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.

 

[Flopgut]

So Love should only have LCCs and DFW should only have legacies? That's F'ed up Howie, but convenient for SWA.

The DOJ isn't in GK's pocket, but the government very much wants de-regulation to be a lasting success. In order to do that, SWA has got to continue to do well. Alfred Khan said SWA was the proof of the policy.

 

[HowardBorden]

So Love should only have LCCs and DFW should only have legacies? That's F'ed up Howie, but convenient for SWA.

The DOJ isn't in GK's pocket, but the government very much wants de-regulation to be a lasting success. In order to do that, SWA has got to continue to do well. Alfred Khan said SWA was the proof of the policy.

Again, read for comprehension. Not only the government wants deregulation to succeed, SO DOES THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY! My God man deregulation has been around for more than 3 1/2 decades, can you honestly believe this DOJ decision was made on the basis of making sure deregulation succeeds?

Whether you or I think thinks the decision is F'ed up or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not SWA prospers or fails. That is where you go fatally off the track. Your inability to separate how any of these decisions are made from your assertion that they are all made so SWA can prosper and others be made to fail is your downfall.

Alfred Khan said this:

"And I remember I was asked to predict, "Well, what do you think the industry will look like if you get out of the way?" And I said, "If I knew what was the most efficient configuration of routes in the airline system, then I could continue to regulate. But since I can't tell you whether it's going to be a Delta kind of operation or it's going to be more like the Eastern shuttle, which is just back and forth, or Southwest Airlines, which was then just back and forth between Houston and Dallas, it doesn't make sense to leave it to an ignorant person like me to tell airlines how they can best configure their routes." And of course we got out of the way, and there was radical transformation in the industry, which told us what was the more efficient way to do it.

So once we deregulated, even though it unleashed competition and it proved to be very, very painful to the airlines, especially in the early 1990s when they lost billions of dollars - the fact is that none of them wanted to go back to the protectionist days."

 

[Flopgut]

Deregulation has been around a long time, in fact long enough that maybe we can stop using it exclusively to tear the nuts off legacy airlines. Why not see how well Delta can do at Love Field? Especially since swa has 95% of it. The unfortunate fact is the govt is used to deregulation only going in SWA's favor.

I'm not saying we go back to regulation, I'm suggesting SWA was never really de regulated like other airlines. It masked itself as the epitome of what the end result was suppose to be. When in reality things like the Love Field debacle were schemes to prop it up. Keep in mind: if SWA had not been allowed to stay at Love, they would not be in business. Fast forward to today and SWA has monopoly control of two very strategic Texas airports and is being allowed to construct it's own FIS. It's become the epitome of what it stood against 40+ years ago.

If SWA gets these gates, are you ready to admit there is a double standard? Cause that's probably going to happen.

 

[hockeypilot44]

Only fair, after having that Wright amendment rammed down their throat for so many years.

What are you talking about? Without the Wright amendment, no airline would have moved to DFW. Southwest could have moved just like everyone else. Now that the Wright amendment is going away, it is unfair to the other airlines as they can't move back to LUV because there are no gates.

 

[scoreboardII]

So Love should only have LCCs and DFW should only have legacies? That's F'ed up Howie, but convenient for SWA.

The DOJ isn't in GK's pocket, but the government very much wants de-regulation to be a lasting success. In order to do that, SWA has got to continue to do well. Alfred Khan said SWA was the proof of the policy.

How the heck is ONLY allowing lower cost airlines like Spirit into LUV going to be better for SWA, please enlighten us.

 

[SWA Bubba]

What are you talking about? Without the Wright amendment, no airline would have moved to DFW. Southwest could have moved just like everyone else. Now that the Wright amendment is going away, it is unfair to the other airlines as they can't move back to LUV because there are no gates.

You need a history lesson.

DFW opened, and all the airlines (except Southwest) moved there by 1974. They all agreed to move there of their own accord, because the facilities were to be bigger and better, and they wanted to take avail. Southwest stayed at Love because it made sense for our operation.

The Wright Amendment didn't come along until 1979, and as a direct result of Southwest announcing interstate service after The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 made it legal for them to do so. The WA had nothing to do with DFW and the other airlines moving there; it happened after that fact. It was a change in the law to keep Southwest from competing with the established carriers on longer routes from Dallas.

Good God; did you go to the Flopgut School of History?

Bubba

P.S. By the way, the reason there are no more gates at Love, is because American Airlines wanted it that way. Not Southwest. Complain to them, and get them to reverse their position on limiting love Field.

 

[Flopgut]

DFW opened, and all the airlines (except Southwest) moved there by 1974. They all agreed to move there of their own accord, because the facilities were to be bigger and better, and they wanted to take avail. Southwest stayed at Love because it made sense for our operation.

They moved there of their own accord because Love was suppose to be closed. SWA staying was a loophole that only barely made the legal cut. And it did not "make more sense for your operation" Bubba, it was the only way you were going to stay in business. When other airlines wanted back into Love they were stopped (again, only by the thinnest of legal margins) and SWA was protected. And we see this happening again today, all over again. SWA being spared the harsh competition in not only Dallas, but Houston as well.

 

[General Lee]

The ironic part Flop is that SWA has been known as the "low cost darling", yet today they have legacy costs due to their employees and longevity. Their fares aren't always the lowest either. Yet they still get slots at DCA and can try to keep others out of Love Field. Plus, they aren't the low cost leader anymore, which Spirit and eventually Frontier will be. Those pizzas were a great investment I guess....


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Freebrd]

Wow now that was an absolutely brilliant post Jenny.

 

[scoreboardII]

The ironic part Flop is that SWA has been known as the "low cost darling", yet today they have legacy costs due to their employees and longevity. Their fares aren't always the lowest either. Yet they still get slots at DCA and can try to keep others out of Love Field. Plus, they aren't the low cost leader anymore, which Spirit and eventually Frontier will be. Those pizzas were a great investment I guess....


Bye Bye---General Lee

But be sure to NOT mention we don't charge for bags, food, drinks, using a credit card, no change fees, etc, etc....

But lets compare:

Spirit flights from FLL to LAS 28 Feb rtn 8 Mar. Fares range $450-$650 RT

SWA same dates :$850-$1,100

But lets finish the story with Spirit:

Want to take one piece of luggage? $100 EACH WAY!!!!!

Your smart GL you'll only take a carry on, that will be $100 each way

You planned to golf right? $100 for that bag. each way

Need to change days? $115

Want your choice of seats? $150

Want to call Spirit and talk? $10

Drink? $10

Food? $10

So, your cheapest fare on Spirit, with one checked bag and carryon is $850, exactly what SWA gives, plus, free drinks food, change at will, etc.

This will always be SWA's advantage.

Spirit will always be able to find the feeble minded shoppers who don't think past the next mouse click.