Most Loved Airline in the U.S.

[Flopgut]

Link:

http://prospect.org/article/confessions-airline-deregulator

^^^Anyone interested better read this quick. Bubba has some swa media dude on speed dial that's scrubbing the Internet of anything swa negative

Last paragraph is of most importance to you Bubba:

"Southwest's success, however, owes much to its conservative financial strategy and some very unique factors. Southwest has a low-fare and generally nondiscriminatory pricing policy. It prefers to enter major markets only where there is unfettered, uncongested airport capacity to facilitate high-frequency service. These policies, in combination, give Southwest instant market share and tend to ward off predatory selective price cutting by the major carriers. If a larger carrier decides to price-compete with Southwest, it must be prepared to reduce fares for most or all passengers, not just on a few flights. Furthermore, Southwest chooses only relatively short-haul markets, averaging under 500 miles. Such flights are not readily susceptible to competition over hubs because passengers flying relatively short distances are unwilling to make connections. Finally, Southwest itself totally dominates at least one important airport, Dallas's close-in Love Field, from which long-haul flights are prohibited by legislation. This base gives it stability and some protection against the onslaught that has felled other new entrants. Yet, even Southwest knows that it would be suicide to enter traditional international or long-haul markets and take on big carriers on their own terms."

 

[Flopgut]

This was written in 2000. The author is calling for there to be more "Southwests", and that if it takes intervention to get them--do it. Of course something else took place, and swa was perfectly set to exploit it...

Bubba: That's deregulator saying [admitting] that Love Field is "important", "dominated" by and offers "protection" to swa.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Link:

http://prospect.org/article/confessions-airline-deregulator

^^^Anyone interested better read this quick. Bubba has some swa media dude on speed dial that's scrubbing the Internet of anything swa negative

Last paragraph is of most importance to you Bubba:

"Southwest's success, however, owes much to its conservative financial strategy and some very unique factors. Southwest has a low-fare and generally nondiscriminatory pricing policy. It prefers to enter major markets only where there is unfettered, uncongested airport capacity to facilitate high-frequency service. These policies, in combination, give Southwest instant market share and tend to ward off predatory selective price cutting by the major carriers. If a larger carrier decides to price-compete with Southwest, it must be prepared to reduce fares for most or all passengers, not just on a few flights. Furthermore, Southwest chooses only relatively short-haul markets, averaging under 500 miles. Such flights are not readily susceptible to competition over hubs because passengers flying relatively short distances are unwilling to make connections. Finally, Southwest itself totally dominates at least one important airport, Dallas's close-in Love Field, from which long-haul flights are prohibited by legislation. This base gives it stability and some protection against the onslaught that has felled other new entrants. Yet, even Southwest knows that it would be suicide to enter traditional international or long-haul markets and take on big carriers on their own terms."

Actually, Flop, that wasn't the last paragraph, but rather the next-to-last paragraph. The actual last paragraph that you ignored started off, "We need more Southwest's." So even if there was a way of "scrubbing the Internet of anything SWA negative," this wouldn't be on the list. While generally anti-deregulation, this guy is decidedly pro-Southwest Airlines.

Also, this is an opinion piece, not a factual analysis. The author is anti-laissez faire, and even believes that "Swiss Air should be able to fly unfettered between Chicago and Los Angeles." That hardly seems like something you would get behind. More importantly, this article is from 15 years ago, and many of the assumptions he made are demonstrably untrue today (such as SWA being all short-haul, and unwilling to take on carriers on their own terms).

Finally, this opinion doesn't even pretend, like you do, that Southwest received any "protection" from any entity. We're still waiting for you to explain what "protection" SWA received, and from whom. I guess you decided, once again, on your time-tested tactic of p*ssying out. :blush:

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

This was written in 2000. The author is calling for there to be more "Southwests", and that if it takes intervention to get them--do it. Of course something else took place, and swa was perfectly set to exploit it...

Bubba: That's deregulator saying [admitting] that Love Field is "important", "dominated" by and offers "protection" to swa.

Pathetic attempt at an argument....

Love Field is important to Southwest because it's our home base. It was where we began, away from the hub-and-spoke DFW that wouldn't have worked with our quick-turn business model. Duh.

It is "dominated" by Southwest, because prior to Oct 2014, no other airline wanted to fly from there. That was their choice, and dozens of idle gates were waiting for them at Love.

And finally, the only "protection" the opinion piece's author even alluded to was the fact that no one else wanted to fly from Dallas Love, or compete with us on short haul, with a hub-and-spoke operation. Basically, he's saying that no other airline wanted to do what we were doing. Big freakin' deal. That's nothing like the BS claims you keep making.

NO ENTITY ever offered or enacted Southwest protection. We were only sued, harassed, and attacked. You keep claiming otherwise; so show us what "protection" was provided to SWA, and who provided it--or else shut up.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba: That's a candid analysis from a government regulator. You asked for a legit link, you're looking at it.

 

[Flopgut]

Guy who wrote it: http://www.american.edu/spa/faculty/kahan.cfm

Mark Kahan is an attorney and businessman. Beginning in 1972, he worked to reform energy and communications regulation at the New York Public Service Commission. In 1977, he moved to the Civil Aeronautics Board in Washington, D.C. to deregulate the airlines. In that capacity, he served as principal U.S. negotiator to the European Union to liberalize airline pricing over the North Atlantic. During this period, he also taught Administrative Law and Regulated Industries at the George Washington University. After moving to the private sector in 1982, Mr. Kahan specialized in competition law and became a founder of Spirit Airlines, a new entrant airline, from which he retired in 2006. He is now Chairman of a major textile firm that designs, manufactures, imports and exports fabrics and home furnishings throughout the world.
Degrees
B.S. (with Honors, Political Science), 1969 & J.D. (Teaching Fellow), Columbia University
Favorite Spot on Campus: Anyplace but the Adjunct Faculty Office
Book Currently Reading: "Too Big to Fail” by Andrew Ross Sorkin

What he said about SWA/Love Field: "This base gives it stability and some protection against the onslaught that has felled other new entrants"

 

[tomgoodman]

What he said about SWA/Love Field: "This base gives it stability and some protection against the onslaught that has felled other new entrants"

Apparently, this protection came about as an unintended consequence of the attempt to boost DFW by restricting SWA's growth in Love Field. Wright should have known that legislative tinkering frequently backfires.

 

[Flopgut]

Wright should never have had to get involved. SWA should have been sent to DFW, or Braniff allowed to stay at Love Field and compete directly with them.

 

[Flopgut]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2011/4/regv34n1-2.pdf

Page 10, right hand column, next to last paragraph reads: "When considering deregulation at Midway Airport in Chicago, small would-be competitors asked for two years of exclusivity to protect themselves; Kahn was sympathetic and considered it, but when he asked his staff for their views, they gave the idea a ?thumbs down? and he denied the request."

No airline was suppose to have a protected airport under deregulation. That was the whole point of it in the first place. But SWA was allowed to slip through. IMHO these de-regulators wanted to let at least one airline have a durable advantage to insure their voodoo BS "political entrepreneurship" [airline deregulation] would be more likely to have at least one success story.

 

[Flopgut]

NO ENTITY ever offered or enacted Southwest protection. We were only sued, harassed, and attacked. You keep claiming otherwise; so show us what "protection" was provided to SWA, and who provided it--or else shut up.

SWA was allowed exclusivity at Love Field where deregulators specifically denied it at Chicago Midway.

You've been shown Bubba.

 

[TrumanSparks]

Flop, Where does it say that SWA had/has exclusivity to DAL? Does the WA specifically mention SWA? Thanks

 

[SWA Bubba]

SWA was allowed exclusivity at Love Field where deregulators specifically denied it at Chicago Midway.

You've been shown Bubba.

The only thing that I've been shown, is that once again you don't know what you're talking about. Specifically:

No airline was suppose to have a protected airport under deregulation. That was the whole point of it in the first place. But SWA was allowed to slip through. IMHO these de-regulators wanted to let at least one airline have a durable advantage to insure their voodoo BS "political entrepreneurship" [airline deregulation] would be more likely to have at least one success story.

Southwest did not have a "protected" airport. Your humble opinion about regulators wanting "at least one airline to have a durable advantage" is just your idiotic imagination. Nobody but you has ever even suggested that. No one "gave us" Love Field, nor worked to help us out. In fact the competing airlines and the actual cities of Ft Worth and Dallas themselves have all sued to stop us at one time or another. Who are you alleging tried to "help" us? Jim Wright?

Wright should never have had to get involved. SWA should have been sent to DFW, or Braniff allowed to stay at Love Field and compete directly with them.

Wright only got involved after it was shown by every court in the land that it was legal for us to continue to fly from Love Field as our business plan required. So he changed the law specifically to screw Southwest. What basis would you use to force a non-party to the agreement to build DFW to move there? Other then being afraid to compete, that is.

Also, you keep saying sh1t about "SWA kicking out other airlines" and "no one else was allowed to fly there." Just now you blathered that Braniff should have been "allowed to stay at Love Field and compete directly." As I've pointed out numerous times before, lots of airlines, including Braniff, flew in direct competition with us at Love Field. They came and went as they desired.

From Wikipedia about Love Field:

Braniff International was once Love Field's largest carrier. It started flying there in the early 1930s [60] and it relocated most of its flights to DFW, when it opened in 1973. Braniff kept flying to Love Field, until its collapse in May 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Love_Field
​

And from "The Braniff Pages," a website maintained by Brook Watts, at the request of John Braniff, Sr., himself, as a memorial to the airline, states:

After Braniff moved to D/FW in 1974, they kept a gate at Love to compete against SWA. This only lasted about six months though, and Braniff focused primarily on D/FW after 1975.
​

http://www.braniffpages.com/1965/1965.html

​

So as you can see, Braniff (and any and every other airline in the country) was free to compete directly with Southwest at Love Field. And many, including Braniff, did. They came and went of their own volition. They made their own choices as their respective business plans dictated; no one forced them to do, or not do, anything.

Still waiting for you to show how Southwest was "protected," "propped up," or assisted by any authority against any other airline. All you've done is quoted a 15-year old opinion piece that says points out that different airlines made different choices. Not even close to the stupid crap you claim.

Why don't you actually study some history before you spout off your anti-SWA bullsh1t? Just a thought.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Flop, Where does it say that SWA had/has exclusivity to DAL? Does the WA specifically mention SWA? Thanks

It doesn't say anything of the sort about Southwest and exclusivity. Flop just pulled that claim out of his ass. In fact, the WA doesn't mention any airline at all by name, nor place any limits on what airline or number of airlines can fly there. It merely stated that airliners with more than 56 seats could not fly from Love Field to airports in states other than Texas or the surrounding ones (not coincidentally, the ones Southwest was already flying to). The intended and practical effect was to prevent Southwest from being able to expand service from its home airport.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

I'm not anti swa, so much as I'm opposed to the circumstances that have created the current situation. SWA is hardly a successful airline, so much as it's a lucky airline. I realize for most of the types that end up at swa, being lucky is more than good enough. However, big picture: there's nothing to appreciate about how this industry has been brought to this point.

Ill admit the WA does not specify swa. My word "exclusivity" pertained to the link I posted that mentioned Midway (although that could have been any Airport) They said "no" to a protected airport at Midway because that's the kind of situation that should have been avoided. But that's basically what swa got. The North Texas airport situation is a real mess. Always has been, always will be. From Braniff's perspective, it never made sense that two cities were forced to use one airport. Especially at a time when deregulation and doing away with the cab was taking place. DAL was supposed to be closed, or DFW never built. Either of those things happen? This is a different looking industry. And the full view of deregulation is a lot more cloudy.

 

[Flopgut]

It doesn't say anything of the sort about Southwest and exclusivity. Flop just pulled that claim out of his ass. In fact, the WA doesn't mention any airline at all by name, nor place any limits on what airline or number of airlines can fly there. It merely stated that airliners with more than 56 seats could not fly from Love Field to airports in states other than Texas or the surrounding ones (not coincidentally, the ones Southwest was already flying to). The intended and practical effect was to prevent Southwest from being able to expand service from its home airport.

Bubba

^^^^^^^^ This is what Kahan is speaking to. This is how the WA offered swa protection. SWA got what it needed, when it needed it. But for other airlines it was less desirable. You've asked me to show you proof of that for 10 years. There it is Bubba.

 

[SWA Bubba]

I'm not anti swa, so much as I'm opposed to the circumstances that have created the current situation. SWA is hardly a successful airline, so much as it's a lucky airline. I realize for most of the types that end up at swa, being lucky is more than good enough. However, big picture: there's nothing to appreciate about how this industry has been brought to this point.

I take back my earlier comment about something you said being the stupidest statement ever on Flight Info. This one, highlighted above, is surely even stupider.

Holy crap, are you trying for a record, or something? :blush:

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Ill admit the WA does not specify swa. My word "exclusivity" pertained to the link I posted that mentioned Midway (although that could have been any Airport) They said "no" to a protected airport at Midway because that's the kind of situation that should have been avoided. But that's basically what swa got.

Wrong. SWA got NO exclusivity at Dallas Love. Unlike what was proposed at Midway (not by SWA, by the way), any damn airline was free to do what they wanted at Dallas Love. Some did, some didn't; but it was their own choice. Most just didn't want to, because it didn't work for their business model. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true--the truth is that SWA was "given" no exclusivity or "protection."

The North Texas airport situation is a real mess. Always has been, always will be. From Braniff's perspective, it never made sense that two cities were forced to use one airport. Especially at a time when deregulation and doing away with the cab was taking place. DAL was supposed to be closed, or DFW never built. Either of those things happen? This is a different looking industry. And the full view of deregulation is a lot more cloudy.

"From Braniff's perspective"? Again, Flop, you need a history lesson. Braniff was one of the driving forces behind DFW being built. They helped plan it, because Love wasn't big enough for them. They were the anchor tenant at DFW when it opened; much bigger than American Airlines was back then. And again, they were free to also fly to/from Love Field, which they did for a time. They left only when they chose to.

Dude, you gotta' stop just making random, blanket statements that are demonstrably, and easily shown to be, untrue. It's not a good way to mount an argument.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

^^^^^^^^ This is what Kahan is speaking to. This is how the WA offered swa protection. SWA got what it needed, when it needed it. But for other airlines it was less desirable. You've asked me to show you proof of that for 10 years. There it is Bubba.

Southwest "got what it needed, when it needed it"? Did you actually write that with a straight face? We were expanding from Dallas Love, and were attacked to stop that expansion. We won every court case, including the SCOTUS, so as a result, DFW and its tenant airlines got Speaker Wright to change the law to stop that expansion. How exactly did we "need" a politician stopping us from doing what we wanted to do (and had already started doing with great success)?

And how the hell was it "less desirable" for the other airlines? They're the ones who wanted to stop us from flying to more cities from Dallas Love.

Flop, your continued ability to comically rewrite history would be laughable, if not for the fact that I sometimes think that you actually believe the crap you write.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

So. Finally, after all this time of you making outrageous claims that Southwest was "protected," "propped up," "kept from failing to show a deregulation success," "given exclusivity," etc., etc., etc.; THIS is all you can come up with to "prove" it? Seriously? The Wright Amendment, and an interpolation that you made from a random comment in an opinion piece?

Let's see... Southwest was deluged in lawsuits to prevent us from flying in the first place, then another round a few years later, to prevent us from expanding our service, multiple times, by Braniff, American, Continental, Texas International, the cities of Ft Worth and Dallas, and the DFW Airport Authority; then was the victim of a criminal conspiracy by Braniff, TI, and Continental airlines; and finally was the target of an anti-competition law designed to protect the DFW airlines from having to compete against Southwest any more than they already had to....... all that, and you're claiming that Southwest was "protected" because no other airline wanted to do what we were doing?

Dude, you need help. And a history book. And I probably need help too, for actually thinking I was arguing against an adult.

Bubba

 

[HowardBorden]

SWA got what it needed, when it needed it.

Actually, DFW got what IT needed at the time which was a LACK OF COMPETITION FROM SWA OUT OF LOVE!!!



"The primary obstacle along Southwest's path to success was a piece of legislation called the Wright Amendment, sponsored by former Fort Worth Congressman Jim Wright in 1979. Wright's aim was to protect competing airport Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from losing business when Southwest refused to stay out of Dallas Love Field airport"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43714139#.

"The Wright Amendment 'named for long-time Fort Worth Congressman Jim Wright' was designed to protect the then-new DFW International Airport, which Wright did not believe could stand the competition."
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/10/13/m...ght-amendment/

"The 1979 amendment, which restricted long-haul flights out of Dallas Love Field, was enacted to protect the new Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, built jointly by Fort Worth and Dallas."
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/bu...le3877464.html

"The Wright Amendment of 1979 was a somewhat confusing law governing air traffic out of Dallas. In a nutshell, it "protected" the city's new airport (DFW) by refusing to allow the old airport (Love Field) to fly non-stop to any destination except other cities in Texas. Brief backstory: The big winner under Wright was DFW's dominant carrier American Airlines. Since it could fly non-stop anywhere, it got the lion's share of most-favored passengers: big-spending business travelers."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...ment/17621065/

"Signed into law in 1980, the Wright Amendment was intended to protect the struggling Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport from local competition by placing distance limitations at Love Field. While the Wright Amendment helped the DFW Airport which is now the third busiest airport in the world it is no longer necessary. But more importantly, this Amendment needed to be repealed because it hurt consumers. The Wright Amendment's restrictions made it hard for Love Field to compete with other airports that were allowed to offer nonstop, long-distance flights."
http://samjohnson.house.gov/news/doc...umentID=397595