I guess no doesn't mean no for Delta

[Flopgut]

Good article to get you up to speed bubba

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article3877464.html

No Ft Worth did not "make out"

Read it again Bubba. Read. Plenty of lawful opposition to allowing Love to stay open. No shortage of West of Plexers that don't agree with you. Completely wrong to force DFW construction and then offer swa the keys to an airport 5 times more popular.

 

[SWA Bubba]

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.

Good God, Flop, make up your mind--First, it was RA screwing with Southwest for purely personal reasons. Now, it's RA "fighting the good fight" for idealistic reasons. Yet, you can't come to grips with the fact that perhaps he's doing it for purely business reasons, in that he can make money doing it. Seeing as how that's what CEOs are paid to do.

I can't argue with the rest of your rambling paragraph, because as near as I can determine, you didn't actually say anything. Try again?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Semantics Bubba. RA is doing what he's doing. If you choose to not understand why that's your own deal. Try again to explain things to you? No thanks. You're better off not knowing.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Semantics Bubba. RA is doing what he's doing. If you choose to not understand why that's your own deal. Try again to explain things to you? No thanks. You're better off not knowing.

Gotcha. I'll do that.

I'll go back to assuming that RA is running his business simply to maximize his company's profit. Although God only knows why he would do such a crazy thing. Silly him.

And you're right that it was stupid to ask you to explain anything in the airline business, since you've demonstrated time and again, that you don't know the first thing about any of it. Every bizarre thing you've ever claimed has been demonstrated to be untrue, then you ignore the facts, and then a while later, when the discussion has dropped off, you repeat the same crap, as if it's somehow a new idea again. It's like arguing with a four year-old.

Bubba

 

[Andy]

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).

Again, welcome to no longer being the 'underdog' in the business. Not all forced legacy divestitures have been due to mergers, as you have stated. A few years ago, both American and United were forced to divest gates/slots at ORD - these gates/slots were given to other carriers - JetBlue, VX, F9, Spirit - I don't remember which got pieces of what was taken from American and United. Southwest has benefitted from the same FAA 'rob from the rich and give to the poor' policies in the past. Both United and American fought the divestitures but they still happened in the name of 'competition'.

If I dust off some more near dead/unused brain cells, I'm sure that there have been plenty of other non-merger forced divestitures in the airline industry. Should LUV be targeted at DAL? Absolutely; there are few other airports in the country with such a large percentage of only one airline. And DAL almost certainly has the most passenger traffic of any airport with a single dominant carrier.

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?

It sounds like you don't know the history of DAL. The agreement was that DAL and all other commercial airports in the area would be closed as soon as DFW opened. Exactly what happened with Stapleton when DIA opened.

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.

You REALLY need to read up on DAL's history - and not the LUV kool aid 'history' of DAL where the Wright Amendment is vilified. In reality, Herb pulled an underhanded trick (not being a party to the agreement to close all other airports to commercial aviation) to keep the airport open when it was supposed to be shut down.

As far as the number of gates at DAL, the limit is 20. No more gates can be built there. But you guys should already know this.

Interesting that you are taking the 'wild west' approach to aviation rulemaking. Reference to, and I quote: "..."equal footing" would be to have more gates at DAL for other airlines to do whatever they wanted--just like it used to be". This is the attitude that has in the past earned LUV the reputation as cowboys. ... don't like the rules? Ignore them, then if there's a lawsuit, fight it out in court. Herb was very, very good at that.
Everything that you're referring to are agreed upon rules and laws with respect to DAL. It was legally agreed to shut it down when DFW opened. LUV opted to ignore the rule. Now that it's still open, the number of gates are legally limited to 20 gates.

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?

I don't mind engaging in spirited debate, but you are completely out of line here. I'm not at all paranoid about DAL and could care less about the outcome. But everything that I have stated is well documented in both newsprint and legal documents. You are using the Goebbels technique here, trying to sell LUV fact free folklore - If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Do your own independent homework on the subject.

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.

BS. It's not impossible to build additional gates at LGA or DCA. Expensive? Yes. Impossible? No.

Love is limited to 20 gates. No more are permitted to be built. But if you're going to ignore the rules/law and operate under cowboy ops, sure, more gates can be built there just as more gates can be built at LGA and DCA.

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

Seriously? You guys are more than happy to bring up Chap 11 filings as if they happened yesterday, but have a huge blindspot for illegal actions? Interesting take on the history of DAL.

Andy,

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

Thanks, but you and I know that I don't have the definitive answer to your questions but just for yucks I'll respond to both of them.

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?

56 or fewer seats.

If you don't understand the answer, you need to read up on the subject.

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

I don't know; the same thing that gave Southwest the right to go against an agreement that was reached between the federal, state and local governments and the airlines when DAL was supposed to be shut down upon opening of DFW?

Pot meet kettle.

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.

Do I think Southwest did something sneaky to stay at Love? Dude, step back and read up on the subject. It was completely underhanded. I can't even believe that you'd suggest something different.

As far as your assertion that the Wright Amendment was a backdoor attempt to stop Southwest from flying out of Love, I doubt it. It was clearly an attempt to shut down Love, as what had been agreed to by everyone except Southwest. Southwest kept it open due to Herb being a superstar in the courtroom.

Herb's a damned good lawyer. He could have gotten Ted Bundy, Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Hinckley, Jr. acquitted. Working all of the cases at the same time. That was a compliment to Herb, not a slam on him.


All airlines pull underhanded tactics on each other. Crandall's shutdown of Braniff is well documented. You guys trying to make Southwest sound like a honest player is humorous - I understand your desire to not slam your employer for underhanded crap, but the Southwest fiction-based folklore is rampant in this thread.

 

[SWA Bubba]

.

It sounds like you don't know the history of DAL. The agreement was that DAL and all other commercial airports in the area would be closed as soon as DFW opened. Exactly what happened with Stapleton when DIA opened.

Sorry; it seems clear that it's you, Andy, that has problems with the history of DAL. The agreement was NOT that "all other commercial airports in the area would be closed as soon as DFW opened." You are 100% wrong here.

The agreement was that the carriers at the other commercial airports would move to DFW when opened, and not operate at the other airports. That was it. That was the entire crux of the agreement. It had nothing to do with the airports themselves. It was an agreement between the existing carriers that wanted a bigger airport for their expansion plans, the two cities, and the newly-formed DFW airport authority. It was to make it worthwhile to spend all that money on a new, huge airport.

This agreement was made and signed literally years before Southwest was conceived and incorporated in 1967. Southwest Airlines was not then, nor have they ever been party to that agreement. If SWA had existed and had been flying from Love in 1964, they were under no obligation to be a party to any such agreement, and I doubt they would have.

The fact of the matter is, that the city of Dallas, unlike the city of Denver, chose not to close Love Field. In fact, Southwest's legal fight to fly was actually adjudicated that no one could stop SWA from flying out of Love "as long as Love Field remained open as an airport." The city of Dallas, as owner of Dallas Love Field, could have unilaterally closed Love Field at any time that it wanted. It still can (although I suppose it would have to honor the current leases that it's party to). It doesn't want to. That's the bottom line.

You REALLY need to read up on DAL's history - and not the LUV kool aid 'history' of DAL where the Wright Amendment is vilified. In reality, Herb pulled an underhanded trick (not being a party to the agreement to close all other airports to commercial aviation) to keep the airport open when it was supposed to be shut down.

Seriously? it's an "underhanded trick" to not be a party to an agreement that was made years before you even envisioned and started your business? An agreement that offers exactly no benefit to you, and that would prevent your business from actually working? What kind of world do you live in?

As far as the number of gates at DAL, the limit is 20. No more gates can be built there. But you guys should already know this.

Of course we know it. It was part of the compromise that finally lifted the punitive WA. That number completely artificial, and insisted upon by American Airlines and the DFW airport authority. Unlike in LGA and DCA, it's not a limit based on air traffic saturation, or airport congestion.

But I noticed you ignored where I pointed out what actually happened in the limiting. Look at it this way: it's EXACTLY the same as if someone massively reduced the number of gates at DEN (a big base for United, right?) to an arbitrary number just a few gates more than what United currently uses, and then other airlines came in and insisted on being awarded some of United's gates, because "they now had a monopoly."

Interesting that you are taking the 'wild west' approach to aviation rulemaking. Reference to, and I quote: "..."equal footing" would be to have more gates at DAL for other airlines to do whatever they wanted--just like it used to be". This is the attitude that has in the past earned LUV the reputation as cowboys. ... don't like the rules? Ignore them, then if there's a lawsuit, fight it out in court. Herb was very, very good at that.
Everything that you're referring to are agreed upon rules and laws with respect to DAL. It was legally agreed to shut it down when DFW opened. LUV opted to ignore the rule. Now that it's still open, the number of gates are legally limited to 20 gates.

Sorry, as pointed out above, everything I referred to was NOT "agreed upon rules and laws with respect to DAL." And it was NOT "legally agreed to shut it down when DFW opened."

I don't mind engaging in spirited debate, but you are completely out of line here. I'm not at all paranoid about DAL and could care less about the outcome. But everything that I have stated is well documented in both newsprint and legal documents. You are using the Goebbels technique here, trying to sell LUV fact free folklore - If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Do your own independent homework on the subject.

Since some of what you said is demonstrably untrue, I'd say it's NOT "well documented in both newsprint and legal document." And it's interesting you bringing up the Goebbels technique--it's exactly what Flop and other SWA-bashers do. Keep claiming stupid sh1t over and over (like the WA was "negotiated with SWA, in order to help them"), and eventually he believes it himself. Don't fall into that trap.

BS. It's not impossible to build additional gates at LGA or DCA. Expensive? Yes. Impossible? No.

Love is limited to 20 gates. No more are permitted to be built. But if you're going to ignore the rules/law and operate under cowboy ops, sure, more gates can be built there just as more gates can be built at LGA and DCA.

Whether it's physically possible to build more gates at LGA and DCA is not the point. It's airspace limitations and congestion due to physical size that limits flights here. It's not a limit on gates, it's a limit on aircraft flights (slots). NOT the same thing as Love field at all. There's no airspace limitations over TX, and there's plenty of physical room at DAL for more gates and flight operations. It's an artificial limit, based purely on politics and DFW not wanting any more competition than it already has.

You want more gates there? Change the law then. It's that simple (unlike changing the laws of geometry and physics like you'd need to to increase LGA's traffic). Hell, SWA's competitors already seem to have experience in changing laws they don't like--it should be easy for them. All they have to do is just buy another influential politician. :blush:

Thanks, but you and I know that I don't have the definitive answer to your questions but just for yucks I'll respond to both of them.

56 or fewer seats.

If you don't understand the answer, you need to read up on the subject.

Well, I'm sure that he knows that answer, as do I. 56 seats was the limitation on commercial aircraft from DAL to go out of the WA footprint. But it didn't really answer his actual question about Delta not procuring any gates when they had the opportunity. Southwest doesn't have any planes with 56 or fewer seats, and we still made money flying out of DAL.

Why didn't Delta get any gates in the 8 year sunset period? They had to know that they'd be able to go anywhere once the magic day arrived. Hell, why didn't they actually bid a decent amount on United's gates up for sublease after the end of the WA? They could have gotten them then, and flown anywhere they wanted. That was point, which you sidestepped.


<The rest of your quote again relied on the disproved notion that the "law" or "agreement" somehow required closing of Love Field, so I just deleted it instead of repeating myself to respond>

Bubba

 

[Andy]

The fact of the matter is, that the city of Dallas, unlike the city of Denver, chose not to close Love Field.

SWA Bubba, you say that the city of Dallas could have kicked out Southwest at any time. This is Dallas Love's website: http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/love-notes-chronology-of-events.html

Note:
1972
The Regional Airport Board and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth sue Southwest Airlines over their decision to remain at Love Field.

1973
Love Field enplanements peak at 6,668,398. The court grants Southwest Airlines the right to remain and offer intrastate air service at Love Field.





I'll rephrase: The city of Dallas wanted Love field closed to commercial aircraft. I love the semantics play you're using. Did they want to keep it open for private aircraft? I'd have to read more about it, but it's obvious that no one except Southwest wanted commercial aviation at Love field.

 

[Flopgut]

Gotcha. I'll do that.

I'll go back to assuming that RA is running his business simply to maximize his company's profit. Although God only knows why he would do such a crazy thing. Silly him.

And you're right that it was stupid to ask you to explain anything in the airline business, since you've demonstrated time and again, that you don't know the first thing about any of it. Every bizarre thing you've ever claimed has been demonstrated to be untrue, then you ignore the facts, and then a while later, when the discussion has dropped off, you repeat the same crap, as if it's somehow a new idea again. It's like arguing with a four year-old.

Bubba

Read something other than this board and the stupid propaganda swa puts out. Read the dallasaviationblog Especially read Art of War by Sun Tzu. It might just get your head dislodged from your butthole. The very narrow version of history you think you walk me through every time makes me realize your not much of a free thinker. you don't manage to prove anything to be true or untrue, you just type 4000 words and pronounce its "the truth".

 

[Andy]

Whether it's physically possible to build more gates at LGA and DCA is not the point. It's airspace limitations and congestion due to physical size that limits flights here. It's not a limit on gates, it's a limit on aircraft flights (slots). NOT the same thing as Love field at all. There's no airspace limitations over TX, and there's plenty of physical room at DAL for more gates and flight operations. It's an artificial limit, based purely on politics and DFW not wanting any more competition than it already has.

You want more gates there?

It took me 3 (wasted) minutes of my life to find out why DAL's gate limited. NOISE.

Seriously, if you guys are going to sit here and say, 'build more gates', at least find out why the freaking restriction was put in place. The airport's in the middle of a residential area, similar to SNA and every other noise sensitive airport.

I don't want more gates at DAL; I don't care about this subject. I'm just pointing out the semi tractor trailer sized holes in you kool aid drinkers' arguments.

You guys haven't been on the losing end of asset seizure by the government yet. If by some miracle, you guys win in court, I think you're going to find the DoT is going to resolve this issue and it won't be in LUV's favor. Do you know the DoT's current position on this subject? It's not in LUV's favor.

Do you know the percentage of passenger traffic at the airport flown by LUV? Good luck holding onto that number; if Delta decides to increase its presence in DAL, it's likely to come at the expense of more LUV gates being subleased or sold to Delta.

 

[SWA Bubba]

SWA Bubba, you say that the city of Dallas could have kicked out Southwest at any time. This is Dallas Love's website: http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/love-notes-chronology-of-events.html

Note:
1972
The Regional Airport Board and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth sue Southwest Airlines over their decision to remain at Love Field.

1973
Love Field enplanements peak at 6,668,398. The court grants Southwest Airlines the right to remain and offer intrastate air service at Love Field.

No, Andy, I never said that (bolded above). Don't put words in my mouth. I said that they could close the airport at any time, but didn't want to. I pointed out that you were wrong in your repeated insistence that the law/agreements required DAL to be closed, and Southwest somehow forced them to do otherwise. What the law actually required, and was affirmed by every court in the US, was that, as long as Dallas Love remained open as an airport, Southwest (not a party to the agreement) could fly there.

I'll rephrase: The city of Dallas wanted Love field closed to commercial aircraft. I love the semantics play you're using. Did they want to keep it open for private aircraft? I'd have to read more about it, but it's obvious that no one except Southwest wanted commercial aviation at Love field.

It's not semantics at all. It's what the friggin' law (and the agreement you keep referring to) actually said. Airlines who signed onto the agreement would move their commercial flying to DFW. That was it.

And it doesn't make any difference who "wanted no commercial flying out of DAL." Since Southwest wasn't party to the agreement to use only DFW, and you can't have a public airport, and then say that certain people cannot use it. It would be discrimination. That basically was the city of Dallas' choice: either close the airport, or let anyone who wanted to lawfully use it, do so. And Southwest wanted to lawfully use it. Why is that so hard to understand? They chose to keep it open, and then negotiated leases with Southwest.

You do realize that any lawful aviation entity can fly to any public airport, right? (specific slot controls, safety issues, etc., not withstanding)


There's nothing underhanded about it. We never wanted to fly out of DFW; we never agreed to move; so we didn't. We pick the airports we want to fly to, just the same as United, Delta, and everyone else.

Bubba