Carl Spackler

That is simply not true. None of them wanted to move out of the close in Love field. They wanted Love expanded. But government refused. Those airlines had a political gun to their heads. Their choice was to do what the government demanded, or face intolerable restrictions that didn't exist previously. The word "forced" is exactly correct.

That's incorrect. The airlines would have faced shrinkage and operational restrictions targeted toward forcing them to leave. Government was the ultimate "landlord from hell" at a time when the industry hadn't yet been deregulated.

Totally incorrect. No airlines' future plans include shrinkage and operational restriction. They had no choice but to move because government had the power to break them if they didn't see the light.

So what? If the federal and local governments said SWA had to cut their DAL operation in half, you wouldn't be saying so what. That unattractiveness would result in SWA saying a lot more than so what.

That is true. That's the part that neither governments nor airlines foresaw. Everyone assumed they knew all the airline industry players, and would be able to keep the noise out of Love field with their agreement of 1970. Nobody foresaw a new airline starting up the very next year to fill the void left by the contractual forced departures of the majors.

Correct, but all sides felt cheated and swindled because nobody foresaw an upstart airline taking advantage of a loophole.

No, it was to limit SWA's enormous competitive advantage attained at the expense of the previous tenants. The Wright Amendment leveled the playing field as much as was possible given the situation.

Yes they can...anytime they want. Either through eminent domain, or regulation. In this case government made it so impossible, they effectively forced them out.

No question it fit SWA perfectly. It fit the others perfectly as well. Having no competition also fit SWA perfectly.

You guys were apparently told a story of David and Goliath during indoc. The story of little SWA slaying the Goliath of government and major airlines. Sorry to bust the fable, but the truth is you exist only because of a series of enormous good fortune and loophole exploitation. Good on you. But you're no David and Goliath story. You're the story of placing a roulette wheel bet on 36 black, and the marble stopping on 36 black.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Yes we sure could. If we bought SWA, maybe we could operate you as a separate holding company entity until your pilots accepted a virtual stapling to the Delta list.

Nah, nobody would do that.

Carl

Carl Spackler

They tried to force you out right away. But SWA beat the government in court. You're arguing with history shoelu. I know it's not the heroic story you were told in indoc. Sorry.

You're a great airline. You're also an amazingly lucky one.

Carl

Flys135s

You just repeated what I said except for the word "forced". There's always a choice even if the options are not optimal.


"That's incorrect. The airlines would have faced shrinkage and operational restrictions targeted toward forcing them to leiave. Government was the ultimate "landlord from hell" at a time when the industry hadn't yet been deregulated."

I agree, and they chose to go to DFW rather than put up with the conditions at Love.


"Totally incorrect. No airlines' future plans include shrinkage and operational restriction. They had no choice but to move because government had the power to break them if they didn't see the light."

Like I said, the conditions at Love did not suit their purpose so they left. Zero possibility for expansion at Love was a reality they couldn't live with. Southwest could.

"So what? If the federal and local governments said SWA had to cut their DAL operation in half, you wouldn't be saying so what. That unattractiveness would result in SWA saying a lot more than so what."

The gov't didn't cut their operations, they just refused to allow any expansion.

"That is true. That's the part that neither governments nor airlines foresaw. Everyone assumed they knew all the airline industry players, and would be able to keep the noise out of Love field with their agreement of 1970. Nobody foresaw a new airline starting up the very next year to fill the void left by the contractual forced departures of the majors. "

"Correct, but all sides felt cheated and swindled because nobody foresaw an upstart airline taking advantage of a loophole."

"No, it was to limit SWA's enormous competitive advantage attained at the expense of the previous tenants. The Wright Amendment leveled the playing field as much as was possible given the situation."

You call it expense of previous tenant, I call it capitalizing on someone else's failed foresight.


"Yes they can...anytime they want. Either through eminent domain, or regulation. In this case government made it so impossible, they effectively forced them out."

No, they can't. They can forbid you from operating (Wright Ammendment),but they can't force you to operate.

"No question it fit SWA perfectly. It fit the others perfectly as well. Having no competition also fit SWA perfectly."

What prevented anyone else from operating - other than those who willingly signed over their right to do so?

"You guys were apparently told a story of David and Goliath during indoc. The story of little SWA slaying the Goliath of government and major airlines. Sorry to bust the fable, but the truth is you exist only because of a series of enormous good fortune and loophole exploitation. Good on you. But you're no David and Goliath story. You're the story of placing a roulette wheel bet on 36 black, and the marble stopping on 36 black."

Sorry, haven't been to indoc yet, just a student of politics and history.

shoelu

How am I arguing with history? I agree that they tried to force us out but couldn't because Southwest beat them in court.

That is exactly my point. They couldn't force them out because that was illegal, just as they couldn't force the other airlines from Love. They went willingly and signed an agreement to do so. Southwest was not a party to that agreement and would not voluntarily leave. Southwest could not be forced out either as evidenced by their continued service at Love. For God's sakes man the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Do you really believe that the laws could only be applied to Southwest and not the other airlines?

You can argue it all you want but the facts are simply not on your side. You are arguing that there was a different set of laws governing Southwest that didn't apply to the others airlines operating at Love prior to DFW opening in 1974. The others voluntarily signed an agreement to cease operations at Love. If Southwest had signed that agreement they wouldn't have been allowed to stay, but they didn't and because they didn't leave voluntarily it was impossible to force them out. As we both know every possible angle was used to force out SWA but in the end there was no legal way to do so. Those are the facts and they are not disputable. The proof is in the pudding, Southwest still operates at Love despite every possible maneuver to force them out. So, if Southwest couldn't be forced to leave, how were the others forced out as you contend?

Carl Spackler

You're not even listening, you're just a stuck mic on transmit. We're just talking past each other.

The point is that now we have both sides out on the table for people to make their own decision on what history actual was. Bottom line is that you're going to lose gates at Love field.

Carl

shoelu

Agreed, both sides are on the table and folks can make up their own minds about what is fact and what is fiction.

Unfortunately, I have to now disagree with the statement: "Bottom line is that you're going to lose gates at Love field."

20 gates are allowed at DAL post Wright Amendment. Southwest has 16. United controls 2 and AA has two that will be divested. Are you stating that Southwest has been directed to divest some of its current 16?

27 driver

Put your money where your mouth is. Oh that's right...the billions in debt and unfunded pension prevents such a purchase..

Justdoinmyjob

What unfunded pension?

Justdoinmyjob

Apparently the US Air east pilots found a court that would agree with that argument.