I guess no doesn't mean no for Delta

[27 driver]

The class action, and all the legal challenges went on and on because the results continued to be inconsistent with what reality was. Any other entity would have lost, but the decision was made to prop up swa and make sure deregulation had a chance. The lawsuit result is what was frivolous. This is one of those read between the lines/big picture things you and red struggle with. (Purposely I'm sure) As you and I discussed in our last thread, Kahns deregulation crowd felt the world "needed more swas" in the late 90s and feared for the LCC model. Then the world changed and legacy models suffered. The govt deliberately withheld any support and let swa and other LCC flourish. That's another helping hand given swa. The truth is, since deregulation, the industry has been terraformed for swa's advantage. However legacies will make a comeback, and will pbly once again leapfrog swa and other LCC. When this happens the question will be: what will be done to help swa again? By acting out at Love in the way RA is, he's trying to change the business climate that allows certain airlines to be favored. He's trying to change the big picture strategy that is against Delta and other legacies.

Puff Puff Pass dude. Pull the tin foil hat off. Do you really believe that SWA only exists because the govt propped them up? You truly are delusional. SWA is in business and thrives because their model works. When and if it stops working they can just file bankruptcy, screw all their employees, and shed all their debt like your beloved airline has done......what two or three times now?

 

[SWA Bubba]

That's not it in the least bit. Make no mistake, this is about a show of inflexibility to accept one airline as special. RA wants the WA terms to stay and he wants swa forced to accommodate Delta. It's no less than would be (or has been) done for swa.

How could you possibly know this? And more importantly, why would you even imagine that this might be true? Don't you ever get tired of just randomly making up sh1t and pretending it's true, just to try to back up an argument that has no other basis?

If not for the artificial 20-gate limit at Love Field, RA and Delta could do whatever they wanted there, no questions asked. And with no interference from Southwest. Amazing concept, huh?--running your own business, instead of telling others how to run theirs.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

LUV got those gates because other airlines were forced to divest due to the high percentage of flights that they had at those airports.

No. Mainly, Southwest got those gates because they bid the most for them.

LUV has a near monopoly at DAL. The reason why it doesn't appear to be the same at all to you is because LUV's monopoly is much higher than those other airlines had at those airports.

While Southwest does have a monopoly at DAL, it's only because the airport contracted around what they were already doing (i.e. it was purposely shrunk to just more than the amount of usage that Southwest was doing). You do know that until last November, there were literally dozens of unused gates at DAL that no other airline wanted. Right? Where were you whiners all those years when DAL was looking for additional tenants?

Build more gates? Hmmm - why didn't LUV try to do that at airports where they benefitted from the loss of other airlines?

Trust me, we would have loved to. Southwest doesn't have any problem competing with other airlines. The problem with LGA and DCA is that they're two of the few slot controlled airports in the country, and there was no actual room for additional flights, regardless of the number of gates. We had to wait for someone to sell their slots, and then we bought them.

Like it or not, LUV is no longer the underdog airline and will probably start to get gates/slots/assets poached by other airlines, with the endorsement of government agencies. We've watched that happen for more than a decade to the legacies - interesting to see the reaction now that it's not United/American/Delta whose gates/slots are being taken away.

We don't claim to be any kind of underdog. We would just like to operate our business model without other airlines telling us how we should do it instead. You wouldn't think that would be too much to ask.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

The class action, and all the legal challenges went on and on because the results continued to be inconsistent with what reality was.

"What reality was"? Huh? You do realize that you didn't actually say anything here, right? Basically what you just said boiled down to this: "even though all the actual facts of what happened don't support me, I still really, really want this to be true." Sorry, Flop, but the world doesn't work this way.

Any other entity would have lost, but the decision was made to prop up swa and make sure deregulation had a chance. The lawsuit result is what was frivolous. This is one of those read between the lines/big picture things you and red struggle with. (Purposely I'm sure)

Well, this is a new on for you--spinning a new grand conspiracy theory. Tell me, Flop, who exactly made the "decision to prop up Southwest" in this case? Who? Did the local court, then the appeals court, then the TX Supreme Court, then the federal district court, then the federal appeals court, then the US Supreme Court, ALL get together and conspire to "prop up" an airline that hasn't even started flying yet? Is that really what you're claiming now? Do you even listen to yourself?

The bottom line is that that law was on Southwest's side. That's why, after essentially getting kicked in the balls by every court in the US, the other airlines then had their political stooge change the law. If this grand conspiratorial "they" were trying to "prop up" Southwest, wouldn't Speaker Wright have changed the law to help us, instead of hobbling us?

As you and I discussed in our last thread, Kahns deregulation crowd felt the world "needed more swas" in the late 90s and feared for the LCC model.

I realize that chronology isn't your strong suit (well, actual facts in general, I mean), but the "late 90s" was nearly thirty years after this court battle over DAL's closure and Southwest's right to fly was fought in various courtrooms (it concluded in 1970). Southwest didn't really exist, other than an incorporated company with a business idea, and the lease to three airplanes that had yet to fly. So spare me the enormous leap between one guy's opinion in the late 90s about what was happening currently, and what happened literally decades earlier.

Then the world changed and legacy models suffered. The govt deliberately withheld any support and let swa and other LCC flourish. That's another helping hand given swa.

Ah, yes, more of the apparent grand "government conspiracy" to help Southwest. The government "deliberately withheld support"? Exactly what support is that, Flop? All airlines received compensation for having their planes grounded by the FAA for those three days, and additionally, many of the legacies received government loans to help them recover/respond to the changes after 9/11. Southwest, on the other hand, asked for and received no government assistance in this regard.

And only a guy like you could equate the government "not supporting" legacies (which isn't even true), with giving a "helping hand" to another airline...which didn't actually receive any support.

The truth is, since deregulation, the industry has been terraformed for swa's advantage.

Another of your nonsensical, generic, anti-SWA platitudes. But hey, kudos to you for looking up a new word. How about next time (or any time, for that matter), actually making specific claims of "SWA advantage," and then backing them up with actual, provable facts.

However legacies will make a comeback, and will pbly once again leapfrog swa and other LCC. When this happens the question will be: what will be done to help swa again? By acting out at Love in the way RA is, he's trying to change the business climate that allows certain airlines to be favored. He's trying to change the big picture strategy that is against Delta and other legacies.

Legacies have made a comeback, in case you hadn't noticed. They're all making money hand over fist. Good for them. Good for everybody.

Next time, try using actual facts. And not just the crap you make up, that a quick internet search easily disproves. Okay?

Bubba

 

[Andy]

As for the question on why didn't SW just build more gates at the places they were awarded? That is just a stupid question. How many more gates can anyone build in LGA, DCA or any of the other places we received slots? Just about every one is space or flow limited unlike Love that is only limited by a convoluted agreement.

No less stupid than why don't other airlines build gates at DAL. DAL was supposed to be closed once DFW opened, much like Stapleton closed once DIA opened. Southwest pulled a fast one to keep it open.

 

[Andy]

No. Mainly, Southwest got those gates because they bid the most for them.

OK, let's get more basic here. WHY were those slots up for auction? Forced divestitures. The exact same thing can happen to LUV at DAL.

While Southwest does have a monopoly at DAL, it's only because the airport contracted around what they were already doing (i.e. it was purposely shrunk to just more than the amount of usage that Southwest was doing). You do know that until last November, there were literally dozens of unused gates at DAL that no other airline wanted. Right? Where were you whiners all those years when DAL was looking for additional tenants?

LOL! Delta now sees value at DAL. With LUV's monopoly at LUV, there's a very strong case to force LUV to divest some gates.

Trust me, we would have loved to. Southwest doesn't have any problem competing with other airlines. The problem with LGA and DCA is that they're two of the few slot controlled airports in the country, and there was no actual room for additional flights, regardless of the number of gates. We had to wait for someone to sell their slots, and then we bought them.

LUV has no problems competing with other airlines, as long as the deck is stacked in LUV's favor. If they wanted to compete on equal footing, DAL would be shut down tomorrow and LUV would be operating out of DFW.

Those slots came up ONLY because of forced divestitures. Time for LUV to feel the divestiture love.

We don't claim to be any kind of underdog. We would just like to operate our business model without other airlines telling us how we should do it instead. You wouldn't think that would be too much to ask.

... and yet, LUV has done quite a bit to mess with the legacies. So now the shoe's on the other foot and you guys are howling about the injustice. I find it pretty humorous.

 

[SWA Bubba]

OK, let's get more basic here. WHY were those slots up for auction? Forced divestitures. The exact same thing can happen to LUV at DAL.

LOL! Delta now sees value at DAL. With LUV's monopoly at LUV, there's a very strong case to force LUV to divest some gates.

Some were "forced divestitures," but divestiture agreed to by the airline in question as a condition of the DOJ giving sanction to their merger. Not the same thing at all as shrinking an airport to barely fit around a particular airline's operation, and THEN saying give up some of the gates they've always had for the last 40 years. This has nothing to do with "fairness"; it's about being punitive to the competition (SWA).

LUV has no problems competing with other airlines, as long as the deck is stacked in LUV's favor. If they wanted to compete on equal footing, DAL would be shut down tomorrow and LUV would be operating out of DFW.

How is that "equal footing"? Says who? Pretty much says only DFW (the competition), and airlines who would like to see SWA lose business (uh, also the competition). Lots of cities have multiple airports--it's a common and good idea. The traffic in that area is more than enough to support multiple airports. What the hell is it with you guys? Always trying to tell other airlines how to run their business. Why don't you fly to/from where you want to, and we'll fly to/from where we want to?

In reality, "equal footing" would be to have more gates at DAL for other airlines to do whatever they wanted--just like it used to be. You can blame American Airlines and DFW for that: it's all about money, as they want to force passengers to spend as much money on them, and as little on us, as possible.

Those slots came up ONLY because of forced divestitures. Time for LUV to feel the divestiture love.



... and yet, LUV has done quite a bit to mess with the legacies. So now the shoe's on the other foot and you guys are howling about the injustice. I find it pretty humorous.

You're starting to sound as paranoid as Flop now. Exactly what has Southwest done to "mess with the legacies"? How about some specifics, instead of just generalized, absurd conspiracy theories with no actual basis in truth or facts?

Bubba

 

[bluesideup1]

No less stupid than why don't other airlines build gates at DAL. DAL was supposed to be closed once DFW opened, much like Stapleton closed once DIA opened. Southwest pulled a fast one to keep it open.

Nice deflection but the question was still a stupid one as it is impossible for Southwest to build any more gates at any of the airports they were awarded slots at. Unlike Love where there is plenty of room and arrival capability.

But ya bring up something that happened 40 years ago as relevant today.

Andy,

You are usually a level headed voice of reason and I can understand if you didn't have all the facts before posting.

So, please just answer these questions:

If Delta was interested in these gates why didn't they try and get them anytime in the last 8 years while we were waiting for the Wright Amendment to die?

What gives Delta the right to go against an agreement that was reached between Southwest, American, The city of Dallas and the Federal Government?

Last you seem to think that Southwest did something sneaky to stay at love (even though we were not even formed when the agreement to move to DFW was made) yet you are OK with the Speaker of the house being in AA pocket to add a backdoor amendment to keep Southwest from flying out of Love even after every legal challenge thrown our way was dismissed not once but over 8 times.

 

[Flopgut]

How could you possibly know this? And more importantly, why would you even imagine that this might be true? a

How do you not know this?! What else do you think he's doing?! I realize your strong suit is long rambling posts with a playground tone, why don't you add some actual reading to this? I've linked you some very credible data and you've apparantly ignored and gone straight to prepping your next anti flopgut rant. Read bubba. You'll learn something. And do you somehow not know the history between swa and RA when he was at NWA? Did you miss the exchange RA had with Trent Lott in hearings that took place just prior to 2000? Let's just say he's not much of a swa fan, since you probably won't try and understand anything outside of swa rumor and talking points [BS].

 

[Flopgut]

If Delta was interested in these gates why didn't they try and get them anytime in the last 8 years while we were waiting for the Wright Amendment to die?

What gives Delta the right to go against an agreement that was reached between Southwest, American, The city of Dallas and the Federal Government?

Last you seem to think that Southwest did something sneaky to stay at love (even though we were not even formed when the agreement to move to DFW was made) yet you are OK with the Speaker of the house being in AA pocket to add a backdoor amendment to keep Southwest from flying out of Love even after every legal challenge thrown our way was dismissed not once but over 8 times.

1 RA is simply trying to make this messy. He's taking the swa stance toward the issue and seeing if he can't expose the inconsistent decisions made at this airport.

2 plane and simple my friend: going against the decision of the Feds, the city, swa and American is no less than what swa did 40 years ago! Why shouldn't he do that? And why should he not expect to win?

3 you do realize they all voted on the wa? It wasn't one guy. Why did it pass? Because ultimately all at the policy level knew it was not right to allow swa to stay at love after Ft Worth was forced to give up on its own airports. AND at nearly the exact moment deregulation was being rolled out. Dallas Love had 5 times the use that all ft worth airports had. Swa's success was a given at that point. Handed to them on a silver platter.

 

[HowardBorden]

Any other entity would have lost, but the decision was made to prop up swa and make sure deregulation had a chance. The lawsuit result is what was frivolous. This is one of those read between the lines/big picture things you and red struggle with. (Purposely I'm sure)

Please, tell me you are not this daft!

Please let me know that you are just trying to make a point an do not truly believe that a few low level bearuocrats ran roughshod over the US judicial system fixing multiple court decisions for no other reason than to prop up SWA!

Your ramblings are absurd and ridiculous to say the very least, but you're like a train wreck of ludicrous, I just can't seem to look away. I do have to admit the latest delusion gave me a hearty chuckle.

 

[redflyer65]

Everyone on the same page to 'Prop up' one airline.

Amazing.

 

[SWA Bubba]

How do you not know this?! What else do you think he's doing?! I realize your strong suit is long rambling posts with a playground tone, why don't you add some actual reading to this? I've linked you some very credible data and you've apparantly ignored and gone straight to prepping your next anti flopgut rant. Read bubba. You'll learn something. And do you somehow not know the history between swa and RA when he was at NWA? Did you miss the exchange RA had with Trent Lott in hearings that took place just prior to 2000? Let's just say he's not much of a swa fan, since you probably won't try and understand anything outside of swa rumor and talking points [BS].

RA might very well personally not like SWA at all. I don't really know, but it matters not.

CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies don't stay CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies by engaging their company, and wasting money, in public spats for obvious personal reasons, just trying to "make things messy." This latest "theory" of yours insults not only RA himself, but the entire Delta Airlines board of directors and company as a whole.

I suspect the reason RA is in DAL, and is fighting to stay there, is purely economic, like all the company decisions he undertakes as CEO: to make money. He believes there's money to be made there, the cost of pushing this, thus far hasn't been too great. It's that simple.

Just because you, in cases of Southwest, would cut off your own nose to spite your face, doesn't mean that other, rational people would do the same.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

3 you do realize they all voted on the wa? It wasn't one guy. Why did it pass? Because ultimately all at the policy level knew it was not right to allow swa to stay at love after Ft Worth was forced to give up on its own airports. AND at nearly the exact moment deregulation was being rolled out. Dallas Love had 5 times the use that all ft worth airports had. Swa's success was a given at that point. Handed to them on a silver platter.

Wrong again.

Here's some more history for you that you're clearly out of touch with what actually happened, and why the WA was "passed": Speaker Wright originally proposed what became the Wright Amendment as a stand alone law. Since he was the House Speaker, he got to determine which bills get voted on. He brought it to the floor and it was soundly defeated. So much for "all at the policy level [knowing] it was not right to allow SWA to stay at Love." Those "at the policy level" knew it was crap, and voted it down.

Wright then attached the same language to an unrelated, but critical bill, the International Air Transportation Act of 1979. Other members could not strip out the Speaker's rider, and since the underlying bill was important, it was passed. Even though the House at large showed their disdain for this obvious piece of protectionist garbage, by overwhelmingly voting it down on its face, they didn't care enough for what was primarily only screwing people in someone else's state, to fight the Speaker over the language that was added to the critical, underlying bill, that they needed to pass.

That's why it was called the Wright Amendment, and not the Wright Law.

Seriously, Flop, do you even bother to look up anything that you claim? Or do you just make these outrageous anti-SWA claims because they sound good in your head, and then you just hope no one bothers to look it up?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba how can this be anything more than symbolism on RAs part? They had a large base at DFW not that long ago. Do you think he's confused about the Dallas airline business? Do you honestly believe that your home airport is that special? For a sharp legacy CEO this is no different than the threat ME3 airlines present. That is: he has to keep (or get to) an even playing field with airlines he competes with. What your airline has cooked up at Love and Hobby is just as wrong as the ME3 saying they won't buy Boeing's if we don't give them complete access. I'm not sure you do a lot of reading about the ME3, but frankly a lot of your posts sound just like those advocating for them. Companies who find themselves in between competitors have to get out of that middle spot fast. You can not stay there. Gk/swa understand this perfectly. That's why swa does what it does. (Swa goes one more step and brainwashes all of you with hype and b.s.) RA understands it. He may win he may not, but the exercise of trying to both offer the flights, and complicate your plans, is worthwhile.