New 1500 hour rule first affected

[SWA Bubba]

No, it's really funny watching you justify your ridiculous agreement with the cheaper AT guys flying the same plane for less. And, you have no answer for it, well, accept for "thanks GK for doing that, and we owe you one...." Ridiculous!


Bye Bye---General Lee

Hey General Lee!

(I made that big in the hopes that you would actually see it, since it seems you have a reading/seeing/comprehension problem of some sort).

Yo, knucklehead. I just posted the "answer for it" a page or two back (post 58 on page 4 of this thread, as well as numerous other times). Do you actually read anything that anyone else posts, or do you just have some sort of macro you key in to repeat idiotic anti-SWA rants?

And as far as "thanks GK for doing that, and we owe you one," this is just another example of General Lee's degenerative brain disease. Nobody at either AT or SW is thanking Gary for buying another carrier. Nobody. Just ask any of them. There's any number of people on this forum alone, from both Southwest and AirTran, who will explain that to you. Gary bought AirTran as a business decision to satisfy his shareholders, not his employees.

As far as SWAPA "owing him" anything, that's your own personal invention. We owe him nothing. We'll give no concessions on this section six. We've already done our part to help the bottom line. We did it through rapid agreements to help facilitate the acquisition, fly near-international, and fly somewhat larger planes. All the things he said he needed to grow the company. The bottom line is, he owes US.

The fact that you alone, General Lee, keep repeating the idiotic nonsense that a pilot group will give concessions in an ongoing negotiation with a company that's making money, says more about YOU than it does about anyone else. Listen to yourself-- you're predicting--moreover, you're gleefully hoping--that another pilot group loses contract ground and money in this environment. Even though no other person in the world thinks it's going to happen. And more importantly, even though that would hurt every airline pilot out there, you still WANT it to happen. What kind of putz does that make you?

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

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

 

[HowardBorden]

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.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, so long as Love Field remained open as an airport, the City of Dallas could not preclude Southwest from operating from the field, but it in no way excluded others from operating there.

Any and all carriers were and are free to operate at DAL as long as they choose to operate within the constraints of the Wright Amendment. Passenger service on regular mid-sized and large aircraft can be provided from Love Field only to locations within Texas and the four neighboring US states: Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Later modified to include Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi and Missouri. Longhaul service to other states is permissible only on commuter aircraft with no more capacity than 56 passengers.

 

[Tripower455]

I'd rather pay to work at Southwest over Delta any day.

I agree. Good thing we didn't have to pay to be here!

 

[dicko]

That is the irony of Great Lakes-

Lakes sells experience to pilots with their low wages and looking at where they fly, I'm sure they get that experience in droves- I know how much I value my no autopilot turboprop experience- I never agreed with what my 1900 carrier paid, much less lakes- but it's a lot better than having pilots jump right into a -900 out of flight school.

I agree. I think that sort of flying is a good apprenticeship for an airline pilot. With the exception of the pay. Eight or nine legs a day with no autopilot in a variety of weather. Often with no flight director. It would probably cripple me now.

If they forced them to fly the J32, crawl uphill in the snow through broken glass, it would be perfect. Jet Pig Society.

 

[Scoot 11]

I'd rather pay to work at Southwest over Delta any day. Go ahead and keep dreaming that Delto is such a fabulous place to work, even the usual dorks on this site can't make it appealing.

Canyonblue. I'm glad for you. Have you ever worked for Delta? if not then you have no basis for comparison, much like I have no basis for comparison to my job at Southwest. I never stated Delta is a fabulous place to work. Frankly I have nothing to compare it to, because its been my only AIRLINE JOB for 21 years! Why is it that you and dickheads like waveflyer constantly leave your circle jerk and intrude on Delta threads? From the looks of things you guys are going to be in trouble with an over abundance of staffing. Probably in the neighborhood of 400 pilots overstaffed. Your company has cancelled its ETOPS program, there is NO growth, hiring, and abundant stagnation, and you are in negotiations with a bean counter. herb is gone. Welcome to the world of, "just another legacy." Throw in a bankruptcy and you've officially broke your cherry.
I really don't give a frogs fat ass what you, your girl redflyer or that rim job wave think about my company. My overall point is that you girls are throwing stones in a glass house, and the ground is now shaking beneath you.
Good luck to you. You are sounding nervous, and you should be.

 

[dicko]

that rim job wave

Wave cannot be a "Rim Job" ........... Because its a verb. Remember Sesame Street - If its an action word, it's a verb. Now, he may perform the before mentioned action. But that's a discussion for another time.




Just wanted to use "rim job" and Sesame Street in the same sentence. Not a lot of opportunities for that sort of thing these days. Thanks for your patience.

 

[waveflyer]

Well, Scoot- w/ 6 airlines under my belt including an Alpa legacy, and a RJ op that contracted with delta and many others, throw all the sticks and stones you want scooter- I do have a point of reference - which is why I stick my nose in delta threads when DALPA takes their immense influence and does something as stupid as allowing more -900's- it comes from experience and actually flying the mainline routes I once flew in the right seat of a mainline jet in the right seat of a large RJ, while having on average thousands more PIC time than my younger captains - I'm sorry you want me to forget that scoot- but it's your myopic one airline world view that made it all happen.

Now, if you haven't figured it out- this thread isn't about SWA v delta - it's got a wider "scope" than that- so maybe you can participate in the actual subject??

 

[Flopgut]

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, so long as Love Field remained open as an airport, the City of Dallas could not preclude Southwest from operating from the field, but it in no way excluded others from operating there.

Any and all carriers were and are free to operate at DAL as long as they choose to operate within the constraints of the Wright Amendment. Passenger service on regular mid-sized and large aircraft can be provided from Love Field only to locations within Texas and the four neighboring US states: Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Later modified to include Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi and Missouri. Longhaul service to other states is permissible only on commuter aircraft with no more capacity than 56 passengers.

There is a reason this thing is complicated and even lawyers get tied up for decades over it. So let's not all get the equivalent of a law degree citing this. Now I do see, and this jives with what I seem to remember as fact, in subpart there is this:

(b) Except as provided in subsections (a) and (c), notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any certificate or other authority heretofore or hereafter issued thereunder, no person shall provide or offer to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, for compensation or hire as a common carrier between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas, except that a person providing service to a point outside of Texas from Love Field on November 1, 1979 may continue to provide service to such point.

I think the date is erroneous, but what it says if you were still at Love Field (which SWA was the only one on the date that happened to be picked) you could stay and have the four states you already were doing. I mean, it's obviously written to take care of SWA. Braniff and American were over at DFW already. After this was written, they couldn't go back with airplanes bigger than 56 seats. Perfectly happy to keep it like this (no Love competition) SWA waited til they wanted more areas and then concocted more legislation to get more states.

What would it be worth to have that kind of competitive advantage today? Can you imagine what say Virgin could do if California gave them a monopoly on an airport...

 

[Flopgut]

"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.

There is going to be a new FIS in Houston just to take care of SWA. The fact you are paying for the construction ought to be even MORE of a red flag, but in airline world it's not. A completely pertinent precedent is being thrown out so you can be spared competition to fly international flights. It's as corrupt as corrupt gets.

 

[Flopgut]

Now, if you haven't figured it out- this thread isn't about SWA v delta - it's got a wider "scope" than that- so maybe you can participate in the actual subject??

The Constitution was amended to give you a scope advantage Wave. That's what the WA basically was. SWA kept 737s, and everyone else was limited to 56. Pretty easy for you to talk...

 

[scoreboardII]

so flop, as long as the anti-competitive law favors your company, it's OK. Got it.

 

[SWA Bubba]

There is going to be a new FIS in Houston just to take care of SWA. The fact you are paying for the construction ought to be even MORE of a red flag, but in airline world it's not. A completely pertinent precedent is being thrown out so you can be spared competition to fly international flights. It's as corrupt as corrupt gets.

We're not being spared anything. You, and anyone else are free to fly international out of HOU. In fact, if there's enough more demand after we start, I'll bet you'll see the airport expanding the facilities for anyone who wants to compete. The "new FIS" being built will service ANY airline who wants to fly international out of HOU.

Your ideas of "competition" are laughable. You want us to fly international out of an airport none of our customers are (IAH), while you get to fly international out of your giant hub where ALL of your customers are. You keep avoiding the question, so I'll ask it again, Flop: How is that "fair competition"? Tell me, Flop, what's unfair about you flying your business model out of the airports YOU want to fly out of; and we'll fly our business model out of the airports that WE want to fly out of? How could that be unfair?

The FAA has a statutory responsibility to provide service to any airline at any suitable airport; not just the airports that Continental/United approve of their competitors flying out of.

And while there is NO "pertinent precedent being thrown out" (I pointed out earlier how you had wildly mis-interpreted the Denver situation), I do agree that you should know corruption. It was, after all, YOUR airline that has a criminal record for illegally trying to kill Southwest. I guess that in this case, you didn't pay off enough Houstonians to get them to ignore the law and screw Southwest for you.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

The Constitution was amended to give you a scope advantage Wave. That's what the WA basically was. SWA kept 737s, and everyone else was limited to 56. Pretty easy for you to talk...

Dude.

You misread it. Again. First of all, the Wright Amendment was not an amendment to the Constitution, it was an amendment added to an unrelated but vital bill, since this was the only way Rep Wright could get it passed (first attempt on its own was defeated).

More importantly, the text you quoted did NOT give any special preference to Southwest.* The part you quoted (section (b)) is superseded for ALL airlines by section (c) to the border states that Southwest flew to. That means ANY airline could fly from Love Field to the same cities as Southwest. No "good deal" or "airport monopoly" for Southwest.

The reason for that section was to avoid the obvious legal fight that would ensue if Wright tried to criminalize a current, legal business behavior. So basically, it said, you can keep doing what you're doing now, but you can't expand outside of your current footprint from Love.

Specifically, the section (b) that you quoted, said you can't fly out of Texas unless you're already doing it. But then section (c) said that section (b) doesn't apply to [anyone] flying to the border states. You must have forgotten to read that part. Section (b) would have allowed flying from Love to NYC, if anyone had been doing it at the time. Section (c) said that no one else could fly beyond the border states. Trust me, it was crafted specifically to hobble Southwest in the future without criminalizing current behavior. The bottom line was that anyone could fly where they wanted out of Love Field as long as those destinations were in Texas or the border states (since that was where people were flying at the time).

So you're wrong again, Flop. The Wright Amendment gave NO special "help" to Southwest Airlines whatsoever, no matter how much you want it to be the case. All it did was hobble Southwest, as designed, and protect the other airlines from having to compete with a low-cost carrier in north Texas. It was created by Jim Wright, who represented Fort Worth's, and essentially, American Airlines', interests.

Bubba

*Full Wright Amendment text (from Wikipedia), and I highlighted the pertinent portions:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, nor any other officer or employee of the United States shall issue, reissue, amend, revise, or otherwise modify (either by action or inaction) any certificate or other authority to permit or otherwise authorize any person to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, as a common carrier for compensation or hire between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas, except (1) charter air transportation not to exceed ten flights per month, and (2) air transportation provided by commuter airlines operating aircraft with a passenger capacity of 56 passengers or less.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (a) and (c), notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any certificate or other authority heretofore or hereafter issued thereunder, no person shall provide or offer to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, for compensation or hire as a common carrier between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas, except that a person providing service to a point outside of Texas from Love Field on November 1, 1979 may continue to provide service to such point.

(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with respect to, and it is found consistent with the public convenience and necessity to authorize, transportation of individuals, by air, on a flight between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points within the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas by an air carrier, if (1) such air carrier does not offer or provide any through service or ticketing with another air carrier or foreign air carrier, and (2) such air carrier does not offer for sale transportation to or from, and the flight or aircraft does not serve, any point which is outside any such State. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to give authority not otherwise provided by law to the Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, any other officer or employee of the United States, or any other person.

(d) This section shall not take effect if enacted after the enactment of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979.

 

[Flopgut]

We're not being spared anything. You, and anyone else are free to fly international out of HOU. In fact, if there's enough more demand after we start, I'll be you'll see the airport expanding the facilities for anyone who wants to compete. The "new FIS" being built will service ANY airline who wants to fly international out of HOU.

Your ideas of "competition" are laughable. You want us to fly international out of an airport none of our customers are (IAH), while you get to fly international out of your giant hub where ALL of your customers are. You keep avoiding the question, so I'll ask it again, Flop: How is that "fair competition"? Tell me, Flop, what's unfair about you flying your business model out of the airports YOU want to fly out of; and we'll fly our business model out of the airports that WE want to fly out of? How could that be unfair?

The FAA has a statutory responsibility to provide service to any airline at any suitable airport; not just the airports that Continental/United approve of their competitors flying out of.

And while there is NO "pertinent precedent being thrown out" (I pointed out earlier how you had wildly mis-interpreted the Denver situation), I do agree that you should know corruption. It was, after all, YOUR airline that has a criminal record for illegally trying to kill Southwest. I guess that in this case, you didn't pay off enough Houstonians to get them to ignore the law and screw Southwest for you.

Bubba

Well the problem is Bubba, the two previous Houston mayors were perfectly happy to extract enormous sums from Continental to build a huge airport under the pretext that Denver was legitimate and that IAH would be the marketplace. We built a lot of gates at IAH for all sorts of airlines to come in and compete. SWA is building five total, and 4 are SWA only?! Yeah, that's competition, in your world.

I think it's not only important to take a 30,000 foot view, but also a long term view. Here is a prediction I have, and it's based on what SWA behavior was at Love: You're not done yet crafting your operation at Hobby; This is a multi year project. There will be competitors moving into Hobby, and it's not going to go well for you. You guys think you're going offshore into a world that you'll easily succeed in. You're actually opening up a main artery to the entire SWA domestic market for some growing airlines South of the border. You think they're going to be happy sharing ONE gate? You think they're going to build their own terminal outside their own Country? I don't know for sure what you're up to, but I know it's coming. I would guess there is some legal maneuver, and SWA will want some federal help making sure the competition has to go to IAH for a certain period of time [years]. Or there will be some attempt at amending international airline agreements between Countries? Or maybe the chips will fall how they should and you get your ass kicked. I'd love to be a part of that. I'd fly a 757 for $100/hr as a captain if my airline would line up next to yours. I'd probably pay for my training too. Why not? Worked pretty good for you guys.