Wright Amendment
- Thread starter EdFred
- Start date
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
N2212R said:
Somebody brought that up once before. I think its a horrible idea. Damn Texans.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
NickDBrennan said:
Yep. It would bring lower airfares all the way around.
American Airlines is STILL opposed to the amendment, and blatently states that repeal of the amendment will hurt American - to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Protectionism is rife in aviation. I say open Love Field and let the market decide.
Greebo
N9017H - C172M (1976)
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 10,976
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
- Display Name
Display name:
Retired Evil Overlord
They're opposed to the amendment or to its repeal?
Jim Chumley
Pre-takeoff checklist
wsuffa said:
I agree with Bill. AA is a big opponent of opening up Love Field. The Wright Amendment issue has been around at least since we moved to Grapevine, a community on which DFW is located, 15 years ago. My answer to a poll being circulated at the time was that we should allow capable reliever airports full functionality; That would include Meacham Field in Fort Worth as well as Love in Dallas. Let the market decide.
Jim
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Ed:
I'm in the middle of this being here at Addison. When Pete Wright proposed that amendment D/FW was new and competing against Love Field and a field near Fort Worth. As a compromise, the amendment restricted SW to contiguous states to stop competition against the folks D/FW was trying to keep. At the time, SW was pretty small and the market was much different.
What's not said is how much allowing SW to go to Love field revitalized the neighborhood. At one time, Love was a great area. Braniff and a lot of carriers operated out of there and apartments were full of airline personnel--lots of flight attendents. Really upscale area with a lot of shopping and night life. When the majors left, the neighborhood really slumped. Southwest brought a lot of businesses back and helped the area quite a bit--not like years ago but a positive change.
Of course, all the neighborhood NIMBYs don't want more flights.
If I fly on SW, I can only go to a couple states that don't border Texas. That is frustrating because SW is normally much cheaper than the majors. To go to San Diego on SW, I must fly to another city such as Houston; reclaim my luggage, check back on another flight including rechecking baggage. So, in and out of security, baggage hastles and connections for a flight to a destination that SW already goes to anyway--and could be direct.
One can see how this could hurt D/FW to some degree, but artificial barriers that cause delays, increase cost and are unnecessary seldom are constructive. Don't know where I really stand. OTOH, D/FW staying healty is certainly beneficial to the region. OTOH, I detest having AA and other major charge three or four times what SW charges to go to the same destination. AA really jacks up prices when it doesn't have direct competition. They aren't embarrased at all. Every time SW has created a flight to an AA destination, fares in that market have dropped markedly.
I belive in an open market where ever possible. The consumer is basically paying much more than necessary so D/FW can stay fuller. Long term, I generally don't agree. Give folks a reasonable transition period to get competitive (which has already been plenty long--D/FW opened in 1974) then let the market dictate. Certainly, there are other factors to consider, but you are letting political whims make a market less efficient that it could be.
Best,
Dave
I'm in the middle of this being here at Addison. When Pete Wright proposed that amendment D/FW was new and competing against Love Field and a field near Fort Worth. As a compromise, the amendment restricted SW to contiguous states to stop competition against the folks D/FW was trying to keep. At the time, SW was pretty small and the market was much different.
What's not said is how much allowing SW to go to Love field revitalized the neighborhood. At one time, Love was a great area. Braniff and a lot of carriers operated out of there and apartments were full of airline personnel--lots of flight attendents. Really upscale area with a lot of shopping and night life. When the majors left, the neighborhood really slumped. Southwest brought a lot of businesses back and helped the area quite a bit--not like years ago but a positive change.
Of course, all the neighborhood NIMBYs don't want more flights.
If I fly on SW, I can only go to a couple states that don't border Texas. That is frustrating because SW is normally much cheaper than the majors. To go to San Diego on SW, I must fly to another city such as Houston; reclaim my luggage, check back on another flight including rechecking baggage. So, in and out of security, baggage hastles and connections for a flight to a destination that SW already goes to anyway--and could be direct.
One can see how this could hurt D/FW to some degree, but artificial barriers that cause delays, increase cost and are unnecessary seldom are constructive. Don't know where I really stand. OTOH, D/FW staying healty is certainly beneficial to the region. OTOH, I detest having AA and other major charge three or four times what SW charges to go to the same destination. AA really jacks up prices when it doesn't have direct competition. They aren't embarrased at all. Every time SW has created a flight to an AA destination, fares in that market have dropped markedly.
I belive in an open market where ever possible. The consumer is basically paying much more than necessary so D/FW can stay fuller. Long term, I generally don't agree. Give folks a reasonable transition period to get competitive (which has already been plenty long--D/FW opened in 1974) then let the market dictate. Certainly, there are other factors to consider, but you are letting political whims make a market less efficient that it could be.
Best,
Dave
Last edited:
AA's opposition can be very easily explained by a review of the market and of history; AA owns about 85% of the market at DFW; and has consistently sought to destroy its competition with predatory pricing and temporary service calculated solely to destroy returns for competitors, and withdrawn as soon as such competition fails (see, e.g., Vanguard & Legend).
Problem is, SW cannot abandon half a billion dollars' worth of infrastructure at DAL; nor can they make their high-frequency point-to-point model work at an airport (such as DFW) with the scope of operational complication as DFW; taxi time alone would effectively gut their turn times.
Since the majority of AA's seats at DFW are already taken up with connecting passengers, DFW is a logical and effective base for them.
Check airfares for equivalent markets and segment lengths; AA from DFW, on walk-up business travel, are nothing short of confiscatory.
Problem is, SW cannot abandon half a billion dollars' worth of infrastructure at DAL; nor can they make their high-frequency point-to-point model work at an airport (such as DFW) with the scope of operational complication as DFW; taxi time alone would effectively gut their turn times.
Since the majority of AA's seats at DFW are already taken up with connecting passengers, DFW is a logical and effective base for them.
Check airfares for equivalent markets and segment lengths; AA from DFW, on walk-up business travel, are nothing short of confiscatory.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Greebo said:
Yes.
(Bill keeps smart-ass comment about Greebo and whether there is a hyphen in a certain term to self)
AA is opposed to repeal.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
The whole thing was so anti-American* to begin with (restraint of trade) I can't believe it passed! I just hate it when the government messes with business; it always ends up biting the consumer.
*not the airline, the country.
*not the airline, the country.
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,866
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Bad Amendment. Bad Bad Amendment!
Interesting fare comparison-
If you book AA from Houston to San Diego, leaving tomorrow morning and returning Friday afternoon (typical last-minute out-and-back business itinerary), the R/T fare is $875.30.
Same dates, originating at DFW (including, just for fun, flying on the same plane as your Houston-based compadre, who is connecting at DFW), AA exacts $1,318.00 from you.
Key difference? Southwest offers service HOU-SAN, is not allowed to offer DAL-SAN. Southwest caps fares at $299.00 one way. AA caps them at... well, what can you stand?
Somehow, we are supposed to believe that this ONE airport needs to have these restrictions.
Perspective: When the Wright Amendment was passed, DFW had a very healthy mix of airlines competing and providing originating long-haul service. Braniff was dominant, AA was no. 2, and you had significant long-haul service from Eastern, Frontier (the first one), Continental, Delta, Ozark, and Texas International.
Also, do not forget that the original legislation was not the result of a well-publicized and debated legislative process; it was an add-on ("amendment," remember) to a completely unrelated bill. Jim Wright's gift to DFW Airport.
Also amused that DFW needs to be protected from competition from DAL, but the substantial and very valuable service and infrastructure at the other airport owned by the City of Ft. Worth (AFW, Alliance), is somehow insignificant (FedEx widebodies coming and going, substantial sorting hub, very large AA heavy maintenance base)- these could have been at DFW, too, but... well, you get the picture.
Bottom line is, it is about protecting AA's ability to charge confiscatory fares for travelers to/from the north Texas area. It is bad for business here, too.
If you book AA from Houston to San Diego, leaving tomorrow morning and returning Friday afternoon (typical last-minute out-and-back business itinerary), the R/T fare is $875.30.
Same dates, originating at DFW (including, just for fun, flying on the same plane as your Houston-based compadre, who is connecting at DFW), AA exacts $1,318.00 from you.
Key difference? Southwest offers service HOU-SAN, is not allowed to offer DAL-SAN. Southwest caps fares at $299.00 one way. AA caps them at... well, what can you stand?
Somehow, we are supposed to believe that this ONE airport needs to have these restrictions.
Perspective: When the Wright Amendment was passed, DFW had a very healthy mix of airlines competing and providing originating long-haul service. Braniff was dominant, AA was no. 2, and you had significant long-haul service from Eastern, Frontier (the first one), Continental, Delta, Ozark, and Texas International.
Also, do not forget that the original legislation was not the result of a well-publicized and debated legislative process; it was an add-on ("amendment," remember) to a completely unrelated bill. Jim Wright's gift to DFW Airport.
Also amused that DFW needs to be protected from competition from DAL, but the substantial and very valuable service and infrastructure at the other airport owned by the City of Ft. Worth (AFW, Alliance), is somehow insignificant (FedEx widebodies coming and going, substantial sorting hub, very large AA heavy maintenance base)- these could have been at DFW, too, but... well, you get the picture.
Bottom line is, it is about protecting AA's ability to charge confiscatory fares for travelers to/from the north Texas area. It is bad for business here, too.
etsisk
En-Route
Punctuation! Yaay!! Ok, if you can break it down to say "it is", then it gets an apostrophe (which I think is what you meant). If one means to express the possessive form of "it", then no apostrophe, please.wsuffa said:
See? For every poster with self-control, there's one without any!!
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
Well, up until yesterday when the King County exective abruptly changed his tune and said no, Southwest was wanting to move operations from SEA to BWI. This would have displaced GA businesses presently at BWI. And SW was wanting me to help them? Not bloody likely.
On the other hand, I like free enterprise and think the Wright amendment was wrong.
On the other hand, I like free enterprise and think the Wright amendment was wrong.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Jim Wright was from Fort Worth (still is). There was a big feud between the cities with each protecting their own interests (surprise, surprise). Mr. Wright's add on bill protected D/FW. There isn't a Love field in Fort Worth although air carriers were using a field out there when D/FW opened. Fort Worth had little to lose and much to gain through this bill. Dallas had more to lose, but is on the airport board and part owner of D/FW.
In a few words, Jim Wright helped Fort Worth, not Dallas with this add on. At the time it was passed, it made some sense. Currently, it is completely outdated. Even if the bill was repealed, SW would have a lot of hurdles to increasing the number of flights. Local neighborhood groups are very vocally against it. They could get rid of the crazy contiguous state limitation.
Dave
In a few words, Jim Wright helped Fort Worth, not Dallas with this add on. At the time it was passed, it made some sense. Currently, it is completely outdated. Even if the bill was repealed, SW would have a lot of hurdles to increasing the number of flights. Local neighborhood groups are very vocally against it. They could get rid of the crazy contiguous state limitation.
Dave
comanchepilot
En-Route
Somehow I'm not sure folks will like the drive to BWI from SEA - I going out a limb here but kind of assume you mean BFI??? Heck, both times I've been to the either BFI or the Museum of Flight there has been a Southwest Delivery flight leaving . . .
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit