MWright

You're recollection of history is wrong. DFW opened in 1974, and all existing and operating airlines at the time signed an agreement (not the Wright Amendment) to move their operation to DFW in 1970.

SWA began service in June of 1971, before DFW opened. When DFW opened in 1974, everyone but SWA moved their operations to DFW. This angered the legacies, so they filed suit in 1973 to force them to move as well. You were correct that they won that case on the basis that as long as Love was open, that nothing could stop SWA from operating there. You were also correct that they weren't party to the agreement that the other airlines had signed.

Now fast forward to 1979. American and Braniff we're still steamed about SWA operating from Love, so they tapped one of the many politicians in Dallas who was in their pocket, Jim Wright, to sponsor a bill in congress to limit passenger traffic out of Love Field. So yes, the Wright Amendment was undoubtedly punishment for refusing to serve DFW.

As a part of the agreement, it stipulated that SWA divest Love gates if they ever chose to serve DFW (the very thing the airlines and the DFW airport board wanted them to do). Banishing isn't the right word, but it certainly was another form of punishment. So SWA found themselves in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

Also, the original Amendment had no termination date. The amendment would be in full effect to this day if not for the effort of SWA.

It's worth noting that several airlines have tried to serve Love over the years, with both large and RJ sized aircraft. AA flew super-80's to AUS and STL and failed miserably. The only two doing it today is United (to DEN and IAH) and Delta (to ATL and MEM), both in 50-seat RJs. Having been airlined on both carriers out of love, I can assure you the loads are light. Nothing prevents these airlines from serving additional destinations, as long as the number of seats is less than 56.

One final note: the original plan for Love Field was a hard limit of 32 gates, to limit congestion and noise. As a condition of the repeal, that number is now 20.

Perhaps you guys will now see the heartburn over giving up gates to airlines who have shown no interest in Love over the past 34 years. I would hardly call the pile of restrictions on their flying out of Love a "competitive advantage." The only reason that SWA has a "monopoly" out of Love is because the other airlines have: 1) Failed to make money doing the same restricted flying that SWA does, or 2) Not shown any interest in serving the airport.

tsquare

Not really. Unless you care to address the fact that slot controlled airports in NY have, until recently held zero interest to SWA, but now they should be allowed zero bid (basically) contracts to those gates. Why should they get those gates over DAL or UAL or AMR for that matter?

RP4242

Correction - UA dropped DEN a while back and DL switched MEM for ATL. There is no restriction on size to IAH being that it is inside the perimeter and often you will get CR7s flying the route.

MWright

Love field isn't slot controlled. Delta has access to at least one gate at Love. No one is disputing their right to use it.

Carl Spackler

Where did I ever say it was a dumb move or that it was unfair? If you're going to debate, shouldn't you at least read the post you're quoting?

That's your personal opinion. Mine is that it was indeed a guaranteed monopoly, and good business...for SWA.

And at a much more close-in airport to one of the nations largest business capitals. A distinct advantage that SWA used to build a strong airline without the problems associated with competition.

Again, that's because those airlines were promised by the very governments that forced them to move that nothing but small commuter type aircraft would utilize Love field. When SWA won the lawsuit to stay in Love, and the majors were prohibited from moving back because of the agreement they signed before SWA's existence, they wanted to level the playing field for operating in Dallas. You call it being hamstrung, but the rest of the legislative world saw it as an attempt to level the competitive playing field.

I think that's probably correct, but SWA sure didn't fight the majors prohibition from moving back to Love. That's the point. The Wright Amendment leveled the paying a little bit.

It did favor SWA and here's how: The reason the Wright Amendment was even conceived is that the US and city governments were looking at lawsuits from the majors who were pressured then swindled into moving out of Love. The majors would have almost certainly won those suits and be allowed to return their loud long range airplanes back to Love. That would have killed the SWA baby in its crib. The Wright Amendment leveled the competitive playing field in Dallas, and was the incentive for majors to stop fighting for a return to Love. A return that would have crushed SWA.

Carl

MWright

Correct - I didn't specify. CR7s are legal within TX and the other states allowed under the amendment. In order to fly anywhere else in the nation, it must be on an airplane with less than 56 seats.

Carl Spackler

What's with you and reading comprehension? I didn't say anything different than this regarding the history.

See above post. It also saved SWA's bacon.

Punishment that protects you from being crushed in the marketplace.

The termination of the Wright Amendment will end the 56 seat limit will it not? At least that's what I thought.

Carl

Carl Spackler

OK.

Actually, no I don't. Your heartburn is likely due to competition coming to Love field. And it wasn't that airlines didn't show interest in Love, airlines were prohibited from moving back with aircraft that would be profitable.

I know you don't, but it has been quite an advantage. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so much SWA heartburn going on right now.

Completely wrong and revisionist history.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Cool. Let's give SWA access to one gate in ATL. And we promise we won't dispute your right to use it.

Carl

tsquare

Wow, one whole gate?? gee thanks.