Delta asked to leave Dallas Love Field

[tankerhead]

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]

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]

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

 

[SWA Bubba]

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]

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

 

[Flopgut]

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.

 

[SWA Bubba]

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

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

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]

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]

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