Wright fight getting ugly!

[SWA tech]

AA's been struggling.

cant have that

 

[ivauir]

Flopgut, you have made it quite clear that you hate us. Furthermore, you have also made it clear that your hate will not be bound by the contstains of reason, or any fact or logic what so ever. But even you must be ashamed to read the post I above quoted above. If you are not, I guess your hatred has taken you beyond shame.

I guess you feel that SWA is the devil, and somehow we are reasponsable for all of the ills in the world (or at least the domestic airline business), but come on! I am tempted to engage you on several issues, but in the end I know I will only suffer a response full of bile and hate. So instead I will leave you with this thought: we are not going away. We will either go to Boeing Field or see a dramatic reduction in our costs at SEA TAC (already starting). The WA will go away (someday). You will get madder and madder as we continue to pursue cost reductions and innovative strategies. I will smile when I go to work, be freindly on the radio and even wave at you. That must really burn you up. Luv ya!

 

[aeronautic1]

D/fw

Hey,

Has anybody walk around C Concourse recently?

Ghost town!! Can you hear the sucking chest wound that is D/FW?

I live Love Field.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

"We" would be anyone who is not a SWA employee/SWA systemite or the like. I applaud new thinking and I do not dislike most of what SWA is about. I think this LUV/ King County behavior is too extreme. Herb didn't fight the WA actively...I think he felt pretty lucky to get the deal you have now and just play underdog.

And it is not about saving AA. It is about the sanctity of the competition. AA followed the prescribed sequence of airport growth as was set out for the metroplex. Your airline was allowed relief from the agreement because it was a small airline. SWA was excused from the rules and was granted an advantage, because of its relatively small size. Now, your airline is huge. And because of that, your insisting on free rein. It is absurd! To tell you the truth, I no longer think it is about getting unrestricted use of LUV. It is about using this tactic as a means to attack a legacy in the same manner you are attacking USAir. Only AA is pretty strong so your not going to go heads up, not your style.

Great CEOs, huh? Thats what it is about? (you SWA types are square with the "SWA family" goofiness, here is where I get square) The CEOs that started the legacy carriers were a different breed. They set out to shape the entire industry...create, explore and build. They not only wanted to succeed, they wanted everyone around them to succeed. That is what I call great. Not the "Reaganesque" corporate raider types that are more representative of [some] what SWA is about. Admittedly, the thinking of our CEOs is outdated, and legacy leaders need to better adjust to the "guerilla" tactics in play today. And they will, and that is why the fight over the WA is so intense.

Don't gripe at me about allegiant, they learned that crap from you. Just buy them and throw their careers in the junk heap like you did Muze Air (and people think your so nice...).

Lastly, here is where I am coming from with that question: Your new "corporate luminaries" could give a crap about your culture, your paycheck, job security and all of it. SWA's durable profitability is a two edged sword. There is not one person at your headquarters who wants to preside over the company's first ever loss. So when it comes down to it, they are going to wipe their butt with your "culture", and you had better be ready for it. I think that has a lot to do with this new interest in probing for changes to the WA and threatening to leave SEA. Eventually, we all live in a equal market, all of us. You prepare for that by keeping perspective throughout the tides of this business. The only thing you can do in this business is hope that every employee, at every airline, gets to take a turn at the best deal they can before they are done. You DO NOT, say things like "all the legacies are dead", and you DO NOT regail the fact that your airline paid all of its emplyees during the 911 shutdown when your company did not have to bury any, like that sicko you work with did in the top of this thread.

Get your heads out of your butts.

 

[DAS at 10/250]

I believe in fair competition and that market forces, not politics, should determine the equilibrium. ECON 101.

I signed the petition to repeal the Wright ammendment.

Good luck LUV!

 

[Flopgut]

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!

No, no. I don't think nine countries is that many really or that big of deal. Dude asked me about where I flew and I told him. I would like to point out that it has given me a real good "worldview", which I think is key.

Age 60? If you want to here my views on age 60 I'm going to have to insist you pay me.

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut, you have made it quite clear that you hate us. Furthermore, you have also made it clear that your hate will not be bound by the contstains of reason, or any fact or logic what so ever. But even you must be ashamed to read the post I above quoted above. If you are not, I guess your hatred has taken you beyond shame.

I guess you feel that SWA is the devil, and somehow we are reasponsable for all of the ills in the world (or at least the domestic airline business), but come on! I am tempted to engage you on several issues, but in the end I know I will only suffer a response full of bile and hate. So instead I will leave you with this thought: we are not going away. We will either go to Boeing Field or see a dramatic reduction in our costs at SEA TAC (already starting). The WA will go away (someday). You will get madder and madder as we continue to pursue cost reductions and innovative strategies. I will smile when I go to work, be freindly on the radio and even wave at you. That must really burn you up. Luv ya!

Yes, I am mad. I am mad that not one of you SWA types reigned in your co-worker who made tha insensitve remark about the shutdown at the top of the thread. That subject, that whole event, is something I don't think you should discuss. You don't own that.

I am only here to talk about the WA. All my posts are about it, read them. I don't dislike your airline to the extent you think I do. All I want to see is a straight up fight and that the history of the business not be forgotten.

 

[canyonblue]

Yes, I am mad. I am mad that not one of you SWA types reigned in your co-worker who made tha insensitve remark about the shutdown at the top of the thread.

Maybe because he DOES NOT work for Southwest. I thought everyone could see that.

 

[aa73]

The reality is not saving DFW, it's saving American Airlines.

Come on, Canyonblue, the WA is there to protect DFW and it's always been that way. Just because AA is the largest presence there doesn't mean they will go under just because the WA goes away. AA has proved itself a formidable competitor in the past, and will continue to do so, WA or not. We just earned a profit amidst all of the chaos, someone's doing something right. Give us a little credit, as much as you hate us.

 

[Flopgut]

Maybe because he DOES NOT work for Southwest. I thought everyone could see that.

Then Why does the poster's "current position" indicate SWA!

Am I taking crazy pills here?

 

[enigma]

And it is not about saving AA. It is about the sanctity of the competition. AA followed the prescribed sequence of airport growth as was set out for the metroplex. Your airline was allowed relief from the agreement because it was a small airline.

Flop, I believe that SWA got around the forced move to DFW because SWA was not controlled by the CAB. At the time, serving only Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston, SWA fell under the laws of Texas not the Federal Government when it came to route structure etc. It had nothing to do with being small. Also, Kelleher and company were in court for around two years fighting for the right (no pun intended) to continue at Love. Eventually, some court ruled that the LAW allowed SWA to operate out of Love.

Years later, when SWA was obviously growing into a carrier that could serve a larger area than just the Texas Triangle, the powers that be got FortWorthless Jim to enact the Wright Amendment in order to limit competition for DFW airport.

I can see where you're coming from, that American/Braniff/ etc were forced to move and that not moving gave Southwest an advantage. But that was then and this is now. In my humble opinion, when AA moved into Love in order to run Legend out of business, AA lost any and all right to use the "we were forced out of Love" argument.

As I see it, DFW alone is NOT able to provide efficient runway/terminal service for the entire north Texas metroplex. As such, in short order more runways/terminals will be needed and just as we see in the NY metro area, each airport will most likely be dominated by one network carrier. That's just the way that the business seems to shake out in the somewhat free airline market.

AA should get smart and use SWA's push to revoke the WA as leverage against the DFW board in an effort to reduce their costs of operating at DFW. I'd think the leverage against the DFW board would be seen as a Godsend. If I were Arpey, I'd be sending Colleen a dozen roses and a few Arturo Fuentes to Gary Kelly. If the WA goes away as it should, no one will want to attempt to fill the vacant gates at DFW and I'd think that would be perfectly fine with AA.

regards,
enigma

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Flopgut,

I am now convinced that either you are unable to read or totally out of touch with reality. My earlier comments were in no way intended to degrade AA and UAL. If anyone took offense, I sincerely apologize. If you look at which airlines were in the best financial health prior to 9-11, they are the ones who were best prepared succeed, or at least tread water in the industry in the aftermath of 9-11. My remark about SWA paying employees during the shutdown was simply to illustrate the culture and financial health of SWA. If you do not believe that this culture is important to Gary Kelly, you obviously have not met him or heard him speak. Furloughs and layoffs are possible anywhere in this business, including SWA (and they were indeed considered).

BTW, I believe that the B737-700 with winglets has caused SWA to move from neutral to anti WA as much as anything. This is the first time that SWA has had a majority of its aircraft capable of long-haul flying out of DAL.

CR

 

[sf260pilot]

Maybe SAT or AUS...Herb lives in San Antonio, that is why the San Antonio flight leaves from gate one at DAL.

 

[sf260pilot]

The congress just passed an energy deal that would give already profitable oil companies more money...why can't they do the same thing for SWA. Why is it that this country is so against businesses that are profitable but would rather subsidize DAL UAL and AA. Where was this help for Braniff and Pan Am when they needed it. Start reading some of the articles in the Dallas morning News and you will see politics at its finest. DFW does not need to be protected anymore. The only true reason for the Wright Amendment in the first place was because, high profile Braniff of the 1960's refused to fly from Greater Southwest field. SWA did not exist when the agreement was made and deregulation came along years later. Jim Wright is dead and AA is almost dead. The best thing that could happen for AA SWA and DFW ( airport and texas) is for some good ole fashioned competition.

 

[ivauir]

Yes, I am mad. I am mad that not one of you SWA types reigned in your co-worker who made tha insensitve remark about the shutdown at the top of the thread. That subject, that whole event, is something I don't think you should discuss. You don't own that.

Riiiiiiight that is what you are so upset about - except that your tone has been nasty since WAY before that.

I am only here to talk about the WA. All my posts are about it No they aren't, read them. No you are not the boss of me. I don't dislike your airline to the extent you think I do Riiiight. All I want to see is a straight up fight Riiiiight and that the history of the business not be forgotten. That is why you continue to mischaracterize said history and carfully avoid inconveinent facts.

"We" would be anyone who is not a SWA employee/SWA systemite or the like. I applaud new thinking and I do not dislike most of what SWA is about. I think this LUV/ King County behavior is too extreme. Pursuing lower costs is EXTREME now? Kewl now I can be on the X games. Herb didn't fight the WA actively...I think he felt pretty lucky to get the deal you have now and just play underdog. Agreed, but that didn't mean it was right or fair at the time, it means that the powers that controlled the environment (your airline being one) were just too powerful to get a fair settlement.

And it is not about saving AA. It is about the sanctity of the competition. ROFLO AA followed the prescribed sequence of airport growth as was set out for the metroplex. Your airline was allowed relief from the agreement because it was a small airline. Here is a fine example of miss-stating the facts, that is not the "history of this business" that we are supposed to be perseving. SWA was excused from the rules and was granted an advantage, because of its relatively small size. Now, your airline is huge. And because of that, your insisting on free rein. It is absurd! To tell you the truth, That would be a welcome change I no longer think it is about getting unrestricted use of LUV. It is about using this tactic as a means to attack a legacy in the same manner you are attacking USAir. Only AA is pretty strong so your not going to go heads up, not your style.

Great CEOs, huh? Thats what it is about? (you SWA types are square with the "SWA family" goofiness, here is where I get square) But you said this was all about the WA and tha was what all of your posts were about. And yet a large number of your posts (I refuse to read all of them, you are way to verbose and full fo yourself) you bring up our "goofiness", you bait us with "surveys" and generally lecture us from your vast pool of aviation history and business knowledge. The CEOs that started the legacy carriers were a different breed. They set out to shape the entire industry...create, explore and build. They not only wanted to succeed, they wanted everyone around them to succeed. That is what I call great. Not the "Reaganesque" corporate raider types that are more representative of [some] what SWA is about. Admittedly, the thinking of our CEOs is outdated, and legacy leaders need to better adjust to the "guerilla" tactics in play today. And they will, and that is why the fight over the WA is so intense.

Don't gripe at me about allegiant, they learned that crap from you. Just buy them and throw their careers in the junk heap like you did Muze Air (and people think your so nice...).This is about the WA?

Lastly, here is where I am coming from with that question: Your new "corporate luminaries" could give a crap about your culture, your paycheck, job security and all of it. SWA's durable profitability is a two edged sword. How many edges on your sword? There is not one person at your headquarters who wants to preside over the company's first ever loss. So when it comes down to it, they are going to wipe their butt with your "culture", and you had better be ready for it. Here we go again - what we had better be ready for ... I told you before - you are not the boss of me! BTW Culture is capitalized not in quotes, should I forward Colleens pointers on how to write about SWA? I think I doubt it that has a lot to do with this new interest in probing for changes to the WA and threatening to leave SEA. Eventually, we all live in a equal market, all of us. Once the WA goes away we will. You prepare for that by keeping perspective throughout the tides of this business. Really o wise one? Tell me more! The only thing you can do in this business is hope that every employee, at every airline, gets to take a turn at the best deal they can before they are done. Man that is eloquent. You DO NOT, say things like "all the legacies are dead", How about "SWA is really a regional airline?" Is that OK to say? I've heard that a lot. Or that SWA pilots are just light twin pilots? How about telling folks how many countries you went to last month? and you DO NOT regail the fact that your airline paid all of its emplyees during the 911 shutdown when your company did not have to bury any, like that sicko you work with did in the top of this thread.
WOWOWOW that was quite a lecture. You sure are full of advice for us. And you are clairvoint. O you also take Chest Rockwell totally out of context, but that is typical for the rest of your arguments; ignore facts that conflict with your worldview, and berate anyone who dissagrees with you.

Get your heads out of your butts. It appears you are the one kissing you own keister.

I am sure your response to this will be like the rest: hatefull, LONG, wordy, and factually incorrect. So let me remind you we are not going away. We will either go to Boeing Field or see a dramatic reduction in our costs at SEA TAC (already starting). The WA will go away (someday). You will get madder and madder as we continue to pursue cost reductions and innovative strategies. I will smile when I go to work, be freindly on the radio and even wave at you. That must really burn you up. Luv ya!

 

[Flycatcher99]

Your new "corporate luminaries" could give a crap about your culture, your paycheck, job security and all of it. SWA's durable profitability is a two edged sword. There is not one person at your headquarters who wants to preside over the company's first ever loss. So when it comes down to it, they are going to wipe their butt with your "culture", and you had better be ready for it.

I'm just curious about something. If you think SWA's corporate leaders are eventually going to abandon the employee's culture and treat them all like garbage, why have they bothered with the whole "take care of our employees" culture in the first place?? Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler, not to mention more profitable, to treat employees with the same impersonal nature and lack of fair compensation that we've experienced at other airlines?

You are absolutely correct that they are concerned mainly about the bottom line; after all, this isn't a pro bono travel service that SWA is offering, nor is it a charitible welfare organization meant to provide improved lives for those working for SWA. But these leaders have the complete realization that in order to have the best possible bottom line, it is most advantageous to ensure their employees dedication by taking complete care of their people. They did this by paying good wages, offering great benefits, and taking care of their employees when personal circumstances get tough. I assure you that this fosters a devoted employee, one who enjoys his/her job, one who is highly likely to provide a level of service that is noticeable to customers and pays off for the company in the end.

And it would be hard, given the numbers, to argue that they're wrong.

 

[Flycatcher99]

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.

My only point was that it is not accurate for you to call SWA's ops at DAL a "monopoly".

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.

So to you, making use of the political process is "greasing"? How is that in any way a negative or unethical act, as your terminology would imply? Wouldn't a company have to start some kind of political process to cause a restrictive law to be repealed?!

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

Yes. I'm crying right now thinking about it.

 

[Flopgut]

I can see where you're coming from, that American/Braniff/ etc were forced to move and that not moving gave Southwest an advantage. But that was then and this is now. In my humble opinion, when AA moved into Love in order to run Legend out of business, AA lost any and all right to use the "we were forced out of Love" argument.

Good point, you could be right. I think AA had to do something drastic because of what SWA had done by staying at LUV. Legend wanted to pattern the SWA success and differentiate their brand by being all FC. AA didn't have to compete with SWA for FC customers (there are not that many anyway) so even a small threat could have profound effects. You could argue Legend would have done better if they had gone to DFW and just "hid out on the battlefield" for a while. (compare with WestPac at COS vs. FAL at Denver)

The problem with pressing DFW with lower costs is this: If SWA stays at Love (or leaves SEA for that matter) is they will expand service. Municipal costs of running the airport system will go up (facilities mx, ATC, engineering etc) and someone has to pay for it. AA cannot leave DFW and the city knows it, so it will be much harder to get them to lower airport cost that are going up. AA gets pinched. So they better pull out all the stops to fight repeal of the WA.

 

[Flopgut]

The congress just passed an energy deal that would give already profitable oil companies more money...why can't they do the same thing for SWA.

I am pointing out the glaring absurdity of what things are in play here. SWA is about to be granted a windfall reversal on a long standing public policy. While legacy airlines are dealt the equivilent of a safe falling on their head with the proposed changing of daylight savings time! Come on!

 

[Flopgut]

Actually yes, please do forward Coleen's pointers on how to wright about your airline. Or you can at least check it for me and see if Chest's comments meet the standard or were a breach of etiquette. Because if you actually have guidelines for discussing apalling world events and the positive effect it has on your company I will apologize. Or we can both agree to drop it.

BTW, I don't hate SWA. But if it meets with your approval, I am going to be a competitor and a harsh critic when necessary. If my airline losses a fair fight I can live with that. Favoring SWA with repeal of the WA is giving an advantage to your airline. Allowing your airline to operate from there in the first place was wrong.