SWA proposal for operation at King County

[FlyBoeingJets]

If its such a good deal to operate out of SEATAC, why is SWA offering $130 million to BFI for the permission to move? That would cover the higher fees at SEATAC for some time. Not sure how long, any guesses?

Its becuase SWA doesn't want to finance airport construction for the big widebody traffic or projects for RJ's. The international and hub and spoke carriers have advantages over SWA. Higher international revenue and higher passenger loads. Why would SWA willingly help finance their competitor's advantages as they start to post profits again?

SWA NEEDS to operate out of smaller, less expensive airports to survive. Think back to the 1980's and 1990's when legacies tried to put the squeeze on SWA. It was a tough fight. The lower load factors at SWA made it tougher. Contrary to popular opinion it is a challenge to keep posting a profit without feeder RJ's keeping loads up. SWA needs an advantage going forward. Everyone healthy will be posting profits from here on out. The fight is back on.

 

[Yank McCobb]

I'm glad I'll be gone instead of watching SWA piss away MY money on this boondoggle that will never fly.

Everyone thinks SWA can do no wrong, make no mistakes, and hold whatever city, airport, airline, community, politicians, etc hostage to their every whim. If that doesn't work, we take our ball, go home and find someone willing to play by OUR rules or not at all.

Not a great heritage to be proud of. I guess money talks and BS walks. At least that the SWA way.

While they provided me a good place to work, lifetime friendships and a nice retirement, there are many things about this place I will be none to happy to distance myself from. This sort of "our way or the highway" bully tactics is at the top of the list.

 

[Phil O'Sopher]

I'm glad I'll be gone instead of watching SWA piss away MY money on this boondoggle that will never fly.

Everyone thinks SWA can do no wrong, make no mistakes, and hold whatever city, airport, airline, community, politicians, etc hostage to their every whim. If that doesn't work, we take our ball, go home and find someone willing to play by OUR rules or not at all.

Not a great heritage to be proud of. I guess money talks and BS walks. At least that the SWA way.

While they provided me a good place to work, lifetime friendships and a nice retirement, there are many things about this place I will be none to happy to distance myself from. This sort of "our way or the highway" bully tactics is at the top of the list.

You're right. Time for you to move on. Maybe you can run an airline when you retire...oh that's right, they provided you with a nice retirement, so you won't have to work. Maybe you can spend some of your free time tying to find some perspective. Good luck.

 

[Buckaroo]

I'm glad I'll be gone instead of watching SWA piss away MY money on this boondoggle that will never fly.

Everyone thinks SWA can do no wrong, make no mistakes, and hold whatever city, airport, airline, community, politicians, etc hostage to their every whim. If that doesn't work, we take our ball, go home and find someone willing to play by OUR rules or not at all.

Not a great heritage to be proud of. I guess money talks and BS walks. At least that the SWA way.

While they provided me a good place to work, lifetime friendships and a nice retirement, there are many things about this place I will be none to happy to distance myself from. This sort of "our way or the highway" bully tactics is at the top of the list.

Get real. Southwest is the best thing to happen in the U.S. since sliced bread.

If the Seattle area and BFI don't give in to our reccommendations, then we will have no choice but to pull out. Their loss.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Whatever you all say.

How the world ever survived without SWA is beyond me. I guess I'll be off to get some "perspective". Maybe you can spoon feed it to me the way the company fed you.

While most of it tasted ok, some of it I spit out. Too bad you haven't learned to do the same. Just go along. Everything will be ok.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Yank,

I respectfully disagree with some of your assertions. I think carriers without international routes need an advantage to stay in the game.

Regards,

FBJ




Some large US airlines well poised--Fed's Gramlich
Tue Jul 26, 2005 03:08 PM ET
HONOLULU, July 26 (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Board Governor Edward Gramlich on Tuesday said large U.S. air carriers with big global networks, such as United Airlines (UALAQ.OB: Quote, Profile, Research) , face tough competition from smaller rivals but are well situated to compete.



"Low cost carriers are making real inroads" as the U.S. airline industry restructures, Gramlich, who is also chairman of the federal Air Transportation Stabilization Board, told the Hawaii Business Roundtable. "Life, I think, is probably going to be difficult for the legacy carriers, but ... from the standpoint of the consumer, this is probably good news. "I do think airlines like United with this vast international route network are well situated to compete in the future, but compete they will have to," he added.

 

[SirFlyALot]

Lance Dickie / Seattle Times editorial columnist

Spoiler Southwest should get with the program

Many, many summers ago, during a brutally hot July and August in Texas, a short, intense man with a loud voice offered counsel and guidance when I and others failed to "get with the program."

Offend his sensibilities and he might holler, "I want you to bend over, grab your ears and pull your head out of your ... " Strong, motivating advice with universal and timeless application.

Such thoughts return as I watch Southwest Airlines threaten to abandon Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and flee to Boeing Field for its own marketing self-interests.

Get with the program, people. This region has spent billions of dollars and invested enormous amounts of energy to make Sea-Tac work as a functional, attractive airport until another true regional airport is developed.

One airline is tampering with expensive, hard-fought efforts to focus airline activity and substantial environmental and noise mitigation in one place. Sea-Tac works and has capacity to meet expected growth.

Puget Sound went through agrueling exercise more than a decade ago to find an alternative to Sea-Tac. Good people searched from Chehalis to Marysville looking for a new site. There were no takers, except for those who wanted to punch a hole in the Cascades and use magnetic-levitation trains to haul passengers to a Moses Lake airfield.

The opposition was deeper than not-in-my-backyard, though that was a potent theme. East of the mountains, travelers and shippers saw Sea-Tac as a truly statewide airport and they wanted coherent service for freight and direct transfers to connecting flights from smaller carriers serving their communities.

Bellevue businessman Bob Wallace ably led a large, broad panel that spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to sift information and listen.

Airlines made it clear that federal deregulation of their industry empowered them to say "no" to leaving Sea-Tac. They would not budge. Besides, a third, all-weather runway allowed them to get on the ground faster and save fuel.

Maybe the ideal solution would have been to build a second Sea-Tac equivalent, but no community stepped forward, state leadership never materialized, Federal Aviation Administration regulators were not happy, and the airlines were not interested. General aviation protected its turf, and conflicts with military airspace sprouted from McChord to Whidbey.

Sea-Tac expansion set off years of lawsuits and political fistfights, and stupendous expenditures to soundproof schools and channel storm water through gilded troughs.

Politicians, such as Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, then a rookie county councilman, opposed the third runway at Sea-Tac, but dutifully supported expansion once a regional decision was made. Lots of pols did, and must now shake their heads.

Did the Port of Seattle do Southwest Airlines wrong? That is supposed to be the headline, but all airlines have been signing off on projects and divvying costs for more than a decade.

Expansion plans that turned Sea-Tac into a shopping mall are hardly new to the industry. Ports and airlines across the country look to trapped consumers to spend money and help pay down airport overhead. The trend started long before 9/11, but the extra time passengers build into their schedules for clearing security leaves them at loose ends to shop and eat. And they do.

Port of Seattle officials are entirely too glib about cutting projects that could prevent Sound Transit from connecting to the airport. They must see political value in squeezing King County Executive Ron Sims in his entrepreneurial moment with Boeing Field, but they are in dangerous territory.

Don't play games with light rail to the airport, the one link that holds the imagination of taxpayers.

The Port of Seattle needs to stay focused in this fight. Rethink hundreds of millions of dollars for a rental-car barn, but get Sound Transit to Sea-Tac.

Southwest is offering to give the community a gift of a new terminal at Boeing Field. The word "give" is the first hint to put a hand over one's wallet or purse. This proposal offers no more than a reprise of lawsuits, environmental fights, noise mitigation, duplicated infrastructure, raids on Sea-Tac resources and swipes at the public treasury.

Puget Sound already has a plan. For sheer novelty, finish it.

Lance Dickie's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is [email protected]

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Lance Dickie / Seattle Times editorial columnist

Get with the program, people. This region has spent billions of dollars and invested enormous amounts of energy to make Sea-Tac work as a functional, attractive airport until another true regional airport is developed.

One airline is tampering with expensive, hard-fought efforts to focus airline activity and substantial environmental and noise mitigation in one place.

Puget Sound went through agrueling exercise more than a decade ago to find an alternative to Sea-Tac.

Maybe the ideal solution would have been to build a second Sea-Tac equivalent, but no community stepped forward, state leadership never materialized, Federal Aviation Administration regulators were not happy, and the airlines were not interested.

Sea-Tac expansion set off years of lawsuits and political fistfights...


Politicians, such as Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, then a rookie county councilman, opposed the third runway at Sea-Tac, but dutifully supported expansion once a regional decision was made. Lots of pols did, and must now shake their heads.

Port of Seattle officials are entirely too glib about cutting projects that could prevent Sound Transit from connecting to the airport.

Don't play games with light rail to the airport, the one link that holds the imagination of taxpayers.

The Port of Seattle needs to stay focused in this fight. Rethink hundreds of millions of dollars for a rental-car barn, but get Sound Transit to Sea-Tac.

Southwest is offering to give the community a gift of a new terminal at Boeing Field. The word "give" is the first hint to put a hand over one's wallet or purse. This proposal offers no more than a reprise of lawsuits, environmental fights, noise mitigation, duplicated infrastructure, raids on Sea-Tac resources and swipes at the public treasury.

Puget Sound already has a plan. For sheer novelty, finish it.

Lance Dickie's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is [email protected]

This guy is all over the map. You can see his agenda is the light rail project and he fears it is in question.


The way I read this article Seattle and the FAA didn't like the SEATAC expansion but agreed to it after lawsuits and political arm twisting. In fact, they were looking for another airport to serve Seattle to better manage the air traffic and offer the people more choice. So why is airline activity now being focused on one spot? Why is that good? Oh, I see, so Seattle can spend big bucks on sound proofing schools and SEATAC gets more usage fees. That makes perfect sense. SEATAC doesn't want to lose "its" customers. Same old story. If the government made all decisions about airports there would be only one per big city and everyone would ride the train to the big city to get on a flight. I'm sure that would be better for the construction projects at those airports.


They got mad when Midway got more traffic in Chicago. Now O'hare is still getting billions for expansion. Midway did not hurt growth in Chicago, it strenthened it.

SWA is now trying to help to fill the identified need for another regional airport in Seattle (I know, for gain, but that is not hidden). That will truly help increased demand in the future. Seattle will eventually need it and it will help spur even more growth. Most arguments against using Boeing field don't focus on what should be important to Seattle but on peripheral issues. The reality is traffic is increasing steadily and SEATAC and Boeing will both prosper. But SEATAC will see slowed growth. But they will see growth. The light rail can still be built and shuttles can be scheduled between SEATAC and Boeing. Not a big deal.


"Get with the Program"? Please. Get a decent look at future city and traffic growth, not just your own pet projects and bureacratic decision making.

Then this guy says all this nasty stuff about Herb Kelleher. Very classy. I trust his comments without question.

 

[SirFlyALot]

Chalk one up for Alaska. Southwest loses this part of the political battle for BFI.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002421712_southwest05m.html

Lawmakers against Southwest's proposal

By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times staff reporter

Most of Washington state's congressional delegation and local business leaders blasted Southwest Airlines' proposal to operate from a refurbished Boeing Field, adding powerful voices to a growing chorus of opposition.

But a top aide to King County Executive Ron Sims described the criticism as premature and inaccurate.

In a letter to Sims dated July 29, both U.S. senators and five House members from Washington said Southwest Airlines' proposal to transfer its flights to Boeing Field from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport would "potentially waste taxpayer dollars."

The delegation argued Southwest's presence at Boeing Field would "undoubtedly require significant road improvements," they wrote.

Since federal laws prohibit money generated by Boeing Field to be used for general-access roads, King County would need an infusion of public money "when the city, county and state are desperately searching for funding solutions for critical regional projects."

A move by Dallas-based Southwest from Sea-Tac also would hurt Alaska Airlines, which is headquartered in Seattle, and threaten 3,800 local jobs, according to the letter.

In a separate missive, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce yesterday wrote the plan "is not in the best interests of King County taxpayers... ."

What's more, Southwest's move could harm Sea-Tac and "greatly harm our region's future aspirations for more international carriers and routes," the chamber letter said.

Sims' chief of staff, Kurt Triplett, responded that few if any public dollars would be used. "We've been crystal clear that we have no money to invest in Boeing Field," he said.

Sims wrote his own letter earlier this week to mayors and community groups, assuring them all potential downsides to the Southwest deal would be explored.

"And it is my sincerest hope that you and the people of this region take time to study the proposal, as I will, before coming to a conclusion about whether it is worthwhile," wrote Sims.

Southwest said last month it wants to build a new terminal at Boeing Field and run up to 85 daily flights there, compared with 38 now at Sea-Tac, to avoid increased per-passenger costs that would help pay for Sea-Tac's $4.2 billion, 10-year expansion.

Southwest said it can't offer low fares without moving.

In a move that could delay or scuttle efforts to connect Sound Transit's light-rail line to Sea-Tac, the Port of Seattle announced it is putting about $580 million in airport-expansion projects on hold until it knows whether Southwest will decamp to the county-owned airport.

The congressional letter was not signed by Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, whose district includes Boeing Field. His spokesman, Mike DeCesare, said: "Jim's gathering information and wants to understand the issue from both sides."

Reps. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, and Cathy McMorris, R-Spokane, also did not sign it.

In the last congressional election, Alaska Airlines' political action committee contributed $10,000 to House members from Washington. It also donated $3,000 to Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Southwest gave $2,000 to Murray.

"Alaska Airlines has worked hard on the delegation," said Triplett, adding: "Southwest is a good corporate citizen who only buys Boeing planes."

Many of the delegation's concerns, he said, are unfounded. The impact of Southwest's move on Alaska Airlines' bottom line is not known, Triplett said.

As for the threatened 3,800 jobs, he said: "I have no idea where that number came from. I don't know how anyone could be that precise."

In its letter, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce wrote: "We do not see the wisdom of two commercial airports ... simultaneously competing for scarce federal and regional infrastructure and security dollars."

Triplett said the chamber was swayed by the Port of Seattle, which has a financial interest in keeping airlines at its Sea-Tac facility. "That's what's most galling," he said.

In the coming months, Sims will likely use existing resources to study noise, potential road improvements and other impacts of expanding Boeing Field. If the numbers look promising, Sims will ask the King County Council for further funds to conduct an exhaustive examination of the Southwest plan.

"Let's take a deep breath and do a real analysis," said Triplett. "All we want to do is have people give us time to study this."

 

[jetalc]

... and they're all about a good customer service experience.

LOL...uh-huh...