Originally Posted by
Flys135s
I think you use the word "forced" pretty loosely. The legacy carriers would not have moved unless they thought they could make more money at DFW.
That is simply not true. None of them wanted to move out of the close in Love field. They wanted Love expanded. But government refused. Those airlines had a political gun to their heads. Their choice was to do what the government demanded, or face intolerable restrictions that didn't exist previously. The word "forced" is exactly correct.
Originally Posted by
Flys135s
Love Field had reached its limit and expansion wasn't an option due to politics, public pressure, etc... The legacies could have stayed, but they would have stagnated.
That's incorrect. The airlines would have faced shrinkage and operational restrictions targeted toward forcing them to leave. Government was the ultimate "landlord from hell" at a time when the industry hadn't yet been deregulated.
Originally Posted by
Flys135s
It didn't fit their future plans, but DFW did so they made a choice and agreed to move.
Totally incorrect. No airlines' future plans include shrinkage and operational restriction. They had no choice but to move because government had the power to break them if they didn't see the light.
Originally Posted by
Flys135s
The option of staying wasn't attractive, but so what.
So what? If the federal and local governments said SWA had to cut their DAL operation in half, you wouldn't be saying so what. That unattractiveness would result in SWA saying a lot more than so what.
Originally Posted by
Flys135s
They just failed to shut the door behind them.
That is true. That's the part that neither governments nor airlines foresaw. Everyone assumed they knew all the airline industry players, and would be able to keep the noise out of Love field with their agreement of 1970. Nobody foresaw a new airline starting up the very next year to fill the void left by the contractual forced departures of the majors.
Originally Posted by
Flys135s
They weren't cheated or swindled, they just overlooked the possibility of outside competition. = poor business.
Correct, but all sides felt cheated and swindled because nobody foresaw an upstart airline taking advantage of a loophole.
Originally Posted by
Flys135s
The Wright Ammendment was their way of limiting competition and mitigating the damage of their failed planning.
No, it was to limit SWA's enormous competitive advantage attained at the expense of the previous tenants. The Wright Amendment leveled the playing field as much as was possible given the situation.
Originally Posted by
Flys135s
No goverment can force a company to operate somewhere it doesn't want to go.
Yes they can...anytime they want. Either through eminent domain, or regulation. In this case government made it so impossible, they effectively forced them out.
Originally Posted by
Flys135s
The alternatives may not be as attractive, but it's a choice. In this case the alternative of operating out of a small field with limited growth fit Southwest perfectly. Nothing unfair about that at all.
No question it fit SWA perfectly. It fit the others perfectly as well. Having no competition also fit SWA perfectly.
You guys were apparently told a story of David and Goliath during indoc. The story of little SWA slaying the Goliath of government and major airlines. Sorry to bust the fable, but the truth is you exist only because of a series of enormous good fortune and loophole exploitation. Good on you. But you're no David and Goliath story. You're the story of placing a roulette wheel bet on 36 black, and the marble stopping on 36 black.
Carl