![]() |
If it makes dollars and sense, yes, yes they would.
|
Originally Posted by skytrekker
(Post 2883401)
So the airline that puts the freeze on anybody growing in ATL, that also allegedly stopped SW from building a terminal on the south cargo ramp, is going to do a 100 plus aircraft deal with NK? OK.
|
Originally Posted by skytrekker
(Post 2883401)
So the airline that puts the freeze on anybody growing in ATL, that also allegedly stopped SW from building a terminal on the south cargo ramp, is going to do a 100 plus aircraft deal with NK? OK.
|
One bus two buses. For the love of God stop saying airbii
|
Originally Posted by elmetal
(Post 2883489)
One bus two buses. For the love of God stop saying airbii
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2883469)
You sure give Delta a lot of power. Do a little research and you will find gates are not the issue. ATL airport moves more aircraft than any other airport with 5 or more runways. What Atlanta needs for growth is another runway to go with a additional gates already planned. Delta by the way pushed for a terminal G which was rejected by the airport authority as too expensive. Instead existing terminals are being extended. Delta has also offered to demolish their current headquarters and all the training facilities to get a sixth runway built in ATL. Does not sound like they are trying to restrict capacity!
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2883469)
You sure give Delta a lot of power. Do a little research and you will find gates are not the issue. ATL airport moves more aircraft than any other airport with 5 or more runways. What Atlanta needs for growth is another runway to go with a additional gates already planned. Delta by the way pushed for a terminal G which was rejected by the airport authority as too expensive. Instead existing terminals are being extended. Delta has also offered to demolish their current headquarters and all the training facilities to get a sixth runway built in ATL. Does not sound like they are trying to restrict capacity!
|
Originally Posted by TalkTurkey
(Post 2883566)
I wish LAX would get their ess together too. During rush hour, it takes vehicles 50 minutes to go from the entrance to the exit.
|
No clue why we stay in LGB. Way better options closer to the airport. Hermosa, Manhattan,Redondo and many more.
|
Originally Posted by ropestart
(Post 2883667)
No clue why we stay in LGB. Way better options closer to the airport. Hermosa, Manhattan,Redondo and many more.
I think we’ve seen a steady decline in hotels since this contract was signed. I don’t mind being near the airport and am a fan of the new hour requirements for long vs short. The problem is that there are loopholes such as Boston where the long is just as close as the short and the short is garbage. Our language is far too weak for what’s satisfactory and when we had more “long” layovers the hotels available usually exceeded the requirements. Now that we have a lot more “short” layovers it brings in a lot more crummy hotels that meet our contract and since spirit bids as low as it can we end up at these. Hotel quality should be a priority in the next round or mid cycle if we can. To me long or short shouldn’t matter and we should be at a four or five star hotel in either situation. That’s not happening today. Keep bringing shortcomings of hotels to the appropriate people. We can’t get a change if folks just accept the garbage they give us. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:10 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands