Originally Posted by
Rather B Fishin
I would imagine this type of post including (baby seals, jealousy and bitterness for not getting hired) is what frustrates such a large majority on this board and brings on the alleged swa "bashing". Deflection.
Technically speaking reduced thrust takeoffs DO NOT reduce the safety margin. If one were to do the research, one would find the majority of v1 or near post v1 engine failures have occurred using normal thrust. ALSO you can ALWAYS increase thrust if shtf.... Now an intersection departure, while not inherently unsafe, if shtf you CANNOT move up the thrust levers to get more runway in front of you....
Oh and Herkulesdrvr (before you trash my post). I actually did apply to SWA as well as a few other airlines. I was honored to receive an invitation to interview there but respectfully declined.......
To use this logic which is seemingly repeated over and over on this thread, I truly hope you or any pilot reading this have never "recklessly and dangerously" landed at an airport with multiple runways, where wind conditions and other relevant factors were not present, and you opted to land on a runway OTHER than the longest runway available.
You may or may not have been to O'Hare, I don't know. But when the airport is landing east, if you accept a landing clearance to 9R (7967') or 4R (8075') when 10 (13001') is also available you are reckless and careless and will be summarily reported to the FAA.
Once your wheels are on the runway with full flaps and spoilers deployed, there is nothing you can do to get more runway in front of you if you opted for a shorter runway. It is kind of like making an intersection landing? Right? Wouldn't you agree? (/sarcasm)
Reckless and careless, reckless and careless!!!
