SWA wants to fly from HOU to MEX and SouthAmerica

[humveedriver]

So much fun to pretend like we know what's up... When at the end o the day we are all just sitting at the kids table listening to the adults talk at the big table.

 

[PCL_128]

MY company paid for those slots, so did US Airways.

That's a common misconception, but no, they actually did not. The vast majority of slots are held by legacy airlines who have held them for decades. They were awarded to those legacy carriers back when there were plenty of slots to go around to all of the legacy carriers who wanted them at the time. They didn't pay for them, they were given to them by the FAA. As traffic grew, and the slots ran out, new entrant carriers couldn't get access, because new slots weren't offered (at least not many). The only way to get slots was to pay to lease those slots from a legacy carrier that was offering them, or sit around waiting for the FAA to open one or two new slots, and try in vain to make money off of a handful of slots while everyone else you're competing against has a large number of slots and is able to offer frequency and a variety of destinations.

A better system in what is supposed to be a free market would be to have expiration dates on the slots, rather than the current system that grandfathers them for all eternity. At the expiration period, you could have either a lottery or a bidding system where carriers could compete based on price for the open slots. Simply allowing the legacy carriers to hold on to slots forever and rape the other carriers by offering ridiculous lease rates is not a free market system.

 

[Flopgut]

If anybody needs an answer to something on this issue, here it is:

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/SWA-UACorrespondence.pdf

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/EconomicImpact.pdf

The 102 pg document is heavily slanted to SWA. I guess the Council is awaiting the United document. This will be decided next month.

 

[outerlimits]

Quote:
Scoot 11
MY company paid for those slots, so did US Airways.

Then how come I get stuck flying them?

 

[PCL_128]

If anybody needs an answer to something on this issue, here it is:

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/SWA-UACorrespondence.pdf

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/EconomicImpact.pdf

The 102 pg document is heavily slanted to SWA. I guess the Council is awaiting the United document. This will be decided next month.

Flop, these documents prove exactly what I've been saying all along: there is absolutely no statute, policy, or agreement that makes IAH the sole international airport in Houston. The airport authority specifically requested that UAL provide proof of such a document, and UAL ignored the request, and just repeated the same talking points in letter after letter.

UAL has no ground to stand on here.

 

[humveedriver]

If anybody needs an answer to something on this issue, here it is:

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/SWA-UACorrespondence.pdf

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/EconomicImpact.pdf

The 102 pg document is heavily slanted to SWA. I guess the Council is awaiting the United document. This will be decided next month.

Thanks for the link. That was a good read. I think I understand your frustration. I don't think your frustrated because SWA wants to use 5 gates in Hobby to fly about 25 daily flights south of the border. Your main concern is how your employer will try to punish the city of Houston for not doing what they ask of them. I think someone mentioned earlier ransoming employees. The letters talk about how United would have to cease expansion in Terminal B and displace 1300 employees. Really? Why? Why, wouldn't they continue to improve there already fantastic product and market? Do they think their gold/platinum elite members are going to flock to Hobby? I know they don't think that. It's a bunch of posturing and it's paper thin. United; we have to shrink IAH because SWA is going to siphon off all of our L. America traffic. These statements by the real estate experts at the airline. Just like Midway and Love, Hobby is a postage stamp airport, and if you need an alternate it's going to hurt. But in the end Flop, your execs are going to make you and or your coworkers pay for HAS's insolence. And for that I am sorry.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop, these documents prove exactly what I've been saying all along: there is absolutely no statute, policy, or agreement that makes IAH the sole international airport in Houston. The airport authority specifically requested that UAL provide proof of such a document, and UAL ignored the request, and just repeated the same talking points in letter after letter.

UAL has no ground to stand on here.

Well, evidently you can't read. Because it specifically says that a 40 year old City of Houston aviation policy has to be changed to allow SWA to do this. And this is the document that favors SWA....

 

[PCL_128]

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.

 

[SKC]

Hey, why are you abiding by the latest ruling on Love Field (no international)and going after Houston on Hobby like there is no similiar agreement? Just curious...

Well, because there isn't anything resembling the WA at HOU.

 

[humveedriver]

Well, evidently you can't read. Because it specifically says that a 40 year old City of Houston aviation policy has to be changed to allow SWA to do this. And this is the document that favors SWA....

SWA requested a 3-5 gate FIS (Federal Inspection Station). I think the "policy" has simply been a lack of services to accomadate int'l ops at Hobby. I don't believe their is an actual document that states thou shall not conduct 121 internationally out of HOU. It just hasn't come up until now.

 

[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?

 

[humveedriver]

PCL 128 and I are barely SWA pilots by proxy! Not a whole lot given to us at the Tran. I think United needs to focus on their product. With all the investing they have done at IAH, they should have no problem turning a profit. Best of luck to you and your merger.

 

[waveflyer]

Flop- please source this agreement-
Houston is in america and democratic governments have a say over airports and international ops- that doesn't mean there is a current restriction against it- there are no facilities for it, so Swa has asked the city to conduct them and will pay to set up facilities- united wants the city to not allow them to.
I've seen no evidence of an agreement of any kind, much less one "with teeth"-
Protectionist united-

 

[Flopgut]

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

We just broke ground on a 700 million dollar investment in this airport.... Do you not think we might have liked to have known the city was considering this?!

Would you want to build that building down at Hobby and then have the city council tell you it's cancelled and it's going to be made a hot dog stand?

 

[Flopgut]

Flop- please source this agreement-
Houston is in america and democratic governments have a say over airports and international ops- that doesn't mean there is a current restriction against it- there are no facilities for it, so Swa has asked the city to conduct them and will pay to set up facilities- united wants the city to not allow them to.
I've seen no evidence of an agreement of any kind, much less one "with teeth"-
Protectionist united-

Well, there is you (guy on the internet) and then there is Gordon Bethune, who is speaking to actual agreements made with Mayors Lanier and Brown about excatly what was to go on at IAH and the HAS.

The links I put up are so grossly SWA biased I thought (wrongly) most of you guys would shirk from them. Nope. The SWA ego knows no bounds...

 

[Bake]

We just broke ground on a 700 million dollar investment in this airport.... Do you not think we might have liked to have known the city was considering this?!

Would you want to build that building down at Hobby and then have the city council tell you it's cancelled and it's going to be made a hot dog stand?

Who cancelled your building? If we enter the international market you guys become hot dog sellers? Are you suggesting that if SWA flies 35 flights a day to mexico etc, that you guys will be out of business? Wow, we are better than I thought. SWA IS FLYING TO CANCUN, UNITED FOLDING UP TENT!!!!. I don't think so.

 

[PCL_128]

Well, there is you (guy on the internet) and then there is Gordon Bethune, who is speaking to actual agreements made with Mayors Lanier and Brown about excatly what was to go on at IAH and the HAS.

Where are these agreements? Because if they aren't in writing, then they're nothing but sleazy back room politics, and I have no respect for that. I certainly hope Mr. Bethune wasn't engaging in that sort of behavior.

 

[Flopgut]

Who cancelled your building? If we enter the international market you guys become hot dog sellers? Are you suggesting that if SWA flies 35 flights a day to mexico etc, that you guys will be out of business? Wow, we are better than I thought. SWA IS FLYING TO CANCUN, UNITED FOLDING UP TENT!!!!. I don't think so.

Yeah, I am. The margins are that close.

When one airline has to spend over a billion, and the other spends less than 10% of that, yeah... that is the difference.

 

[PCL_128]

Bethune is a more respected airline guy than Gary Kelly is

Really? And where did you pull that "fact" from? I would think that the CEO of the most successful airline in the country would command quite a bit of respect.

 

[Double Shot]

You know Flop,

If it was Greg Brenamam (sp) making the claim then I would listen. When I was at CAL and thank God I'm not anymore we all new that Brenaman was the brains of the Continental turn around and Gordon was just the mouth.
Gordon is a Herb want to be and he ain't no Herb! What a joke

 

[Bake]

Well, OK then. I'm willing to bet you some cash that isn't the case. Are you a taker? I'm talking big money (for a pilot). We can PM the amounts so the IRS doesn't get interested.