DOJ stipulates Love Field gates auctioned only to LCC's

[slaquer5]

Years ago, when DFW first opened, Braniff went back over to DAL to match SWA's operation. SWA could not compete and had them removed from the airport. That is what started the Wright Amendment. The WA was always about keeping SWA protected. It's why it was continuously adjusted thru the years (to match what SWA was ready to do) For you SWA guys that doubt that happened, take a good look at what's going on today. The DOJ [the government] is *prohibiting* non LCC airlines from bidding on DAL gates. Think about that for a moment. Who's really being kept out of the bidding here? UAL AMR & DAL. Or, basically, the only airlines that could really mount serious competition there.

This really ought to be a wake up call. This is not the free market and this is not capitalism.

I have to ask



Do you actually believe what you post ?

 

[HowardBorden]

SWA could not compete and had them removed from the airport.

How exactly did they accomplish that?

 

[Freebrd]

Lets resurrect Hooters Air and have them bid for the DAL gates and then the General can go fly for them and he will be able to land at DAL (this must be his ultimate dream)

Nah she wants to do LBB!

 

[SWA Bubba]

Years ago, when DFW first opened, Braniff went back over to DAL to match SWA's operation. SWA could not compete and had them removed from the airport. That is what started the Wright Amendment. The WA was always about keeping SWA protected. It's why it was continuously adjusted thru the years (to match what SWA was ready to do) For you SWA guys that doubt that happened, take a good look at what's going on today. The DOJ [the government] is *prohibiting* non LCC airlines from bidding on DAL gates. Think about that for a moment. Who's really being kept out of the bidding here? UAL AMR & DAL. Or, basically, the only airlines that could really mount serious competition there.

This really ought to be a wake up call. This is not the free market and this is not capitalism.

Dude, you must have serious brain issues if you really believe any of this.

Braniff was one of the airlines found guilty in criminal court (along with Continental and Texas International) for their illegal efforts to kill Southwest. They "competed" with us however they wanted, and even in Dallas. You should really look up the "$13 fare war":

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/great-airline-war/page/0/8

Braniff undercut our fares (charging only $13 from DAL-HOU) in order to "outlast" Southwest and kill them, despite losing money every time one of their planes took off on a competitive flight. Southwest "won" that war by giving away liquor with every full fare ticket ($26), and kept all the business travelers on expense accounts. Braniff eventually discontinued that competition, since they were losing so much money. Nobody at Southwest "had them removed" from Love Field. Where the hell do you get this crap? Tell me Flop, how exactly do you claim we had the power to do that, seeing as how at the time, every other player (the other airlines, both cities, and both airports) pretty much hated us?

Anyway, this all happened in 1973, and had not the first friggin' thing to do with the Wright Amendment. Another ridiculous assertion on your part. Southwest was an intrastate Texas carrier until the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and we announced service to other states for 1979. Again the other airlines file frivolous lawsuits to stop us, and again, they were shut out in court for lack of merit. So Rep Jim Wright from Ft Worth (the Speaker of the House at the time) snuck in the Wright Amendment, which changed the law specifically to thwart Southwest, and prevent American (and the other DFW carriers) from having to compete with Southwest on more interstate routes from Dallas. It was amended several times over the years by congressmen wanting Southwest to be able to serve their cites from Dallas.

You really ought to read some actual history before you spout off stupid crap. You're just making yourself look bad.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Years ago, when DFW first opened, Braniff went back over to DAL to match SWA's operation. SWA could not compete and had them removed from the airport. That is what started the Wright Amendment. The WA was always about keeping SWA protected. It's why it was continuously adjusted thru the years (to match what SWA was ready to do) For you SWA guys that doubt that happened, take a good look at what's going on today. The DOJ [the government] is *prohibiting* non LCC airlines from bidding on DAL gates. Think about that for a moment. Who's really being kept out of the bidding here? UAL AMR & DAL. Or, basically, the only airlines that could really mount serious competition there.

This really ought to be a wake up call. This is not the free market and this is not capitalism.

By the way, since you're one of those delusional souls who keeps insisting against logic, that the Wright Amendment was "about keeping SWA protected," perhaps you could explain that particular tidbit to the rest of us. How exactly was a law preventing us from doing what we wanted to do, "protecting" us? How exactly was a law, specifically preventing us from doing what we had gone to court to win the right to do, "protecting" us? Why would Rep Wright, representing the DFW district, and recipient of millions of dollars in contributions from American, Braniff, etc. even want to "protect" an airline that competed with his constituents? Do you not even realize how dumb making this claim sounds?

I've heard people make this claim several times over the years (well, mostly from you, Flop), but nobody has been able to actually show that it's anything other that a bunch of self-serving crapola. Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at it.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba: You like to talk/write a lot. Diarrhea of the mouth. Just let this marinate on your brain: The DOJ is crafting a deal to make sure you don't have to compete with a legacy. Good for you! It's all good man. Just don't act like you're anything but a cake eater, all right? Cause that's what you are.

 

[HowardBorden]

Man alive, you really like to bet. Nah, I said we'll see, that is not certainty. And I say I start debate, not troll. Also, you seem to really take this seriously. I actually enjoy this board, and the debate. You sound like you are one beat away from a total heart attack.

You Sir are a coward!

You constantly assert you are a superior intellect with superior debating skills, but it is all just a flimsy facade. You want everyone to believe you have all the answers but you slink away with your tail between your legs when someone challenges your industry knowledge! You said "We'll see, that it's not a certainty." But I have told you it is a certainty and I'm willing to bet I know more than you about this industry. You wont take the wager to prove you are what you say you are. You are nothing but a fake and a charlatan.

 

[General Lee]

You Sir are a coward!

You constantly assert you are a superior intellect with superior debating skills, but it is all just a flimsy facade. You want everyone to believe you have all the answers but you slink away with your tail between your legs when someone challenges your industry knowledge! You said "We'll see, that it's not a certainty." But I have told you it is a certainty and I'm willing to bet I know more than you about this industry. You wont take the wager to prove you are what you say you are. You are nothing but a fake and a charlatan.

You are an idiot. This is an anonymous rumor board. Get over yourself! You wanna bet what??? Why? I bet you guys and your union don't press for change to the buy your type deal with your company for newhires who aren't typed. I bet there are tons of AT guys who will always be pizzed that you and your union hosed them with the ridiculous SLI that management should have avoided all contact with. I bet you and many of the other Cornies think of me when you land in West Texas (yesss!). And I bet your airline will stagnate thanks to fewer retirements, making a lot of the bottom 1/3 look at other possible jobs.

Any other bets? I bet I'll eat more sundaes across the North Atlantic than you will, I bet I will have more variety in planes and interesting routes than you will, and I bet I will enjoy my flying more than you will.

Howie, you are miserable, bored, and know turbulence is ahead. So what do you do? Call someone you can't debate on an "anonymous" board a coward. Wow, you are losing it. And I'm a fake? On an anonymous board? No.....you're a fake? Riiiight? Emirite? You're "NUTS!"



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[HowardBorden]

You wanna bet what??? Why?

You know what I want to bet and you know why.

The what is that Delta will not obtain the gates up for auction at Love.

The why is because I am correct and you don't want to admit you are wrong when you say it is likely Delta will obtain them.

The rest is just your endless blather and obfuscation.

 

[General Lee]

You know what I want to bet and you know why.

The what is that Delta will not obtain the gates up for auction at Love.

The why is because I am correct and you don't want to admit you are wrong when you say it is likely Delta will obtain them.

The rest is just your endless blather and obfuscation.

I bet DL will be trying it's hardest to keep the gates they already use there and try to get a couple more. The other LCCs out there may not want to reestablish a presence there vs DFW. The Dallas Love airport probably likes DL's plans, lots of new flights and revenue. The people of Dallas may want extra competition. Lots of things can make or break the request. But, somehow you are CERTAIN DL's lobbyists will fail. Well, okay then.....?


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Ex737Driver]

By the way, since you're one of those delusional souls who keeps insisting against logic, that the Wright Amendment was "about keeping SWA protected," perhaps you could explain that particular tidbit to the rest of us. How exactly was a law preventing us from doing what we wanted to do, "protecting" us? How exactly was a law, specifically preventing us from doing what we had gone to court to win the right to do, "protecting" us? Why would Rep Wright, representing the DFW district, and recipient of millions of dollars in contributions from American, Braniff, etc. even want to "protect" an airline that competed with his constituents? Do you not even realize how dumb making this claim sounds?

I've heard people make this claim several times over the years (well, mostly from you, Flop), but nobody has been able to actually show that it's anything other that a bunch of self-serving crapola. Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at it.

Bubba

Do you honestly think that the DOJs' decision here would actually pass muster if the shoe was on the other foot for any airline at any base/hub/city that they dominated?

 

[HowardBorden]

Funny, DL is already using some of those gates. Nope. We'll see how many gates DL gets.

I don't think they get to make the call, just give an opinion.

DL is currently using some of those gates. I doubt they would lose those I'd say there is a good chance to gain gates at DAL. We'll just have to see...

Wow Howie, you sure are certain, yet it hasn't been decided.

I bet DL will be trying it's hardest to keep the gates they already use there and try to get a couple more. Lots of things can make or break the request. But, somehow you are CERTAIN DL's lobbyists will fail.

"Funny, DL is already using some of those gates. Nope. We'll see how many gates DL gets."
My claim is they will get none. To counter that accept the wager.

"I don't think they get to make the call, just give an opinion."
And you are wrong, the DOJ will make the call as to who is allowed to bid. To counter that accept the wager.

"DL is currently using some of those gates. I doubt they would lose those I'd say there is a good chance to gain gates at DAL. We'll just have to see..."
I say your absolutely wrong. To counter that, accept the wager.

"Wow Howie, you sure are certain, yet it hasn't been decided."
Yep, so certain I am betting I am right and you are wrong. To counter that, accept the wager.

"I bet DL will be trying it's hardest to keep the gates they already use there and try to get a couple more. Lots of things can make or break the request. But, somehow you are CERTAIN DL's lobbyists will fail."
Yep, absolutely certain they will fail. To counter that, accept the wager.

It's a simple proposition, you can "man up" and take it or skulk away knowing you are wrong.

 

[Scoot 11]

You Sir are a coward!

You constantly assert you are a superior intellect with superior debating skills, but it is all just a flimsy facade. You want everyone to believe you have all the answers but you slink away with your tail between your legs when someone challenges your industry knowledge! You said "We'll see, that it's not a certainty." But I have told you it is a certainty and I'm willing to bet I know more than you about this industry. You wont take the wager to prove you are what you say you are. You are nothing but a fake and a charlatan.

When are you guys going to realize this *********************************** is nothing more than a phony! He's no pilot let alone a pilot for DL or ANY legacy. He gets his information from blowing some male f/a from ATL. Stop feeding this gutter troll.

 

[General Lee]

When are you guys going to realize this *********************************** is nothing more than a phony! He's no pilot let alone a pilot for DL or ANY legacy. He gets his information from blowing some male f/a from ATL. Stop feeding this gutter troll.

You DO NOT give me my info.... And I don't do that. Quit dreaming again.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[SWA Bubba]

Do you honestly think that the DOJs' decision here would actually pass muster if the shoe was on the other foot for any airline at any base/hub/city that they dominated?

The DOJ hasn't made any decision about the gates at DAL (or any other airport where the new AA agreed to give up gates). All they've said is that they want them to go to LCCs to spur competition (i.e. other than UAL, DL. or AA). If it's like the gates at DCA and LGA, I suspect they'll have an auction, where even the DOJ doesn't know who'll get them, because they don't know how much airlines are willing to pay. In the slot auction, we got some; other airlines got the rest. A few years ago, they had an LGA slot auction, and we got none, as JBLU outbid us. Southwest decided they weren't worth bidding anymore than we did.

To be honest, I suspect that Southwest will try harder/bid more for the DAL gates, because we need them to grow service in Dallas, unlike any other airline. Don't know if you knew this or not, but of all the airlines who fly into Dallas, only Southwest is legally constrained on gates. If we take a gate at the other airport (DFW), then we have to give up one at DAL. If any of the airlines based at DFW take a gate at DAL, then they're not required to give anything up.

Short of abandoning DAL completely, and moving our entire operation to DFW, the most gates we're ever allowed to use anywhere in Dallas is the 20 legally allowed to exist at DAL (we have 16 right now). Contrast that to the literally hundreds of gates American has at DFW, and the ability of Delta (or any other airline, for that matter) to fly from DAL and still grow to as many gates at DFW as they want simultaneously.

It's a unique situation, and I doubt that even the DOJ knows what will happen yet.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba: You like to talk/write a lot. Diarrhea of the mouth. Just let this marinate on your brain: The DOJ is crafting a deal to make sure you don't have to compete with a legacy. Good for you! It's all good man. Just don't act like you're anything but a cake eater, all right? Cause that's what you are.

I talk a lot, because it often takes a lot of words to refute all of the silly stuff you say on this forum. Absolutely none of the crap you posted about Dallas Love field and the Wright Amendment was true. Not one word.

We'll see what the DOJ does about the DAL gates. And I realize you'll never admit it, but it's not about competition--we've always competed against all the legacies, including yours. But you'll excuse us if we don't want to fly into a few of the most crowded, fortress hub airports, when there's another airport available nearby to use instead.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

The DOJ hasn't made any decision about the gates at DAL (or any other airport where the new AA agreed to give up gates). All they've said is that they want them to go to LCCs to spur competition (i.e. other than UAL, DL. or If it's like the gates at DCA and LGA, I suspect they'll have an auction, where even the DOJ doesn't know who'll get them, because they don't know how much airlines are willing to pay. In the slot auction, we got some; other airlines got the rest. A few years ago, they had an LGA slot auction, and we got none, as JBLU outbid us. Southwest decided they weren't worth bidding anymore than we did.

To be honest, I suspect that Southwest will try harder/bid more for the DAL gates, because we need them to grow service in Dallas, unlike any other airline. Don't know if you knew this or not, but of all the airlines who fly into Dallas, only Southwest is legally constrained on gates. If we take a gate at the other airport (DFW), then we have to give up one at DAL. If any of the airlines based at DFW take a gate at DAL, then they're not required to give anything up.

Short of abandoning DAL completely, and moving our entire operation to DFW, the most gates we're ever allowed to use anywhere in Dallas is the 20 legally allowed to exist at DAL (we have 16 right now). Contrast that to the literally hundreds of gates American has at DFW, and the ability of Delta (or any other airline, for that matter) to fly from DAL and still grow to as many gates at DFW as they want simultaneously.

It's a unique situation, and I doubt that even the DOJ knows what will happen yet.

Bubba

Three paragraphs, no answer. Just luv speak. And one huge lie:

"DOJ hasn't made any decision about the gates at DAL (or any other airport where the new AA agreed to give up gates). All they've said is that they want them to go to LCCs to spur competition (i.e. other than UAL, DL."

"Spur competition!?" Why can't DL spur the competition Bubba? They're already there and selling tickets. It's the sort of LIE that you live and thrive on. The DOJ *has made a decision*: United and Delta are being excluded. Delta is going to be removed from the airport.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Three paragraphs, no answer. Just luv speak. And one huge lie:

"DOJ hasn't made any decision about the gates at DAL (or any other airport where the new AA agreed to give up gates). All they've said is that they want them to go to LCCs to spur competition (i.e. other than UAL, DL."

"Spur competition!?" Why can't DL spur the competition Bubba? They're already there and selling tickets. It's the sort of LIE that you live and thrive on. The DOJ *has made a decision*: United and Delta are being excluded. Delta is going to be removed from the airport.

Uh... actually it was four paragraphs, not three.

And there was no lie whatsoever. The DOJ hasn't decided yet who'll get the gates, as I said. They have, however, said that the process won't be open to DL, UAL, and AA, which I also said. What have I said that's not true? Hey, I'm not the one who spun up some fairly tale like you did about the Wright Amendment.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba: If you're a legacy airline (especially Delta) the decision has indeed been made.

So, let's see... Of the LCCs that might get these gates, who's going to represent the biggest challenge to the international tickets you will sell connecting through Houston? Certainly not anything like having to deal with United or Delta. Interesting.

Imagine the fricking outcry there would be if this sort of BS was visited on SWA...

 

[humveedriver]

Here is a great blog about the history of the WA and what the issue is with the 2 gates up for grabs.

http://crankyflier.com/2013/11/21/t...long-history-of-brawls-over-dallaslove-field/

Here is the link for the changes to the WA
Pg 3 3.b address the gates.

http://www.lovefieldmodernizationpr...ContractToResolveTheWrightAmendmentIssues.pdf

I could see at least one gate going to the city for common use.