Looks Like DAL Is Staying At DAL

[jonjuan]

Speaking of grasping, you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the sole reason that Southwest carries such a high percentage of passengers to/from DAL (or rather, controls the overwhelming majority of the gates), is that the size of the aiport itself was contracted to fit around Southwest's existing 2006 operation. That's the only damn reason. There used to be plenty of gates for anyone who wanted to use them. The fact is, that nobody else wanted them. We controlled 16 of 32 (and possibly many more) gates, with the majority of the rest sitting idle. Southwest didn't "steal a monopoly" at Dallas Love; the airport was shrunk (for political reasons) to fit around what Southwest had been doing all along. Get it right, will ya'?




Your quoted sentence, bolded above, is a blatant, self-serving falsehood. Here's an idea: Instead of just blathering anti-SWA generalizations, why don't you try to list actual examples of this claimed behavior? I don't know if it occurred to you, but there's a world of difference between an airline agreeing to divest itself of assets (slots/gates) in order to gain approval for a mega-merger, and then SWA being the highest bidder for some of those assets at the resultant auction; and the ridiculous idea that Southwest somehow "had the big bad government take assets" just so they can be "given to Southwest." That distinction seems to be lost on a Southwest hater such as yourself.



I somehow doubt that a single word of this paragraph will come true (despite your fervent hopes). Not to mention that you seem to have as much understanding of how the airline business or airport allocation works (not to mention what the term "eminent domain" actually means), as you do about Southwest Airlines' actual history of operation. That is to say, none to speak of.



Wrong again. Southwest has actual leases on 16 gates at DAL, not 18; which was the original allocation within the stated agreement. The other two gates that you refer to are actually currently leased to your airline, Andy (United), pursuant to that same agreement. United decided that they didn't want to use them, and subsequently sub-leased them to Southwest, which is allowed for in the agreement and the original leases themselves. So if you don't like Southwest using those two extra gates at DAL, then you only have yourself (or your own airline, rather) to blame--for leasing them to us.

You know, if you're really concerned about "fairness" in who gets to fly to/from DAL, then why don't you advocate changing the law to accommodate more gates there? It was only capped at 20 for political reasons, to limit Southwest's growth there. For instance, Southwest could use 18 or 20 gates, say, and then build another 10 gates for anyone else to use. Wouldn't that be the "fair" thing to do? (Even though you may not even fill them all, keeping in mind that even United decided it wasn't worth it to them to fly there)

It actually seems it's more important for you you to cause harm to Southwest, than to "level the playing field" for other airlines. Right? Kinda' like everyone's favorite Flopgut. And like Flopgut, to make your "case," you throw around BS allegations and generalizations, without the slightest regard to the truth. Hey, at least Flopgut has the balls to admit that his motivation is his hate of SWA.

So Andy, grow a pair. Admit your true motivations. And if you want to make an argument, fine--but do so using actual facts. At least quit with the lies and BS anti-SWA propaganda. Okay?

Bubba

Good lord, man-most folks hang with family on Sun afternoon. breathe deep, bro///

 

[Flopgut]

Listen Howie it doesn't matter how many words or links you post on FI. SWA doesn't have anything too special going on.

 

[HowardBorden]

Herb created all of the controversy

I don't find it "controversial" to defend the right to start an airline when others file lawsuits to disallow new competition in the marketplace. The lawsuits against Southwest were found to be the "controversial" ones since they were found to be without legal merit.

 

[Flopgut]

I don't find it "controversial" to defend the right to start an airline when others file lawsuits to disallow new competition in the marketplace. The lawsuits against Southwest were found to be the "controversial" ones since they were found to be without legal merit.

At no point was herbs opportunity to run an airline. It was only to create controversy

 

[HowardBorden]

SWA doesn't have anything too special going on.

The only "special" thing I have ever given a thought to was 43 consecutive years of profitability. I don't care how you choose to spin your anti-SWA hate fest, but that nugget is not only special in the US but world wide.

 

[HowardBorden]

At no point was herbs opportunity to run an airline. It was only to create controversy

English......do you speak it?

 

[Flopgut]

The only "special" thing I have ever given a thought to was 43 consecutive years of profitability. I don't care how you choose to spin your anti-SWA hate fest, but that nugget is not only special in the US but world wide.

Ahh well that's what you don't understand. It's not at all about what you can make, but what you can lose and stay in business. And for SWA?? It ain't much.

 

[HowardBorden]

Ahh well that's what you don't understand. It's not at all about what you can make, but what you can lose and stay in business. And for SWA?? It ain't much.

I'm always somewhat baffled by your cryptic remarks so I'll ask for some clarity on this one.

Your claim is that SWA need only experience small losses on some front and they will be out of business. So, I guess you're right, I just don't "understand". If Southwest is positioned to be out of business with losses that "ain't much", please enlighten me as to what small losses would plunge SWA into insolvency?

 

[Flopgut]

The only "special" thing I have ever given a thought to was 43 consecutive years of profitability. I don't care how you choose to spin your anti-SWA hate fest, but that nugget is not only special in the US but world wide.

On a macro level the world understands that US airlines were once regulated and profitability was built in. De-regulation was created to equally advantage low cost airlines. And in very large part, the same profitability was built in for them. Where there might have been some doubt as to success (incredible success, not just sustainability) SWA was allowed to stay at Love Field.

I think Herb and maybe even his first 1000 or so pilots understood this. At least to a certain degree. You guys with less than 20-25 years? No. Your heads are swoll up so big I do not know you fit in the airplane. You think everything to do with your job/career is black and white. It's not.

Any and all issues that go on at Love are of your own creation. You ought to have learned by now to take the good with the bad. There are more people in this world than just SWA employees.

 

[flyingitalian]

You guys are missing the point entirely. Does SWA control a majority at LUV? Yes, but the market for Dallas is not LUV, but also DFW. SWA argument is that the Dallas market is DFW and LUV and when you look at gates and flights there is in no way a monopoly.

 

[Andy]

Wrong again. Southwest has actual leases on 16 gates at DAL, not 18; which was the original allocation within the stated agreement. The other two gates that you refer to are actually currently leased to your airline, Andy (United), pursuant to that same agreement. United decided that they didn't want to use them, and subsequently sub-leased them to Southwest, which is allowed for in the agreement and the original leases themselves. So if you don't like Southwest using those two extra gates at DAL, then you only have yourself (or your own airline, rather) to blame--for leasing them to us.

You know, if you're really concerned about "fairness" in who gets to fly to/from DAL, then why don't you advocate changing the law to accommodate more gates there? It was only capped at 20 for political reasons, to limit Southwest's growth there. For instance, Southwest could use 18 or 20 gates, say, and then build another 10 gates for anyone else to use. Wouldn't that be the "fair" thing to do? (Even though you may not even fill them all, keeping in mind that even United decided it wasn't worth it to them to fly there)

It actually seems it's more important for you you to cause harm to Southwest, than to "level the playing field" for other airlines. Right? Kinda' like everyone's favorite Flopgut. And like Flopgut, to make your "case," you throw around BS allegations and generalizations, without the slightest regard to the truth. Hey, at least Flopgut has the balls to admit that his motivation is his hate of SWA.

So Andy, grow a pair. Admit your true motivations. And if you want to make an argument, fine--but do so using actual facts. At least quit with the lies and BS anti-SWA propaganda. Okay?

Bubba

I'm not going to waste my time addressing the rest of your bloviations; I'll just concentrate on two points here.

1) I'm not a Southwest 'hater'. There have been plenty of times I've made pro-Southwest comments, including the integration of AirTran pilots. Stop trying to find motivations where they don't exist. Southwest is in the wrong here and they will lose all appeals.

2) You claim I don't understand anything about Love Field, yet you propose building more gates there. Take the time to find out the real reason why the number of gates is capped at 20. I have. http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...t-dallas-love-field-after-wright-lifted.html/

You guys are missing the point entirely. Does SWA control a majority at LUV? Yes, but the market for Dallas is not LUV, but also DFW. SWA argument is that the Dallas market is DFW and LUV and when you look at gates and flights there is in no way a monopoly.

If LUV were the same market as DFW, Southwest would have moved there many years ago to escape the Wright Amendment. They're not, even if a federal agency thinks otherwise. If you think that they're the same, then you should be pushing to shut down Dallas Love and relocate all airlines to DFW so that the residents can get a decent night's sleep.
http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...t-dallas-love-field-after-wright-lifted.html/

 

[SWA Bubba]

I'm not going to waste my time addressing the rest of your bloviations; I'll just concentrate on two points here.

1) I'm not a Southwest 'hater'. There have been plenty of times I've made pro-Southwest comments, including the integration of AirTran pilots. Stop trying to find motivations where they don't exist. Southwest is in the wrong here and they will lose all appeals.

You're not a SWA hater? Really? After characterizing the fact that SWA picked up assets at several auctions as somehow being nefarious by posting this blatant lie: "Southwest came in and had the big bad government take assets from the big 3 for many years so that they could be given to Southwest"? A falsehood statement so ludicrous and unsupportable, that you didn't even attempt to defend it after being challenged?

After ignoring every one of Howard's non-emotional, factual listings of the actual agreements and actual law (or just dismissing them as "legal mumble-jumbo"), and instead taking the anti-SWA position that even some of their existing gates (the 16 stipulated in the agreement) should be taken away for use by other airlines? Even though that position is shared by exactly nobody, including any other airline?

After those most recent examples, you're still gonna' pretend that you aren't "anti-SWA"?

2) You claim I don't understand anything about Love Field, yet you propose building more gates there. Take the time to find out the real reason why the number of gates is capped at 20. I have. http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...t-dallas-love-field-after-wright-lifted.html/

Yup, I'm claiming exactly that. And I'd add that your post only reinforces that belief. Perhaps you should have "take[n] the time to find out the real reason" for the gate limitation Andy, instead of just reading one article from a few days ago.

The actual stated reason for the 20-gate limitation in the 5-party Wright repeal agreement (and law) had nothing to do with noise, Andy. It was supposedly to "protect" the economic viability of DFW, just like the original Wright Amendment was. That's political code-speak for limiting SWA's Dallas growth, just like the wording of the original WA was code-speak for hobbling SWA back in the 1979. Both were in the name of preserving legacy profits (primarily American Airlines) by limiting its exposure to SWA competition. "Freeing" Dallas Love in 2014 has actually increased ridership and decreased average fares at both Dallas airports. Imagine that.

The voluntary noise abatement procedures at DAL were put in place after the changes, and apparently they aren't being properly enforced or understood. Your cited "proof" above even mentions that the complaints come from the procedures not being followed. That's on both the airport and Southwest (the largest tenant). Better training and enforcement (or maybe even making the procedures mandatory) can address that. Adding a few more gates won't change anything in this regard.

Try again. Use facts this time, instead of just anti-SWA rhetoric.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

The actual stated reason for the 20-gate limitation in the 5-party Wright repeal agreement (and law) had nothing to do with noise, Andy. It was supposedly to "protect" the economic viability of DFW, just like the original Wright Amendment was. That's political code-speak for limiting SWA's Dallas growth, just like the wording of the original WA was code-speak for hobbling SWA back in the 1979. Both were in the name of preserving legacy profits (primarily American Airlines) by limiting its exposure to SWA competition. "Freeing" Dallas Love in 2014 has actually increased ridership and decreased average fares at both Dallas airports. Imagine that.

Bubba

Did SWA sign the agreement [law] ??

Why do agreements/laws that involve SWA need to be in pencil?

Re: ridership and low fares... I'm not sure we need more people flying. At this point there is no reason to continue legacy airline decline in favor of growing SWA or other LCCs. Pitting one airport against another in hopes it creates a reason, is a SWA trick that needs to end.

 

[nimtz]

Wow could you imagine it!?! Bubba and Flopgut are having a LUV field poop fest. Basically it's like two pathetic old drunks fighting at a saloon that is going to get torn down tomorrow. On behalf of those of us that remember when this board was actually useful for the piloting profession; LUV Field can go FIS...

 

[SWA Bubba]

Wow could you imagine it!?! Bubba and Flopgut are having a LUV field poop fest. Basically it's like two pathetic old drunks fighting at a saloon that is going to get torn down tomorrow. On behalf of those of us that remember when this board was actually useful for the piloting profession; LUV Field can go FIS...

That's very instructive and helpful to the conversation; thank you very much!

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Did SWA sign the agreement [law] ??

Well, SWA signed the agreement. Congress then codified it into law, where it was signed by the President.

Why do agreements/laws that involve SWA need to be in pencil?

Not sure what you're getting at.

Re: ridership and low fares... I'm not sure we need more people flying. At this point there is no reason to continue legacy airline decline in favor of growing SWA or other LCCs.

Don't know that your opinion on not needing "more people flying" is one shared by your Union. More people flying means more pilots employed. That's pretty much true in any airline market.

Besides, you misunderstood what I said; this didn't result in "legacy airline decline in favor of growing SWA." As often happens, the increased competition resulted in growth in ridership at both airports. That means growth at both airports' applicable airlines, both American at DFW, and SWA at Love, despite their stated "fears" for DFW's continued viability. This was actually predicted by every study undertaken by neutral parties, including the one commissioned by AA and the DFW airport authority, much to their own embarrassment.

Pitting one airport against another in hopes it creates a reason, is a SWA trick that needs to end.

Allowing competition is a "trick that needs to end"? Really?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

What "I'm getting at" is how many times has the WA, or any other thing like it, been changed to suit SWA?? (DFW should have never even been built and we'd have been spared the WA) And now SWA is unhappy (again) with what they just signed?? Sounds like it...

Who cares what ALPA thinks. A job created to fly the jobless around is all deregulation has amounted to. The cross section of humanity participating in air travel these days is a sad one. We spread more hate, disease and enable the participants of lowly or futile acts than empower any amount of anything positive. This huge system of mega airports and foolishly low airline tickets probably should have been preceded by some consideration of what passengers intentions, or their necessity might have been.

 

[SWA Bubba]

What "I'm getting at" is how many times has the WA, or any other thing like it, been changed to suit SWA?? (DFW should have never even been built and we'd have been spared the WA) And now SWA is unhappy (again) with what they just signed?? Sounds like it...

Settle down, Flopgut, before you blow a gasket or something.

I get your "pencil" remark now, and the answer to "how many times" has some law been changed to "suit SWA," is one: the WA itself. You remember, the anti-competitive law that was forced on us over our objections by another airline's political stooge. The one that was created solely to change existing law specifically to hobble SWA and prevent competition, after we had prevailed in every court in the land, Texas and federal, that the other parties had dragged us to. So yeah, after nearly 30 years of being yoked by it, we lobbied to change the anti-Southwest law.

And so then all the parties then actually negotiated, and agreed to the compromise in 2008 that became the law that essentially got rid of the WA, with newer and narrower limitations. So I doubt you'll see SWA trying to change that law, since they actually agreed to these terms for a change, rather than them being forced on us.

It was me specifically, not my airline, who suggested to Andy that he have his airline lobby to change the law. And not to suit Southwest, but rather to help the other, hypothetical airlines that he claimed he was trying to "enable."

Who cares what ALPA thinks. A job created to fly the jobless around is all deregulation has amounted to. The cross section of humanity participating in air travel these days is a sad one. We spread more hate, disease and enable the participants of lowly or futile acts than empower any amount of anything positive. This huge system of mega airports and foolishly low airline tickets probably should have been preceded by some consideration of what passengers intentions, or their necessity might have been.

Well said, Comrade Flop. The government should decide everything for the "cross section of humanity" that inhabits the US. They should decide who has reason enough to travel, and then pick who actually gets to do it, along with how much they should pay. Some people just don't have a good enough reason to fly--they just think they do. Idiots.

And you're right; they certainly should never have built another, bigger airport in the Dallas area, despite the Texas population nearly tripling from 9.6 million in 1960 to 27.5 million in 2015. With the government only allowing the party faithful to travel, Love Field would surely be sufficient.

Thank God we have Flopgut (and the government) around to tell us, and give us, what we really need.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

You're welcome Bubba. I'm here for you anytime. Keep staring out L1 at these new places you're flying and your worldview will surely evolve.

 

[SWA Bubba]

You're welcome Bubba. I'm here for you anytime. Keep staring out L1 at these new places you're flying and your worldview will surely evolve.

Gee thanks, Flop; glad to know you got my back. ?

Bubba

 

[Ty Webb]

Well said, Comrade Flop. The government should decide everything for the "cross section of humanity" that inhabits the US. They should decide who has reason enough to travel, and then pick who actually gets to do it, along with how much they should pay. Some people just don't have a good enough reason to fly--they just think they do. Idiots.

And you're right; they certainly should never have built another, bigger airport in the Dallas area, despite the Texas population nearly tripling from 9.6 million in 1960 to 27.5 million in 2015. With the government only allowing the party faithful to travel, Love Field would surely be sufficient.

Thank God we have Flopgut (and the government) around to tell us, and give us, what we really need.

Bubba

Bubba wins, Game, Set and Match. :beer:

Floppy loses . . . Summer School. :erm::erm::erm:

You're welcome Bubba. I'm here for you anytime. Keep staring out L1 at these new places you're flying and your worldview will surely evolve.

Like Argentina, Cuba, and North Korea?

:laugh:

 

[Dash Power]

Geeze,

Don't give CPR to this forum. Let it die a peaceful death.

Too many trolls to save this.

 

[HowardBorden]

A job created to fly the jobless around is all deregulation has amounted to. The cross section of humanity participating in air travel these days is a sad one. We spread more hate, disease and enable the participants of lowly or futile acts than empower any amount of anything positive.

It's time to hang it up Sir. You are clearly defeated and miserable. Life is too short spend it doing something for which you harbor such contempt.

 

[Flopgut]

It's just election season Howard. Not to go political...

*Google "southwest airlines bernie sanders" that'll make you a proud spirit warrior

And I know how much you love links:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...y-triumphed-over-evidence-us-airline-industry

Enjoy! Now, find two or three sentences in there you can quote back to me, out of context of course (and please don't spare the red font!), and we'll meet back here in a couple days.

 

[HowardBorden]

It's just election season Howard. Not to go political...

*Google "southwest airlines bernie sanders" that'll make you a proud spirit warrior

And I know how much you love links:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...y-triumphed-over-evidence-us-airline-industry

Enjoy! Now, find two or three sentences in there you can quote back to me, out of context of course (and please don't spare the red font!), and we'll meet back here in a couple days.

You can wax nostalgic for the good old days before deregulation but those days are long gone and never coming back! The days of no competition and guaranteed profits are a remnant of the past. An airline actually has to compete now and I realize that frightens the hell out of you. Don't worry, airlines can still request restraining orders and drag new entrants to the market through years of bogus legal proceedings in order to avoid competition.

 

[Flopgut]

Hmmmm

The first transgression on pure competition (post deregulation) was American and Braniff not being allowed to go back into Love when SWA stayed. It's well documented and indesputable, SWA would have been put out of business if true competition had been allowed. You are what you detest.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Hmmmm

The first transgression on pure competition (post deregulation) was American and Braniff not being allowed to go back into Love when SWA stayed. It's well documented and indesputable, SWA would have been put out of business if true competition had been allowed. You are what you detest.

"Well documented and indesputable"? How about actually documenting a single case of what you claim, Flop? Oh, that's right--you can't. Repeating a disproven lie over and over is never going to make it true.

The fact is, that both Braniff and American (not to mention Texas International and your beloved Continental) preferred endless and meritless litigation--not to mention collusion and other dirty tricks, including illegal ones--to avoid actually having to compete with Southwest. Face it Flop--your airline is the one with the criminal record, not mine.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eps01

It was many things, but certainly not "meritless". Read the sequence of events, things could have easily gone the other way*

Take the media slant out of like the above and compare to what's happening today [thread topic]. I'd say SWA isn't too differently behaved now than those it fought 40 years ago. Who's frivolously suing who now Bubba? Which airline is trying to tell others what airport to fly from? *and they might sooner than later

 

[Flopgut]

If an individual could buy a 737, fly it between 3 cities in TX, with almost no regulation or oversight, would airlines fight it? Something like an Uber sort of thing. I would hope it would be fought, because its not a level playing field. That's what SWA was in the early days when it had a TX only operating certificate.

 

[HowardBorden]

Hmmmm

The first transgression on pure competition (post deregulation) was American and Braniff not being allowed to go back into Love when SWA stayed. It's well documented and indesputable, SWA would have been put out of business if true competition had been allowed. You are what you detest.

Well, considering the fact that the original Branniff ceased operation 3 years and change after deregulation went into effect I can't consider that airline a juggernaut that couldn't be competed with. Couple that with the fact that American did in fact return to serve Love Field, along with Continental, your premise is fatally flawed.

The only thing that prevented American and Braniff unfettered access to Love Field was American and Braniff. As early as 1940, American and Braniff negotiated a deal to build an airport between Dallas and Ft. Worth. As you well know, in 1968 all the airlines operating at Love Field signed an agreement to move their operations to DFW when it opened. They weren't coerced into signing that document, they did it freely without reservation. It was clearly evident that the business model envisioned by both airlines deemed Love unsuitable for their proposed expansion.