Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

[waveflyer]

Your word count is ridiculous.

That's MY line trademarked with bubba.
It's also a thinly veiled excuse not to argue with him.

 

[General Lee]

That's MY line trademarked with bubba.
It's also a thinly veiled excuse not to argue with him.

I actually read Bubba's posts when I need to get some sleep, especially overseas. It usually takes 3-4 paragraphs of his normal diatribes.

As far as this Love Field deal goes, I don't know another non slot controlled airport that is willing to turn away competition. Sure, space or gates is a tight commodity sometimes, but one gate? Not one "multi-use" gate? I used to brag that SWA couldn't get into ATL, but there was always the ability to get at least one gate, SWA just wanted MORE back then, and that just wasn't possible. JetBlue and other carriers tried some ATL service, but pulled out when they couldn't expand. DL tried to get the VA gates and expand at Love, but after losing that battle, couldn't even get one multi-use gate other airlines could also try to share? Really? That's NUTS! 5 daily 717 flights to ATL. I bet SWA could have gotten 5 daily 737 flights to MDW from ATL back before the AT merger.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Flopgut]

That's MY line trademarked with bubba.
It's also a thinly veiled excuse not to argue with him.

Yeah, well, more and more it's become obvious it's his coping mechanism for not being able to prove his point. He's filibustering.

 

[Flopgut]

If Love has always had limitations, where exactly were the 6,000,000+ passengers going in 1973 when it was the 8th busiest US airport? San Antonio?

Pre DFW airport!? We've now fallen into context oblivion... I'm sure partially my fault.

You've got nothing more for this. You have a perspective and so do I. I have history and reality, you have a huge propaganda effort that wants to re write everything. In 25 years you'll all be arguing that you actually never did work without a pension or for abjectly low pay rate.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Your word count is ridiculous.

That's because I actually explain things, and present timelines, dates, and facts. You "argue" by throwing out punchlines and BS generalizations, then just deny everything else.

STILL waiting for you to actually show that anything I posted was wrong, or for you to give a single, real example of any of the crap you claim. You've never, ever done either.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

I actually read Bubba's posts when I need to get some sleep, especially overseas. It usually takes 3-4 paragraphs of his normal diatribes.

As far as this Love Field deal goes, I don't know another non slot controlled airport that is willing to turn away competition. Sure, space or gates is a tight commodity sometimes, but one gate? Not one "multi-use" gate? I used to brag that SWA couldn't get into ATL, but there was always the ability to get at least one gate, SWA just wanted MORE back then, and that just wasn't possible. JetBlue and other carriers tried some ATL service, but pulled out when they couldn't expand. DL tried to get the VA gates and expand at Love, but after losing that battle, couldn't even get one multi-use gate other airlines could also try to share? Really? That's NUTS! 5 daily 717 flights to ATL. I bet SWA could have gotten 5 daily 737 flights to MDW from ATL back before the AT merger.



Bye Bye---General Lee

As far as that goes, General, you need to take it up with Flopgut and United--they're the ones holding you back. Your lawyer even accused them of dirty tricks towards you in his letter to the airport.

Hey, why don't you work to eliminate the stupid cap on gates?--that way everyone would have all the gates they want or need.... Right? That would be fantastic!!!!!

Bubba

P.S. BTW, you're welcome, for Southwest lending you a gate through the end of the year, so you don't screw over your customers holding tickets.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Yeah, well, more and more it's become obvious it's his coping mechanism for not being able to prove his point. He's filibustering.

"Filibustering"? Nope, just actually responding with facts to the crap generalizations you throw against the wall, hoping something will stick. It turns out that you actually have no point to prove--you just have emotion and little else. You certainly have no facts on your side, and despite my repeated requests, haven't ever even tried to make an argument on facts. I wonder why.....

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Pre DFW airport!? We've now fallen into context oblivion... I'm sure partially my fault.

You've got nothing more for this. You have a perspective and so do I. I have history and reality, you have a huge propaganda effort that wants to re write everything. In 25 years you'll all be arguing that you actually never did work without a pension or for abjectly low pay rate.

BS.

You've shown over again a distinct lack of understanding of the history of the city's airports and the Wright Amendment. You've been corrected numerous times by numerous posters. You get dates wrong, omit inconvenient facts that prove you wrong, and speak only in the most general of terms. No specifics, no matter how many times you're asked to put up or shut up. Hell, all you post is propaganda.

Bubba

 

[General Lee]

As far as that goes, General, you need to take it up with Flopgut and United--they're the ones holding you back. Your lawyer even accused them of dirty tricks towards you in his letter to the airport.

Hey, why don't you work to eliminate the stupid cap on gates?--that way everyone would have all the gates they want or need.... Right? That would be fantastic!!!!!

Bubba

P.S. BTW, you're welcome, for Southwest lending you a gate through the end of the year, so you don't screw over your customers holding tickets.

That was nice of you guys. I also wanted to say zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry about that, thinking about your post, I fell asleep again.

Also, I wasn't really slamming you guys as much, rather the airport authority. As I stated, DL wasn't holding you back from attaining ONE gate in ATL before your merger, you guys just wanted more than one or two gates. That's your choice. After losing the "battle of Love" with VA, I think DL just wanted one gate for 5 daily flights, and I can't believe there isn't one multi use airline gate at that airport. The airport authority didn't seem like they wanted to source one darn gate. I understand UAL was playing with those two gates too. It just seems ridiculous since UAL wasn't going to compete head to head with DL to ATL.

Thanks for the gate until Jan....


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[HowardBorden]

The Wright Amendment had to be written for you to leave. Shoot, the guy did you a favor and you act like it's the worst thing ever.

Proven to be incorrect.

Love Field has always had restrictions, so you haven't won.

Proven incorrect.

Pre DFW airport!? We've now fallen into context oblivion... I'm sure partially my fault.
In 25 years you'll all be arguing that you actually never did work without a pension or for abjectly low pay rate.

Everything I have posted has been to directly refute your exact words. If you mean something different than you write how is anyone supposed to know that.

The Wright Amendment did not need to be written for SWA to leave Texas.

Love did not always have restrictions.

And for the record, I have been at the highest 737 pay rate in the industry during my entire time at Southwest.

Can we at least agree to that?

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba: We were discussing whether or not deregulation erased the WA. I pointed to the correct example that Legend flew post deregulation and under the WA. YOU wrote a 3 paragraph recap on Legend (that no one needed) instead of actually carrying on the discussion. You're all over the place. You can't even agree with me that the sky is blue.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba: We were discussing whether or not deregulation erased the WA. I pointed to the correct example that Legend flew post deregulation and under the WA. YOU wrote a 3 paragraph recap on Legend (that no one needed) instead of actually carrying on the discussion. You're all over the place. You can't even agree with me that the sky is blue.

Sure we can; the sky is blue.

However, Flop, the problem we're having "discussing whether or not deregulation erased the WA," is actually your lack of understanding of the timeline. The Wright Amendment (1979) wasn't enacted until AFTER deregulation happened (early 1978), so deregulation couldn't possibly have had any effect on something that hadn't happened yet (the WA). Make sense? Get it now? Maybe that's why you're misunderstanding the situation. AFTER deregulation occurred, Southwest announced and commenced interstate service. (That was the whole point of deregulation.) THEN American, Braniff, DFW, et al., got Speaker Wright to create the WA to limit us to the original Wright footprint specifically to prevent Southwest from further competing with them on interstate city pairs. What Legend attempted 20 years later has no bearing on us and what happened in the 1970s.

Understand what I'm getting at now?

By the way, the explanation on Legend was purely because you chastised me for "ignoring" the discussion on Legend. So I explain it, and you don't like that either? Man, Flop, you're hard to please.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Sure we can; the sky is blue.

However, Flop, the problem we're having "discussing whether or not deregulation erased the WA," is actually your lack of understanding of the timeline. The Wright Amendment (1979) wasn't enacted until AFTER deregulation happened (early 1978), so deregulation couldn't possibly have had any effect on something that hadn't happened yet (the WA). Make sense? Get it now? Maybe that's why you're misunderstanding the situation. AFTER deregulation occurred, Southwest announced and commenced interstate service. (That was the whole point of deregulation.) THEN American, Braniff, DFW, et al., got Speaker Wright to create the WA to limit us to the original Wright footprint specifically to prevent Southwest from further competing with them on interstate city pairs. What Legend attempted 20 years later has no bearing on us and what happened in the 1970s.

Understand what I'm getting at now?

Thing is Bubba, the other side was not without a good case as to the original intent. And a matter of months isn't as dramatic as you might think. They basically coincide. What you seem not to like about my argument is semantics more than an error. And with regard to the results/interpretation and what the reality is: I'd say I'm pretty much right on.

I understand what you're getting at. Do you at all see what I am?

 

[waveflyer]

I don't

 

[Flopgut]

Proven to be incorrect.


Proven incorrect.

Everything I have posted has been to directly refute your exact words. If you mean something different than you write how is anyone supposed to know that.

The Wright Amendment did not need to be written for SWA to leave Texas.

Love did not always have restrictions.

And for the record, I have been at the highest 737 pay rate in the industry during my entire time at Southwest.

Can we at least agree to that?

I'll go ahead and agree. Not completely, but in part, sure. Especially with your last point. You are certainly making the highest 737 pay rate right now. Good for you. And that matters most of all, right? Do me a favor and read this link:

http://mobile.spectator.org/theamer...r-health-care-reform,52c0dbfb025312186cabb9fe

It disagrees with one of your points a bit, but that's not what I'm linking it for. Instead I'm trying to get you to see deregulation for what it really has been. It was thought of as less imperfect than an also imperfect regulation. The only difference has been what the workers have lost. And although you're real proud of yourself and your W2, we've all lost a lot (even you in the grand scheme) Kahn said himself that SWA was the only real successful airline in deregulation. And if you consider that success got a huge boost from a controversial airport deal in a lucrative market, I'd say that constitutes a pretty damn big asterisk!!

So anyway, don't miss the part in the article about how wages have gone done 25% since 02. Good for you on your pay though!

I'm done with this.