An Open Letter to Southwest Airline’s Executives

Southwest Airlines

Moments ago, I sent the e-mail below to the executives of Southwest Airlines.  If I receive a response, I will also post it here.

To whom it may concern:

First, I would like to take a moment to tell you that Southwest Airlines has the best customer service and airline business model in the U.S.  I flew with you several weeks ago to Las Vegas and had a fantastic experience.  I will also be doing business with you again in a few weeks as my wife and I fly out to Detroit to visit her extended family.  Thanks to your team’s cheerful disposition, ability to explain your policies clearly, and excellent in-flight service, I have become a loyal customer.
However, I am dismayed to hear Southwest will be sponsoring the Commission on Presidential Debates this year.  I believe we have reached a turning point in which the Republican and Democratic parties have lost sight of their original principles and no longer exist to serve the public, including individuals like myself and large corporations such as yours.  The Commission on Presidential Debates has succinctly closed the door on allowing other viable third party candidates (including Gary Johnson of the U.S. Libertarian Party) and fails to offer the American public a clear range of options in selecting their new president.
To be included in the presidential debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates defines a candidate eligible if the following criteria are met:  They must be constitutionally eligible, have achieved ballot access in enough states to stand a chance to win a majority of the Electoral College in the general election, and received at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five polling organizations selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Gary Johnson meets the first and second criteria.  He is constitutionally eligible and will appear on the ballot in at least 47 states, enough to win the presidency.  However, on the third and, some would argue, least important criteria, Gary Johnson and other third party candidates face insurmountable odds since they aren’t even included in the polling organizations’ options.

How is this a fair representation of America’s choices?  It hardly seems reasonable for the CPD to limit our options based on a Catch-22 definition of eligibility.

I understand Southwest’s sponsorship of the CPD is mainly consists of chartering planes to accommodate the debate staff’s travel needs and that you feel this aligns with the CPD’s stated policy of informing the general public, but please consider this:  Have you done any business with candidates like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein (of the U.S. Green Party)?  Or has it primarily been Republican and Democratic candidates and their staff?  If the latter, how does preventing eligible candidates from participating in the debates align with a policy of offering the public an opportunity to make informed decisions?

I would like to ask you and your staff to seriously consider your affiliation with a commission whose goals clearly involve withholding information from the public to prevent them from making an informed decision on election day.  From my positive experiences at Southwest, I can confidently say that I do not believe such behind-the-scenes maneuvering is reasonably in line with your mission statement or your past behavior.
Two other sponsors of the CPD have dropped out, and I hope Southwest considers doing the same.  It would be a statement against crony Washington politics that have for so long corrupted our country’s leaders.
I want to thank you for your time and consideration of my message.  Regardless of your decision, I will continue to be a loyal customer and hope that, in time, we will be able to bring honesty and openness to our election processes together.

7 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Southwest Airline’s Executives

  1. Beautifully written. And now three sponsors have dropped out (BBH New York, YWCA, Philips Electronics). The list of ‘national sponsors’ thrown out by the CPD is actually just a smoke screen, as the total amount of money sponsors give the CPD is a pittance, perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars at most. Sponsors typically do what Southwest is doing – make a pro bono or in-kind contribution. So who does pick up the $3,000,000 debate tab? This is what the CPD does not want you to know, and this is why Southwest Airlines needs to pull their name off the list (it is OK if they fulfill their obligations regarding charters – that is not the issue). Right now Southwest Airlines is unwittingly providing cover for a CPD that is intentionally trying to deceive the public, and the media.

    • Thanks, Rick! I’m happy to be a part of this. We’re living in crucial times, and it’s becoming apparent to me that everybody needs to become active regardless of whether they desire to or not.

      Do you think if all ten (now seven) major sponsors drop out, the CPD will be forced to reveal its true sponsors? Or will they simply suggest they have no others?

      • The finances of the CPD are publicly available and I have been pouring over them. Somebody is giving them about $4,000,000 every four years. Unless it really is Anheuser-Busch, which is extremely unlikely, then we need to know who it is. I would be surprised if Anheuser-Busch were giving as much as $100,000 in cash to the CPD. They used to be a willing accomplice in the smoke screen, because senator John Danforth from Missouri is on the CPD board, and was friends with August A. Busch III and August A. Busch IV. Now they are being an unwitting accomplice, because they are owned by the Belgians. If the Belgians knew what was going on they would surely put an end to it, but we have not yet broken through to them.

  2. Well said, if everyone took the time to express themselves like this to the company’s which we give our business to, things would be much better. The consumer is a better regulator of commerce than the government could ever be, we just need to be empowered and stop being fed lies about the FDA, USDA, TSA, EPA, etc. making us safer.

  3. UPDATE: As of Tuesday, October 16, I still have not received a reply from Southwest Airlines. Others using form letters have received form letters — I wonder why, then, no response to mine?

  4. Very likely there is no response bebecausethe leadership there are unable to respond via form letter, perhaps they were mulling over the correct response? Well written and logical arguments tend to fall by the wayside, if you were nasty and abusive, they probably would have responded.

    • I think you hit the nail on the head. A form letter would have been met with a form letter!

      Regardless, I still like Southwest and will fly with them again. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s