Gary Kelly announces the next SWA city is...

[Dizel8]

Why does she need an goverment airplane at all, flying on a commercial carrier isn't safe enough?

Don't get me wrong, the President I can see, but the rest of the riffraff in goverment, let them fly commercial or have their buddies with G-V ferry them around.

 

[roughneck]

Why does she need an goverment airplane at all, flying on a commercial carrier isn't safe enough?

They don't want a 65 year old flying them.

 

[CaptJax]

SWA Will Resume SFO Service In The Fall



Southwest will resume SFO service in the fall

Destinations of discount airline's planned 14 daily departures are not yet determined, CEO says


David Armstrong, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, February 9, 2007

Southwest Airlines, the nation's largest discount carrier, plans to resume service at San Francisco International Airport this fall, more than six years after pulling out of SFO because of what the airline said were unacceptable flight delays, high costs and curbs on growth.
Finally, those issues have been resolved, Southwest Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly said Thursday, prompting the airline to return to SFO with a still-unannounced roster of destinations and a promise of cheap, as yet unspecified introductory fares.
When Southwest returns this fall, it will begin with at least 14 daily departures and a mix of short, medium and long flights, he said.
Southwest will continue to serve Mineta San Jose International Airport, where it operates 76 daily departures, and Oakland International Airport, where it has built a strong following and has 142 daily departures. Indeed, Southwest will continue to expand in those airports, "especially Oakland,'' Kelly said, "where we will be getting four more gates this year.''
Of the return to SFO, Kelly said, "I'm very excited. We are the largest intra-California carrier. San Francisco is by far the largest airport we don't serve. It is a very attractive destination for our customers.''
SFO's director, John Martin, praised the return of Southwest, easily the nation's most profitable airline, with 122 consecutive profitable quarters. The Dallas carrier pulled out of SFO in March 2001, when it operated 14 daily departures and has since, in Kelly's accounting, doubled in size nationally.
"We're very pleased to have Southwest back at SFO,'' Martin said. "It's good for the customer, especially in San Francisco and San Mateo counties. It will create a more competitive fare environment.''
Last month, low-cost carrier JetBlue Airways said it will start service from SFO May 3 with flights to New York's John F. Kennedy airport.
"Southwest, JetBlue and Virgin America (still awaiting government approval to fly) are all seeing that there are opportunities at SFO. Fares to some destinations have been so high, there is untapped potential,'' Martin said.
SFO has been pursuing low-cost carriers since the dot-com meltdown and terrorist attacks of 2001 drove away nearly a third of its business, but has had spotty success. AirTran Airways, Frontier Airlines and Midwest Airlines fly from San Francisco, but ATA went bankrupt and Independence Air folded its wings.
Martin said he has been wooing Southwest for the last year and a half. SFO's landing fees and other airport charges have been slashed 30 percent over the past five years, Martin said, and that helped persuade Southwest to return.
"John Martin has done a very fine job in getting the costs down,'' said Kelly, adding SFO now has more gates available than in its busiest years, when Southwest felt hemmed-in. Kelly also noted that SFO has installed improved technology, helping aircraft to safely operate in bad weather.
"I fully expect that the 'Southwest effect' will work very well (to lower fares of other airlines), once we return to SFO,'' Kelly said.
Southwest will operate out of Terminal 1, while JetBlue and Virgin America (should it get permission to begin flying) will use gates in the International Terminal.
With business gradually recovering, Martin said, SFO is dusting off plans to renovate Terminal 2 (the old international terminal), which has been closed since December 2001, when the new International Terminal opened.
E-mail David Armstrong at [email protected].

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Ads by Google

 

[Oh-ryan]

Why does she need an goverment airplane at all, flying on a commercial carrier isn't safe enough?

Don't get me wrong, the President I can see, but the rest of the riffraff in goverment, let them fly commercial or have their buddies with G-V ferry them around.

It pains me to say this, but as the #3 in line for the top job, she should have a secure means of travel. It's not that the majors aren't secure forms of transportation. When I say "secure" I mean as in an aircraft that has a secure communications suite for encrypted voice and datalink.

Now, does she need a USAF 757 or 737... heck no. There are plently of USAF Gulfstream aircraft that will satisfy her desire to go coast to coast non-stop. This way she will never have to set foot in Illinois... oh the horror!

 

[jonjuan]

It pains me to say this, but as the #3 in line for the top job, she should have a secure means of travel. It's not that the majors aren't secure forms of transportation. When I say "secure" I mean as in an aircraft that has a secure communications suite for encrypted voice and datalink.

Now, does she need a USAF 757 or 737... heck no. There are plently of USAF Gulfstream aircraft that will satisfy her desire to go coast to coast non-stop. This way she will never have to set foot in Illinois... oh the horror!

You said it much more politically than I could have. Dizel's comment is the most idiodic I have seen. Let me guess Dizel, you pay her salary, so she should have to travel standby coach, huh? As much as it pains me to see this moderate socialist in charge of the House, her position calls for the utmost respect as it relates to our democracy.
More than likely, she doesn't want to fly on the bowling alley they call the Gulfstream. Certainly too narrow for her head.

 

[Benjamin Dover]

What gov't aircraft can't make it from Andrews to SFO? I am pretty sure that the G-IV's and 737's can. Am I missing something?

YGBSM. Plenty of Unclass info out there dude on VIP travel. Plenty of non ADW-SFO capable too.

 

[BobbyB]

YGBSM. Plenty of Unclass info out there dude on VIP travel. Plenty of non ADW-SFO capable too.

I am aware that US Customs Cessna 210's are going to be off the table, C-12(Kingair) as well. Of the executive travel aircraft they keep at Andrews or might use for executive travel, maybe I should have said. Even C-9s have tanks to get them to Europe/Asia(I don't think they have all been replaced by the 73 yet), as do the 73's, Gulfstreams go all over the world... If you are going to "YGTBSM" then please do enlighten us....Show me how stupid I am. You appear to have some answers so let's hear 'em.

 

[Terp737]

No C-9s left at KADW. Don't think G-IIIs have the range, G-Vs do. We won't let her on the mighty 737.

 

[canyonblue]

I saw this one coming. As Southwest sees it's hedges becoming less powerful they will have to press into these airports to compete. Costs are rising and Gary has to move the money around.

Not really what I think but I'm just filling in for Lowecur until he replies. :smash:

 

[CF34-3B1]

I saw this one coming. As Southwest sees it's hedges becoming less powerful they will have to press into these airports to compete. Costs are rising and Gary has to move the money around.

Not really what I think but I'm just filling in for Lowecur until he replies. :smash:

Now if you were REALLY filling in for Lowecur, you would have said "....they will have to press into these airports to compete with the mighty E190....."

 

[JetDude]

Not really what I think but I'm just filling in for Lowecur until he replies. :smash:

You forgot to add that SWA won't turn a profit at SFO until they begin E-190 service!!!

Just another bone to the still absent Lowecur.

 

[Jon Rivoli]

The Sargent at Arms is appointed by the speaker, he'll say what she wants him to say. No other speaker has ever made such a request. If not Fox News somebody need to do you're thinking for you.

 

[MountainFreak]

The Sargent at Arms is appointed by the speaker, he'll say what she wants him to say. No other speaker has ever made such a request. If not Fox News somebody need to do you're thinking for you.

This particular "Sargent" at Arms has been at his post through all of Bush's administration. Other similar requests have been made, and since 9-11 security is (and should be) much more of a concern.

Like her or not, she never made the request.

p.s. "you're" spelling is about as good as those interns who write the scrolling tickers on Fox News.

 

[Flydaplane]

As the keeper of the purse she should have turned down his request as being too extravagant and she should tell Murtha to back off blackmailing the military. What happened to her promise to wipe out corruption...oh yeah it doesn't apply to her heighness and friends. Same old same old with Congress, get a little power and then abuse it.
Good luck to SWA sorry to participate in the h-jacking of this thread.

 

[IXLR8]

Why wasnt this a big deal when former House Speaker Dennis Hastert used a military a/c?

 

[vixin]

What does any of this have to do with SWA going into SFO?

Someone needs to start a politicians that steal from you thread.

 

[chase]

Some observatons from others and myself about the decision:

1. Last 3 new cities announced have been UAL hubs....coincidence? Things that make one go hmmmm

2. Previously to 911, low cost carriers weren't courted by SFO airport authorities....fast forward to now and as GK said, new management, more cost conscious, LOTS OF PEOPLE with access to large sums of money and that won't come across the bay to OAK or SJC to fly....they would like us now and in a big way...other LCCs are in the mix and that generates more revenue for the airport....they are relearning the value of the SWA effect that has been created by other LCCs coming into their airport...wise move..."make SWA a deal" and I think they have.... ...we'd be foolish to ignore such a large population base.

3. Weather/ATC delays were problems in PHL....those have been minimized when folks said they couldn't....the same challenges exist in SFO...are they fixed? We'll see but obviously folks with a lot more information on the "big picture" than anyone of us believe it is worth the risk....we're getting more gates in PHL and I suspect there are some options for further growth in SFO if SWA needs it.

4. SWA needs places to put airplanes...we have more on the way and the more options in terms of cities and city pairs to choose from, well it makes sense.

5. We are limited in growth at OAK right now....with the new gates it could be argued it won't grow much beyond that....not to mention to relieve some of the dependence on one airport to handle such large traffic requirements....SJC is the only relief....now SFO can fill that bill as will OAK & SJC in return for SFO

6. How many passengers of the 10 million a month that visit the website don't buy because we don't fly into one of the most popular airports around? You and I don't because we know they don't fly there now....many folks aren't that connected & now that revenue will stay with SWA instead of going to UAL or other places...the most visited airline site in the world.

7. As someone said, this makes the backers of Virgin America realize that coming out of the gate there will be tough competition for the US customer with multiple LCC...this will alter their loads no matter how you look at it and may discourage some investings from continuing to sit there and do nothing

8. Lets Wall Street know GK isn't sitting still...did they say there were to be no new cities this year? Just unlikely he said but always a possiblity....this keeps the competition on their toes..."what will those boys at SWA do next? You can never say die with those guys."

9. Competition is good...even among airports in close proximity...SJC has been talking about jacking up landing fees...quite significantly due to some new construction bonds they wish to float the voters, expansion, etc. Guess who will have to pay the bill....when that got floated at SEA SWA fought back...talked about moving, talked about other airports, demanded accountability....what better way to keep those increases reasonable vs. exorbitant than to have a new airport, SFO to wave in SJC's face to say..."be careful...we have options guys." GK is adamant at holding down costs...landing fees are a part of that...we now have SFO lowering landing fees to a point that they are now attractive...are they lower than SJC? I suspect they may be but it would be interesting to find out.

10. Less traffic in to SFO than before....maybe not be significant but departure/arrival delays for SFO are below, with PHL immediately below those numbers. Interesting in the comparison in 2006.

Departures
Airport On time % Delay %
SFO 75.77 22.43
PHL 72.20 26.0

Arrivals
Airport On time % Delay %
SFO 70.43 27.55
PHL 70.42 27.59

Interesting nums...we make money at PHL...I think we'll do OK in SFO.

I think SWA will do just fine...again, so far GK and the gang are keeping us in the black and progressing well....oh, BTW, happy Valentine's Day to the employees from GK...every employee received $150 (minus uncle sam's share) from SWA as a way to say thanks for beating Lowcur's projection that we would not meet our goal of 15% return on investment....You'll be receiving your's in the mail LC...thanks! Just joking my friend but the $150's going toward the wife for allowing me to post on FI...happy luv to all.

 

[DH2WN]

PHL's delays have improved ever since SWA entered the market. Mmmmm.....Wonder who is responsible for that? I hope that guy never retires.

Thanks Patrick D.!!!!

 

[Juvat]

Amen to that. Patrick D. is the "horse whisperer" of ATC. Friggin' good dude to have on your side...

 

[Schiphol]

I don't like Nancy Pelosi....BUT....let us not forget that she is THIRD in line to be leader of the free world. No matter how much you hate her (and I'm on the hate side), her flying on secure military transport is a matter of national security. I would be surprised if other House Speakers were told to fly commercial.

Just a thought.