SWA Attempts To Steal Routes - Denied

[maru657]

The current high standard of living at Southwest requires that they steal routes, gates, airplanes and seniority, and they do it very well.

 

[SWA Bubba]

The current high standard of living at Southwest requires that they steal routes, gates, airplanes and seniority, and they do it very well.

Well, if anyone knows about stealing seniority, it would be you, you scab-wannabe. Thanks for chiming in!

Bubba

 

[canyonblue]

The current high standard of living at Southwest requires that they steal routes, gates, airplanes and seniority, and they do it very well.

We do EVERTHING better than you, that's why you're stuck at Sh!t Air. :laugh:

 

[Flopgut]

Both U.S. and Mexican authorities have made it easier for more airlines to fly to trans border destinations because ALL limits will be lifted in 9 short months.]

Well, if true (lifted in 9 months) that means what swa has attempted is even more dispicable. Right?! This would be one of the most heinous attempts at fixing competition I've ever heard of.

Look, I've been talking about this for a long time. I'm not surprised at all. In fact swa is right now is fighting a court document that provides for Delta to stay at Love. Decades of this behavior, along with low pay and no pension, is what got swa to where it is.

What does surprise me is the lack of posts from the usual swa posters. The silence speaks volumes.

 

[redflyer65]

Maybe because it doesn't do any good to wrestle with the pig (you).

I'm still stunned you think the Wright Amendment was formed to HELP Southwest.

But carry on with your 'facts according to Flop'. Very little based in truth by the way.

 

[outerlimits]

The current high standard of living at Southwest requires that they steal routes, gates, airplanes and seniority, and they do it very well.

I hope I do not end up an angry old man like yourself . Where do you think it all went south for you ?

 

[Ex737Driver]

Look, opinions and azzholes.................if it walks like and duck and quacks like a duck. Simple fact is SWA wanted to remove the competition from the route(s). It got some of what it wanted. UAL got some of what it wanted.

 

[HowardBorden]

Look, opinions and azzholes.................if it walks like and duck and quacks like a duck. Simple fact is SWA wanted to remove the competition from the route(s). It got some of what it wanted. UAL got some of what it wanted.

Are you really this dense?

SWA was trying to get in the market in order to compete. They want to compete in the market but the two slots allowed are both being flown by two airlines flying the same code.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Are you really this dense?

SWA was trying to get in the market in order to compete. They want to compete in the market but the two slots allowed are both being flown by two airlines flying the same code.

Which, of course, shows that really it was United trying to prevent competition. Monopolize the only two airline positions for that city pair, even though only one airline is using them. Why? To prevent any other airline from providing any competition. Sounds about right for Flop's airline.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Are you really this dense?

SWA was trying to get in the market in order to compete. They want to compete in the market but the two slots allowed are both being flown by two airlines flying the same code.

Which, of course, shows that really it was United trying to prevent competition. Monopolize the only two airline positions for that city pair, even though only one airline is using them. Why? To prevent any other airline from providing any competition. Sounds about right for Flop's airline.


Bubba

If UAL didn't want to compete with you, then why did they actively lobby the DOJ to intervene and gain the extra bilateral rights?! You got what you wanted. UAL was in favor of you getting the rights. Read the facts guys. You've got no defense on this. None!! You're both completely full of crap on this, and honestly I think you need to retract and apologize for these two misleading and somewhat slanderous posts.

Your both acting pissy about this. And it makes pretty clear that you were a lot less interested in the work and the chance to compete, than you were in seeing something taken from a legacy, and handed to SWA.

My thought is this: SWA wanted to steal something from an airline already doing it, to not only knock out a competitor and take their passengers, but it would also allow them to not involve Mexico's aviation authorities. Now that SWA has taken a favor, when Mexico takes issue with the lack of gates at Hobby, SWA and the city of Houston are going to owe them a favor. And I think what they're going to want is accommodation at the SWA owned gates, when the single common use isn't available.

 

[HowardBorden]

If UAL didn't want to compete with you, then why did they actively lobby the DOJ to intervene and gain the extra bilateral rights?!

They actively lobbied for extra bilateral rights in order to keep both slots that they currently control. Had they not done that there was the possibility that they would have had to reduce capacity in that market. At least until January 2016, that is, when all restrictions on routes will be lifted.

 

[SWA Bubba]

If UAL didn't want to compete with you, then why did they actively lobby the DOJ to intervene and gain the extra bilateral rights?! You got what you wanted. UAL was in favor of you getting the rights. Read the facts guys. You've got no defense on this. None!! You're both completely full of crap on this, and honestly I think you need to retract and apologize for these two misleading and somewhat slanderous posts.

Well, my guess would be that United lobbied for "extra bilateral rights," because they could see the writing on the wall.... That would be the writing where the Mexican authorities stated that they were likely to grant Southwest's request and give them one of United's two route authorities. Looks like the Mexicans also wanted some other airline to compete with United. Remember, you guys had both available route authorities for one company's flying, which prevented any competition in the slightest. But that's the way you like it, right?--not having to compete with anyone else.

Your both acting pissy about this. And it makes pretty clear that you were a lot less interested in the work and the chance to compete, than you were in seeing something taken from a legacy, and handed to SWA.

That's pretty funny, considering that you literally wrote the book on "pissy." You and your airline spend a considerable amount of time and money trying to limit/delay/screw over Southwest, and generally to keep from having to compete with Southwest, when they should be expending that effort in running your own damn business.

And doing this IS working and competing--head to head competition with you. How are we supposed to "work and compete," when your airline locks up all the available authority to prevent having any actual competition? Wanna' explain that to us?

My thought is this: SWA wanted to steal something from an airline already doing it, to not only knock out a competitor and take their passengers, but it would also allow them to not involve Mexico's aviation authorities. Now that SWA has taken a favor, when Mexico takes issue with the lack of gates at Hobby, SWA and the city of Houston are going to owe them a favor. And I think what they're going to want is accommodation at the SWA owned gates, when the single common use isn't available.

Your thought is wrong. The Mexican authorities are the final arbiter on who gets to fly there, and they were already directly involved. They indicated that they wanted Southwest to have route authority, and you can bet your bottom dollar that's the ONLY reason that United would ask them to just add supplemental rights.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

They actively lobbied for extra bilateral rights in order to keep both slots that they currently control. Had they not done that there was the possibility that they would have had to reduce capacity in that market. At least until January 2016, that is, when all restrictions on routes will be lifted.

United proposed an inclusive agreement that increased competition. They involved the DGAC thru DOJ. We're talking about a matter of days here as to when you could actually launch. Clearly SWA wanted to pull a fast one and escape the normal market. You're busted! But keep posting...

 

[Flopgut]

And doing this IS working and competing--head to head competition with you. How are we supposed to "work and compete," when your airline locks up all the available authority to prevent having any actual competition? Wanna' explain that to us?

You're way off on what competition is. And btw, you also need to understand better that what we do abroad is: commerce. There's give and take. Give comes before take. Arrogance usually only causes problems. Take the example set by JetBlue or Spirit. Those airlines aren't afraid to let the work speak for itself. Get in where they can fit in and go fly. I'm not sure SWA has ever done that.

And another btw: you guys got the wrong jet. You're belly can't carry much freight ($) to begin with, not to mention its full of free bags. That's like dos Equis Bubba

 

[humveedriver]

United proposed an inclusive agreement that increased competition. They involved the DGAC thru DOJ. We're talking about a matter of days here as to when you could actually launch. Clearly SWA wanted to pull a fast one and escape the normal market. You're busted! But keep posting...

I don't care what Southwest Airlines does as long as it benefits me. I hope they explore any and all new markets, to include int'l out of HOU, FLL and maybe PHX down the road. Belize is pending approval. Hope they add two new int'l cities a year not counting Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal, which I hope they add as soon as possible.

 

[HowardBorden]

Clearly SWA wanted to pull a fast one and escape the normal market. You're busted! But keep posting...

OK Flop I will keep posting------here you go!


In its petition to the federal government, Southwest suggested United withdraw one of its routes. United and SkyWest urged, instead, that the department grant Southwest its request routes without disrupting existing operations.

The City of Houston weighed in, stating that Southwest should be an addition on the routes and that is did not want to lose existing service.

In its decision, the Department said U.S. officials asked the Mexican government to allow extra routes. The request was granted. "We find that the public interest warrants our approval of Southwest's application," according to the Department's decision.

 

[Flopgut]

OK Flop I will keep posting------here you go!


In its petition to the federal government, Southwest suggested United withdraw one of its routes. United and SkyWest urged, instead, that the department grant Southwest its request routes without disrupting existing operations.

The City of Houston weighed in, stating that Southwest should be an addition on the routes and that is did not want to lose existing service.

In its decision, the Department said U.S. officials asked the Mexican government to allow extra routes. The request was granted. "We find that the public interest warrants our approval of Southwest's application," according to the Department's decision.

Thank you. Keep up the posts like this one^^^^^^^

Saves me having to further argue my already rock solid point.

 

[Flopgut]

I don't care what Southwest Airlines does as long as it benefits me. I hope they explore any and all new markets, to include int'l out of HOU, FLL and maybe PHX down the road. Belize is pending approval. Hope they add two new int'l cities a year not counting Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal, which I hope they add as soon as possible.

You should consider that actions like this on the part of SWA might not be benefiting you. You guys are punching your clown over all these potential new destinations, just remember to do the work. Stfu and fly this stuff. Stop trying to grift the system.

 

[SWA Bubba]

You should consider that actions like this on the part o

f SWA might not be benefiting you. You guys are punching your clown over all these potential new destinations, just remember to do the work. Stfu and fly this stuff. Stop trying to grift the system.

Ha! "Stfu and fly" is advice I've been giving YOU for years.

Mexico wanted us to fly those routes; they came out and said so, by saying they were inclined to grant Southwest's request. You remember, to get a little competition with United. Perhaps get a little lower fare structure for their people, with two airlines on the route, instead of just United's monopoly. And "grifting"? We have a long list of cities/airports who constantly ask us to fly to their airports to provide competition with entrenched incumbent legacies. Sorry if it cuts into your profit a little, when you have to actually compete, and can't just charge whatever you want, like you're used to on your monopoly routes.

And we do all the work necessary. Actually, we often have to do more than is necessary, since we have to expend extra effort rebutting Unical's constant and incessant objections and obstructions into our business. What's up with that, Flop? Why don't you guys just stfu and fly?

BTW, what does "punching your clown" mean? Is that a euphemism for what you do on your overnights?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba I've been there and done that. Bought the t shirt. Then I went back and got another t shirt. Seriously, is there an airline in history that has a bigger mouth than SWA, and also has a smaller body of work. Consider checking your arrogance about how you'll be received in Mexico. They have their own LCCs and they're not real excited about letting them be fodder for a bunch of loud mouths that think they're liberating a wasteland.

Question: Do you think you would have not been able to acquire these routes from Unical if we flew from the same airport? If we shared a departure airport, I think you would have got them. See your cozy relationship with a very average mayor, and your attempts to stack the deck at hobby are perhaps not really paying off.