SWA Attempts To Steal Routes - Denied

[HowardBorden]

If UAL didn't want to compete with you, then why did they actively lobby the DOJ to intervene and gain the extra bilateral rights?!

They actively lobbied for extra bilateral rights in order to keep both slots that they currently control. Had they not done that there was the possibility that they would have had to reduce capacity in that market. At least until January 2016, that is, when all restrictions on routes will be lifted.

 

[SWA Bubba]

If UAL didn't want to compete with you, then why did they actively lobby the DOJ to intervene and gain the extra bilateral rights?! You got what you wanted. UAL was in favor of you getting the rights. Read the facts guys. You've got no defense on this. None!! You're both completely full of crap on this, and honestly I think you need to retract and apologize for these two misleading and somewhat slanderous posts.

Well, my guess would be that United lobbied for "extra bilateral rights," because they could see the writing on the wall.... That would be the writing where the Mexican authorities stated that they were likely to grant Southwest's request and give them one of United's two route authorities. Looks like the Mexicans also wanted some other airline to compete with United. Remember, you guys had both available route authorities for one company's flying, which prevented any competition in the slightest. But that's the way you like it, right?--not having to compete with anyone else.

Your both acting pissy about this. And it makes pretty clear that you were a lot less interested in the work and the chance to compete, than you were in seeing something taken from a legacy, and handed to SWA.

That's pretty funny, considering that you literally wrote the book on "pissy." You and your airline spend a considerable amount of time and money trying to limit/delay/screw over Southwest, and generally to keep from having to compete with Southwest, when they should be expending that effort in running your own damn business.

And doing this IS working and competing--head to head competition with you. How are we supposed to "work and compete," when your airline locks up all the available authority to prevent having any actual competition? Wanna' explain that to us?

My thought is this: SWA wanted to steal something from an airline already doing it, to not only knock out a competitor and take their passengers, but it would also allow them to not involve Mexico's aviation authorities. Now that SWA has taken a favor, when Mexico takes issue with the lack of gates at Hobby, SWA and the city of Houston are going to owe them a favor. And I think what they're going to want is accommodation at the SWA owned gates, when the single common use isn't available.

Your thought is wrong. The Mexican authorities are the final arbiter on who gets to fly there, and they were already directly involved. They indicated that they wanted Southwest to have route authority, and you can bet your bottom dollar that's the ONLY reason that United would ask them to just add supplemental rights.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

They actively lobbied for extra bilateral rights in order to keep both slots that they currently control. Had they not done that there was the possibility that they would have had to reduce capacity in that market. At least until January 2016, that is, when all restrictions on routes will be lifted.

United proposed an inclusive agreement that increased competition. They involved the DGAC thru DOJ. We're talking about a matter of days here as to when you could actually launch. Clearly SWA wanted to pull a fast one and escape the normal market. You're busted! But keep posting...

 

[Flopgut]

And doing this IS working and competing--head to head competition with you. How are we supposed to "work and compete," when your airline locks up all the available authority to prevent having any actual competition? Wanna' explain that to us?

You're way off on what competition is. And btw, you also need to understand better that what we do abroad is: commerce. There's give and take. Give comes before take. Arrogance usually only causes problems. Take the example set by JetBlue or Spirit. Those airlines aren't afraid to let the work speak for itself. Get in where they can fit in and go fly. I'm not sure SWA has ever done that.

And another btw: you guys got the wrong jet. You're belly can't carry much freight ($) to begin with, not to mention its full of free bags. That's like dos Equis Bubba

 

[humveedriver]

United proposed an inclusive agreement that increased competition. They involved the DGAC thru DOJ. We're talking about a matter of days here as to when you could actually launch. Clearly SWA wanted to pull a fast one and escape the normal market. You're busted! But keep posting...

I don't care what Southwest Airlines does as long as it benefits me. I hope they explore any and all new markets, to include int'l out of HOU, FLL and maybe PHX down the road. Belize is pending approval. Hope they add two new int'l cities a year not counting Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal, which I hope they add as soon as possible.

 

[HowardBorden]

Clearly SWA wanted to pull a fast one and escape the normal market. You're busted! But keep posting...

OK Flop I will keep posting------here you go!


In its petition to the federal government, Southwest suggested United withdraw one of its routes. United and SkyWest urged, instead, that the department grant Southwest its request routes without disrupting existing operations.

The City of Houston weighed in, stating that Southwest should be an addition on the routes and that is did not want to lose existing service.

In its decision, the Department said U.S. officials asked the Mexican government to allow extra routes. The request was granted. "We find that the public interest warrants our approval of Southwest's application," according to the Department's decision.

 

[Flopgut]

OK Flop I will keep posting------here you go!


In its petition to the federal government, Southwest suggested United withdraw one of its routes. United and SkyWest urged, instead, that the department grant Southwest its request routes without disrupting existing operations.

The City of Houston weighed in, stating that Southwest should be an addition on the routes and that is did not want to lose existing service.

In its decision, the Department said U.S. officials asked the Mexican government to allow extra routes. The request was granted. "We find that the public interest warrants our approval of Southwest's application," according to the Department's decision.

Thank you. Keep up the posts like this one^^^^^^^

Saves me having to further argue my already rock solid point.

 

[Flopgut]

I don't care what Southwest Airlines does as long as it benefits me. I hope they explore any and all new markets, to include int'l out of HOU, FLL and maybe PHX down the road. Belize is pending approval. Hope they add two new int'l cities a year not counting Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal, which I hope they add as soon as possible.

You should consider that actions like this on the part of SWA might not be benefiting you. You guys are punching your clown over all these potential new destinations, just remember to do the work. Stfu and fly this stuff. Stop trying to grift the system.

 

[SWA Bubba]

You should consider that actions like this on the part o

f SWA might not be benefiting you. You guys are punching your clown over all these potential new destinations, just remember to do the work. Stfu and fly this stuff. Stop trying to grift the system.

Ha! "Stfu and fly" is advice I've been giving YOU for years.

Mexico wanted us to fly those routes; they came out and said so, by saying they were inclined to grant Southwest's request. You remember, to get a little competition with United. Perhaps get a little lower fare structure for their people, with two airlines on the route, instead of just United's monopoly. And "grifting"? We have a long list of cities/airports who constantly ask us to fly to their airports to provide competition with entrenched incumbent legacies. Sorry if it cuts into your profit a little, when you have to actually compete, and can't just charge whatever you want, like you're used to on your monopoly routes.

And we do all the work necessary. Actually, we often have to do more than is necessary, since we have to expend extra effort rebutting Unical's constant and incessant objections and obstructions into our business. What's up with that, Flop? Why don't you guys just stfu and fly?

BTW, what does "punching your clown" mean? Is that a euphemism for what you do on your overnights?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba I've been there and done that. Bought the t shirt. Then I went back and got another t shirt. Seriously, is there an airline in history that has a bigger mouth than SWA, and also has a smaller body of work. Consider checking your arrogance about how you'll be received in Mexico. They have their own LCCs and they're not real excited about letting them be fodder for a bunch of loud mouths that think they're liberating a wasteland.

Question: Do you think you would have not been able to acquire these routes from Unical if we flew from the same airport? If we shared a departure airport, I think you would have got them. See your cozy relationship with a very average mayor, and your attempts to stack the deck at hobby are perhaps not really paying off.

 

[redflyer65]

....and the fact that Unical left Houston like a fart in the wind.

 

[HowardBorden]

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.

 

[redflyer65]

I always thought that was funny too. 'Do the work'.

We'll fly around 3800 flights a day this summer. I think that counts as 'doing the work'.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

That's good work. I'm not saying I don't think you can do it, I think once you start seeing the rest of the world you'll quit being such enormous a-holes. Quit falling for the SWA rally bs, and the gk is a Christ figure stuff. Acknowledge that this route stealing stuff ought to be beneath you..

 

[HowardBorden]

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.

 

[outerlimits]

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

 

[Flopgut]

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 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

 

[Flopgut]

I do it also. I am not even mainline


Nothing says pay check to me better than codeshare

You're adorable. Seriously, don't beat yourself up kiddo

 

[HowardBorden]

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

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.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

I'll agree with you on that. Es todo bien. De nada.

 

[freightdogfred]

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

 

[SWA Bubba]

Ya mean like the 32 B717's parked in the desert on Dec 28th? Oh yeah they were money losers I forgot

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

 

[madjack]

We couldn't keep those...going from a -300 to -717 would have been too challenging[emoji2]

 

[freightdogfred]

We couldn't keep those...going from a -300 to -717 would have been too challenging[emoji2]

For you, of this I have no doubt. Seeing as you were prob spoon-fed the first time around I'm sure they would have found a seat for ya somewheres.

 

[freightdogfred]

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

My life suck? Hardly. Since you've obviously been scrutinizing my posts you must have noticed numerous references to me being a company man. GK has made me a ton of money on LUV stock so whatever is good for the company I'm all for it. 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. I applaud GK's decision to do so as it was another carrot for the SWAPA to demonstrate their iron will leadership. Chips will be cashed in, the piper will be paid and a contract will appear sooner than later methinks. Just remember, when SWAPA trots out the TA to you the first offer is always the best.

 

[HowardBorden]

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.

 

[27 driver]

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.

Are they replacing them. Last I heard the fleet was smaller. One for one would be great.

 

[redflyer65]

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.

 

[27 driver]

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.

Not apples to apples oh clairvoyant one. Gary didn't own the Skywest planes.

 

[Ex737Driver]

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.

And apparently since SWA WANTED to do something, everyone else should just bend over and allow it to happen? So using that logic, DAL wants to fly multiple cities from DAL so SWA should just allow it to happen so that competition can be achieved. Hard to take when it's turned on you. And for the record, there are several other routes fly by Mexican carriers. Maybe SWA should try and take one of those.