I don't have them available at my finger tips. Maybe somebody can dig them up -- it's been a while since I examined them.
Southwest has done good partly because they've stuck to their business model of flying 737's. Not sure how they'd do if they get into the business of flying widebody long-haul flights. Flying different fleets to many different countries around the world is a whole other ballgame so comparing the 2 airlines is like apples and oranges. I do think the increased competition and upgrades to both airports could be good for Houston so I hope both companies can view it from a bigger picture.
I'm thinking the company would keep most or all of the profits though. And not sure if they would pay for maintenance either.
From my experience, not really. I'm in Palm Beach Airport right now and the area around it is comparable to Greenspoint.
So they privately fund it, keep profits, but they won't fix it? Care to explain how that makes sense?
I hope you're right. If United can't compete with Southwest on international flights without Big Brother holding it down, they don't deserve the business in the first place.
Public stadiums are funded by taxpayers, teams keep profits, and taxpayers are responsible for any damage. So it's even worse.
OFF TOPIC: The interstate highway system was funded entirely by taxpayers when first built. HSR makes sense and is worth the initial capital investment, as most lines around the world are profitable minus capital building costs. Every developed country has figured this out besides us. ON TOPIC: I like this proposal, although part of the reason that everyone loves Hobby is because it is smaller. Hopefully this doesn't put Hobby on the path to becoming a mega airport.
As someone who has been to probably every major airport in this country I respectfully disagree. Only Denver, Atlanta and Charlotte come to mind as being better airports.
