I guess no doesn't mean no for Delta

[bluesideup1]

LUV got those gates because other airlines were forced to divest due to the high percentage of flights that they had at those airports. 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.
Build more gates? Hmmm - why didn't LUV try to do that at airports where they benefitted from the loss of other airlines?

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.

You seem not to understand the situation as only one airline was forced to divest their single gate due to the government. That is what this whole fight is about. Just one!

Everything else was agreed to during negotiations. If Delta wanted the gates they could have come in at any time and used some of their political capital to make it happen. They chose to do nothing and are now crying about the Binding agreement that was made to rid Love of the Wright Amendment.

Southwest wanted as many gates as the airport could support and fought hard to get as many as possible. The only problem is that SW was fighting a Mayor whose husband was on the BOD at American and didn't want to give up any more than they had to. If Delta had joined the fight I am sure they could have secured some gates and maybe even stopped the prohibition on international but they were silent.

The fact that Delta want to come in and abrogate the contract that was agreed to by all those involved just reeks of too little to late. As I said before I would love for them to sue over the the contract and void it completely. Then we could talk about getting more gate space for everyone now that they would finally have a dog in this fight.

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.

 

[Flopgut]

They chose to do nothing and are now crying about the Binding agreement that was made to rid Love of the Wright Amendment.

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.

 

[Flopgut]

The fact that Delta want to come in and abrogate the contract that was agreed to by all those involved just reeks of too little to late.

Wow! That "reeks" but swa staying at Love 40 years ago (and creating all these problems for decades) doesn't?! Straight up arrogance on your part bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Southwest wanted as many gates as the airport could support and fought hard to get as many as possible. The only problem is that SW was fighting a Mayor whose husband was on the BOD at American and didn't want to give up any more than they had to. If Delta had joined the fight I am sure they could have secured some gates and maybe even stopped the prohibition on international but they were silent.

Swa spin. Complete bs. This is about a municipality disenfranchised [Ft Worth] by poor Federal and State decision making. (Read the link before and you'll understand) If this were only about one legacy airline and a Mayor I'm pretty sure swa would get their way [HOUSTON]. Is that somehow not obvious enough for you?

 

[Flopgut]

Uh, we've been through this before, Flop. They tried a "class action lawsuit" to close Love Field exactly like you just suggested. That was one of the first moves. The result?--It was soundly defeated and thrown out of every single friggin' court in the land. And then, after multiple frivolous attempts, the court even enjoined the other parties from using the courts from even trying this crap again. A nearly unprecedented legal ass-whuppin'--the court essentially told the other parties to "shut up, and knock off the frivolous BS."

And nobody believes that the "world revolves around SWA." However, we're entitled to run our business the way we want, in accordance with the laws. Not the way that you want. The world also doesn't revolve around you, trying to screw Southwest. Because that's all we ever hear from you.



"Sharpshoot public expenditure?" What kind of new babble is this? Exactly what "public expenditure" are you referring to, Flop? Southwest is paying for the new terminal itself. The city is building a parking garage, where they expect to make tons of money from it. That's a money-making investment for them. And the federal government is manning the FIS, as it's required to do for every airport that has international flying. And that particular installation and its employees are paid for by passenger charges on the new international traffic--just like every other airport in the land.

Bubba

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.

 

[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.