Thanks United! Southwest increases Love Departures

[HowardBorden]

I wouldn't mind seeing it get done and SWA fully on the hook before bilateral agreement and fair trade arguments come to a head. It represents the antithesis of what established treaties provide for.

Perhaps you missed it, but the entire Mexican market is about to open wide for all entrants who can profitably fly there. That market alone is enough to keep SWA busy for quite some time considering the fact that Hobby and Fort Lauderdale should be ready to head south in 3rd quarter '15. I can only imagine that carriers focusing on Mexican destinations from IAH and MIA just just got a little more competition on what used to be a little monopoly.

I suppose this move was fueled by massive pizza parties in Mexico City....or perhaps burrito parties?



"The United States and Mexico said they will end current restrictions that cap the number of passenger airlines that can fly on any one route between the nations. The agreement -- announced on Friday -- will become effective Jan. 1, 2016, the U.S. State Department said in a statement."

"The new agreement will remove the numerical limitations on the number of airlines that may provide passengers service in all U.S.-Mexico city pairs," the U.S. Department of Transportation said in its own statement about the agreement.

"As a result, some city-pair markets might see the entrance of new carriers for the first time in many years, and airlines can consider offering new service in destinations that they could have never considered previously," the DOT adds.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/today...imits-on-transborder-airline-routes/70073840/

 

[redflyer65]

Ultimately SWA didn't finance it too much different than any other airline does. Except that you did make the City pay for the parking garage.

Oh my God, they agreed to pay for a parking garage that will generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the city of the life of said garage? Say it isn't so! Your parking garage outrage is weak Flop. There will be plenty of jobs just in the construction phase of this project, which will give way to permanent jobs down the road when it opens. 10,000? I know Mr. Kelly never guaranteed anything close to that.

 

[Flopgut]

Perhaps you missed it, but the entire Mexican market is about to open wide for all entrants who can profitably fly there. That market alone is enough to keep SWA busy for quite some time considering the fact that Hobby and Fort Lauderdale should be ready to head south in 3rd quarter '15. I can only imagine that carriers focusing on Mexican destinations from IAH and MIA just just got a little more competition on what used to be a little monopoly.

I suppose this move was fueled by massive pizza parties in Mexico City....or perhaps burrito parties?



"The United States and Mexico said they will end current restrictions that cap the number of passenger airlines that can fly on any one route between the nations. The agreement -- announced on Friday -- will become effective Jan. 1, 2016, the U.S. State Department said in a statement."

"The new agreement will remove the numerical limitations on the number of airlines that may provide passengers service in all U.S.-Mexico city pairs," the U.S. Department of Transportation said in its own statement about the agreement.

"As a result, some city-pair markets might see the entrance of new carriers for the first time in many years, and airlines can consider offering new service in destinations that they could have never considered previously," the DOT adds.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/today...imits-on-transborder-airline-routes/70073840/

I did miss that. I'm missing a lot these days. Of course I'm actually out doing this kind of flying we're talking about. So it's all good. You can see where my priorities are.

Reads like it's increased competition in a fair market. So, best of luck to you all at SWA. Volaris, Interjet and Viva Aerobus (and whoever else) will enjoy this no less than you will. Except this single gate stunt at HOU... That's still an issue. Maybe even a bigger issue after this? If this much has been changed, then I'm sure that's not far behind. Next up is going to be the airspace IMO.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because SWA didn't go there, that there existed no competition. Wherever that might be. In any and all of these destinations, whatever restrictions were in place, they were equal for all sides/competitors. In fact the opposite is more truthful. SWA is the only US airline that's had the sort of favorable govt intervention like took place at Love. So what you think is fair competition will likely be just as contrary in Mexico, as it is in Dallas.

 

[SWA Bubba]

I did miss that. I'm missing a lot these days. Of course I'm actually out doing this kind of flying we're talking about. So it's all good. You can see where my priorities are.

Reads like it's increased competition in a fair market. So, best of luck to you all at SWA. Volaris, Interjet and Viva Aerobus (and whoever else) will enjoy this no less than you will. Except this single gate stunt at HOU... That's still an issue. Maybe even a bigger issue after this? If this much has been changed, then I'm sure that's not far behind. Next up is going to be the airspace IMO.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because SWA didn't go there, that there existed no competition. Wherever that might be. In any and all of these destinations, whatever restrictions were in place, they were equal for all sides/competitors. In fact the opposite is more truthful. SWA is the only US airline that's had the sort of favorable govt intervention like took place at Love. So what you think is fair competition will likely be just as contrary in Mexico, as it is in Dallas.

I'm sorry, Flop-- tell me again what "favorable government intervention" that Southwest got in Dallas Love... Do you mean like the fabulous Wright Amendment, that American Airlines sponsored bit of protectionist, anti-competition legislation that hobbled us and limited our interstate flying from there? That was passed after we had already won every court battle that affirmed our right to do whatever kind of flying we wanted to from there? THAT favorable treatment? Is that the crap you're talking about?

Or perhaps the more recent legislation that finally let us fly further from Love Field, but instead limited us to domestic only and also limited the number of gates allowed (which of course limits growth)? Maybe that qualifies as "favorable government treatment" in your mind.

Or maybe you're just going to regurgitate the same BS about Southwest "kicking out" other airlines from Love that's been disproved every time you make that absurd claim.

Sometimes it's hard to believe you can write this crap and can keep a straight face.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

I'm sorry, Flop-- tell me again what "favorable government intervention" that Southwest got in Dallas Love... Do you mean like the fabulous Wright Amendment, that American Airlines sponsored bit of protectionist, anti-competition legislation that hobbled us and limited our interstate flying from there? That was passed after we had already won every court battle that affirmed our right to do whatever kind of flying we wanted to from there? THAT favorable treatment? Is that the crap you're talking about?

Or perhaps the more recent legislation that finally let us fly further from Love Field, but instead limited us to domestic only and also limited the number of gates allowed (which of course limits growth)? Maybe that qualifies as "favorable government treatment" in your mind.

Or maybe you're just going to regurgitate the same BS about Southwest "kicking out" other airlines from Love that's been disproved every time you make that absurd claim.

Sometimes it's hard to believe you can write this crap and can keep a straight face.

Bubba

Bubba, listen very carefully: At the same instant in history deregulation allowed any airline to go anywhere, other airlines that wanted to fly from Love Field were told "no". Except yours. Other airlines were "hobbled" then by an agreement they signed. SWA had had their later agreement they signed changed numerous times in ways FAVORABLE to their needs.*

I'm pleased to see the agreements/treaties between US and Mexico are being updated. And that's it's fair for BOTH sides. Now the airport/gates problem needs to be rectified. Clearly your airline wants to leverage the open gates at IAH (the ones paid for by Houston taxpayers and other airlines) against the expense of building more at your new Houston hub. Classy Bubba. Real classy.

*And apparently GK suggests he wants the agreement SWA signed changed again!!?? (In the link in the first post) The WA has been "lifted" only a matter of days, and he's set to complain about restrictions all over again?! At the same instant he's commenting on gaining control of 18 of 20 gates?! Seriously!!?? Frankly that's pathetic. You can gripe at me all you want, but people in the Metroplex will very likely backlash over this.

 

[Wesb737fo]

Dude, down the road I picture you retired, living in Del Boca Vista, sitting around the shuffle board court spouting off to anyone who will listen, about all things bad concerning Southwest Airlines and how they got favoritism from everyone..... as everyone around you nods their head in affirmation.... thinking all the while..... Is this guy ever going to move his puck.

 

[Wesb737fo]

You're like Mr. Rooney in Ferris Beuller's Day Off.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba, listen very carefully: At the same instant in history deregulation allowed any airline to go anywhere, other airlines that wanted to fly from Love Field were told "no". Except yours. Other airlines were "hobbled" then by an agreement they signed.

Wrong again. Or wrong still, I should say.

The other airlines wanted to move to a bigger facility to support their growing hub-and-spoke models. They wanted to move, and so they agreed to move in return for a bigger airport being built for them. Southwest was not a party to the agreement, and we didn't want to fly out of DFW. Unlike the other airlines, we weren't hub-and-spoke, and there was no advantage in flying there; in fact, it was a disadvantage for us to fly there. So we didn't move there; we didn't violate any rules, laws, or agreements in staying at Love, and every frigging court in the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, agreed with us. So what did your shining examples of virtue (the legacies) do? They colluded, they stalled, some (including yours, Flop) broke the law and were convicted in criminal court for it; and finally "won," only when they got their political stooge to change the law specifically to hobble Southwest.

And eventually, the other airlines (again including yours, Flop) began flying to/from Love Field at their discretion. Same rules as us. Nobody told them no; nobody kicked them out; and Southwest did nothing to discourage them. They came and went as they pleased, and in fact until the latest agreement, there were literally dozens of unused gates at Love, because no other airline WANTED to use them.

SWA had had their later agreement they signed changed numerous times in ways FAVORABLE to their needs.

I assume you're referring here to the Wright Amendment. Newsflash, Flop: We didn't "sign" ANY agreement. The WA wasn't an agreement or compromise; it was a friggin' law shoved down our throat, over our objections, by American Airlines' stooge (Speaker Wright) to hurt us. After we won every single court battle. It was an anti-competition law snuck in to help the legacies, and to hobble Southwest. Later, other politicians altered the provisions of that law with other laws, specifically to help their particular states, by allowing actual competition from the Dallas area.

My God, your continued attempts to revise actual history, and pretend that your airline (you know, the one with the actual criminal record) can claim any kind of high ground, is laughable.

Bubba

 

[HowardBorden]

In fact the opposite is more truthful. SWA is the only US airline that's had the sort of favorable govt intervention like took place at Love.

I'm curious why you are THE ONLY ONE that thinks Wright was put in place to favor Southwest? Every other analyst, reporter and elected official believe it was put in place as a favor to American and DFW.



"The primary obstacle along Southwest's path to success was a piece of legislation called the Wright Amendment, sponsored by former Fort Worth Congressman Jim Wright in 1979. Wright's aim was to protect competing airport Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from losing business when Southwest refused to stay out of Dallas Love Field airport"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43714139#.

"The Wright Amendment 'named for long-time Fort Worth Congressman Jim Wright' was designed to protect the then-new DFW International Airport, which Wright did not believe could stand the competition."
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/10/13/m...ght-amendment/

"The 1979 amendment, which restricted long-haul flights out of Dallas Love Field, was enacted to protect the new Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, built jointly by Fort Worth and Dallas."
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/bu...le3877464.html

"The Wright Amendment of 1979 was a somewhat confusing law governing air traffic out of Dallas. In a nutshell, it "protected" the city's new airport (DFW) by refusing to allow the old airport (Love Field) to fly non-stop to any destination except other cities in Texas. Brief backstory: The big winner under Wright was DFW's dominant carrier American Airlines. Since it could fly non-stop anywhere, it got the lion's share of most-favored passengers: big-spending business travelers."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...ment/17621065/

"Signed into law in 1980, the Wright Amendment was intended to protect the struggling Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport from local competition by placing distance limitations at Love Field. While the Wright Amendment helped the DFW Airport which is now the third busiest airport in the world it is no longer necessary. But more importantly, this Amendment needed to be repealed because it hurt consumers. The Wright Amendment's restrictions made it hard for Love Field to compete with other airports that were allowed to offer nonstop, long-distance flights."
http://samjohnson.house.gov/news/doc...umentID=397595

 

[Flopgut]

I'm starting to understand you Bubba. You're real self conscience over your airlines real history. You have to inflate/create things about your airline so you actually feel like you've earned it.

Fact is Love Field exists with the WA fallout for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is the City of Fort Worth's persistent legal challenges. Assail other airlines all you want, FTW had a legit beef. They stuck with it, and they will continue to. Out if necessity! Because as we see revealed in the first post, GK wants to challenge the WA sets terms AGAIN!!!!!