SWA into EWR
09-03-2010, 07:49 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
How come its illegal to bribe a government official unless the government official is a lawmaker? Just odd how that works and I'm being apolitical here. We're all lobbying in DC. Every airline in this discussion is.
But imo, if the government doesn't stand on principle then they'll get sued and I hope they get beat down. Right now DAL/LCC was told they cannot pick their competitors (Westjet, Airtran, Spirit, Jetblue), but a few months later UCAL picks SWA and the DOJ is fine with it and then says "we have no other competition issues with it."
If an airline wants to lobby that you've got to uphold the law or that a law is unfair, good for them. If they see an advantage and lobby on it, fine. I have no problem with SWA lobbying that no other airline should be allowed to fly passengers domestically but them. Fine with that, that's fair, free speech, and yes we'll bicker about it but its not SWA I have the primary issue with.
Its the government signing off on it and picking favorites, that's what I have a problem with. And anybody saying "that's fair! ha ha!" Well I have a problem there too.
But imo, if the government doesn't stand on principle then they'll get sued and I hope they get beat down. Right now DAL/LCC was told they cannot pick their competitors (Westjet, Airtran, Spirit, Jetblue), but a few months later UCAL picks SWA and the DOJ is fine with it and then says "we have no other competition issues with it."
If an airline wants to lobby that you've got to uphold the law or that a law is unfair, good for them. If they see an advantage and lobby on it, fine. I have no problem with SWA lobbying that no other airline should be allowed to fly passengers domestically but them. Fine with that, that's fair, free speech, and yes we'll bicker about it but its not SWA I have the primary issue with.
Its the government signing off on it and picking favorites, that's what I have a problem with. And anybody saying "that's fair! ha ha!" Well I have a problem there too.
I think the deep resounding issue here is something that has been a gray area for years now, and that is regarding the ownership rights of airport slots. I think the DAL/US lawsuit will be groundbreaking in a lot of ways because the outcome could pose a probable answer to this question for years to come.
Personally, I think since the airlines purchased and used the slots by default they should be considered owners.
09-03-2010, 08:12 AM
#112
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Nortonious
Suggest you read my original post again. Never "revised" history. Just used a healthy dose of sarcasm to point out to all the "Congressional-Lobbyist-Conspiracy-Theorists" that congressional legislation can cut both ways. Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. Wright Amendment had long since served its original stated purpose of protecting DFW airport's early viability and was doing nothing more than handcuffing SWA.
If you've convinced yourself that SWA is the evil empire, then there is nothing more to discuss.
If you've convinced yourself that SWA is the evil empire, then there is nothing more to discuss.
Southwest Airlines...still winning over government after all these years.
Carl
09-03-2010, 08:14 AM
#113
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
How come its illegal to bribe a government official unless the government official is a lawmaker? Just odd how that works and I'm being apolitical here. We're all lobbying in DC. Every airline in this discussion is.
But imo, if the government doesn't stand on principle then they'll get sued and I hope they get beat down. Right now DAL/LCC was told they cannot pick their competitors (Westjet, Airtran, Spirit, Jetblue), but a few months later UCAL picks SWA and the DOJ is fine with it and then says "we have no other competition issues with it."
If an airline wants to lobby that you've got to uphold the law or that a law is unfair, good for them. If they see an advantage and lobby on it, fine. I have no problem with SWA lobbying that no other airline should be allowed to fly passengers domestically but them. Fine with that, that's fair, free speech, and yes we'll bicker about it but its not SWA I have the primary issue with.
Its the government signing off on it and picking favorites, that's what I have a problem with. And anybody saying "that's fair! ha ha!" Well I have a problem there too.
But imo, if the government doesn't stand on principle then they'll get sued and I hope they get beat down. Right now DAL/LCC was told they cannot pick their competitors (Westjet, Airtran, Spirit, Jetblue), but a few months later UCAL picks SWA and the DOJ is fine with it and then says "we have no other competition issues with it."
If an airline wants to lobby that you've got to uphold the law or that a law is unfair, good for them. If they see an advantage and lobby on it, fine. I have no problem with SWA lobbying that no other airline should be allowed to fly passengers domestically but them. Fine with that, that's fair, free speech, and yes we'll bicker about it but its not SWA I have the primary issue with.
Its the government signing off on it and picking favorites, that's what I have a problem with. And anybody saying "that's fair! ha ha!" Well I have a problem there too.
Carl
09-03-2010, 12:18 PM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Just to be clear on this. The Department of Justice signed off on this merger as they did with the Delta/NWA merger. The FAA put the brakes on the Delta / USAir deal, not the DOJ.
Maybe it's not too late for the FAA to assert their Governmental powers to stop this one too!
I think the grey area in all of this (thus the lawsuit) is that everyone is trying to understand who has control of the slots and what power does the FAA have over competition?
Maybe it's not too late for the FAA to assert their Governmental powers to stop this one too!
I think the grey area in all of this (thus the lawsuit) is that everyone is trying to understand who has control of the slots and what power does the FAA have over competition?
09-03-2010, 02:43 PM
#115
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: A nice comfy Boeing seat.
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by B757200ER
I honestly don't know why SWA would want to fly to places like EWR, LGA and SFO. These busy, congested airports just bog down their flights, and this is just not their style. Secondary, less-busy airports where they can do 20-30 minute turns are more their style.
09-03-2010, 02:52 PM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by tpmagee
Because these days they're after more business fliers and that's where business people want to go. Business fliers = higher yield = more profits. Welcome to the newer SWA business model.
09-03-2010, 06:00 PM
#118
Careful w/that axe Eugene
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: HOTAS...and a SWA gear lever
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by DeadHead
I think the deep resounding issue here is something that has been a gray area for years now, and that is regarding the ownership rights of airport slots. I think the DAL/US lawsuit will be groundbreaking in a lot of ways because the outcome could pose a probable answer to this question for years to come.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Southwest Airlines...still winning over government after all these years.
I suppose it's SWA's fault that DAL closed their DFW domicile and is pulled back in CVG now?
I ain't a fan of "pay-to-play" or capital hill lobbyists or any of that junk. And I definitely ain't saying "HA HA" and rubbing anybody's nose in anything. But regardless, I don't figure anything I'm gonna say is gonna change your opinion on the matter.
09-03-2010, 06:10 PM
#119
Careful w/that axe Eugene
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: HOTAS...and a SWA gear lever
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by Columbia
Most high yield business travelers also want access to airport clubs, the ability to upgrade to First class, as well as the ability to use miles to fly internationally.
Hopefully we'll all have planes full of high yielding passengers, the economy will turn around, we'll balance our federal budget, payoff the debt, Iran will disarm themselves and send us all flying carpets we can use to commute to our jobs.
09-03-2010, 07:33 PM
#120
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by B757200ER
I honestly don't know why SWA would want to fly to places like EWR, LGA and SFO. These busy, congested airports just bog down their flights, and this is just not their style. Secondary, less-busy airports where they can do 20-30 minute turns are more their style.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
