SWA wants to fly from HOU to MEX and SouthAmerica

[humveedriver]

So much fun to pretend like we know what's up... When at the end o the day we are all just sitting at the kids table listening to the adults talk at the big table.

 

[PCL_128]

MY company paid for those slots, so did US Airways.

That's a common misconception, but no, they actually did not. The vast majority of slots are held by legacy airlines who have held them for decades. They were awarded to those legacy carriers back when there were plenty of slots to go around to all of the legacy carriers who wanted them at the time. They didn't pay for them, they were given to them by the FAA. As traffic grew, and the slots ran out, new entrant carriers couldn't get access, because new slots weren't offered (at least not many). The only way to get slots was to pay to lease those slots from a legacy carrier that was offering them, or sit around waiting for the FAA to open one or two new slots, and try in vain to make money off of a handful of slots while everyone else you're competing against has a large number of slots and is able to offer frequency and a variety of destinations.

A better system in what is supposed to be a free market would be to have expiration dates on the slots, rather than the current system that grandfathers them for all eternity. At the expiration period, you could have either a lottery or a bidding system where carriers could compete based on price for the open slots. Simply allowing the legacy carriers to hold on to slots forever and rape the other carriers by offering ridiculous lease rates is not a free market system.

 

[Flopgut]

If anybody needs an answer to something on this issue, here it is:

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/SWA-UACorrespondence.pdf

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/EconomicImpact.pdf

The 102 pg document is heavily slanted to SWA. I guess the Council is awaiting the United document. This will be decided next month.

 

[outerlimits]

Quote:
Scoot 11
MY company paid for those slots, so did US Airways.

Then how come I get stuck flying them?

 

[PCL_128]

If anybody needs an answer to something on this issue, here it is:

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/SWA-UACorrespondence.pdf

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/EconomicImpact.pdf

The 102 pg document is heavily slanted to SWA. I guess the Council is awaiting the United document. This will be decided next month.

Flop, these documents prove exactly what I've been saying all along: there is absolutely no statute, policy, or agreement that makes IAH the sole international airport in Houston. The airport authority specifically requested that UAL provide proof of such a document, and UAL ignored the request, and just repeated the same talking points in letter after letter.

UAL has no ground to stand on here.

 

[humveedriver]

If anybody needs an answer to something on this issue, here it is:

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/SWA-UACorrespondence.pdf

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/EconomicImpact.pdf

The 102 pg document is heavily slanted to SWA. I guess the Council is awaiting the United document. This will be decided next month.

Thanks for the link. That was a good read. I think I understand your frustration. I don't think your frustrated because SWA wants to use 5 gates in Hobby to fly about 25 daily flights south of the border. Your main concern is how your employer will try to punish the city of Houston for not doing what they ask of them. I think someone mentioned earlier ransoming employees. The letters talk about how United would have to cease expansion in Terminal B and displace 1300 employees. Really? Why? Why, wouldn't they continue to improve there already fantastic product and market? Do they think their gold/platinum elite members are going to flock to Hobby? I know they don't think that. It's a bunch of posturing and it's paper thin. United; we have to shrink IAH because SWA is going to siphon off all of our L. America traffic. These statements by the real estate experts at the airline. Just like Midway and Love, Hobby is a postage stamp airport, and if you need an alternate it's going to hurt. But in the end Flop, your execs are going to make you and or your coworkers pay for HAS's insolence. And for that I am sorry.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop, these documents prove exactly what I've been saying all along: there is absolutely no statute, policy, or agreement that makes IAH the sole international airport in Houston. The airport authority specifically requested that UAL provide proof of such a document, and UAL ignored the request, and just repeated the same talking points in letter after letter.

UAL has no ground to stand on here.

Well, evidently you can't read. Because it specifically says that a 40 year old City of Houston aviation policy has to be changed to allow SWA to do this. And this is the document that favors SWA....

 

[PCL_128]

No, I saw where UAL claimed that, but they they didn't refer to any actual document. If they did, can you point out the page number? Maybe I missed it.

 

[SKC]

Hey, why are you abiding by the latest ruling on Love Field (no international)and going after Houston on Hobby like there is no similiar agreement? Just curious...

Well, because there isn't anything resembling the WA at HOU.

 

[humveedriver]

Well, evidently you can't read. Because it specifically says that a 40 year old City of Houston aviation policy has to be changed to allow SWA to do this. And this is the document that favors SWA....

SWA requested a 3-5 gate FIS (Federal Inspection Station). I think the "policy" has simply been a lack of services to accomadate int'l ops at Hobby. I don't believe their is an actual document that states thou shall not conduct 121 internationally out of HOU. It just hasn't come up until now.

 

[Flopgut]

No, I saw where UAL claimed that, but they they didn't refer to any actual document. If they did, can you point out the page number? Maybe I missed it.

In the second letter, from SWA's own Bob Montgomery, in the first link, he refers TWICE to the 40 year old policy that Houston maintain only one internatinal airport. It is in bold letters and should be easy for you to READ...

If you bother to go to the Chronicle's website, even GK himself admits [downplays] that what he is asking for is a building permit.

There is a vote that has to take place. There is an existing policy that has to be reversed. There is an approval that must be granted.

Both these links provide such an exaggeratedly pro SWA stance, that to anyone who doesn't work for SWA, it will make you want to throw up. 10,000 jobs?! TEN THOUSAND JOBS WILL BE CREATED?! There is not a single person in Houston who does not realize SWA is full of crap when they make that claim. SWA has not done anything for Houston but pass through and collect money.

 

[Flopgut]

Well, because there isn't anything resembling the WA at HOU.

Well that's interesting. Because the links I provided specifically speak to the fact that Dallas (which has been forced to adjudicate more than it's fair share of SWA airport gamemanship), in their latest airport agreement, has language that points out that SWA understands there is an existing, mature agreement that does not provide for international flights out of a second Dallas airport. ANd that SWA not only abides by it, but acknowledges it is in the best interest of the city.

So then you come down to Houston and pull this crap?!

 

[humveedriver]

In the second letter, from SWA's own Bob Montgomery, in the first link, he refers TWICE to the 40 year old policy that Houston maintain only one internatinal airport. It is in bold letters and should be easy for you to READ...

If you bother to go to the Chronicle's website, even GK himself admits [downplays] that what he is asking for is a building permit.

There is a vote that has to take place. There is an existing policy that has to be reversed. There is an approval that must be granted.

Both these links provide such an exaggeratedly pro SWA stance, that to anyone who doesn't work for SWA, it will make you want to throw up. 10,000 jobs?! TEN THOUSAND JOBS WILL BE CREATED?! There is not a single person in Houston who does not realize SWA is full of crap when theyT make that claim. SWA has not done anything for Houston but pass through and collect money.

To your point about the policy in bold by Montgomery. He is paraphrasing the united standpoint. Then in the body of his rebuttal, he says he not aware of any international policy or restriction out of Hobby.

I do agree with you that 10,000 job creations seems out there.

 

[PCL_128]

In the second letter, from SWA's own Bob Montgomery, in the first link, he refers TWICE to the 40 year old policy that Houston maintain only one internatinal airport. It is in bold letters and should be easy for you to READ...

Nice try, Flop, but that's not what he said at all. In that letter, Bob is referring to UAL's stance on the issues. He's merely repeating what UAL has said, and then rebutting it. What Bob says is the following: "We are unaware of any restriction, limitation, or representation by the Houston Airport System or by the City of Houston to focus international services at IAH. Further, we are unaware of any restriction, limitation, or representation in any contractual agreement between the City and airlines serving Houston, nor in any bond ordinance that would lead one to conclude that Houston has any policy at all to focus international service at IAH."

Them's the facts, Flop. They don't back up your employer.

If you bother to go to the Chronicle's website, even GK himself admits [downplays] that what he is asking for is a building permit.

Yes, that's exactly what he's asking for: a building permit. He just needs permission to build a terminal building at HOU for five additional gates. That's not a change of policy, as much as you and Mr. Smisek want it to be.

There is a vote that has to take place. There is an existing policy that has to be reversed. There is an approval that must be granted.

You're really working hard to stretch the truth, Flop. No policy needs to be reversed. Again, if such a policy exists, show it to us! The airport authority themselves said in a letter to UAL that they aren't aware of any such policy. I think they would know. This is nothing more than a building approval. So unless you or UAL have a valid reason to not allow someone to build something with their own money, then you've got no case here.

Both these links provide such an exaggeratedly pro SWA stance, that to anyone who doesn't work for SWA, it will make you want to throw up. 10,000 jobs?! TEN THOUSAND JOBS WILL BE CREATED?! There is not a single person in Houston who does not realize SWA is full of crap when they make that claim. SWA has not done anything for Houston but pass through and collect money.

More hyperbole. I'm sure SWA's numbers are optimistic at best, but in the same vein, UAL's theories of doom and gloom are just as hyperbolic in the other direction. Claiming that employees are going to lose their jobs and passenger numbers are going to drop off is ridiculous. Both sides are just painting the best picture for their argument.

 

[Flopgut]

You know, most of you guys I'm arguing with have no idea what FIS does or how this whole thing works (you're just used to being a SWA pilot and having eveything given to you), but it's pretty intensive stuff. We [UAL/CAL] just broke ground on a 700 million dollar update to Terminal B that included another FIS facility. This is no less than three times what you are proposing to build at Hobby, an you're acting like what you're offering is the greatest deal ever. It's chump change compared to what we've done for Houston. We're not hurting for FIS facilities as it is, we just wanted it to run smooth. The city has been more than happy to accept our money, now they want to stab us in the back...