LeeRoyJenkins
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2011
- Posts
- 314
Small people like knocking down big things. Especially in the airline world.
Exactly, SWA has been fighting just that for over 40 years.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Small people like knocking down big things. Especially in the airline world.
So, no comments, Flop, about the UA statement of downsizing 3 years prior to SWA operating a single intl flight out of HOU?
No comment on how SWA can affect UA's operations over 1000 days prior to heading south to Mexico/Carrib?
No comment on how up to 1300 UA employees are possibly being let go THREE years before SWA has entered the market?
No comment on how UA is supposedly pulling the 787 off the NZ route because of domestic feed that won't even suffer at SWA's hand for 3 years (at the earliest)?
Please tell me that you don't actually believe the crap that UA is spewing right now over this.
No, no, that's not what I asked.
I asked you about UA's position on eliminating jobs well before SWA could have had ANY effect on them. How can you defend UA and blame SWA when it's crystal clear that Smisek was just looking for an excuse to dump hard working employees and routes?
Former CAL employees better keep an eye on their own jobs instead of being hacked off at SWA. Seems their own CEO is out to get them, not SWA.
Well Punkin: There is more than one thread on here. Go over to the other one. There is an excellent article done by the Chronicle you ought to read. It sets the stage nicely for everyone to have something to look back on when SWA let's down Houston miserably.
I've read the article. Didn't say anything new or groundbreaking. The article doesn't answer the question I've asked you to answer.
How can you defend Smisek's decision to layoff up to 1300 employees three years before any competition has begun?
Well Punkin: There is more than one thread on here. Go over to the other one. There is an excellent article done by the Chronicle you ought to read. It sets the stage nicely for everyone to have something to look back on when SWA let's down Houston miserably.
I asked you about UA's position on eliminating jobs well before SWA could have had ANY effect on them. How can you defend UA and blame SWA when it's crystal clear that Smisek was just looking for an excuse to dump hard working employees and routes?
So....the 1300 employees losing their jobs are due to the 787 performance issues? That's a lot of employees being let go for one flight per day.
Andy, UA's public stance has been that Houston will lose 1300 jobs. Whether it be jobs going to DEN or Denmark is irrelevant based upon their notion that SWA is at fault.
I can only assume that you didn't read my post about United shifting flights to DEN. While I expect United to keep IAH a major hub, some of that flying is going to shift to DEN due to a committment to increase DEN ASMs by a minimum of 4.5% by 2016. The jobs aren't lost, they're just moving to DEN.
Keep in mind that current United projections for 2012 call for a .5 to 1.5% decrease in ASMs compared to 2011. This is similar to Delta's ASM projections; I don't know what SWA, AMR, and other players are doing with respect to ASMs. Given that they've programmed an overall decrease in flying, the additional DEN flying has to come from other hubs. This is a strategic opportunity for United to shift the flying to DEN under the cover of being rebuffed by the city of Houston.
IMHO, in a couple of years, you'll see United extract concessions out of Houston to complete terminal B expansion plans. I'm sure that the expansion plans will be shuttered short term after they complete phase one. http://www.fly2houston.com/0/3917910/0/83280D83281/
You guys need to stop reading this stuff at face value. It's like playing checkers against an opponent who's playing chess.
Let's Houston down miserably?
Well, that flight was pretty strategic and we were going to build the operation around it. That was going to be in Houston, now it's not. It does take a lot of people. This isn't really any different than if the Council ruled in United's favor. You were going to go somewhere else as well, right? SAT? We're just suppose to stay?
So it's ok to say you'll take the jobs to SAT? You refuse to create jobs in Houston without wrecking some first? Nice.
Andy, UA's public stance has been that Houston will lose 1300 jobs. Whether it be jobs going to DEN or Denmark is irrelevant based upon their notion that SWA is at fault.
I think Mr. Smisek's wording to put the blame on Southwest was just a case of "that'll teach you." If the Houston city council had voted the other way, he'd have a different press relief to explain the same shift in flying over to DEN.
Bubba
So it's ok to say you'll take the jobs to SAT? You refuse to create jobs in Houston without wrecking some first? Nice.