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.