lowecur said:
What's bogus about it? SeaTac passenger fees were $5 a decade ago, and are projected to go to $15. STL are $6. and projected to go $11. in 2007 that includes a $40M subsidy from the city. If SWA leaves SEA, I will bet that those fees go as high as $25. If they leave STL and go to Mid America, watch the fees go to $20. You think other airlines won't follow their lead and abandon those airports also?ivauir said:
FlyBoeingJets said:
) seem to have....it is nice to work for a company that continues to do this during the roughest patch of economic times for the airline industry....plus SWA expects to add at least 1000 more pilots over the next 2 years...again I don't believe SWA has much to apologize for take grief from folks when it comes to making smart business decisions....maybe if other government entities or businesses followed some of the basic principles that SWA uses we wouldn't even be having these discussions. 
lowecur said:
People shopping insurance policies hardly has anything to do with what is best for the overall financial health of a community.scoreboard said:
chase said:Lowecur,
Trying to attach "bond guilt" to all the other burdens SWA has to carry is more than I'll care to concede to....airport managers & government officials need to be held accountable to standards of basic business practices....outprice your product & folks will move elsewhere....just as you do or I do on a daily basis....bond investors (if they are burned) should also realize this fact...betting on a "sure thing" because the lemmings will follow & pay whatever is asked needs to be changed.
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
(4) Opened 3 new cities, provided billions of dollars in savings to flyers around the country who would not normally be able to fly
I think SWA has done its fair share at adding to the economy & giving folks the freedom to fly (above is not yelling, just an emphasis item to give a perspective to the "whoa is me, SWA is bad" mentality that some folks (not you of course Lowecur
just some additional thoughts...cheers,
.....chase said:Lowecur,
Trying to attach "bond guilt" to all the other burdens SWA has to carry... what burdens are those?...is more than I'll care to concede to....airport managers & government officials need to be held accountable to standards of basic business practices....outprice your product & folks will move elsewhere....just as you do or I do on a daily basis....bond investors (if they are burned) should also realize this fact...betting on a "sure thing" because the lemmings will follow & pay whatever is asked needs to be changed.
SWA has no duty to bondholders but to its shareholders, employees & customers to keep costs low & profits high. Yes, but you have a moral duty to the community you are in not to divide and conqueor through devisive lobbying tactics that are self serving. 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....this I gotta see....there are other options....Yes, and Mid America Airport will probably be next.... & 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? Where will this leave Lambert Field and the city of St. Louis if SWA moves out?
lowecur said:
......scoreboard said:You lost me ace,...I know.... your saying SWA has a duty to ensure the financial health of a community?....Yes.... Whats your thoughts on DAL pulling out of DFW?....DAL is in significant financial difficulty there, ace. Their short term survival depended on it, yours doesn't... You are way off base....OK
Yes, we go to PIT and other high cost airports, these places have no alternate airports...so why go there if they don't fit your model? Afterall, SWA can't make money if the airport doesn't fit it's business model right?..., STL and SEA have viable, legal, moral, etc, alternative airfields for SWA use. Why is that wrong again? Oh, wait, we have a responsibility to the community...Stop talking to yourself.... Exactly, to the community to provide low fares without the mumbo jumbo of self serving agrandizing local governmental agencies.
lowecur said:
..., STL and SEA have viable, legal, moral, etc, alternative airfields for SWA use. Why is that wrong again? Oh, wait, we have a responsibility to the community...Stop talking to yourself.... Exactly, to the community to provide low fares without the mumbo jumbo of self serving agrandizing local governmental agencies.
