Southwest's Crusher

[luvn737s]

Given the severe disciplinary repercussions of uttering an unflattering opinion of WN, I didn't expect any honest assesment of WN's future vulnerability by any WN employee. I was not disappointed.

However, outside the park gates, in the real world, many do not see WN as bulletproof. WN got into the business because they saw an opportunity to exploit the commodity nature of their product and undercut the industry. Now they have trained the traveling public to assume that all airlines should be able to price their seats as cheaply as WN. Even airlines with international operations, with interline baggage service, with service to small cities, with inflight entertainment, with a premium level of service, you know the type of airlines that regulation was originally put in place to help establish.

Now with WN as the dominant carrier their influence can be felt beyond the airline biz. Boeing has shuttered the 757 line and basically the 747 as well. As long as WN demands old-technology 737's, research and development on any new products such as a 7E7 equivalent replacement for the 737 will have to wait. What the 800lb gorilla wants is what we are all forced to eat (unless you prefer French cooking).

The intent of my original post was to highlight the 800lb. gorilla nature of WN and how they are no longer the nimble underdog. They probably have a few more years of being able to show a profit (is there an accounting equivalent for not using ACARS for times reporting?) their future is far from guaranteed. WN relies almost exclusively on cheap fares. Fares some could argue border on predatory pricing.

I have heard it said that there are two ways to have the tallest building in town 1) Keep building yours or 2) Tear everyone else's down. WN's success seems to come only as a result of other's failures. That seems like a pretty limited plan.

PS- I don't fly for US. Keep guessin'!

 

[hobbes]

"Given the severe disciplinary repercussions of uttering an unflattering opinion of WN, I didn't expect any honest assesment of WN's future vulnerability by any WN employee."

Then why did you bother posting here?

Disciplinary action? I think you've got the wrong airline, buddy. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason the employees are so positive on Southwest is because they actually LIKE their jobs? I know life isn't grand at USAirways right now, but is it beyond your conception to actually like your job and your company's leadership?

And who on earth said Southwest was bulletproof? If there's anything the last 3 years have taught Southwest employees, it's that we're far from bulletproof.

"The intent of my original post was to highlight the 800lb. gorilla nature of WN and how they are no longer the nimble underdog. They probably have a few more years of being able to show a profit (is there an accounting equivalent for not using ACARS for times reporting?) their future is far from guaranteed. WN relies almost exclusively on cheap fares. Fares some could argue border on predatory pricing."

No company's future is guaranteed. Ever. Welcome to the glory of capitalism.

But out of sheer envy or bitterness, you seem determined that Southwest is going to fail. All I'm saying is that the future of Southwest is the hands of both its employees and its leadership. There are challenges ahead, of course. There always have been, so challenges are nothing new to us. Again, welcome to capitalism.

And you obviously don't know the definition of predatory pricing. Southwest is not even close. Do some research before you make such an ignorant statement.

I gave you too much credit when I thought you were up for an intelligent discussion. With this one paragraph, you've shown your true colors. I think WNjetdoc had you pegged from your first post, and my hat's off to him.

Be gone with you, troll.

 

[tulswa]

Given the severe disciplinary repercussions of uttering an unflattering opinion of WN, I didn't expect any honest assesment of WN's future vulnerability by any WN employee. I was not disappointed.

However, outside the park gates, in the real world, many do not see WN as bulletproof. WN got into the business because they saw an opportunity to exploit the commodity nature of their product and undercut the industry. Now they have trained the traveling public to assume that all airlines should be able to price their seats as cheaply as WN. Even airlines with international operations, with interline baggage service, with service to small cities, with inflight entertainment, with a premium level of service, you know the type of airlines that regulation was originally put in place to help establish.

Now with WN as the dominant carrier their influence can be felt beyond the airline biz. Boeing has shuttered the 757 line and basically the 747 as well. As long as WN demands old-technology 737's, research and development on any new products such as a 7E7 equivalent replacement for the 737 will have to wait. What the 800lb gorilla wants is what we are all forced to eat (unless you prefer French cooking).

The intent of my original post was to highlight the 800lb. gorilla nature of WN and how they are no longer the nimble underdog. They probably have a few more years of being able to show a profit (is there an accounting equivalent for not using ACARS for times reporting?) their future is far from guaranteed. WN relies almost exclusively on cheap fares. Fares some could argue border on predatory pricing.

I have heard it said that there are two ways to have the tallest building in town 1) Keep building yours or 2) Tear everyone else's down. WN's success seems to come only as a result of other's failures. That seems like a pretty limited plan.

PS- I don't fly for US. Keep guessin'!

[post="197234"][/post]​

I recently herd of a very wise quote from an original Braniff Chief Pilot: "I worked there 32 years. We were profitable the first 27, then lost a tub of $ in a short time and closed the doors.

The accounting/ACARS comment I don't really understand. I know our times may not be totally accurate, they are done by humans. But they are probably much more accurate than you might think. We are going to start using ACARS time next year.

The -700s are the same as the -300s except they have a different wing, different engines, different tail, different landing gear. The airplane is admittedly a compromise, but a very effective one.. Good short haul airplane/good long haul airplane.

Our success is not at the expense of others failures directly. When SWA shows up, the market grows. If a carrier has been operating with little or no competition, it is likely they will become complacent unless they are very disciplined. Who is at fault if brand X is charging $500 for a ticket that one could purchase at SWA for $150 (and still make a profit).

I am not interested in who you fly for, just the facts.

 

[luvn737s]

TULSWA-
I didn't post here to push anyone's hot buttons or stir up name calling (I don't know what a "troll" is, do they mean trawl?) and your reasoned response is very refreshing.

ACARS? My experience (and only mine) has been that every flight I have been on on SWA has departed and/or arrived late, yet WN has a remarkably high on-time performance. My suspicion has extended into their accounting as well, but it may very well be unfounded.

-700? WN has wedded themselves to the 737 to the extent it would be almost inconceivable that they would change airplanes. Boeing would likely not pursue development of a significantly different replacement for the 737 if WN wasn't interested. Thus their dominance affects other airlines as well. But there is always Airbus, I suppose.

In markets such as MHT, or PVD or ISP, I think markets do grow when WN arrives, no doubt. And these are the types of successes that WN can be proud of. They took a risk and it has paid off. But do you really think that the PHL market will grow once WN has killed off USAir? Do you think that 16 flights a day to 10 cities will make up for the loss of the type of service that would allow someone in Altoona, PA to book a flight through to London on a USAir flight? If you look at WN major expansions: Florida (ex Piedmont) BWI (ex-US) SoCal (ex-PSA) MDW (Midway and ATA), you have to admit that they preyed on any airline weakened enough to not be able to sustain a fare war. Could they drive CAL out of Houston? AMR out of DFW? NWA out of DTW?

JBlue takes a little different approach. They take a LCC model and apply it it unique markets like the carribean and the northeast, yet they don't shy away from such WN strongholds as OAK and Florida.

 

[luvn737s]

Then why did you bother posting here?

[post="197251"][/post]​

A) This board is not the exclusive domain of WN employees.
B) There are posters out there with keen insight and able to contribute to the conversation. You don't seem to be one of them.

Be gone with you, troll.

[post="197251"][/post]​

Whatever a "troll" is. Do you mean trawl? If you're going to provide meaningful dialog, you gotta grow some hide, fella.

 

[firstamendment]

I
.

I was on an AA flight the other day. As soon as the f/as got through with the beverage service, they plopped down on their jumpseats and didn't move until time to pick up the service items prior to landing. Aside from the fact that this is a violation of company policy, it violates the FAR regarding frequent cabin checks.


While company policies become FAR's, this is not a FAA written FAR. All this fight over which f/a's do what is silly. No, I do not constantly go thru the cabin for the simple reason that THAT is a nuisance. Passengers want their trashed picked up. Also, a f/a has the right to sit on their jumpseat. You failed to mention length of flight ...just typical criticism. When I fly, just get the trash out of my way and leave me the hell alone. If I want something, I know where the galley is. Why does everyone out here think f/a's should be roaming around getting in the way of already cramped airplanes? You people are soooo silly. I nonrev alot and could care less if I ever see a f/a. You people don't want f/as, you want geisha girls or mammy slaves. Well, get over yourselves, sit your asses down on the plane and just shut the f### up because it ain't about you and your typically entitled ugly American mentallity. But we all know ALL those SWA f/a's are just perfect.

 

[jimntx]

Also, a f/a has the right to sit on their jumpseat. You failed to mention length of flight ...just typical criticism.

Yes, a flight attendant is entitled to a break--15 minutes. However, the company policy is that you are up and checking the cabin every 15 minutes. Now whether you like it or not, if you are an AA flight attendant, your contract says that the company, not you, gets to define what constitutes the duties of the flight attendant. You may choose to ignore the company's policies, but there is also a clause in the contract regarding "restriction of output" which can get your fanny fired. The flight, by the way, is blocked at 1hr, 59m, but is usually about 1hr, 40m.
The sour f/a was on his jumpseat for at least 1hr, 15m of that time.

Now maybe you haven't read a newspaper or looked at TV news since Sept. 10, 2001, but I have a quibble with a flight attendant who never looks up from the screen of their laptop computer except to make nasty faces at people trying to get into the lav.

When I fly, just get the trash out of my way and leave me the hell alone. If I want something, I know where the galley is. Why does everyone out here think f/a's should be roaming around getting in the way of already cramped airplanes? You people are soooo silly. I nonrev alot and could care less if I ever see a f/a. You people don't want f/as, you want geisha girls or mammy slaves. Well, get over yourselves, sit your asses down on the plane and just shut the f### up because it ain't about you and your typically entitled ugly American mentallity. But we all know ALL those SWA f/a's are just perfect.

[post="197275"][/post]​

Aren't you just the charmer? Lazy, bitter, and foul-mouthed. No wonder we are in financial trouble if you are an example of the flight attendants currently working. And, you can cut out the instructions to me to get over myself. I AM A FLIGHT ATTENDANT. Co-workers like you embarass me deeply.

 

[hobbes]

"There are posters out there with keen insight and able to contribute to the conversation. You don't seem to be one of them."

Because you never wanted a legitimate conversation in the first place. A conversation is give and take. You wanted people who would work with you and predict doom and gloom for Southwest. Anyone who dares to sees things differently than you is automatically labeled as being unable to contribute anything to the conversation. Or better yet, we're only supportive of our company because we fear disciplinary measures otherwise.

Well, if your idea of a conversation means I'll sit here and gleefully predict Southwest's downfall with you so you can feel better about your situation, count me out.

As I said, your motivation for this is completely transparent.

And actually, I meant troll. As in Internet troll. Look it up.

 

[sfb]

Given the severe disciplinary repercussions of uttering an unflattering opinion of WN, I didn't expect any honest assesment of WN's future vulnerability by any WN employee. I was not disappointed.

A lot of us aren't LUV employees. In fact, I haven't flown on Southwest in over four years. But I do admire the company for having good management and a bunch of good people working there. I still stand my my statement that the biggest threat to WN is from within -- but that good management and enlightened union leaders can keep Southwest prosperous for decades to come.

However, outside the park gates, in the real world, many do not see WN as bulletproof. WN got into the business because they saw an opportunity to exploit the commodity nature of their product and undercut the industry. Now they have trained the traveling public to assume that all airlines should be able to price their seats as cheaply as WN. Even airlines with international operations, with interline baggage service, with service to small cities, with inflight entertainment, with a premium level of service, you know the type of airlines that regulation was originally put in place to help establish.

A lot of companies enter an industry because they see an opportunity to be cheaper or better or faster or whatever. That's why Michael Dell went into the computer business, why amazon.com sells books, why Microsoft copied Apple, why FedEx got into package delivery, why HP started making printers, etc.

You actually have it backwards. The network carriers conditioned the public to expect all the amenities you listed (not to mention free upgrades, frequent flyer awards, etc.) at prices that matched Southwest. No one ever said that the legacy carriers had to compete on price! Hilton doesn't compete on price with Motel 6, and Lexus doesn't compete on price with Kia. But the network carriers must deliver a product which, in the eyes of the passenger, justifies a premium price. An assigned seat and inedible meal don't count for much to most people, and service to small cities isn't that important to most, either. For most folks, it's not worth, say, $100 extra to fly to GON when PVD is 45 minutes up the road.

You can think that regulation was a good thing, but the fact is that the industry back then was only 1/4 to 1/3 the size it is today. So most of the folks at the network carriers wouldn't have jobs if the industry were regulated, and a lot fewer people would be on the planes. Not to mention the attendant effects on industry and tourism.

Now with WN as the dominant carrier their influence can be felt beyond the airline biz. Boeing has shuttered the 757 line and basically the 747 as well. As long as WN demands old-technology 737's, research and development on any new products such as a 7E7 equivalent replacement for the 737 will have to wait. What the 800lb gorilla wants is what we are all forced to eat (unless you prefer French cooking).

The 747 is done because (1) there are lots of them in the market already and (2) 777's, A340's, and A380's all nibble away at the 747's niche from below and above. U.S. carriers wouldn't be operating tons of 747's domestically even if Southwest didn't exist -- they're just too darn hard to fill on a regular basis. Southwest isn't responsible for the RJ explosion -- the legacies are. The 757 has been shuttered largely because the 737NG's and A320 family can do most of what the 757 used to do. The 737's and A320's have transcon range, and the 739 and A321 can carry almost as many people as a 757 with significantly lower capital cost for the aircraft.

The statement, "As long as WN demands old-technology 737's, research and development on any new products such as a 7E7 equivalent replacement for the 737 will have to wait" essentially shows that you are either full of it or ignorant. Southwest management has stated that they may be interested in a smaller version of the 7E7 with similar capacity to the 737. It is certainly not hard to imagine a 737-sized aircraft incorporating 7E7 technology, and Southwest would be crazy to pass up the potential savings.

The intent of my original post was to highlight the 800lb. gorilla nature of WN and how they are no longer the nimble underdog. They probably have a few more years of being able to show a profit (is there an accounting equivalent for not using ACARS for times reporting?) their future is far from guaranteed. WN relies almost exclusively on cheap fares. Fares some could argue border on predatory pricing.

No, Southwest relies on rational fares. Roughly 35% of their passengers pay full fare because their full fare offers value. They're not trying to sell a handful of $1000 transcon seats and then fill up the rest of the aircraft with $99 seats. They'd rather fill up a third of the aircraft with $300 tickets and sell the rest for $100-150.

Southwest is still nimble enough to, say, add more capacity at MDW in light of a competitor's decision to exit the market. But they are also probably one of the most deliberate in terms of choosing new markets or changing the product. I will guarantee you that LUV management will respond quickly to any "market opportunities" that may arise. I'm not sure if you consider their decision to eschew IFE failing to be "nimble; but then, if they do add it in the future, will the passengers care that jetBlue had it first?

I suppose you think that Southwest has engaged in a bunch of accounting shenanigans, but then they might have a tough time paying for all the planes in cash if they did. And it would probably be tough to show 32 consecutive years of profits without someone getting suspicious. After all, Enron only managed to pull their schemes off for a few years. Seriously, though, part of the reason Southwest has done so well is that they've been managed VERY conservatively. They have the lowest debt-to-equity ratio in the industry and own most of their planes, which helps keep costs down.

In markets such as MHT, or PVD or ISP, I think markets do grow when WN arrives, no doubt. And these are the types of successes that WN can be proud of. They took a risk and it has paid off. But do you really think that the PHL market will grow once WN has killed off USAir? Do you think that 16 flights a day to 10 cities will make up for the loss of the type of service that would allow someone in Altoona, PA to book a flight through to London on a USAir flight? If you look at WN major expansions: Florida (ex Piedmont) BWI (ex-US) SoCal (ex-PSA) MDW (Midway and ATA), you have to admit that they preyed on any airline weakened enough to not be able to sustain a fare war. Could they drive CAL out of Houston? AMR out of DFW? NWA out of DTW?

Well, to be frank, yes, I think PHL will grow long-term even if US is out of the picture. BWI had about 9.5 million passengers in 1993 when Southwest started service. In 2003, the airport's 18.8 million passengers nearly doubled the total from ten years before -- even with US Airways' presence reduced to a handful of flights.

I think you confuse "preying" on weakened competitors with taking on inefficient competitors. If Southwest had really, truly wanted to destroy TWA at STL, they could have grown the operation far more than they did. USAir had already pulled out of many California and Florida markets before Southwest entered them. And WN was operating 100+ daily flights at MDW long before ATA started growing its operation there.

Why did WN go into BWI? Two reasons. First, USAir had started to pull down the former PI hub operation there in favor of PHL and DCA. That presented a market opportunity for Southwest. Moreover, USAir had historically been the least efficient network carrier, and its high fares presented an attractive opportunity for Southwest to undercut them with its low-cost, rational-fare strategy. PHL is basically a repeat of BWI. US Airways had the opportunity in Chapter 11 to retool its business and reinvent the airline. Instead, they emerged with a half-a$$ed plan to do the same thing they were doing before, but smaller. I guess they thought that the LCC's would just stay out of BOS, PHL, PIT, CLT, LGA, and DCA. I'm not sure why, given that AirTran was at PHL and given that more expansion by WN in the Northeast was inevitable. Even more unbelievably, costs hardly came down! Non-fuel costs per ASM in 2Q04 at US were down by only 13-14% from 2000 (fuel for the quarter was 11% higher than 2000), and some of this is due to the fact that the company's average stage length was 20% higher.

 

[KCFlyer]

ACARS? My experience (and only mine) has been that every flight I have been on on SWA has departed and/or arrived late, yet WN has a remarkably high on-time performance. My suspicion has extended into their accounting as well, but it may very well be unfounded.

And in my experiences, I have only been on a handful of late flights. One of interest was MCI-OKC...Flight was about 20 minutes late from MDW, the rampers and gate agents managed to do a "10 minute turn", and our arrival in OKC was within the FAA definition of "on time." But is being a slave to ACARS for ontime ratings a good thing? I have been on several Delta flights where the door was closed a full 10 minutes prior to departure time. Why would they do that? I'm not sure how ACARS works, but if the doors are closed and the brakes released, doesn't that go down in the ACARS world as being "departed"?

But do you really think that the PHL market will grow once WN has killed off USAir? Do you think that 16 flights a day to 10 cities will make up for the loss of the type of service that would allow someone in Altoona, PA to book a flight through to London on a USAir flight?

No, they couldn't do that on Southwest. But they could take a flight from Altoona to JFK or EWR on AA or CO and get to London. But for the Philly residents wanting to go from PHL to MCI or MDW or BWI or several other cities, Southwest could grow.

If you look at WN major expansions: Florida (ex Piedmont) BWI (ex-US) SoCal (ex-PSA) MDW (Midway and ATA), you have to admit that they preyed on any airline weakened enough to not be able to sustain a fare war. Could they drive CAL out of Houston? AMR out of DFW? NWA out of DTW?

USAir did a pretty fair job of dismantling anything that had to do with Piedmont or PSA. They've been at Midway for quite some time, before the aforementioned airlines had the name "financially troubled" appended to their name. No, they haven't driven CAL out of Houston, but their traffic in Houston doesn't seem to be hurting down at HOU. AMR out of DFW?..not likely to happen, but I would not be surprised to see some WN flights operate out of DFW to get out from the WA restrictions.

JBlue takes a little different approach. They take a LCC model and apply it it unique markets like the carribean and the northeast, yet they don't shy away from such WN strongholds as OAK and Florida.

But from OAK and Florida to where? Cities where Southwest doesn't compete. Remember not too long ago when JetBlue started their fare war out of LGB to Southwest cities? I seem to recall that they cried "uncle" in a surprisingly short amount of time.

 

[Cfm56]

>>>>>Do you think that 16 flights a day to 10 cities will make up for the loss of the type of service that would allow someone in Altoona, PA to book a flight through to London on a USAir flight? <<<<<

The airlines are no longer operated like public utilities. If a market can't support flights, too bad and that's just the way it is. The object is to make money.

>>>If you look at WN major expansions: Florida (ex Piedmont) BWI (ex-US) SoCal (ex-PSA) MDW (Midway and ATA), you have to admit that they preyed on any airline weakened enough to not be able to sustain a fare war. Could they drive CAL out of Houston? AMR out of DFW? NWA out of DTW? <<<

Sorry, a regulated airline industry ended a long time ago. Even IF your premise is correct.....so what? It's called capitalism and free enterprise and a company can choose where and who to compete against.

 

[orangeman]

[FYI (I didn't know)

Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
On the Internet, troll is a slang term used to describe:

A person who makes posts (on newsgroups or other forums) that are solely intended to incite controversy or conflict, or cause annoyance or offense.
A post that is intended to incite controversy or cause offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.)
To some, the term has negative connotations and is often applied as an insult, while simultaneously being claimed as a badge of honour by troll organizations or individuals. Sincere but controversial or naive posters are often labeled as trolls, but the term is generally considered to be correctly applied only to those looking to provoke outrage or discord.

A troll's reactions to being identified as a troll can vary widely depending on the forum in which the exchange takes place. Any person unjustly accused of being a troll may be hurt and express indignation. A troll will sometimes react with verbal abuse, raising the stakes with inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of the accuser.

Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken. Self-proclaimed trolls often style themselves as Devil's Advocates or gadflies or culture jammers, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are trolling in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking. Detractors who value etiquette claim that true Devil's Advocates generally identify themselves as such for the sake of etiquette, whereas trolls often consider etiquette to be something worth trolling in order to fight groupthink.

Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially inept. This is often due to fundamental attribution error, as it is impossible to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at their goal.



quote=hobbes,Nov 2 2004, 03:23 PM]
"There are posters out there with keen insight and able to contribute to the conversation. You don't seem to be one of them."

Because you never wanted a legitimate conversation in the first place. A conversation is give and take. You wanted people who would work with you and predict doom and gloom for Southwest. Anyone who dares to sees things differently than you is automatically labeled as being unable to contribute anything to the conversation. Or better yet, we're only supportive of our company because we fear disciplinary measures otherwise.

Well, if your idea of a conversation means I'll sit here and gleefully predict Southwest's downfall with you so you can feel better about your situation, count me out.

As I said, your motivation for this is completely transparent.

And actually, I meant troll. As in Internet troll. Look it up.

[post="197418"][/post]​

[/quote]

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Given the severe disciplinary repercussions of uttering an unflattering opinion of WN, I didn't expect any honest assesment of WN's future vulnerability by any WN employee. I was not disappointed.

Many of us have prior experience at other carriers. We take that knowledge and apply it here so it won't happen again.

However, outside the park gates, in the real world, many do not see WN as bulletproof. WN got into the business because they saw an opportunity to exploit the commodity nature of their product and undercut the industry. Now they have trained the traveling public to assume that all airlines should be able to price their seats as cheaply as WN. Even airlines with international operations, with interline baggage service, with service to small cities, with inflight entertainment, with a premium level of service, you know the type of airlines that regulation was originally put in place to help establish.

I don't understand? Your premise is we aren't bullet proof. Then your are off in a different direction.

Now with WN as the dominant carrier their influence can be felt beyond the airline biz. Boeing has shuttered the 757 line and basically the 747 as well. As long as WN demands old-technology 737's, research and development on any new products such as a 7E7 equivalent replacement for the 737 will have to wait. What the 800lb gorilla wants is what we are all forced to eat (unless you prefer French cooking).

So our business model is bad for progress in avaition? Sorry.


The intent of my original post was to highlight the 800lb. gorilla nature of WN and how they are no longer the nimble underdog. They probably have a few more years of being able to show a profit (is there an accounting equivalent for not using ACARS for times reporting?) their future is far from guaranteed. WN relies almost exclusively on cheap fares. Fares some could argue border on predatory pricing.

We HAVE the ability to change as needed I see us more as an 800 lb camelion(sp?) we are able to adapt to our customers needs.


I have heard it said that there are two ways to have the tallest building in town 1) Keep building yours or 2) Tear everyone else's down. WN's success seems to come only as a result of other's failures. That seems like a pretty limited plan.

Others failures.......Hmmmm........How is that our fault?

PS- I don't fly for US. Keep guessin'!

It doesn't matter. You are entitled to your opinion. That's what this board's all about.

[post="197234"][/post]​

 

[KCFlyer]

Given the severe disciplinary repercussions of uttering an unflattering opinion of WN, I didn't expect any honest assesment of WN's future vulnerability by any WN employee. I was not disappointed....

PS- I don't fly for US. Keep guessin'!

[post="197234"][/post]​

You've pretty much blown your cover with the first statement, watts.

 

[WNjetdoc]

luvn737s, your blind hatred for SWA is so obvious. Your little line about the tallest building makes about as much sense as your whole post. Give it up pal, no one is buying the crap you're selling.

KC, you're on the right path about him being watts, but he could be even a bigger loser......5K, he,he,he.