Houston Mayor OK's Hobby International for SW

[Flopgut]

Funny how chicago is supposed to be corrupt land of Obama- and california is lefty socialist, but free market Bush land Texas is the one that can't stop getting their hands all over the protectionist policies that hurt one of their largest and most successful airlines

Yeah, that is funny. It's even funnier that it always involves you guys. Wonder why that is?

 

[HalinTexas]

For the record. TX state government has been hands off, for the most part, concerning the WA and the HOU-IAH issues. It did play a part in DFW expansion, but that was at the behest of the DFW airport board and the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth. Long story.

As long as WN ponies up the cash to build the terminals, I don't have a problem with it. CAL had lots of help expanding/upgrading IAH. If it is allowed, the lead story will be that there is no story.

 

[redflyer65]

It is exactly what you agreed to a few years ago in Dallas... City of Dallas didn't want to end up with FIS at both DFW and Love. You guys agreed it was a good idea. You're just doing this in Houston now because the city has weak mayor who is pissed off at UAL.

We elected to stay at Love because that was our original base, and eventually got 'punished' for it from Mr. Wright. We did well anyway. Those are the facts.

You really think Southwest singled out the Houston mayor to expand internationally? That's more than a stretch. We've already ordered the planes, we are going anyway. Houston can get on board, or some other city will. Just business.

 

[SWA Bubba]

First Paragraph: You do a nice job of helping to illustrate my point. Houston DOES NOT have to accomodate you! GK says "I just want a building permit", to paraphrase Wave, he says "how dare govt presume they can tell business what to do". The grant assurance decision specifically says the govt CAN decline to accomodate you. Read what United goes on to point out as further justification. IAH was built to accomodate all Houston international flights, it is no where near capacity, and the entire investment stands to be ruined because we can't staff both Hobby and IAH.

.

You only think I'm illustrating your point because you're assuming your spokeswoman's words to be gospel. They're not. The FAA requires that airports subject to its grant authority have to provide the service level requested except in the rarest of circumstances. Your company's letter tried to invoke one of those circumstances with the reference to A-County in Colorado. The exception MAY be carved out when one of a city's airports is "at or near capacity," and then they MAY designate one airport for a certain class or classes of aircraft. This does not apply. Neither of those airports are "at or near capacity." You personally have made the case that IAH has plenty of capacity, and I can tell you that Hobby has oodles of room as well. Just because YOUR company wants that Colorado case to be its excuse, doesn't make it true. And in fact, it's NOT true.

In general, you can't make an argument by saying, "this is what we want the facts to be, so therefore you're wrong." But that's what United (and you) are doing.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Second paragraph: In both cases, all American and United wanted you to do was come to the main airport. That's synonymous with wanting to compete with you.

Also not right. American didn't want to compete with us. They (and other Texas airlines) wanted us to die so they didn't have to compete with us. That was true when we started in 1971, and true when we wanted to fly out of Texas in the later 70s. And what happened? Every one of their frivilous legal attacks were laughed out of court (Texas and federal) to the point where the Texas Supreme Court finally specifically enjoined ANY entity from trying to keep SWA from flying interstate using the court system. At that point, they had the Speaker of the House (representing Ft Worth; what a shocker) slip a new law into an unrelated bill to do what they wanted.

And as far as United goes, saying you want to compete with us, but only if we follow what YOU want us to do, is not competition at all. Part of your complaint here is that you may have to split your resouces, but then you want US to do exactly that. How is it a fair competition (which you proclaim is all you want) if your transfers walk to the next gate, but ours have to drive to the other end of Houston and go to a different airport? You keep harping on "fair," but you have never addressed this inequity, Flop.

How about this? YOU are allowed to fly domestic and international out of both IAH and HOU, and WE are also allowed to fly domestic and international out of both IAH and HOU. Now that would be fair, right? Then both companies are free to decide to split, or not split our operations.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

What is being described to us is that FIS and C&BP services for IAH will be strained to the point that process times more than double. Is that just suppose to be our tough luck? We built a facility that could be doubled right now. Hobby will run fine, it's small. IAH will be ruined. Is that what the govt is suppose to do?

This is another gross exaggeration (to be charitable) or blatant falsehood (to be brutally honest). It's being described to you all right, but it's being described by yourselves, in one of your talking points in your many letters.

FIS and C&BP services are determined by service requirements, and are not fixed. More international service (especially at a different airport) obligates the government (whose duty it is to support commerce) to add staffing as needed. And since part of each ticket goes to such costs, adding service adds to that income stream for which the goverment pays to supply that service. That is to say that our international ticket sales pays for our FIS and C&BP services. Yours pays for yours. If you're paying for your service through international ticket sales, and not getting appropriate levels of service, then your complaint is with C&BP, not us.

Also, it's estimated that our small international operation would require approximately 20 agents, and not until 2015. I'm pretty sure that the goverment can train 20 agents in the 2-1/2 to 3 years before they're needed. I'm also pretty sure that there's at least 20 Houstonians who would love to have a government job.

Finally, your last point above belies your actual complaint itself. How can you "double the facility" you have at IAH without straining C&BP services, but us needing 20 guys at Hobby will cripple IAH? Even if they took those 20 guys away from IAH (which they won't), how is that worse than giving the hundreds of guys at already stationed at IAH twice the amount of work? Apparently, taking 20 guys will "more than double" processing time at IAH, but doubling their work load won't? Logic is not working for you in this argument, Flop.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

.... When IAH ends up looking like Pittsburg, Houston falls into rust-belt decay because they can't attract industry, ...

Exaggerate much? Are you even listening to yourself? You sound ridiculous here. Houston is not going to fall off the map and fall into industrial ruin, because SWA takes 20 B737s full of tourists to Mexican resorts each day.

Did you stop and think that many other US cities have multiple airports that fly international, and they're doing fine? Here's a few for you: Los Angeles, Washington, New York, Chicago, Miami.... Why do you think it's not possible for Houston to do the same?

I tell you, if United is THAT precarious (is that what you're really afraid of?), then a stiff wind might send your company over the edge.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

I realize you don't think the govt should tell business how to conduct operations. And I might be able to agree. If you could also possibly agree that it is not the govt's job to bend to the will of one company that wants to do something that is of detriment to every other competitor, AND possibly the traveling public.

This is deliciously ironic. However I suspect that most people believe that you have this backwards: it's YOU guys who want the government to bend to the will of one company (United), that wants to do something to the detriment of a competitor (Southwest). And that's to keep us from flying our Houston passengers internationally. You guys already have something like 80% of ALL traffic into and out of both Houston airports combined, and something like 85-90% of the international traffic to and from Houston. THAT'S not a monopoly? THAT doesn't hurt the traveling public? And now you want the government to help you preserve your monopoly? To prevent you from getting any international competition from Southwest? That's pretty funny....

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Your second question? I don't know what to say... I mean for God's sake Wave, were all those SWA planes I saw at IAH for all those YEARS diverts or something?! YGTBSM Wave!! Is your brain not working today?! Southwest used to serve IAH!!! You actually going to tell me SWA never desired to do that?! It's was some kind of accident or your arm was being twisted!?

Go back and check your history, Flop. Southwest served IAH in the most minor of ways possible. Four flights a day between IAH and DAL. That's it; one city-pair. "All those SWA planes [you] saw at IAH" was actually one plane every now and again. It wasn't profitable, because our customers couldn't connect to anywhere else in our system (without taking a cab across town), so we stopped. Kinda' like they wouldn't be able to connect from our network to fly international if we "competed" the way you want us to. Your version of competition is for us to only be able to take Houstonians international, but none of the rest of our cities' customers. Gee, that doesn't sound too fair to me.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

You only think I'm illustrating your point because you're assuming your spokeswoman's words to be gospel. They're not. The FAA requires that airports subject to its grant authority have to provide the service level requested except in the rarest of circumstances. Your company's letter tried to invoke one of those circumstances with the reference to A-County in Colorado. The exception MAY be carved out when one of a city's airports is "at or near capacity," and then they MAY designate one airport for a certain class or classes of aircraft. This does not apply. Neither of those airports are "at or near capacity." You personally have made the case that IAH has plenty of capacity, and I can tell you that Hobby has oodles of room as well. Just because YOUR company wants that Colorado case to be its excuse, doesn't make it true. And in fact, it's NOT true.

United's spokeperson is making a valid point. I did not say it is "gospel", it's a good arguement. Remember, this all started out with Southwest claiming there was absolutely nothing that precluded them building what they wanted. Well, along with many other flagrant exaggerations SWA has made, we find out there is a possible rule in place that would stop a Hobby terminal.

You're right, IAH is not at capacity. Therefore an international terminal at Hobby would be superfulous. You have it backwards Bubba.

Also not right. American didn't want to compete with us. They (and other Texas airlines) wanted us to die so they didn't have to compete with us.

That's your version. When Braniff went back over to Love to match you leg for leg in heads up competition, SWA had them removed completely from Love Field.

Finally, your last point above belies your actual complaint itself. How can you "double the facility" you have at IAH without straining C&BP services, but us needing 20 guys at Hobby will cripple IAH? Even if they took those 20 guys away from IAH (which they won't), how is that worse than giving the hundreds of guys at already stationed at IAH twice the amount of work? Apparently, taking 20 guys will "more than double" processing time at IAH, but doubling their work load won't? Logic is not working for you in this argument, Flop.

Your numbers are WAY off. And the agents are going to come from IAH. Margins are so close, we need the agents working for every/all airline's customers, not divide them up and have an inordinately large number working for only SWA. That terminal is going to be 80% plus SWA exclusive use. (exclusive!) We're suppose to take agents off a job where they are working for ALL airlines and put the to work for you just you?

Did you stop and think that many other US cities have multiple airports that fly international, and they're doing fine? Here's a few for you: Los Angeles, Washington, New York, Chicago, Miami.... Why do you think it's not possible for Houston to do the same?

My prediction is a lot closer to being reality than what SWA claims their positive impact will be to the Houston economy.

Go back and check your history, Flop. Southwest served IAH in the most minor of ways possible. Four flights a day between IAH and DAL.

Hey, it's a reality. You don't pull out of many places, but you did IAH. And I'm sure it wasn't profitable. Had nothing to do with the WA in Dallas. It had to do with a competitor at IAH you didn't want to lock horns with. And one you still don't.

 

[SWA Bubba]

That's your version. When Braniff went back over to Love to match you leg for leg in heads up competition, SWA had them removed completely from Love Field.

This is MY version?! About other airlines just wanting to compete with us in Dallas vs. kill us? Did you really just say that, Flop? Pick up a history book, my man.

- Eleven years of non-stop litigation, first to prevent us from flying at all, then to evict us from Love Field, then to prevent us from flying outside of the state of Texas. During this period, every single case, without exception, was dismissed by the courts as frivilous BS. The Federal Circuit Court even went as far as to tell the other airlines essentially, "not only are your current arguments dismissed with predjudice, but you cannot bring any other argument before ANY state or federal court." That's unprecedented.

- During this period, two airlines were indicted and pleaded 'no contest' to federal criminal (that's CRIMINAL, Flop, not civil) charges related to their efforts to kill us. These charges included conspiracy, collusion, obstruction of justice, and perjury. One of the airlines doesn't exist anymore, but the other lives on under a new name. It bought an airline in 1982, merged with it, and assumed its name. It's since changed names again. I don't want to embarass anyone by naming the second-most current name of this airline with a "criminal record," but it rhymes with "Schmontinental Airlines."

Still gonna' claim that all they wanted was "fair competition"?

Bubba

P.S. Where did you get that crap about us "having Braniff removed" from Love Field? How are we supposed to have done that? We're not the mafia. We don't have people "removed." Anyone is free to fly from Love (or at least they were until the five-party compromise of 2006, because American Airlines insisted on it). People have come and gone of their own accord at Love Field over the years; Legend even built themselves a nice new terminal there. It was American who killed them, as sure as if they had fired a sniper's bullet, but that's another story entirely.

 

[SWA Bubba]

United's spokeperson is making a valid point. I did not say it is "gospel", it's a good arguement. Remember, this all started out with Southwest claiming there was absolutely nothing that precluded them building what they wanted. Well, along with many other flagrant exaggerations SWA has made, we find out there is a possible rule in place that would stop a Hobby terminal.

Not quite. Southwest says that there is nothing precluding us from flying international out of Hobby. That's true. The FAA requires this. What United CLAIMED, was that the Colorado case could be used here (this was among a host of other things your lawyers came up with under the premise of "if you throw enough things against the wall, maybe something will stick"). However the Colorado case doesn't apply in Houston, because neither airport is at or near capacity (that was the entire basis of the Colorado situation). The funny thing is, nobody is even pretending that they are, United's lawyers just threw that in for the hell of it. I'm surprised they didn't try to tie in Roe v Wade or the Dred Scott ruling for good measure.

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

Your numbers are WAY off. And the agents are going to come from IAH. Margins are so close, we need the agents working for every/all airline's customers, not divide them up and have an inordinately large number working for only SWA. That terminal is going to be 80% plus SWA exclusive use. (exclusive!) We're suppose to take agents off a job where they are working for ALL airlines and put the to work for you just you?


.

Hey I'm curious Flop- what percentage of international flights are Continental or continental code shares out of IAH?

 

[Flopgut]

This is MY version?! About other airlines just wanting to compete with us in Dallas vs. kill us? Did you really just say that, Flop? Pick up a history book, my man.

- Eleven years of non-stop litigation, first to prevent us from flying at all, then to evict us from Love Field, then to prevent us from flying outside of the state of Texas. During this period, every single case, without exception, was dismissed by the courts as frivilous BS. The Federal Circuit Court even went as far as to tell the other airlines essentially, "not only are your current arguments dismissed with predjudice, but you cannot bring any other argument before ANY state or federal court." That's unprecedented.

- During this period, two airlines were indicted and pleaded 'no contest' to federal criminal (that's CRIMINAL, Flop, not civil) charges related to their efforts to kill us. These charges included conspiracy, collusion, obstruction of justice, and perjury. One of the airlines doesn't exist anymore, but the other lives on under a new name. It bought an airline in 1982, merged with it, and assumed its name. It's since changed names again. I don't want to embarass anyone by naming the second-most current name of this airline with a "criminal record," but it rhymes with "Schmontinental Airlines."

Still gonna' claim that all they wanted was "fair competition"?

Bubba

P.S. Where did you get that crap about us "having Braniff removed" from Love Field? How are we supposed to have done that? We're not the mafia. We don't have people "removed." Anyone is free to fly from Love (or at least they were until the five-party compromise of 2006, because American Airlines insisted on it). People have come and gone of their own accord at Love Field over the years; Legend even built themselves a nice new terminal there. It was American who killed them, as sure as if they had fired a sniper's bullet, but that's another story entirely.

You've got the SWA talking points down Bubba. But there are two sides to a story and I'm a student of both. Fact: NONE of the Dallas litigation would ever have happened if SWA had gone to DFW. And, none of this litigation would be going on in Houston either, if SWA would go to IAH. You've had and expected special treatment since you launched, and it's all come from the influential Texans close to SWA from day one. 600 Braniff guys ended up at CAL and I flew with many of them. They remembered the day that SWA had the sheriff come out to Love Field and close them down. Braniff was forced back to DFW because SWA said they should not be allowed to serve both airports.

What Amercan did to Legend was an homage to Braniff. If you didn't grasp that then you haven't been at SWA too long. Yeah, Legend got put down with extreme prejudice. It was done that way to remind everyone what would/should have happened to SWA. Legend did everything right, except for one thing: They didn't have a plan for eliminating their competition from the airport. That is KEY to what SWA really does. It's not simply utilizing a secondary airport. It's being able to manuver that airport into some form of an exclusive situation. That is the larger truth as to why SWA started out as a Texas-only airline. And why the WA was continuously adjusted to no more and no less than exactly what SWA needed.

Not quite. Southwest says that there is nothing precluding us from flying international out of Hobby. That's true. The FAA requires this. What United CLAIMED, was that the Colorado case could be used here (this was among a host of other things your lawyers came up with under the premise of "if you throw enough things against the wall, maybe something will stick"). However the Colorado case doesn't apply in Houston, because neither airport is at or near capacity (that was the entire basis of the Colorado situation). The funny thing is, nobody is even pretending that they are, United's lawyers just threw that in for the hell of it. I'm surprised they didn't try to tie in Roe v Wade or the Dred Scott ruling for good measure.

Bubba

United's lawyers actually did a good job of sniffing out SWA's true intentions. Remember from the other thread, my prediction was that GK not only wanted to get an international terminal at Hobby, he wanted to turn it into something exclusive to SWA, or into something where he could limit/eliminate any real competition. In the United argument that speaks to limiting certain operations to a single airport, you'll read some verbage about a certain class aircraft limitation as well. That is there becasue United understood that GK would be hedging his bets. If he couldn't get exclusive use of the terminal for SWA, he wanted to be able to limit the size of the aircraft that could come into Hobby's international terminal. This has been SWA's plan all along. SWA is terrified of real competition and wants some level of govt to step in and insure their success.

 

[Flopgut]

Hey I'm curious Flop- what percentage of international flights are Continental or continental code shares out of IAH?

I don't know. A lot? Most? What do you want me to say?

Whatever the percentage is, it represents a lot of hard work, discipline and investment over a long period of time. You know, that stuff you SWA guys don't want to be bothered with...

 

[Double Shot]

I don't know. A lot? Most? What do you want me to say?

Whatever the percentage is, it represents a lot of hard work, discipline and investment over a long period of time. You know, that stuff you SWA guys don't want to be bothered with...

Are you talking about scabbing...the thing continental pilots do so well. Ya...your right. We don't do that here.

 

[Flopgut]

You only think I'm illustrating your point because you're assuming your spokeswoman's words to be gospel. They're not. The FAA requires that airports subject to its grant authority have to provide the service level requested except in the rarest of circumstances. Your company's letter tried to invoke one of those circumstances with the reference to A-County in Colorado. The exception MAY be carved out when one of a city's airports is "at or near capacity," and then they MAY designate one airport for a certain class or classes of aircraft. This does not apply. Neither of those airports are "at or near capacity." You personally have made the case that IAH has plenty of capacity, and I can tell you that Hobby has oodles of room as well. Just because YOUR company wants that Colorado case to be its excuse, doesn't make it true. And in fact, it's NOT true.

In general, you can't make an argument by saying, "this is what we want the facts to be, so therefore you're wrong." But that's what United (and you) are doing.

Bubba

Let's get this fully ironed out. In Colorado, the FAA declined to allow FIS be built at a second airport because the primary airport was not at capacity. It was below capacity. You are reading it backwards. The additional FIS at the second airport was NOT built. The first airport could accomodate the new service. This is exactly why such a large facility was built at IAH. Exactly. This precedent matches our situation precisely. This is what Houston Mayor's Lanier and White told Continenetal they could count on as reason enough to believe huge investment in IAH was protected.

Think about it. If you were right about how this precedent reads, why on earth would GK have to spend his own money to get this built? All GK would have to do is point to the second FIS at Centenial Airport and say "build me one of those like you did for that other airline". He can't because it does not exist. On the other hand, there are 12 open gates at IAH because Continental had to build out enough room for any amount of future expansion.

 

[Bake]

Flop, I have read your arguments and I do believe you are correct in some of your assumptions and I do believe you are wrong in others. But, here is the fact, SWA is going to fly international out of Hobby. It doesn't matter anymore. It is done. Kill a cow, burn a pig, or chop the head off of a cat. I don't care. Your reasoning for what you argue no longer has any validity because SWA is going to make Hobby an international airport. Now, I will give you four free hours on my waverunners with chicks of your choice as a third place prize. I'll even furnish the beer. Let's go have fun. I bring the chicks, that is the only rule.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Let's get this fully ironed out. In Colorado, the FAA declined to allow FIS be built at a second airport because the primary airport was not at capacity. It was below capacity. You are reading it backwards. The additional FIS at the second airport was NOT built. The first airport could accomodate the new service. This is exactly why such a large facility was built at IAH. Exactly. This precedent matches our situation precisely. This is what Houston Mayor's Lanier and White told Continenetal they could count on as reason enough to believe huge investment in IAH was protected.

Think about it. If you were right about how this precedent reads, why on earth would GK have to spend his own money to get this built? All GK would have to do is point to the second FIS at Centenial Airport and say "build me one of those like you did for that other airline". He can't because it does not exist. On the other hand, there are 12 open gates at IAH because Continental had to build out enough room for any amount of future expansion.

Maybe YOU should read it again; it appears that it is YOU that have it backwards. Here's the exact wording of the FAA's ruling, as quoted by United's lawyers:

Where the volume of air traffic is approaching or exceeding the maximum practical capacity of an airport, an airport owner may designate a certain airport in a multiple airport system under the same ownership and servicing the same community for use by a particular class or classes of aircraircraft.

​

Read it again, Flop. It says that WHEN the traffic approaches or exceeds the maximum practical capacity, that they can designate specific classes to specific airports. Not before then. This is to manage traffic in places where there's not enough airspace, or too much traffic, to maneuver everybody willy-nilly to multiple airports. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the Colorado case was when Stapleton was around, tiny and jam-packed, and interntional (and domestic) traffic was managed with little room or margin.

To do it your way would be anti-competitive, because then ANY airport can say, "no service at your airport because mine has capacity to spare." Come to think of it, that's exactly what United is trying to pull. The fact of the matter is, the airport has an obligation (and the FAA requires it) to provide service, domestic or international, to any carrier who requests it, subject to the odd exemption or two. This is not one of those exemption cases, as much as United and you would like it to be.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

You've got the SWA talking points down Bubba. But there are two sides to a story and I'm a student of both. Fact: NONE of the Dallas litigation would ever have happened if SWA had gone to DFW. And, none of this litigation would be going on in Houston either, if SWA would go to IAH. You've had and expected special treatment since you launched, and it's all come from the influential Texans close to SWA from day one. 600 Braniff guys ended up at CAL and I flew with many of them. They remembered the day that SWA had the sheriff come out to Love Field and close them down. Braniff was forced back to DFW because SWA said they should not be allowed to serve both airports.

Uh, they're not talking points, Flop, they're history, and you're apparently not a very good student. The original several years' worth of litigation was to keep us from flying at all, before DFW was even built. The last was to stop us from flying out of Texas, after our legal status at Love was already clearly established. So much for your claim that it was all only to get us to fly out of DFW.

Even the part that was nominally aimed to accomplish that goal, was frivilous crap, because it was perfectly legal for us to fly out of Love. It was in accordance with the laws and in accordance with the FAA's rules; it was just not in accordance with what the other airlines wanted us to do (which of course, was to die). Regardless, we didn't want or get special treatment, just to fly where we wanted under the law. And you know what? Every freakin' court in the land, up to and including the Texas and US Supreme Courts agreed with us. What exact "special treatment" are you alleging we got? Are you really claiming that tiny little Southwest (in those days we were nothing) got favors from the Supreme Court? Maybe Herb had something on them! :bawling:

As far as Braniff goes, either you have the worst memory in the world, or you're just making crap up. Or to be charitable, maybe the former Braniff guys were yanking your chain. Either way, it never happened. Come up with a reference or it's crap. Think about it: Southwest had just proven the legal precedent that anyone could fly out of Love. Braniff was 15 times our size then, and had probably 100 times the legal budget. You don't think one of their first year law interns couldn't make a case for them to stay? Tiny little Southwest really sent massive Braniff scurrying away with their tail between their legs? With the precedent set, we would have been crushed in any court in the land, if we tried to keep someone from flying at Love. That ridiculous claim just begs incredulity. Like I pointed out earlier, other airlines have come and gone at Love, of their own accord, and that's been just fine with Southwest.

What Amercan did to Legend was an homage to Braniff. If you didn't grasp that then you haven't been at SWA too long. Yeah, Legend got put down with extreme prejudice. It was done that way to remind everyone what would/should have happened to SWA. Legend did everything right, except for one thing: They didn't have a plan for eliminating their competition from the airport. That is KEY to what SWA really does. It's not simply utilizing a secondary airport. It's being able to manuver that airport into some form of an exclusive situation. That is the larger truth as to why SWA started out as a Texas-only airline. And why the WA was continuously adjusted to no more and no less than exactly what SWA needed.

An "homage to Braniff"? That has to rank up with one of the silliest claims ever made on FI. American Airlines cares only about American Airlines. Not somebody else's former company. They would have done exactly what they did (kill Legend) even if their similar efforts to kill us years earlier had been successful. And really? Destroying another company, putting workers on the street, and ruining investors' lives is an "homage"?

Legend's plan was the same as ours: to pursue their particular business model, and to survive the onslaught of frivilous legal crap designed to kill them, laid upon them by the legacy airlines that didn't want to compete with someone who had a different, and possibly better, business model. Your vision of history would be funny if it wasn't so sad, Flop. It's the legacy airlines whose "eliminate the competition" strategy includes prolonged frivilous legal BS aimed solely at depleting a new company's capital. Southwest has never done that. It was legacies, Texas International (later Continental) and Braniff, that committed actual crimes in their attempt to kill us. Southwest has never done that. Where do you get the balls to accuse Southwest of any of this?

Southwest didn't "eliminate" competition, we just wanted to fly and let the consumer decide. Well, a lot of the consumers seem to like us, and like our business plan. True capitalism and consumer competition at work.

Bubba