Thanks United! Southwest increases Love Departures

[Flopgut]

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

Good example in last nights game: Patriot's Burton intercepts Wilson and wins the game. A series before he was beat over the middle and reached out and tripped Seahawks Lockette. Sports media, the NFL and others are barely talking about the missed PI call. And it's the day after the game. 20 years from now? No ones going to remember the missed PI. They'll only remember Brady, the Pats, 4 Super Bowl wins (and pbly the terrible Seahawks play call) and all that. Burton's a great story and made a great play. But the earlier trip was pretty damn dirty (even for the Pats)

I don't like there being only half the story being told. In anything.

Btw: if I'm "THE ONLY ONE" then how did you lose on the WA? If I was wrong about Hobby, the why did the City have to vote? If I was wrong about bilateral agreements, then why did the treaty have to be rewritten? (Your link, thank you) if I'm wrong about SWA's pathological inability to abide by an agreement, then why do we read that GK signals he wants MORE for SWA out of Love? How do you mange to completely dismiss any/all SWA critics?

 

[HowardBorden]

Btw: if I'm "THE ONLY ONE" then how did you lose on the WA?

I gave you five quotes from reporters, analysts and elected officials all saying they don't agree with your assertions. If your NOT the only one please show me some quotes from anyone other than yourself that show the belief that Southwest wanted the WA and lobbied for it to be enacted on their behalf. Please show some quotes from anyone other than yourself that state it was enacted to benefit Love Field and Southwest rather than DFW and American. If your not the only one you should have no problems showing support for your assertions.

Southwest found ways to survive after Wright but in no way chose to be hobbled by it.

 

[Flopgut]

I gave you five quotes from reporters, analysts and elected officials all saying they don't agree with your assertions. If your NOT the only one please show me some quotes from anyone other than yourself that show the belief that Southwest wanted the WA and lobbied for it to be enacted on their behalf. Please show some quotes from anyone other than yourself that state it was enacted to benefit Love Field and Southwest rather than DFW and American. If your not the only one you should have no problems showing support for your assertions.

Southwest found ways to survive after Wright but in no way chose to be hobbled by it.

You gave me 5 quotes with no context. WA was a compromise. The context is this: Ft Worth and Dallas were suppose to curtail their own airports flying and focus on DFW. We shouldn't pick and choose what agreements are real and which are fake. Although SWA has done just that too often. Again, look at Reds link in post 1 on this thread. GK is indicating the WA repeal isn't good enough. Why? Because he just got control of 18 of 20 gates. Would he want zero restrictions? No, he wants another 3-5 gates in the next couple years. When he get 90% of those, he'd like another 3-5 built. You work for a bunch of gypsies Howard! You just got the WA geographic terms repealed, and now it's not good enough.

 

[redflyer65]

So Mr Kelly is arguing for less restriction on Love now, after utilizing it's 'restrictions' against other carriers earlier?

Do you even hear yourself Flop?

I don't have any heartburn about Gary now pushing for NO restrictions at Love, because there shouldn't be any anyway. They tried to strangle SW with the only Texas destinations. That didn't stop SW from thinking outside the box and booking people on further cities after having to re-book them on a different ticket. All legal of course. Then the eventual cancelation of the thru ticket requirement. Then finally after how many years of restrictioning direct flights. I don't know of any other US carrier that has been restricted as much. None. But SW still succeeded, despite all the moves to attempt to kill it early.

I understand exactly what Howard is saying. I have NEVER read or even heard anyone (ever) saying the Wright Amendment was developed to 'help' Southwest. Not one person, ever Flop.....except you. Why is that?

 

[HowardBorden]

The context is this: Ft Worth and Dallas were suppose to curtail their own airports flying and focus on DFW.

Dallas and Fort Worth DID curtail their own airports!

We shouldn't pick and choose what agreements are real and which are fake.

SWA doesn't pick and choose which agreements are real or fake, but they do have the ability to ignore agreements to which they were not a party and therefore not legally binding to them.

Again, look at Reds link in post 1 on this thread. GK is indicating the WA repeal isn't good enough. Why? Because he just got control of 18 of 20 gates. Would he want zero restrictions? No, he wants another 3-5 gates in the next couple years. When he get 90% of those, he'd like another 3-5 built. You work for a bunch of gypsies Howard! You just got the WA geographic terms repealed, and now it's not good enough.

Kelly said no such thing! These are his comments: Southwest would "love to be able to have more capacity at the airport obviously within the 20 gates. So we're working on that"

At the end of the day, you can't quote anyone echoing your tin foil hat conspiracy theories because there isn't anyone agreeing with your delusional ramblings.

 

[Flopgut]

Dallas and Fort Worth DID curtail their own airports! SWA doesn't pick and choose which agreements are real or fake, but they do have the ability to ignore agreements to which they were not a party and therefore not legally binding to them.Kelly said no such thing! These are his comments: Southwest would "love to be able to have more capacity at the airport obviously within the 20 gates. So we're working on that"

At the end of the day, you can't quote anyone echoing your tin foil hat conspiracy theories because there isn't anyone agreeing with your delusional ramblings.

Shelby Act added to the WA. Why was it necessary? Who benefitted from that?

 

[Ex737Driver]

Now you're starting to sound as paranoid as Flop.

They are United's gates at DAL. They can sublease them to anyone they want, just as American chose to sublease theirs to Delta before they were forced to divest them as a condition of their merger. If United subleased them to Southwest, it's either because we offered more money than Delta did, or more likely because they had some sort of competitive reason that they preferred us using them rather than Delta.

As far as the international gates at HOU, there's no "bribing" required. We're building them out of our own pocket, and the agreement was that we'll use 4 and leave the fifth for whomever the airport cares to let use it. If more airlines decide that they want to fly international to/from Hobby, then then the airport will build more gates to meet the demand.

No conspiracy here. Sorry.

Bubba

Look, call it what you will but if you seriously think that this doesn't happen SYSTEM wide your naive beyond belief.

 

[HowardBorden]

Shelby Act added to the WA. Why was it necessary? Who benefitted from that?

DFW benefitted because after its capacity was exceeded in their own internal traffic capacity study, a 1996 study suggested that repealing the Wright Amendment and reopening Fort Worth Alliance to passenger service would effectively provide DFW with two reliever airports. DFW refused so Shelby was introduced in order to loosen restrictions but still artificially protect DFW from competition. But you don't have to take my word for it, I'll let CNBC lay it out for you in this article.


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. The law was an amendment to the International Air Transportation Act of 1979, restricting passenger flights out of Love Field to locations within Texas and to four neighboring states-Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

After D/FW's annual air traffic began to exceed capacity, the amendment was modified to add Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi and Missouri to the Wright zone.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43714139

 

[Flopgut]

Nice link. Total horse crap, but you sure can find some interesting stuff. DFW was really cranking back then, so some traffic needed to be pushed SWA's way. My point was that the WA got changed, you did a good job proving it. Alabama, Kansas, Missouri and Mississippi were added? Hmmmm that's enough to relieve DFW? Or that's just enough to meet the SWA system? Yeah...

Look, we disagree. Never will agree. You have a lot more time than I do right now, so I'm not going to keep debating you. Just go do the work. Stop running your mouth. You guys are all talk, and you've barely left the US. Work, then talk.

 

[HowardBorden]

Nice link. Total horse crap, but you sure can find some interesting stuff. DFW was really cranking back then, so some traffic needed to be pushed SWA's way. My point was that the WA got changed, you did a good job proving it. Alabama, Kansas, Missouri and Mississippi were added? Hmmmm that's enough to relieve DFW? Or that's just enough to meet the SWA system? Yeah...

Look, we disagree. Never will agree. You have a lot more time than I do right now, so I'm not going to keep debating you. Just go do the work. Stop running your mouth. You guys are all talk, and you've barely left the US. Work, then talk.

Face it Flopgut, you haven't a leg to stand on. I back up all my points with corroborating opinions from journalists, analysts and elected officials. You back up your drivel with no like minded opinions because none exist.

The "total horse crap" and " interesting stuff" you speak of was not my concoction, it came from CNBC directly!

And, for the record, I guess I'm "doing the work" because my next layover is south of the border.

 

[Double Shot]

There is no point in debating with Flop. I have been waiting for years to see this suppose schedule his says happened between Houston and Cleveland. Flights every hour that kicked our butts. As a former Continental Pilot ( thank God I left) I know this schedule never happened. But Flop insist that it did. But....HAS NEVER PRODUCED A SCHEDULE TO PROVE THIS SUPPOSE FACT. So my point. Don't argue with the village idiot.

 

[bluesideup1]

There is no point in debating with Flop. I have been waiting for years to see this suppose schedule his says happened between Houston and Cleveland. Flights every hour that kicked our butts. As a former Continental Pilot ( thank God I left) I know this schedule never happened. But Flop insist that it did. But....HAS NEVER PRODUCED A SCHEDULE TO PROVE THIS SUPPOSE FACT. So my point. Don't argue with the village idiot.

This^^^^^

Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

 

[Flopgut]

And, for the record, I guess I'm "doing the work" because my next layover is south of the border.

Good! Now do that for about a decade, then see if that doesn't change your worldview a bit. Pay close attention to other airlines in these other countries. See if you find another that's come up like yours did. It will be a good thing. It may even make you more proud of your airline. Personally, I don't imagine how it could.

 

[Flopgut]

There is no point in debating with Flop. I have been waiting for years to see this suppose schedule his says happened between Houston and Cleveland. Flights every hour that kicked our butts. As a former Continental Pilot ( thank God I left) I know this schedule never happened. But Flop insist that it did. But....HAS NEVER PRODUCED A SCHEDULE TO PROVE THIS SUPPOSE FACT. So my point. Don't argue with the village idiot.

I maybe don't have the html skills... I know I don't have as much time. (OR the SWA pathological need to feel like I'm special) But there are certain things that are hard to find on the internet. Here's an example: I see thousands of images of Patriots' Butler picking off Russell Wilson to win the Super Bowl. I can't find ONE of him tripping Seahawks Lockette one series earlier. But it sure as he'll happened, and it changed the game.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Look, call it what you will but if you seriously think that this doesn't happen SYSTEM wide your naive beyond belief.

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

 

[HowardBorden]

Good! Now do that for about a decade, then see if that doesn't change your worldview a bit. Pay close attention to other airlines in these other countries. See if you find another that's come up like yours did. It will be a good thing. It may even make you more proud of your airline. Personally, I don't imagine how it could.

I've already done it for the better part of a decade so please patronize someone else.

 

[Flopgut]

A good link to the court case

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1977...THWEST AIRLINES CO. v. TEXAS INTERN. AIRLINES

If this happened again, It wouldn't end up like this has.

 

[HowardBorden]

A good link to the court case

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1977...THWEST AIRLINES CO. v. TEXAS INTERN. AIRLINES

If this happened again, It wouldn't end up like this has.

What could possibly make you think it would turn out any different. It was litigated and re-litigated multiple times with the same result. The court was extremely adamant in its decision.

This is the eighth time in three years that a federal court has refused to support the eviction of Southwest Airlines from Love Field. Precisely worded holdings and deference to state authorities by the federal judiciary have only generated more suits, appeals, and petitions for rethearings. Once again, we repeat, Southwest Airlines Co. has a federally declared right to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open. The narrowly drawn preliminary injunction of the district court correctly protects that right. It does so without violating principles of federalism, the federal law of res judicata, or the dictates of due process.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

 

[Flopgut]

It's clear that SWA was sharp shooting the situation. If you want agreement that SWA eventually had the right to use Love Field, then you also must agree that the disenfranchised parties had every right to produce the Wright Amendment. And that in fact the actual restrictions were generous! The eventual repeal was generous! This was not eyes-wide-open for the two Cities or for the 8 CAB airlines, or the CAB and TAC.

 

[SWA Bubba]

It's clear that SWA was sharp shooting the situation. If you want agreement that SWA eventually had the right to use Love Field, then you also must agree that the disenfranchised parties had every right to produce the Wright Amendment. And that in fact the actual restrictions were generous! The eventual repeal was generous! This was not eyes-wide-open for the two Cities or for the 8 CAB airlines, or the CAB and TAC.

Excuse me?

Who exactly was "disenfranchised"? The airlines who wanted to, and agreed to move to a larger airport built specifically to allow for their expansion? Them? The same airlines who later went back to Love Field to fly as they pleased, and then left because they didn't want to fly there? Those guys, Flop?

Southwest's right to fly anywhere in the country, according to then-current laws, regulations, and the Airline Deregulation Act was affirmed multiple times by every court in the land, including the US Supreme Court, in response to one frivolous legal attack after another. Southwest had plans to do exactly that.

Then the legacies then got their stooge, Speaker Wright, to change the law specifically to screw Southwest at Love Field. It specifically enjoined Southwest from ever flying from DAL anywhere outside of Texas, other than the few places they already flew. EVER. Wow, Flop, the WA sure was "generous" to Southwest. It permanently took away Southwest's rights.

The only entities that the WA was actually "generous" to was the legacies at DFW, who subsequently were relieved from having to compete with Southwest in Dallas. Hence, statistically higher airfares to/from Dallas than other city pairs, and more profits for them.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba: These are the same thing really (the WA or the case SWA made to stay at DAL). Either both are equally right, or both are equally wrong.

You had the right to win a court case to stay ant DAL (in order to stay in business). And Jim Wright and the MANY other parties had a right to amend the Constitution. They were trying to adhere to the original Federal mandate that required DFW. SWA wanted to preserve the right to EXPLOIT everyone else.

What you, and every SWA poster on here or every one I know personally, cannot do is put themselves in another's shoes. You have to understand that whatever you think about someone else's situation, what they feel/believe is real to them. Whether it's an argument about Love Field/Hobby or what 911 did, the unchecked self righteous arrogance that apparently is a learned behavior at SWA disgusts me.

Say whatever you want, write 10,000 words, I don't care. The first 3 sentences of this post are spot on.

 

[slaquer5]

Flop

Let it go.


You fighting all this will get you as far as me fighting to bring back the 8 track cassettes in new Cars .

 

[dicko]

Flop

Let it go.


You fighting all this will get you as far as me fighting to bring back the 8 track cassettes in new Cars .

Slaquer,

I disagree. At least the return of the mighty eight track is a right and noble cause. However; 'Flops' hate for my beloved SWA is a downright perversion. Bordering on racist. I also suspect him as a communist, a xenophobe and have heard from a reliable source - that he is a raging Ether addict with a penchant for buggery.







Kidding Flop - you go girl. This thread may make all the difference.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Ya gotta LUV more handouts to Southwest.....monopoly doesnt translate well into Texan

 

[HowardBorden]

Ya gotta LUV more handouts to Southwest.....monopoly doesnt translate well into Texan

No handout, I'm quite sure Southwest agreed to a large sum of money for those gates, they obviously outbid Delta!

 

[FlyinGuy]

Just wait till SWA gets the WA changed again and starts flying "near international" out of Love. There will be an addition to the terminal and they will fly south out of DAL.

Laws change.....every company ponies up cash to buy off (eehmmm...lobby) those who make the laws. Welcome to America!!

 

[outerlimits]

Just wait till SWA gets the WA changed again and starts flying "near international" out of Love. There will be an addition to the terminal and they will fly south out of DAL.

Laws change.....every company ponies up cash to buy off (eehmmm...lobby) those who make the laws. Welcome to America!!

I was wondering the same thing . What is stoping any chance ?


Laws are made to be challenged ,so please to do not say that it is law .

 

[Flopgut]

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.

 

[outerlimits]

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.

It must not be that solid then. Kind of like our boarder fences.

 

[canyonblue]

Ya gotta LUV more handouts to Southwest.....monopoly doesnt translate well into Texan

Handouts, from a Delta stooge...classic! :laugh: