• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.
  • Logbook Pro for Apple iOS version 8.1 is now available on the App Store. Major update including signature endorsements and dark/light theme support. Click here to install now.

Southwest breaks ground

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
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.
 
Last edited:

EngineThunder

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Posts
222
Total Time
<20K
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.
 

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
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
 
Last edited:

scoreboardII

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
2,694
Total Time
xxxxxx
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

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
2,694
Total Time
xxxxxx
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
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

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Posts
1,282
Total Time
>19k
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

"It's a formidable scent"
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Posts
1,432
Total Time
10k ?
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
77
Total Time
10000+
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Posts
4,456
Total Time
8000
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.
 

redflyer65

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Posts
4,456
Total Time
8000
I'll put you down for option number (2). With just a light sprinkle of ill will.

:D

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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
2,694
Total Time
xxxxxx
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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
2,694
Total Time
xxxxxx
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

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Posts
514
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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
2,694
Total Time
xxxxxx
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

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Posts
514
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 ;) ).
 
Top