Thanks United! Southwest increases Love Departures

[SWA Bubba]

Ya gotta LUV more handouts to Southwest.....monopoly doesnt translate well into Texan[/QUOTE]

Actually, "monopoly" does translate into Texan...at least in Dallas. In the Dallas metroplex, the word "monopoly" essentially means "American Airlines." American's operation at DFW translates to the fact that they operate and control about 88% of ALL the flights into and out of the Dallas area, DFW and Love Field combined. And you're gonna whine about Southwest?

Besides, the "handout" you spoke of, as previously mentioned, was actually a business deal between Southwest and United, and not a handout of any sort. Either we offered United more money for their gates, or they had some other reason to prefer us using them rather than Delta. You might want to take your complaint up with Flopgut's airline's Department of Anti-Competitiveness. They're the ones who kept you out of Love Field, not us. Maybe Flop can get them to change their minds and lease them to you instead--he's always telling us what a beacon of free competition he and his airline are.

Bubba

 

[HowardBorden]

It's an agreement. Solid agreements (binding even) are part of the "functional relationships" called for in an advisory circular the FAA provides municipalities. Both Dallas and Houston are ignoring this guidance with regard to SWA. doj is ignoring it as well.

Please, by all means tell us exactly which circular you are referring to and exactly what "guidance" is being ignored.

I can't wait to hear this one.

 

[Flopgut]

I'll be linking plenty of people to it Howard, but you won't be one of them.

You and I completely disagree, so wants the point?

 

[HowardBorden]

I'll be linking plenty of people to it Howard, but you won't be one of them.

You and I completely disagree, so wants the point?

In order to scrutinize the veracity of your claim.

Most of your conclusions lack supporting evidence and are completely refuted by published expert opinions.

 

[Flopgut]

And yet the the opposition to your airlines' efforts still manage to win a few battles...

It could use interpretation, so I'll send it up the flagpole. Hard to imagine that 18 of 20 gates for a single airline, at a tightly controlled airport, doesn't violate something.

 

[HowardBorden]

And yet the the opposition to your airlines' efforts still manage to win a few battles...

It could use interpretation, so I'll send it up the flagpole. Hard to imagine that 18 of 20 gates for a single airline, at a tightly controlled airport, doesn't violate something.

Southwest controls 80% of the gates at DAL.

United controls 78% of the gates at IAH.

 

[FlyinGuy]

Stop Howard!!!

It makes him look bad.

 

[Flopgut]

Southwest controls 80% of the gates at DAL.

United controls 78% of the gates at IAH.

Any airline that wants to can come to IAH. DAL is tightly controlled and limited. It's apples to oranges.

This AC suggests that all gates be common use at secondary airports (that are not slot controlled). Why has that never been discussed in Texas?? Specifically Dallas??!! But it would pertain to Hobby also, since you're trying to build your way into limiting competition. Which is interesting because there's another faa doc (that I have posted on here in another thread) that specifically states gate space should not be something an airline can build for itself in a way that locks out competition. Bubba remembers that. He wrote an 11 million word tome-like response to it, and I made the mistake of considering his opinion. I think a lot of this stuff has been swept under the rug, and needs to be aired again. Just not here.

 

[Flopgut]

Go thru all that crap on two gates stripped from American, then SWA gets a doj rubberstamp?! Hmmmm

 

[SWA Bubba]

Go thru all that crap on two gates stripped from American, then SWA gets a doj rubberstamp?! Hmmmm

You don't actually read about any of this, do you Flop?

Two gates were "stripped" from American (along with other gates/slots) as part of their deal with the DOJ to approve their merger. They agreed to it, because they wanted the merger much more than they wanted those gates. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was Ameican themselves who suggested divesting the Love Field gates, since they weren't using them anyway, and had no plans to use them. That way it looked like American was "giving up" more things than they actually did, and the DOJ could say they "did more" to ensure a competitive balance. Pure face-saving by the DOJ, since it basically consisted of American "giving up" a bunch of crap they weren't using, and didn't care about anyway.

Speaking of "all the crap," after American offered up the gates, the DOJ's process ensured that Southwest didn't get them, despite what the city and airport wanted. I thought you always claimed that the government was always doing Southwest's bidding.... What happened there, Flop?

And as far as the two recent gates, there no DOJ "rubber stamp" required. The gates are still controlled by United; they just chose to sublease them to Southwest. That is to say, YOUR airline made this call, all by themselves. YOUR airline wanted Southwest to have these gates, Flop--so go bitch at yourself, if you don't like the arrangement.

Are you really now arguing the position that the DOJ should overrule what YOUR airline chose to do, just to make it "fair" to YOUR airline? United needs to be "saved" from itself? Do you even read the crap that you write before you post?

Bubba

 

[redflyer65]

That is to say, YOUR airline made this call, all by themselves. YOUR airline wanted Southwest to have these gates, Flop--so go bitch at yourself, if you don't like the arrangement.

Are you really now arguing the position that the DOJ should overrule what YOUR airline chose to do, just to make it "fair" to YOUR airline? United needs to be "saved" from itself? Do you even read the crap that you write before you post?

Bubba

And that's the point of the original article. United pulled the trigger themselves. I'm sure they're getting some nice coin via SW in this transaction, but it completely blows Flop's 'everyone is helping SW' mantra out of the water. In this case....it's UNITED!

Similar when there was a ton of United 'outrage' at the Houston City Council meetings but apparently the United CEO wasn't so outraged because he didn't even bother to go. Feigned outrage is more probable.

 

[Flopgut]

Talk about delusional... You guys are really out there. There is plenty of legitimate opposition to what SWA does. The real crazies are you cool aid drinkers who believe swa is completely infallible.

This isn't a day to day business. It's a decade to decade. And in that context I'll admit, the pendulum is swung in SWA favor. But specific actions or inactions on the part of a ceo or a corporation don't equate to what big picture desired outcome might be. Ex: the latest inaction on the part of Delta. Regular dallas folk are scratching their heads over this. They want cheap tickets and a fair market. SWA isn't about either one of those these days. They (Dallas citizen) need to come to a realization on their own, without Delta or another airlines input.

The AC I'm reading is in favor of common use facilities at secondary airports. And apart from Texas, there are some good examples. Texas needs to get the memo.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Hobby takes takes tax dollars from the Government so allowing Southwest to control virtually all gates is a monopoly plain and simple and once again we should thank SWA for letting others use their airport!

Other airfields where everything goes their way....
MDW and any airport in Florida!
I always make a point of thanking ATC for holding me on the ramp in these places for SWA jets that havent even landed yet so they can expedite to their gate

 

[outerlimits]

Hobby takes takes tax dollars from the Government so allowing Southwest to control virtually all gates is a monopoly plain and simple and once again we should thank SWA for letting others use their airport!

Other airfields where everything goes their way....
MDW and any airport in Florida!
I always make a point of thanking ATC for holding me on the ramp in these places for SWA jets that havent even landed yet so they can expedite to their gate

You tell them Bill


I am also sick of how the Southwest pilots always look at me ,smile and say "hi"


I realize I Am a second class pilot and I should be treated as such. Thanks to the DAL pilots who always look the other way when I or any of my crew walks past them .

 

[Flopgut]

Hobby takes takes tax dollars from the Government so allowing Southwest to control virtually all gates is a monopoly plain and simple

This is also true considering the Houston taxpayer and airline users of IAH. SWA/Bubba thinks if more gates are needed at Hobby, it's the airport/city's/taxpayer's responsibility to foot the bill. The gates were already built and are empty at IAH. The taxpayer has to duplicate a tremendous expense to accommodate 1 airline??!!

 

[Flopgut]

You tell them Bill


I am also sick of how the Southwest pilots always look at me ,smile and say "hi"


I realize I Am a second class pilot and I should be treated as such. Thanks to the DAL pilots who always look the other way when I or any of my crew walks past them .

You need a tissue?

 

[redflyer65]

Who's paying for those new gates at Hobby Flop? Taxpayers?

 

[outerlimits]

You need a tissue?

Hug ?


You can't be all that bad. Thanks for caring

 

[HowardBorden]

Any airline that wants to can come to IAH. DAL is tightly controlled and limited. It's apples to oranges.

If DAL is tightly controlled and limited you can thank Jim Wright. In his blatantly anti-competitive ammendment to the Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 which ironically was produced to promote competition in air transportation. Under the cover of darkness without any notice, hearings, or the opportunity for public comment or informed debate, Wright attached an amendment to the law banning any airline from engaging in interstate air commerce from Love Field.

The Senate refused to go along, and forced a compromise known as the 1980 Wright Amendment to the International Air Transportation Competition Act which crafted the final language all are familiar with.

The repeal legislation is what artificially limits Love to 20 gates. The 2001 master plan for Love called for 32 total gates. With 32 gates there would be plenty of room for all willing entrants to Love. instead Love has 37% less gates thanks to Jim Wright. The repeal legislation of Wrights anti-competitive amendment again produces artificial constraints on Love to protect DFW from normal competition.

Again, even in repeal, the Wright Ammendment artificially impedes growth of ANY airline at Dallas Love Field.

 

[Ex737Driver]

Call it what I will?

Okay, I'll call it this: you made statements about Southwest at both Dallas Love and Houston Hobby that were absolutely, positively wrong. And like Flop, of course, you're purposely vague, and cannot show a single fact, nor document a single bit of your anti-SWA drivel in that post.

Lemme guess: like Flop, you also somehow believe one or more of these absurd things about that the Wright Amendment; stupid crap that I've actually heard claimed multiple times on Flight Info (primarily by Flop, of course):
- that it was some sort of "compromise" that SWA entered into to settle a dispute over where airlines could fly to/from in the Dallas area.
- that SWA "signed" or even helped "negotiate" the agreement to signify our assent.
- that the WA somehow "helped" or "protected" Southwest, or even that it was "the only reason Southwest was successful."

Tell me the truth, Driver--do you believe this crap too?

Bubba

What I believe is there is no such thing as a free lunch. For you, denial ain't just a river in Egypt. SWA does have a unique skill and that is to avoid "most" direct competition with other airlines. There's no letter or article to back this up. We and everyone else see it every day. Kudos for SWA. The point is when things like DAL being striped of gates and SWA pulling out of IAH and years later having a terminal built south of town, this also doesn't need literature to back up the obvious.