New 1500 hour rule first affected

[scoreboardII]

Saying "it's not right", is not a substitute for facts.

There are no binding bilateral agreements in existence.

The only bilateral agreements known are the freedoms of the air agreements, which again, are non-binding, and Restricted all the time by federal law. Cabatoge as an example.

 

[waveflyer]

This thread is all over the place. Since flop has all the answers- can you tell us flop, what regurgitating the Houston debate that you lost handedly via common sense, has to do with the 1500 hour requirement this thread is about?

 

[flythere]

Ahahahaha! This chump just can't stand that I'm always right, and he has absolutely nothing to add to any subject. No wonder he is jealous. Funny stuff.


Bye Bye---General Lee

But, I'm right, you're after that 20K.....

You need a hobby!

 

[General Lee]

But, I'm right, you're after that 20K.....

You need a hobby!

No, you want me to stop something I enjoy, which is sad. I have other hobbies, but I enjoy the airline industry, the topics on this website, and the banter. I have enjoyed this website for over a decade, and YOU want to stop that. Thanks a bunch! Instead, I'll stick around, enjoy the debate and showing guys like you how little you truly know about airline topics.

How many posts will I write? Who knows? But I enjoy each one. Thanks for caring!


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Flopgut]

This thread is all over the place. Since flop has all the answers- can you tell us flop, what regurgitating the Houston debate that you lost handedly via common sense, has to do with the 1500 hour requirement this thread is about?

Jobs and scope. Continental employees worked very hard to protect both. Every time SWA is excused from the rules or gets a handout, the effects get taken out us. I could understand if we were losing ground to SWA on a level playing field, but that is not the case. You can not beat us on a level playing field. Houston is a perfect example. We've been over this.

Common sense?! Where is the common sense in having two FIS in Houston? In building a 55 million dollar parking garage when you guys claim credit for building the "entire project?" (That's a full third of the entire cost). And where is common sense in the snake oil claims SWA made to get this done? 1.6 billion boost to Houston economy, 10,000 jobs (convenient number), and a $130 dollar ticket to Bogota!? Common sense would be to shut this down ASAP. You got this snuck by because one weak mayor felt snubbed.

I want one of you SWA guys to try to explain to me how you imagine you deserve space be made for you at the airports you want to fly to? Take San Salvador for instance. There is no gate space; It's maxed out. You believe you deserve to be shoehorned in and then turn around and tell TACA to build their own terminal if they want a fair shot at Hobby?

 

[redflyer65]

We don't compete well with United?

I'm pretty sure we've done quite well in Denver. Exploded actually. You know we have a new base there right?

There are plenty of other destination we will fly to out of HOU, El Salvador may or may not be apart of that growth.

Your CEO had every opportunity to come talk to the Houston City Council and didn't. So I'm not sure you can say your employees worked hard to protect the company....when your CEO didn't bother.

You have a very anti-SW slanted view Flop. Business is business.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Jobs and scope. Continental employees worked very hard to protect both. Every time SWA is excused from the rules or gets a handout, the effects get taken out us. I could understand if we were losing ground to SWA on a level playing field, but that is not the case. You can not beat us on a level playing field. Houston is a perfect example. We've been over this.

We HAVE been over this, and everything you've claimed has been refuted. You've never once shown ANYTHING that qualifies as a "handout" for SWA. Your only example was to claim the Wright Amendment, but that was promptly shoved up your keister when you got it wrong.

Common sense?! Where is the common sense in having two FIS in Houston?

The "common sense" is in having more than one airport that airlines fly internationally out of. Like the two international airports in the NYC area (JFK, and EWR). Like the two in the DC area (IAD and BWI). Like the two in Miami (MIA and FLL). Like the three in Los Angeles (SNA, LAX, and ONT). Et cetera. And these are just the first instances that come to mind. It really hasn't occurred to you that major metropolitan areas may need or want more than one airport to fly internationally out of? And it may interest you to know that there's actually fewer miles between MIA airport and FLL airport than it is between IAH and HOU. And almost exactly the same mileage between JFK and EWR as between IAH and HOU. Your "common sense" would dictate that all New Yorkers should fly internationally out of EWR alone, since that's where YOU put your hub. Do you not see how dumb (or actually, self-serving for CO/United Airline) your argument is?

In building a 55 million dollar parking garage when you guys claim credit for building the "entire project?" (That's a full third of the entire cost). And where is common sense in the snake oil claims SWA made to get this done? 1.6 billion boost to Houston economy, 10,000 jobs (convenient number), and a $130 dollar ticket to Bogota!? Common sense would be to shut this down ASAP. You got this snuck by because one weak mayor felt snubbed.

The city of Houston agreed to build a parking garage for the terminal SWA is building, solely for their own benefit. The CITY will rake in all the parking revenue. All of it. The parking garage will be a cash cow for the airport; their numbers guys saw this, and jumped at the opportunity. Again, your "common sense" would deprive the HOU airport of much-needed revenue, as well as the people of Houston a choice of airlines. I suspect your "weak mayor" was actually smarter than you think. At the very least, he has a lot more foresight than you.

I want one of you SWA guys to try to explain to me how you imagine you deserve space be made for you at the airports you want to fly to? Take San Salvador for instance. There is no gate space; It's maxed out. You believe you deserve to be shoehorned in and then turn around and tell TACA to build their own terminal if they want a fair shot at Hobby?

Sure, I'll be happy to explain this. Airlines "deserve" space based on market conditions. If there's a market, the market providers (airports, etc) will make space to promote it. If there's actually no free gate space in an airport, and the airport wants a particular airline to serve it (due to market desire), than they'll build new facilities to accommodate. It's that freakin' simple, Flop.

Southwest serves airports that want our service and that we think we can make money at. You really don't think that there's airports south of the border that aren't chomping at the bit for our service, like there are north of the border? We can only serve airports that want our service, and if they want us bad enough, they'll make it work. It's up to an airport to provide room if they want our service, including expansion if necessary. If TACA (or anyone else, including Unical) wants to serve HOU internationally, than that's up to the HOU airport authority to find a way. If they think it's a serious market request, than they WILL expand the facilities to accommodate. On the other hand, if they believe it's just a tit-for-tat bluff like Unical made in the HOU argument, then they'll probably get laughed at just the same.

Any other silly arguments you need rebuffed?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

We don't compete well with United?

I'm pretty sure we've done quite well in Denver. Exploded actually. You know we have a new base there right?

There are plenty of other destination we will fly to out of HOU, El Salvador may or may not be apart of that growth.

You left IAH with your tail between your legs.

Saw 4 corndogs getting heavy mx done at SAL last week. Thought that would a plausible destination. IAH is big and accommodates any sort of reciprocity that needs to take place if there is no code share. What I don't want to see happen is SWA try and use the open gates at IAH as currency. That's my guess though for what Gary is up to.

 

[canyonblue]

IAH is big and accommodates any sort of reciprocity that needs to take place if there is no code share.

Great, get UnitedContinental to leave and I would be willing to fly in there. Otherwise, why go there when we have Hobby.

 

[Flopgut]

We HAVE been over this, and everything you've claimed has been refuted. You've never once shown ANYTHING that qualifies as a "handout" for SWA. Your only example was to claim the Wright Amendment, but that was promptly shoved up your keister when you got it wrong.


Any other silly arguments you need rebuffed?

Bubba

In order to get what was at the time, the worlds largest airline merger deal done between UAL/CAL, the combined airline had to give SWA slots and gates at EWR. If that's not a handout Bubba, what is? It's not like any other airline was mentioned either?! Not Spirit, AirTran, or JetBlue. And certainly not another legacy. Just *give* SWA something and it was approved...

 

[Flopgut]

Great, get UnitedContinental to leave and I would be willing to fly in there. Otherwise, why go there when we have Hobby.

That pretty much sums it up for us all right there. Hey, maybe you can get lucky and something aweful will happen to us, then you can move [cash] in? Like you played it in Denver

 

[Flopgut]

Sure, I'll be happy to explain this. Airlines "deserve" space based on market conditions. If there's a market, the market providers (airports, etc) will make space to promote it. If there's actually no free gate space in an airport, and the airport wants a particular airline to serve it (due to market desire), than they'll build new facilities to accommodate.

Southwest serves airports that want our service and that we think we can make money at. You really don't think that there's airports south of the border that aren't chomping at the bit for our service, like there are north of the border? We can only serve airports that want our service, and if they want us bad enough, they'll make it work.

Bubba

These are not the banana republics of 40 years ago. In too many ways they still struggle, but many of these countries have multiple airlines already. The airports are brimming with activity. I don't think you're going to roll up to crowds of people cheering you on, carrying you on their shoulders, and welcoming you as liberators. Frankly, you sound incredibly naive Bubba. No one is going to build you terminal space because you're SWA. They have their own airlines that need support. Don't think they aren't eyeing access to your operation at Hobby.

Everything from airport use to visas entry requirements are all give and take. If you visit Argentina it's a $180 visa. Why? Because we charge their citizens the same thing. You get as much as you give.

 

[HowardBorden]

These are not the banana republics of 40 years ago. In too many ways they still struggle, but many of these countries have multiple airlines already. The airports are brimming with activity. I don't think you're going to roll up to crowds of people cheering you on, carrying you on their shoulders, and welcoming you as liberators. Frankly, you sound incredibly naive Bubba. No one is going to build you terminal space because you're SWA. They have their own airlines that need support. Don't think they aren't eyeing access to your operation at Hobby.

Well, Flop, I guess you will get your most favorite wish of all then and Southwest will fail miserably.

There is absolutely no way that the nitwits at Love field could ever pull off South of the border flying. They clearly haven't thought this through and are in way over their head. I'm sure they are investing 156 million of their own money in a new terminal but have failed to realize that no one in South America wants them and there isn't room for them anyway.

Clearly this debate is over and we can stop discussing it at this point since there is almost no chance of success and failure is all but assured. Thanks for enlightening everyone with your sage advice and wise counsel. I only wish SWA was not so set on carrying out this fools errand.

 

[SWA Bubba]

In order to get what was at the time, the worlds largest airline merger deal done between UAL/CAL, the combined airline had to give SWA slots and gates at EWR. If that's not a handout Bubba, what is? It's not like any other airline was mentioned either?! Not Spirit, AirTran, or JetBlue. And certainly not another legacy. Just *give* SWA something and it was approved...

Actually, what happened was somewhat different than you would like people to believe. The DOJ had anti-trust objections to the CAL/UAL merger, and insisted on some sort of divestiture from EWR. That part is true. However, nobody made Continental "give those slots to SWA." They offered to give up 36 slots (18 T/O & landings per day), leaving 442 T/O & landings for the new combined company, in order to get approval.

How was it decided that Southwest would get the slots? Pay attention to this part, Flop: Continental picked Southwest to get them. I'll say it again for you--Continental chose Southwest. Why? Probably because we had such limited presence in the NYC area (only 18 slots at LGA, and no service to JFK), and Continental figured it would be the least amount of competition.

http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-...k-slot-deal-has-the-airline-industry-buzzing/

Here's the link to that information, but let me put out two specific quotes from it if you don't want to read it all. If you don't even want to read all of the quotes, you can just read the bolded part:

There’s also some question about how Continental picked Southwest for its Newark slot leases.

"Obviously, there were some backroom deals going on here, and Continental and United chose their poison," observed industry blogger Cranky Flier.

Continental and Southwest, he noted, are not strangers: "They’ve been competing with each other for years. The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t."
​

And also:​

The senior DOJ official also pointed out that while the Southwest deal was not achieved by auction, Continental and United negotiated with several airlines before reaching an agreement with Southwest.

Continental confirmed it had negotiated with other competitors.
​

There you go--it was YOUR airline's idea that we get those slots, because they thought it would be best for THEM. Any more handouts you'd like to discuss with me?

Bubba​

 

[SWA Bubba]

You left IAH with your tail between your legs.

Saw 4 corndogs getting heavy mx done at SAL last week. Thought that would a plausible destination. IAH is big and accommodates any sort of reciprocity that needs to take place if there is no code share. What I don't want to see happen is SWA try and use the open gates at IAH as currency. That's my guess though for what Gary is up to.

Got us there. Yes, we left IAH because we couldn't make a profit there. We had one gate, and exactly one city pair: DAL-IAH, three or four times a day, and it didn't work out too well, because the rest of our customers were at the other side of the city, and there wasn't enough demand between Dallas and north Houston.

Your example is actually a great example of how competition should work, and how I've been saying it should. You fly out of whatever airports you want, and to wherever you want; and we'll do the same. If it doesn't work, then you move on, and fly the routes that you want that DO make money.

Hey, I appreciate you making my point for me! Thanks!

Bubba

 

[canyonblue]

Your example is actually a great example of how competition should work, and how I've been saying it should. You fly out of whatever airports you want, and to wherever you want; and we'll do the same. If it doesn't work, then you move on, and fly the routes that you want that DO make money.

Hey, I appreciate you making my point for me! Thanks!

Bubba

In Flop's world there are no winners, only losers, and misery loves company.

 

[slaquer5]

You left IAH with your tail between your legs.

S.

Yes we did. All 4 flights a day, to one (1) city... DAL

.We had one terminator A/C at IAH,


Like i said, i do not think you believe the stuff you post.

Good luck with the new list, and CAL inflated seniority list.

 

[Flopgut]

Quote:
Originally Posted by canyonblue
In Flop's world there are no winners, only losers, and misery loves company.

My world is not full of a bunch of princesses who never had to lose a game of Candyland.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SWA Bubba [
Got us there. Yes, we left IAH because we couldn't make a profit there. We had one gate, and exactly one city pair: DAL-IAH, three or four times a day, and it didn't work out too well, because the rest of our customers were at the other side of the city, and there wasn't enough demand between Dallas and north Houston.

Your example is actually a great example of how competition should work, and how I've been saying it should. You fly out of whatever airports you want, and to wherever you want; and we'll do the same. If it doesn't work, then you move on, and fly the routes that you want that DO make money.

Hey, I appreciate you making my point for me! Thanks!

Bubba

It didn't work out to well because there was a lot of competition at IAH. You could not start up 40 years ago, and you can't start international today, in a healthy competitive environment. There were 7 open gates, where was SWA effect? Matter of fact, where has it been in Houston? The City complains of high airfares, SWA has been at Hobby since the start!

You found a couple links that cast a little doubt on my version of how SWA came to get the EWR gates, but even so it's clear in the text that the only choice UAL/CAL had was SWA. The only "yes' we were going to hear was SWA and it was very much a gift.

Google this PDF: Airport Business Practices and their Impact on Airline Competition. Or, don't and let's just drop this. Why the FAA would develop and print this sort of thing and then give SWA whatever it wants makes zero sense.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Hey Flop, welcome back--we missed you!

It didn't work out to well because there was a lot of competition at IAH. You could not start up 40 years ago, and you can't start international today, in a healthy competitive environment. There were 7 open gates, where was SWA effect? Matter of fact, where has it been in Houston? The City complains of high airfares, SWA has been at Hobby since the start!

Not really sure what your argument is here... Are you saying that Southwest doesn't compete, or that Unical charges way too much for fares out of IAH? Could you rephrase, please.

And as far as "a lot of competition," there certainly wasn't any competition between IAH and DAL--nobody else was flying that route. Turns out, there wasn't enough demand either. That's why we abandoned that route.

You found a couple links that cast a little doubt on my version of how SWA came to get the EWR gates, but even so it's clear in the text that the only choice UAL/CAL had was SWA. The only "yes' we were going to hear was SWA and it was very much a gift.

The only choice? Why would you think that? Continental (and United) chose Southwest, because they thought it was in their own selfish best interest (Not that I'm knocking that--businesses are supposed to act in their own best interest). They could have picked anyone else who wanted them. ANYONE. Continental preferred that Southwest got those slots, because they thought we would be the least amount of total competition in the NYC area for them. The article actually hints that Continental bypassed the "fair" way of divestiture by picking its own competition. So, if there was any "gift," it was to Continental for the unique ability to be able to pick who got their divestitures, instead of the normal slot auction. So I guess I should say to you, "You're welcome!"

Google this PDF: Airport Business Practices and their Impact on Airline Competition. Or, don't and let's just drop this. Why the FAA would develop and print this sort of thing and then give SWA whatever it wants makes zero sense.

I read it; it was an interesting article. Thanks.

I don't know how you think you're using it in an argument against Southwest, however. Despite your continued attempts to show that Southwest was "given" things others didn't get, this also isn't it. Nobody has ever "given" Southwest jack squat--except a hard time.

It talks about "equal access" to airports. It then goes on to mention airlines that interfere with other airlines' ability to fly out of the airports they want to. Sound familiar? That article's argument is actually against your company's position that Southwest shouldn't get to use Hobby for the flying that it wants to do.

You're also missing the point about who needs to provide "equal access." The answer is, it's the airport itself, not one of its freakin' tenants. That's not our job. If and when other airlines want international flight access out of HOU, it should be, and will be, provided by the airport itself, not by Southwest. If and when there's enough demand, they will expand the international facilities; it's in their own best interest (not to mention, the legal responsibility regarding "fairness" of the airport authority).

Be careful for what you wish for, however--are you sure Unical wants even more international LCC competition out of the Houston area? That might further bite into your monopoly on Houston international flying.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Not really sure what your argument is here... Are you saying that Southwest doesn't compete, or that Unical charges way too much for fares out of IAH? Could you rephrase, please.

Your words: "fly from the airport you want to, we'll fly from the airport we want to." There is no "airport you want to fly from." SWA only looks for situations that can be exploited. You can find more info on airport exploitation in the document (not article)I suggested to you. Recall that the final ruling on Love Field was not at all a win for SWA. I'm fairly sure you would have liked to have used DAL for this new terminal, but you got your hat handed to you. It took 40 years, but that's what happened. The same thing is going to happen at Hobby. Don't know how long it's going to be, but your version of what you think SWA will do there probably won't be a reality. Read further in the document and it should throw up a lot of red flags. Exclusive use gates, barriers to entry, reasonableness of gate access verbiage is all over the place. The instant SWA builds this thing the demand will surge at Hobby. It's like a valve that will open from 0 to 100% instantly. Yeah, the airport provides the space, but that means a lot more than you think.* If the single gate doesn't work for the competition (it won't) then SWA can expect to be "compelled" to provide space at their own gates.

Again, why I post and what I hope to learn, is what will be SWA's plan to limit any competition at Hobby. The industry is sick of watching SWA cheat the cards.

*Find on page 8 next to the header "airport operators must provide access"

Additionally read on page 72: Contractural arrangements do not preclude reasonable entry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free