Wright Amendment
- Thread starter luver41
- Start date
diverboy
Member
SW doesn't want the Wright Amendment changed because then it would probably have to give up some gates at DAL..
ELP_WN_Psgr
Senior
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2003
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually, WN would NOT have to give up gates at DAL, as they put enough operations thru each of them to justify keeping them.
The city can't yank them away and give them to seombody else on a whim.
Avtually, WN would probably be looking for some more gates themselves if WA went away, which it should.
A smart thing to do would be to do like DCA or LGA...put a perimeter rule into effect. Maybe allow folks to fly nonstops from DAL not to exceed 1200 miles or something along those lines.
The city can't yank them away and give them to seombody else on a whim.
Avtually, WN would probably be looking for some more gates themselves if WA went away, which it should.
A smart thing to do would be to do like DCA or LGA...put a perimeter rule into effect. Maybe allow folks to fly nonstops from DAL not to exceed 1200 miles or something along those lines.
I believe the distinction occurs in ticketing. Under Wright, one cannot ticket a through/connecting flight beyond the adjacent states (and Mississippi). With LGA perimeter restrictions, one cannot fly nonstop beyond the perimeter, but can ticket through/connecting flights beyond the perimeter.
ELP_WN_Psgr
Senior
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2003
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 0
Weiss is correct.
I don;t think WN would mind too much if they kept the current state limitation if they would lift the ban on ticketing.
DAL-ABQ-LAS, DAL-ELP-PHX (or LAX), DAL-MSY-MCO or TPA, DAL-BHM-BWI, DAL-OKC-MCI, DAL-TUL-MCI, DAL-LIT-MDW would all be nice additions to current schedule
Not that people don;t do that already.
I don;t think WN would mind too much if they kept the current state limitation if they would lift the ban on ticketing.
DAL-ABQ-LAS, DAL-ELP-PHX (or LAX), DAL-MSY-MCO or TPA, DAL-BHM-BWI, DAL-OKC-MCI, DAL-TUL-MCI, DAL-LIT-MDW would all be nice additions to current schedule
Not that people don;t do that already.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,619
- Reaction score
- 1,465
They sure do...did it myself last month when I had to fly to Dallas at the last minute because my mom was having emergency surgery, and didn't feel like paying AA or DAL $872 to do it. Southwest did it on a fully refundable ticket for $400. Most likely would have been around $200 had the WA not been in place. I did my own version of the "10 minute turn" on the way down in Tulsa...got off one flight, the flight from TUL-DAL was still at the gate two gates down. I ran down, asked if there was room, and got on board. Total time on the ground was 10 minutes.ELP_WN_Psgr said:
Interesting note...for the folkswho claim that SWA caters primarily to the "leisure" passenger (as if OKC is a hot leisure destination), on my way back to KC, there were about 40 people...wearing business suits...who got off my DAL-OKC flight and walked over to the gate for the OKC-MCI flight. It was a Wednesday, and both flights were full. I tried to catch an earlier flight, but the res agent said the OKC-MCI leg was full....on a Wednesday.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,619
- Reaction score
- 1,465
Indeed it is. But most of those business passengers had an overnight bag (if that...some seemed to have gone down that morning and were coming home that night...stopover and everything). If the WA were abolished, I can pretty much guarantee that LUV would have full flights to DAL from MCI, even if the plane had to stop once in OKC to get there.mweiss said:
jimntx
Veteran
Not quite correct. It's the city of Dallas, the city of Ft. Worth, and the DFW Airport Operating Authority that do not want the WA lifted or modified. Much like the DCA-IAD combo. Do you really think that most people in Dallas would drive all the way to DFW for a nonstop flight to New York if they could go to an airport 5 miles from downtown Dallas for the same destination?Ch. 12 said:
Besides, AMR still holds leases on a number of Love Field gates. It would be no problem to re-start operations at DAL.
Also, (and I'm just guessing here), I would imagine that SWA doesn't mind all that much having to shuttle people down to HOU for flights to destinations outside the WA perimeter. DAL and DFW are fairly close together for airports and increased flying from DAL would be impacted by DFW traffic--a lot of inbound traffic to DFW flies directly over DAL. HOU and IAH are almost 40 miles apart. Because of the geographic location of HOU, very little traffic to and from IAH flies anywhere near HOU. Gives SWA a lot more flexibility in scheduling takeoffs and landings at HOU than they have at DAL.
LoneStarMike
Advanced
Interestingly enough, there was a good opinion piece from the Fort Worth Star Telegram just last week regarding the Wright Amendment.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/8793047.htm
Wright rules aren't helping today's fliers
Mitchell Schnurman
May 30, 2004
IN MY OPINION
It's no surprise that the Wright Amendment is handcuffing Dallas Love Field. That was the intent.
But has the amendment been holding back Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, too?
D/FW officials say that's absurd, but something is stalling our so-called economic engine, and a protectionist relic can't help.
D/FW says its total passenger traffic increased 7 percent from 1993 to 2003. A unit of the federal Transportation
Department reports even worse numbers, saying traffic declined slightly during that time.
No matter which figures are right, they're nothing to brag about.
Nationwide, domestic passenger traffic surged 30 percent in the same period, and it was up by strong double digits in other major cities.
We hear a lot about the airline industry's troubles, but discounters have been on a growth spurt. And guess what? The Metroplex market has largely missed it.
Not so in Houston, Atlanta and Chicago. Each has added millions of fliers since 1993.
What's to blame for the slowdown here? Tourism has fallen since 2000, and the financial problems at our bell cows, American and Delta airlines, have been a huge factor. But don't discount the Wright Amendment.
The rule limits Love Field flights to a handful of nearby states, effectively funneling carriers into D/FW. Years ago, it was important in establishing D/FW as one of the nation's top airports.
Some would argue that the law still helps D/FW and the area's largest employer, American Airlines.
But that doesn't mean it benefits the public anymore.
Southwest Airlines' Herb Kelleher recently called it "the wrong amendment," and the punch line fits.
The law has tied Southwest's hands at Love Field, prohibiting nonstops to coveted destinations like Chicago, Los Angeles and the East Coast.
And Southwest won't go to D/FW -- despite countless invitations -- because of higher costs and fears of flight delays.
As a result, Southwest can't offer its $99 fly-anywhere fares from its home base at Love Field, and American isn't forced to match those prices at D/FW.
Higher fares translate into less traffic.
Economists would call this a predictable outcome. This is what happens when competition is artificially limited, when the marketplace gets distorted by regulations and when a few powerful interests benefit at the expense of the public.
Is it a coincidence that long-haul flights at D/FW sell for 39 percent above the national average and that passenger traffic is stalling?
Or that Chicago Midway Airport's fares are more than 20 percent below average and that its traffic has almost tripled in the past decade?
D/FW has begun to attract more flights from discount carriers in the past year, and that's a positive development. They still move less than 5 percent of D/FW's fliers, but airport officials say fares are falling overall.
The Transportation Department tracks air fares and determines an average rate based on the routes' volume, density and distance. In some markets, such as Chicago Midway, most tickets are sold at a discount to the average. In others, more sell at a premium.
It's natural that D/FW carriers get some premium sales because they carry so many business travelers. But the D/FW premium is almost twice as much as Chicago O'Hare's on long-haul flights.
The average premium on D/FW short-hauls -- which compete with flights from Love Field -- was 6 percent in the third quarter of 2003, according to the Transportation Department report released last month.
A 6 percent premium isn't bad for consumers.
On flights longer than 750 miles, where American often has a near-monopoly, the D/FW premium is 39 percent.
That's higher than any other major market. Long-hauls at Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport carry a 29 percent premium; in Denver, it's 15 percent; at Atlanta's Hartsfield, fliers pay 6 percent above the average.
Obviously, American benefits from the D/FW premium. American believes that residents benefit from its extensive network.
American says the Wright Amendment enables it to focus its North Texas investment at D/FW. If Love Field were opened, American would move some planes and gates there, and its D/FW hub would be diluted.
American officials also argue vigorously that a deal is a deal. They don't want to change the law now, not after investing so much money at D/FW.
But don't laws change all the time? Don't some rules eventually become obsolete?
The Wright Amendment was amended seven years ago to add three outlying states after their members of Congress complained about high air fares.
And if the restrictions are costing local consumers and hurting growth at area airports, it's time to rethink the rules.
Dallas and Fort Worth are trying to kick-start their convention businesses. Think cheaper air fares would help?
Free Love Field and let real competition work its magic. Eventually, D/FW and American would respond to the challenge, and more people would be flying.
Yet there seems to be no movement on the issue. The last time Dallas leaders tried to force a change, about seven years ago, Fort Worth, D/FW and American came down on them like a ton of bricks.
Lawsuits and emotions were flying, and nobody seems willing to walk into that briar patch again.
It's troubling that even a maverick like Kelleher seems resigned to keeping the Wright Amendment.
"We simply don't have the time to undertake a massive effort to get [it] changed," he said at Southwest's annual meeting.
Southwest is growing like gangbusters elsewhere, but traffic has fallen 15 percent at Love Field in the past decade, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a unit of the Transportation Department.
By comparison, combined traffic at the two major airports in Houston was up 39 percent. In Chicago, total passengers were up 22 percent, largely because of the surge at Midway. At Atlanta's Hartsfield, where discount competition is keen, passenger totals soared 65 percent.
Southwest has simply taken its growth to places where it's not restricted. Houston, Phoenix and Las Vegas now have more daily Southwest flights than Love Field. That's a sad development for a company that was born in Dallas and has its headquarters there.
Jim Wright, the retired congressman from Fort Worth who fashioned the amendment that bears his name, says he doesn't keep up with the issue today. He believes it's important to remember its history because the compromise paved the way for cooperation between Dallas and Fort Worth.
That was a breakthrough moment for the region and should be respected. But the amendment is 25 years old.
"It's a different world," Wright said. "If people want to amend it or repeal it, that's fine with me."
That would be the right thing. Is there a leader willing to make it happen?
Mike
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/8793047.htm
Wright rules aren't helping today's fliers
Mitchell Schnurman
May 30, 2004
IN MY OPINION
It's no surprise that the Wright Amendment is handcuffing Dallas Love Field. That was the intent.
But has the amendment been holding back Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, too?
D/FW officials say that's absurd, but something is stalling our so-called economic engine, and a protectionist relic can't help.
D/FW says its total passenger traffic increased 7 percent from 1993 to 2003. A unit of the federal Transportation
Department reports even worse numbers, saying traffic declined slightly during that time.
No matter which figures are right, they're nothing to brag about.
Nationwide, domestic passenger traffic surged 30 percent in the same period, and it was up by strong double digits in other major cities.
We hear a lot about the airline industry's troubles, but discounters have been on a growth spurt. And guess what? The Metroplex market has largely missed it.
Not so in Houston, Atlanta and Chicago. Each has added millions of fliers since 1993.
What's to blame for the slowdown here? Tourism has fallen since 2000, and the financial problems at our bell cows, American and Delta airlines, have been a huge factor. But don't discount the Wright Amendment.
The rule limits Love Field flights to a handful of nearby states, effectively funneling carriers into D/FW. Years ago, it was important in establishing D/FW as one of the nation's top airports.
Some would argue that the law still helps D/FW and the area's largest employer, American Airlines.
But that doesn't mean it benefits the public anymore.
Southwest Airlines' Herb Kelleher recently called it "the wrong amendment," and the punch line fits.
The law has tied Southwest's hands at Love Field, prohibiting nonstops to coveted destinations like Chicago, Los Angeles and the East Coast.
And Southwest won't go to D/FW -- despite countless invitations -- because of higher costs and fears of flight delays.
As a result, Southwest can't offer its $99 fly-anywhere fares from its home base at Love Field, and American isn't forced to match those prices at D/FW.
Higher fares translate into less traffic.
Economists would call this a predictable outcome. This is what happens when competition is artificially limited, when the marketplace gets distorted by regulations and when a few powerful interests benefit at the expense of the public.
Is it a coincidence that long-haul flights at D/FW sell for 39 percent above the national average and that passenger traffic is stalling?
Or that Chicago Midway Airport's fares are more than 20 percent below average and that its traffic has almost tripled in the past decade?
D/FW has begun to attract more flights from discount carriers in the past year, and that's a positive development. They still move less than 5 percent of D/FW's fliers, but airport officials say fares are falling overall.
The Transportation Department tracks air fares and determines an average rate based on the routes' volume, density and distance. In some markets, such as Chicago Midway, most tickets are sold at a discount to the average. In others, more sell at a premium.
It's natural that D/FW carriers get some premium sales because they carry so many business travelers. But the D/FW premium is almost twice as much as Chicago O'Hare's on long-haul flights.
The average premium on D/FW short-hauls -- which compete with flights from Love Field -- was 6 percent in the third quarter of 2003, according to the Transportation Department report released last month.
A 6 percent premium isn't bad for consumers.
On flights longer than 750 miles, where American often has a near-monopoly, the D/FW premium is 39 percent.
That's higher than any other major market. Long-hauls at Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport carry a 29 percent premium; in Denver, it's 15 percent; at Atlanta's Hartsfield, fliers pay 6 percent above the average.
Obviously, American benefits from the D/FW premium. American believes that residents benefit from its extensive network.
American says the Wright Amendment enables it to focus its North Texas investment at D/FW. If Love Field were opened, American would move some planes and gates there, and its D/FW hub would be diluted.
American officials also argue vigorously that a deal is a deal. They don't want to change the law now, not after investing so much money at D/FW.
But don't laws change all the time? Don't some rules eventually become obsolete?
The Wright Amendment was amended seven years ago to add three outlying states after their members of Congress complained about high air fares.
And if the restrictions are costing local consumers and hurting growth at area airports, it's time to rethink the rules.
Dallas and Fort Worth are trying to kick-start their convention businesses. Think cheaper air fares would help?
Free Love Field and let real competition work its magic. Eventually, D/FW and American would respond to the challenge, and more people would be flying.
Yet there seems to be no movement on the issue. The last time Dallas leaders tried to force a change, about seven years ago, Fort Worth, D/FW and American came down on them like a ton of bricks.
Lawsuits and emotions were flying, and nobody seems willing to walk into that briar patch again.
It's troubling that even a maverick like Kelleher seems resigned to keeping the Wright Amendment.
"We simply don't have the time to undertake a massive effort to get [it] changed," he said at Southwest's annual meeting.
Southwest is growing like gangbusters elsewhere, but traffic has fallen 15 percent at Love Field in the past decade, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a unit of the Transportation Department.
By comparison, combined traffic at the two major airports in Houston was up 39 percent. In Chicago, total passengers were up 22 percent, largely because of the surge at Midway. At Atlanta's Hartsfield, where discount competition is keen, passenger totals soared 65 percent.
Southwest has simply taken its growth to places where it's not restricted. Houston, Phoenix and Las Vegas now have more daily Southwest flights than Love Field. That's a sad development for a company that was born in Dallas and has its headquarters there.
Jim Wright, the retired congressman from Fort Worth who fashioned the amendment that bears his name, says he doesn't keep up with the issue today. He believes it's important to remember its history because the compromise paved the way for cooperation between Dallas and Fort Worth.
That was a breakthrough moment for the region and should be respected. But the amendment is 25 years old.
"It's a different world," Wright said. "If people want to amend it or repeal it, that's fine with me."
That would be the right thing. Is there a leader willing to make it happen?
Mike
While I agree that Ft Worth and the DFW-Auth are behind the WA, AMR is and always has been the biggest lobbyist for originally instituting it and now defending it. Look at their history in the courtroom whenever the WA is challenged in any way. It is not the city of FTW that opposes change...it is AMR.jimntx said:
No...the true history of the WA is that there was a necessity to prove that DFW could sufficiently serve the population of the Dallas/Ft Worth area once it was built. Since it was difficult to draw people who live nowhere near the grand prairie that DFW sits on, a PUSH was made. Ft Worth benefitted by drawing people closer since FTW Meacum was never a successful venture for carriers. AMR and at the time Braniff saw the opportunity to maintain a monopolistic advantage by forcing all carriers to choose DFW rather than what would become a 'reliever' airport such as DAL. This limited capacity to compete against the carriers.
True. Wn does recieve some benefit by having an unattractive (in regards to ticketable markets) 'hub' in DAL that allows them to have little competition there. However...repealing the WA is not just for WN. Look at Legend (though perhaps the wrong time for such a business plan). Having such restrictions made it prohibitively expensive for them to serve the area. And looking at AMR's retaliation to Legend...you cannot tell me that they are not benefitting from the WA.
And the IAD/DCA comparison (we can include LGA/JFK as well) is not relevant. The perimeters imposed on both DCA and LGA include markets of value. The genious of the WA is that while Dallas is centrally located, it does not have decent markets in the one-state radius (expanded now, strategically, to more states with no major markets). DCA and LGA are in the NE cooridor which has many large markets to choose from. DAL-OKC is not going to make or break an airline.
So yes...while Ft Worth and the DFW-AA had much to do with the creation of the WA, AMR and Braniff should be given equally as much credit. And it is now AMR that has the loudest voice in protecting the WA.
jimntx
Veteran
Oh, I don't deny that AMR has a vested interest in the WA. But, if you are a company who has invested BIG bucks in a forced move--remember, Love Field was originally closed to commercial aviation to force everyone to use DFW--why wouldn't you protect that investment?Ch. 12 said:
Besides, as I said, AMR is still the leaseholder on a number of Love Field gates. If the WA is repealed and AMR moves substantial ops back to Love to compete with WN's new markets, I'm betting the DFW AOA, and the cities of FW and Dallas are going to be less than happy when those bond payments come due--especially for the new International terminal that ain't even open yet.
The article blaming the WA for slow growth at DFW is a little facetious. It always amazes me how business analysts are always looking for a single solution to very complicated issues--like why DFW airport has grown by 7% while Houston's two airports have grown by a combined total of 29%. It's so much easier to blame the WA than look at such issues as the industrial mix between the two cities. DFW Metro has been a lot more dependent upon the high-tech industries that have been in the dumps for awhile. And, for a lot of years, Houston was underserved by the airlines. Until Terminal C (exclusively for Continental) was built, there were 2 terminals with a total of 32 gates at each terminal at IAH. Some of those gates were unused. So, some of that 29% growth has been "catch up" increases.
Oh, where do I start.jimntx said:
American Airlines moved from DAL to DFW thirty years ago. One would imagine that the vast majority of the cost of that move has been amortized by now. I don't suppose they're still paying off the cost of moving the company headquarters from New York to DFW Airport as well. Love Field was never closed to commercial aviation; rather, the airlines serving DAL were forced to sign agreements to transfer all service to DFW once the new airport opened. As Southwest had been delayed in starting service by litigation on AA and BN's part, they were never forced to sign such an agreement. American Airlines was actually in violation of this agreement when they restarted service at DAL (on DAL-AUS and routes competing with Legend), and yet for some strange reason the City of Fort Worth and the DFW Airport Board did not see fit to sue AMR to force them to abide by the agreement they had signed. And while Continental also serves DAL, it's done via Continental Express, a subsidiary airline.
What you call AA trying to "protect that investment," most others would call trying to artificially limit competition. The businesses and residents of the Metroplex are the ones paying for that investment in the end.
"Until Terminal C (exclusively for Continental) was built, there were 2 terminals with a total of 32 gates at each terminal at IAH. Some of those gates were unused. So, some of that 29% growth has been "catch up" increases."
Terminal C was built for both Continental and Texas International; the merger between the two happened just after Terminal C opened in 1981 (and well before the "past decade" mentioned in the op-ed piece). Terminal D opened in 1990, again prior to the "past decade." By the 1993-4 timeframe, IAH had nearly 100 gates available, combined with another 30+ at HOU. Terminals A & B originally opened with twenty gates apiece, though some additional gates were added to each over the years.
And actually I'd argue that DFW's lack of growth is due both to Delta's pulldown of its hub as capacity was redeployed to ATL after EA failed as well as high airfares to and from DFW. Houston's growth is tied to more vigorous competition and a better-run Continental after the second bankruptcy.
Southwest's new facilities at HOU are gorgeous, as is IAH's new Terminal E. IAH Terminal A's new concourses are clean and modern. And yet Houston's airports also have lower operating costs than DFW.
As for the new International Terminal at DFW -- that has nothing to do with the Wright Amendment. It's not like any prospective international carriers would move to DAL, which lacks any FIS facilities. Given the constraints at DAL, it's unlikely that AA could move more than 10-15% of their DFW operation over to Love Field. There simply aren't enough gates or places to park the planes.
