BusTalk

[traildriver]

I had always thought the case of Mt. Hood vs GL was before the ICC, and they were the ones that made that ultimately unfair ruling. Whether they were biased also due to the SP, who knows?

[HwyHaulier]

traildriver -

Prof. Jackson in his work, "Hounds Of The Road" has a full chapter about it. Yes, you are correct, the entire business in an ICC Case.
I remain a tad suspicious of the whole regulatory crowd of years back, and suspect they were all drinking together! The book, above,
should be readily located, and available at most modest charge. Else, "Doc" Rushing may have distilled thinking on the donnybrook...

In my own years of door to door combat with the ICC/ PUC/ PSC cabal, I was in the service of Consolidated Freightways. It had its
early origins in ESPEE money. Founder Leland James sold his bus operation, "Pacific Stage" (Portland) to the railroad, ca. 1929. The
proceeds funded the CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT LINES buy. So, even decades later, CFWY simpatico to ESPEE, as well as several other
rail lines. (Notably, ROCK ISLAND and MILW ROAD)...

......................Vern...................

[traildriver]

I did as you suggested and reread that chapter in "Hounds of the Road".
While Mr. Jackson has provided a much detailed and scholarly history of the case, I believe that his conclusion that justice was served, leaves out some background details that leads me to believe otherwise.

Originally, Mount Hood Stages was another small family owned regional busline, that like many others across the country, shared a very nice relationship with Greyhound. Shared terminals, timetable references, and even as mentioned, thru interlining of equipment to provide no-change-of-bus service to convenience travelers. All was going well until Mount Hood decided to join the rival National Trailways Bus System. I don't know whether they initiated this, or were pursuaded into it by the other members, but as a result, they achieved route extension all the way to Salt Lake City, and instead of being just a feeder route to and from Greyhound, were now suddenly competing head to head with them.
Understandably, Greyhound was upset at this turn of events. They did as any business would have done, and took steps to compete for traffic with a rival, instead of sharing and feeding an ally.
Suddenly, Pacific Trailways (as was now Mount Hood's trade name), started to lose business. They wanted to 'eat their cake, and have it too', to maintain the status quo with Greyhound locally, and take long-haul business away from Greyhound. Greyhound was having none of that, and fought back. Pacific Trailways lost the battle, and went crying to the government for relief. The rest is as Mr. Jackson described it.

[HwyHaulier]

traildriver -

Great to see your added comment in the Mount Hood matter. I agree, an apparent agenda here the smaller carrier
wanted to, "...have it both ways..."

For the regulatory scheme of the era to work, there was a tacit (largely unspoken) agreement that a carrier did not
engage in such behavior. It wasn't the printed, "red letter" law of actual regulations. Rather, self imposed conduct
by the carriers. It was a sticky area, as it implied obvious, "restraint of trade" concerns.

Somehow, the regulators had it in their heads they were to do the policy decisions. Carriers were thought barred
from such decision making at, say, within industry golf club dates, or business lunches.

Added note: http://vlex.com/vid/stages-trailways-greyhound-38430455
Oh, for Heaven's Sakes! Note dates. This played right into the "Anti-Trust" and "price fixing" hysteria leading up to
de-regulation. Perhaps Jackson may have wanted to think on that potboiler? (Some of this has gotta' be thought
out, recognizing other contemporary events!)

Misc.: I was not acquainted with Counsel of record. Surprised it was not Motor Carrier Lawyers I knew in Portland
and San Francisco. In addition, note Mount Hood started its plaint in 1964. It goes a long way in explaining some
troubles at CFWY with its own ICC Finance Cases.

........................Vern......................

[traildriver]

One of the points proven in their litigation by Mt. Hood, was that Greyhound's "all-Greyhound" routing from San Francisco to Spokane via Portland took several hours longer to travel than the shorter joint routing via Klamath Falls and Biggs.
A few years later however, when most of the Interstate highways were completed, Greyhound put on an express bus on the route via Portland, and it easily beat the jointly operated thru bus between the endpoints. I wish I still had the timetables from that era to prove it.
Of course by then it was a moot point, as Greyhound had already lost the case. But maybe it was just ego wanting to 'show-off' what they were capable of.

[roymanning2000]

If I recall correctly, in the Mount Hood Stages case, Greyhound had previously agreed to certain protections favoring Mount Hood as a condition of Mount Hood withdrawing its protest of Greyhound acquiring other several bus lines.

Greyhound performed as it was supposed to for awhile, then quit. They did not ask the ICC or any regulatory body for relief from these conditions. They just did it. Greyhound arbitrarily stopped doing those things figuring Mount Hood would just roll over. They were wrong and paid the price. A very high price.

Over on YahooGroups, there is a group called Trailways Bus Driver. One of the moderators there is Jon Hobein, who was with Pacific Trailways for part of the time this case was being litigated. His thoughts on the matter can be found in posts there. I believe they also appear in a history of Pacific Trailways at the Jon's Trailways History Corner site.

Also, of interest, may be the decision of the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, which gives a synopsis of the matter.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/508/508.F2d.529.74-1124.html

Roy

[traildriver]

I am not disputing the facts of the case, which are very clear as to Greyhounds guilt. I am only saying that the case leaves out the rest of the story that motivated Greyhound to do what they did. Not a valid excuse, but I still feel that Greyhound was unfairly penalized utimately.

One of the points made earlier was how Mr. Niskanen so loved the business. That he refused to sell out to Greyhound because of that.
Well IIRC, when he finally got to collect the big award from the courts, he promptly disposed of Pacific Trailways.

[HwyHaulier]

One of the difficulties with the record in the Mount Hood disputes? Note the dates of when it is said to have all started,
and the final and closing actions. It was hardly a prompt and timely decision. It dragged on long enough, the intercity
bus business had very much changed.

..........................Vern.......................

[mackbuses]

Up in my neck of the woods, the old Central Greyhound ran a suburban route that dated back to the 30's up till the early 60's. It was a line that ran from Albany to Schenectady that paralleled the old Schenectady Railway's later Schenectady Transportation main line's Route 5 service. Back in the late 50's my father held this run in the winter for about five years. Greyhound operated three trips a day, six days a week with no service on Sundays. No suburban buses, they ran it with silversides and 4103's and the driver made change and money went into the envelope... In 1969 they sold off this line to the city of Albany. As I can remember it never carried much...

Dave Dearstyne