((cough cough)) My throat & ear and head hurt, so I stayed home from work today. I'll admit, it totally doesn't take much to get me to take a sick day, but I don't care. If I'm even remotely contagious, I'm doing them a favor by staying home, as far as I'm concerned. So there. :-P
So this is good because now I can catch up on all the pop culture stuff from the 70s 80s and 90s that I still don't know. I am running off to the video store across the street now to get some movies for today and for the long-ass plane ride to Dallas via Tulsa tomorrow (don't EVEN get me started on how stupid it is that Texas law only allows you to fly into Dallas from 4 other states). Any suggestions on what I HAVE TO get in order study for this pop culture challenge? Here's what's on my list so far:
Weird Science
Animal House
Seinfeld on DVD
St. Elmo's Fire
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Valley Girl
New Roof - Summer 2019
4 years ago
13 comments:
I asked some co-workers for advice:
Grease
The Way We Were
Dukes of Hazard
Happy Days
Laverne and Shirly
The Increadible Hulk
Super Friends
Battlestar Gallactica
Land of the Lost
Gilligans Island
The Love Boat
The Jeffersons
Goodtimes
Fat Albert
Dallas
Twin Peaks
The Partridge Family
My three sons
I dream of Jeanie
M.A.S.H.
Sgt. Bilco
Barney Miller
Hogan's Hero
All in the Family
Jaws
Superman
Benjii
You just made me realize - I am so fu$%ed.
Fast Times at Ridgmont High?
Boy did you open a can of worms...
The Wright Ammendment is Federal Law enacted to protect the interests of the then new DFW International Airport. Millions of dollars were spent to build DFW airport... an airport to serve the entire north Texas area including the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. At the time, there were four airports serving the area and they were all closed to commerical traffic. All airlines moved their service to DFW, except Southwest. Southwest sued and won the right to fly within the state of Texas only from Love Field (DAL).
Southwest later fought to fly outside of Texas. This battle led to the compromise known as the Wright Ammendment. All parties, including Southwest Airlines, agreed to the provisions of the Wright Ammendment which allowed any airline flying aircraft with more than fifty seats to fly within Texas and the four surrounding states. This has been Federal Law now for over 25 years.
Southwest agreed to and has been flying under the provisions of the Wright Ammendment ever since. They had, and still have, the opportunity to fly from DFW airport to anywhere in the country. However, Southwest refuses to move to DFW. Why? They enjoy the monopoly they have at Love Field. Love Field is not only limited in the number of states airlines can fly to, but the airport itself and the community that surround it have limited the number of flights that can operate from the airport per day. If Southwest can successfully lift the restrictions of the Wright Ammendment, they will enjoy the opportunity to fly anywhere in the country while leaving very few slots for other airlines to come in and compete.
There is futher evidence Southwest doesn't want competition by refusing lucrative incentives from DFW to move to that airport where they can compete on a level playing field with the rest of the industry (and fly non-stop to Vegas from Dallas). In fact, there is an entire terminal at DFW sitting vacant that Southwest could start flying from tomorrow. Yet they won't move. Southwest's battle to lift the Wright Ammendment is purely for there own gain.
Southwest has been compared to Wal-Mart as of late with their corporate tactics. It turns out the community surrounding Love Field fear more flights will be allowed to operate from the airport and don't want the Wright Ammendment lifted. Wal-Mart is well known and criticized for their lack of respect for the communities they wish to serve, and Southwest is heading down that slippery sloap.
Claudia, you could have chose three other airlines to fly you to Dallas non-stop from Las Vegas. They are America West, Air Tran and American. All would have been happy to get you there without enduring the inconvenience Southwest causes it's pasengers by refusing to move to DFW. For more information, go to http://www.keepdfwstrong.com .
Yeah, but only Southwest was offering me the free flight credit.
This is why government should not get involved with business!!!
They shouldn't have passed the amendment to "protect" DFW in the first place. Deregulate and let the laws of free markets and competition determine the winner.
Truly, because SWA fought the amendment and won a provision, the adjusted amendment more or less CREATED the monopoly that is SWA in DLF. If airline travel in Texas was left up to free market influences, the airlines that got perks to set up in DFW would have ALSO sought places in DLF to stay competitive. But since they went the easy route and suckled at the breast of government regulation, they were hurt in the long run by not expanding their businesses to other airports.
SWA should not have to accept any terms from DFW if they choose NOT to do business there. They should have the right to refuse business with anyone...and in this case that is DFW airport, regardless of any "good deal" offered.
The more I think about this, the more I agree w/ Nat. SWA makes no secret of the fact that they keep their rates ridiculously low by refusing to fly into larger, more expensive airports. Take New York for example. The closest SWA gets is Islip. Long Island. (It's a one-hour train ride from there to NYC.) This "holding out" is what keeps the rates low.
It sounds like SWA was happy and booming at Dallas-Love Airport (DLA), when this other airport came in and wanted them to pay more to go through there. I'm w/ Nat on keeping the lawmakers out of this kind of economic coercion.
If the goal of DLA was to keep commerical flights out, then they should make that the rule and stick to it. But, judging from the zoo that was DLA this morning, that's not really what they're going for. There was no shortage of flights at this ridiculously overcrowded airport.
If you want to restrict the number of planes that go in and out, fine, do that. But why make a stupid rule that they have to fly through one of 4 other states. What am I missing? How does this help anything?
Just to recap- SWA wanted to be a monopoloy at a smaller airport, Love Field. THe people surrounding Love field wanted to keep it a small airport and restrict the amount of airtraffic coming in and out. SWA won the right to fly outside of TX from this airport, but they were limited by local government because the community feels they want to limit air traffic in their region.
So a compromise is made, SWA can only fly into that particular airport from 4 surrounding states. Maybe there's a better regulation there, but there may be other factors that we are unaware of.
I see no problem with local government attempting to limit the amount of air traffic in a particular region when there is already an area zoned for more air traffic. It's a quality of life issue.
EVERYONE wants to have a monopoly on a certain product, so saying SWA wants it is nothing new. The thing is, the other airlines GAVE SWA the keys to being a monopoly by suckling at the breast of governmental regulation (I love using that term) aka abandoning DLF for the governmental kickbacks provided by DFW. SWA proved them all wrong and made DLF profitable. It seems obvious to me that the public desires flights into DLF since SWA has singlehandedly made it viable....even with the asinine regulations!!!
As far as local governments cracking down on the # of flights...that is ridiculus. Lets just use governmental agencies to limit the number of restrooms in an area too. That will crack down on the amount of waste the city has to deal with too. These kinds of things come from people who can't accept change and progress and want to keep the status quo the way it is regardless of societal needs.
Stupid...just plain stupid. You can't limit growth in a metropolitan area like that. It just doesn't make economic or geographical sense.
I disagree with Nat. The public doesn't want more flights into DLF, they want cheap flights on SW. I agree that SW has a vested interest in staying at DLF, but it's the governement's job to advocate on behalf of the residents who do not want more flights over their homes.
This is not an issue of progress, this is an issue of quality of life. If I bought my house when the airport was small and I do not want many flights over my house when there is another area zoned for that purpose, I have every right to demand regulation.
I know that essentially we will always have differing views on the role of government and that this discussion will quickly devolve. I will just say I don't think government regulation of business is stupid.
My bad - now that Nat has explained himself a little more, it turns out I don't agree with him.
I'm not against airports & communities wanting to maintain autonomy over their airspace & airports. If they don't want commercial airlines in their airport, they should restrict the number of flights that can go in and out. If airlines don't like the rules the airport sets, then the courts or the legislature should get involved to protect that community. Period.
But to limit the ultimate or initial destinations of those flights makes no sense. How come no one can answer the simple question of how that is remotely related to the community's problem? It sounds like politics is at play. Like this law is a coercive tactic to try and get ALL the big airlines to help pay for the new DFW.
The way I see it, the newer airport (DFW) is f-ed up for trying to coerce SW out of Dallas-Love, where, apparently, it had happily been doing business before DFW came along. The courts must have agreed b/c they found SW had some kind of vested interest at Dallas-Love and let them stay, despite the airport's wishes.
Like I said before, I don't buy the community explanation. SW is NOT the only commercial airline that flies out of there, so I don't know how you could call it a SWA monopoly. The place was all jammed-up on Monday morning when I was there. This means that either the airport has been EXTREMELY unsuccessful at limiting commercial flights, or that it really doesn't care.
Ultimately, I think the real motive here is to get the big airlines to pay for DFW by making it impracticable for them to fly in and out of the perfectly functional Dallas-Love airport.
What's wrong with trying to get the airlines to help pay for DFW? It's already being paid for by taxes, shouldn't the airlines also contribute? Afterall, they do profit from being at the airport.
Is the regulation unsucessful at its ultimate goal? Possibly. It seems that way.
Shannon said:
If I bought my house when the airport was small and I do not want many flights over my house when there is another area zoned for that purpose, I have every right to demand regulation
ONE word: growth. How do you stop growth? Everyone likes all the benefits that come along with tourism and good jobs and schools, but guess what? That causes growth. Your small little town is NOT going to stay small and regulating it so it does is plain asinine!!! Oh yeah and guess what, the area you bought your house in WAS zoned for airline. When you bought your house you have to assume that the city might grow and the airport will get bigger, meaning more flights. Again, CHANGE happens!!!
Claudia said;
they should restrict the number of flights that can go in and out
What do you think limiting the destination cities of DLF airport does? It limits the # of flights in and out of the airport!!! I mean, come on, how many flights in/out of Arkansas do you really need?
Claudia said:
coercive tactic to try and get ALL the big airlines to help pay for the new DFW.
Airlines pay rights to use gates at airports...that is how the airport makes money. This system works great and, yes, the big airlines do (and should) pay for airport costs, like DFW, ONLY IF they choose to fly in there.
Shannon: the public OBVIOUSLY wants flights into DLF, that is why SWA is doing so well. The public would gladly pay a few more bucks to fly into the airport that most easly fulfills there travel needs. There must be a need at DLF or people wouldn't travel in there! Saving $30 on a flight just to have to rent a car and drive an extra hour to get where you need to go isn't worth it!
Post a Comment