SocraticGadfly: Additional Wright Amendment details don’t sound so nice; more evidence of collusion rears its ugly head

July 13, 2006

Additional Wright Amendment details don’t sound so nice; more evidence of collusion rears its ugly head

The Dallas Morning News gives us the fine print.
Lawmakers from other states also raised concerns about the plan. Many were worried that other airlines would be locked out of Love Field because American, Southwest and Continental Airlines control all the remaining gates.

JetBlue Airways, among other carriers, has raised concerns that it would not have access to Love under the local compromise.

But the mayors and (Kevin) Cox, (COO of D/FW Airport), argued that there is plenty of unused gate capacity at Love and that entrant airlines could sublease from the existing carriers.

Puhleeze. You’re closing Love Field down to 20 gates, with only two gates not controlled by any of the aforementioned airlines.

Smokey Joe Barton, so wrong so often, is right about this:
In the end, Barton predicted North Texas would be viewed as having one superairport with terminals at D/FW Airport and Love Field that are only eight miles apart.

Exactly; to some degree, the Wright repeal deal is collusion between Southwest and American More evidence?
Among concerns (of some D/FW area Congressional members) is a provision that requires Dallas and Fort Worth to mutually work to bring new air service for North Texas to D/FW Airport. …

“That is a contractual agreement between the city of Dallas and the city of Fort Worth that says we will put all of our eggs into the D/FW basket,” said Cox. “That agreement will stand on its own.”

In other words, for all of Southwest’s bluster and studies alleging the area would eventually need a third passenger airport, they’re willing to throw that all under the bus to collude with American.

Remember, for all of Southwest’s PR, too, this deal is ultimately about what’s best for Southwest, first, and what’s best for D/FW air travelers, whether Southwest customers or not, second.

No comments: