Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314151617181920212223242526 LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,050 of 1271

Thread: Southwest & American Airlines

  1. #1001
    Mid-Rise Member Trae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dee Eff Dub
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    Good idea if you are Southwest.

    I could see the validity of adding International Air Service facilities at Hobby if it was just a question of need.

    Need versus Want that is issue here. Just because Southwest wants something does that make it a necessity, does that make it needed?

    Are new international service facilities actually needed at HOU? No, IAH is more than capable of handling all of the international service requirements in the Houston area for years to come. There is plenty of room for WN at IAH.

    No I do not work for AA. Although it would be interesting to find out who works for WN and is posting on this thread.
    IAH could handle the international traffic, but its better for customers to have more competition. Southwest is going to hit a gold mine by doing this. Hobby is more convenient for many people in the Houston area. They are talking about having 25 flights a day out of five gates. Hardly anything to dent what United has at IAH.

  2. #1002
    Skyscraper Member ksig121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State Thomas Neighborhood
    Posts
    1,098
    What is it with Texas and the heavy-handed regulation being requested by our congressional delegation? One would think that in this state, above all others, that healthy and fair competition would be pursued. It cracks me up that the same people who rail against the EPA for trying to regulate pollution to protect a population supports regulation that stifles competition in the air travel market. If SWA feels that they can operate better out of Hobby or Love Field and agrees to foot the bill for changes to those airports why should they be denied? If the other airlines think that it is such an advantage for SWA, then they are welcome to start service from both of those airports. As a citizen, I crave convenience in air travel. The airlines should respond to that as opposed to trying to use heavy-handed regulation to protect their piece of the pie.

  3. #1003
    Frank Lloyd Wright Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cedars
    Posts
    4,272
    Do not confuse issuing a press release into local market with any impending congressional action. Who knows? Maybe they read it as defending local jobs at George Bush and somebody on staff thought it would look good and be forgotten. As long as SWA is picking up the tab, no one in Congress is really going to stop it. That is reality. You might expect some rider that enforces SWA's contribution for a minimum of time, maybe 15 or 10 years, or the office shuts down. At some point it becomes a continuing service and the Feds would look to handle it. That timeframe is a lifetime in current world in Congress.

  4. #1004
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Rodriguez View Post
    The only problem with this argument is that AA, Delta, Frontier, and JetBlue (and AirTran for the time being) also fly out of Hobby so this is not a Southwest vs. Anybody discussion.
    As far as I know there is nothing preventing United from operating out of Hobby other than they chose not too. So "IF" there is a problem, let United start serving Hobby as well.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  5. #1005
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    Good idea if you are southwest.
    I could see the validity of adding International Air Service facilities at Hobby if it was just a question of need.

    Need versus Want that is issue here. Just because Southwest wants something does that make it a necessity, does that make it needed?
    Are new international service facilities actually needed at HOU? No, IAH is more than capable of handling all of the international service requirements in the Houston area for years to come. There is plenty of room for WN at IAH.

    No I do not work for AA. Although it would be interesting to find out who works for WN and is posting on this thread.
    Simply amazing, 5 replies to my post and not one addressed the questions posed.

    Is the issue of WN wanting FIS at Hobby justified by need or want?

    Instead all of you went into Southwest spin mode.

    We did learn however that most of you think that if Southwest wants something it becomes a necessity. And we have a pretty good idea that 3 of the 5 posters work for WN.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Rodriguez View Post
    The only problem with this argument is that AA, Delta, Frontier, and JetBlue (and AirTran for the time being) also fly out of Hobby so this is not a Southwest vs. Anybody discussion. Yes, Southwest wants to expand Hobby for international flying, but it would also benefit several other big airlines, including AA.
    You are right this is not a Southwest vs. Anybody discussion it is a discussion about whether or not international services can be justified for Hobby when IAH is all ready able to handle that traffic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trae View Post
    IAH could handle the international traffic, but its better for customers to have more competition. Southwest is going to hit a gold mine by doing this. Hobby is more convenient for many people in the Houston area. They are talking about having 25 flights a day out of five gates. Hardly anything to dent what United has at IAH.
    The same old tired side step argument about convenience and competition. Customers could all ready have more competition in the Houston area. All that has to happen is for WN to operate its international flights at IAH. Unfortunately convenience in situations like this is relative to ones perspective of preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by ksig121 View Post
    What is it with Texas and the heavy-handed regulation being requested by our congressional delegation? One would think that in this state, above all others, that healthy and fair competition would be pursued. It cracks me up that the same people who rail against the EPA for trying to regulate pollution to protect a population supports regulation that stifles competition in the air travel market. If SWA feels that they can operate better out of Hobby or Love Field and agrees to foot the bill for changes to those airports why should they be denied? If the other airlines think that it is such an advantage for SWA, then they are welcome to start service from both of those airports. As a citizen, I crave convenience in air travel. The airlines should respond to that as opposed to trying to use heavy-handed regulation to protect their piece of the pie.
    The two Congressmen are simply pointing out that due to current and future funding levels the Federal Government is not currently able to supply Immigration Services with the minimum required staffing levels at all areas where those services are needed in the Houston Area. Which obviously means that reducing staffing levels at existing ports of entry in the area to support yet another port of entry reduces the efficiency of all of the ports of entry. Remember besides the two airports there is also the Port of Houston and Galveston as points of entry into the Houston Area.

    Whether or not Southwest can make more money at Hobby compared to IAH is not what they are or should be concerned about. Regardless of what Southwest wants the Federal Government has to have the resources to support it. Southwest is only building the terminal building not paying the cost of the Federal Services required to support the facilities. Again the question is can we justify the expense of FIS at Hobby just to satisfy one airline when facilities are ready and waiting at no cost to the consumer or tax payer at IAH?


    Quote Originally Posted by mjblazin View Post
    Do not confuse issuing a press release into local market iwith any impending congressional action. Who knows? Maybe they read it as defending local jobs at George Bush and somebody on staff thought it would look good and be forgotten. As long as SWA is picking up the tab, no one in Congress is really going to stop it. That is reality. You might expect some rider that enforces SWA's contribution for a minimum of time, maybe 15 or 10 years, or the office shuts down. At some point it becomes a continuing service and the Feds would look to handle it. That timeframe is a lifetime in current world in Congress.
    The Congressmen are only pointing out that the Federal Government cannot support the resources required to operate FIS at the current points of entry in the Houston area and that adding an additional point of entry will only make the situation with delays at customs for travelers worse in the Houston area. Although I can definately see a possiblity of Congressional Action to authorize and provide funding for or to exclude Hobby from FIS funding.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus View Post
    As far as I know there is nothing preventing United from operating out of Hobby other than they chose not too. So "IF" there is a problem, let United start serving Hobby as well.
    Likewise there is no reason why southwest cannot fly from IAH either.
    Last edited by PuddinHead; 29 March 2012 at 05:10 AM.

  6. #1006
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    [SIZE=4]Likewise there is no reason why southwest cannot fly from IAH either.
    Silly, silly Southwest Airlines. Trying to respond to what their customers want.

    When will they ever learn? They need to grow up and act like all those other airlines that make more money or fly more passengers every day.

  7. #1007
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter View Post
    Silly, silly Southwest Airlines. Trying to respond to what their customers want.

    When will they ever learn? They need to grow up and act like all those other airlines that make more money or fly more passengers every day.
    That is cute but this airline does not fly international yet they all ready know that their customers prefer flying to Mexico from Hobby instead of any other airport? What amazing airline able to inspire blind obedience. What is in the salt they use on those peanuts?
    Last edited by PuddinHead; 29 March 2012 at 10:16 AM.

  8. #1008
    Skyscraper Member ksig121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State Thomas Neighborhood
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    That is cute but this airline does not fly international yet they all ready know that their customers prefer flying to Mexico from Hobby instead of any other airport? What amazing airline! What is in the salt the use on those peanuts?
    No they don't, but their base of operations is at Hobby. They shouldn't have to split operations just because the other airlines cry about it.

    They have the right to lobby to make conditions as favorable for their business as possible. Why is it that when one of the legacy carries does that, you justify it as efficiency and fairness and when SWA does it, they are being selfish? If the flying public doesn't want to fly out of Hobby for international flights, then the split of resources will be short-lived and SWA will move out to IAH. If it is successful, then the infrastructure will be in place for the other carriers to split their operations to benefit their PAYING CUSTOMERS. That's how business works. If the demand is there, then this venture will succeed. If not, then it will fail.

    You will see the same thing out at Love Field. I guarantee that the airlines operating out of DFW will split their operations LONG before SWA will split theirs in this market.

    Additionally, Southwest does a better job of understanding what their customers want and deliver on it. The lack of bag fees and their general financial health is testament to that.

  9. #1009
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,960
    The Love Field volume limitations would lead most reasonable people to think a potential fight over international flights from the Dallas airport not that big a deal, but if it ever comes to that, I imagine the media & PR spectacle will be times 100 what it is in Houston.

    If the global alliance contemplates switching its hub from the big airport in Houston to the small one, then maybe there's reason for a fight. Intentionally limiting choice is not the way to go.

  10. #1010
    Skyscraper Member ksig121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State Thomas Neighborhood
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by tamtagon View Post
    The Love Field volume limitations would lead most reasonable people to think a potential fight over international flights from the Dallas airport not that big a deal, but if it ever comes to that, I imagine the media & PR spectacle will be times 100 what it is in Houston.

    If the global alliance contemplates switching its hub from the big airport in Houston to the small one, then maybe there's reason for a fight. Intentionally limiting choice is not the way to go.
    I was just referring to flying long haul flights out of Love Field. Not international. (at least not yet...)

    You bring up an interesting point about Houston, though. The alliances depend on that connectivity. That being said, Southwest did not set up that situation. They should not be restrained from attempting to grow their business because they choose not to participate in it.

  11. #1011
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,960
    Dallas and Houston should revel that they have both kinds of commercial airports: the mammoth connecting airport, hub-port of a global alliance with extremely high volume of passers-through, and the smaller intown airport much better suited for O/D travel. Location is the biggest liability for the Bush Airport in Houston, though....

  12. #1012
    Skyscraper Member Double Wide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,706
    ok. IF Southwest starts flying to Mexico and Caribbean destinations, why fly only those international flights out of a Airport your domestic flights do not go to?

    SO in Houston, if Hobby does not open to international traffic but Southwest opens it's operations to international traffic, as a Southwest customer, you can not fly Southwest from say....Amarillo into Hobby and just jump onto another Southwest jet to take them to Cancun, instead, under Puddings idea, they will have to get off the plain, get their baggage and then catch a bus or Taxi to Houston International to catch a flight with the same carrier. What a pain.

    Is it really such a problem to station a few customs officials at Hobby? 2 guys to stamp passports and 2 to do random searches. Jeez. Amarillo International Airport has Customs Officials and i have only ever seen 1 international flight out of there in my entire life!
    Cider is an amazing addition to the bars of America but it gives me the worst hangovers......

  13. #1013
    Skyscraper Member Double Wide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    What is in the salt they use on those peanuts?
    Actually, it's the peanuts them self's. My grandparents own a peanut farm and sell to the company that supplies peanuts for Southwest. The required fertilizer used on Southwest Airlines peanut crops main ingredient is fecal mater from off Southwest jets in the bathrooms. Since Southwest has happy customers and staff, the happiness transfers into the waist, and from the waist into the fertilizer, and from the fertilizer into the peanuts, and then back into the Southwest customers, therefor creating happy customers!

    For those who take things seriously, that was 10% true. But what is the truth and what is the lie?
    Cider is an amazing addition to the bars of America but it gives me the worst hangovers......

  14. #1014
    Supertall Skyscraper Member electricron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,009
    SW flys to both Austin and San Antonio. Amarillo customers could fly there instead of Love or Hobby if their final destination is in Mexico. Love customers could too. Hobby customers could fly first to Corpus or McAllen before flying to Mexico. I'm pretty sure SW can find alternate arrangements.
    Let the City of Houston make their decision. Dallas has chosen, more to restrict flights at Love than anything else, to not have International flights at Love. Houston can follow Dallas or not, it is their choice.

  15. #1015
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by electricron View Post
    I'm pretty sure SW can find alternate arrangements.
    Let the City of Houston make their decision.
    Absolutely correct! In the unlikely event Hobby does not become an International Gateway, there are several other Texas/Gulf Coast cities that would Luv the opportunity to become one.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  16. #1016
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,545
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus View Post
    Absolutely correct! In the unlikely event Hobby does not become an International Gateway, there are several other Texas/Gulf Coast cities that would Luv the opportunity to become one.
    Surely these cities see the benefit to being the international gateway for SW. Maybe they don't, maybe they are so worried about offending the big airports.

  17. #1017
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    899
    In addtion to the current East coast AirTran Interantional cites these new ones are coming soon. Of course they will transition to SWA over the next couple of years

    Denver - Cancun starting April 16, 2012
    San Antonio - Mexico City starting May 24, 2012*
    San Antonio - Cancun starting May 24, 2012
    Austin - Cancun starting May 25, 2012
    Orange County - Cabo San Lucas starting June 3, 2012
    Orange County - Mexico City starting June 3, 2012*
    *Subject to foreign government approval.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tnekster View Post
    Surely these cities see the benefit to being the international gateway for SW. Maybe they don't, maybe they are so worried about offending the big airports.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  18. #1018
    Mid-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus View Post
    In addtion to the current East coast AirTran Interantional cites these new ones are coming soon. Of course they will transition to SWA over the next couple of years

    Denver - Cancun starting April 16, 2012
    San Antonio - Mexico City starting May 24, 2012*
    San Antonio - Cancun starting May 24, 2012
    Austin - Cancun starting May 25, 2012
    Orange County - Cabo San Lucas starting June 3, 2012
    Orange County - Mexico City starting June 3, 2012*
    *Subject to foreign government approval.
    I don't count in the carribean or north/central america to be truely "international". International to me means europe, africa, asia, south america and austrailia.

  19. #1019
    Supertall Skyscraper Member electricron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,009
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientshoes View Post
    I don't count in the carribean or north/central america to be truely "international". International to me means europe, africa, asia, south america and austrailia.
    You can have your own definition for what International means, meanwhile allow the rest of us to follow Uncle Sam's definition, which by the way is the only definition that counts!

  20. #1020
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Wide View Post
    Actually, it's the peanuts them self's. My grandparents own a peanut farm and sell to the company that supplies peanuts for Southwest. The required fertilizer used on Southwest Airlines peanut crops main ingredient is fecal mater from off Southwest jets in the bathrooms. Since Southwest has happy customers and staff, the happiness transfers into the waist, and from the waist into the fertilizer, and from the fertilizer into the peanuts, and then back into the Southwest customers, therefor creating happy customers!

    For those who take things seriously, that was 10% true. But what is the truth and what is the lie?
    More truth to this than you realize. My only question is where do they mix in the Bovine Manure to account for the BS they constantly spew out?

  21. #1021
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by ksig121 View Post
    No they don't, but their base of operations is at Hobby. They shouldn't have to split operations just because the other airlines cry about it.
    Southwest used to operate at IAH but decided to move all flights to Hobby. Now with the desire to operate internationally that decision has come back to bite them. Unfortunately for all airlines they must operate from airports; airports in our country are owned and controlled by local and federal governmental agencies.

    The governing parties have the final say on whether or not there is international air service from Hobby regardless of how much southwest whines about how unfair life is when you have to live with past decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ksig121 View Post
    They have the right to lobby to make conditions as favorable for their business as possible. Why is it that when one of the legacy carries does that, you justify it as efficiency and fairness and when SWA does it, they are being selfish? If the flying public doesn't want to fly out of Hobby for international flights, then the split of resources will be short-lived and SWA will move out to IAH. If it is successful, then the infrastructure will be in place for the other carriers to split their operations to benefit their PAYING CUSTOMERS. That's how business works. If the demand is there, then this venture will succeed. If not, then it will fail.
    Can you give us an example of those other airlines? Who besides than southwest has cried hard and fast for separate facilities whether it is love field or FIS at Hobby?

    Quote Originally Posted by ksig121 View Post
    You will see the same thing out at Love Field. I guarantee that the airlines operating out of DFW will split their operations LONG before SWA will split theirs in this market.
    Really doubtful, Southwest wanted the gate restrictions at Love Field to keep other airlines out. Remember 20 total gates and only 4 are controlled by an airline besides Southwest. They accepted the no international service from Love Field as part of that bargain. Chances are you will see WN at DFW before you will see other airlines offering more than a token amount of service from Love.
    You know the really funny part of this whole Love/Wright discussion,WN could have moved lock stock and barrel to DFW cheaper than what they are spending to renovate Love. And DFW would have parted the waves to get them there too.

    Quote Originally Posted by ksig121 View Post
    Additionally, Southwest does a better job of understanding what their customers want and deliver on it. The lack of bag fees and their general financial health is testament to that.
    Southwest has painted themselves into the corner with their bags fly free shtick. Granted their planes are full but so are everyone else’s planes and they get the revenue from the checked bags too. Concerning Southwest current situation remember when AA gets out of BK they and the rest of the legacy airlines will have operating costs below Southwest. Southwest will have some hard choices to make in the future and dollars to donuts they will not be that same ole cutesy airline they portray themselves to be now.

  22. #1022
    Skyscraper Member ksig121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State Thomas Neighborhood
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    Southwest used to operate at IAH but decided to move all flights to Hobby. Now with the desire to operate internationally that decision has come back to bite them. Unfortunately for all airlines they must operate from airports; airports in our country are owned and controlled by local and federal governmental agencies.

    The governing parties have the final say on whether or not there is international air service from Hobby regardless of how much southwest whines about how unfair life is when you have to live with past decisions.



    Can you give us an example of those other airlines? Who besides than southwest has cried hard and fast for separate facilities whether it is love field or FIS at Hobby?



    Really doubtful, Southwest wanted the gate restrictions at Love Field to keep other airlines out. Remember 20 total gates and only 4 are controlled by an airline besides Southwest. They accepted the no international service from Love Field as part of that bargain. Chances are you will see WN at DFW before you will see other airlines offering more than a token amount of service from Love.
    You know the really funny part of this whole Love/Wright discussion,WN could have moved lock stock and barrel to DFW cheaper than what they are spending to renovate Love. And DFW would have parted the waves to get them there too.



    Southwest has painted themselves into the corner with their bags fly free shtick. Granted their planes are full but so are everyone else’s planes and they get the revenue from the checked bags too. Concerning Southwest current situation remember when AA gets out of BK they and the rest of the legacy airlines will have operating costs below Southwest. Southwest will have some hard choices to make in the future and dollars to donuts they will not be that same ole cutesy airline they portray themselves to be now.
    I'll only reply to one part of your reply to me because most of it is just noise.

    When I mentioned other airlines lobbying for legislation and regulation that is favorable to their business, I made no mention of separate facilities. You might garner more credibility if you stop putting words in people's mouth and actually READ what you are responding to.

  23. #1023
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post

    Can you give us an example of those other airlines? Who besides than southwest has cried hard and fast for separate facilities whether it is love field or FIS at Hobby?
    United Airlines leaps to mind. They convinced the Houston Airport System to revise their master plan and add a second, separate, FIS at Bush.

  24. #1024
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucy View Post
    United Airlines leaps to mind. They convinced the Houston Airport System to revise their master plan and add a second, separate, FIS at Bush.
    Oh please....don't confuse pHead with facts.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  25. #1025
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by ksig121 View Post
    I'll only reply to one part of your reply to me because most of it is just noise.

    When I mentioned other airlines lobbying for legislation and regulation that is favorable to their business, I made no mention of separate facilities. You might garner more credibility if you stop putting words in people's mouth and actually READ what you are responding to.
    It really is a shame that you do not practice what you preach. At the beginning of this discussion I asked a couple of questions that you conveniently ignored. Maybe you could answer them for us now.

    Need versus Want that is issue here. Just because Southwest wants something does that make it a necessity, does that make it needed?

    Are new international service facilities actually needed at HOU?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucy View Post
    United Airlines leaps to mind. They convinced the Houston Airport System to revise their master plan and add a second, separate, FIS at Bush.
    Good try but the facts are not quite what you present.

    The original agreement was between the city and CO was never implemented because of the economic downturn. UA did not become part of the deal until after the merger. As part of the plan for CO to renovate and operate terminal B CO relinquished its gates at Terminal D to the city so that the City could renovate the old international terminal to facilitate services for the OTHER international carriers at the airport. IE modernize the facilities for more flights and larger aircraft expected to be operated by Singapore, Lufthansa, Emirates etc. What did CO now UA get out of the deal, they get to pay for the complete renovations at Terminal B and eventually build as part of phase 3 of the plan a FIS facility for terminal B. UA/CO will not be paid back for the money spent on the terminal and must still pay rental fees for the facilities after completion of the project.

    Actually the agreement between UA and CO seems to be more pretty altruistic.

  26. #1026
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas
    Posts
    786
    http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitic...international/

    Lufthansa a “nein” on Hobby going international
    A third party has stepped into the United Airlines vs. Southwest Airlines fracas over whether to allow Southwest to fly abroad from Hobby Airport. Lufthansa sides with United in arguing that making Hobby an international airport would hurt carriers at Bush Intercontinental Airport.

    Houston Airport System director Mario Diaz said in December that the system will spend $30 million to $40 million on runway upgrades at Bush to accommodate Lufthansa’s plan to start flying its A380 — a 526-seat double-deck jet — to Houston this summer.

    But if Houston OKs Hobby as an international airport, Lufthansa states in a letter to Mayor Annise Parker, it could hurt the long-term prospects for the airline’s flagship aircraft at Bush.

    In a Feb. 13 letter that my colleague, Chronicle aviation reporter Kiah Collier, dug up in her recent reporting, Lufthansa board member Katy Kratky wrote:

    …we fear that any dilution of flow traffic through IAH will have a negative impact on our ability to sustain this service over the long term.

  27. #1027
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitic...international/

    Lufthansa a “nein” on Hobby going international
    A third party has stepped into the United Airlines vs. Southwest Airlines fracas over whether to allow Southwest to fly abroad from Hobby Airport. Lufthansa sides with United in arguing that making Hobby an international airport would hurt carriers at Bush Intercontinental Airport.

    Houston Airport System director Mario Diaz said in December that the system will spend $30 million to $40 million on runway upgrades at Bush to accommodate Lufthansa’s plan to start flying its A380 — a 526-seat double-deck jet — to Houston this summer.

    But if Houston OKs Hobby as an international airport, Lufthansa states in a letter to Mayor Annise Parker, it could hurt the long-term prospects for the airline’s flagship aircraft at Bush.

    In a Feb. 13 letter that my colleague, Chronicle aviation reporter Kiah Collier, dug up in her recent reporting, Lufthansa board member Katy Kratky wrote:

    …we fear that any dilution of flow traffic through IAH will have a negative impact on our ability to sustain this service over the long term.
    PuddinHead, how does this reflect badly on Southwest? You forgot to add your usual crazy editorial.

  28. #1028
    Skyscraper Member Double Wide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,706
    Southwest's international routs out of Hobby would not effect any of Lufthansa's destinations. I dont think there is a flood of people wanting to fly on Lufthansa from Houston to Mexico City or Houston to Puerto Rico.
    Cider is an amazing addition to the bars of America but it gives me the worst hangovers......

  29. #1029
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Wide View Post
    Southwest's international routs out of Hobby would not effect any of Lufthansa's destinations. I dont think there is a flood of people wanting to fly on Lufthansa from Houston to Mexico City or Houston to Puerto Rico.
    The argument is more if you let Southwest do it, others will too. Which is reasonable, from Lufthansa's point of view.

    What's not quite so reasonable are the threats, mud-slinging, and blackmailing these airlines--on both sides--are using to get their way. "If you don't play by my rules, I'm just doing to take my ball and go home" is, at very least, not a very "sophisticated" rhetorical strategy.

  30. #1030
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Wide View Post
    Southwest's international routs out of Hobby would not effect any of Lufthansa's destinations. I dont think there is a flood of people wanting to fly on Lufthansa from Houston to Mexico City or Houston to Puerto Rico.
    Puerto Rico is not international from the USA, as it is a US Territory.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  31. #1031
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by profbarium View Post
    "If you don't play by my rules, I'm just doing to take my ball and go home"
    ??? Not sure what your referring to here, please clarify.
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  32. #1032
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasPlus View Post
    ??? Not sure what your referring to here, please clarify.
    Houston Airport System director Mario Diaz said in December that the system will spend $30 million to $40 million on runway upgrades at Bush to accommodate Lufthansa’s plan to start flying its A380 — a 526-seat double-deck jet — to Houston this summer.

    But if Houston OKs Hobby as an international airport, Lufthansa states in a letter to Mayor Annise Parker, it could hurt the long-term prospects for the airline’s flagship aircraft at Bush.
    Lufthana insists that it needs the runway upgrades at Bush; thus, the city cannot spend the money at Hobby (I guess that's the inference) to make it an international airport. Put another way: the city of Houston needs us [Lufthansa et al.] to fly our big planes into Bush, so you'd better give us what we want (or we just might go somewhere else).

    Similarly, Southwest can play Houston and Dallas against each other: whichever of you gives us the international upgrades we want will see a benefit; the other will lose out on the benefits we provide.

    Now, one can reasonably argue that IAH should accomodate the super jumbo Airbuses, and that both Love and Hobby should allow international travel. It seems like a conflict of interest, at best, for Southwest, United, and Lufthansa (i.e. those with the most to gain or lose) to be mounting the fiercest fights over what's best for the cities and taxpayers. But I guess that's how lobbying works. (And, honestly, the results aren't always bad.)

  33. #1033
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    It really is a shame that you do not practice what you preach. At the beginning of this discussion I asked a couple of questions that you conveniently ignored. Maybe you could answer them for us now.

    Need versus Want that is issue here. Just because Southwest wants something does that make it a necessity, does that make it needed?

    Are new international service facilities actually needed at HOU?




    Good try but the facts are not quite what you present.

    The original agreement was between the city and CO was never implemented because of the economic downturn. UA did not become part of the deal until after the merger. As part of the plan for CO to renovate and operate terminal B CO relinquished its gates at Terminal D to the city so that the City could renovate the old international terminal to facilitate services for the OTHER international carriers at the airport. IE modernize the facilities for more flights and larger aircraft expected to be operated by Singapore, Lufthansa, Emirates etc. What did CO now UA get out of the deal, they get to pay for the complete renovations at Terminal B and eventually build as part of phase 3 of the plan a FIS facility for terminal B. UA/CO will not be paid back for the money spent on the terminal and must still pay rental fees for the facilities after completion of the project.

    Actually the agreement between UA and CO seems to be more pretty altruistic.
    You went into a of detail that is utterly beside the point; You asked for examples of other airlines who had "cried hard and fast for separate [international] facilities. The simple fact is, one answer to your question is: United . United and the Airport System are building a separate FIS facility at Bush that may draw customs agents away from the primary facility serving Terminals D & E, exactly the thing United is complaining about Southwest proposing at Hobby.

  34. #1034
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitic...international/

    Lufthansa a “nein” on Hobby going international
    A third party has stepped into the United Airlines vs. Southwest Airlines fracas over whether to allow Southwest to fly abroad from Hobby Airport. Lufthansa sides with United in arguing that making Hobby an international airport would hurt carriers at Bush Intercontinental Airport.

    Houston Airport System director Mario Diaz said in December that the system will spend $30 million to $40 million on runway upgrades at Bush to accommodate Lufthansa’s plan to start flying its A380 — a 526-seat double-deck jet — to Houston this summer.

    But if Houston OKs Hobby as an international airport, Lufthansa states in a letter to Mayor Annise Parker, it could hurt the long-term prospects for the airline’s flagship aircraft at Bush.

    In a Feb. 13 letter that my colleague, Chronicle aviation reporter Kiah Collier, dug up in her recent reporting, Lufthansa board member Katy Kratky wrote:

    …we fear that any dilution of flow traffic through IAH will have a negative impact on our ability to sustain this service over the long term.
    Note: Lufthansa is a partner of United in the Star Alliance. Only a "third party" in a very technical sense of the term.

  35. #1035
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by profbarium View Post
    Lufthana insists that it needs the runway upgrades at Bush; thus, the city cannot spend the money at Hobby (I guess that's the inference) to make it an international airport. Put another way: the city of Houston needs us [Lufthansa et al.] to fly our big planes into Bush, so you'd better give us what we want (or we just might go somewhere else).

    Similarly, Southwest can play Houston and Dallas against each other: whichever of you gives us the international upgrades we want will see a benefit; the other will lose out on the benefits we provide.

    Now, one can reasonably argue that IAH should accomodate the super jumbo Airbuses, and that both Love and Hobby should allow international travel. It seems like a conflict of interest, at best, for Southwest, United, and Lufthansa (i.e. those with the most to gain or lose) to be mounting the fiercest fights over what's best for the cities and taxpayers. But I guess that's how lobbying works. (And, honestly, the results aren't always bad.)
    Not saying the airlines are not/will not threatening/threaten to take their flights elsewhere, but you got a few things wrong. (1) There is no money conflict between the widening of runways and taxiways at Bush and the international facilities at Hobby because Southwest has proposed to pay for the facilities Hobby. (2) Southwest cannot play Love Field against Hobby for international flights because international flights are not allowed at Love Field by statute. They can, however, certainly play Austin, San Antonio and others against Hobby.

    The theory behind Lufthansa's complaint is not that Lufthansa will lose paying customers on Houston-Cancun flights, but that if Southwest draws business away from United's Houston-Cancun flights, such that United reduces service, that reduces the number of connecting flights available to feed into Lufthansa's flights to Germany. They may be right. But that is what we call free market capitalism. IMO, the city and airport system have no business picking winners and losers.
    Last edited by Tucy; 01 April 2012 at 06:43 PM.

  36. #1036
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucy View Post
    Not saying the airlines are not/will not threatening/threaten to take their flights elsewhere, but you got a few things wrong. (1) There is no money conflict between the widening of runways and taxiways at Bush and the international facilities at Hobby because Southwest has proposed to pay for the facilities Hobby. (2) Southwest cannot play Love Field against Hobby for international flights because international flights are not allowed at Love Field by statute. They can, however, certainly play Austin, San Antonio and others against Hobby.

    The theory behind Lufthansa's complaint is not that Lufthansa will lose paying customers on Houston-Cancun flights, but that if Southwest draws business away from United's Houston-Cancun flights, such that United reduces service, that reduces the number of connecting flights available to feed into Lufthansa's flights to Germany. They may be right. But that is what we call free market capitalism. IMO, the city and airport system have no business picking winners and losers.
    Thanks for clarifying those factual issues. So why is Lufthansa bringing up the issue of money for IAH? If it's not a "best use" of government funds (as they implied/I inferred), that greatly weakens their argument. Maybe if they (i.e. Germany's flag carrier) offered to pay for the runway widenings in exchange for restricted service at Hobby, they'd have a better case.

    And I understand what you're saying about Love generally, that international flights are prohibited by statute. I guess I meant that SWA might use SAT/AUS/HOU as leverage to get the statutory restriction at DAL lifted. (And of course you're correct about playing SAT & AUS against HOU.)

    To your last point, I also tend to agree. Though it also seems reasonable that Southwest should make some kind of concession or consideration in order to get the rules changed in its favor. And yes, paying for the facilities is one good way to do that.

  37. #1037
    Incoherent Rambler grantboston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    1,297
    ^The FIS (Federal Inspection Services) facilities needed for international gateways are government funded.

  38. #1038
    High-Rise Member TexasPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by grantboston View Post
    ^The FIS (Federal Inspection Services) facilities needed for international gateways are government funded.
    As the government does not produce funds, were do you suppose government gets that money to redistribute?
    "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers."

  39. #1039
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by grantboston View Post
    ^The FIS (Federal Inspection Services) facilities needed for international gateways are government funded.
    Southwest is offering to pay for the construction of the facilities necessary for FIS at Hobby, according to the news stories. The staffing is government funded . . . paid for by user fees collected at the airports.

  40. #1040
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by profbarium View Post
    Thanks for clarifying those factual issues. So why is Lufthansa bringing up the issue of money for IAH? If it's not a "best use" of government funds (as they implied/I inferred), that greatly weakens their argument. Maybe if they (i.e. Germany's flag carrier) offered to pay for the runway widenings in exchange for restricted service at Hobby, they'd have a better case.

    And I understand what you're saying about Love generally, that international flights are prohibited by statute. I guess I meant that SWA might use SAT/AUS/HOU as leverage to get the statutory restriction at DAL lifted. (And of course you're correct about playing SAT & AUS against HOU.)

    To your last point, I also tend to agree. Though it also seems reasonable that Southwest should make some kind of concession or consideration in order to get the rules changed in its favor. And yes, paying for the facilities is one good way to do that.
    Would Southwest offering to pay for the facilities be enough of a concession/consideration?

  41. #1041
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucy View Post
    Would Southwest offering to pay for the facilities be enough of a concession/consideration?
    Sure; it could be. I don't have all the facts in front me, so I'd hesitate to make a firm opinion. But that seems reasonable.

  42. #1042
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by profbarium View Post
    Sure; it could be. I don't have all the facts in front me, so I'd hesitate to make a firm opinion. But that seems reasonable.
    That's the plan, according to the news stories.

  43. #1043
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucy View Post
    You went into a of detail that is utterly beside the point; You asked for examples of other airlines who had "cried hard and fast for separate [international] facilities. The simple fact is, one answer to your question is: United . United and the Airport System are building a separate FIS facility at Bush that may draw customs agents away from the primary facility serving Terminals D & E, exactly the thing United is complaining about Southwest proposing at Hobby.
    It is understandable why you want to think the details missed the point since the details of the agreement do not fit well within your argument. Tell us how an amicable agreement between the City of Houston and then Continental airlines that facilitates the renovation of two terminals one domestic and one international that requires Continental airlines to vacate its gates at the international terminal and build at their own expense the 3rd FIS area at the SAME airport in any way resembles the plans of southwest to require separate FIS facilities at another airport not currently an international airport?

    Remember those customs agents that will work at that so called separate FIS area in terminal B are at the same airport and can be transported easily between terminals as needed to work all airline international arrivals at IAH, whereas those agents at Hobby will be at Hobby for one airline.

  44. #1044
    Incoherent Rambler grantboston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucy View Post
    Would Southwest offering to pay for the facilities be enough of a concession/consideration?
    Politically, it appears not. The Houston Airport System Director, as quoted in the Houston Chronicle:

    "Just this week we learned that Customs and Border Protection had developed a staffing model for federal inspection service centers. Preliminary information confirms our intuition that Intercontinental is understaffed, which we have been arguing for a very long time to our congressional delegation."

    As a result, requesting more resources for HOU (even if granted) would make whatever issues at IAH harder to solve.

    Apparently two local Congressmen are skeptical that Houston will be allocated any more resources under this staffing model, seemingly regardless of whether or how they are paid for. In the end, DHS controls where resources are allocated.

    Source: http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitic...decided-in-dc/

  45. #1045
    Skyscraper Member Double Wide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by profbarium View Post
    the city of Houston needs us to fly our big planes into Bush,
    Innuendo
    Cider is an amazing addition to the bars of America but it gives me the worst hangovers......

  46. #1046
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by grantboston View Post
    Politically, it appears not. The Houston Airport System Director, as quoted in the Houston Chronicle:

    "Just this week we learned that Customs and Border Protection had developed a staffing model for federal inspection service centers. Preliminary information confirms our intuition that Intercontinental is understaffed, which we have been arguing for a very long time to our congressional delegation."

    As a result, requesting more resources for HOU (even if granted) would make whatever issues at IAH harder to solve.

    Apparently two local Congressmen are skeptical that Houston will be allocated any more resources under this staffing model, seemingly regardless of whether or how they are paid for. In the end, DHS controls where resources are allocated.

    Source: http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitic...decided-in-dc/
    Have you ever seen two congressmen voluntarily proclaim their utter ineffectiveness the way these two just did?

  47. #1047
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Wide View Post
    Innuendo
    Beg your pardon? Care to clarify? Thanks.

  48. #1048
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,545
    Jerry Gunter
    Research Director - Dallas Business Journal

    American Airlines retained the top position in the latest Top 50 North Texas Employers listing, despite the fact that its employee number dropped slightly from a year ago.

    The Fort Worth-based company led the way with 24,700 local employees. Last year American Airlines, which is in the midst of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, finished first with 24,888 employees.

    Bank of America Bank of America Latest from The Business Journals Follow this company moved up one spot from last year with 20,000 employees to finish in the runner-up position.

    Take a look at our slide show at right to see which other companies are in the top five.

    The complete listing of the Largest North Texas Employers is available via the digital edition or on pages 9 and 10 in this week's print edition. Also, the Largest North Texas Charter Air Companies is on page 14.

    Jerry Gunter can be reached at 214-706-7110.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/bl...rt-worths.html

  49. #1049
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddinHead View Post
    It is understandable why you want to think the details missed the point since the details of the agreement do not fit well within your argument. Tell us how an amicable agreement between the City of Houston and then Continental airlines that facilitates the renovation of two terminals one domestic and one international that requires Continental airlines to vacate its gates at the international terminal and build at their own expense the 3rd FIS area at the SAME airport in any way resembles the plans of southwest to require separate FIS facilities at another airport not currently an international airport?

    Remember those customs agents that will work at that so called separate FIS area in terminal B are at the same airport and can be transported easily between terminals as needed to work all airline international arrivals at IAH, whereas those agents at Hobby will be at Hobby for one airline.
    United reached an amicable agreement by which they agreed to fund the construction of a new, separate FIS facility, and also requires the Airport System to fund hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxiway and other infrastructure.

    Southwest has proposed an amicable agreement by which Southwest would fund the construction of a new, separate FIS facility. No word as of yet whether there would be ANY cost to the airport system.

    Anyone without an axe to grind can see the similarity. It's a pretty simple fact...United requested and is scheduled to get a separate FIS facility.

    You've added the staffing issue proviso to the discussion in an apparent attempt to muddy the water about whether any other airline had ever requested a separate FIS facility , and are now telling us that because the United facility is only separated from the Terminal D/E facility by a couple hundred yards, it is not really separate. But unless you've made a discovery you haven't shared with the rest of the world, the FIS agents cannot be in two places at the same time. It does not matter if those two places are separated by 30 yards or 30 miles.

  50. #1050
    High-Rise Member PuddinHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    East Dallas
    Posts
    786
    Please delete this post
    Last edited by PuddinHead; 08 April 2012 at 03:17 AM. Reason: Please delete this post.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 20 users browsing this thread. (4 members and 16 guests)

  1. dfwcre8tive,
  2. TexasPlus,
  3. neilk,
  4. razzma

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •