SWAjet

http://www.rednova.com/news/technolo...e=r_technology

corl737

Not surprising. Once Alaska and AA chimned in with their "me too!" phantom proposals King County lost the will to engage in any real examination of SWA's authentic and fully-funded proposition. Fear and dooms-day projections are an effective tool in the PR bag of tricks. (AA does this better than anyone!)

However, the process wasn't a total loss. By floating this proposal the public's attention has been focused on the inefficiencies and excesses enacted by the Port of Seattle's administration. In the end, ALL airlines at SeaTac, not just Southwest, will benefit by a reduction in the proposed fees assessed by the Port. (One report said the projections for 2009 have already dropped from $25/pax to $14/pax -- a 44% reduction!)

No thanks are necessary.

Mach None

The fees are out of control. But, a Phantom proposal? That is why we submitted plans for a $100 million terminal with a parking garage too. The reality of the situation is, all the carriers that serve SeaTac would have had to relocate some or all their flights just to be competitive. It would have had a severe impacted traffic, noise and the local neighborhoods. If you live up here, you know about the traffic. It was dead before it started. Maybe Simms was just looking for a job because of the fall elections.

corl737

I don't question your observations about the physical environment around Boeing Field. I don't live in the area so I willingly accept your first-hand views.

I referred to the writings of several columnists who stated that while AA and Alaska both floated "me too" facilities, neither airline was likely to have the ability to actually carry through with their proposals. Thus, these were no more than phantom flights intended to persuade public opinion against expansion at Boeing Field by imagining a worst-case scenario. The strategy obviously worked as neither ALK or AMR had to actually expend the costs of preparing a detailed reasonable and realistic plan.

In virtually all respects, Alaska merely mimicked the proposal developed and paid for by SWA adding only enough cosmetic changes to ensure it projected their slant. The plan they officially submitted to King County consisted of a measley 10-pages, mostly containing fluff like the table of contents, pictures, and interior layouts of the B737 and DHC-8. You can read Alaska's proposal (it won't take long!).

In the court of public opinion, facts rarely compete sucessfully with emotion.

Mach None

I guess the cash in our bank account doesn't count? We did not want to do it, but if Boeing field was opened up, we would have responded. This is our house.

Maybe we will see you in Love?

corl737

There's a huge difference between cash in the bank and working capital. There are enormous levels of required cash reserves that, while looking pretty on the balance sheet, cannot be tapped for any real meaningful purposes. Thus, shelling out $150 million for a terminal would have severely dwindled the existing reservoir above and beyond the required reserves.

We'd love the opportunity to see you in Love!

Mach None

We have 800 million in free cash. That is unrestricted money. Far from SWA's amount. But I think it is relatively the same given our size versus SWA's.

But that doesn't matter now. Boeing deal is dead.

See ya around the playground.

corl737

You betcha!

av8r4aa

First I heard of the "Phantom" AA move to Boeing field.

Are you sure bout that?

Sounds like you are just tooting your horn

Anyway thanks for the PAX dollar discount.
I did not know they (SEA) charge that much to use the place.

I like SEA it seems well run to me. Plus much better fresh seafood than
my neighborhood market.

I think SWA should scare all the airport operators across the USA.

Maybe they will get off their checkbooks and charge accordingly.

One more item........ No more 50 knot speed reductions combined with
a few 30 degree turns to let SWA swoop ahead of me.


Honestly I don't care ,I am paid by the minute not leg.

SEE YA ALL at 310

corl737

The necessity to maintain credibility on public forums is essential. If I can't back up my story, I'll tell you. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to give you my source vs. simply blasting from the hip like some renegades tend to do.

Regarding the AA proposal, here's my source, partially quoted with a link to the entire article:

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Another airline looks at moving to Boeing Field
American might follow Southwest if it leaves Sea-Tac

By JENNIFER LANGSTON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

American Airlines would consider abandoning Sea-Tac Airport in favor of Boeing Field if King County opened the smaller airport to large-scale passenger service, officials said Wednesday.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...uthwest29.html

You will note in the full article that AMR states their plan isn't realistic as they have no money to accomplish the move and would require having someone else pay for their facilities. Still, by adding their name to the list wanting to move, their "phantom" plan added to the critics' compiling of a massively congested scenario at BFI and the subsequent demise of the one thoroughly researched and funded proposal.