SWA Attempts To Steal Routes - Denied

[Flopgut]

You really trust ANYTHING that come out of a United managers mouth? Boy, you really are stupid.

It appears that what did get approved is the extra bilateral rights that United lobbyed for on your behalf. As far as anything to do with SWA and competition, they've been accurate. I believe nothing else

 

[HowardBorden]

The instant 1 gate doesn't cut it, the city is going to have to force them to make another available.

Why do you continue to make outrageous and ridiculous claims with absolutely no basis in fact?


The $156 million project, which broke ground in September 2013, will feature five gates. Four of those gates will belong to Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co. (NYSE: LUV), and one will belong to the airport for other airlines, said Bill Manning, project manager for the terminal.

In addition, there is room to add seven gates for a total of 12, but there are no current plans to begin that expansion, he added.
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/...thwest+(Southwest+U.S.+News+from+bizjournals)

 

[Flopgut]

Howard: Competitive gate allocation is a subject not hard to find on the web. As I said before, I'm done sharing links with you or anyone else on here.

Please feel free to comment specifically to what your airline tried to make happen here. And compare it with all the preaching you (and other SWA) have done about "competition".

 

[Flopgut]

I'll share this much:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...m-houston-to-mexico-city-cabo-san-lucas.html/

Southwest Airlines in January lost its effort to get United Airlines or SkyWest Airlines kicked off routes from Houston to Mexico City and Houston to Cabo San Lucas. By the U.S.-Mexico bilateral treaty, the number of U.S. airlines on those routes is limited. And all the airline authorities had been handed out.

Southwest had argued that United Airlines and SkyWest Airlines were operating flights only for the benefit of one airline, United, and asked the DOT to replace one of them with Southwest. The U.S. Department of Transportation turned down Southwest?s request.

But on Tuesday, the DOT gave Southwest the necessary authority to fly from Houston to Mexico City and Cabo San Lucas after Mexican authorities indicated they would look favorably on Southwest?s request.

In doing so, they relied on the ability of both countries to approve ?extrabilateral? exemptions for more airlines than the aviation treaty allows.

?In light of the circumstances of this case, the U.S. Government asked the Mexican Direcci?n General de Aeron?utica Civil (DGAC) whether it would favorably consider an application for extrabilateral authority in the subject markets,? the DOT said in its Tuesday decision.

?In doing so, the Department noted that the United States has positively considered requests from the DGAC to grant certain extrabilateral authority to Mexican carriers. The DGAC advised the Department that it will, on the basis of reciprocity,* favorably consider an application from Southwest for Houston-Mexico City and Houston-San Jose del Cabo services,? the agency said.

Based on that, the DOT said in Tuesday?s order, ?we find that the public interest warrants our approval of Southwest?s application, and that we can proceed to such approval without needing to withdraw or otherwise place in issue the designations or authorities of any of the currently authorized U.S. carriers in these city-pair markets.?

*Based on "reciprocity" the DGAC approved it. Hmmmmm

 

[HowardBorden]

*Based on "reciprocity" the DGAC approved it. Hmmmmm

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.


US, Mexico to end limits on transborder airline routes

The United States and Mexico said they will end current restrictions that cap the number of passenger airlines that can fly on any one route between the nations. The agreement will become effective Jan. 1, 2016, the U.S. State Department said in a statement.
That current agreement places significant restrictions on the number of carriers permitted to fly U.S.-Mexico routes. Enacted in 2005, that agreement generally allows only two U.S. airlines and two Mexican airlines to fly on a single route between U.S. and Mexican airports. Some routes have different restriction details, but the agreement effectively caps the number of airlines that can begin service between U.S.-Mexico city pairs.
?The new agreement will remove the numerical limitations on the number of airlines that may provide passengers service in all U.S.-Mexico city pairs,? the U.S. Department of Transportation said in its own statement about the agreement.
?As a result, some city-pair markets might see the entrance of new carriers for the first time in many years, and airlines can consider offering new service in destinations that they could have never considered previously,? the DOT adds.
http://www.desertsun.com/story/mone...1/29/today-sky-travel-mexico-airbus/19653271/

 

[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.