Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Most Loved Airline in the U.S.

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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."
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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
 
Last edited:
Bubba: That's a candid analysis from a government regulator. You asked for a legit link, you're looking at it.
 
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"
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top