Seattle-SWA battle escalates
 

LATEST NEWS
Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - 2:57 PM PDT Monday

Southwest-Boeing Field battle escalates

Southwest Airlines' proposal to utilize Boeing Field is stirring organized opposition, while the airline promises to mitigate noise concerns if Boeing Field service is adopted.

On Tuesday, a consortium opposed to Southwest operating at Boeing Field, led by leaders of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, will hold a briefing to "announce the formation of an alliance that is opposed to establishing commercial passenger jet service at King County International Airport (Boeing Field) in Seattle."

Meanwhile, Southwest says it will operate quiet planes at Boeing Field.

In an Aug. 18 letter to King County Executive Ron Sims, Southwest Senior Vice President Ron Ricks says Southwest will use 737-700 airplanes at Boeing Field, which are "significantly quieter" than other planes regularly used at the airport.

Ricks also said planes would use a flight path over Elliott Bay, instead of over residential areas, in order to diffuse noise complaints. He said the airline would not operate in the middle of the night and "absolutely will not schedule so-called 'red-eye' flights" at Boeing Field.

Last month, Southwest said it would pay for a $130 million passenger terminal at Boeing Field.

Let the games begin! Seattle is simply faced with three options:

1) Sea-Tac rethinks their pie-in-the-sky expansion plan and reduces their assessments against the airlines (all of them!) making SWA's move to Boeing Field an expensive alternative. All the airlines win. Passenger traffic booms as reasonable fares proliferate. The Port of Seattle, whose income is highly dependent on the number of people passing through their gates, makes lots of money from the increased body count!

2) Boeing Field is opened up to commercial flights following the SWA proposal or some slight modification thereof. SeaTac passes SWA's share of the pie to the other financially strapped carriers resulting in the reduction of flights and resulting loss of passengers through SEA's now-massively-overbuilt facility. The Port of Seattle takes the big one up the backside as revenues available to pay for the monolith head south.

3) Southwest is refused entry to BFI, SEA keeps the airport usage rates high, and SWA terminates all service to the Emerald City. Horizon and Alaska win thin victories but the citizens pay the price through esclated fares. Higher prices in turn result in lower ridership so the net gain for the airlines is nil. Again, the Port of Seattle is the big loser as passenger counts plummet.

I would surmise that any one of these is an acceptable option for SWA. This isn't about egos, it's about business and no one does the airline business better (without using the bankruptcy crutch, that is).

I believe Sea-Tac did just fine before the "almighty" SWA made their appearance in Seattle. Please don't think that SWA might cause the airport to fail...a little arrogant, I would say.

I didn't say "fail", I said SeaTac would lose passengers which translates into cash flow. I'd guess that SeaTac management was aiming a little higher than just "doing fine" with their latest grandious construction scheme. I admit their new terminal food court is impressive ($4 million for a glass wall?!), but SeaTac's passengers were "doing fine" without having to pay for that facility, too.

http://www.portseattle.org/images/seatac/cteout2.jpg

For long term success SeaTac needs to adjust their attitudes toward all their carriers. SWA isn't arrogant. They are simply the only airline with the resources and courage to speak up.

As for "almighty," that word does have a nice ring to it. Thanks for the compliment. :rolleyes:

Ball's in your court .....

Corl, it appears that you may have double dribbled! :D

>>double dribbled<<

... and now have a red face to go with that red belly ;)

Error corrected. Whoops! :o