Looks Like DAL Is Staying At DAL

[SWA Bubba]

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

Yes, meritless.

I'm well familiar with the sequence of events. Perhaps you missed the part where the single judge who actually issued injunctions against Southwest during said sequence was personally sanctioned for his bias (as his injunctions were summarily dismissed), and further, he was forbidden from being ever again involved in any related case.

And are you really comparing Southwest's struggle to even exist, with the dispute over one gate at one airport? A gate that we had already legally leased and had plans for, but nonetheless, it's a dispute over a single gate. And that's the same to you? Man, that's reaching, even for you and your bizarre logic.

I guess it shouldn't be unexpected though, given your prior rantings.

Stay classy, Flop!

Bubba

 

[maru657]

Southwest has always been a welfare case. If unrestrained, Braniff and American would have put them out of business. The old Braniff terminal at Love field was recently torn down. Wasn't this done to protect Southwest? But don't tell Howie or Bubba that, they appear to be professional mouthpieces for Kelly and the boys.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

Braniff went bankrupt with more money than SWA was started with.

 

[Flopgut]

Yes, meritless.

And are you really comparing Southwest's struggle to even exist, with the dispute over one gate at one airport? A gate that we had already legally leased and had plans for, but nonetheless, it's a dispute over a single gate. And that's the same to you? Man, that's reaching, even for you and your bizarre logic.

Bubba

What's bizarre is the dramatic characterization you have for SWA and its "struggle". Any competing opinion is complete foolishness...

SWA started with not much more than 1 gate at Love. To you it's sufficient to build a culture, a musical, a cause, or anything/everything. What's important to SWA matters, what's important to anyone else is not. How does your brain go from one extreme to another? It's not just you, it's everyone working there. SWA is an example of what's going wrong with humanity.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Southwest has always been a welfare case. If unrestrained, Braniff and American would have put them out of business. The old Braniff terminal at Love field was recently torn down. Wasn't this done to protect Southwest? But don't tell Howie or Bubba that, they appear to be professional mouthpieces for Kelly and the boys.

You seriously are deluded. Neither that, or you are the stupidest so-called "pilot" in the country.

1. "...always been a welfare case": What welfare has SWA ever received, let alone "always"? Be specific, please.

2. "...unrestrained, American and Braniff would have put SWA out of business." Are you kidding me? They tried their hardest to do exactly that, using every means they could think of, ethical and unethical, and in Braniff's case, actually illegal. All to no avail. And tell me, who "restrained" them in their fight against SWA? Hell, the law didn't even restrain Braniff (although to be fair, they did get caught).

3. The only separate terminal that I know of that was recently marked to be torn down at Love was the Legend terminal, which was built long after Braniff's demise. This, and the limitation at the main terminal to 20 gates was undertaken to protect DFW (and primarily Amer Airlines) from too much competition at DAL, not to protect SWA. That reasoning is actually written in the agreement. SWA could give a rat's ass how many gates and airlines could be at Love Field. The more, the merrier, as far as we're concerned. Unlike other airlines, SWA doesn't have a problem with competition.

The limitations are in place to limit Southwest, not to help them.

Dude, you're giving "stupid" a bad name.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Braniff went bankrupt with more money than SWA was started with.

If that's the case, then it doesn't say much for their business model, now does it? I think you're making Howard's argument for him.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

If that's the case, then it doesn't say much for their business model, now does it? I think you're making Howard's argument for him.

Bubba

No. It's says more about de-regulation, and what exactly the govt wanted to see happen.

 

[SWA Bubba]

No. It's says more about de-regulation, and what exactly the govt wanted to see happen.

Ah, conspiracy theories. Excellent! I see we've moved into a new level of craziness.

Bubba

 

[maru657]

Yo bubba, the "Legend terminal" was the Braniff terminal. It was refurbished for Legend but then sat empty untill the argument over gates heated up and was then demolished. Southwest had more govt contracts than any other airline at one time. Of course that was with Herb. Kelly ain't so smart.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Yo bubba, the "Legend terminal" was the Braniff terminal. It was refurbished for Legend but then sat empty untill the argument over gates heated up and was then demolished.

Yo Maru, you're completely wrong again! Shocker, I know. A perfect record of being wrong every time, however. Good for you.

The Legend terminal was built new (along with an associated parking garage) in 1999, long after Braniff went away. It is north of the north runway (13L/31R). Braniff's actual gates were at the main terminal along with everyone else, south of 13L/31R (which is now between the main runways, since the opening of 13R/31L in 1965).

The only thing Braniff had on the north side of that runway was a maintenance facility and offices, which after passing through several hands, is currently called Dalfort Aviation.

Southwest had more govt contracts than any other airline at one time. Of course that was with Herb. Kelly ain't so smart.

Speaking of "ain't so smart," where did you get that particular nugget about government contracts? Please, tell us more about this, including specifics, if you can. I assume you just made it up, like you usually do when you post. Actually, I would suspect that Southwest ranks near the bottom of government charters, since we don't fly to Europe or Asia. Perhaps you're thinking of ATA, which relied on military charters for its very existence.

You know, every now and then I used to see a domestic military charter in open time, but not that often. My friend at American sees them a lot there, but not so much here. The overwhelming majority of charters that Southwest books are for sporting events, followed by other private functions. And all of these are a tiny fraction of gross revenues, just like they are for other airlines (except for the aforementioned ATA).

And that's your argument for Southwest "always being a welfare case"? A crazy and unsupportable claim of "government contracts"? That's pretty sad, Maru.

Hey, do us a favor: Go cross a picket line somewhere, why doncha'? And read a book or something before you post something else stupid.

Thanks.

Bubba