I guess no doesn't mean no for Delta

[SWA Bubba]

And how much money to shove under the table.

That would be, "over the table," Driver. We shoved money at United in a deal to sublease their controlled gates. If Delta had wanted the gates so much, they were certainly allowed to offer to "shove" a larger amount of money at United in order to secure a lease instead of us. I guess they didn't want it that badly.

Say, aren't you a United guy? You're really gonna' sell Southwest something, take our money, and then bitch and whine about what happens next? That's pretty funny.

Bubba

 

[canyonblue]

Wait.....hang on. DAL we decided we don't want to compete against you. We took the gate and your SOL. Get over it and move on.

Wasn't one of the previous posts about irony?

No you moron, the problem is we have already sold tickets for NEW destinations that would require the new gates. Not like Delta that just wants to add more flights to Atlanturd. I think they are the ones who just shove money under the table, and it didn't work this time.

 

[HowardBorden]

Delta, Southwest reach temporary agreement on gate space at Love Field

Delta Air Lines and Southwest Airlines reached a temporary agreement on Wednesday to allow Delta to continue operating flights out of Dallas Love Field as legal issues are resolved.
The agreement will be in place until a federal court in Dallas holds a hearing to decide whether or not the city of Dallas has to accommodate Delta?s request to keep access to gate space at Love Field even though Southwest Airlines holds the lease to those gates. Southwest was pressing for Delta to leave early next month.
?Delta is pleased that Southwest has agreed to continue accommodating the five flights Delta currently operates at Love Field while the airlines pursue a long-term resolution in the courts,? the Atlanta-based airline said in a statement.
Demand for gates at Love Field has become an issue since last fall?s expiration of the Wright Amendment, which had restricted flights to nearby states.
Currently, Delta offers five daily flights to Atlanta out of Love Field but its temporary agreement with Southwest to use gate space was set to expire on July 6. Southwest plans to expand its flight schedule to 180 daily flights out of Love Field by August and the Dallas-based carrier said it needs all 18 of the 20 gates it controls for the expanded service.
?I can confirm that we have an agreement in principle to temporarily extend Delta?s license agreement while we await the opportunity for the court to hear our arguments,? said Southwest spokesman Brad Hawkins in an e-mail statement.
The court had originally scheduled a hearing on Monday to hear emergency motions in the case, but that has now been canceled. A full hearing in the case, which was filed by the city of Dallas last week, has not been set.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/aviation/sky-talk-blog/article25443769.html#storylink=cpy​

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Logical move on SWA's behalf, should DAL prevail in the suit and retain the gates - this mitigates the possibity of SW having to pay damages.

 

[Andy]

That would be, "over the table," Driver. We shoved money at United in a deal to sublease their controlled gates. If Delta had wanted the gates so much, they were certainly allowed to offer to "shove" a larger amount of money at United in order to secure a lease instead of us. I guess they didn't want it that badly.

Say, aren't you a United guy? You're really gonna' sell Southwest something, take our money, and then bitch and whine about what happens next? That's pretty funny.

Bubba

Hmmm. I seem to remember LUV getting gates taken away from the majors by DOT when the majors have been forced to 'divest' due to lack of competition. Why are you guys getting so upset about the possibility of being forced to divest at DAL? ... I guess all's good when you can grab gates at LGA and DCA from other airlines that didn't want to surrender them, but when the same thing happens at DAL, it's not fair? It appears that Delta's stolen a page from LUV's playbook ...

 

[bluesideup1]

Hmmm. I seem to remember LUV getting gates taken away from the majors by DOT when the majors have been forced to 'divest' due to lack of competition. Why are you guys getting so upset about the possibility of being forced to divest at DAL? ... I guess all's good when you can grab gates at LGA and DCA from other airlines that didn't want to surrender them, but when the same thing happens at DAL, it's not fair? It appears that Delta's stolen a page from LUV's playbook ...

Actually Andy the problem is the whole Wright amendment. I don't think anyone would have a problem with Delta, United, American coming into Luv if it were not for the artificial limitations put on SW by the Wright agreement.

Remember before there was an agreement made to let love fly outside of Texas without stopping SW was going to each individual state and getting the law changed to allow SW to fly direct to that state. AA saw the writing on the wall and with the city of Dallas came to an agreement to remove the restrictions based on SW never flying international directly from Love and to limit SW to only 20 gates. This is after waiting 8 years to come to fruition. Now that SW put all the time and effort preparing for this Delta just wants to swoop in and take a gate that its lease was up and should not have?

Now on the other hand if Delta wants to challenge the Wright agreement to get more gates above the 20 that are there. They could do it since they were not part of the original agreement and there are no traffic or space limitations just artificial ones then I don't think anyone would object and I think even SW would support that call.

 

[Flopgut]

Remember before there was an agreement made to let love fly outside of Texas without stopping SW was going to each individual state and getting the law changed to allow SW to fly direct to that state. AA saw the writing on the wall and with the city of Dallas came to an agreement to remove the restrictions based on SW never flying international directly from Love and to limit SW to only 20 gates. This is after waiting 8 years to come to fruition. Now that SW put all the time and effort preparing for this Delta just wants to swoop in and take a gate that its lease was up and should not have?

American gets vilified for this, but the most disenfranchised party to the WA drama (and the one with the most pull placing restrictions on LOVE Field) is the City of Ft Worth. Not so distant, the legal claims Braniff made that it was completely wrong that they were forced to serve 2 cities with one airport [DFW].

I don't think FT Worth wants more than 20 gates at Love... SWA could move to DFW though. Lots of airlines poured $ into Love and then left, swa could do the same and do anything they want. What's wrong with that?

 

[SWA Bubba]

Hmmm. I seem to remember LUV getting gates taken away from the majors by DOT when the majors have been forced to 'divest' due to lack of competition. Why are you guys getting so upset about the possibility of being forced to divest at DAL? ... I guess all's good when you can grab gates at LGA and DCA from other airlines that didn't want to surrender them, but when the same thing happens at DAL, it's not fair? It appears that Delta's stolen a page from LUV's playbook ...

Actually, Andy, that's not quite what happened.

The gates (slots, really) that Southwest picked up in LGA and DCA were bought by Southwest either at auction, or directly from the other airlines in question. Some were marketed or auctioned by the other airlines as a condition of approval in merger; others on their own. Regardless, Southwest bought them from willing sellers.

Just like we paid for the subleases from United at Love. Delta was certainly allowed to make a superior offer for the gates if they wanted them; for their own reasons, they declined to.

Not the same thing at all.

Here's an idea--why don't all the airlines lobby to increase the number of allowable gates at Love? That way, any airline could do what they wanted there. Southwest wouldn't object, and everyone wins, right?

Well, everyone wins but Flopgut, whose head might explode. He seems more interested in simply hurting Southwest, than in actually helping anyone else, or promoting the industry in general.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

American gets vilified for this, but the most disenfranchised party to the WA drama (and the one with the most pull placing restrictions on LOVE Field) is the City of Ft Worth. Not so distant, the legal claims Braniff made that it was completely wrong that they were forced to serve 2 cities with one airport [DFW].

I don't think FT Worth wants more than 20 gates at Love... SWA could move to DFW though. Lots of airlines poured $ into Love and then left, swa could do the same and do anything they want. What's wrong with that?

Wrong again, Flop! You're a model of consistency; I'll give you that. :blush:

1. Ft Worth is hardly "disenfranchised" in any manner whatsoever. DFW is a huge economic generator for the region, overcrowded as it is. They "made out," in relation to the respective traffic at the two cities' original airports. The majority of local traffic at DFW comes from/to Dallas, so by sharing the revenue, the city of Ft Worth enjoys considerably more benefit, than if the two cities operated their own respective airports. Huge win for Ft Worth.

Besides, with the demise of the WA, if they wanted to operate their own airport in addition to DFW (i.e., their own "Love Field"), nobody would care or try to stop them. They just have no reason to do it, nor the traffic to justify it.

2. Braniff made no legal claims whatsoever that "it was wrong that they were forced to serve 2 cities with one airport." You just pulled that line of crap out of your a$$. Braniff was actually the driving airline force behind building DFW in the first place; they wanted it to support their growing operations. Also, they continued serving Love Field in addition, mainly to compete with Southwest, eventually leaving of their own accord. No one forced them to do anything, at any time, least of all confine operations to any particular airport.

The only legal action Braniff faced in regards to Dallas, was their initial frivolous lawsuit attempts to kill Southwest, and then their related criminal conviction for conspiracy (along with Texas International and your beloved Continental), in their later attempts of the same.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Facts are facts. Swa lives with the result of the WA because the other side had a solid case. And it was not only American in opposition to SWA.

What we need is high speed rail between Love and Dfw. Wonder if SWA would be on board with that? Make them function like one airport. Would be good in Houston as well. Might be too far fetched, but anything that affords a level playing field is all anyone wants. Well, except swa

 

[Flopgut]

Good article to get you up to speed bubba

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article3877464.html

No Ft Worth did not "make out"

 

[SWA Bubba]

Facts are facts. Swa lives with the result of the WA because the other side had a solid case. And it was not only American in opposition to SWA.

Yes, facts are facts. Unfortunately, you nearly always have none. Just the crap you make up. The fact is, SWA lived with the result of the WA because the other side had their political stooge change the law to suit them. Prior to that, the other side's "solid case" was literally laughed out of every court in the land. Over and over. Up to and including the US Supreme Court.

What we need is high speed rail between Love and Dfw. Wonder if SWA would be on board with that? Make them function like one airport. Would be good in Houston as well. Might be too far fetched, but anything that affords a level playing field is all anyone wants. Well, except swa

Are you kidding? Southwest would love that. But you might want to ask your bosses before suggesting that, as I don't think they'd agree. Southwest would then be able to siphon off some of American's international Dallas passengers into our domestic traffic. Ditto some of United's far-international passengers in Houston.

Great idea, Flop! You should push this with Unical's management!

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Good article to get you up to speed bubba

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article3877464.html

No Ft Worth did not "make out"

Interesting article, Flop, but thanks anyway; I AM up to speed.

You might notice that the article referred to DFW as a great economic hub, supporting that city. That's something they didn't have with just their own airport. Ever. If both Ft Worth and Dallas both had separate, large airports, Ft Worth would be sucking wind right now (unless they could also talk a major airline into making it a hub for connectors), since their local traffic is a fraction of that destined for Dallas.

So yes, they ARE "making out," compared to each city having its own airport.

And it's not surprising that they're against Dallas Love in general. Duh. I'm sure they'd prefer that literally every Dallas-bound passenger brought some money to Ft Worth, instead of just the 80% who do now, by traveling through DFW instead of Love. No kidding--that's how they make money. I'd bet that American would similarly wish that every passenger in general flew on them instead of splitting passenger traffic with Southwest (and United, Delta, etc.)

This has to be one of the weakest arguments you've ever tried to bootstrap. Try again.

Bubba

 

[maru657]

Fascinating, while I don't have a dog in this fight, it's fun to watch. Southwest might loose some of that "welfare" airspace.

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba: This issue goes back to 1927. How do you manage to think that the swa component of this makes up the entirety of its history? The world does not revolve around swa. What should have happened in place of the wa was a class action lawsuit that closed Love. (There really ought to be one in Houston to stop your Hobby FIS. No airline should be allowed to sharpshoot public expenditure on large airport investments.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Fascinating, while I don't have a dog in this fight, it's fun to watch. Southwest might loose some of that "welfare" airspace.

While, I doubt Southwest is going to "loose" anything, I should point out that Southwest is one of the few airlines that has never asked for or received "welfare" of any sort.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba: This issue goes back to 1927. How do you manage to think that the swa component of this makes up the entirety of its history? The world does not revolve around swa. What should have happened in place of the wa was a class action lawsuit that closed Love.

Uh, we've been through this before, Flop. They tried a "class action lawsuit" to close Love Field exactly like you just suggested. That was one of the first moves. The result?--It was soundly defeated and thrown out of every single friggin' court in the land. And then, after multiple frivolous attempts, the court even enjoined the other parties from using the courts from even trying this crap again. A nearly unprecedented legal ass-whuppin'--the court essentially told the other parties to "shut up, and knock off the frivolous BS."

And nobody believes that the "world revolves around SWA." However, we're entitled to run our business the way we want, in accordance with the laws. Not the way that you want. The world also doesn't revolve around you, trying to screw Southwest. Because that's all we ever hear from you.

(There really ought to be one in Houston to stop your Hobby FIS. No airline should be allowed to sharpshoot public expenditure on large airport investments.

"Sharpshoot public expenditure?" What kind of new babble is this? Exactly what "public expenditure" are you referring to, Flop? Southwest is paying for the new terminal itself. The city is building a parking garage, where they expect to make tons of money from it. That's a money-making investment for them. And the federal government is manning the FIS, as it's required to do for every airport that has international flying. And that particular installation and its employees are paid for by passenger charges on the new international traffic--just like every other airport in the land.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

The effects [limits] of the WA live on Bubba. No matter your heavy word count posts and all the bawling from swa "People". The reason: Ft Worth and others had a legal right and proper necessity to put it into place. Ft Worth would have much rather had the under used smaller airport (where a discounter would be dug in today and ripping your nuts off) than have been forced by the Federal govt to participate in DFW. And if Delta/RA want to take a duke in your punch bowl, that's their right. You need to live with it, since it's pretty much what swa makes their $ doing. RA wants to make this messy, keep the story in the Dallas media, and continue to reveal swa as the cake eater airline that it is. The pendulum will swing a third time, and you may not have a soft landing when it does.

 

[redflyer65]

"Sharpshoot public expenditure?" What kind of new babble is this? Exactly what "public expenditure" are you referring to, Flop? Southwest is paying for the new terminal itself. The city is building a parking garage, where they expect to make tons of money from it. That's a money-making investment for them. And the federal government is manning the FIS, as it's required to do for every airport that has international flying. And that particular installation and its employees are paid for by passenger charges on the new international traffic--just like every other airport in the land.

Bubba

The only real argument Flop has at Hobby is a parking garage. Think about that for a minute.

The city is going to go BROKE building a parking garage for God sake!!! Forget the fact that they will clean up for the parking fees and pay the bill on the facility 10 times over. Maybe one of the best deals for a city government on the planet. But Flop is still outraged!

 

[Andy]

Actually, Andy, that's not quite what happened.

The gates (slots, really) that Southwest picked up in LGA and DCA were bought by Southwest either at auction, or directly from the other airlines in question. Some were marketed or auctioned by the other airlines as a condition of approval in merger; others on their own. Regardless, Southwest bought them from willing sellers.

Just like we paid for the subleases from United at Love. Delta was certainly allowed to make a superior offer for the gates if they wanted them; for their own reasons, they declined to.

Not the same thing at all.

Here's an idea--why don't all the airlines lobby to increase the number of allowable gates at Love? That way, any airline could do what they wanted there. Southwest wouldn't object, and everyone wins, right?

Well, everyone wins but Flopgut, whose head might explode. He seems more interested in simply hurting Southwest, than in actually helping anyone else, or promoting the industry in general.

Bubba

LUV got those gates because other airlines were forced to divest due to the high percentage of flights that they had at those airports. LUV has a near monopoly at DAL. The reason why it doesn't appear to be the same at all to you is because LUV's monopoly is much higher than those other airlines had at those airports.
Build more gates? Hmmm - why didn't LUV try to do that at airports where they benefitted from the loss of other airlines?

Like it or not, LUV is no longer the underdog airline and will probably start to get gates/slots/assets poached by other airlines, with the endorsement of government agencies. We've watched that happen for more than a decade to the legacies - interesting to see the reaction now that it's not United/American/Delta whose gates/slots are being taken away.