I guess no doesn't mean no for Delta

[Flopgut]

No one could have knownt.

That's the most important thing you said right there^^^^^^^^

We don't know the future and we can't imagine how it will change. We are afforded a full view of history though, and we need to take that advantage. You and Bubba (especially, but really all swa employees) want to preside over a very strict and narrow history that excludes any other point of view. It's like you're doing it because you think the future depends on it (Youve probably been made to believe that) You should realize it's been a cake walk for swa. Staying at Love Field was like being the only mlb team allowed to steal first base. All that other spiritwarrierculture stuff was built around this as a distraction. I'm about to wind this thread down. If you or bubba want to respond to me again, keep it short.

 

[HowardBorden]

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?

Time and time again I shake my head and wonder where you come up with this stuff.

Norwegian or Ryan can't make a deal with Texas, the deal would have to be made with the US Congress (at least in the case of Love Field). The 1968 Bond Ordinance that funded DFW was a voluntary operation to build a new more expansive facility. The city of Dallas asked if the current Love tenants would be willing to sign an agreement promising that they move their operations because they wanted to guarantee they would receive rental fees at the new facility. This agreement was voluntary and changed no laws. It also did not close Love field to commercial traffic, it was simply a contractual agreement between several entities in order to reach a stated goal.

With deregulation, SWA was automatically granted the authority to fly inter-state due to the TAC certificate already in their possession. This obviously scared the hell out of American because they knew they would now have to compete with SWA on inter-state routes out of Love which the law now allowed. Enter Jim Wright with his proposal to artificially limit competition from Love Field. Wright's first bogus proposal was soundly defeated because it was clearly anti competitive. Being the Speaker of the House, Wright decided he would attach his amendment to a must pass bill in order to ramrod the legislation through because he had already been soundly defeated when it was attempted to pass as stand alone legislation. The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 became the vehicle for passing legislation everyone had defeated on its own merit.

So, in summary, listen closely. The move of some airlines to DFW was voluntary. No laws were changed in order to force it to happen. The repeal of the Wright Amendment changed US law. These changes were voted on by the US Congress. The new US law artificially limits Love Field to 20 gates. No more gates can be built without congressional approval. The state of Texas has no authority to expand the number of gates at Love. Unfortunately, everyone was a party to repeal of the WA as it changed US law. No one gets to: "do their own thing and run their business model"out of Love because of the tremendous artificial limits placed on Love thanks to Wright forcing through legislation and its eventual repeal.

 

[HowardBorden]

That's the most important thing you said right there^^^^^^^^

We don't know the future and we can't imagine how it will change. We are afforded a full view of history though, and we need to take that advantage. You and Bubba (especially, but really all swa employees) want to preside over a very strict and narrow history that excludes any other point of view. It's like you're doing it because you think the future depends on it (Youve probably been made to believe that) You should realize it's been a cake walk for swa. Staying at Love Field was like being the only mlb team allowed to steal first base. All that other spiritwarrierculture stuff was built around this as a distraction. I'm about to wind this thread down. If you or bubba want to respond to me again, keep it short.

Of course no one could have known that SWA would decide to serve their customers from Love Field since there was no Southwest Airlines at the time the 8 CAB airlines agreed to leave. However, all parties that signed an agreement to voluntarily leave Love should have known it was completely legal that SWA or any other airline that didn't sign an agreement to leave had every legal right to stay.

You continue to vilify Southwest for the lack of legal acumen shown by other airlines. It is not SWA's responsibility to perform legal due diligence for their competitors.

 

[Andy]

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.

No, I blew your ridiculous statement that Southwest couldn't add gates at DCA and LGA, but was only able to get gates at DCA and LGA by having them taken away from competing airlines.

You advocate forced divestitures when it favors Southwest, but oppose forced divestitures when it's Southwest whose ox is getting gored.


Southwest currently has greater than 80% of all flights and passengers in/out of Love field. If they are able to get Delta out of Love, they will have more than 90% of all flights and passenger traffic. Even if Southwest wins in a court of law, I would expect the DoT to force divestitures to lower Southwest's monopoly at Love.

 

[humveedriver]

Delta thinks they are going to get those gates.. Bless their hearts.

 

[outerlimits]

No, I blew your ridiculous statement that Southwest couldn't add gates at DCA and LGA, but was only able to get gates at DCA and LGA by having them taken away from competing airlines.

You advocate forced divestitures when it favors Southwest, but oppose forced divestitures when it's Southwest whose ox is getting gored.


Southwest currently has greater than 80% of all flights and passengers in/out of Love field. If they are able to get Delta out of Love, they will have more than 90% of all flights and passenger traffic. Even if Southwest wins in a court of law, I would expect the DoT to force divestitures to lower Southwest's monopoly at Love.

I am at a loss. Is that your only anwser ?

I would bet they will build more gates. I would also expect some of the restrictions lifted .


If I was in charge of making the decision , I would build more gate for other airlines to use and lift all the restrictions . Let free Enterprise prevail .


Kind of how this county is suppose to be built on .

 

[HowardBorden]

Even if Southwest wins in a court of law, I would expect the DoT to force divestitures to lower Southwest's monopoly at Love.

You are mistaken when you refer to a "monopoly" at Love Field.

A monopoly exists when a business that offers a good or service that has no close substitute. It exists when there is only one supplier. In a monopoly there cannot be any close substitutes for a good or service. A close substitute equals competition. Competition cannot be present in a monopoly.

Both DFW and Love field make up the market for air transportation in Dallas. In the Dallas market there is no monopoly on air transportation. SWA serves a smaller portion of the market than other competitors.

 

[Flopgut]

Kind of how this county is suppose to be built on .

No restrictions and build gates anywhere/everywhere you want. Wide open. Great thesis mr genius... Question: Should that not have been the rule from the start? Or only after one airline takes advantage of most of the others?

 

[Flopgut]

Time and time again I shake my head and wonder where you come up with this stuff.

Norwegian or Ryan can't make a deal with Texas, the deal would have to be made with the US Congress (at least in the case of Love Field). The 1968 Bond Ordinance that funded DFW was a voluntary operation to build a new more expansive facility. The city of Dallas asked if the current Love tenants would be willing to sign an agreement promising that they move their operations because they wanted to guarantee they would receive rental fees at the new facility. This agreement was voluntary and changed no laws. It also did not close Love field to commercial traffic, it was simply a contractual agreement between several entities in order to reach a stated goal.

With deregulation, SWA was automatically granted the authority to fly inter-state due to the TAC certificate already in their possession. This obviously scared the hell out of American because they knew they would now have to compete with SWA on inter-state routes out of Love which the law now allowed. Enter Jim Wright with his proposal to artificially limit competition from Love Field. Wright's first bogus proposal was soundly defeated because it was clearly anti competitive. Being the Speaker of the House, Wright decided he would attach his amendment to a must pass bill in order to ramrod the legislation through because he had already been soundly defeated when it was attempted to pass as stand alone legislation. The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 became the vehicle for passing legislation everyone had defeated on its own merit.

So, in summary, listen closely. The move of some airlines to DFW was voluntary. No laws were changed in order to force it to happen. The repeal of the Wright Amendment changed US law. These changes were voted on by the US Congress. The new US law artificially limits Love Field to 20 gates. No more gates can be built without congressional approval. The state of Texas has no authority to expand the number of gates at Love. Unfortunately, everyone was a party to repeal of the WA as it changed US law. No one gets to: "do their own thing and run their business model"out of Love because of the tremendous artificial limits placed on Love thanks to Wright forcing through legislation and its eventual repeal.

Of course no one could have known that SWA would decide to serve their customers from Love Field since there was no Southwest Airlines at the time the 8 CAB airlines agreed to leave. However, all parties that signed an agreement to voluntarily leave Love should have known it was completely legal that SWA or any other airline that didn't sign an agreement to leave had every legal right to stay.

You continue to vilify Southwest for the lack of legal acumen shown by other airlines. It is not SWA's responsibility to perform legal due diligence for their competitors.

This is not what I call brief. Can you not make your point in fewer words?

 

[HowardBorden]

This is not what I call brief. Can you not make your point in fewer words?

Yes, if you quit spreading fiction and calling it fact!

 

[bluesideup1]

No, I blew your ridiculous statement that Southwest couldn't add gates at DCA and LGA, but was only able to get gates at DCA and LGA by having them taken away from competing airlines.

You advocate forced divestitures when it favors Southwest, but oppose forced divestitures when it's Southwest whose ox is getting gored.


Southwest currently has greater than 80% of all flights and passengers in/out of Love field. If they are able to get Delta out of Love, they will have more than 90% of all flights and passenger traffic. Even if Southwest wins in a court of law, I would expect the DoT to force divestitures to lower Southwest's monopoly at Love.

I love how you deflect on how it is now my ridiculous argument even though I am sure that over the past 30 years NO ONE HAS tried to add gates to those places I mean what a stupid idea to add more gates to places that are slot restricted and have enormous revenue potential. The fact that you are trying to double down on Southwest responsibility to adding gate space to two of the most coveted places to fly is ludicrous.

If it had been possible to add more gate space it would have been done long before the mergers of Delta, American, America West and Northwest and the slots being opened up to the highest bidders. You know if they really wanted to keep those gates all they would have done is not merged but I guess they found it more profitable to merge the airlines and give up the gates.

This still doesn't answer the question of why you think it is right for Delta to come in and abrigate an agreement that was forged between all the airlines involved, cities and Federal government.

 

[Flopgut]

This still doesn't answer the question of why you think it is right for Delta to come in and abrigate an agreement that was forged between all the airlines involved, cities and Federal government.

Because that is exactly what SWA did 40 years ago. Not kind of, or similar, or close. Exactly what SWA did. They're no less a bystander to all of this recent change than SWA was a bystander to the initial deal to open DFW. AND: Love Field rules have always been written in pencil (mostly for SWA), where DFW rules have always been carved in stone for legacies. Why shouldn't they have the right to attempt to get (or expect) the same obviously favorable treatment that Love Field affords?

 

[Flopgut]

Yes, if you quit spreading fiction and calling it fact!

Keep clinging to your story. My views are no different than a growing number of industry watchers, voters, and travelers. The whole thing is BS.

Btw: How is what Delta is trying to do at Love right now more agregious than SWA attempting to bogart United's Mexico routes a few months ago?! Delta also has "expensive assets that have to be flown". Do you remember those words?

 

[HowardBorden]

Keep clinging to your story. My views are no different than a growing number of industry watchers, voters, and travelers. The whole thing is BS.

Btw: How is what Delta is trying to do at Love right now more agregious than SWA attempting to bogart United's Mexico routes a few months ago?! Delta also has "expensive assets that have to be flown". Do you remember those words?

I don't blame Delta for attempting to fly out of Love, I just don't understand why they didn't attempt to lease a gate from United rather than pronounce they would refuse to leave a gate legally leased and controlled by SWA.

It will be worked out in the courts and I'm fine with that. I can assure you if Delta wins the case I will not chalk it up to favoritism but will instead trust that the courts did their job. Can you say the same?

 

[Flopgut]

I don't blame Delta for attempting to fly out of Love, I just don't understand why they didn't attempt to lease a gate from United rather than pronounce they would refuse to leave a gate legally leased and controlled by SWA.

It will be worked out in the courts and I'm fine with that. I can assure you if Delta wins the case I will not chalk it up to favoritism but will instead trust that the courts did their job. Can you say the same?

Why should Delta be the airline that follows rules? Or doesn't try to force their own rules? Esp at Love Field AND when challenging SWA? Idk why SWA didn't just wait a few months and apply for their own routes to Mexico instead of insisting they be given United's?! (Actually, I do) How are these different?

Say the same? We'll see how it plays out. If SWA hadn't received the Mexico routes I'm pretty sure the golden army would have been dispatched to jiggle and wail about the unfairness of it. That's something you both can't deny, and something Delta won't stoop to.