Arpey on the WA in the American Way Magazine

[mdf]

FlyingHigh,

Tried the "common sense" anti-competitive argument with some of these people before. They don't seem to get it.

 

[enigma]

I read that editorial today on my commute, and my only reaction was that AA is doing nothing more than spinning the issue in their own direction. As I would expect.

In general:

The amount of misconception over this issue is appalling. The history of Love, DFW, the WA and SWA are readily available. Some of you need to do a little research before continuing to post.

It is my opinion, that the Fort Worth - Dallas metropolitan area needs more than one major airport. DFW, for all of its concrete, just doesn't have the capability to handle all of the traffic now, and the future holds even more traffic.

The citizens of North Texas need politicians who make decisions based upon long term goals and projections. At the moment, everyone is so busy protecting their turf, that they don't recognize the opportunity to increase the entire field. In the mean time, maybe DFW should think about using the west complex for point to point operators and leave the east for hub and spoke. If the DFW board expects to attract competitors, they need to focus on changing their airport into a point to point friendly facility.

enigma

 

[linecheck]

Sadly, I think both parties (SWA and AA) are spinning the issue as much as they can to their advantage.

But it still doesn't take away the fact that LUV was given the opportunity to move to DFW long ago along with all the other airlines.

That's plain and simple fact, so why SWA management would try to spin that any other way is beyond me.

 

[Flopgut]

Ok. I have looked over the setlovefree.com propaganda. Now how about a couple of you SWA types look over braniffpages.com. I personally find it a travesty that setlovefree.com does nothing to accurately portray the history of Love Field. The oposition does. Setlovefree.com completely ignores the fact that, at one time, it was free! You could go almost anywhere in the world from there. A civic decision was made to move airlines to a new airport. One did not play ball and got a special deal. To the detriment of many others.

Love Field was the home of Braniff. They did not want to leave. They were forced to leave. Literally, forced out. It contributed to the demise of the careers of over 30,000 employees. I look at it like this: It was important enough at the time to be written in a certain way. Any change to the agreement is trespassing on hallowed ground and I don't want to see that happen without due consideration for what was given up. Look at Braniffpages.com. Look at what kind of airline we gave up so we could have SWA. One might say that Braniff had more problems than just Love Field and that is partially correct. But one thing is certain--there would be no SWA, like it is now, if they had not been granted such an advantage at Love Field.

Many SWA will laugh at my perspective. Think it is silly. I could care less. Silly, is running around in your short pants telling jokes with milk and honey running down your happy little faces when, in fact, real people, no different than yourselves have to lose everything, for you.

We need an air transportation policy in this country. And we need a free market that is actually free.

 

[ivauir]

Sadly, I think both parties (SWA and AA) are spinning the issue as much as they can to their advantage.

But it still doesn't take away the fact that LUV was given the opportunity to move to DFW long ago along with all the other airlines.
We had the opportunity to go out of business? Originally we were a Texas only airline BY LAW. The move to DFW would have killed us before we started, not many people would want to drive to DFW to fly to Houston. BTW how have those "other airlines" been doing over there at DFW? Yes our manegment should definatly answer for this gross error.

That's plain and simple fact, so why SWA management would try to spin that any other way is beyond me.

It seems to me that you are deeply involved in operation "spin" yourself.

 

[ivauir]

We need an air transportation policy in this country. And we need a free market that is actually free.

Yup,
so lets start with lifting bogus anti competetive restrictinos on our air transportation system.

 

[Flopgut]

Yup,
so lets start with lifting bogus anti competetive restrictinos on our air transportation system.

Let me ask you this: Do you think part of a viable air transportation policy will use the DFW/Love example, or the Austin Bergstrom/Mueller example as a model for future infrastructure?

Do you think that a truly free market should include major airlines being allowed to merge unrestricted by the government?

Do you think either of these questions have a positive outcome for your airline?

 

[Cyclone]

flogmyputz

i think if you worked for swa your opinion would be different.

so what is right? not wright. i think your bias...and who you work for...clouds your objectivity and any brain cell that you had previously that made sense is no longer in tact...your argument is ridiculous.

i don't have a dog in this fight but i think that your company is bigger...but not right. i think that you have more politicians lined up but what you have to say makes less sense. you are worried about your job just like everybody else...but i think you guys (AA) are wrong...not wright

 

[ivauir]

Let me ask you this: Do you think part of a viable air transportation policy will use the DFW/Love example, or the Austin Bergstrom/Mueller example as a model for future infrastructure?

You'd love for me to jump in here, knowing you can spin almost anything I say to your cause. I should just let it stand at that, but I have to confess, I hate seeing a big yellow X painted on a perfectly good runway.

Do you think that a truly free market should include major airlines being allowed to merge unrestricted by the government?

No. Anti trust laws exist for very good reason.

Do you think either of these questions have a positive outcome for your airline?

If they did any with anti trust legislation we might buy AA and that would be a dark day indeed.





I'm sorry I could resist poking you a little, you've had such fun at our expense.

Honestly, I am a lot more worried about the cost of fuel than either of these questions (or the outcome of the WA debate for that matter).

 

[Flopgut]

Again people, I don't work for AA

Spin? I don't have to spin anything. You just admitted that you believe the only laws that should be changed are the ones that have a negative effect on SWA. The ones that impede any other airline are just fine with you. No need to spin that. You don't want a free market at all. You want an unfair advantage for SWA.

With regard to your AA comment: It is an amazing fact that as bad as things are going for AA, and as good as things are going for SWA, it is still more likely that they could buy you.

 

[Juvat]

[quote: whataburger]
As far as taxi times are concerned, PHL didn't stop SWA from going there, so what's wrong with 9 minutes at DFW?

Uhh, let's see...because SWA wasn't even in the STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA before going to PHL. Your argument doesn't hold up in the case of DAL/DFW. SWA is already in that market. No reason to to give up something that works (DAL), in order to try to shine a turd (DFW).

 

[ivauir]

Feel the LUV Flopgut ...

Spin? I don't have to spin anything. Really? Your wole post is nothing but spin You just admitted that you believe the only laws that should be changed are the ones that have a negative effect on SWA.

That is absolute spin and mischaracterization of what I said. You think you can compare anti trust laws to the WA? Get a grip! You are trying to equate abolishing the WA with abolishing ALL laws ... that is quite a stretch.

The ones that impede any other airline are just fine with you. No need to spin that. You don't want a free market at all. You want an unfair advantage for SWA.

Again, not what I said. but I sure would like AA's unfair advantage to go away.

With regard to your AA comment: It is an amazing fact I think you need to review what the word "fact" means that as bad as things are going for AA, and as good as things are going for SWA, it is still more likely that they could buy you.

With what money? We are far too well capitalised to be bought by any US carrier.

You have NEVER answered even one question that I asked you. In good faith, I tried to honestly answer your questions and even introduce a little humor. In return I get my words (mis) used against me (but of course not a single fact). I guess attempting conversation with you is like trying to teach a pig to sing ... Now this one is in the key of "G" .... Come on Flopgut, belt it out ... it starts ... "Set Love free why don't you babe?"

 

[Flopgut]

With what money? We are far too well capitalised to be bought by any US carrier.

You have NEVER answered even one question that I asked you. In good faith, I tried to honestly answer your questions and even introduce a little humor. In return I get my words (mis) used against me (but of course not a single fact). I guess attempting conversation with you is like trying to teach a pig to sing ... Now this one is in the key of "G" .... Come on Flopgut, belt it out ... it starts ... "Set Love free why don't you babe?"

Uh, yeah! I think I can compare the WA to the interpretation of anti trust laws with regard to major airlines. That is no stretch at all! You see the WA as anti-competitive and contrary to market forces just as major airlines look at the inability to consolidate the EXACT same way. The only difference is every single financial mind also agrees that majors should be allowed to consolidate as a part of normal economic evolution. You think majors are just supposed to capitulate to federal whim and provide a host for you to thrive on.


Do you think Wall Street would go along with SWA running the worlds largest airline? Would Wall Street want SWA contracts to stay in place or use AA? And they have quite a bit of money. When you talk mergers it is a slippery slope. It is the most successful one with the most to lose that often does.
BTW, what questions have you asked me? I re-read this and I don't see a question from you.

 

[XR650R]

Be careful what you ask for....

Dear AA pilots,
If you objectivly look at what might happen if SWA was "forced" to move some of their operations to DFW I believe you'd realize that you would be putting some or all of your careers in jepordy. Yes you are the 900-flight gorilla but if SWA were to ever make a commitment to DFW, in time, a very bloody battle would ensue with both sides taking heavy casualties. But in this war of attrition, I believe SWA would prevail due the their lower costs and more efficient operation. AA's domestic yield out of DFW would be in shambles. The least that you would probably lose is your A fund due to cost cuts in an attempt to re-align your costs (hopefully not). Wouldn't it be better to stay on your side of town and let SWA stay on their side. The City of Dallas Master Plan calls for a limitation of about 140 flights per day anyway. From what I hear, AA will be over 1000 flights per day in DFW soon. Given the potential risk, is this really worth fighting over?
Just my opinion- I could be wrong!

 

[Turbojet]

"The leaders
of Dallas and Fort Worth actually realized this way back in the late 1960s, when they decided to join together and invest their resources in one world-class airport rather than in two inferior facilities."

If Arpey is so convinced that DAL is so "inferior" why doesn't he give up this fight to keep this archaic law and let the public deciede which airport is better. That after all is what is true competition is on a level playing field....the market (public) will always pick the better value. But no, you see he knows that without keeping the restrictions in place at DAL, the public (free market) would choose Southwest at DAL and AA would get their ass kicked.

AA is afraid of "true competition"

Just unAAmerican...ufb...

 

[BoeingBoy]

Come on now.

Set LUV free? Southwest controls 23 of the 32 gates at LUV...maybe if the city had an auction, the highest bidder could get those gates...then LUV would be free of the SWA monopoly. Everyone knows that LUV is far more convenient for business travelers in Dallas...which is why AA would have to move back in if the WA were to be repealed...they need those business travelers.

When Legend was operating, their entire bizplan was to poach business travelers from AA...AA then moved in and bled them to death...then moved back out...nothing personal, just trying to keep their best customers.

Lets at least be honest about the SWA/LUV situation. Canyon Blue wants to shed the restrictions but keep their monopoly on gates...AA wants to shut down LUV and make SWA operate out of their fortress hub DFW. SWA is free to have as many gates as they want at DFW, but AA only has access to a limited number of gates (4 of these are on the other side of the airport) and the total number of flights at LUV is capped.

Both airlines are doing their best to succeed...seems like the status quo is working.

 

[ivauir]

Uh, yeah! I think I can compare the WA to the interpretation of anti trust laws with regard to major airlines. That is no stretch at all! LOL You see the WA as anti-competitive and contrary to market forces just as major airlines look at the inability to consolidate the EXACT same way. Except that antitrust laws apply to every business in America. Exist in every free economy in the world (in some form or another). Are examinaed constantly by economists, lawyers, judges, congressmen, the press, the president and a couple of other folks I forgot. They are supported by congress and the supream court. but you contend they are EXACTLY like the WA? Grip issue will take place in room 4c. The only difference is every single financial mind also agrees that majors should be allowed to consolidate as a part of normal economic evolution.
Every single financial mind? Wow that is quite a claim. It is in fact also quite false. The issue is far more nuanced than I care to discuss, but not all mergers are created equal. So while consolidation seems to be where the industry is headed antitrust is supposed to make sure that the consumer (and workers) don't suffer as a result. mergers will happen despite (or with the blessing of) anti trust, so you point is?
Actually anti trust laws are agreed to by the vast majority of economists. In fact even the most liberal (traditioaly sense of the word) free market economists argue for SOME anti trust protection. This does not mean that they agree with ever application of these laws (neither do I)
You think majors are just supposed to capitulate to federal whim and provide a host for you to thrive on.

So you are saying that the Federal whim is for you to be a host for SWA? Dude I think I can hear the black helicopter know!


Do you think Wall Street would go along with SWA running the worlds largest airline? probably. Would Wall Street want SWA contracts to stay in place or use AA? Don't worry it won't happen GK doesn't want your debt. And they have quite a bit of money. Is this the same "they" with the black helicopers?When you talk mergers it is a slippery slope. You brought it up. It is the most successful one with the most to lose that often does. A gross over simplification. If AA could buy SWA they would have a long time ago.
BTW, what questions have you asked me? I re-read this and I don't see a question from you.

You got me. I was refering to our "past". You always come out swinging and have never answered my questions (when I have asked them). So here is one I dug up from previous a thread (and a couple of new ones):

- Do you think it is in the best interests of consumers to be limited to their choices of Dallas airports? Before you post another link to Braniff (funny, how they are missed by an AA guy now) I am asking about today, not 1969.

- Do you think that AA (or any airline) should be afforded special treatment because they serve international markets? Small domestic markets?

- Do you think that companies should be able to merge or consolidate as much as they wish? In every industry? Across international boarders?

I was going to go on .... but what is the point? You might answer my questions, you might flame me some more, but I hope you don't think the turmoil in the industry is the result of SWA or SWA pilots. And I really hope you don't think SWA pilots are enjoying this turmoil. I have freinds furloughed from every legacy carrier. I am worried that many will never get their jobs back. I am worried that the worst isn't over yet and with almost 50% domestic capacity in Chapt 11 our strong balance sheet will be whittled away. It is my belief that the free market forces are polluted by unscrupuless managers, the BK process, and laws that have failed to keep the market place in line with reality. For me the WA is one of these laws, but a realativly minor one. More significant are the pension laws and the segment tax. IMHO the antitrust laws seem about right, balencing the survival of the fittest market Darwinism needed with the interests of the consumer. They are far from perfect, and there are specific cases where they have been missapplied, but with something that complicated perfection is the enemy of good enough.

 

[Flopgut]

Look, I don't work for AA.

I think the WA is written in blood. I don't know why Herb didn't try to change it. I don't think we should be talking about expanding use of Love when DFW is half empty. I say that from more of a civic standpoint than that of a pilot. Expenses involved in the airport system are going to go up with an expanded use of Love for the city and the FAA. I think that outweighs the need for the customer getting supposed lower fares at Love.

AA should not get special treatment at all and no other airline should either. I think SWA moving to DFW would change fundamentals for AA. Fares will come down. It will be good for the consumer to put the contest for their travel dollar in one place. It is the ultimate level playing field. Additionally, it will allow the FAA and city to focus all resources necessary for airline transportation in one place. Love Field needs to be for GA, Fractional, and corporate.

I think the free market is an entirely different thing for SWA than it is for legacy airlines. Legacy airlines alliances are constantly under scruitiny. You really can't imagine it, it is a continual fight. At a time when legacy airlines needed to be consolidating the government rejected all but the most obvious one (AA/TWA). UAL really needed to be allowed to buy America West or USAir. It was the right thing at the right time. It would have brought about a couple of other very necessary mergers and some balance to the market. Probably would have precluded a couple of the BKs we see now. But, legacies were stopped butt cold...in a free market...they were not allowed. These were pretty clean deals we are talking about too. No foriegn parties, no outsourced jobs to India, good for the consumer, etc. What is going to happen, is the government will continue to peck away at the legacies and disallow the free market to be a reality for them to a point where the only thing we can do is let (for instance) Luftansa to buy UAL. It is ridiculous.