A "reasonable" alternate approach to the LAWA-ONT controversy

We have a tendency to seek information from people who are just like us. When we hear about an American woman who was charged with murder in an Italian court, we believe the American sources that tell us that there is no credible evidence against the woman. When we hear about all of the stuff that Americans are doing to combat Ebola, we wonder why the Commies aren't doing anything.

A similar myopia exists regarding Los Angeles World Airports' control over Ontario International Airport. We KNOW that LAWA hasn't been investing in ONT, and we therefore KNOW that LAWA is the reason for ONT's decline.

Reason Foundation readers, however, have access to a different perspective.

Ontario city officials blame LAWA for neglecting ONT, as if airport managers could force airlines to increase service to an airport, when this is clearly—both as a matter of business decision-making and the law—entirely an airline decision (subject, of course, to being able to lease gate space and being willing to pay what it costs). Ontario's case also ignores the general phenomenon of smaller hubs generally losing service during the past 10 years....

The best performing medium hub was New Orleans Louis Armstrong, up 6.59%. But the worst performer was Memphis, down a whopping 31.51%. And Memphis has no large hub nearby that can be blamed for stealing traffic!

The post, which notes the court ruling that the statute of limitations had long since expired on the 1967 sale of ONT to LAWA, concludes with this editorial comment:

Still pending is the rest of the lawsuit, which alleges breach of contract and violation of fiduciary duty by LAWA; that case, alas, will be heard by a jury later this year.

"Alas." Not what a patriotic Ontarian wants to hear.