SWA Rumor Mill
11-18-2013, 09:15 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: CA
Posts: 1,207
That's your personal opinion. Mine is that it was indeed a guaranteed monopoly, and good business...for SWA.
And at a much more close-in airport to one of the nations largest business capitals. A distinct advantage that SWA used to build a strong airline without the problems associated with competition.
Again, that's because those airlines were promised by the very governments that forced them to move that nothing but small commuter type aircraft would utilize Love field. When SWA won the lawsuit to stay in Love, and the majors were prohibited from moving back because of the agreement they signed before SWA's existence, they wanted to level the playing field for operating in Dallas. You call it being hamstrung, but the rest of the legislative world saw it as an attempt to level the competitive playing field.
I think that's probably correct, but SWA sure didn't fight the majors prohibition from moving back to Love. That's the point. The Wright Amendment leveled the paying a little bit.
It did favor SWA and here's how: The reason the Wright Amendment was even conceived is that the US and city governments were looking at lawsuits from the majors who were pressured then swindled into moving out of Love. The majors would have almost certainly won those suits and be allowed to return their loud long range airplanes back to Love. That would have killed the SWA baby in its crib. The Wright Amendment leveled the competitive playing field in Dallas, and was the incentive for majors to stop fighting for a return to Love. A return that would have crushed SWA.
And at a much more close-in airport to one of the nations largest business capitals. A distinct advantage that SWA used to build a strong airline without the problems associated with competition.
Again, that's because those airlines were promised by the very governments that forced them to move that nothing but small commuter type aircraft would utilize Love field. When SWA won the lawsuit to stay in Love, and the majors were prohibited from moving back because of the agreement they signed before SWA's existence, they wanted to level the playing field for operating in Dallas. You call it being hamstrung, but the rest of the legislative world saw it as an attempt to level the competitive playing field.
I think that's probably correct, but SWA sure didn't fight the majors prohibition from moving back to Love. That's the point. The Wright Amendment leveled the paying a little bit.
It did favor SWA and here's how: The reason the Wright Amendment was even conceived is that the US and city governments were looking at lawsuits from the majors who were pressured then swindled into moving out of Love. The majors would have almost certainly won those suits and be allowed to return their loud long range airplanes back to Love. That would have killed the SWA baby in its crib. The Wright Amendment leveled the competitive playing field in Dallas, and was the incentive for majors to stop fighting for a return to Love. A return that would have crushed SWA.
You do realize that Wright restricted NO ONE from operating at Love. Those that signed an agreement to leave Love did so of their own free will.
And at a much more close-in airport to one of the nations largest business capitals. A distinct advantage that SWA used to build a strong airline without the problems associated with competition.
Again, those that signed an agreement to leave Love did so of their own free will. They left to occupy a newer, larger and modern facility. They were not forced to leave they were asked if they would sign an agreement to move to the new airport when completed because there was no legal way to force them to leave, just as there was no legal ability to force SWA to DFW because they did not voluntarily agree to move their operation.
Again, that's because those airlines were promised by the very governments that forced them to move that nothing but small commuter type aircraft would utilize Love field. When SWA won the lawsuit to stay in Love, and the majors were prohibited from moving back because of the agreement they signed before SWA's existence, they wanted to level the playing field for operating in Dallas. You call it being hamstrung, but the rest of the legislative world saw it as an attempt to level the competitive playing field.
Again your simply wrong. There was no way to FORCE anyone from Love! Those that decided to leave did so because they felt that the newer and larger facility would better suit there operations. The reason they were ASKED to sign the agreement to move their operations is exactly because they could not be forced to leave and the community did not want to build an airport that no one decided to use.
I think that's probably correct, but SWA sure didn't fight the majors prohibition from moving back to Love. That's the point. The Wright Amendment leveled the paying a little bit.
Please enlighten me as to what legal argument SWA could make to strike down a contractual agreement that was entered into by other business entities?
It did favor SWA and here's how: The reason the Wright Amendment was even conceived is that the US and city governments were looking at lawsuits from the majors who were pressured then swindled into moving out of Love. The majors would have almost certainly won those suits and be allowed to return their loud long range airplanes back to Love. That would have killed the SWA baby in its crib. The Wright Amendment leveled the competitive playing field in Dallas, and was the incentive for majors to stop fighting for a return to Love. A return that would have crushed SWA.
In what court of law is it possible to simply say: "We signed an agreement, but now we don't feel like it anymore." There was no legal argument for the majors to re neg on a deal that was signed without coercion. All signatories to the agreement to leave Love did so because they felt it was in their own best interests. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth felt that they needed a larger more modern facility to serve their growing economy and felt that the Love facility could not grow large enough to meet the need of a larger airport. The carriers based at Love also saw the need for a newer larger facility to suit their growth in the future. If the intent was that Love would never offer passenger service and thus compete with DFW, then that should have been included in the voluntary agreement signed by the airlines. Your assertion that these major airlines were somehow "duped" into leaving Love is incorrect, they agreed to sign a document ensuring their departure because they felt it was in their own best interest. That is the only reason they agreed to leave because they could not be forced.
11-18-2013, 11:36 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: SWA F/O
Posts: 145
Actually, no I don't. Your heartburn is likely due to competition coming to Love field. And it wasn't that airlines didn't show interest in Love, airlines were prohibited from moving back with aircraft that would be profitable.
Completely wrong and revisionist history.
Carl
Completely wrong and revisionist history.
Carl
How is that revisionist history? AA tried and failed. UA tried Denver and failed. DL tried MEM and failed. The only reason UAL sells any seats at all is they serve IAH and appeal to all of the oil types who live on the north side of Houston.
Like it or not, the amendment was created to severely limit SWA to the point of failure. I think any AA or Braniff executive will tell you that.
11-18-2013, 11:40 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: SWA F/O
Posts: 145
You're comparing Love Field to one of the busiest airports in the country. How many gates are at ATL? 150-200? 1 gate out of 20 is a whole lot more significant amount than 1 gate out of 150.
I get it, you want your airline at Love to compete, but lets stick to coherent arguments.
11-18-2013, 01:35 PM
#56
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
That's your personal opinion. Mine is that it was indeed a guaranteed monopoly, and good business...for SWA.
You do realize that Wright restricted NO ONE from operating at Love. Those that signed an agreement to leave Love did so of their own free will.
And at a much more close-in airport to one of the nations largest business capitals. A distinct advantage that SWA used to build a strong airline without the problems associated with competition.
Again, those that signed an agreement to leave Love did so of their own free will. They left to occupy a newer, larger and modern facility. They were not forced to leave they were asked if they would sign an agreement to move to the new airport when completed because there was no legal way to force them to leave, just as there was no legal ability to force SWA to DFW because they did not voluntarily agree to move their operation.
Again, that's because those airlines were promised by the very governments that forced them to move that nothing but small commuter type aircraft would utilize Love field. When SWA won the lawsuit to stay in Love, and the majors were prohibited from moving back because of the agreement they signed before SWA's existence, they wanted to level the playing field for operating in Dallas. You call it being hamstrung, but the rest of the legislative world saw it as an attempt to level the competitive playing field.
Again your simply wrong. There was no way to FORCE anyone from Love! Those that decided to leave did so because they felt that the newer and larger facility would better suit there operations. The reason they were ASKED to sign the agreement to move their operations is exactly because they could not be forced to leave and the community did not want to build an airport that no one decided to use.
I think that's probably correct, but SWA sure didn't fight the majors prohibition from moving back to Love. That's the point. The Wright Amendment leveled the paying a little bit.
Please enlighten me as to what legal argument SWA could make to strike down a contractual agreement that was entered into by other business entities?
It did favor SWA and here's how: The reason the Wright Amendment was even conceived is that the US and city governments were looking at lawsuits from the majors who were pressured then swindled into moving out of Love. The majors would have almost certainly won those suits and be allowed to return their loud long range airplanes back to Love. That would have killed the SWA baby in its crib. The Wright Amendment leveled the competitive playing field in Dallas, and was the incentive for majors to stop fighting for a return to Love. A return that would have crushed SWA.
In what court of law is it possible to simply say: "We signed an agreement, but now we don't feel like it anymore." There was no legal argument for the majors to re neg on a deal that was signed without coercion. All signatories to the agreement to leave Love did so because they felt it was in their own best interests. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth felt that they needed a larger more modern facility to serve their growing economy and felt that the Love facility could not grow large enough to meet the need of a larger airport. The carriers based at Love also saw the need for a newer larger facility to suit their growth in the future. If the intent was that Love would never offer passenger service and thus compete with DFW, then that should have been included in the voluntary agreement signed by the airlines. Your assertion that these major airlines were somehow "duped" into leaving Love is incorrect, they agreed to sign a document ensuring their departure because they felt it was in their own best interest. That is the only reason they agreed to leave because they could not be forced.
You do realize that Wright restricted NO ONE from operating at Love. Those that signed an agreement to leave Love did so of their own free will.
And at a much more close-in airport to one of the nations largest business capitals. A distinct advantage that SWA used to build a strong airline without the problems associated with competition.
Again, those that signed an agreement to leave Love did so of their own free will. They left to occupy a newer, larger and modern facility. They were not forced to leave they were asked if they would sign an agreement to move to the new airport when completed because there was no legal way to force them to leave, just as there was no legal ability to force SWA to DFW because they did not voluntarily agree to move their operation.
Again, that's because those airlines were promised by the very governments that forced them to move that nothing but small commuter type aircraft would utilize Love field. When SWA won the lawsuit to stay in Love, and the majors were prohibited from moving back because of the agreement they signed before SWA's existence, they wanted to level the playing field for operating in Dallas. You call it being hamstrung, but the rest of the legislative world saw it as an attempt to level the competitive playing field.
Again your simply wrong. There was no way to FORCE anyone from Love! Those that decided to leave did so because they felt that the newer and larger facility would better suit there operations. The reason they were ASKED to sign the agreement to move their operations is exactly because they could not be forced to leave and the community did not want to build an airport that no one decided to use.
I think that's probably correct, but SWA sure didn't fight the majors prohibition from moving back to Love. That's the point. The Wright Amendment leveled the paying a little bit.
Please enlighten me as to what legal argument SWA could make to strike down a contractual agreement that was entered into by other business entities?
It did favor SWA and here's how: The reason the Wright Amendment was even conceived is that the US and city governments were looking at lawsuits from the majors who were pressured then swindled into moving out of Love. The majors would have almost certainly won those suits and be allowed to return their loud long range airplanes back to Love. That would have killed the SWA baby in its crib. The Wright Amendment leveled the competitive playing field in Dallas, and was the incentive for majors to stop fighting for a return to Love. A return that would have crushed SWA.
In what court of law is it possible to simply say: "We signed an agreement, but now we don't feel like it anymore." There was no legal argument for the majors to re neg on a deal that was signed without coercion. All signatories to the agreement to leave Love did so because they felt it was in their own best interests. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth felt that they needed a larger more modern facility to serve their growing economy and felt that the Love facility could not grow large enough to meet the need of a larger airport. The carriers based at Love also saw the need for a newer larger facility to suit their growth in the future. If the intent was that Love would never offer passenger service and thus compete with DFW, then that should have been included in the voluntary agreement signed by the airlines. Your assertion that these major airlines were somehow "duped" into leaving Love is incorrect, they agreed to sign a document ensuring their departure because they felt it was in their own best interest. That is the only reason they agreed to leave because they could not be forced.
Then SWA was created and filled the vacuum at Love field. All parties pitched a fit at this and wanted SWA to move out to DFW like they had been forced to do. But as we've discussed earlier, SWA won the lawsuit because they weren't in existence yet when everyone signed the agreement to leave Love.
That's the history shoelu and it's not debatable. The history is all over the Internet in great detail. Your claim that the major airlines signed the agreement to leave Love of their own free will is complete hogwash. It was the last thing they wanted to do.
Carl
11-18-2013, 03:27 PM
#57
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Tail Surfing on a 737
Posts: 64
The foundation of every one of your points here is simply wrong. The majors operating out of Love field wanted airport expansion. The federal and local governments (under pressure from constituents due to very high levels of noise) wanted a new airport built. The governments threatened the existing airlines with major restrictions and a refusal of future expansion of Love field. Under severe political pressure, the majors signed an agreement to move out of Love when the new DFW airport was built. Love would only be an an airport for smaller aircraft and shorter ranges. That was the deal all parties agreed to.
Then SWA was created and filled the vacuum at Love field. All parties pitched a fit at this and wanted SWA to move out to DFW like they had been forced to do. But as we've discussed earlier, SWA won the lawsuit because they weren't in existence yet when everyone signed the agreement to leave Love.
That's the history shoelu and it's not debatable. The history is all over the Internet in great detail. Your claim that the major airlines signed the agreement to leave Love of their own free will is complete hogwash. It was the last thing they wanted to do.
Carl
Then SWA was created and filled the vacuum at Love field. All parties pitched a fit at this and wanted SWA to move out to DFW like they had been forced to do. But as we've discussed earlier, SWA won the lawsuit because they weren't in existence yet when everyone signed the agreement to leave Love.
That's the history shoelu and it's not debatable. The history is all over the Internet in great detail. Your claim that the major airlines signed the agreement to leave Love of their own free will is complete hogwash. It was the last thing they wanted to do.
Carl
11-18-2013, 03:50 PM
#58
Reserve Sucks
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 189
11-18-2013, 04:38 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: CA
Posts: 1,207
The foundation of every one of your points here is simply wrong. The majors operating out of Love field wanted airport expansion. The federal and local governments (under pressure from constituents due to very high levels of noise) wanted a new airport built. The governments threatened the existing airlines with major restrictions and a refusal of future expansion of Love field. Under severe political pressure, the majors signed an agreement to move out of Love when the new DFW airport was built. Love would only be an an airport for smaller aircraft and shorter ranges. That was the deal all parties agreed to.
Then SWA was created and filled the vacuum at Love field. All parties pitched a fit at this and wanted SWA to move out to DFW like they had been forced to do. But as we've discussed earlier, SWA won the lawsuit because they weren't in existence yet when everyone signed the agreement to leave Love.
That's the history shoelu and it's not debatable. The history is all over the Internet in great detail. Your claim that the major airlines signed the agreement to leave Love of their own free will is complete hogwash. It was the last thing they wanted to do.
Carl
Then SWA was created and filled the vacuum at Love field. All parties pitched a fit at this and wanted SWA to move out to DFW like they had been forced to do. But as we've discussed earlier, SWA won the lawsuit because they weren't in existence yet when everyone signed the agreement to leave Love.
That's the history shoelu and it's not debatable. The history is all over the Internet in great detail. Your claim that the major airlines signed the agreement to leave Love of their own free will is complete hogwash. It was the last thing they wanted to do.
Carl
I think you use the word "forced" pretty loosely. The legacy carriers would not have moved unless they thought they could make more money at DFW. Love Field had reached its limit and expansion wasn't an option due to politics, public pressure, etc... The legacies could have stayed, but they would have stagnated. It didn't fit their future plans, but DFW did so they made a choice and agreed to move. The option of staying wasn't attractive, but so what. They just failed to shut the door behind them. They weren't cheated or swindled, they just overlooked the possibility of outside competition. = poor business. The Wright Ammendment was their way of limiting competition and mitigating the damage of their failed planning. No goverment can force a company to operate somewhere it doesn't want to go. The alternatives may not be as attractive, but it's a choice. In this case the alternative of operating out of a small field with limited growth fit Southwest perfectly. Nothing unfair about that at all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
