SWA...the sedition

[Stash]

Lowcur, you recognized me! I thought that was you who bought my last accordion!

 

[Flopgut]

SWA has no duty to bondholders but to its shareholders, employees & customers to keep costs low & profits high. The market place (i.e. airports, vendors, etc.) shouldn't be propped up or protected from basic economic factors as SWA or any airline be hampered by governmental regulation in being kept from operating in a sound financial manner. SEA-TAC made an operational & business decision sometime ago, just as DFW did after 911....all airlines had to also...does SWA require another runway at STL now that AA is gone? Certainly not but we're all going to pay for it....there are other options & whether you call it the Southwest effect or not, I call it basic business principles....we have it within our power to save money, why not do it for the consumer & raise profits? The most healthy airline in the industry & one that has
(1) NOT LAID OFF A SINGLE PERSON SINCE 911

(2) HIRED 1200+ PILOTS SINCE 911

(3) HIRED 5000+ NEW AIRLINE EMPLOYEES SINCE 911
QUOTE]

Chase: Interesting to see you lose your poise.

Anyone remember when you could hardly get a SWA pilot to talk about anything but golf clubs, boats, girls, cars, etc. Now there are all these SWA pilots preaching about some higher plane of airline economics and blurting out the word "consumer" constantly. I'm getting sick of it. The "SWA effect" is nothing more than: If you can fly me somewhere cheaper than it is for me to stay home...I'll go. Failing that, you've got nothing. Chase, you are sounding a lot like an AA pilot from about 20 years ago. I wish you, and your co-workers, no ill will, but the larger truth is your airline is shirking straight up competition and very much hurting the "consumer" in the long run. I'm sick of dodging skateboarders in front of the hardware store and I'm sick of the SWA airport ambush [same difference]. Flop.

 

[chase]

Flop,

Yep, I over indulged the capitallization key...guilty as charged....I would disagree with you about the consumer thoughts....it is about the consumer & not about the "airline", be it SWA, JB, AA or whomever....when airlines fail (or any business) fails to recognize that fact then I believe their time as a profitable entity is limited. The essence of what SWA was built upon was offering a low price, good service and safe means of transporting folks from A to B. We wish to do that without encumberments placed there by certainly the government...we expect other companies to do it but certainly not allow the government to be part & parcel to the effort to thwart simple capitalism.

I don't believe SWA operates in an arrogant fashion....my post, if it came across that way was unintentional & my apologies....Southwest doesn't need to be patted on the back for any of those things nor given special privileges in the market place because of this...what is fair in asking though is to have free & open competition among carriers to choose their strategies as they wish & allow the consumer to determine "the winner", not the government. Not out of the doghouse yet for my outburst but hope my poor attempt at an further explaining myself will you show I'm on the road to recovery cheers,

 

[Mugs]

Okay Mugs,

I guess it would make more sense to file chapter 11, stay in for 3 years, attack labor, and dump pensions. Instead of trying to go out find revenue in this blood from a turnup environment.

You are not generating revenue. You are attempting to stick the competition with the larger costs of a required investment in the aviation infrastrcuture so you can get a cost advantage. The cost advantage will then be exploited to drain your competition of revenue.

It reminds me of that Wal-Mart story recently in Maryland. The town did not want a Super Wal-Mart, so they passed a zoning ordinance restricting the size of such stores. Wal-Mart came in anyway, and simply split the store in two. The max size store allowed was built on one side of the street, the rest of the store on the other side of the street. Perfectly legal, but not the spirit or the intent.

In the same light, it was not anyones intent to put a higher burden on all but one airline in the SEA market when the decision to make the necessary improvements to SEA-TAC were made.

 

[FatesPawn]

You are not generating revenue. You are attempting to stick the competition with the larger costs of a required investment in the aviation infrastrcuture so you can get a cost advantage. The cost advantage will then be exploited to drain your competition of revenue.

Wait a second. "Aviation Infrastructure?" I think what you meant to say was "building more runways and terminals." If SWA doesn't need them, why should SWA pay to build them? Because it's good for the community? Because it helps our competition by reducing their delays because they have 4 "pushes" a day from their fortress hub that congests the taxiways? Please.

And believe me, if SWA could "exploit a cost advantage" that we created by moving to BFI, believe me, we'll do it. It's just silly to think otherwise.

-Fate

 

[lowecur]

Wait a second. "Aviation Infrastructure?" I think what you meant to say was "building more runways and terminals." If SWA doesn't need them, why should SWA pay to build them? Because it's good for the community? Because it helps our competition by reducing their delays because they have 4 "pushes" a day from their fortress hub that congests the taxiways? Please.

And believe me, if SWA could "exploit a cost advantage" that we created by moving to BFI, believe me, we'll do it. It's just silly to think otherwise.

-Fate

Just my opinion, but Mr. Kelly is painting himself into a corner. A pattern is beginning to develop that may ultimately hurt the strategy. I thought the Wrong Amendment would reach a compromise, but the fodder at SEA-TAC will give opponents additional ammunition to claim that SWA has a conspiratorial agenda that seeks to undermine the health of remaining carriers in addition to putting the existing airport at risk. It will be interesting to see if they continue this strategy at other airports where the competing facilities financial health is jeopardized.

Incidently, the FAA ruled that FLL can now use the diagonal emergency runway and 9R (south runway). This will ease the congestion problem and give the airport time to build the taxiways needed to ease the pressures when 9R is closed for 3 years beginning in 2008 for extention. This will probably keep SWA from heading south to MIA.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cairport24jun24,0,448812.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

 

[mdf]

You are not generating revenue. You are attempting to stick the competition with the larger costs of a required investment in the aviation infrastrcuture so you can get a cost advantage. The cost advantage will then be exploited to drain your competition of revenue.

It reminds me of that Wal-Mart story recently in Maryland. The town did not want a Super Wal-Mart, so they passed a zoning ordinance restricting the size of such stores. Wal-Mart came in anyway, and simply split the store in two. The max size store allowed was built on one side of the street, the rest of the store on the other side of the street. Perfectly legal, but not the spirit or the intent.

In the same light, it was not anyones intent to put a higher burden on all but one airline in the SEA market when the decision to make the necessary improvements to SEA-TAC were made.

Mugs,

I don't see it that way at all. In fact I don't see this as a competition issue either. This is about an airport raising cost's to an unreasonable level. If you and I go out today, and buy something we don't really need, who pays for it? Do we go to our employers and say we need a raise? No, we figure how to get it done. I think SWA would love to stay in SEA. It is a great airport, and it would be a major hassle to move. Sometimes you have to take a stand.

 

[canyonblue]

I'm sick of dodging skateboarders in front of the hardware store. Flop.

Lighten up old man.

 

[Flycatcher99]

Umm..

SWA has a conspiratorial agenda that seeks to undermine the health of remaining carriers...

Shameful. Simply shameful. I cannot believe that an organization such as Southwest Airlines would dare attempt such fiduciary malfeasance against their competition. Oh, no, wait, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used the word "competition". I meant their fellow aviation business brethren, who also love to fly and provide pro bono consideration for their fellow aviation brethren, as well as for our parentally loving government and the flying public in general.

Hugs and kisses, everyone!

 

[SWA/FO]

Southwest does not follow anybody. We make our own decisions. Staying in SEA and paying higher fees without trying to change or "stir" things up would be considered "following".

We Lead at SWA, we don't follow.