Southwest jet hits light pole...

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Yeah NHBB, I'm with you on this one... They can go overboard sometimes.

But that being said, I would prefer SOME kidding around rather than isle Nazi's I've seen at other airlines. Not saying we don't have a few of those too. They just aren't as many.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK clown, easy now

When you use the word "NAZI's", your most likely refering to my "beloved" American Airlines !
(The company that direct deposited my retirement check into my account this morning)


NH/BB's

 

[Busdrvr]

Hey Clown (is great to be able to say that without being accused of flaming someone....),
This is not a "bash' of SWA, but a little correction to your assumption that all SWA will do when fuel prices go up is to raise ticket prices. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

First, lets try some basic assumptions. SWA has a fairly low load factor (compared to the rest of the industry) at current ticket prices. If SWA came out with a promotion that said "free tickets to Vegas for everyone", do you think they would fill up every jet to capacity with long lines of people left over? Like wise, if you cut fares in half, would more or less people want to buy a ticket? What you need to understand is that the revenue management folks at SWA price the tickets to MAXIMIZE revenue. For SWA, this appears to be at 65-75% load factors. If they raised prices, load factor would go down by more than the revenue increase, resulting in LOWER total revenue. If prices were lowered, then the increase in tickets sold would not make up for the lower price per ticket. Maximizing revenue is what these people are paid to do. If they weren't doing it, they'd be fired.

Now SWA could attempt to raise ticket prices, and I'd even argue that if the other airlines decided to raise ticket prices in response, SWA could generate more revenue, as would everyone else. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen. Currently, SWA does NOT always have the lowest prices. They have built a reputation for having low prices, and refuse to compete on travelocity, ect, so they count on a consumer hearing the "ding" commercial, and going straight to SWA website and buying a ticket, WITHOUT comparing prices, because surely UAL, AMR or DAL won't be cheaper. If SWA suddenly attempts a fare increase, this could induce the consumer to shop around, and if he saves $50 bucks by value shopping once, he'll be a value shopper for the rest of his life. So an attempt to raise fares could have a larger than expected effect on SWA's revenue. Additionally, SWA's continued "profit" forced other airlines to actually reduce costs to a level that they could compete. In Q3, at least two "legacy carriers" posted an operating profit (CAL and UAL) without the benefit of hedges. For the same Q, SWA posted an OPERATING LOSS without the benefit of hedges. While hedging is smart, it is important to note that the UNDERLYING business was NOT profitable. So as the hedges expire, SWA's advantage evaporates, and currently, there are other airlines who are much more profitable when the game is played on a level field. Good luck to you guys in the coming year. It's never fun to be in the spotlight, and hopefully things will return to "normal" for you soon.

 

[KCFlyer]

Can't wait to read how KCFlyer puts a "spin" on this one...probably passing a slower carrier going to the same runway!!

Having just read the article, it apparently wasn't a "slower" carrier...it was a disabled Northwest jet that was sitting on the taxiway for over 2 hours. So I'd imagine they weren't going V1 minus 10 knots, but I'd also submit that since it was a wingtip, it most likely would have hit at 3 mph (your preferred taxi speed) and pulled from service as well. Now I know that premier armchair quarterback that you hour, YOU would have either waited it out on the taxiway for the NWA jet to be towed, or you would have cancelled the flight.

 

[markkus757]

Busdrvr - you have most of it correct but your are forgeting an important part of it. They have a very loyal following now. $5 to $10 increases will not drive them away. The only way they leave is if you guys start giving amenities to the passengers again. I don't think that's happening anytime soon.

 

[Flufdriver]

No KCFlyer. I would have done what any pilot would have done if he thought it was "iffy" getting around the disabled aircraft on the taxiway...simply ask the tower to use the runway to get around the aircraft then transition back to the taxiway to continue for takeoff!! Then again, that would have taken valuable seconds before getting airborne...one step forward...ten steps back. Maybe that's why they have winglets...I always thought it was for the 3% fuel savings. It's really to get through those tight spots QUICLKY! spin..spin..spin..I was waiting to hear your well thought out response to what happened and of course you turned it back to me about my taxi speed comments. That's what you get when you tap dance around what really is going on. I must be doing something right...22 years in this biz and I have stayed on the concrete and I haven't hit anything on the ground...maybe that's because I taxi a normal standard pace. I do realize it would cost you 15 extra seconds and yes maybe more if there was landing traffic on a final...but....repairs cost more then a few extra seconds. You have to shave alot of seconds off each flight to pay for a wingtip...forgot, the insurance will pay! Sorry! Always good to read the spin, sure your not a politician? If your not..you should be, you have a keen way turning things around to support your party!
Have a great New Year KC..hope you got that new scanner for Christmas that you wanted so you can spend your off time at the end of the runway there in MCI watching us slower guys crawling slowly for takeoff! So far...I have always made it to my destination and actually parked at the gate in one piece. I'm talking about me personally!

 

[KCFlyer]

No KCFlyer. I would have done what any pilot would have done if he thought it was "iffy" getting around the disabled aircraft on the taxiway...simply ask the tower to use the runway to get around the aircraft then transition back to the taxiway to continue for takeoff!! Then again, that would have taken valuable seconds before getting airborne...one step forward...ten steps back. Maybe that's why they have winglets...I always thought it was for the 3% fuel savings. It's really to get through those tight spots QUICLKY! spin..spin..spin..I was waiting to hear your well thought out response to what happened and of course you turned it back to me about my taxi speed comments. That's what you get when you tap dance around what really is going on. I must be doing something right...22 years in this biz and I have stayed on the concrete and I haven't hit anything on the ground...maybe that's because I taxi a normal standard pace. I do realize it would cost you 15 extra seconds and yes maybe more if there was landing traffic on a final...but....repairs cost more then a few extra seconds. You have to shave alot of seconds off each flight to pay for a wingtip...forgot, the insurance will pay! Sorry! Always good to read the spin, sure your not a politician? If your not..you should be, you have a keen way turning things around to support your party!
Have a great New Year KC..hope you got that new scanner for Christmas that you wanted so you can spend your off time at the end of the runway there in MCI watching us slower guys crawling slowly for takeoff! So far...I have always made it to my destination and actually parked at the gate in one piece. I'm talking about me personally!

As I said...you are the Peyton Manning of Monday morning quarterbacks.

 

[Flufdriver]

As I said...you are the Peyton Manning of Monday morning quarterbacks.

If you play a "Perfect" game...there's NOTHING to Monday Morning Quarterback" ..Gotta go KCFlyer, I'm busy watching CNN. With all the "Freedom" to fly around the country...somethings bound to happen. It's early yet!
Thanks though for comparing me to Peyton...quite an honor!!

 

[N924PS]

Let me put a spin on it.

Let's compare Fluf, since you're enjoying this. I can understand your bitterness since your company has taken advantage of you, humor is a mask for your sadness. Let talk facts and there is no humor in this:

8 December 2005; Southwest Airlines 737-700; Chicago, IL: The aircraft was on a scheduled flight from Baltimore to Chicago's Midway Airport. After landing, the crew was unable to stop the aircraft on the runway, going off the runway, through the airport's barrier fence and onto a nearby street. At some point during this event, the nose wheel collapsed. The aircraft struck at least two vehicles, with the impact causing fatal injuries to a six year old boy who was a passenger in one of the vehicles. None of the five crew members or 95 passengers were seriously injured. This was the first serious accident involving the 737-700. Because this event did not cause a passenger fatality, it is not counted as a fatal event as defined by AirSafe.com.

Thanks for your chronological presentation of the accident history of USAir.

The PIT and LAX B737 accidents were not related to crew performance. In fact, both those accidents might have happened to WN, given the number of operations WN conducts at LAX and the fact that the B737 is your airplane of choice.

Several of the other accidents you cited were commuter airlines operating under the USAir express branding. Not USAir at all.

WN has been fortunate not to have more fatalities over the years. A check of the FAA incident data would reveal that WN has had a few "fender benders" and many F/A injuries related to turbulence encounters.

One would hope that as WN continues to expand and operate more flights that they will continue to enjoy this enviable safety record.

I'm sure the parents of the little boy killed in your MDW crash will find great comfort in the fact that airsafe.com did not count his loss as a passenger fatality and blemish your record.