Originally Posted by
jsled
Never said it was "my claim", just said I had heard the argument. I think the argument that SWA pilots hurt the industry is as silly as your bankruptcy argument, and I said so in my post. You have it quoted up there. Did you read it? I do not blame anyone, including SWA pilots for UAL's or the idustry's woes. Why are you blaming airline bankruptcies for SWA's "current challanges"? Perhaps you should look in the mirror.
JSLED,
I certainly read your post and I would still say that instead of discussing the particulars of the data I presented you chose to mock that info by making a reference to something you had heard. That which you reference (but of course it is not your "claim") is based on ignorance. Nothing stays the same in any industry even though I am sure UAL and other legacies (both their employees and management) would have loved for SWA and other "competitors" to have simply gone away.
If you are unable to see my point that subsidies in any form (Airbus sweet deals, debt forgiven in bankruptcy, loans to anyone from the government, or flat out direct grants to any or all) do not create a level playing field in a so called "free market" than I guess we will have to just disagree. I do not see anything silly in the argument except to not know the difference between competition and being subsidized when your business model fails. I simply believe that the challenges faced by SWA and other airlines in the current revenue environment are the result of business models not being allowed to fail.
Oh! and throwing the "look in the mirror" comment back at me was so painful. I wait impatiently for another of your well thought out replies.
