Guest

Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 4:26 am

Heard on the news this morning that Southwest is refusing to pay for the damages caused by one of their 737's that over shot the runway and hit a gas station last year. According to the city of Burbank, it cost over 40 thousand dollars for the city to clean up, and repair the damages. However, Southwest says it will not pay because the amount of taxes they pay to use the Burbank airport (over 1 million), is more than enough to compensate for the damages. Burbank says they'll continue to fight. Does any one have updates on this story? So do you think Southwest will end up having to pay?

ps. If this has already been discussed here, I apologize.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 4:31 am

This is a tough one.
On one hand, with Southwest having been 120% at fault for this little incursion, perhaps they should be forced to pay because of negligence.

But on the other hand, they do have a valid point:
They pay taxes and insurance premiums to cover these little incidents.

This could get interesting.

If both sides wanted to play "hard ball" they both would ultimately lose.
Case in point: If Burbank forces them to pay (or at least refuses to drop the charges), then Southwest could very easily turn around and tell BUR that they are going to end service.

If Southwest were to pull out of BUR, that would be a devastating blow to BUR-all those pax suddenly left with no service. No PFC's, no parking, no one buying $3 Cokes.

But Southwest would also lose because they have a large customer base in the region.

This should get real interesting as it unfolds.
 
rominato
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 1999 12:18 pm

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 4:59 am

They should pay, IMO. It's their fault, they screwed up. If forced to pay,a nd they decide to pull back service, I'm sure the residents of Burbank wouldn't complain too loud... lots of folks there would rather see it shut down completely anyway. I sure wouldn't miss them there. It's just as easy to get to LAX from the valley via the Van Nuys Flyaway. Cheap, hassle free, great way to get where you want to go.
 
tupolev154b2
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 9:01 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 5:03 am

They should pay since it is a case of negligence.
 
Kubla
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 1:06 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 5:29 am

I have to admit the first thing that went through my head when I heard this is, "Don't they have insurance?"

What does an airline's insurance cover - and more importantly, what doesn' it?
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 5:35 am

Tupolev, it is not negligence with regard to the city as Southwest does not owe a duty to the city of Burbank. Therefore, by overrunning the runway, Southwest did not breach a duty owed to the city thereby causing it damage (the definition of negligence).

It is my opinion that Southwest has a point. They pay PFC's and landing fees for the maintenance and improvement of airport facilities. What is this if not maintenance and improvement? As justification put forth by cities to increase the charges imposed upon airlines (and consequently, on passengers), the city asserts that it needs the money to repair its facilities that are damaged. That is why the money is there. Allowing the city to recover $40,000 from Southwest entitles the city to recover twice: once in the form of its $40,000 and once in the form of taxes it has already collected.

By way of analogy, if I fall asleep while driving along the Dallas North Tollway and run into a toll booth, am I financially responsible for damage done to that toll booth. I don't think so as I already paid my $0.75 toll that goes for the maintenance of the road. If I have to pay again, then refund me my damn 75 cents.

This is the same thing. If the city forces Southwest to pay for the damage, then it should be forced to refund all of the PFC's that it has collected in the past ostensibly to defray the cost of maintenance to its facilities as it is clear that that is not where the money goes.
 
Kubla
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 1:06 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 5:47 am

WN Boy, I disagree with you. I think the Tollway is charging you 75 cents to cover the ordinary wear and tear you put on the road by normal driving, not to cover you smashing up a toll booth.

Obviously, they are going to have to start charging a much heftier toll if 75 cents gets everyone a free shot at toll booths, bridge abutments, guardrails, road signs, etc.

I think the same thing applies here: Southwest should be liable for the extra damage they caused the city above and beyond the normal wear and tear they put on the airport infrastructure in everyday operations. I can't imagine that when PFC revenue is allocated, somebody allows for an aircraft smashing through barriers and into a gas station every now and then.

But Southwest should also have insurance to cover this extra liability. Maybe they just don't want their premium to go up?
 
777X
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:44 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 5:52 am

Maint. does not imply damage caused above and beyond normal operational wear and tear as Kubla said.

Southwest better pay up.

 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 6:05 am

As someone who has had more than one wreck on the fine thouroughfares of Texas, let me assure you that in fact you do get a free shot at the guardrail. Following my occasional high-speed encounters with road obstacles, I have never received a demand letter insisting that I pay for the damage done to the road.

If anyone has ever been asked by the city of Burbank, or even the state of California, to pay for damage they did to the road in a traffic accident, please speak up. But if, as I suspect, that such a thing would never occur, this seems to me to be a money grab by a city that thinks that a large corporation will pay for anything.
 
User avatar
boeingrulz
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 1999 2:55 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 6:20 am

As part of US Federal, state, and possibly municipal laws it would most certainly be Southwest's responsibility to pay for clean up of dangerous chemicals spills such as gasoline. At the minium they should be required to pay those costs.

Carolyn
 
User avatar
Heavierthanair
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 11:20 pm

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 6:28 am

G'day

Filling up a gasguzzling 737 must be the business of the year for the owner of that particular gas station. At least you would expect the guy to mediate and try to resolve the apparent problems on hand. Would surely help to get repeat business.

Cheers
Peter

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879 - 1955)
 
BURules
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 6:41 am

WN boy -- I would not be so fast to dub Burbank as a large corporation exploiter. One look at the ease with which Disney, Warner Brothers, and NBC pushed through expansion in the heavily residential Media District would show how Burbank has on the whole been very pro-business, certainly more so than Los Angeles proper.

However, the airport has been a different story, with the fight against Glendale and Pasadena towards expansion, complicated by the fact that noise affects the Burbank and North Hollywood area far more than those two cities.

In any case, one would have to sift through quite a bit of legal paperwork to determine who truly bears the cost here, but my gut would tell me that when your pilot is the one who plowed the plane through the fence, then perhaps paying for the clean-up would be the nice thing to do . . .but not that simple, I know.
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 6:59 am

That's what I was thinking too. I think they should pay because it would indeed be the nice thing to do (after all, it was the pilots fault). Or, at least they can pay half of the bill, don't you think? They are probably going to have to pay damages to the injured lady who was in the car that the 737 hit. Either way you look at, Southwest was responsible for the mess. I think to maintain their friendly image, it would be better if they paid all or at least half the cost.
 
rominato
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 1999 12:18 pm

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 7:23 am

WN BOY-

I don't think the guard rails are a good analogy. AFAIK, they are considered part of the road, and are included in the normal wear and tear maintenence that we pay for in taxes. Their PURPOSE is to keep errant cars within the usable parts of the road and away from potential danger.

Your original suggestion about the toll booth may be more to the point. It is not placed where it is with the expectation that it will recieve wear and tear from cars barrelling into it. My guess is that someone stupid enough to put themselves in a position where they plow down the booth will be responsible for property damage incurred. That, of course, is where private insurance comes in.

It can be argued that this wall was not placed there for the puprose of stopping errant airplanes whose pilots put them in a position to go through it. In essence, the pilots put themselves in the position of destroying property not reasonably expected to go through such wear and tear, by simply not going around.

I have a very hard time seeing how Southwest is not at fault in this matter...
 
Kubla
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 1:06 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 7:24 am

WN Boy,

Good point about not getting a letter demanding the exact cost of roadside objects ruined with your car. But did you get a ticket? I know that when I had such an (ahem) encounter, I was speeding and I was cited for that. It may not have paid for all the damage to the guardrail but the fine still was a decent contribution to the county budget.

So maybe splitting the costs is an equitable way to go. After all, the plane was speeding at the end of the runway  Smile

 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 7:41 am

WN Boy --

Actually, I have a better analogy. People who negligently set fires, such as brush fires, are now charged with the cost of the fire crews that have to fight it. Even though the people may pay taxes that support the firefighters, if they are found to be negligently at fault (such as Southwest's pilot was), they are charged with the cost of clean-up.

This is a standard policy in most districts.

I think whether someone is charged is based on the fact of negligence. The pilot, in this case, was extremely negligent, entering the glide slope too high, trying to land to fast, ignoring warning signals, etc. etc.

As an agent of the company, the pilot made Southwest responsible. It was not weather or an act of God that crashed the plane. A negligent pilot did.
 
BOAT
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 11:01 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 9:57 am

Am I missing something here? This sounds like a mishap exclusively the fault of the crew, employees of Southwest. Same as if I caused damage to property from the operation of my eighteen wheelers. Lord knows I pay plenty in all kinds of taxes and licenses and assessments. I would be dreaming if I thought I could I could escape paying for damages caused by my drivers. To me this a no brainer. I say WN will eventually pay. BOAT
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 10:11 am

I bet they could get a hold of Jimmy Carter and get a deal on peanuts and use the money they save on the peanuts to pay for the damages. WaTcHa ThInK?
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 10:13 am

Travelin Man, you are correct that some states now provide that people who start fires may be charged with the costs of the firefighting. Similarly, Yosemite National Park now has a rule that someone caught on El Capitan has to pay the cost of his own rescue. But the difference is that in those cases there is a specific statute or regulation providing for recovery by the state or entity involved. I am not aware of any federal, state, county, or municipal statute, regulation, or ordinance that specifically covers this situation. If a member of the California Bar has different information, please tell.

Climbout, I think that you are correct. The way that I took your original suggestion, and I suspect the way that Southwest's legal department took Burbank's, was as a demand that Southwest pay up or else. Legally, I am not certain that Burbank has a leg to stand on. As a "nice thing to do" and "good public relations," I would tend to agree that Southwest should pay at least some of the cost.

If, however, as I suspect, Burbank sent a nasty demand letter from their city attorney insisting that Southwest pay for the damage to the perimeter fence and the jet blast deflector, it is not surprising that this correspondence was forwarded to Southwest's lawyers. It is similarly not surprising that Southwest's lawyers answered the demand letter as lawyers often do: "go screw yourselves, you have no legal grounds." Perhaps if Burbank had approached this problem as you suggest, they would have received a warmer receiption.
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 11:21 am

Which runway did it overshoot?...8/26 or 15/23?
 
vngd4me
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2000 7:25 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 11:25 am

I would agree that for the good PR, WN should pay at least a portion of the damages, provided some sort of reciepts or proof from the city of Burbank.

I also agree that WN is somewhat responsible for paying for the damages even if they pay these taxes which cover the average airport repairs, bills, upkeep and staffing, however this was beyond the norm and was the fault of bad WN crew judgement. If taxes included repairs from negligence of an airline, I believe those taxes would have to be much higher.

What about the CO plane that crashed through the terminal wall (I've forgotten now which airport) last July or August. Was Continental charged for those damages (also due to negligence) I would assume so. Anyone know the specifics?
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3151
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 11:46 am

The terminal was Newark I think

Just for the record, in Michigan, the gas pumps all have little stickers on them warning you that you are responsible for any spills that happen while you are fueling your vehicle. Then again gas and water don't mix, and if there's one thing that michigan has a lot of, it's water. That and mosquitoes.

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Early Air
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 6:53 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 12:06 pm

They sould come to an agreement in between. WN should not pay $40,000 but they should pay something.

Rgds,
Early Air
 
FedExHeavy
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 6:50 am

RE:FP_v2&refusal To Pay.

Fri Feb 23, 2001 12:42 pm

The runway that Southwest over shot was 8/26.
I agree with WN boy, and I also believe this is a no win situation for either party here. It was an unfortunite event but I think they should both count there blessings that it didn't come out worst, you know if the Boeing 737-300 slid a bit farther and tipped off the gas pumps adn people died. But this is reality and the parties in this postion don't think of this, it all comes down to the $. Either way you cut it someone is walking away mad. Should Southwest pay it, sure some of it, but I don't think Burbank should get all in up roar about it either and piss off the carrier that essentially domiantes the majority of the routes BUR has.
Just my two cents.
FedExHeavy
So far this is the oldest I've been.
 
Super Em
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 7:55 am

RE: RE:FP_v2&refusal To Pay.

Fri Feb 23, 2001 1:43 pm

I believe Southwest should pay.From what i'm reading in this post,it was pilot error.It was not weather or traffic related.It was all the pilot's fault.Plus he probably had a chance to abort and go around.Imagine if this accident was caused by something malfunctioning at the airport.I know that Southwest would go after the city to repair their 737.Does anyone know what happened to the pilot?If however Southwest does end up paying,I think the pilot should pay a percentage of it out of his salary.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 3:31 pm

It seems to me that Southwest should pay the cost of repair to Burbank Airport, because the crash was their fault. The pilot tried to approach too fast, which wasn't the airport's fault.

And for heaven's sake 40 grand isn't much. Had that plane slid twenty feet further there would have been cost of a whole different kind, plus tons more money to pay out. (though most of it probably would have come from insurance).

I was at BUR in August and you would never have known that a plane had gone thru the wall. The Chevron station looked as if nothing had happened.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 7:06 pm

One question: whose smart idea was it to stick a gas station at the end of a runway?

BUR should sent a 'reciept' listing hat the cost for every item was.
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Fri Feb 23, 2001 10:57 pm

The pilot was terminated. The union grieved the termination but it was upheld by the System Board. To my knowledge, he is still looking for employment elsewhere.
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Mon Feb 26, 2001 2:13 pm

I think you guys are all missing the point. It was my understanding that the City of Burbank is asking for the money to cover the costs of providing emergency services, not damages done to the airport or the roadway. Of course Southwest ( or their insurance company) should be responsible for the damages, but emergency services?

Here is a better article which gives the positions of both sides:

BURBANK, Calif. (AP) -- Southwest Airlines refuses to reimburse the city for $40,000 in emergency services provided after a jetliner skidded off a runway, crashed through a fence and rolled onto Hollywood Way just shy of gas station pumps.

City officials said Wednesday they will likely continue to push Southwest to pay the bill, which included the cost of police and firefighter overtime after the March 5 accident.

``When an airline lands one of its planes on our streets, the airline should be responsible for the costs associated with it,´´ Councilman Bob Kramer said. ``I think it´s a stretch to ask the taxpayers to pay for it.´´

Southwest said it was entitled to emergency services without additional fees because it pays taxes in Burbank, including $1.2 million last year.

``We´re very appreciative of the efforts and we certainly regret that they were necessary. But we have been contributing to the tax base in Burbank for about 11 years and, thankfully, we only have had minor need for those services, so we feel our contribution more than covers it,´´ Southwest spokeswoman Beth Harbin said.

The National Transportation Safety Board hasn't released an official cause of the accident involving Flight 1455 from Las Vegas. There were 142 people on board and five minor injuries.

END OF ARTICLE

As a citizen, I pay taxes that help cover police and firefighter's salaries, but I don't have to pay extra every time I actually use them. When the MGM Grand Hotel burned in Las Vegas, were they (the hotel owners) charged extra to cover police and firefighter's overtime? When the skybridges at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City collapsed and killed over 100 people in 1981, was the Hyatt charged extra for the police and paramedics overtime? If Southwest pays taxes, why should they have to pay for emergency services? Damages - yes, but services?I don't think so.

LoneStarMike

 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Mon Feb 26, 2001 9:24 pm

There are some strange arguments here. If you damage something you or your insurer should pay. It's that simple. All this "If you pay tax you can damage property" doesn't make sense.

It's like saying that if I pay my federal taxes to the IRS then I'm entitled to go along to the Whitehouse and punch George W in the face. Come to think of it........
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Mon Feb 26, 2001 11:15 pm

Wait a minute, if it is for the emergency services, then that is a different story. That definitely is part of what Southwest has paid for in taxes all these years--for airport fire and police protection. To charge them for using what they paid for in taxes is obscene. We can argue about the fence or the JBD, but the fire services, come on.

I know it is going to come up, so I will address it know. Someone brought out places that force you to pay for your own rescue from a mountain (e.g., Yosemite). However, at these places there is a specific regulation that permits the Park Service to recover those costs. Moreover, as I can tell you from personal experience, the ranger tells you about the rule when you enter the park.

Did BUR tell WN before the incident that they would be responsible for paying for fire services and police overtime. I doubt it. If they did not, it would be unfair to bushwack them now. This seems, however, to be the pet crusade of one city council member who is probably and AAdvantage member anyway. (Does anyone have the lowdown on Councilman Bob Kramer?)
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 12:15 am

Hmm...if Burbank wants to charge Southwest for emergency services in addition to airport wall repairs etc, that's a different story. Local governments generally don't charge people or corporations for the actual response of fire/ rescue service for an emergency situation. If Burbank has no statute providing for such charges, and they would like to start, then they can consider passing such a statute. But they couldn't enforce it on WN for a past incident; that's illegal under the Federal constitutional "ex post facto" provision.

If local governments want to charge for services, those charges need to be spelled out statutorily. For instance, DC law allows the District to charge organizers of large events for extra police services--directing traffic, clearing parade/ march routes etc. This is due to the fact that DC has lots of marches and parades every year--the pro-life march, "million man" and "million mom" marches, etc.

So when the NBA held its All-Star game at DC's MCI Arena a couple of weeks ago, they asked DC to waive $77 grand in extra police overtime etc for traffic direction and security. Mayor Williams had a good laugh and rightly told the filthy rich NBA to ante up.

But the Southwest situation is different--that's just plain emergency response. And unless Burbank had a law on the books at the time of the incident allowing them to charge WN, they can't collect.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 12:26 am

Jim, I hate to correct you, but a retroactive ordinance forcing Southwest to pay for emergency services would not be unconstitutional under the ex post facto clause. First, the ex post facto clause of Article 1, Section 10, only restricts what laws Congress may pass. Though it may be extended to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, I am unaware of any case doing so. More importantly, the prohibited ex post facto law only applies to criminal laws. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798). Accordingly, Congress may (and does) pass retroactive taxes and regulations.

Aside from that, your point is valid. I still wonder what ax Councilman Bob Kramer has to grind.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 2:38 am

Better to get accurate information out. I didn't realize that the ex post facto principle did not apply to local gov'ts, thanks for info. Are you an attorney?

There's a huge ongoing NIMBY ruckus going on in Burbank over the planned new terminal. I wonder if Kramer is trying to score points with them by harassing an airline. Idiots. Let Southwest and other airlines leave Burbank, and see how much fun Burbank folk have commuting to LAX.

Jim

PS. I didn't know there was a Federal right out there that *hadn't* been extended to cover states/ localities using the due process or equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.  Smile
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 3:45 am

I do happen to be an attorney, but it has been many years since I took constitutional law in law school. So don't be surprised if there is a case extending the ex post facto clause to the states. I just do not happen to remember it. Nevertheless, to be clear, there are plenty of restrictions on the federal government that have not been extended to the states. For example, the Bill of Attainder clause of Article 1, Section 9, the right to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment, the prohibition on the quartering of troops in the Third Amendment, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the prohibition on excessive bail in the Eighth Amendment. Of course, this is not to say that there is no prohibition on an ex post facto law as one is probably contained in the California Constitution. However, if it is similar to the Federal one, it only applies to criminal cases.

By the way, upon further research, the ex post facto clause is in Article I, Section 9, not Section 10 as I previously stated. That is why we look things up.

In any event, returning to things of a more aeronautical nature, I was vaguely aware of the NIMBY atmosphere in BUR. That is why this whole thing sounds so suspicious to me. But if it is Councilman Kramer's intent to drive WN out of BUR, perhaps he should take a fact-finding trip to ELP to determine what an economic boon it can be to anger your primary air transit provider.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 4:10 am

Did El Paso do something to anger WN? If so, what--I haven't heard about that.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
Kubla
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 1:06 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 4:14 am

I would also like to know what El Paso did to WN. Also, I'd like to say to WN Boy that I agree with you over the city trying to recover the cost of providing services. That is a different thing than trying to recover the cost of damaged property, at least to this non-lawyer.
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 4:23 am

It was years ago, and I do not have a complete recollection of the events, nor a full understanding at the time they occurred. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the mayor and airport manager had dreams of setting up ELP as the NAFTA super-duper-nifty-free-trade-erific-border crossing. Consistent with this ambition, ELP wanted to build a highway from the border to the cargo terminal at the airport. This would have been just fine, except that they wanted to use airport funds flowing from increased airport landing fees and PFC's to do it.

I am not certain about the details, but I am told that meetings between the Southwest people and the airport people did not go well, permanently poisoning the relationship. Southwest immediately cut flights out of ELP to about 10-20 per day. They have only gradually added them back. Today, there are approximately 35 departures a day out of ELP. That is not a lot considering the fact that ELP is dependent upon air transit to connect it to anywhere, that WN has been flying there for 25 years, and that it (when combined with with Cuidad Juarez) is a city of 1.5 million. Just something for the BUR city fathers to think about.
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 9:00 am

I'm wondering why WN would decrease flights at ELP due to a poisoned relationship with airport management. Here at MSY, the main thing keeping airlines away are the relatively high landing fees. If WN based their withdrawal on that, I could believe it. IMHO, an airline, who's in business to make money, would not let petty disagreements get in the way of operating their business.

As an aside, PFC's are collected by the airline, who then take out a small processing fee, passing on the rest to the airport operator. To use the NAFTA bridge as an example, it probably would be eligible for PFC funding, as it would increase business at the airport.

Tom in NO (at MSY)

P.S. I'll see one of ELP's long-time ops people at a conference in May, so I'lll get the full story.
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 9:53 am

Please do so, Tom. I have only related the story as I have been able to extrapolate it from various fragments of the tale from multiple storytellers. I would like to hear the full story from someone "in the know." However, as I understand it, this incident happened during the previous mayoral administration, (c. 1994) so your friend may not have been there then.
 
AV8N2
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2001 10:08 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 2:09 pm

I am having a tough time understanding these arguements as to who should pay for the mishap. A good point was givin regarding that the $ was for rescue services. But how can anyone think that if someone causes harm to another's person or property, that the person responsible is not responsible for the damage??? Doesn't everyone here pay auto insurance for that exact reason? Thought it was called "collision coverage," even though you still pay taxes?! Sounds like some people here believe that you should get something for nothing...Hmmmm, think I can find the Democrats in this room!
 
sushka
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 1999 12:33 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 2:24 pm

If they already pay 1 million then I dont think they should have to pay anymore.  Sad
Pershoyu Spravoyu Litaki!
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Tue Feb 27, 2001 10:14 pm

Yes, I am certain that you can find the Democrats in the room. They are the ones who say that the government is entitled to tax money and is not bound to provide any services for that money. As a Republican, I am opposed to most taxes, but when one pays taxes, as Southwest has for 12 years, one should get what one pays for, e.g., emergency fire and police services.

It is not "something for nothing," it is getting what you already paid for.
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Wed Feb 28, 2001 3:30 am

Sorry, slightly off topic,

Does anyone know if the aircraft was written off or if it was repairable?
I have no memory of this place.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Wed Feb 28, 2001 3:38 am

Written off...

ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Guest

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Wed Feb 28, 2001 3:48 am

Thanks for all of the great posts, guys. When I originally posted this, I didn't realize that the charges were for emergency cost, and not for damages. I had only gotten a glimps of it on the news, and didn't get the full story. Thanks for all the added information. It will be interesting to see how all of this turns out. Hopefully, It won't end up getting too nasty!
 
ScottB
Posts: 5446
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Wed Feb 28, 2001 3:50 am

I managed to find a link which had a little blurb about Southwest's dispute with the El Paso Airport regarding increased fees:

http://www.airportnet.org/depts/publications/express/1995htm/12-13-95.htm

And whether or not Southwest should pay for the emergency services also should depend on what the precedents are in Burbank; i.e. if local businesses were charged or not charged for the use of emergency services in the past.

 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

TOM/No

Wed Feb 28, 2001 3:51 am

Back about 5-6 years ago, ELP radically raised their landing fees. Whether this was to fund off-airport stuff (like LAX diverted revenue) or for NAFTA-related stuff I down'nt know, but I recall that SWA's response was to make reductions to their flight schedule.

ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
twa
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:59 pm

Lowfareair

Wed Feb 28, 2001 8:00 am

I think Lowfareair made the best point on here. Who the heck would stick a gas station at the end or the runway???

TWA
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Southwest Refuses To Pay

Sun Mar 11, 2001 11:20 am

ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.