I guess no doesn't mean no for Delta

[SWA Bubba]

No insinuation on my part. Straight up - Herb pulled an underhanded dirty trick to stay at Love field. Or are you trying to tell me that Herb didn't know that all commercial aviation was supposed to move to DFW once it opened?

It was a brilliant move on Herb's part. Yes. Ethical? No.

An "underhanded dirty trick"? Not exactly an unbiased opinion, and one shared primarily only from those favoring the competition. Just because the other carriers wanted a bigger airport for their hub-and-spoke operations, and Southwest didn't, doesn't mean squat.

Again, any airline in the country can fly to/from any public airport in the country. It's not a "dirty trick"; it's the law. What's "underhanded" about an airline making different choices than other airlines?

Fire up the google machine. DCA's adding additional gates and building a new concourse to the north of the C concourse.

LGA's pretty easy. There's a large area to the north of the Delta Shuttle terminal used for employee parking. You could easily drop a new terminal there. Beyond that, there's eminent domain to Astoria Blvd (or even further if desired) or you could fill in some of the Hudson for additional land area. Again, I did say that it was expensive, but not impossible.

Whether or not LGA or DCA can actually build new gates is not the point, as I pointed out before. The fact is there are slot limitations, limiting numbers of flights, based on airspace congestion and physical crowding on the airport's perimeter. Building new gates won't increase the number of flights; it just means less haphazard gate usage, and nicer facilities. That's the deal with LGA: a mammoth undertaking to replace the terminal with newer facilities, as the current facility has been described as a "third world airport."

http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/WrightImpactReport.pdf

Did you actually look through all of this? The noise difference between a no-WA 20 gate terminal, and a no-WA 32 gate terminal is about 4%. And that was before they adopted noise abatement procedures requiring the west runway during nighttime hours.

Are you really claiming that limiting DFW's exposure to DAL competition had no part in the gate limitation? Seriously? And that claim has no basis in your anti-SWA bias? Every article mentioning the negotiations quoting the principals, support the position that the limit was to mitigate competition with DFW, and that neighbors' noise complaints were addressed with nighttime flight limitations. Even Flop's quoted article, from the Ft Worth newspaper confirms this with quotes from AA's CEO Arpey:

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


Bubba

 

[HowardBorden]

No insinuation on my part. Straight up - Herb pulled an underhanded dirty trick to stay at Love field. Or are you trying to tell me that Herb didn't know that all commercial aviation was supposed to move to DFW once it opened?

Herb knew the law inside and out and he knew that it was illegal for the city to preclude flying out of Love. Airport facilities that accept federal funding are obligated to follow the rules associated with those grants. Several airlines voluntarily agreed to move to the new facility at DFW and contractually obligated themselves to that move. Southwest Airlines was not party to any agreement to stop serving customers out of Love. So really, your assertion that: "all commercial aviation was supposed to move to DFW once it opened?" is patently false. Love Field had no ability to preclude anyone from using that facility due to it's contractual obligations brought on by accepting federal funds.

Federal Grant Obligations and Responsibilities:

Under the various federal grant programs, the sponsor of a project agrees to assume certain federal obligations pertaining to the operation and use of the airport. These federal obligations are embodied in the application for federal assistance as sponsor assurances. The federal obligations become a part of the grant offer, binding the grant recipient when it accepts federal funds for airport development.

 

[Flopgut]

An "underhanded dirty trick"? Not exactly an unbiased opinion, and one shared primarily only from those favoring the competition. Just because the other carriers wanted a bigger airport for their hub-and-spoke operations, and Southwest didn't, doesn't mean squat.

Bubba

The history is very clear: DFW was not "wanted" so much as it was mandated by the Feds, who would not support two airports for the two different cities. Love was used by travelers 5 times more than ft worth airports. You are conveniently confusing something that squeaked by as being legal, with being the right thing. There's a huge difference with right v legal Bubba. When herb weaseled his way into staying at Love, swa's success was a guarantee. Legal, but not right.

 

[Flopgut]

Herb knew the law inside and out and he knew that it was illegal for the city to preclude flying out of Love. Airport facilities that accept federal funding are obligated to follow the rules associated with those grants. Several airlines voluntarily agreed to move to the new facility at DFW and contractually obligated themselves to that move. Southwest Airlines was not party to any agreement to stop serving customers out of Love. So really, your assertion that: "all commercial aviation was supposed to move to DFW once it opened?" is patently false. Love Field had no ability to preclude anyone from using that facility due to it's contractual obligations brought on by accepting federal funds.

Federal Grant Obligations and Responsibilities:

Under the various federal grant programs, the sponsor of a project agrees to assume certain federal obligations pertaining to the operation and use of the airport. These federal obligations are embodied in the application for federal assistance as sponsor assurances. The federal obligations become a part of the grant offer, binding the grant recipient when it accepts federal funds for airport development.

Yeah, well those airlines that agreed to use DFW would not have if they had known swa would stay. And do not forget Swa still had to initially acquiess to Texas only. (Herb knew he pulled a fast one) And make no mistake, if other airlines had stayed at Love? SWA would not be around. It's not a "culture" it's not low costs, it's not better "People". It's a bush league cheap suit lawyer trick that flourished.

 

[tomgoodman]

It's a bush league cheap suit lawyer trick that flourished.

As opposed to big league high-priced lawyer buffoonery that failed?

 

[bluesideup1]

Andy,

If they are building additional gates in DCA then you just ruined your own argument as it looks like adding SWA to the mix has allowed them to build more gates unlike in LGA where it would be impossible to build a new terminal just because of space but then again we could always dredge up the Hudson make a new island and connect it to the terminal via underground train. As opposed to changing a piece of paper to allow more gates to be built in DAL.

 

[freightdogfred]

As opposed to big league high-priced lawyer buffoonery that failed?

Very good point. Usually law is sold by the pound, but Herb schooled some pretty high priced suits. Good for him. To cry foul at this point is nonsense, given the fact all airline ceo's would sell their sister for a leg up on the competition. The airline business is filled with false hope, broken promises and unrealistic expectations. A long plastic hallway, inhabited by pimps, thieves, confidence-men and liars. There's also a negative side

 

[HowardBorden]

Yeah, well those airlines that agreed to use DFW would not have if they had known swa would stay. And do not forget Swa still had to initially acquiess to Texas only. (Herb knew he pulled a fast one) And make no mistake, if other airlines had stayed at Love? SWA would not be around. It's not a "culture" it's not low costs, it's not better "People". It's a bush league cheap suit lawyer trick that flourished.

No one could have known Southwest would stay at Love because there was no Southwest Airlines in November of '68 when agreements were obtained from all eight CAB certificated air carriers to move all flights to the new regional airport, only a small company mired in legal battles known as Air Southwest. Hell, if it wasn't for the bogus legal objections of Braniff, Texas International, and Continental Airlines, Southwest would most likely would have been operating out of Love in November of '68 and probably signed on with the rest of the group to move their operations. So Flop, you can thank Continental and the others for that major misstep!

Southwest didn't acquiesce to only fly in Texas, Southwest only had a TAC certificate at the time and the Texas Aeronautics Commission only had authority over intra-state air service. SWA had not applied for a CAB certificate allowing inter-state air service.

Your entitled to whatever twisted opinion you want to carry around about Southwest and what might have happened if other airlines would played their hands differently, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The SWA track record speaks for itself and needs no approval from Flopgut.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Part two of the response to your post!

That doesn't fit into the meme here. Cowboys prefer fact free conversations.

Ha! This has to be the funniest thing you've posted on this website. "Fact-free conversations".... That's a good one.

Literally, all you and Flop have done in this thread (to be fair, more Flop), has been to spout what boils down to other airlines' "talking points" about Dallas Love and the Wright Amendment. You just repeat the stuff you've heard, with no actual factual backup. It's all airline urban legend; you don't even have any idea whether it's true. Howard and I have tried to refute the most obvious BS with actual facts, dates, references, etc, and then all you guys just revert to more generic, non-specific platitudes.

SWA Bubba, you're way too wound up about this to even try to discuss anything with you rationally. Calm down and stop throwing a tantrum like a four year old.

Wound up? You probably didn't notice, but I only talk about this stuff to refute the anti-SWA BS that comes out, and in response, I point out what actually happened. People can have honest differences of opinions, but when outright lies are posted, you're no longer talking about "interpretation." You notice it's always other posters starting conversations about Love Field? Why is that? You make up obvious BS, and it's going to get a response.

One more time: I don't give a crap about Love field. As such, I haven't put much time into researching the subject. But for as much you guys whine about GL, at least he does some research and has an understanding of most subjects he discusses here.

More comedic stylings by Andy. I should think that if you're going to post inflammatory stuff about another airlines, perhaps you should put in some more time researching the facts first. You know, so you don't look dumb. Trust me, those of us who have lived the WA, know its actual history. You're relatively new to this argument, so you haven't made as many untrue assertions as Flop has.

But here's a small list of some of the biased or outright untrue things you've said:

-- Tthe agreement for the hub-and-spoke airlines to move to DFW when completed required the other area airports (incl DAL) to be closed. This statement is patently false. There's no other way to put this.
-- SWA somehow "forced" DAL to remain open, and/or "forced" DAL to allow us to fly there through "legal trickery." The law was clearly on Southwest's side, as was found by every court in the land, both state and federal. No saavy lawyer required; a first year law student could have made the case. Eight court decisions in less than 3 years represents some of the fastest legal smack-downs in history.
-- You said that the WA was not intended to "keep SWA from flying out of DAL, but rather an attempt to "force the closure of DAL." An ugly mischaracterization, and complete misunderstanding of the actual facts. The WA came about 8 years after SWA started flying out of love, and after we prevailed in court (again) to assert our right to fly interstate from there. The WA attacked and limited only interstate flying proposed by SWA, rather than flying in general, and as I've pointed out, nothing ever prevented the city of Dallas from closing Love Field if it wanted.
-- You insist that the only reason for the artificial gate limit at DAL is due to noise, and your "research" apparently consisted only of finding out that a noise assessment was completed. Biased assessment that ignored the actual process and conclusions. You somehow failed to notice that every discussion involved American Airlines and DFW actually stating that they were concerned about increased competition with Southwest at Love.
-- You (and Flop, numerous times) made the generic and vague assertion that Southwest "messed with the legacies, numerous times," implying that Southwetpst has a habit of cheating or breaking laws or rules. Cheap, biased insult. When pressed to give specifics, you just ignore. Why is that?

I could also list some of the easily-disproved and ridiculous crap that comes out of Flopgut's computer, but that would take 10 or 15 pages.

If you really want to talk about Love Field and the WA, Andy, please do some actual reading on the subject. Your statements that I pointed above demonstrate that you clearly don't really understand the situation. Don't just repeat the same tired talking points that Southwest's competitors put out as propaganda. Hell, that's the Goebbel approach you talked about. Actually research it for yourself, and I think you'd be surprised when you learn some of the stuff that really happened. Or don't. It's up to you. But if you don't, and just keep repeating propaganda like Flop, prepare to have your fallacies pointed out and compared to the facts.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

No one could have known Southwest would stay at Love because there was no Southwest Airlines in November of '68 when agreements were obtained from all eight CAB certificated air carriers to move all flights to the new regional airport, only a small company mired in legal battles known as Air Southwest. Hell, if it wasn't for the bogus legal objections of Braniff, Texas International, and Continental Airlines, Southwest would most likely would have been operating out of Love in November of '68 and probably signed on with the rest of the group to move their operations. So Flop, you can thank Continental and the others for that major misstep!

Southwest didn't acquiesce to only fly in Texas, Southwest only had a TAC certificate at the time and the Texas Aeronautics Commission only had authority over intra-state air service. SWA had not applied for a CAB certificate allowing inter-state air service.

Your entitled to whatever twisted opinion you want to carry around about Southwest and what might have happened if other airlines would played their hands differently, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The SWA track record speaks for itself and needs no approval from Flopgut.

One of the many reasons this is still an important debate: what happens going forward. You can have your own version of "facts" and I can have mine (Jim Wright has his, so do the people of Ft Worth, so does Herb, it goes on) Lets say Norweigan or Ryan wants to make a deal with Texas. They're going to put 10 of their own gates at Love and Hobby. They'll claim the weren't a party to the WA and just want to "do their own thing and run their business model" (Bubba so ft worth and others drop opposition (just for them) and it goes thru. Is swa going to be happy with that? No. And frankly I would not want that to happen. My point is: all any of these foreign carriers have to do is point to what deals/treatment swa has received and say "hey we want the same". Remember the rest of us (US airlines) have been playing a predictable and fair game. We build huge airports and invite all competition. We slug it out with world class airlines and we do ok. Why throw all of that away for one airline? Why let swa be a foreign airline's blueprint for how to unravel legacy airlines and the U.S. market?