Southwest breaks ground

[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 ).