SWA wants to fly from HOU to MEX and SouthAmerica

[Flopgut]

Looks like its been said- you want to weaken the competition by getting local government to ATTEMPT to force us up to IAH-
International is coming for swa- whether united likes it or not- you can't pay off every city- and from what I hear, AUS and SAT are biting at the opportunity to be the international jump off- those cities are smaller with less business- but they are far and away, better cities in better locations than Houston, and would love the boost to their local economy- Houston doesn't hold SWAs future in their hands- they can work with us, or against- their call-
Swa is not in the same corporate position as when wright went down-

Then that's what you need to do. Go build up something you can be proud of in AUS or SAT. Break ground, build the market and then defend it. Good for you.

Let's say you do something in SAT and in 15 years you've put together a great operation. Then some discounter comes around and wants to use Stinson Field to fly to your top 5 markets. Are you going to like that? Are you going to roll over? Or defend it? Let's say this discounter claims they will pay for the terminal at Stinson, and then you discover they were lying. SWA gonna like that? How about when they claim they will create 10,000 jobs, or they throw out some claim of 1.6 billion impact to the local SAT economy? That's going to sit well with SWA? Do you think the city of SAT should fall for that?

I still don't think we have much chance of stopping you. Don't get me wrong, we have a good argument. But at the end of the day, SWA has always had to have a lot of help to be successful. And if SWA can't make it look easy, then it calls into question the whole notion of deregulation.

You SWA guys have to admit: Your mgt has handled this incredibly bad. What a goat rope on your part. Personally, that's the greatest thing to come out of this. You guys have lost a step.

 

[texman]

Then that's what you need to do. Go build up something you can be proud of in AUS or SAT. Break ground, build the market and then defend it. Good for you.

Let's say you do something in SAT and in 15 years you've put together a great operation. Then some discounter comes around and wants to use Stinson Field to fly to your top 5 markets. Are you going to like that? Are you going to roll over? Or defend it? Let's say this discounter claims they will pay for the terminal at Stinson, and then you discover they were lying. SWA gonna like that? How about when they claim they will create 10,000 jobs, or they throw out some claim of 1.6 billion impact to the local SAT economy? That's going to sit well with SWA? Do you think the city of SAT should fall for that?

I still don't think we have much chance of stopping you. Don't get me wrong, we have a good argument. But at the end of the day, SWA has always had to have a lot of help to be successful. And if SWA can't make it look easy, then it calls into question the whole notion of deregulation.

You SWA guys have to admit: Your mgt has handled this incredibly bad. What a goat rope on your part. Personally, that's the greatest thing to come out of this. You guys have lost a step.

I see what your saying, check out this info. FYI.

http://www.centreforaviation.com/an...tional-passenger-growth-of-42-in-1q2012-73075

 

[texman]

Is this why IAH and UA are scared, this is out of SAT, could it be out of HOU too?

"A third competitor is entering the San Antonio-Mexico City market later this month when Southwest Airlines subsidiary AirTran introduces flights on the pairing. Once that happens Interjet’s seat share will drop to roughly 45%".

 

[humveedriver]

Then that's what you need to do. Go build up something you can be proud of in AUS or SAT. Break ground, build the market and then defend it. Good for you.

Let's say you do something in SAT and in 15 years you've put together a great operation. Then some discounter comes around and wants to use Stinson Field to fly to your top 5 markets. Are you going to like that? Are you going to roll over? Or defend it? Let's say this discounter claims they will pay for the terminal at Stinson, and then you discover they were lying. SWA gonna like that? How about when they claim they will create 10,000 jobs, or they throw out some claim of 1.6 billion impact to the local SAT economy? That's going to sit well with SWA? Do you think the city of SAT should fall for that?

I still don't think we have much chance of stopping you. Don't get me wrong, we have a good argument. But at the end of the day, SWA has always had to have a lot of help to be successful. And if SWA can't make it look easy, then it calls into question the whole notion of deregulation.

You SWA guys have to admit: Your mgt has handled this incredibly bad. What a goat rope on your part. Personally, that's the greatest thing to come out of this. You guys have lost a step.

That's why each airline needs to have a solid product, brand recognition and customer loyalty. There is always going to be someone just around the corner trying something new/different. Allegiant does a good job out Sanford and St Pete right? I don't recall any major campaigns to get Allegiant into Tampa or MCO. I get your point Flop, but that's what businesses do.

 

[waveflyer]

I don't concede any of those points, Flop
In fact, Allegiant announced service out of Williams Gateway in Phoenix, after we built up a significant operation at sky harbor-
Virgin fired up and we didn't join alaska's lawsuit to stop them from existing-
We believe in a free market-, that individual companies can better decide how to allocate their resources than govt can-you apparently believe in government control.
It's a relevant ideological conversation- but it's interesting that one of the most liberal voices on FI is holding this stance-
I believe that there is a role for government to play- in REGULATING- not controlling as you would have them-
You are as free to come down to hobby as we are to come up to IAH-
As another poster said- if this ruling makes the former CAL operation as weak as UAL is claiming, then you guys were in trouble anyway and it would be better if you fail and not be propped up by the city.

 

[PCL_128]

Let's say you do something in SAT and in 15 years you've put together a great operation. Then some discounter comes around and wants to use Stinson Field to fly to your top 5 markets. Are you going to like that? Are you going to roll over? Or defend it?

The thought wouldn't even cross my mind to oppose it. It's just the free market.

 

[Flopgut]

I don't concede any of those points, Flop
In fact, Allegiant announced service out of Williams Gateway in Phoenix, after we built up a significant operation at sky harbor-
Virgin fired up and we didn't join alaska's lawsuit to stop them from existing-
We believe in a free market-, that individual companies can better decide how to allocate their resources than govt can-you apparently believe in government control.
It's a relevant ideological conversation- but it's interesting that one of the most liberal voices on FI is holding this stance-
I believe that there is a role for government to play- in REGULATING- not controlling as you would have them-
You are as free to come down to hobby as we are to come up to IAH-
As another poster said- if this ruling makes the former CAL operation as weak as UAL is claiming, then you guys were in trouble anyway and it would be better if you fail and not be propped up by the city.

Oh I know Dude, you don't concede anything. Very few of you guys ever do. SWA and GK been caught in a complete lie about how this terminal is being paid for, and you think it's perfectly ok!? I spelled out the intricate but legitimate basis for UAL opposing this, and you can't acknowledge it. If you don't get this done, it's your own fault. Got it? You guys have handled this poorly, to say the least. The SWA argument is basically no different than a crying baby that wants it's toy.

Whatever happens in Houston, I doubt it's because the CAL operation was weak. Don't think for a second that if CAL were still in Houston you'd stand a chance at this. GK is no different than an ambulance chasing lawyer in this regard. What UAL is saying to Houston is that we've got a lot of bases now, and if they are not going to honor prior agreements, neither are we. There are cities that want 787s, and other widebodies.

The thought wouldn't even cross my mind to oppose it. It's just the free market.

But it was ok to oppose the slot swap? It was ok to oppose high speed rail all those years ago? Yeah. I think what you both believe in is a free market that is convenient to what SWA wants.

We'll see. Another prediction I've made is that SWA will freeze others out of using what they get to build at Hobby. I know there will be a lot of carriers that want to use it and compete with you. So we'll see if anybody else get's to use it. When that happens, we'll see if either of you have the cajones to concede what your operation really is about.

 

[Flopgut]

GK says "basically, what we are asking for is a building permit". We've learned that was a lie. He wants this building paid for by others. So what is Houston suppose to do when another airline shows up and wants an FIS at Ellington? And then another wants it put in at Lonestar? Are we going to put this in at every airport with a tower? No! It's a perfect example of why the FAA ruling I cited came about. IAH was built to be the central location for FIS. There is gate space and the FIS can accomodate you. It is a FREE MARKET! SWA is free to move to IAH!

 

[PCL_128]

But it was ok to oppose the slot swap? It was ok to oppose high speed rail all those years ago? Yeah. I think what you both believe in is a free market that is convenient to what SWA wants.

The entire concept of the slots is diametrically opposed to the concept of a free market in the first place. When an airline no longer uses its slot, they should have to give it up and it go to the highest bidder, or use a lottery system. The legacies trading around slots to only the people the want to have them is an affront to a free market. As far as high speed rail, I'm not familiar with that debate.

 

[Flopgut]

You guys think what CAL has at IAH is/was a monopoly. I see it as the fruits of labor. Shoulder to plow. Years of dedication and hard work. (Is that not at least somewhat true with slots?) Why do you think SWA should be entitled to wreck that? Why should SWA be spared the effort?

Yeah, I get that you're a discounter. But what really blows your case is that GK wants this paid for by someone else. SWA doesn't even intend to put the same sort of investment into a HOU FIS that CAL had to at IAH! YGTBSM!

High speed rail? Google it.

 

[humveedriver]

You guys think what CAL has at IAH is/was a monopoly. I see it as the fruits of labor. Shoulder to plow. Years of dedication and hard work. (Is that not at least somewhat true with slots?) Why do you think SWA should be entitled to wreck that? Why should SWA be spared the effort?

Yeah, I get that you're a discounter. But what really blows your case is that GK wants this paid for by someone else. SWA doesn't even intend to put the same sort of investment into a HOU FIS that CAL had to at IAH! YGTBSM!

High speed rail? Google it.

If the request gets approved, nothing will be ready until 2015 or so. Plenty of time for United to figure out their next step. When SWA starts their new service out of Hobby, United will look at sending a few planes over to compete. Then decide it is not worth the effort. They will respond by lowering fares out of IAH and doubling mileage points on similar routes. SWA will win the PR battle by showing the Southwest effect. United pax will be happy. SWA pax will be happy. That's why I think it will get approved. United won't be happy, and I dont think that will be enough to prevent the FIS from being built.

 

[Double Shot]

Flop,

You are a true cal pilot. All bark and no bite.

 

[PCL_128]

You guys think what CAL has at IAH is/was a monopoly. I see it as the fruits of labor. Shoulder to plow. Years of dedication and hard work. (Is that not at least somewhat true with slots?)

No, that's not true with slots. Slots were all awarded back in the day when there were plenty of slots to go around and all of the airlines who wanted them were able to get them. Now, decades later, there aren't enough slots for everyone, and the legacy carriers that picked them up in the first place (without paying a single dime for them) still hold those slots, while new entrants can't get any at all. And then the legacies want the right to just give those slots to other carriers who they don't view as a threat, while locking out the carriers who they do view as a threat. It's a complete affront to a free market system.

Why do you think SWA should be entitled to wreck that? Why should SWA be spared the effort?

Spared the effort? What a joke. I've never been a SWA cheerleader, and I'm not going to start now just because I've been "acquired," but for anyone to claim that SWA got to where they are without a hell of a lot of effort is laughable. SWA has had obstacles put in their way from the beginning, and has always overcome them. This is just the latest example.

But what really blows your case is that GK wants this paid for by someone else.

A lie.

High speed rail? Google it.

No thanks. You're the one who wants to make the point. You present the evidence.

 

[texman]

No, that's not true with slots. Slots were all awarded back in the day when there were plenty of slots to go around and all of the airlines who wanted them were able to get them. Now, decades later, there aren't enough slots for everyone, and the legacy carriers that picked them up in the first place (without paying a single dime for them) still hold those slots, while new entrants can't get any at all. And then the legacies want the right to just give those slots to other carriers who they don't view as a threat, while locking out the carriers who they do view as a threat. It's a complete affront to a free market system.



Spared the effort? What a joke. I've never been a SWA cheerleader, and I'm not going to start now just because I've been "acquired," but for anyone to claim that SWA got to where they are without a hell of a lot of effort is laughable. SWA has had obstacles put in their way from the beginning, and has always overcome them. This is just the latest example.



A lie.



No thanks. You're the one who wants to make the point. You present the evidence.

Yes, a Lie!!!!!!! I want want proof that this is funded by another party. I agree with PCL. This won't cost a dime from the city of Houston!

 

[Flopgut]

http://www.keepiahstrong.com/

FACT CHECK

CLAIM: Dallas-based Southwest will pay for the new FIS facility at Hobby.

THE FACTS: As Aviation Director Mario Diaz stated in a public hearing on April 16, the City of Houston would issue bonds to construct the proposed Hobby facilities. HAS stated its intent to use revenue from an increased Passenger Facility Charge to pay for the facility. This means that all passengers flying from Hobby, not just international passengers, and including those traveling on carriers other than Southwest, would be paying for the facility. Southwest’s promised $100 million investment in Houston will actually be financed by City of Houston debt to be paid back by a ticket tax on all Hobby passengers.

A lie.

Yes, a Lie!!!!!!! I want want proof that this is funded by another party. I agree with PCL. This won't cost a dime from the city of Houston!

I think the most obvious lie here is that you two checked "yes" on the box next to the question: "Do you read, speak and understand english?"

 

[outerlimits]

I think the most obvious lie here is that you two checked "yes" on the box next to the question: "Do you read, speak and understand english?"

You cant debate so you move to insults.

Are you sure your not a Delta Pilot.

 

[Continental]

You cant debate so you move to insults.

Are you sure your not a Delta Pilot.

No but he is most certainly a CAl pilot. You can tell because he will defend CAl/UAl to the end because his company says to. After all the BS they continue to put us through Company says help us out now. So he will. It's a typical lemming route. You keep reading the kool-aid Jeffy updates. Keep eating that free company pizza, Keep checking out that crap website keep-iah-strong, wear your blue keep iah strong bracelet. You probably paid for the first batch anyway.
Why because the company said so.

When the 777 base leaves houston in a year or so be sure to blame SWA because they are flying to mexico out of hobby.

After all the S that they have pulled I hope they get it handed to them. Jeffy said we don't compete with SWA a long time ago. So now he can eat crow. Jeffy said he didn't need labor on board. So now he can kiss my A!

I'm tired of him and of all you helping the company out time and time again. It's time to let them get what they deserve.

 

[texman]

I think the most obvious lie here is that you two checked "yes" on the box next to the question: "Do you read, speak and understand english?"

I do, but you are trying to spin it as if SWA is not going to pay anything. They will via the revenue they make by the increase of intl traffic. You are making sound as if the CITY is overall going to pay for the new intl terminal. Do you understand how a bond(s) works. It will not cost the CITY a dime. I bet the Bond has some type of long term interest involved, were the city would make additional money also. The city will have joint venture with the HOU just like they have with IAH.

I do see your frustrations, but why not complain about the domestic feed out of HOU? Can you answer this question?

Until you can prove that the city will pay for every dime and not make money off the deal, then yes it is a LIE.

Please try not to spin it as if SWA has no obligation financially to the construction of the new terminal.

I will take the high road on your insult towards me.

 

[waveflyer]

Continental, the only thing that sucks is they will give themselves a cushy golden parachute, while you'll see base transfers and downsizing - I wish they could get what they deserve without you getting far worse than you deserve.

 

[Flopgut]

No but he is most certainly a CAl pilot. You can tell because he will defend CAl/UAl to the end because his company says to. After all the BS they continue to put us through Company says help us out now. So he will. It's a typical lemming route. You keep reading the kool-aid Jeffy updates. Keep eating that free company pizza, Keep checking out that crap website keep-iah-strong, wear your blue keep iah strong bracelet. You probably paid for the first batch anyway.
Why because the company said so.

When the 777 base leaves houston in a year or so be sure to blame SWA because they are flying to mexico out of hobby.

After all the S that they have pulled I hope they get it handed to them. Jeffy said we don't compete with SWA a long time ago. So now he can eat crow. Jeffy said he didn't need labor on board. So now he can kiss my A!

I'm tired of him and of all you helping the company out time and time again. It's time to let them get what they deserve.

Hey my friend, you know what? I bet I've got less sick time than you, have filed more grievances, and written more resolutions than you have. In 16 years I've picked up a turn twice, never been junior manned, never done them a favor, have cancelled two flights for sticking to the contract. I don't know who you are, you might be a more reliable member than me, but I doubt it.

The real crisis at this airline are the guys who act hard, but aren't. May not be you? Sure as hell aint me, so we don't have a problem. I come to work to strike this s__thole and put it out of business. That's it.

I am proud of some of what we did do at one time. That's why I'm not in favor of SWA once again getting their way. One of the main reasons any legacy ends up with aweful mgt is that no quality leadership wants to manage against the ridiculous advantage SWA is usually given on issues like this. Ex: Biggest merger in history (so far), CAL and UAL approved almost instantly because they offered SWA some EWR gates. WTF?!

 

[outerlimits]

One of the main reasons any legacy ends up with aweful mgt is that no quality leadership wants to manage against the ridiculous advantage SWA is usually given on issues like this. Ex: Biggest merger in history (so far), CAL and UAL approved almost instantly because they offered SWA some EWR gates. WTF?!

Are you kidding me.

Leader sucks at most airlines because they are a bunch of thieves, that only care about how much money they can stuff into there bank account before they leave.


You have completely lost it if your believing what your printing .

 

[Flopgut]

You went from this:

It will not cost the city a dime!

To this:

Until you can prove that the city will pay for every dime and not make money off the deal, then yes it is a LIE.

Pretty much sums up this whole thread.

 

[texman]

You went from this:



To this:



Pretty much sums up this whole thread.

No it doesn't? I have sympathized with your frustration. This whole thread is you crying that SWA is going to get its way. Again, is this going to cost the city of Houston a dime in the long run? NO?

Do you really think this is the end of the world for UA?

We will have a answer this week. Don't lose any sleep.

 

[Continental]

Hey my friend, you know what? I bet I've got less sick time than you, have filed more grievances, and written more resolutions than you have. In 16 years I've picked up a turn twice, never been junior manned, never done them a favor, have cancelled two flights for sticking to the contract. I don't know who you are, you might be a more reliable member than me, but I doubt it.

The real crisis at this airline are the guys who act hard, but aren't. May not be you? Sure as hell aint me, so we don't have a problem. I come to work to strike this s__thole and put it out of business. That's it.

I am proud of some of what we did do at one time. That's why I'm not in favor of SWA once again getting their way. One of the main reasons any legacy ends up with aweful mgt is that no quality leadership wants to manage against the ridiculous advantage SWA is usually given on issues like this. Ex: Biggest merger in history (so far), CAL and UAL approved almost instantly because they offered SWA some EWR gates. WTF?!

Hey man well good for you that you have done all that. Hats off to you then. But it's not our fault that our inept mgt never had the foresight to think SWA might one day fly intl. That's their problem.
But touting BS off that keep-iah-strong is wrong. The people like Swellbar who hates unions are the very folks that UAL went and hired for that propaganda. The same people who will turn around and say the union needs to get real and take whatever is given to them.
This is the same mgt who turned it's back on Houston when deciding to move HQ to Chicago in one of the most expensive buildings. Sure they could have kept it at IAh and kept it Houston's hometown airline and let's face it save some cash. But no. So if the city of Houston turns it's back on them well..Thats what they get.

IAH is 90 percent UAL if not higher. DAL/AA/US have what like 6-7 gates in IAH? Remember the old Terminal D. The one where everyone came in from INTL? What happened when the new Terminal E was made? Funny how 95 percent of the gates routed to customs from E. Why is that? Funny how UAL decided to build that A wing for Colgan. Build out the B terminal for Express carriers. Now tearing down other side of B for more gates. Seems like they are creating a stronghold there. Again we have gates in most of A, all of B, and all of C and E. Where is the room for any other airline that wants to expand? Everyone should have a shot if they want to right? Isn't that what happened to DEN? SWA started small there, grew when they saw opportunity, and what did UAL do. Nothing..Well shrink. Again CAL/UAl MGT has NEVER been innovative on anything. They are purely reactionary. You know what reactionary just doesn't keep up. We could be running 73s from DAL to DEN but we don't. Why because we don't compete with SWA remember?

I recently took a trip on purchased tickets INTL on DELTA? Why because UAL decided to stop going there. The difference was night and day to ours. DAL has an excellent product and service. WAY better than ours. I was taken back a little to be honest. Here I was just an average joe and getting service in coach that pretty much mirrors our business class. Seems like there was a service every hour. 1 meal, 2 hot snacks, ice cream, Free booze Pillows/Blankets..What are those? Pretzels/peanuts/cookies I vaguely remember those?
There was a delay and DAL had everything ready for us out of customs. No less than 8 agents meeting people with hotels and vouchers ready, connections ready, agents whisking us to our gates. Over here it's go get in line at customer service. It's no surprise DAL is kicking our butt as well.

If anything we don't need to sit in the corner and cry foul when rivals step up their game. We need to compete and get better. That's the whole point of competition. It is supposed to make you better. If we can't improve and compete against others than we have no business being in business. Maybe if we put out a decent product people would continue to fly UAL. Notice AA is matching 1K/gold/plat or whatever to come over to AA. UAL could do the same if they wanted to. But they don't. People are running away from this train wreck and I can't blame them. I don't even fly on us if I can avoid it. It is just a terrible product and I am not doing one thing to help improve it. If they want to be mediocre then fine by me. I can dial it way down. But I will take my money elsewhere like everyone else.

 

[waveflyer]

I come to work to strike this s__thole and put it out of business. That's it.

I am proud of some of what we did do at one time. That's why I'm not in favor of SWA once again getting their way. One of the main reasons any legacy ends up with aweful mgt is that no quality leadership wants to manage against the ridiculous advantage SWA is usually given on issues like this. Ex: Biggest merger in history (so far), CAL and UAL approved almost instantly because they offered SWA some EWR gates. WTF?!

So you're just a hater then? 30,000 pages and it comes down to you wanting your company to fail, as long as swa doesn't succeed. Got it.

 

[Flopgut]

Hey man well good for you that you have done all that. Hats off to you then. But it's not our fault that our inept mgt never had the foresight to think SWA might one day fly intl. That's their problem.
But touting BS off that keep-iah-strong is wrong. The people like Swellbar who hates unions are the very folks that UAL went and hired for that propaganda. The same people who will turn around and say the union needs to get real and take whatever is given to them.
This is the same mgt who turned it's back on Houston when deciding to move HQ to Chicago in one of the most expensive buildings. Sure they could have kept it at IAh and kept it Houston's hometown airline and let's face it save some cash. But no. So if the city of Houston turns it's back on them well..Thats what they get.

IAH is 90 percent UAL if not higher. DAL/AA/US have what like 6-7 gates in IAH? Remember the old Terminal D. The one where everyone came in from INTL? What happened when the new Terminal E was made? Funny how 95 percent of the gates routed to customs from E. Why is that? Funny how UAL decided to build that A wing for Colgan. Build out the B terminal for Express carriers. Now tearing down other side of B for more gates. Seems like they are creating a stronghold there. Again we have gates in most of A, all of B, and all of C and E. Where is the room for any other airline that wants to expand? Everyone should have a shot if they want to right? Isn't that what happened to DEN? SWA started small there, grew when they saw opportunity, and what did UAL do. Nothing..Well shrink. Again CAL/UAl MGT has NEVER been innovative on anything. They are purely reactionary. You know what reactionary just doesn't keep up. We could be running 73s from DAL to DEN but we don't. Why because we don't compete with SWA remember?

I recently took a trip on purchased tickets INTL on DELTA? Why because UAL decided to stop going there. The difference was night and day to ours. DAL has an excellent product and service. WAY better than ours. I was taken back a little to be honest. Here I was just an average joe and getting service in coach that pretty much mirrors our business class. Seems like there was a service every hour. 1 meal, 2 hot snacks, ice cream, Free booze Pillows/Blankets..What are those? Pretzels/peanuts/cookies I vaguely remember those?
There was a delay and DAL had everything ready for us out of customs. No less than 8 agents meeting people with hotels and vouchers ready, connections ready, agents whisking us to our gates. Over here it's go get in line at customer service. It's no surprise DAL is kicking our butt as well.

If anything we don't need to sit in the corner and cry foul when rivals step up their game. We need to compete and get better. That's the whole point of competition. It is supposed to make you better. If we can't improve and compete against others than we have no business being in business. Maybe if we put out a decent product people would continue to fly UAL. Notice AA is matching 1K/gold/plat or whatever to come over to AA. UAL could do the same if they wanted to. But they don't. People are running away from this train wreck and I can't blame them. I don't even fly on us if I can avoid it. It is just a terrible product and I am not doing one thing to help improve it. If they want to be mediocre then fine by me. I can dial it way down. But I will take my money elsewhere like everyone else.

I understand your points and you might be right. I don't care to be a cheerleader for UAL, at all. As I look back, I think we did some good things at CAL. This issue is sort of CAL's last stand. You might want to look more closely at the reasoning for not allowing SWA to open this terminal? (It isn't going to matter after tomorrow, but SWA isn't really stepping up their game. That would coming to IAH where FIS already exists and there are open gates.) The data against them has teeth, and is part what SWA has already agreed to in Dallas as part of the WA settlement. There is more real data that can be cited as reasoning to not allow SWA to do this, than there is to allow it. But, they are SWA and they usually get their way. If it weren't for SWA, we would all realize deregulation was an abject failure. That's why they get propped up, and that's why I don't care for them. You know Bethune is stumping for UAL on this? I'm appreciative that he is doing that. I think if he felt like UAL prevailed and he carried the day, he might be asked to step in for Jeff. A stretch, I know. But sure as hell won't happen if a logical, well documented case get's tossed so SWA can have their whim. A bad CEO is our biggest problem right now

So you're just a hater then? 30,000 pages and it comes down to you wanting your company to fail, as long as swa doesn't succeed. Got it.

My airline is gone. UAL is not giving me any choice but to try and shut it down with a strike. My family was hurt once by SWA in Dallas. I'm not real interested in seeing it happen again in Houston.

I've pbly said on here a dozen times, I would not want SWA guys to hurt financially, or be rolled back contracturally. I'm just tired of seeing the handouts.

Not going to be the end of the world if UAL loses. I'm glad we at least have a chance. I'd love to see you denied and have to come to IAH to prove you have the better airline.

 

[texman]

Flop,

Since you are so passionate about SWA and it's hand out's, can you name at least 10 handouts Over the past 40 years.

 

[scoreboardII]

How about name one?

 

[bluesideup1]

Flop,

Not looking good for your: I want to use politics to stop my competitors.

http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2012/05/city-has-obligation-to-let-southwest-go-global-memo-says/

City has obligation to let Southwest go global, memo says
The city of Houston can’t deny Southwest’s proposal to open Hobby Airport to international commercial flights based on economic arguments alone, City Attorney David Feldman informed the mayor informed the City Council late last week in a memo attached to a legal opinion.

Feldman wrote, “…consideration of such economic issues for the community cannot be controlling; the City’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to Southwest is paramount, irrespective of such issues.”

Here’s Feldman’s memo:

MemoToCouncilSWA


The legal opinion comes just in advance of a scheduled hearing on Tuesday at which Southwest and United Airlines, which opposes Hobby expansion, are expected to debate whether having two international airports makes economic sense for Houston.

The Southwest plan calls for the addition of a Customs facility and five gates to Hobby. Though a city-commissioned study concludes that Hobby expansion would be a boon for the Houston economy, a study by United warns that it will cost 3,700 jobs, nearly $300 million a year in economic activity, reduced routes from Bush Intercontinental and the transfer of some United operations to other airports.

But a 14-page memo from attorney Peter Kirsch of the firm Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, indicates that the economic debate could be moot in the face of obligations the city has to the Federal Aviation Administration as a condition for receiving millions of dollars a year in federal funding.

Kirsch wrote “… the City is legally obligated to accommodate the reasonable needs of Southwest.”

He also wrote:

In meeting its obligations to the federal government, the City is required to negotiate in good faith with Southwest to provide the space and/or facilities that Southwest has requested to meet its needs for international service.

Kirsch leaves the door slightly ajar for grappling over whether this means the Southwest plan is a legal slam-dunk. The city should be guided by the overarching principle that the city is required to provide access on reasonable terms and without discrimination, Kirsch wrote.

But, he added:

The interpretation of this principle is unusually complex in this instance because there is no controlling precedent either in case law or under regulations, policies or determinations issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that are precisely applicable to the facts presented here.

A United spokeswoman sent an email message that the company disagrees with the legal opinion.

 

[waveflyer]

Delete