SWA wants to fly from HOU to MEX and SouthAmerica

[redflyer65]

You guys have proven nothing. You have not been tested and you are weak.

You said what about us wanting to strike? I didn't understand you. You want to be at Hobby so you don't have to honor our picket line? Yeah, I'm sure in that May 8th meeting GK will make sure that comes up. He can say to the council his lap dog pilots will never strike.

Awesome, just awesome.

 

[Flopgut]

what does that mean? Knock yourself out bro

I highlighted the parts I take exception to.
That's right, one of the most liberal, Obama supporters on FI is calling you out for being socialist and anti-capitalist.
Government has a role. Strategic decisions of private corporations? - absolutely not.

I've yet to see the Forbes article- the Fortune one was posted, and it was an opinion piece. In that where the author accuses SWA of brazenly asking the city for $100M (which is false), he cites how the city put up $333 million towards your shiny terminals in IAH.
How do you take city money over and over, then claim its unfair if the city simply "allows" us to operate out of hobby.

CAL's business decisions should not hogtie swa -

You are thick though-

Here you go:

Enabling: Humveedrvr says becasue SWA is the largest domestic carrier they should be the ones who exploit the mega carriers thru airports DAL and HUB.

Letting: With 5 gates only it's quite obvious you're going go after our best destinations for revenue.

Mostly their own money: A little over a billion has been spent on IAH. Like you said, the city's portion is 333 million. That means CAL came up with the rest. Mostly our own money. How do we take that money? We had to build out the whole airport so the city had room for all parties. Yes, we had to build equal accomodations for other airlines. We undertook that not thinking Houston would consider allowing 1 airline to build 5 gates at Hobby and just pick us off. Houston got a lot more than they paid for, and we stand to get screwed!

You don't think another airline might like to spend a 100 million and get 5 gates of their own at Hobby?! It's a cash cow! It's free money! I think AAI would have, but you bought them. Branson could pbly cough up the money. Jetblue would pbly like a crack at it. And that's just the LCCs. Of course United and Delta would be interested. But we don't enable lagacies in this industry. I don't know? Why don't we find out before we just give it to you?

Are you more liberal? Or more SWA pilot? Cause I'm not confused about how you would feel sitting in my shoes...

 

[humveedriver]

I guess the reason why SWA should be allowed vice some other carrier is because they asked for the help. I didn't realize the Houston Airport was suppose to take a poll or solicit other carriers first. You call it enabling, but let's face it. The city enables your airlines too. But what I get from your argument is that because CAL and then later United invested substantially more money into IAH. The city owes them. In 1990 the city gave Continental the land for their maintenance hanger. That was nice of them. Is that enabling or no?

 

[On Your Six]

United's Biggest Hub Faces Attack by Southwest
By Ted Reed 04/18/12

HOUSTON (TheStreet) -- Southwest, while part of the U.S. airline industry, has always been an irritant to the legacy hub carriers that dominate it.

In the 1990s, Southwest attacked hub carriers with lower costs, enabling it to undercut their fares. By the 2000s, Southwest's labor cost advantage was diminishing, but it could undercut competitors' fares due to lower fuel costs, a result of its prescient fuel hedging strategy. Now, nearly all carriers hedge fuel.

In Houston, Southwest is at it again, riling the hub carrier with its emerging effort to fly internationally, and seeking to employ its historic model of utilizing a smaller airport that exists in the shadow of a big hub airport, in this case Bush Intercontinental.

But in Houston, Southwest has encountered unprecedented resistance. Not only is hub carrier United Continental Holdings (UAL_)fighting back, but also, after decades of having municipalities beg for its service, Southwest is hearing something quite different.

"Council rips study painting Hobby expansion as boon," was the headline in Tuesday's Houston Chronicle. The newspaper covered a Monday meeting at which the city council challenged a consultant's study extolling the benefits to Houston if Hobby Airport expands so that Southwest can fly to Mexican and Caribbean destinations.

The study contends that expansion could lead to 10,000 new jobs and add $1.6 billion to the economy. Southwest wants city permission to build five gates and a $100 million customs facility at Hobby, using passenger fee revenue.

Council members blasted the study, calling it "biased" and "custom-made just to satisfy the demand of Southwest," according to the Chronicle. Members grilled Houston's airport director, a backer of the study, for three hours.

"United had, perhaps, its finest day in the war over Houston's skies as council members expressed skepticism and sometimes hostility toward (the) study," the newspaper wrote.

Asked if Southwest took a hit at the meeting, spokesman Paul Flanagan responded: "It wasn't Southwest who took the hit, but the Houston Airport system." Southwest and United will both present their cases to the council on May 8, he noted.

"Houston is a market that is underserved and overpriced," Flanagan said. "We feel strongly that if given the opportunity to grow our operation in Houston, we would lower fares and stimulate international air travel across the board."




Godspeed!


The OYSter

 

[TahoeBoarder]

So some city council members expressed skepticism and acted outraged in a very public forum...I'm totally shocked.

 

[Flopgut]

But what I get from your argument is that because CAL and then later United invested substantially more money into IAH. The city owes them.

Thank you. Yes, we invested substantially more. And what we're asking for in return is not that SWA be kept from the market, but only that previous committments (albeit verbal) be honored and that everything we've laid plans for not be thrown in the trash. Which is exactly what will happen if SWA sets up shop with five gates at Hobby and then sharp shoots the best routes out of Houston.

 

[PCL_128]

Everyone should have stopped paying attention to Flop as soon as he started claiming that the Wright Amendment restrictions were good for SWA. He's obviously lost it.

 

[waveflyer]

Yeah, it's only been entertainment for a while now- except that- his arguments are ACTUALLY being made. Crazy has happened before.

So flop, who is stopping any airline, legacy or not, UAL/CAL or JBlu, or VA from asking Houston to let them build 5 gates in Hobby as well? Or out of Ellington. I don't see SWA ever asking Houston to not let any other airline do anything they can afford and want to do.

And no- I'm a pretty liberal guy- which is why this form of government intrusion into capitalism ticks me off. It undermines appropriate government on many levels and lends credence to the lack of trust the small government folks have towards govt. This is why I am absolutely in agreement with conservatives.
Stop asking government to pick winners and losers. I know the airlines will always be more political than many industries- but this crosses a lot of lines.

 

[nimtz]

SWA employee's have proven their metal enough times to take one for the team when needed. Bring it Flop, bring it. Last time I saw a UASL/CAL pilot take one was in a strike line. OH, wait, you guys just sent the letter to be released so you could strike.

Hey lookie everyone, it's that 'Warrior Spirit' we've all heard so much about! Oh yeah BRING IT!

 

[Flopgut]

Flop, that's your definition of a fair fight. There are other opinions. What United has in IAH is a fortress hub. That is not fair fight. The city has a hand in developing airports and fortress hubs for airlines. If that's what they want, that's what they will get. See pages 9 and 10 of the link below. I think the Ual/Cal merger strengthens SWA's argument.

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/abaair1.pdf

That's a cool link. Good info. I need to read it more. But, answer me this: In those pages 9 and 10, it speaks to what the hub and spoke landscape has resulted in post de-regulation. And then seems to suggest that something should be considered to mitigate what has come to be a fortress hub "problem". My question is, how is it not wrong to make a correction to mitigate the fortress hub "problem" by gifting a previoulsy non-existent competitive advantage to a discount competitor?(are we de-regulated or not?) Or maybe at this point we should just say Southwest? Because it seems clear they have been ordained as the single carrier that should benefit from de-regulation and be used to destroy the fortress hubs?

Additionally, it's certainly in poor form for any airline to first provide 2/3rds+ of the funding for the fortress hub, and then break it up as soon as the discounter [Southwest] feels they deserve it? I know this: CAL would have made do just fine with zero updates to IAH if we knew this was coming. Houston got a heck of front door to the world, and now they are set to shoot us in the back...

Ok, very good post, point well taken. But I vehemently disagree that Southwest be the only carrier that is the "counterbalance" to the mega carriers. Where is the balance in enabling one airline to be profitable and to grow year after year? Where is the balance in letting that profitable carrier take their pick of the very best routes from a terminal that is probably going to be built with taxpayer money? (as the Fortune or Forbes article describes. I do NOT beleive SWA will pay up) When mega carriers have to pay 10 times to a city, mostly their own money?

If having Hobby open to international flights is the balancing act that is required? Then I'd say ok, but don't give it to SWA. Not this time; not twice in a row. Have a lottery, an auction, or something like that. It's worth a lot more than 100 million to somebody else.

And btw: Does any of this thesis of yours resemble the free market? Is it not any worse than regulation was? I know you think it's great because you see dollar signs, and you've done a good job of making your point (and it actually looks like what is happening) but what about the employees of these mega carriers? We're not going to just languish in insolvency. You know eventually we're coming with our pitchforks. Maybe sooner than you think?

The gates are available in IAH and DFW for that matter. It's the pricing that is unfair. Essentially the United's of the world want the competition to lose money competing with them on like routes (the legacies intentiolly slash fares and operate at a loss. Once the competition is gone. Fares go up. Everyone here knows this trend). Knowing they can afford to do this due to their extensive networks. The article is from 1999. The points about monopolies and hubs still hold their water. But things have changed since then too. Continental and Northwest were blocked from merging. But since oil and the economy have been in the tank, things have changed. The DOJ is accepting of a consolidated industry with fewer mega carriers. They don't address address the impact on smaller carriers. I believe SWA, which carries the most passengers domestically, is the counter balance to the new age of mega carrier. As such, I think they should be allowed to offer international service out of Hobby.

what does that mean? Knock yourself out bro

I highlighted the parts I take exception to.
That's right, one of the most liberal, Obama supporters on FI is calling you out for being socialist and anti-capitalist.
Government has a role. Strategic decisions of private corporations? - absolutely not.

I've yet to see the Forbes article- the Fortune one was posted, and it was an opinion piece. In that where the author accuses SWA of brazenly asking the city for $100M (which is false), he cites how the city put up $333 million towards your shiny terminals in IAH.
How do you take city money over and over, then claim its unfair if the city simply "allows" us to operate out of hobby.

CAL's business decisions should not hogtie swa -

You are thick though-

Wave: In the post above, you completely took me out of context. You need to re-read the exchange I had with Humveedriver. His idea is that SWA (and only SWA, by virtue of size) should be the "counterbalance" to the hub and spoke mega carriers. And if that means SWA needs to be granted something that is contrary to market forces, politics, fairness, agreements, or whatever, SWA should be given whatever they need to be that counterbalance. If you are what you say you are, and you don't think the govt should pick winners and losers, then you need to agree with me-That is screwed up!!

Read it again. The second post from Humveedrivr needs to go between my two posts...