Wright fight getting ugly!

[scoreboard]

And...?

oh yeah, f-PETA. do you know they kill over 1500 strays a year?

But only for snacks...

SWA is a shrewed business player, so whats your point Yoda?

 

[CitationLover]

But only for snacks...

SWA is a shrewed business player, so whats your point Yoda?

the point is exactly that.

why is AMR, or any OTHER airline, "engaging in unfair business practices", while SWA (the little angel that could) would never stoop to that level? it's that mentality i'm trying to point out.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Citationlover,

Nobody is a perfect little angel but, I would put SWA's business and lobbying practices up against anyones. They want the ability to compete freely. They are not asking for subsidies or for legislation that is focused on being anti- any other carrier. I know of one carrier that, at least pre 9-11, employed one lobbyist that focused only on raising costs forSWA. If Wright goes away, I am sure other carriers will enter the market at Love.

CR

 

[CitationLover]

Citationlover,

Nobody is a perfect little angel but, I would put SWA's business and lobbying practices up against anyones. They want the ability to compete freely. They are not asking for subsidies or for legislation that is focused on being anti- any other carrier. I know of one carrier that, at least pre 9-11, employed one lobbyist that focused only on raising costs forSWA. If Wright goes away, I am sure other carriers will enter the market at Love.

CR

however those carriers are at the SAME disadvantage SWA uses for not moving to DFW, ie being second fiddle to a dominant carrier.

 

[NEDude]

I like SWA and they a great airline. I am just tired of the spin of the Wright Ammendment and they failure to explain how and why it exists. It wasn't to stiffle SWA. It was to give SWA an exemption to operate out of LOVE, while all others had to move to DFW and cease all operations out of Love Field (DAL).

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

SWA was allowed to operate out of Love after several years of legal battles. It was the courts that ruled SWA could use Love, nobody else.

The Wright Ammendment was in resonse to de-regulation, nearly five years after the court battle over SWA and Love was done. While under regulation, SWA could not fly outside of Texas. After de-regulation in 1978, SWA began to expand outside of Texas (New Orleans being the first destination). As the powers that be in Dallas - American, Braniff and Texas International - realized that SWA could do to them outside of Texas as they had done inside of Texas, they used their political clout to stiffle the growth of SWA outside of Texas - thus the Wright Ammendment.

If you want to blame anyone about SWA being able to use Love while others could not, blame the people that used poorly written language in the bond covenants for DFW. It was their oversight in the language that allowed SWA to operate out of Love.

There are a few very good books that cover the subject.

 

[Flopgut]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

SWA was allowed to operate out of Love after several years of legal battles. It was the courts that ruled SWA could use Love, nobody else.

The Wright Ammendment was in resonse to de-regulation, nearly five years after the court battle over SWA and Love was done. While under regulation, SWA could not fly outside of Texas. After de-regulation in 1978, SWA began to expand outside of Texas (New Orleans being the first destination). As the powers that be in Dallas - American, Braniff and Texas International - realized that SWA could do to them outside of Texas as they had done inside of Texas, they used their political clout to stiffle the growth of SWA outside of Texas - thus the Wright Ammendment.

If you want to blame anyone about SWA being able to use Love while others could not, blame the people that used poorly written language in the bond covenants for DFW. It was their oversight in the language that allowed SWA to operate out of Love.

There are a few very good books that cover the subject.

RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.....WRIGHT!!

That statement you take issue with is correct. Remember, SWA could have gone anywhere they wanted to....from DFW! With regard to the current context this fight has assumed, your point is irrelevant. You say as much when you mention the authors of the bond covenants. SWA benefited from an ill-gotten strategic advantage at LUV and now they want to completely exploit the deal.

No airline would have left LUV if they had understood what would be going on today. If SWA wants to operate from LUV in an unrestricted manner that would be representative of a world where DFW was never built, then they can pay back every taxpayer, every airline worker, every share[bond]holder, etc. etc. that paid for DFW, with interest and surrender the valuable ground they have been squatting on to the rightful owners.

It could matter less if SWA was a party to the original deal or not. Because the truth of the matter is this: If the Metroplex could truly scale the economies of both airports and recoup the proper fees from Love Field that SWA should be paying, SWA would betray that deal as well and try to move to ADS or Alliance (or some dirt strip for that matter). Anywhere, where they can ply their folksy, pseudo-hick "SWA effect".

 

[scoreboard]

Resistance is futile

the point is exactly that.

why is AMR, or any OTHER airline, "engaging in unfair business practices", while SWA (the little angel that could) would never stoop to that level? it's that mentality i'm trying to point out.

Their not, so please don't play the "Evil SWA Empire" card when we try to correct an unconstitutional anticompetitive piece of legislation

We are not "stooping" to any level other than what is legal, ethical, and smart business

 

[Flopgut]

CitationLover,

Every airline lost a lot of money on 9-11. AA and UAL lost much more in the crews and passengers that were lost. SWA was in better position to react quickly to the changes in the industry.

BTW, I believe that SWA was the only airline to pay all its employees for the days they were shut down.

CR

Quite proud of yourselves, aren't you? Polish your nickels, stick them in your pocket and shut your trap. A better position? Is that what it is termed? That is what it is when you are not directly affected? Each of you SWA employees that responded to this thread disgust me.

I am pissed off at this reply more than I can air here.

 

[Flopgut]

Great Analogy -
AA and the rest of the legacies are toast.

The real SWA spirit.

 

[AAflyer]

AA what a bunch of crying babies. That is fine more cities for SWA to fly to I wish AA would just bring it or not already.

Just make sure you say that when you come up to ask for the jumpseat.

I would LUV to tell you were to stick it.

Have a nice DAAy.

AA

SWA the poor under-dog... my A$$..

 

[miles otoole]

Just make sure you say that when you come up to ask for the jumpseat.

I would LUV to tell you were to stick it.

Have a nice DAAy.

AA

SWA the poor under-dog... my A$$..

B1tch,
WN has done more for jumpseating than any legacy around. Funny thing is, you and your AA buds have probably jumped more on WN than on AA. Better get your 737 type if you want a job as soon as AA liquidates-or do you not yet have 1700 turbine PIC? Uh OHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[Flopgut]

Just make sure you say that when you come up to ask for the jumpseat.

I would LUV to tell you were to stick it.

Have a nice DAAy.

AA

SWA the poor under-dog... my A$$..

I'll second that.

 

[mdf]

What do 2 lesbians say before having intercourse? You da man, No you da man.

 

[CitationLover]

B1tch,
WN has done more for jumpseating than any legacy around. Funny thing is, you and your AA buds have probably jumped more on WN than on AA. Better get your 737 type if you want a job as soon as AA liquidates-or do you not yet have 1700 turbine PIC? Uh OHHHHHHHHHHH

friday night and your posting on flightinfo calling someone a b1tch?!?! shouldn't you be out with your boyfriend or something?

don't blame me, I'm an old married guy watching sportscenter.

mdf, thx for the laugh!

 

[Dinger]

Do whatever SWA wants........just make them pick different colors for their aircraft. Flying corndogs.......and flying Barney jets.......they must have hedged paint prices as well. Everytime I see a brown (or whatever color they call it) SWA jet, it reminds me of the nice surprise I get when I changed my 6 month olds crappy diaper. ( I think I just realized what color it is...babysh!t brown)

 

[SWA tech]

Just make sure you say that when you come up to ask for the jumpseat.

I would LUV to tell you were to stick it.

Have a nice DAAy.

AA

SWA the poor under-dog... my A$$..
__________________
Grow some MANBERRIES!

 

[:-)]

SWA the poor under-dog... my A$$..

It could be quite possible for SWA to be expecting a loss in this WrightRepeal movement. Getting beat by AA at home would be a GREAT way to regain the "were underdogs" employee motivational position. SWA people worked harder, longer, for years because they were the underdogs. If they get beat in this Wright fight, they will once again be the underdog and their people will respond accordingly.

Poor AA, they can't win either way.

Hobbes

 

[Flycatcher99]

Umm...

i don't buy it. you argue for competition, yet have had a monopoly on DAL for almost 30 years now.

SWA can have equal treatment at DFW. SWA can have it's cake and eat it by beginning service out of DFW, while continuing it's monopoly at DAL.

it doesn't manner anyways as whoever greases the politicians the most (and SWA has recently become quite the greaser) will get what they want.

This post shows how off-base your thinking is. How, pray tell, does SWA have a monopoly at DAL any more than AA has a monopoly at DFW? For a monopoly to exist (if I remember anything from my second-year economics course), not only is there no competition, but other competition cannot be allowed to enter into the picture. First of all, SWA is not the only airline at DAL (CO EX). Second of all, no one is stopping AA from flying out of DAL.

Also, I have to object to your ridiculous accusation that "SWA has recently become quite the greaser". When used in that context, greasing implies that SWA has been making under-the-table financial (or otherwise) bribes to get their way. Now, if you're going to make that kind of accusation, you ought to be able to give some kind of specifics to back it up. Otherwise, I'll continue to regard it as the ever-present internet ramblings that aren't really worth a can of spam.

 

[CitationLover]

This post shows how off-base your thinking is. How, pray tell, does SWA have a monopoly at DAL any more than AA has a monopoly at DFW? For a monopoly to exist (if I remember anything from my second-year economics course), not only is there no competition, but other competition cannot be allowed to enter into the picture. First of all, SWA is not the only airline at DAL (CO EX). Second of all, no one is stopping AA from flying out of DAL.

that is the point flycatcher (re AA dominant pos vs SWA dominant pos at DAL). neither wants to move into the others backyard. but people on here have stated previously that SWA wouldn't move to DFW due to AA's dominant position.

as far as greasing....well SWA did get the ball rolling on this through the political process. it's no different than when AMR wants something done, but people look at the SWA execs with reverence.

it must be nice to escape AMW.......don't you miss it flycatcher?

 

[enigma]

First of all, SWA is not the only airline at DAL (CO EX). Second of all, no one is stopping AA from flying out of DAL.

Exactly. Also, I don't seem to remember AA whining about the cost of operating dual stations when they decided to run Legend out of business. Even more importantly, I don't seem to remember the DFW airport board attempting to limit AA's competitiveness at that time.

enigma

 

[aa73]

Here's the summary: AA wants SWA to come to DFW. SWA wants AA to come to Love. Neither wants to do it. But SWA wants to get rid of a limitation. Does AA get to get rid of a limitation, too?

I think if the Congress gives SWA what it wants, it ought to also throw AA a bone too. Compromise with both airlines, give each airline a little perk. Otherwise, it'll be an unfair advantage to SWA - a windfall, if you will.

And don't come to me with the argument that AA has been enjoying perks for years with the WA in place - SWA has been doing just fine, apparently. AA's been struggling.

 

[AA717driver]

I heard Rich Daley is running for mayor of Dallas... TC

 

[CitationLover]

First of all, SWA is not the only airline at DAL (CO EX).

they serve one market correct? quite the competition.

 

[Flopgut]

["American Airlines would be far more effective in lobbying if they talked directly to members of Congress rather than blindsiding them with veiled threats of service cutbacks in our districts," said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco.

[/QUOTE]

Excellent tactic for AA to take. Votes are what put these people in office and this goes straight to the source. What else can AA do? We have reached an incredible point of absurdity when governmental policy considers lifting the WA for SWA and AA (and other legacy airlines) can't even get thier concerns aired over changing daylight savings time! It is amazing...What's next? Is the government going to let SWA draw from the SPR and force AA to buy from the pump?

DFW was built to be the venue for competitive air commerce. SWA gets relief from the agreement because they are a small operator. Now, because they are huge--the antithesis of the reasoning that got them the exemption in the first place--the agreement should be lifted? How can that possibly make any sense? Conversely, AA and all other legacy/international airlines can't even get a break on something so semmingly inflexible as the number of hours in a day! (DLST) There is certainly some sinister karma or wicked prevailing, sub-atomic sentiment at work here. I think this goes well beyond SWA just shirking a true, straight-up airport battle, afterall, thats simply what they do best. The new SWA leadership knows they have the momentum and they want to sieze upon it. Every single market (and non-market) issue that is negative for a legacy is a positive for SWA. It is inversly proportional, the more something is a detriment to a legacy the more it is benefitial to SWA. So, here is the SWA plan: Because DFW was built to perfectly suit the entire metroplex, lifting the WA for SWA will leave DFW about half empty. It won't take long for people to start wondering what to do with 50% of one of the worlds best large airports. It will be large airplanes coming from very long distances that are not operated by US airlines (look for the SWA spin machine to start promoting this shortly after the WA is lifted). SWA has a plan alright...bring on the cabotage!

 

[canyonblue]

The sky is falling!, The sky is falling! Maybe with DFW at 50%, airplanes could be ontime 50% of the time. Boy how the roles have reversed, AA going to the lawmakers to help it stay alive. Only problem is, the people outside of the Metroplex don't give a damn about AA. What have they ever done for the good of the passenger. Pathetic.

It will be large airplanes coming from very long distances that are not operated by US airlines

Ever been to LAX? Do you actually fly in the US?

 

[aa73]

The sky is falling!, The sky is falling! Maybe with DFW at 50%, airplanes could be ontime 50% of the time. Boy how the roles have reversed, AA going to the lawmakers to help it stay alive. Only problem is, the people outside of the Metroplex don't give a dang about AA. What have they ever done for the good of the passenger. Pathetic.



Ever been to LAX? Do you actually fly in the US?

I don't understand your logic/reasoning. I don't think any passengers at any hub give a dang about any airline, SWA included. All they care about is getting from point A to B on time, cheaply. Something both AA and SWA do remarkably well, given their respective sizes. Bringing up on time performance is a weak defense to use, since every airline including SWA roller-coasts from good to ugly to good.

 

[Flopgut]

Ever been to LAX? Do you actually fly in the US?

Ever been outside the US?

What is your point?

My point is your airline needs to move to DFW for the overall good of the entire system. Or at least live with the WA.

Secondly, I think your airline wants to add to the list of things that are causing decline in leagcy airline business without getting their hands dirty.

PS: I have been to nine countries this year

 

[Flopgut]

Ever been outside the US?

Of course you haven't (with SWA at least). I did not mean to be as glib and spiteful as that sounds. I am not going to delete or edit though, I'm going to qualify it. Other countries (non third world) that have transportation systems take national pride in them. They do actually, it is really not too much of a stretch, especially when you contrast that with what we do with them in this country. In this country we have taken an airline system that is the envy of the entire planet and ravaged it. The SWA/King County Airport thing is a good example. If we let your airline short-circuit what Alaska does in the Seattle area it is bound to have profound effects (eventually) on the vital service that airline is able to provide to all of Alaska. That is tough work up there, it is a real hard place to fly and there is no easy money so your airline is not going to do it.

Now of course some version of deregulation was inevitable. However, there should be some baseline for all of our own good. For instance, if SWA manages to kill off all legacy airlines how will it continue to exist? There can be no low cost carrier if there is no high cost carrier. This will just propagate the same pattern of failed endeavors that has made up the last 30 years of this business. I'm going to conclude that point for now, I'll continue it if I have to later.

Lastly, an open question to any SWA pilot (tech guy too, if you want), rank the following:

In what order does your airline value the following:

1 Your pay
2 Your job security
3 Stock performance
4 The SWA family touchy feely stuff
5 The SWA brand

 

[canyonblue]

If we let your airline short-circuit what Alaska does in the Seattle area it is bound to have profound effects (eventually) on the vital service that airline is able to provide to all of Alaska.

Who is we? The Legacy carriers? Sorry you don't own the system, the people do, and if we have to figure out ways to make money in this industry without the tactics that other carriers employ, than I am glad Gary Kelly is starting to think outside the box. It is only because we are now considered such a huge threat, that the other airlines are starting to whine. Allegiant flies out of Rockford, maybe Kelly should get a "Daley Amendment" in place to protect Midway from extinction. The reality is not saving DFW, it's saving American Airlines. DFW would still be the same airport it has always been, maybe more so with less of an AA presence. If you pay rent to a landlord and the landlord wants to double your rent, would you leave, or just pay higher rent so your neighbors in the apartment are happy that they can count on you to keep their apartment building in the splendor the are accustomed to, even though you just live there 8% of the month. Time to make big decisions, even if they are unpopular, to save this airline from the swath of cuts that other airlines employ. I would rather DFW and Sea-Tac eat the losses, before I would. And that is how a great CEO thinks, Arpey and others could take a lesson.

And lastly, In what order does your airline value the following:

1. Themselves, and why wouldn't they. If they take care of themselves, I am therefore taken care of by default.

 

[FlyGuppies]

Flopgut ... "PS: I have been to nine countries this year"

If that's how you measure your manhood, I'm amused and sorry at the same time. Some of us put family and quality of life ahead of the size of our aircaft or how many countries we visit.

You probably support retaining Age 60 too!