This hasn't changed my opinion of the fight to repeal Wright in any way. It only further solidifies that money talks...in this case it is lobbyist money.
The idea that DFW Airport, an airport that is larger than the island of Manhattan, needs to be protected from tiny Love Field is ludicrous. There might have been a time for the Wright Amendment to protect the fledgling DFW, but that time has long since past. The truth is that American Airlines and DFW are afraid to try to compete with Southwest Airlines, an airline that can offer affordable flights to almost anywhere in the country...that is of course unless you are trying to get to or from Dallas via a state that does not border Texas.
I hate to throw around unproven allegations, but the inner cynic in me thinks that perhaps Bill Frist is more concerned with dumping some stock than he is with my and others' concern about this protectionist law that should have been taken off the books years ago.
Wright Is Wrong! Set Love Free!
Posts
6 comments:
I don't see how more competition is bad for the economics of commercial airlines, who are already subsidized by the federal government. The only airline possibly hurt by a repeal of the Wright ammendment is American Airlines, and have you flown American Airlines lately, they suck. On a 4 hour flight from NY to Houston you get a coke and peanuts and a chance to buy a cheese sandwich.
Thanks for posting this Wes. I got a similar email response from my Congressman, basically saying absolutely nothing on his position. Sometimes money screams.
This is much more about protecting the airports and the city than any airline. I agree that DIRECT competition is best. Southwest shouldn't have the unfair advantage of running operations out of Love. They should move to DFW and compete there so both airlines are operating on a level playing field.
You're dead on about lobbyist money. I did some research via opensecrets.org and found that American Airlines is one of the top 25 corporate contributors to U.S. politicans in American history!
Advocating a position is one thing. However, AA has effectively perverted and undermined the political process by systematically distributing cash to carefully targeted politicians and affiliated causes. In many cases (contributions to un-regulated special interest organizations), these contributions have escaped public scrutiny entirely.
I would imagine most of the major airlines have been top contributors to politicians, I don't think American is any different in that respect. I'm surprised there is so much focus on the airlines. The conversation should be about what set up is the best way to limit noise, traffic and pollution in the Dallas area.
I hear what you're saying... I thought the same thing. But when I researched it through opensecrets.org, I found that American's contributions to politicians have dwarfed those of its competitors.
In my opinion, that's one of the reasons we've been stuck with this stupid law for so long... AA has been "very, very good" to a lot of the local politicians.
Post a Comment