Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

[tankerhead]

You've betrayed and abused every customary and proper way an airport and/or airline moves ahead.

Dude, do you not see/grasp/understand the irony in your above statement? Check your own company (and the other legacy's) history regarding the "proper way" of advancement.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Sh!ts gettin real....maybe Dallas should force Southwest to divest their gates? What's that? They are theirs? Really? That never stopped them from crying for somebody elses gates at other cities......

.... < pasted article concerning United's actions with its DAL gates deleted for brevity > ....

Huh?

First you bitch about Southwest "getting you kicked out of Dallas Love," when it was American Airlines' doing that limited the number of gates, and then also American who terminated your sub-lease of their gates and gave them to Virgin instead of you (at the DOJ's behest). That was not Southwest's doing.

Then you now whine again about Southwest and Love Field, but this time post an article mentioning that it was United Airlines screwing you there now. Jesus, Bill, do you even read this stuff before you post it? It doesn't seem like it. Again, not Southwest's doing. You need to take this up with Flopgut--it was his airline doing dirty tricks to keep Delta down.

By the way, STILL waiting patiently for you to explain how Southwest "screwed you (Delta, that is)" in any way, shape or form, at Dallas Love in particular, or anywhere else in general. 'Cause you've never actually done that--just bitched in general and blamed Southwest for whatever troubles you.

So what's next, Bill?--are you next going to find an article on how JetBlue is sticking it to you, and then blame that on Southwest as well?

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Oh thanks Humvee....

You teed up my next point. As SWA whined about the access they "deserved" at LGA, DCA, etc etc.....couldn't the other airlines use the same argument in keeping you out?

Whined? Really? When other airlines agreed to divest gates/slots when seeking approval by the DOJ for a merger, and we wanted them (DCA and LGA), we bid for them at auction. Occasionally we were outbid (by JetBlue, for example), but usually, if we wanted them bad enough, we bid high enough to win them. Then we announced and commenced service. That's seems a little less like whining than threatening to sue if we weren't allowed in somewhere we didn't have gate space (Delta: "why, you just have to let us fly out of DAL after our gate leases are up--we already sold tickets, even though you told us not to!").

I mean the legacies built the airport and airways system well before Herb was a frat boy chuggin Wild Turkey bombs in College and then you get to stick your 2 cents into slot and gate divestures as the mergers and acquisitions got played over the last decade. Hipocracy at its best!

Actually, it was the FAA and local municipalities (i.e. the taxpayers) who generally speaking, build the airport and airways system. Along the way, specific airlines used their money to personalize and customize, and enlarge and improve certain facilities for their own benefit. I think that's what you meant. And if you go out of business or abandon a city, you're really going to bitch when the city finds another tenant to come in and serve its people because you quit? You think it's "hypocritical" for us to serve a city who asked us to, after they were abandoned by you? I'm pretty sure that you don't actually know what that word means.

Delta should charge SWA to even operate into Atlanta....using your thought process, heck, we built ATL practically.

if you lease space in Trump Tower, doesn't mean you own the building and get to put up your name in gaudy letters on the side of it....it's still the Donalds. Just because you built a terminal and floated some bonds, doesn't mean its your airport.

Never said it was "our" building or airport (DAL). Clearly it isn't. It belongs to the city of Dallas. This was just in response to the General bitching about Southwest "never" spending money to improve airports. We do. However, I think we're entitled to use the gates we've always used, especially after spending a lot of money to improve them. Southwest buying gates/slots at auction, or beginning service in facilities that another airline has abandoned, is really nothing like forcing a working airline to give up gates it's currently using (and has legal claim to; sorry Delta).

But once again, somebody gets paid to help you guys out. "See the pattern here?"

No, actually I don't see a pattern. Tell me exactly WHO got paid to help us out. Ever. Anywhere. So tell me, Bill-- What has Southwest done illegally or immorally to get ahead? Southwest never worked to kill another airline (American vs. Legend; American et al vs. Southwest in Dallas). Southwest has never tried to tell/force another airline where it can and cannot fly to or from (United/Continental vs. Southwest in Houston). Southwest has never paid a politician to create a protectionist law to hobble a specific airline to prevent competition, after losing its case in every court in the land (American/Jim Wright vs. Southwest).

STILL waiting for a specific example.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Oh snap! This Shiznet is getting real! (Thanks Bill for the laugh). Let's show those Corndogs some real "LUV" at Love Field with 5 daily 717s to Hotlanta! Hot damn!


Bye Bye---General Lee

That's a great idea, General. I absolutely agree that you should have 5 daily 717s from Dallas Love to Hotlanta. You just need a gate to do it. I got an idea: maybe you should either talk United into subleasing a gate to you (offer more money) or better yet, work to lift the gate restrictions that American forced on the airport. You know, instead of just bitching to/about Southwest about something we're not responsible for.

Just a thought. And hey, good luck!

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Thanks. Just want to be on the same page. You do see this came to be because SWA was "Texas only" and outside CAB control? It's why there had to be a Wright Amendment. SWA had no right or authority to leave Texas. And you can tell from glancing thru the link you provided, this was a close decision to begin with. For you to think your airline got to this point because you deserved it or earned it is a joke.

The CAB ceased to exist in 1978. There only "had" to be a WA, because American and friends didn't want to compete with Southwest on flights out of Texas, and just happened to own a powerful politician who could help them out.

And Southwest absolutely did have the right and authority to "leave Texas." Where the hell are you getting that? The laws said we could fly to wherever we wanted to, and that "right and authority" was affirmed by every friggin' court in the land, multiple times, up to and including the US Supreme Court.

So instead, after having their noses rubbed in it by the court system, the other airlines had their stooge, Speaker Wright, change the law to specifically hobble a competitor. Is that the "customary and proper way" to do things, Flop?

You've betrayed and abused every customary and proper way an airport and/or airline moves ahead.

"Customary and proper way"? Really? You mean like filing one clearly frivolous lawsuit after another, solely to deplete a smaller competitor's capital? Like criminal collusion (for which Continental Airlines and others were convicted of in criminal court) and price fixing? Like trying to tell a competitor where he is allowed to fly to, instead of concentrating on your own business model?

Those kind of things? Those are the "customary and proper ways" that you're so proud of, Flop?


Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

The CAB ceased to exist in 1978. There only "had" to be a WA, because American and friends didn't want to compete with Southwest on flights out of Texas, and just happened to own a powerful politician who could help them out.

Absolutely a false and misleading premise Bubba. You're really starting to lose it. Sounding like the rationale we hear out of the Easties in the USAir debacle. (Same difference I guess... Bunch of arrogant airline pilots can't live with the terms of an agreement)

You acknowledge the agreement between the city/airlines/and government as valid in both claiming it didn't pertain to you because you didn't sign it, and that swa only flew in Texas. You can't turn around then and act like it never existed when you want to fly outside of Texas. ("Jurisdiction" was the word I believe) Deregulation didn't cancel the agreements between cities to build airports.

And I'm sick of your excuse/cop out term "business model". You don't have a business model Bubba. I'm sorry. You ripped off your "culture" notion from PSA. All you've done is work real cheap for your first 20 years, then have spent most of the next 20 taking advantage of some real sh1tty things that happened to legacies. Your constant "business model" BS is like listening to an Eastie say "DOH" over and over as though it excuses them from an agreement they entered.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Absolutely a false and misleading premise Bubba. You're really starting to lose it. Sounding like the rationale we hear out of the Easties in the USAir debacle. (Same difference I guess... Bunch of arrogant airline pilots can't live with the terms of an agreement)

You acknowledge the agreement between the city/airlines/and government as valid in both claiming it didn't pertain to you because you didn't sign it, and that swa only flew in Texas. You can't turn around then and act like it never existed when you want to fly outside of Texas. ("Jurisdiction" was the word I believe) Deregulation didn't cancel the agreements between cities to build airports.

Flop, these things have exactly nothing to do with each other. Nothing. Also, there is absolutely nothing false in what I posted, and Southwest has not failed to live within the terms of any agreement it signed.

Yes, it's correct that we weren't party to the agreement the other airlines signed to get a bigger and better airport in Dallas. That's exactly correct, and was the legal basis that each court cited when summarily dismissing every lawsuit the other airlines threw at us.

And no, that agreement had nothing to do with interstate flying in the first place. That agreement said NOTHING concerning interstate flying whatsoever. When deregulation occurred, we were allowed to fly out of state due to the elimination of the CAB and its authority deciding who gets to fly where. Again, affirmed by every court in the land, and that legal ability and authority was not changed until the airlines got Speaker Wright to create a law to hobble us.

Please show me where you are getting this argument that the other airlines' agreement to move to the newer DFW from Love has anything whatsoever to do with interstate flying, Southwest Airlines, or the Wright Amendment. You can't, because it doesn't. You're using your indignation to bootstrap an argument for something else, where it doesn't exist.

And I'm sick of your excuse/cop out term "business model". You don't have a business model Bubba. I'm sorry. You ripped off your "culture" notion from PSA. All you've done is work real cheap for your first 20 years, then have spent most of the next 20 taking advantage of some real sh1tty things that happened to legacies. Your constant "business model" BS is like listening to an Eastie say "DOH" over and over as though it excuses them from an agreement they entered.

Actually, I don't care what you're sick of. Every company, including every airline, has a business model. We've been successful working within ours. Hey, at least our business model doesn't include committing actual crimes, like your airline's apparently does. It also doesn't include working to prevent other airlines from flying where they want, so they don't have to actually compete with them, again like yours does. We're happy to compete. It's the American way.

I fear that it's you that's losing it Flop; you're using nothing but pure indignation and hatred as an "argument," instead of actual facts. Try again. Show me specifically where Southwest failed to live up to any agreement it signed, or broke any law, or for that matter, how it screwed/or tried to screw any other airline, like your airline and many others have done.

Bubba

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Flop, these things have exactly nothing to do with each other. Nothing. Also, there is absolutely nothing false in what I posted, and Southwest has not failed to live within the terms of any agreement it signed.

Yes, it's correct that we weren't party to the agreement the other airlines signed to get a bigger and better airport in Dallas. That's exactly correct, and was the legal basis that each court cited when summarily dismissing every lawsuit the other airlines threw at us.

And no, that agreement had nothing to do with interstate flying in the first place. That agreement said NOTHING concerning interstate flying whatsoever. When deregulation occurred, we were allowed to fly out of state due to the elimination of the CAB and its authority deciding who gets to fly where. Again, affirmed by every court in the land, and that legal ability and authority was not changed until the airlines got Speaker Wright to create a law to hobble us.

Please show me where you are getting this argument that the other airlines' agreement to move to the newer DFW from Love has anything whatsoever to do with interstate flying, Southwest Airlines, or the Wright Amendment. You can't, because it doesn't. You're using your indignation to bootstrap an argument for something else, where it doesn't exist.

Actually, I don't care what you're sick of. Every company, including every airline, has a business model. We've been successful working within ours. Hey, at least our business model doesn't include committing actual crimes, like your airline's apparently does. It also doesn't include working to prevent other airlines from flying where they want, so they don't have to actually compete with them, again like yours does. We're happy to compete. It's the American way.

I fear that it's you that's losing it Flop; you're using nothing but pure indignation and hatred as an "argument," instead of actual facts. Try again. Show me specifically where Southwest failed to live up to any agreement it signed, or broke any law, or for that matter, how it screwed/or tried to screw any other airline, like your airline and many others have done.

Bubba

Crimes Bubba? Really? You went there huh....

 

[HowardBorden]

And you can tell from glancing thru the link you provided, this was a close decision to begin with.

My God you truly are delusional. How in any way shape or form can you infer from the courts conclusion that this was a close decision? Just because you agree with the appellants arguments, that does not in any way mean that the court agreed with their legal validity. The court wholeheartedly dismissed the arguments and admonished the repeated attempts to relitigate the previously settled matter. Please read the courts conclusion one more time carefully.

This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field. Precisely worded holdings and deference to state authorities by the federal judiciary have only generated more suits, appeals, and petitions for rehearings. Once again, we repeat, Southwest Airlines Co. has a federally declared right to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open. The narrowly drawn preliminary injunction of the district court correctly protects that right. It does so without violating principles of federalism, the federal law of res judicata, or the dictates of due process.

 

[SWA Bubba]

This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field. Precisely worded holdings and deference to state authorities by the federal judiciary have only generated more suits, appeals, and petitions for rehearings. Once again, we repeat, Southwest Airlines Co. has a federally declared right to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open. The narrowly drawn preliminary injunction of the district court correctly protects that right. It does so without violating principles of federalism, the federal law of res judicata, or the dictates of due process.

Flop,

"Narrowly drawn" doesn't mean that the decision was narrowly decided, as you inferred, but rather that it was narrow in scope, in that it was short and sweet; and unambiguous in that Southwest had the right to fly out of Love Field.

Hope that clears things up a little.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Crimes Bubba? Really? You went there huh....

I did go there, Bill (and it's true). Mainly because Flop can't stop himself from spouting BS slander about Southwest. When pressed, he can't ever actually show any facts or anything, but that doesn't stop him from his lies and distortions. It's actually kinda funny, when you compare most legacies' records of conduct with Southwest's.

Speaking of which, Bill, still waiting for you to explain how Southwest did you wrong.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Flop,

"Narrowly drawn" doesn't mean that the decision was narrowly decided, as you inferred, but rather that it was narrow in scope, in that it was short and sweet; and unambiguous in that Southwest had the right to fly out of Love Field.

Hope that clears things up a little.

Bubba

It's staring you all right in the face, every damn day and you can't acknowledge it. Even now, after the WA has supposedly been repealed, Love Field is limited to 20 gates and no international. That's because the case against what you've wanted and have been doing had merit. Just because you have a "business model" doesn't mean we discard proper agreements or ignore that you didn't sign something. You can pick at me, I'm not a lawyer* and I don't want to be one. Just take a long look at DAL's 10-7 page: 20 gates and no international. You lost. Not to American or Braniff, but to the notion that agreements and integrity eventually matter.

And now you're going to sit there and watch Delta turn the screws on the situation. Good for them.

*We are skilled labor, that's all. We fly airplanes full of cargo and people from a to b. You want to act like a lawyer or MBA (or even if you are one), good for you. Doesn't matter on our side of the door. When you buy into the idea it's ok for your employer or union to subvert a good faith deal or exploit a situation because of a "business model", you've gone awry. This is what's screwed up this profession the most over the years. Take a look at where we're at with USAir and with SWA and all this Texas airport business: agreements and integrity don't mean sh1t to people anymore.

Now Bubba: Show us all you're not the lowest form of pilot there is, and don't claim [bawl] "we didn't sign it though Flop!!!!"

 

[Flopgut]

My God you truly are delusional. How in any way shape or form can you infer from the courts conclusion that this was a close decision? Just because you agree with the appellants arguments, that does not in any way mean that the court agreed with their legal validity. The court wholeheartedly dismissed the arguments and admonished the repeated attempts to relitigate the previously settled matter. Please read the courts conclusion one more time carefully.

This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field. Precisely worded holdings and deference to state authorities by the federal judiciary have only generated more suits, appeals, and petitions for rehearings. Once again, we repeat, Southwest Airlines Co. has a federally declared right to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open. The narrowly drawn preliminary injunction of the district court correctly protects that right. It does so without violating principles of federalism, the federal law of res judicata, or the dictates of due process.

Maybe we can wrap this up pretty quick and agree on something? I've got to go get busy trying to find out if Houston's mayor is any relation to SWA execs. What you've selected to quote is from a time when SWA only flew in Texas, so the argument was over jurisdiction I don't think appealing 8 times to that loophole was excessive. Again: it was a loophole. So if the SWA argument is: Leave us alone, we didn't sign it and we don't leave Texas, how do you then end up getting to leave Texas?! Deregulation had zero to do with the Dallas airport agreements and in no way gave you a right to ignore it. The Wright Amendment had to be written for you to leave. Shoot, the guy did you a favor and you act like it's the worst thing ever.

3 times in 8 years. You read that one way, I read it another. My take is this: (and I think I'm the one with the correct context) To put that to the court 8 times was more a way to rub it in. Yeah, the court admonished the effort, but in doing so they were admonishing themselves just as much. It was embarrassing to the court to make that decision and 8 times it was rubbed in their face. They were given 8 chances to do the right thing, and they didn't.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Exhibit A Ladies and Gents....the Fix in on (wink wink nod nod)


Main road into Love may be renamed for Southwest?s Herb Kelleher


By TOM BENNING Staff Writer
Published: 07 October 2014 10:38 PM
Updated: 08 October 2014 12:01 AM


The main entrance to Dallas Love Field could soon be officially named after Southwest Airlines? famous co-founder.
The Dallas City Council will vote Wednesday on renaming Cedar Springs Road north of Mockingbird Lane as Herb Kelleher Way.
Kelleher, a living legend in the airline industry, was Southwest?s president and CEO for almost 20 years, and its executive chairman for 30. The 83-year-old still spends much of his time in Dallas, where he keeps an office at Southwest?s headquarters.
The renaming would honor ?Kelleher?s contribution to the airline industry, the state of Texas and the city of Dallas,? a council document says.
Brad Hawkins, a Southwest Airlines spokesman, said the company ?could not be more pleased with the ... truly monumental honor to Herb.?
He added: ?Hundreds of millions of Southwest customers have benefited from the purposed work he inspired and then led for decades. The people of Southwest, past and present, are thrilled that our home airport will forever be connected to the salty wit and boundless sage of our founder.?
In 2011, the City Council gave the stretch of road the ceremonial designation Herb Kelleher Way. But that action only added honorary signs next to the regular Cedar Springs Road signs.
The latest proposal, if approved, would replace the Cedar Springs markers at a cost of up to $10,000. Because the road isn?t technically a city street ? it?s airport property ? the renaming doesn?t go through the city?s normal process.
The designation comes at a busy time for Dallas, Love Field and Southwest Airlines.
In May, the city awarded two Love Field gates to Virgin America, despite objections from Southwest. But last month, the city booted Delta Air Lines from the airport, giving Southwest more flexibility in potentially accessing another gate.
Then, of course, there?s the expiration next week of the contentious Wright amendment, which has restricted air travel out of the airport.
That?s a major boon for Southwest, which controls nearly all of Love Field?s 20 gates, as there will be a greater selection of nonstop flights. City officials have likewise cheered the development, given Love Field?s proximity to downtown Dallas.

 

[HowardBorden]

What you've selected to quote is from a time when SWA only flew in Texas, so the argument was over jurisdiction I don't think appealing 8 times to that loophole was excessive. Again: it was a loophole. So if the SWA argument is: Leave us alone, we didn't sign it and we don't leave Texas, how do you then end up getting to leave Texas?! Deregulation had zero to do with the Dallas airport agreements and in no way gave you a right to ignore it. The Wright Amendment had to be written for you to leave. Shoot, the guy did you a favor and you act like it's the worst thing ever.

3 times in 8 years. You read that one way, I read it another. My take is this: (and I think I'm the one with the correct context) To put that to the court 8 times was more a way to rub it in. Yeah, the court admonished the effort, but in doing so they were admonishing themselves just as much. It was embarrassing to the court to make that decision and 8 times it was rubbed in their face. They were given 8 chances to do the right thing, and they didn't.

One last time I am going to show you through legal decisions that your assertions are completely incorrect and without legal merit according to the US Judicial system charged with making these determinations.

These are your words: "What you've selected to quote is from a time when SWA only flew in Texas, so the argument was over jurisdiction I don't think appealing 8 times to that loophole was excessive. Again: it was a loophole.

There was no loophole, there was only specific legal precedents that precluded SWA from being banned from operation at Dallas Love.

On November 11 and 12, 1968, the cities jointly adopted the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance authorizing the issuance of Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Joint Revenue Bonds for the financing of the new airport. The 1968 Ordinance provides, among other things, that the cities: ". . . shall take such steps as may be necessary, appropriate and legally permissible (without violating presently outstanding legal commitments or covenants prohibiting such action), to provide for the orderly, efficient and effective phase-out at Love Field, Redbird, GSIA and Meacham Field, of any and all Certificated Air Carrier Services, and to transfer such activities to the Regional Airport effective upon the beginning of operations at the Regional Airport."

On June 18, 1971, defendant Southwest Airlines Co. commenced its purely intrastate operations, as a "commuter airline," between Love Field, Dallas, and Houston and San Antonio, pursuant to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 22 issued by the Texas Aeronautics Commission (TAC). Southwest's Certificate stated that it was authorized to serve the Dallas-Fort Worth region through "any" airport in the area.

On October 20, 1971, Southwest Airlines formally advised the Regional Airport Board that it intended to stay at Love Field when the eight (8) CAB certificated airlines moved their operations from Love Field to the Regional Airport. Southwest also withdrew from its brief participation in planning sessions regarding the transfer of services from Love Field to the Regional Airport, and declined to execute the letter agreement with the Airport Board that had previously been signed by the CAB carriers.

On March 6, 1972, Southwest Airlines filed with the Regional Airport Board an instrument called a "Petition for Exemption, or Alternatively, Application For Waiver," by which it sought a determination from the Airport Board that Southwest was not required by the 1968 Concurrent Bond Ordinance, and could not lawfully be required, to move to the Regional Airport, or, alternatively, that a waiver of the transfer requirement should be granted under Section 9.5(A) of the Ordinance on the basis of an "overriding public need." After holding this Petition for three months without acting upon it, the Airport Board decided, on June 6, 1972, that the CAB rulings in the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Investigation deprived the Airport Board of jurisdiction to consider and act upon Southwest's Petition. That same day the two Cities and the Airport Board filed their Complaint against Southwest, commencing this lawsuit.

Among other contentions Plaintiffs argued in their Complaint that they were required by the rulings of the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Investigation to transfer all certificated air carrier services to the new Regional Airport, including the intrastate services of Southwest Airlines. (1) the Civil Aeronautics Board has no jurisdiction over a purely intrastate airline such as Southwest; (2) it never attempted to assert any such jurisdiction in its interlocutory orders entered in the Regional Airport Investigation; (3) it has jurisdiction only over "air carriers" engaged in "interstate air transportation"; and (4) it has no jurisdiction over cities or their airports, as such, pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, the Civil Aeronautics Board is authorized to exercise regulatory jurisdiction only over air carriers engaged in "interstate air transportation"

The Plaintiffs have again attempted to use a statute to justify conduct which that statute expressly prohibits. If the CAB carriers are precluded from serving Love Field after the opening of the Regional Airport, such preclusion results from action by the CAB, which has no jurisdiction over Southwest, or from the voluntary Letter Agreements between the Plaintiffs and the CAB carriers. The CAB carriers have not been excluded from Love Field by the Plaintiffs, and, therefore, Southwest's presence at Love Field after the opening of the Regional Airport can in no way be considered the prohibited grant of an exclusive right. Southwest has not voluntarily relinquished its right to serve Love Field and that right has not been limited or restricted by any regulatory agency with authority over Southwest.

It is the conclusion of this Court that none of the Plaintiffs have the power to deny Southwest access to Love Field for any aspect of its operations. It is likewise beyond the power of Plaintiffs, or any of them, to require Southwest to provide any services through the Regional Airport upon its opening. The bases for this conclusion are numerous, but their number should not detract from the fact that each ground is, in and of itself, sufficient to preclude Plaintiffs from denying Southwest access to Love Field.

Love Field is public facility and installation. There is no dispute among the parties to this case that Love Field has over the years been the recipient of federal funds, property and land through various federal aid programs, and that it is subject to federal prohibitions against unjust discrimination and the grant of an exclusive right.

Most egregious of all is the distinction the 1968 Ordinance makes between the carriage of intrastate passengers by Southwest Airlines and the carriage of such passengers by its CAB certificated competitors. As discussed above, this is a per se discrimination clearly violative of the federal statutes.

The Texas Aeronautics Commission has intervened in this matter and adopted the contentions of Southwest Airlines. It most specifically urges that the Plaintiffs' attempted exclusion of Southwest from Love Field is illegal as being, first, beyond the power of the Plaintiffs, and, second, in direct conflict with regulations promulgated pursuant to the laws of the State of Texas.

Moreover, the conflict between state and municipality in the instant case is even more direct. The TAC granted Southwest a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to serve Dallas, Texas, through "any" airport in the area.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes: (1) That determinations of public convenience and necessity respecting intrastate air commerce are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the TAC; (2) that exclusion of Southwest Airlines from Love Field constitutes an impermissible assumption by Plaintiffs of the power to amend Southwest Airlines' certificate of public convenience and necessity, contrary to the exclusive powers over such certificates conferred upon the Texas Aeronautics Commission by the Texas Aeronautics Act.

Finally, the Plaintiffs are prohibited from excluding Southwest Airlines from Love Field by prior legal commitments and covenants entered into by the City of Dallas.The exclusion of Southwest Airlines from Love Field would breach each of these covenants. The fact that circumstances may have changed and that Dallas would now like to ignore its prior covenants does not provide an adequate basis for the City's proposed action. Such obligations are binding and the City must adhere to them.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19731386371FSupp1015_11220