30,000 foot view: I don't think the legacy outsource debate can not include a discussion of deregulation*. Additionally it's obvious the SWA posters here don't understand the significant recent changes in scope the most recent contracts at DAL and UAL have made. Yeah, there is still a lot of outsourcing, but these contracts both might prove to have turned the corner toward better scope. To the point of the thread, the 1500 rule causes a shortage of pilots at certain regionals, the flying comes right back to the legacy.
I certainly hope what you said above comes true.
*If SWA had been a flash in the pan, deregulation would be considered a failure. Its the one airline ever body points to as deregulation's success. (even the guy who wrote it claims that as the truth) Problem is that success can be attributed directly to a non market competitive advantage at Love Field. Bottom line, SWA has the ingredients they need handed to them and the legacies have to endure the full brunt of every kind of market reality.
Well, this part is complete crap.
"[N]on market competitive advantage at Love Field"? Really? Any airline could have come to Love Field and flown to any old damn place, or for that matter,
every damn place, that we were allowed to. The fact is, many airlines, including yours, Flopgut, have done exactly that.
"SWA has the ingredients they needed handed to them"? Well, I suppose that if by "ingredients" you mean one frivolous lawsuit after another, and then after they all failed, finally having your stooge Congressman insert a specifically anti-SWA law into the books to directly hobble us, then I suppose we have had a lot of things "handed to us." Personally, I think we would have preferred to have done without, however. We've literally had to fight for everything we've done or tried to do.
If they were in the same market reality crosshairs that legacies like DAL are, it's doubtful SWA scope would look like it does now.
Would you like to attempt to actually back this statement up? Or were you just going to throw it in randomly? The fact is that we bear the same market realities as every other airline. Plus, we've been subject to attacks (including illegal ones) to kill us. Plus, we
alone have been subject to a law designed specifically to hurt us, and to shield another airline from actually having to compete in the market place.
And our business model has always been one aircraft type. How can you possibly infer a difference in scope if circumstances had been any different? Hell, if not for wasting money to defend against frivolous legal attacks, we might have been bigger and stronger
sooner.
It's also interesting to see the same SWA guys swarm GL like they are here. Do you guys have a phone tree or something?! The instant a solid argument is made that does not flatter SWA the same guys get on here and get real chippy.
No phone tree at all. Just reading the forum and responding to BS. And it's not just Southwest guys who call out General Lee, in case you hadn't noticed. It's nearly everybody. And, I'm sorry, what exact "solid argument" did General Lee make? All I saw were stale jokes and platitudes. Just because
you hate Southwest Flopgut, doesn't make other people's absurd anti-SW rants into "solid" anything, other than perhaps solid waste (if you know what I mean!).
Bubba
