Looks Like DAL Is Staying At DAL

[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