SWA Plans Adding 25 International Flights from FLL

[HowardBorden]

Well, you just did....and it came from a pretty reasonable, reliable, and rational source.

Even though I think you're wrong, it would seem in this case it would be hard to argue against the "turnabout is fair play " doctrine.

Considering the fact that Braniff and Texas International complained to the Civil Aeronautics Board that Southwest's operation might violate its intrastate exclusivity. Kelleher pleaded the case before the CAB. Two days before Southwest's scheduled inaugural flight, word was received that the CAB had thrown out the objections of Braniff and Texas International. But almost in the same instant, it was learned that the two carriers had won a restraining order barring Southwest from beginning service. The order was issued by the same Austin judge who issued the original injunction against the TAC decision. The Texas Supreme Court held an emergency session to hear the case, voided the injunction, and forbade the judge from involving himself with Southwest again.

 

[Andy]

SWA buried Braniff??? Wow, I don't think that is even in the "Book of SWA lore"!!

I think AMR's Bob Crandall is turning over in his ... er mansion (he ain't dead yet).

Crandall called up Braniff's CEO Howard Putnam in early 1982 and told Putnam he needed to raise his ticket prices, and AMR would do the same. Putnam recorded the conversation which he turned over to the DOJ. http://www.pricingforprofit.com/pricing-strategy-blog/number-1-no-no-in-pricing.htm

Crandall, in his embarrassment, chose to have AMR request payment for all of the Braniff interline tickets that they had been stockpiling. It was likely a huge hit to Braniff's cash reserves.

 

[waveflyer]

Come on scoreboard, you know that there is a double secret set of regulations that only apply to Southwest while every other airline in the country must comply with a completely onerous set of rules that were enacted solely to give SWA an advantage.

Did you miss that day of ground school?

That day of ground school is only at every OTHER airline's Indoc, not swa's.
At southwest, we don't talk about fight club

 

[dicko]

No SWA has not done any ETOPs runs, has AT ever had two flights get violated for Class II airspace deviations in recent history? careful how you answer...

Last question first - I have no idea. Honestly. If true .... at least we're allowed into WATRS airspace. Still electing to go the long way round because it's better ? Or perhaps it saves fuel ? Hmmm ..... fuel. That reminds me of Hawaii. No idea why

Cheers,

Merry Christmas. Hope it's a good one.

 

[tankerhead]

Well, you just did....and it came from a pretty reasonable, reliable, and rational source.

Even though I think you're wrong, it would seem in this case it would be hard to argue against the "turnabout is fair play " doctrine.

.

Agreed. Perhaps my post wasn't dripping with enough sarcasm and derision.

 

[Ty Webb]

Dang, Floppy . . . . you're grasping at seatbelt extenders, dude. . . might be time for a little vacation. :nuts:

 

[SWA Bubba]

Agreed. Perhaps my post wasn't dripping with enough sarcasm and derision.

I thought it dripped sarcasm deliciously. It made me smile.

Bubba

 

[surplus1]

Bubba

P.S. I don't live in Texas.

You sir are a wise man and blessed!

BTW, I like SWA and hope you continue to be successful wherever you go and whereever you choose to do it from. The Deltoids, et al, are just jealous of your success. And, I was just pulling your chain (or trying to).

 

[redflyer65]

Last question first - I have no idea. Honestly. If true .... at least we're allowed into WATRS airspace. Still electing to go the long way round because it's better ? Or perhaps it saves fuel ? Hmmm ..... fuel. That reminds me of Hawaii. No idea why

Cheers,

Merry Christmas. Hope it's a good one.

It's pretty simple Dicko. Can SW go into WATRS airspace right now? Absolutely. We're approved.

The planes we have that are capable are 800's. Those 800's have been found to be waaaaay more profitable to keep them on the long transcons. (ie, BWI-SAN, MDW-LAS, etc) It far outweighs the marginal fuel cost to send a 700 on BWI-SJU non-WATRS. If we outfitted some 700's with rafts, etc then maybe that would change, but for now...that's what they've decided to do.

 

[outerlimits]

I have a question for the SWA pilots


How much ,if any , far international code share are you willing to give Gary Kelly?

 

[HowardBorden]

I have a question for the SWA pilots


How much ,if any , far international code share are you willing to give Gary Kelly?

From me personally, zero. The contract currently allows zero. That language was hard fought for and I for one am not willing to sell it. However, I am only one vote. The group as a whole took less monetary gain in order to strengthen scope recently and I hope that trend continues.

 

[737tanker]

I agree 100% with Borden. I don't know of any pilot that wants to give GK anything, especially anything to do with codeshare!

 

[Dan Roman]

Just to stir the pot a little, it could be to your disadvantage to be too hard line on code share. For instance, Hawaiian code shares with Korean, ANA, Virgin Australia, JetBlue, Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America. It creates a lot of feed and it creates pilot jobs, not costs them.

 

[humveedriver]

Just to stir the pot a little, it could be to your disadvantage to be too hard line on code share. For instance, Hawaiian code shares with Korean, ANA, Virgin Australia, JetBlue, Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America. It creates a lot of feed and it creates pilot jobs, not costs them.

That's not stirring the pot. The SWA pilots will agree with whatever GK puts out. The votes speak louder than the words.

 

[vixin]

That's not stirring the pot. The SWA pilots will agree with whatever GK puts out. The votes speak louder than the words.

Says the ex tranny...then they ( not necessarily you ) do nothing but biotch about it.

 

[redflyer65]

That's an easy one...NONE.

We worked hard for the best scope in the industry and I'm not willing to give it up.

Same with retro pay. I'll be a no vote unless it's included.

 

[HowardBorden]

Just to stir the pot a little, it could be to your disadvantage to be too hard line on code share. For instance, Hawaiian code shares with Korean, ANA, Virgin Australia, JetBlue, Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America. It creates a lot of feed and it creates pilot jobs, not costs them.

If it works for you guys that's great, more power to you. You won't have any problem convincing me that it creates revenue for the company. The only question I would ask is: why not fly those passengers on Hawaiian aircraft instead of on Korean, ANA, Virgin Australia, JetBlue, Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America? Of course that is being overly simplistic I realize but the question remains what do those other airlines bring to the table that Hawaiian cannot duplicate?

 

[waveflyer]

Howard, that is simplistic. And is why a lot of other airline pilots make fun of us- there are treaties involved. And that requires a give and take- not necessarily a code share- but still. And inter country- inter-regional flying- those code shares allow a passenger to fly (ex.) inter japan on JAL then connect through Honolulu to the mainland or to Maui and have their bags flow through.

Now, I am a no vote. It was a great business decision to keep all our online sales on southwest.com and not sell out to the expedias of the world. It was a great business decision to not accept other airlines bags and passengers when they cancel or code share-

We can then control the brand and the product.

So I am an absolute no vote- but it isn't bc we can always fly the route ourselves. (Ie: I don't see us getting a dash fleet and flying to Chattanooga ourselves.) sometimes it's illegal- sometimes it doesn't make sense- but for me it's just a better business decision to fly what we fly and trust the customer will find their way to us if we're good enough. That's worked so far.

 

[humveedriver]

Says the ex tranny...then they ( not necessarily you ) do nothing but biotch about it.

Eh, this is a bitch board. Not much you can do about that. But it would be great to see a large number of OSW vote no to something, anything that they can all get behind.

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard, that is simplistic. And is why a lot of other airline pilots make fun of us- there are treaties involved. And that requires a give and take- not necessarily a code share- but still. And inter country- inter-regional flying- those code shares allow a passenger to fly (ex.) inter japan on JAL then connect through Honolulu to the mainland or to Maui and have their bags flow through.

That is exactly why I proposed it as an admittedly simplistic viewpoint. The fact remains that every passenger flown on US company equipment as opposed international joint ventures is good for the US airline industry as a whole. Joint ventures will never totally go away because they are necessary but I'm not willing to say that we necessarily need more. Where is the balance point? Are we currently as an industry capturing every passenger for US carriers as possible? I don't know the answer to that question but the more seat miles flown on US equipment the better.