Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

[HowardBorden]

Why would the agreement to build DFW be reason enough to force legacy airlines to use it only

It wasn't the agreement to build DFW, it was the contractual agreement that the legacies signed stating unequivocally that if you build it we will come. Carriers entered into a contractual agreement of their own free will, no one was forced to sign that agreement but felt it was in their own best interest to do so. Clearly if someone had the intention of staying at Love they would not enter into a legally binding agreement that stated they would leave for DFW when it was operational. If SWA had signed such an agreement they would be operating at DFW.

 

[meanstreak]

Delta is still selling tickets into Love. I bought a ticket in mid Oct. I called Delta and she told me it's still scheduled to go. Are they working with the city to continue flights for a little longer? Thanks

 

[Flopgut]

Howard we had a commitment in Houston, that was really no different than the DFW example. Legacies' feet were held to the fire in DFW, and SWA was allowed a pass on the Houston agreement. These are both the same. It's as corrupt as it gets. Apart from corrupt Texas airport deals, you not only do not thrive-you don't exist!!

 

[Flopgut]

Delta is still selling tickets into Love. I bought a ticket in mid Oct. I called Delta and she told me it's still scheduled to go. Are they working with the city to continue flights for a little longer? Thanks

IMHO: Anderson [Delta] will fly there until they're formally refused use of the airport. It will escalate to the same point Braniff reached decades ago. He wants to make a point.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Good point flop...

We should act like the Spirit Warriors and wheel up next to their fancy jetways and board the folks using airstairs at both front and back exits and undercut them by 50 bucks a ticket everywhere they want to go.....we would make it work by not leasing gates.

Southwest would cry foul and some politician hack in their pocket would probably come up with a way to make us give up gates at LGA.....

ahhh nevermind

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard we had a commitment in Houston, that was really no different than the DFW example. Legacies' feet were held to the fire in DFW, and SWA was allowed a pass on the Houston agreement. These are both the same. It's as corrupt as it gets. Apart from corrupt Texas airport deals, you not only do not thrive-you don't exist!!

In Houston the agreements, whatever they might have been, were not ever signed by SWA. Good God man IAH opened in 1969 and Southwest didn't even fly its first revenue flight until 1971. They weren't allowed a pass on the Houston agreement, they weren't there at the time to be a signatory. You can't be held to agreements which you aren't a party to.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Ok Howard....

Using your clown logic.....

So if a city zones an area as residential and you want to open your retail store of Stupidity....you are going to say:
"well, we weren't even living here or paid taxes when you guys came up with this zoning law, therefore we don't have to pay attention to it and we are going to do whatever we want!"

Try a real argument and prove me wrong....

 

[SWA Bubba]

In a certain context, what you're saying is correct. I hate that there was ever a need for the Wright Amenment. Which means I do indeed dislike these conflicting relationships and wish they weren't an issue. And they wouldn't be, except that it's how SWA stays in business and successful. You guys gripe about this stuff and act like you've got some terrible burden to carry, but you always win. You've never gotten less than you needed.

Again with the BS that somehow the Wrigt Amendment helped us "stay in business and [be] successful"? Seriously, Flop? Can you even say that with a straight face?

For the umpteenth time, the WA was shoved down our throats by an American Airlines stooge (Speaker Wright, D-Ft Worth), strictly to hobble us, and only after we had won every court battle, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. We should have been able to fly from DAL to wherever we wanted since 1971, if not for the political clout of another airline's bought-and-paid-for politician.

You keep posting this crap, but never once have you even tried to explain how keeping us from doing what we wanted, was somehow "good for us."

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Ok Howard....

Using your clown logic.....

So if a city zones an area as residential and you want to open your retail store of Stupidity....you are going to say:
"well, we weren't even living here or paid taxes when you guys came up with this zoning law, therefore we don't have to pay attention to it and we are going to do whatever we want!"

Try a real argument and prove me wrong....

Bad analogy, Bill.

But to continue with it to its logical conclusion, the fact is, that they didn't "rezone HOU from retail to residential"; they merely built a much bigger "retail mall" up north (IAH). Hobby is still "zoned retail" (as in an operating airport). And it just so happens that we prefer to operate out of the "old, dingy strip mall," instead of the new, gleaming "super mall" that you guys use for your mega-fortress hub-and-spoke operation. That's all.

That's how to properly apply your zoning analogy.

But the larger question is, why the hell do you guys even care where we do our business? You guys were, and still are, free to fly out of HOU as well as IAH. You guys used to operate out of both simultaneously, and I think you still send your feeder airlines' RJs there. You left because you didn't like it there, or it wasn't worth your while anymore. Whatever; that's your choice. But why does it bother you so much that we like it there? Seriously?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

AgainWe should have been able to fly from DAL to wherever we wanted since 1971, if not for the political clout of another airline's bought-and-paid-for politician.

I think every airline should have been able to fly from DAL to wherever they wanted to since 1971 Bubba. Riiigggghhttt?! How can you tell me its right to ignore the prevailing agreement in Houston for a single FIS airport, but perfectly ok to force Braniff and other legacies off DAL back in the day? Or for that matter Delta today? Do you see how your argument isn't tracking? Do you see your inconsistencies? One airport agreement is written in stone, the other gets changed. Both involving shady politics, and both going in SWA's favor.

Anyway, what do you think of my Parker family thesis? It's fricking awesome right? Shoot man, they look like brother and sister! Darn near twins!

 

[Flopgut]

Bill I think Anderson has him a taste of some corndog, and he likes it!

They better call the golden army off the set of sweatin to the oldies 11. Might need them again real soon

 

[SWA Bubba]

I think every airline should have been able to fly from DAL to whereever they wanted to since 1971 Bubba. Riiigggghhttt?! How can you tell me its right to ignore the prevailing agreement in Houston for a single FIS airport, but perfectly ok to force Braniff and other legacies off DAL back in the day? Or for that matter Delta today? Do you see how your argument isn't tracking? Do you see your inconsistencies?

Anyway, what do you think of my Parker family thesis?

Hey, I agree that everyone should have been able to fly out of DAL since 1971. I'm with you there. I still think it should be the case.

But the legacies agreed to move (to DFW) in return for having a many-times larger airport built to support their operations. In other words, they wanted to move, because DAL wasn't big enough for their expansion plans. DAL still isn't big enough (runway lengths) for the legacies' heavy, intercontinental aircraft.

And to the second part of your rant, we didn't force anyone out of DAL, either "back in the day," or now. Over the years, other airlines came and went at DAL, and all of their own free will. There was plenty of gates in those days, but they usually left because they couldn't make their business model work, and not because anyone forced them out. As far as now goes, if you wanted to operate out of DAL, then maybe you should have fought against the gate restrictions American Airlines insisted on in our battle to lift the WA. (Just like you should have fought against the WA in 1979 as well.) Trust me, limiting DAL gates to 20 (our 16 and the other 4), wasn't Southwest's idea. Nor was it our idea to give American's gates to Virgin instead of you--we all made our pitch for them, and the DOJ picked Virgin over you and us.

Hey, I got an idea....maybe you could spend your money/efforts to lobby/fight to change the DAL restrictions again--this time to add more gates for everyone!

As far as your Parker family thesis goes, I honestly don't know anything about it. Could you provide a little more info?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba only SWA folks can say they fought the WA out of one side of their mouth, and then add "but the legacies agreed/wanted to leave [Love] so they shouldn't be allowed back in", out if the other side. It was a policy that the legacies wanted changed immediately but they couldn't get it done. Very convenient for you to say you would be in favor of it looking back, no one at SWA shared that opinion when it was happening.

I don't know for sure, I've done some looking into it, I think the Houston mayor and your former CEO might be related.

 

[Flopgut]

But the larger question is, why the hell do you guys even care where we do our business?

Because it affects us, and our fellow employees. Two long serving meritorious mayors used the FAA grant assurances as leverage to extract huge improvements to IAH out of CAL. We get one less than good mayor and in GK oozes with a BS deal that splits the FIS so you can operate 5 gates. FOUR just for SWA's use. Thats bad business my friend.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba only SWA folks can say they fought the WA out of one side of their mouth, and then add "but the legacies agreed/wanted to leave [Love] so they shouldn't be allowed back in", out if the other side. It was a policy that the legacies wanted changed immediately but they couldn't get it done. Very convenient for you to say you would be in favor of it looking back, no one at SWA shared that opinion when it was happening.

I don't know for sure, I've done some looking into it, I think the Houston mayor and your former CEO might be related.

The legacies did want to leave DAL for greener pastures, but the second part of your sentence is where you go off the rails. No one at Southwest ever said that other airlines should not be allowed back in. Ever. You keep pretending I said that, even though I didn't, just so you can try to make an argument where you would otherwise have none. As I pointed out, other airlines have come back in (and usually left again), all at their own decision, and Southwest never said a word about it. Why do you keep claiming that Soutwest "won't let" them back in?

If you're specifically talking about now, that's another story. Are you mad because we won't now give you some of our gates? The ones we fought for the right to use, paid for, and have been using constantly for 40-odd years? When nobody else wanted them? Those gates?

Seems to me, that it's American Airlines who won't let you back into DAL, not Southwest. American is the one who limited the number of gates, and froze you out, not us. Tell you what, Flop--start a movement to increase the number of gates at DAL, and Southwest will be right beside you, with full support. Deal?

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Because it affects us, and our fellow employees. Two long serving meritorious mayors used the FAA grant assurances as leverage to extract huge improvements to IAH out of CAL. We get one less than good mayor and in GK oozes with a BS deal that splits the FIS so you can operate 5 gates. FOUR just for SWA's use. Thats bad business my friend.

The only way it affects you is increased international competition out of Houston, where you were used to having none. Sorry, but that's just the way American capitalism works. Too bad you don't have your own Jim Wright in your pocket to create a protectionist law out of thin air to hobble us for your benefit.

And for God's sake, stop with the whole "splits the FIS" crap already. That's the dumbest argument ever. You guys are losing nothing. It's not like there's only allowed to be so many government workers allowed in Houston, and now you're losing some to work at Hobby. You'll have the exact same facilities with the exact same manning. Guess what?--they'll hire more staff to work an FIS at Hobby. More passengers equals more government fees equals more government employees to process said passengers. That's how it all works.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Houston CBP is a single mandate. No matter what propaganda SWA and the Mayor put out, it's going to stretch Houston ports of entry, and other Texas ports. Go ask an agent when you see one. IAH was specifically built to provide service for all Houston arrivals.

 

[Flopgut]

If you're specifically talking about now, that's another story. Are you mad because we won't now give you some of our gates? The ones we fought for the right to use, paid for, and have been using constantly for 40-odd years? When nobody else wanted them? Those gates?

Bubba

Those 4/5 sentences aren't in touch with reality, at all. I don't recall at any point anyone saying you should give up gates. Reality: Delta is being evicted. It's no real mystery why--They pose the most serious competition to your Love Field cash cow. It's history repeating itself, just as it always does.

 

[HowardBorden]

Ok Howard....

Using your clown logic.....

So if a city zones an area as residential and you want to open your retail store of Stupidity....you are going to say:
"well, we weren't even living here or paid taxes when you guys came up with this zoning law, therefore we don't have to pay attention to it and we are going to do whatever we want!"

Try a real argument and prove me wrong....

I'll be happy to prove you wrong Bill because that is a ridiculous argument.

To use your analogy about zoning, the airport was ALWAYS zoned as commercial, hence the airport doing business there. Guess what, most cities have multiple commercially zoned areas.

If a contractor approaches your business and says he will build you a much larger and well equipped facility as long as you sign a contract to move into that facility and pay rent when it opens, then it is your right to accept the deal and sign on the dotted line or decline the deal and stay put. However if you abandon the facility you used to rent for a new location, there is no guarantee that someone else might move in and rent that space in order to directly compete with you at your new location.

 

[HowardBorden]

Those 4/5 sentences aren't in touch with reality, at all. I don't recall at any point anyone saying you should give up gates. Reality: Delta is being evicted. It's no real mystery why--They pose the most serious competition to your Love Field cash cow. It's history repeating itself, just as it always does.

Delta isn't being evicted, the status quo has not changed at all.

Delta owned no gates before AA was instructed to divest the 2 they owned and Delta still owns no gates.

No one has prevented Delta from leasing gates from any of the three owners of gates at Love, just as they were doing before. Most likely AA would have kicked Delta out anyway in order to utilize the gates themselves now that the onerous restrictions are being lifted.