• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.
  • Logbook Pro for Apple iOS version 8.1 is now available on the App Store. Major update including signature endorsements and dark/light theme support. Click here to install now.

Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
Oh snap! This Shiznet is getting real! (Thanks Bill for the laugh). Let's show those Corndogs some real "LUV" at Love Field with 5 daily 717s to Hotlanta! Hot damn!


Bye Bye---General Lee
 

humveedriver

M1165A1
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Posts
1,005
Total Time
+7000
How much did Delta invest in the Love Field Modernization Project? How much did SWA? Every time an airline moves either its Hq or major hub out of TX they get burned politically. See a pattern there?

"As part of its financial support
for the LFMP, Southwest Airlines has sold $310 million in bonds, which will directly support the project’s $519 million cost. These bonds, with a 5.25 percent interest rate, were arranged through the Dallas Love Field Airport Modernization Corp. with the bonds’ principal and interest payments guaranteed through Southwest.
By issuing these bonds by the end of 2010, the project is exempt from the federal alternative minimum tax.
Southwest’s smart planning of issuing bonds in 2010 could potentially save the project millions of dollars due to the tax exemption.
Not since Love Field’s original construction in the 1950s has the airport undergone such a dramatic reconstruction of its facilities and committed to such an impressive financial investment."

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/LFMP_Newsletter_0111.pdf
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
How much did Delta invest in the Love Field Modernization Project? How much did SWA? Every time an airline moves either its Hq or major hub out of TX they get burned politically. See a pattern there?

"As part of its financial support
for the LFMP, Southwest Airlines has sold $310 million in bonds, which will directly support the project?s $519 million cost. These bonds, with a 5.25 percent interest rate, were arranged through the Dallas Love Field Airport Modernization Corp. with the bonds? principal and interest payments guaranteed through Southwest.
By issuing these bonds by the end of 2010, the project is exempt from the federal alternative minimum tax.
Southwest?s smart planning of issuing bonds in 2010 could potentially save the project millions of dollars due to the tax exemption.
Not since Love Field?s original construction in the 1950s has the airport undergone such a dramatic reconstruction of its facilities and committed to such an impressive financial investment."

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/LFMP_Newsletter_0111.pdf

Hi, your record of contributing ANYTHING to terminal reconstruction is abysmal at best, until recently. In the past you picked up the scraps as the legacies went out and paid for new terminals, and then of course went BK after 9-11. Great guesswork at the time, but you never added much to any airport terminal other than cat puke orange banners prior to your HOU intl terminal or the Love field clean up. Annnnnnnnnddddd, you know I'm "Wright"....... Hahahaha.


Bye Bye---General Lee
 

humveedriver

M1165A1
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Posts
1,005
Total Time
+7000
You forgot the cat puke in FLL.

FORT LAUDERDALE — Travelers using Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport soon will get a slew of international destinations to pick from as the Southwest Airlines terminal begins a massive, $300 million makeover.

Doesn't really matter what you think General. Lawyers will have to win this one. I think money talks.
 

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
Great guesswork at the time, but you never added much to any airport terminal other than cat puke orange banners prior to your HOU intl terminal or the Love field clean up.

Wrong as usual!

LAX
Southwest Airlines and Los Angeles International Airport will fund about $400 million in Terminal 1 improvements under a plan approved Monday by the Board of Airport Commissioners.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/20130114/southwest-lax-plan-400-million-renovation

FLL
Travelers using Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport soon will get a slew of international destinations to pick from as the Southwest Airlines terminal begins a massive, $300 million makeover.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...ional-airport-southwest-airlines-new-terminal

ISLiP
In 2004 MacArthur Airport embarked on an expansion that included a Southwest Airlines terminal built by the airline at a cost of $65 million.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_MacArthur_Airport
 

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
Wrong as usual!

LAX
Southwest Airlines and Los Angeles International Airport will fund about $400 million in Terminal 1 improvements under a plan approved Monday by the Board of Airport Commissioners.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/20130114/southwest-lax-plan-400-million-renovation

FLL
Travelers using Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport soon will get a slew of international destinations to pick from as the Southwest Airlines terminal begins a massive, $300 million makeover.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...ional-airport-southwest-airlines-new-terminal

ISLiP
In 2004 MacArthur Airport embarked on an expansion that included a Southwest Airlines terminal built by the airline at a cost of $65 million.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_MacArthur_Airport


How about SEA? You took DL's old gates in B and DL got new ones in A, then over to the island (N) after the merger. Now DL has gates in A, B, and N. Then there is SLC. How about BOS? What about LGA? And then, of course, ATL. Big fat zeros at all of those.

And you guys must not have read the part from my above post about saying "until recently...." Now your management wants to use up all the cash, to avoid giving you more. Keep trying though, even without those non existent bag fees or change fees, you can do it. We are all watching.



Bye Bye---General Lee
 

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
Now your management wants to use up all the cash, to avoid giving you more. Keep trying though, even without those non existent bag fees or change fees, you can do it. We are all watching.

Well, just those terminal projects listed on this page alone add up to a $1.74 Billion SWA contribution to terminal development but you're right, "our record of contributing ANYTHING to terminal reconstruction is abysmal at best"
 
Last edited:

General Lee

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
20,442
Total Time
A lot
Well, just those terminal projects listed on this page alone add up to a $1.74 Billion SWA contribution to terminal development but you're right, "our record of contributing ANYTHING to terminal reconstruction is abysmal at best"

Howie, again you missed my statement "until recently." In the past you were abysmal indeed. But, now with some profits rolling in due to consolidation and lower gas as of late, your bosses will build a lot of new stuff, and will show up at contract negotiations looking for more. I hope you guys hold out and keep the upward trend going. Good luck Howie!

Btw, congrats on only spending $1.4 billion on that full list of several airport terminals. When you guys start spending over a billion at ONE airport, I'll be impressed. What are you guys adding at your new terminals? Corn dog stands and a Keg of "Shlitz" beer? Will you sell wine coolers too? Sure you won't.



Bye Bye---General Lee
 
Last edited:

BILL LUMBERG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
2,074
Total Time
9 to 5
How much did Delta invest in the Love Field Modernization Project? How much did SWA? Every time an airline moves either its Hq or major hub out of TX they get burned politically. See a pattern there?

"As part of its financial support
for the LFMP, Southwest Airlines has sold $310 million in bonds, which will directly support the project?s $519 million cost. These bonds, with a 5.25 percent interest rate, were arranged through the Dallas Love Field Airport Modernization Corp. with the bonds? principal and interest payments guaranteed through Southwest.
By issuing these bonds by the end of 2010, the project is exempt from the federal alternative minimum tax.
Southwest?s smart planning of issuing bonds in 2010 could potentially save the project millions of dollars due to the tax exemption.
Not since Love Field?s original construction in the 1950s has the airport undergone such a dramatic reconstruction of its facilities and committed to such an impressive financial investment."

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/LFMP_Newsletter_0111.pdf

Oh thanks Humvee....

You teed up my next point. As SWA whined about the access they "deserved" at LGA, DCA, etc etc.....couldn't the other airlines use the same argument in keeping you out?

I mean the legacies built the airport and airways system well before Herb was a frat boy chuggin Wild Turkey bombs in College and then you get to stick your 2 cents into slot and gate divestures as the mergers and acquisitions got played over the last decade. Hipocracy at its best!

Delta should charge SWA to even operate into Atlanta....using your thought process, heck, we built ATL practically.

if you lease space in Trump Tower, doesn't mean you own the building and get to put up your name in gaudy letters on the side of it....it's still the Donalds. Just because you built a terminal and floated some bonds, doesn't mean its your airport.

But once again, somebody gets paid to help you guys out. "See the pattern here?"
 
Last edited:

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Have you never heard of this magical web search tool called Google?
Paragraph 62.

http://openjurist.org/546/f2d/84/southwest-airlines-company-v-texas-international-airlines-inc

Thanks. Just want to be on the same page. You do see this came to be because SWA was "Texas only" and outside CAB control? It's why there had to be a Wright Amendment. SWA had no right or authority to leave Texas. And you can tell from glancing thru the link you provided, this was a close decision to begin with. For you to think your airline got to this point because you deserved it or earned it is a joke. You've betrayed and abused every customary and proper way an airport and/or airline moves ahead.

Fast forward to today: Like a spoiled child, SWA builds it's own near complete monopoly international terminal in Houston, and just assumes any foreign destination will make space available to them?! Flying international, you get the same access that you provide. Hubris and entitlement=SWA "spirit". Continental had to refurbish an entire international terminal at IAH (D) and then leave it for competeing airlines to use, to get permission to build our new terminal E. SWA should be reimbursing Houston and Continental for those costs.
 

tankerhead

62 percenter.
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Posts
414
Total Time
1 mil
You've betrayed and abused every customary and proper way an airport and/or airline moves ahead.

Dude, do you not see/grasp/understand the irony in your above statement? Check your own company (and the other legacy's) history regarding the "proper way" of advancement.
 

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
Sh!ts gettin real....maybe Dallas should force Southwest to divest their gates? What's that? They are theirs? Really? That never stopped them from crying for somebody elses gates at other cities......

.... < pasted article concerning United's actions with its DAL gates deleted for brevity > ....

Huh?

First you bitch about Southwest "getting you kicked out of Dallas Love," when it was American Airlines' doing that limited the number of gates, and then also American who terminated your sub-lease of their gates and gave them to Virgin instead of you (at the DOJ's behest). That was not Southwest's doing.

Then you now whine again about Southwest and Love Field, but this time post an article mentioning that it was United Airlines screwing you there now. Jesus, Bill, do you even read this stuff before you post it? It doesn't seem like it. Again, not Southwest's doing. You need to take this up with Flopgut--it was his airline doing dirty tricks to keep Delta down.

By the way, STILL waiting patiently for you to explain how Southwest "screwed you (Delta, that is)" in any way, shape or form, at Dallas Love in particular, or anywhere else in general. 'Cause you've never actually done that--just bitched in general and blamed Southwest for whatever troubles you.

So what's next, Bill?--are you next going to find an article on how JetBlue is sticking it to you, and then blame that on Southwest as well?

Bubba
 

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
Oh thanks Humvee....

You teed up my next point. As SWA whined about the access they "deserved" at LGA, DCA, etc etc.....couldn't the other airlines use the same argument in keeping you out?

Whined? Really? When other airlines agreed to divest gates/slots when seeking approval by the DOJ for a merger, and we wanted them (DCA and LGA), we bid for them at auction. Occasionally we were outbid (by JetBlue, for example), but usually, if we wanted them bad enough, we bid high enough to win them. Then we announced and commenced service. That's seems a little less like whining than threatening to sue if we weren't allowed in somewhere we didn't have gate space (Delta: "why, you just have to let us fly out of DAL after our gate leases are up--we already sold tickets, even though you told us not to!").

I mean the legacies built the airport and airways system well before Herb was a frat boy chuggin Wild Turkey bombs in College and then you get to stick your 2 cents into slot and gate divestures as the mergers and acquisitions got played over the last decade. Hipocracy at its best!
Actually, it was the FAA and local municipalities (i.e. the taxpayers) who generally speaking, build the airport and airways system. Along the way, specific airlines used their money to personalize and customize, and enlarge and improve certain facilities for their own benefit. I think that's what you meant. And if you go out of business or abandon a city, you're really going to bitch when the city finds another tenant to come in and serve its people because you quit? You think it's "hypocritical" for us to serve a city who asked us to, after they were abandoned by you? I'm pretty sure that you don't actually know what that word means.

Delta should charge SWA to even operate into Atlanta....using your thought process, heck, we built ATL practically.

if you lease space in Trump Tower, doesn't mean you own the building and get to put up your name in gaudy letters on the side of it....it's still the Donalds. Just because you built a terminal and floated some bonds, doesn't mean its your airport.
Never said it was "our" building or airport (DAL). Clearly it isn't. It belongs to the city of Dallas. This was just in response to the General bitching about Southwest "never" spending money to improve airports. We do. However, I think we're entitled to use the gates we've always used, especially after spending a lot of money to improve them. Southwest buying gates/slots at auction, or beginning service in facilities that another airline has abandoned, is really nothing like forcing a working airline to give up gates it's currently using (and has legal claim to; sorry Delta).

But once again, somebody gets paid to help you guys out. "See the pattern here?"
No, actually I don't see a pattern. Tell me exactly WHO got paid to help us out. Ever. Anywhere. So tell me, Bill-- What has Southwest done illegally or immorally to get ahead? Southwest never worked to kill another airline (American vs. Legend; American et al vs. Southwest in Dallas). Southwest has never tried to tell/force another airline where it can and cannot fly to or from (United/Continental vs. Southwest in Houston). Southwest has never paid a politician to create a protectionist law to hobble a specific airline to prevent competition, after losing its case in every court in the land (American/Jim Wright vs. Southwest).

STILL waiting for a specific example.

Bubba
 
Last edited:

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
Oh snap! This Shiznet is getting real! (Thanks Bill for the laugh). Let's show those Corndogs some real "LUV" at Love Field with 5 daily 717s to Hotlanta! Hot damn!


Bye Bye---General Lee

That's a great idea, General. I absolutely agree that you should have 5 daily 717s from Dallas Love to Hotlanta. You just need a gate to do it. I got an idea: maybe you should either talk United into subleasing a gate to you (offer more money) or better yet, work to lift the gate restrictions that American forced on the airport. You know, instead of just bitching to/about Southwest about something we're not responsible for.

Just a thought. And hey, good luck!

Bubba
 

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
Thanks. Just want to be on the same page. You do see this came to be because SWA was "Texas only" and outside CAB control? It's why there had to be a Wright Amendment. SWA had no right or authority to leave Texas. And you can tell from glancing thru the link you provided, this was a close decision to begin with. For you to think your airline got to this point because you deserved it or earned it is a joke.

The CAB ceased to exist in 1978. There only "had" to be a WA, because American and friends didn't want to compete with Southwest on flights out of Texas, and just happened to own a powerful politician who could help them out.

And Southwest absolutely did have the right and authority to "leave Texas." Where the hell are you getting that? The laws said we could fly to wherever we wanted to, and that "right and authority" was affirmed by every friggin' court in the land, multiple times, up to and including the US Supreme Court.

So instead, after having their noses rubbed in it by the court system, the other airlines had their stooge, Speaker Wright, change the law to specifically hobble a competitor. Is that the "customary and proper way" to do things, Flop?

You've betrayed and abused every customary and proper way an airport and/or airline moves ahead.
"Customary and proper way"? Really? You mean like filing one clearly frivolous lawsuit after another, solely to deplete a smaller competitor's capital? Like criminal collusion (for which Continental Airlines and others were convicted of in criminal court) and price fixing? Like trying to tell a competitor where he is allowed to fly to, instead of concentrating on your own business model?

Those kind of things? Those are the "customary and proper ways" that you're so proud of, Flop?


Bubba
 
Last edited:

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
The CAB ceased to exist in 1978. There only "had" to be a WA, because American and friends didn't want to compete with Southwest on flights out of Texas, and just happened to own a powerful politician who could help them out.

Absolutely a false and misleading premise Bubba. You're really starting to lose it. Sounding like the rationale we hear out of the Easties in the USAir debacle. (Same difference I guess... Bunch of arrogant airline pilots can't live with the terms of an agreement)

You acknowledge the agreement between the city/airlines/and government as valid in both claiming it didn't pertain to you because you didn't sign it, and that swa only flew in Texas. You can't turn around then and act like it never existed when you want to fly outside of Texas. ("Jurisdiction" was the word I believe) Deregulation didn't cancel the agreements between cities to build airports.

And I'm sick of your excuse/cop out term "business model". You don't have a business model Bubba. I'm sorry. You ripped off your "culture" notion from PSA. All you've done is work real cheap for your first 20 years, then have spent most of the next 20 taking advantage of some real sh1tty things that happened to legacies. Your constant "business model" BS is like listening to an Eastie say "DOH" over and over as though it excuses them from an agreement they entered.
 
Last edited:

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
Absolutely a false and misleading premise Bubba. You're really starting to lose it. Sounding like the rationale we hear out of the Easties in the USAir debacle. (Same difference I guess... Bunch of arrogant airline pilots can't live with the terms of an agreement)

You acknowledge the agreement between the city/airlines/and government as valid in both claiming it didn't pertain to you because you didn't sign it, and that swa only flew in Texas. You can't turn around then and act like it never existed when you want to fly outside of Texas. ("Jurisdiction" was the word I believe) Deregulation didn't cancel the agreements between cities to build airports.

Flop, these things have exactly nothing to do with each other. Nothing. Also, there is absolutely nothing false in what I posted, and Southwest has not failed to live within the terms of any agreement it signed.

Yes, it's correct that we weren't party to the agreement the other airlines signed to get a bigger and better airport in Dallas. That's exactly correct, and was the legal basis that each court cited when summarily dismissing every lawsuit the other airlines threw at us.

And no, that agreement had nothing to do with interstate flying in the first place. That agreement said NOTHING concerning interstate flying whatsoever. When deregulation occurred, we were allowed to fly out of state due to the elimination of the CAB and its authority deciding who gets to fly where. Again, affirmed by every court in the land, and that legal ability and authority was not changed until the airlines got Speaker Wright to create a law to hobble us.

Please show me where you are getting this argument that the other airlines' agreement to move to the newer DFW from Love has anything whatsoever to do with interstate flying, Southwest Airlines, or the Wright Amendment. You can't, because it doesn't. You're using your indignation to bootstrap an argument for something else, where it doesn't exist.

And I'm sick of your excuse/cop out term "business model". You don't have a business model Bubba. I'm sorry. You ripped off your "culture" notion from PSA. All you've done is work real cheap for your first 20 years, then have spent most of the next 20 taking advantage of some real sh1tty things that happened to legacies. Your constant "business model" BS is like listening to an Eastie say "DOH" over and over as though it excuses them from an agreement they entered.
Actually, I don't care what you're sick of. Every company, including every airline, has a business model. We've been successful working within ours. Hey, at least our business model doesn't include committing actual crimes, like your airline's apparently does. It also doesn't include working to prevent other airlines from flying where they want, so they don't have to actually compete with them, again like yours does. We're happy to compete. It's the American way.

I fear that it's you that's losing it Flop; you're using nothing but pure indignation and hatred as an "argument," instead of actual facts. Try again. Show me specifically where Southwest failed to live up to any agreement it signed, or broke any law, or for that matter, how it screwed/or tried to screw any other airline, like your airline and many others have done.

Bubba
 
Last edited:

BILL LUMBERG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
2,074
Total Time
9 to 5
Flop, these things have exactly nothing to do with each other. Nothing. Also, there is absolutely nothing false in what I posted, and Southwest has not failed to live within the terms of any agreement it signed.

Yes, it's correct that we weren't party to the agreement the other airlines signed to get a bigger and better airport in Dallas. That's exactly correct, and was the legal basis that each court cited when summarily dismissing every lawsuit the other airlines threw at us.

And no, that agreement had nothing to do with interstate flying in the first place. That agreement said NOTHING concerning interstate flying whatsoever. When deregulation occurred, we were allowed to fly out of state due to the elimination of the CAB and its authority deciding who gets to fly where. Again, affirmed by every court in the land, and that legal ability and authority was not changed until the airlines got Speaker Wright to create a law to hobble us.

Please show me where you are getting this argument that the other airlines' agreement to move to the newer DFW from Love has anything whatsoever to do with interstate flying, Southwest Airlines, or the Wright Amendment. You can't, because it doesn't. You're using your indignation to bootstrap an argument for something else, where it doesn't exist.

Actually, I don't care what you're sick of. Every company, including every airline, has a business model. We've been successful working within ours. Hey, at least our business model doesn't include committing actual crimes, like your airline's apparently does. It also doesn't include working to prevent other airlines from flying where they want, so they don't have to actually compete with them, again like yours does. We're happy to compete. It's the American way.

I fear that it's you that's losing it Flop; you're using nothing but pure indignation and hatred as an "argument," instead of actual facts. Try again. Show me specifically where Southwest failed to live up to any agreement it signed, or broke any law, or for that matter, how it screwed/or tried to screw any other airline, like your airline and many others have done.

Bubba

Crimes Bubba? Really? You went there huh....
 

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
And you can tell from glancing thru the link you provided, this was a close decision to begin with.

My God you truly are delusional. How in any way shape or form can you infer from the courts conclusion that this was a close decision? Just because you agree with the appellants arguments, that does not in any way mean that the court agreed with their legal validity. The court wholeheartedly dismissed the arguments and admonished the repeated attempts to relitigate the previously settled matter. Please read the courts conclusion one more time carefully.

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.
 

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
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.

Flop,

"Narrowly drawn" doesn't mean that the decision was narrowly decided, as you inferred, but rather that it was narrow in scope, in that it was short and sweet; and unambiguous in that Southwest had the right to fly out of Love Field.

Hope that clears things up a little.

Bubba
 
Top