Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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.

Again, your words: 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.

Again, I will show you that deregulation had everything to do with SWA being allowed to leave Texas and Wright Amendment served only to restrict Southwest's ability to expand in the post deregulation era.

A leading scholar on public utility deregulation, Mr. Alfred E. Kahn led the move to deregulate U.S. airlines as chief of the now-defunct Civil Aeronautics Board in 1977-78.

"Historically, the board has insisted on second-guessing decisions by individual carriers to offer price reductions," Mr. Kahn said in 1978 as so-called "super-saver fares" swept the industry. "During the last several months we have been abandoning the paternalistic role, leaving the introduction of discount fares increasingly to the management." President Jimmy Carter embraced deregulation as a means of stimulating economic growth. Mr. Kahn was largely instrumental in garnering the support needed to push through the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 - the first thorough dismantling of a comprehensive system of government control since 1935.

By letting airlines instead of the government decide routes and fares, Mr. Kahn was credited with enabling a dramatic drop in airline fares and a boom in air travel over the last 30 years. Deregulation opened the way for such carriers as People Express and JetBlue, and allowed low-cost Southwest Airlines - which had up until then operated only within Texas, outside of the aeronautics board's reach - to expand nationwide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122905032.html


As part of the airport's funding arrangement, the cities adopted the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance, which, among other things, created the DFW Airport Board and required the cities to phase out existing air transportation operations at their local airport facilities and transfer them to the new DFW Airport. To fulfill the requirements of the Bond Ordinance, the DFW Board entered into contracts with the existing federally regulated air carriers requiring them to relocate their services to the newly constructed DFW Airport. After the contracts had been signed, but prior to the completion of construction, Southwest Airlines began operating intrastate commuter flights from Dallas's Love Field. Shortly thereafter, Southwest informed the DFW Airport Board that it intended to remain at Love Field even after DFW Airport was completed. Southwest's decision led the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, in conjunction with the Airport Board, to seek a declaratory judgment excluding Southwest from operating flights from Love Field once the new airport was operational. The District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that because Southwest was flying only intrastate flights, the CAB did not have jurisdiction over their activities. Thus, according to the court, Southwest, by virtue of its purely intrastate operations, could not be excluded from utilizing Love Field as long as the airport remained operational.

In 1978, however, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which included a provision allowing automatic entry into interstate aviation markets provided that the carrier seeking entry was fit, willing, and able to comply with all existing rules, regulations, and requirements of the CAB. Southwest promptly petitioned and was granted permission to operate interstate flights from Love Field to New Orleans, Louisiana. The expansion of Southwest's service from Love Field to interstate markets, however, prompted concerns from local officials about DFW's financial stability because it appeared that the local officials were powerless to prevent Southwest from expanding service.


" EXISTING STATE AUTHORITY
"(c) When any intrastate air carrier which on August 1, 1977, was operating primarily in intrastate air transporta-
tion regulated by a State receives the authority to provide interstate air transportation, any authority received
from such State shall be considered to be part of its authority to provide air transportation received from the
Board under title IV of this Act, until modified, suspended, amended, or terminated as provided under such title.
" DEFINITION
"(d) For purposes of this section, the term ' State' means any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any territory
or possession of the United States.".
http://apps.americanbar.org/antitrust/at-committees/at-tei/air-resources/Pub_L_95-504.pdf
 
Last edited:
Do any of the DAL (and other legacy) or SWA pilots really believe they're going to change each other's minds on this?

This whole thread is tantamount to plastering your car's bumper with stickers with the hope of fixing the world in your vision.

...but it's entertaining nonetheless.
 
Do any of the DAL (and other legacy) or SWA pilots really believe they're going to change each other's minds on this?
I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind, that is futile.

However, if someone feels the need to post their unsubstantiated opinions as factual, I will not let those assertions go unchallenged with easily verifiable facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

What I have posted are judicial rulings on the matter, they are not MY opinions, they are the opinions of the courts. You can choose to disagree with what the courts have mandated, but that in no way changes the validity of the courts rulings.
 
I'll grant you that Howard, so long as it is agreed that legitimacy and propriety are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.
 
I'll grant you that Howard, so long as it is agreed that legitimacy and propriety are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.

Why don't you write so everybody can understand what you are saying. You might be impressed with yourself but most people on this site have no idea what you are saying. Care to try again?
 
Here, I'll give you the 7th grade version - Umm, just 'cause it's legal or affirmed by a court (that means the court said it was "okay") - doesn't mean it wasn't pretty shady. I could bring up a prime example of that, but that fight already fills up the remainder of the majors forum.
 
Here, I'll give you the 7th grade version - Umm, just 'cause it's legal or affirmed by a court (that means the court said it was "okay") - doesn't mean it wasn't pretty shady. I could bring up a prime example of that, but that fight already fills up the remainder of the majors forum.

I agree


In the end OJ. ended up in jail anyway. :)
 
Interesting... Without doing any research, because I'm lazy, can anyone cite another case where a city has asked a major airline to leave it's airport? Usually cities are clamoring for more competition, not demanding less.
 
Interesting... Without doing any research, because I'm lazy, can anyone cite another case where a city has asked a major airline to leave it's airport? Usually cities are clamoring for more competition, not demanding less.

I heard Dominos Pizza requested it...


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
I'll grant you that Howard, so long as it is agreed that legitimacy and propriety are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.
We live in a country where the judiciary is allowed to interpret our Constitution and how federal, state and local statutes comply with the document which is the basis for all of our laws. If we choose to change this basic tenet of our legal system it will take a constitutional amendment to do so.

Does the judiciary always get it right, most likely not which is why we have an appeals process. This issue at Love has been litigated and re-litigated ad nauseam always with the same result. If your assertion is that it has been incorrectly adjudicated each and every time the multiple courts including the Texas Supreme Court and The United States Supreme court has weighed in then I guess you yourself can decide it lacks propriety.

.
 
Here, I'll give you the 7th grade version - Umm, just 'cause it's legal or affirmed by a court (that means the court said it was "okay") - doesn't mean it wasn't pretty shady. I could bring up a prime example of that, but that fight already fills up the remainder of the majors forum.


Read this or the college version and you will see how every large company in America operates. I would even x out the term "pretty shady" and use the term "fought for by lobbyist". It takes money (over and under the table) for a large business to "force it's will". Some are trying to convince that there is only one shady company, but anyone with half a brain knows every airline in the world needs/uses money to force their will over the competitors.
 
I was thinking more 2014, than 1978.

But I'm glad you agree.
 
Last edited:
Hey Howard: I'm not going to quote the post. Again, you've missed the context of what you quoted. The Dallas airport agreement transcended deregulation. Case in point: Legend. They were post deregulation and still had to do <56 seats.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom