United Airlines Flight

ShAArk92 said:
SWA wasn't screwed by the government ... they were protected. That's the only legitimate analysis for their beginning at DAL. Wright got involved and THAT resulted in the "adjacent State" requirement ... but that was years after SWA began operations at DAL which shouldn't have.

Wright got involved when the other carriers started squawking about having lost revenue in Dallas ... due to this little carrier's expanding operations ... that they should have been required to field at DFW from the beginning.
Click to expand...

You do know that the City of Dallas did try to oust SWA from Love Field, right? A federal judge ruled (correctly) that they had no basis for doing so. Since he had American Airlines' balls firmly and deeply entrenched in his mouth, Jim Wright decided to use the power of government to keep SWA from competing with his puppetmaster without moving to DFW even though they never agreed to do so.
 
Yeah I recall all that ... plus or minus your colorful characterizations ...

still doesn't change the fact SWA had government protection ... I've challenged the statement and it stands on its own. It is what is it is, but don't pretend SWA had something they didn't ... or that they didn't have something they DID.

I've said all I need to say on this rabbit chase.
 
If the United CEO will shut his trap, this will blow over pretty rapidly, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah when I heard he came out and apologized and thereby threw everyone except Dao under the bus, I figure you are on your own, now, buddy.
 
ShAArk92 said:
still doesn't change the fact SWA had government protection .
Click to expand...

All airlines have protection because the government enables them and throws money at them. In fact, I can think of few industries that have benefited more from government money. However, letting SWA stay at Love isn't protection. It's not forcing a company to abide by a contract it never agreed to.
 
A little point on Federal Aviation Regulations. To limo this crew to Louisville would be duty time. This is not transportation local in nature. Only after arriving at a hotel in Louisville would the crew receive the required 10 hours of rest with 8 hours sleep opportunity under Part 117 of those regulations. That was not a viable option as I see it.
 
ShAArk92 said:
Ah ... I like SWA ... but they haven't been the lowest fare in a LONG time.

They got their start ... and initial growth (first 20 years) with government protection ... so ... try again sir.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the Wright Amendment? You are obviously an employee of United or Delta.

I fly weekly. Yes, occasionally someone else is cheaper as long as I don't have a bag or don't want to sit in the back of the plane in a middle seat on the red eye.

SWA dominates.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Senator is offering legislation to eliminate the cap
Click to expand...

I think this is a move to accomplish a move.

I think what will happen going forward is the policy regarding travel vouchers at all/most carriers will be modified to emphasize avoiding passenger misbehavior at the expense of delaying/inconveniencing other passengers ... and possibly of those of a subsequent flight ... as HorninChicago mentioned ... pilots are now required by FAA regulations to have an 8 hour sleep opportunity ... that has increased the time required on the "layover" between days of duty and it relies upon timely local ground transportation.

So ... keep dickering with the rules ...and like the hair-trigger cancellation thanks to the DOT 3 hour rule ... passengers and crew alike will be inconvenienced more than they were previously.
 
ShAArk92 said:
I think this is a move to accomplish a move.

I think what will happen going forward is the policy regarding travel vouchers at all/most carriers will be modified to emphasize avoiding passenger misbehavior at the expense of delaying/inconveniencing other passengers ... and possibly of those of a subsequent flight ... as HorninChicago mentioned ... pilots are now required by FAA regulations to have an 8 hour sleep opportunity ... that has increased the time required on the "layover" between days of duty and it relies upon timely local ground transportation.

So ... keep dickering with the rules ...and like the hair-trigger cancellation thanks to the DOT 3 hour rule ... passengers and crew alike will be inconvenienced more than they were previously.
Click to expand...

What will most likely happen is that this story will die down, the industry's lobbyists will drag their nuts across the table on Capitol Hill, and the bill will die a quiet death.
 
theiioftx said:
Ever heard of the Wright Amendment
Click to expand...

II ... IDK why you're so defensive. Evidently from this post, you do not read the thread posts. Wright came along after the "exception" granted to Herb/co to operate out of an airport which was supposed to be closed to scheduled air carriers. It was supposed to be only for the Texas routes, also ... then it grew because of the convenience of DAL to Dallas passengers.

... and until the abolition of Wright, was the only carrier who could operate with >50 seats period, regardless of destination.

I said I like SWA overall ... but the facts are facts. What we want them to be is not always so.
 
The passanger said United taking him off the plane was "worse than the fall of Saigon and the Vietnam War."

Wow, really? I have no sympathy for this passenger at all now.
 
Mr. Deez said:
What will most likely happen is that this story will die down,
Click to expand...

I hope you're right, Deez. It didn't happen with the "tarmac delay" rule ... it's still adversely affecting the carriers' ability to complete flights.

I'd be slightly interested to know how $27.5K/passenger became the value required in the fine. But since it IS that ... there's no reason to risk being assessed the fine, yes? Cancel.

... and they have been ever since the rule went into effect.

Lesson --- more government is generally a bad thing.
 
ShAArk92 said:
II ... IDK why you're so defensive. Evidently from this post, you do not read the thread posts. Wright came along after the "exception" granted to Herb/co to operate out of an airport which was supposed to be closed to scheduled air carriers. It was supposed to be only for the Texas routes, also ... then it grew because of the convenience of DAL to Dallas passengers.

... and until the abolition of Wright, was the only carrier who could operate with >50 seats period, regardless of destination.

I said I like SWA overall ... but the facts are facts. What we want them to be is not always so.
Click to expand...
I read the posts. You really know the airline industry, but to say SWA did not experience significant interference is naive.

I do not know what you are talking about on 50 seats. Others could not fly with greater than 50 seats?

To me, Jim Wright was protecting DFW. Kay Bailey fell right in line. I remember flying into Love and being forced to get off plane, then re-board same flight because of that idiotic law. I expect we are about to get similar stupid legislation due to United's dumb actions.
 
ShAArk92 said:
II ... IDK why you're so defensive. Evidently from this post, you do not read the thread posts. Wright came along after the "exception" granted to Herb/co to operate out of an airport which was supposed to be closed to scheduled air carriers. It was supposed to be only for the Texas routes, also ... then it grew because of the convenience of DAL to Dallas passengers.

... and until the abolition of Wright, was the only carrier who could operate with >50 seats period, regardless of destination.

I said I like SWA overall ... but the facts are facts. What we want them to be is not always so.
Click to expand...
Actually, ALL airlines could fly to the 4 adjoining states or within Texas with aircraft with more than 56 seats. Fewer than 56 seats was required to have no restrictions on destinations. Legend tried in 2000 but failed in 2001.
 
I just read a comment on another blog which said Dao actually "boarded" THREE times. Looking for corroboration ... any help would be handy as a shirt pocket.

First boarding ... general/normal boarding
... he'd accepted the $800 voucher was escorted off by airline personnel and then changed his mind and ran back aboard.

Escorted off by airline folks again ... then he made the self-inflicted nose-blooding rush back on the jet ... (this is when the videos started)

Final removal (sensational) with the ORD LE.
 
horninchicago said:
Fewer than 56 seats
Click to expand...


Ah ... I stand corrected ... got the number crosswired with another limitation which isn't relevant according to folks like SeattleHusker. (SCOPE clauses)

Thanks.

Yes, I very much recall Legend's radio advertisements. They were clever. Tough to make money with 56 seat aircraft in the modern fare structure ... they have to be subsidized by operations with lower cost/seat mile (that equals bigger airplanes)
 
ShAArk92 said:
I just read a comment on another blog which said Dao actually "boarded" THREE times. Looking for corroboration ... any help would be handy as a shirt pocket.

First boarding ... general/normal boarding
... he'd accepted the $800 voucher was escorted off by airline personnel and then changed his mind and ran back aboard.

Escorted off by airline folks again ... then he made the self-inflicted nose-blooding rush back on the jet ... (this is when the videos started)

Final removal (sensational) with the ORD LE.
Click to expand...
This hasn't been covered in the "news"? Shocked, I tells ya!
 
Mr. Deez said:
Without the government,
Click to expand...

I did say "generally."

This industry is the least deregulated industry of all deregulated industries ... basically they turned-loose of the seat pricing. Still have slot regulations as well as flight operations regulations.
 
ShAArk92 said:
I just read a comment on another blog which said Dao actually "boarded" THREE times. Looking for corroboration ... any help would be handy as a shirt pocket.

First boarding ... general/normal boarding
... he'd accepted the $800 voucher was escorted off by airline personnel and then changed his mind and ran back aboard.

Escorted off by airline folks again ... then he made the self-inflicted nose-blooding rush back on the jet ... (this is when the videos started)

Final removal (sensational) with the ORD LE.
Click to expand...
Why didn't they arrest him the first time? Strange
 
ShAArk92 said:
Ah ... I stand corrected ... got the number crosswired with another limitation which isn't relevant according to folks like SeattleHusker. (SCOPE clauses)

Thanks.

Yes, I very much recall Legend's radio advertisements. They were clever. Tough to make money with 56 seat aircraft in the modern fare structure ... they have to be subsidized by operations with lower cost/seat mile (that equals bigger airplanes)
Click to expand...
I was a fueler at Dalfort Aviation at Love and used to fuel their DC-9s.
 
ShAArk92 said:
Good question ... like I say, trying to verify/corroborate/validate instigate ... "trying SOMETHING ... ANYTHING ... OMGoodness WHAT are you DO ING?" :p
Click to expand...
That women saying "Oh my God" over and over was annoying enough. If it is true that this video with her saying that was on this guy's third boarding attempt, then she should have had her *** dragged off, too lol.
 
In the big post 9/11 airline bailouts, United actually got turned down for the bailout money they requested, because their request was judged to be an attempt to get a leg up on the competition and not a necessity of the post-9/11 word, and because their recovery plan for how they were going to use that bailout money was ruled financially unsound. With amazing disingenuous-ness, United boasts of having not received government funds like everyone else did (never mind that Wikileaks proved they were being subsidized by the government even before 9/11).

They only survived by declaring bankruptcy, and by saving money with tactics such as cutting retiree's pensions by up to 50% and systematically lying to customers about cancelled or delayed flights so that they would rebook with United and not with any other carrier. A few years later their CEO got a 40% raise. A couple of years after that, he resigned amidst corruption, and a got a $37 million pension and free flights.
 
Last edited:
ShAArk92 said:
I did say "generally."

This industry is the least deregulated industry of all deregulated industries ... basically they turned-loose of the seat pricing. Still have slot regulations as well as flight operations regulations.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the regulations. I'm talking about all the support they've gotten from government over the years. They fly in and out of airports that are bankrolled by governments and land that was condemned by government. They fly aircraft whose technology was mostly developed with government money. Many of the pilots they have hired over the years have been trained in the military at taxpayer expense.

What if the government truly did nothing for the airline industry? What if they had to go buy land on the open market to build airports and without the power of eminent domain? What if the military had never cared to buy jet-powered bombers, aerial refueling tankers, and cargo planes? Would the airlines have taken the huge gambles to develope the aircraft on their own? Highly unlikely. We'd probably still be cruising around in DC-3s and landing at tiny airfields with grass runways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top