Looks Like DAL Is Staying At DAL

[maru657]

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.



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

Bubba your rants border on the ridiculous, that's the trouble with feather merchants. The Legend terminal was the rebuilt Braniff offices. I guess your another poster child for the mass produced by the govt pilot forum. Just go work that picket line.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba your rants border on the ridiculous.

My "rants"? You mean when you make up stupid, demonstrably-false crap, and I explain exactly how you're wrong? You mean those? And when it's pointed out exactly how you're wrong, or you're asked to give examples to back up your crap, you generally do one of three things:
- Ignore completely; or
- Change the subject: or
- Pretend you said something else. For example:

Yo bubba, the "Legend terminal" was the Braniff terminal.

So I point out that the Braniff terminal was in a different place on the airport, along with all the other airlines. Then your story became:

The Legend terminal was the rebuilt Braniff offices.

The fact is, Legend built, from the ground up, a parking garage and a 6-gate terminal concourse in 1999. It used the western portion of the old Braniff building as its ticketing, baggage claim, etc. And despite your claims, nothing that was part of the Braniff facilities has been torn down. The Legend terminal (6-gate concourse), that was built in 1999, as I said, was torn down. As it turns out, people are still fighting over what to do with the old Braniff facilities.

... that's the trouble with feather merchants ... I guess your another poster child for the mass produced by the govt pilot forum. Just go work that picket line.

A "feather merchant"? Good one, Maru; I assumed you had to look that up. To be honest, I'd be more impressed if you didn't continue to demonstrate that you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're."

I am, however, a little confused about me being a "poster child for the mass produced by the govt pilot forum." Is this just your time of the month for throwing out all the buzz words you know, or could you actually explain that one to me? I'm also still waiting for you to explain ANY of your other claims that I've asked you about. Thanks in advance.

However, I presume you're gonna' keep just saying stupid and false stuff, and then ignoring, changing the subject, or pretending othewise, when you're called out on your idiocy.

Bubba

 

[maru657]

Bubba, I was flying out of DAL when you were in diapers. Long before you were mass produced by the govt.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba, I was flying out of DAL when you were in diapers.

I doubt that you were, but who cares? All that means is that you're really, really old. As I've demonstrated with actual facts, it doesn't mean that you actually know much, if anything at all, about airline flying in general, or Love Field in particular. In fact, it's pointed out exactly how wrong you are, just about every time you open your mouth.

Long before you were mass produced by the govt.

You said something like that before--What the hell does that even mean? Is that supposed to be an insult? Is that an attempted dig at me because I was in the military before? Is that seriously the best you got?: "Well, I can't counter Bubba with actual facts, so I'll just insult his veteran status instead."

Whatever, dude. You keep posting easily-disproved BS, I'll keep pointing out your wrongness, and then you'll keep flapping in the wind like an impotent troll. Sound like a plan?

Bubba

 

[freightdogfred]

The more, the merrier, as far as we're concerned. Unlike other airlines, SWA doesn't have a problem with competition.


Bubba

Well, not so much, hence the buyout of FL. It's quite obvious, even to the most obtuse, that they didn't want Atlanta, (it's been cut in half) they didn't want the 717's, they (and SWAPA) damn sure didn't want the pilot group. They bought them to rid themselves of competition.

 

[HowardBorden]

Well, not so much, hence the buyout of FL. It's quite obvious, even to the most obtuse, that they didn't want Atlanta, (it's been cut in half) they didn't want the 717's, they (and SWAPA) damn sure didn't want the pilot group. They bought them to rid themselves of competition.

I think you are viewing the AirTran acquisition from a very simplified lens.

Atlanta was "de-hubbed" just as was stated from the very beginning. A less hub and spoke centric operation was always going to involve less flights from that city.

I agree, they certainly did not want the 717's, but why would they? They had another airline ready to take over the leases and the airframes were replaced 1 for 1 with an aircraft seating 30-60 more revenue passengers at a very similar operating cost. The 717 departure allowed the single fleet type model to continue because it has proven to be very lucrative.

Not one AirTran pilot was furloughed so I disagree that they didn't want the pilot group. In fact they very much needed the pilot group! The fleet numbers varied very little over the transition, so exactly how would have operated a similar fleet size without a similar sized pilot group?

In the end it was more about revenue and profit.

"Synergies from AirTran's acquisition have also played a key role in growing Southwest's profit from $178 million in 2011, to $421 million in 2012, and to $754 million in 2013. In the current year, these synergies, totaling $400 million for the entire year, have helped Southwest's profit rise by 75% per year to $946 million in the first three quarters. All in all, AirTran has accelerated Southwest's expansion in the continental U.S. and also positioned it well for long term growth in the international market."

"But over the past 2-3 years, Southwest has done a commendable job integrating AirTran. Southwest smoothly absorbed AirTran's Atlanta operations, making them similar to the rest of its focus cities, rather than remaining a hub. The carrier also leased out AirTran's 717s to Delta, preserving the cost advantage that comes with operating a single aircraft type."

"And most importantly, three years after the acquisition, Southwest's operating costs are still well below those of other major airlines including JetBlue. So, the pre-merger fears haven't played out. On the contrary, AirTran's acquisition and integration has given Southwest the scale to compete more effectively with larger network carriers such as American, United and Delta in the domestic market."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...ran-done-for-southwest-airlines/#2bb41f1c56e2

 

[freightdogfred]

I'm viewing from the lens of the anti-trust regulators viewed it from. They were concerned that the elimination of Airtran's aggressive fares on Southwest routes would lead to higher prices for consumers would materialize. Peruse Diana Moss's statement on page 10. (AirTran is an aggressive discounter relative to Southwest) Make up your own mind on whether or not their fears were correct. Or do a fare search

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg67500/pdf/CHRG-112shrg67500.pdf

Now that was the Milwaukee market, what about Atlanta? You claim there are fewer flights due to "de-Hubbing"(?). According to Southwest, it was due to higher fuel prices. Umm, ok...the Southwest effect

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article3848896.html

I get GK's motives, and it's all about yield. He's a savvy CEO and a glib talker and kudos to him for adding to SWA's bottom line. But for Bubba to state SWA welcomes competition and you to chime in is asinine. No company wants pressure on yield.

 

[HowardBorden]

You claim there are fewer flights due to "de-Hubbing"(?). According to Southwest, it was due to higher fuel prices. Umm, ok...the Southwest effect

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article3848896.html

Actually, Kelly stated higher prices were due to high fuel costs not fewer flights according to the article you cited:

"Kelly has blamed a steep rise in fuel costs for Southwest?s higher fares. Southwest said its fuel cost per gallon, including taxes, increased 28 percent between the third quarter of 2010, when it announced the AirTran deal, and the fourth quarter of 2013. Other airlines have also seen higher fuel costs in recent years and raised fares."

 

[HowardBorden]

But for Bubba to state SWA welcomes competition and you to chime in is asinine. No company wants pressure on yield.

I said nothing about Bubba's assertions, I was providing a counterpoint to your argument that, "They bought them to rid themselves of competition." For the reasons I stated I stand by my assertion that you posses an extremely myopic view of the acquisition.

 

[freightdogfred]

I said nothing about Bubba's assertions, I was providing a counterpoint to your argument that, "They bought them to rid themselves of competition." For the reasons I stated I stand by my assertion that you posses an extremely myopic view of the acquisition.

You're right! They bought FL because pilots, and FA's are in such short supply.
Atlanta's not building anymore gates they needed those too. (Although why they gave up all those gates on D concourse remains a mystery) Thank god Delta took those money-losing 717s, complete with new paint, interiors, new galleys. Eliminating a competitor, or competition, had nothing to do with it.

You wouldn't be in the market for a bridge, would you?