away SW from Dallas...it is a great airline for the city to have. But if SW wants to take on longer distance flights, why can't it do it from DFW, so that Dallas wouldn't lose its international access?

What is the threat of DFW losing it's international access by repealing the Wright Amendment? Unless AA wants to join the growing list of bankrupt carriers by running two hubs out of the same city, since, even if AA had every gate at DAL (including SWA's) it would only amount to a fraction of what they are running at DFW. I really don't understand how DAL being free of restrictions would have any more of a detrimental effect on international access to the Dallas area than Midway has on O'hare in Chicago, or Hobby has on IAH in Houston.

 

[WNjetdoc]

Herb does address this in his testimony:

"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."

Here's a complete copy of Herb's testimony yesterday:
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/kelleher111005.pdf

Dang Bubble boy, your handle should be, C&PBoy...(Cut and Paste). You are the master of your domain, no doubt. Perhaps you should be the communication coordinator for your local?

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Dang Bubble boy, your handle should be, C&PBoy...(Cut and Paste). You are the master of your domain, no doubt. Perhaps you should be the communication coordinator for your local?

Hey what else can you do in a bubble. Also, the answer is yer sir, I am King of the Court.