Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

[HowardBorden]

Why would the agreement to build DFW be reason enough to force legacy airlines to use it only

It wasn't the agreement to build DFW, it was the contractual agreement that the legacies signed stating unequivocally that if you build it we will come. Carriers entered into a contractual agreement of their own free will, no one was forced to sign that agreement but felt it was in their own best interest to do so. Clearly if someone had the intention of staying at Love they would not enter into a legally binding agreement that stated they would leave for DFW when it was operational. If SWA had signed such an agreement they would be operating at DFW.

 

[meanstreak]

Delta is still selling tickets into Love. I bought a ticket in mid Oct. I called Delta and she told me it's still scheduled to go. Are they working with the city to continue flights for a little longer? Thanks

 

[Flopgut]

Howard we had a commitment in Houston, that was really no different than the DFW example. Legacies' feet were held to the fire in DFW, and SWA was allowed a pass on the Houston agreement. These are both the same. It's as corrupt as it gets. Apart from corrupt Texas airport deals, you not only do not thrive-you don't exist!!

 

[Flopgut]

Delta is still selling tickets into Love. I bought a ticket in mid Oct. I called Delta and she told me it's still scheduled to go. Are they working with the city to continue flights for a little longer? Thanks

IMHO: Anderson [Delta] will fly there until they're formally refused use of the airport. It will escalate to the same point Braniff reached decades ago. He wants to make a point.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Good point flop...

We should act like the Spirit Warriors and wheel up next to their fancy jetways and board the folks using airstairs at both front and back exits and undercut them by 50 bucks a ticket everywhere they want to go.....we would make it work by not leasing gates.

Southwest would cry foul and some politician hack in their pocket would probably come up with a way to make us give up gates at LGA.....

ahhh nevermind

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard we had a commitment in Houston, that was really no different than the DFW example. Legacies' feet were held to the fire in DFW, and SWA was allowed a pass on the Houston agreement. These are both the same. It's as corrupt as it gets. Apart from corrupt Texas airport deals, you not only do not thrive-you don't exist!!

In Houston the agreements, whatever they might have been, were not ever signed by SWA. Good God man IAH opened in 1969 and Southwest didn't even fly its first revenue flight until 1971. They weren't allowed a pass on the Houston agreement, they weren't there at the time to be a signatory. You can't be held to agreements which you aren't a party to.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Ok Howard....

Using your clown logic.....

So if a city zones an area as residential and you want to open your retail store of Stupidity....you are going to say:
"well, we weren't even living here or paid taxes when you guys came up with this zoning law, therefore we don't have to pay attention to it and we are going to do whatever we want!"

Try a real argument and prove me wrong....

 

[SWA Bubba]

In a certain context, what you're saying is correct. I hate that there was ever a need for the Wright Amenment. Which means I do indeed dislike these conflicting relationships and wish they weren't an issue. And they wouldn't be, except that it's how SWA stays in business and successful. You guys gripe about this stuff and act like you've got some terrible burden to carry, but you always win. You've never gotten less than you needed.

Again with the BS that somehow the Wrigt Amendment helped us "stay in business and [be] successful"? Seriously, Flop? Can you even say that with a straight face?

For the umpteenth time, the WA was shoved down our throats by an American Airlines stooge (Speaker Wright, D-Ft Worth), strictly to hobble us, and only after we had won every court battle, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. We should have been able to fly from DAL to wherever we wanted since 1971, if not for the political clout of another airline's bought-and-paid-for politician.

You keep posting this crap, but never once have you even tried to explain how keeping us from doing what we wanted, was somehow "good for us."

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Ok Howard....

Using your clown logic.....

So if a city zones an area as residential and you want to open your retail store of Stupidity....you are going to say:
"well, we weren't even living here or paid taxes when you guys came up with this zoning law, therefore we don't have to pay attention to it and we are going to do whatever we want!"

Try a real argument and prove me wrong....

Bad analogy, Bill.

But to continue with it to its logical conclusion, the fact is, that they didn't "rezone HOU from retail to residential"; they merely built a much bigger "retail mall" up north (IAH). Hobby is still "zoned retail" (as in an operating airport). And it just so happens that we prefer to operate out of the "old, dingy strip mall," instead of the new, gleaming "super mall" that you guys use for your mega-fortress hub-and-spoke operation. That's all.

That's how to properly apply your zoning analogy.

But the larger question is, why the hell do you guys even care where we do our business? You guys were, and still are, free to fly out of HOU as well as IAH. You guys used to operate out of both simultaneously, and I think you still send your feeder airlines' RJs there. You left because you didn't like it there, or it wasn't worth your while anymore. Whatever; that's your choice. But why does it bother you so much that we like it there? Seriously?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

AgainWe should have been able to fly from DAL to wherever we wanted since 1971, if not for the political clout of another airline's bought-and-paid-for politician.

I think every airline should have been able to fly from DAL to wherever they wanted to since 1971 Bubba. Riiigggghhttt?! How can you tell me its right to ignore the prevailing agreement in Houston for a single FIS airport, but perfectly ok to force Braniff and other legacies off DAL back in the day? Or for that matter Delta today? Do you see how your argument isn't tracking? Do you see your inconsistencies? One airport agreement is written in stone, the other gets changed. Both involving shady politics, and both going in SWA's favor.

Anyway, what do you think of my Parker family thesis? It's fricking awesome right? Shoot man, they look like brother and sister! Darn near twins!