DOJ stipulates Love Field gates auctioned only to LCC's

[FlyinGuy]

Flop, your history is actually quite funny. Do one ounce of research and you will find that bubba's posts are correct. But I highly doubt that you are concerned with truth, just your constant SWA bashing!!

 

[slaquer5]

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.

Pie, pie. We at SWA like pie .

 

[freightdogfred]

Was Southwest prohibited from starting an operation at DFW, or are they just stubborn?

I think there's some requirement for them to give up gates at Love. I know when they mergered/bought/acquired/cornholed Airtran that station went away immediately and I think it was due to this pesky Wright admendment

 

[Flopgut]

Flop, your history is actually quite funny. Do one ounce of research and you will find that bubba's posts are correct. But I highly doubt that you are concerned with truth, just your constant SWA bashing!!

Bubba writes straight from the cleansed version that SWA wants people to believe. Let's wait and see how Bubba characterizes DL being shuffled off Love Field. We will all get to watch and see exactly what happens, at the same time SWA will start to craft a BS tale of legacy buffoonery and awe shucks SWA wisdom. History does indeed repeat itself.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

Not true. SWA would have had at least 6 of the most convenient gates at IAH. Taxi times are not a problem. I imagine ATC would have relented to basically giving you 26R. Whether or not you realize it, I think SWA mgt realizes, the corndog can't compare favorably in direct competition with a legacy product. The fares are almost the same. Park the corndog next to a 787 or a 777 and SWA customers are going to start to notice and ask "where do those go?" "How much to go to Europe or Hawaii?" That's why you stay away from, and get your butt kicked at these big airports. It's why you don't want a legacy on DAL.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba writes straight from the cleansed version that SWA wants people to believe. Let's wait and see how Bubba characterizes DL being shuffled off Love Field. We will all get to watch and see exactly what happens, at the same time SWA will start to craft a BS tale of legacy buffoonery and awe shucks SWA wisdom. History does indeed repeat itself.

The "cleansed" version, as you call it, is what the actual history supports. Can you find any, single piece of documentation supporting your conspiracy version? Even one single one? You know, to support the idea that little upstart Southwest, the airline that everyone hated in 1973 (including both Dallas airport authorities), somehow had the power to "force" mighty Braniff Airlines to leave Love Field? Or for that matter, any piece of documentation to support any of the absurd stuff you spouted? Just because you hate Southwest, and say anti-Southwest things, doesn't automatically make any of them true. You know that, right?

By the way, unless the DOJ changes its mind, Delta will be "shuffled off" Love Field anyway. While the DOJ is requiring absolutely no divestiture from Delta, the fact remains that Delta owns no gates at Love Field. The gates in question belong to American (subleasing them to Delta), which DID agree to divest them.

You don't like the fact that Delta is losing its sublease? Take it up with American Airlines and the DOJ--it was part of the merger. Is some grand Southwest conspiracy somehow responsible for the American-USAir merger to screw Delta?

You don't like that if someone else gets those two American gates, that there won't be any others for you to use? Take that up with American Airlines and DFW airport authority. They're the ones who wanted Love limited to 20 gates--over Southwest Airline's objections. Was it part of the same conspiracy to limit our own business, just to screw Delta?

Jeez, Flop, at least do a little research before you post things.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Not true. SWA would have had at least 6 of the most convenient gates at IAH. Taxi times are not a problem. I imagine ATC would have relented to basically giving you 26R. Whether or not you realize it, I think SWA mgt realizes, the corndog can't compare favorably in direct competition with a legacy product. The fares are almost the same. Park the corndog next to a 787 or a 777 and SWA customers are going to start to notice and ask "where do those go?" "How much to go to Europe or Hawaii?" That's why you stay away from, and get your butt kicked at these big airports. It's why you don't want a legacy on DAL.

Get our "butt kicked at big airports"? You mean big like LAX? How about SEA, PDX, STL, SFO, IAD, etc., etc., etc.? We seem to do okay in those cities, "parking the corndog next to a 787 or 777."

Or by, "all these big airports," did you just mean IAH (your pet peeve)? The reason we fly into HOU instead of IAH is because we can get in and out quicker, i.e. save money. That situation (using a different airport in the same city) pretty much exists in 3 places--Dallas, Chicago, and Houston. Have you really not figured out our business plan? We use smaller airports to save time and money when we can, and any other airport when there's no other available.

It's not about being "afraid" of direct competition--it's about saving time and money where we can. Here's a quiz for you Flop: what airline carries more passengers around the country than any other? Could it possibly be one that's "afraid of competition"?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

The "cleansed" version, as you call it, is what the actual history supports. Can you find any, single piece of documentation supporting your conspiracy version? Even one single one? You know, to support the idea that little upstart Southwest, the airline that everyone hated in 1973 (including both Dallas airport authorities), somehow had the power to "force" mighty Braniff Airlines to leave Love Field? Or for that matter, any piece of documentation to support any of the absurd stuff you spouted? Just because you hate Southwest, and say anti-Southwest things, doesn't automatically make any of them true. You know that, right?

By the way, unless the DOJ changes its mind, Delta will be "shuffled off" Love Field anyway. While the DOJ is requiring absolutely no divestiture from Delta, the fact remains that Delta owns no gates at Love Field. The gates in question belong to American (subleasing them to Delta), which DID agree to divest them.

You don't like the fact that Delta is losing its sublease? Take it up with American Airlines and the DOJ--it was part of the merger. Is some grand Southwest conspiracy somehow responsible for the American-USAir merger to screw Delta?

You don't like that if someone else gets those two American gates, that there won't be any others for you to use? Take that up with American Airlines and DFW airport authority. They're the ones who wanted Love limited to 20 gates--over Southwest Airline's objections. Was it part of the same conspiracy to limit our own business, just to screw Delta?

Jeez, Flop, at least do a little research before you post things.

Bubba

Perfect post Bubba! Read the last 3 paragraphs, that's how the truth gets "cleansed" folks. It's all someone else's fault that SWA has their way at DAL.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Perfect post Bubba! Read the last 3 paragraphs, that's how the truth gets "cleansed" folks. It's all someone else's fault that SWA has their way at DAL.

"Has our way at DAL"? Really?

Do you think that Southwest would have liked to have flown from DAL to other than the border states for the last 35 friggin' years? Do you think that Southwest would like to fly internationally from DAL? Do you think that Southwest would like to have more than 16 (or even 18) gates at DAL, so that we could fly to more places from there? Are those limitations in place to "protect" Southwest?

And in case you missed it, Flop, we're not the ones bitching. That would be Unical over now having to compete internationally in Houston, and you. Well, mostly you. We're going about our business plan, regardless of the obstacles in the way.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

"Has our way at DAL"? Really?

Do you think that Southwest would have liked to have flown from DAL to other than the border states for the last 35 friggin' years? Do you think that Southwest would like to fly internationally from DAL? Do you think that Southwest would like to have more than 16 (or even 18) gates at DAL, so that we could fly to more places from there? Are those limitations in place to "protect" Southwest?

And in case you missed it, Flop, we're not the ones bitching. That would be Unical over now having to compete internationally in Houston, and you. Well, mostly you. We're going about our business plan, regardless of the obstacles in the way.

Bubba

Total BS. First paragraph: I don't think anyone remembers that at first you only flew in Texas. That was your excuse/basis for staying at DAL. (Texas only operator meant federal rules did not apply) Somehow that agreement seemed to get updated thru the years in a way that conveniently matched what SWA was ready to expand to next. But NOT so much that it would have been a legit option for a legacy to move into.

Second paragraph: UAL isn't worried about competing with SWA. In fact, we want to compete directly! Side by side. Line yours up and we'll line up ours. That's the purest form of competition there is, and we wanted it. We were rolling out the red carpet. Of course this is usually where you say "you fly from the airports you want, we'll fly from the ones we want", right? Let's examine that, because DL wants a piece of you in DAL. Is DL going to get to fly from the airport they want to?! You starting to see a pattern here!? What could SWA possibly "be bitching" about!? You don't have to abide by any of this stuff other airlines do!

Hey btw: interesting choice on international destinations. You seemed to really tiptoe around the Countries that probably want to see their airlines get equal access to Hobby. Hmmmmm

 

[SWA Bubba]

Total BS. First paragraph: I don't think anyone remembers that at first you only flew in Texas. That was your excuse/basis for staying at DAL. (Texas only operator meant federal rules did not apply) Somehow that agreement seemed to get updated thru the years in a way that conveniently matched what SWA was ready to expand to next. But NOT so much that it would have been a legit option for a legacy to move into.

You seriously believe this?

The only "updating" to the Wright Amendment occurred in 1997 and 2005. In 1997, the Shelby Amendment to the WA added Mississippi, Alabama, and Kansas, none of which really mattered to Southwest. It was an attempt by an Alabama senator to spur our service to his state. We only recently started DAL-BHM service, and we've never flown DAL-anywhere in MS. We've never even flown to anywhere in the state of Kansas until 2013, when we absorbed AirTran's routes to ICT. Seeing as how by 1993, Southwest was the largest intra-California carrier, are you really claiming that it was only in 1997 that we were finally "ready" to fly to Mississippi, Alabama, and Kansas--states that we didn't really care about?

In 2005, the Bond Amendment to the WA added Missouri, which allowed us to fly DAL to STL and MCI. Seeing as how long before then, we were flying to all corners of the contiguous US, including transcons, are you really claiming that it was only in 2005 that we were finally "ready" to fly from Dallas to Missouri? Really?

Second paragraph: UAL isn't worried about competing with SWA. In fact, we want to compete directly! Side by side. Line yours up and we'll line up ours. That's the purest form of competition there is, and we wanted it. We were rolling out the red carpet. Of course this is usually where you say "you fly from the airports you want, we'll fly from the ones we want", right? Let's examine that, because DL wants a piece of you in DAL. Is DL going to get to fly from the airport they want to?! You starting to see a pattern here!?

The only "pattern" I see is your onerous repetition of crap. Dallas Love is an interesting exception to most rules, as it is the most highly restricted and purposefully limited commercial airport in the country. And those restrictions have been squarely aimed at limiting Southwest Airlines. As I pointed out earlier, Southwest already lines up, "side by side," directly competing with UAL and everyone else at nearly every important airport in the country. That's a fact. Three cities' airports, where we can save time and money because they're more convenient, out of nearly 100 that we fly to, doesn't make a "pattern."

Hey btw: interesting choice on international destinations. You seemed to really tiptoe around the Countries that probably want to see their airlines get equal access to Hobby. Hmmmmm

Don't know what you're talking about here. I assume you're making this up as well, since again, it's an unsupported argument that nobody else knows about. By the way, our "choice" of international destinations is the result of where AirTran chose to fly before we acquired them. And doesn't Mexico (3 SW/AT destinations, as opposed to only 1 for other countries) have the largest amount of reciprocal traffic into the US? So much for that latest theory of yours.

Jeez, Flop, if you don't want to do even any rudimentary research, at least look on Wikipedia--you'll save yourself a lot of time and embarrassment later.

Bubba

 

[DUBLINFLYER]

Look at the logistics for customers - downtown to IAH is 21.6 miles and from downtown to Hobby is 11.2 miles - depends on your loyalties and timing

 

[HowardBorden]

Of course this is usually where you say "you fly from the airports you want, we'll fly from the ones we want", right? Let's examine that, because DL wants a piece of you in DAL. Is DL going to get to fly from the airport they want to?!

Delta owned no gates at DAL before the divestiture and it will own no gates at DAL after the divestiture. If they want a continued presence at Love they will need to attempt to lease the gates from the new owner whomever that might be, just like they did previously.

 

[Flopgut]

What the hell do you think RA is trying to do!? DAL is there and they want to stay. How's that any different than what SWA wanted back 40 years ago!? Back then the govt stepped in and made sure SWA could stay and ALL other airlines were OUT. Its the exact opposite of what was done previously, so it's abundantly clear the doj's goal is to help SWA. DAL had a huge base there for a long time. If they want back in, to either airport, the DOJ ought to get out of their way. I think the citizens of Dallas would like the competition. Of course "competition" in this business is only used as reasoning to aid SWA. It doesn't go the other way.

Btw I thought maybe this was a dead thread? Why stir the pot? You know what I'm going to say.

 

[SWA Bubba]

What the hell do you think RA is trying to do!? DAL is there and they want to stay. How's that any different than what SWA wanted back 40 years ago!? Back then the govt stepped in and made sure SWA could stay and ALL other airlines were OUT. Its the exact opposite of what was done previously, so it's abundantly clear the doj's goal is to help SWA. DAL had a huge base there for a long time. If they want back in, to either airport, the DOJ ought to get out of their way. I think the citizens of Dallas would like the competition. Of course "competition" in this business is only used as reasoning to aid SWA. It doesn't go the other way.

Btw I thought maybe this was a dead thread? Why stir the pot? You know what I'm going to say.

Then you probably know what -I'm- going to say:

You should probably stop saying ludicrous, stupid, untrue stuff (bolded above), when it's already been demonstrated to you that you're wrong. Just for a change, why don't you make claims that can be proven?

Jes' sayin'.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Actually the way I stated it, it's absolutely true. You've referenced it yourself. Braniff American signed agreements to use DFW. And even more importantly what you can't defend is why DOJ would prohibit Delta from staying now. You're just trying to pull attention from that FACT.

Go spend your whole evening on Wikipedia and look it up. I know you want to, you apparently have no life other than to wait here and see if I post. Let me guess, Howie and you set this up? You texted each other? Or FB buddies?

 

[HowardBorden]

What the hell do you think RA is trying to do!? DAL is there and they want to stay. How's that any different than what SWA wanted back 40 years ago!? Back then the govt stepped in and made sure SWA could stay and ALL other airlines were OUT.
Btw I thought maybe this was a dead thread? Why stir the pot? You know what I'm going to say.

Boy you are delusional! It's called the rule of LAW. Everyone wanted SWA to leave like the others however, they never signed a contractual agreement to leave like the others. The others wanted to leave for newer expanded facilities and voluntarily signed an agreement to do so. There was no legal basis to hold SWA to a contractual agreement they were not a signatory of. The government had no legal maneuver to force SWA out so consequently they were allowed to remain at Love.

Similarly, current U.S. law gives the DOJ powers to regulate monopolistic practices. No one forced an AA/US to merge, but after that deal was announced it was subject to DOJ review. If you honestly think SWA has the power to influence US antitrust statutes and influence how that department regulates airline mergers you are just a flat out loony conspiracy theorist!

No pot stirring, just debunking the diatribe of misinformation you enjoy spewing.

 

[Flopgut]

Similarly, current U.S. law gives the DOJ powers to regulate monopolistic practices. No one forced an AA/US to merge, but after that deal was announced it was subject to DOJ review.

SWA has 95% of the flights out of Love. How is that not a monopoly? How is it even remotely reasonable for DOJ to state no legacy can have Love gates? Delta wants in, they want to compete. Unical wanted direct competition in Houston. SWA cries and bawls enough til whatever govt steps in and let's you keep your Texas airport monopolies.

You guys have no leg to stand on.

 

[Flopgut]

You two on a layover together somewhere punching each other's clown?

 

[HowardBorden]

SWA has 95% of the flights out of Love. How is that not a monopoly? How is it even remotely reasonable for DOJ to state no legacy can have Love gates?

You guys have no leg to stand on.

Attempt to actually read something for a change instead of simply making things up off the top of your head. The DOJ has made it quite clear why they think the Love gates need to be divested by the New American. Let me remind you of the DOJ's justification on this matter:

"The proposed Final Judgment also includes divestitures at Dallas Love Field, an airport near American's largest hub at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport ('DFW'). Gates at DFW are readily available, but Love Field, which is much closer to downtown Dallas, is highly gate-constrained. The divestitures will position a low-cost carrier to provide vigorous competition to the New American's nonstop and connecting service out of DFW. "

You can't honestly believe that the DOJ is simply a "puppet" governmental department with the strings being pulled by Gary Kelly can you? The DOJ has simply stated that they want a LCC owning the gates at Love in order to spur competition with the legacy domination at DFW.

There, I gave you a factual and verifiable leg to stand on. Now I suspect you will undermine my factual presentation with your own opinion and further outpourings of half truths and innuendo. Please refute this with verifiable factual information gathered from any source other than your own conspiracy riddled brain box.