Might want to think twice about flying Southwest Airlines

[Raisor]

We wouldn't have this problem if we all had the FLYING CARS WE WERE ALL PROMISED 8 YEARS AGO!

I WANT MY FLYING CAR!

[paintmered]

Until flying becomes demonstrably less safe than driving, I'll have no second thoughts hopping on a plane.

For this to happen, a fully loaded 747 would have to crash more than once every other week.

Far too many people die on our roads.

[Ltlabner]

Well, since that's not reality, why would we worry about that? You said people would stop flying if they knew what was currently going on. Since in the current situation flying has been shown to be safer than driving, I just think you're wrong that most people would just all of a sudden give up flying to drive long distances. I guess some people might forgo trips they otherwise would have taken....

Sigh....

I switched gears from my original comment about maintence to discuss the comparison between flying and automobile travel after you brought up that tired old line. If you can't understand the sillyness of comparing hundreds of millions of trips versus thousands then I don't know what to tell you.

Yes, the rate is very nice looking. However, just as it doesn't tell you squat about a baseball player if he has just one at bat with a hit (ie. a perfect batting average) compared to a major leaguer with 15 years of experience (say "only" at .310 life time BA), it makes no sense to compare airline to auto travel and magically proclaim one is safer than the other either.

And yes, I argue that if the average flyer really knew about the maintence issues of the american commerical aviation fleet, they would serriously reconsider their options. The convience and speed of commerical air travel makes for a wonderfull opium against the cold realities of air travel for those not currious enough to investigate further.

[Boston Red]

Yes, the rate is very nice looking. However, just as it doesn't tell you squat about a baseball player if he has just one at bat with a hit (ie. a perfect batting average) compared to a major leaguer with 15 years of experience (say "only" at .310 life time BA), it makes no sense to compare airline to auto travel and magically proclaim one is safer than the other either.

Sigh....

I'd say the sample size for flying is plenty large, and I think the deviation between the flying and driving safety results is PLENTY large to trot out "that tired old line".

If you don't understand basic statistics, I don't know what to tell you.

[Boston Red]

For this to happen, a fully loaded 747 would have to crash more than once every other week.

Exactly. Of course, it might just be a statistical anomoly based on lack of sample size that this has not started happening.

[remdog]

I'm not concerned so much about safety as much as the angst of flying with WN. The general decline in the service and the increase in cost has been staggering of late.

Herb Kelleher, who started the airline with notes scribbled on a cocktail napkin, has given way to Gary Kelly who is the 'beancounter'. Herb knew the value of keeping the customer happy. Gary knows the value of...well, beans! (For some they will see Gary Kelly and John Allen as one and the same.)

SW should change its' ticker symbol from LUV to MOO---as in the cattlecar airline they run. :

Rem

[Ltlabner]

I'd say the sample size for flying is plenty large, and I think the deviation between the flying and driving safety results is PLENTY large to trot out "that tired old line".

You win.

Please continue to fly the friendly skies. There's absoultely zero maintenance issues with the US airfleet. Maintenance issues have never caused an airline crash. Agining airliners are a snap to fix up, even with the reduced maintenace staffs and highly competitive markets. Heck, go ahead an merge all those big airlines with aging and diverse equipment types...I'm sure nothing at all could go wrong there. There's not a single other commerical airliner out there with cracks somewhere on the airframe. Nope. Heck, I'll bet there hasn't even been a crash of a commerical airliner within days after a maintanince check either! Everything is hunky-dorry. Why, I'll bet some of those new shiney planes are the safest around.

All is well.

[Boston Red]

Never said any of that. But I bet there are plenty of drunk drivers on the very Boston roads I am going to brave tonight. Also probably some semis with some brakes that are ready to go or drivers close to dozing off. Doesn't mean I won't drive.

I'm sure there is plenty of room for concern in airline safety. My only beef is with your contention that people would never fly again in the face of overwhelming evidence of airline flight's superior safety record.

[Redhook]

Much ado about nothing really.

Southwest is a very safe airline, probably the safest in the US. They have a great track record with very few accidents.

All of the planes that were taken out today were older smaller models. Most planes used are 737's for SW. I believe SW will come out fine from all of this.

By the way, my wife is a flight attendant for Southwest and neither of us are worried at all about this. Once again, much ado about nothing.

[Ltlabner]

My only beef is with your contention that people would never fly again in the face of overwhelming evidence of airline flight's superior safety record.

As I said, the average flyer has no idea what really happens in the world of commerical aviation. They see people get on a plane, get off in Disney world, and viola! Flying is safe. The average flyer can't even tell you what equipment they are on, let alone whether the plain is well maintained or if the aircraft was on the verge of a crash on the flight they just left.

Ask the manufacturers of the DC-10 and Comet what happened when they experienced several hi-profile crashes early on. Hint: Passengers lost confidence in those aircraft and started avoiding flights on them.

Ask yourself why the NTSB went bannans for several years trying to figure out the cause of rudder reversals on two crashes of the 737 (one the most prolific airliner in the skies at the time). Yes, only 2 out of thousands of airframes and probably millions of flights. Geee...could it be that they were fearfull the flying public would suddenly tag the workhorse of the US airfleet with the "unsafe" lable and begin avoiding it?

Why did Value Jet collapse as an airline? Well, it was because of several maintenance gaffes and a horrific Everglades crash of a DC-9 due to....wait for it........poor maintenance practices. The flying public dropped Value Jet like the plague and the FAA yanked their ticket.

Why do airlines black out the logo's on the tails of a crashed airliner? Could it possibly be because the flying public will tag that airline as "unsafe" and it could hurt business?

Avation has become markedly safer compared to itself 10 or 20 years ago and the advances in safety have been staggering. But as evidence by these examples, rattled off the top of my head, there is a history of the flying public avoiding a particular aircraft or airline when they feal said aircraft/airlines are "unsafe".

So yea, if the flying public could see what really goes on behind the curtian in the entire industry, I'd contend there'd be a lot less fliers.

[Ltlabner]

Much ado about nothing really.

I agree totally. By itself this incident means little really to Southwest or commercial avation.

My comments only have to do with the fleet as a whole and the public knowing what's really going on behind the sceens.

But taken by itself....just another day in the airline business.

[Boston Red]

But as evidence by these examples, rattled off the top of my head, there is a history of the flying public avoiding a particular aircraft or airline when they feal said aircraft/airlines are "unsafe".

Of course they chose alternative airlines that they thought were more safe. That only makes sense. Only stupid people (or people just naturally afraid of flying) saw those incidents and decided to drive instead of fly somewhere.

[Ltlabner]

Of course they chose alternative airlines that they thought were more safe. That only makes sense.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

So why is it such a big strech to contend that if the American flying public was exposed to the real truth about commercial avation, especially realted to general maintenance issues, they would lose confidence in the industry as a whole?

They chose safer alternatives relative to one segment of the industry so expanding that to the entire industry isn't that big of a leap.

In addition to speed, and relative cheepness, the American commercial airline industry depends on the confidence that it is safe to survive.

BTW: Keep in mind I'm talking about average fliers here, not your everyday business guy, or world hopping jet-setter. Those folks are going to fly, period.

[Boston Red]

I don't think it's a stretch. I just don't think there's a safer alternative for them to choose. Certainly not trains as long as Amtrak exists. I think airline travel might decrease. I think a few dumb (or maybe merely ignorant) people might choose to drive as an alternative to flying, but I don't think there would be a widespread abandonment of air travel. People still need to get home to see grandma at Christmas, and as long as flying is the safest way (though maybe not AS safe as they once thought), most people would still fly when they need to travel long distances IMO.

[Ravenlord]

I don't think it's a stretch. I just don't think there's a safer alternative for them to choose. Certainly not trains as long as Amtrak exists. I think airline travel might decrease. I think a few dumb (or maybe merely ignorant) people might choose to drive as an alternative to flying, but I don't think there would be a widespread abandonment of air travel. People still need to get home to see grandma at Christmas, and as long as flying is the safest way (though maybe not AS safe as they once thought), most people would still fly when they need to travel long distances IMO.

i'd fly if i could afford it...but on the plus side, i LOVE to drive.