I sent him an email.
What an ignoramus.Mr. Barton: "Love Field – it has no ability to become a major airport."
I sent him an email.
An angry email, I hope. Or a nastygram, if you will.Originally Posted by Tnekster
Just when I didn't think I could be any prouder of the Congressman from Athens, TX. Go, Jeb!
Actually, that's DFW's problem... the whole place was built for point-to-point service. It's poorly suited to the hub-and-spoke world that emerged from deregulation. That's why they had to spend a gigabuck on Terminal D and the People Mover project. But those expenses are why Southwest wouldn't touch DFW with a 10-foot cocktail stirrer -- they didn't sign up to pay for DFW's folly, and they don't want any part of it.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
It wasn't too nasty but I think I got my point across.
In my experience, nasty <> effective. Nasty makes you easy to ignore. Better to remember the old saying, "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." Although, in truth, my experience with flies is that they're mostly attracted by my horses, so take that as you will.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
I just called Jeb's Dallas office and said thanks for sticking up for Love Field and Dallas.
Dallas District Office:
6510 Abrams Road, Suite 243
Dallas, TX 75231
(214) 349-9996
http://www.house.gov/hensarling/contact/zipauth.htm
I wasnt aware that the Metroplex was economically driven solely, and only, by DFW airport...guess I missed that memo.
As Lakewooder said...
two "engines" are better than one.
They sure try to make it sound that way. Furthermore, if DFW is so wondrous an airport, it should be able to stand up to competition, right?
Those behemoth dump trucks they use at mining sites have an engine for each wheel (and a few more beyond those, if I'm not mistaken) that all work in tandem.
I think this statement is contradictory and actually supports Southwest's argument. The congressman underscores the point that Love Field will never be a real threat to DFW Airport.
Last edited by Mballar; 22 July 2005 at 03:48 PM.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
^Very good point. You should e-mail that to Southwest.
haha nice call, he undermines himself without even realizing it...
It's a done deal!^Very good point. You should e-mail that to Southwest.
Text of message sent:
"To whom it may concern::
It is well known that Rep. Joe Barton, Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, is staunchly against the Wright Amendment's repeal. However, today he made a comment that actually supports Southwest's argument that lifting restrictions at Love will not do damage to D/FW Airport's revenue. The congressman's comment was:
"I love American Airlines, and I love Southwest, but I want our region to continue to grow economically." He goes on to say, "The engine that drives that is D/FW. It is not Love Field. Love Field - it has no ability to become a major airport."
I think Rep. Barton's statement is contradictory, and actually supports Southwest's argument. The congressman underscores the point that Love Field will never be a real threat to D/FW.
I hope that you are able to use this as "ammunition" to further "shoot down" the bogus arguments employed to keep Wright in place.
I, too, believe in what's right, and it's not Wright.
Sincerely. . ."
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
^Awesome!! ...nice work.
^Thanks!
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
That is great! Wish I had know that before I sent my email to Barton.
Has anyone else seen the billboard at the south end of the Tollway? It says, "The Wright Amendment needs to make a departure. setlovefree.com"
Any other such billboards around town? I'd expect that one or more of SWA's billboard farm around Love Field would have a similar sentiment.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Yeah, I saw it yesterday, and you're right about other billboards around Love Field carrying the same sentiment. Moreover, the last line in my email was taken directly from Southwest's billboard ad facing I35E near Baby Does (same area as the one you mentioned Robert). I think it reads something like "Southwest is for what's right, and it's not Wright." I may be a little off with the wording though (my memory is fading in my early 30's).
Those billboards are going to drive American Airlines nuts because they're in such close proximity to American Airlines Center. It's just another example of the business minds at Southwest, and is an example, IMO, of why they beat American (and everbody else) in the profitability dept. Southwest basically said "Go ahead American, and pay 20 million for naming rights to the arena. We'll steal your thunder by snapping up the billboards around the arena for pennies of what you paid/are still paying.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
from studying both side:
If nothing happens then things stay the same, both airports thrive.
If the amendment is lifted, DFW and AA continue as they are. SW struggles and contemplates moving their HQ out of Dallas.
If the original amendment is enforced, SW goes to DFW and struggles.
Southwest's business model works best for where they are now. Everyone outside of Dallas seems to agree with this from everything I've read which was eye opening to me. Lots thing an open Love Field will let in similar carriers that will eat SW alive.
Good text Mbala!
I guess ol' CLEAN AIR Barton would never consider all the pollution by Dallas drivers trying to get to DFW when they could make a short trip to Love and save gas as well. That's less money going to the Middle East as well.
What airport in the US where SW operates have they had any trouble competing?
^None, because they strategically select not only markets but AIRPORTS! LAX & PHL will be brought up but they are much more compact than DFW which allows less taxi-times and quicker turnaround.
Excellent point! I couldn't have said it better myself. Besides, Southwest would have a distinct advantage over any other competitor, including American, at Love Field for the following reasons:
- SW has over 30 years experience in operations at the airport;
- SW has over 30 years of building relationships with the city;
- SW has its headquarters on site; and
- SW has a majority of the gates.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
If this is their model, then why do they care so much about the amendment being lifted?
The model does not include being restricted only to the states closest to Texas.
Inspite of Love or Dallas or SW or whomever breaking the agreement by running commercial flights out of Love, they have somehow been granted acceptions. Why do they not seek these for markets they want to be in?
My main question is: What is the sequence of events in this whole ordeal? Was the amendment in place before Southwest came to Love? or after?
^After! This is how I understand the story:
ONLY Dallas and Ft. Worth struck a deal not to develop their respective inner city "competing" airports because that would have been counter-productive/ to all the money they were investing into D/FW, and making it a success. So all of the carriers at Love moved operations to D/FW when it was completed (the plan back then was to shut Love down). Southwest didn't care about the two cities' agreement, and told them to go stick it in their ear, b/c SW wanted to stay at Love.
Well, everbody went to court to determine whether Love could be closed (what Dallas & Ft. Worth wanted). When it became apparent that SW was a winner in the courts (why Love is even open today), the two cities ran to Washington to get a legislative fix for the problem. That fix was/is the Wright Amendment The rationale was: if we can't close the airport altogether, we'll significantly limit where carriers can fly from there, and thus give D/FW most of the competitive advantage that was originally intended by Dallas & Ft. Worth.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
If that is the way it went down I harbor no sympathy for Southwest
^I can understand that sentiment. However, Southwest has "played nice" for thirty years, and has not really tried to challenge Wright. Now they're basically saying "Look, we operated with these restrictions at our headquarters for three decades, and D/FW isn't a 'baby airport' anymore." "We were still smart enough to stay in/grow our business, despite Wirht, and D/F/W is now the No. 3 in the WORLD." "Wright has served its purpose, and at this point, it is standing in the our way of providing the entire country with even more reduced fares, especially folks who fly out of Dallas."
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
Then they should go about their campaign without trying to play upon people's sympathy
Actually, the Wright Amendment was passed in 1979. Southwest had been operationg out of Love Field since its launch in 1971. When the Airline Deregulation Act was passed in 1979, Southwest, then an intrastate carrier, as well as Air California and PSA (Pacific Southwest Airlines, two intrastate airlines in California) decided to make their moves out of their respective states- Southwest inaugurated service to New Orleans and Air California and PSA inaugurated service to Las Vegas and/or Reno (can't remember which way it went).
The agreement to move to DFW was signed in the late 1960s and before Southwest was even formed. So Southwest was never party to the agreement and has never indicated such.
At the urging of the major carriers at the time which rightly saw the threat the upstarts like PSA, Air California, and Southwest represented, legislation got introduced that would have restricted air service out of secondary airports like Burbank, Chicago Midway, New York La Guardia, Houston Hobby, etc. in favor of the major airports. The congressional delegations from those threatened locations managed to forge a compromise that is now known as the Wright Amendment, after House Speaker Jim Wright of Fort Worth.
Guess what else happened in 1979? American Airlines moved its corporate headquarters from New York to Fort Worth.............you do the math.
How does this exempt Southwest? I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds ridiculous to claim unless the agreement was only for existing air carriers in the late 60s. I kind of doubt that's the way it was meant to be enforced. That would mean Southwest was acting illegally. How do you get a compromise when you are acting illegally. Something does not smell right for an airline playing the sympathy card.The agreement to move to DFW was signed in the late 1960s and before Southwest was even formed. So Southwest was never party to the agreement and has never indicated such.
<TABLE class=bodytext cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=520 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=480>History of the Wright Amendment
Southwest Airlines has been dedicated to providing low fares and dependable air travel to America for 38 years. In 1967, Southwest Airlines chose to liberate the City of Dallas from the exorbitant airfares that existed even then. Of all the cities and airports in the country, Dallas was picked to host the concept of a low-fare airline for all travelers. But no good deed goes unpunished, as they say, and for its efforts 38 years ago to bring affordable air travel to the Metroplex, Southwest Airlines suffered 12 years of nonstop litigation from DFW International Airport and its airline tenants. The first four years were spent just trying to begin service. Only after a final decision by the Texas Supreme Court, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, was Southwest able to begin service on June 18, 1971. By then, the litigation had cost Southwest millions of dollars, depleting virtually all of Southwest's financial capital-but not its will.
After losing the initial legal battle, competing airlines joined forces with DFW Airport and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth in a series of new legal bouts before administrative agencies and state and federal courts. The purpose of that litigation was to defeat Southwest by evicting it from Love Field in Dallas, the source of Southwest's competitive niche. That litigation continued, in numerous forms and before numerous forums, again including the U.S. Supreme Court. The last battle in this series was not settled until September of 1979, with one last regulatory ruling from a federal agency decreeing that Southwest could operate from Love Field, both for intrastate and interstate flights.
During this 12 year period, the city Southwest wanted to liberate from high airfares made it a crime for a commercial air carrier to land at Love Field (a law that was later overturned by a federal judge as an abuse of law). Along the way, two of Southwest's competitors were indicted by a federal criminal grand jury for their role in the conspiracy to bankrupt the fledgling carrier. It would have been much easier for Southwest to pack up and move its low fare airline to another city but Southwest believed in Dallas and knew the citizens of North Texas deserved the Freedom to Fly. They, too, wanted Love Field to be the cornerstone of a budding competitive niche that is not dependent upon monopoly, but founded on close-in, non-hub airports that allow for quick aircraft turns and high productivity for both airplanes and employees.
In 1978, Southwest saw a ray of hope; the U.S. Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act, establishing a national policy that would take the government out of the business of regulating which routes an airline could fly. Congress acknowledged that open competition is the best means of determining air routes and fares, but memories are short, and Love Field would soon be excluded from this freedom with the passage of the Wright Amendment less than a year later.
Unsuccessful in beating Southwest into submission via the courts, DFW supporters made this local issue a congressional issue. House Majority Leader Jim Wright, without notice, without hearings, and without opportunity for public comment or informed debate, attached an amendment that banned any airline from engaging in interstate air commerce from Love Field to an unrelated bill. The U.S. Senate refused to go along, and forced a compromise, today's Wright Amendment, whose admitted purpose is to protect DFW Airport (and the airlines which serve it) from competition.</TD><TD vAlign=top width=20></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
^one sided language, much? I'd like an account from congress or an outside party explaining why things went how they did.
Ok, this isnt about whether Southwest was doing something wrong when they set up operations back in 1971 or whether the Wright Amendment should of existed. This is about high fares from the metroplex because of AA's monopoly on long distance flights. Personally, I don't care if Southwest was 'acting illegally' back then nor would the average Joe. All I want (and Average Joe) is lower fares, and how to get those is by lifting the Wirght Amendment.
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
cheap fares cannot and should not be the end all of the discussion. That would be surrendering that Wal-Mart is best for a region because of the low fares. If low fares amounts to a much reduced role and very financially damaged DFW and less jobs and relocations to the metroplex because of it, then low fares are not worth it. The actual result may be impossible to study and predict, but we should not just conclude that low fares are the end all and be all of the discussion. If that were the case, we'd all be knocking on Wal-Mart's door to please build everywhere you can. There is always a sacrifice when prices are lowered on any good or service. I'd like to know exactly what that sacrifice will be.
All the talk about the Wright Amendment, Southwest, and lower fares, but some people forget there is a little secret flying out of Love Field. Maybe their fares are not cheap, but I’ll gladly pay for the superior service and fly on the only “REAL” legacy carrier in the USA. Oh, you can buy one ticket and check your bags straight to your final destination on connecting flights. You can not do that on Southwest.
I fly from DAL to all over the world on one ticket with my bags check to my final destination.
I get to the airport 15-20 minutes before my plane first boarding time. There is NEVER a wait for security or check in. I’m especially grateful since September 11th. I check in, and right next to the check in is security, and after that I go up the escalator and the gate is right there. I hand the staff my boarding pass and am I’m on the plane.
It’s like flying on a private jet and possible one of the best airports for passenger service on this airline. Every time I fly back to DAL I have to wait in line and do the things everyone does at a regular airport. I'm not talking about WN, because I have never flow on them.
I fly on CO out of DAL. CO has its own check-in, security, baggage claim and gates. Before American started flying out of DAL (until Sep 11) stealing CO Gates, CO provided free donuts, coffee and orange juice in its gate area.
I also see all the WN people standing in line at security as I walk by going to CO flight with no line in security.
I fly out of DAL about 9-10 times a month sometimes. I fly international out of DAL. I show CO agents my passport and they check my bag and ticket to my final destination.
I have flown DAL-IAH-LGW, (Dallas-Houston-London) DAL-IAH-CDG, (Dallas-Houston- Paris) DAL-IAH-NRT, (Dallas-Houston-Tokyo) DAL-IAH-YYZ, (Dallas-Houston-Toronto) DAL-IAH-POS (Dallas-Houston-Port of Spain) (most convenient flight to POS from Dallas).
I do a lot of flying in the U.S. from DAL and always checked my bags straight through. I fly the DAL-IAH-MCO (Orlando) flight the most and even flew on the 764 from IAH-MCO.
I live in Dallas and it takes me 20-25 minutes to get to DAL. It would take me 1 hour to get to DFW and that is it normal traffic. If it is rush hour I’d have to leave VERY early because 635 would be backed up. I WILL ONLY FLY OUT OF LOVE FIELD!!! DFW is too big, far, and crowded!! I WILL NOT EVER STEP foot on an AA plane because of the horrible service I experienced from them years ago.
I also will not fly on WN. I have nothing against them and think they are a great airline, but they are not my airline of choice. I would like the W.A. repelled because it will open up more options for people living in Dallas that do not want to fly AA or WN. I haven’t flow out of DFW since CO started flying out of DAL. If the W.A. is repelled, I will be able to fly CO to EWR and have easier access to European destinations.
CO has two active gates but there is another gate in their terminal at DAL. They have all the counters and signage set up for the gate but CO does not use it. If they should ever need it all they have to do is put up the jet-way and it is a useable gate.
Last edited by LakeHighlands; 24 July 2005 at 02:01 PM.
"One of Dallas' strongest communities, Lake Highlands boasts a true sense of neighborhood spirit. Local stores reflect passionate support for Lake Highlands schools with school posters and signs. True to its name, the area features handsome traditional homes up and down rolling hills and charming, winding roads." --Lake Highlands People
Southwest (WN) has pulled out of a few airports. SFO-San Francisco comes off the top of my head. It did not fit their business model—too many delays etc.
Another airport that comes to mind is IAH. (Houston Bush Intercontinental). WN stop service to IAH from DAL. Continental (CO) operates 13 flights a day from DAL-IAH.
If WN was like AA, then they would have competed heavily against CO to drive them out of DAL. AA does this to about any airline that tries to start service to DFW. They even go as far as do to it at DAL. (Legend!!!!) WN pulls out of IAH and let CO have the route to itself. Also I think most of the customers on DAL-IAH were transfers since Hobby is closer to downtown Houston. DAL-HOU business travelers. DAL-IAH connections via CO
Repeal of the WA would give people in Dallas more choices, and I bet as soon as WA is repealed your going to see a CO 737 at DAL with flight to EWR (Newark).
Last edited by LakeHighlands; 24 July 2005 at 12:19 AM.
"One of Dallas' strongest communities, Lake Highlands boasts a true sense of neighborhood spirit. Local stores reflect passionate support for Lake Highlands schools with school posters and signs. True to its name, the area features handsome traditional homes up and down rolling hills and charming, winding roads." --Lake Highlands People
LH:
Why do you refer to SouthWest as WN?
Just curious.
I had to add in extra information to my post. Usually when I talk about airlines and aviation I just use airport codes and the two digit airline code establish by IATA.
IATA (International Air Transport Association)- is the governing Body that creates regulations for international air transport. Their airline and airport codes are used worldwide. English is also the official language of aviation. Must speak in English to ATC.
Two digit Airline Designator - The designator is used to identify an airline for all commercial purposes. The two character airline designator is assigned by IATA in accordance with the provisions of Resolution 762. The two character airline designator listed are for use in reservations, timetables, tickets, tariffs, air waybills, schedules publications and in airline interline telecommunications, as well as for the airline industry applications. IATA assigns three types of two character airline designators. Unique, numeric/alpha and controlled duplicate.
Southwest is WN. There is a phrase used by Southwest folks, and goes “you can’t spell WIN without WN.” Means you can’t spell WIN without Southwest. I like it.
Also Southwest Loves Dallas Love Field. Stock Symbol LUV.
Go to www.dallaslovefield.com and see where it takes you.
Airports
The reason I use airport codes is
A) Its easier for me, but also
B) It's because a city can have more than one airport. If I said I was going to New York for example, I could fly into JFK- John F. Kennedy Intl, LGA-La Guardia, and EWR- Newark Intl Airport.
It really comes in handy to know the airport codes. I can not tell you the number of times I was overseas and flying a foreign airline and tell them my final destination is Houston (Customs) and they check my bags to HOU (Houston Hobby). Needless to say I wouldn’t get my bags because there is not a flight to HOU, but IAH (Houston Bush Intercontinental). I always make sure and check that the customer service agent checks my bags to the right airport. Actaully, I just tell them the airport code now.
Ok let me add yet another layer to this. ATC – (Air traffic control). They also use a different name for some airlines called callsigns. This is how ATC identify an airline when communicating with the pilot.
One of my favorites was ValuJet, J7 aka “Critter” for ATC (because of their logo)
If I was to talk about AirTran, I would use FL and their ATC callsign is Citrus.
Last edited by LakeHighlands; 24 July 2005 at 01:24 AM.
"One of Dallas' strongest communities, Lake Highlands boasts a true sense of neighborhood spirit. Local stores reflect passionate support for Lake Highlands schools with school posters and signs. True to its name, the area features handsome traditional homes up and down rolling hills and charming, winding roads." --Lake Highlands People
Finally, someone smart at the S-T
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top bgColor=#ffffff rowSpan=2><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="97%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="97%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle bgColor=#cccccc>
</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>
</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle bgColor=#cccccc>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=4><HR width="97%" color=#cccccc SIZE=1></TD></TR><TR><TD width=15 rowSpan=7></TD><TD>Posted on Sun, Jul. 24, 2005</TD><TD width=15 rowSpan=7>
What's after Wright?
Mitchell Schnurman
IN MY OPINION
<!-- begin body-content -->Maybe we can have a constructive conversation about the Wright Amendment if we start like this: The law is history; what's next?
Many leaders in North Texas have chosen to play hardball on Wright, refusing to talk about the next step, because they can't see any way to compromise and move forward.
Stick with this line long enough, and Washington will become the power broker. And don't count on national politicians giving a flip about our growing pains.
Kay Granger, the Fort Worth Republican who has been among the staunchest supporters of the amendment, senses that the political landscape has shifted in the past few weeks.
Proponents for repealing Wright are gaining momentum, adding heavyweight names and deploying new tactics. A legislative decision isn't inevitable, but a sense of inevitability is growing.
Almost every day, there's another turn of the screw in the kill-Wright movement, another news story about someone trying to chip away at the 26-year-old law.
It's time to start talking about the end game, about how we want to make the transition to freer skies without the pain that an abrupt end might create.
That's not how Granger would put it. But she did propose a meeting of local leaders -- a summit so we can hash out the issues and options.
"It's important that we look at it now," Granger said in a phone interview Thursday. "The two mayors [from Fort Worth and Dallas], the two city councils, the D/FW Airport board should go back over what the Wright Amendment says, why it's important and what's happening now.
"They need to ask, 'Where are we?' " she said. "There have been dueling economic reports -- what's the real story? All these conversations would be appropriate."
Granger's suggestion isn't radical. Dallas Mayor Laura Miller has pushed the same idea for weeks. But Tarrant County leaders have insisted there was no reason to get together.
They believe that there's no common ground, and that may be true on the question of lifting the Wright Amendment. One side wants Dallas Love Field opened to long-haul flights. The other wants it closed entirely, in the hope that Southwest Airlines will move to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.
But if you accept that Wright is going down -- and such a supposition isn't far-fetched, considering recent events -- there's lots to talk about.
How do we cap traffic at Love Field, which is limited by nearby neighborhoods and a scarcity of gates and runways? How do we divvy up Love's gates, which are largely controlled by Southwest? Is there a way to reduce the negative effects on D/FW Airport and its primary tenant, American Airlines?
If we can address some of these issues, a road map and a calendar for repeal might emerge. And if North Texas leaders can agree on a plan that ultimately deregulates air service, it's likely that Congress would give its blessing, too.
The alternative is an all-or-nothing fight.
So far, that's been the strategy for Fort Worth, American Airlines and D/FW Airport. They're betting they can persuade enough lawmakers -- or at least the right lawmaker or two -- to kill any repeal proposals in committee.
There's a big risk in this approach. Southwest is keeping the story in the news and has thousands of employees and customers urging their lawmakers to set Love free.
It has also managed to make this a relevant issue to politicians in Nevada, Connecticut, Arizona and beyond. Lawmakers in Washington will have trouble opposing the concept of free markets and low airfares, which are the centerpieces of Southwest's campaign.
They also might conclude that if we can't handle our own dispute, they'll fix it for us.
Legislative initiatives can move quickly or glacially, and Wright initially looked like a long fight. But it picked up powerful support last week. And if it gets to the floor of the Senate and House, a repeal could be immediate.
The major stakeholders -- American Airlines, D/FW, Love Field and Southwest -- would have little time to adjust.
In the past, North Texas leaders could defuse challenges to the Wright Amendment by insisting it was a local issue. They would explain that it was the result of years of squabbling between Fort Worth and Dallas, and they could bank on outsiders not wanting any part of a family fight.
"But there are some people jumping in who've never been in it before," Granger said. "I've never heard them speak out or take a position [on Wright], and that's the difference now."
Last week alone, it was powerful Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who co-sponsored a Senate bill to repeal the law. And House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, said he supports repeal, too.
For months, DeLay refused to state his opinion on Wright, saying he wanted the North Texas delegation to work it out without his interference. His new stance is yet another push to get our house in order.
Meanwhile, there's a separate movement to undercut Wright. Last week, Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., inserted language into a Senate bill to exempt his state from the Wright restrictions, and his addition is expected to pass. Senators from Pennsylvania and Utah said they wanted the same treatment for their residents, and Tennessee is pursuing the same tack in the House.
Defenders of the status quo argue that lifting Love Field restrictions would harm D/FW and the North Texas economy. That's a harder case to make than Southwest's -- that consumers just want the freedom to fly anywhere.
When Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., introduced a bill last week to repeal the Wright Amendment, he was asked about holding hearings on the subject.
"I'd love to have a hearing on it," Ensign said, "but if not, then it's not a real complicated issue."
That perspective may surprise residents here, where the Wright debate has become so polarizing that it seems unsolvable. It's important to realize that much of the outside world thinks this is a simple matter, with a simple solution.
Repealing the Wright Amendment could create some temporary chaos in North Texas aviation. But free markets can be messy, and many in Washington won't have much sympathy for our concerns.
We still have some control over how this plays out. But if we can't handle that power, Washington will.
<!-- end body-content --><!-- begin body-end --><HR class=tagline color=#cccccc SIZE=1>Mitchell Schnurman's column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. (817) 390-7821 schnurman@star-telegram.com
<!-- end body-end --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<HR width="97%" color=#cccccc SIZE=1><CENTER>© 2005 Star-Telegram and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.dfw.com </CENTER>
<!-- vstory begin -->Love - and variations thereof in Congress
Legislators add their own twists to benefit their constituents
08:38 PM CDT on Saturday, July 23, 2005
By ROBERT DODGE / The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON – All politics are local, the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill famously observed. He may have been thinking about airline service.
<!-- image1 starts here -->
AP
A congressional brawl is brewing over flight restrictions from Dallas Love Field.
<!-- image1 ends here -->Even as the Wright amendment battle evolves from a regional squabble into a full-fledged congressional fight, the outcome may be determined by the backyard concerns of lawmakers from around the country.
Legislators from rural states fear losing service to their cities. Others are worried about protecting jobs and lowering airfares in their communities. At least one wants an opportunity for payback. The effort to repeal Wright amendment restrictions on Dallas Love Field has set into motion competing bills that could open the city airport to long-distance routes or shut it down completely to commercial traffic.
Consider a proposal made last week that unites Sens. James Inhofe, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma, with Tom Harkin, a liberal Democrat from Iowa.<!-- Refer begins here -->
DallasNews.com/extra Tracking the Wright amendment: History, opinions, links and FAQs
<!-- Refer ends here -->Their bill, which some experts say has little chance of passage, would close Dallas Love Field to commercial air traffic, potentially forcing Southwest Airlines Co. to move to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
Southwest wants to lift Wright so it can fly nationwide from Love. It doesn't want to move to D/FW, which is dominated by American Airlines Inc. D/FW and American oppose opening Love to long-haul flights.
Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Harkin joined together as friends of American less out of ideology than geography.
Both come from largely rural states that depend heavily on the hub-and-spoke networks of traditional airlines like American for service to their cities.
American provides frequent service to Oklahoma City and Tulsa from D/FW. Lifting the 25-year-old flight restrictions would give Southwest "a competitive advantage over American, and it could negatively affect the service we get in Oklahoma," Mr. Inhofe said.
Mr. Harkin is concerned that opening Love could cause American to deploy planes away from small airports like those serving Iowa.
American and its regional affiliate, American Eagle, provide service from D/FW, Chicago and St. Louis to Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, as well as Moline across the state line in Illinois.
American jets from D/FW compete against Southwest planes from Love Field for passengers flying within Texas and to seven nearby states – the region the city airport is allowed to serve.
But if the Wright restrictions were repealed, the world's largest carrier says it would be forced to move significant operations to Love.
American's chairman and chief executive, Gerard Arpey, said during a recent trip to Washington that the carrier would have to re-evaluate its route system, reducing or eliminating service to some smaller cities.
Some routes inevitably would be to rural states, he told reporters.
Mr. Inhofe has separate economic reasons for backing the Fort Worth-based carrier. American maintains a giant maintenance base with 8,000 workers in Tulsa.
"American happens to be our largest employer in the city of Tulsa and one of the largest in the state of Oklahoma," he said.
The Inhofe-Harkin bill was a response to one also filed Tuesday by Republican John Ensign of Nevada. Mr. Ensign's proposal would open Love Field to all 50 states and Puerto Rico, a move the senator said was partly driven by his desire to increase traffic to popular Nevada destinations.
"This is ridiculous for the people of Texas" who want to fly to Las Vegas or Nevada, Mr. Ensign said. "And it is ridiculous for the people of Nevada who want to go in the other direction."
Other issues
To be sure, some experts said, lawmakers look at more than local interests in the Wright debate, including broader principles of free and open markets. Airport safety, noise and pollution also play a role.
"You cannot paint the entire Congress with that brush," said C.A. Howlett, senior vice president and chief lobbyist for America West Holdings Inc. "There are some members who look at the local impact exclusively. And there are some who look at it as a policy issue."
Still, economic development issues that are critical to legislators – including jobs and airfares – are all tied to air service.
"We are all here to serve our constituents," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Another conservative-liberal duo, Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., signed on as friends of Southwest to co-sponsor Mr. Ensign's bill. Both had regional concerns in mind.
Mr. Lieberman said Southwest service to Hartford in his state has boosted the economy, and he wants to strengthen that lifeline with links to Dallas through Love Field, the carrier's home airport.
Meanwhile, Kansas is waiting for its first Southwest flights. The original Wright law permitted flights within Texas and adjacent states. A 1997 revision allows flights to Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama.
Although Southwest flies to numerous cities from Kansas City, Mo., it hasn't taken advantage of the law to fly from Love Field to Kansas.
The Kansas Republican got an assist from his Missouri neighbor last week. Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., tried to attach to a Senate spending bill a provision that would have repealed the amendment.
But Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, persuaded Mr. Bond to back off. As a compromise, she allowed Mr. Bond to attach a provision that would add Missouri to the states where Love Field flights are permissible.
Mr. Bond, airline lobbyists said, has dual motivations. He's grateful for the extensive nonstop Southwest flights at St. Louis and Kansas City. But there's also a long-standing score to settle: After acquiring Trans World Airlines in 2001, American cut the St. Louis hub in half and furloughed most of the former TWA employees.
Asked how he might move to repeal the Wright amendment, Mr. Bond simply said: "We are taking a look at all the options."
Parochial interests can suddenly make a simple but controversial proposal like repealing the Wright amendment become complicated – and even more controversial.
Complicated agendas
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is also co-sponsoring Mr. Ensign's proposal, but he has his own agenda. If the proposal gets to the Senate floor for a vote, Mr. McCain wants to offer an amendment that would lift flight restrictions at both Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and LaGuardia Airport in New York.
Mr. McCain said he is motivated by principle, wanting to lift artificial barriers to commerce. But he may also be serving two masters: Southwest operates a major hub in Phoenix. And Phoenix-based America West Airlines Inc. is also eager to see the restrictions in Washington and New York lifted.
America West's Mr. Howlett advocates "a comprehensive policy discussion about all these barriers together" and "legislation that once and for all concludes the last chapter of deregulation."
Mr. Ensign, as well as Southwest officials, are not eager to see their effort cluttered with other initiatives. As Mr. Ensign explains it, such provisions can draw opposition as well as support.
Virginia's senators may want to protect the long-haul status of Washington Dulles International Airport from further expansion at Reagan National.
"It is amazing to me how folks are so morally principled on the concept of local control," Mr. Ensign said, "but when it comes to [airline issues], they do not mind sticking their feet in it."
WHO WANTS WHAT?
If the Wright amendment is lifted, American Airlines chairman Gerard Arpey vows to fill Dallas Love Field with its own planes.
And if Love Field flight restrictions remain, Southwest Airlines won't move to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, even though it wants to offer long-haul service from North Texas, says chief executive Gary Kelly.
Now Congress may decide the fate of Love Field, a choice rife with implications for both hometown carriers, aviation in North Texas and the region's economy.
Bills in both the House and Senate would open the city airport to flights around the country. A competing Senate bill would shut Love down to commercial traffic.
Is there room for a compromise? No one knows. But inside, The Dallas Morning News shows you who the key players are and where they stand.
Suzanne Marta
DRAWING THE BATTLE LINES
The effort to repeal Wright amendment restrictions on Dallas Love Field has set into motion competing bills that could open the city airport to long-distance routes or shut it down completely to commercial traffic.
Here's a look at where the major players stand:
DITCH IT!
Gary Kelly and Herb Kelleher
Southwest Airlines Co.
Gary Kelly, Southwest's chief executive, shocked North Texans when he reversed the airline's long-held "passionate neutrality" on Wright in November, calling for a repeal of the "anti-competitive and anti-consumer" restrictions at Southwest's Love Field home base.
Herb Kelleher, Southwest's co-founder and chairman, has actively lobbied for lifting Wright, which limits commercial flights to routes in Texas and seven nearby states.
The nation's largest domestic carrier released an economic report that said area fliers would save $688 million in airfare on select routes. Nationally, Southwest believes lifting the Wright amendment would translate into a $4.2 billion boost.
The carrier has sought to take the focus off North Texas and has attracted newspaper editorials and opinion articles around the country in support of its cause.
Southwest needs to find new profitable markets to jump-start its earnings and get its stock rising, and North Texas is considered one of its best prospects if it can eliminate the Wright law.
Although Southwest dominates at Love Field, it could lose the rights to some of its 21 gates to competitors if the restrictions on long-haul flights were lifted under the city's competition plan filed with the Federal Aviation Administration.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas; Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Plano
Co-sponsors, "Right to Fly Act"
The two local congressmen surprised American and D/FW in May when they introduced legislation to repeal Wright. The bill, which they argue would bring greater competition and lower fares, created a sharp rift in Texas' House delegation. In a "lighthearted swipe" to a proposal from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, to shutter Love Field to commercial traffic, Mr. Hensarling has proposed eliminating commercial flights at airports in Des Moines and Tulsa – major airports in their states.
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
Sponsor, "American Right to Fly Act"
Sen. John Ensign put his own twist on the Wright repeal effort by proposing to add 42 states and Puerto Rico to the existing law, rather than eliminating it. By naming each state, the senator could make it tougher for opponents to argue it's a Texas-only issue.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.
Co-sponsor, "American Right to Fly Act"
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was Al Gore's running mate on the 2000 Democratic ticket, said Southwest has been good for Connecticut, and he'd like to see flights between Hartford and Love Field.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Co-sponsor, "American Right to Fly Act"
A presidential candidate in 2000 and possibly in 2008, Sen. John McCain says the Wright restrictions go against his free-market beliefs. The powerful Republican, known for making waves, has said he'd like repeal to include lifting other perimeter rules such as those at Washington D.C.'s Reagan National Airport, opening the door for his hometown carrier, America West Airlines Inc. Southwest operates its second-largest station in Phoenix.
LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE
Gerard Arpey
Chairman and chief executive, American Airlines Inc.
Gerard Arpey says Southwest should move to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport if it wants to fly long-haul flights.
If the Wright restrictions are lifted, the Fort Worth-based airline has threatened to shift significant operations from D/FW to Love.
American has a lot to lose. It would be costly to split its operations between D/FW and Love. Its costs would also rise sharply at D/FW because airlines are on the hook for the airport's charges.
And head-to-head competition with Southwest in North Texas could mean American would take a financial hit at its most profitable hub.
The carrier has recently taken a more aggressive stance against Southwest's repeal effort, with Mr. Arpey suggesting that everything should be on the table – including shutting Love Field to commercial traffic.
Kevin Cox
Chief operating officer, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
Kevin Cox has pleaded with Southwest to move across town to fill 24 empty gates. He fears a repeal of Wright would cause lead tenant American to move much of its D/FW schedule. The airport's economic study showed that a repeal could translate into the loss of up to 35 percent of its passenger traffic under a worst-case scenario.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas
Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison supports keeping the Wright amendment in place, citing concerns over D/FW airport and the North Texas economy. She said she would support a change only if the region's economic health would be unharmed. Many insiders say her influence could stall any movement toward repeal.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis
Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
Rep. Joe Barton has vowed to use his influence to stymie any repeal. "I will put in a word at the appropriate places, with the appropriate person, and I think we will be OK," he said, shortly after the "Right To Fly Act" was filed in May. He has also vowed that if Southwest continues its fight for repeal, he would support closing Love to commercial traffic.
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.
Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee
Sen. Ted Stevens and Sen. Conrad Burns support keeping Wright restrictions in place. Mr. Stevens said he would support Ms. Hutchison's position. But insiders say the senator from Alaska might be swayed if lifting perimeter rules at Reagan National or New York's LaGuardia Airport – a move that could benefit Alaska Airlines Inc. – were added to a Wright repeal.
Mr. Burns opposes lifting Wright because rural areas benefit from hub-and-spoke airline networks.
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth
A former mayor of Fort Worth, Rep. Kay Granger said in June that any effort Dallas makes to lift Wright's restrictions could trigger a lawsuit. She says a repeal of Wright would hurt the North Texas economy.
Mike Moncrief, Fort Worth mayor
Mike Moncrief sees the Wright amendment as protecting Dallas/Fort Worth International airport, which the city co-owns.
Jim Wright, Former House speaker from Fort Worth
Jim Wright wants to see the 1979 restrictions on Love Field that are named for him stay in place.
EASE WRIGHT ... FOR THEIR STATES ONLY
Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.;
Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn quietly sparked the Wright debate in Congress last September when she filed a bill that would allow flights between Love Field and Tennessee. She renewed the effort with a similar bill last month. Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond has a similar bill that would allow flights to Missouri. Neither supports the broader repeal efforts.
HOW ABOUT A LOCAL COMPROMISE?
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
Sen. John Cornyn, also concerned about the effects on North Texas, has supported negotiating a compromise on the issue.
He recently joked that he offered to lock American's Mr. Arpey and Southwest's Mr. Kelleher in his office until they worked out a deal.
Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land
House majority leader
Rep. Tom DeLay said he'd vote for a Wright repeal but would prefer to see a local compromise first.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, whose district includes Love Field, suggested a summit between key players but was unsuccessful in getting the parties to agree to one.
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska
Chairman of the House Transportation Committee
Rep. Don Young told Texas lawmakers they must resolve their differences before his committee will take any action. That sentiment might change, however, if other airports are thrown in the mix, opening opportunities for service by Alaska Airlines.
Laura Miller, Dallas mayor
Mayor Laura Miller, who last fall called the Wright amendment "a sacred cow that's not going away anytime soon," now favors a plan that would open Love Field over time and reduce the city airport's capacity – rather than wait to see what Congress does.
CLOSE LOVE FIELD
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Co-sponsors,"True Competition Act"
The senators propose closing Love Field to all commercial traffic, saying the city airport was never intended to continue hosting such flights. Sen. James Inhofe's home state hosts an American maintenance base in Tulsa that employs 8,000 people. Both he and Sen. Tom Harkin say an unrestricted Love Field could harm American's hub-and-spoke network at D/FW, resulting in lost air service to rural communities.
Staff writers Todd J. Gillman in Washington and Eric Torbenson in Dallas contributed to this report.
E-mail rdodge@dallasnews.com
<!-- vstory end --><HR>Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/072405dnbuswright.1865a7f.html
New Independent Study
<BIG>Hot Flash - </BIG> July 25, 2005<SMALL></SMALL>Missing: Rational, Informed Thinking
<BIG>The Wright Amendment Controversy -
Sound & Fury Signifying Utter Confusion</BIG>
<SMALL>Let's catch up on the latest in the Wright Amendment soap opera...</SMALL>
<SMALL>In Oklahoma, one senator has filed a bill to close Love Field to scheduled service, proclaiming that such a move will "enhance true competition" (?). In angry retaliation, a Texas lawmaker has proposed a bill to close Tulsa. (We assume he means the airport, not the entire town.) Senators from other states, such as Nevada, are urging Wright repeal, claiming it will massively improve air service to the entire nation. Lawmakers in Iowa are lobbying to pass legislation to ban Southwest from expanding at Love, claiming that doing so will harm air service at Des Moines, a place where Southwest doesn't fly, and, after this little stunt, probably never will. </SMALL>
<SMALL>Forget Illegal Immigration, Deficits, And Energy Bills. We Got Wright. In fact, there are somewhere near two dozen politicians, from the Mayor of Dallas to a Senator from Alaska, who have gotten wrapped around the Wright Amendment axle, each with some grandiose slant on whether Southwest, with 14 gates at Love, should be allowed to expand at an airport that has a total of 32 gates, compared to 152 at DFW International.</SMALL>
<SMALL>All parts of the political spectrum are represented. Some of these politicians are for repeal. Some are against repeal. Some have proposed modification of the Amendment. </SMALL>
<SMALL>Then, of course, there's Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) who's suffering severe tush-burns from sitting so firmly on the fence.</SMALL>
<SMALL>Much Ado About Not So Much. When the real-world outcomes of a Wright repeal are considered from a rational perspective, this entire political gunfight resembles a pack of gourmet chefs fighting over a can of Spam.</SMALL>
<SMALL>The bottom line is that if (or, when) the amendment is repealed, the overall result will be a non-event. </SMALL>
<SMALL>Sorry, DFW International won't sink into a swamp. No, American Airlines won't commit competitive hara-kiri, torpedoing its global DFW hub by moving major operations to Love Field. And, sorry, consumers won't see the Metroplex skies blackened with new low-fare service.</SMALL>
<SMALL>Lots of sub-plots going on here. Some of the politicians are genuinely mis-informed. Others are dancin' with the one that brung 'em. Other players are engaging in activities </SMALL><SMALL>that support enlightened self-interest. DFW International has issued a study that seemed pretty weird, but maybe with a good musical score could make it off-Broadway. Southwest issued a report that seemed to indicate that Wright repeal will be the biggest thing to hit aviation since Orville & Wilbur got out of the bike business.</SMALL>
<SMALL>Enough, already.</SMALL>
<SMALL>Here are some of the key findings from our study, The Wright Amendment: Now For Some Facts. Unlike other "studies," this one was not commissioned by anybody. It is an objective, independent review of the issue.</SMALL>
<SMALL>We attemped to look at the issue from the perspective of the various players. Basically, DFW is right to assert that it is the dominant and logical airport gateway for North Texas. Demographics and airline industry realities prove that. Southwest is correct in claiming that a repeal will enhance consumer choices and bring additional fare discipline to the market, albeit a fraction of what some folks are claiming. Politicians who, for example, are claiming that closing Love to scheduled service will bring "true competition" to the region... well, they're nuts.</SMALL>
<SMALL>So here are some of the key points we've found.</SMALL>
- <SMALL>Love has limited expansion potential. Love Field is NOT materially expandable in the near term, and is not likely to be expanded in the long term. DFW knows the drill when it comes to expansion. So much as the intent to plant a petunia results in all manner of legal and environmental silliness, all of which takes time and lots and lots of money to deal with.</SMALL>
<SMALL>That's the reason that DFW's claim that airlines and consumers would bolt back to Love, causing traffic to jump from 6 million to as much as 22 million, is malarkey. Even if that were true (which it is not) Love's got a maximum of 32 gates, and even if the City of Dallas wanted to revise the Love master plan (which it does not) the legal and political gymnastics would take years to wallow through.</SMALL><BIG></BIG>- <SMALL>Airlines will not flock to Love if the Amendment is repealed. Let's look at history. Remember 2000, when Legend, American, Delta, and Continental all dove</SMALL>
<SMALL> into Love? Legend and AA did it with mainline airplanes with a 56-seat premium product. Even flying to high-demand destinations like LGA, ORD, and LAX, American could get barely 30 folks per flight. Legend did no better. Continental tried RJs to its CLE hub, and got a rip-snorting 31% load factor for its trouble. Even Delta, operating RJs from their huge ATL hub, couldn't find enough passenger demand for Love service to fill much more than 50% of their seats. </SMALL>
- <SMALL>DFW, not Love, is the airport for the entire Metroplex. Further to the point above, it's lunacy to put pen to paper and with a straight face predict that airlines will move from an airport that serves all of the Metroplex (DFW) to one that is increasingly being marginalized (Love) and does not access the growth areas of the region. If indeed Love was the natural operational gold mine some claim it to be, other airlines would be eagerly joining Southwest in its efforts to eliminate the Wright Amendment. They're not.</SMALL>
- <SMALL>Southwest expansion would be relatively limited. Some studies have made the claim that consumers will see huge fare reductions almost across the board if the Wright Amendment is repealed. Sorry, not going to happen.</SMALL>
<SMALL>Southwest can be expected to add service to perhaps a maximum of 10 to 12 new destinations from Dallas Love. They're going to do pretty much what they're doing at Houston/Hobby - fly to places where they have significant competitive strength, like MDW, LAX, & BWI. Even here, claims that ticket prices will be materially lowered are called into question, as the study found nine of the most likely markets already have low-fare airline service from DFW International. Politicians in a lot of communities who are calling for a Wright repeal, thinking that'll get Southwest into town, may as well howl at the moon.</SMALL>- <SMALL>American’s threat to split its hub doesn't make sense. It is understandable that AA would oppose any Wright repeal. But threatening to damage its </SMALL>
<SMALL>own revenue flows by splitting its hub (read: reduce its DFW operations) is not a good strategy. Pulling down part of its juggernaut global hub at DFW, supposedly giving up flying to a number of domestic and international destinations, simply to defend a few markets from Southwest’s 737s, doesn't make a lot of sense. American's a well-run airline. Splitting a hub is near-suicidal. Well-managed airlines do not commit suicide.</SMALL>
- <SMALL>Southwest may become less competitive going forward. Let's remember that things change, and that includes the structure of air service demand in North Texas. The DFW Metroplex is growing predominantly west and northwest - far away from</SMALL>
<SMALL> Love, but close to DFW. </SMALL>
http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
- <SMALL>Love is becoming an increasingly marginalized access point to the region. A Wright repeal would tend to tie Southwest even more firmly to Love. Carriers at DFW access the entire 5.5 million population of the Metroplex. Love is convenient to only about half that, and it's the half that isn't growing rapidly. </SMALL>
<SMALL>Based on that, American might want to consider a change in strategy and actually encourage a Wright repeal. First, it would tend to more firmly lock Southwest into Love. Second, it would represent less of a competitive threat than did the now-gone Delta/DFW hub. Third, it would be a whole lot less damaging than the suggestion that Southwest move all operations to DFW.</SMALL>
<SMALL>For more information on this independent analysis of the Wright issue, and to print out a copy of the Table of Contents, click here.</SMALL>
<SMALL><SMALL>(<SMALL>c) 2005, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc. All Rights Reserved</SMALL></SMALL></SMALL>
American cuts fares to Omaha
By Trebor Banstetter
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
American Airlines has lowered fares between Dallas/Fort Worth Airport and Omaha as it tries to slow the campaign to repeal the Wright Amendment.
Fort Worth-based American slashed airfares between the two cities by as much as 40 percent last week after Nebraska Sen. Bill Nelson complained about high prices on the route.
"This came about as a result of a conversation we've been having with American," said David DiMartino, a spokesman for Nelson. "Folks had been complaining to us about the fares."
Several lawmakers from Nebraska are supporting the effort to overturn the Wright Amendment, which restricts interstate commercial service from Dallas Love Field to the states that border Texas, plus Mississippi, Kansas and Alabama....
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/12224638.htm
More proof of price gouging by AA;
More proof that those flying in/out of D/FW Airport will get the shaft from AA;
More proof that Wirght Repeal Effort is broader than local polotics;
More proof that Wright needs to go!
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
There are laws against companies or individuals bribing public officials. It's too bad there's no law against a company bribing the *voters*.
Although the way this is going, all a US representative needs to do to bring low fares to his community, would be to announce that he/she is leaning toward repealing Wright. Voila, instant discounts!
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
If American Airlines can afford to lower fares by 40%, then the original price must have been exorbitant. Certainly not based upon cost plus a reasonable profit.
Do the lawmakers in Nebraska and Tennessee, who have gained a price concession from AA believe the lower prices will be permanent?
^If they do, they are idiots.
Anybody see the letter from Joe Barton's office regarding the Wright Amendment in today's DMN?
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
^No, post it!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks