Virgin Awarded Love Field Gates

[SWA Bubba]

I'm about the only one who can recall this braniff stuff, which is too bad. Because this is all just like it happened before. The context of the agreement to build DFW was not that Love Field would be completely abandoned by legacy airlines, but when it came down to it your "lawyer" [Herb] turned it into that. And remember that was a 3 party agreement, the "West-of-plex" [Ft Worth] folks really got screwed by you. I realize SWA has written them off, but you're going to see a lot of those people walk right past your ticket counter and happily pay more for a VX ticket. The local blogs have had a sh!tload of comments lately that SWA needed a taste of its own medicine. VX is going to have a lot of support for no other reason than that. And if SWA hits them hard with a fare war it's likely to backfire. No one has forgotten the bawling/complaining SWA had about everybody coming after them.

None of this crap happened in CA. You might not being willing to wrap your mind around it, but your question has been answered.

Actually, you "remember" crap.

95% of everything you've ever claimed on this forum about Love Field, Southwest, or the Wright Amendment is complete horsesh1t. You're making it up to fit your anti-SWA agenda, and when someone points out your fallacies (and boy, do you have a lot of them!), you just remain quiet for a while, and then eventually trot it out again, pretending as if no one's ever pointed out the actual facts to you. You know, kinda like General Lee.

Lemme help you out here, Flop:

Braniff went away from mismanagement, and was never "kicked out" of Love Field. Other airlines have come and gone from Love field of their own volition, having not been able to make their business plan work there. Nobody "gave" us crap at Love. Everybody tried to kill us back then, including DFW and both Ft Worth and the city Dallas itself. The city of Ft Worth in no way got "screwed" by us, royally or otherwise. DFW brought zillions of dollars and jobs to them, and their old airport was abandoned before Southwest even existed (while Love was still operating with the legacies). And we didn't "bawl and complain" about a fare war; we fought back with our own tactics and won. The only thing we "complained" about (fought in court, actually) was the frivolous legal attacks, and the actual criminal attacks from three existing legacies. You should know something about that, Flop; your beloved Continental was one of three airlines who pled no contest in criminal court for their illegal shenanigans. The other two were Braniff and Texas International, in case you were wondering. You like to whine about "poor" Braniff a lot, but they had a criminal record, just like your airline.

Anyway, maybe you should write some of this stuff down this time, since you seem to "forget" it in a week or so, every time. No need to thank me, Flop, just trying help keep you from looking stupid.

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

Ralph, You have many times
And maybe you'll do Vegas to love one day and I'll use you to get to training
In the meantime- I do think you're right.
I think the math limits you to being a thorn in our side vs aa's where you could have grown beyond two gates-
Convenient that much of your upper mgmt and execs come from American backgrounds eh?
Kinda like Branson able to run an airline in the United States, it's pretty shady
But as it stands, we'll see what you can do with 2 gates vs 16
I'm also curious what Ual will do-
But with math like that, I don't see SWA losing-
And if vx is comfortable with Dallas being a two gate destination then I don't see how anyone loses

What I do wish is that Texas cuts the standard crap out and let airlines invest and build terminals based on the market and their own business plans

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard: We have noticed that WN is very disciplined in it's competition. I am sure you will have some sort of "welcome" for us, but I really do believe these markets will have plenty of revenue for the both of us. Dallas is a big city, plenty of room for bargain hunters and J R Ewing wannabes. I truly thought we were crazy to go into the LAX/LAS market as you guys do it a zillion times a day. It is our highest RASM city pair, and I'm sure you guys make bank there as well.

My guess is this, and it truly is wild speculation on my part. I think that Dallas put some serious stipulations on what constitutes full utilization of the gates.

"Rather than simply signing the sub-lease presented to us, we took some additional time to make sure our actions would be responsible and capture the vision of the Justice Department's selected carrier. This was accomplished by incorporating Virgin's publicly stated intentions into a compliance agreement," Gonzalez said in a statement.

-Commits Virgin to the standards included in the City's noise abatement program
-Clarifies and expands how any unused gate space might be made accessible to other airlines
-Protects the City from possible legal expense through an indemnification clause"

I think that Dallas wrote certain minimum flight thresholds in to the agreement and will be able to hold Virgin to a certain minimum number of departures daily in order to maintain no "unused gate space" status.

SWA has the ability to put maximum pricing pressure on Virgin for as long as it takes to drive them to less frequency.

This is nothing more than wild speculation on my part I fully admit.

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2014/05/virgin-america-wins-love-field-gates.html

 

[Flopgut]

Actually, you "remember" crap.

95% of everything you've ever claimed on this forum about Love Field, Southwest, or the Wright Amendment is complete horsesh1t. You're making it up to fit your anti-SWA agenda, and when someone points out your fallacies (and boy, do you have a lot of them!), you just remain quiet for a while, and then eventually trot it out again, pretending as if no one's ever pointed out the actual facts to you. You know, kinda like General Lee.

Lemme help you out here, Flop:

Braniff went away from mismanagement, and was never "kicked out" of Love Field. Other airlines have come and gone from Love field of their own volition, having not been able to make their business plan work there. Nobody "gave" us crap at Love. Everybody tried to kill us back then, including DFW and both Ft Worth and the city Dallas itself. The city of Ft Worth in no way got "screwed" by us, royally or otherwise. DFW brought zillions of dollars and jobs to them, and their old airport was abandoned before Southwest even existed (while Love was still operating with the legacies). And we didn't "bawl and complain" about a fare war; we fought back with our own tactics and won. The only thing we "complained" about (fought in court, actually) was the frivolous legal attacks, and the actual criminal attacks from three existing legacies. You should know something about that, Flop; your beloved Continental was one of three airlines who pled no contest in criminal court for their illegal shenanigans. The other two were Braniff and Texas International, in case you were wondering. You like to whine about "poor" Braniff a lot, but they had a criminal record, just like your airline.

Anyway, maybe you should write some of this stuff down this time, since you seem to "forget" it in a week or so, every time. No need to thank me, Flop, just trying help keep you from looking stupid.

Bubba

Awe! Bubba! You're not taking this too well? Maybe you should talk to someone? Or maybe curl up with your signed copy of "Nuts?" Maybe read a few of your favorite parts? Maybe go watch the stage production SWA sponsors about this? Or read a kid the children's book your airline created? You all sure have had a lot of fun telling your side of the story, sorry to have to let you know there's another side of it.

 

[waveflyer]

Another side that only you remember....
:-/
Fail

 

[Flopgut]

Take some time and read this link Bubba:

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eps01

Let me know if you've got any heartburn with the portrayal of events in this article. Its mostly favorable to SWA so you ought to like it. I think it does a good job of depicting how complex things were at the time and that SWA did eventually prevail because you had more politicians than others. Could you honestly say your airline would not fight a startup that was doing things today like SWA was back then? Texas only operating certificate? Pushing itself through with a bunch of influential Texan benefactors? You just got done telling the Dallas City Council that you deserved the gates because you're the 5th largest taxpayer in the City?! (a stretch) And a lot of you are already acting like Branson is too involved. These things aren't too materially different than some of the rational other airlines had against SWA launching 40 years ago. That's not just me saying that, it's all over the media as well. What do you say to that?

 

[SWA Bubba]

Take some time and read this link Bubba:

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eps01

Let me know if you've got any heartburn with the portrayal of events in this article. Its mostly favorable to SWA so you ought to like it. I think it does a good job of depicting how complex things were at the time and that SWA did eventually prevail because you had more politicians than others. Could you honestly say your airline would not fight a startup that was doing things today like SWA was back then? Texas only operating certificate? Pushing itself through with a bunch of influential Texan benefactors? You just got done telling the Dallas City Council that you deserved the gates because you're the 5th largest taxpayer in the City?! (a stretch) And a lot of you are already acting like Branson is too involved. These things aren't too materially different than some of the rational other airlines had against SWA launching 40 years ago. That's not just me saying that, it's all over the media as well. What do you say to that?

No, no heartburn at all, other than the glossing over of the creation of the Wright Amendment. He just gave its creation one sentence; in his story it just magically appeared as a "compromise," which it obviously was not. It fails to note the fact that Southwest had already won the legal battle all the way through the US Supreme Court, allowing us to fly anywhere in the country from Dallas Love that we wanted. Then, and only then, did Speaker Wright (D-Ft Worth) insert his amendment into an unrelated bill to hobble Southwest out of DAL. The laws on the books said that we could fly anywhere we wanted from Love Field, so he changed the law.

And I'm not sure why you think this article show anything to support your case. Yes, Southwest had a lot of Texas initial investors, but no politician helped us at all. You said "Southwest prevailed because we had more politicians than others." That's actually backwards. The only politician who did anything in the situation was Speaker Wright, who was clearly not on our side. If you remember from the article, our "influential Texas benefactors" had already "given up" on their investment. It was Kelleher who personally kept up the legal fight until he prevailed. And if you also remember, the only judge who ruled against Southwest (twice) was actually forbidden by the Texas Supreme Court to from further rulings due to his anti-SWA bias.

Anyway, the difference between today's Love Field fight and back then, is pretty obvious. Do you really not see it? In the 1970s "fight," the existing carriers filed numerous clearly frivolous lawsuits, colluded and actually broke the law, owned a judge, and paid off a senior politician to change the law after losing all their court cases. In today's "fight," the existing carrier (Southwest) simply made an argument that it was the best airline to win approval for the two newly-available gates (along with other airlines who did the same). Southwest was ultimately decided against. Seems like the end of the "fight" to me. We wanted the additional gates to grow DAL, but didn't get them. Now we go back to competing.

I suppose if you see Southwest dragging VX through the courts time and again, committing crimes against them, or getting a politician to actually create an anti-Virgin law to screw them at Love Field, then you can make the comparison. Until then, you just sound silly trying to equate the two.

Like I said, it was a pretty good article, but it doesn't really support anything you claimed.

Bubba

 

[BuckMurdock1]

Not sure where you got that quote, but it isn't that we devalue FC. The CEO never sits in first class either. It just makes more business sense to have a paying passenger up there that has already payed more for their ticket, and maybe next time they will pay for it if they like it. We could be like Sun Country. I have been left at the gate with an open FC seat because they won't even upgrade a paying passenger.

Wow-- that's pretty fvcked up. I sure hope you told KD (our j/s coordinator) about that. No airplane at any airline should leave with ANY open seat that a jumpseater could occupy (W/B limits aside).

 

[Flopgut]

No, no heartburn at all, other than the glossing over of the creation of the Wright Amendment. He just gave its creation one sentence; in his story it just magically appeared as a "compromise," which it obviously was not. It fails to note the fact that Southwest had already won the legal battle all the way through the US Supreme Court, allowing us to fly anywhere in the country from Dallas Love that we wanted. Then, and only then, did Speaker Wright (D-Ft Worth) insert his amendment into an unrelated bill to hobble Southwest out of DAL. The laws on the books said that we could fly anywhere we wanted from Love Field, so he changed the law.

And I'm not sure why you think this article show anything to support your case. Yes, Southwest had a lot of Texas initial investors, but no politician helped us at all.


Bubba

How are these guys not politicians Bubba? When you give people like this a shot a $3 shares, that's a bit more than just being "investors".

7, a new airline, Air California, had made an initial public offering before the company had actually started flying. This provided the model for King and Kelleher, who used Air California's investment bankers and two of its founders to raise money for Air Southwest. Kelleher, who had been John B. Connally's Bexar County campaign manager in his 1962 race for governor, found other investors in Texas. A second group of shareholders, who bought $3 shares up to a limit of $25,000, included some of the best-known men in Texas, including John Murchison, brother of Clinton Murchison, Jr., of the Dallas Cowboys; Democratic party leader and future Russian ambassador Robert S. Strauss; future governor Dolph Briscoe; University of Texas Board of Regents chairman John Peace; Houston oilman Pat Rutherford; and Dresser Industries executive Charles Kuhn. The company was incorporated as Air Southwest on March 15, 1967, with King, Kelleher, Peace, Murchison, Kuhn, and Strauss as its first board of directors.

 

[Flopgut]

"Frivolous" lawsuits were in very large part due to the frivolous certification you were flying under. SWA isn't suing vx over that because they have done all the work you're suppose to do to be an airline. If another airline inserted itself into the airline business with only a single sheet of paper from only the state of Texas and started competing with you, you'd have a problem. I predict it won't be long til the "golden army" is taking issue with Branson's involvement.