Local 514 President Tell Members Aa Headed For Bk

[Ch. 12]

How do you hide it? Use 3/4 of it to bonus your management quietly while you spend millions in a fear campaign to say how the cost of fuel will put us out of business. They don't even have to hide the bonus plans this time because we knew about them before and the unions still let them have everything.

[post="306967"][/post]​

Or you dump all of it into a "protect the Wright Amendment" campaign including legal fees and lobbyists. I'd say they are burning through alot right now just to maintain that foolishly uncompetitive legislation.

 

[air_guy]

Or you dump all of it into a "protect the Wright Amendment" campaign including legal fees and lobbyists. I'd say they are burning through alot right now just to maintain that foolishly uncompetitive legislation.

[post="307020"][/post]​

Allow me to correct you. AA is spending very limited resources, as opposed to Southwest who is throwing money left and right. The efforts at AA have been mostly organizing employees to contact their congressmen and congreswomen to express their support to Wright. If you want to think that AA is pumping money, be my guest ...but you have no proof about that execpt what is contained in your imagination. Can't say the same about Southwest ... we see their adds all the time.

DFW airport is now funding a campaing, because of the economic disaster the repeal would be for them. AA may be the largets contributor to DFW but we have no control over what they do with their money. Not to say that to extent is prudent AA must be fine with the airport protecting itself and the investment that has been made by all the airlines flying there.

As for your 'uncompetitive' argument. Airports are not businesses, and are not supposed make money. They are public facilites. Public facilities provide services, they don't compete.

Don't be fooled. The Wright amendment does not deter competiton. There is plenty of room to add capacity at DFW. W.A. Is just a commitment made law, developed 30 years ago to support a joint city planning effort to centralize aviation. Southwest can fly from DFW to wherever it wants tomorrow.

 

[Ch. 12]

Your ignorance on this subject amazes me, airguy. Who do you think pays the lobbyists that are in Washington and have been for years. Remember an airline called Legend? I call that a tremendous capital outlay by AMR just to make sure they didn't have to face competition. They are funneling $$ to their lobbyists to keep this thing afloat. This is common knowledge as AMR has the best lobbyists in the industry. Why do you think they constantly win anti-competition cases brought against them...even when the facts are plain as day?

As far as competition...you know well that I was referring to airlines and not airports. Don't twist the issue. And you also know that DFW would mean extra costs (both direct and indirect...from delays, etc) and you should also know that AMR has a track record of having their way with other carriers at airports where they control the majority of the gates. Again...history shows this clearly. So it isn't about WN wanting unfair competition...it is about them wanting to be able to provide low fares to consumers. I know that you can understand that deep-down but you can keep throwing your elusive responses. And PLEASE stop with the "WN can fly from DFW whenever they want" argument. You know it isn't as simple as that and the only reason to support such an argument is to protect AMR...not poor little fledgling DFW that surely won't make it w/o the protection of the WA. So what do we gain by using legislation to protect AMR and give it a constant upper hand in one of the country's largest metro-areas? Well...we further weaken this industry.

Time to stop using legislation to protect an AIRLINE (not airport) and time to stop spewing untruths about the "realities" of WN's choices.

 

[air_guy]

Your ignorance on this subject amazes me, airguy. Who do you think pays the lobbyists that are in Washington and have been for years. Remember an airline called Legend? I call that a tremendous capital outlay by AMR just to make sure they didn't have to face competition. They are funneling $$ to their lobbyists to keep this thing afloat. This is common knowledge as AMR has the best lobbyists in the industry. Why do you think they constantly win anti-competition cases brought against them...even when the facts are plain as day?

As far as competition...you know well that I was referring to airlines and not airports. Don't twist the issue. And you also know that DFW would mean extra costs (both direct and indirect...from delays, etc) and you should also know that AMR has a track record of having their way with other carriers at airports where they control the majority of the gates. Again...history shows this clearly. So it isn't about WN wanting unfair competition...it is about them wanting to be able to provide low fares to consumers. I know that you can understand that deep-down but you can keep throwing your elusive responses. And PLEASE stop with the "WN can fly from DFW whenever they want" argument. You know it isn't as simple as that and the only reason to support such an argument is to protect AMR...not poor little fledgling DFW that surely won't make it w/o the protection of the WA. So what do we gain by using legislation to protect AMR and give it a constant upper hand in one of the country's largest metro-areas? Well...we further weaken this industry.

Time to stop using legislation to protect an AIRLINE (not airport) and time to stop spewing untruths about the "realities" of WN's choices.

[post="307103"][/post]​

You just changed subjects. We are talking about the issue at hand, not what happened with Legend. I was not in a position back then to know what happened behind the courtains back then, but I do now. So even if AA pumped money back then does not imply that it is doing it today. Call me naive but past events prove nothing. Today AA does not have the money to spend on wild goose chases, but it seems that Southwest has because we see them spending it left and right.

Regarding your point of anti-competitve practices please give me some examples, again without facts your points are not useful.

I liked your last paragraph. It clearly represents the hypocrisy of Southwest and any other 'supporters' of the Wright repeal like yourself. They claim that Southwest cannot offer its low fares out of DFW, because DFW is too expensive to operate. So I ask you a question, if that is true how is any airline operating at DFW supposed to match Southwest (and lower fares systemwide as it claims) if it can not do it itself? Pure hypocrisy. They know it can't be done. So they want to push for Love Field, knowing that any other competitors won't be able to match them because as you are admitting it can not be done out of DFW. So anyone at DFW gets screwed flying only people west of DFW or anyone East that is leftover of Southwest, while Southwest enjoys a monopoly at Love and lower costs that anybody else. Do you call that fair? That is pure B.S.

Finally don't give me your evil AA's track record at DFW. Come on AA was nothing at DFW when Wright was created. American at least has the pride to say that it has been able to suceed at DFW without help form anyone, competing head to head with bigger carriers, and not hidding at some downtown airport, exploiting some ambiguity in the agreements between Dallas and Fort Worth to build DFW.

 

[Ch. 12]

You just changed subjects. We are talking about the issue at hand, not what happened with Legend. I was not in a position back then to know what happened behind the courtains back then, but I do now. So even if AA pumped money back then does not imply that it is doing it today. Call me naive but past events prove nothing. Today AA does not have the money to spend on wild goose chases, but it seems that Southwest has because we see them spending it left and right.

Regarding your point of anti-competitve practices please give me some examples, again without facts your points are not useful.

I liked your last paragraph. It clearly represents the hypocrisy of Southwest and any other 'supporters' of the Wright repeal like yourself. They claim that Southwest cannot offer its low fares out of DFW, because DFW is too expensive to operate. So I ask you a question, if that is true how is any airline operating at DFW supposed to match Southwest (and lower fares systemwide as it claims) if it can not do it itself? Pure hypocrisy. They know it can't be done. So they want to push for Love Field, knowing that any other competitors won't be able to match them because as you are admitting it can not be done out of DFW. So anyone at DFW gets screwed flying only people west of DFW or anyone East that is leftover of Southwest, while Southwest enjoys a monopoly at Love and lower costs that anybody else. Do you call that fair? That is pure B.S.

Finally don't give me your evil AA's track record at DFW. Come on AA was nothing at DFW when Wright was created. American at least has the pride to say that it has been able to suceed at DFW without help form anyone, competing head to head with bigger carriers, and not hidding at some downtown airport, exploiting some ambiguity in the agreements between Dallas and Fort Worth to build DFW.

[post="307181"][/post]​

AA has survived and grown at DFW b/c of the protection of the WA!!! The WA has made the cost of entry (and maintaining ops) into Dallas significantly higher than other airports.

You mention the cost differences between DFW/DAL. This is not a WN thing just as it isn't an AA thing, as you claim. Any airline could begin service at DAL. Many have expressed interest in the past but have been unable to serve markets worth serving b/c of the WA. Hell...they can't even sell a one-stop or connecting ticket somewhere b/c of the WA. So you argue that all carriers should be forced to DFW to raise costs of all and put them on a level playing field. I say that any carrier can move to DAL to lower costs and put them on a level playing field. Which makes more sense in a cost-laden industry??

 

[Bob Owens]

AA has survived and grown at DFW b/c of the protection of the WA!!! The WA has made the cost of entry (and maintaining ops) into Dallas significantly higher than other airports.

You mention the cost differences between DFW/DAL. This is not a WN thing just as it isn't an AA thing, as you claim. Any airline could begin service at DAL. Many have expressed interest in the past but have been unable to serve markets worth serving b/c of the WA. Hell...they can't even sell a one-stop or connecting ticket somewhere b/c of the WA. So you argue that all carriers should be forced to DFW to raise costs of all and put them on a level playing field. I say that any carrier can move to DAL to lower costs and put them on a level playing field. Which makes more sense in a cost-laden industry??

[post="307291"][/post]​

I like the double standard that air-guy espouses.

DFW should be protected but workers should not.

DFW has had the protection of the WA for 20 years. Either DFW works or it dont, why should DFW be afforded protection that workers arent? Should a profitable company be allowed to expand, then they could hire more workers and pay them well, instead of protecting unprofitable endeavors where they demand that their workers take paycuts?

So much fot the free market eh Air-guy. Once it makes things tough for you all of a sudden things are different.

 

[air_guy]

AA has survived and grown at DFW b/c of the protection of the WA!!! The WA has made the cost of entry (and maintaining ops) into Dallas significantly higher than other airports.

You mention the cost differences between DFW/DAL. This is not a WN thing just as it isn't an AA thing, as you claim. Any airline could begin service at DAL. Many have expressed interest in the past but have been unable to serve markets worth serving b/c of the WA. Hell...they can't even sell a one-stop or connecting ticket somewhere b/c of the WA. So you argue that all carriers should be forced to DFW to raise costs of all and put them on a level playing field. I say that any carrier can move to DAL to lower costs and put them on a level playing field. Which makes more sense in a cost-laden industry??

[post="307291"][/post]​

Once again you are making things up. Was AA the biggest carrier at DFW when the WA was approved? Braniff and Texas Air where he big airlines back then. AA managed to grow against those airlines in the same playfield. WA did not help nor hurt that evolution. Tying the WA to AA is just another one of those myths than you are trying us to believe. AA had nothing to do with that. But after years of competing and investing at DFW AA and any other airline that has invested at DFW has to defend its investment from some sneaky airline that wants to gain market share through the back door.

If you 'force' all carriers to DFW you actually lower the costs per departure, to the point that it could become competitive with Love Field. If you do the opposite as you suggest cost do go up until the whole airport becomes prohibitive.

To your last point. I may be an AA employee, but first and foremost I am a resident of uptown Dallas. As such I see any expansion at Love Field from Southwest or anyone else a threat to my neighborhood. I already have to enjoy the noise from its current flight schedule, I don't want nor need any more. That is why all the residents of that area are against it. There has been a lot of investment in hotels, high-rises in the Downtown - uptown Dallas area, that is going to get screwed if flights at Love get out of control. Just so Southwest can save some bucks. No thank you.

 

[air_guy]

I like the double standard that air-guy espouses.

DFW should be protected but workers should not.

DFW has had the protection of the WA for 20 years. Either DFW works or it dont, why should DFW be afforded protection that workers arent? Should a profitable company be allowed to expand, then they could hire more workers and pay them well, instead of protecting unprofitable endeavors where they demand that their workers take paycuts?

So much fot the free market eh Air-guy. Once it makes things tough for you all of a sudden things are different.

[post="307301"][/post]​

WA was not intended to protect DFW. DFW does not need protection. It was a compromise to avoid further push to close Love as it was intended. The cities decide how they want to manage their air transportation and the airlines follow. In this case, Southwest is trying to do the opposite.

Furthermore I reiterate that workers don't need protection. Tough for me? If AA ever goes belly up I sell my house, find another job take my 401k with me and move on. I've already considered it. Can you? I don't think so otherwise you would have left long time ago. Can't believe that someone that has his future so tied with an entity wishes so much for its demise. Self - destruction anyone?

 

[AMFAMAN]

I am a resident of uptown Dallas.

[post="307337"][/post]​

Got to be management or a pilot, no APFA or twu union employee can afford to live there. 😛 😛 😛

 

[Ch. 12]

Once again you are making things up. Was AA the biggest carrier at DFW when the WA was approved? Braniff and Texas Air where he big airlines back then. AA managed to grow against those airlines in the same playfield. WA did not help nor hurt that evolution. Tying the WA to AA is just another one of those myths than you are trying us to believe. AA had nothing to do with that. But after years of competing and investing at DFW AA and any other airline that has invested at DFW has to defend its investment from some sneaky airline that wants to gain market share through the back door.

If you 'force' all carriers to DFW you actually lower the costs per departure, to the point that it could become competitive with Love Field. If you do the opposite as you suggest cost do go up until the whole airport becomes prohibitive.

To your last point. I may be an AA employee, but first and foremost I am a resident of uptown Dallas. As such I see any expansion at Love Field from Southwest or anyone else a threat to my neighborhood. I already have to enjoy the noise from its current flight schedule, I don't want nor need any more. That is why all the residents of that area are against it. There has been a lot of investment in hotels, high-rises in the Downtown - uptown Dallas area, that is going to get screwed if flights at Love get out of control. Just so Southwest can save some bucks. No thank you.

[post="307337"][/post]​

Huh? Who is making things up?? I never said that AA was the largest at DFW when the WA came about! Your arguments all follow the same pattern...twist what others say to distort the truth. So YES...AA IS CURRENTLY the largest carrier at DFW. Disput that? And YES...AA was able to obtain the largest fortress hub in the U.S. due largely to the protection that the WA afforded them. No...the WA was not meant to protect AA in the beginning but it became a quick "second benefit" as AA only had to face Braniff and TI for 7 and 6 years respectively after DFW opened. Did you know that it was AA that ran Braniff out of business? You have proven in the past that you do not know your history so please don't make it up. I put nothing but facts here.

I never said to force carriers to DAL, did I? I said that it allows more carriers into Dallas and lower fares for all. More flights to the combined airports means lower total operating costs...now that is your logic (i.e. economies of scale)...not something made up.

And as to your noise...you still evade my question as to why you cannot even buy a ticket for connections at DAL or for connecting flights to real markets originating/arriving at DAL? You know...you could have the same # of flts but could open up REAL markets AND lower fares by getting rid of that idiotic clause.

Finally...Most major cities would give anything to have existing facilities to use to allow more competition and lower fares for their taxpayers. Why create a parking lot at a primely located airport that can only benefit the region...not hurt it? I am pretty sure that DFW will make it and I can guarantee that it would help the industry...not just WN...if AMR were finally forced to face competition.

 

[FWAAA]

To your last point. I may be an AA employee, but first and foremost I am a resident of uptown Dallas. As such I see any expansion at Love Field from Southwest or anyone else a threat to my neighborhood. I already have to enjoy the noise from its current flight schedule, I don't want nor need any more. That is why all the residents of that area are against it. There has been a lot of investment in hotels, high-rises in the Downtown - uptown Dallas area, that is going to get screwed if flights at Love get out of control. Just so Southwest can save some bucks. No thank you.

[post="307337"][/post]​

As if a few more flights at DAL will actually make a difference. 200 daily takeoffs and landings aren't enough to scare you off when buying, but another 100 or so daily must be resisited? 🙄

People buy/build near airports and then complain that they hear airplanes.

If ya buy/build near an airport - you must either love airplane noise/jetfuel fumes or you have been high.

Don't worry about the hotels - there's lots of successful hotels near very busy airports.

 

[Bob Owens]

WA was not intended to protect DFW. DFW does not need protection. It was a compromise to avoid further push to close Love as it was intended. The cities decide how they want to manage their air transportation and the airlines follow. In this case, Southwest is trying to do the opposite.

Its a rediculous law anyway and it flies in the face of everything to claim to espouse.

Furthermore I reiterate that workers don't need protection.

No, only companies do right?

Tough for me? If AA ever goes belly up I sell my house, find another job take my 401k with me and move on. I've already considered it. Can you?

Can I? Sure, but since I'm number 2000 out of 10,000, I, like AMR, have invested a lot in the place where I'm at and I'm going to fight to get back what was taken. If that doesnt happen and AA disappears then I'll just have to move on and I will. Basically following your logic AA should just say nothing and accept the fact that SWA has a superior business plan, I mean you tell us that we should just accept whatever AA wants to do to us then you turn around and expect us to fight for AA. You expect us to fight against a company that pays and treats its workers better than AA. From a workers point of view wouldnt it be in our best interests to see such a company thrive, to see a company that treats its workers well thrive while others fall behind?

I don't think so otherwise you would have left long time ago.

Huh? Did AA go belly up?

Can't believe that someone that has his future so tied with an entity wishes so much for its demise.

Not at all. Who said I wish for its demise? AA existed before DFW and their primary source of profits is its international routes out of cities like NY, MIA, and LAX.

Self - destruction anyone?

Do you honestly believe that AA would fail if SWA started flying interstate out of Love? I dont. But if thats the case then let it happen sooner rather than later so SWA can expand and hire us, after all they do pay better.Given the choice of competitors to kill us off I would much rather that it be SWA than Jet Blue.

 

[Bob Owens]

As for your 'uncompetitive' argument. Airports are not businesses, and are not supposed make money.

Tell that to the bondholders.

They are public facilites. Public facilities provide services,

Dont airlines provide a service?

they don't compete.

Well if they dont compete then why is DFW spending money in order to prevent competition from Love?

Don't be fooled. The Wright amendment does not deter competiton. There is plenty of room to add capacity at DFW. W.A. Is just a commitment made law, developed 30 years ago to support a joint city planning effort to centralize aviation.

Well then what is all the fuss about? Let SWA fly wherever they want. Nobody restricts them out of ISP. The Port Authority of NY/NJ has three airports serving NYC and nobody is crying about SWAs growth in ISP being a disaster for those airports. AA abandoned ISP and never really put and effort towards building up service so SWA moved in. For the most part SWA created new markets, they got people who would have driven otherwise.

 

[air_guy]

Huh? Who is making things up?? I never said that AA was the largest at DFW when the WA came about! Your arguments all follow the same pattern...twist what others say to distort the truth. So YES...AA IS CURRENTLY the largest carrier at DFW. Disput that? And YES...AA was able to obtain the largest fortress hub in the U.S. due largely to the protection that the WA afforded them. No...the WA was not meant to protect AA in the beginning but it became a quick "second benefit" as AA only had to face Braniff and TI for 7 and 6 years respectively after DFW opened. Did you know that it was AA that ran Braniff out of business? You have proven in the past that you do not know your history so please don't make it up. I put nothing but facts here.

I never said to force carriers to DAL, did I? I said that it allows more carriers into Dallas and lower fares for all. More flights to the combined airports means lower total operating costs...now that is your logic (i.e. economies of scale)...not something made up.

And as to your noise...you still evade my question as to why you cannot even buy a ticket for connections at DAL or for connecting flights to real markets originating/arriving at DAL? You know...you could have the same # of flts but could open up REAL markets AND lower fares by getting rid of that idiotic clause.

Finally...Most major cities would give anything to have existing facilities to use to allow more competition and lower fares for their taxpayers. Why create a parking lot at a primely located airport that can only benefit the region...not hurt it? I am pretty sure that DFW will make it and I can guarantee that it would help the industry...not just WN...if AMR were finally forced to face competition.

[post="307377"][/post]​

Sorry but what you say about Braniff is pure myths and speculation from your part. For that matter I would say that Southwest is trying to drive US airways out of business, but I have not proof so there is no fact there.
AA has not taken advantage of WA, just developed a business plan surrounding the current legislation. Saying otherwise is just feeding the same myths and lies that Southwest is pushing through the media. I know more about aviation than you'll ever dream to have.
If you have plenty of room in one airport there is no need to add more airports or build new ones. That is the case isn't it? Where are we going to find airlines to fill so much available space at the two airports? Don't bring me your already flawed argument of lower prices will increase demand. Looking carefully at WN hypocritic arguments, it is clear to me they think it can not be done. So the only ones being able to offer lower fares are the ones flying from DAL.

As your question regarding through ticketing. I'll be honest I have no opinion regarding that. Just the fact that it was part of the first compromise. If the cities by its own initiative decide that they want to release that restriction so be it. That applies to the whole WA in my opinion. But doing it because WN wants it ...that is pure BS. Any compromise at this point will just encourage WN to continue trying until it gets what it wants. It is clear that WN word can not be trusted, and it is better to leave things the way they are or better yet, go back to the original commitment and close DAL as it was origianlly intended. There is plenty of room at DFW for current and future capacity. DAL is an old substandard infrastructure whose existance is a threat to many sorounding neighborhoods now that Southwest has proven that it can not keep up its word.

 

[Bob Owens]

I know more about aviation than you'll ever dream to have.

[post="307403"][/post]​

Introducing the Oracle of Aviation-AIR_GUY!!!!

Now you should work on your English Grammar.