Houston Mayor OK's Hobby International for SW

[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