SWA wants to fly from HOU to MEX and SouthAmerica

[madjack]

Flop, one airport only serves CAL's purposes...not saying you won't get what you want but please keep it real...the consumer wins if SWA flies INT'L out of Hobby...

 

[humveedriver]

Read the letters written by United management on United letterhead telling the City of Houston what their airport policies are. That's what Texans love... being told what to do.

 

[Flopgut]

Guys: It took me 30 pages, but you're looking at the proof. I've been as gracious as any person ought to have to be on FI, and I've argued this thread on my own. It's time for you guys to own up to it: you've got no right to pursue these new gates at Hobby

That precedent is a court case, not some mere guideline. Houston doesn't need a specific agreement. that covers them all. You guys no longer have a leg to stand on. It's the same data that was used to formulate the current ruling on Dallas airports. One that SWA agrees with, btw. There is no where else we have to go. For purposes of this thread, you guys are done.

 

[taxicabdriver]

Flop, one airport only serves CAL's purposes...not saying you won't get what you want but please keep it real...the consumer wins if SWA flies INT'L out of Hobby...

I could care less about this, but think its funny how the SWA guys always thinks this is what the consumer wants. All the consumer cares about is low fares and SWA is NOT always the cheapest. I use expedia and depending what airport I fly out of the legacy airlines are usually as cheap if not cheaper than SWA when comparing flights on southwest.com

 

[humveedriver]

Guys: It took me 30 pages, but you're looking at the proof. I've been as gracious as any person ought to have to be on FI, and I've argued this thread on my own. It's time for you guys to own up to it: you've got no right to pursue these new gates at Hobby

That precedent is a court case, not some mere guideline. Houston doesn't need a specific agreement. that covers them all. You guys no longer have a leg to stand on. It's the same data that was used to formulate the current ruling on Dallas airports. One that SWA agrees with, btw. There is no where else we have to go. For purposes of this thread, you guys are done.

Arguing with you is like arguing with my wife. She has her own set of facts and I'm never going to be right ;-)

 

[SWA Bubba]

Guys: It took me 30 pages, but you're looking at the proof. I've been as gracious as any person ought to have to be on FI, and I've argued this thread on my own. It's time for you guys to own up to it: you've got no right to pursue these new gates at Hobby

That precedent is a court case, not some mere guideline. You guys no longer have a leg to stand on. It's the same data that was used to formulate the current ruling on Dallas airports. One that SWA agrees with, btw. There is no where else we have to go. For purposes of this thread, you guys are done.

Hey Flop,

Good on you for sticking up for your airline, especially since it seems that you're by yourself in that crusade (or at least on this thread, anyway!). And as I said before, I've tried to see your point. I even read every word of the letters you posted the go.com link to. However, they didn't say what you said they said.

After the SWA letters, and the first UAL letter, there was one from the airport authority itself which questioned the existence of any agreement or enforceable policy that all international operations would be guaranteed to IAH versus HOU. The authority even invited UAL to produce a copy or reference any such policy or agreement. In numerous reponse letters, UAL neglegted to do so, only stating basically that it's "always been that way." If UAL itself cannot produce or reference any agreement, after being asked directly and specifically to do so, I'd say that it doesn't and never did exist.

The "legal precedent" that YOU referenced, i.e. the 4-party DAL compromise to end the Wright Amendment (in two steps), has absolutely no bearing on this case. That agreement was exactly that: a compromise to finally end that horrendous piece of legislation imposed upon SWA (not agreed to by SWA, as some other revisionist "historians" on FI would have you believe) in 1979 by House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Ft Worth). There is no study by anyone, done at any time, saying that limiting international flights to DFW only was good or ecomomically best for the city of Dallas. We only agreed to this compromise so we could actually finally fly from our home base in Dallas to exotic places like Las Vegas and Chicago, which heretofore have been illegal.

If SWA had agreed never to fly internationally out of HOU and then went back on their word, THEN I'd agree that the Wright Amendment Compromise was an applicable precedent that SWA should stick to its agreements. But since there was never such an agreement, your argument is an unrelated smokescreen at best.

Tell you what Flop, you ought to do some research yourself on the whole process that led to the Wright Amendment. Don't just listen to the stuff put out on this board by SWA haters. I think you'd find it instructive.

The rest (and majority) of the UAL letters you referenced were basically just doom and gloom rhetoric, and (in my opinion) wildly overstated. It seems unfathomable that SWA eventually having 25 daily international departures to maybe 8 or 10 cities could possibly cause UAL to cut service to up to 30 cities and discontinue another 4 altogether. The ridiculous insinuation was that IAH would lose 6-10% of its international service. That math doesn't add up at all.

And to say that "fair" would be for SWA to fly internationally out of IAH (UAL would "welcome" that) is self-serving fluff. Everyone knows (and trust me, you can damn sure bet that UAL management knows) that if SWA can't fly its international Houston flights out of HOU vice IAH, it can't do it at all. If we flew them out of IAH, we'd only be able to fly local Houstonians, a small fraction of our customers. Our connecting passengers would be stranded in HOU (where our domestic network connects to the city of Houston), wondering how they'd connect from their dometic gate, to the next leg of their trip at an internationl gate 35 miles away. Seeing as how the overwhelming majority of UAL's international Houston passengers (something like 96%) originated at a city other than Houston, and their connecting passengers need only walk to the next concourse, you might see that this is not exactly the "fair and level" playing field you espouse.

If you want to make it "fair," and have SWA do its international flying out of IAH when our domestic flying is at HOU, I have a proposal to make: Just so that it's a "level" playing field like you want, UAL passengers wanting to fly from, say, any other city to Cancun via Houston, have to fly into IAH, gather all their bags and crap, leave the airport, drive aimlessly in a cab for an hour or so, finally returning to IAH, and repeat the whole airport experience to board their flight to Cancun. Then you might be able to compare the experiences on the two airlines.

OR...... we could just do what has been suggested earlier: You fly to wherever you want from IAH, and we'll fly to wherever we want from HOU. The passengers win, and ultimately, both airlines go about their respective ways, working their particular business model.

Just a thought.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

I could care less about this, but think its funny how the SWA guys always thinks this is what the consumer wants. All the consumer cares about is low fares and SWA is NOT always the cheapest. I use expedia and depending what airport I fly out of the legacy airlines are usually as cheap if not cheaper than SWA when comparing flights on southwest.com

You have a point. If we're cheaper from point A to point B, then fly us. If UAL is cheaper, fly them. Ditto Delta, Alaska, etc. Fly where you want to go on whoever's the cheapest. Passengers always have that choice.

Seeing as how you bring up that point, I'm assuming that you have no objection to SWA flying internationally out of HOU then. After all, if UAL is "as cheap if not cheaper," then UAL has nothing to worry about. Damn, we'll be lucky to fill a single plane out of HOU then.

Thanks for pointing this out (are you listening, Flopgut?); I'm sure glad you're on our side on this one, Taxicabdriver !

Bubba

 

[scoreboardII]

you've got no right to pursue these new gates at Hobby
.

Sure we do, you guys will be walking a picket line in 45 or so days, right? Somebody has to fly those passengers, it's their right as well.

 

[outerlimits]

Buba just said it best

Just let free market rule.

 

[Flopgut]

Hey Flop,

Good on you for sticking up for your airline, especially since it seems that you're by yourself in that crusade (or at least on this thread, anyway!). And as I said before, I've tried to see your point. I even read every word of the letters you posted the go.com link to. However, they didn't say what you said they said.

After the SWA letters, and the first UAL letter, there was one from the airport authority itself which questioned the existence of any agreement or enforceable policy that all international operations would be guaranteed to IAH versus HOU. The authority even invited UAL to produce a copy or reference any such policy or agreement. In numerous reponse letters, UAL neglegted to do so, only stating basically that it's "always been that way." If UAL itself cannot produce or reference any agreement, after being asked directly and specifically to do so, I'd say that it doesn't and never did exist.

The "legal precedent" that YOU referenced, i.e. the 4-party DAL compromise to end the Wright Amendment (in two steps), has absolutely no bearing on this case. That agreement was exactly that: a compromise to finally end that horrendous piece of legislation imposed upon SWA (not agreed to by SWA, as some other revisionist "historians" on FI would have you believe) in 1979 by House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Ft Worth). There is no study by anyone, done at any time, saying that limiting international flights to DFW only was good or ecomomically best for the city of Dallas. We only agreed to this compromise so we could actually finally fly from our home base in Dallas to exotic places like Las Vegas and Chicago, which heretofore have been illegal.

If SWA had agreed never to fly internationally out of HOU and then went back on their word, THEN I'd agree that the Wright Amendment Compromise was an applicable precedent that SWA should stick to its agreements. But since there was never such an agreement, your argument is an unrelated smokescreen at best.

Tell you what Flop, you ought to do some research yourself on the whole process that led to the Wright Amendment. Don't just listen to the stuff put out on this board by SWA haters. I think you'd find it instructive.

The rest (and majority) of the UAL letters you referenced were basically just doom and gloom rhetoric, and (in my opinion) wildly overstated. It seems unfathomable that SWA eventually having 25 daily international departures to maybe 8 or 10 cities could possibly cause UAL to cut service to up to 30 cities and discontinue another 4 altogether. The ridiculous insinuation was that IAH would lose 6-10% of its international service. That math doesn't add up at all.

And to say that "fair" would be for SWA to fly internationally out of IAH (UAL would "welcome" that) is self-serving fluff. Everyone knows (and trust me, you can damn sure bet that UAL management knows) that if SWA can't fly its international Houston flights out of HOU vice IAH, it can't do it at all. If we flew them out of IAH, we'd only be able to fly local Houstonians, a small fraction of our customers. Our connecting passengers would be stranded in HOU (where our domestic network connects to the city of Houston), wondering how they'd connect from their dometic gate, to the next leg of their trip at an internationl gate 35 miles away. Seeing as how the overwhelming majority of UAL's international Houston passengers (something like 96%) originated at a city other than Houston, and their connecting passengers need only walk to the next concourse, you might see that this is not exactly the "fair and level" playing field you espouse.

If you want to make it "fair," and have SWA do its international flying out of IAH when our domestic flying is at HOU, I have a proposal to make: Just so that it's a "level" playing field like you want, UAL passengers wanting to fly from, say, any other city to Cancun via Houston, have to fly into IAH, gather all their bags and crap, leave the airport, drive aimlessly in a cab for an hour or so, finally returning to IAH, and repeat the whole airport experience to board their flight to Cancun. Then you might be able to compare the experiences on the two airlines.

OR...... we could just do what has been suggested earlier: You fly to wherever you want from IAH, and we'll fly to wherever we want from HOU. The passengers win, and ultimately, both airlines go about their respective ways, working their particular business model.

Just a thought.

Bubba

Bubba:

I started out thinking my UAL co-workers were screwing this up. But after looking at this link over and over, I'm pretty happy with their efforts. I'd rather you read the pages I spoke to, but I guess I'll have to pull some of the statements out. They are specific, lucid, relavant and correct. Let's stop playing games, ok? UAL has a very strong case to stop you from building this new terminal and making international flights from HOU. It even appears they have headed off the possible exception that GK/SWA would have accepted as suitable* of limiting HOU to Class III aircraft only. *(would have played right into his hands. No one could come in with a bigger plane and whupped you. GK is a slippery one)

First off, HOU international flights would be even more damaging to UAL than moving SWA flts to IAH. I know you think UAL ought to be thrown in the dumpster, but you have to think big picture. UAL needs a chance at every customer passing through IAH that wants to connect to the very long, thin markets we want to serve with the 787, 777, etc. If we can't get that chance to compete for each customer in IAH, then the airplane will move to another base. It would take a lot of flying with it, and that is going to cause harm to the airport, the City, and to the State of Texas. I know you don't like it, but this is where air transportation is going. The world economy is flat, and you can't get everywhere in a 737. What you are trying to do is leverage yourself into the picture, when in reality a good portion of air travel is moving away from you. You made the decision to only fly 737s and you also decided to use HOU. That's the reality.

Here are the specifics: (btw, I hate talking like a lawyer, but since you claim this doesn't exist I will try to pull out the specifics) FAA Assurance Grants 23 and 39 do not require that HAS accomodate the SWA request that FIS be provided them at Hobby. Additionally, the FAA recognizes that limiting certain aircraft operation to a single airport in a multi airport system is customary. AND, the court case precedent, which is from Denver and an airline called Centennial, produced a final agency decision and order from the FAA stating that these limits may be imposed. Don't confuse the word "may" there as something that would allow you further argue your case. "May" allows for the possibility that an airport is too busy to make accomodations. IAH currently has 12 open gates. And as is spelled out in the next letter, current IAH FIS/CBP facilities are built to handle 4500/hr. Right now they peak at 2000/hr. There is so much accurate and thoroughly vetted data that would have to be ignored for the City to allow this, it simply should not happen.

These are specifics. This is not whinning or hyperbole. This is a well thought and accurate statement of facts that point to only one rightful conclusion: SWA should not be allowed to operate international flights from HOU. I'm done defending this. You guys need to do a better job of making your case. Because frankly, it looks like amatuer hour. You've been erroneous, made delusional claims, and been alltogether sloppy.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Well then you have nothing to worry about. So why have you been worrying about it for 30 pages? You sound very scared and must believe socialistic and protectionist policies are they only way you can compete. And it seems UNICAL believes the same thing. It seems to be the way this country is going. If you can't beat them with your product, beat them with your lawyers.

 

[FlyinGuy]

Something like a 9-11 ought not transpire and it be such a windfall for only one airline segment.

Flop, I am confused by this statement. Could you please elaborate. Thanks.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop, I am confused by this statement. Could you please elaborate. Thanks.

Sure. Of course, it ought not happen at all.

However, when 4 planes from just 2 airlines are involved because the company names match the name of our country? Something ought to be done other than just let those companies be ruined. Is there not a shred of National pride we could have taken instead of just pointing to market forces? The combined UAL and CAL is still smaller than UAL was 11 years ago. American is now in bk, and if you look close at mgt behavior in the last decade, it's clear bk has been their plan all along.

This Country supports a space program, has aircraft manufactures that build the world's best airliner, military, general, business aircraft. We have the most powerful and sophisticated military. Fractional and LCC flourish here. UPS and Fedex are US companies that run the table on world air frieght. But for some reason our legacy airlines are always in the toilet. Really? Is that something we're just not good at? Or do we simply not let them run?

This Country has de and re-regulated, downsized and otherwise ripped apart so many great legacy brands, it's unbelievable. Legacy airlines right now can't even get Uncle Sam to stop using taxpayer money to provide below prime financing to airlines like India's JetAirways and UAE's Emirates!! It's unbelievable and it has to stop.

I realize SWA is simply doing what they are suppose to do. But something like this terminal at Hobby is something they ought not feel entitled to and they need to understand their handouts need to cease.

Hey, I'm taking some time off from this forum. After this thread I've had enough for a while. If anybody expresses some real heartburn here in the next few hours, I'll respond. But otherwise I'm outta here...

 

[FlyinGuy]

All I can say is.....WOW!!!

 

[PCL_128]

Because frankly, it looks like amatuer hour. You've been erroneous, made delusional claims, and been alltogether sloppy.

Pretty much the way I see your posts in this thread.

 

[scoreboardII]

Sure. Of course, it ought not happen at all.

However, when 4 planes from just 2 airlines are involved because the company names match the name of our country? Something ought to be done other than just let those companies be ruined. Is there not a shred of National pride we could have taken instead of just pointing to market forces? The combined UAL and CAL is still smaller than UAL was 11 years ago. American is now in bk, and if you look close at mgt behavior in the last decade, it's clear bk has been their plan all along.

This Country supports a space program, has aircraft manufactures that build the world's best airliner, military, general, business aircraft. We have the most powerful and sophisticated military. Fractional and LCC flourish here. UPS and Fedex are US companies that run the table on world air frieght. But for some reason our legacy airlines are always in the toilet. Really? Is that something we're just not good at? Or do we simply not let them run?

This Country has de and re-regulated, downsized and otherwise ripped apart so many great legacy brands, it's unbelievable. Legacy airlines right now can't even get Uncle Sam to stop using taxpayer money to provide below prime financing to airlines like India's JetAirways and UAE's Emirates!! It's unbelievable and it has to stop.

I realize SWA is simply doing what they are suppose to do. But something like this terminal at Hobby is something they ought not feel entitled to and they need to understand their handouts need to cease.

Hey, I'm taking some time off from this forum. After this thread I've had enough for a while. If anybody expresses some real heartburn here in the next few hours, I'll respond. But otherwise I'm outta here...

You are being hypocritical, you want to stop governmental help of US companies which make airplanes, yet you want the governement to help your company make a monopoly.

 

[outerlimits]

Pretty much the way I see your posts in this thread.

Flop is an idiot, no other way to explain it . I think he is the type that just wants to argue, does not matter what side he is on.

 

[waveflyer]

Flop,
So then in my big cut and paste- you never responded to this:

"HOUSTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines
(NYSE: CAL) today issued the following statement in response to the Air
Transportation Stabilization Board's decision regarding the United Airlines
application for a federal loan guarantee:
"United Airlines is a great franchise with exceptional employees. The
more than 70,000 hard-working men and women of United have made tremendous
sacrifices in recent years, as have tens of thousands of employees at
Continental Airlines and the rest of the industry. In addition, United's
efforts to reduce costs and generate additional revenue have made the airline
a stronger competitor.
"The wide support among political leaders and others for United's loan
guarantee application showed a great commitment to the airline's employees.
However, given United's success in reshaping itself, the ATSB and its members
made the appropriate decision after their careful and thorough assessment of
United's needs and the industry's position. They should be applauded for that
decision.
"The challenges facing the U.S. airline industry are many, but the most
appropriate course of action is to allow the marketplace to determine the
shape of the industry.
"Continental Airlines is confident that private investment and further
structural change -- rather than government intervention -- can position
United Airlines for success in this difficult environment."



SOURCE Continental Airlines"

Do you see why you're talking out of both sides of your mouth now. CAL was against UAL getting a loan guarantee. I was very much for it, so don't make it personal to me- but CAL agreed with the ATSB-

Is your argument not hypocritical considering the above?

 

[Flopgut]

Pretty much the way I see your posts in this thread.

All I want to hear out of you is: "Yup, you showed me proof". You said if I produced it, you would acknowledge it...

You are being hypocritical, you want to stop governmental help of US companies which make airplanes, yet you want the governement to help your company make a monopoly.

Well, I'm not being clear then. I don't want help to stop for manufacturers. I think it's great that all these other areas of aviation are successful. Just want the same regard for legacies.

Flop is an idiot, no other way to explain it . I think he is the type that just wants to argue, does not matter what side he is on.

I'm an idiot? You needed help spelling "Baron" right in your profile! Spelling errors happen... but not the names of airplanes you've flown.

Flop,
So then in my big cut and paste- you never responded to this:

"HOUSTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines
(NYSE: CAL) today issued the following statement in response to the Air
Transportation Stabilization Board's decision regarding the United Airlines
application for a federal loan guarantee:
"United Airlines is a great franchise with exceptional employees. The
more than 70,000 hard-working men and women of United have made tremendous
sacrifices in recent years, as have tens of thousands of employees at
Continental Airlines and the rest of the industry. In addition, United's
efforts to reduce costs and generate additional revenue have made the airline
a stronger competitor.
"The wide support among political leaders and others for United's loan
guarantee application showed a great commitment to the airline's employees.
However, given United's success in reshaping itself, the ATSB and its members
made the appropriate decision after their careful and thorough assessment of
United's needs and the industry's position. They should be applauded for that
decision.
"The challenges facing the U.S. airline industry are many, but the most
appropriate course of action is to allow the marketplace to determine the
shape of the industry.
"Continental Airlines is confident that private investment and further
structural change -- rather than government intervention -- can position
United Airlines for success in this difficult environment."



SOURCE Continental Airlines"

Do you see why you're talking out of both sides of your mouth now. CAL was against UAL getting a loan guarantee. I was very much for it, so don't make it personal to me- but CAL agreed with the ATSB-

Is your argument not hypocritical considering the above?

Personally, I was in favor of UAL getting a loan. Both applications. You have to remember that between CAL and UAL, there was a lot of hostility held over from the "screw CAL" days in Denver. IMHO, that influenced the tone coming from CAL mgt right up to when Jeff Smisek took over.

Look, I'm on here one last time to say this: I made my point. I think there is a very good case to stop the new terminal in Hobby. Even so, I don't think it's better than 50/50. Southwest simply get's favoritism in the end. So we shall see what happens.

I think a few of you who berrated me for having no proof of a possible restriction, ought to be big enough to agree that maybe there is...

I'm dropping this at least until after the 8th, or some major news.

 

[Captain X]

JHFC-on-a-stick!

31 pages and the only thing worthwhile was the utilization of "corndog" for a SWA jet.