Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Swa Takes It On Chin At Lax

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
lowecur

lowecur

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
2,317
"In the 25 years I've represented Southwest Airlines, I've never seen a fee increase of this magnitude," said Ron Ricks, the carrier's executive vice president of law, airports and public affairs, in a telephone interview after the meeting.

Maybe we can get a little cheese with the whine.:laugh: Most of the legacy's are locked into long term leases but not SWA or other LCCs. Sorry Ron but when you open a station in PHL, it doesn't leave you a lot of room for a valid arguement. LAX is still cheap by all standards, and SWA will just have to add an extra $4. onto the ticket.

:pimp:
​



http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...5400691.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
 
Typical Lowecur thread, SWA bashing as expected.....You have to read the link to get the full understanding. Not just SWA operates out of terminal 1 (3), There are other airlines that will be affected by this increase.
 
Airport officials argue that rate hikes are necessary to cover the agency's costs and that the agency needs the money to make improvements to the aging airport.
Click to expand...

READ: So we can pay for the upgrades to the runway to support the A380.
 
Airlines affected:

America West
Southwest Airlines
US Airways
AirTran Airways
Alaska Airlines
American Trans Air
Frontier Airlines
Horizon Air
Midwest Express Airlines
Spirit Airlines
 
Time to pull-out of LAX. Juarez is close-by right? Maby it can be our LA relief airport. There are probably no airport costs there. Wonder if they have an el Starbuckso? Plus it will provide a seamless transition to our beginning of Int'l ops.
 
lowecur said:
"In the 25 years I've represented Southwest Airlines, I've never seen a fee increase of this magnitude," said Ron Ricks, the carrier's executive vice president of law, airports and public affairs, in a telephone interview after the meeting.

Maybe we can get a little cheese with the whine.:laugh: Most of the legacy's are locked into long term leases but not SWA or other LCCs. Sorry Ron but when you open a station in PHL, it doesn't leave you a lot of room for a valid arguement. LAX is still cheap by all standards, and SWA will just have to add an extra $4. onto the ticket.
Click to expand...

Dear lowecur,

To correct your first statement, according to the article here is their reaction and some might say "whine":

HTML: 
Carriers with long-term leases at LAX threatened to sue over the new fees, saying that they violate the terms of existing leases. Airport officials contend that the leases don't specify a formula for calculating charges
I assume you didn't read this portion of it or feel their actions merited highlighting.

Your subsequent statements match up well with the perceptions many have of the carriers and is best illustrated by your cavalier statement in which I highlighted the word, "just". From looking at the statement in the article from the airport manager and your's above, you have all the makings of a wonderful, consumer friendly airport manager careerist:
HTML: 
"I don't believe there would be a public uprising if the cost per ticket went up $4.80," Rothenberg said. "I don't appreciate the implication that we're anti-business."

I'm proud to see someone from our company standup and point out that "merely passing it on to the consumer" does nothing but show an arrogance for the folks who pay the bills. When all of the airlines at SEA rolled over and agreed to the huge jump in landing fees in '03, the ONLY CARRIER that failed to go along with that was SWA. What happened? After a long drawn out battle, the other carriers got on board (LCC & legacies), held the SEATAC folks feet to the fire and began making them accountable to the consumer for the waste that was subsequently found, only though because one carrier said "no, we're not paying".....kind of what the consumer will do to any of us who price ourselves out of the market. Yes the fees went up but significantly less than what they originally were to do.

No the fees aren't exorbitant maybe compared to PHL but who is watching over the LAX folks in holding them accountable for their expenditures. Please don't tell me the politicians or even the airport authority....unless a voice of sanity is thrown out that has some connection to the basic business, it will be met with the attitude you displayed, "just" make the consumer pay. This battle has been fought by SWA for 35 years and when we stop "whining" publicly on behalf of the consumer and remain silent like others may, then SWA will be thrown in the same trash heap of legacy carriers that are doomed to failure who fail to respond to the basic laws of supply and demand.

Good luck jr airport manager:) ! Merry Christmas BTW, I'm sure the consumer would find your thoughts perfect for this time of the season.
 
Whataburger said:
Time to pull-out of LAX. Juarez is close-by right? Maby it can be our LA relief airport. There are probably no airport costs there. Wonder if they have an el Starbuckso? Plus it will provide a seamless transition to our beginning of Int'l ops.
Click to expand...

Juarez is across the border from El Paso, TX ;)
 
Chase for SWAPA - President!!!
 
Lowecur,

BTW, this quote from the WSJ the other day sums it up....

"For example, a recent study found that in the year 2000 travelers would have been $20 billion worse off due to higher fares and less frequent service if Southwest Airlines did not exist at all. "


What this really means to other carriers who may have the same approach as the LAX airport manager and JAM (junior airport manager) Lowecur have toward the consumer is "hey, I could've gouged another $20 billion from the consumer if SWA wasn't here....those bastards!"

Folks may argue the economics of job loss and other issues but it is called a "free market system" for a reason. Government officials are not tied to this system and aren't held accountable in the same manner as a business. They will return to their homes, enjoy their perks regardless of the job losses or gains in our industry. It is called accountability and thankfully guys like Ron Ricks call a spade a spade.
 
canyonblue said:
Airlines affected:

America West
Southwest Airlines
US Airways
AirTran Airways
Alaska Airlines
American Trans Air
Frontier Airlines
Horizon Air
Midwest Express Airlines
Spirit Airlines
Click to expand...

More than that. The article says that maintenance fees will be doubled to ALL airlines at LAX, meaning the UAL, AA, and CO get the shaft along with all the others. Yet, here's LoweCur gettin' all giddy.

Commisioners said it shouldn't be difficult to pass the increases on to their customers.
Click to expand...
Funny. It's difficult for us to pass any other costs (i.e. fuel) on to our passengers, yet it shouldn't be difficult to pass THIS along? Do these "commisioners" have any idea what running an airline is all about?

These increases in fees could mean that flyers start looking even harder at some of the "reliever" airports in the area that the LCC's serve. Great move, LAWA.
 
Last edited:
chase said:
Dear lowecur,

To correct your first statement, according to the article here is their reaction and some might say "whine":

HTML: 
Carriers with long-term leases at LAX threatened to sue over the new fees, saying that they violate the terms of existing leases. Airport officials contend that the leases don't specify a formula for calculating charges
I assume you didn't read this portion of it or feel their actions merited highlighting. Then let them stop posturing and sue.

Your subsequent statements match up well with the perceptions many have of the carriers and is best illustrated by your cavalier statement in which I highlighted the word, "just". From looking at the statement in the article from the airport manager and your's above, you have all the makings of a wonderful, consumer friendly airport manager careerist:
HTML: 
"I don't believe there would be a public uprising if the cost per ticket went up $4.80," Rothenberg said. "I don't appreciate the implication that we're anti-business."
Rothenberg happens to be right. Even with the increase, LAX is no where near the fees charged by many major airports. If the consumers can't afford $4.80, then let them go to BUR or LGB.

I'm proud to see someone from our company standup and point out that "merely passing it on to the consumer" does nothing but show an arrogance for the folks who pay the bills. When all of the airlines at SEA rolled over and agreed to the huge jump in landing fees in '03, the ONLY CARRIER that failed to go along with that was SWA. What happened? After a long drawn out battle, the other carriers got on board (LCC & legacies), held the SEATAC folks feet to the fire and began making them accountable to the consumer for the waste that was subsequently found, only though because one carrier said "no, we're not paying".....kind of what the consumer will do to any of us who price ourselves out of the market. Yes the fees went up but significantly less than what they originally were to do. Actually, SWA threatened to move to another airport and build a terminal.....Remember? No the fees aren't exorbitant maybe compared to PHL but who is watching over the LAX folks in holding them accountable for their expenditures. Please don't tell me the politicians or even the airport authority....unless a voice of sanity is thrown out that has some connection to the basic business, it will be met with the attitude you displayed, "just" make the consumer pay. This battle has been fought by SWA for 35 years and when we stop "whining" publicly on behalf of the consumer and remain silent like others may, then SWA will be thrown in the same trash heap of legacy carriers that are doomed to failure who fail to respond to the basic laws of supply and demand. So why did you go into PHL? Now that you're there, I don't see any outcry from SWA over the outlandish fees being charged. Don't the consumers at PHL rate in SWA's opinion? Let me tell you why. SWA went into PHL because they were hoping to help US Air out the door.

Good luck SR airport manager:) ! Merry Christmas BTW, I'm sure the consumer would find your thoughts perfect for this time of the season.
Click to expand...
LAX at $11. per pax is probably in line with the New York Airports, Chicago, Washington, Seattle, and Miami. SWA just went in to IAD where the fees are around $9., and they would very much like to buy gates and slots at BOS, LGA, and DCA (all high fee airports).

Will the threat of lawsuits and a statement from WN force LAX to reduce the fees somewhat. Maybe, maybe not. Let's be clear about this, in either case WN is not lobbying for the consumer, they are lobbying for their own pocketbook.;)

:pimp:​
 
lowecur said:
Let's be clear about this, in either case WN is not lobbying for the consumer, they are lobbying for their own pocketbook.;) :pimp:
Click to expand...

Lowecur,

Let's be extra clear then, SWA's pocketbook is directly tied to the consumer's pocketbook....SWA is concerned for their yes, but SWA realizes that ignoring the consumer's will cost us everything...they are directly related so arguing for one is arguing for the other....kind of a hard concept for some to follow or comprehend...it has nothing to do with esoterics or being hollier than though, it is simply called good business practice.
 
lowecur said:
LAX at $11. per pax is probably in line with the New York Airports, Chicago, Washington, Seattle, and Miami. SWA just went in to IAD where the fees are around $9., and they would very much like to buy gates and slots at BOS, LGA, and DCA (all high fee airports).
Click to expand...


What, you sit on the board at WN now? You know for a fact that SWA wants gates at Boston and LaGuardia?
lowecur said:
Will the threat of lawsuits and a statement from WN force LAX to reduce the fees somewhat. Maybe, maybe not. Let's be clear about this, in either case WN is not lobbying for the consumer, they are lobbying for their own pocketbook.
Click to expand...

Did you not read the article? SWA isn't the only airline that's pissed about this. In fact, ALL the airlines are pissed about this.

How can you be "clear about this," yet still not make any sense whatsoever?
 
lowecur

Why does anyone respond to someone (lowecur )that has a boy for his pic. I think I saw lowecur on Dateline not to long ago.
 
"Airport officials argue that rate hikes are necessary to cover the agency's costs and that the agency needs the money to make improvements to the aging airport."

LAX is just passing the buck for that ridiculous runway construction for 25L for the A380. They will never be able to cover the expense from landing fees from an airplane that has seen drastic reductions in orders.
 
Soccer Stud said:
"Airport officials argue that rate hikes are necessary to cover the agency's costs and that the agency needs the money to make improvements to the aging airport."

LAX is just passing the buck for that ridiculous runway construction for 25L for the A380. They will never be able to cover the expense from landing fees from an airplane that has seen drastic reductions in orders.
Click to expand...
Correct, why do other airlines customers have to pay for that monstrous lemon? That thing should be banned in the US.
 
slaquer5 said:
Why does anyone respond to someone (lowecur )that has a boy for his pic. I think I saw lowecur on Dateline not to long ago.
Click to expand...

I saw that special too.....Disturbing!
Sorry for the thread hijack! Back to your regularly scheduled bashfest!

737
 
FlyBarneyJets said:
What, you sit on the board at WN now? Maybe I do. I'm a good risk mgr. ;) You know for a fact that SWA wants gates at Boston and LaGuardia? Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Maybe you should read the papers. It has plenty of good quotes from the BOD.

Southwest Airlines Co., the biggest low-fare carrier, would consider buying gates, planes and other assets sold in a merger of US Airways Group Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc., Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly said.

Southwest Chairman Herb Kelleher called US Airways CEO Doug Parker and Delta CEO Gerald Grinstein to convey the airline's interest, Kelly said. Landing slots at New York's LaGuardia airport might be among the targets, he said.

"We would be very interested in any assets that are divested," Kelly, 51, said in an interview. The U.S. East Coast "is our least-developed region and where we are trying to grow and have had a lot of difficulty gaining access to markets."
Did you not read the article? SWA isn't the only airline that's pissed about this. In fact, ALL the airlines are pissed about this. Yes, but SWA chose to bring their "whine" to the press....Big difference. ;)

How can you be "clear about this," yet still not make any sense whatsoever?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should pick your head up off the bar next time before posting. Be sure to use mouthwash before passing TSA.:eek:

:pimp:​
 
Tejas-Jet said:
Who is not paying their bills?

Tejas
Click to expand...

Who? How about SWA at Love Field! The airport is chronically broke. Remember?

That's how things go with a discounter. SWA would have luved to unwind the whole airport scheme in SEA. They really only wanted King CO if they could have had it to themselves IMHO. They, of course, want to dominate everything. If they had taken out Alaska at the knees do you think they would replace the important and difficult flying Alaska does throughout all of [the state of] Alaska (bush/combi/frieght/etc)? NO! The standard of living throughout Alaska would plummet!

I don't enjoy agreeing with Lowecur, but Chase set off the BS meter bigtime!
 
Oh great, Flopgut's back. Here comes the airline infastructure history lesson Part II. That age 60 thread was the best thing to happen to this site in years. It kept you tied up for a while!
 
chase said:
Lowecur,

BTW, this quote from the WSJ the other day sums it up....

"For example, a recent study found that in the year 2000 travelers would have been $20 billion worse off due to higher fares and less frequent service if Southwest Airlines did not exist at all. "
Click to expand...

I wonder what that figure would be if the study included the impact of a hundred thousand employees being out of work and not paying taxes, less aircraft being purchased, many smaller cities getting reduced service or losing service altogether, not to mention all the support work that went along with all of that.
 
Flopgut said:
Who? How about SWA at Love Field! The airport is chronically broke. Remember?

That's how things go with a discounter. SWA would have luved to unwind the whole airport scheme in SEA. They really only wanted King CO if they could have had it to themselves IMHO. They, of course, want to dominate everything. If they had taken out Alaska at the knees do you think they would replace the important and difficult flying Alaska does throughout all of [the state of] Alaska (bush/combi/frieght/etc)? NO! The standard of living throughout Alaska would plummet!

I don't enjoy agreeing with Lowecur, but Chase set off the BS meter bigtime!
Click to expand...

OK Flop, here we go again my friend, first, what evidence do you have to support your claim that SWA does not pay it's bills at LUV? You have none, we pay our bills, if you look deeper you will find the airport authority being used to line some pockets at city hall, and not properly fund itself, not SWA's problem.

Second, "replace the important and difficult flying in Alaska"?? BS to this, I flew there for three years, to every point, it's no big deal. Don't make it seem like Alaska Lines does some aviation magic, they don't.

Third, standard of living plummet? BS, have you seen how many operators with ski's and floats and every manner of aircraft operate out of ANC? There would be ZERO loss of quality, probably an increase in quality and frequency, more like air taxi. More pilots would be required, more service would be provided.

Please, stop the insanity bro.
 
Flopgut said:
I don't enjoy agreeing with Lowecur, but Chase set off the BS meter bigtime!
Click to expand...

So you think SWA should pay for a runway for the A380? Maybe airbus should pay for our peanuts.

This "small" increase is more than SWA gets to keep from our ticket sales, if the increase isn't going to add value to our business we have a duty to fight it. Our HQ people are just doing their jobs. Just like they did in SEA, where they got our landing fees lowered.
 
lowecur said:
Maybe you should pick your head up off the bar next time before posting. Be sure to use mouthwash before passing TSA.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. You think that because SWA might be willing to go into places that are more expensive than LAX that we should just say "Oh well. No biggie." about fees that are QUADRUPLED at LAX?

I sure hope you're not on any BOD of any airline.

Oh, and insinuating that I'm a drunk...kinda like school in summertime.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom