Found a nice photo of Barton too:
Clarifying Barton stance
Re: "In Wright fight, paper airplanes fly – Lawmakers discuss bills to close airports as Love Field debate widens," Friday Business.
This article misrepresented and exaggerated U.S. Rep. Joe Barton's position on the Wright amendment. He is not engaged in efforts to close Love Field, which he supports and appreciates for its important role in the region.
The Wright amendment has allowed a growing, innovative international airport and an older regional niche airport to thrive and provide homes for the nation's two strongest airlines. Mr. Barton favors the law's win-win situation.
Repealing it would leave a debacle. D/FW Airport, losing flights and infrastructure to Love, would become too weak to continue as a viable international hub and economic engine. Love Field would become a congested Gordian knot, too small to accommodate its passengers' needs.
Such drastic changes would close commercial air markets (especially for international flights), limit economic growth and jeopardize tens of thousands of jobs.
If Wright is repealed, Mr. Barton will fight to avoid this dilemma by removing the weak link, so it doesn't erode one of the world's great airports. He hopes this isn't needed, but he understands it to be a necessary last resort.
As a lawmaker concerned more with actual consequences and the big picture than catchphrases and quick fixes, Mr. Barton will fight to preserve both airports under the Wright amendment. It is the only responsible choice.
Brooks Landgraf, press secretary for U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, Washington
"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
Found a nice photo of Barton too:
"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
Originally Posted by texman
Mr Barton needs to review the FAA's stance on airport master plans prior to making claims of Love Field causing a "debacle." Cities have the right and authority to authorize restrictions on their airports via master plans. AA, DFW, nor the repeal of the Wright Amendment will cause Love Field to have more than 32 gates and two runways. If LaMil gets her way the gates will even be reduced to 26.
Again, he is a complete moron!
Joe Barton, you ARE the weakest link. Goodbye!
(if only it were that simple)
I wonder how many of Barton's constituents work at Love Field? If he hadn't mobilized them against him by poisoning the Midlothian air, I think he's got their interest now. You know, when it comes to the cement plants, Barton is all about corporations being free of government "interference". Strange how that standard doesn't apply in this case.
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
Politicians behavior is always very strange and usually inconsistent. Barton seems especially skilled at talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=720 align=center bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD height=77></TD></TR><!--<tr> <td height="77">
[img]images/SWA_logo.GIF[/img]</td></tr><tr> <td height="30">[img]images/red bar.jpg[/img]</td></tr>--><!-- /TOP BAR INCLUDE --><TR><TD><!-- Start table for Left Nav & Content Section --><TABLE id=PageContent borderColor=#999999 height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=720 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 109px" vAlign=top width=109><!-- NAVIGATION AREA --><!--LEFT NAVIGATION AREA --><TABLE height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=109 bgColor=#5378a8 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Catalog Contents
Item Search
Cart Details
FAQ
Contact Us </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- /LEFT NAVIGATION AREA --><!-- /NAVIGATION AREA --></TD><TD vAlign=top width=594><!-- MAIN CONTENT AREA --><TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=siteTitle colSpan=2>Southwest Airlines Catalog</TD><TD class=mainTitle width="8%"> </TD><TD width="17%"> </TD><TD width="19%"> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=mainTitle width="18%"> </TD><TD width="38%"> </TD><TD class=mianTitle> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=mainTitle colSpan=5><TABLE id=tblCategories cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD><INPUT id=imgCat12 title="T-Shirts " style="WIDTH: 72px; HEIGHT: 72px" type=image alt="" src="http://www.orderfront.com/swafreedomshop/images/CategoryImages/T-Shirts.jpg" border=0 name=imgCat12></TD><TD><INPUT id=imgCat1 title=Apparel style="WIDTH: 72px; HEIGHT: 72px" type=image alt="" src="http://www.orderfront.com/swafreedomshop/images/CategoryImages/Apparel.jpg" border=0 name=imgCat1></TD><TD><INPUT id=imgCat13 title="Hats " style="WIDTH: 72px; HEIGHT: 72px" type=image alt="" src="http://www.orderfront.com/swafreedomshop/images/CategoryImages/Hats.jpg" border=0 name=imgCat13></TD><TD><INPUT id=imgCat15 title="Tote Bags " style="WIDTH: 72px; HEIGHT: 72px" type=image alt="" src="http://www.orderfront.com/swafreedomshop/images/CategoryImages/Tote%20Bags.jpg" border=0 name=imgCat15></TD></TR><TR align=middle><TD>T-Shirts </TD><TD>Apparel</TD><TD>Hats </TD><TD>Tote Bags </TD></TR><TR align=middle><TD colSpan=4 height=18></TD></TR><TR align=middle><TD><INPUT id=imgCat16 title="Window Clings " style="WIDTH: 72px; HEIGHT: 72px" type=image alt="" src="http://www.orderfront.com/swafreedomshop/images/CategoryImages/Window%20Clings.jpg" border=0 name=imgCat16></TD><TD><INPUT id=imgCat17 title="Magnets " style="WIDTH: 72px; HEIGHT: 72px" type=image alt="" src="http://www.orderfront.com/swafreedomshop/images/CategoryImages/Magnets.jpg" border=0 name=imgCat17></TD></TR><TR align=middle><TD>Window Clings </TD><TD>Magnets </TD></TR><TR align=middle><TD colSpan=4 height=18></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=4> </TD><TD vAlign=top> </TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=5><TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 264px"> </TD><TD class=sectionTitle> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=mainTitle style="WIDTH: 264px">Search </TD><TD class=sectionTitle> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 264px; HEIGHT: 17px" width=264>Category: <SELECT class=textfields id=cboCategory style="VISIBILITY: visible; WIDTH: 175px" name=cboCategory> <OPTION value=12>T-Shirts</OPTION> <OPTION value=1>Apparel</OPTION> <OPTION value=13>Hats</OPTION> <OPTION value=15>Tote Bags</OPTION> <OPTION value=16>Window Clings</OPTION> <OPTION value=17>Magnets</OPTION> <OPTION value=0 selected>ALL CATEGORIES</OPTION></SELECT></TD><TD class=sectionTitle style="HEIGHT: 17px" width="17%">
Keyword</TD><TD style="HEIGHT: 17px" width="13%"><INPUT class=textfields id=txtKeyword name=txtKeyword></TD><TD style="HEIGHT: 17px" width="25%"><INPUT id=btnFindIt type=image alt="" src="http://www.orderfront.com/swafreedomshop/images/findit.gif" border=0 name=btnFindIt></TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 264px"> </TD><TD class=sectionTitle> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 264px"> </TD><TD class=sectionTitle> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- /MAIN CONTENT AREA --></TD></TR><!-- Sub Footer AREA --><!-- <tr> <td height="40" colspan="3">[img]Images/itemsearch_on.gif[/img][img]Images/cartdetails.gif[/img][img]Images/faqs.gif[/img][img]Images/bg.gif[/img][img]Images/rightbg.gif[/img]</td></tr> --><TR><TD colSpan=3 height=58></TD></TR><!-- /Sub Footer AREA --></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I'm buying some.
Love the Barton picture, that got me laughing.
Just a small example of the "Southwest Effect" at work.
When the Wright Amendment is repealed, we will see many more fare reductions. and business will pick up at both DFW and Love.
Thanks AA for providing further evidence that the "Southwest Effect" still works.
AirTran is keen on Love Field
Exec says carrier would likely fly there if Wright amendment were lifted
12:56 AM CDT on Wednesday, July 27, 2005
By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News
AirTran Airways Inc. would probably fly from Dallas Love Field if the Wright amendment were dropped, a company executive said Tuesday.
The Orlando-based low-fare airline's president and chief operating officer, Robert Fornaro, told analysts in a conference call about earnings that Love Field is "a great airport" and that "we would be interested in flying into there."
The largest low-cost carrier at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport has 17 flights a day spread among five cities.
Planes with more than 56 seats can't fly from Love Field beyond the states adjoining Texas and three other states.
Southwest Airlines Co. wants the restrictions lifted so it can fly anywhere from its headquarters airport.
AirTran chief financial officer Stan Gadek declined to elaborate on Mr. Fornaro's remarks in a phone interview.
AirTran officials have said previously that they'd strongly consider Love Field over D/FW, but Mr. Fornaro's remarks were a stronger indication of AirTran's interest.
AirTran's news was "scary" to D/FW marketing head Joe Lopano not only because the airport wants AirTran and its 1 million passengers a year, but also because it suggests other carriers would want to follow AirTran to Love Field, which is closer to Dallas and a high concentration of potential passengers.
"If AirTran is willing to move its operations to Love Field, then anyone who thinks that American Airlines wouldn't also move its operations to Love Field isn't in touch with reality," Mr. Lopano said.
Until the current Wright fight is resolved, D/FW isn't likely to attract any new low-cost service, Mr. Lopano said. AirTran had previously announced intentions to fly to Tampa, Fla. and Fort Lauderdale, Fla. from D/FW, but has not.
Executives at Fort Worth-based American have said they'll shift as many flights as needed to Love Field to fight Southwest.
D/FW commissioned a study in the fall to model the impact of lifting the Wright amendment, and that study suggested that low-cost carriers could leave D/FW for Love Field to compete head-to-head with Southwest.
The study predicted D/FW could lose as much as a third of its passenger traffic in a worst-case scenario. Some observers doubt the airport would see that degree of traffic loss.
AirTran stands to benefit from its competitors decreasing capacity along the East Coast this fall. AirTran will accept all its Boeing 737s and 717s in coming months after considering subleasing them because of high fuel costs and low demand earlier this year, Mr. Gadek said.
Shares of AirTran's parent company AirTran Holdings Inc. rose 75 cents to $11.25.
E-mail etorbenson@dallasnews.com
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
not surprising.
^In the S-T Airtran is quoted as serving both airports not moving all operations to Love.
If Love were closed and AA had to compete with more airlines at DFW, would that lower prices or do the costs of operation at DFW trump that?
I seriously doubt that Airtran has a month-to-month lease on its gates at D/FW. Therefore, Airtran would still be on the hook for its lease payments through the end of its lease term. That might play a factor in whether it decides to operate from both airports.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
I don't think that D/FW fees, while high, would "trump" an airlines ability to slash fares, if a price war ensued. That fact was proven this week when AA slashed its fares to Omaha, NB by 40%. However, I don't like even toying with the idea of closing down Love Field (even though it will NEVER happen). Houston, the Bay Area, the D.C. Metro, New York, and Chicago all have at least 2 airports servicing their traveling public with no problem. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex can easily do the same!
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
Not quite Dallas area but the effect it would have on other places....
Love Field debate heating up in Waco
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
American Airlines will consider reducing or dropping service at some regional airports if Southwest Airlines is allowed to expand its operations from Dallas Love Field, airline officials told Waco leaders Tuesday.
American Airlines officials met with City Manager Larry Groth and Mayor Virginia DuPuy at Waco Regional Airport as part of a campaign to enlist cities in American's fight against Southwest over Love Field.
Congress is considering the repeal of the Wright Amendment, which limits Southwest's flights out of the Dallas airport to protect Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport from competition.
American officials said they aren't singling out Waco as particularly at risk but said all small “spoke” cities that American Eagle serves should be concerned if the Wright Amendment goes away. They said American could pull out of lower-performing cities to free up more airplanes to compete with Southwest at Love Field.
Also, more customers would drive from Waco to Love Field rather than fly to DFW if they could fly Southwest to nationwide destinations, said Dale Morris, governmental affairs director at American Eagle.
“There is no plan saying, ‘This community would go first,'” Morris added. “We're not here to threaten the community.
An official with Southwest Airlines, however, said its rival was seeking to do just that and branded the American Airlines campaign as a “scare tactic.”
American Eagle accounts for 75 percent of Waco's passengers, making seven flights a day to Dallas, while Continental Connections flies four times daily to Houston. Last year, the airport had record numbers, and enplanements were up 13 percent in the first six months of 2005.
“Waco has always been a strong market,” Morris said. “We have enjoyed community support and we see growth potential in that. ... The issue gets back to how are you going to make sure you keep your service, how do you keep economic development going in your city.”
Morris asked city leaders to consider a resolution opposing repeal of the 1979 amendment, which then-U.S. Rep. Jim Wright authored as a compromise to protect the new DFW airport while allowing Southwest to continue to operate at the old Dallas airport. The current law prohibits Southwest from direct flights from Love Field to any airport outside Texas, Arkansas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi or Alabama.
In the last year, Southwest has stepped up its efforts to abolish those restrictions, starting a campaign called “Set Love Free” and drawing wide bipartisan political support in Congress. Last week, Sens. John Ensign, R-Nevada, and John McCain, R-Arizona, introduced a repeal measure in the Senate similar to one now before the House.
American, which is based at DFW, is fighting back with its own campaign, including visits to all 69 regional airports, starting in Texas. The airline is asking cities for resolutions against the Wright Amendment repeal. So far, only San Angelo has signed on.
Mayor DuPuy and Groth said they would have to study the issue more and talk to the city council before taking any position. Groth said American officials presented their concerns but did not threaten to pull out of Waco.
Dallas-based Southwest spokesman Ed Stewart scoffed at American Airlines' city-by-city campaign as “scare tactic 101.”
“The one thing they fear the most is competition,” he said. “The whole idea of going to cities like Waco to put the fear of God in them to support higher fares at DFW is a bit ridiculous.”
Morris said American is not using scare tactics but is informing cities of the airline's economic realities.
He said the Wright Amendment's repeal could allow Southwest to siphon more Waco customers to Love Field, offering lower fares and a shorter drive than DFW. Love Field is 101 miles from Waco, while DFW is 111.
“Take cities like Waco,” he said in an interview. “You're so close to Dallas Love Field, your airport would suffer.”
Also, American Airlines would use the Wright Amendment repeal as an opportunity to add flights at Love Field to compete directly with Southwest, Morris said. That could cause American to add more planes to the Dallas market by shrinking its fleet in smaller markets, he said, and less profitable markets could close or see reduced service.
Waco Regional Airport aviation director Richard Howell said Southwest's expansion would likely mean competition for Waco Regional Airport. However, he said airlines at Waco Regional Airport already compete effectively with Southwest flights from Austin, which is about as close as Dallas.
Lawmakers from Texas have been divided on the Wright Amendment. Some, such as Congressman Chet Edwards, D-Waco, have not taken a position.
“Chet is still listening to both sides of the debate at this time,” said Josh Taylor, Edwards spokesman. “Chet is committed to quality air service for Central Texas families at Waco Regional Airport.”
Somethings ya just can't change.
If people from Waco would drive to Dallas Love for lower fares, then the supposed "Free Market" Republicans should be all over it.
Either you make money flying to Waco, or you lose money flying to Waco. If you lose money flying to Waco, then you will stop flying there as soon as it is politically convenient. American's similar threats against Tyler, detailed earlier in this mega-thread, weren't enough to stop Jeb Hensarling (R-Athens) from sponsoring the Wright repeal, and I hope that Waco sees this as just more strong-arm tactics.
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
The article says Waco has seen alot of growth in air travel...then why would AA move if the route is profitable..? Also, routes like these are usually grossly inefficient, and maybe this is why AA is never making money.
"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
American Airlines, something friendly in the air...uh huh..
I guess that knocks Waco off the Bush Library list...now, how are all the Bushes gonna get to Prairie Chapel Ranch once they lose Air Force 1?
Someone will jump in and fill the gap. The free market still works when the govenment stays out of the way.
Or I guess Jebb could loan them AF2
I don't think we know that for sure. Do we even have any large industry examples of a free market in the U.S.?
^Look at Houston.
We don't know for sure we will even live long enough to take another breath. However that is never a good reason for not trying to do the right thing.
There seem to be two kinds of people, those that think they can, and those that think they can't. Both are correct.
If you have a 16 oz. glass with 8 oz. of your favorite beverage in it, is it half full, or half empty?
Sure, lots of examples... the 59 other airports SWA serves, in fact all other commercial airports in the USA except Love Field, and Ronald Reagan National Airport.Do we even have any large industry examples of a free market in the U.S.?
There is no such thing as large industry free market in the U.S. SW needs to fight another battle if that is their claim.
Fight over Wright takes a new turn
American says it may cut flights to small towns if law is repealed
11:57 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 27, 2005
By ROBERT DODGE, TODD J. GILLMAN and ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News
American Airlines Inc. officials have begun telling small communities that they may lose highly prized air service if Dallas Love Field is opened to long-haul flights. The nation's largest airline is dispatching executives from its subsidiary regional carrier, American Eagle, to warn city officials at its 69 destinations about the dangers of repealing the Wright amendment.
And they are starting with Texas communities. Waco City Manager Larry Groth said American Eagle officials met Tuesday with him and Waco Mayor Virginia DuPuy. They asked the two officials to persuade the City Council to approve a resolution opposing the repeal of the Wright amendment. American says moving flights to Love Field would force it to shrink its D/FW hub. A smaller hub, it says, wouldn't support as many regional passenger flights from smaller cities.
American's tactic is the latest wrinkle in an increasingly hard-fought struggle with Southwest Airlines Co. The battle over repealing the 25-year-old Wright amendment is now being waged from local city councils to the House and Senate in Washington. Competing bills to repeal the Wright amendment or close Love Field are pending in Congress.
With the Texas delegation split on the issue, American and Southwest are pitted in a struggle that some participants said could last into next year and beyond. American spokesman Tim Wagner said the airline is trying to explain the consequences of splitting its 800 daily flights at D/FW Airport with Love Field. "It is a complicated issue," he said, explaining the carrier wants to show how "pulling just one string on a sweater can start the process of unraveling" D/FW.
A spokesman for Southwest brushed off American's tactic. "If American threatens to abandon all the cities they've talked about leaving, they might as well liquidate the airline," said Southwest's Ed Stewart. "When you have to resort to these types of scare tactics, it shows that their message isn't getting through."
American's strategy also drew fire from Capitol Hill. "American Airlines would be far more effective in lobbying if they talked directly to members of Congress rather than blindsiding them with veiled threats of service cutbacks in our districts," said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco. Mr. Edwards said he was still researching the issue and would ultimately do what is best for his district and the state. And he had some added advice for American: "I would encourage them to stick to the facts in their lobbying."
Turning up the heat
For smaller cities, regional jet service represents a vital economic link to the world at large. And American's latest strategy is designed to turn up the heat on members of Congress by enlisting the support of local officials. "It is important to us to have adequate service, and we are always looking for enhanced service," Mr. Groth, the Waco city manager, said. "I did not feel any kind of strong-arm threats," he said.
Mr. Wagner said American executives aren't trying to pressure local communities: "This is not an issue of making threats or promises."
Calling cards
American officials also have left their calling card in at least Midland, San Angelo and Tyler. City Manager Harold Dominguez said the San Angelo City Council voted July 19 to oppose the repeal of the Wright amendment. The council also instructed Mr. Dominguez to contact Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Midland, and the state's two Republican senators. So far, Mr. Conaway said, the inquiries have not reached his desk. The West Texas Republican said he is still trying to understand both sides of the debate. Mr. Conaway is also focusing on Midland, which is in a different position from some smaller cities: It enjoys service from both American and Southwest. "I can paint a scenario where you eliminate the Wright amendment, and Southwest redeploys its planes to someplace that doesn't include Midland," he said. The same thing could be true for American; it is forced to "change its business model from hub-and-spoke to point-to-point."
Mr. Stewart said cities like Midland needn't worry: "We've said we don't abandon our friends. Our objective is not to shrink service, but to grow new opportunities."
But Mr. Dominguez, the San Angelo city manager, does not see the debate as a competitive issue between American and Southwest. He is worried about retaining long-sought regional jet service, as well as getting federal funds to build passenger waiting areas and loading ramps. "We are looking at it more as an airport issue," he said.
Davis Dickson, manager of the Tyler Pounds Regional Airport, said local business and civic leaders in his East Texas community have met with American twice. "They were hoping to get any kind of support from individuals that might want to respond to their congressman," Mr. Dickson said. Tyler's congressman, Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert, declined to discuss the issue Wednesday.
Not all local officials are immediately buying American's pitch. Tyler's Mr. Dickson wonders why American would reduce service to Tyler. He said the airline's eight daily regional jet flights carry high passenger loads, including many businessmen paying top dollar to travel to East Coast cities. Indeed, American depends on feeder traffic to fill its long-haul flights from D/FW Airport. According to American's Web site, a midweek roundtrip fare from Tyler to New York's LaGuardia Airport would be $1,346.90.
E-mail rdodge@dallasnews.com,
tgillman@dallasnews.com
or etorbenson@dallasnews.com
Well thank you for another "positive thought".
Would you give us your definition of "large industry free market"?
I do not understand your remark, please expand on this.SW needs to fight another battle if that is their claim.
being able to get the Wright amendment passed at all might say to many that its not a free market, but rather a political battle. I'm sure both sides are sending plenty of money to lobbyists in Washington. Battles like this illustrate why the U.S. continues to lag behind in the world of free enterprise.
I'm not on the side of AA, DFW, Love or SW and don't like to be campaigned at under false pretenses. Its no better than Jerry or the city of Arlington trying to sell Arlington on numbers that they really cannot verify. If all sides are so sure about the results going in the way in which they have said, they should get together and sponsor a joint study and promise to do what it best of the metroplex, state and whomever does business with our air transportation network.
^Rant, the truth can set you free....
...SET LOVE FREE!
His comments, though cynical, make perfect sense to me. Look at the energy bill just passed by the House of Representatives of Big Oil -- it gives oil companies big tax breaks and "research" funding, even as we pay $2.50+ for gas. This includes $500 million over 10 years for "Gulf of Mexico deep water drilling research"... the likely recipient of this particular giveaway is a company located in Sugar Land, Texas. I think you'll can follow the money with little DeLay.Well thank you for another "positive thought".
Would you give us your definition of "large industry free market"?
I do not understand your remark, please expand on this.
Despite their supposed "Free Market" economics, the current crop of politicians -- Washington or Austin, Republican or Democrat -- continue to prop up large industries with corporate welfare programs like the aforementioned "research" dollars. Every industry has high-paid lobbyists in Washington (and Austin, and 49 other state capitals) whose only job is to make sure they get their share of the pork. KERA ran a blistering editorial this morning about the ag lobby and their Ethanol subsidies, which after two decades have done nothing to wean us off of foreign oil. (Biodiesel, which you can make in your garage, gets a pittance by comparison.)
Back to the airlines -- they benefit from enormous Federal, State, and local infrastructure projects. DFW Airport itself is a multi-billion dollar example, with Terminal D and the People Mover just further examples of what happens when you have no limits on your credit line. As expensive as it is to fly a jumbo jet, the airlines get a free ride on the Federally-subsidized air traffic control system. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- plans to "privatize" the FAA invariably turn out to be no more than new ways to shovel pork into some corporation's barrel. But the point is that there is not a truly "free" market.
Given that environment, the original poster is simply pointing out that Southwest can't expect to compete on a level playing field. If their entire strategy is based just on being the injured party, they can expect to die before the ambulance arrives. Instead, he's saying that Southwest must "fight another battle" -- they've got to play the same political game as AA, but on their own terms. I think that's exactly what they're doing, by bringing the fight to the people with setlovefree.com and the associated marketing blitz.
Rantanamo, please correct me if I have misinterpreted the intent behind your statements!
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 think their eyes are beginning to open. Scroll down to Reply 724 and read the article closely. Notice it mentions:
American's strategy also drew fire from Capitol Hill. "American Airlines would be far more effective in lobbying if they talked directly to members of Congress rather than blindsiding them with veiled threats of service cutbacks in our districts," said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco.
Mr. Edwards said he was still researching the issue and would ultimately do what is best for his district and the state. And he had some added advice for American: "I would encourage them to stick to the facts in their lobbying."
In other words, "Quit lying, AA."
As far as Joe Barton's threat to close Love Field? If that ever happens, that's when Southwest needs to pull out all the stops and threaten to sue to have Alliance Airport closed, too.
The City of Ft. Worth never got a waiver from the DFW Airport Board to build Alliance. In fact, the matter was not even voted on at all, which violates the same 1968 Bond Covenant that Fort Worth always wants to whine about Dallas having broken by not closing Love Field to commercial traffic, which the courts ruled (8 times) that it could not do.
LoneStarMike
That's all I was saying. And be forthright about it.
Hummm, you avoided answering my direct question like a politician.
Even though some might say asking again might fit the definition of insanity on my part, here goes.
Would you please give us your definition of "large industry free market"?
He took one comment made by me, and seemed to imply that it was the entire case being presented by SWA. Nothing could be more inaccurate. SWA has built a compressive case. I pointed out one small part of that case.
I hope SWA never stoops to the low levels demonstrated by AA and DFW Airport.Instead, he's saying that Southwest must "fight another battle" -- they've got to play the same political game as AA, but on their own terms. I think that's exactly what they're doing, by bringing the fight to the people with setlovefree.com and the associated marketing blitz.
Thanks RobertB for trying to explain what the original poster can't seen to do for himself when he drops all those one line and often misleading zingers.
When the state was trying to get the Texas TGV up and going in the early 90s, SWA passed out pamplets to farmers that said the high speed rail line would scare their cattle and animals into shock...sounds like something AA would do. I wouldnt dig up EITHER of these airline lobbying efforts. All you'll get is dirty.
"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
I don't admit to this often, but I spent a few years living outside Waco (I was a kid, so it wasnt by choice), and I would say that 99% of the time, people in the area either drive to Dallas or Austin anyway when flying. For me, that always added to the excitement of the trip, getting to go to the "big city". I don't see how this is an issue. I also don't see why aa charges $160+ for a RT to Waco, while you can fly Southwest to much better places around the state for <$100
Simple. A free market meaning no government subsidy, lobbyists or incentives. There are none. The free market is pretty much alive only for very small businesses.Hummm, you avoided answering my direct question like a politician.
Even though some might say asking again might fit the definition of insanity on my part, here goes.
Would you please give us your definition of "large industry free market"?
Ahh Hahh, I thought you might be inventing your own definition.
I prefer this one myself.
"A free market is an economic term for an idealized market system, where all economic decisions and actions by individuals regarding transfer of money, goods, and services are voluntary, and are therefore devoid of coercion and theft (some definitions of "coercion" are inclusive of "theft"). Colloquially and loosely, a free market economy is an economy where the market is relatively free, as in an economy overseen by a government that practices a laissez-faire, rather than either a mixed or statist economic policy. Within economics the more usual term is simply "the market", or "the market mechanism", to mean the allocation of production through supply and demand."
You can find more at http://www.answers.com/topic/free-market
In 2005, why should one airport in the entire country be restricted by the Federal Government to allowing commercial flights to only specific geographic areas? The Wright Amendment is an obvious restraint of free trade.
I prefer Rantanamo's definition in this instance; it's a description of an ideal system rather than a description of an economic term.
The Wright Amendment is remnant attempt of the government to incent better product, value and service to consumers through airline industry regulation. Since industry must respond to evolutionary changes of a dynamic system (buying and selling e.g. plane tickets) the government deconstructed all but the most basic and necessary regualtions - it was getting to the point for the government to either back off, or buy the entire industry. The actions of the govt are understandable considering the series of economic crisis which followed the War in Vietnam.In 2005, why should one airport in the entire country be restricted by the Federal Government to allowing commercial flights to only specific geographic areas? The Wright Amendment is an obvious restraint of free trade.
Anyway, Fort Worth and Dallas make a great decision to build a giant airport facility, but the politicians were not long enough from pre-empting the natural flow of business (free market) to address a political dilemma regarding industry operations with a Federal regulation specifically controling a local situation. Career politicians and Federal regulations dont always mix very well.
As with any political solution to a point in time dilemma, the product has a shelf-life and will eventually cause more problems than it ever solved, that's what has happened with the Wright Amendment.
Last edited by tamtagon; 29 July 2005 at 10:36 AM.
Wright PR stakes high
Southwest Airlines grabbed lead with fares message, experts say; American vows fight 'still winnable'
08:57 PM CDT on Thursday, July 28, 2005
By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News
**
American Airlines appears to be losing the public relations fight over the Wright amendment.
It sat on the sidelines too long, letting crosstown rival Southwest Airlines gain the upper hand in its effort to repeal the 25-year-old law restricting flights from Dallas Love Field, local public relations pros say.
With easy-to-understand messages of "lower fares" and "freedom to fly" backed by a sparkling corporate image, Southwest has won the backing of many North Texans and even some local lawmakers.
Publicly, American says the fight is still winnable. But sources close to the carrier say that it has junked its old playbook in favor of a more aggressive campaign as it tries to wrest momentum from Southwest.
It's about time, the public relations experts say.
While American has been talking up the economics of hub airports, Southwest has latched onto airfares. The result has been a much deeper emotional connection with residents and decision-makers.
"They're definitely winning," said Annabelle Baxter of Baxter Public Relations, who doesn't represent any of the parties in the fight but has closely watched the high-stakes battle unfold in the past 10 months. "Southwest has 30 years of positive history with people here, and it's like they can do no wrong."
Stan Levenson, chief executive officer of Levenson & Brinker Public Relations in Dallas, said he doesn't fault the execution of keep-Wright campaigns run by American and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
Their messages simply lack "any emotional appeal" because they're focused on what happens to institutions, not pocketbooks.
**
"In today's world of consumerism, emphasizing the benefits clearly will relate to people more effectively than just informing," Mr. Levenson said. Most to lose
As the dominant airline at D/FW Airport, American has the most to lose if Southwest is allowed to make long-haul flights from Love Field.
American doesn't regret laying low in the initial months of the Wright battle last fall when Southwest announced its repeal campaign, according to Roger Frizzell, American's top corporate communications officer.
But "we certainly view this as a serious threat," he said.
Bills in the House and Senate would lift the limits that limit flights from Love Field to just seven states. If those bills become law, Southwest would be able to offer tough new competition for American's largest and most profitable hub.
Translating that competitive threat -- and its effects on the regional air-traffic market -- into a persuasive public presentation has been difficult.
"D/FW has a tougher story, and we're definitely the underdogs on the PR front," said Ken Capps, the airport's vice president of public affairs. "It's a complex issue that doesn't lend itself to accurate, short sound bites. But when folks really understand the facts, they get it."
At the core of American and D/FW's argument is American's belief that it would have no choice but to move flights to Love Field to combat Southwest if the Wright restrictions end.
Airline hubs, even ones as large as American's at D/FW, with 800-plus daily flights, can quickly lose their profitability when just a handful of flights are pulled out of the mix, the carrier's executives say.
Eventually, American's split operations between Love Field and D/FW couldn't support enough connecting passengers to make profitable service to some international cities as well as to smaller domestic cities, it argues.
Mr. Frizzell declined to discuss specifics of American's new strategy.
"Our belief is that this is very winnable," said Mr. Frizzell. "We are hearing from thousands of people around the country who support our position on Wright and who want to make their position known."
But some aspects of the new approach already have become visible.
American has begun visiting small cities served by its regional carrier, American Eagle, telling leaders they might lose service if Wright were lifted. Some civic leaders in those communities perceive the tactic as bullying. American insists the trips are informational.
In another piece of its new offensive, American's 80,000 employees will begin speaking up for their carrier. Southwest asked its 33,000 workers to spread the word about repeal earlier this year.
"We're literally having to hold back our employees who feel slighted by Southwest's rhetoric," Mr. Frizzell said. "They feel Southwest is trying to steal their livelihood."
American hopes to build enough grass-roots support to sway at least a minority of local elected officials. If it gets them in its camp, the thinking goes, repeal foes in Congress would have enough political cover to keep the status quo. An underdog aura
One of Southwest's advantages remains its upbeat, people-friendly corporate image, which helps it perpetuate an underdog aura even though it is the industry's strongest airline and flies more domestic passengers than American.
Among its most visible efforts in the airline-vs.-airline struggle has been its effort to collect signatures from passengers in favor of repeal.
**
Mr. Frizzell suggested that American's new approach wouldn't include a similar tactic. "We're hearing from customers that they are offended by Southwest's efforts on the plane," he said.
**
Southwest says it has not heard resistance from its customers on the petition issue. It says it has collected 100,000 signatures.
**
"Quite frankly, most of our customers ask what took so long to fight such an anti-competitive and goofy law -- and how can they help," said Ed Stewart, Southwest spokesman. "To us, being offended is when you are a captive of high fares."
Southwest executives know they've got momentum but concede that the issue won't likely resolve itself this year, Mr. Stewart said. Southwest employees have been braced for potential defeats ahead, but the airline reiterates its long-term focus on repeal.
Industry consultant Mike Boyd of The Boyd Group takes a novel view of the tussle.
In a 52-page report on the Wright fight, he concludes that American should simply advocate for repeal and let Southwest grow "at an inferior airport" while matching fares from its superior position at D/FW.
"This is American's battle to lose," he said Thursday. "They can only lose it if they purposefully decide to split their operations. If they sit tight and do nothing, they're going to win."
E-mail etorbenson@dallasnews.com
Link
LoneStarMike
Boy, is that the truth. I'm still steamed at SWA's efforts to quash inter-city rail. On the other hand, if Wright goes away, SWA won't be so dependent on those short routes for its Dallas business. Maybe then, they'll see a high-speed rail line to Waco, Abilene, and Tyler as a feeder route to Love. I do reserve the right to redirect my scorn from AA back to Southwest at any time.
Oh, that is rich! When I worked at AA, the level of employee loyalty to management could best be described as "abysmal" -- though to be fair, we were really proud of the airline itself, and long-time bogeyman Crandall is long gone. But here's an example of our support: during one particularly troublesome and uncertain period in the SABRE group's history, the VP over the IT folks had a meeting in which he described the impending changes, including the termination of hundreds of our co-workers, as just "a fork in the road". You could feel the anger in the room, a cafeteria at AA's Centreport headquarters. The next day, the VP started receiving the IT department's response via company mail: forks. Apparently, a bunch of folks stuffed interoffice mail envelopes with forks from the cafeteria and sent them to him to show what they thought of his latest plan.
It'll be interesting to see if AA's attempt to motivate employees will produce results, or if it'll be nothing more than another forking over.
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 remember reading awhile back that if the Wright Amendment was repealed that Mayor Laura Miller wanted to tear down the Legend Terminal and keep 26 gates in the main terminal.
When Legend's terminal was built, it was constructed on private property adjacent to the airport and it was built and paid for by private investors unlike the gates in the main terminal, which were paid for by the city and built on land owned by the city. That's why Legend's terminal was always referred to as Legend's Private Terminal.
I'm assuming that's still the case, because when you look at the competition plan on Love Field's website, it talks about the city being the leasing agent for the main terminal gates, whereas the Legend Terminal has a separate leasing agent.
If that's the case, where is Laura Miller going to get the authority to tear down a building that the City of Dallas doesn't own? If it's not the case, then when did the city purchase Legend's terminal?
LoneStarMike
I don't really want to get into the difference in the liberal viewpoint of an "idealistic world" vs. the conservative practicality of living and operating in the "real world", so I will just say the "real world" exists, the "idealistic world" does not.
Rantanamo's definition= A free market meaning no government subsidy, lobbyists or incentives.
Lobbyists? Lobbyists? I ask again: Lobbyists?
Lobbyists are just another form of direct advertising/marketing to a target audience, much like direct-mail, and telemarketers. They do exists, and I view all three with the same distain.
False.The Wright Amendment is remnant attempt of the government to incent better product, value and service to consumers through airline industry regulation.
As a favor to AA the "Wright Amendment" was added onto a popular bill at the last moment, WITHOUT debate, by the Speaker of the House, just before the bill was voted on. That bill was already sailing through congress.
AA and several other airlines had already lost another round of court cases designened to cripple SWA, when the lawsuit tactic failed again, they called in a favor from Jim Wright. Wright's political career ended when his unethical activities became too much even for congress.
yes lobbyists. The fact that the system exists as a tool suggests a lack of free market. You cannot compare it to advertising, as advertising has no direct effect on legislation. It does not matter which side is doing what. Neither should try to sell me on "free market competition". Its like Wal-Mart advertising made in the usa.
"Real World" hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ok, I'll try to stop laughing. Conservatives live in the real world while liberals live in the idealistic world? Don't let your conservative friends know that. Both sides are idealists when it comes to their point of view. If the politics of the "Real World" were in place, many laws and procedures would simply be totally different than they are today. The whole penal system would probably resemble a college campus and be much more of a learning and rehabilitation center if the vast knowledge of a failing penal system were applied. Instead we have people who simply believe that locking a bunch of already criminal minds together and slapping their hands will somehow punish them and make them stop doing what got them in the 'joint' in the first place. Instead of actually funding much cheaper, tried and true methods of rehabilitating drug users, we lock them up and act surprised when they are out and using again. That, my friend is idealism.
In another thread on this subject at another website, a poster was comenting on a recent editorial by Jim Wright, for whom the Wright Amendment was named. In his editorial he was relating the series of events that had led to the passage of the Wright Amendment. Wright had pushed his bill through the House.
"The Senate, however, did not pass a similar restriction. That's when, according to Wright, a lawyer for Southwest Airlines offered a compromise -- limiting flights from Love Field to Texas and four adjoining states."
The poster at the other site made the comment:
So, If Mr. Wright is telling the truth, it seems that the Wright Amendment was Southwest's idea, not an attempt by AMR to shackle poor little Southwest.
A second poster responded by arguing
No, it*s called offering up a compromise that you can live with, rather than risking losing everything. There is no doubt that Wright would have continued to try to close Love through legislative means and he probably would have succeeded eventually. So the compromise allowed Southwest to keep their operation running intact.'
It's really kind of ironic if you think about it.
In last Sunday's Ft. Worth Star Telegram, Mitchell Schnurman had an editorial in which he basically said that the political winds were changing and it looked like Wright might be repealed. He noted that Mayor Laura Miller and Kay Granger had both suggested a meeting with both Mayors, both City Councils and the DFW Board to try and work out a compromise. Up to now, Ft. Worth city leaders have refused.
If you didn't get a chance to read the whole article here's the text-only version and no registration is required. (It's reprinted on californiaaviation.org)
What After Wright
In his editorial, Schnurman wrote:
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.
[SNIP]
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."
It's starting to look to me like the shoe's on the other foot and Ft. Worth, DFW, and AA might be the ones to have to offer up a compromise or risk an all or nothing fight and hope for the best.
So my first question is:
Do you think DFW, Ft. Worth & AA and Dallas, Love Field & WN will try to compromise as to how the repeal might be phased out? (I think the City of Dallas and WN are willing)
Or do you think it will just wind up being an all or nothing battle?
If the parties involved agree to a compromise, what would be acceptable to both parties?
Some of the questions the editorial raised were:
How do we cap traffic at Love Field, which is limited by nearby neighborhoods and a scarcity of gates and runways?
Seems like the master plan would do that by limiting the overall number of gates, but I'm certainly open to hearing other ideas.
How do we divvy up Love's gates, which are largely controlled by Southwest?
Unless things have changed, all of Southwest's leases on both the West and North Concourses expire in December 2006. This info is mentioned somewhere in the Dallas Love Field Master Plan in the section where they inventoried all the space.
Should Southwest be allowed to keep the 14 operational gates it has now but give up it's 6 gates in the North Concourse to be divided amongst the other carriers? This option would mean that AA and CoEX would also get to keep their existing gates.
If this option is chosen I don't think any carrier should have gates if they're not using them, meaning that if AA wants to keep the three gates they have now, they'd need to start using them. WN, AA, CoEX and any other interested parties could bid on the remaining six gates and/or Legend's gates.
If AA decides to abandon the idea of splitting it's operation between the two airport, then I certainly think the City of Dallas should let them out of the remainder of their 10 year lease which was signed sometime in the summer of 2001 before 9/11. (AA actually made this request back in June 2003, but the City of Dallas refused.)
Or should Southwest, AA, and CoEX all have to give up their respective gates and be forced to re-bid for them along with anyone else who wnated them?
Should they be awarded by a lottery?
Highest Bdder?
Should there be a departure level per gate requirement? (i.e you have to have at least 8 turns per gate or face the possibility of having to share.)
What about the Legend Terminal?
Should it stay as it is offering six gates?
Should it be torn down or converted to another use and the master plan reduced to 26 gates as Mayor Miller has suggested?
Should it be torn/ down or converted to another use and the six gates be added somewhere else in the main terminal? (That's possible now under the current master plan and if you end up keeping the 32 gate restriction, I think it would be more efficient to have all the gates in the Main Terminal)
Perhaps Legend's terminal could be used for corporate jets. It's luxurious inside (or at least it used to be) and big enough to handle corporate jets. Big wigs and celebrities could fly into there far away from the "common folk."
I'm sure there's other options I haven't thought of regarding the issue of all airlines having fair access to gates..
City of Dallas, Love Field, and WN folks, how would you like to see it handled?
City of Ft. Worth, DFW Airport, AA guys, what would be your preferred method of solving this issue?
Is there a way to reduce the negative effects on D/FW Airport and its primary tenant, American Airlines?
Here I think we'd have to look at how much time we should allow for the complete elimination of the Wright Amendment and how many phases we'd have to go through to get from where we are today to complete repeal at the end. If it is phased out gradually, I don't think the entire process should last more than 5 years, but that's JMHO.
For Phase 1, do we start by adding a few more states, but keeping the maketing restrictions in place that prohibit through-ticketing? Or do we lift the through-ticketing market restrictions and allow through-ticketing system wide, but during Phase 1 the connections would still have to be made in existing Wright Amendment cities with no new states added during Phase 1?
Taking AA's side (for once) if it's a true compromise, I don't think Southwest should get both in Phase 1.
So my question to WN would be which do you want first? No marketing restrictions prohibiting through-ticketing but no new states would get DAL nonstop service yet, or a few new states can have DAL nonstop service but through-ticketing would still be prohibited between the expandd Wright Amendment area and the rest of the country?
My guess is that they'd go for no marketing restrictions but I don't know. I'm sure WN could live with either one.
AA, if you got to decide, which of those two options would have less of a negative impact on you?
And then how would we proceed from there? How many aditional phases should there be until we get to total repeal? Personally I don't think it should take more than four phases from start to finish, but that's just me.
How do we get to Phase 2? Do we just pick a certain amount of time and go by that (i.e. each phase lasts a year?)
Or could we tie it to DFW's success and by that I mean suppose during the first year in Phase 1, DFW's traffic dropped. I'd say if that happened, we'd have to allow more time to pass before DAL would get to proceed to Phase 2.
Conversely, if traffic rose sharply at DFW like some predict it will, DAL would get to proceed more quickly to Phase 2. That way, we'd be slowly opening up and expanding our secondary airport based on the success or failure of our primary airport. It seems like that would encourage the two cities and airports to work together.
If the cities can't agree on the gate issue and the phase-out issue, then I think one city should get to decide one issue and the other city gets to decide the other.
Maybe DAL could make the decision on what method would be used to ensure all carriers had fair access and Ft. Worth/DFW could decide if Phase 1 would add new states but still prohibit through-ticketing or no new states but no through-ticketing restrictions through existing Wright Amendment cities. We could let Ft. Worth have first choice in deciding which issue they'd want to have the decision making powers in and Dallas could then make the decision on the other issue. That way, Ft. Worth could get their way on whichever of those two issues were more imprtant to them.
Regarding the master plan and it's effect on the surrounding neighborhoods, I think that should be strictly Dallas' call.
As the editorial noted:
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.
I sure would think long and hard about a compromise. I think it would be in both cities and DFW/Love Field's best interest.
So what do you all think? Will Ft. Worth roll the dice and go for all or nothing and hope for the best?
Or will they accept the fact that there is a good possibility the Wright Amendment might be repealed and try to hammer out a compromise with Dallas as to how that could be accomplished gradually over time to give both cities and airport and their respective carriers time to adjust?
LoneStarMike
^...lots of interesting points/questions.
As a Dallasite I would hate to loose control, but what about an airport authority that manages both airports??? Could that work? It would be similar to the other large metros with multiple airports. Thoughts???
I would imagine that would work with less harmony than the Dallas city counsel.
Literally, there's no such thing as "free-enterprise." All enterprises operate under the paradigm of a social economic system. There are always rules to play by, even if they may be unwritten.
However, it's best to go ahead and write them down, lest we forget them!
And that, my friends, is why they call it the Write Amendment.
So, it's difficult to oppose the Wright Amendment on the grounds that it is counter to "free-enterprise" in the sense that it's a regulation. What you have to do, is construct a case that reasonably suggests all people would be better off without the Wright Amendment.
I think it could be easily done.
Last edited by incrediculous; 31 July 2005 at 10:28 PM.
anybody seen southwests new TV ad?
^saw it last night.... not bad.
From the Muskogee (OK) Phoenix
End Wright Amendment
July 30, 2005
Southwest Airlines wants restrictions to its flight destinations enacted in the Wright Amendment of 1979 removed.
We say remove them.
We understand that many people, including Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., say repealing the Wright Amendment will hurt Oklahoma, eliminating service by American Airlines to Oklahoma airports.
That probably will happen, creating some inconvenience for Oklahomans.
But the Wright Amendment is an antiquated law, designed 25 years ago to spur development around DFW airport, limit Southwest to Love Field and direct flights to seven area states, and give American an advantage as a carrier.
Since then, American has suffered several financial setbacks while Southwest has grown to be one of the most profitable airlines in the country.
Ending the Wright Amendment will force American to compete with Southwest at Love Field in Dallas, and also force American to end less-profitable flights not only to Oklahoma, but other midwestern states.
American is Oklahoma's eighth-largest employer, and some jobs here may end, but American may well become a stronger company if it isn't making flights that aren't profitable.
And if Oklahoma loses flights, it's not the fault of Southwest because the company knows how to run a profitable airline.
Oklahoma is to blame for not making the state a destination that people want to visit. Just having the debate is a reflection on our state's economy that has trouble attracting business and giving tourists something worthwhile to experience.
We need government to regulate businesses in order to ensure safety and protect the environment. But it's time to end a regulation that simply attempts to give one airline an economic advantage over another.
Link
LoneStarMike
^Guess Americans "scare everyone to death" campaign isn't working as well as they expected. I was on a SW flight last week, it was good to see them trying so hard to push for signatures. After she made her case on the plane about a half dozen of the passengers offered to sign the petition.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks