Originally Posted by shoelu (Post 1522001)

The DOJ disagrees. In fact they mention SWA by name.

"The Reagan National and LaGuardia slots will be sold under procedures approved by the department. Under the terms of the settlement, JetBlue at Reagan National and Southwest at LaGuardia will be given the opportunity to acquire the slots they currently lease from Amercan. The remaining 88 slots at Reagan National and 24 slots at LaGuardia plus any JetBlue or Southwest decline to acquire will be grouped into bundles, taking into account specific slot times to ensure commercially viable and competitive patterns of service for the recipients of the divested slots. The parties will divest these slot bundles and all rights and interests in any gates and other ground facilities (e.g., ticket counters, baggage handling facilities, office space and loading bridges) as necessary to support the use of the purchased slots."

USDOJ: Justice Department Requires US Airways and American Airlines to Divest Facilities at Seven Key Airports to Enhance System-wide Competition and Settle Merger Challenge

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1522157)

Uh, we have government agencies and legislation to ensure fair competition. It not only should be fair, it MUST be fair. We'd have nothing but monopolies if fair competition wasn't the cornerstone of our capitalistic system.

Carl

Originally Posted by Flys135s (Post 1522220)

So would you call the Wright Amendment a piece of government legislation that ensured fair competition?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1522235)

Yes. Including the fact that it had a termination date.

Carl

Originally Posted by corp4wn (Post 1522244)

Oh Carl.....knower of all things.... why is there a "termination date"?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1522235)

Yes. Including the fact that it had a termination date.

Carl

Originally Posted by Flys135s (Post 1522267)

I always looked at the Wright amendment as a barrier to market entry specifically targeted at an upstart airline that threatened the profits of the legacy carriers. It was intended to restrict competition, not level the playing field. I find it ironic that those same carriers who sponsored that legislation are now concerned with doing what is"fair"

There was nothing fair about the Wright amendment, it was just about making the "wright" campaign donation.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1522259)

Because allowing SWA the monopoly at Love field forever would be unfair competition. When the Wright Amendment ends next year, it will have allowed SWA over 30 years of monopolistic advantage while it grew into a competitive entity. Fairness dictates a termination date at some point. The Wright Amendment did that.

Carl

Originally Posted by Flys135s (Post 1522293)

The Wright Amendment didn't guarantee Southwest a monopoly at DAL. It restricted their market access out of DAL.

Originally Posted by Flys135s (Post 1522293)

If it was such a good deal for Southwest why would they be opposed to it and American in favor of it?

Originally Posted by Flys135s (Post 1522293)

If the termination date was inserted to end Southwest's "advantage" why would Southwest spend so much money and campaign so hard to repeal it?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1522305)

It did both. The restricted access at Love and Meacham was the reason airlines were forced to sign the agreement to move out to DFW. The assumption by all parties was that only short duration commuter flights would ever operate at Love again. Then SWA was created and took advantage of the nearly empty Love field. The other airlines were angry and the various governments were too. They wanted SWA to move to DFW like everyone else. SWA sued under the opinion they couldn't be made to move to DFW because they weren't signators to the original agreement to move. SWA won that suit and were allowed to grow without competition. That's what created the SWA monopoly at Love.



Because Southwest is large enough and healthy enough to no longer need monopoly status to survive. Now that they're large enough, they no longer want the very law that protected them because they now don't want the temporary restrictions that were included.



See above.

Carl