Opinion ID: 421082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Guilford's Intent to Maintain Present Service

Text: 115 A second major factor leading the ICC to conclude that the merger would not affect Canadian National's service was that the record gave no indication that Guilford [229 U.S.App.D.C. 40] intended to downgrade service at the Danville and Yarmouth interchanges. 366 I.C.C. at 352. We think this factor is entitled to little if any weight. 116 First, the record shows only that Guilford has no present intent to downgrade interchange service. Guilford made no promises concerning the future. Thus, Guilford's owner, Mr. Mellon, when asked if he would give Guilford's assurance that it would preserve service at Danville and Yarmouth Junctions, gave an equivocal answer--[i]f the economic circumstances are somewhat what they are today. 44 Moreover, Guilford opposed Canadian National's request for conditions, thus reserving for itself the right to decrease service in the future. 117 Second, as the Commission itself has recently recognized, self-serving statements by a merging railroad's officers are entitled to little credence. See Norfolk & Western--Control--Detroit, Toledo & Ironton, supra note 27, 360 I.C.C. at 512 (promise by two competing railroads to operate independently a third competing line is self-serving and must be examined closely .... It is difficult to expect sacrificial behavior from profit seeking corporations into the indefinite future.). Guilford will, we expect, seek to maximize profits. If it can profitably downgrade interchanges with Canadian National, Guilford will have strong incentives to do so, notwithstanding its current disclaimers. Thus, Guilford's actual financial incentives, not its professed intent, must be the dominant concern. We consider those incentives next. 118