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.