Exactly. Southwest wins a cargo award for its excellent customer service and WT feels compelled to post a whopping 22 times that the award is no big deal and that WN gets very little revenue or profit from cargo. In other words, he shows up and craps and pisses on WN's employees 22 times because they won a minor award. Because he lacks the filters that would cause most people to post once or twice and then just STFU, he posts the same material over and over again, because he has to win. Conversation? Nope. Just nonstop lectures and sermons, not conversation.FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
CONGRATS to the Cargo folks at SWA!
- Thread starter swamt
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #62
first, how much time did it take you to count my posts and is your life richer because you have now catalogued what someone else has done?
second, thank you for acknowledging that it was a minor award. that is absolutely the case.
third, beyond swamt and Sharon I don't know who in this thread are WN employees. Most of the posts are not by WN employees. so the notion that I have posted to slam WN employees is simply not accurate.
which is not a terrible surprise.
finally, the whole issue of size which I have repeatedly harped on was in response to swamt's comment early on that cargo is a huge profit area.
given the size of WN's cargo revenues - less than 1% of its total revenues - cargo can't possibly be a huge profit center.
and the other aspect of size which I have raised is the disconnection between the assertions that fresh made that their domestic cargo carrier choices are WN or ground transport. when pressed about the limited scope of WN's cargo network both compared to the big 3's domestic cargo capacity and network scope, s/he argued that they really do ship internationally - but doesn't say how because WN doesn't fly in that segment - or how because none of the IATA big 10 passenger cargo carriers have anywhere near as much lift from the US in even one direction as the big 3.
so, I'm sorry if some like you find pushing for accuracy and logic as beyond the scope of airline forums.
last time I checked, those are not exempted items for discussion.
and if you or others simply want to post something so you can feel warm and fuzzy and want to disregard facts or logic, by all means, please make that clear at the beginning of the thread and I can absolutely assure you that I will stay out.
nevertheless if my remarks were offensive to any WN employees, I do apologize.
second, thank you for acknowledging that it was a minor award. that is absolutely the case.
third, beyond swamt and Sharon I don't know who in this thread are WN employees. Most of the posts are not by WN employees. so the notion that I have posted to slam WN employees is simply not accurate.
which is not a terrible surprise.
finally, the whole issue of size which I have repeatedly harped on was in response to swamt's comment early on that cargo is a huge profit area.
given the size of WN's cargo revenues - less than 1% of its total revenues - cargo can't possibly be a huge profit center.
and the other aspect of size which I have raised is the disconnection between the assertions that fresh made that their domestic cargo carrier choices are WN or ground transport. when pressed about the limited scope of WN's cargo network both compared to the big 3's domestic cargo capacity and network scope, s/he argued that they really do ship internationally - but doesn't say how because WN doesn't fly in that segment - or how because none of the IATA big 10 passenger cargo carriers have anywhere near as much lift from the US in even one direction as the big 3.
so, I'm sorry if some like you find pushing for accuracy and logic as beyond the scope of airline forums.
last time I checked, those are not exempted items for discussion.
and if you or others simply want to post something so you can feel warm and fuzzy and want to disregard facts or logic, by all means, please make that clear at the beginning of the thread and I can absolutely assure you that I will stay out.
nevertheless if my remarks were offensive to any WN employees, I do apologize.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
It only took him just a bit over 1/2 hour and >330 words to attempt to get the last word and in the process validate this:
FWAAA said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #65
what was that you have hurled around about slander?
I didn't count your posts. From the front page of the WN forum, I clicked on the number of replies to this thread and a dialogue box opens that shows a list of posters who have replied in this thread, and how many times they have posted. For you, that number is now 24.WorldTraveler said:
Get. A. Life.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #67
So you bothered to look. The question again is whether your life is richer because you looked at that stat and then spread it. Honest question. What really motivated you? Defending WN employees. They seem pretty capable of defending and speaking for themselves.
I have a life. and I enjoy it.
I have a life. and I enjoy it.
Kev3188
Veteran
...And to everyone else?WorldTraveler said:
All this time on here, I had no idea that function existed. Nice!FWAAA said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #69
I'm not sure why what I have written on this thread would offend you or anyone else but if did, I offer my apology.
perhaps you can also help me understand how countering factually inaccurate information is wrong and why so many people here find it offensive to do so.
If facts really don't matter then let's just rename this forum "Airline Opinions" where it is acceptable to post anything, factual or not, and anyone that challenges what is said is deemed a heretic.
again, I responded to two factually incorrect lines of thought that were made.
If doing so is incorrect, then I absolutely apologize.
If you or others simply want a site where you can spout whatever you want without any regard for the facts or accuracy of what is said, then please make that very clear.
perhaps you can also help me understand how countering factually inaccurate information is wrong and why so many people here find it offensive to do so.
If facts really don't matter then let's just rename this forum "Airline Opinions" where it is acceptable to post anything, factual or not, and anyone that challenges what is said is deemed a heretic.
again, I responded to two factually incorrect lines of thought that were made.
If doing so is incorrect, then I absolutely apologize.
If you or others simply want a site where you can spout whatever you want without any regard for the facts or accuracy of what is said, then please make that very clear.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
While the writing of the apology seems sincere, I cannot believe that you don't know what you have written that may have offended.
Actually, reading your post further, I'm starting to think your apology was fake as you go on to justify your behavior.
Actually, reading your post further, I'm starting to think your apology was fake as you go on to justify your behavior.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #71
Your response simply highlights once again that you and many others operate on this forum on the basis of emotion and not facts.
When I write something factual and you choose to insert your own interpretation and emotions which are clearly not in line with what has been written, then there is clearly a huge chasm between not only the way you and I operate in life but also how we operate on this forum.
I responded in this thread to factually and logically incorrect or flawed statements by other members which is exactly what has taken place over and over again on this board.
I will reiterate again that my approach to posting on this board is based on facts first.
If you or someone else wish to disagree with the facts and have some of your own, feel free to find your own and publish them and defend the logic you use to justify your conclusions.
I will not EVER accept or allow to go unchallenged the behavior that you and others have demonstrated that if you don't like data and facts, you trash the person who has posted the data.
specific to this thread, the statement that was made that WN's cargo operations are huge profitable cannot be true because WN cargo revenues constitute less than 1% of the total revenues of the company, a lower percentage of cargo to total revenues compared to the US legacies.
Further, the suggestion that a cargo customer would choose WN based on network scope but not consider US legacy carriers does not logically make sense. the whole sideshow about IATA was attacked because IATA carriers other than US legacy carriers do not compete in the US domestic market which is where one poster says they buy cargo services based solely on the fact that WN has virtually no presence outside of the US.
If you wish to argue that WN cargo won based solely on customer service or because WN cargo links cargo performance to passenger loyalty and pricing, then that is logically defensible.
When I write something factual and you choose to insert your own interpretation and emotions which are clearly not in line with what has been written, then there is clearly a huge chasm between not only the way you and I operate in life but also how we operate on this forum.
I responded in this thread to factually and logically incorrect or flawed statements by other members which is exactly what has taken place over and over again on this board.
I will reiterate again that my approach to posting on this board is based on facts first.
If you or someone else wish to disagree with the facts and have some of your own, feel free to find your own and publish them and defend the logic you use to justify your conclusions.
I will not EVER accept or allow to go unchallenged the behavior that you and others have demonstrated that if you don't like data and facts, you trash the person who has posted the data.
specific to this thread, the statement that was made that WN's cargo operations are huge profitable cannot be true because WN cargo revenues constitute less than 1% of the total revenues of the company, a lower percentage of cargo to total revenues compared to the US legacies.
Further, the suggestion that a cargo customer would choose WN based on network scope but not consider US legacy carriers does not logically make sense. the whole sideshow about IATA was attacked because IATA carriers other than US legacy carriers do not compete in the US domestic market which is where one poster says they buy cargo services based solely on the fact that WN has virtually no presence outside of the US.
If you wish to argue that WN cargo won based solely on customer service or because WN cargo links cargo performance to passenger loyalty and pricing, then that is logically defensible.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
Oh really?WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #73
those issues aren't part of this discussion.
If you would like to discuss them on the appropriate thread, do so.
Oh wait... the AS customer thread was locked - because you couldn't help but engage in everything except discuss the business issues at hand.
when you can approach this board as a means to productively engage in business discussions of the industry, you will have a seat at the table.
as soon as you choose to generate into character assassination and personal smear campaigns you will find your posts removed; that is the way it works and that is what the moderators function on this board.
this topic is about WN's cargo award.
If you would like to discuss them on the appropriate thread, do so.
Oh wait... the AS customer thread was locked - because you couldn't help but engage in everything except discuss the business issues at hand.
when you can approach this board as a means to productively engage in business discussions of the industry, you will have a seat at the table.
as soon as you choose to generate into character assassination and personal smear campaigns you will find your posts removed; that is the way it works and that is what the moderators function on this board.
this topic is about WN's cargo award.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
I'm just countering factually inaccurate information. Please help me understand why you find it offensive to do so.
If facts don't matter to you, perhaps you can suggest to rename this forum "WT'sAirline DL Opinions" where it is acceptable to post anything, factual or better yet fabricated, and anyone that challenges what is said is deemed a heretic.
again, I posted just 2 examples of posts you made that were based on 100% emotion and no facts.
If facts don't matter to you, perhaps you can suggest to rename this forum "WT's
again, I posted just 2 examples of posts you made that were based on 100% emotion and no facts.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #75
you haven't countered any factual information; all you have done is highlighted your own personal inability to discuss the topic at hand.
if you are countering personal information or logic, then you would have to highlight the issues you disagree with and show why they are wrong.
You haven't even done step one.
Plz return to the topic at hand.
If you wish to discuss the facts or logic that is not relevant to the WN cargo award, open or return to another topic
if you are countering personal information or logic, then you would have to highlight the issues you disagree with and show why they are wrong.
You haven't even done step one.
Plz return to the topic at hand.
If you wish to discuss the facts or logic that is not relevant to the WN cargo award, open or return to another topic
- Status
