Will SWA buy, or merge with another airline in the near future?

[WNMECH]

Uh, no.

First, WN is a low fare airline, not low cost.

Second, there's no way you can claim they're the smallest when they're the #1 carrier in domestic enplanements.
 
 

Uh, yes they are.
 
We can argue the semantics of it but I can find dozens of examples (including the DOT) where WN is considered a Low Cost Carrier.
WN's costs have risen over the past decade and the legacies have lowered costs, so some may claim they are no longer low cost.
 
I am curious as to when you consider WN ceased to be a Low Cost Airline (year), what metrics are you using and who in the government or business community agrees with your analysis?
 
 
Second, Southwest is smaller than the other 3 in every other meaningful category except the one you mention.
 
I am having trouble posting the links today.
 
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts044_14
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_airlines
 
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/bts43_14.pdf
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-cost_carrier
 
http://www.icao.int/sustainability/Pages/Low-Cost-Carriers.aspx

 

[WorldTraveler]

E is absolutely right regarding LCC. The DOT doesn't even use the designation and even if they did, WN probably couldn't pass. The difference in costs between them and the lowest CASM legacies is smaller than it has been between some of the legacies.

And it is also far from true that WN is a low fare carrier.

Their yield has been higher than some of the legacy carriers and their fares are growing faster than any of the legacy carriers.

WN ran to the DOJ who couldn't think it all thru to get assets as part of the AA/US merger before the DOJ realized that WN is not what it used to be.

WN is larger than the legacies in the domestic market and that is the one the gov't cares about.

They very closely regulate cooperation between US carriers in the int'l marketplace.



 

Nobody has or is pretending that this is a shut case-NOBODY!!!   This is your way to try to say I told you so later on when all this continues to fall apart and NOT in what you said would happen.  In other words you are already twisting up what people have said.  Right now Delta is fired from LF by the COD, not SWA, not UAL, not Virgin.  As of all my postings I speak of the NOW, which is Delta is gone and they have not filed a suit as of now.  NEVER have I or WN or anyone else has ever said that there will never be s suit either, so don't even try to go there.  What is odd is Delta has not done anything so far and the time is winding down, a week has past since the COD's announcement, and a week remains and still haven't heard a word from Delta except for the threat and only that Delta has "threatened" a suit.  Means nothing until they file it, anyone can threaten a suit all they want to.  I actually fully expect Delta to try and do something, but I am pretty sure that the rules and regs surounding the W/A, DOJ's requirements as well as the 5 parties involved agreement will prevail over any suit filed by Delta, and that is why I say Delta will indeed waste their money on a suit.  Yes, this is a very different situation all around compared to any other city out there, and there are very different rules and regs that must be followed and prevail over other regulations.  Like WN and E has said and told you over and over again, "YOU NEED TO READ ALL THE RULES AND REGS concerning the Dallas two airports, they are very different than any other city pair out there, period...

you can harp on DL being thrown out of DL all you want but the US is a land of laws.

DAL will have to abide by them and you will find that WN's ability to grow will be cut when it all shakes out.

You can take that to the bank, son.

 

[WNMECH]

E is absolutely right regarding LCC. The DOT doesn't even use the designation and even if they did, WN probably couldn't pass. The difference in costs between them and the lowest CASM legacies is smaller than it has been between some of the legacies.

And it is also far from true that WN is a low fare carrier.

The DOT does use the designation (and lists WN as such) and I posted some of the dozens of links from the DOT that prove it.


 

you can harp on DL being thrown out of DL all you want but the US is a land of laws.

DAL will have to abide by them and you will find that WN's ability to grow will be cut when it all shakes out.

You can take that to the bank, son.
 
 
It is a land of Laws, and this is the one that governs Love Field.

 
 
 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ352/pdf/PLAW-109publ352.pdf

 

[robbedagain]

Since when did u become swamt dad? Or for that matter everyone else's father

 

[WNMECH]

Since when did u become swamt dad? Or for that matter everyone else's father

Maybe WT is claiming to be SWAMTs Mom..

 

[WorldTraveler]

it probably means that little boy doesn't have near the knowledge he thinks he has.

if you guys are so sure of yourselves, why are you spending so much time trying to argue that WN will not have to rollback its schedule like I say is very possible that they will?

 

[WNMECH]

it probably means that little boy doesn't have near the knowledge he thinks he has.

if you guys are so sure of yourselves, why are you spending so much time trying to argue that WN will not have to rollback its schedule like I say is very possible that they will?

 
You are spending just as much time and you don't sound so sure now.
The only way WN would have to roll back service is if they lost one of their 16 gates.
I will state positively the that wont happen.

 

[robbedagain]

Its truly amazing to see how he flip flops on everything but acts like a know it all dude...

 

[WorldTraveler]

You are spending just as much time and you don't sound so sure now.
The only way WN would have to roll back service is if they lost one of their 16 gates.
I will state positively the that wont happen.

if WN is using UA's gates as an overflow gate, it is because they intend to schedule WN's own gates more heavily than they believe is comfortable to do.

so, yes, WN will have to either roll back its schedule, give up operational reliability by having to really fit its operation into its 16 gates, or it is making this arrangement just to squat on gates - and either way, a court can see thru it.

 

[WNMECH]

if WN is using UA's gates as an overflow gate, it is because they intend to schedule WN's own gates more heavily than they believe is comfortable to do.

so, yes, WN will have to either roll back its schedule, give up operational reliability by having to really fit its operation into its 16 gates, or it is making this arrangement just to squat on gates - and either way, a court can see thru it.

 
You have always been one to take what Gary Kelly says to be fact.
Why not so this time?
 
http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2014/10/southwest-ceo-says-it-will-use-united-gates-at-love-field-for-overflow.html
 
"We won't be scheduling flights off the United gates," Kelly said. "It will just be overflow on an as needed basis."
 
For example, on days when severe weather may delay flights, Southwest has permission to use one of United's gates to load passengers on or off an aircraft, he said.

Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2014/10/southwest-ceo-says-it-will-use-united-gates-at-love-field-for-overflow.html#storylink=cpy
 

Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2014/10/southwest-ceo-says-it-will-use-united-gates-at-love-field-for-overflow.html#storylink=cpy

 

[WorldTraveler]

uh, I got that.

if they can't use the WN gates AT ALL, then they will have to figure out how to make do with the 16 gates they have.

If they can do that now, they don't need the UA gates... and I strongly suspect they will not be allowed to use them.

 

[WNMECH]

So now you understand that regardless of what Delta does, WN will not have to "roll back its schedule", and you were wrong when you claimed it would.

 

[swamt]

Enough said> I have nothing to add.  Except WT is off his rocker at this point...

 

[robbedagain]

When isnt he?

 

[Kev3188]

 

Since when did u become swamt dad? Or for that matter everyone else's father

 
He's simply trying to use infantilization as a rhetoric tool in the hopes of coming across as more authoritarian and/or discrediting others. Hence the use of "son," referring to people as "kids," asking about "daddys," and so on.

He's not the first to try it, and he won't be the last...