Southwest breaks ground

[canyonblue]

Relative wouldn't have harmed you in any significant way, so the comparison is not valid.

But the very thought of it is stupidity at its finest.

 

[PCL_128]

Talk to me when you get a real vocabulary.

ar-bi-ter n.
1. One chosen or appointed to judge or decide a disputed issue; an arbitrator.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbiter

I'm glad that you've figured out the concept of synonyms, but the word is still arbitrator.

 

[Flopgut]

Curious. Midway has two city controlled international gates. Porter uses them as does AirTran to CUN. Why no freak out with O'hare? Same two airlines, same size airports to compare. I see more international service in the future out Midway as well. Maybe even going north.

I think Chicago airports are a good example of why a municipality would indeed need two international airports. Both Midway and O'Hare are close to capacity, or at least a lot closer to capacity than Houston airports. IAH was built extra large to make room for any/all international flights by design. Seven international gates were open and available when SWA wanted the FIS at Hobby.

 

[Flopgut]

Sorry, but you're wrong again.

The FAA declined to allow a second DEN airport to open to international traffic, due to airspace saturation and limitations alone (the TCA ends abruptly at the mountains). There simply isn't enough airspace to maneuver the expected international traffic for two separate airports. It was not a matter of "splitting" any FIS. It's not as if there can only be so many people in uniform. The government will just hire more employees for these additional needs, as it is paid for by the additional passenger charges. As many FIS's as needed or required, no problem.

No such airspace issue exists in Houston. I believe I already pointed this out to you from FAA materials that you provided way back when, when you mistakenly thought it supported your claims. It has nothing to do with the wishes of the mayor. Either for or against. The FAA is obligated to provide service when requested by an airline, as long as there is no legitimate airspace issue like there was in Denver.

For your other example, as far as Dallas Love goes, once again you're wrong with your attempted history rewrite. No surprise there. The prohibition on international flying out Love in the 2006 compromise has NOTHING to do with the "best interests" of the cities. Nothing whatsoever. Nobody even pretended that, or "stated" that in in the agreement. Southwest's agreeing to forego international flying from DAL was purely a political concession to American Airlines to achieve the compromise that finally ended the Wright Amendment. The only entity whose "interests" were protected was that of American Airlines, because while they would now have to compete head-to-head with us domestically in Dallas, they were spared having to also compete with us internationally.

This is kind of what Unical tried to do in Houston. Straight political maneuvering, while pretending it was for the "good" of the city. Unfortunately, you guys didn't buy a powerful enough politician, like American did. They had the Speaker of the House in their pocket in 1979, who snuck in a federal law that hobbled Southwest, to prevent us from competing with them. The Wright Amendment cost Dallas citizens untold millions in higher airfares, by preventing competition.

Any more questions or ridiculous assertions? I'll be happy to set you straight!

Bubba

There is about 400 pages of stuff about this. Your assertion about airspace in Denver sounds like BS to me, so why don't you find the link before you ask anyone to believe it? Wasn't in the link that I had.

All that really needs to be understood is that a city is not required to approve separate additional airport FIS in a multiple airport situations. You are wrong, the city and the FAA are in no way obligated. How can you even make that claim in the same post where you admit that Dallas has prohibited it!? American's case would have been a non starter if it was that contrary to federal law. It does appear they are required to provide space, or gates or use of gates, where a airline might want to be accommodated... Which represents a huge issue going forward for Hobby (the proverbial 800 lb gorilla) because SWA is going to claim any new airline that wants into Hobby ought to go to the open gates at IAH instead, or cram into one gate. I'm real curious to see what happens then... Those Mexican LCCs look like the real deal to me. You line up a Volaris or Interjet or Mexicana (trying to resurrect) next to a corndog and I don't know... Personally, as a Houstonian, I would like to have a choice at Hobby. Btw: when do we see the routes announced? Because there's only about another billion dollars of legal issues brewing here. How does SWA get away with telling any/all airlines that want into Hobby that they can fight over one gate? And then turn around and expect the kind of access to Mexico (and other countries) they will undoubtedly expect? That only violates about every single bilateral agreement that exists. I'm guessing SWA will go to at least half a dozen international destinations right off the bat. You'll expect, and there probably is, gate space available anywhere SWA wants to go. However, any and all reciprocal service from these countries' airlines will have no more access to compete with SWA than one gate, at one airport can provide. Wow! I don't know how that rabbit gets yanked out of that hat, but I'm pretty sure it involves: Blaming United, a clever slogan and hashtag, exploiting a weak mayor, blaming United some more, asking for direct. GK sitting for 5 hours in a Central American city council courtroom trying to make the council feel special, while his Spanish speaker blames United and/or American for something.

 

[Wesb737fo]

So let me gues. You really don't like SWA?

 

[HowardBorden]

Blaming United, a clever slogan and hashtag, exploiting a weak mayor, blaming United some more, asking for direct.

Houston City Council overwhelmingly endorsed Southwest in a 16 to 1 vote in favor of introducing international flights from Hobby; the sole holdout was a member whose area included George Bush Intercontinental.

 

[Flopgut]

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...ces-job-cuts-after-Southwest-plan-3596827.php

Popularity contest?

Failure to approve Hobby expansion would have driven Southwest to shop its expansion plans in San Antonio or another competing city, Southwest leaders said.

Embracing Southwest, however, could trim back United's expansion plans at Bush Intercontinental and strip it of its status as the largest hub of the world's largest airline. Even some of those who cast votes in favor of Hobby did so with some trepidation.

"I'm concerned that we're about to reverse 45 years or more of aviation policy without having had the opportunity to have a sober discussion about this matter around the council table," said District J Councilman Mike Laster. "To me, at times this proposal has felt more like a public relations campaign or a popularity contest rather than an attempt to forge good public policy. I regret that I am not yet wholly convinced that the greater metropolitan area, with its population of just over 6 million people, is large enough to operate two international airports within one system without inflicting damage of some sort."

After the vote, scores of United employees* wearing blue shirts with the slogan "Keep IAH Strong" silently filed out of the room while Parker temporarily waived rules against cheering in chambers to permit an eruption of hollering and applause from Southwest employees in yellow T-shirts with the words "Free Hobby."

*Those were Continental employees, and they deserved better than that.

 

[HowardBorden]

I'm glad that you've figured out the concept of synonyms, but the word is still arbitrator.

You have a real problem admitting you are wrong, even in the face of undeniable factual evidence directly proving that you are wrong.

 

[HowardBorden]

Embracing Southwest, however, could trim back United's expansion plans at Bush Intercontinental and strip it of its status as the largest hub of the world's largest airline.

"While Southwest was successful in convincing Houston's city leaders that introducing international flights from Hobby will prove beneficial to passengers by creating more choice, United argues that it will experience harmful dilution of connecting traffic at George Bush Intercontinental that produces a revenue premium."

"United also argues that even minor passenger spill to Hobby (which the HAS study estimated at 445,226 passengers at the end of phase-in of the new flights), would create passenger fragmentation that would render some routes unprofitable. The carrier asserts that only 1.5 passengers on a 50-seat jet actually generate a profit. Using a 81% load factor as a baseline, United states more than 95% of the passengers cover the flight?s fixed and variable costs and only 3.6% generate a profit. United uses 50-seat jets out of Houston to complement its narrowbody flights to shorter-haul destinations."

"United's logic, however, is deeply flawed. In its model it has assumed that every passenger generates the same amount of profit and thus connecting passengers could make or break profitability. In reality, connecting passengers will generate less profit than origin and destination passengers. If Southwest were to launch international services from Intercontinental, United would still face some level of competition, making its point moot. United's example conveniently shows a regional jet that does not have a first class section; first class passengers generate higher profits and are unlikely to switch to Southwest. United also fails to mention its large network and frequent flyer program as customer allures, which it so eagerly toots at other ? more convenient ? times."

"Yet despite Southwest not due to start international flights until 2015, United announced that in the coming months it will cut 1300 jobs in Houston. This further adds to the disconnect between reality and United's arguments. What is more likely is that Intercontinental has been in need of a shakeup and Southwest's Hobby expansion has become the excuse ? as partially evidenced by how ready United was to role with cut announcements after the Houston City Council's decision; United wanted to seize on the moment to springboard its cuts rather than give time for others to contemplate its sincerity."

"Whether or not the city council saw through this is unclear, but they and their city, with Southwest, have emerged as the victors. There is no reason to doubt Southwest's forthcoming performance. Globally, liberalisation has shown overall growth and market stimulation, even if it can be at the expense of legacy competitors. United would be wise to learn from European counterparts who, after years of lobbying against their competitors ? Middle East network carriers ? are accepting reality and stepping up their proposition. Doing what United is doing ? cutting while falsely attributing blame ? is not the correct next step."

http://centreforaviation.com/analys...wins-international-expansion-from-hobby-75109

 

[madjack]

Maybe Houston felt that fares had a chance of dropping if someone challenged UniCALs near monopoly on int'l flying...could have something to do with it...kinda like what happens in DAL

 

[Flopgut]

Maybe Houston felt that fares had a chance of dropping if someone challenged UniCALs near monopoly on int'l flying...could have something to do with it...kinda like what happens in DAL

Some Council and local business media types felt that IAH customers were paying too much as compared to MIA. Well, when was the last time MIA got an airport improvement? Are the fares suppose to be the same when one airport is a dump and the other has had improvements?

Additionally, MIA has got a lot of South American carriers flying directly back and forth. Like they would probably prefer to do to compete with SWA, only SWA has stacked the deck against them. Avianca (for example) is a serious airline and I hope they apply for a reciprocal flights to Hobby. If one gate isn't enough, then don't let SWA fly to BOG. That's how it's suppose to work.

 

[EngineThunder]

You have a real problem admitting you are wrong, even in the face of undeniable factual evidence directly proving that you are wrong.

Someone posted this in another thread in response to PCL.

Is it true that you still have a punching bag at home with a Gojet uniform tacked to it so you can pretend you are beating up a sc-b?

I always have to laugh at the one kid who will do anything to appear to have gravitas and respect, while everyone is laughing at him behind his back.

Typically, people who suffer this sort of social rejection try to find solace and acceptance by wrapping themselves in the flag of one type of organization or another. Mall cops are a great example of this.

When you add social awkwardness to the cocktail, it is inevitable that they will seek a venue for the remediation of their manifold insecurities.

Even if they have to buy their way in, because they couldn't make it on their own.

 

[madjack]

Attack dogs can be useful

 

[SWA Bubba]

All that really needs to be understood is that a city is not required to approve separate additional airport FIS in a multiple airport situations. You are wrong, the city and the FAA are in no way obligated.

Yes, they are, unless there's a compelling reason not to. Airspace saturation (like in Denver) IS a good reason; the fact that Unical doesn't want the competition, or they feel that they "paid for that politician," so he owes them special favors, AREN'T. A city normally has to approve building more facilities in their city (building codes, utility easements, taking land, etc.), but they have dick to say about where a tenant airline can and can't fly to from existing airports. That's between the airline, the Feds (in setting up the customs facilities), and the other countries. In the Houston case, we needed their approval to build an entirely new facility in their city (duh), but the city has no voice in customs or FIS staffing decisions.

How can you even make that claim in the same post where you admit that Dallas has prohibited it!? American's case would have been a non starter if it was that contrary to federal law.

I most certainly did NOT "admit" anything of the sort regarding the city of Dallas. The city "prohibited" exactly nothing. What I said was, that Southwest agreed in the written compromise to not only never do international flying out of Love Field, but also to forever limit Love Field to 20 or 24 gates (I forget off the top of my head). Southwest agreed to these restrictions in return for American and DFW agreeing to drop their objections to removing the remaining limitations from the Wright Amendment. That's why it was called a compromise. In the compromise, Southwest got to fly anywhere nonstop domestically, and American got to keep from having to compete internationally. It had jack squat to do with the city of Dallas not "wanting" international flying out do DAL. Dallas would probably have loved having no restrictions at us at Love, because it would be more revenue for them, and more choices for their residents.

You know, I can't tell if you REALLY just don't get how the world (and this situation) works, or if you're just jacking with me because you don't like the actual reality. Suppose you tell me which.

Bubba

 

[scoreboardII]

Relative wouldn't have harmed you in any significant way, so the comparison is not valid.

It's a completely valid concept and one AT folks who think like you fail to understand.

Relative would have placed hundreds more on top of me now, to have many more hundreds outlast my progression through retirement. The AT pilot force is a much younger, probably better looking group. Therefore, those younger than me would never go away, I would end up in a much worse relative position at my retirement, by SWAPA's numbers, 9% worse.

You are lucky, the benevolent one, determined even after you voted no, that the worst SWAPA could do to you was give you a relative SL modified for this fact. I now end up retiring seniority wise exactly where I was before AT was announced.

Insignificant huh?

 

[SWA Bubba]

How does SWA get away with telling any/all airlines that want into Hobby that they can fight over one gate?

Dude. Seriously. Enough with this asinine argument; you're embarrassing yourself.

The same way that WE couldn't go into IAH and demand 50 international gates when there isn't that many open. Unical has the exclusive rights to so many domestic and international gates at IAH, right? You have leases protecting those rights, yes? Well, it's exactly the same at HOU. We have exclusive rights to four of the five international gates that we're building. It's really that simple.

So, it turns out that Southwest won't have to tell any airline that there's only one international gate open at HOU--the airport will tell other airlines that. They had no international gates, but now they'll have one to rent out to someone else. They'll say, "we only have one open gate right now, but if you will promise so much traffic, then we'll certainly build more." And if there's enough demand like you think, the guess what?-- the airport itself will be happy to build more gates for that. It's called "supply and demand," and it's how capitalism works.

Bubba

 

[scoreboardII]

What is more likely is that Intercontinental has been in need of a shakeup and Southwest's Hobby expansion has become the excuse ? as partially evidenced by how ready United was to role with cut announcements after the Houston City Council's decision; United wanted to seize on the moment to springboard its cuts rather than give time for others to contemplate its sincerity."

Just because it's important to set this drivel straight, reposted for impact.

 

[PCL_128]

You have a real problem admitting you are wrong, even in the face of undeniable factual evidence directly proving that you are wrong.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

 

[PCL_128]

It's a completely valid concept and one AT folks who think like you fail to understand.

Relative would have placed hundreds more on top of me now, to have many more hundreds outlast my progression through retirement. The AT pilot force is a much younger, probably better looking group. Therefore, those younger than me would never go away, I would end up in a much worse relative position at my retirement, by SWAPA's numbers, 9% worse.

You are lucky, the benevolent one, determined even after you voted no, that the worst SWAPA could do to you was give you a relative SL modified for this fact. I now end up retiring seniority wise exactly where I was before AT was announced.

Insignificant huh?

Our pilots took an average loss of well over 20% in relative seniority. Forgive me if I don't consider your small claimed loss to be worthy of my sympathy.

 

[slaquer5]

Our pilots took an average loss of well over 20% in relative seniority. Forgive me if I don't consider your small claimed loss to be worthy of my sympathy.

Yep

Thats what I keep saying you wanted. Every time you deny it.


Your showing your true colors .

 

[dicko]

Wow, just wow...anyone who wishes another pilot group ill ....

Jack,

I agree with your sentiment up until the end of the quote above. Can we agree that unemployment is ill will ? Can we also agree that if Gary Kelly had come to SWAPA and allowed them to vote on these two separate plans;

1. Negotiation then arbitration, or

2. Take AirTran airplanes and future orders, followed by a slow draw down of the AirTran pilot group, until the pilots were either 'hired after a new hire interview' or unemployed.

What do you think SWA pilots would have voted for ? If we use ATA hiring numbers after SWA bought them, we'd have an AirTran pilot unemployment rate of 95%. We both know how SWA pilots would have voted.

That's ill will, in my book.

 

[CA Calypso]

Some Council and local business media types felt that IAH customers were paying too much as compared to MIA. Well, when was the last time MIA got an airport improvement? Are the fares suppose to be the same when one airport is a dump and the other has had improvements?

Additionally, MIA has got a lot of South American carriers flying directly back and forth. Like they would probably prefer to do to compete with SWA, only SWA has stacked the deck against them. Avianca (for example) is a serious airline and I hope they apply for a reciprocal flights to Hobby. If one gate isn't enough, then don't let SWA fly to BOG. That's how it's suppose to work.

I see you haven't been to MIA lately...

 

[redflyer65]

Jack,

I agree with your sentiment up until the end of the quote above. Can we agree that unemployment is ill will ? Can we also agree that if Gary Kelly had come to SWAPA and allowed them to vote on these two separate plans;

1. Negotiation then arbitration, or

2. Take AirTran airplanes and future orders, followed by a slow draw down of the AirTran pilot group, until the pilots were either 'hired after a new hire interview' or unemployed.

What do you think SWA pilots would have voted for ? If we use ATA hiring numbers after SWA bought them, we'd have an AirTran pilot unemployment rate of 95%. We both know how SWA pilots would have voted.

That's ill will, in my book.

Dicko,

Just like you, we had no say in what Gary did. Period.

Anything else is just conjecture.

 

[dicko]

Dicko,

Just like you, we had no say in what Gary did. Period.

Anything else is just conjecture.

I'll put you down for option number (2). With just a light sprinkle of ill will.

 

[redflyer65]

I'll put you down for option number (2). With just a light sprinkle of ill will.

Your actually wrong Dicko, I never wished unemployment upon anyone on the AirTran side. Could Gary have done it? I think he could have, but it wasn't what he wanted to do and I never heard anything even close to that come out of SWAPA.

It's secret option 3. Put as many on the bottom as possible. Very different than unemployment, just not what you wanted...and that too is understandable. Can't we just all get along?

 

[scoreboardII]

Avianca (for example) is a serious airline and I hope they apply for a reciprocal flights to Hobby. .

They can, as soon as THEY, Avianca, ponies up the money to build them, just like SWA, ponied up to build them. Why don't you understand this? SWA didn't provide baksheesh to some councilman to get a terminal built, nor require the city to sell bonds to build gates. SWA PAID FOR THEM, THEY ARE SWA GATES.

That's how it's suppose to work

You mean like how CAL/UAL pressured the city to build everything on their dime, and then pulled jobs out years before any SWA flight ever lifts from the ground?

 

[scoreboardII]

Our pilots took an average loss of well over 20% in relative seniority. Forgive me if I don't consider your small claimed loss to be worthy of my sympathy.

You made my position insignificant to make yours, never asked for sympathy, our position is relevant, therefore your position is unsupportable.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

Your actually wrong Dicko, I never wished unemployment upon anyone on the AirTran side. Could Gary have done it? I think he could have, but it wasn't what he wanted to do and I never heard anything even close to that come out of SWAPA.

It's secret option 3. Put as many on the bottom as possible. Very different than unemployment, just not what you wanted...and that too is understandable. Can't we just all get along?

So unemployment is ill will, staple is just business.

 

[scoreboardII]

Jack,

I agree with your sentiment up until the end of the quote above. Can we agree that unemployment is ill will ? Can we also agree that if Gary Kelly had come to SWAPA and allowed them to vote on these two separate plans;

1. Negotiation then arbitration, or

2. Take AirTran airplanes and future orders, followed by a slow draw down of the AirTran pilot group, until the pilots were either 'hired after a new hire interview' or unemployed.

What do you think SWA pilots would have voted for ? If we use ATA hiring numbers after SWA bought them, we'd have an AirTran pilot unemployment rate of 95%. We both know how SWA pilots would have voted.

That's ill will, in my book.

Strawman argument, turn the tables, how would AT answer?

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

Strawman argument, turn the tables, how would AT answer?

Wait, I thought you had 100's of FAT aps on file, everybody wants to work for WN, you know how AT would answer.

All kidding aside, while being anecdotal, flying the line as a captain during the talks about both ATA and Midwest Airlines, I personally didn't hear any of our pilots (especially f/o's) speaking of staple, let alone, take their airplanes and run. I personally would have had no problem with either DOH or relative with either group. If we wouldn't have been able to come to agreeable terms, I'd have abided by an arbiter's terms (that's for you PCL ).