That's your personal opinion. Mine is that it was indeed a guaranteed monopoly, and good business...for SWA.
You do realize that Wright restricted NO ONE from operating at Love. Those that signed an agreement to leave Love did so of their own free will.
And at a much more close-in airport to one of the nations largest business capitals. A distinct advantage that SWA used to build a strong airline without the problems associated with competition.
Again, those that signed an agreement to leave Love did so of their own free will. They left to occupy a newer, larger and modern facility. They were not forced to leave they were asked if they would sign an agreement to move to the new airport when completed because there was no legal way to force them to leave, just as there was no legal ability to force SWA to DFW because they did not voluntarily agree to move their operation.
Again, that's because those airlines were promised by the very governments that forced them to move that nothing but small commuter type aircraft would utilize Love field. When SWA won the lawsuit to stay in Love, and the majors were prohibited from moving back because of the agreement they signed before SWA's existence, they wanted to level the playing field for operating in Dallas. You call it being hamstrung, but the rest of the legislative world saw it as an attempt to level the competitive playing field.
Again your simply wrong. There was no way to FORCE anyone from Love! Those that decided to leave did so because they felt that the newer and larger facility would better suit there operations. The reason they were ASKED to sign the agreement to move their operations is exactly because they could not be forced to leave and the community did not want to build an airport that no one decided to use.
I think that's probably correct, but SWA sure didn't fight the majors prohibition from moving back to Love. That's the point. The Wright Amendment leveled the paying a little bit.
Please enlighten me as to what legal argument SWA could make to strike down a contractual agreement that was entered into by other business entities?
It did favor SWA and here's how: The reason the Wright Amendment was even conceived is that the US and city governments were looking at lawsuits from the majors who were pressured then swindled into moving out of Love. The majors would have almost certainly won those suits and be allowed to return their loud long range airplanes back to Love. That would have killed the SWA baby in its crib. The Wright Amendment leveled the competitive playing field in Dallas, and was the incentive for majors to stop fighting for a return to Love. A return that would have crushed SWA.
In what court of law is it possible to simply say: "We signed an agreement, but now we don't feel like it anymore." There was no legal argument for the majors to re neg on a deal that was signed without coercion. All signatories to the agreement to leave Love did so because they felt it was in their own best interests. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth felt that they needed a larger more modern facility to serve their growing economy and felt that the Love facility could not grow large enough to meet the need of a larger airport. The carriers based at Love also saw the need for a newer larger facility to suit their growth in the future. If the intent was that Love would never offer passenger service and thus compete with DFW, then that should have been included in the voluntary agreement signed by the airlines. Your assertion that these major airlines were somehow "duped" into leaving Love is incorrect, they agreed to sign a document ensuring their departure because they felt it was in their own best interest. That is the only reason they agreed to leave because they could not be forced.