Debunking the Myth?

[WNrforlife]

What's up with this nonsense?

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/MythsAtSouthwest.pdf

 

[KCFlyer]

What's up with this nonsense?

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/MythsAtSouthwest.pdf

I had to laugh at the "benevolent" argument. If being benevolent towards passengers and employees is bad business... :blink:

Then it goes on to state that they actually have the GALL to compete in the airline business. Is this guy supposed to be an analyst?

I guess I gotta wonder what a "benevolent competitor" would do.

 

[WNJETFIXER]

What's up with this nonsense?

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/MythsAtSouthwest.pdf

I guess we're not playing nice!!!

 

[WNjetdoc]

Don't be a player hater.

 

[ngneer]

What's up with this nonsense?

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/MythsAtSouthwest.pdf

This is about a guy, Scott Hamilton, who apparently likes to set up straw men just so he can knock them down and make himself look smart. Otherwise, I can't see much point to it. In this case, his five "myths" are the straw men. For instance, in "Myth #1", he talks about how the 737NG and classic aircraft are different but that most people don't care. OK, why should anybody care? What's the point?

After setting up and knocking down all 5 straw men, Hamilton says Southwest is "a great airline, it has great people, it offers basic, reliable and affordable transportation and doesn't pretend to be anything else." But then, in the very next sentence, Hamilton says Southwest is living off its myths. Huh? How can it be living off its myths if it's not pretending to be anything but what it is?

Hamilton tries to look like some dispassionate analyst, calmly presenting facts to set the record straight. Then, at the end and out of nowhere, he offers the opinion that, "The most annoying thing about Southwest has been and continues to be its cattle-call boarding process," and presents it as a universal truth. It's a sloppy, self-contradictory piece presented with the veneer of being written by some kind of expert.

 

[MDWML]

This is about a guy, Scott Hamilton, who apparently likes to set up straw men just so he can knock them down and make himself look smart. Otherwise, I can't see much point to it. In this case, his five "myths" are the straw men. For instance, in "Myth #1", he talks about how the 737NG and classic aircraft are different but that most people don't care. OK, why should anybody care? What's the point?

After setting up and knocking down all 5 straw men, Hamilton says Southwest is "a great airline, it has great people, it offers basic, reliable and affordable transportation and doesn't pretend to be anything else." But then, in the very next sentence, Hamilton says Southwest is living off its myths. Huh? How can it be living off its myths if it's not pretending to be anything but what it is?

Hamilton tries to look like some dispassionate analyst, calmly presenting facts to set the record straight. Then, at the end and out of nowhere, he offers the opinion that, "The most annoying thing about Southwest has been and continues to be its cattle-call boarding process," and presents it as a universal truth. It's a sloppy, self-contradictory piece presented with the veneer of being written by some kind of expert.

Interesting rebuke. It was only a few months ago that Hamilton was accused on the AA forum of being on retainer to WN after he published an analysis debunking the myths of WN critics of WN's desire to move from SEA-TAC Airport to Boeing Field and writing op-eds supporting WN.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/2397...hwestproop.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opin...16_scott23.html
http://leeham.net/filelib/KCJ_080605WN.pdf