Southwest breaks ground

[scoreboardII]

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.

And you would have been thrilled if you got relative, so what.

 

[scoreboardII]

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



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



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.

There was no plan B for the company, it was either everyone vote yes, or move to arbitration and continue. Plan B was a wet dream of childish no voting SWA pilots which had no basis in fact, GK was going to get one airline with everyone onboard.

 

[PCL_128]

There was no plan B for the company, it was either everyone vote yes, or move to arbitration and continue. Plan B was a wet dream of childish no voting SWA pilots which had no basis in fact, GK was going to get one airline with everyone onboard.

I agree. But I'm in the minority on that one over here.

 

[PCL_128]

And you would have been thrilled if you got relative, so what.

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

 

[madjack]

No ill will, I wish all AAI pilots got jobs at SWA, just wish they were all stapled, I also wish I didn't have to work...

 

[HowardBorden]

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

Absolute rubbish and you know it. As has been stated ad nauseam, the AirTran group is much younger than the SWA group. You know that placing younger pilots on the seniority list in front of you causes much harm. You simply try and laugh it off and state that arbiters don't care what happens down the road and are only concerned with the present. It is as ridiculous a presumption as most of your posts concerning your all knowing wisdom about how arbiters will rule on any and all things.

 

[PCL_128]

Absolute rubbish and you know it. As has been stated ad nauseam, the AirTran group is much younger than the SWA group. You know that placing younger pilots on the seniority list in front of you causes much harm. You simply try and laugh it off and state that arbiters don't care what happens down the road and are only concerned with the present. It is as ridiculous a presumption as most of your posts concerning your all knowing wisdom about how arbiters will rule on any and all things.

My "wisdom" starts with knowing that the word is arbitrator, not arbiter. Once you've gotten that part down, get back to me.

 

[HowardBorden]

My "wisdom" starts with knowing that the word is arbitrator, not arbiter. Once you've gotten that part down, get back to me.

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

 

[HowardBorden]

Maybe college could help?

 

[humveedriver]

Completely false, and you know it. As I pointed out in the longer thread on this topic 6 or 8 months ago. The FAA is perfectly within its right to decline to open a second FIS in a certain municipality. Denver was the example. Houston's mayor wanted it, so the FAA went along. If CAL was still around, or even more correctly, if it was another airline other than SWA, this wouldn't be happening. CAL did nothing that was not above board. We participated thoroughly in all manner of civic and political support.

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.

 

[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