Opposition To Wn At Sea

[MiAAmi]

http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/art...ction=1&id=3245

 

[corl737]

No one is surprised by the formation of the Sound Air Alliance. Anytime anyone proposes a project anywhere someone will be against it. Do make sure you keep the facts in mind regarding this "Alliance." Read this excerpt from today's (8/24) USA Today. See any businesses or organizations that might want to prevent a truly free-market economy from taking hold in Seattle?

The Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Seattle and several competing airlines were all among business that formed the Sound Air Alliance — a group working to prevent Southwest from moving to Boeing Field, according to The Seattle Times.


Furthermore, the Seattle Times article quotes a local source regarding the formation of this group:

Kaushik attributed the alliance to an effort by the Port of Seattle, which owns Sea-Tac Airport, to boost the appearance of opposition to Southwest's proposal.

 

[Human Freight]

What is wrong with the Free Market competition at Sea Tac?

Oh yes that is right Southwest does not want to compete with the rest of the airlines on an even playing field. Anyone who supports the WA will find this very familar.

 

[corl737]

Oh yes that is right Southwest does not want to compete with the rest of the airlines on an even playing field. Anyone who supports the WA will find this very familar.

[post="292136"][/post]​

Ok, Human Freight, put youself in Gary Kelly's seat. You know that the only way to be profitable without raping your employees is to control every possible cost. What do you do? (I'd guess you'd vote against making political waves, accept the high costs, and attempt to ream concessions from labor since that's probably the management style you're most familiar with. In case you haven't noticed, SWA's management isn't typical in any fashion!) Several SWA labor groups have contractural raises coming up. Gary has said he wants to find a way to pay for them! That means cutting costs elsewhere so the money can go to the employees.

Nothing in business is about "competing on an even playing field." It is 100% about competing legally to gain a competitive advantage. To do this you have to be ready to examine every possible option. Proposing a new facility at Boeing Field is completely legal. No one was killed. No bribes were handed out. It just happens to shake the locals out of their comfort zones to realize their beloved SeaTac isn't the great utopia they thought it was and - shock! - there are local alternatives!

SWA's pursuing a repeal of the Wright Amendment is a very similar situation. It is less expensive to try to get the law eliminated than to split its operations or move to DFW. It's all about the costs! If costs weren't important AA would be flying head-to-head against SWA at Love Field right now. Even they recognize a bad business practice every now and then.

 

[markkus757]

It seems to me that Sea-Tac doesn't like being held accountable for cost overruns on the new expansion plan. Tough. Airports, including mine, have to start to curb their growth on the cost side of the business or we won't have any customers.

 

[jimntx]

Several SWA labor groups have contractural raises coming up. Gary has said he wants to find a way to pay for them! That means cutting costs elsewhere so the money can go to the employees.

[post="292227"][/post]​

There is another option...Don't agree to raises you can't afford.

 

[luver41]

If Seattle doesn't want those additional Southwest flights there are plenty of cities that do. If the locals kill the Boeing Field deal, don't expect much in the way of Southwest flight increases at Sea-Tac.

 

[KCFlyer]

What is wrong with the Free Market competition at Sea Tac?

Oh yes that is right Southwest does not want to compete with the rest of the airlines on an even playing field. Anyone who supports the WA will find this very familar.

[post="292136"][/post]​

HF...should the actions at SWA result in lower costs for all airlines that operate at Sea-Tac, can we expect your words of thanks?

 

[corl737]

There is another option...Don't agree to raises you can't afford.

[post="292376"][/post]​

Please cite your source validating the statement that SWA can't afford the raises.

Unlike most airlines, SWA still functions because management knows that it is labor that makes it all work. Gary Kelly recognizes that the long-term value of preserving the culture of SWA is worth more than whatever a pay cut would generate in the short term. He isn't taking the easy way out by going to labor first. These were contracts that have been in place for years ... long before the days of $60+/bbl oil. Gary believes in fulfilling promises if at all possible. He'll explore every non-labor cost reduction option until they are exhausted. Then, and only then, will he ask labor to renegotiate.

Surely this is the same management concept practiced at every airline.

 

[JS]

The flight attendant contract has not been around for years. Maybe Kelly should have grown a pair and told the flight attendants to stuff it.

 

[ramper_in_las]

The flight attendant contract has not been around for years. Maybe Kelly should have grown a pair and told the flight attendants to stuff it.

[post="292499"][/post]​

swa management is obviously doing something right (wright ) All of wn's competition had a chance to model their business after the way they do theirs but instead try to reinvent the wheel. It is also obvious that SEA fees are through the roof and seattle's own hometown airline had to lay off 500 ramp employees earlier this year. SO WHEN THE COMPETION MAKES A PROFIT AND CAN KEEP THEIR EMPLOYEES ALL YOU WHINERS CAN LEAVE UNTIL YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE GRIPE!!!

 

[PHX-F/A]

check the seattletimes.com site. There seems to be daily stories on this hot issue.

The story on 8-24 said Alaska is now making noise that if SW leaves, so will they. That seems like an empty threat because they have code share agreements they would not be able to operate by leaving Sea-Tac.

 

[corl737]

The flight attendant contract has not been around for years. Maybe Kelly should have grown a pair and told the flight attendants to stuff it.

[post="292499"][/post]​

Feel free to nit-pick all you want. Gary Kelly didn't negotiate the FA contract. He inherited it when he became CEO. Unlike some other airline CEO's he is doing the decent and noble thing by adhering to its terms.

 

[SWAFA30]

The flight attendant contract has not been around for years. Maybe Kelly should have grown a pair and told the flight attendants to stuff it.

[post="292499"][/post]​

Gary Kelly has only been CEO for a year. At the time the current F/A contract was ratified, his title was CFO. If anyone should have "grown a pair"(charming analogy by the way) it should have been then CEO Jim Parker or more accurately Herb Kelleher who stepped in and brokered the current agreement.

 

[corl737]

check the seattletimes.com site. There seems to be daily stories on this hot issue.

The story on 8-24 said Alaska is now making noise that if SW leaves, so will they. That seems like an empty threat because they have code share agreements they would not be able to operate by leaving Sea-Tac.

[post="292631"][/post]​

I agree with your thoughts. My personal opinion is Alaska's huffing (like AA in Dallas) is a ploy intended to get the public riled up about the possibility of billions of overflights and enormous noise from Boeing Field (or Dallas Love Field) operations. The facts don't support the ruse but the public is gullible and buys into the fear-mongering. Thus, the counter-attack is successful without having to move one airplane or utter one word of explanation that the claims are utter long-shots even by las Vegas standards.

(A few $ in the local politicians campaign war chests doesn't hurt the effectiveness of the effort either. :down: )