U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–659 PDF 2007

REFORMING THE WRIGHT

AMENDMENT

(109–89)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 12, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York,

Vice-Chair

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BOB FILNER, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Arpey, Gerard, Chairman and CEO, American Airlines ...................................... 30

Barton, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from Texas ............................... 9

Burgess, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas ..................... 18

Cirillo, Michael, Vice President of System Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................... 20

Cox, Kevin, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Executive Vice President,

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport ........................................................... 30

Granger, Hon. Kay, a Representative in Congress from Texas ........................... 14

Hall, Hon. Ralph, a Representative in Congress from Texas .............................. 11

Hensarling, Hon. Jeb, a Representative in Congress from Texas ....................... 16

Johnson, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from Texas .......................... 13

Kelleher, Herb, Chairman of the Board, Southwest Airlines .............................. 30

Miller, Hon. Laura, Mayor, City of Dallas, Texas ................................................. 30

Moncrief, Hon. Mike, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, Texas ...................................... 30

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Barton, Hon. Joe, of Texas ...................................................................................... 58

Berkley, Hon. Shelley, of Nevada ........................................................................... 61

Burgess, Hon. Michael, of Texas ............................................................................ 63

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 65

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 71

Granger, Hon. Kay, of Texas .................................................................................. 89

Hall, Hon. Ralph, of Texas ...................................................................................... 93

Hensarling, Hon. Jeb, of Texas ............................................................................... 94

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 98

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 228

Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada ................................................................................... 227

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Arpey, Gerard .......................................................................................................... 55

Cirillo, Michael ......................................................................................................... 66

Cox, Kevin ................................................................................................................ 73

Kelleher, Herb .......................................................................................................... 196

Miller, Hon. Laura ................................................................................................... 212

Moncrief, Hon. Mike ................................................................................................ 222

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress from Texas:

′′Safety 1st at Love, Please′′, Sherry Jacobson, Dallas Morning News, July

3, 2006, article .................................................................................................. 107

1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance ......................................... 109

Love Field Citizens Action Committee, Lori Palmer, statement ...................... 179

Fort Worth Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Rosa Navejar, July 10, 2006,

letter .................................................................................................................. 192

Fort Worth Metropolitan Black Chamber of Commerce, Monte Elliott,

Chairman, and Devoyd Jennings, President and CEO, July 10, 2006,

letter .................................................................................................................. 193

Greater Dallas Asian American Chamber of Commerce, Les Tanaka, Executive Director, July 11, 2006, letter .................................................................. 194
Page

VI

American Indian Chamber of Commerce of Texas, Gene Bloomfield, President of the Board, Bob Gentry, Board Secretary, and Shirley Hankins,

1st Vice President, July 11, 2006, letter ......................................................... 195

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

Bynum, Drue, Grayson County Judge Elect, letter, July 11, 2006 ..................... 233

City of Dallas, City of Fort Worth, Southwest Airlines, Co., American Airlines,

Inc., and DFW International Airport, Contract incorporating the substance

of the terms of the June 15, 2006, joint statement between the parties

to resolve the ′′Wright Amendment′′ Issues ....................................................... 234

City of Denison, Hon. Robert Brady, Mayor, letter, June 29, 2006 ..................... 245

City of Denton, Hon. Perry McNeill, Mayor, letter, July 12, 2006 ...................... 246

City of Greenville, Karen Daly, City Manager, letter and resolution, July

12, 2006 ................................................................................................................. 248

City of Sherman, Hon. Bill Magers, Mayor, letter, June 30, 2006, letter

and resolution, July 11, 2006, and accompanying letters from Curt Hughes

and Joe N. Smith, Sherman Council Members ................................................. 251

Collin County Regional Airport, John Sowerby, Chairman, letter, June 20,

2006 ....................................................................................................................... 257

Dallas Business Journal, ′′Love Betrayed,′′ June 23, 2006 .................................. 258

Dallas Business Journal, ′′Wright Questions′′, July 7, 2006 ................................ 259

Dallas Morning News, ′′Audit Finds Gains in Aviation Department′′, Dave

Levinthal, July 1, 2006 ........................................................................................ 260

Dallas Morning News, ′′Council Raises Love Landing Fee′′, Emily Ramshaw,

February 23, 2006 ................................................................................................ 262

Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Bill Thornton, President and CEO, letter,

July 11, 2006 ........................................................................................................ 264

Friends of Love Field, William H. Foster, III, letter, July 11, 2006 ................... 265

Grayson County Airport, Mike Shahan, Airport Director, letter, June 28,

2006 ....................................................................................................................... 269

Greenville Chamber Convention & Visitors Bureau, statement ......................... 270

Hlavenka, Denice, State Farm Insurance Agent, Pottsboro, Texas, letter, July

11, 2006 ................................................................................................................. 271

JetBlue, David Neeleman, CEO, statement .......................................................... 272

Lippe & Associates, Emil Lippe, Jr., letter, July 11, 2006 ................................... 286

McGraw, Tim, County Judge, Grayson, Texas, letter and Resolution, June

28, 2006 ................................................................................................................. 289

McHorse, Susan, President, Pottsboro Area Chamber of Commerce, Resolution ........................................................................................................................ 291

McKinney Chamber of Commerce, Robert S. Clark, Chairman, letter, June

20, 2006 ................................................................................................................. 293

McKinney Economic Development Corporation, Ray Ricchi, Chairman, letter,

Jume 30, 2006 ...................................................................................................... 294

Microeconomic Consulting & research Associates, Inc., (MiCRA), Frederick

R. Warren-Boulton, PhD., Principal, letter, July 11, 2006 ............................... 295

North Texas Commission, Dan S. Petty, President and CEO, statement .......... 301

Self, Keith, Collin County jundge (Elect), letter, June 20, 2006 .......................... 304

University of North Texas, M. Theodore Farris II C.T.L. PhD., Associate

Professor, Director of Logistics & Supply Chain management Programs,

Department of Logistics and Marketing, letter, July 10, 2006 ........................ 306

Whitfield, Hon. Bill, Mayor, City of McKinney, Texas, statement and letter,

June 20, 2006 ....................................................................................................... 310
(1)

REFORMING THE WRIGHT AMENDMENT

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica [Chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding.

Mr. MICA. Good afternoon. I would like to call this hearing of the

House Aviation Subcommittee to order. Welcome everybody here

today. Today the subcommittee will hear testimony about the efforts to reform the Wright amendment. That is the subject of our

hearing. The order of business will be opening statements from

members of the subcommittee, and then we will hear from a panel

of Members of Congress who are interested in today’s subject. Most

of them are from Texas, then we have a second panel and a third

panel, so a full schedule today. With those comments, and let me

say also, if anyone would like to add testimony to the record of this

hearing, they can do so through the Chair at the request of the

committee, and Mr. Costello moves that we keep the record open

for a period of 2 weeks. Without objection so ordered.

So we welcome members and others who have comments they

want immediate part of the official proceedings to be included

through request of the Chair. So I will start the proceedings, and

I have got a hopefully brief statement and then we will yield to

other members. Today our subcommittee will hear testimony on a

locally initiated and locally approved so-called agreement that

seeks to change and eventually proposes to eliminate the longstanding Wright amendment. As most of us know, the Wright

amendment has restricted commercial air passenger service out of

Dallas Love Field for now some 3 decades. Today we will examine

the terms of a June 15 compromise reached by the cities of Dallas

and Fort Worth Texas, and also hear from the affected airlines,

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, which, among other

things, you will find will lift existing geographic restrictions on

commercial air service at Love Field after some 8 years, and that,

I think, stretches out to 2014. The Wright amendment, as modified

by Congress over the years, currently restricts commercial air service out of Love Field to cities in Texas and some 8 surrounding

States. Enacted in 1979, the Wright amendment was essentially a

legislative compromise crafted by the cities of Dallas and Fort

Worth Texas and Fort Worth International Airport, DFW, Southwest Airlines, and others.
2

The Wright amendment was intended to end a long-standing

legal dispute over Southwest’s desire to provide inner State service

out of Love Field, and at the same time, help spur growth at the

then new regional airport DFW. In my 13 years in Congress, I have

been a strong advocate and defender of public policy that promotes

free markets and economic deregulation. I have long believed that

the Wright amendment, along with other existing barriers should

be repealed. These types of restrictions, in my opinion, constitute

undue Federal interference with the market’s ability to reflect consumer preferences. However, because the Wright amendment was

locally generated many years ago in a different time and circumstances, it is fitting that it is unraveling now as being generated in a different time and under different circumstances by a

locally generated agreement, and this is tough, especially for Members of Congress, to bring agreements before us and have us try to

sort of divide the pie up and the baby, so to speak, and we are

pleased that there has been these generations from the local level

of an agreement.

It is clearly in the best interest of consumers for the invisible

hands of the marketplace, not the heavy hands of Congress or the

Federal bureaucrats, to set air fares and service options. I believe

we should remove this barrier as soon as we can, and we should

not stop just with what we are doing today. As part of next year’s

FAA reauthorization legislation, we should address other onerous

anti competitive service restrictions that are currently on the books

and eliminate any remaining Federal laws and regulations that

prohibit airlines from serving the routes sought by competitive carriers and the travelling public. As I suggested earlier, I prefer to

see the Wright amendment repealed immediately. However, the political reality is that without the Love Field, the proposal that is

coming forth today and being considered here today, the 35-yearold Cold War waged by the affected cities, airlines and communities will continue indefinitely, and that is something we do not

want.

By ultimately eliminating one of the most significant remaining

barriers to domestic aviation competition albeit some 8 years, the

Wright amendment compromise could help set the stage for complete deregulation of our domestic aviation system, which would be

for the benefit of consumers and community across the country. Before legislation to implement some of the terms of the agreement

can be crafted, it is incumbent upon this panel to ensure that the

safety implications of any increased operations in the air space

around Love Field and DFW airports is also addressed. I must

point out that some have suggested this agreement only benefits

two airlines and could be interpreted as somewhat anti competitive. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I

think it is appropriate that we have a full open hearing on all of

these issues, and I would like to yield to our ranking member, Mr.

Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you and I welcome our witnesses today, our colleagues and other witnesses who will be testifying here at this hearing. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I will submit my statement for the record. As I said, we have a number of
3

witnesses, so I am hoping that members on our side will be brief

as well and submit their full statement for the record.

Mr. Chairman, I will not go over the history of the Wright

amendment. We all know how it came about with a 1979 agreement between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. Since then, the

Wright amendment at the time was a logical step in my opinion

when enact in 1979 to bring stability to the north Texas air market. Further, it allowed southwest to carve a niche at Love Field,

while American built, its hub at Dallas Fort Worth. I have supported the Wright amendment as the proper way to enhance the

Dallas Fort Worth growth and development. The airport, in turn,

has done its part by fueling the regional economy.

However, today, Dallas Fort Worth is far from a small regional

airport. As an international airport, its influence is far reaching

and has become a major player in markets that other airlines could

not serve from Love Field. As a result, for many years, people have

sought to repeal the Wright amendment. But it has been my belief

that if we were going to consider changes to the Wright amendment, that it should come from local officials at the local level, from

mayors, county officials, and other interested parties.

And if they, in fact, reached an agreement then and only then

should Congress become involved. The piecemeal approach that we

have seen in the past for years with certain States being exempted

or repealed from the Wright amendment, in my judgment, has been

ineffective and is poor public policy.

On June 15, the parties that we will hear from today reached an

agreement. They have all agreed to seek full repeal of the Wright

amendment with several conditions. Soon after Chairman Young,

Mr. Oberstar, yourself, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this

subcommittee had the opportunity to sit down with our colleagues

from Texas and other local elected officials and others to be briefed

on the agreement.

This is a significant compromise, and I think as our friend Herb

Kellaher said it at our briefing, he said if we can come together all

of these parties and reach an agreement, surely we can achieve

world peace. I want to tell you that I am pleased that we are following regular order, that we are going through the process of this

hearing today, going through the authorizing process. There are

many who have criticized the Wright amendment for restraining

free market competition. I have heard from others who believe that

this new agreement poses similar competitive hurdles.

I am interested in hearing from our witnesses and their responses to those concerns about any restrictive hurdles on competition. Further, I know that our colleagues, Mr. Oberstar, who has

been involved with the Wright amendment since the very first day

it was enacted, has major concerns about the safety aspect of this

agreement and I am sure that we will hear from him concerning

those concerns as far as safety is concerned in the agreement. And

I thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and

look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Costello.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you for calling this hearing and bringing everyone together. This
4

is an important step in this process. Mr. Costello just mentioned

that Mr. Oberstar goes back to the very beginning of this. I do not

go back nearly that far, but I have been on this subcommittee for

18 years, and in all that time, I have had almost every years discussions or meetings about the Wright amendment. In fact, just a

few weeks ago, Mr. Kellaher came to my office and we had a very

fine meeting I thought and I told him at that time, I hope some

type of a compromise could be reached. So I am very encouraged

by being to the point where we are today.

In no significant legislation does anyone get everything that they

want or desire, but it seems that people are being a little more reasonable now than perhaps at any time before this, and I will say

that my own major airport in Knoxville that has had concerns

about this all along has told me that they support the agreement,

at least as far as it goes to this point.

So I just wanted to be very brief in my comments and say that

I commend everyone who has worked so hard to help us reach

what appears to be a compromise that is acceptable to a great majority of the people, but we will listen to any concerns that anyone

has and see if this agreement needs to be tweaked or modified in

some way. But I thank you for calling this hearing and I look forward to hearing the witnesses. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. One of those affected from

Texas, Mrs. Bernice Johnson, a senior member of our panel.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you, Mr. Ranking Member and chairman of the subcommittee, and

all of those who are present. In addition to your representative subcommittee staff, my staff and the Senate staff of Senator Hutchinson have been working continually attempting to get this legislation done. In using the instructions of the agreement, this is very,

very important to the north Texas area, and we appreciate all the

courtesies that have been extended. Of course, less than a month

ago, the city of Dallas, city of Fort Worth, Southwest Airlines,

American Airlines, and DFW International Airport, reached an

agreement to resolve long-standing issues regarding the Wright

amendment.

As you know, the Wright amendment imposes long haul flight restrictions to and from Dallas Love Field airport locate within the

heart of my Congressional district. Of course, the original agreement said it would phase out. That was what was agreed to between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth in the beginning so they

were doing pretty well to be flying at all because of the Wright

amendment. But the agreement marks an important milestone as

efforts to repeal the restrictions over the past decades has served

as a major points of contention in the north Texas stake holders.

And I know, Mr. Subcommittee Chair, that I have always known

your attitude about this Wright amendment, so I am glad it didn’t

come before you, but we had it blocked at the other end. To have

all the aforementioned entities in solidarity behind this amendment that ultimately lifts long haul flight restrictions in Dallas

Love Field is nothing really short of amazing.

As my north Texas colleagues will elaborate on many of the key

aspects of the agreement, I will not be repetitive. However, I would

like to impress upon the following, my fellow subcommittee mem-
5

bers. It is important to note that the Wright amendment was the

direct result of a community-crafted compromise between Dallas,

Fort Worth regarding two north Texas airports. 32 years ago, north

Texas, upon the recommendation of the Civil Aeronautics Board,

decided that DFW airport would be the region’s primary travel investment. This decision is captured in the 1968 Regional Airport

Concurrent Bond Ordinance adopted by the cities of Dallas and

Fort Worth. I will ask unanimous consent to enter that into the

record.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I ask you also for unanimous consent to enter some other correspondence here from various chambers that are supporting this agreement.

Mr. MICA. Without objection so ordered.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. I will forego most of my

written testimony and ask unanimous consent to put it in the

record. I support the agreement. I support the agreement because

I think that it has been made by the proper entities involved. It

requires give and take. I doubt if any of the stakeholders got all

that they wanted, but that is what an agreement and a compromise is and those of us who sit here know that. So many of the

home owners and constituents groups that reside within the Love

Field area also support the agreement, and I am going to ask, Mr.

Chairman, unanimous consent to enter the written testimony submitted by Miss Laurie Palmer on behalf of the Love Field Citizens

Action Committee.

Mr. MICA. Without objection so ordered.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. It is a coalition of residents and neighborhoods in the Love Field impact area. The organization was established in 1980 to address the airport’s adverse environmental

impact on the large and densely populated community that surrounds the airport. Also, there are many schools in the area, and

I think that as long as we address the safety, the historical member of this committee has made that a number one concern, and it

is mine as well, and I think that we will have language that will

meet the guidelines of the FAA.

So I am hoping that all of us would listen attentively, and then

next week when we have the markup, hopefully it will be something we all can support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlewoman. We will now hear from another distinguished member of our panel, a gentleman from Texas,

and that is Mr. Marchant.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the

fact that you are taking this bill in regular order, and very much

appreciate the fact that you have expedited this hearing to accommodate us. Thank you to the mayors for being here today and the

members of the north Texas community, the debate over the

Wright amendment and its repeal in this committee has been a

great concern in my district.

My district is basically composed of the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport and the surrounding towns and cities. American

Airlines supports 7,300 jobs in my district. The airport itself supports 268,000 jobs in the greater Dallas Fort Worth area. The

metroplex depends very heavily on DFW Airport as does my district. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to you today that
6

this is the number one business issue in district 24. The debate has

put airline against airline, airport against airport, and city against

city and even split the opinions of our very close-knit north Texas

delegation.

Since elected to Congress a year ago, a year and a half ago, and

up until this agreement was reached, I have been firmly in favor

of the keeping the Wright amendment in place. However, I have

also stated that if we are going to come to an agreement on any

change to the Wright amendment, it should be worked out on a

local level. Due to the hard work of the mayors of Dallas and Fort

Worth and along with the elected officials and business leaders

that are here that will testify later today, the agreement has been

presented to Congress and has my support.

I believe this agreement is a good compromise between the stakeholders. All parties gave some ground on all issues, and all parties

have something to lose if they break the agreement. In a word, this

agreement is balanced. The fact that this agreement is balanced is

a positive in that it encourage all parties involved with the two airports to support it. However, the flip side of this is if one cog in

the machine is moved or taken out of place by Congress, the whole

agreement is in jeopardy.

Hopefully very soon, identical bills mirroring the agreement to

repeal the Wright amendment will go to the House and Senate. I

have no doubt that every step along the way, attempts will be

made to change these bills. I would like to take this opportunity

to urge the Members of Congress to respect the agreement as it has

been reached and allow these bills to become law without becoming

significantly changed. Only then will we be able to put this debate

behind in our area.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to give a statement, but I will have to say that in the last 2 days, I have had

several meetings, and it appears that there has been one issue that

has surfaced that we as a north Texas delegation have not been

able to discuss, and it is the 80-mile rule. And I am looking forward

to the testimony today to help me as a committee member clarify

the impact of the 80-mile rule. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. I thank you and the ranking member

for having this hearing today, and I want to commend our colleagues sitting before us today for coming to this agreement regarding the permanent rules at Love Field. With that said, I do

have some concerns, Mr. Chairman. There are only three airports

with perimeter rules, Washington National, LaGuardia and Love

Field. US Airways, one of our Nation’s leading airlines, had one of

the perimeter rules at National and LaGuardia removed for years,

and have long urged that the issue of perimeters be dealt with at

one time.

However, here we are suddenly having Congress about to alter

conditions for Love Field only removing a barrier on ticketing for

another of our Nation’s leading airlines, Southwest, and setting a

time for the abolishment of the perimeter rule and tearing down

of some gates. The perimeter rule at Washington National has long

been a problem for US Airways, and I ask the chairman to consider, as we move forward, in trying to help our colleagues at Love
7

Field that we consider the perimeter rules at Washington National

and LaGuardia as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, when I first arrived in

the Congress 12 years ago, I learned two things, and one is never

get crosswise with a bunch of Texans, and secondly, that the

Wright amendment is a very strange document. It only makes

sense in the context of the times, but probably should never have

been adopted. In spite of the first rule, I am still going to speak

up and say I think this agreement is a major problem.

Well, let me add another principal that I have, and that is to

never interfere with free enterprise unless you can do it in a totally

fair way with all parties involved. The proposal, as I read it, is not

totally fair in all ways. It favors some airlines over other airlines,

and my colleague from Pennsylvania just said basically the same

thing. I think we have to proceed very, very carefully and very deliberatively on this proposal and examine the ramifications beyond

Texas, beyond Love Field, beyond Dallas Fort Worth Airport.

It is a complex issue that is going to affect several different airlines frankly in a negative way as a result of the way the agreement is formulated and written, and I certainly want very thorough and complete examination of all the implications of this before we proceed. Maybe he can be persuaded, but I certainly have

to know a lot more about the impact on other airlines before I could

favorably look upon this document. With that, I would yield back.

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to say I know

Jim Wright. Jim Wright is a friend of mine, but the Wright amendment is wrong. And I know the chairman will find great difficulty

in believing this, but we agree on the fact that this amendment

should be abolished. This amendment does not only affect Texas,

with all due respect, to my Texan friends. California is affected

also.

I represent the city of San Diego, I should say as a disclaimer

I have as many frequent flyer miles on American as I do on Southwest. But San Diego has a love affair with Southwest Airlines. It

has taken a cul-de-sac city as we really may be geographically and

opened all of California and much of the country to our citizens for

quick and effective airplane travel and low prices. We could go up

to L.A. or San Francisco for lunch and be back to another city for

dinner and be back in time to go to sleep in San Diego because of

Southwest. So we were anxious to have it repealed. But if this compromise is as the chairman said, what we all can agree on then

let’s go forward with it.

Mr. MICA. I have one more Texan, Mr. Poe, who is on our panel

and then I will try to get to you all who are waiting.

Mr. Poe.

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having these hearings.

This really has become a family feud and the families sat down together and broken bread and called a truce. And I do not want to

be another Texas within involved in this family feud that has apparently been settled so I agree with the compromise, the truce,

the truce that has been agreed upon among the family and I think

it should be approved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
8

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar is the ranking member of

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is important for

this committee to deal with this issue legislatively to have this

hearing rather than have the Love Field Wright amendment issue

eroded piecemeal as it has been over a period of years without a

view to the larger national aviation context in which this issue

must be discussed, but a good deal of talk about stakeholders.

Stakeholders are not just the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, nor

the airlines or the airport authorities. The stakeholders are all

Americans. If you approve a law in Massachusetts it does not do

much for traffic in California, but if you improve an airport, if you

add a 5,700 foot runway at Logan field it does make traffic from

the west coast more accessible to the east coast to Boston because

of the nature of the air travel.

Similarly, dealing with the Dallas DFW Airport and the Love

Field Airport is a national aviation matter. It is not just a local

issue. And we have to be very careful and very thoughtful about

how we approach this issue. And I will not go back and recite the

history of the agreement between Dallas and Fort Worth negotiated by Najib Halaby when he was administrator of FAA, and

under President Kennedy when Kennedy had just started the increase in funding for aviation to invest in airport and runway and

taxiway improvement to expand aviation in the United States.

That history is told in hearings that I held in 1991 in great deal

with Najib Halaby himself testifying.

There are two issues. One is safety, the second is competition.

There is a fairness issue that Jim Wright attempted to deal with

in what we know as the Wright amendment holding both cities to

the agreement they negotiated rather than let one run out on it

and the other be stuck with an economic problem on its hands.

That is now being resolved by the two cities who have come to an

agreement.

The safety issues is a real concern. Now, DFW has gone to a

four-corner, four-post approval sequencing that has made it much

safer for operations at Love Field that are only 8 miles away from

DFW, and aircraft are only 2 miles apart from each other on arrival and departure patterns, and that has been adequately documented in the hearings we held in 1991.

The FAA will be here, I hope, with some slides that will show

and I have those documents it will show that they can manage the

air space safely. Do not forget Love Field is not just a little hick

airport. It has 235,000 operations a year. That would be the envy

of any other airport in the country except for a handful. And there

is well over 300, 400,000 at DFW and headed upward.

So first is managing that air space safely. The FAA will testify

that they are able to do that. The second is managing the competition safely. This agreement says we are going to have only 20

gates, terminate others, raises questions about who is going to

come in and compete in this future opened up competitive airport,

Love Field. In the Wright amendment, we legislated a limitation on

service and competition. But if the agreement entered into by the

community is ratified in law, then we will, for the first time in this

country have legislated the number of operations at an airport. We
9

will have legislated the amount of competition that can be entered

into at an airport. We have seen the effects of the cap on operations at O’Hare Airport, at LaGuardia, at National Airport, and

the slot rules resulted in something totally perverse.

Airlines acquired financial interest and equity in the slots that

they owned, they were able to buy and sell slots. They were able

to trade them as part of their equity and acquire monetary value.

Will the same thing occur with those gates? And how will new competition come into Love Field? How will the next generation of low

fair competitive airlines come in to challenge the brilliant Southwest Airlines or the gigantic American Airlines? Where is room for

competition? I want to hear this. We are going to have a very lively

discussion about it later on as we proceed with this hearing. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, if I may take, I still have a request from

one of our members here to speak. I know Mr. Barton is engaged

in a markup, and I think we could extend a courtesy to Chairman

Barton to present his statement at this time. Then I will come back

and then we will go to Mr. Hall and down the panel if we could.

Mr. Barton you are recognized. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BARTON OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to appear before what appears to be a majority of the House

of Representatives on your subcommittee. If you get any bigger,

you will have to meet on the House floor, which you are probably

already doing any way.

I am going to ask that my statement, formal statement be submitted to the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. BARTON OF TEXAS. I am going to be very brief because I do

have a markup in my committee we are chairing, on adding a

bitterant to anti freeze to make it impossible or more difficult for

children and animals to drink it and be poisoned.

I do not think it has been any secret that I have been a proponent of keeping the Wright amendment as it is. I think it has

been good public policy for the last 30-some odd years. I think it

would continue to be good public policy if we were not to amend

it in any way. Having said that, the stakeholders in the DFW area

have come together in a good faith effort after strenuous negotiation and come to a proposed agreement that I think should supersede the Wright amendment. The gist of it has got three basic legs.

One, you will have ultimate repeal of the Wright amendment in 8

years, so those of you that are for repeal, you get it. You just do

not get it today. You get it 8 years from now.

Second, since you do not get total repeal right away you get

through ticketing at Southwest out of Love Field and any other airline that serves Love Field, that should have an immediate impact

on competitive pricing at all airports in the region. In order to give

some certainty to the DFW Airport, there would be an agreement

that Love Field would never have more than 20 gates in operation.

They have a master plan at Love Field that could allow for, I be-
10

lieve, as many as 42 gates before DFW. Love Field, at one time,

I believe, had 55 gates. There are currently 15 or 16 gates in operation, so the 20-gate limitation would give some ability to expand

at Love Field, but it would not give it the ability to expand to a

huge amount. Those will be the main components. Through

ticketing immediately, 8-year repeal, 20-gate limitation.

The strongest reason to support this agreement, in my opinion,

is because of the parties that have negotiated it. You have the mayors of both the cities of Dallas who owns 2/3 of DFW and 100 percent of Love Field supporting it. You have the mayor of Fort Worth,

and I should say the city council of both cities. I believe they have

both formally endorsed the agreement. You have the two airlines

that are headquartered in the DFW area, Southwest in Dallas, and

American in Fort Worth that have also strongly endorsed the

agreement. It is my understanding that Continental, that is

headquartered in Houston, Texas, while they are not a signatory

to the agreement, is supportive of the agreement.

If we accept this, I think what you are going to see is the creation of what I would call a superregional airport. You will have

five terminals at DFW, A, B, C, D, and E, and you will have one

terminal at Love Field.

As the crow flies, that is a distance of about 9 miles, but by

Texas standards I know people who have bigger back yards than

that. So what you are going to have is five terminals at DFW, and

one terminal at Love. You are going to have the ability for through

ticket. You are going to have the ability for other low cost airlines

to come in, certainly to DFW, and I would love to have Southwest

go out to DFW. So we will get a good regional airport, we will get

a superregional international airport, and we will have peace and

harmony for all the American flying public, not just the DFW area.

There are some issues outstanding. Mr. Oberstar has raised an

issue on safety. It is my understanding that language is being

shared between Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica and the FAA that we

can hopefully resolve that. We have an 80-mile perimeter enforcement portion of the agreement that there are some members that

have concerns about we are trying to find a way to work on that.

Having said that, this is a strong agreement. It has been thoughtfully worked out. I would strongly encourage the committee, and

ultimately the full committee, to endorse it legislatively. I look forward to working with the members of this subcommittee and full

committee for doing that. Thank you for the courtesy and allowing

me to testify.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Bachus, you had a quick opening statement, and

then I will get Mr. Hall in before this vote at least.

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. I would like to associate— I read the

members’ statements. I would like to associate myself, I know Ms.

Granger, I think probably everything you said in your statement I

agree with. I was kind of concerned with what some of the members said about this clause 6. I think Congressman Hall and Congressman Burgess had some concerns about some of the outlying

airports, but the bottom line is the parties have agreed to this.

Actually, I am from Alabama, and this may actually hurt us, because flights used to skip down in Birmingham and then go on to

other places, but I think obviously the traveling public is best
11

served by this agreement, and I have to compliment the parties

and plan to enthusiastically support it.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Bachus yields the balance of his time to Ms. Berkley, and then we will get Mr. Hall.

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly I would

like to submit my opening statement for the record, with the exception of saying this thing publicly. The Wright amendment is not

the only barrier to competition in place in the airline industry. Federal law currently limits flight, as we all know, in and out of

Reagan National Airport in Washington to a distance of 1,250

miles, Las Vegas, which I represent, lies outside of this parameter,

and we are therefore at a substantial disadvantage, exemptions

have been granted over the years, but my constituents and those

wishing to visit my wonderful city and enjoy our wholesome family

entertainment are currently limited to one nonstop flight per day

on this route.

I want to congratulate those that are here today who have come

to an agreement on the Wright amendment that we can hopefully

serve as a basis for legislative action, but I am also hopeful that

Congress, and this subcommittee in particular, will act to address

other anti competitive rules that currently are in place, and thank

you all very much for being here.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. You can see this has a lot of interest not

just in Texas. Mr. Hall, I appreciate your waiting patiently. You

are recognized.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. RALPH HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members and my colleagues from Texas. I want to thank you for holding the hearing.

I have been watching Love Field probably longer than anyone in

this room. I remember the days when you could get aboard a plane

at Dallas if you were going to Austin, you would stop at Fort

Worth, you would stop in Waco, and you would finally make the

long trip on in to Austin. There have been some changes since that

time, but we have always had a great airport there. I think the airports are great, Love Field and DFW. And like most Members of

Congress, especially the Texas delegation, we have hoped for a

compromise.

We have wanted a compromise. We have prayed for a compromise, because in my district, as I go from county to county, and

people I would ask about the Wright amendment, I found out 80

percent of them were for it and about 80 percent were against it.

And that is not a very good feeling for a guy that is looking for 51

percent. So I am pleased that we are having the hearing.

On Thursday, June 15, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth,

American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Love Field and DFW announced they had reached a deal regarding the Wright amendment, and I have long said that the parties should get together and

broker than agreement. This pursuit has taken place, and is still

taking place. Up to 10 minutes ago, in my office, as I started down

here, we were still working on it. It was an overall agreement that

I desperately want to support. In reading over the agreement, how-
12

ever, I have some concerns that I am hoping that the committee

addresses in the legislation.

Section 6 has been alluded to of the agreement that states that

the cites of Dallas and Fort Worth will oppose—basically this says

as I state, ′′Efforts to initiate commercial passenger air service at

any area airport other than DFW during the 8-year period to the

extent any other airport within an 80-mile radius seeks to initiate

scheduled commercial passenger service within this 8-year period,

both cities agree to work diligently to bring that service to DFW,

or if that effort fails, then airports owned by the city of Dallas and/

or Fort Worth.′′

It is, of course, not surprising that cities compete to bring new

air service to their communities. If another airport in the greater

region were to seek commercial air service, one would expect that

Dallas and Fort Worth would aggressively compete for that business. If Dallas and Fort Worth were to work together to oppose the

growth of commercial passenger air service at other airports in the

region, it seems more logical to me that they should do this by private agreement between the cities and/or between the airlines and

even record this decision in the city council’s and commissioner’s

court hearings, all supported by their own Chambers of Commerce,

and not give Federal approval and recognition to such an agreement. It should not be encompassed in Federal legislation.

The airports affected by such restriction are not parties to this

agreement and any such disagreement should be between the parties, be it Fort Worth, Dallas, American Airlines or Southwest.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, Congress should not give legislative

authority to an otherwise private agreement and send a signal to

the FAA that those not privy to the contract and signers thereof

agree with the 80-mile prohibition. I represent a district that has

seven airports that fall within the statutory 80-mile radius. The

mayors, county judges, airport directors and Chambers of Commerce representing these airports strongly oppose this section of

the agreement. And they are strongly working to work it out as is

the Senate.

The Senate sponsors are working hard to work this out. And we

want to work with them and have some give and take and try to

get this thing reconciled. They are rightly alarmed that any attempt to legislate an agreement that restricts their ability to expand their markets is of great consequence. And Mr. Chairman, I

have letters from all of these people, and I ask unanimous consent

that they be submitted into the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. HALL. While I have a fond regard for Dallas and Fort Worth,

I have been sent to Congress to represent the people in my district.

Many towns in my district have airports. Some small, others have

dreams of growing to midsized facilities. Some of these facilities

have dreams to compete and grow in Northeast Texas. Indeed

Collin and Rockwell Counties are some of the fastest growing counties in the Nation. This agreement could potentially harm these

communities if Congress legislates these terms, and I cannot support a bill that harms the citizens I represent, but I want desperately to support a bill.
13

The American dream does not prohibit competition. It energizes

it. Much of my Congressional district, and especially Rockwell and

Collin Counties are located in the shadow of Dallas County line. I

have always been pro-Dallas, pro-Terrent county. It gives me no

solace to oppose an agreement that I have long hoped for.

In closing, I would just say I would hope that I would not be

forced to make a decision to vote against either city or either airline. I am grateful to those who worked out this compromise. I simply need this one adjustment. I urge the committee to reject legislation that codifies section 6 of this agreement. I look forward to

working with members of this committee, and Members of the entire Congress, to ensure that the American spirit of competition

thrives. I do thank you and yield back my time.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, we have about 7 minutes.

Did you want to give it 3 or 4 or would you like to come back?

Mr. SAM JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I am willing to try.

Mr. MICA. I will give you about a 3-minute warning. Then we

have three votes, so it will be about 3:15 before we reconvene. Mr.

Johnson, you are recognized.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. SAM JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. SAM JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Costello. You know we have come a long way in a short time. Only

last May, Jeb Hensarling and I introduced the Right to Fly Act.

Our bill called on Congress to immediately repeal the Wright

amendment. The bill met intense enthusiasm from travellers living

both inside and outside of Texas, so I am thrilled to be here today,

barely one year later, testifying on the future repeal of the Wright

amendment. Jeb and I introduced the bill because we felt that the

cornerstone of free enterprise is the freedom to fly. We introduced

the bill because the 1979 Wright amendment law had outlived its

usefulness. And we introduced the bill because, as you said, Wright

is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, it is not just a handful of Texas members and

thousands of our constituents who think that way. In just a year,

55 representatives from all across America have co-sponsored our

bill and so called ′′Southwest effect′′ brought to their cities.

Today’s hearings on the current proposal drawn up by the cities

of Dallas and Fort Worth as well as American and Southwest airlines is much needed. That is because this is not an automatic in

my book. It seems to me that the cost of getting Dallas Fort Worth

and the two airlines to agree on the solution to the Wright amendment meant new restrictions on other cities around the region,

none of which had a seat at the table, none of which could have

predicted that they would be dragged into this. So essentially, for

the third district, we are looking at what looks like to me the

Wright amendment all over again, or as I have come to call it,

Wright-lite.

Nearly every single one of our constituents encounters the

Wright amendment, that is why I am going to move forward cautiously and thoughtfully. The two biggest concerns I have to do

with are the agreement’s impact on the number of other airports
14

in the region, specifically Collin County Regional Airport, and

McKinney. Colin County Regional Airport is a general aviation airport that is 27 miles from Love Field that serves as a reliever airport for DFW. Under the agreement, specifically in sections 6 and

7, it states the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth would work together

over the next 8 years to oppose any new commercial aviation service to any airport within 80 miles of Love Field.

What troubles me is that Dallas and Fort Worth should not be

asking Congress to pass laws that hamstring other cities or counties. That is just unAmerican. The last thing we need is Congress

giving any city a competitive advantage over another. Creating an

uneven playing field is the wrong thing to do. Free markets do

work. Communities thrive when we keep our nose out of their business.

My other concern comes under sections 10 and 11 and under

those sections, the cities state that Southwest and American would

be penalized should they decide to operate commercial air service

at any other airport within 80 miles of Love Field. At first glance

and knowing that the two airlines agreed to these terms, I thought

that I might be able to live with it, but that was before I realized

that will this restriction would not just be in place until the 8 years

repeal. This restriction would be in place until 2025. That is 19

years from now, after the Wright amendment would be repealed.

That is just wrong. That is replacing one unnecessary restriction

with another.

We have a duty to preserve our national aviation system and

Love Field should be no exception. We deregulated the airlines and

it worked. America stands for freedom and free enterprise, not

more government interference. It is my hope that any legislation

we draft and potentially pass through the Congress is written in

such a way to remove Wright-lite proposals on other counties and

cities.

Before I close, I would like to request permission to insert the

testimony from the McKinney mayor, Bill Whitfield.

Mr. MICA. Without objection so ordered.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you, sir. Let’s give America

the right to fly.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Other members, we have

less than 3 minutes to vote. So if you could keep that path clear

and let the members exit to the left, we will reconvene at 3:15. We

have three votes. This hearing stands in recess.

[recess.]

Mr. MICA. I would like to call the subcommittee back to order,

welcome everyone back. I apologize. Took a little bit longer than we

expected, but if we have to stay here through the night until tomorrow, we are going to hear this thing through.

The very distinguished gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Granger, if

you are ready to go, we are ready to go. You are welcome and recognized.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. KAY GRANGER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much, Chairman Mica and ranking members and to the members of this committee. I appreciate
15

your agreeing to hold this important hearing to hear about the

local aviation issue. It is an issue, of course, you know so much

about, I have talked to you personally about, Mr. Chairman. It has

developed into a national debate and certainly affects consumers

all across the United States, and we recognize that.

I have been intimately involved with this now for more than 15

years, both as Mayor of Fort Worth and now as a Member of Congress, and wrestled with this, as have the two cities and the airlines and the airport. And I am certainly proud the community has

come up with a local solution that will also better serve the national traveling public, and I think that is exactly what will happen.

Over the last several months, north Texas has shown both discipline and cooperation in assembling a thoughtful, comprehensive

solution that meets the aviation travel demand for today and for

the future. What has transpired since last fall has been arduous,

it has been intense, sometimes it has been even painful with all the

stakeholders involved, and as was said earlier, no entity got everything they wanted to but they had to agree to provisions that may

have caused some discomfort in their boardrooms and city halls but

they came together with a good solution.

From my longtime experience with this complex issue, I have

witnessed the negotiations between mayors, airlines, airports and

between differing responsibilities in the Federal Government. In all

my years I have never seen a consensus like we now have before

you in this joint statement of the stakeholders.

I speak for several other mayors who were unable to do this. So

I certainly compliment the two mayors who came together to hammer out this solution.

If you leave with one impression of this joint statement, may it

be this one. Accepting the provisions in a piecemeal fashion is not

a workable solution for achieving the needed critical balance for all

the stakeholders. It has to be adopted in its entirety.

To illustrate the critical nature of this balance I will address one

provision and how its inclusion directly affected the different stakeholders. As you know, in this local agreement the Wright amendment will be repealed outright 8 years from the enactment of this

Federal legislation. This time allowance is absolutely necessary to

provide operational certainty for the cities, for the airports, and for

the airlines.

The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth must be able to provide stability for supporting short- and long-term viability of their mutually shared airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International. The FW Airport is directly or indirectly responsible for over 200,000 jobs and

crucial to the north Texas economy. Immediate repeal of the

Wright amendment would cause detrimental effects for the cities as

they work toward keeping the FW strong and building its growth

for the future.

The airports must have time to adjust their master plans in

order to protect air safety and build one long-term business development on their properties. This 8-year time period will enable

both Love Field and DFW to make the most of their assets with

considerable improvement to market certainty.
16

The airlines must be afforded time to adapt service in existing

and new markets from both airports. Immediate repeal of Wright

could put the north Texas commercial air industry in an economically harmful state, and it would also deny airports and airlines

the opportunity to react to market changes and passenger preferences after first implementing through-ticketing. In the long run,

a phaseout approach will allow increased choices and competitive

pricing for consumers.

Another important provision in this agreement is to codify the

number of gates out of which Love can operate. Limiting the number of Love Field gates at 20 operating service gates is important

for air safety, for noise and air pollution, and to the business and

residential community surrounding Love Field. It is also necessary

to keep commitments made by the two cities to each other when

DFW was built. Codifying the number of gates at Love Field was

a key piece to the agreement among the entities, and I support its

inclusion in any Federal legislation.

The Wright amendment and the situation with Love Field and

DFW Airport are unique and require a unique solution and I think

that is what we have. This clarification is important to note because the stakeholders were tasked with finding a local homegrown solution to end the Wright amendment debate once and for

all. They found a solution that works for north Texas and to the

advantage of the American consumer.

As a former member of this committee I understand how this

committee works to not only solve issues but to thoughtfully establish long-term policy with the best interests of commerce and the

traveling public at heart. I believe the joint statement agreed to by

the stakeholders before you today meets those goals as well.

This agreement was reached with a holistic approach to solve the

debate once and for all, and I am very glad to support it and I

wholeheartedly do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your patience.

Now we will hear from another distinguished Texas Representative, Mr. Hensarling. Welcome, and you are recognized, sir.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JEB HENSARLING, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Costello. Thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting

me to speak.

Last year along with my colleague Sam Johnson, I introduced the

Right to Fly Act which would fully, completely, and immediately repeal the Wright amendment. Repeal is important for two reasons.

First, as we know, there are over 500 airports in the U.S. that

have commercial passenger air service. With the exception of

Reagan National which sits on Federal property, Congress in all of

its history has imposed distance limitations on just one airport,

Love Field, and it did it to protect DFW Airport from competition.

I sincerely believe that sort of protectionism is not and should not

be the role of the U.S. Congress.

Secondly, every study of the Wright amendment, regardless of

who commissions it, shows that fares will fall significantly with repeal. The U.S. Department of Transportation found that air travel
17

in and out of north Texas costs about a third more than the national average. That is a lot of money our constituents could be

using to pay health care premiums, fill up a car, or pay a utility

bill.

Still, I understand reasonable minds can and have differed on

this subject for almost 30 years. Just witness this panel. Against

this backdrop, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth as well as DFW

Airport, American Airlines, and Southwest Airlines entered into

negotiations that produced an historic agreement among them. I

salute Mayors Miller and Moncrief for their tenacity and leadership

in forging this consensus agreement.

I view their agreement as great progress. For the flying public,

though, I do not yet view it as a great success. Still, I have always

indicated a willingness to support other plans besides my own as

long as they meet a twofold test. One, the plan clearly benefits consumers; and two, the plan removes Congress from the business of

airport protectionism.

Without seeing final legislative language, it is unclear to me

whether the local agreement will satisfy these criteria.

With respect to helping consumers, I am concerned that the proffered agreement essentially constitutes an 8-year extension of the

Wright amendment. Most citizens in the area, I think, believe that

a 2- to 5-year gradual phaseout represents the reasonable compromise. The previously released Campbell-Hill study indicates

that consumers annually pay almost $700 million extra in airfares

due to the Wright amendment. Therefore, an 8-year extension

translates into another $5 billion loss to our constituents. Even by

Washington standards, Mr. Chairman, that is a big number and a

big burden to American families.

On the other hand, I am increasingly convinced that immediate

through-ticketing can positively impact competition in airfares. Although hard data is hard to come by, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines recently commissioned a study on just this topic and

made it available to me yesterday and, Mr. Chairman, I would ask

that this report be made part of the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. HENSARLING. The conclusion of the joint Campbell-Hill and

SH&E study is as follows: Number one, through-ticketing will

produce 259 million in fare savings annually. Two, 2 million new

passengers will travel to and from the region. Number three, this

will create a $2 billion annual boost to the economy.

Now, while I cannot vouch personally for their methodology, I

find this report most encouraging that consumers may see a significant and immediate benefit from this part of the local agreement.

I am also concerned that under the agreement, the city of Dallas

has chosen to reduce the number of permissible gates at Love Field

from 33 to 20. Still, it is the city’s airport and I respect its right

to contractually bind itself to do just that. I am further concerned

that under the agreement Southwest Airlines has agreed, perhaps

unenthusiastically, to restrict their Love Field’s flights to the nine

permissible States for 8 years. Still, it is their airline and I respect

their right to contractually bind themselves to do just that.

The combination of the two clearly means that full and immediate repeal will render far fewer consumer benefits than would
18

otherwise be the case. Given all of this, if a bill comes to the floor

that grants immediate through-ticketing and full repeal 8 years

now, I will view it as solid progress and I intend to vote for it.

My second concern is getting Congress out of the airport protectionism business once and for all. In the compromise agreement,

the airlines and cities make joint pledges in such areas as gate limitations, international flights, initiating flights within 80 miles of

the airports, and the list goes on. Again, parties have the right to

make contracts but I see no compelling reason for Congress to codify into Federal law private contractual obligations that are enforceable in court. Congress would be replacing one complex set of

anticompetitive rules with another.

Using my colleague Sam Johnson’s phrase, we would end up with

′′Wright Lite.′′ thus, if a bill comes to the floor that codifies these

specific obligations of the private parties into Federal law, I intend

to vote against it.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, for far too long the Wright amendment

has been a burden on both consumers and the national economy.

Only Congress can repeal Wright, and we should. But if we cannot

reach agreement on doing so today, and it appears we cannot, I do

stand ready to work with any and all parties to codify into Federal

law the immediate through-ticketing and 8-year repeal portions of

the local compromise. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

And now, waiting most patiently—and we probably need a Texas

physician to sum this up— Representative Burgess, you are recognized.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. MICHAEL BURGESS, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding

this hearing. It is a pleasure to be back within the humble confines

of the T&I committee room, again the largest standing committee

in the Free World.

Previously it has been stated that for almost 30 years the Wright

amendment—Mr. Chairman, I would point out that is almost my

entire life—for almost 30 years the Wright amendment has protected a mutual agreement between the cities of Dallas and Fort

Worth. In fact, without the Wright amendment, look at Austin,

look at Denver, look at Atlanta; I am not certain what happened

in Fayetteville, Arkansas with the opening of the Northwest airport

there, but those cities lost their older airport because of agreements

that were entered into by those cities when they opened a larger,

new facility.

I believe in the integrity of the Wright amendment. I believe it

has enabled Dallas/Fort Worth Airport to become the economic engine of north Texas. If we change the terms of the old agreement,

the new law must protect the lives and the livelihoods of tens of

thousands of people who depend on Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.

Our two mayors, Mayor Moncrief and Mayor Miller, have each

worked diligently along with major stakeholders, and I believe they

have entered into a historic agreement that will protect my constituents, constituents throughout north Texas, for better services
19

at Love Field and for continued excellent service at Dallas/Fort

Worth Airport.

I do represent a portion of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, but I

also represent Alliance Airport and Denton Municipal Airport. I believe the surrounding airport interests must be protected.

I am pleased that the mayors made a distinction between commercial, passenger service, and cargo service. Additionally, most

unscheduled charter service is not included in the definition of

commercial passenger service; thus, surrounding airports will be

able to continue their cargo and most charter service without disturbance. This is a very important service and I believe we should

take all the necessary measures to protect communities like the

city of Denton.

It should be noted that this agreement only binds the cities of

Dallas and Fort Worth, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines.

It does not bind the neighboring cities within the 80 miles. Therefore, their autonomy should remain unquestioned. I would oppose

any measure, whether State or Federal, that would obligate other

parties to this agreement. If other parties are subsequently bound

by this agreement or any form of legislation, this would be contrary

to the intent of the agreement.

It is my hope that any proposed legislation will remain silent on

the issue of preemption.

The Dallas Aviation Department has revealed that the depart- ment has a $20 million budget shortfall within its two most recent

fiscal years combined. While the aviation department has proposed

increasing their landing fees at Love Field from $0.35 to $0.55, the

Dallas taxpayers, not just the traveling public, but the Dallas taxpayers are still subsidizing this airport. According the Dallas Morning News, the landing fee increases will bring in over $900,000 to

the city annually. This obviously falls short of offsetting that budget deficit.

Similarly situated midsize airports charge an average of $1.40

landing fees and I do not understand why the city of Dallas has

been reluctant to charge a more fiscally responsible landing fee.

While clause 5 of the new joint agreement does provide the landing

fees will be adjusted to cover much-needed facility and safety improvements, it is my hope that the city of Dallas will rise to the

challenge and increase the landing fees to a more appropriate level.

As with any older facility, modifications need to be made to ensure the safety of the entire area. An increase in landing fees could

provide for additional safety improvements that would provide for

the well-being of those in and around Love Field, including runway

expansions and over-run barriers. The citizens of Dallas deserve

these safety measures as well as more transparency in the financial records at Love Field.

While I would have preferred for the Wright amendment to stay

intact, I have always believed that the fate of the Wright amendment should be decided locally between the cities, since they are

the entities that actually own the DFW Airport and Love Field. If

the Wright amendment is to be modified, it should come first from

the local level and not from Washington.

Just a few short months ago the north Texas delegation charged

Mayor Moncrief and Mayor Miller with this most difficult task.
20

Considering the history between the two cities, some felt this task

was in fact impossible. However, Mayor Moncrief and Mayor Miller

rose to the challenge and we now have before us a local agreement

signed by all major stakeholders. It is now our opportunity to rise

to the challenge and, if possible, pass legislation that reflects this

agreement. If it is impossible to enact this legislation that reflects

the agreement, then the Wright amendment should stay firmly intact.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this important

hearing. I offer my assistance to you and the committee regarding

the aviation issues that affect my constituents in north Texas.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. Thank you again for your patience.

Do we have any other Members that seek recognition on this

issue before us? Normally we don’t question our fellow Members.

You will get a chance, I am sure, as soon as you get off the panel.

I went to a wedding this weekend where the pastor said, Speak

now or forever hold your peace. This is it, ladies and gentlemen.

No one else.

OK. I want to thank each of you for your participation and your

contribution to today’s hearing and we will excuse you at this time.

Thank you.

We will call our first panel: Michael Cirillo, Vice President of

Systems Operations for the Air Traffic Organization of the FAA.

Mr. Cirillo.

This is probably Andrew’s last hearing. I told you I would speak

for you or against you to help you get a job, Andrew. You got it.

We will miss you.

All right, the representative from FAA, thank you for being with

us, and you are recognized at this time.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL CIRILLO, VICE PRESIDENT OF SYSTEM OPERATIONS, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Mr. CIRILLO. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Congressman Costello,

and members of the committee. I appear before you today to discuss the unique operational restrictions now in place at Dallas

Love Field Airport and whether modifying those restrictions

will——

Mr. MICA. It is a little hard to hear. Can you either pull that up

or speak closer?

Mr. CIRILLO. Is that OK?

I appear before you today to discuss unique operational restrictions now in place at Dallas Love Field Airport and whether modifying those restrictions will result in a denigration of air space efficiency in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

The background of the Wright amendment has been well discussed. The FAA has been asked if safety would be affected by permitting additional flights into and out of Love Field. The agency

has said consistently and repeatedly what I emphasize today: FAA

will never compromise its safety standards to accommodate increased demand.

Our most critical mission is aviation safety, including keeping

aircraft safely separated from one another. Consequently, the only
21

question that should be asked from an airspace perspective is

whether further modification to the Wright amendment would compromise efficient airspace use in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

Based on a recent MITRE study requested by FAA of air space

operations if the Wright amendment is repealed and based on

FAA’s validation of MITRE’s findings I can tell you FAA does not

expect the efficient use of airspace will be compromised.

Knowing that the debate on the Wright amendment was ongoing,

FAA contacted MITRE and asked them to assess the impact to efficiency of increased operations at both DFW and Love Field. Results

of the analysis indicate there is significant additional capacity in

the Dallas/Fort Worth terminal area airspace. While additional operations at these airports may increase complexity, many other regions of the country have airspace that is at least this complex. In

each case the potential conflicts are unique to the particular location. Factors such as the number of airports in the region, the

number of runways at each port, how they are situated, and the

number and type of operations conducted there are only some of

the considerations that dictate how FAA controls traffic in a given

region. FAA has great flexibility in using a wide range of technologies and procedures to accommodate the air traffic needs of an

area. Some of you may remember a couple of years ago the number

of operations in Washington-Dulles International Airport significantly increased at a time when a new carrier initiated service at

the same airport. At that same time, construction had closed one

runway. FAA was able to implement traffic management initiatives

to efficiently accommodate the increase in demand.

Similarly, the airspace in the Northeast Corridor and southern

Florida is quite congested with several major airports in close proximity.

In addition, Chairman Mica recently held a field hearing in California to address his concerns that the operational challenges in

that region were being met. I cite these examples to demonstrate

the nature of our business, that FAA is asked on a daily basis to

control traffic and maximize airspace and efficiency in a highly

changeable environment characterized by congested routes, dynamic traffic, and volatile weather. Yet, by tailoring our resources

to the unique demands of each situation, we have been able to do

what we are asked, safely and efficiently.

The MITRE study assumed a range of operational increases.

Their conclusion, which FAA has validated, is that it would take

hundreds of additional daily operations at both airports for there

to be reportable volume-related delays. It would take hundreds

more daily flights on top of that to result in what FAA would consider to be significant delays.

It should be noted that their study did not factor delays that

would be attributed to weather. While the MITRE study was based

on unconstrained operations at Love Field, actual operations under

the agreement reached by the parties would in fact be somewhat

constrained by a limit on the number of gates that could be used.

Given this limitation and MITRE’s finding of no significant effect

even in unconstrained conditions, we are confident that the operational increases that would result from the proposed modification

to the Wright amendment would not result in efficiency problems
22

for the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area or the national airspace system. Even if operations in the area increase beyond what

FAA anticipates, we have options to handle the significant increase

in flights if necessary.

Last month, Russ Chew testified before you about some of the

notable successes of the air traffic organization, one of which was

Area Navigation or RNAV. They provide flight path guidance that

is incorporated into onboard aircraft avionic systems requiring only

minimal air traffic instruction. This technology significantly reduces routine controller-pilot communications, allowing more time

on frequency for pilots and controllers to handle other safety-related critical flight activity.

Also RNAV procedures use more precise routes for takeoffs and

landings, reducing fuel burn and time intervals between aircraft on

the runways. This creates increased air traffic efficiency, enhances

safety and may allow some increase in air traffic throughput. We

currently have RNAV procedures in place for DFW but not for Love

Field. So establishing it for Love Field is one option available to us

should air traffic demand increase substantially. Should the need

arise, we would also look at modifying flows and sector configurations on a larger scale.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that FAA’s commitment to safety means we would never consider sacrificing accepted safety

standards for the sake of efficiency or anything else. If Congress

decides to modify the existing unique restrictions at Love Field and

impose other unique restrictions there, FAA will continue to safely

separate aircraft regardless of the operational impact of the legislation. Having looked at the anticipated impacts of what we know is

under consideration, we have no reason to believe system efficiency

would be compromised.

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer

your questions at this time and I apologize I don’t have slides. I

debated, but in the end decided not to. I look forward to discussing

the operation with you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

I have one really two-part question for you. First, you are going

to tell us today unequivocally, without any doubt or reservation,

that it is safe.

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. The second part of that would be you are going to tell

us that FAA will either have the resources or has the resources or

can put the resources in place to make certain that the equipment,

personnel, or whatever are required facilities to ensure safety will

be there.

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. That is all I need to know.

Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me ask you, how

many additional operations would it take at Dallas/Fort Worth or

both airports to affect the efficiency?

Mr. CIRILLO. We characterize the efficiency in a manner of describing delays, and to get to a point where we would have reportable delays, it really is hundreds of additional flights. DFW’s peak

year was somewhere around 875,000 operations. In 2005 they oper-
23

ated somewhere around 740,000 operations, and Dallas Love coincidentally had the same peak year; they operated somewhere around

260,000 operations, and last year they were in the 235,000 range.

And at that point there was still not significant volume-related

delays in the area even in their peak year. So we have some builtin flexibility.

Mr. COSTELLO. How much flexibility?

Mr. CIRILLO. The MITRE study is not complete yet, but when I

say hundreds, I am looking at the 2- to 400 range, additional

flights.

Mr. COSTELLO. If the Wright amendment is repealed, have you

or the FAA made any projections regarding the potential increased

flight operations at Love Field by the year 2015?

Mr. CIRILLO. No, sir, we have not made those projections.

Mr. COSTELLO. Have you made any projections at all?

Mr. CIRILLO. No.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any other questions

at this time, and I would yield the balance of my time to Mr. Oberstar, in addition to the time he is entitled to.

Mr. MICA. That might be stretching it, but he is recognized.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

Costello.

You say, Mr. Cirillo, significant additional capacity. There are

549,000 operations at the two airports today, not counting the general aviation ops at DFW. How much more on top of that do you

say you can accommodate? Operations, operations.

Mr. CIRILLO. The operations, the totals that I discussed were including general aviation operations.

Mr. OBERSTAR. So you are talking about 200 additional, is that

what you said in response to Mr. Costello, 200 additional operations?

Mr. CIRILLO. It is based on preliminary data.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Two hundred a month, a year?

Mr. CIRILLO. Per day.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Now the four-post operation in your airspace design has greatly alleviated the terrible congestion that existed 15

years ago. You still have aircraft about 2 miles apart from each

other, don’t you, on arrivals and departures in the air, aircraft in

the air.

Mr. CIRILLO. Depending on the configuration. There is one waiver for one configuration at DFW but that is because they are procedurally separated. But generally 2 miles is not the separation

standard that is used. They use a minimum separation standard

which is based on wake turbulence, notwithstanding we use the

minimum separation standard, which is either 3 miles or greater.

Mr. OBERSTAR. You are sticking to the 3-mile separation. It depends on type and model of aircraft though, doesn’t it?

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes, sir. Wake turbulence, a larger aircraft——

Mr. OBERSTAR. If you have a twin-aisle wide body, you need more

separation en route.

Mr. CIRILLO. In trail.

Mr. OBERSTAR. In trail. And even with a 757 you need more separation.
24

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes, sir. On final approach with the 757 to the

same airport.

Mr. OBERSTAR. So you have on this configuration using the inbound here; inbound separated by route, inbound is separated by

altitude. You have different climb rates of different aircraft. The

737, which is principally the Southwest fleet, it has about the fastest climb rate, 65,000 feet per minute.

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is that sufficient? Would you require that for all

aircraft to have comparable climb rates so they are out of the wake

turbulence of arriving and departing aircraft?

Mr. CIRILLO. In this case when they are utilizing vertical separation it is—these aircraft are not necessarily in trail so they are actually separated vertically.

Mr. OBERSTAR. At DFW have you implemented the new vertical

separation, the reduced vertical separation standards FAA has

adopted?

Mr. CIRILLO. The reduced vertical separation standards were applicable above 29,000 feet and they mirror the separation standards vertically that we use below that. So they do use the same

separation standard, which is 1,000 feet vertically.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Given those concerns, and I know that FAA is not

going to compromise safety, but in order to assure safety, in order

to maintain the margin of safety, you may have to slow down traffic.

Mr. CIRILLO. In the case of the arrivals that you described, they

are procedurally separated and the DFW and Love traffic is really

not an issue. They are procedurally separated and not restricted

based on each other. So it would——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Your conversation up to this point at least has an

underlying assumption of good weather. What about severe weather, which frequently—well, it is a common occurrence in the DFW

airspace. What do you do then?

Mr. CIRILLO. In severe weather it completely depends on the scenario. We have instances where we have all routes to a particular

metropolitan area, you may shut down the entire Metroplex area.

We have had that situation occur throughout the system. So in the

case of severe weather, it really is dependent on the particular scenario. There may be one inbound and outbound route, and in the

case of weather we will incur delays, and that is systemwide.

Mr. OBERSTAR. What do you anticipate in number of operational

increases with this agreement as you understand it as it has been

laid out? What do you anticipate in the number of ops out of Love

Field?

Mr. CIRILLO. We really have not made that calculation. We

haven’t had enough discussions with particular customers——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is that something MITRE is supposed to study

for you?

Mr. CIRILLO. Their study was really unconstrained with no information based on projections, no science based on the projection. It

was just an unconstrained number of additional aircraft.

Mr. OBERSTAR. To date, 757s do not operate out of Love Field;

but under this agreement they could, right?

Mr. CIRILLO. Well——
25

Mr. OBERSTAR. Love Field has at least a runway capacity to be

able to handle that. 13R is 8,800 feet, 13L is 7,052 feet.

Mr. CIRILLO. I think physically a 757 could operate out of that

airport. I have no idea actually at this time whether there is a plan

to do that or not.

Mr. OBERSTAR. There doesn’t appear to be. They don’t exist in

the Southwest fleet. I don’t recall whether American has 757s in

its fleet. But some may want to put 180, 200-passenger aircraft in

that operation and extend their revenue option.

That would then generate some new safety concerns, wouldn’t it?

Mr. CIRILLO. It wouldn’t generate a safety concern. We would

apply the applicable separation in trail behind a Boeing 757.

Mr. OBERSTAR. But it would be a new procedure for that airport

which doesn’t have that type of operation now.

Mr. CIRILLO. I think that occasionally there are wide-bodied aircraft that come into Love for maintenance or charters, so I think

that it has accommodated those on the non-schedule type of basis.

Mr. OBERSTAR. What are the nav aids in use at DFW for both

fields? Do you have RNAV in service?

Mr. CIRILLO. We have RNAV departures at DFW, we do not have

those procedures for Dallas Love.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is there a control tower at Love Field?

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. OBERSTAR. What radar do they have at the tower?

Mr. CIRILLO. They have—the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex area

has at least four terminal radars.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I know that. So those terminals will be—are the

control tower for Love Field?

Mr. CIRILLO. They provide the radar coverage.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Are those ASR 9, 11s?

Mr. CIRILLO. Either ASR 9s or 11s.

Mr. OBERSTAR. They are state-of-the-art.

Do you have STARS in operation at the TRACON?

Mr. CIRILLO. No. They have Common Arts.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Common Arts.

Well, I think that at least, at the very least, this opening up of

Love Field does raise some more concern, more challenge for FAA

to more carefully manage that airspace; wouldn’t you say that?

Mr. CIRILLO. I would say that we carefully manage the airspace

always.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I know you do.

Mr. CIRILLO. We have a great concern for safety. As I said, regardless of what the legislation——

Mr. OBERSTAR. You will adapt to whatever comes. Whatever way

is necessary and whatever additional technology is necessary. To

maintain safety at the highest possible level, as it is stated in the

opening paragraph of the 1958 FAA Act.

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I have been

plagued today with a rigidly inflexible schedule. I have another

hearing imminently and I wanted my Chairman to know that my
26

absence does not indicate lack of interest. I thank you and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for having scheduled this very

important hearing, and with that I will yield the balance of my

time.

Mr. MICA. Your absence was actually appreciated today.

Mr. COBLE. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Reclaiming my

time, I did ask for that.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman

from Alabama, Mr. Bachus.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, he yielded the balance of his time

to me too.

I am a big supporter of Southwest Airlines and also of competition and so I do want to ask this question. The FAA is charged

with air traffic safety, and of course we have been spending all our

time here talking about the increase in number of flights. You said

that you could take over 100 new flights or more. If I look at what

I have read about this agreement, you are demolishing gates at

Love Field, so why would anybody think we are going to have more

flights out of Love Field?

Mr. CIRILLO. The study that was done was not based on any

ground infrastructure. It was just a look-see at what additional activity at the airport would produce in the way of efficiency.

Mr. BACHUS. But I think realistically—I noticed and I read an

article where the Mayor of Dallas, Mayor Miller, said they were

going to demolish a 7-year old terminal with 700 parking spaces.

One of your other charges at FAA is to make sure that any airport that receives Federal funding—I guess Love Field receives

Federal funding, does it not?

Mr. CIRILLO. I don’t know.

Mr. BACHUS. I think you probably could assume that it does. Assuming that it does, does this agreement—one of the primary

charges FAA has is that any Federal airport that receives Federal

funding or any airport that receives Federal funding, what it says

is, ′′does not discriminate against airlines by aiding one over the

other in any way.′′ Does this agreement do that or does it exclude another competitor?

Mr. CIRILLO. We actually do not have a position on that.

Mr. BACHUS. You are not speaking for the FAA because they are

legally—that is part of your charge.

Mr. CIRILLO. In this case the legislation is pending and whatever

the legislation entails, we will comply with that.

Mr. BACHUS. Let me back up and—you are aware that one of the

FAA charges is to make sure the airlines receiving Federal funds

do not discriminate against airlines by aiding one over the other

in any way. You are aware of that provision.

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. BACHUS. Would an agreement that left all the gates at a certain airport under the control of two or three airlines, at least on

its face, appear to violate that discrimination?

Mr. CIRILLO. I don’t even want to speculate as to whether or not

it would.

Mr. BACHUS. Would you if I submitted a written question to you

in that regard?
27

Mr. CIRILLO. We would answer the question.

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. I mean, I am just curious. As you all

looked at this—and your entire testimony was dealing with safety,

one of your charges being that this is in the best interest of the

traveling public. I commend the fact that the mayors have gotten

together, and the airlines, and made an agreement. I welcome that.

I think the Wright amendment has cost the people of north Texas

millions of dollars and I think this agreement will save them millions of dollars.

I think there are things in this agreement that are troubling,

however, from a competitiveness standpoint, from a discrimination

standpoint. And I would ask the FAA to look at those provisions

which cap the number of gates at Love Field. I wouldn’t worry so

much about all these planes being stacked up over an airfield

where the gates are being capped.

The other thing is this clause 6. Have you looked at that?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield? The gentleman

said—asked the FAA to look at that competition issue. That is a

DOT responsibility, not FAA responsibility. I think we should insist

that the DOT, which has competition responsibilities——

Mr. BACHUS. Also the FAA. The FAA, one of their charges, Mr.

Oberstar, is—the DOT additionally.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The DOD will be the venue at which such issues

will be——

Mr. BACHUS. The FAA and their funding determinations—I

mean, I am actually quoting from their provision.

Mr. CIRILLO. I would just say that the Wright amendment is

unique, so to generally speculate is——

Mr. BACHUS. Let me say this. Congress can override the FAA,

and Congress did that in the case of the Wright amendment. They

preempted the FAA and their charge and we can do that in this

case. We can absolutely adopt this and we could override and we

could actually enact into law something that would shut out other

airlines from Love Field. Congress has a right to do that. We did

that in the Wright amendment.

I am just saying does the FAA—you have come in and talked

about safety concerns. I am just asking you, one of your charges

is also to talk about competitive issues, and did you want to talk

about those?

Mr. CIRILLO. No, I am not here to talk about the competitive aspect of this based on where we are.

Mr. BACHUS. I am not trying to put you on the spot. Did you hear

some of the members talk about clause 6 and some of the outlying

airports, Dennison, Alliance and McKinney?

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes.

Mr. BACHUS. It seems to me like you have discouraged flights

into those fields of flight that actually could increase the number

of flights into Dallas/Fort Worth and actually add to the number

of flights.

Mr. CIRILLO. We have not done an analysis of the satellite airports and not speculated on where the agreement may go relative

to them. Our analysis was particular to or specific to Dallas/Fort

Worth and Dallas Love.
28

Mr. BACHUS. I don’t know really anything other than what members said, that there were some provisions, and I am sure the

city—it is one thing if I am mayor, I am going to encourage as

many people as possible to come in. But I am not sure the Congress should enact provisions which in any way encourage business

to go away from Dennison or Alliance.

I would just ask the FAA to take a second look and look at those

provisions and see if they in any way would affect air travel or the

number of flights and whether there are any safety issues there.

Mr. CIRILLO. We will do that.

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman.

Ms. Johnson from Texas, you are recognized.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Let me first comment on my colleague’s inquiry there from Alabama. Let me assure

you that before this agreement, there was not that much limitation

on the flights coming into Love Field. The limitation came when

Southwest put them out of business.

Mr. BACHUS. I am sorry, I couldn’t hear.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. The limitation on the flights coming into

Love Field had to do with Southwest putting them out of business

by dropping those fares so low they couldn’t compete. There have

been several that tried. But it is a city-owned airport, and I believe

that the city would have the authority to limit flights or to request

the FAA to increase them. This is an agreement that has been

reached because the original one asked for Love Field to be closed

to commercial traffic.

Mr. BACHUS. I could be under a misunderstanding. I was thinking that the agreement capped the number of gates and——

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. That has a lot to do with that neighborhood and safety.

Mr. BACHUS. That was the reason for some of my questions. The

gentleman, I thought he said that it could take hundreds of more

flights without safety concerns, so that raised the issue with me

about why are we capping the number of gates. You freeze the

number of gates that Southwest Airlines has to 16 so you—obviously, according to the FAA’s testimony today, there is no safety

reason for that. It apparently is you are—I wish they had 30 or 40

gates.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. We don’t.

Mr. BACHUS. Actually, they are going to tear down a 7-year old

terminal——

Mr. CIRILLO. Just in the interest of being correct, my testimony

spoke to efficiency.

Mr. BACHUS. I am sorry.

Mr. CIRILLO. My testimony spoke to efficiency. We stipulated

that we would maintain a safe environment and the additional

flights were at a level that would affect the efficiency of the airport,

not the safety of the airport.

Mr. BACHUS. I thought your testimony——

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. BACHUS. I thought you said it could accommodate hundreds

of additional flights into the area.

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes.
29

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I suppose that even the testimony that

I heard about the 80-mile radius, if the population grew to the

point where there was that much more demand for commercial

traffic, I imagine we could negotiate that with the FAA. It is just

really not there. I don’t know why all these people want to come

to Dallas. They can go anywhere they want to go without having

to come to Dallas. It is a puzzle to me why many of them feel that

they have to either leave or depart Dallas in order to have services

of Southwest Airlines. That is not the case. But we have a big airport, new as airports go, that there are many airlines that could

go out there and it is ready to receive them. It is ready to receive

Southwest.

But I think in terms of safety from FAA, there was a study done

in Dallas as well, and these 20 gates really has to do with not imposing any more subjection of the people that live around there to

environmental concerns as well as safety concerns. There are about

123,000 students in that general area in school and if you want to

hear about the intensity of feeling about safety in that area, you

can go home with me. It is in my district. Those voters are, too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Additional members seek recognition? Mr.

Filner.

Mr. FILNER. Just briefly. Mr. Cirillo, you testified that if you

needed to, you could put more safety features like this RNAV at

Love. What would that cost?

Mr. CIRILLO. Actually, it is a combination of procedures and use

of equipment on board the aircraft, so it is not additional technology, for example, our automation or communication infrastructure. So it is fairly inexpensive. It involves procedural design and

training.

Mr. FILNER. So you can add that safety feature at Love without

any cost, as opposed to redoing procedures.

Mr. CIRILLO. It is a procedural redesign that is fairly inexpensive.

Mr. FILNER. Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA. Any other members seek recognition? If there are no

other questions of this witness, we appreciate your testimony and

we will excuse you at this time.

I now call the second panel. The panel consists of the Honorable

Laura Miller, Mayor of the City of Dallas, Texas; the Honorable

Mike Moncrief, Mayor of the City of Fort Worth, Texas; Mr. Gerard

Arpey, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of American Airlines;

Mr. Herb Kelleher, Chairman of the Board of Southwest Airlines;

and Mr. Kevin Cox, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Executive

Vice President of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

I would like to welcome each of the witnesses.
30

TESTIMONY OF HON. LAURA MILLER, MAYOR, CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS; HON. MIKE MONCRIEF, MAYOR, CITY OF FORT

WORTH, TEXAS; GERARD ARPEY, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN AIRLINES; HERB KELLEHER,

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES; AND

KEVIN COX, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Mr. MICA. We will start off by hearing from the Mayor of Dallas,

Texas, Laura Miller. Welcome, and you are recognized. You will

have to hit that little button.

Ms. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Ranking

Member Costello and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate

being able to testify before you, and now that we have heard all

of the other comments, we are anxious to answer all the questions

and try to clarify some of the issues.

As you have heard, the cities of Dallas, Fort Worth, Dallas/Fort

Worth International Airport Board, Southwest Airlines, and American Airlines are the five parties that have reached an agreement

among ourselves. All of us have now approved that as of last night

when Fort Worth approved the agreement.

Much like the agreement that led to the creation of Dallas/Fort

Worth Airport 32 years ago, the agreement represents the best that

we have in regional cooperation and signals that whatever our past

differences on Love Field, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth are

committed and joined at the hip to working together on behalf of

our region’s future.

Before I proceed with my testimony I would like to thank the entire North Central Texas delegation. They asked us to come up

with a local solution; we have delivered that. We are here to

strongly encourage Congress to approve it without modification,

and we will give you all of those reasons in a moment.

I would also like to thank two members of the subcommittee in

particular, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson and Representative Kenny Marchant, for their support on this issue and for making this hearing possible.

And I also want to thank, of course, my good friend and partner

in this endeavor, Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief, for his leadership and his dedication in getting this resolved. Our city councils

and our business communities both participated in the work that

brought us here today.

When the congressional delegation asked us to find a local solution, it was 4 months ago. The problems were very complex and the

interests between the parties were extremely entrenched. The rift

between our two cities has for too long kept the fifth largest metropolitan area in America from developing its full economic potential,

and that is the reason that we worked so hard to do this.

The five parties reached an agreement, and the top three things

on our minds are the following, number one, to keep the third busiest airport in the world strong. It is our economic engine for north

Texas, DFW Airport. We created it together the two city cities and

our bond covenants say that the two cities shall make sure that we

protect that asset.
31

Number two, we wanted to protect the neighbors around Love

Field, the residents and businesses. It is a landlocked intercity airport and we have done an enormous amount of work in the last 10

years to make sure that we had a balance between growth in competition and also the protection of the neighborhoods regarding pollution, ground congestion, and noise.

I want the committee to know that we have the gentleman,

George Vitas, who is the senior person who did the Love Field master plan in 2001 that originally recommended 32 gates as long as

the Wright amendment stayed in place. We updated that for purposes of these discussions between the two cities, and that number

went to 20 because the same consultants looked at what is the very

best number of gates to have without the Wright amendment; if

that one variable changed, then how many gates would be appropriate in terms of the environment, in terms of economic growth,

and in terms of operations and safety. And that is why the number

is 20 and not 17 or 22 or 25, and that gentleman is here behind

me and is able to answer a lot of the questions that I heard being

posed to the gentleman with the FAA if you look in terms of our

master plan work that we have been doing for the last 10 years.

Our solution has the support of the committees surrounding Love

Field, the business community, and the president of the Greater

Dallas Chamber of Commerce, Erle Nye, who has been deeply involved in the process, came to the Hill with us a few weeks ago to

talk to some of you about the initiative.

The Love Field Citizens Action Committee, as Congresswoman

Johnson said, has written letters expressing their support. They

are very detailed and that has been entered into the testimony.

This agreement will gradually open Love field to allow direct nonstop flight to and from the cities throughout the United States in

a manner that protects the neighborhoods and also enables Dallas/

Fort Worth International Airport to cement its lead role in our region. It will free Love Field from almost 30 years of control and,

importantly, allow Dallas to move forward in updating the master

plan that I referenced.

The master plan concluded that our master plan goals can be

fully implemented under the 20 gate limit set by the five-party

agreement. It maintains the ground traffic noise and air quality

impacts of the air service that 32 gates with the Wright amendment would bring. The 20 gate limit without the Wright amendment will also enhance safety and efficiency.

A few airlines, as you know, have complained that the five-party

agreement would bar new carriers from Love Field. Not so. There

will be room for new entrants and for new service to other destinations from our airport now and after the airport is reconfigured.

Today our airport has 19 gates that are currently in use. The solution will increase the current number of operational gates from

19 to 20. New entrants are welcome under our existing gate-sharing provisions, and that does not change under the agreement and

we welcome all entrants to Dallas Love Field as we do Dallas Fort

Worth International Airport.

We also will be having a much improved airport because of this

solution. As part of the agreement the city of Dallas has agreed to

invest between $150 million and $200 million for a lot of upgrades
32

at Love Field consistent with the master plan. We will fund them

using landing fees, space rental charges, and passenger facility

charges. The investments will improve operations, increase safety,

improve the traveler’s experience and boost our airport’s bottom

line.

The investments include two components to address safety issues

which I know were of considerable concern to Representative Oberstar. We will be adding 1,000 feet to the runway safety areas off

the north end of Love Field’s two parallel runways to bring them

into compliance with Federal compliance, and we will build a new

$8 million public safety and crisis management facility that will enhance security and emergency response by combining the administrative functions of the Dallas Airport Police, Dallas Fire and Rescue, Airport Operations, and the controlled access security system

in a facility that will be separate from the main terminal building.

We are also committed in this agreement to other improvements

at Love Field including the expansion of retail concession, renovation of the central lobby, a new cargo building, renovation of the

intersection of Mockingbird Lane and Cedar Springs at the entrance to the airport, a new ticket wing and pedestrian bridge, renovation of the concourse and landscaping.

We will also fund any construction, renovation, or demolition

work related to limiting Love Field to 20 gates and we will explore

construction of a people-mover that will directly connect the terminal at Love Field with a planned new rail station on the northwest

light rail line that is planned by our rapid transit agency.

Mr. Chairman, this landmark agreement represents our very

best efforts in regional cooperation. It will improve service, improve

safety, efficiency, in a manner that minimizes the impact on the

neighborhoods. It will cement Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport as the hub of our regional economy and it will also, we believe,

create enormous air competition and lower fares for our consumers.

We need your help to make it happen. We know we are on a very

fast timetable and we appreciate your letting us come to you so

quickly and tell you why this compromise should be approved.

Thank you.

Mr. MARCHANT. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for

your hard work on this.

At this time it is my privilege to introduce to you the mayor of

the city of Fort Worth, Mr. Mike Moncrief.

Mr. MONCRIEF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Costello, and Ranking Member Oberstar and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you as mayor of one of the

fastest growing cities in the country: Fort Worth, Texas.

Let me first say that I fully understand that your time is valuable and I will keep my remarks brief. We deeply respect the jobs

that you do and we thank you for giving us the forum to discuss

the significance of this local agreement. The debate over the Wright

amendment has been long and turbulent, with impassioned arguments on all sides.

It goes without saying that I am delighted to be here in support

of a proposal that would finally settle this local issue which has at

times divided our entire region. I am most appreciative of my colleague and friend, Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, for her partnership,
33

for her support during this process. And of course there were times

where we agreed to disagree, but in the end I am proud that our

two cities worked jointly towards what was best for our citizens,

the flying public, the airlines and our airports.

We also owe a great deal of gratitude to the leadership of DFW

Airport, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, for their willingness to chart a new path. I especially want to thank Senator Kay

Bailey Hutchinson who, along with Senator John Cornyn, urged us

to forge this compromise.

I also want to express my sincere appreciation to Chairman Joe

Barton, Representatives Granger, Burgess, Eddie Bernice Johnson,

you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of the north Texas delegation for

your support.

Although our target was elusive, I believe we produced what we

were asked to construct by our congressional leaders: a local solution to a local problem. In my years of public service I have never

been involved in more intense, challenging, and nonstop negotiations. Each of us spent countless hours, days, weeks and months

cussing and discussing the pros and cons of what we have before

you today.

Our compromise is an example of what happens when everyone

shares in the pain to make something significant take place. All

parties here have, what I would like to say, some skin in the game.

Sometimes the best decisions are the ones where no one really gets

everything that they want but, rather, where everyone walks away

at least feeling that the greater good has been served.

Our compromise is a case in point. Ultimately we are presenting

you with a fair and balanced product. It is an agreement that as

mayor I can represent to you the leaders of Fort Worth firmly

stand behind. This is bigger than two cities, two airlines or two airports. The settlement affects thousands of families. It affects businesses, large and small alike. The plan has enormous implications

for the Dallas/Fort Worth regional economy, which I might add is

one of the largest in the world, as it will protect countless local jobs

and preserve the future of our metroplex.

Our agreement is predicated upon the condition that Congress

will enact legislation to implement both the terms and spirit of this

agreement. While we are proud of our accomplishments thus far,

it will be for naught if Congress alters or fails to adopt this compromise as presented. We understand the difficult task ahead of

you and we are counting on you to put an end to this debate for

good. If we all do our jobs, the provisions of this local agreement

will be adopted as Federal law and we will have a binding contract

between all parties. Our local city councils and this Congress can

move on to other important issues, and this very difficult challenge

will not be left at the feet for future leaders.

If we do our jobs, the largest airline in the world, American, and

the largest domestic carrier in the United States, Southwest, can

focus their energy on competing in the air and not here in the halls

of Congress. They can stop spending money on lawyers, lobbyists

and campaign-style advertisements. If we do our jobs, Dallas/Fort

Worth Airport, our region’s most important economic engine and

job creator, can continue to be the gateway to the world. All Americans, your constituents and ours, will ultimately be free to fly any-
34

where in the United States and they can realize a future filled with

healthy airline competition that will lead to more competitive air

fares.

However, should Congress fail to carry through this local compromise—sadly, Mr. Chairman, but certainly—everyone, including

the public, our citizens, will lose. By our presence today we, the

parties to this agreement, affirm our approval of this local solution

that was negotiated in the best interest of the citizens and economies of the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. We urge your strong support of our legislative proposal, without amendment, and we thank

you very much for your time and consideration.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mayor.

And now I introduce to you the President of American Airlines,

Chairman and CEO, and one of my constituents, Mr. Arpey.

Mr. ARPEY. Thank you all for the opportunity to be with you this

afternoon to share with you American’s perspective on the Love

Field compromise. On behalf of the more than 90,000 employees of

American Airlines I want to extend our appreciation to the committee for its prompt scheduling of the hearing today and for its willingness to expeditiously consider the proposed legislation regarding

the Wright amendment.

I think it is fair to say that this is a day that many in this room

believed would never come, including, I must confess, myself. The

controversy surrounding Love Field and the Wright amendment

has loomed over American Airlines longer than I have been with

the company, and I was hired by American nearly 25 years ago,

and I know the same is true for Southwest Airlines. But of course,

the issue’s importance extends far beyond any one company. The

impact of what this committee decides will be felt throughout

Texas, the Southwest, and in hundreds of other communities

around the country.

Almost 2 years ago this committee’s Chairman Don Young declared that it was up to the communities in north Texas to reach

a resolution to the Wright amendment controversy if changes in

the law were to be made. We were grateful for that declaration because it showed a sensitivity to how complicated this issue is and

how substantial an impact it has both locally and nationally. And,

importantly, over many years, Ranking Member Jim Oberstar has

been a consistent advocate of maintaining the Wright amendment

for reasons of safety, efficiency and sound economics, a position

that I know carries enormous weight with his colleagues on this

committee. Many other Members of the House, both on and off the

committee, have vigorously rejected calls for repeal of the Wright

amendment. Among them, most notably, are Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, Kay Granger, John Sullivan, Michael

Burgess and Kenny Marchant.

I think it is very important to recognize that on this committee

the Representative of the district in which Love Field sits, Eddie

Bernice Johnson, has been an outspoken advocate against repeal,

a position and perspective that I hope will make a great difference

in your deliberations.

Now I emphasize all of this not to rehash old controversies but

to make the point that this debate is not between the proposed

compromise on the one hand and immediate repeal of the Wright
35

amendment on the other. Rather, this is all about either solving

the problem once and for all or returning to the status quo with

the Wright amendment firmly in place and the battle raging on.

Some airlines who have sat on the sidelines and who have had

the opportunity for years to fly to Love Field are attacking this

compromise and proclaiming their sudden and heretofore secret desire to operate from Love Field. I would urge the committee to reject the attempts of the latecomers to be spoilers and to recognize

the opportunity at hand by acting swiftly to enact legislation. Despite the fact that American Airlines strongly endorses this proposed legislation, I have made no secret of the fact that my preference would have been either maintaining the Wright amendment

without change or closing Love Field to commercial traffic altogether. This compromise did not come easily for us.

We have made two major concessions to get to this point. First,

we have agreed to support an immediate repeal of the provisions

of the Wright amendment that prevent through-ticketing to Love

Field or to points outside the States where service is allowed. Second, we have agreed to full repeal in 8 years. Both of these concessions will be economically harmful to American. In return, however, we have been assured that Love Field will not grow into a

mammoth facility that would cause us to split our operations between two airports in such a way that both our small community

and international service would be jeopardized from DFW airport.

While high-density point-to-point markets can be supported from

any major airport, it takes the synergies of a robust network to

support service to smaller communities and to amass sufficient

traffic in one point to sustain international service. Hence, under

this agreement DFW Airport can remain a viable hub for American. In addition, we will be able to chart our future without the

uncertainty of what might happen to the Wright amendment.

This is also why dozens of small- and medium-sized communities

throughout the Nation have rallied to support the Wright amendment and why choosing a sensible solution is not just good for

north Texas but for hundreds of communities that depend on a

healthy DFW for access to the rest of the world. We endorse this

solution because it clearly defines the roles of the airports in the

region and comes with enforceable provisions that provide certainty

about what service will occur at each airport, how large a role each

airport will have in providing air service for the region, and what

level of environmental impact will be felt on the neighborhoods in

schools around Love Field. However, as I think all the witnesses

today will testify, this is a very delicately balanced agreement. Any

changes in the proposed legislation or the underlying agreement

and the contract among the parties will clearly undermine this

compromise.

Finally, I would like to reiterate a point I made in my testimony

last November in the Senate about my colleague and, until recently, adversary on this issue, Herb Kelleher. It is impossible not

to have the utmost respect for the job that Herb and his team have

done at Southwest Airlines. We admire them greatly and we compete with them vigorously, and I know that Herb is as delighted

as I am that we can now confine our battles to the marketplace

rather than the halls of Congress.
36

I know there is another thing that Herb and I agree upon and

that is our admiration for the tenacity and effectiveness of Mayor

Laura Miller of Dallas and Mike Moncrief of Fort Worth without

whom I would not be here today. In addition to all the Members

of the House that I noted previously, I would be remiss not to recognize the essential role that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson

played in this entire process.

Again, thank you to the committee for the opportunity to be here

today.

Mr. MICA. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Arpey.

Now it is my privilege to produce Mr. Kelleher from Southwest

Airlines.

Mr. KELLEHER. Thank you, Mr. Costello, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Johnson, and Mr. Filner. I do not know whether you heard my first introduction but I covered all of you I think.

The 30 years’ war waged on the European continent from 1618

through 1648 is, with respect to its 30-year longevity, exceedingly

junior compared to the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport struggle, a struggle which has been waged in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex for

more than six decades. I have personally been involved in litigation, in legislative battles, and in cuss fights over Dallas Love Field

since 1972, a period of 34 years. The fact that Southwest Airlines

appears before you today, appears before you with Fort Worth, appears before you with the DFW Airport, appears before you with

my highly esteemed and much-liked colleague Gerard Arpey from

American Airlines, and appears before you with the city of Dallas,

is a miracle. As Congressman Costello said earlier, I made the comment at our DFW press conference, if we can all get together on

solving this issue, then there is hope for world peace.

Our unprecedented agreement arises from airport circumstances

which are unprecedented anywhere else in the United States of

America, and most probably unprecedented anywhere else on

Earth. Many Members of Congress have over the course of many

years urged a local resolution of the Wright amendment issues.

That has now been done. And peace and goodwill is the essence of

our agreement. Not to mention certainty, not to mention stability,

and not to mention tranquility.

Under the perseverant leadership of the mayors of Dallas and

Fort Worth who have literally—and I mean literally—and factually

worked both day and night to bring this peace pact into being, all

of our swords are being beaten into plowshares.

As with any difficult and complicated transaction, difficult and

complicated by over 60 years of contention, by over 60 years of controversy, and by over 60 years of acrimony, all sides, all five parties

have been compelled to make sacrifices to yield on firmly held positions, to moan and groan and agonize over decisions and over mutual concessions. The only victor, the only sure-fire winner from

this agreement is the public, the citizens who will now find it easier and far less expensive to travel to and from north Texas for both

business and personal reasons, the citizens who will reap vast economic benefits in their communities from enhanced travel and

tourism at lower costs.

As Representative Hensarling stated, that is 2 million more people traveling a year, saving $259 million a year in air fares, and
37

producing $2.4 billion worth of economic benefits to their communities in the 8 years prior to the repeal of the Wright amendment

with through-ticketing and through-service. And I should add most

emphatically, the public will reap those benefits without any cognizable injury whatsoever to DFW International Airport or to its

far-flung domestic and international air service network.

On behalf of the public we stand shoulder to shoulder with

American Airlines, with DFW Airport, and with the mayors and

city councils of Dallas and Fort Worth in urging this committee

and the United States Congress to speedily approve legislation necessary to implement our locally achieved Wright amendment compromise which people have been asking for in the Congress for at

least the last 20 years.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for your attention, and

thank you for this speedy hearing before the committee. We appreciate it.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Kelleher.

And now Mr. Kevin Cox representing DFW Airport.

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

On behalf of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, I want to

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As this subcommittee is well aware and as you have heard testified earlier, there has

been an intense political and public relations campaign involving

the Wright amendment for many many years. However, unlike

most campaigns which inevitably end in a winner or loser, we

stand before you today, united behind a single proposal hammered

out through intense negotiations and delicate negotiations between

the cities, the airlines, and the airport. After literally decades of

fiercely fought legislative, legal, and political battles, we are here

today respectfully asking for your approval and endorsement of this

locally formulated solution.

In November of 2004 when Southwest Airlines announced its desire to have the Wright amendment repealed in its entirety, a significant effort was initiated to assess the impact that complete repeal would have on DFW and the north Texas region at large. The

analysis revealed that an immediate and outright repeal was, and

is, a direct threat to DFW’s financial stability, having just invested

$2.7 billion in that capital development program and having recently lost Delta Airlines as a hub operator at our airport.

In addition, opening Love Field to unlimited growth would increase noise, congestion, and emissions for the residents that live

around Love Field. In an effort to find a balance that would permit

the repeal of the Wright amendment but protect the residents

around Love Field and the long-term financial viability of DFW

Airport, the mayors of Dallas and Fort Worth fashioned a local solution which again is a delicate balance between all parties.

The fundamental elements of the solution which require congressional action include the following: First, immediate throughticketing, second, that Love Field remain restricted as a domestic

operation airport; third, this legislation would codify a locally sanctioned and established gate limit of 20 gates for Love Field; and

last, all remaining restrictions on air service from Love Field would

be eliminated 8 years after this legislation.
38

It is critically important to understand that each of these elements of this proposal are interdependent. Certain parties have recently raised objections to the proposed solution, claiming it results

in reduced access to Love Field. The fact is that scarce resource

provisions of the lease, highlighted by Mayor Miller, allows the city

of Dallas to require incumbent airlines to accommodate these new

entrant airlines on gates that are not fully utilized. The use of accommodation provisions is not unique—is not unique in our industry.

Today San Diego, Santa Anna, Oakland, Las Vegas, Chicago,

Midway, Fort Lauderdale and Philadelphia airports, each and

every one of them have all of their gates leased or under permit.

For any carrier to access gates at any of these airports, it requires

the requesting carrier to seek an accommodation from the incumbent carrier or the airport operator.

Another airport, Long Beach Airport has a very strict noise ordinance that places severe limits on the number of nights that can

operate from that airport as well. One of the things that has not

been discussed in addition to the accommodations provisions is it

is very important to understand today, as Ranking Member Oberstar talked about earlier, these two airports serve the same marketplace. They are a mere 8 miles apart.

Every carrier has the unimpeded access into the Dallas/Fort

Worth market today. Even if the carrier could not access Love

Field through the accommodation provisions, which to date none of

the objective carriers have even tried, the carriers can still access

the north Texas market by flying directly into the Dallas/Fort

Worth International Airport, again a mere 8 miles apart. And with

Delta’s decision to eliminate its hub, DFW has excess gate capacity

of over 15 gates that are currently unleased.

Moreover, DFW has one of the most aggressive air service and

city programs in the country. Let me give you an example. If Jet

Blue were to initiate just three flights a day from John F. Kennedy

to DFW, Jet Blue would be eligible to receive $479,000 in financial

incentives which include 6 months of free landing fees. The fact is

that Jet Blue Airways and any other airline has access into the

north Texas market today. Any claim to the contrary is simply unfounded.

Mr. Chairman, the city of Dallas and the City of Fort Worth have

been intense competitors dating back to the early years of flight.

At the direction of the Federal Government and with the financial

assistance of Congress, the two parties came together to build one

of the greatest airports in the world, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. The leadership on this committee challenged our

community to develop a local solution. Under the leadership of our

two mayors we have done just that. We strongly urge you to take

this local proposal and implement it in its entirety.

On behalf of DFW Airport and the 265,000 men and women

whose jobs depend upon it each and every day, I respectfully again

thank you for this opportunity and urge you to support this local

solution.

Mr. MICA. I thank you and each of the witnesses for your testimony. I just have a quick question. Maybe Mr. Kelleher or one of

you can answer it. I have concern about tearing down gates any-
39

where when we have infrastructure needs at almost all of our airports, particularly in a major metropolitan area like Dallas/Fort

Worth. Also there is taxpayer money involved in the construction

of those. I guess part of the plan is to pay back some of the money;

is that correct?

Mr. KELLEHER. Actually, Mr. Chairman, there is no taxpayer

money.

Mr. MICA. There is none?

Mr. KELLEHER. No. It is all paid for by the airlines that serve

Love Field. So the city of Dallas——

Mr. MICA. So there is no infrastructure that will come down that

has any AIP money or Federal money?

Mr. KELLEHER. Well, no, no, no. I don’t believe so. And may I add

something to that?

Mr. MICA. Go ahead.

Mr. KELLEHER. This reduction in gates came about not because

it was the strong desire on the part of some of the participants, but

really came about because of the prior master plan done by the city

of Dallas that allowed the 32 gates at Love Field—provided that

most of them were used by regional jet aircraft rather than heavier

aircraft such as Southwest Airlines flies. We ourselves are giving

up five gates that are our gates as part of this deal. We are going

from 21 to 16 gates. And during that entire period of some 25

years, no other carrier ever wanted to come in to utilize those

gates. And any carrier that is desirous now of serving Love Field

can easily be accommodated even after those gates come down.

Mr. MICA. I feel a little bit better that we have no AIP money

in there. But in the long term with open competition, I feel you will

have unlimited competition. With real competition you will need

those gates and more.

I yield the balance of my time for questioning to Mr. Marchant.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask this question of all of you on the panel and it was alluded to earlier in the

testimony in statements given by the other Congressmen, but I

think that at this point we for the last 3 weeks have as a group

been very much in agreement as a delegation on the whole concept

of this agreement. Today, yesterday, and today, the issue of the 80-

mile perimeter has come up.

Can you give us a little background on how that entered into the

discussion and what your feelings are on that issue? Mayor Miller,

we will just go in order, that will be fine.

Ms. MILLER. Sure. One of the major issues that we have discussed for 30 years at DFW is that we have bond covenants at the

airport that the city of Dallas and the city of Fort Worth are responsible for. As Mr. Cox mentioned, we just did $2.7 million worth

of improvements out there and the bond covenants specifically say

that the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth will do everything possible

to make sure that we keep the airport healthy and viable and with

a strong revenue stream.

So the purpose of the 80-mile limitation—and it is only a limitation in the sense that if carrier service were to be requested by any

smaller airport within the 80 miles around DFW Airport, obviously

the mayors of Fort Worth and Dallas and our city councils would

say, as we have for the last 30 years, we would prefer that that
40

air service come to the major economic engine that we built 30

years ago, DFW Airport. We have a lot of capacity at DFW Airport,

just like today we have capacity at Love Field with the 19 gates

that we currently use. We have capacity on the existing gates. It

does not mean that McKinney or Allen or Frisco or any of those

communities can’t apply tomorrow to get Federal funding to become a passenger service airport. They have every right to do that.

All we are saying, not in the legislation, only in our agreement

among the five parties, that we will say if that time comes that

these communities want to start passenger service, that we would

prefer that it come to DFW airport.

The second part of that that was alluded to earlier is the voluntary restrictions that the parties, American Airlines and Southwest, who currently serve Love Field have agreed to. And that is

that if they decide between now and 2025 to open a gate at any

of these other airports within 80 miles, that they will voluntarily

not give up a gate but go from a preferential-use gate, which all

of our tenants currently have, to a common-use gate. And so if they

open a gate in McKinney, then they would say, if you are Southwest, of our 16 preferential-use gates, we now say that one of those

will go to a common-use status. If no one else wants to come in and

use that gate, then Southwest can continue to use that gate.

So we thought that it actually helped us at Love Field to create

more competition by going to common-use gates which we have

never had at Love Field. We have always had preferential-use

gates, and until this compromise all the carriers—American, Continental and Southwest—had preferential gates through 2021. We

have agreed to extend that to 2028 under this agreement.

Mr. MARCHANT. Anyone want to add to that?

Mr. MONCRIEF. I would only add, Representative Marchant, that

as Laura indicated, we have the responsibility of those bond covenants, and that is something we take very seriously and by law

we must abide by. It is our responsibility to ensure the health and

well-being of DFW. That is in the best interest of not only our cities but the entire region. And what we were attempting to do is

not to affect all other airports. And in fact, as we visited with the

mayor of McKinney and we talked to him between you all’s votes,

he assured us that he felt like he could get comfortable with some

minor tweaking of the language. So it makes it clear what we were

trying to do.

Mr. MARCHANT. Will that language be tweaked in your internal

agreement or will you ask for it to be tweaked in the legislation

itself?

Mr. COX. Congressman Marchant, it would be tweaked in the

legislation. Lest there be any confusion, there are really only a few

principal elements that we need in Federal law and they primarily

deal with the things that we are talking about, repealing the

Wright amendment, through-ticketing, international traffic issues.

The other issues are really contractual agreements between the

parties. It was never the intent for us to envelop that into legislation that would somehow in any way undermine any other airport’s

efforts, and it has led to a lot of confusion. And we feel the easiest

and surest way to fix that is to make it perfectly clear in this piece
41

of legislation that every other airport out there will not be impacted by these provisions.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First let me say that

in our briefing a few weeks ago, I said then and I will say again

today, I commend all of you. This was no small undertaking to

come together and reach this agreement. There are in my judgment

two issues that have to be examined and resolved here. One is the

issue of safety and the other issue is competition.

I have several questions. Let me first say that the issue of safety

has been touched on here today. I think there is a lot more to be

said concerning that issue, but I want to talk a little bit about the

competition issue.

The CEO of Jet Blue submitted written testimony to the subcommittee for today. He refers to this, ′′that the agreement is a

deal that is even more anticompetitive than the Wright amendment

it seeks to eventually repeal.′′ so the CEO of Jet Blue is asserting

here that this agreement is more anticompetitive than the existing

Wright amendment.

Let me ask both mayors and beginning, if you would, Mayor Miller, you both no doubt know and everyone probably who is following this knows that the Dallas Business Journal came out with an

editorial on June 26 and it says, ′′Love Betrayed.′′ and it says, ′′Congress should say not only no, but hell no, to the Wright

amendment compromise proposed last week.′′ and then it goes on

to say, four or five paragraphs later ′′The deal would make it much

more difficult for new airlines to enter this market and challenge

American or Southwest because it would permanently destroy the

infrastructure that new competitors would need to establish a presence at Love.′′ I wonder if you might respond to the concerns expressed in the

editorial of the Dallas Business Journal.

Ms. MILLER. Sure. Thank you. For one thing, it should be remembered that our gate-sharing provisions that we have in our

current leases with American, Southwest and Continental do not

change at all with this solution. So today if Jet Blue came in and

said we would like a gate, we have language in all of our leases

with our tenants that say we have to make room for that new entrant. We have always had that language in our leases and that

language will not disappear.

In the last 30 years we have never turned away an entrant to

the airport, and we have had capacity for people to come in.

At the request of the committee this morning, we did provide a

copy of the lease language to use, to look at, to read. And we also

submitted an airline competition plan for Love Field that was executed in 2001, but also in great detail goes through the language

that is in our leases and makes it clear that because we are an airport that receives Federal funding and is governed by the FAA and

the DOT, that we provide mechanisms for new entrants to come

into Love Field.

Secondly, we currently have quite a bit of capacity at Love Field.

If we were to go to the industry average of about ten turns a gate,

right now Southwest is at 8.6, American is at 5.3, and Continental
42

is 6.3. So we would love for Jet Blue to come to Love Field and we

would love for them to come to DFW Airport and we have been

courting them for a very, very long time. So I am hopeful that they

will come and serve the Dallas area.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mayor Moncrief.

Mr. MONCRIEF. Representative Costello, I would say that different publications will have different opinions. And I understand

that. And I understand that while the Dallas Business Journal

might have an opinion that this is not an agreement that is in the

best interest of the people of our region or this industry, I think

the Fort Worth Star Telegram had a far different view. I am not

certain what the Dallas Morning News position was, but I also

know the Fort Worth Business Press strongly endorsed our proposal. And I would say to you that if this product were more anticompetitive than the Wright amendment, I do not think Mr.

Kelleher would be sitting here at this table.

Mr. KELLEHER. That is correct.

Mr. COSTELLO. And we are going to give both Mr. Kelleher and

Mr. Arpey a shot at the assertion by Jet Blue that it is more anticompetitive than the Wright amendment.

Mr. Arpey.

Mr. ARPEY. Well, I have not seen Jet Blue’s comments so I do

not know exactly what they said.

Mr. COSTELLO. You pretty well get the gist of it, right?

Mr. ARPEY. The fact that as both mayors have indicated, the fact

that a Jet Blue has the right tomorrow to begin service from DFW

Airport to wherever they would like to fly and the fact that they

can come in under the common-use agreement at Love Field and

operate within the confines of the current Wright amendment gives

them the opportunity to come in and compete on the same playing

field that Southwest has and that American has at DFW. So I find

it to be a fallacious argument that they are making, and the fact

that we have never heard from this up until this moment suggests

to me that there is some other motivation here.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Kelleher, for the record.

Mr. KELLEHER. Mr. Costello, well, Jet Blue released a statement

that this was a back-room deal, quote/unquote, on the part of the

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines. There are only several

things wrong with that assertion. Neither American or Southwest

were in that back room. The two mayors were, the mayor of Dallas

and the mayor of Fort Worth.

And secondly, they indicated that they had supported the repeal

of the Wright amendment. If that is the case, Mr. Costello, it was

a very stealthy form of report, since they have never voiced a word

in favor of repealing the Wright amendment. That is why their

support never came up on my radar. And I called NORAD to check

with them as well whether they had detected any support for the

Wright amendment from Jet Blue, and there was none.

And finally I would like to say that there is nothing more anticompetitive than the Wright amendment. That is why we had

seven gates that we were not able to use at Love Field for 26 years.

If the Wright amendment goes away, you are going to reap the

added passengers, the fare savings and the economic benefits that

Representative Hensarling mentioned in his story. And to further
43

back up the mayors of Dallas and Fort Worth, if Jet Blue wants

to come into Love Field, let them come. We got room.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mayor Miller, you indicated in your testimony

that the city of Dallas has agreed to make substantial investments

at Love Field as a result of the agreement. I wonder if you might

elaborate on that.

Ms. MILLER. We have not done any significant upgrades to the

airport in 30 or 40 years. We did do a brand-new parking garage,

which is one of the reasons why I know that. Congressman Burgess

earlier mentioned about the landing fees, and we should have, in

my opinion, increased the landing fees when we incurred the debt

from the garage. We did not. Management did not recommend that.

We subsequently did that to cover the capital expenditure on the

garage, and now we are ready to do a significant upgrade to the

entire air field and the concourse and we think that is going to be

terrific for the traveler and terrific for the airport tenants. So part of our agreement is that there will be a minimum of $150 million spent and a maximum of $200 million spent on the items

that I read into the record: concourse concessions, landscaping, improvements to the entrance, separate security facility. And that

will be done in the 8-year period that we are making these adjustments to not having a Wright amendment anymore. So that would

be a significant upgrade and will help us a lot in terms of safety

and consolidate our operations which have been rather spread out.

When we had 60 or 65 gates operational, they were at various

places in the airport. We will be consolidating that and working

with Southwest and our other tenants to come up with a good plan.

So we are very excited about the opportunity to do that and to get

the commitment from our tenants that they are willing to invest

that kind of money in our infrastructure.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And let me thank all of the persons who appeared here today. I am

delighted that we are the recipients of a plan that both Dallas/Fort

Worth and Love Field and DFW can live with. And this is quite

an achievement for the area.

I do want to ask for one more document, unanimous consent for

one more document to be placed in the record, and it has to do with

safety. And I think you heard the mayor indicate that there would

be some improvement in length to the runway. And that is appreciated as well.

I do not really have any questions. What I really would like to

say is that fairness has been a priority of mine all my life. And I

did not think it was fair to just ignore that commitment. It is like

telling me that the Constitution is too old and outdated. And so I

am delighted that we didn’t have to go that route any longer. Free

enterprise, or whatever kind of enterprise, Dallas Love Field is

owned by the voters and the citizens of Dallas. And I never considered it much of a free enterprise, just like the city hall. But I do

think that this will work if we can get the people in the Congress

to cooperate with it and I hope we can. If we get everybody in

Texas on board I think we will be able to convince the rest of the

Congress.
44

I am going to stop, Mr. Chairman, because I have got to go to

another meeting. The only other subject that gets more emotional

than this one—redistricting.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I think we broke the record today. We had

three or four hearings, and Mr. Oberstar can document all of this,

we had three or four hearings on O’Hare that broke the hearing

record. We are not going to do that, but this broke the record on

Members testifying. I do not ever recall, and I only have 14 years,

but we did break that record.

Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We did have more Members during the hearing

on smoking onboard aircraft.

Well, well, well. Dear Love Field. Lieutenant Moss Lee Love

must be hovering over this hearing watching this with great interest as his name inches further into eternity with what we are doing

with this legislation. It should be noted for the record that Love

Field is, as said earlier, not a small-town operation. It generates

$2 billion for the Dallas economy. It accounts for 24,000-plus jobs.

It is a major economic benefit, which is why the city decided they

wanted to keep it going, even after the agreement which Mr.

Kelleher was part of the negotiating, way back when in the mists

of time, in the Najeeb Halaby era.

Again, I listened with great interest as one after another seemingly said that we have achieved a delicate balance. You heard the

panel, it sounded like the committee Chairman and Ranking Member of a committee when we just finished a very tough bill. And the

message that this is a delicate balance means do not mess with it;

do not tamper with it.

Well, I think we are going to have to. We have a slot-controlled

airport in which the number of our arrivals and departures is limited. Over time those slots acquired value. Airlines that had the

slots put them on the balance sheet, traded them, sold them, leased

them, subleased them. And that was done by administrative action,

not by legislative action of the Congress, except in the case of National where there was a legislative limitation on the arc within

which—the outer perimeter of which service is allowed. This will

be the first gate-controlled airport by act of Congress if we adopt

the recommendations of our agreement. So it raises some very important questions. Will the gates— first off, Mayor Miller, who is

the owner of the airport?

Ms. MILLER. The city of Dallas.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Does the city of Dallas have an airport authority

that operates Love Field on its behalf? Does the city designate and

name the airport operator—or, I mean the director?

Ms. MILLER. We have a city manager form of government. The

city manager hires the aviation director to oversee the airport and

a smaller airport to the south, Dallas Executive. The city manager

reports to the city council.

Mr. OBERSTAR. OK. Now, under your agreement the gates will be

leased, is that right, by the airport authority?

Ms. MILLER. Well, it will be leased by the city of Dallas to the

tenants.
45

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. And you are the airport authority. Will the

lessees accumulate value for those gates? Will they have what is

called at other airports a majority in interest provision standing?

Ms. MILLER. I do not know. Mr. Cox, do you know?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Cox, what do you think.

Mr. COX. Congressman Oberstar, first of all the lease is already

done. Whatever is done in this form of legislation will not impact

those leases. Those leases exist today between the city and the carriers that have them. They have accommodations provisions in

them that spoke—I guess the point I am trying to make is Love

Field is not a residual airport like DFW. It is a compensatory airport. But the lease provisions allow, as they do today, for the city

to use those when they have the ability to pull them back, so they

would not have any more value than any other lease provisions

that exist in any other airport. It is not something that can be

traded on the open market. It is an actual lease and then they

have a grab-back provision that allows them to grab it back if there

is capacity and a need from another carrier.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to come to that, because there is some

mushy language here, at least in my reading of it. So incumbent

carriers will not acquire a vested authority or value over those

gates no matter what we do with the legislation.

Mr. COX. Not any more than they already have today, sir.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think we should make that clear. Is there any

relationship between the 15 empty gates at DFW and the departure of Delta and the 12 gates to be demolished at Love Field?

Mr. COX. No.

Ms. MILLER. No.

Mr. COX. The 20 gates that the city of Dallas came to—and I

think it is important to understand this, because I do not think it

has gotten out—is that when the original master plan was done,

it assumed the Wright amendment was in place; all growth associated with that involved regional aircraft. When you take the

Wright amendment away, the assumption that regional aircraft are

going to be your growth category goes away. As such, they are

going to be flying on a larger aircraft. As such, you will have less

operations and quite honestly, we believe, diminish your safety concern that you have.

But what it does in converse is it puts a lot more passengers in

and around Love Field, and the analysis that was done shows that

it basically cripples the infrastructure if you keep 32 gates. So it

found the equilibrium. That is what was originally anticipated in

the master plan at 32 gates: How much stuff can you put in that

sack, given the fact that the Wright amendment goes away and

given the fact that they will be flying on larger aircraft? And the

equilibrium is 20 gates. That is where the 20 gates came from. And

it required to get there a get-back from Southwest Airlines.

The other point that I think is lost in part of this conversation

is the give-back is lease provisions that exist but those are not active gates. Those are office spaces and have been office spaces for

many, many, many years. So the reality of it is that there will be

some incremental growth, and there is capacity at Love Field, but

the 20 gates was a very scientific number designed to keep the
46

equilibrium so you basically do not basically crash the roadway system and the noise in and around Love Field.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is very helpful. I have not had any explanation of how 12 came to be the magic number, and your discussion of regional aircraft is very enlightening.

Now, in the attachment the accommodation provisions, ′′Lessee

does hereby agree to accommodate other airline. Lessee

says...terminal lease area at such times that will not unduly interfere with airlines operating schedule.′′ What does ′′unduly interfere with′′ mean? Who defines that? Is

that a term of art? A term of legislative art? A term of judicial art?

Ms. MILLER. Well it was crafted by the Dallas City Attorney’s Office and we understand, since it has never been tested, we have

never had a conflict; that we should, if we are responsible, create

a very clear policy using this as the template for how we are in real

terms going to be executing this. This gives us the authority to tell

an American or a Southwest, you have to make room. But I think

that like other airports like you cited that have this issue of capacity, we need to have a very specific policy in place so that the tenants have a clear expectation for how it is going to work when the

director says we shall make room for Jet Blue and this is how we

are going to do it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Now, I listened carefully earlier when discussion

was made of Jet Blue, and Mr. Costello raised the issue, and I

think Dallas/Fort Worth says we have plenty of room for Jet Blue,

they can come here. But they may not want to come, just as Southwest had no intention of getting into DFW and paying those larger

landing fees. They are quite happy with 55 cents a thousand

pounds. Right, Mr. Kelleher?

Mr. KELLEHER. Well, Mr. Oberstar, our headquarters is at Love

Field. We have invested $200 million in Love Field and this agreement calls for us to invest another $200 million. So it is a little different from the situation that any other carrier is in, and we have

been the ones that have been restricted at Love Field since 1979

by the Wright amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I know you have been restricted at Love Field,

but you have been laughing all the way to the bank as well.

Mr. KELLEHER. Well, great service at low fares.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is for sure, and a monopolistic position. And

in case of a conflict, lessee shall have preferential use of its terminal lease area. If you combine rather vague language about

′′unduly interfere with′′ and section 4(a), ′′in case of a conflict, lessee shall have preferential use of both,′′ now American and Southwest are in the catbird seat. You keep anybody out.

Mr. COX. Can I respond to that?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Anyone can respond to that.

Mr. COX. Congressman Oberstar, first, the way the language is

drafted I believe provides the city of Dallas greater flexibility than

the standard language that is drafted. Typically you find in those

leases that if you are turning your gates at six times a day, then

it is considered fully utilized and nobody else can get in. The way

it is drafted, I believe, provides the city of Dallas a greater hammer

to force an accommodation than most other places that would allow

that.
47

The other thing is, I would argue the difference is that Southwest has been there for a long time and has an asset of which they

lease. Jet Blue does not. Nobody has ever guaranteed access into

an airport, as evidenced by all the other airports that I talked

about, but they are guaranteed access into the marketplace. And

8 miles down the road, Jet Blue can fly basically for free for 6

months, and we believe that is a good deal. And we believe nobody

is guaranteed access to any particular airport but should have access to the marketplace. And with great capacity and an extremely

generous air service incentive plan, after multiple meetings with

Jet Blue we think they can make the right business decision. If

they really want to enter the marketplace, they can.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, Southwest was presented with a good business decision in 1991 when we had the hearing and Kevin Fahey

said we can have 18 gates in 3 weeks for Southwest and we can

have a temporary basis and we can have permanent gates in 18

months. And Mr. Kelleher thought that was not as good of a deal

as he was ready to take.

Mr. KELLEHER. No, again because we do not want to split our operations in our home city, and there are very few airlines, including

American Airlines in Chicago, if I may say that, Gerard, that want

to split their operations between two airports in the same city.

That is the reason why American does not serve Midway Airport,

Southwest Airlines does not serve O’Hare Airport, and that is why

the other spoke carriers do not want Peotone Airport because it

would be a horrible situation from Southwest Airlines’ standpoint

to have its headquarters, all of its investment at Love Field take

half of that service, send it to DFW Airport and suddenly have the

two airports competing against one another in the hands of the

same carrier. That is not true of Jet Blue or anyone else that wants

to come in.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Let’s understand something a little further. At

O’Hare when an international agreement is reached between the

United States and another country in a memorandum of understanding or an aviation trade open skies agreement, and it calls for

service into O’Hare for whatever, five, six or seven slots, American

and United both are told you will provide slots. I do not know if

you still have sales of slots, but you have to sell them, and then

you have to go and find other opportunities to replace your lost

slots. But this is the U.S. DOT telling you and United you give up

space so an international competitor can come in.

Now, supposing JetBlue makes the decision and we want to come

in and we want to get in the Love Field game, too. Who is going

to tell you, Mr. Kelleher, you have got to give up space to accommodate them?

Mr. KELLEHER. Well, first of all, there is no international treaty

that pertains to Love Field that sets aside the local situation with

respect to the proprietorship of the City of Dallas and how many

gates it wants to have.

Now, let me say this to you, Mr. Oberstar, if I might, the biggest

impediment and hindrance to Southwest Airlines’ expansion after

deregulation in 1978 was not being able to get gates at other airports, whether you are talking about San Diego or Los Angeles, or

whatever might be the case. And that was because they had exclu-
48

sive use leases where one carrier had 14 gates with five departures

a day and said, well, if we do all your ground handling charging

you three times as much as the city charges us, you can get in.

What is my point? Everybody suffers from trying to get into an

airport where there are not a lot of available gates. But the situation has improved today because airports haven’t gotten rid of their

exclusive use leases, which is the ones that we ran into and now

have these preferential use leases where there is room for another

carrier. And it is very simple. There is no mystery to the way it

operates, and that is, I can show you Southwest Airlines schedule,

gates schedule, we have got hours on our gates where another carrier could operate there, and that doesn’t have anything to do with

American or Continental Airlines either. And we would simply be

told by the City of Dallas, you have got these vacant spaces in your

gate utilization and by golly you are going to put another carrier

in there.

Mr. OBERSTAR. They would be able to tell you that?

Mr. KELLEHER. That is the way it works, oh, yes absolutely.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, the problem you defined just a moment ago

in your remarks is why I included in the 2001 reauthorization of

FAA a requirement that every airport have a master plan included

showing their competition the plan.

Would the parties agree to a legislative provision that would give

FAA authority to take all necessary actions to ensure that carriers

seeking to initiate or expand service at Love Field have access to

necessary facilities on reasonable terms? Provision could apply if

FAA determined that new entrants are unable, as you have described moments ago, Mr. Kelleher, to obtain access under the procedures of this agreement?

Mr. KELLEHER. I will respond to that, if I might lead off, I am

sure the mayors have some comment about it, but, if that were the

case, then this agreement is a nullity because it is absolutely essential to the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth for a variety of reasons that the airport be limited to 20 gates, of which we gave up

5.

And if that went down the tube, then I am afraid there wouldn’t

be any agreement at all because certainly, American, Airlines and

DFW, one of their interests, Mr. Oberstar, is not jeopardizing the

status of DFW. So having a total of 20 gates is what assures that?

Because the gates limit the operations that you can have from Love

Field.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The language I am talking about would not—

well, we can make it clear that the FAA could not require an increase in gates.

Mr. KELLEHER. You are saying the FAA could take gate leases

away?

Mr. OBERSTAR. To take necessary action to ensure that carriers

have access to necessary facilities.

Mr. KELLEHER. Well, would you apply that to Long Beach, California where JetBlue has 27 out of 35 available slots? Would you

apply it to Washington National? Would you apply it to all airports

across the Nation? And the reason I ask is that is that that could

be very helpful to Southwest airlines.

It if were a general application.
49

Mr. OBERSTAR. But there are other ways in which access can be

obtained at Washington National.

And, I don’t know about Long Beach. That might be an interesting—but they don’t have the two airport scenario that we are dealing with here.

Mr. KELLEHER. No they have the 41-slot scenario.

Mr. OBERSTAR. They do. Mr. Arpey.

Mr. ARPEY. Mr. Oberstar, I think that perhaps we haven’t explained it as artfully as we should have, or carefully as we should

have, but I think in the agreement that we have created, we are

doing precisely what you are asking for, and that is, that if any airline wants to come in and operate at Love Field on the same terms

and conditions that American, Southwest and Continental operate

today, this agreement says that the City of Dallas is going to make

that happen as part of this agreement.

So I think we have recognized your concern as we negotiated our

way through this, and so I think the current agreement does what

you are suggesting.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The language of the current agreement is to the

extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of

Dallas will seek voluntary accommodations from its existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant’s service. There is no enforcing mechanism.

Mr. MONCRIEF. But that is the first thing they do, Mr. Oberstar,

they seek voluntary response from the other carriers. If they don’t

do that, then the City of Dallas has the authority to come in and

say you will.

Mr. OBERSTAR. It goes on to say if its carriers are not able or not

willing, the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential leased gates.

But what is the—but it says this, agrees to require the sharing

of preferential leased gates, but then you go back to the attachment

to the accommodation, it says in the case of a conflict between

schedules of lessee and the requesting airline, the lessee shall have

preferential use. So you require on the one hand, but you vitiate

it on the other.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, that, I mean, ranking member, that is

not different than virtually every other accommodation lease that

exists out there in the country.

Mr. OBERSTAR. We will take a look at that and see if that is the

case.

Mr. COX. You have the ability to accommodate, but you don’t

take rights away from somebody that had already contractually obtained those rights, but you have the ability to try to, to the extent

possible, to fit those people in.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is true in a majority of interest clauses.

Mr. ARPEY. I would like to add, though, on the JetBlue issue, and

we can start with the first provision and American will volunteer

today to open up gate space for JetBlue at Love Field.

Mr. KELLEHER. Tell them to come on down. We welcome them

too.

Mr. OBERSTAR. They are just a metaphor for some other carrier,

they happened to submit statement.
50

One question, you said there will be room for expansion and you

cite the number of safety provisions, including one I am very happy

with, the runway safety area, you are going to spend $150 million,

150, $200 million for improvements where is that money coming

from? Is that going to come from increased landing fees? From

PFCs.

Ms. MILLER. It is a combination. We have discussed that.

Mr. OBERSTAR. AIP funds?

Ms. MILLER. It is a combination. We will apply for PFCs for

things that are eligible, whatever is not eligible, by PFCs, we will

increase landing fees, but we have made it clear that those are the

items that need to be upgraded, and that is what we estimate it

will cost.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will landing fees go up from 55 cents?

Ms. MILLER. Yes, they will. They have to if you do that much of

an upgrade.

Mr. KELLEHER. Mr. Oberstar, can I clarify something? In connection with an earlier comment—not your comments—but there was

an error made by one of the representatives who said the taxpayers

of the City of Dallas are suffering because the landing fees are not

high enough at Love Field.

Love Field has a $40 million surplus, which has been paid in by

Southwest Airlines and there is not a taxpayer dollar of anyone in

the City of Dallas that goes into Love Field.

It is a free, free enterprise fund for the City of Dallas with no

Dallas taxpayer dollars in it, yesterday, 20 years ago, or the next

20 years.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I noted that comment earlier and your clarification just raises a question I wanted to ask, and then I will conclude, Mr. Chairman.

And Mayor Miller, does the City of Dallas back the airport with

the general obligation authority of the city?

Ms. MILLER. No. It is an enterprise fund, and therefore it is only,

what backs it up is just the tenants paying their rents and paying

the landing fees and concession and parking revenues. That is

what pays——

Mr. OBERSTAR. It has, the airport has a surplus of operational

funds now, but if it should run a deficit that is the airport’s problem, the city doesn’t come in and back it up and bail it out?

Ms. MILLER. That is correct. We simply would raise the landing

fees to cover it or raise the concessions or parking fees or whatever

it took to cover the problem.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. I know I have gone on at length. But

it has been good. These are important questions to pursue.

Mr. MICA. I always swore if I ever got to be chairman, I would

let everyone have their say.

Why did I do that?

He was always fair to me so, you know, you get it in return. To

the two mayors, never serve on a city council with 435 members.

Mr. Filner.

Mr. FILNER. Just very briefly as someone standing between adjournment—as a Californian, watching the Texans, I am very impressed with the product, although, Mayor Moncrief, you almost ruined it when you said they can stop spending money, that is the
51

airlines, on lawyers, lobbyists and campaign style advertisements.

You are striking at the economic engine of this city.

Mr. MONCRIEF. I know I am striking at the heart, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FILNER. You don’t want us to hurt your economic engine.

Mr. Kelleher, bottom line, if I wanted to fly Southwest from San

Diego to Dallas, do I still have to go through Austin? And what

does the through ticketing do for me?

Mr. KELLEHER. No. Under this revision, Mr. Filner, you would be

able to fly from San Diego to some point within the Wright amendment states, stay on the airplane and come through to Dallas. So

you might come San Diego El Paso Dallas which would make it a

little easier for not only you, but 2 million additional passengers.

Mr. FILNER. So I would not have to change airplanes?

Mr. KELLEHER. No, you would not have to change airplanes.

Mr. FILNER. While I have you, last question, what advice do you

have for us in dealing with both North Korea and Iran?

Mr. KELLEHER. Well, I will tell you, I am got not going to give

that to you unless this bill goes through.

Mr. FILNER. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. That is five-party talks. This is six-party talks.

And you see the controversy, well, you have heard the controversy I have cited. I guess you are in the league with O’Hare,

but Mr. Filner is no shrinking violet. If you want to really get into

controversy go down to southern California and hold a hearing on

moving San Diego Airport. That is good for a couple of days.

Mr. FILNER. Would you come down, all five of you to San Diego,

Lindbergh needs replacement and we can’t figure out what to do.

Mr. KELLEHER. It is that noose that is hanging there that worries me a little bit when you make a presentation.

Mr. MICA. A couple of final things, now last time I went, Mayor,

how long have you been Mayor of Dallas?

Ms. MILLER. 4 years.

Mr. MICA. I followed your commuter rail and light rail. You actually all got some of the money when central Florida went down the

tubes and you did a great job. I followed that project. And I am

really impressed with what you have done with both commuter rail

and light rail. I saw you bringing in a plan to bring in some transit

to, if it was not at Dallas when I visited, it is not there now?

Ms. MILLER. Well——

Mr. MICA. Or Love.

Ms. MILLER. Well, we have one line that goes through Dallas

northeast to Southwest, we are going to cross it with a brand new

line that will go by Love Field. We asked, actually, to connect it

directly to Love Field and we were turned down by the Federal

Government. They said that there weren’t enough passengers to

justify.

Mr. MICA. And we need to change that.

Mr. KELLEHER. That was because of the Wright amendment, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. MICA. But we really need to look at that. We do. And it is

a chicken-or-egg kind of thing, which comes first and people will

use it. But we should almost have a requirement that any of our

major transportation aviation facilities are connected by mass transit.
52

I will be glad to look at that.

I know you have sort of thrown in the towel, which I think I just

read about this this past week, but I am very, very impressed with

what I have seen down there.

That was the one thing that I was concerned with. And we might

want to revisit that. I will ask the staff, too, to see if we can talk

to folks about that.

And I don’t mind reaching PFC or other money to make the connection.

And I see that is something you were looking at.

Ms. MILLER. Just so you know, because we couldn’t get it direct

to Love Field, it is going to be just west of it about half mile, 3

quarters of a mile. So what we are going to build is hopefully a

very slick people mover when you get on the train at Love, feel

kind of like when you get to Vegas, you go on the train and when

you get off and you will be at the DART station. Obviously, we

would love to build a terminal at Love Field and have direct service.

Mr. MICA. Again, I think the connection is so important. I am

sorry, Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted with your comment about using PFC funds to bring transit on to airports. That

was a bitter battle in 1990 in this committee, and among the airports and users. And I was very much in favor of allowing the use

of PFC.

Mr. MICA. We have worked on some of these across the country.

That is one missing, and they have done some creative things I

think you are familiar with, Newark and some of the things that

were done up there.

In any event, that was one question. I don’t want to prolong this.

The final question, you have got two articles here, 17 provisions

in here, in the first article. If we repealed the Wright amendment,

why couldn’t you Institute through an agreement all of the provisions in these articles?

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, we believe that in about five particular

provisions are all that is required of this Congress to allow the

agreement to go forward.

Mr. MICA. So are they in conflict with Federal law and which

ones?

Mr. COX. No, sir.

Mr. MICA. Then why couldn’t we repeal the Wright amendment?

I mean, there are people cutting these kind of deals all the time

around the country.

I have seen mish-mashes of this across the country.

What authority do you need other than the repeal, and which

five articles or what are those?

Mr. COX. The basic elements that need to be in the pieces of legislation include the through ticketing provision, because that is the

amendment to the existing.

Mr. MICA. That is not in conflict with law?

Mr. COX. No. It is the Wright amendment, today, that prohibits

through ticketing and that would allow through ticketing.

Mr. MICA. There is one.
53

Mr. COX. You need to, pursuant to this agreement, ensure that

Love Field remains a domestic airport and it does not become an

international airport. And that is a Federal legislative issue.

Mr. MICA. But can that also—is that prohibited now? Or is—that

is a designation, though, that you obtain from the Federal Government without a change in law.

Mr. COX. Correct, but part of this deal is that Love Field will

never be opened up as an international airport given all of the investment. And so to ensure that some future Congress or some future administration doesn’t go and decide——

Mr. MICA. Well, that is only as good as the next one because we

are going to pass open skies, and I will be flying planes from places

you never imagined in Europe into Love Field and Dallas. Next, go

ahead.

Mr. COX. The third is——

Mr. MICA. You would be surprised what we could get in there.

Mr. COX. It is a 20-gate limit. We believe, as Congressman Oberstar indicated, to ensure that this remains limited, which is a critical element of this entire deal that that needs to be codified.

The fourth issue is repeal. And the fifth issue——

Mr. MICA. We are putting in law now, what codification?

Mr. COX. Codifying the local 20-gate limit. That is absolutely

critical.

Mr. MICA. What was your term, gate.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Control.

Gate limited.

Mr. MICA. There is a better one, the press has probably already

got it. So we are putting into law, codifying into law. But couldn’t

you do that anyways?

Mr. COX. We believe that we probably could.

Mr. MICA. Competitive. You would probably be sued. So this is

your cover?

Mr. COX. Correct. The fourth issue is actual repeal and then the

fifth issue is charters. And the charter issue, as exists in the

Wright amendment today, limits the amount of charters into and

out of Love Field to 10 charter flights a month.

Mr. MICA. You could do that yourself?

Mr. COX. We cannot.

Mr. MICA. You can’t? Why?

Mr. COX. Because we can’t restrict particular use.

Mr. MICA. You can’t restrict——

Mr. COX. Because the way it exists is we can control the gates,

but we can’t control somebody else that has access to the airport

to start chartering flights to wherever they want to and undermine

the 20-gate limit, and we cannot restrict certain flights in operation. We can restrict the size and capacity of the airport.

Mr. MICA. I have to check with staff, because I don’t really know

whether, you know, you can——

Well, again, I appreciate your going through that. I have not

really even read the totality of the agreement, but trying to figure

out, what needed to be codified and what could be done, because

I want to keep it as simple as possible.

And I think you would do, too, and whatever we do here, folks,

can be undone. I will be replaced by someone soon to the applause
54

of many, and there will be new faces here doing this, and when we

do, now will be changed.

That is all I have. Mr. Chairman, ranking member.

Mr. Brown, welcome. Did you have any questions, comments?

Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. No, Mr. Chairman, I am just sorry I was a little bit

late, but we have been following it sort of from a distance.

Mr. MICA. That means everything. And again your absence has

been appreciated. We want to note it for the record. There being

no further business before this subcommittee we appreciate all of

our witnesses and their participation. This subcommittee hearing

is adjourned.

Thank you.

Mr. KELLEHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314

Æ