Southwest breaks ground

[scoreboardII]

Well, there are actually two examples. Denver is the precedent and the airport was mot Stapleton. The other example is Dallas. The agreement you eventually could not wiggle out of stated it would be in Dallas' best interest to have only one FIS. .

Dallas is just like HOU, an airport authority, they are the ones demanding no international, and we comply. HOU has no restriction, or if it did, CAL/UAL pissed them off enough to allow a second airport to have it.

So you come to Houston knowing full well you've got nothing but problems for everybody but your own airline

Problems? You really do have a problem with the way our US economy is structured don't you?

 

[Flopgut]

Problems? You really do have a problem with the way our US economy is structured don't you?

WRT airlines? hells yes I do!!! Are you kidding me!? We're deregulated, but have more regulation now than we did regulated!? This [deregulation] in place of a national air transportation policy has put legacy US airlines on the ropes. Braniff, an airline that went to hundreds of worldwide destinations and operated the Concorde, gets scuttled in favor of a discount airline that only flies to 50 some cities after 40 years in business. (Yeah, that makes sense). 9-11 happens and our industry can't get a little help?! Uncle Sam can bail out GM and Lehman and every stinking financial institution, but UAL can't even get a loan guarantee. This BS in Houston is foolish governance at its worst. CAL was assured that the same funding precedent that precluded Denver having two FIS was in place for us and Houston took our billions. Then one marginal mayor can't manage emotion or (more importantly) keep the airline in town so she throws a fit. Grasps for the quickest deal she can to save face... The aforementioned discounter who comes in with a "deal" that would have never passed an actual public necessity test. FIVE gates!? A FIS for FIVE whole gates...YGTBSM. Any other airline but SWA and the FAA would have torpedoed it. But hey, you're you, so whatever you need.

I'd rather see a couple strong US legacies out there in the world instead of Emirates and company. I imagine you don't agree with any of this... Is there anyone, other than SWA pilots, that actually approves of how our economy is structured toward airlines??

 

[PCL_128]

The SWA pilots will only approve as long as it benefits them. Their comeuppance is only a matter of time, and then their outlook will change.

 

[madjack]

"The SWA pilots will only approve as long as it benefits them. Their comeuppance is only a matter of time, and then their outlook will change."

Wow, just wow...anyone who wishes another pilot group ill, should not be in our world...As much as the AAI pilots come on here and complain about getting screwed...the reality they were poorly governed and it cost them...

 

[redflyer65]

He's never liked SW or SWAPA...and the purchase just threw him over the edge. Now he has to spew his anti-SW rants wherever possible. He's just added Gary (a horrible CEO apparently) to his mix. Maybe it would be best if he never were to come over. Very interesting at the very least.

I guess in Flops world, Southwest has gotten any and everything they've wanted. But yet he selects and article that talks about how Continental greased the Houston skids year after year to get what they needed. Not really an article that paints Continental in a good light, but whatever. Continental gave Houston the finger on the way to Chicago, so in the end..there's no love loss there.

 

[PCL_128]

Wow, just wow...anyone who wishes another pilot group ill, should not be in our world...

Tell it to your own Tom Winsor. From what I hear, this was part of his testimony at the DRC arbitration:

Attorney: Is it not true that the Southwest pilots would have been thrilled if the AirTran pilots wouldn't have been integrated?

Winsor: Oh yeah! Probably so.

Save your sanctimony about not wishing ill on other pilot groups. The SWA pilots and their "union" have done nothing but wish ill on us since this whole process started.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Well, there are actually two examples. Denver is the precedent and the airport was mot Stapleton. The other example is Dallas. The agreement you eventually could not wiggle out of stated it would be in Dallas' best interest to have only one FIS. So you come to Houston knowing full well you've got nothing but problems for everybody but your own airline.

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

 

[SWA Bubba]

Tell it to your own Tom Winsor. From what I hear, this was part of his testimony at the DRC arbitration:

Attorney: Is it not true that the Southwest pilots would have been thrilled if the AirTran pilots wouldn't have been integrated?

Winsor: Oh yeah! Probably so.

Save your sanctimony about not wishing ill on other pilot groups. The SWA pilots and their "union" have done nothing but wish ill on us since this whole process started.

Really? You're relying on hearsay now? Didn't you scold someone else on this forum for that very thing?

And there's a big difference between negotiating your own interests over your adversaries, and wishing some other group ill will just on general principles. With your logic, your negotiators wanting relative seniority also equates to "wishing another pilot group ill will."

Besides, wishing we hadn't bought AirTran is not "wishing you ill." Heck, most of the AirTran posters on this board profess to wish the same thing.

Bubba

 

[madjack]

No, ill will would be hoping something bad happened to another group, like lets say their company struggles, bankruptcy and concessions follow...something I expect you would love to see happen to SWA and it's pilots, which sounds odd coming from a former AAI/ALPA official...I mean you would be wishing I'll will toward ur former constituents, oh, I forgot, they r just cowards...u really are something...

 

[PCL_128]

Really? You're relying on hearsay now?

You'll just have to trust me on this one. It was said.

With your logic, your negotiators wanting relative seniority also equates to "wishing another pilot group ill will."

Not that I agree with your premise, but our negotiators never asked for relative.

Besides, wishing we hadn't bought AirTran is not "wishing you ill."

Agreed, but that wasn't his testimony. His testimony was about "plan B" and non-integration after the purchase had already happened. It wasn't about not being bought in the first place.