|
But Cassandra, every day people spend millions of dollars buying lottery tickets with odds that are about equal to those.
|
Patrick, I buy the occasional lottery tickey myself. Opposite side of same coin! My particular view of the universe includes an Irony God with a special project in <i>ME</i>! One possible outcome in this world view would be winning the lottery, buying a First-Class pass for life on some airline, and then crashing on my very first flight. :-D
You might consider the possibility that some of us who just don't think statistics are ultimately persuasive might be craven narcissists, who don't think it matters what happens to 6 million other people, it's what might happen to <i>me</i>! Again: :-D |
Southwest has grounded 44 planes pending inspections and repairs.
|
Right, there's another thread going on that (and they are inspections, not repairs). It seems Southwest is simply being ultra-conservative and clearing up any ambiguity about Boeing's specifications and the actual inspections that had been done prior. Southwest seems to have done this less because of worries about the safety of these planes and more to avoid being accused in the future of having violated a nuance of some other FAA regulation.
|
My rants and raves about southwest:
Rant: Their seating policy in 1999 referenced earlier was obscene. They are finally recognizing this and changing it (no acknowledgement of a problem when I wrote them a letter back in 2001) but it is still too little. They only allow boarding between A and B group for families with children under age 5. There has to be an underlying assumption here that a 6 year old can sit by himself for a 4 hour flight!! This is still obscene. Rave: Their no charge policy for changing plans. Unbelievable when they don't have to do this. This is so overwhelmingly positive that I book Southwest whenever I can. Regarding Safety issues: I think ALL the airlines are less safe than we like to think they are. |
Most of our homes probably aren't as safe as we'd like to think they are, either.
Not downgrading the importance of whatever maintenance problems SW or any other airline might have - as I said, I don't know yet whether SW's problems are/were slight, moderate, or severe - just pointing out that seat pitch (amongst other things) has nothing to do with safety. Plenty of living rooms have burned to the ground notwithstanding the seat pitch of the sofa and chairs being exceedingly generous..... |
Life: no one gets out alive.
If SW <i>and</i> all other airlines are now getting a bit more compulsive about maintenance, it's a Good Thing. |
I love south west airlines. I've flown with them on several occassions, and have NEVER had any kind of problem. Seat assignment doesn't really bother me. Just get there early. I've flown on more expensive lines where the seats have been assigned, but to more than one occupant! A newly wed arrived to find someone else in her seat. But the seat was printed on the other persons ticket too. So she had to fly 8 hrs to Miami area not sitting by her new husband. Felt bad for her. Point is, every airline can have it's problems.
|
The news just keeps getting worst for South"worst" ...
"<b>Southwest Airlines Co. had to do repairs on four of the 38 planes it grounded Wednesday for maintenance reinspections, another sign of safety record-keeping problems at the Dallas low-fare carrier."</b> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205...googlenews_wsj |
Hey Gekko....your babble will have more meaning if you've actually flown with them....
I still see the burn marks on the hanger in Charlotte from the last US-Air crash.... |
South"worst" found fuselage cracks in 4 grounded planes.
I wouldn't fly Southworst before, and I certainly won't fly it now. Fortunately, I have a wide choice of airlines and don't have to! |
Gekko, you're quite the bore...
|
You can't have it both ways:
United Air Raises Fares by Up to $50 As the price of oil has risen, carriers have tried to push more of their fuel costs onto consumers. Some of those increases have stuck, but stiff competition from low-cost airlines such as Southwest Airlines Co. and JetBlue Airways Corp. means many others have been rolled back after competing airlines failed to follow suit. |
At least 2 out of 3 times I fly, I fly SWA. And I am next month.
I have flown other discount and full service airlines a plenty. I have other choices. I choose Midway and SWA for the ease of travel, much less time involved, much pleasanter crews and staff (I have been sung to on 3 different occasions), do not mind the posting online for the boarding level seat at all, in fact- like it, and am glad they had the planes inspected again. You know, from the Aviation students and mechanics I talk to, which are numerous, because my college is the school for many of them, there are numerous alumi who return- SWA is far from the most non-compliant with turnaround checking, structurally. |
You can't have it both ways??
Does that mean you're willing to sacrifice safety for a few dollars? Cracks in the fuselage are worth how much in that calculus? |
Hey Gekko:
Noticed this and thought of you.... ORLANDO, Fla. -- US Airways said a small part of a jetliner's wing dislodged and hit a passenger window as it flew over Maryland. The airline says no injuries were reported aboard the Boeing 757 twin-jet airliner traveling Sunday from Orlando to Philadelphia with 174 CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WCNC) - A US Airways pilot’s gun accidentally discharged during a flight from Denver to Charlotte Saturday, according to as statement released by the airline. The statement said the discharge happened on Flight 1536, which left Denver at approximately 6:45am and arrived in Charlotte at approximately 11:51am. The Airbus A319 plane landed safely and none of the flight’s 124 passengers or five crew members was injured, according to the statement. It was a full flight and airline spokeswoman said the plane has been taken out of service to make sure it is safe to return to flight. A Transportation Safety Administration spokeswoman reached by WCNC Sunday said the pilot is part of TSA’s Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, which trains pilots to carry guns on flights. Andrea McCauley said the gun discharged in the cockpit, but she could not release how the gun was being transported at the time. |
|
milemarker0,
I also thought of this thread when I heard the story about American. I guess we just have to give up flying all together?? HAH! |
Oh, dear, Gekko sure has been quiet huh? I'm sure hoping he'll note how he won't fly American and Delta ever again because they had to cancel some flights to do some inspections...
|
Ummm. I'm not following this story all that closely, but isn't there a big difference between an airline (Southwest) flying planes and avoiding or ignoring "required" inspections even when they knew there were cracks and other problems, and an airline (American) canceling flights to inspect planes that there were no known problems with and there were no required inspections, but they were taking the cautious route? Somehow the latter would bother me a whole lot less than the former!
|
Patrick, I agree!
|
There is SO much angst against specific airlines, and all of us have had good/bad experiences and have our preferences. I don't fly alot within the US, so I haven't flown Southwest alot, but there were okay (friendly group - I really liked that). But, as a constant traveler - I really do need assigned seating (it's an emotional thing, I know) and I want the frequent flyer miles with an airline that has a big partner network. I fly Delta or United as often as possible. I personally don't like American Airlines. I just don't have good luck when I fly them but many people love them, and they have a couple hubs that I will do anything to keep from flying through (Miami is at the top of the list). Since ALL the airlines are now pulling their planes to do these extra checks - can we let the airline bashing stop for just a bit? Also, not to be dense - but why would anyone have an ax to grind against any airline they've never flown - I guess I don't quite understand that part of it ....
|
I missed the part where Southwest KNEW they were flying planes with cracked fuselages.
In any event, AA was "forced" to do the inspections, and ground 80 of their planes, after an audit by the FAA showed that they too had missed some standard inspections. I find all of these events only slightly unsetteling, but really, I just like to mess around with Gekko, because he loves to bash an airline he's never flown. |
NeoPatrick: <i>Ummm. I'm not following this story all that closely</i>
Right, that's why you have gotten your facts so wrong. Perhaps you ought not to comment on a story if you aren't following it closely enough to get them right? Here, I'll sum it up for you: - Southwest themselves realized a year ago they had missed a key inspection on some of their planes. Southwest <i>told</i> the FAA of this as soon as they realized this, even though they had been flying those planes for a year or so. - Southwest erroneously believed they had an FAA clearance to keep flying those planes for another week before finally inspecting them. (This is what got them fined.) - Southwest recently <i>on their own</i> re-checked their own maintenance records carefully and re-inspected about 40 planes. During those re-inspections they found and fixed some cracks in the fuselage of a few planes. - The FAA then required the <i>other</i> airlines to undertake similar inspections of their maintenance records. So your assertion that Southwest knew there were cracks in these planes and kept flying them anyway is false. |
The main point is that SW missed the inspection completely. AA did not, they just wanted to verify that it was done correctly. It was, and all the planes returned to service within 24 hours....
<b> WASHINGTON – Officials for Southwest Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration "falsified the report" that said the airline had come into compliance with rules for crucial safety inspections for jets, according to records released by a U.S. House committee.</b> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2e20a.html?npc |
"The main point is that SW missed the inspection completely. AA did not, they just wanted to verify that it was done correctly. It was, and all the planes returned to service within 24 hours...."
Actually, the inspections showed that everything was not done correctly: "American had inspected about 200 planes by Wednesday afternoon and found that 80 required being taken out of service while modifications were being made to wiring bundles near the landing gear, spokesman Tim Wagner said." It's sort of akin to the IRS saying, "We're auditing you...are there any tax returns you want to double check and re-file?" |
Author: Andrew
Date: 03/27/2008, 11:58 am NeoPatrick: Ummm. I'm not following this story all that closely Right, that's why you have gotten your facts so wrong. Perhaps you ought not to comment on a story if you aren't following it closely enough to get them right? >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> ; Andrew, why the pompous ass approach? As you clearly understood I stated that I wasn't following closely, and was clearly describing it as I had heard it. I certainly wasn't insisting that I was right or anyone was wrong. So why are you taking me to task for making clear that I was looking for explanation or clarification? Why on earth would you suggest that no one be allowed to comment or ask about a situation if they don't know all the facts? That kind of defeats the entire purpose of "discussion" doesn't it? The last time I looked this was called a discussion board. And perhaps you need to look up what a question mark means! On the other hand, it now sounds like you're the one who needs to get some facts straight, especially if you're going to play "high and mighty" and infallible! Particularly if you're just going to ignore the part about Southwest FALSIFING inspection reports, or pretend they didn't. |
NeoPatrick: <i>Andrew, why the pompous ass approach? As you clearly understood I stated that I wasn't following closely,</i>
So why even make a comment if you admit you aren't well informed? Southwest didn't <i>FALSIFY</i> anything (doesn't sound like American or Delta did, either). Why on earth would you start making assertions like that based on a story you clearly don't understand? That doesn't sound like "asking for clarification" to me. I indeed think you ought to limit your assertions until you understand the topic. Making statements like you have is not "asking for clarification." |
Again, Andrew, I suggest you go rent an English book and look up what a question mark means. Asking a question is NOT making a statement, nor is it "making an assertion". If you wish to discuss things here, please learn the difference.
Get over yourself. Like it or not, you are the one who is professing to being a "know it all" here. I clearly introduced my post with a disclaimer that suggested the usual "what am I missing here?" Sorry, that concept was too complex for you to understand. Interesting idea that no one should ever post a question or a "supposition" on a discussion board. The results would be kind of boring, wouldn't they -- if all we want are clear facts, we could pick up a newspaper -- there would be nothing to "discuss" now would there? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:53 PM. |