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
