SWA wants to fly from HOU to MEX and SouthAmerica

[redflyer65]

Immediate lose of 10,000 jobs if you believe them.

 

[Flopgut]

Sugar coat the facts??? We all are still waiting for this agreement you spoke of you know...the one were you said all international flying was to be done out of iah. Sugar coating flop your just plain out lying.

Show us this bs agreement. That's right you can't

Says right in the article, it was a gentlemen's agreement... Yeah, sure, not an air tight deal. But a lot of things in this country have been done on a handshake. It wasn't until the first snake-oil type discounter came along that those deals fell apart. Btw: I defy you to find a better partner to a municipality that SWA has ever been than CAL was to Houston. Even in Dallas, you've not done as much. You're like Walmart. You make more things suck than you make good.

I'm interested in the city council meeting on the 8th. We may learn there was a more substantial agreement than has been revealed so far. Everything that is out there right now was either done by, or for SWA. The UCAL side has not been heard.

 

[redflyer65]

Looking at the comments under the articles, there will be plenty of regular people from Houston there to pull for SW. It appears UCAL has pissed off alot of Houstonians for many years. Yea, I'd say you've "done something for them!"

 

[Flopgut]

Feel free to refute the writer.
"It has brazenly asked Houston’s airport authority to pay nearly $100 million to upgrade Hobby to receive international flights."
Poor LUV. It's tough to be the little guy fighting big bullies.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/17/united-southwest-houston/?source=yahoo_quote

Man that is one hell of an interesting article. Why did we not call it Continental and stay in Houston?! The sum total of what United brought to this merger is not worth what we might stand to lose...

 

[Flopgut]

deleted....

 

[humveedriver]

I hope this bites United in the ass. After no luck with Midway gates and no luck with Midwest. AirTran said screw and went into MKE on their own. The city was glad to have us. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to see SAT become the next international gateway to L. America from TX. It would be a great pilot base for SWA too.

 

[IAHERJ]

This is what gets me. "Free Hobby". Now let's take a look at the timeline here. After 9/11, SWA expanded at a rapid pace taking advantage of the plights AA/UAL/CAL/DAL/NWA/US/MEH/ATA all had. Employees were giddy with the rapid expansion that came at the expense of employees the airlines mentioned above. SWA was profitable and bragged about their lower cost structure and single fleet airline serving cities in the lower 48 only at non congested airports. Fast forward to 2010/2011. SWA demands slots at DCA/LGA/EWR. They want to fly into SFO and BOS and now they want to fly internationally from Hobby Field as of when, February? To have a campaign to "FREE HOBBY" is a little much. What are we freeing Hobby from? No airline has requested customs support to fly from Hobby abroad since IAH opened in the early 1970's. It was agreed that IAH would be the international airport and every carrier agreed to this 40 years ago. Now SWA wants to fly internationally as it sees a bleak future without a business plan change and voila, we need to "FREE HOBBY". We do not need to free Hobby. The Joe the Plumbers who have been duped into believing that SWA has the lowest fares(another SWA marketing stroke of genius) of course are going to blog away on the Houston Chronicle website as they are all sharing a brain kept at Hooters during the weekdays and the nearest drag strip on the weekends.

We live in a free market so SWA has every right to ask for support for an international terminal etc. but to decide to fly internationally and make the request a month prior to a marketing campaign to "FREE HOBBY" is a bit dramatic.

My 2 cents

 

[redflyer65]

Just like UCAL's defense is beyond dramatic. An immmediate loss of 10,000 jobs. The horror!!

Give me a break. It's business. All the expansion you talk about from the other carriers? Guess what, that's business too. If it doesn't go through, you know both Austin and San Antonio will blow up with international flights....and we'll feed them from Houston and Dallas.

 

[IAHERJ]

Just like UCAL's defense is beyond dramatic. An immmediate loss of 10,000 jobs. The horror!!

Give me a break. It's business. All the expansion you talk about from the other carriers? Guess what, that's business too. If it doesn't go through, you know both Austin and San Antonio will blow up with international flights....and we'll feed them from Houston and Dallas.

Yes, because "International" is the new game for SWA. All the bump your stock got in the mid 2000's as "Southwest, the domestic carrier has no exposure to the drop off in international air travel due to SARS/Iraq war/Japan nuclear accident etc.". "Southwest, which has not interest in serving the congested airports in the Northeast". I could go on but you get the picture. We have absolutely got to "FREE HOBBY" right now! Sounds like the Tea Party folks who all have little copies of The Constitution that all of a sudden needs to be to be adhered to fundamentally.

 

[PCL_128]

IAHERJ, I get your point. Yes, it is a little overdramatic to say "free Hobby," but this is politics and PR, so dramatics sometimes serve a purpose. Just like the absolutely asinine assertions that your company is making about how many UAL jobs would be lost, and how many flights UAL would have to stop running in IAH. We all know that that is a bunch of BS. But I don't begrudge them for it, because they're just playing the game.

What this really comes down to is capitalism. Either you believe in an unfettered free market, or you don't. Artificial restrictions like trying to force a carrier to operate out of one airport instead of another is not a free market.

 

[IAHERJ]

IAHERJ, I get your point. Yes, it is a little overdramatic to say "free Hobby," but this is politics and PR, so dramatics sometimes serve a purpose. Just like the absolutely asinine assertions that your company is making about how many UAL jobs would be lost, and how many flights UAL would have to stop running in IAH. We all know that that is a bunch of BS. But I don't begrudge them for it, because they're just playing the game.

What this really comes down to is capitalism. Either you believe in an unfettered free market, or you don't. Artificial restrictions like trying to force a carrier to operate out of one airport instead of another is not a free market.

Not a free market but you have to admit it has been a very common practice in this industry since deregulation. One can argue that the airline industry is the most regulated deregulated industry there is. Every other airline has played by these rules of the road except SWA, who seems to have a sense of entitlement, fueled by a marketing department that rallies the great unwashed to further its cause.

I hope we fight it out. If United isn't tanked by the UALALPA efforts to shut the airline down, I'd wager United could hold its own in the Central America/Mexican markets and be very secure in the South American markets. I guess our merger integration issues were probably part of SWA's decision to choose Houston as its focal point of international expansion. Hit us while we are down....

 

[redflyer65]

Yes, because "International" is the new game for SWA. All the bump your stock got in the mid 2000's as "Southwest, the domestic carrier has no exposure to the drop off in international air travel due to SARS/Iraq war/Japan nuclear accident etc.". "Southwest, which has not interest in serving the congested airports in the Northeast". I could go on but you get the picture. We have absolutely got to "FREE HOBBY" right now! Sounds like the Tea Party folks who all have little copies of The Constitution that all of a sudden needs to be to be adhered to fundamentally.

So the whole point of your post is that your angry that Southwest wants to grow into international flying? (like anyone is shocked by that) They know the risk just like all the other carriers that already do it. If our stock price goes up because we bust out the international, then so be it. If it drops because another outburst of SARS then it is what it is.

Free Hobby is just a rally cry to get behind the effort, nothing more nothing less. Just as I would expect UCAL to do the same. If they didn't, something is really wrong at the GO in Chicago.

 

[PCL_128]

Not a free market but you have to admit it has been a very common practice in this industry since deregulation.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but yes, there are certainly other examples of artificial restrictions on the market. The question is, is that a good thing? I would argue that it's not. The market should either be free, or it shouldn't. I'd personally prefer a re-regulated market, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, so if it's going to be deregulated, then make it truly deregulated. Instead, the government got rid of all the good elements of regulation (stability, service to smaller markets, competing based on service rather than just price, etc.), while keeping the bad parts, like what we're seeing in IAH/HOU and the Wright Amendment. Either let the market do its job, or bring back the CAB.

Every other airline has played by these rules of the road except SWA, who seems to have a sense of entitlement, fueled by a marketing department that rallies the great unwashed to further its cause.

The other airlines "play by these rules" because the rules were custom tailored for their business model. As waveflyer points out, IAH is perfect for your business model. It isn't for ours. We aren't flying widebodies to FRA, we're flying 737s to CUN. Thinking that we should have access to a free market isn't a sense of "entitlement," it's just common sense.

 

[canyonblue]

Every other airline has played by these rules of the road except SWA, who seems to have a sense of entitlement, fueled by a marketing department that rallies the great unwashed to further its cause.

We are also the only airline that has been around since deregulation that hasn't filed bankruptcy, and some have filed more than once. You are right, not everybody has played by the rules, most have used bankruptcy as some sort of liabilities vanishing act.

 

[IAHERJ]

Agreed. I think it is SWA's marketing campaign that gets under my skin more than the argument you are making. I worked for AirTran for 3 years. I wish nothing but the best for you and the AirTran guys. Never applied nor wanted to work for SWA but their pilots used to be a fun group. Their arrogance recently(behind computer keyboards I should add) has turned off many a good guy that used to enjoy opening up their js to a SWA pilot. I hope my company can compete going forward. The sad thing is that it is out of my hands.

Should have quoted PCL as I was responding to his post, not CanyonBlue guy who helps make my argument...

 

[IAHERJ]

We are also the only airline that has been around since deregulation that hasn't filed bankruptcy, and some have filed more than once. You are right, not everybody has played by the rules, most have used bankruptcy as some sort of liabilities vanishing act.

Point in case.....

 

[SKC]

Point in case.....

So you're saying it isn't fair that SWA wasn't a lemming and followed the other carriers off the BK cliff? That sounds like my 9 year old when her sister gets something that she doesn't.

 

[Flopgut]

So you're saying it isn't fair that SWA wasn't a lemming and followed the other carriers off the BK cliff? That sounds like my 9 year old when her sister gets something that she doesn't.

There is really only one airline that can be held up as an example that deregulation worked. And it is SWA. The govt knew that when you almost got put out of business right out of the gate, so you were given a deal at Love Field. Now you want an airport gimme again to launch international flying. GK knows that UCAL is just strong enough right now, that if we were to fly out of the same airport, you might not make it.

 

[Flopgut]

Immediate lose of 10,000 jobs if you believe them.

Just like UCAL's defense is beyond dramatic. An immmediate loss of 10,000 jobs. The horror!!

Although I'm certain it would be even more joyful to you and your SWA co-workers if it were 10,000 UCAL out of work, the number it 1300.

10,000 is the number of jobs you claim you will create in Houston.

 

[SKC]

...so you were given a deal at Love Field.

Yeah, that was an awesome deal. Severe restrictions on where and what you can fly. Yeah, that ruled!

 

[Flopgut]

Yeah, that was an awesome deal. Severe restrictions on where and what you can fly. Yeah, that ruled!

It was precisely what you needed to launch. And it was continuously adjusted through the years to meet your needs, and to keep Love Field unattractive to competition.

Ask yourself this: If Love Field had been bulldozed when DFW was built, would SWA even exist? Of course not...

 

[SKC]

And it was continuously adjusted through the years to meet your needs,

What things were "continuously adjusted" that prohibited other carriers from serving DAL?

 

[Flopgut]

What things were "continuously adjusted" that prohibited other carriers from serving DAL?

States/cities were added through the years. But never in an amount that would have attracted a larger airline or provided SWA a competitor that would have slowed them down. Don't kid yourself. Herb wrote those "restrictions"....

*edit* And that is why I'm not sure that this fight over Hobby isn't playing into GK's hands? He doesn't really want to "free Hobby". His real goal is getting Hobby open to SWA and only SWA. He'd love to see some "restrictions" like the WA had. Keep everybody else out! SWA hates competition. You watch...

 

[SKC]

States/cities were added through the years. But never in an amount that would have attracted a larger airline or provided SWA a competitor that would have slowed them down. Don't kid yourself. Herb wrote those "restrictions"....

*edit* And that is why I'm not sure that this fight over Hobby isn't playing into GK's hands? He doesn't really want to "free Hobby". His real goal is getting Hobby open to SWA and only SWA. He'd love to see some "restrictions" like the WA had. Keep everybody else out! SWA hates competition. You watch...

Oh, that's right. I forgot it was called the Kelleher Amendment, sponsored by Jim Wright.

 

[Flopgut]

Oh, that's right. I forgot it was called the Kelleher Amendment, sponsored by Jim Wright.

Ha! Yeah, that's about right....

Of course if we bulldozed Love back in the day, there would be no SWA. But also, what if there had been no WA? Or if it was not continuously adjusted, or was suddenly removed? What would have happened to SWA? Well, what did AA do to Legend? AA hammered them (public and brutal) to send the message of what a free market would have meant to a SWA that couldn't hide behind the WA, or run away to Love Field.

 

[jpd05]

Agreed. I think it is SWA's marketing campaign that gets under my skin more than the argument you are making. I worked for AirTran for 3 years. I wish nothing but the best for you and the AirTran guys. Never applied nor wanted to work for SWA but their pilots used to be a fun group. Their arrogance recently(behind computer keyboards I should add) has turned off many a good guy that used to enjoy opening up their js to a SWA pilot. I hope my company can compete going forward. The sad thing is that it is out of my hands.

Should have quoted PCL as I was responding to his post, not CanyonBlue guy who helps make my argument...

Lets see, 6-10 guys typing on this forum out of 8000 and now its hard to open up your jumpseat to those 8000 "used to be good guys". Scary stuff. We are adults arent we?

 

[swaflyguy]

Merger hangover continues to pain United
April 17, 2012: 11:46 AM ET






A battle is brewing in Houston between United Continental Holdings and Southwest Airlines. Consumers hoping to fly south of the border may end up the victors.

By Cyrus Sanati

FORTUNE -- United Continental Holdings is learning the hard way that it isn't wise to mess with Texas. The recently merged airline's decision to choose Chicago as its corporate headquarters over Continental's hometown of Houston appears to have resulted in a big loss of political capital with the city and its airport authority. The move could end up hitting United's bottom line hard as rival Southwest Airlines targets Houston to be its first international hub.

There are a lot of unintended consequences when it comes to merging two companies, especially two major international airlines. When Chicago-based United (UAL) announced its merger with Houston-based Continental at the end of 2010, the decision to move the newly combined airline's headquarters up to Chicago wasn't given much thought. United had struck what it had said was a sweetheart tax and rental deal with Chicago city officials a year earlier to keep the airline's headquarters in the Windy City in the event of a merger with a rival airline. Houston, apparently, never had a chance.

The loss of Houston as Continental's headquarters meant moving most of its major corporate functions to Chicago. Continental's then chief executive, Jeff Smisek, not even a year into the job, became the combined airline's chief executive. Smisek was quick to make the move out of Houston but the mood at Continental's headquarters in downtown Houston was somber, as much of the staff did not want to move to Chicago.

Continental has always enjoyed a very good relationship with the city of Houston. The airline's chief executives were tight with the city's mayors and the airline got basically whatever it wanted – both big and small. When the airline's logo on its downtown headquarters violated a city ordinance that banned corporate advertising on skyscrapers, Houston's city council quickly voted to change the law, allowing Continental's blue logo to fly high. The city let Continental build itself a whole new terminal at Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport last decade and is contributing a third of the $1 billion needed to build out another terminal for the airline, which is currently under construction.

The strong relationship helped the airline flourish. Eventually, Continental controlled around 80% of the air traffic in and out of Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport, which is located on the north side of town. This total domination in air traffic gave Continental strong pricing power that has padded its bottom lines for years. Its only real competition in the city was with Dallas-based Southwest Airlines, but it operated out of Houston's smaller airport, Hobby, located 30 miles southeast of Intercontinental, and was limited to only short-haul domestic flights.

Perhaps most importantly, Continental dominated Houston's international market. The vast majority of these flights were jumps into Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America and the Northern part of South America. Eventually, Continental controlled 97% of the short to medium-haul international air traffic out of Houston. Its position as the main feeder airline into the city's only international airport allowed it to have a virtual monopoly on all international air traffic going to and from the city.

Gordon Bethune, former CEO of Continental, recently said that while he was chief executive, he had a sort-of gentleman's agreement with the mayors of Houston that Intercontinental would be the city's only international gateway and that Hobby, which was a hub for Southwest Airlines, would only be a domestic airport. In return, Continental would continue to be a good corporate citizen and work to improve air traffic at the big airport.

But all that intangible political capital was trashed when the airline merged with United. The loss of the Continental name was bad enough for the city, but the loss of the headquarters was a big blow to its ego. While Houston is still United's largest hub with over 17,000 employees living and working in the city, the loss of the C-suite appears to have been an unforgivable sin.

Southwest Airlines (LUV) is hoping to cash in on United throwing away its golden goose. It has brazenly asked Houston's airport authority to pay nearly $100 million to upgrade Hobby to receive international flights. The upgrade would allow Southwest to use Hobby to launch truly competitive international air service to the same locations where Continental has held an almost near-monopoly in non-stop service for years. This would, invariably, force Continental to lower prices on competing routes or to even pull out of some them completely if Southwest is able to put enough pressure on its margins.

This possible Southwest expansion also has larger implications for the airline industry. Southwest inherited international air service to a few destinations south of the border and to the Caribbean when it acquired AirTran in 2010. It has just started to put plans in motion to expand international service - under the Airtran banner, for now - launching routes to Mexico from Orange County, CA and San Antonio, TX. But unlike those locations, Houston is a major hub for Southwest and is seen as a major gateway to Latin America. If Hobby does go international, Southwest will be able to fill its Latin America-bound planes with passengers from any of the 36 domestic destinations it already serves through Hobby.

United is understandably upset about Southwest's attempt to move in on its cash cow. Southwest could target 85% of United's international routes out of Houston if the city signs off on the expansion at Hobby. United says that a Southwest expansion could force it to lay off hundreds of workers and could force it to end its support for the $1 billion expansion at Intercontinental that is already underway. The airline would also discontinue plans to introduce air service to four new international destinations and would not add to additional frequencies in existing markets in Houston over the next three years, a United spokesperson told Fortune.

Southwest believes United is overreacting and says that competition would be good for Houston. It would only have five gates dedicated to international service at Hobby- with expansion up to nine if all goes well. United currently serves 54 destinations in Mexico, the Caribbean and South America, with 103 daily departures. With five gates, Southwest claims that it could offer just 25 international flights out of Hobby per day, a quarter of that of United.

But it could still do damage if those flights were targeted at Continental's biggest money makers, which it surely would. It its defense, Southwest has launched a website dedicated to its struggle to "free" Hobby Airport. The airline plays up its Texan roots and makes it a point to say that it is competing against "Chicago-based United-Continental Airlines," and not the beloved Houston-based Continental.

Last week, Houston's airport authority recommended that the city council approve the Southwest expansion, saying that it would add millions to the local economy and would create, not decrease, jobs in the Houston area. United has struck back saying that the Airport authority's study was flawed. The city council is expected to vote on the matter in May. It looks like, for now, that Southwest is going to get their wish. Meanwhile, United executives are left wondering how different things would have played out if they had just chose to stay in Texas.

 

[outerlimits]

Ha! Yeah, that's about right....

Of course if we bulldozed Love back in the day, there would be no SWA. But also, what if there had been no WA? Or if it was not continuously adjusted, or was suddenly removed? What would have happened to SWA? Well, what did AA do to Legend? AA hammered them (public and brutal) to send the message of what a free market would have meant to a SWA that couldn't hide behind the WA, or run away to Love Field.

You keep comparing Legond with Southwest and The power house AA use to be with United



United is not an NFL team, at best they would a very good high school team.

reference above since you say you know football.


For some reason,I thought United already tried to make a lw cost airline to run Southwest out of the west coast.


Like I said ,yo have lost it Floop

 

[Flopgut]

You keep comparing Legond with Southwest and The power house AA use to be with United



United is not an NFL team, at best they would a very good high school team.

reference above since you say you know football.


For some reason,I thought United already tried to make a lw cost airline to run Southwest out of the west coast.

Try to imagine for a moment that there is a history to this business that maybe you could stand to learn a little about? Yes, SWA is big and powerful now. So why do they need a deal at Hobby then? We've been down this road. SWA was the underdog and caught a break on a close call to stay at Love. This time the underdog is UCAL and this close call needs to go our way on Hobby. It's the right thing to do.

 

[IAHERJ]

So you're saying it isn't fair that SWA wasn't a lemming and followed the other carriers off the BK cliff? That sounds like my 9 year old when her sister gets something that she doesn't.

No. He was proving the point I made on the previous page about SWA pilot arrogance.