redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do the work? DO THE WORK? My God man Southwest does more flying than any airline on the planet! 1,387,000 flights a year, compared to United's 656,270. In case your not a mathematician, that's way more than double the number of flights per year or 730,730 more to be exact. Maybe you should concentrate on doing some work yourself.You guys are punching your clown over all these potential new destinations, just remember to do the work.
Do the work? DO THE WORK? My God man Southwest does more flying than any airline on the planet! 1,387,000 flights a year, compared to United's 656,270. In case your not a mathematician, that's way more than double the number of flights per year or 730,730 more to be exact. Maybe you should concentrate on doing some work yourself.
I've already done the type of flying SWA is embarking upon for the better part of a decade. Why would you assume that just because the airline is just now venturing out of the country, it is a first for the pilots doing the flying? It isn't rocket science by the way, I've done it with a whole heck of a lot less support and structure than SWA is currently supplying.I think once you start seeing the rest of the world you'll quit being such enormous a-holes.
I've already done the type of flying SWA is embarking upon for the better part of a decade. Why would you assume that just because the airline is just now venturing out of the country, it is a first for the pilots doing the flying? It isn't rocket science by the way, I've done it with a whole heck of a lot less support and structure than SWA is currently supplying.
I've already done the type of flying SWA is embarking upon for the better part of a decade. Why would you assume that just because the airline is just now venturing out of the country, it is a first for the pilots doing the flying? It isn't rocket science by the way, I've done it with a whole heck of a lot less support and structure than SWA is currently supplying.
I do it also. I am not even mainline
Nothing says pay check to me better than codeshare
Corporations don't make money with high priced assets sitting idle, not for a month, not for a week, not for a day. I could not care less about YOUR manufactured "controversy." You are the only one upset. The DOT is satisfied with the result. The Mexican authorities are satisfied with the result. The city of Houston is satisfied with the result. And, the residents in the market are satisfied with the result. Embarrassed? Not even close.I think you'll get the airplane from a to b ok, that's not what I'm talking about. Why does SWA have to create controversy? Why does SWA feel the need to take from another airline? Look at the timeframe here Howie. We're talking about a matter of days between when the terminal is done and when the treaty change becomes effective. Where your airline flies, compared to the amount of BS controversy it creates, are equal opposites. It ought to embarrass you
The DOT is satisfied with the result. The Mexican authorities are satisfied with the result. The city of Houston is satisfied with the result. And, the residents in the market are satisfied with the result.
Corporations don't make money with high priced assets sitting idle, not for a month, not for a week, not for a day.
Ya mean like the 32 B717's parked in the desert on Dec 28th? Oh yeah they were money losers I forgot
We couldn't keep those...going from a -300 to -717 would have been too challenging[emoji2]
So you're just that pissed off about everything, right? Man, your life must just suck.
They were parked after 28 Dec 2014 to comply with the SWA/SWAPA CBA, and in particular, its scope clause. I'm gonna' have to assume you're not familiar with it, since your last few posts have either ridiculed its importance, or shown a marked ignorance.
At any rate, it protects all of us (including you) by prohibiting not only all domestic and near international code share, but also prohibits the company from creating or operating an "alter-ego" or subordinate airline. That included the residual AirTran 717 fleet, continually decreasing, but working an AirTran-type operation and paying AirTran wages. The union voted in a limited-time exemption to this prohibition to give the company time to draw down that fleet in an organized manner after the acquisition, as it assimilated the employees into Southwest.
The fact that there was still 30-odd leftover 717s parked after the agreed-upon sunset of the exemption is a testament to the strength of our scope clause. The company was unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations in the agreed time, so the remaining aircraft were parked and the remaining employees immediately assimilated into our contract.
So tell us, oh great and all-knowing Freightdog dude, what should we have done?--let the company continue to operate an alter-ego airline in perpetuity? Jeez, you bitch about the existence of alter-ego, "B-scale" airline operations during the agreed-transition period, then bitch out the other side of your mouth (nearly the exact opposite argument) when the exemption period ends and it goes away. Make up your mind, already.
Bubba
I merely made a point on Howard's reference that corporations don't allow high value assets to be idled, which is a bit absurd considering in this case it's not really true for whatever the reason.
In this particular case Southwest is expecting $200 million a year boost in annual pre-tax income by replacing the 717's with 737's according to Laura Wright.
So you're just that pissed off about everything, right? Man, your life must just suck.
They were parked after 28 Dec 2014 to comply with the SWA/SWAPA CBA, and in particular, its scope clause. I'm gonna' have to assume you're not familiar with it, since your last few posts have either ridiculed its importance, or shown a marked ignorance.
At any rate, it protects all of us (including you) by prohibiting not only all domestic and near international code share, but also prohibits the company from creating or operating an "alter-ego" or subordinate airline. That included the residual AirTran 717 fleet, continually decreasing, but working an AirTran-type operation and paying AirTran wages. The union voted in a limited-time exemption to this prohibition to give the company time to draw down that fleet in an organized manner after the acquisition, as it assimilated the employees into Southwest.
The fact that there was still 30-odd leftover 717s parked after the agreed-upon sunset of the exemption is a testament to the strength of our scope clause. The company was unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations in the agreed time, so the remaining aircraft were parked and the remaining employees immediately assimilated into our contract.
So tell us, oh great and all-knowing Freightdog dude, what should we have done?--let the company continue to operate an alter-ego airline in perpetuity? Jeez, you bitch about the existence of alter-ego, "B-scale" airline operations during the agreed-transition period, then bitch out the other side of your mouth (nearly the exact opposite argument) when the exemption period ends and it goes away. Make up your mind, already.
Bubba
You left out the SkyWest CRJ's that we parked as well. Maybe those should still be flying too?
I never thought GK would keep the 717. It just doesn't fit into the one fleet type. Would have cost the company a ton more money to keep. So I guess the stock price being up is good for us all.
Well, except maybe for Flop.
Are you really this dense?
SWA was trying to get in the market in order to compete. They want to compete in the market but the two slots allowed are both being flown by two airlines flying the same code.