SWA...the sedition

[Buckaroo]

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 ) 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.

just some additional thoughts...cheers,

Oh hail, the mighty Southwest. Giver of life, jobs, and the pursuit of happiness. Hail the mighty Herb & Colleen. Oh Herb, who art at WN, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, at Love Field as it is at DFW.

 

[chase]

Buckaroo,

My apologies for the caps....I rarely go over the top but probably did this time but the facts of what SWA has done for many folks is forgotten in all the spin sometimes.....just as the horrors of layoffs & major economic upheaval due to the current economic crisis should never be forgotten, nor should the merits of what a company is doing to help folks either. A bit of balance is all that I was trying to say....again apologies for the caps...Southwest is certainly not all-knowing & without flaw & for me to imply that they were/are is incorrect, again my apologies.

 

[Buckaroo]

Chase,

No problem- We have every reason to be proud to work at such a fine company.
I have a lot of friends in the business on the legacy side (as many of us have), and they are kind of tired of having their noses rubbed in it every time they open up the newspaper.

You have a great reputation on this board - it would take a lot more than a few caps to ruin it.

Buckaroo

 

[lowecur]

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?

.....

 

[canyonblue]

It happens all the time in Pro Sports

Where will this leave Lambert Field and the city of St. Louis if SWA moves out?

Where did it leave the city of Pontiac when the Detroit Lions moved out? These people have to remember, the airports are there to serve the airlines, not the other way around. We left SFO and DEN and they survived, if it doesn't fit you must acquit, I mean leave.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Here is why I think current airport expansion fee plans are so scary--

We all know that air travel is spurred on by lower airfares. But higher airport fees will actually raise the cost of a ticket (really!) and, hence, reduce travel. If travel goes down then airport fees are spread among fewer passengers and the fees go even higher. Where this spiral stops is anyone's guess.

I call this the "Bloated airport project" effect. DFW, SEATAC, and STL communities have benefited from this phenomenon. Is your community next?

 

[lowecur]

Where did it leave the city of Pontiac when the Detroit Lions moved out? These people have to remember, the airports are there to serve the airlines, not the other way around. We left SFO and DEN and they survived, if it doesn't fit you must acquit, I mean leave.

You're kidding me right? Drawing an analogy between entertainment and the necessity of transportation.

You were never a dominant carrier in SFO or DEN.

 

[scoreboard]

Business is a moral beacon??

People shopping insurance policies hardly has anything to do with what is best for the overall financial health of a community.

It's really quite a simple question in this discussion. Does the cost savings in airline tickets outweigh the cost of upheaval of the current commerical airport infrastructure and it's financial affect on the dominant carrier(s) for that airport? That's the debate right now in DFW, and will soon be the debate in SEA. Each metroplex must answer these questions and cast their vote with the government factions that will make the final decisions.

SWA airlines says that DFW is too expensive and they cannot get the turn-around times necessary to make their business model work. Yet, they are presently operating at many airports that present these same problems to them. SEA has many of the same problems except you're now talking about building a whole new access road infrastructure, terminal, and dealing with noise pollution that will bring out the environmentalists. Both moves by SWA will serve to divide the respective communities along devisive lines.

You lost me ace, your saying SWA has a duty to ensure the financial health of a community? Whats your thoughts on DAL pulling out of DFW? You are way off base.

Yes, we go to PIT and other high cost airports, these places have no alternate airports, 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. Exactly, to the community to provide low fares without the mumbo jumbo of self serving agrandizing local governmental agencies.

 

[lowecur]

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.

......

 

[scoreboard]

Idiot

......

Originally Posted by scoreboard
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.



Lowcur my bud, Now your unreasonable. So your saying we should only do what is best for our company when we get into significant financial trouble and our short term survival depends on it? How about we do it before we go bankrupt? Novel concept, I know.


PIT and other locations do fit our model. Go back and read up on it.

Let me guess, by the tone of your answers on this thread, your a liberal. Flame away...

 

[lowecur]

Originally Posted by scoreboard
PIT and other locations do fit our model. Go back and read up on it.

I still need to read that book on SWA. Let's see, an airport would need the following criterea to qualify:

1. Large O&D base to existing SWA markets
2. Two to Three proprietary gates
3. Fast turn-around capability*must be in top 10 for on-time
4. Low passenger fees

Lets see:

• LAS - 1,2
• PHX - 1,2
• PHL - 1,2
• DET - 1,2,3
• STL - 1,2,3
• PDX - 1,2
• SEA - 1,2
• PIT - 1,2
• MSY - 1,2,3
• MCO - 1,2
• TPA - 1,2
• FLL - 1,2,4
• MDW - 1,2,3
• LAX - 1,2,3
• BWI - 1,2,3
• OAK - 1,2,4

Now I'm sure some of these may be off a tad, but pretty close. The point is many of these airports fall out of model in some respect. So the "model" is a myth for the focus cities, as SWA needs to serve many of these cities to have any kind of a viable network.

Incidently, DFW was ranked #1 in on-time performance for major airports in 2004 and #7 so far in 2005. SWA complains they don't like going against AMR at a fortress hub. What about NWA at DET, UAIR at PHL? They operate in mini hubs like STL, LAX, PIT, OAK, FLL, MCO, PHX, and LAS.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

...So the "model" is a myth for the focus cities, as SWA needs to serve many of these cities to have any kind of a viable network...

.... SWA complains they don't like going against AMR at a fortress hub. What about NWA at DET, UAIR at PHL? They operate in mini hubs like STL, LAX, PIT, OAK, FLL, MCO, PHX, and LAS.

Faulty logic here.

The model is not a myth. SWA is forced to use hub and spoke friendly airports in some markets. These airports are expensive and not as easy to use as smaller airports. SWA is forced to use these airports because suitable alternative often don't exist. If alternatives existed, SWA would be using them. The model works best in markets where a smaller airport is available. Surely you understand that.

I think you lack an entrepreneurial mindset or are just being contrary for the fun of it. You not only want to prevent free enterprise in the airline market, you claim it is never going to work. Well, Chicken Little, it is working. If you were running SWA you would be searching for the airports and opportunities the SWA business model is made for. Just as AA, DAL, and UAL are looking for ways to make their model work

I'm thinking you just want to keep the status quo to improve JetBlue's chances for success. Just as JetBlue has changed the rules for the industry with bargain basement costs, DirecTV and Blueness, SWA will work to keep the landscape oriented towards their product. And they will continue to do so in a very ethical and consumer friendly way.


Thanks for playing, try again.

 

[flyingitalian]

Lowecur,

You asked previously is SWA is looking at an alternate for STL, and the answer there is yes. SWA tried detroit metro and was promised runway improvements that never materialized so back to DTW. PHL has an alternate, well several alternates, but SWA determined for whatever reasion that PHL was worth the trade off. SWA is currently looking at going to MIA because the delays at FLL are off the chart.
The difference between SWA and all other airlines is that it is not dependent on a fortress hub or airport to make their business work. SWA could and does go anywhere they want, and where they can get the best deal for their customers. SWA will not be held hostage by airports who impose unreasonable fees for thier service. The business model works, and their decisions and ability to move and make money are a very big part of the success of SWA.

 

[lowecur]

It was reported in a Seattle paper today that a second carrier has approached Boeing Field about flying there. I know ALK approached them quite a few years back, but I have a feeling it could be ol JetBlue. It that's the case, then they are just as wrong as SWA. The problem with Boeing Field is the available land for Terminal Space. It is unlikely that the airport could support more than a few carriers, and this would place carriers at SEA at an extreme pricing disadvantage.

SWA at Miami???? Why not? Jetblue is thinking about going. I have no problem with either of them doing that as both FLL and MIA are very financially viable airports.

 

[Mugs]

I guess if we are going to ever revitalize the aviation transportation infrastructure, SWA's competitors will be expected to foot a larger proportion of the bill. We wouldn't even have an infrastructure as extensive as it is now if airlines in the past had pulled this kind of stuff. Thanks to today's low ticket prices, the Aviation Trust fund is now used not to help fund expansion of the aviation infrastructure, but simply to help run the FAA.

 

[apdsm]

I am amazed and disappoined by how many do not understnd the basics of capitalism...or maybe just do not believe in it.

 

[lowecur]

Alaska Play Hardball

This was predictable.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/business/aerospace/story/4968057p-4540996c.html

 

[Stash]

Lowcur, did you ever realize that winning an argument on the internet is like winning a race in the Special Olympics? You may think you've won, but, you are still retarded! Sorry, I'm not too PC Cheers

 

[lowecur]

Lowcur, did you ever realize that winning an argument on the internet is like winning a race in the Special Olympics? You may think you've won, but, you are still retarded! Sorry, I'm not too PC Cheers

You sure your name isn't stosh and you are the captain of your bowling team in Green Bay.

 

[mdf]

I guess if we are going to ever revitalize the aviation transportation infrastructure, SWA's competitors will be expected to foot a larger proportion of the bill. We wouldn't even have an infrastructure as extensive as it is now if airlines in the past had pulled this kind of stuff. Thanks to today's low ticket prices, the Aviation Trust fund is now used not to help fund expansion of the aviation infrastructure, but simply to help run the FAA.

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.

 

[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.