Southwest to build new international terminal at HOU

[HowardBorden]

It is not hub and spoke.

Well, I'm glad we settled that.

 

[SWA Bubba]

"Look at MCI for example. Non-stop service to: SEA, PDX, LAX, SAN, ABQ"...........

MCI-SEA 7 flights one non stop
MCI-PDX 9 flights one non stop
MCI-LAX 10 flights NO non stops
MCI-SAN 13 flights two non stops
MCI-ABQ 7 flights with one non stop

All these flights are for 22 June. 46 flights with 5 non stops. Yes they do offer non stop service. What is the frequency of that non stop service? What is the chance that you will be routed through a SWA base to get to your final destination?

.....

Bam! You sure told him.

Did you purposely cherry-pick a Saturday, the day of the week when every airline in the world has a reduced schedule due to reduced demand?

Bubba

 

[Just thinking]

Not cherry picked.... how about a Monday? MCI-LAX.... 15 flights only three non stop.
How about HOU-LAX on a Monday? 20 flights and 4 non stops
IAH-LAX 16 non stops with at least that many with stops.


Look at the route map below. Select non-stop only.

"Hover your mouse over one of the cities on the map and you'll see all of the exciting places you can go from that city."

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html?int=GSUBNAV-AIR-ROUTEMAP

Gee..... I wonder why there are so many flights in and out of SWA bases? Maybe because they have to connect their passengers to a connecting flight to get where they want to go?

 

[HowardBorden]

Not cherry picked.... how about a Monday? MCI-LAX.... 15 flights only three non stop.
How about HOU-LAX on a Monday? 20 flights and 4 non stops
IAH-LAX 16 non stops with at least that many with stops.


Look at the route map below. Select non-stop only.

"Hover your mouse over one of the cities on the map and you'll see all of the exciting places you can go from that city."

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html?int=GSUBNAV-AIR-ROUTEMAP

Gee..... I wonder why there are so many flights in and out of SWA bases? Maybe because they have to connect their passengers to a connecting flight to get where they want to go?

You simply don't get it. The vast majority of the non stops on SWA are the ONLY non stops available in that market other than those to a hub and spoke hub. Many customers are ecstatic to have a morning, afternoon and evening non stop option. That is one of the reasons they are choosing SWA over another carrier that doesn't offer a non stop to the destination of their choice.

 

[Just thinking]

With as many flights that go in and out of BNA it would seem as if everyone wants to go non stop to BNA. I guess I don't get it.

 

[HowardBorden]

With as many flights that go in and out of BNA it would seem as if everyone wants to go non stop to BNA. I guess I don't get it.

You're right, almost everyone that goes into Nashville would prefer to do it non stop. If your leaving SEA, MCI, STL, SAN, PHX, AUS, SAT, HOU, MSY, BOS, ORF, MDW, CMH, ORF, RDU, GSP, CHS, JAX, MCO, TPA or FLL, the ONLY airline you can do that on is SWA. NO OTHER AIRLINES OFFER NON STOP SERVICE FROM THESE MARKETS TO BNA EXCEPT SWA. The only reason those options are available to the traveling public is because SWA operates a point to point route structure.

 

[Just thinking]

Ok I get it now.

You offer one direct flight out of five to BNA from CHS and you claim point to point. Never mind on the other four flights you have to connect through BWI or MDW.

BOS to BNA nine flights with seven requiring a connection through MDW, BWI or HOU.

SEA-BNA.... nine flights but eight require a connection.

Maybe it would make more sense if you called it point to point to point service.

 

[HowardBorden]

Ok I get it now.

You offer one direct flight out of five to BNA from CHS and you claim point to point. Never mind on the other four flights you have to connect through BWI or MDW.

BOS to BNA nine flights with seven requiring a connection through MDW, BWI or HOU.

SEA-BNA.... nine flights but eight require a connection.

Maybe it would make more sense if you called it point to point to point service.

Feel free to call it whatever you like but the fact remains the only non stops offered in multiple markets are offered by SWA. The reason SWA is able to offer those non stops is because they don't rely on the traditional hub and spoke model.

 

[redflyer65]

Just look at all the New England to Florida flying. Plenty of point to point. ALB-TPA, MHT-FLL, etc, etc.

Are there some flights that connect thru BWI? Sure, but you (as a px, have an option to go direct) if that's what you want. Same with the other cities listed. There are options for direct, or possibly a lower fare for one stop thru another city.

If you want to go non-stop.... ORF-BNA, SMF-SNA, or maybe BNA-JAX...who are you going to take? There's plenty of (pure) point to point examples. We may not offer those non-stops 8 times a day, but there are other options thru other cities if you desire.

 

[Just thinking]

Well if all you have to do is provide direct service a couple of times a day then Airtran did a fine job of point to point as well. I guess SWA did not have the monopoly on that.

 

[Flopgut]

Has the terminal been approved by the FAA? I thought that was still being decided.

So any other airline that wants to use this facility has to make do with one gate? Is that right? Volaris, Aero Mexico, Interjet, Taca, Copa, and others have to shoe horn into one gate while Southwest uses three? Not to mention any US carrier that wants to get in...

My hope is that the govts of these places SWA wants to fly, allows no more access than what their carriers can get out of this one single gate. Which is not going to be much. They're going to want in; they're going to want access to SWA's network. The end play on this might be that you give them more than you get.

 

[humveedriver]

Has the terminal been approved by the FAA? I thought that was still being decided.

So any other airline that wants to use this facility has to make do with one gate? Is that right? Volaris, Aero Mexico, Interjet, Taca, Copa, and others have to shoe horn into one gate while Southwest uses three? Not to mention any US carrier that wants to get in...

My hope is that the govts of these places SWA wants to fly, allows no more access than what their carriers can get out of this one single gate. Which is not going to be much. They're going to want in; they're going to want access to SWA's network. The end play on this might be that you give them more than you get.

Why would you want to let foreign carriers have more rights to an airport than US based carriers. I agree that the big three should be allowed to operate their subsidiary RJ fleets out of Hobby. Which is all they will end up doing. If I read between the lines, I think you are hoping that SWA has to compete with carriers with lower costs than United.

 

[dicko]

Has the terminal been approved by the FAA? I thought that was still being decided.

So any other airline that wants to use this facility has to make do with one gate? Is that right? Volaris, Aero Mexico, Interjet, Taca, Copa, and others have to shoe horn into one gate while Southwest uses three? Not to mention any US carrier that wants to get in...

My hope is that the govts of these places SWA wants to fly, allows no more access than what their carriers can get out of this one single gate. Which is not going to be much. They're going to want in; they're going to want access to SWA's network. The end play on this might be that you give them more than you get.

Get a grip Flopgut. You're delusional and so are your hopes.

Passengers despise United. Poor service, disgusting food and surly staff. The poor souls trapped in the frequent flyer programs are your only hope. The back end of a SWA 737, or the back end of United 73, 75 ? I'd choose the SWA aircraft. At least they're not pretending to be a full service airline.

Smisek threw his toys out of the pram when SWA was allowed an international terminal in Houston. Houston to Auclkand ........ Bwahahahahaha. Genius.

 

[Flopgut]

Why would you want to let foreign carriers have more rights to an airport than US based carriers. I agree that the big three should be allowed to operate their subsidiary RJ fleets out of Hobby. Which is all they will end up doing. If I read between the lines, I think you are hoping that SWA has to compete with carriers with lower costs than United.

We [CAL] kicked SWA's ass, and we didn't do it with RJs. We used MD80s in Hobby. Who's to say won't do the same thing now with 757s? Of course if the govt gifts SWA a terminal with only one gate for the competition that's going to be kinda hard to do, right? Kinda like Braniff desiring to compete with SWA and then being ordered off the airport [Love]?

I don't want to see a foreign carrier get more rights to a US airport. I simply want to see SWA have to give the same rights to their airport that we had to give foreign airlines to our hub. I want to see SWA compete. Something they didn't have to do 40 years ago at Love, and something they got their asses kicked at in Hobby less than 10 years ago.

 

[bluesideup1]

We [CAL] kicked SWA's ass, and we didn't do it with RJs. We used MD80s in Hobby. Who's to say won't do the same thing now with 757s? Of course if the govt gifts SWA a terminal with only one gate for the competition that's going to be kinda hard to do, right? Kinda like Braniff desiring to compete with SWA and then being ordered off the airport [Love]?

I don't want to see a foreign carrier get more rights to a US airport. I simply want to see SWA have to give the same rights to their airport that we had to give foreign airlines to our hub. I want to see SWA compete. Something they didn't have to do 40 years ago at Love, and something they got their asses kicked at in Hobby less than 10 years ago.

What gift are you talking about? I thought Southwest was building the terminal with their money. The only gift with government involvement is the one from Southwest for the extra gate. I am sure if any of those other airlines want to come into Hobby they are more than welcome to put the millions of dollars into expanding or creating their own terminal.

 

[Flopgut]

What gift are you talking about? I thought Southwest was building the terminal with their money. The only gift with government involvement is the one from Southwest for the extra gate. I am sure if any of those other airlines want to come into Hobby they are more than welcome to put the millions of dollars into expanding or creating their own terminal.

The gift is the approval to build this terminal. If the FAA allows it they will have to ignore the fact that another airline was denied this same request in Denver 20 or so years ago. That precedent led to some FAA rule that former Houston Mayor White used to assure Continental that all the money we [CAL] sunk into IAH would keep it a level playing field.

So you say if another airline wants to use Hobby, they need to create their own terminal... Hmmm. So these new destinations SWA will fly to out of Hobby, will SWA be "creating" their own terminals at these airports? Or do they [SWA] expect to be given access?

 

[SWA Bubba]

The gift is the approval to build this terminal. If the FAA allows it they will have to ignore the fact that another airline was denied this same request in Denver 20 or so years ago. That precedent led to some FAA rule that former Houston Mayor White used to assure Continental that all the money we [CAL] sunk into IAH would keep it a level playing field.

So you say if another airline wants to use Hobby, they need to create their own terminal... Hmmm. So these new destinations SWA will fly to out of Hobby, will SWA be "creating" their own terminals at these airports? Or do they [SWA] expect to be given access?

Actually, it was the city of Houston and its airport authority that gave approval to build this terminal, not the FAA, because it wasn't up to the FAA. The city of Houston approved it, because they saw a benefit to their city and its people as a result, despite Cal/United's bizarre threats and posturing. The FAA only has a say in these types of matters when it creates airspace problems, not when it's a question of who gets to keep their competition-stifling monopoly in effect, or where airlines can fly their passengers to and from. Airspace issues was the whole point in Denver, but is NOT the case in Houston, so your "precedent" doesn't apply here. The FAA has an affirmative responsibility to supply service to every airline, at airports of the airline's choosing, except when it's not safe to do so (e.g. Denver). I'm pretty sure we've been over this, Flopgut.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

The FAA only has a say in these types of matters when it creates airspace problems, not when it's a question of who gets to keep their competition-stifling monopoly in effect

"competition-stifling monopoly?" says the guy who is getting 4 out of 5 total gates at their own airport. Unbelievable. (And that's after you took a very public beating in direct competition with Continental and ended up running away with your tail tucked between your legs. Keep that in the front of your mind while you spout off about this.)

So no. I didn't know this was a done deal with the feds. What about the routes? Are those approved? Hopefully governing bodies will see through this SWA charade and grant you no more than one gate's worth of routes to any destination. Since that's all your allowing for competition.

 

[redflyer65]

"competition-stifling monopoly?" says the guy who is getting 4 out of 5 total gates at their own airport. Unbelievable. (And that's after you took a very public beating in direct competition with Continental and ended up running away with your tail tucked between your legs. Keep that in the front of your mind while you spout off about this.)

So no. I didn't know this was a done deal with the feds. What about the routes? Are those approved? Hopefully governing bodies will see through this SWA charade and grant you no more than one gate's worth of routes to any destination. Since that's all your allowing for competition.

Why all the angst Flop? It's a done deal.

 

[scoreboardII]

Has the terminal been approved by the FAA? I thought that was still being decided.

So any other airline that wants to use this facility has to make do with one gate? Is that right? Volaris, Aero Mexico, Interjet, Taca, Copa, and others have to shoe horn into one gate while Southwest uses three? Not to mention any US carrier that wants to get in...

My hope is that the govts of these places SWA wants to fly, allows no more access than what their carriers can get out of this one single gate. Which is not going to be much. They're going to want in; they're going to want access to SWA's network. The end play on this might be that you give them more than you get.

You realize SWA is footing the bill to build the terminal 100%? This is as free market as it can get, If the other airlines want to play, let them build their own gates.