Tennessee Rep. Joins Wright Amendment Repeal

corl737

Veteran
Jun 13, 2005
565
6
Tenn. lawmaker joins Wright fight

12:38 PM CDT on Tuesday, July 5, 2005

By ROBERT DODGE / The Dallas Morning News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — A Tennessee lawmaker has rejoined the fight to lift Wright amendment flight restrictions at Dallas Love Field.

Any proposal to abolish the 25-year-old Wright amendment faces difficult opposition.

But rather than sign on to a pending bill that would immediately repeal all limits on long-distance flights from Love Field, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., has introduced her own legislation. Her proposal would simply add Tennessee to the list of seven states outside Texas where flights from Love Field are permissible.

The legislation is nearly identical to a proposal Ms. Blackburn proposed last year, which was co-sponsored by all of Tennessee's House members.

This time, Ms. Blackburn's bill, which was introduced June 16, has just one cosponsor: Rep. Jeb Hersarling, R-Dallas, who along with Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Plano, filed the Wright repeal bill on May 26. Ms. Blackburn is not a cosponsor of that proposal.

"Obviously, Rep. Hensarling has made his opinion about the Wright amendment pretty plain: It needs to go," said spokesman Mike Walz.

Either proposal, if passed, would mark the first changes to the Wright amendment since 1997. That year, Congress enacted the Shelby amendment, which expanded Love Field flights from the contiguous states to also include Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi.

Any proposal to abolish the 25-year-old Wright amendment faces difficult opposition.

Ms. Blackburn's proposal was referred to the House Transportation Committee. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the committee, has said the Wright amendment is a Texas issue and wants lawmakers to resolve their differences before asking the committee for change.

Proposals to end flight restrictions also are opposed by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And in the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, also is opposing any changes.

Staff Writer Suzanne Marta contributed to this report from Dallas.

Read more in tomorrow's Dallas Morning News or at DallasNews.com.
 
Now if Rep. Blackburn will add a provision to remove the unwieldy thru-ticketing restrictions this might actually be a decent first step to getting rid of the whole d*** thing!


http://www.FightWright.org
 
I've mentioned this before...

If TN is added, then it's only fair to also add AZ, CO, and MO. Along with KS and MS (already allowed), all are states bordering states that border Texas.
How'd AL sneak in there anyway?
 
mga707 said:
How'd AL sneak in there anyway?
[post="280419"][/post]​

Because Mr. Shelby of the aforementioned Shelby Amendment which extended service from DAL to AL, MS, and KS represented Alabama. Duh!

Might add though that SWA does not serve any city in AL or MS from DAL or any city in KS, period. So why should they get any additional cities from DAL?
 
jimntx said:
Might add though that SWA does not serve any city in AL or MS from DAL or any city in KS, period. So why should they get any additional cities from DAL?
[post="280449"][/post]​

Well sorta. They don't have any nonstops from AL or MS, but they do offer one stop with a change from BHM and JAN. Kansas was added because Wichita was begging for LCC service, and hoped that the Shelby Amendment might get Southwest to move in. It hasn't. If they would have added MO to the list however....
 
If TN is added, then it's only fair to also add AZ, CO, and MO. Along with KS and MS (already allowed), all are states bordering states that border Texas.

Since when has any portion of the Wright Amendment been about fairness?
 
KCFlyer said:
Well sorta. They don't have any nonstops from AL or MS, but they do offer one stop with a change from BHM and JAN.
[post="280457"][/post]​

Which is exactly the service that BHM and JAN had to DAL BEFORE the Shelby Amendment. So what was the point?

I think those of you in places like MCI, STL, COS, etc. are going to find that if the Wright Amendment is repealed, there will be a surge in service from DAL to FLL, LAX, SEA, SFO, ISP, BWI, etc. You are going to get exactly nothing from the repeal. SWA is interested only in taking high-yield long distance markets. SWA, for whatever reason, has never served any city in CO from any station AFAIK. Don't know why. DEN and COS are both money-makers for AA though not as much as pre-9/11. And, I know for a fact that during ski season, CO has all the business they can stand between IAH and DEN and COS. UAL also does pretty good business between IAH and DEN. I guess CO is out of luck because the city of Denver got smart and dug up the runways at Stapleton when DIA opened. There's no older airport that SWA can use, then plead poverty of facilities and amenities as an excuse for lower landing/gate fees than at DIA.

But keep on. I'm sure the increase in SWA service to LAX from DAL will benefit MCI immensely. :D
 
jimntx said:
Which is exactly the service that BHM and JAN had to DAL BEFORE the Shelby Amendment. So what was the point?

I think those of you in places like MCI, STL, COS, etc. are going to find that if the Wright Amendment is repealed, there will be a surge in service from DAL to FLL, LAX, SEA, SFO, ISP, BWI, etc. You are going to get exactly nothing from the repeal. SWA is interested only in taking high-yield long distance markets. SWA, for whatever reason, has never served any city in CO from any station AFAIK. Don't know why. DEN and COS are both money-makers for AA though not as much as pre-9/11. And, I know for a fact that during ski season, CO has all the business they can stand between IAH and DEN and COS. UAL also does pretty good business between IAH and DEN. I guess CO is out of luck because the city of Denver got smart and dug up the runways at Stapleton when DIA opened. There's no older airport that SWA can use, then plead poverty of facilities and amenities as an excuse for lower landing/gate fees than at DIA.

But keep on. I'm sure the increase in SWA service to LAX from DAL will benefit MCI immensely. :D
[post="280466"][/post]​

Not quite. Prior to the Shelby amendment, if you wanted to go from BHM to DAL, you had to buy a ticket to MSY or HOU, then buy another ticket from one of those cities to DAL. If you checked bags, you had to claim it and recheck it. After Shelby, you buy one ticket, and your bags are forwarded on. Even if WA was repealed, and SWA didn't offer nonstops from MCI to DAL, I wouldn't mind being able to buy one ticket, check bags and stop in Tulsa.
 
jimntx said:
SWA, for whatever reason, has never served any city in CO from any station AFAIK. Don't know why.

Actually, Southwest did serve DEN (Stapleton) briefly during the mid-1980's -- for a year or so. Service was to ABQ and possibly PHX. (Others will correct me, I'm sure.) Southwest pulled out in 1986 or 1987, citing the chronic delays at the airport as a major reason, but I imagine that the presence of three airline hubs at DEN (CO, UA, and Frontier I) also made it difficult to be competitive.

Herb has said in recent years that the exorbitant costs airport at DEN (DIA) would keep Southwest out for the foreseeable future. I'm still a bit surprised that WN hasn't made it to COS, but I suppose they have felt they have bigger fish to fry on the East Coast right now.

If the City of Denver hadn't closed down Stapleton, DIA would have been a financial disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I think they had been eyeing that land for development for a long, long time.
 
jimntx said:
Which is exactly the service that BHM and JAN had to DAL BEFORE the Shelby Amendment. So what was the point?

I think those of you in places like MCI, STL, COS, etc. are going to find that if the Wright Amendment is repealed, there will be a surge in service from DAL to FLL, LAX, SEA, SFO, ISP, BWI, etc. You are going to get exactly nothing from the repeal. SWA is interested only in taking high-yield long distance markets. SWA, for whatever reason, has never served any city in CO from any station AFAIK. Don't know why. DEN and COS are both money-makers for AA though not as much as pre-9/11. And, I know for a fact that during ski season, CO has all the business they can stand between IAH and DEN and COS. UAL also does pretty good business between IAH and DEN. I guess CO is out of luck because the city of Denver got smart and dug up the runways at Stapleton when DIA opened. There's no older airport that SWA can use, then plead poverty of facilities and amenities as an excuse for lower landing/gate fees than at DIA.

But keep on. I'm sure the increase in SWA service to LAX from DAL will benefit MCI immensely. :D
[post="280466"][/post]​

Jim-

Denver is expensive. And you're right...WN didn't add tremendous amounts of service when the plethora of profitable markets :rolleyes: were opened up by Shelby. Are you so blinded that you don't see that the only states that have been opened up are those without large markets? This was intentional. I think that ND and SD may be next.

So what you're saying is that since WN didn't start up service to, say, ICT once KS was opened up, they shouldn't have access to AZ, UT, MO, TN? Outside of PHX and STL, this still doesn't add huge markets but SLC, BNA, and MCI would also benefit. Wouldn't it be fair to include ALL states that are two states away? Why only add those that have no real markets? But you are so right...b/c WN has not chosen to fly to the extremely low demand markets that have so generously been granted to DAL, they should not be given anything else. Shelby was soooo fair. :rolleyes:
 
Ch. 12 said:
Jim-
So what you're saying is that since WN didn't start up service to, say, ICT once KS was opened up, they shouldn't have access to AZ, UT, MO, TN? Outside of PHX and STL, this still doesn't add huge markets but SLC, BNA, and MCI would also benefit. Wouldn't it be fair to include ALL states that are two states away? Why only add those that have no real markets? But you are so right...b/c WN has not chosen to fly to the extremely low demand markets that have so generously been granted to DAL, they should not be given anything else. Shelby was soooo fair. :rolleyes:
[post="280507"][/post]​

Excuse me. I grew up in BHM and my family still lives there. FYI, SW beat the drum for the Shelby Amendment. Implied to the AL politicians that it would greatly increase service to BHM. Now, SW does provide non-stop service from BHM to LAS (as someone who grew up in BHM being drug off to church every time I turned around that service just cracks me up. Particularly because the flight to Sin City is always full. :lol: )

I still say that SW only wants to cherry-pick the big ticket markets. With the exception of possible service between DAL and PHX (hub to hub, don't you know), I doubt any of the first or second "tier" states would see much improvement in service from DAL.
 
sfb said:
Actually, Southwest did serve DEN (Stapleton) briefly during the mid-1980's -- for a year or so. Service was to ABQ and possibly PHX. (Others will correct me, I'm sure.)

OK, here's your correction...
;)

DEN service began May 26, 1983, ended Sept 30 1986. So, nearly 3 1/2 years.
Correct on the nonstops: ABQ initially, with PHX added soon afterwards. And plenty of one-stops to ELP, SAN, LAS, and LAX.
 
Ch. 12 said:
Jim-


So what you're saying is that since WN didn't start up service to, say, ICT once KS was opened up, they shouldn't have access to AZ, UT, MO, TN? Outside of PHX and STL, this still doesn't add huge markets but SLC, BNA, and MCI would also benefit. Wouldn't it be fair to include ALL states that are two states away?

You're kinda stretching it by including Utah in that list...although I HAVE had one foot in New Mexico and the other in Utah...with hands in AZ and CO! (while the Navajo running the little Four Corners tribal park/tourist trap look on in amusement at the silly palefaces...)

Hey, don't forget TUS as a possible beneficiary--it'd be great to see AA finally get some real competition in the Tucson-Dallas market!
 
mga707 said:
You're kinda stretching it by including Utah in that list...although I HAVE had one foot in New Mexico and the other in Utah...with hands in AZ and CO! (while the Navajo running the little Four Corners tribal park/tourist trap look on in amusement at the silly palefaces...)

Hey, don't forget TUS as a possible beneficiary--it'd be great to see AA finally get some real competition in the Tucson-Dallas market!
[post="280566"][/post]​

I thought long before adding UT as it is kind of a diagonal second-state-away relationship. I suppose that out of the four that I mentioned, UT would have the smallest market(s) :)

Yes...TUS would also be a good addition. Maybe John McCain can write a bill as it seems that the only way to make progress is one state at a time!!
 
jimntx said:
Excuse me. I grew up in BHM and my family still lives there. FYI, SW beat the drum for the Shelby Amendment. Implied to the AL politicians that it would greatly increase service to BHM. Now, SW does provide non-stop service from BHM to LAS (as someone who grew up in BHM being drug off to church every time I turned around that service just cracks me up. Particularly because the flight to Sin City is always full. :lol: )

I still say that SW only wants to cherry-pick the big ticket markets. With the exception of possible service between DAL and PHX (hub to hub, don't you know), I doubt any of the first or second "tier" states would see much improvement in service from DAL.
[post="280523"][/post]​

Jim-

The context of my message was that these markets, including BHM, do not open up real competition because there just isn't any demand. I sure hope that you know I wasn't saying that I dislike BHM and other small cities...it is just that they don't make a huge impact for demand. I grew up and still have family in CLE but I am definitely able to admit that it is not a huge market (though substantially larger than BHM). It does not mean that I do not like CLE...just that I can admit that the demand is not there.

Now...as far as "cherry-picking" the big markets...how about "carefully choosing" PROFITABLE markets. They have gotten themselves into their strong position by doing so (so why not add PHX, STL, BNA...heck why not MDW, LAX, MHT, FLL, etc to the WA?). There isn't much revenue in the CLT-EWN routes...ask US. AA has chosen to fly huge schedules to LAX, ORD, and BOS from DFW...does that mean they "cherry-pick" these markets? What is wrong with making logical biz decisions? Now, more than ever, it is important - no, necessary - to make sound (profitable) biz decisions. So like I said...Shelby was designed to continue to stifle real competition out of DAL and you can bet that the intention was to convince people like you that "hey...WN isn't adding hundreds of DAL-BHM flights so why should we add MDW, etc?".