You've got the SWA talking points down Bubba. But there are two sides to a story and I'm a student of both. Fact: NONE of the Dallas litigation would ever have happened if SWA had gone to DFW. And, none of this litigation would be going on in Houston either, if SWA would go to IAH. You've had and expected special treatment since you launched, and it's all come from the influential Texans close to SWA from day one. 600 Braniff guys ended up at CAL and I flew with many of them. They remembered the day that SWA had the sheriff come out to Love Field and close them down. Braniff was forced back to DFW because SWA said they should not be allowed to serve both airports.
Uh, they're not talking points, Flop, they're history, and you're apparently not a very good student. The original several years' worth of litigation was to keep us from flying
at all, before DFW was even built. The last was to stop us from flying out of Texas, after our legal status at Love was already clearly established. So much for your claim that it was all only to get us to fly out of DFW.
Even the part that
was nominally aimed to accomplish that goal, was frivilous crap, because it was perfectly legal for us to fly out of Love. It was in accordance with the laws and in accordance with the FAA's rules; it was just not in accordance with what the other airlines wanted us to do (which of course, was to die). Regardless, we didn't want or get special treatment, just to fly where we wanted
under the law. And you know what? Every freakin' court in the land, up to and including the Texas and US Supreme Courts agreed with us. What exact "special treatment" are you alleging we got? Are you really claiming that tiny little Southwest (in those days we were nothing) got favors from the Supreme Court? Maybe Herb had something on them! :bawling:
As far as Braniff goes, either you have the worst memory in the world, or you're just making crap up. Or to be charitable, maybe the former Braniff guys were yanking your chain. Either way, it never happened. Come up with a reference or it's crap. Think about it: Southwest had just proven the legal precedent that anyone could fly out of Love. Braniff was 15 times our size then, and had probably 100 times the legal budget. You don't think one of their first year law interns couldn't make a case for them to stay? Tiny little Southwest really sent massive Braniff scurrying away with their tail between their legs? With the precedent set, we would have been
crushed in any court in the land, if we tried to keep someone from flying at Love. That ridiculous claim just begs incredulity. Like I pointed out earlier, other airlines have come and gone at Love, of their own accord, and that's been just fine with Southwest.
What Amercan did to Legend was an homage to Braniff. If you didn't grasp that then you haven't been at SWA too long. Yeah, Legend got put down with extreme prejudice. It was done that way to remind everyone what would/should have happened to SWA. Legend did everything right, except for one thing: They didn't have a plan for eliminating their competition from the airport. That is KEY to what SWA really does. It's not simply utilizing a secondary airport. It's being able to manuver that airport into some form of an exclusive situation. That is the larger truth as to why SWA started out as a Texas-only airline. And why the WA was continuously adjusted to no more and no less than exactly what SWA needed.
An "homage to Braniff"? That has to rank up with one of the silliest claims ever made on FI. American Airlines cares only about American Airlines. Not somebody else's former company. They would have done exactly what they did (kill Legend) even if their similar efforts to kill us years earlier had been successful. And really? Destroying another company, putting workers on the street, and ruining investors' lives is an "homage"?
Legend's plan was the same as ours: to pursue their particular business model, and to survive the onslaught of frivilous legal crap designed to kill them, laid upon them by the legacy airlines that didn't want to compete with someone who had a different, and possibly better, business model. Your vision of history would be funny if it wasn't so sad, Flop. It's the legacy airlines whose "eliminate the competition" strategy includes prolonged frivilous legal BS aimed
solely at depleting a new company's capital. Southwest has never done that. It was legacies, Texas International (later Continental) and Braniff, that committed
actual crimes in their attempt to kill us. Southwest has never done that. Where do you get the balls to accuse Southwest of any of this?
Southwest didn't "eliminate" competition, we just wanted to fly and let the consumer decide. Well, a lot of the consumers seem to like us, and like our business plan. True capitalism and consumer competition at work.
Bubba