SWA wants to fly from HOU to MEX and SouthAmerica

[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...

 

[Flopgut]

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."

All right pal, then why does there have to be a vote? Why does there have to be a decision by the city council? There most certainly is a policy change that has to take place. It's the SWA battlecry to act like rules don't affect you and agreements don't matter. You can delve into the "he said, she said" but the facts are staring you in the face. You have to sell it to the city council and they have to say yes. And you know what? They might not say yes. If that's the case, do you think you can make reference to the points you've made here and build it anyway? Nope. If they say no, you go packing....

These documents are sponsored by SWA. The United case is forthcoming....

 

[PCL_128]

All right pal, then why does there have to be a vote? Why does there have to be a decision by the city council?

Because SWA wants to build something on city property. That's not about a policy change, it's about a building authorization.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

Yeah, well the whole thing is way out there. Look, it's Bob's job to act like it doesn't mean anything. But the fact that he mentions it, before he assails it, I think gives my point some credence. It's all lawyerspeak. Fact is, we have a deal with the city and it's got teeth. You want to operate international flights out of Hobby? Someone needs to cut UAL/CAL a check for around 1.5 billion...

 

[Flopgut]

Because SWA wants to build something on city property. That's not about a policy change, it's about a building authorization.

SWA=professionals at acting like policies or certain truths don't matter. It's surprising how quickly you adapted their mantra.

Bethune is a more respected airline guy than Gary Kelly is, and he's staking his reputation on this. I suggest you keep your powder dry until you see the whole case... Gk and SWA are going to get drug through the mud on this one...

 

[Bake]

Yeah, well the whole thing is way out there. Look, it's Bob's job to act like it doesn't mean anything. But the fact that he mentions it, before he assails it, I think gives my point some credence. It's all lawyerspeak. Fact is, we have a deal with the city and it's got teeth. You want to operate international flights out of Hobby? Someone needs to cut UAL/CAL a check for around 1.5 billion...

I can't stop laughing at that one. 1.5 billion??? Really? Are you guys packing up and leaving?