Houston Mayor OK's Hobby International for SW

[Double Shot]

I don't know. A lot? Most? What do you want me to say?

Whatever the percentage is, it represents a lot of hard work, discipline and investment over a long period of time. You know, that stuff you SWA guys don't want to be bothered with...

Are you talking about scabbing...the thing continental pilots do so well. Ya...your right. We don't do that here.

 

[Flopgut]

You only think I'm illustrating your point because you're assuming your spokeswoman's words to be gospel. They're not. The FAA requires that airports subject to its grant authority have to provide the service level requested except in the rarest of circumstances. Your company's letter tried to invoke one of those circumstances with the reference to A-County in Colorado. The exception MAY be carved out when one of a city's airports is "at or near capacity," and then they MAY designate one airport for a certain class or classes of aircraft. This does not apply. Neither of those airports are "at or near capacity." You personally have made the case that IAH has plenty of capacity, and I can tell you that Hobby has oodles of room as well. Just because YOUR company wants that Colorado case to be its excuse, doesn't make it true. And in fact, it's NOT true.

In general, you can't make an argument by saying, "this is what we want the facts to be, so therefore you're wrong." But that's what United (and you) are doing.

Bubba

Let's get this fully ironed out. In Colorado, the FAA declined to allow FIS be built at a second airport because the primary airport was not at capacity. It was below capacity. You are reading it backwards. The additional FIS at the second airport was NOT built. The first airport could accomodate the new service. This is exactly why such a large facility was built at IAH. Exactly. This precedent matches our situation precisely. This is what Houston Mayor's Lanier and White told Continenetal they could count on as reason enough to believe huge investment in IAH was protected.

Think about it. If you were right about how this precedent reads, why on earth would GK have to spend his own money to get this built? All GK would have to do is point to the second FIS at Centenial Airport and say "build me one of those like you did for that other airline". He can't because it does not exist. On the other hand, there are 12 open gates at IAH because Continental had to build out enough room for any amount of future expansion.

 

[Bake]

Flop, I have read your arguments and I do believe you are correct in some of your assumptions and I do believe you are wrong in others. But, here is the fact, SWA is going to fly international out of Hobby. It doesn't matter anymore. It is done. Kill a cow, burn a pig, or chop the head off of a cat. I don't care. Your reasoning for what you argue no longer has any validity because SWA is going to make Hobby an international airport. Now, I will give you four free hours on my waverunners with chicks of your choice as a third place prize. I'll even furnish the beer. Let's go have fun. I bring the chicks, that is the only rule.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Let's get this fully ironed out. In Colorado, the FAA declined to allow FIS be built at a second airport because the primary airport was not at capacity. It was below capacity. You are reading it backwards. The additional FIS at the second airport was NOT built. The first airport could accomodate the new service. This is exactly why such a large facility was built at IAH. Exactly. This precedent matches our situation precisely. This is what Houston Mayor's Lanier and White told Continenetal they could count on as reason enough to believe huge investment in IAH was protected.

Think about it. If you were right about how this precedent reads, why on earth would GK have to spend his own money to get this built? All GK would have to do is point to the second FIS at Centenial Airport and say "build me one of those like you did for that other airline". He can't because it does not exist. On the other hand, there are 12 open gates at IAH because Continental had to build out enough room for any amount of future expansion.

Maybe YOU should read it again; it appears that it is YOU that have it backwards. Here's the exact wording of the FAA's ruling, as quoted by United's lawyers:

Where the volume of air traffic is approaching or exceeding the maximum practical capacity of an airport, an airport owner may designate a certain airport in a multiple airport system under the same ownership and servicing the same community for use by a particular class or classes of aircraircraft.

​

Read it again, Flop. It says that WHEN the traffic approaches or exceeds the maximum practical capacity, that they can designate specific classes to specific airports. Not before then. This is to manage traffic in places where there's not enough airspace, or too much traffic, to maneuver everybody willy-nilly to multiple airports. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the Colorado case was when Stapleton was around, tiny and jam-packed, and interntional (and domestic) traffic was managed with little room or margin.

To do it your way would be anti-competitive, because then ANY airport can say, "no service at your airport because mine has capacity to spare." Come to think of it, that's exactly what United is trying to pull. The fact of the matter is, the airport has an obligation (and the FAA requires it) to provide service, domestic or international, to any carrier who requests it, subject to the odd exemption or two. This is not one of those exemption cases, as much as United and you would like it to be.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

You've got the SWA talking points down Bubba. But there are two sides to a story and I'm a student of both. Fact: NONE of the Dallas litigation would ever have happened if SWA had gone to DFW. And, none of this litigation would be going on in Houston either, if SWA would go to IAH. You've had and expected special treatment since you launched, and it's all come from the influential Texans close to SWA from day one. 600 Braniff guys ended up at CAL and I flew with many of them. They remembered the day that SWA had the sheriff come out to Love Field and close them down. Braniff was forced back to DFW because SWA said they should not be allowed to serve both airports.

Uh, they're not talking points, Flop, they're history, and you're apparently not a very good student. The original several years' worth of litigation was to keep us from flying at all, before DFW was even built. The last was to stop us from flying out of Texas, after our legal status at Love was already clearly established. So much for your claim that it was all only to get us to fly out of DFW.

Even the part that was nominally aimed to accomplish that goal, was frivilous crap, because it was perfectly legal for us to fly out of Love. It was in accordance with the laws and in accordance with the FAA's rules; it was just not in accordance with what the other airlines wanted us to do (which of course, was to die). Regardless, we didn't want or get special treatment, just to fly where we wanted under the law. And you know what? Every freakin' court in the land, up to and including the Texas and US Supreme Courts agreed with us. What exact "special treatment" are you alleging we got? Are you really claiming that tiny little Southwest (in those days we were nothing) got favors from the Supreme Court? Maybe Herb had something on them! :bawling:

As far as Braniff goes, either you have the worst memory in the world, or you're just making crap up. Or to be charitable, maybe the former Braniff guys were yanking your chain. Either way, it never happened. Come up with a reference or it's crap. Think about it: Southwest had just proven the legal precedent that anyone could fly out of Love. Braniff was 15 times our size then, and had probably 100 times the legal budget. You don't think one of their first year law interns couldn't make a case for them to stay? Tiny little Southwest really sent massive Braniff scurrying away with their tail between their legs? With the precedent set, we would have been crushed in any court in the land, if we tried to keep someone from flying at Love. That ridiculous claim just begs incredulity. Like I pointed out earlier, other airlines have come and gone at Love, of their own accord, and that's been just fine with Southwest.

What Amercan did to Legend was an homage to Braniff. If you didn't grasp that then you haven't been at SWA too long. Yeah, Legend got put down with extreme prejudice. It was done that way to remind everyone what would/should have happened to SWA. Legend did everything right, except for one thing: They didn't have a plan for eliminating their competition from the airport. That is KEY to what SWA really does. It's not simply utilizing a secondary airport. It's being able to manuver that airport into some form of an exclusive situation. That is the larger truth as to why SWA started out as a Texas-only airline. And why the WA was continuously adjusted to no more and no less than exactly what SWA needed.

An "homage to Braniff"? That has to rank up with one of the silliest claims ever made on FI. American Airlines cares only about American Airlines. Not somebody else's former company. They would have done exactly what they did (kill Legend) even if their similar efforts to kill us years earlier had been successful. And really? Destroying another company, putting workers on the street, and ruining investors' lives is an "homage"?

Legend's plan was the same as ours: to pursue their particular business model, and to survive the onslaught of frivilous legal crap designed to kill them, laid upon them by the legacy airlines that didn't want to compete with someone who had a different, and possibly better, business model. Your vision of history would be funny if it wasn't so sad, Flop. It's the legacy airlines whose "eliminate the competition" strategy includes prolonged frivilous legal BS aimed solely at depleting a new company's capital. Southwest has never done that. It was legacies, Texas International (later Continental) and Braniff, that committed actual crimes in their attempt to kill us. Southwest has never done that. Where do you get the balls to accuse Southwest of any of this?

Southwest didn't "eliminate" competition, we just wanted to fly and let the consumer decide. Well, a lot of the consumers seem to like us, and like our business plan. True capitalism and consumer competition at work.

Bubba

 

[redflyer65]

16-1 vote.

Wasn't even close. It's On.

 

[Flopgut]

Ouch.... Well, it's not like either side isn't accustome to this sort of news. We'll deal.

 

[ATRCA]

I hope this means that we don't see anymore MEX overnight in the EWR 756 lines!

 

[nimtz]

Ouch.... Well, it's not like either side isn't accustome to this sort of news. We'll deal.

...by reducing capacity 10% before the concrete even shows up. What a disgrace of an airline. :angryfire

 

[Flopgut]

Jeff doesn't thinkit's important enough to even make an appearance at the Council meeting, but it's an sufficient enough to take it out on the employees.

At least former CAL employees can look forward to a $130 dollar ticket to Bogota...

 

[Flopgut]

From Houston Chronicle...

United set for job cuts after council OKs Hobby expansion

Southwest celebrates approval for new, international flights

Updated 10:35 p.m., Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Page 1 of 1
The City Council approved a plan on Wednesday that will give Houston two international airports, settling a debate over whether flights from Hobby to Latin America would boost the local economy or divide the city against itself and trigger layoffs, canceled routes and stagnation at Bush Intercontinental Airport.
Within hours, United Airlines told employees in a bulletin that, as a result of the council vote, it would be cutting planned operations at Bush Intercontinental by 10 percent and eliminating 1,300 Houston jobs, with the first buyouts, transfers or pink slips going out in the fall. It immediately canceled planned service to Auckland, New Zealand.
The council's 16-1 vote, according to the bulletin, also puts in "significant doubt" whether United will complete a planned $700 million expansion of Terminal B at Bush Intercontinental on which it broke ground in January.
"We believe that splitting Houston's international air service is the wrong decision for the city's future, but we respect the fact that City Council did not agree," United spokeswoman Mary Clark said in a released statement.
Houston Airport Director Mario Diaz declined to comment on United's jobs announcement.
Mayor Annise Parker was dubious of United's post-vote stance.
"I'll wait to see that they do that," she said. "I think United is committed to this city and that they're going to do their best to continue to grow jobs here in Houston. We already know that we provide a much more competitive environment in terms of cost of living and workforce than any of their other hub areas. They committed early on that we would be the largest hub in the largest airline in the world and that's the commitment I expect them to keep."
She added later, "They've stated continuously that they welcome competition. That competition is at least three years away. So, for United to say there are going to be 1,300 people laid off next week or so, that's just not reasonable. Because nothing is going to happen until that terminal is built. There's no competition today. So any decisions they make in terms of personnel are based on other things - not the vote we cast today."
$100 million project
Under the plan approved by the council, Southwest will pay $100 million up front to build five international gates and a customs facility at Hobby. In exchange, the airline receives control of four of the five gates, free rent in the new facilities and a rebate based on how much sales inside Hobby increase once Southwest launches its first planned international departures in 2015.
"This is what we were sent here to do. We were sent here to expand business, to create opportunities to continue the growth in our great city," said District I Councilman James Rodriguez, who represents the southeast area of the city where Hobby is located. "This is yet another historic day in the city of Houston, and it's also another historic day in aviation."
The council supported the proposition that Southwest's entry into the international market will lower fares, cause more people to fly, and pump up the Houston economy.
"I can guarantee you that our fares are going to be lower than our competition," said Southwest CEO Gary Kelly, who repeatedly visited Houston to pitch the proposal. "It's all about competition. It's all about lowering fares, and more traffic means more jobs."
Lone dissenter
United, which has a virtual lock on Latin American flights from Houston, opposed the expansion.
Councilman Jerry Davis, whose District B includes Bush Intercontinental, cast the lone negative vote. "I don't think the people of the city of Houston really understand what could transpire," said Davis, who worried that it will cost jobs and hurt businesses in north Houston. "I pray that I'm wrong."
Though Davis stood alone in the vote, several of his colleagues openly acknowledged that they were torn. The council had to pick between diametrically opposite visions of the consequences of choosing a side in an epic corporate battle between the nation's largest domestic carrier and the world's largest airline. A city study forecasts as many as 18,000 new jobs and $1.6 billion in annual economic impact from Hobby, while United's own study predicts 3,700 lost jobs in the region and a loss of $300 million in annual economic impact.
Popularity contest?
Failure to approve Hobby expansion would have driven Southwest to shop its expansion plans in San Antonio or another competing city, Southwest leaders said.
Embracing Southwest, however, could trim back United's expansion plans at Bush Intercontinental and strip it of its status as the largest hub of the world's largest airline. Even some of those who cast votes in favor of Hobby did so with some trepidation.
"I'm concerned that we're about to reverse 45 years or more of aviation policy without having had the opportunity to have a sober discussion about this matter around the council table," said District J Councilman Mike Laster. "To me, at times this proposal has felt more like a public relations campaign or a popularity contest rather than an attempt to forge good public policy. I regret that I am not yet wholly convinced that the greater metropolitan area, with its population of just over 6 million people, is large enough to operate two international airports within one system without inflicting damage of some sort."
After the vote, scores of United employees wearing blue shirts with the slogan "Keep IAH Strong" silently filed out of the room while Parker temporarily waived rules against cheering in chambers to permit an eruption of hollering and applause from Southwest employees in yellow T-shirts with the words "Free Hobby."

 

[Flopgut]

Mayor Annise Parker was dubious of United's post-vote stance.
"I'll wait to see that they do that," she said. "I think United is committed to this city and that they're going to do their best to continue to grow jobs here in Houston. We already know that we provide a much more competitive environment in terms of cost of living and workforce than any of their other hub areas. They committed early on that we would be the largest hub in the largest airline in the world and that's the commitment I expect them to keep."
She added later, "They've stated continuously that they welcome competition. That competition is at least three years away. So, for United to say there are going to be 1,300 people laid off next week or so, that's just not reasonable. Because nothing is going to happen until that terminal is built. There's no competition today. So any decisions they make in terms of personnel are based on other things - not the vote we cast today."

Reasonable?! The mayor thinks Jeff is suppose to be reasonable? He's a CEO, he is not in an elected position. She's suppose to be reasonable.

She expects United to honor a commitment, but the City doesn't have to? Unbelieveable.

 

[Flopgut]

After the vote, scores of United employees wearing blue shirts with the slogan "Keep IAH Strong" silently filed out of the room while Parker temporarily waived rules against cheering in chambers to permit an eruption of hollering and applause from Southwest employees in yellow T-shirts with the words "Free Hobby."

Real fine bunch of people over there at Southwest. Maybe the mayor would like to go to the unemployment office and lead some SWA employees' cheering for that?

 

[minrest]

"I'm concerned that we're about to reverse 45 years or more of aviation policy without having had the opportunity to have a sober discussion about this matter around the council table," said District J Councilman Mike Laster. "To me, at times this proposal has felt more like a public relations campaign or a popularity contest rather than an attempt to forge good public policy. I regret that I am not yet wholly convinced that the greater metropolitan area, with its population of just over 6 million people, is large enough to operate two international airports within one system without inflicting damage of some sort."

This quote pretty much sums it up. Astonishing that the voting members of the city council would rush in to make this decision. I don't believe either airline's proposal in this matter, but I do believe that this is ultimately a poor decision for Houston.

 

[canyonblue]

Wow, six pages of arguing with a frustrated Continental idiot. Why did I bother to even click on the thread. Oh, and I cant forget the Delto Dorks who want to get in on any SWA thread out there, thanks for your contribution to this mess.

uke: