Hobby expansion passes; Southwest wins fight with United

[LeeRoyJenkins]

Small people like knocking down big things. Especially in the airline world.

Exactly, SWA has been fighting just that for over 40 years.

 

[SKC]

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.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

Pretty sure everything I said would happen, has happened so far. Next I would guess the A380 won't show up.(good thing the airport just updated to accomodate it) I know you clowns are damn proud of yourselves. We'll see in three years if it looks like you can make good on your promises. 10,000 jobs, 1.6 billion to the economy, and $130 dollar tickets to Bogota... with 4 gates. Count on this: Former CAL employees will make sure the City of Houston hears about it if [when] you fall short. I can tell from experience, they are tough to please.

 

[SKC]

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.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

 

[SKC]

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?

 

[Flopgut]

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?

All right, read carefully. Example: Aukland. The 787 is not meeting projected fuel burn estimates. The CAL 787 fleet people and Boeing have been trying to iron this out with different routes or, well, any amount of tweaking you can imagine. The bottom line is, Aukland is going to be a real stretch on the first production 787s and we are probably going to have to limit payload out of Houston. It's a software issue that is going to take a year or so of flying to get the data we need to get the maximum performance out of the airplane. We don't have this problem out of the West Coast; We can fill it up.

So this ruling answers our dilemna. I assure you, we were fully committed to Houston and the 787. But with this slap in the face? There is no reason to shoehorn this airplane into Houston. Take it somewhere else. And everything that goes with it.

 

[SKC]

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.

 

[redflyer65]

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.

Let's Houston down miserably?

By what, walking away from the terminal that THEY paid for? Don't see it happing Flop. SW knows exactly what the return on investment will be or this would have never made it out of the planning stages.

 

[Double Shot]

Wow flop,

What's next...you going to blame southwest for your inability to gain a new contract?

Cry baby