The Seedy Side Of Swa @islip

[ivauir]

OK, I'll call Charles and the AG and make sure.:laugh:

Questions will undoubtedly come up about the lack of feasibility studies, construction permits, kickbacks, campaign contributions, hiring of GC, engineering firm, and other issues that SWA had an integral part of overseeing. This coupled with serious code violations that were overlooked, and the construction defects will be difficult for SWA to deflect.

It's a very messy issue, but if anyone knows how to sidestep dodo, it's Herb.

imp:

I know you'll use anyexcuse to bash SWA, but the article doesn't go nearly as far as you do. From reading the article it sounds like SWA agreed to pay for the construction in order to get free rent and the concession money (the article doesn't mention rental cars as a concession - I think they just mean food).
That may end up being a great deal for us, but doesn't sound nefarious. Actually sounds pretty fair: we pay for it, we get the profit from it (for a while).

Furthermore you want to pin SWA oversight on "the lack of feasibility studies, construction permits, kickbacks, campaign contributions, hiring of GC, engineering firm"? Comon, give it a rest already. There is absolutly no indication that SWA did anything wrong, but you are so hungry for bad news about us you are trying to spin this ino watergate.

Go sell crazy somewhere else lowiqer, we're all full here.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

Will someone please tell me how this is any different that when public money is spent building these huge sports stadiums? Except that I can afford a couple of plane tickets...two season tickets to an NFL team...now that's a different story.

 

[lowecur]

Lets see:

Hundreds of millions in fines? YGTBSM!! Get at least a little realistic. So what do you think collecting an extra $65M from the feds is worth in fines? Check some of the fines handed out by the feds to hospital chains for their billing practices to Medicare.

Millions a year in concession fees. dang, if thats true, I'll open up a car rental shop in the airport. Little Syracuse Airport collects $5.7M per year from Concessions. Just check your car rental bill next time you rent at an airport. The fees are quite high.

Schumer. Nuff said.

Typical passenger paying dimes on the dollar now to travel. Priceless.

You would think from the article and your tone that SWA had just built LAX on taxpayer money.

80 acres cleared? The terminal probably sits on a total of 5. Must be that new liberal math again.

Go Herb!!!

Time for a swig of that whiskey.

imp:

 

[Citrusflyer]

Ever notice that Schumer gets more face time than Jim Carey did during the Truman Show?

When does Schumer have time get anything done?

They do say that the most dangerous place in D.C. is between Schumer and a camera.......!

 

[lowecur]

Furthermore you want to pin SWA oversight on "the lack of feasibility studies, construction permits, kickbacks, campaign contributions, hiring of GC, engineering firm"? Comon, give it a rest already. There is absolutly no indication that SWA did anything wrong, but you are so hungry for bad news about us you are trying to spin this ino watergate. That's why they have Federal Investigations. If the AG sees no reason to go any futher then it will go away. If the investigation is opened, then all facts will come out. If SWA did everything above board, they have nothing to worry about. Time will tell.

Go sell crazy somewhere else lowiqer, we're all full here.

I had to cut a few paragraphs from the article to post. The article lays out the facts as they found them. It's up to SWA to defend themselves if an investigation is opened.

http://www.newsday.com/ny-liair0625,0,2706823.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

imp:

 

[SWA GUY]

Here's exactly what the WN deal was at ISP:

WN wanted a new terminal, so we paid for it. We agreed to a 25 year lease on the new terminal, during which time we would allow food concessions to rent space in our terminal from us. Naturally we would profit from those rental properties.

After the 25 year lease ends, WN has two options. The first is to lease it from the airport and continue to use the gates. Or, to not renew the lease and not use the gates.

The airport decided to do some modifications to the airport grounds at the same time, unrelated to WN's building of the new terminal. For those modifications, public funds were used. "Public funds" means bonds, not taxpayer money. And therein lies the confusion(apparently if you are a member of the idiotic press). If you issue bonds, you can do pretty much what you want with the money, since the bond issuance has already been approved. Now, if you side tracked taxpayer money from say the county or some other entity, you'd have some splainin' to do.

It may be true the new terminal has some construction shortcomings, I don't know that as a fact. However, if it does, I'm sure the building inspector will list whatever they are and the terminal will get up to code. Just makes me wonder where the building inspector was when the construction was going on.


This story truly has no legs, musta been a slow day at the Inquirer.

 

[SWA GUY]

That's why they have Federal Investigations...
imp:

By the word "Federal" do you mean Schumer? As in a Schumer Investigation?

Schumer's investigations remind me of that idiot Mike Nifong and his Duke rape case debacle. Hey there's no reason not to destroy some kids lives just because it's an election year, right?

 

[ivauir]

If SWA did everything above board, they have nothing to worry about. Time will tell.[/COLOR]
imp:

Not to you. You have already determined guilt. You go way beyond anything even hinted at in the article in your haste to condemn SWA. I can't find anything in the article that SWA did that was illegal or immoral. You see a crooked politican connected to a SWA deal and start tallying the fines we'll be paying. It is more wishfull thinking on your part.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Today, 07:38

This message is hidden because lowecur is on your ignore list.

 

[lowecur]

Not to you. You have already determined guilt. No I haven't. I give SWA the benefit of the doubt as I stated. I do question SWA getting reimbursed by the FEDs over and above the deal they worked out with ISP. No wonder no other airlines will go in there to compete, it's a stacked deck. But heh, if they are entitled to it......then like I said, God bless them. You go way beyond anything even hinted at in the article in your haste to condemn SWA. I can't find anything in the article that SWA did that was illegal or immoral. You see a crooked politican connected to a SWA deal and start tallying the fines we'll be paying. It is more wishfull thinking on your part.

When you do deals with politicians who are dirty, then you open yourself up to possible investigations and innuendo. It comes with the territory.

imp: