Hobby expansion passes; Southwest wins fight with United

[Andy]

I asked you about UA's position on eliminating jobs well before SWA could have had ANY effect on them. How can you defend UA and blame SWA when it's crystal clear that Smisek was just looking for an excuse to dump hard working employees and routes?

I can only assume that you didn't read my post about United shifting flights to DEN. While I expect United to keep IAH a major hub, some of that flying is going to shift to DEN due to a committment to increase DEN ASMs by a minimum of 4.5% by 2016. The jobs aren't lost, they're just moving to DEN.
Keep in mind that current United projections for 2012 call for a .5 to 1.5% decrease in ASMs compared to 2011. This is similar to Delta's ASM projections; I don't know what SWA, AMR, and other players are doing with respect to ASMs. Given that they've programmed an overall decrease in flying, the additional DEN flying has to come from other hubs. This is a strategic opportunity for United to shift the flying to DEN under the cover of being rebuffed by the city of Houston.
IMHO, in a couple of years, you'll see United extract concessions out of Houston to complete terminal B expansion plans. I'm sure that the expansion plans will be shuttered short term after they complete phase one. http://www.fly2houston.com/0/3917910/0/83280D83281/

You guys need to stop reading this stuff at face value. It's like playing checkers against an opponent who's playing chess.

 

[SKC]

Andy, UA's public stance has been that Houston will lose 1300 jobs. Whether it be jobs going to DEN or Denmark is irrelevant based upon their notion that SWA is at fault.

 

[Flopgut]

So....the 1300 employees losing their jobs are due to the 787 performance issues? That's a lot of employees being let go for one flight per day.

Well, that flight was pretty strategic and we were going to build the operation around it. That was going to be in Houston, now it's not. It does take a lot of people. This isn't really any different than if the Council ruled in United's favor. You were going to go somewhere else as well, right? SAT? We're just suppose to stay?

Thing is about these employees, we've already displaced a lot of people. The ones this hammer is going to fall on are hourly people who can not leave Houston. They've been there a long time, they love Houston, it's home. It's really a shame. Frankly, the mayor should have made certain SWA would offer these people a job. But, SWA wouldn't really honor that sort of agreement.

 

[Flopgut]

Andy, UA's public stance has been that Houston will lose 1300 jobs. Whether it be jobs going to DEN or Denmark is irrelevant based upon their notion that SWA is at fault.

So it's ok to say you'll take the jobs to SAT? You refuse to create jobs in Houston without wrecking some first? Nice.

 

[SWA Bubba]

I can only assume that you didn't read my post about United shifting flights to DEN. While I expect United to keep IAH a major hub, some of that flying is going to shift to DEN due to a committment to increase DEN ASMs by a minimum of 4.5% by 2016. The jobs aren't lost, they're just moving to DEN.
Keep in mind that current United projections for 2012 call for a .5 to 1.5% decrease in ASMs compared to 2011. This is similar to Delta's ASM projections; I don't know what SWA, AMR, and other players are doing with respect to ASMs. Given that they've programmed an overall decrease in flying, the additional DEN flying has to come from other hubs. This is a strategic opportunity for United to shift the flying to DEN under the cover of being rebuffed by the city of Houston.
IMHO, in a couple of years, you'll see United extract concessions out of Houston to complete terminal B expansion plans. I'm sure that the expansion plans will be shuttered short term after they complete phase one. http://www.fly2houston.com/0/3917910/0/83280D83281/

You guys need to stop reading this stuff at face value. It's like playing checkers against an opponent who's playing chess.

I read the article, it was actually very interesting. However, I think the point is, that the increased flying in DEN (due to that airports debt-forgiveness deal in excahnge for increased United ASMs) was gonna' happen regardless of what happened in Houston. I think Mr. Smisek's wording to put the blame on Southwest was just a case of "that'll teach you." If the Houston city council had voted the other way, he'd have a different press relief to explain the same shift in flying over to DEN.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Let's Houston down miserably?

You'd better create 10,000 jobs, sell tickets to Bogota for $130, and add 1.6 billion to Houston's economy. Every single day you don't do that, I will be sending an email to the Mayor and the City Council. You got 4 gates to do that. Good luck!

 

[SKC]

Well, that flight was pretty strategic and we were going to build the operation around it. That was going to be in Houston, now it's not. It does take a lot of people. This isn't really any different than if the Council ruled in United's favor. You were going to go somewhere else as well, right? SAT? We're just suppose to stay?

It's not talking about future jobs....Smisek said, [FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]We expect job loss will begin this fall and occur over time". It has nothing to do with future growth and just not hiring new employees. Those are CURRENT employees that he is referring to. You're way overstaffed if one future flight that was removed from the schedule causes you to be 1300 people heavy.

Had SWA opted for intl ops out of SAT instead of HOU, it wouldn't have changed our HOU operation a bit. SWA wouldn't have downsized, especially 10% as UA is. SWA wouldn't have cut 1300 positions.
[/FONT]

 

[SWA Bubba]

So it's ok to say you'll take the jobs to SAT? You refuse to create jobs in Houston without wrecking some first? Nice.

Absolutely not. We create jobs when we expand. It's not our responsibility (nor is it the city of Houston's) to ensure that a competitor doesn't shrink in the face of competition. Especially when a lot of people think it's a bluff, or flying that was shifting anyway.

As far as your other contention goes, if and when United lets people go in Houston, they're more than welcome to come work for us. You would not believe how many of our employees (of all types, ramp, customer service, etc.) used to work for other airlines. They've got airline knowledge, so that gives them somewhat of an advantage over other applicants off the street. Then they could work for a company that's never furloughed anyone. Ever.

Bubba

 

[Andy]

Andy, UA's public stance has been that Houston will lose 1300 jobs. Whether it be jobs going to DEN or Denmark is irrelevant based upon their notion that SWA is at fault.

Are you taking this statement at face value? It's all about current and future bargaining.

Personally, I see this as a win for United. They shift flying to DEN, which lowers their airport fees at DEN by $22M per year. Further, United mothballs an additional $800M in airport expansion plans in IAH.
What United management is currently doing is playing one hub's city council off against the other in order to extract concessions.
At the same time, United has been able to get SWA to spend an additional $100M on HOU improvements.

At the present time, United's ASMs are shrinking. Unfortunately. Part of that is the economy, part of that is merger issues.
Eventually, United will start growing ASMs again. When they do, they will be playing off LAX, DEN, IAH, and ORD city councils for concessions in exchange for additional flying. SFO is pretty maxed out and my guess is that no additional east coast capacity is needed.

I'd be looking for nonstops out of IAH to the northwest US/Canada to shift to DEN and IAH in turn feeding the DEN hub with that traffic.

I think Mr. Smisek's wording to put the blame on Southwest was just a case of "that'll teach you." If the Houston city council had voted the other way, he'd have a different press relief to explain the same shift in flying over to DEN.

Bubba

PRECISELY. If SWA's HOU expansion was not approved, United would simply blame the poor economy and 'right sizing all hubs'. No matter the outcome, United was going to draw down some IAH flying.

 

[SKC]

So it's ok to say you'll take the jobs to SAT? You refuse to create jobs in Houston without wrecking some first? Nice.

So, which is it?

Either the 1300 jobs are lost due to SWA (which isn't possible three years in advance), or the 1300 jobs are lost due to changes in UA mgmt's game plan of what flights are economically viable with the planned aircraft type (which SWA would have no influence over). You can't have it both ways.

Job loss is 100% squarely on UA mgmt, not SWA, not the city council.

Had SWA begun ops in SAT, jobs wouldn't have been cut by SWA in HOU. Jobs would have been added in SAT.

 

[SKC]

Are you taking this statement at face value? It's all about current and future bargaining.

Personally, I see this as a win for United. They shift flying to DEN, which lowers their airport fees at DEN by $22M per year. Further, United mothballs an additional $800M in airport expansion plans in IAH.
What United management is currently doing is playing one hub's city council off against the other in order to extract concessions.
At the same time, United has been able to get SWA to spend an additional $100M on HOU improvements.

At the present time, United's ASMs are shrinking. Unfortunately. Part of that is the economy, part of that is merger issues.
Eventually, United will start growing ASMs again. When they do, they will be playing off LAX, DEN, IAH, and ORD city councils for concessions in exchange for additional flying. SFO is pretty maxed out and my guess is that no additional east coast capacity is needed.

I'd be looking for nonstops out of IAH to the northwest US/Canada to shift to DEN and IAH in turn feeding the DEN hub with that traffic.



PRECISELY. If SWA's HOU expansion was not approved, United would simply blame the poor economy and 'right sizing all hubs'. No matter the outcome, United was going to draw down some IAH flying.

Andy, I don't really disagree with you at all. It was going to happen one way or another. I'm just trying to see if flop will actually admit that it's not SWA's fault. He is so blinded by hate that he can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Flopgut]

So, which is it?

Either the 1300 jobs are lost due to SWA (which isn't possible three years in advance), or the 1300 jobs are lost due to changes in UA mgmt's game plan of what flights are economically viable with the planned aircraft type (which SWA would have no influence over). You can't have it both ways.

Job loss is 100% squarely on UA mgmt, not SWA, not the city council.

Had SWA begun ops in SAT, jobs wouldn't have been cut by SWA in HOU. Jobs would have been added in SAT.

Don't fool yourself for one second, these job losses are directly on each and every Southwest employee, from GK on down.

We were long term committed to Houston until we just got our invitation to leave. What we built at IAH and what we were told we could rely on has been spoiled.

If you Southwest people want to try and do something good, try and get these hourly former CAL employees some jobs out there at Hobby. They can not go with the jobs to DEN or anywhere else in the system.

 

[Double Shot]

Whaaaa , whaaaaaa
Cry baby

 

[Flopgut]

PRECISELY. If SWA's HOU expansion was not approved, United would simply blame the poor economy and 'right sizing all hubs'. No matter the outcome, United was going to draw down some IAH flying.

This is not correct Andy. We just broke ground on $700 million to the terminals. Now they are going to idle it. It would appear so to a UAL guy, I know. But Houston had potential. It took a constant effort to keep it what it was, now it's toast.

 

[SKC]

HAAAAA HAAA HAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA that's a good one Flop. All on the SWA employees. That was a good laugh.

I can see that you were so "long term committed" to Houston that just this morning the CO ops center at HDQ shut down and turned over operational control to the Chicago office. That's some long term commitment there. We're in it for the long haul, Houston, that is until someone else makes a better offer. Sheesh, on the heads of SWA employees, good stuff there.

 

[Flopgut]

Whaaaa , whaaaaaa
Cry baby

Hey punk: You just crapped all over about 1000 Houstonians that deserve better. I'm not the least bit upset for myself. I commute. I'll go to any base.

BTW: Among the pilots I know that left CAL for SWA. There isn't one that any of us miss.

 

[dicko]

Aukland. The 787 is not meeting projected fuel burn estimates. The CAL 787 fleet people and Boeing have been trying to iron this out with different routes or, well, any amount of tweaking you can imagine. The bottom line is, Aukland is going to be a real stretch on the first production 787s and we are probably going to have to limit payload out of Houston. It's a software issue that is going to take a year or so of flying to get the data we need to get the maximum performance out of the airplane. We don't have this problem out of the West Coast; We can fill it up.

All of these problems would have occurred whether or not SWA used Hobby as an International gateway. It's a Red Herring. If SWA had flown International from IAH, was Jeffy relying on their connecting passengers to fill his 787 to Auckland ?

Jeffy is covering up a failed plan and blaming it on SWA. The entire New Zealand population is smaller than the city of Houston. What a maroon.

 

[Flopgut]

HAAAAA HAAA HAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA that's a good one Flop. All on the SWA employees. That was a good laugh.

I can see that you were so "long term committed" to Houston that just this morning the CO ops center at HDQ shut down and turned over operational control to the Chicago office. That's some long term commitment there. We're in it for the long haul, Houston, that is until someone else makes a better offer. Sheesh, on the heads of SWA employees, good stuff there.

You own it buddy. Nice job. Frankly, I don't think SWA is going to hire a larger number than UAL has to displace as a result of this. (not near 10,000) I would suggest you start the damage control right now and offer work to these CAL people.

 

[Flopgut]

If SWA had flown International from IAH, was Jeffy relying on their connecting passengers to fill his 787 to Auckland ?

Uh, YES!!! We needed to be able to compete for every customer going thru Houston. That is what IAH was designed for. Now we can't.

 

[SKC]

You're acting as if this decision has shuttered every intl gate at IAH. Suddenly, yet three years in the future, IAH can't function as an intl airport for UA.

If the 787 required another airline's connecting passengers to fill it, it was never a good plan in the first place.

 

[Double Shot]

Hey flop,
You fly for a pilot group that licks the boot that kicks you. as far a your opinion of me I could care less. You live in a delusional world and you fly for a dysfunctional airline. Why don't you show the rest of us a industry leading contract. Good luck with jeffrey.
Cry baby!

Whaaaa! Whaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[Andy]

This is not correct Andy. We just broke ground on $700 million to the terminals. Now they are going to idle it. It would appear so to a UAL guy, I know. But Houston had potential. It took a constant effort to keep it what it was, now it's toast.

I'm not familiar with any $700M project. AFAIK, Phase I, terminal B construction, is supposed to cost $190M.
I guess they've done a bit of work on Terminal D gate 12A for the A380; I'm willing to bet that the project gets mothballed for now.

I'm not arguing with IAH's potential. However, management made a deal with DEN to grow traffic there in exchange for lower fees. I can almost guarantee that once United starts growing again, United will reengage the Houston city council and offer to expand at IAH in exchange for concessions.

 

[Flopgut]

If the 787 required another airline's connecting passengers to fill it, it was never a good plan in the first place.

Oh my... WOW! You actually think this way? We truly are opposites and I think I understand a lot more about you, than you do us.

You need to think about this for a little while. We weren't asking for a handout, we just wanted to compete for the customer. Do you know how a farm co-op works? Or something like that? that is what IAH was.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

Houston can EASILY support two airports offering international traffic and connections. United simply came up with this fear campaign because they are terrified of competition. And I don't blame them. The Southwest Effect is about to expand internationally out of Houston and United couldn't be any more scared.

 

[Dan Roman]

Gotta side with the SWA folks on here! Business is business, whoever can compete should do it as long as everyone get's an equal playing field what's the problem? I thought we were deregulated. As far as the jobs go, how many jobs will SWA create?

 

[Andy]

Gotta side with the SWA folks on here! Business is business, whoever can compete should do it as long as everyone get's an equal playing field what's the problem? I thought we were deregulated. As far as the jobs go, how many jobs will SWA create?

Equal playing field? Dan, you've been in the airline industry for a LONG time. There's never been a level playing field in this business.
Is JetBlue's sweetheart deal with the NY Port Authority a level playing field?
Is US Airways' subsidized fuel from the city of CLT a level playing field?

I could list a bunch of sweetheart deals given to every airline; I'm not trying to pick on a single airline.

The problem with creating the second international airport within the city of Houston is that US Customs employees will be coming from IAH in order to cover HOU. US Customs isn't going to add personnel in Houston in order to cover HOU; they will simply reassign some from IAH to HOU. That's the biggest problem that I see in this whole deal.
So while it's 'only four gates' at HOU, there will need to be a disproportionate number of customs employees moved from IAH to HOU in order to cover flights into HOU. What's the result? Customs processing at IAH goes from, say, 30 minutes, to 2 hours.
For those that think 2 hours sounds excessive, I used to work zone control at IAD. Customs processing was a HUGE issue; there were several times that we had through passengers stuck in customs for more than 90 minutes due to customs understaffing.

 

[Flying the Line]

Wow, flopgut is hands down the stupidest person I've never met.

 

[Bake]

Andy, Hobby already has customs agents there. they will not come from IAH they will just have to move from the west side of the airport to the new terminal.

 

[vixin]

You'd better create 10,000 jobs, sell tickets to Bogota for $130, and add 1.6 billion to Houston's economy. Every single day you don't do that, I will be sending an email to the Mayor and the City Council. You got 4 gates to do that. Good luck!

You are in serious void of a hobby. Get a life! You must be a joy to fly with. I bet you spew this hate 24/7. The voice of ucal on FI and its this repetitive nonsense.

 

[Andy]

Andy, Hobby already has customs agents there. they will not come from IAH they will just have to move from the west side of the airport to the new terminal.

Are you sure about that? Customs is listed as 'on request' for Hobby, rather than specific hours. That generally indicates that there's no customs at the field, but that customs agents from another station covers special customs requests for that airport.
http://www.azworldairports.com/airports/a2740hou.cfm

This article implies that there aren't customs agents currently physically assigned to Hobby: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...taffing-remains-question-in-Hobby-3584338.php