1992

Folks in favor of leaving the Wright Amendment in place point out that the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth jointly built DFW Airport and it would be unfair to Fort Worth residents if traffic were moved away from an airport that they helped pay for, to an airport that would benefit residents of Dallas more than those of Fort Worth.

In the mid-1980's though, the City of Fort Worth, the FAA and�Hillwood Development began planning the first purely industrial airport in the Western Hemisphere, with official groundbreaking ceremonies in July, 1988.

Today, Fort Worth Alliance Airport features a full complement of flight services and serves as a regional sorting faciity for Federal Express and a maintainence facility for American Airlines.

Funny how it's OK for Ft. Worth to build a secondary airport that takes revenue away from DFW, but Dallas is not allowed to use it's existing secondary airport to its maximum potential.

A 1997 article in the Dallas Observer notes:

"A close reading of the [1968] bond ordinance reveals that, technically, Fort Worth's Alliance Airport violates the bond covenant. Alliance is the main Southwest hub for Federal Express, which is a certificated carrier, according to FAA guidelines. And the covenant specifically protects D/FW airport from competition by certificated carriers at other regional airports--unless otherwise permitted by law or voted for by a majority of the D/FW board.

The board did not vote on Alliance, according to D/FW spokesman Joe Dealey. He argues--incorrectly--that the covenant refers to passenger service.

Although they claim innocence, Ft. Worth was very well aware of this potential conflict of interest -- enough so that they held a meeting in May of 1992 attended by three Ft. Worth former mayors, several heads of large corporations and an American Airlines vice president to discuss Fort Worth's potentiallegal exposurefrom the construction of Alliance Airport.

"Through meetings it has become obvious that Dallas sees they have an airport [Love Field] without development," [Kay] Granger said. "We have development [at Alliance], they do not."

Former Fort Worth Mayor Bayard Friedman agreed, adding that Fort Worth has "taken a lot of risks through time in developing [Alliance]...I cannot conceive that Dallas would file a lawsuit over Alliance. That would be disastrous."

In fact, many Dallas City Council members wanted the city to countersue Fort Worth. Instead, then-Mayor Steve Bartlett retreated. Dallas passed a resolution reaffirming the city's support of the bond ordinance, and Fort Worth withdrew the suit.

An October 9, 1998, Dallas Business Journal article reported:

Fort Worth claims that if Big D allows expanded passenger service out of Love, the city will violate the 1968 bond covenants that funded construction of the jointly owned airport.

In the covenants, the two cities agreed to protect D/FW from competition by prohibiting scheduled interstate flights from all other Metroplex airports in their control.

In the meantime, Fort Worth built Alliance Airport, which has already stolen one of D/FW's primary cargo customers.

That contradiction has had residents in Dallas scratching their heads for some time.

So, does "competition" refer only to passenger service, or to cargo service also?

Fort Worth, of course, claims it refers only to passenger service. But experts who helped write the original bond covenants have said "competition" refers to all competition.

Fort Worth had a whole series of pages on the Wright Amendment several years ago at fortworthgov.org. This was the text on the page that talked about the 1968 Bond Ordinance the two cities signed:

1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance

In Section 9.5 of the Bond Ordinance, the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth agreed to phase out all Certificated Air Carrier Services from the airports operated by both cities and to transfer such services to the regional airport. "Certificated Air Carrier Services" means intrastate, interstate, or foreign air carrier services operating according to published flight schedules and holding operating certificates from the appropriate state or federal authorities.

(Note: nowhere does it specify that "air carrier services" refers to passenger service only.)

The Airport Board was given the authority to review the effect and application of such covenant and, by a vote of not less than eight of its eleven members, the Board may determine the need for decentralization of Certificated Air Carrier Services in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.

Now, keeping that in mind, what does Fort Worth have to say about Alliance on their FAQ page? (Emphasis added)

QUESTION:

Doesn't Alliance Airport violate the 1968 agreement?

ANSWER:

No. Certificated Air Passenger Service is not provided at Alliance Airport nor will the City of Fort Worth allow such service without the approval of the D/FW Airport Board. When the construction of Alliance Airport was being planned, the plans were shared with the D/FW Airport Board and the City of Dallas. Neither the Board nor Dallas opposed the construction of Alliance.

Link to archived page

It doesn't matter that Alliance doesn't offer Certtificated Air Passenger Service. It does offer Certificated Air Freight Service. And the 1968 bond ordinance does not limit competition to Certificated Air Passenger Service only. It says all Certificated Air Carrier Services.

As far as Fort Worth sharing its plans for Alliance with the City of Dallas and the DFW Airport Board and then saying it's ok because no one opposed it -- that's not good enough. No one approved it either. The matter was never brought to the Board for a vote at all, and that, in and of itself is a violation of the bond covenant.

There are no route restrictions at either Alliance or DFW so cargo carriers are free to chose which airport they prefer to serve.

It should be the same for passenger carriers. Love Field's better suited for low-fare domestic carriers with no international service and no interline agreements with other airlines. Why is it that commercial airlines competing from Love Field and DFW aren't on a "level playing field," but cargo carriers competing from Alliance and DFW are?

But's what done is done, or -- in the case of Alliance Airport -- what's built is built, so let Love Field compete with DFW for the overflow passengers lower fares will generate, and Alliance can continue to compete with DFW for freight. More competition from smaller airports in both Ft. Worth and Dallas keeps DFW on its toes. That's a good thing.