• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • 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.

Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
Hey Howard: I'm not going to quote the post. Again, you've missed the context of what you quoted. The Dallas airport agreement transcended deregulation. Case in point: Legend. They were post deregulation and still had to do <56 seats.

"Missed the context"?

Flop, you certainly have a singular lack of understanding of pretty much everything having anything to do with Dallas Love, the Wright Amendment, and airline deregulation. I fear you're beyond education, but I'll try one more time concerning what you just posted.

The agreement to build DFW and the legacies' move there has nothing to do with the Wright Amendment. Repeat, NOTHING. Is that clear enough? They were over a decade apart. The other airlines fought us in the early 70s about us flying out of DAL and lost, and tried using that agreement as a supposed basis for their failed legal assault. That's how Southwest relates to the DFW agreement.

YEARS LATER, when deregulation occurred in 1978, Southwest wanted to fly interstate from DAL, as there was no longer a government body (the CAB) making decisions on who could fly where; it was now left to the individual airlines themselves. We announced interstate service, and actually commenced it, as the other airlines and DFW attacked again, to prevent us from competing with them. Again, every legal attack was summarily dismissed as frivolous. Then, and only then, did they get Jim Wright to create a new law (in 1979) to keep Southwest from further interstate expansion (we were already flying from Love Field to NM, LA, OK, and AR). That's how Southwest relates to, and how the WA came to be.

As you can hopefully now see, Flop, the DFW agreement and the WA have nothing to do with each other, other than both were wielded separately and independently, as weapons to attack Southwest to keep us from competition.

More to come.

Bubba
 

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
Hey Howard: I'm not going to quote the post. Again, you've missed the context of what you quoted. The Dallas airport agreement transcended deregulation. Case in point: Legend. They were post deregulation and still had to do <56 seats.

Here's some more about Dallas Love (and the fact that the DFW agreement and the Wright Amendment have nothing to do with each other) that I'm sure you didn't know, Flop.

AFTER the legal dust settled, and AFTER the WA was enacted, Southwest still did pretty well at Love. So well, as a matter of fact, that other states clamored for SWA service from Dallas Love to their cities. The Shelby Amendment was enacted, expanding the WA footprint to other states (AL, KS, and MS).

At this point--and here's the irony that I love, Flop--the other airlines themselves actually repudiated the DFW agreement you champion (it contained a provision that no airline could fly from DFW if they also flew to DAL), by commencing service from DAL to take advantage of the opportunities that Southwest was availing itself.

And just who started this "rogue" disregarding of the agreement they signed in the 60's concerning DAL and DFW? Why it was your very own Continental Airlines, Flop. That, of course, pissed off DFW and American, but eventually American joined Continental at Love (also in violation of the DFW agreement they had both signed), seeing as how actual money was involved. Now, nobody even pays attention to that agreement (add Delta more recently to the legacy list flying from both airports in violation of the original signed agreement).

So there you go, Flop. Not only are the two things (DFW agreement and WA) not related, but there's another key difference: Continental and the other legacies just disregarded and ignored their signed agreement, as soon as it no longer suited them; while Southwest faithfully obeyed the stupid and protectionist WA, even though it constrained us and cost us money, until it was lawfully eliminated. So think about that next time you spout some ill-conceived crap about Southwest not "honoring its word," or some other such nonsense.

So much for the Dallas airport agreement "transcending deregulation," or anything else, for that matter.

Bubba
 
Last edited:

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
"Missed the context"?

Flop, you certainly have a singular lack of understanding of pretty much everything having anything to do with Dallas Love, the Wright Amendment, and airline deregulation. I fear you're beyond education, but I'll try one more time concerning what you just

Why don't you just give up? I'm ready to give up on you. You're not worth 5 more keystrokes. You SWA people really do feel like you're victims!! You've had pumped into your head (brainwashed) a version of events that are NOT correct. And you're so emotionally attached to it, you can't even acknowledge a simple, correct point. (Legend flew under the WA seat count) It seems to me that you have somehow allowed yourself to believe that everyone is/was out to get you. Are you actually to the point where you think American, Braniff and the Metroplex airport authority would have saddled you with the WA no matter what airport SWA used!? Do you think if you went to DFW, there'd still have been a WA?! You can't think that, right? Cause that would be like saying a chicken has nothing to do with an egg.
 

waveflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Posts
10,005
Total Time
12000
Flop, the market need we filled didn't work at dfw or iah -
Do you get that?
Our original travelers, and many today, didn't want to HAVE to use cumbersome, gigantic dfw just to hop down to Houston or San Antonio- we were competing with the car as much as anyone
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Flop, the market need we filled didn't work at dfw or iah -
Do you get that?
Our original travelers, and many today, didn't want to HAVE to use cumbersome, gigantic dfw just to hop down to Houston or San Antonio- we were competing with the car as much as anyone

Oh wow Wave!! You're a darn genius! Thank you SO much my friend for complete illumination!!

Yeah, uh, actually does that not sound a lot like the argument that you won to get to stay initially? Texas only was one thing Wave. It didn't stop there though. NEXT!!

"Market need" got perverted into "business model". All BS. The real SWA is just about exploiting a situation. Any other airline ever had to employ this way of doing business? Nope
 
Last edited:

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
Hey Howard: I'm not going to quote the post. Again, you've missed the context of what you quoted. The Dallas airport agreement transcended deregulation. Case in point: Legend. They were post deregulation and still had to do <56 seats.
I'll give you some context.

You profess that SWA exploited a loophole to remain at Love but the court's asserted that not only were all arguments for removal flawed, but were also illegal in the state of Texas.

"Wholly apart from the federal grounds set forth above, the exclusion of Southwest from Love Field is prohibited by state law."

You state that Southwest couldn't leave the State of Texas without the Wright Amendment but the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 expressly granted that right.

" EXISTING STATE AUTHORITY
"(c) When any intrastate air carrier which on August 1, 1977, was operating primarily in intrastate air transportation regulated by a State receives the authority to provide interstate air transportation, any authority received from such State shall be considered to be part of its authority to provide air transportation received from the Board under title IV of this Act, until modified, suspended, amended, or terminated as provided under such title.

How's that for "context"?
 

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
Why don't you just give up? I'm ready to give up on you. You're not worth 5 more keystrokes. You SWA people really do feel like you're victims!! You've had pumped into your head (brainwashed) a version of events that are NOT correct. And you're so emotionally attached to it, you can't even acknowledge a simple, correct point. (Legend flew under the WA seat count) It seems to me that you have somehow allowed yourself to believe that everyone is/was out to get you. Are you actually to the point where you think American, Braniff and the Metroplex airport authority would have saddled you with the WA no matter what airport SWA used!? Do you think if you went to DFW, there'd still have been a WA?! You can't think that, right? Cause that would be like saying a chicken has nothing to do with an egg.

Dude, please.

What has Legend flying under the WA have anything to do with us? Every time I show something you said is wrong, you just change the basis of your argument. But, since you brought Legend up:

Legend was conceived 20-odd years after the WA was enacted. The guys had a great idea--they would fly business flyers from Dallas Love to the big cities (LA, NYC, Chicago, etc) on super-luxurious 56-seat retrofitted DC-9s. The idea was, since business travelers often paid big money for walk-up coach fares anyway, they might as well have the most luxury for that money. Great concept. So much so, that American saw a threat to its lucrative walk-up business market. What did they do?--they killed Legend as surely as if they had fired a sniper's bullet.

First they filed suit after suit, all frivolous, to deplete Legend of its start-up capital (even though Legend's business model was specifically designed within the WA). Then they bought up assets and gates at Love (that they had no need or use for) just to deny them to Legend, forcing Legend to raise more money and build their own terminal. Then more frivolous lawsuits. Then, when Legend finally got off the ground, American matched their service and undercut Legend's prices with specially-configured Fokkers, until Legend finally ran out of money and went belly-up. Never mind that American lost big money on each of those flights; it didn't matter--when Legend went away, they got all those business travelers back. And of course, with Legend finally out of the way, American immediately ceased the money-losing Fokker flights from DAL. That was the end game, and American had enough money to outlast Legend. Very honorable competition, right? Very legacy-like.

Now, Flop, you tell me--what has that got to do with Southwest? I've never "denied" anything about Legend, but now you're pretending that it has something to do with us? The WA was created to hobble Southwest, and many years later, another group invented a novel way to use those restrictions to their advantage with a new business model. And they were killed for it--for daring to try to compete with American.

Give me facts, Flop. Specific facts and instances. You keep spouting BS about Southwest, and I disprove you every time. Then you get mad, and say I'm wrong, but don't actually show anything of the sort. You just go off on another, unrelated tangent.

Tell you what, Flop:

-- Show me anything that Southwest has ever done that's illegal, or a breach of its agreements, like I've shown you time and again about legacies in general and your airline in particular.
-- Show me anything that Southwest has ever done simply to harm a competitor, like I've shown you time and again about legacies in general and your airline in particular.
-- Show me anything that Southwest has ever done that's underhanded, or an attack on another airline's attempts to fly where it wants, like I've shown you time and again about legacies in general and your airline in particular.

If you want, I can list some of the things your airline has done, including most recently, as alleged by Delta, tripling its normal scheduled turn times in order to justify not sharing limited Dallas Love gate space with them. Ironically, who turned out to be the white knight in that case? You know, not using "legacy dirty tricks" like you, but rather offering to help out for a while? Why, Southwest, of course.

You ought to pick up a history book before you spout off crap that isn't true; you just look dumb when disproved. And you also ought to spend more time looking at your own airline's history and tactics, before you start bitching about other airlines. You know?

Bubba
 
Last edited:

waveflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Posts
10,005
Total Time
12000
Oh wow Wave!! You're a darn genius! Thank you SO much my friend for complete illumination!!

Yeah, uh, actually does that not sound a lot like the argument that you won to get to stay initially? Texas only was one thing Wave. It didn't stop there though. NEXT!!

"Market need" got perverted into "business model". All BS. The real SWA is just about exploiting a situation. Any other airline ever had to employ this way of doing business? Nope

Really?
Every airline is at Orange county
Every airline is at Burbank
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
You state that Southwest couldn't leave the State of Texas without the Wright Amendment but the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 expressly granted that right.

If you think you're right, then answer as to why Legend had to fly with <56 seats. I'm not saying SWA couldn't participate in deregulation (obviously). I'm saying Love Field always has had, always will have, limitations.
 
Last edited:

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Dude, please.

What has Legend flying under the WA have anything to do with us? Every time I show something you said is wrong, you just change the basis of your argument. But, since you brought Legend up:

Legend was conceived 20-odd years after the WA was enacted. The guys had a great idea--they would fly business flyers from Dallas Love to the big cities (LA, NYC, Chicago, etc) on super-luxurious 56-seat retrofitted DC-9s. The idea was, since business travelers often paid big money for walk-up coach fares anyway, they might as well have the most luxury for that money. Great concept. So much so, that American saw a threat to its lucrative walk-up business market. What did they do?--they killed Legend as surely as if they had fired a sniper's bullet.

First they filed suit after suit, all frivolous, to deplete Legend of its start-up capital (even though Legend's business model was specifically designed within the WA). Then they bought up assets and gates at Love (that they had no need or use for) just to deny them to Legend, forcing Legend to raise more money and build their own terminal. Then more frivolous lawsuits. Then, when Legend finally got off the ground, American matched their service and undercut Legend's prices with specially-configured Fokkers, until Legend finally ran out of money and went belly-up. Never mind that American lost big money on each of those flights; it didn't matter--when Legend went away, they got all those business travelers back. And of course, with Legend finally out of the way, American immediately ceased the money-losing Fokker flights from DAL. That was the end game, and American had enough money to outlast Legend. Very honorable competition, right? Very legacy-like.

Now, Flop, you tell me--what has that got to do with Southwest? I've never "denied" anything about Legend, but now you're pretending that it has something to do with us? The WA was created to hobble Southwest, and many years later, another group invented a novel way to use those restrictions to their advantage with a new business model. And they were killed for it--for daring to try to compete with American.

Give me facts, Flop. Specific facts and instances. You keep spouting BS about Southwest, and I disprove you every time. Then you get mad, and say I'm wrong, but don't actually show anything of the sort. You just go off on another, unrelated tangent.

Tell you what, Flop:

-- Show me anything that Southwest has ever done that's illegal, or a breach of its agreements, like I've shown you time and again about legacies in general and your airline in particular.
-- Show me anything that Southwest has ever done simply to harm a competitor, like I've shown you time and again about legacies in general and your airline in particular.
-- Show me anything that Southwest has ever done that's underhanded, or an attack on another airline's attempts to fly where it wants, like I've shown you time and again about legacies in general and your airline in particular.

If you want, I can list some of the things your airline has done, including most recently, as alleged by Delta, tripling its normal scheduled turn times in order to justify not sharing limited Dallas Love gate space with them. Ironically, who turned out to be the white knight in that case? You know, not using "legacy dirty tricks" like you, but rather offering to help out for a while? Why, Southwest, of course.

You ought to pick up a history book before you spout off crap that isn't true; you just look dumb when disproved. And you also ought to spend more time looking at your own airline's history and tactics, before you start bitching about other airlines. You know?

Bubba

Your word count is ridiculous.
 

tzskipper

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Posts
284
Total Time
10,000
Not really my debate, nor to stir the pot, but about "harming a competitor"? I think the ATA guys and gals, and maybe even the Muse folks would have a different opinion of how SWA rolls. If I remember history correctly (from ATA friends), a certain CEO was brought in during ATA's bk, and subsequently (essentially) "gutted" ATA's mdw operation, canceling city pair after city pair. SWA then acquired the gates that ATA had held and operated from at MDW, by agreeing to a lease transfer as part of a forgiveness of a loan made from SWA to ATA during this time. Imo, I doubt the loan was given simply because SWA was a benevolent company wanting to help ATA.... As an aside, ATA's CEO at the time had previously worked for SWA as a CFO(?). Also, as a parting gift, I believe the ATA CEO was also given a seat on the SWA BOD after ending his ATA role. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Denison

Btw, SWA did actually acquire ATA and it's certificate in order to transfer the LGA slots that ATA held and then retired the certificate back to the FAA.

Back to life.

S
 
Last edited:

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
We announced interstate service, and actually commenced it, as the other airlines and DFW attacked again

You need to replace DFW with City of Ft Worth. And while a lot of the lawsuits were dismissed, Love Field has always had restrictions, so you haven't won. And it is because of Ft Worth's opposition that this has prevailed. That has been the piece de resistance.
 

HowardBorden

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Posts
889
Total Time
14000+
I'm saying Love Field always has had, always will have, limitations.

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?
 

humveedriver

M1165A1
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Posts
1,005
Total Time
+7000
Delta wants to enhance its "shuttle" product. Love field fits that business model. They can spend some money to try to get access to those gates. I doubt they are losing a ton of sleep over it.
 

General Lee

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

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
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.
 
Last edited:

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
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
 
Last edited:
Top