Help Southwest Airlines -- a co. that does little lobbying -- convince...

[AP]

...congress to repeal the anti-competitive Wright Amendment.

Southwest is a low-cost airline that, although it has the most passenger traffic of all the airlines, is still an underdog in the airline industry. The feds protect other airlines from having to price-compete with Southwest through things like the Wright Amendment, which prevents Southwest from offering direct flights from Dallas to major cities like Chicago and LA.

Southwest wants to fight the Wright Amendment, but not by getting lobbyists to do whatever the hell it is they do. They want to get citizens -- the people who will benefit from price competitiveness in the airline industry -- to make the appeal to Congress.

American Airlines, the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport and the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth could lose money if Southwest wins this battle. But consumers would win. Which is a good reason to help Southwest out.

If people are interested, write your congresspeople, and write your newspapers (especially if you live in LA and Chicago and other big cities that have Southwest service) and say you'd like to see Congress stop protecting the profits of a major airline and of a couple of very wealthy cities that have making out pretty well in the last couple years while everyone else has been suffering.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041205/southwest_wright_amendment_1.html

[KitchenWitch]

1. Interesting

Wish we had Southwest here. I am so sick of the Twin Cities being an NWA hub, and thus limiting the lower fares that real competition would bring! I will write my congressmen (yes they are ALL men). Maybe it will open up more airports to REAL competition.

[Bridget Burke]

2. The same Southwest Airlines that opposed the high speed train...

It was proposed for the Houston/Dallas/San Antonio triangle. Would have prevented many long, boring drives. But it would also have cut into Southwest Airlines' business.

I do feel for them, but they've got really good lobbyists already.

[AP]

7. They don't do much lobbying, according to this article, so I'm not

sure how much influence they had on that decision.

[chocula]

22. the record..

Not to take away from your argument, but just to keep things straight about SWA's lobbying in the past:

TGV was the high speed train proposed for Texas in the early nineties..

"Southwest Airlines, a low-cost airline serving the short haul market in the Texas Triangle, lobbied hard against the Texas TGV project, since it was clear that Southwest's business in the area would be drastically impacted. Southwest was started on the Texas Triangle in 1971."

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/texastgv.html

[AP]

26. Notice that SW in 1971 relied so much on TX Triangle flights for...

...reasons relating to the Wright Amendment. They operated out of Love Field and were only allowed to fly direct to other cities in TX (and then later to bordering states). The train in '71 would have killed their business.

[chocula]

29. But they killed the train in 1994..

It would have hurt their business, so I can't really blame them.

But your argument can be applied here - shouldn't consumers have had the choice? Take the train, or the plane? Pros and cons to each. As a college student living about three hours from home, I would have LOVED the train. It simply wasn't worth it to fly 200 miles, but the drive was no fun (and kind of dangerous).

[chocula]

31. And.. essentially...

American Airlines is doing just what SWA did when SWA lobbied against the high speed trains. I think consumers lost in the train battle. Will consumers lose if the Wright Amendment remains? Weelll.... hard for me to buy that. SWA could fly flights out of DFW if they really want to do something for their consumers. But it would be expensive for them - ah there's the rub - because their operations are rooted at Love.

[AP]

33. Yeah. I'm not defending them for killing trains. I love trains. We should

have a national train network.

But I still think they should be able to fly directly to Chi. and LA out of Love field.

[chocula]

35. I'd like a train network too. n/t

.

[ret5hd]

3. Don't be suckered...

SW no more wants the wright amendment appealed than american airlines does. this whole thing is a ploy to keep other arlines too nervous to fill the slots/gates vacated by delta at dfw.

not necessarily disagreeing with your assesment of the wright amendment, just disagreeing with the analysis of the situation that says that SW wants to repeal it.

[AP]

4. Well, let's pull a fast one on them and try to get it repealed.

[sandnsea]

5. I don't know

I really don't. This is the same logic that was used to deregulate energy in the 90's. A local electric company has regulated control in a city, so upstarts can't compete and can't bring newer energy technologies on the market. That didn't work out so well. I really don't know what the answer to some of this stuff is.

[AP]

6. OK. Here's the difference:

It's hard to have competition driving down prices with utilities. You can't build a second set of water pipes or electricity or gas lines into a house or build a competing energy plant. Whoever owns the electric company has a monopoly and nobody can really price compete with them.

With airlines, you have many different carriers which engage in different strategies in order to price compete. Jet Blue and Southwest have a business model which allows them to be very competitive and which drives down prices, which is making the traditional carriers nervous. They don't want to compete with Southwest and Jet Blue, and this law is one of the ways American is apparently able to prevent price competing with Southwest.

Comparing the ariline industry to energy (and honestly, I'm not really clear on what you think the parallel is) is comparing apples and oranges.

[sandnsea]

8. The Enron factor & competition

You have a variety of energy suppliers around the country. New energy, wind, clean coal, dams. You deregulate the transmission lines and whatever else, and all these new plants can deliver energy to cities. Enter Enron. Which buys energy from the individual private new energy companies and resells it to the existing city or state power delivery company.

Airports and flights between cities are currently regulated. In part, to assure service and make sure areas aren't overserved. Part of the reason you don't want an area overserved is because the possibility exists that competition will hurt ALL service providers. They do that with hospitals too. It's supposed to keep costs on an even keel so prices will be on an even keel.

I'm just leery of any more deregulation, I don't think complete corporate power and the "free market" end up being too good for consumers. Ever fly America West? Very scary, wouldn't want to see all airlines end up being like that.

[AP]

9. How does preventing a competive air carrier from flying directly to

LA or Chicago make flying dangerous?

The admitted purpose of the legislation is to protect the profitability of the airport and of AA while they established their business. Do you think AA and the airport and those municipalities still need legislation to keep prices high for them?

Don't you think it's time for the consumers to start getting the benefits of a competitive market place?

Southwest has never crashed a plane and they've figured out a way to fly people between cities at reasonable prices. There's no reason AA needs to be protected from that kind of competition.

[sandnsea]

10. This is how they win

They told us competition in energy would be good for us too, and competition in health care is good for us. Won't it be wonderful when we have two airline systems, one for the rich that is guaranteed to have airplanes that won't fall out of the sky; and one for the rest of us.

[AP]

11. I really don't understand. SW is a low-cost carrier & has never crashed.

And they're the biggest carrier by passenger numbers. And the company protected -- American -- has had a few crashes. Nonetheless, the issue here isn't safety. It's profits.

Like it or not, we don't have a national air carrier. We have a lot of private carriers, and the Wright Amendment prevents competition among private carriers, alowing one private carrier to make more money while consumers and other carriers suffer.

Pick any other city in America. Do they have federal laws preventing airlines from flying directly to other American cities? If they don't, does that mean that passengers flying out of those cities are less safe?

The most dangerous moments of flying on a plane are the take-off and the landing. If you want to fly the lower-cost Southwest from Dallas to Chicago, this law means your risk is doubled: you have to take off and land twice instead of once. It's probably also a waste of fuel. You think that helps anyone?

[sandnsea]

12. Airline flights are regulated

What airline flies out of what city is regulated. They compete for the right to fly in and out of cities, I think they may have to agree to serve cities they might not choose to serve otherwise as well. Like Eugene, where I live. Seems we have a hard time keeping major air service at that airport. How would you like a system that only serves the top 50 cities in the country? How would that be for commerce? For mail?

You can't use one airline and say it proves all airlines would do as well. When we had those airline crashes a couple of years ago, seems to me they were all upstarts.

I don't trust deregulation. I can't see an instance where it has really proven to be beneficial.

[AP]

14. This isn't deregulation. This is an artificial restriction on flying....

...directly between some very large cities in order to make Love uncompettive with DFW. Apparently, the plan was that Dallas was going to phase out Love and shift all long-range domestic flights out of DFW. Well, the flying public is large enough to fill up both airports. Love staid in business, probably because so many people have moved down to the states that Love is allowed to fly out of. And it doesnt' make sense that SW shouldn't have to be forced to buy more expensive gates at DFW just so they can fly directly behond TX and the states around TX.

This isn't telling airlines where they must fly. It's protecting AA and Delta profits by saving them from having to compete with Southwest.

Furthermoe, this law wasn't passed for safety reasons, or to make sure that there would still be flights to underserved cities. It was to protect the capital invesment in DFW from competition and to phase out another airport, and also to give the airline that got the most gates at DFW a huge advantage over any other airlines serving the region.

Could you just try to tell me one more time who you think will be hurt if SW is allowed to fly directly to Chicago and LA out of Love Field without having to land somehere randomly in between?

[sandnsea]

15. That's the energy deregulation argument

That giving certain energy companies the right to operate in specific cities creates an artificial monopoly and hinders progress. It's also why the media was deregulated, to give more smaller companies the opportunity to enter into various markets.

It doesn't work. We end up with worse monopolies than what we started with.

It hurts because it costs money to keep an international airport like DFW operating. We have to have that airport for trade, mail, international travel. That's why it's expensive to buy a gate. You start deregulating, and who knows how many Love Fields you end up with and the quality starts to deteriorate because they can't all be supported. Kind of like schools and administrative costs when you have too many school districts.

There probably isn't anything wrong with Southwest flying out of Love Field, it's just one route, one airport. It's the long term and overall effect that I'm considering.

I mostly don't trust deregulation.

[AP]

17. That analogy doesnt' work at all. Again, this was a law intended to...

...protect DFW (and American Airlines) from having to compete with Love and airlines flying out of love so that DFW could grow. Love was supposed to be phased out.

Well, SW built up a pretty hot little business flying locally out of Love and, years later, now that they could offer a price competitive service to states outside the region. But there's the law that has outlived its purpose.

Tell me again, who you think is being saved from harm by protecting American Airlines and DFW's profits? You think it's important to keep gate prices high at DFW? You complain about air travel being expensive, but you want to protect it from having to price compete? Allowing long distance domestic flights out of Love is the kind of thing that will make air travel cheaper.

In that other thread you criticize Lakoff for -- you clame -- framing everything in terms of protecting people from harm, and that he should use economic arguments. Yet in this thread you're trying to argue that the economic argument (letting airline customers flying between dallas and big cities outside TX and its neighboring states) is less important than keeping people safe from American West-style airlines, and now you have this circular argument that DFW shouldn't have to compete with Love because the cost of flying is high?

You're all over the place.

I don't know what to make of that "soon there will be too many airports (like schools!) argument." The only way there will be too many airports if a lot of Republicans get into local government and start taking money from the ariport-construction lobby. Ok, it could happen. But I don't know what that has to do with forcing people to have only one option for flying long distance out of Dallas.

If you want to protect DFW from competing with Love, than the least you could do is legislate to give away some of AA's gates to other airlines so that you're not protecting AA's profits. Or you could just let SW fly long distance out of Love.

[sandnsea]

24. Here

Another viewpoint. It's just not as simple as the argument Southwest is shooting out there.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/local/10222737.htm?1c

My argument about the benefits of air travel and need for quality airports to the entire population didn't work so well with you. Because you hang on to the "competition" mantra. Which looks pretty well framed by Southwest.

That's my point. I've got a "nurturing" argument regarding the airports and airlines, but it doesn't work so well when we're up against right wing frames, especially economic frames. I don't see Lakoff offering anything better and I'm not even sure he understands he needs to. HE is the one who is supposedly going to consult with Democrats, not me. If HE doesn't get it, we're still in trouble.

[chocula]

27. Great article

It's definitely not a black and white issue. I'm learning a lot about this just from this thread! But growing up in Texas, I certainly know SWA is no little underdog struggling against the big boys.. not anymore. Sounds like, from this article, the Wright amendment actually made it possible for SWA to stay in business and fly out of Love.

Now they'd like to use its repeal as an advantage against other low-cost carriers who want to come to DFW. Interesting..

[AP]

28. But your nurturing argument makes no sense. This isn't a safety issue.

And you're essentially arguing that a large airport should have a competitive advantage over smaller airports that serve people a little farther out out from the city. How does that help "an entire population" get good service? It's holding back quality airports.

And furthermore, this isn't a left vs right argument.

It's strange that you are trying to put any kind of frame on it. There are no liberals who are against it, as far as I can tell. Everyone except AA, DFW, and the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth are for changing the law.

[sandnsea]

36. AP, come on

You're smarter than this. Just because liberals aren't concerned about it, doesn't mean the issue is not being framed. "competition" is a key right wing frame. We butt up against it all the time.

I'm arguing that the quality of an airport is more important than any supposed competition problems for airlines. I am also arguing that control over the number of airports is essential to maintaining that quality, just like hospitals or school districts. The airport has to have a level of income for it to maintain its quality and that comes from a consistent stream of airline income. Regulating who can fly where from where is not necessarily a bad thing for the PEOPLE. Competition, free market, the invisible hand, simply does not solve ALL problems.

[AP]

39. Is this really a left vs right argument? Where are the "lefitists" as you

say, who are ligned up for or against this?

It's the cities of D and FW, the DFW airport and AA who are opposed to changing the law and it seems like everyone else is for changing the law.

Why are you trying to stick it into a L vs R frame when it's really a battle of who has the most powerful lobby?

[sandnsea]

40. Apparently Southwest does

Because they've got you framed and you don't even know it. I'm really surprised, I never would have thought you would have bought into this "competition is god" nonsense.

[AP]

41. Todd Mundt show did a show on how big airlines are trying to protect their

profit (and from having to change outdated business models -- like the HUB) by making it hard for SW and Jet Blue to compete. They have a lot of help from the government.

So when I saw this story I couldn't help but remember hearing that show a couple hears ago.

Last I checked, AA, USAir and the rest aren't our national airlines and don't deserve legal protection that isn't extended to Southwest merely because southwest has figured out a way to do more for less.

I remember reading an article once about how Japanese cars might be one of the biggest reasons for wealth building up in the middle class in the 70s. At the time, US auto manfactureres begged the government to protect them from having to compete with Japanese car manufacturers. US mnfgs could have made better, safer, cheaper cars if they wanted to (which is what their customers wanted), but they didn't but they didn't want to if they didn't absolutely have to because it would have cut into their easy profits.

Well, the Japanese ended up price competing, and it meant that US customers kept billions of dollars in their pockets, which they were able to use to do other, more productive things than buy big, expensive, gas guzzling cars in frequent need of repair. (Actually, they probably put some of the money in the bank for Neil Bush to steal -- but that's another story.)

Anyway, this is a similar issue. Airlines don't want to have to price compete with Jet Blue and Southwest. And if they do, just like with Japanese cars, it could make it a lot cheaper and easier for people to get around America, which has knock-on positive effects on the economy.

[sandnsea]

44. Public airports

You are not factoring in everything that airlines help support. If the automobile industry had to help pay for roads, police officers, licensing, etc.; maybe you could make a comparitive argument. They don't.

The airline industry does help support the airports, air traffic controllers, security, etc. It is in our national interest to have quality airports. A certain amount of protection for airlines within those airports is essential to that. Southwest and Love had that relationship as well. Cheaper airlines may well enter into DFW and Southwest doesn't want the competition. But DFW can't maintain its quality if it doesn't have a consistent stream of income from the airlines. You can't ignore that part of the equation, although you keep trying to.

Just like you pretend not to understand the "competition is god" right wing frame. I honestly don't think you really don't understand it. Southwest rolled it out and you bit. Frames aren't just used in campaigns, they're all over the place.

[AP]

45. Two things: there's no evidence that DFW can't support TWO good airports.

You cite one letter which is not a piece of reporting but an opinion piece which takes a side, in the paper in the city which the Yahoo article suggested will lobby agains the rule cange. (Did that article even check to see if it was true that airlines backed out of DFW? -- I bet it's not true -- I can't believe any airline would pin its strategy and its hope on the Wright Amendment. It's pretty obvious that a law passed to help DFW get a leg up until they were stable isn't a law that is going to be on the books forever. )

And, say it were 1970 and I was saying that it was wrong for the US Gov't to protect US mnfgs from Japanese competition. What if I said the Japanese competition will force US mnfgs to make better cars that people want and will provide price competition which could save people money.

Would you tell me to shut up because (1) small cars are dangerous (ie, the nurturing argument you hate so much when you say Lakoff uses, but which you jumped to use against me), (2) that I was thinking within the right wing frame of market competion, which discredited my argument, and (3) that there was some public benefit to protecting the easy profits of big America auto companies?


Why are you so hostile to the idea that consumers should be able to keep a little more money in their pockets?

You accuse me of I biting Southwest's "frame" -- to me it seems like you're the sucker for the profit-protection "frame" of AA, DFW and the cities of D and FW.

[sandnsea]

47. Prove me wrong

Show me the studies that says both airports can be safe and profitable. Show me anything besides Southwest's pitch. YOU are the one who is asking for support and can't see that YOU are only presenting one side.

I'm just asking you to think beyond the competition frame you've given me, that's all. An airline wouldn't pin its strategy on the Wright Amendment? Southwest did. It helped them as much as it did DFW.

I'm just not ready to jump when any corporation yells "competition". I want more than a cheap airline. I certainly want more than cheap airline services in exchange for expensive airline profits, or cheap airline service in exchange for quality and safe airports and air traffic controlling. Crap, that's what we tend to get these days whenever there's "competition" after government regulation has been removed.

[AP]

53. They already support two airports. One airport has high prices thanks to

an AA monopoly and the other has a legislated inconvenience: they can't fly direct to all but five states. Price competition will lower prices and increase air travel at DFW, and removing the inconvenience at Love will increase traffic as well.

What's your argument that DFW will suffer? Their little puff piece in the DFW paper?

[sandnsea]

55. Where's your proof?

You've still given me nothing except your opinion, straight out of the mouth of Southwest Airlines.

[AP]

56. "Straight out of the mouth of Southwest"? My link is to a yahoo story.

Yours is to an opinion piece.

Who's "mouthing" someone else's propaganda?

Do you need a link before you take my argument seriously? Should I link to a first year economics text book?

Why don't you just humor me and pretend that I had a link to that argument. How do you respond?

[sandnsea]

57. The DFW/Love study

That shows both airports can be safe and prosperous. I can't humor you and pretend something is true if it isn't.

You aren't seriously trying to tell me a news article is more factual than an opinion piece. You do know better than that, I know you do. Was it written based on a press release from Southwest? Do we know?

First year economics. Good old "competition is king". Classic economic theory. Certainly not the ONLY economic theory.

[AP]

60. Here's an article that should suggest what this is really about:

But here's where the off-message low-fare/low-cost point becomes relevant. Let's take Siegel at his word and say that US Airways runs at 10 cents per mile and Southwest runs at 6 cents per mile. Then why are US Airways' fares so offensively high? When it launches in May, Southwest will charge $140 for a refundable, one-way, walk-up ticket between Philadelphia and Chicago's Midway Airport. Fly between Philadelphia and Chicago/O'Hare tomorrow on US Airways and you'll pay $419.10 for a nonrefundable walk-up ticket. That's three times more. A flight between Philadelphia and Chicago is 677 miles. Siegel claims that US Airways operates at a 4-cent-per-mile disadvantage against Southwest, so that's $27.08 of added cost between Philadelphia and Chicago. Yet Southwest is charging $140 and US Airways expects flyers to pay $280 more!

As Siegel blathers on, let's try one more fare/cost comparison. Operating at 6 cents per mile, Southwest will charge $168 for a refundable walk-up ticket between Philadelphia and Tampa. Fly Philadelphia-Tampa tomorrow on US Airways and you'll pay a refundable fare of $475.11. At 922 miles of flying on that route, US Airways' 4-cent-per-mile operating disadvantage works out to $36.88. Yet it charges $307 more than Southwest will be asking. That's a markup of more than 800 percent on its higher operating costs.

Now pay careful attention when Siegel turns apocalyptic. Southwest and its chairman, Herb Kelleher, are trying to kill US Airways, he claims. "They're the enemy," he says repeatedly. "They're coming to kill us. Herb Kelleher...wants our customers...wants your jobs." C'mon, folks, does anyone in business respond to this jingoist crap anymore? Besides, all last year Siegel claimed that it was Delta Air Lines that was trying to kill US Airways. Even in the last 30 days Siegel told a Washington business group that Delta's goal was to "drive us out of business." Is Siegel a fool? In denial? A really bad snake-oil salesman? Or an honest-to-goodness paranoid?


http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ez7k6DA57lkJ:www.zyworld.com/brancatelli/bf2004/branc032504.htm+Joe+Brancatelli+Southwest&hl=en

[AP]

62. Here's another one (this isn't about protecting airports)

Either way, the competition is a bonanza for long-haul fliers.


A year ago, the only way Laurens Offner could dodge paying $2,300 round trip for a midweek San Diego-New York flight was to buy a "split ticket." He would book a cheap fare to, say, Phoenix, then fly the rest of the way on the same plane on a separate cheap ticket. Though not explicitly a violation of ticketing rules, it's a practice some airlines don't like.


Then JetBlue began flying to his hometown, San Diego, and fares tumbled — even on Delta and United, his preferred carriers. With one stop each way, Offner now can fly round trip to New York for $170 on Delta or $210 on United without resorting to savvy traveler tricks. And if the apparel industry consultant wants to fly non-stop, he can do so on either carrier for $393 round trip with one day's notice or $243 round trip with a seven-day advance purchase.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:KxbY0pygafkJ:www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2004-03-15-transcon_x.htm%3FPOE%3DMONISVA+Joe+Brancatelli+Southwest&hl=en

[sandnsea]

66. Cheap tickets

That's all he's about. Again, where's your info about airport safety and quality. Purchasing gates. Airport density in a population. All the rest of the economic factors that go into an airlines profitability and ticket pricing.

[AP]

69. Where's the evidence that is a relevant question? Especially when we look

at evidence like this:


But just in case putting it in black and white one more time helps, here goes, and I quote,

"Now it is true that US Airways has the highest labor costs in the airline industry. The Wolfmen never fail to mention that tidbit whenever they babble on about the state of US Airways. Yesterday's scenes had Gangwal pining for a labor-cost structure that resembles the relatively low costs of Continental and the super-efficient model of Southwest.


But what is never mentioned by the Wolfmen is that US Airways also suffers from the highest management costs in the airline industry. And while contract concessions have brought US Airways labor costs within 20 percent of the industry average, the US Airways management-cost disparity is simply obscene.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:U54VgBwB0L4J:www.planebusiness.com/archives/dailybanters/2001dailybanters/db081701.html+Joe+Brancatelli+Southwest&hl=en

[AP]

63. This really isn't about having fewer, better airports:

One of the other factors destroying the Big Six is their unwillingness to accept the fact that fixing the fares is one of the only sure paths to survival. They stubbornly ignore the fact that the only consistently profitable carriers are rational-fare airlines such as Southwest, JetBlue, Frontier and AirTran. They blithely dismiss the fact that America West has gone from the brink of extinction to a string of profitable quarters after simplifying its fares.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/brancatelli/2004-10-29-brancatelli_x.htm

[AP]

65. What they're trying to protect (not airports, but CEO salaries/perks)

MEANWHILE, BACK IN THE EXECUTIVE SUITE
Let me see if I understand this: 60-year-old Leo Mullin, the highest-paid
airline executive on earth, decides to retire as chairman and chief
executive of Delta Air Lines and he's replaced by two retired board
members. One of them, 65-year-old Jack Smith, last seen driving General
Motors into a ditch, has no airline experience. The other, septuagenarian
Gerry Grinstein, hasn't run an airline since 1987.

What rankles is that Mullin--whose annual compensation has been calculated
at around $30 million--spent six years building a management team larded
with outrageous perks. Earlier this year, in fact, Mullin and his posse
ignited a huge scandal with their bankruptcy-proof retirement packages and
obscene executive-retention bonuses. Yet when Mullin decides to deploy his
golden parachute--his $16 million retirement package gives him credit for
29 years of service--no one on his team is deemed a qualified replacement.
That includes Mullin's handpicked heir apparent, Delta president Fred
Reid, whom Grinstein described as too inexperienced to run the show. I'm
sure Delta's poor shareholders will be thrilled to learn that hundreds of
millions of dollars have been spent to retain executives too green to step
in or step up.

http://www.zyworld.com/brancatelli/branc.htm

[sandnsea]

68. Brancatelli is a TRAVEL consultant

He isn't an economist or city planner or commerce planner. He hasn't given two seconds of thought about the quality of an airport or safety of air travel or the impact of airlines on local economies or anything else.

[AP]

70. What are you?

[sandnsea]

77. A web site manager

For little mom/pop web sites. Maybe that's why I understand that you have to look at all the factors when making economic changes that appear to create "competition". Somebody is always squeezed out in that process and it usually doesn't benefit the people, like I've said over and over again.

[AP]

72. Speaking of economics:

And Wolf and Gangwal last year raked in almost 20 times the combined compensation earned by Southwest chairman Herb Kelleher and president Colleen Barrett. Worse, Southwest reported more than $4,500 in revenue in 2000 for every dollar it paid its two key executives. Continental generated more than $1,000.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:U54VgBwB0L4J:www.planebusiness.com/archives/dailybanters/2001dailybanters/db081701.html+Joe+Brancatelli+Southwest&hl=en

[AP]

67. This one is just a good article:

...
In answer to that clumsily worded, but dead-on-target, question, Carty made an equally clumsy attempt to suggest that the $2.50 federal security fee imposed on passengers after September 11 could "technically" be considered funding for national security.

But Lipinski would have none of it.

"All the fees, taxes you were paying," he said, "all of that actually was going for the aviation industry improvements in some way, shape or form. Correct?"

"Yes," mumbled Carty.

"Yes," murmured Mullin.

In other words, fellow travelers, far from being overtaxed, the airline industry pays virtually no taxes at all. That terrible "burden" of taxes
Carty claimed the airline industry pays is actually a reasonably fair package of fees and taxes that we pay. And every dime, by the airlines' own admission, goes to maintaining the nation's air-transportation system. Taxpayers and travelers pay for everything, the airlines pay for almost nothing and now they're once again demanding a bailout.

Like I said, fellow flyers, it's amazing how little lies and petty deceits somehow reveal the big picture and the larger truths.


http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:lz9hlt3BtdIJ:www.afausairways.org/PHL/little_lies.htm+Joe+Brancatelli+Southwest&hl=en

[AP]

58. Here's a link to Mundt's show about fear of SW competition:

August 30, 2002

The show's travel advisor, Joe Brancatelli, talks with Todd about codesharing among the big six airlines. He says that they are trying to phase out smaller airlines like Southwest and Jet Blue. He explains what codesharing really is.

http://toddshow.org/log/dailylistings/08302002.asp

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

46. Actually, Southwest has crashed a plane.

In March of 2000, as the result of an excessively fast, unstabilized approach, an airplane went off the end of the runway in Burbank, CA, crashed through a fence and narrowly missed striking the pumps at a gas station. It could have been a disaster, but since no one was killed the accident didn't get a lot of publicity. More here: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X20606&key=1 Southwest pilots are paid by the trip rather than by the hour like most other airline pilots. Some believe this creates an incentive to hurry.

[AP]

54. They have no fatalities. How many airlines have no fatalities?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. Doesn't mean anything.

The fact no one was killed in this accident -- which absolutely never should have happened -- was the result of nothing but dumb luck. That airplane came VERY close to hitting some gas pumps, and if that had happened there would have been a huge explosion which probably would have killed everybody on the plane and at the gas station. The other airlines that have had fatalities have also been in business much longer than Southwest (I think the oldest dates back to the '20s or early '30s) and have flown many, many more miles; therefore, they have had far more exposure. And, of course, there were a lot more accidents in the early days of flying, before SW existed, than there are now. Statistically, Southwest is no safer than the others. That's not to suggest it's unsafe (it's not), but -- again -- it's apples vs. oranges. I'm not dissing SW; it occupies a useful niche. But it does not run the same kind of operation as the major airlines, and to try to compare them as equivalent just isn't valid.

[AP]

74. The safety argument isn't mine. It's sandandsea's. I also think it's not

relevant.

I was only arguing that Southwest's model is no safer or more dangerous than anyone else's.

[amazona]

23. as far as they don't want to compete

They don't want to compete with Southwest and Jet Blue, and this law is one of the ways American is apparently able to prevent price competing with Southwest.


Trust me, as a frequent flyer, I do not want my airline to have to compete with Southwest and Jet Blue. Life is too short to be pushed and shoved. Southwest is too cheap for assigned seating, and this is unfair on the face of it for those of us who aren't big and skilled at pushing our way to the heads of lines.

And, these days, too often they are not the cheaper flight -- I have many times in the past year checked only to find they are more expensive! It's easy to see where the profit comes from. Less service plus higher price.

No sympathy for Southwest here. And the more the legacies try to be like Southwest, the more flying becomes a sad experience.

[AP]

32. Good for you. Hopefully there will be high cost airlines to serve you.

But there are a lot of Americans who shouldn't have to be forced to turn over big chunks of their income just to fly around the country if they don't have to -- if there are airlines like Southwest out there which are able to fly them for less money.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

49. And comparing Southwest to the "major" carriers is apples vs. oranges, too

Southwest can charge lower fares than, for example, American Airlines for many reasons:
1. Lower labor costs -- its employees have less favorable work rules than the other airlines, and its pilots don't have a pension plan. It also saves money on initial training because it requires pilots to have a B-737 type rating to get hired. Other airlines provide that training for their pilots, and it's expensive and labor-intensive.
2. A single aircraft type -- only B-737s. This significantly reduces the airline's training and maintenance costs. Other airlines have a variety of airplanes as needed for their routes, and this adds a lot to their expenses.
3. No reserved seating, which makes its ticketing process cheaper and simpler.
4. No meal service. Catering is extremely expensive, and the airlines that serve food usually lose money on it.
5. No international service. Flying international routes is expensive because of the aircraft types required, the fuel, and the need for supplemental crews, not to mention additional training and foreign airport fees.

If the traveling public wants frequent, nonstop, or international flights, first class accommodations, food (even not-so-great airplane food), and reserved seating, they will have to pay more for those services. It is simply not possible to get those services at Southwest's rates.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

51. Where

do you get this wealth of information from?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

52. I'm on the "inside."

So I know how airlines operate and what some of their expenses are (that might not be evident to the traveling public). But I have no connection to either Southwest or AA, so no bias toward or against either of them.

[Gothmog]

13. Wright Amendment is a pain, needs to go

Love Field is very convienent and planes should be allowed to fly from Love to all states. DFW does not need to be protected any longer.

[alarimer]

16. Because of the Wright Amendment

I can't fly from Corpus Christi to any destination that is out of the state withour first buying a separate ticket from either Dallas or Houston. I have to buy two round trip tickets, one from Corpus to Houston and back and one from Houston to whatever my destination might be and back. It means that I have to collect my bags in Houston and then check in (and go through security) a second time. So, yes, please repeal the Wright Amendment.

[chocula]

18. Are you sure...

...That they do "little lobbying?" I've heard they've done a great obstructionist job to "derail" high speed trains and other progressive, cost-efficient modes of transportation that could compete with their little commuter biz. I'll admit it could be that kind of stuff probably happens in the courts, not in Washington.

I also have a hard time seeing them as an "underdog".. they are one of the (few) profitable airlines and considered an industry leader.. other airlines are copying their "cattle car" model left and right. I'm not so convinced it is always a good thing - though they do have an exemplary saftey and service record, which is great.

Just my 2 cents. I still might support what you are saying, and I'm not a big fan of the Wright amendment.

[chocula]

19. Also.. what keeps SW from flying out of DFW?

I've heard they might start running flights out of DFW. Why not? I think Love field is great, I used to live in Dallas and it is convenient.. BUT.. those urban airports are really being phased out. One of the main (and kind of disturbing) reasons is a risk of crash into a highly populated area. MOst crashes happen upon takeoff or landing.

That's why you usually end up driving 20 or 30 mins out of town to some wasteland to catch your flight.

[AP]

37. I don't think it's safety. I think it's the cost of land. Land is more...

...expensive in cities and airplanes need more runway today than they did when the airports were built. So a lot of city airports were probably in a position of having to buy really really expensive land in order to handle the air traffic they needed to make them profitable. That was prohibitively expensive so, instead, they oppened new airports where land was cheap.

[chocula]

20. -edit-

editing my own message.. after reading further about this issue.

[amazona]

21. odd definition of underdog

Southwest Airlines is the only major airline that turns a profit.

American Airlines has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for years. It has no "profits" to protect.

I certainly don't want other airlines to follow the Southwest model of miserable free-for-all seating. Have you flown Southwest? It is truly a miserable experience. Consumers won't necessarily win because Southwest does. Southwest is a "chicken bus" in the sky, and I just don't want to encourage all airlines to emulate them in the name of chasing a dollar. Sorry. But I won't write a letter against Southwest's stance...although as a frequent flyer I am sorely tempted.

[AP]

25. If American can't fly competitively, and Southwest can maybe AA

needs to change its business plan.

I don't know why passengers need to pay higher prices just to keep an uncompetive airline in business.

And maybe AA doesn't change it's business plan because of things like the Wright Amendment and whatever other help their lobbying delivers.

As for SW being a miserable experience, what's the problem with letting people make that choice when they decide whether they fly direct to Chicago out of Love or DFW.

[cire4]

30. I actually enjoy flying Southwest

It is very satisfying to be able to fly at a fare that is over 50% less than what American, Delta, or United offer. Sure, they obviously don't offer the frills that the major airlines do. But, IMO, a seat reservation, a movie, and some terrible food are not worth the difference in price.

I'm hoping that more airlines do adopt the Southwest business model because that will force fares to go down even more and that will overall make travel much more affordable.

[chocula]

34. I fly SWA

I have my rapid rewards card and all that. I'd like to see a balance.. nicer airlines and service for longer flights; Less-expensive and efficient SWA for the short commuter flights. Ahh.. it used to be that way. The difference now is so stark because the big carriers are going under. Sept. 11 pushed them over the edge, I believe, and they just can't recover and are going to the "bus in the sky" model. It makes sense, but I just wish it didn't have to be all-or-nothing, driven by the bottom line.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

48. Actually

SW is looking into assigned seating. However, as for the "frills" of the other airlines. I'm not sure the last time anyone flew American, Delta or NW but there is no more food served PERIOD unless it is a very very long flight such as international, and the comfort of the plane, well it just isn't there either and the attendants on American, Delta and NW all act as if they absolutely hate their jobs and it's irritating to them to have do anything for anyone. SW on the other hand is very laid back, very friendly and their rewards program rocks compared to the "give us a DNA sample, a pint of blood your first born and about 12 weeks to get your ticket to you" AA Rewards program.

[ibegurpard]

38. Deregulation costs always seem to be bad for consumers in the long run

I'm against it unless someone can make a rock solid case as to why. Our experience with de-regulation so far should show that it hasn't been the boon for us that we were led to believe.

[InvisibleBallots]

42. is Southwest Airlines union?

[AP]

43. I think their pilots make less than other airlines, but you can bet...

that they're probably going to be around for a lot longer than other airlines (and their pensions won't disappear).

They also keep a lot of money in the pockets of their customers.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

50. SW is the most

stable airline out there. They wern't hit like the other airlines after 9-11 because they actually had money in the bank and didn't pay it all out to their CEO'S in over-inflated salary and bonus's. They were the ONLY airline to actully continue to show a profit. They never asked for nor received government "bail out loans" like ALL of the others did. And I might add that some of them needed more than one loan. Try and get a job with SW. It's next to impossible unless someone retires or dies. They have virtually no turnover. People get hired and they practically stay forever. I have been trying for well over 10 years now to get on with them but they just never have anything open. As for calling it deregulation. Well, do you find it a little odd that SW seems to be the ONLY airline that is "regulated". Think there might be a reason for that? And anyone wonder why after 9-11 when the airport security plan was being laid out the founder of SW, old Herb himself was called in to help head it up? Say what you will about SW but they have a damn clean record, and they do what they do damn well and the others I believe completely freak out at the thought of having to compete with them because it might mean the fat cats at the top would have to stop the milking. To me, the difference between SW and AA is just like that of Wal Mart and Costco. I'll take Costco and SW every time.

[mitchtv]

61. bad analogy SW /Walmart non union

AA/Costco- union

[MarieP]

64. Wrong...Southwest is union. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

71. Southwest's pilots' pensions won't disappear because there aren't any.

SW pilots don't have a pension plan. They do, however, have a 401K plan, stock options and profit-sharing. The stock options have been a good deal for some of the senior pilots who got in on the ground floor. Not so much for the newer ones.

[AP]

75. Well, at least they can be pretty confident SW will be around for while.

And they can rest assured that SW seems to be sharing a fair % of the wealth it creates with its employees.

[Zomby Woof]

73. I appreciate this

I'm a major shareholder in Southwest, and you are exactly right.

Also love the fact they are a classless airline - all coach seats, none of that caste system crap.

:thumbsup:

[AP]

76. If you want to feel good about SW, read posts in response to #57.