I guess no doesn't mean no for Delta

[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"

Read it again Bubba. Read. Plenty of lawful opposition to allowing Love to stay open. No shortage of West of Plexers that don't agree with you. Completely wrong to force DFW construction and then offer swa the keys to an airport 5 times more popular.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba how can this be anything more than symbolism on RAs part? They had a large base at DFW not that long ago. Do you think he's confused about the Dallas airline business? Do you honestly believe that your home airport is that special? For a sharp legacy CEO this is no different than the threat ME3 airlines present. That is: he has to keep (or get to) an even playing field with airlines he competes with. What your airline has cooked up at Love and Hobby is just as wrong as the ME3 saying they won't buy Boeing's if we don't give them complete access. I'm not sure you do a lot of reading about the ME3, but frankly a lot of your posts sound just like those advocating for them. Companies who find themselves in between competitors have to get out of that middle spot fast. You can not stay there. Gk/swa understand this perfectly. That's why swa does what it does. (Swa goes one more step and brainwashes all of you with hype and b.s.) RA understands it. He may win he may not, but the exercise of trying to both offer the flights, and complicate your plans, is worthwhile.

Good God, Flop, make up your mind--First, it was RA screwing with Southwest for purely personal reasons. Now, it's RA "fighting the good fight" for idealistic reasons. Yet, you can't come to grips with the fact that perhaps he's doing it for purely business reasons, in that he can make money doing it. Seeing as how that's what CEOs are paid to do.

I can't argue with the rest of your rambling paragraph, because as near as I can determine, you didn't actually say anything. Try again?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Semantics Bubba. RA is doing what he's doing. If you choose to not understand why that's your own deal. Try again to explain things to you? No thanks. You're better off not knowing.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Semantics Bubba. RA is doing what he's doing. If you choose to not understand why that's your own deal. Try again to explain things to you? No thanks. You're better off not knowing.

Gotcha. I'll do that.

I'll go back to assuming that RA is running his business simply to maximize his company's profit. Although God only knows why he would do such a crazy thing. Silly him.

And you're right that it was stupid to ask you to explain anything in the airline business, since you've demonstrated time and again, that you don't know the first thing about any of it. Every bizarre thing you've ever claimed has been demonstrated to be untrue, then you ignore the facts, and then a while later, when the discussion has dropped off, you repeat the same crap, as if it's somehow a new idea again. It's like arguing with a four year-old.

Bubba

 

[Andy]

Some were "forced divestitures," but divestiture agreed to by the airline in question as a condition of the DOJ giving sanction to their merger. Not the same thing at all as shrinking an airport to barely fit around a particular airline's operation, and THEN saying give up some of the gates they've always had for the last 40 years. This has nothing to do with "fairness"; it's about being punitive to the competition (SWA).

Again, welcome to no longer being the 'underdog' in the business. Not all forced legacy divestitures have been due to mergers, as you have stated. A few years ago, both American and United were forced to divest gates/slots at ORD - these gates/slots were given to other carriers - JetBlue, VX, F9, Spirit - I don't remember which got pieces of what was taken from American and United. Southwest has benefitted from the same FAA 'rob from the rich and give to the poor' policies in the past. Both United and American fought the divestitures but they still happened in the name of 'competition'.

If I dust off some more near dead/unused brain cells, I'm sure that there have been plenty of other non-merger forced divestitures in the airline industry. Should LUV be targeted at DAL? Absolutely; there are few other airports in the country with such a large percentage of only one airline. And DAL almost certainly has the most passenger traffic of any airport with a single dominant carrier.

How is that "equal footing"? Says who? Pretty much says only DFW (the competition), and airlines who would like to see SWA lose business (uh, also the competition). Lots of cities have multiple airports--it's a common and good idea. The traffic in that area is more than enough to support multiple airports. What the hell is it with you guys? Always trying to tell other airlines how to run their business. Why don't you fly to/from where you want to, and we'll fly to/from where we want to?

It sounds like you don't know the history of DAL. The agreement was that DAL and all other commercial airports in the area would be closed as soon as DFW opened. Exactly what happened with Stapleton when DIA opened.

In reality, "equal footing" would be to have more gates at DAL for other airlines to do whatever they wanted--just like it used to be. You can blame American Airlines and DFW for that: it's all about money, as they want to force passengers to spend as much money on them, and as little on us, as possible.

You REALLY need to read up on DAL's history - and not the LUV kool aid 'history' of DAL where the Wright Amendment is vilified. In reality, Herb pulled an underhanded trick (not being a party to the agreement to close all other airports to commercial aviation) to keep the airport open when it was supposed to be shut down.

As far as the number of gates at DAL, the limit is 20. No more gates can be built there. But you guys should already know this.

Interesting that you are taking the 'wild west' approach to aviation rulemaking. Reference to, and I quote: "..."equal footing" would be to have more gates at DAL for other airlines to do whatever they wanted--just like it used to be". This is the attitude that has in the past earned LUV the reputation as cowboys. ... don't like the rules? Ignore them, then if there's a lawsuit, fight it out in court. Herb was very, very good at that.
Everything that you're referring to are agreed upon rules and laws with respect to DAL. It was legally agreed to shut it down when DFW opened. LUV opted to ignore the rule. Now that it's still open, the number of gates are legally limited to 20 gates.

You're starting to sound as paranoid as Flop now. Exactly what has Southwest done to "mess with the legacies"? How about some specifics, instead of just generalized, absurd conspiracy theories with no actual basis in truth or facts?

I don't mind engaging in spirited debate, but you are completely out of line here. I'm not at all paranoid about DAL and could care less about the outcome. But everything that I have stated is well documented in both newsprint and legal documents. You are using the Goebbels technique here, trying to sell LUV fact free folklore - If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Do your own independent homework on the subject.

Nice deflection but the question was still a stupid one as it is impossible for Southwest to build any more gates at any of the airports they were awarded slots at. Unlike Love where there is plenty of room and arrival capability.

BS. It's not impossible to build additional gates at LGA or DCA. Expensive? Yes. Impossible? No.

Love is limited to 20 gates. No more are permitted to be built. But if you're going to ignore the rules/law and operate under cowboy ops, sure, more gates can be built there just as more gates can be built at LGA and DCA.

But ya bring up something that happened 40 years ago as relevant today.

Seriously? You guys are more than happy to bring up Chap 11 filings as if they happened yesterday, but have a huge blindspot for illegal actions? Interesting take on the history of DAL.

Andy,

You are usually a level headed voice of reason and I can understand if you didn't have all the facts before posting.

Thanks, but you and I know that I don't have the definitive answer to your questions but just for yucks I'll respond to both of them.

If Delta was interested in these gates why didn't they try and get them anytime in the last 8 years while we were waiting for the Wright Amendment to die?

56 or fewer seats.

If you don't understand the answer, you need to read up on the subject.

What gives Delta the right to go against an agreement that was reached between Southwest, American, The city of Dallas and the Federal Government?

I don't know; the same thing that gave Southwest the right to go against an agreement that was reached between the federal, state and local governments and the airlines when DAL was supposed to be shut down upon opening of DFW?

Pot meet kettle.

Last you seem to think that Southwest did something sneaky to stay at love (even though we were not even formed when the agreement to move to DFW was made) yet you are OK with the Speaker of the house being in AA pocket to add a backdoor amendment to keep Southwest from flying out of Love even after every legal challenge thrown our way was dismissed not once but over 8 times.

Do I think Southwest did something sneaky to stay at Love? Dude, step back and read up on the subject. It was completely underhanded. I can't even believe that you'd suggest something different.

As far as your assertion that the Wright Amendment was a backdoor attempt to stop Southwest from flying out of Love, I doubt it. It was clearly an attempt to shut down Love, as what had been agreed to by everyone except Southwest. Southwest kept it open due to Herb being a superstar in the courtroom.

Herb's a damned good lawyer. He could have gotten Ted Bundy, Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Hinckley, Jr. acquitted. Working all of the cases at the same time. That was a compliment to Herb, not a slam on him.


All airlines pull underhanded tactics on each other. Crandall's shutdown of Braniff is well documented. You guys trying to make Southwest sound like a honest player is humorous - I understand your desire to not slam your employer for underhanded crap, but the Southwest fiction-based folklore is rampant in this thread.

 

[SWA Bubba]

.

It sounds like you don't know the history of DAL. The agreement was that DAL and all other commercial airports in the area would be closed as soon as DFW opened. Exactly what happened with Stapleton when DIA opened.

Sorry; it seems clear that it's you, Andy, that has problems with the history of DAL. The agreement was NOT that "all other commercial airports in the area would be closed as soon as DFW opened." You are 100% wrong here.

The agreement was that the carriers at the other commercial airports would move to DFW when opened, and not operate at the other airports. That was it. That was the entire crux of the agreement. It had nothing to do with the airports themselves. It was an agreement between the existing carriers that wanted a bigger airport for their expansion plans, the two cities, and the newly-formed DFW airport authority. It was to make it worthwhile to spend all that money on a new, huge airport.

This agreement was made and signed literally years before Southwest was conceived and incorporated in 1967. Southwest Airlines was not then, nor have they ever been party to that agreement. If SWA had existed and had been flying from Love in 1964, they were under no obligation to be a party to any such agreement, and I doubt they would have.

The fact of the matter is, that the city of Dallas, unlike the city of Denver, chose not to close Love Field. In fact, Southwest's legal fight to fly was actually adjudicated that no one could stop SWA from flying out of Love "as long as Love Field remained open as an airport." The city of Dallas, as owner of Dallas Love Field, could have unilaterally closed Love Field at any time that it wanted. It still can (although I suppose it would have to honor the current leases that it's party to). It doesn't want to. That's the bottom line.

You REALLY need to read up on DAL's history - and not the LUV kool aid 'history' of DAL where the Wright Amendment is vilified. In reality, Herb pulled an underhanded trick (not being a party to the agreement to close all other airports to commercial aviation) to keep the airport open when it was supposed to be shut down.

Seriously? it's an "underhanded trick" to not be a party to an agreement that was made years before you even envisioned and started your business? An agreement that offers exactly no benefit to you, and that would prevent your business from actually working? What kind of world do you live in?

As far as the number of gates at DAL, the limit is 20. No more gates can be built there. But you guys should already know this.

Of course we know it. It was part of the compromise that finally lifted the punitive WA. That number completely artificial, and insisted upon by American Airlines and the DFW airport authority. Unlike in LGA and DCA, it's not a limit based on air traffic saturation, or airport congestion.

But I noticed you ignored where I pointed out what actually happened in the limiting. Look at it this way: it's EXACTLY the same as if someone massively reduced the number of gates at DEN (a big base for United, right?) to an arbitrary number just a few gates more than what United currently uses, and then other airlines came in and insisted on being awarded some of United's gates, because "they now had a monopoly."

Interesting that you are taking the 'wild west' approach to aviation rulemaking. Reference to, and I quote: "..."equal footing" would be to have more gates at DAL for other airlines to do whatever they wanted--just like it used to be". This is the attitude that has in the past earned LUV the reputation as cowboys. ... don't like the rules? Ignore them, then if there's a lawsuit, fight it out in court. Herb was very, very good at that.
Everything that you're referring to are agreed upon rules and laws with respect to DAL. It was legally agreed to shut it down when DFW opened. LUV opted to ignore the rule. Now that it's still open, the number of gates are legally limited to 20 gates.

Sorry, as pointed out above, everything I referred to was NOT "agreed upon rules and laws with respect to DAL." And it was NOT "legally agreed to shut it down when DFW opened."

I don't mind engaging in spirited debate, but you are completely out of line here. I'm not at all paranoid about DAL and could care less about the outcome. But everything that I have stated is well documented in both newsprint and legal documents. You are using the Goebbels technique here, trying to sell LUV fact free folklore - If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Do your own independent homework on the subject.

Since some of what you said is demonstrably untrue, I'd say it's NOT "well documented in both newsprint and legal document." And it's interesting you bringing up the Goebbels technique--it's exactly what Flop and other SWA-bashers do. Keep claiming stupid sh1t over and over (like the WA was "negotiated with SWA, in order to help them"), and eventually he believes it himself. Don't fall into that trap.

BS. It's not impossible to build additional gates at LGA or DCA. Expensive? Yes. Impossible? No.

Love is limited to 20 gates. No more are permitted to be built. But if you're going to ignore the rules/law and operate under cowboy ops, sure, more gates can be built there just as more gates can be built at LGA and DCA.

Whether it's physically possible to build more gates at LGA and DCA is not the point. It's airspace limitations and congestion due to physical size that limits flights here. It's not a limit on gates, it's a limit on aircraft flights (slots). NOT the same thing as Love field at all. There's no airspace limitations over TX, and there's plenty of physical room at DAL for more gates and flight operations. It's an artificial limit, based purely on politics and DFW not wanting any more competition than it already has.

You want more gates there? Change the law then. It's that simple (unlike changing the laws of geometry and physics like you'd need to to increase LGA's traffic). Hell, SWA's competitors already seem to have experience in changing laws they don't like--it should be easy for them. All they have to do is just buy another influential politician. :blush:

Thanks, but you and I know that I don't have the definitive answer to your questions but just for yucks I'll respond to both of them.

56 or fewer seats.

If you don't understand the answer, you need to read up on the subject.

Well, I'm sure that he knows that answer, as do I. 56 seats was the limitation on commercial aircraft from DAL to go out of the WA footprint. But it didn't really answer his actual question about Delta not procuring any gates when they had the opportunity. Southwest doesn't have any planes with 56 or fewer seats, and we still made money flying out of DAL.

Why didn't Delta get any gates in the 8 year sunset period? They had to know that they'd be able to go anywhere once the magic day arrived. Hell, why didn't they actually bid a decent amount on United's gates up for sublease after the end of the WA? They could have gotten them then, and flown anywhere they wanted. That was point, which you sidestepped.


<The rest of your quote again relied on the disproved notion that the "law" or "agreement" somehow required closing of Love Field, so I just deleted it instead of repeating myself to respond>

Bubba

 

[Andy]

The fact of the matter is, that the city of Dallas, unlike the city of Denver, chose not to close Love Field.

SWA Bubba, you say that the city of Dallas could have kicked out Southwest at any time. This is Dallas Love's website: http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/love-notes-chronology-of-events.html

Note:
1972
The Regional Airport Board and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth sue Southwest Airlines over their decision to remain at Love Field.

1973
Love Field enplanements peak at 6,668,398. The court grants Southwest Airlines the right to remain and offer intrastate air service at Love Field.





I'll rephrase: The city of Dallas wanted Love field closed to commercial aircraft. I love the semantics play you're using. Did they want to keep it open for private aircraft? I'd have to read more about it, but it's obvious that no one except Southwest wanted commercial aviation at Love field.

 

[Flopgut]

Gotcha. I'll do that.

I'll go back to assuming that RA is running his business simply to maximize his company's profit. Although God only knows why he would do such a crazy thing. Silly him.

And you're right that it was stupid to ask you to explain anything in the airline business, since you've demonstrated time and again, that you don't know the first thing about any of it. Every bizarre thing you've ever claimed has been demonstrated to be untrue, then you ignore the facts, and then a while later, when the discussion has dropped off, you repeat the same crap, as if it's somehow a new idea again. It's like arguing with a four year-old.

Bubba

Read something other than this board and the stupid propaganda swa puts out. Read the dallasaviationblog Especially read Art of War by Sun Tzu. It might just get your head dislodged from your butthole. The very narrow version of history you think you walk me through every time makes me realize your not much of a free thinker. you don't manage to prove anything to be true or untrue, you just type 4000 words and pronounce its "the truth".

 

[Andy]

Whether it's physically possible to build more gates at LGA and DCA is not the point. It's airspace limitations and congestion due to physical size that limits flights here. It's not a limit on gates, it's a limit on aircraft flights (slots). NOT the same thing as Love field at all. There's no airspace limitations over TX, and there's plenty of physical room at DAL for more gates and flight operations. It's an artificial limit, based purely on politics and DFW not wanting any more competition than it already has.

You want more gates there?

It took me 3 (wasted) minutes of my life to find out why DAL's gate limited. NOISE.

Seriously, if you guys are going to sit here and say, 'build more gates', at least find out why the freaking restriction was put in place. The airport's in the middle of a residential area, similar to SNA and every other noise sensitive airport.

I don't want more gates at DAL; I don't care about this subject. I'm just pointing out the semi tractor trailer sized holes in you kool aid drinkers' arguments.

You guys haven't been on the losing end of asset seizure by the government yet. If by some miracle, you guys win in court, I think you're going to find the DoT is going to resolve this issue and it won't be in LUV's favor. Do you know the DoT's current position on this subject? It's not in LUV's favor.

Do you know the percentage of passenger traffic at the airport flown by LUV? Good luck holding onto that number; if Delta decides to increase its presence in DAL, it's likely to come at the expense of more LUV gates being subleased or sold to Delta.

 

[SWA Bubba]

SWA Bubba, you say that the city of Dallas could have kicked out Southwest at any time. This is Dallas Love's website: http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/love-notes-chronology-of-events.html

Note:
1972
The Regional Airport Board and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth sue Southwest Airlines over their decision to remain at Love Field.

1973
Love Field enplanements peak at 6,668,398. The court grants Southwest Airlines the right to remain and offer intrastate air service at Love Field.

No, Andy, I never said that (bolded above). Don't put words in my mouth. I said that they could close the airport at any time, but didn't want to. I pointed out that you were wrong in your repeated insistence that the law/agreements required DAL to be closed, and Southwest somehow forced them to do otherwise. What the law actually required, and was affirmed by every court in the US, was that, as long as Dallas Love remained open as an airport, Southwest (not a party to the agreement) could fly there.

I'll rephrase: The city of Dallas wanted Love field closed to commercial aircraft. I love the semantics play you're using. Did they want to keep it open for private aircraft? I'd have to read more about it, but it's obvious that no one except Southwest wanted commercial aviation at Love field.

It's not semantics at all. It's what the friggin' law (and the agreement you keep referring to) actually said. Airlines who signed onto the agreement would move their commercial flying to DFW. That was it.

And it doesn't make any difference who "wanted no commercial flying out of DAL." Since Southwest wasn't party to the agreement to use only DFW, and you can't have a public airport, and then say that certain people cannot use it. It would be discrimination. That basically was the city of Dallas' choice: either close the airport, or let anyone who wanted to lawfully use it, do so. And Southwest wanted to lawfully use it. Why is that so hard to understand? They chose to keep it open, and then negotiated leases with Southwest.

You do realize that any lawful aviation entity can fly to any public airport, right? (specific slot controls, safety issues, etc., not withstanding)


There's nothing underhanded about it. We never wanted to fly out of DFW; we never agreed to move; so we didn't. We pick the airports we want to fly to, just the same as United, Delta, and everyone else.

Bubba

 

[HowardBorden]

SWA Bubba, you say that the city of Dallas could have kicked out Southwest at any time. This is Dallas Love's website: http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/love-notes-chronology-of-events.html

Note:
1972
The Regional Airport Board and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth sue Southwest Airlines over their decision to remain at Love Field.

1973
Love Field enplanements peak at 6,668,398. The court grants Southwest Airlines the right to remain and offer intrastate air service at Love Field.





I'll rephrase: The city of Dallas wanted Love field closed to commercial aircraft. I love the semantics play you're using. Did they want to keep it open for private aircraft? I'd have to read more about it, but it's obvious that no one except Southwest wanted commercial aviation at Love field.

The City of Dallas did in fact want Love Field closed to commercial traffic because they had multiple bonds ordinances funding DFW and multiple agreements with other airlines to move their operations out of Love to DFW. The problem however was that the City of Dallas had no authority to do so. In fact it was illegal for Dallas to preclude SWA from using Love field.

Dallas Love Field was and is subject to the same regulations and stipulations put forth by the Federal government when they provide the major funding to build these very expensive facilities. It was found that Dallas had zero authority to oust SWA from Love Field.


546 F.2d 84
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TEXAS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants,
v.
TEXAS AERONAUTICS COMMISSION, Intervenor-Appellee.
No. 75-2539.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Southwest Airlines Co. has returned to the federal courts for the second time in two years to preserve a 1973 judgment in a federal district court. The recurring litigation concerns Southwest's right to continue its air passenger services at Love Field in Dallas, Texas, and to avoid a forced move to the new Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport. The district court granted Southwest a preliminary injunction against relitigation in state court of the issues decided in 1973.
We affirm.

I. FACTS

The cities and the Airport Board then filed the first federal court suit (Southwest I ), requesting a declaratory judgment of their right to exclude Southwest from Love Field. Southwest counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of its right to remain at the field and for an injunction to enforce that right. The TAC intervened as a party-defendant and adopted Southwest's position. On both federal and state law grounds, the district court declared that the cities and the Board could "not lawfully exclude the defendant, Southwest Airlines Co., from the use of Love Field, Dallas, Texas, and its airport facilities so long as Love Field remains open as an airport."

In 1970 eight CAB-certified air lines, appellants in this case, executed letter agreements with the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport Board agreeing to "move all of (their) certified Air Carrier Services serving the Dallas-Fort Worth area to the (new) airport . . . to the extent required under the terms of the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance."

Southwest Airlines began its intrastate commercial air service from Love Field in 1971 under a certificate issued by the Texas Aeronautics Commission (TAC). The certificate authorized service from any airport in the area.

Dallas responded to the district court's judgment by passing a criminal ordinance that levied a two-hundred-dollar fine for each takeoff or landing at Love Field by an airplane of a certified airline. Southwest then brought another suit in federal court (Southwest II ) to enjoin enforcement of that ordinance.

After Southwest moved for summary judgment, however, the district court severed the ordinance dispute from the case and enjoined Dallas from enforcing the ordinance against either Southwest or Braniff.

The federal district court has preliminarily enjoined this "frontal attack", thereby precluding the CAB airlines, the cities, and the airport board: from relitigating in state court . . . or in any other court action the validity, effect or enforceability of the 1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance of the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth insofar as it may affect the right of plaintiff Southwest Airlines Co. to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open. . . .

In Southwest I, however, the federal courts faced an issue of Texas law with a clear answer. The issue concerned the relative authority of the TAC and the City of Dallas to control access to Love Field, and Judge Gee responded: It has a simple answer. In a recent decision, the Texas Supreme Court had occasion to consider the powers of the Texas Aeronautics Commission. . . .
"The decision as to where the public interest lies and what air service is best for Texas must be made by the Texas Aeronautics Commission." . . .

. . . Indeed, to hold that a city could deny the use of public facilities to an airline certificated to it by the Texas Aeronautics Commission would cripple, if not destroy, the Commission's powers to control intrastate routes.

As both the district and circuit opinions explain, to rule otherwise would disregard the plain language of the Texas Constitution, the Texas Municipal Airports Act, the Texas Aeronautics Act, and statutes regulating home rule cities, all of which support TAC authority over the controversy. Because the state law is so clear, the federal courts did not violate any principles of federalism by proceeding to judgment without abstention in Southwest I.

In their attempt to apply the 1968 Bond Ordinance to Southwest, the CAB airlines assume the role of private attorneys-general. In effect, they would enforce the ordinance's phase-out provision by excluding Southwest from Love Field. The City of Dallas has already failed in its attempt to effect such an exclusion. We hold that the carriers should be bound by that failure.

CONCLUSION This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field. Precisely worded holdings and deference to state authorities by the federal judiciary have only generated more suits, appeals, and petitions for rehearings. Once again, we repeat, Southwest Airlines Co. has a federally declared right to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open. The narrowly drawn preliminary injunction of the district court correctly protects that right. It does so without violating principles of federalism, the federal law of res judicata, or the dictates of due process.

The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.


The City of Dallas does not get to make it's own laws, they are bound by the same legalities as everyone else. Time and time again SWA has been found to be on the right side of the law. If the City of Dallas dropped the ball in doing their due diligence as to what authorities they had to enforce an evacuation of Love Field, that is no ones fault but their own. Your insinuation that SWA did some underhanded dirty deeds to remain at Love is completely unfounded. Dallas had no legal authority to exclude anyone from the extensively federally funded airport. This has been litigated and re-litigated all with the same results.

 

[SWA Bubba]

It took me 3 (wasted) minutes of my life to find out why DAL's gate limited. NOISE.
Seriously, if you guys are going to sit here and say, 'build more gates', at least find out why the freaking restriction was put in place. The airport's in the middle of a residential area, similar to SNA and every other noise sensitive airport.

Bullsh1t. Complete and utter bullsh1t.

The reason the number of gates is limited is because American and DFW wanted it that way. Period. You really think American gives a rat's a$$ about noise levels near an airport that they don't fly to? If you really think that's the reason, you have descended into the Flop levels of pure Southwest spite.

Yes, residents on the east side of the airport are concerned about noise, just like they do at every airport in the country. Every airport in the country anywhere near people's homes garners complaints. All of them. The answers to those concerns are to change local procedures, or implement timing restrictions. Hell, LGA is just as close to people's homes, and has ten times the traffic as DAL. And your noise champion, SNA, which is friggin' world famous for their stupid, but extremely rich and extremely noise-sensitive neighbors, has elaborate procedures and rigidly enforced curfews to handle it. One thing they don't do, however, is limit number of flights or gates. No airport that I'm aware of does that. In fact just a few years ago, SNA finished a huge upgrade in their terminal, increasing the number of gates (and number of flights) by 60%. Same stupid noise procedures, though.

In DAL's particular case, the noise sensitive procedures consist of using the west runway (essentially overflying industrial areas) between 2100 and 0600 local. This is similar to other airports with one side near residential areas.

And you really think your posts aren't motivated by anit-SWA rhetoric? You're not as bad as Flop, but you seem to be getting there.

Bubba

 

[bluesideup1]

Andy,

Another quick question.

Please explain to me how anyone can build additional gates in DCA or LGA? You can't there is no room and both are slot limited.

As for your noise limit that is just a joke right? What airport in the country limits their gates because of noise...Let me help you NONE.

Once again you usually are informed on most subjects but on this one you seem to be so uninformed it almost borders on irrational.

I'm not entirely sure but I don't think Delta was even part of the moving from Love to DFW.

As for the 56 seats I am well aware of it and the airline named Legend that tried to make it work but that has nothing to do with the question I asked. Delta has know the Wright amendment was ending for 8 years why is it only now after SWA put up all the capital both political and monetary to get rid of the Wright amendment do they think they can come in and abrigate a signed contract?

 

[outerlimits]

I hope you guys realize you al all a little correct and a little wrong .


The airline CEOs all talk to each other on a weekly / monthly timeline . They all have several things in common . Some of them are profits and a dislike for the government sticking there hand into everything .


All this wanting gates at Love Field ,is a way to get more gates built and getting restrictions lifted . Anyone who cannot see this is a fool .


Bubba sees this and I think Flop does also ,but is in denial .

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Build more gates, or stop complaining. This gets about as much sympathy as the passengers that make rude comments getting off flights in White Plains after we have to wait 45 minutes for a gate. I tell them they are free to tell the county to build a bigger terminal or fly out of New York or Newburgh.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Andy,

Another quick question.

Please explain to me how anyone can build additional gates in DCA or LGA? You can't there is no room and both are slot limited.

As for your noise limit that is just a joke right? What airport in the country limits their gates because of noise...Let me help you NONE.

Once again you usually are informed on most subjects but on this one you seem to be so uninformed it almost borders on irrational.

I'm not entirely sure but I don't think Delta was even part of the moving from Love to DFW.

As for the 56 seats I am well aware of it and the airline named Legend that tried to make it work but that has nothing to do with the question I asked. Delta has know the Wright amendment was ending for 8 years why is it only now after SWA put up all the capital both political and monetary to get rid of the Wright amendment do they think they can come in and abrigate a signed contract?

HPN (White Plains) does for sure. I believe there are a few others as well. There are several with cerfews as well.

 

[maru657]

Don't sweat the gates, SWAPA has a strike committee, but they can't actually risk a strike. That includes the other majors.

 

[HowardBorden]

HPN (White Plains) does for sure. I believe there are a few others as well. There are several with cerfews as well.

Some municipalities have legislated restrictions based on noise, Dallas Love is not one of them. Noise abatement procedures at Love are voluntary.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Don't sweat the gates, SWAPA has a strike committee, but they can't actually risk a strike. That includes the other majors.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? You off your meds again, old man?

Bubba

 

[Andy]

Your insinuation that SWA did some underhanded dirty deeds to remain at Love is completely unfounded.

No insinuation on my part. Straight up - Herb pulled an underhanded dirty trick to stay at Love field. Or are you trying to tell me that Herb didn't know that all commercial aviation was supposed to move to DFW once it opened?

It was a brilliant move on Herb's part. Yes. Ethical? No.

Andy,

Another quick question.

Please explain to me how anyone can build additional gates in DCA or LGA? You can't there is no room and both are slot limited.

Fire up the google machine. DCA's adding additional gates and building a new concourse to the north of the C concourse.

LGA's pretty easy. There's a large area to the north of the Delta Shuttle terminal used for employee parking. You could easily drop a new terminal there. Beyond that, there's eminent domain to Astoria Blvd (or even further if desired) or you could fill in some of the Hudson for additional land area. Again, I did say that it was expensive, but not impossible.

As for your noise limit that is just a joke right? What airport in the country limits their gates because of noise...Let me help you NONE.

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/WrightImpactReport.pdf

HPN (White Plains) does for sure. I believe there are a few others as well. There are several with cerfews as well.

That doesn't fit into the meme here. Cowboys prefer fact free conversations.


SWA Bubba, you're way too wound up about this to even try to discuss anything with you rationally. Calm down and stop throwing a tantrum like a four year old.


One more time: I don't give a crap about Love field. As such, I haven't put much time into researching the subject. But for as much you guys whine about GL, at least he does some research and has an understanding of most subjects he discusses here.