Skip to main content

Southwest Airlines Community

Another Message From Colleen Peace Over North Texas

Not applicable
My goodness, I didn't expect to be returning to the blogosphere so soon, but I wanted to share my thoughts with you about a truly historic occasion. Although our blog isn't our primary political forum, if you will, I want to bend the rules this time. On June 15, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, DFW Airport, American Airlines, and Southwest Airlines, participated in a historic and precedent-setting announcement to settle, by mutual agreement, the battle over the Wright Amendment. (This federal law, enacted in 1979, limits flights from Love Field to nine nearby states, and it also prohibits us from selling tickets from Love to points beyond those nine states. For more information go here) On behalf of the public, we stand shoulder to shoulder with American Airlines, DFW Airport, and with the Mayors of Dallas and Fort Worth, in urging the City Councils of Dallas and Fort Worth and the U.S. Congress to speedily approve the implementation of the agreement. The settlement, once implemented by Congress, contains two steps. The first step will immediately permit Customers to fly to/from Dallas in markets beyond those currently allowed under the Wright Amendment on direct (one- or two-stop) and connecting flights with a single ticket. The second stage comes in eight years when Wright's restriction is lifted on nonstop flights beyond the nine states. While each of the five parties to this agreement had to cede some longheld positions, the real winner will be the traveling public, as people will benefit from increased competition, greater choice of travel options, and lower air fares. Moreover, for the first time since 1968, when Dallas and Fort Worth agreed to build DFW, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, DFW Airport, and American Airlines, by this settlement agreement, formally acknowledge the right for Love Field to exist as an airport and for Southwest Airlines to serve Love Field. By trading uncertainty for certainty with this agreement, we can plan for the future; reinvest in Dallas Love Field, our hometown airport; and grow. Many of you reading this, whether you are a Customer, an Employee, or a supporter of competition, have been active in our Wright Fight. Without your tireless efforts, words of support, and your grassroots activities, we never would have been in a position to achieve this remarkable breakthrough, and I am very grateful to each of you. We aren't "there" yet because we still have to get the legislation through Congress, but we are closer than we have ever been, and I have every confidence that we will get there. Thank you for your interest; thank you for your support; and thank you for your patience as we work through what I hope will be the remaining few obstacles to bring peace to the infamous (Wright Amendment) War of 1979. Colleen
41 Comments
Drew1
Not applicable
It seems to me that the traveling public does not really win from this settlement. American's dominant position at DFW is not challenged, Southwest's dominant position at DAL is not challenged (and gates will actually be demolished to protect that dominance; good for Southwest, bad for traveling public), and Southwest is (still!) prohibited from effectively competing with American for another eight years. I also find Laura Miller's lack of support for Southwest appalling. It is almost as if Ft. Worth has two mayors and Dallas has none.
Jim13
Not applicable
If Colleen and Herb are happy, I'm happy. Congratulations to you guys from far west Texas. And one clarification please - one can book and buy a ticket from DAL to PHX (or LAX, or PDX) provided that plane stops in El Paso or Albuquerque? Or any other city in Texas and the surrounding states? Then it will be another eight years before you can go non-stop from DAL to PHX?
vinnie_mirchand
Not applicable
I am a big SW customer (companion pass last several years) and a big fan - I weave SW in to many of my technology blogs. On the Wright Amednment. You will probably cringe because you want it behind you, but I just blogged below asking Congress to remove the proposed 8 year long haul phase out. You have been punished enough - why another 8 years? http://dealarchitect.typepad.com/deal_architect/2006/06/eight_years_is_.html
The_Hawk
Not applicable
Dude! (Yanqui Gho Hohm) You're missing the point! We've had this albatross around our neck for 30+ years! Another 8 to have long-haul priviledges to all SWA cities is marvelous. You think these schedule changes come easily? One-ticket travel will now be a reality. Lots and lots of money is now to be spent on DAL, making it practically a new terminal. This agreement gives us time to plan effectively and carefully, with the uncertainty of the unknown out of the way. It's a WIN-WIN situation, and we should be glad the Wright Amendment is finally proven Wrong and soon to be Waylayed for good.
Michael_A__Cont
Not applicable
I too have been waiting for this day to come since coming to this industry in 1979. Although, I had to endure 9 yrs. outside of Southwest Airlines, I always knew that we would finally have our "day in court" thanks to Herb. And, despite the fact that we are not out of the woods yet, I believe as my grandpa used to say "son just bring the ship home and dock it and please don't tell me about the storms".
Chris_Baker3
Not applicable
When I read the Kelleher quote, I thought of this quote: "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." That was what Neville Chamberlain said in 1938. The result was the bloodiest war in history. Southwest has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I have a feeling that many in Congress will see this deal as a complete sharm, but it's hard to tell. It's quite disappointing.
blusk
Not applicable
As we expected, Colleen's post has generated some passionate comments, and we understand the feelings of those who are disappointed in the eight-year provision. In the negotiations, all sides had to yield some points on which they were very passionate. However, politics is very uncertain, and you can never be sure about what will happen. Without this agreement, there were no guarantees that what we wanted would have happened in a reasonable amount of time. While we had a lot of public and political momentum, you must keep in mind that it is much easier to stop legislation than pass it. As it is, we still face a battle in getting the agreement through Congress before this Congress disbands at the end of the year, but with all the local parties agreeing to the provisions outlined in the agreement, we are hopeful the agreement will become law. (When the new Congress takes office next year, the entire legislative process has to start over for any bills leftover from this current Congress.) Bottomline, everyone wins with this agreement, and since we can immediately offer our low fares from Love Field to the entire nation, once the bill is passed, North Texas will have fare competition and additional travel choices.Â
FriendofBlogBoy
Not applicable
To Herb, Colleen and Gary -- I offer my congratulations on getting this far in this hard-fought battle. Having flown with you from DAL since almost Day One, I have been affected many, many times by the additional legs of trips that were required to make a trip from my home to a "non-Wright" state. However, also having to occasionally (as rarely as possible) fly on the "other" Metroplex-based airline, I was always reminded why it was worth it to give my business to SWA and to avoid D/FW like the plague. Love Field and SWA have ALWAYS been, and always WILL be, my airport and carrier of choice. My only regrets as we stand on the edge of changes in the Wright Amendment is that making those 'extra' stops with separate tickets meant extra Rapid Rewards credits! (sure, it was elitist, but I used to like the feeling of being in "The Company Club" and taking "The Company Plane" on trips! Although my employer does have our own 'company plane' [a Falcon 50], the 737s based here were easier to get on and had more head room!) Please keep up the struggle to fight for the 'freedom to move about the country' that we all deserve. We truly appreciate your efforts over these many years! **** To Brian -- as I read some of the blog comments here and the letters to the editor in The Dallas Morning News, I think that there are many people who do not have a full grasp of the logistics of manuevering through the world of politics. Having been involved in Dallas County politics in an elected position for 18+ years, I've been far enough in from the fringes to see a glimpse of some of the inner workings of the giant monster known as 'compromise'. As the old joke goes, there really ARE two things that you don't want to see made: sausage and legislation. It ain't a pretty sight. Well-meaning elected officials are often stymied in their desires to advance legislation because it is not a simple process. Gathering sufficient support to pass a bill is not significantly unlike selling a house. You start out with what you want (to sell your home for the highest possible price) and over a period of time and effort, you wind up settling for what you can get (selling it at a reduced price but at least finally selling it). SWA and its many loyal customers would love to have all aspects of the Wright Amendment end tomorrow. We may have to settle for a phase-out program that may include giving up some gates at DAL. But, even if the terms aren't ideal, we (SWA and its customers) are moving forward. It is like the imagery of "is the glass half-full or half-empty?" Compromise can either be viewed as "look what we had to give up" OR it can be viewed as "look at what we've gained." As an optimist, I prefer to choose the latter and be happy that while things may not be perfect, they are better than what they were. Football teams don't always score touchdowns on 100-yard runs from the opposite end of the field. Sometimes, they advance the ball 2, 5, or 8 yards at a time. Sometimes they move forward 25 yards and then lose some yardage and have to back up a bit. This brokered deal between the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth, the DFW board, American and SWA is not a pure touchdown yet, but we ARE moving the ball a great deal of the distance towards that end zone! Let's hear it for the home team! YAY!! We LUV y'all, Kim
vinnie_mirchand
Not applicable
Kim, with due respect this affects way more than DFW...as SW commercials say "freedom to move about the country" it is a bit disappointing that my old home towns - both Dallas and Fort Worth have hijacked this issue for so long...I live in FL and can fly non-stop most everywhere to the Midwest and NE on SW, but to fly West my choices are more restricited or involve multiple ticketing/changes of flight etc. Not exactly freedom to move about the country...
FriendofBlogBoy
Not applicable
Vinnie, Thanks for your comments, and I can certainly understand your frustration. My own in-laws, who spent 55 years of their lives in Texas, have now lived in Baldwin County, Alabama (Gulf Shores area) for ten years after retirement. They were very spoiled by years of jetting around on SWA and hoped very much that SWA would decide to include Pensacola in their system. That obviously hasn't happened yet. I think that one of the things that makes the 'free enterprise' system so good is that it encourages initiative and hard work. The founders of Southwest looked at a market that they believed had sufficient demand to support another airline, and decided to take a risk. That gamble has paid off over the years and many people have benefitted from that little start-up airline, from the investors to millions of travelers in 35 years. I believe that companies that take a risk should have the ability to be rewarded for their efforts. If some guy in your town sees the need for a great homemade style hamburger and manages to open a restaurant that serves the best burger for miles around, he should be able to reap the benefits of meeting the demands of the marketplace. As the word of his excellent product spreads, people from neighboring towns should also be free to drive to his restaurant to savor that tasty treat. But, what if a government agency decided that his little start up burger joint was a threat to the success of the national burger chain locations in town and told him that he couldn't sell his hamburgers to anyone outside of a six-block radius of his store? After all, if he made a burger that was too good and too popular, folks might stop driving to the national chain and that chain might suffer in your town. Of course, the national chain would thrive all across the rest of the country and the world, but it wouldn't be good for the new guy to threaten their success in that area. The cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth have fought like cats and dogs for years. It took brilliant negotiating and tough decisions to compromise on building the new regional airport in this area. Many, many issues had to be worked out before ground was even broken on DFW, and everyone involved feared that any little problem could torpedo this new airport before the first plane managed to take off. So, folks became paranoid and over-protective when SWA came along after the fact (many people overlook the fact that SWA was created AFTER the agreement was signed and was never bound by it since they didn't exist at the time) and tried to find ways to "protect" their new baby. However, they didn't panic at first, because they assumed SWA would fail like a lot of start-up businesses do. But once SWA became well-established, they started to pose a 'threat' to DFW and American Airlines in particular. Now, think about this. In 1926, a fellow named Charles Lindbergh started offering mail delivery via airplanes and that company grew and merged with others and eventually became American Airways in 1930. By 1945, American Airlines was offering air service overseas as well as its many routes across the USA. This company was quite solid financially and was considered successful by every normal business and aviation criteria for many years. Just over 40 years later, a small airline begins flying in Texas between three cities. (Dallas - Houston - San Antonio) The Wright Amendment was crafted in 1979, eight years after SWA started up and nearly 50 years after American Airlines got going. Let's examine the logic here, and compare it to our fictional hamburger stand. You've got a strong, robust airline operating out of an airport that is now five years old and doing quite well. But, you've still got that thorn in your side a few miles away. That little burger joint is getting on your nerves because they make very good hamburgers at lower prices and folks are standing in line to get a table there. So, as a competing business, you've got three basic strategies. One, ignore them and hope they eventually go away. Two, begin to aggressively compete with them by looking at what makes them successful and start to adopt some of those ideas. Take your clout and deep pockets and beat 'em at their own game. Or three, you can get a government agency to fight your battles for you. Convince people in authority to try to run them out of business. But, don't forget that you operate a burger company that is very visible in the public eye. Ignoring the competition would make you look stupid. Battling them head-on would make you look like a big bully taking on the underdog down the street. However, if you can get someone else to try to cut their legs out from under them for you, you can stand in the background and not incur the wrath of bad publicity. That strategy was pretty good except for one thing. The battle went all the way to the US Supreme Court and the little burger joint kept winning. So, it was finally decided that if they couldn't be shut down, at least their feet could be tied so they wouldn't hurt anyone too much. An agreement was brokered that said the small hamburger stand could keep selling burgers, but their restaurant was limited to 56 seats so they couldn't be too successful, and they could only sell burgers to those in neighboring cities to prevent folks from far and wide from enjoying the 'other' lunch alternative. Do you want the government telling our hamburger stands (or airlines) how and where they can operate because their success might threaten someone else? What happened to the free enterprise system that says if you build a better mousetrap, people are free to buy it? My contention all along is that American Airlines should have to fight for their survival like every other company in the US. The government does not protect my employer by telling our competitors how and where they can sell a rival product. Companies that innovate and experiment and find ways to meet or exceed their customers' expectations will thrive. Companies that do not value their customers and offer poor service will stagnate and eventually wither. You said you were from this area, so I would ask you, when have you been to DFW Airport that it seemed to be suffering? That airport is doing very well, as is obvious by the amount of air traffic in and out. Don't be fooled; this battle was never truly about DFW, it was about the big bucks at American Airlines trying to find ways to keep a pesky competitor out of its nest egg on the ground. Despite the verbage, American doesn't seem to be suffering too much either, since they managed to shove Delta out of the way and now enjoy their own virtual monopoly at DFW for domestic service. Delta went from about 225 flights in/out of Dallas per day down to around 21 -- a 90% reduction. And if it was truly about Love Field being open and viable, why did the City of Ft. Worth so enthusiastically get behind Ross Perot's desire to open Alliance Airport? If you want to see something that has hurt DFW, check out the amount of air cargo that comes and goes from Alliance. That is business that is directly out of DFW's income. Yet, as vigorously as Ft. Worth has protested SWA operating at Love and has joined in the suggestion that Love should be closed down, they've never offered to shut down Alliance. And the argument that airports that agreed to close to support DFW should stay closed? That apparently only applies to Love, since Meachem Airport in Ft. Worth is still a busy place. That's a long-winded reply to your comments, Vinnie, but I don't mean any disrespect to your position. I'm sure you'd love to see SWA be able to operate in ways and routes that they are not currently doing. One way to see that happen is to take the leg irons off of SWA at Love Field. I suspect that if and when those restrictions are fully lifted, you will see better service from Florida to all parts of the SWA route map once travel through Dallas becomes easier. When those restrictions go away, ALL of us will truly be 'free to move about the country'. Best wishes to you and everyone in Florida, although not to your Miami Heat in Game 6 tonight here in Dallas! ha ha Go Mavs, Kim
FriendofBlogBoy
Not applicable
To Vinnie and everyone in Florida -- Congratulations to the Heat and its fans on your National Championship! Your team played very well and you deserve to be proud of them! Best wishes from Dallas, Kim 🙂
blusk
Not applicable
Jim, thanks for your comment and your question. Yes, if the agreement is passed by Congress, we can offer through ticketing. You could buy one ticket at one (low) fare to fly from Dallas to Phoenix, as long as the airplane on which you were flying stops in another city within the current nine-state Wright service area, or if you connect to another flight in one of those cities. This would allow us to offer our low fares and through-ticketing from Dallas to just about everyone of the 61 other cities we serve. You are also correct in that, under the agreement, we would have to wait eight years before offering nonstop service from Dallas to points beyond the nine states. Brian
Jane1
Not applicable
Brian, Please assure us that this eight year phase-out of the restrictions isn't just a ploy to give American additional time to find (fund?) politicians who will keep the Wright ammendment intact. My fear is that American will do like the sports jocks do...force the teams to to renegotiate their existing contracts midterm. Are there any 'penalties' written into the agreement if one of the parties (including the cities themselves) decides to bow out?
blusk
Not applicable
Hi Jane, Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I wasn't involved in the negotiations. I do know that all parties, both cities, DFW Airport, American, and Southwest, will be signing legal contracts agreeing to the terms of the agreement. In addition, if enacted, this agreement will become federal law. The agreement includes language that all parties will refrain from all current and future activities or supporting activitiesthat would "defeat, modify, or amend" the legislation defined in the agreement. So, in addition to the law that we hope will come about, you will have a binding legal contract. Brian
Drew1
Not applicable
Jane, your fears are justified. American stands to lose next to nothing if the proposed agreement is altered. Read section 13 of the proposal: http://www.setlovefree.com/pdf/agree_amendment.pdf If Congress implements something different than what is proposed and either Southwest or American begin non-stop flights outside the current WA boundary, Southwest loses eight of its proposed 16 gates, and American loses 1.5 of its proposed two gates respectively. This penalty is of little consequence to American, and is another example of why Congress should simply sit on its hands this year with regard to Wright and instead pass full and immediate repeal in 2007. However, with Rep. Joe Barton suckling from the corporate teat of American, I admit that would be an uphill battle.
Robin9
Not applicable
Kim, I have never told you this but I am going to now. I LUV you. That was the most informative, not technical, breakdown of the issues that I have ever read. And I must let you know that I read tons of WA articles. Good job. Robin Sell Oklahoma Reservations Center
Anonymous777
Not applicable
At first, I was a little upset by this decision. But I realize more and more that Herb was really the only one in the room looking out for the interests of Southwest and the many fliers in the Metroplex. Everyone else was in the DFW's backpocket. Why were these meetings conducted in secret? Why not have open meetings? I think if Herb could have seen how many people support killing WA, maybe he would have fought a little harder. Here are some forgotten facts. The Metroplex has over 5,000,000. Dallas only has a little over a million, and FW has about half that. They mayors do NOT represent people from Plano, Irving, Arlington, or Garland. In fact, those mayors don't even represent their own citizens. What would stop Plano or maybe Collin County from deciding: "The heck with you guys, we're building our own aiport." What would Southwest do in that situation? What would the DFW lobby do? I find it interesting that FW has been supportive of Alliance. Of course, Perot has always been the typical crony capitalist. He's not much better than AMR. Actually there is another solution Southwest could consider here. Southwest's market capitalization is over $13 billion, while AMR's is less than $5 billion. How about doing a hostile takeover of AMR? The main problem is that I think the execs at Southwest are just "too nice" to try something like that.
FriendofBlogBoy
Not applicable
Dear Robin -- Wow! What a nice thing to say!! But now I'm blushing, plus I have to worry about my wife finding out about "us"!! LOL 🙂 Plus, now you have me wondering if I've talked to you some of the many times I've called in for reservations! Seriously, I've always been a huge fan of SWA (you should see all of the model planes and framed stuff in my office!) and an avid student of the philosophy of the way SWA treats its employees and its customers. Besides, how can you not like a company that emphasizes fun? In all my years of flying on SWA (about 33 of your 35), I've met exactly ONE employee who was rude and discourteous to me. He was probably a spy planted there from another airline from here in town... Thank you so much for your kind words, and please keep up the wonderful job that you do! Best wishes always, Kim P. S. Oklahoma, huh? I hate to break this to you, but I graduated from UT in Austin -- will you still LUV me on the second weekend of October in the Cotton Bowl at the State Fair of Texas in Dallas? ha ha
Bob_Hurst__4302
Not applicable
Go Kim!! You are right about DFW. I think, deep down, DFW always knew that repeal of Wright could be good for them ... stimulating the market so both airports would have more traffic ... but they have become so dependent on AA, it was hard for DFW to go against them. Hopefully, this deal will change that.
Dwight1
Not applicable
Seems like Southwest is giving up much more than American. 8 years??? So much for "free market" decisions. American didn't give enough up.
Jim_C_
Not applicable
Ok does the slow death of the Wright Amendment finally mean that I can fly to Denver via SW? I know they presently fly there but since I live in San Antonio I can't get there without flying to Houston or some other bass ackwards route. I'd love to hop on a flight to Luv and then straight to Denver...is this the case? And does it mean it won't take place for a minimum of 8 years? I would think SW would love to have more flights into Denver; I know lots of folks that fly there and have to take an expensive flight on Northwest or United...
Drew1
Not applicable
More proof Ft. Worth has two mayors and Dallas none. http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/14896260.htm "This is starting to look like a 'leadership vacuum' in you and me on this issue," Miller said in a Feb. 8 lunchtime e-mail to Moncrief. "I would like us to respond to this. But I will folo you lead. I have not responded to these questions today. Please give me a response and thanks."
Steve16
Not applicable
As I read the agreement, Southwest cannot fly to say, Nebraska, without giving up more gates, even if Congress decides to go ahead and exclude extra states from the agreement. If that's true, what's to stop Air Trans from coming to Dallas Luv and fly the routes that congress allows that are outside of this agreement?
John_B_
Not applicable
For many years, I have endured the Southwest "two-step" to get around the Love Field restrictions. Indeed, I do remember back when the Wright Amendment restrictions were being rigidly enforced by Southwest. Originally from Nashville, I have lived in the DFW area for 26 years and it has always pained me that Southwest could not fly direct to Nashville. While I applaud the most recent agreement between Dallas, Ft. Worth, American, and Southwest, it would appear Southwest came up a little short on the negotiations. If the agreement is ratified in Congress, Southwest will immediately begin "one-ticket" flights to and beyond current Wright states. While this will be beneficial for North, South, and Westbound flights, it leaves the East out in the cold for another eight years. In my opinion, Southwest should have asked for direct flights to Nashville as a part of the compromise. At least from there, you have a decent connecting schedule to all points east. With the new agreement in place, it would appear that to go east, you will have to fly to Little Rock first...not the most desirable "first-stop" city from a connecting point of view. IÃ
Drew1
Not applicable
Steve: What's stopping AirTran from doing anything at all, even beyond what you describe, from Dallas Love is that this agreement will result in the demolition of a significant portion of the airport, effectively denying entry (and resulting competition) by any other carriers.
Steve16
Not applicable
Yanqui, True, a lot of un-used gates will be demolished. BUT, the agreement states that new airlines at LUV will get gates if they request them. So, Air Tran, or anyone else, can come to LUV anytime that they want. Southwest and American will have to make room if asked.
Drew1
Not applicable
I seriously doubt forced gate sharing will provide an environment favorable to competition from new entrants.
Chris3
Not applicable
I have been in contact with an official from the Collin County airport in McKinney (just north of Dallas County). He is not happy with this agreement at all. Here are his comments: "8. The most serious threat to McKinney is found in Paragraph 6. That paragraph suggests that the DFW will oppose efforts (of any airline) to initiate commercial passenger air service during the 8-year period at airports within an 80-mile radius of Love Field. 9. Dallas and Ft. Worth are attempting to impose restrictions upon airports outside of their jurisdiction through federal legislation, i.e., an attempt to 'expand the misery and expense' that the Wright Amendment has caused the flying public since its inception." He also told me that they are actually looking into adding commercial air traffic at their airport. Collin County includes Plano, so they definitely have the money to do this. And a third commercial airport would be the final solution for flyers in the Metroplex. They would probably leave AMR in droves. Here is another interesting tidbit. JetBlue has announced that they are starting service to Houston Hobby. They already serve Austin, but the Metroplex doesn't get them. JetBlue was founded by former Southwest execs, so I am sure they know all about the shenanigans that go on in the Metroplex. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4004728.html
Drew1
Not applicable
Opposition to the awful "local solution" is brewing. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/062906dnbuswright.66eb07a.html Hopefully Southwest can leverage this into immediate, no-strings-attached Wright repeal.
Anonymous777
Not applicable
Without mentioning the airlines by name, a recent article in the _Fort Worth Star-Telegram_ indicates that two other airlines are not happy with this agreement at all. As I posted here earlier, an official with the Collin County is also not happy with it. He told me that they are hoping to expand to allow commercial flights. Competing airports co-exist in many areas in the USA. These airports are also run by different airport authorities. Here are some examples: Los Angeles, Orange County, Burbank, Long Beach St Petersburg, Sarasota, Tampa Fort Lauderdale, Miami San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland Fundamentally, this problem was created back in the 1960's when the feds forced this disastrous marriage between Dallas and Fort Worth. Love Field having passenger traffic violates the agreement, so does all the cargo traffic (including FedEx) at Alliance Airport in Fort Worth. Like all bad marriages, the biggest winners have been attorneys. Repealing Wright would actually help DFW. Fares would go down, and air traffic would go up. The airport would see increased concession revenue, parking, etc. Love Field also has some disadvanatages anyway. Because of its shorter runways, it will never be able to support the really big planes used in flights to Europe and Asia. It's also not convenient to any expressway. But an airline which maintains a fleet entirely of 737's like Southwest doesn't need runways that are 2.5 miles long. Here's a nice web site which tells the story of what Love Field used to be: http://oldterminals.topcities.com/love.html
R_L_
Not applicable
Yanqui Gho Hohm: "If Congress implements something different than what is proposed and either Southwest or American begin non-stop flights outside the current WA boundary, Southwest loses eight of its proposed 16 gates, and American loses 1.5 of its proposed two gates respectively. This penalty is of little consequence to American, and is another example of why Congress should simply sit on its hands this year with regard to Wright and instead pass full and immediate repeal in 2007." It's all a matter of perspective, Yanqui. Yes, under the compromise, Southwest would stand to lose a greater NUMBER (8 vs. 1.5) of gates at Love Field. However, American would be risking the loss of a higher PERCENTAGE (75% vs. 50%) of its Love gates. To say that an airline losing three-fourths of its gate capacity at an airport -- even if it's going from 2 gates to half of one gate -- "is of little consequence" to the airline is rather naÃ
Drew1
Not applicable
R.L.: The percentages don't matter as they pertain to American. American's presence at Love is a waste of money as they have admitted. They would likely be thrilled to be "forced out" from that airport so they can refocus all of their North Texas efforts at the facility they practically own: DFW. Again, the penalties for American are of no consequence.
Drew1
Not applicable
Holy moly. Whose quote is this from this morning's Ft. Worth Star-Telegram? "Any airline that wants to serve the Metroplex can go to D/FW today and fly anywhere they want," he said. "No one is being locked out of the market." It's not Gerard Arpey, but Southwest's own Ed Stewart! When Southwest start's using American's talking points, you know this "local solution" is a sham.
Mark_Setterberg
Not applicable
It is my hope that someone in the FAA or in Washington will come to the realization that this is a bad plan and would make poor public policy. We already have an Airline Deregulation Act that was passed by Congress in 1978. Why not use it? It would be far better for Congress to allow this sweetheart proposal to lapse and start fresh in 2007. That would allow them the latitude to make adjustments and corrections that would better benefit the traveling public and to phase out the Wright Amendment in a more timely manner. Nebraska and Tennessee are but two states that are eager for a more timely repeal and inclusion in the Love Field Service Area.. Secondly, it is my belief that the current proposal is not deregulation, but re-regulation. The proposal calls for reducing the number of active gates at DAL Love Field from 32 to 20. This was done in spite of an airport master plan allowing 32 gates that was adopted in 2001 after much deliberation and public input. The federal government should not be legislating the number of gates allowed at the nation's airports. This provision was apparently inserted to appease American Airlines, as they were concerned that SW might be a formidable competitor. Regarding the football analogy that was submitted by Kim Seale, it appears that SW may be getting a field goal (at best), but it falls well short of a touchdown. Seems to me the best analogy that I could offer is this proposal is akin to putting lipstick on a pig.
Bynum
Not applicable
Wow! This blog is very interesting. You know I am sure that American Airlines is just around the corner of Chapter Super Bankrupt and they just continue to do whatever they can to destroy the greatest airline EVER. Southwest however, years and years and years of profit. American needs to get on board with all their "affiliates" and simply declare bankrupt as all the other airlines have.
Scott5
Not applicable
It looks like the Federal Justice Department has decided to dig up the hatchet that the four parties buried. Unless something drastic happens, the deal's Dec 31st clause will kick in. My opinion is that the deal is already dead and we should restart and redouble the "Set Love Free" effort. Please revise your "Repeal the Wright Amendment" efforts as though this deal no longer exists.
blusk
Not applicable
Hold the horses, Scott! That so-called Justice Department memo was not an official document, neither was it an official viewpoint of the Justice Department. One of the Assistant Attorney Generals told Senator Hutchison that Justice has no opinion on the pending legislation. The local agreement is still very much alive, although it may not come before the full House and Senate before the August recess. Brian
Scott5
Not applicable
I stand corrected as the House in now completing the passage of the bill that the Senate passed by voice earlier today. Will there we a schedule announcement when the President finishes signing the bill? Congratulations on getting this done.
Scott5
Not applicable
until the new schedule comes out here is the best two reservation program to get from SMF to DAL Going to Love Field Plan A Flight 1739 ( 1 stop to Houston) leaves at 8:55AM PT arrives at 3:55 PM CT then get the 4:30 CT from Houston to Dallas. Plan B Flight 604 (another 1 stop to Houston) leaves at 1:05 PM PT arrives at 8:00 PM CT then get the new Flight 112 that leaves at 8:45 PM CT and gets to Love Field at 9:35 PM CT From Love Field Get Flight 1369 from Dallas to Kansas City leaves at 1:00 PM CT arrives at 2:20 PM CT then get Flight 742 from Kansas City to Sacramento leaves at 3:05 PM CT arrives at 4:45 PM PT
Mary111
Not applicable
Congratulations for your blog!
Joshua3
Not applicable
Can any of you all please let me know the details of Southwest's forward oil contract...? Like their strike price and so forth...? It will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.