SWA Rumor Mill
11-17-2013, 05:39 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
The DOJ disagrees. In fact they mention SWA by name.
"The Reagan National and LaGuardia slots will be sold under procedures approved by the department. Under the terms of the settlement, JetBlue at Reagan National and Southwest at LaGuardia will be given the opportunity to acquire the slots they currently lease from Amercan. The remaining 88 slots at Reagan National and 24 slots at LaGuardia plus any JetBlue or Southwest decline to acquire will be grouped into bundles, taking into account specific slot times to ensure commercially viable and competitive patterns of service for the recipients of the divested slots. The parties will divest these slot bundles and all rights and interests in any gates and other ground facilities (e.g., ticket counters, baggage handling facilities, office space and loading bridges) as necessary to support the use of the purchased slots."
USDOJ: Justice Department Requires US Airways and American Airlines to Divest Facilities at Seven Key Airports to Enhance System-wide Competition and Settle Merger Challenge
"The Reagan National and LaGuardia slots will be sold under procedures approved by the department. Under the terms of the settlement, JetBlue at Reagan National and Southwest at LaGuardia will be given the opportunity to acquire the slots they currently lease from Amercan. The remaining 88 slots at Reagan National and 24 slots at LaGuardia plus any JetBlue or Southwest decline to acquire will be grouped into bundles, taking into account specific slot times to ensure commercially viable and competitive patterns of service for the recipients of the divested slots. The parties will divest these slot bundles and all rights and interests in any gates and other ground facilities (e.g., ticket counters, baggage handling facilities, office space and loading bridges) as necessary to support the use of the purchased slots."
USDOJ: Justice Department Requires US Airways and American Airlines to Divest Facilities at Seven Key Airports to Enhance System-wide Competition and Settle Merger Challenge
SWA's growth was remarkable during the day. Now, the only growing is the the rapidly closing gap towards being another legacy.
As such, SWA will have to change. The revenue from premium seating, baggage fees, change fees, etc., etc. will have to be captured or they won't be able to book the profit to help them remain competitive.
Watched a lot of NFL. Actually watching SNF now. Haven't seen one baggage cop on a belt loader ad yet today. Give it to less than a year til y'all start taking those fees.
Then the campaign to convince the public that SWA is a good old low cost aw schucks airline will over.
11-17-2013, 06:29 PM
#32
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Tail Surfing on a 737
Posts: 64
So would you call the Wright Amendment a piece of government legislation that ensured fair competition?
11-17-2013, 07:20 PM
#35
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
11-17-2013, 07:30 PM
#36
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Tail Surfing on a 737
Posts: 64
I always looked at the Wright amendment as a barrier to market entry specifically targeted at an upstart airline that threatened the profits of the legacy carriers. It was intended to restrict competition, not level the playing field. I find it ironic that those same carriers who sponsored that legislation are now concerned with doing what is"fair"
There was nothing fair about the Wright amendment, it was just about making the "wright" campaign donation.
There was nothing fair about the Wright amendment, it was just about making the "wright" campaign donation.
11-17-2013, 07:36 PM
#37
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I always looked at the Wright amendment as a barrier to market entry specifically targeted at an upstart airline that threatened the profits of the legacy carriers. It was intended to restrict competition, not level the playing field. I find it ironic that those same carriers who sponsored that legislation are now concerned with doing what is"fair"
There was nothing fair about the Wright amendment, it was just about making the "wright" campaign donation.
There was nothing fair about the Wright amendment, it was just about making the "wright" campaign donation.
Carl
11-17-2013, 07:57 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Tail Surfing on a 737
Posts: 64
Because allowing SWA the monopoly at Love field forever would be unfair competition. When the Wright Amendment ends next year, it will have allowed SWA over 30 years of monopolistic advantage while it grew into a competitive entity. Fairness dictates a termination date at some point. The Wright Amendment did that.
Carl
Carl
The Wright Amendment didn't guarantee Southwest a monopoly at DAL. It restricted their market access out of DAL.
If it was such a good deal for Southwest why would they be opposed to it and American in favor of it?
If the termination date was inserted to end Southwest's "advantage" why would Southwest spend so much money and campaign so hard to repeal it?
11-17-2013, 08:18 PM
#39
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
11-17-2013, 08:49 PM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Tail Surfing on a 737
Posts: 64
It did both. The restricted access at Love and Meacham was the reason airlines were forced to sign the agreement to move out to DFW. The assumption by all parties was that only short duration commuter flights would ever operate at Love again. Then SWA was created and took advantage of the nearly empty Love field. The other airlines were angry and the various governments were too. They wanted SWA to move to DFW like everyone else. SWA sued under the opinion they couldn't be made to move to DFW because they weren't signators to the original agreement to move. SWA won that suit and were allowed to grow without competition. That's what created the SWA monopoly at Love.
Because Southwest is large enough and healthy enough to no longer need monopoly status to survive. Now that they're large enough, they no longer want the very law that protected them because they now don't want the temporary restrictions that were included.
See above.
Carl
Because Southwest is large enough and healthy enough to no longer need monopoly status to survive. Now that they're large enough, they no longer want the very law that protected them because they now don't want the temporary restrictions that were included.
See above.
Carl
They are big enough now, but they fought the amendment from the start. It impeded their market access, so to say it favored some how them isn't quite accurate. If it did benefit Southwest, American would not have been the ones pushing for it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
