Talk:Wright Amendment

message: Business Journal of Dallas 
lots of issues  | leave me a message 08:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also on the AP wire. This one's much more negative towards the 'pedia. cluth 08:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Slow newsday

message: As the repeal debate is currently ongoing, I have added the current events tag to the page. Please leave this on there until the repeal debate is settled. Thanks!  ALKIVAR™ 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, sorry, didn't see this note before I removed the current events tag. As this has been going on for quite a while now (and likely to go on for a lot longer), I really don't think it merits the current events tag, but if you feel otherwise feel free to add it back in. Sortan 05:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you read the Love Field article, this has been going on since 1992, and there is really no end in sight, so if you insist on the current events tag, it is going to be more or less permanent here. Sortan 14:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Template

message: How about the status of the NPOV tag?  Does anyone still feel that the article does not take a neutral POV?  If so, what is still wrong with it?
As far as the Current Events tag... I think it probably doesn't belong on this article.  The template says, "Events could change rapidly," and that's not really the case with this issue — it's not an hour-by-hour changing thing, it's something that might change slightly over the next few months, which is the case with a lot of non-current-event articles in the Wikipedia.  I'm going to remove the tag for now. —Cleared as filed. 20:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and Current Events tags

message: This is just a notice that I plan to be adding new information on this topic in the near future.  I've recently found a link to Herb Kelleher's testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee's Subcommittee on Aviation this past November.  I won't be adding, or even quoting excerpts from this very much, because obviously it's SWA's POV on the Wright Ammendment.  It does, however, contain a fairly good legal history surrounding Love Field, SWA, and the lead up to the Wright Ammendment.  It also contains legal references to court cases.
It's these court cases I plan to research, and hopefully neutralize the language around the decisions, so we have a clearer picture about who was alleging what.  It's pretty old case files, though, and I don't think I'll be able to access very much over the internet.  So, it may take me some time.  I'm posting the link here as a heads-up, and in case anyone else can help research these cases.   InkSplotch(talk) 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating legal info

message: I reverted today to remove some gibberish, and also removed your addition as well.  I just wanted to say, I don't consider what you added to be gibberish or vandalism, but it did seem to me to be guessing at motives and I didn't feel it appropriate for an article.  However, I could be wrong, and if you feel it best to replace it I won't revert a second time.  --InkSplotch 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For Kitch

message: I have restored the Current event tag; Congress may act before or after the November, 2006 election.  We shall see.  ProfessorPaul 04:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored "Current Event" tag

message: I removed the photo needed banner on this page.  There is no need for a photo regarding an amendment. Chad 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Needed?

message: I'm pretty sure AA was already operating at Love Field before Legend came around in 2000.  Continental (or a regional variety thereof) had started operating flights from Love to their Cleveland hub, using regional jets to get around the 56 passenger limit.  Shortly thereafter, AA started flying Fokker 100s between Love Field and Austin (while at the same time, IIRC, suing CO to stop their flights).  I'm not sure how the Austin flights were supposed to compete with CO's Cleveland flights, except maybe for available gate space (I sort of recall AA horning in on the gates).  I can't remember the exact time frame when all this happened, I want to say it was 1998 or '99.  In fact I would've thought AA had given up and pulled out of Love Field by the time Legend started up. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American Airlines at Love Field

message: :Image:SetLoveFree.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SetLoveFree.gif

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wright Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017195250/http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Wright_Amendment.html to http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Wright_Amendment.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 10:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This article is unclear if there is a full repeal or just repeal on routes. The 2006 amendment allows only 20 gates. Isn't this still the case? If not, then Delta Air Lines wouldn't be in court but would simply build gates. There is the old Legend Terminal that has gates except the jetways have been removed to comply with the 20 gate limit.
Summary: is the 20 gate limit of the 2006 amendment still in effect or repealed? Vanguard10 (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  full repeal, needs citation 

message: I've been doing a bunch of research about Alliance (AFW) and I cannot find specific published sources to back up the claims that DFW lacked capacity as a whole, or that AFW was ever seriously proposed as an alternative reliever passenger airport to DFW. I have found ample claims from the late 1980s and 1990s that DFW and/or the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex in general would run out of runway capacity if more runways were not built, but 2 runways were subsequently built at DFW (17L/35R and 18R/36L). I've found lots of published speculation in the early 1990s that air traffic control would be unable to deal with greater traffic volumes in the choke point NE of DFW and NW of Love, but this seems to have been mitigated by later upgrades to the ATC system. Lastly, I've found discussion of a third all-new reliever airport to be built in an undetermined location, possibly near Waxahachie or Corsicana to the south, but this talk peters out by the late 1990s. I've found one claim that the 1996 Alliance study exists (https://www.cnbc.com/id/43714139) but nothing in the local news media, who were generally unabashed about covering Wright debates down to the minutia, and surely would not have left this study undissected. Lastly, Ft. Worth city leaders adamantly go on the record denying that AFW passenger service was ever seriously considered. What gives? Can someone shed light on this? Carguychris (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims about Alliance Airport and lack of capacity at DFW