Why did American cut Tyler flights?

Paul

Veteran
Nov 15, 2005
1,102
0
Some officials and business leaders in Tyler are angry over the suggestion by an American Airlines executive that the city lost some air service because it didn't support the carrier's position on the Wright amendment.

"It was a disappointment that your elected, appointed and business leadership in Tyler, chose not to recognize the importance of objecting to changes to the Wright amendment," according to the e-mail, dated Jan. 17, from Dale Morris, managing director for government affairs at regional affiliate American Eagle.

"I firmly believe their inaction has contributed to the loosening of the Wright amendment restrictions and ultimately lead to the service reductions in Tyler," he wrote in the message, first reported this week in the Tyler Morning Telegraph.

Tyler leaders said that e-mail contradicted what they were told earlier by the airline, which is cutting service from their city to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport when it starts service at Dallas Love Field on March 2. The airline, which now has seven daily flights from Tyler to D/FW, will have four.

Last year, American executives visited Texas midsized cities, telling airport directors and leaders that if the Wright law were to change, regional jet and turboprop service to some destinations would get cut as the airline diverted planes to launch new service from Love Field.

The Fort Worth-based carrier opposes any changes to the Wright restrictions at Love. But it is restarting operations there, in response to a November revision in the law that added Missouri to the list of states that can be served from Love.

American officials said the airline never threatened to pull service from the cities, if they didn't take the carrier's position on Wright.

"We told these communities that if we had to compete out of Love, that those planes would have to come from somewhere," said American Eagle spokesman Dave Jackson.

Dallas Morning News
 
this is nothing but a smokescreen. TYR only needs 4 flights a day. Blaming TYR for failing to support AA is completely bogus and shows the lack of intestinal fortitude AA has in telling its cities that they do not warrant 7 flights a day.

BY the way - if AA priced TYR liked they were interested in flying from there, they might sell some seats. It's priced at a substantial premium to SHV, many DFW markets, and certainly IAH/HOU. And of course, good ole I-20 is just miles away.
 
Have you ever actually been to Tyler? I have... most recently three weeks ago. They've got a couple of hospitals and factories, and a lot of abandoned buildings on the north side of town... Not exactly a thriving business community once you get outside of health care, Walmart (third largest employer) and manufacturing.

There's also fact that Tyler and Longview are so close together (less than 40 miles apart) and have pretty much a duplicate pattern of service.
 
Have you ever actually been to Tyler? I have... most recently three weeks ago. They've got a couple of hospitals and factories, and a lot of abandoned buildings on the north side of town... Not exactly a thriving business community once you get outside of health care, Walmart (third largest employer) and manufacturing.

There's also fact that Tyler and Longview are so close together (less than 40 miles apart) and have pretty much a duplicate pattern of service.


That information you provided may be true View attachment 4186, but that is not what the posted story states was the reason for reduction.

Your reasoning makes one wonder why AA was in Tyler to begin with. But the posted story clearly indicates a more vindictive move.

Moderators Note: In the future, please avoid posting the names of the posters on this board. This is called 'outing someone', and is frowned upon. Posters on this site expect some sense of anonymousness, and we respect that right. We also expect every poster to honor the same right. Thank you for your future consideration.
 
The DMN is the one making the assumption it was vindictive, which perhaps it was, but I'm fairly certain it was based on economics first, and their (in)action second.

If I'm a network planner looking at a list of poor performing markets, and I know I need to fund service somewhere else, does it make more sense to cut back in a community who has been working with you, or one who has chosen to support a direct competitor's objectives?

If that was the case, then it's a decision being made partly on politics as opposed to pure economics, but as you say, serving Tyler and other small communities is also a political move as opposed to being based on pure economics.