Most Loved Airline in the U.S.

[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

 

[Flopgut]

Huge word count from Bubba... Many links from Howard... Fact remains: I have shown where a federal regulator (one who helped author airline deregulation) offers an opinion that matches my own thesis: The WA/DAL controversy in fact provided swa airlines some protection.

 

[Flopgut]

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

I stand by that comment. (Hardly as good as it is lucky [SWA]) Think about it Bubba. Where was SWA 15 years ago? What's happened since then hasn't been brought about by simple hard work and financial discipline. Not even close! The context of the article is: There weren't enough SWA type airlines 15 years ago. Regulators wanted to step in and insure SWA type airlines thrived. As it turns out legacy airlines went thru hell, so it made it easy for them.

BTW, Kahan later went on to found Spirit Airlines. That kind of bothers me a little. You? Should a deregulator (one who made sweeping industry changes and shaped policy) be able to switch hats and move into and compete in the same industry they put thru an uproar? Try to curb your own infinite infatuation with swa for a moment (and your word count) and look at the big picture.

 

[Flopgut]

My personal favorite is when he tries to tell people that the Wright Amendment was secretly negotiated/agreed to, in order to "help" Southwest. He is pretty funny, but you shouldn't take anything he says seriously.

That's me AND one of the guys who wrote deregulation

Is it still your personal favorite?

 

[SWA Bubba]

Huge word count from Bubba... Many links from Howard... Fact remains: I have shown where a federal regulator (one who helped author airline deregulation) offers an opinion that matches my own thesis: The WA/DAL controversy in fact provided swa airlines some protection.

Wrong again, Flop. (Aren't you getting tired of being shown to be wrong?)

His opinion was that the type of flying we did offered us "some protection," in that no one else wanted to do it: short haul, point to point. They couldn't get people to those cities that we did for a similar price point with their hub-and-spoke models. That was it--that was all he alluded to. No secret "protection." No government conspiracy.

He said NOTHING about the Wright Amendment. Nothing at all. Especially nothing about the WA "helping" or "protecting" Southwest. You pulled that out of your rear end all on your own, and attempted to bootstrap your often-used argument that the government somehow was responsible for Southwest's success.

So after all that arguing you've done, and all those absurd claims you've made, that have all been disproven over the years, all you're left with is one guy's opinion that isn't even the same as what you said.

Kinda' pathetic, actually.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

That's me AND one of the guys who wrote deregulation

Is it still your personal favorite?

It sure is, because it's one of the stupidest conspiracy theories I've ever heard. Why would Southwest start expanding interstate, then spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in litigation to defend and prove that we had the right to continue expanding; and then only AFTER winning that litigation, secretly negotiate a treaty to stop us from doing what we wanted and were already doing with great success? And I might add that we continued expanding interstate from our other airports.

Seriously, do you even listen to the stupid crap that comes out of your mouth?

Bubba

P.S. And, NO, the "guy who wrote deregulation" neither said nor even hinted at anything of the sort. Wrong again.

 

[Traderd]

Doing something right(cheap tickets?);

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/06/04/southwest-airlines-sale-crashed-our-website/

 

[Flopgut]

Wrong again, Flop. (Aren't you getting tired of being shown to be wrong?)

His opinion was that the type of flying we did offered us "some protection," in that no one else wanted to do it: short haul, point to point.

Uh, that's not what he said Bubba. Go back and read the words.

This is for your own good. You need to be able wrap your mind around the idea that your employer is not perfect. GK is not some Christ figure. Things change in this business, for all kinds of reasons we can't even think of. Guys like you have a long way to fall when they do. Easy come, easy go. This is a small but clear instance where a good point has been made that you need to be mature enough to acknowledge.

 

[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."

Here's the quote again Bubba. It's very clear. The mention of short haul flights is prior to the sentence that speaks to my thesis and the airport. Nice try though.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Here's the quote again Bubba. It's very clear. The mention of short haul flights is prior to the sentence that speaks to my thesis and the airport. Nice try though.

No, it's not clear. At least it's not clear about what YOU are trying to claim. His opinion talks about short haul flights, and then the next sentence mentions that Dallas Love is only for short haul flights. Nowhere did he say or insinuate anything other than that. The whole paragraph is how other airlines didn't want, or couldn't do the flying that we did, because of their hub and spoke systems. That was it. Everything else, about protections and restrictions, you made up.

Nowhere did he say or imply that anyone "gave" us anything, or "protected" us, or "propped us up," or "kicked out competitors," which have been your favorite tired lies that you keep throwing down.

The bottom line on Dallas Love is this, Flop: There was no exclusivity or protection for Southwest there. ANY airline was welcome to do whatever flying we did out of Love. They even could have done long-haul out of Love (along with us), if the DFW airlines hadn't got Wright to change the law to screw us. Regardless of the WA, they could have done the exact same type of flying as us, if they had wanted. And that's the deal: THEY DIDN'T WANT TO. It was their choice, not some government protectionist edict. And what's ironic is that the WA itself was a government protectionist edict, but rather to protect the DFW airlines from competition from us.

Why don't you actually did up some facts to try to refute that, instead of taking part of one guy's opinion about how well our business model worked at Love, and spinning it up into a grand conspiratorial figment of your imagination.

Bubba