SWA proposal for operation at King County

[QCappy]

I guess what I don't understand is, if everyone's costs are the same at SEA-TAC, then how can Southwest claim that they cannot continue there? Wouldn't it therefore be a level playing field compared to the other airlines that operate out of there? They may not be able to offer the fares they want, but they still could offer competitive fares.

I think it comes down to the fact that if they move to KBFI, they would then raise the costs for every competitor at KSEA. Therefore gaining an advantage.

As a resident of Seattle I can guarantee that this move will not happen. As stated before, the noise issues, and the political issues will never let it happen. If the fact that it has taken Seattle over 40 years to build a light rail system is any indication of the political red tape in this town, I can't see this will ever happen.

 

[traffic pilot]

Yea Alaska homtown airline. Well I believe every single airplane SWA has ever purchased and flown has been built by the folks in Seattle.

 

[canyonblue]

I guess what I don't understand is, if everyone's costs are the same at SEA-TAC, then how can Southwest claim that they cannot continue there?

Same reason we left Denver, costs. If everyone wants to pay high costs to fly out of SEA-TAC fine, they can have it. Just like DEN we will leave, unless there is an alternative, and BFI might be it. And as far as us leaving SEA I agree with Herb,......"if Sea-Tac is so fragile that it can't handle losing 8% of it's revenue, then it shouldn't have been built."

 

[Buckaroo]

Great post about Herb's visit to Boeing. He truly is the messiah of the airline industry.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

I guess what I don't understand is, if everyone's costs are the same at SEA-TAC, then how can Southwest claim that they cannot continue there? Wouldn't it therefore be a level playing field compared to the other airlines that operate out of there? They may not be able to offer the fares they want, but they still could offer competitive fares.

I think it comes down to the fact that if they move to KBFI, they would then raise the costs for every competitor at KSEA. Therefore gaining an advantage.

This is Bass ackwards thinking. If someone wants to fly out of an airport, and the public wants it, it should happen. Noise will be low with the -700's being quieter and quicker to altitude.

But I'm just a Libertarian at heart. I can tell you aren't.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Yea Alaska homtown airline. Well I believe every single airplane SWA has ever purchased and flown has been built by the folks in Seattle.

So do half the airlines in the world. So what? It appears you have no idea about local politics. It's the same everywhere. Just look out our own backdoor in Dallas.

I still say this will never happen for a host of reasons. Not the least of which is Alaska's clout with the people and politicians out THEIR own backdoor.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Same reason we left Denver, costs.

Were you around when we left Denver? It had nothing to do with costs. (Well, the pissing contest was about different things, and cost was one of them, but if Denver's cost was such an issue, and the ONLY issue, then we would be in Colorado Springs, or the Front Range airport.) It had everything to do with Herb and Roy Romer's pissing contest. Herb took his ball and went home and vowed never to come back. Not only to Denver but anywhere in Colorado.

It is no coincidence that SWA has not been back since. I'm not saying never like Herb did...but probably not in my lifetime, and certainly not in my lifetime at SWA.

 

[SirFlyALot]

Same reason we left Denver, costs. If everyone wants to pay high costs to fly out of SEA-TAC fine, they can have it. Just like DEN we will leave, unless there is an alternative, and BFI might be it. And as far as us leaving SEA I agree with Herb,......"if Sea-Tac is so fragile that it can't handle losing 8% of it's revenue, then it shouldn't have been built."

Canyonblue; I don't have a complete breakdown of financial data for the Port of Seattle's operations at Sea-Tac, however I think it is safe to say that it would do okay without SWA. Herb saying what he did was nothing more than hyperbole. He knows better than you or I that Sea-Tac is in no way dependent on SWA for it's continued existence.

HOWEVER, Sea-Tac does depend to a great extent on Alaska Airlines. If SWA's withdrawal from Sea-Tac forces Alaska Airlines to follow suit, then THAT would be a severe blow to Sea-Tac.

Overall, I think this latest episode in SWA's new chapter speaks volumes. The once perennial underdog has emerged the swaggering bully. Don't forget that SWA agreed all along to the various projects that have been initiated at Sea-Tac. As M.R. Dinsmore, Port of Seattle CEO, pointed out, "It is important to note that Southwest voted consistently to approve and financially support the expansion and remodeling at the airport." Perhaps SWA never signed any legally binding contracts regarding Sea-Tac. However, if what Dinsmore said is true, then what SWA is proposing is eithcally shady. I'm sure all of the SWA-Aid drinkers out there will scream in protest, "It's business, stupid! Gary and Herb have every right to do what they've gotta do. It's a dog-eat-dog world." Keep telling yourselves that. You reap what you sow.

 

[canyonblue]

HOWEVER, Sea-Tac does depend to a great extent on Alaska Airlines. If SWA's withdrawal from Sea-Tac forces Alaska Airlines to follow suit, then THAT would be a severe blow to Sea-Tac.

Ask DFW about Delta.

As M.R. Dinsmore, Port of Seattle CEO, pointed out, "It is important to note that Southwest voted consistently to approve and financially support the expansion and remodeling at the airport."

The model is Low Cost, Low Fare. If it doesn't fit we better quit. If the other airlines want to play there fine, they can have it. We can always find another place to fly. Im glad Kelly has been taking these stands, no one else will. Then again, since no one else could afford it should we just go along with the masses.

Find me an airport in the US that is not having construction, remodeling etc. What happened to the original intent of the passenger service fee? SEA-TAC has gone nuts, they need to quit complaining. The Airports survive only because of the Airlines, they are all starting to figure that out. Too late for some.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Overall, I think this latest episode in SWA's new chapter speaks volumes. The once perennial underdog has emerged the swaggering bully. Don't forget that SWA agreed all along to the various projects that have been initiated at Sea-Tac. As M.R. Dinsmore, Port of Seattle CEO, pointed out, "It is important to note that Southwest voted consistently to approve and financially support the expansion and remodeling at the airport." Perhaps SWA never signed any legally binding contracts regarding Sea-Tac. However, if what Dinsmore said is true, then what SWA is proposing is eithcally shady. I'm sure all of the SWA-Aid drinkers out there will scream in protest, "It's business, stupid! Gary and Herb have every right to do what they've gotta do. It's a dog-eat-dog world." Keep telling yourselves that. You reap what you sow.

Whoever is responsible for not getting SWA to agree, in writing, with expensive fees is feeling pretty low right now. He or she is going all out to paint SWA as the bad guy. It's just human nature. Managers in government, and elsewhere, try to cover their butt by getting everyone to "agree" to a course of action, even when no actually does. Otherwise they risk their jobs and reputation. These managers have to answer to higher ups that often tell them what kind of deal to get no matter what. I'm sure the SEATAC machine was/is at work trying to prevent any other regional airport from stealing "their" business. I need more convincing to think otherwise.

As far as who is ethically challenged, we will have to disagree. Trying to strong arm an airline into agreeing to humungous fees is not very ethical to me.


BTW, the argument that Alaska could move and hurt SEATAC is ridiculous. They have feeder traffic that requires a hub and spoke friendly airport. Just panic inducing rhetoric from people who want to manipulate you.

Seattle is big enough to support 2 airports just fine. Traffic will increase with a SWA move to BFI. There is a balance that will eventually be achieved. Hub and spoke carriers will have their loyal customers and advantages and point to point will have theirs. We can all live in harmony