redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/SWA-UACorrespondence.pdf
Link above: SWA's Bob Montgomery states; "As part of this evaluation, we welcome the opportunity to discuss funding alternatives with the goal in mind to maintain the low cost structure we have both worked so hard to maintain at Hobby"
What exactly does that mean? If SWA is paying for it, what's a "funding alternative"? The city has also worked hard to keep the costs at Hobby low!?What's that mean? Kinda makes me wonder where the $110k for the study ended up even more. Did they work that hard to help CAL? Or did they just want a huge airport built/paid for by someone else? These five gates need to be bid out. If nothing else, run the price up on SWA. Wouldn't that be more like a free market? Have an auction. Let bidders decide what it's worth. Don't just hand it to SWA for pennies, because they asked real nice...
You seriously think you've found some Smoking Gun here with Bob's statements?
It's business and negotiations 101 flop. Houston has bent over backwards for CAL in the past 20 years, and what did that get them? Hey, we're headed to the windy city thanks for all the help over all the years. I have to agree with wave, there was never really any loyalty to Houston, it was just convienent at the time!