Pelican

I'm sure I will get railed for posting this but I honestly don't care. I am not attacking any individuals in here but I'm sure it will be taken that way regardless of my diplomatic attempt.

I have posted in the past about ATC treatment of SWA and more recently about their hiring selection process that got sidetracked into a speed vs FAR compliance argument. At one point somebody told me "you just don't get it" I'm here asking.....what don't I get?

To begin, I would like to say that had I not gotten hired at Alaska, I would have loved to work at SWA. I think your business plan is solid and your executives understand how to lead and not manage. In short, it's hands down the best and friendliest airline to work for in my opinion.

What I don't understand is why the majority of the SWA and even non-SWA bubbas in here defend the operational practices at SWA to the death?

Time for some random quotes from NUTS!
1. "Be quick or be dead"
2. "At Southwest, speed is about doing things in days that take other carriers months to do"
3. "Southwest has learned that speed is both necessary for survival and essential to keeping people inspired and invigorated"
4. "In the world where the shelf life of our products and services keeps getting shorter and shorter, we can't afford to be too cautious and play it safe"
5. "The penalty for being slow and slothful........was the death of the airline and job security"

Now I'm not an idiot and realize that most of these quotes are not talking about flying an airplane or even taxiing. Therefore you're probably not going to find it in your FOM. However, I don't see how you can deny that it is embedded in your operation and taken to the extreme by some of your pilots.

Flight 1248 (Midway): "The National Transportation Safety Board identified the psychological pressure to complete their assigned task as one of the factors contributing to the crew's decision to land at Midway despite unfavorable conditions".

Flight 1455 (Burbank): "The NTSB concluded that the probable cause for the accident was excessive flight speed and too high of a glidepath, and the flight crew's failure to abort the approach when conditions were not met for a stable landing".

3rd person story from Orlando paraphrased: ATC advises of Windshear advisory, 1 legacy carrier (AA I believe) acknowledges, is cleared for takeoff, gets windshear warnings on their radar and clears the runway. 2 other legacy carriers (UA & Continental) all heed the warning and wait out the cell. 2 SWA flights disregard the warnings and takeoff with immediate turnouts to avoid the cell (as witnessed by close personal friend). Nothing happens, no mishap everybody is happy but was it necassary?

Can somebody please explain to me why it is not acceptable to criticize your airline when it is obviously a part of the culture there to do things fast? When Alaska crashed flight 261 due to Shady at best maintenance practices I would call that criminal and absolutely unacceptable. It makes my skin crawl that executives & managers would put crew & passengers lives at stake to save a buck or two. So what is different in the way that SWA operates? On a very similar topic....what about SWA and the late inspections and flying with cracked skins?

If there is any sarcasm noted it is unintentional. I do not mean any disrespect to any SWA crew or spouses, I just want somebody to explain to me why it's not acceptable for an outsider to be critical and judgemental on some poor decisions being made? I also realize that not EVERY SWA pilot operates like this, my only point to this entirely too long of post is that it seems to be embedded in the culture there and seems like it's only a matter of time before something even more tragic happens.

Barney17

Dude, you need another hobby. Maybe just worry about your own airline, you are becoming obsessed.

vagabond

Mod Note:

This free forum is being provided for pilots to discuss aviation related issues. The Terms of Service, to which all of you agreed when you signed up, are simple and easy to understand. Basically, if you don't engage in name calling, flamebaiting, spamming, or making obnoxious racist or sexist remarks, you will be allowed to post here.

Blanket denunciations of one airline or one pilot group or one pilot are not allowed. The other moderators and I are determined to enforce the TOS, and we will not let the tone and quality here deteriorate. If you are going to post, please do so after some introspection. Ask yourself if your post adds value to the discussion. If it does not, then do not post or we will remove it for you.

If anybody has any questions about what is acceptable or not, please do not hesitate to PM me or another moderator.

Deez340

While I believe his chosen thread title to be ill-considered, his post could lead to very germane and informative discussion on how corporate culture affects safety at 121 carriers. I find nothing pejorative or incendiary in his post. Your contribution, however, seems to lean more toward MOM than MODERATOR. Cut the cord and let us talk.

Thanks

USMCFLYR

Deez -

Maybe because she has been around long enough to know with 99& certainty how this thread would slide into the same ole same ole - so following one of our directives from the admins - GUIDE THE DISCUSSION.
She is being PROACTIVE in asking the participants to follow the TOS.
"Cut the chord" Too bad that more don't behave like adults and not like kids that are still attached to the chord; plus asking her not to be a MOM is insane
That being said.............have at it!

USMCFLYR

FORTL

[QUOTE=Pelican;488157]
3rd person story from Orlando paraphrased: ATC advises of Windshear advisory, 1 legacy carrier (AA I believe) acknowledges, is cleared for takeoff, gets windshear warnings on their radar and clears the runway. 2 other legacy carriers (UA & Continental) all heed the warning and wait out the cell. 2 SWA flights disregard the warnings and takeoff with immediate turnouts to avoid the cell (as witnessed by close personal friend). Nothing happens, no mishap everybody is happy but was it necessary?]

I'll take a shot at this part.

1st, "3rd person story" already diminishes perceived validity of the criticism.

2nd. AA get wind shear alert on AA type equipment, and takes their chosen actions. 2 "other" heed the "warning". The AA warning? An ATC warning? Which warning? Did AA have equipment the "other" did not?

3rd. "2 SWA flights disregard the warnings and takeoff with immediate turnouts to avoid the cell".
Again,what warnings? What equipment did SWA have onboard to make their determination? (You and I and your friend don't know) What was presented to each crew by their particular equipment could lead different crews to different conclusions about the WX threat. I have seen numerous aircraft depart over the last 35 years or so, and do exactly what you describe SWA doing here.

Was it necessary? The same question could be asked of the AA crew's choice. Both crews had reasons for their choices. Who is to say either was wrong. Did AA have a bank angle limitation that day that SWA did not? Any number of variables may come into play.

All of us are subject to criticism here. Nobody is exempt.

FliFast

Fortl,

I respect your opinion, but beg to differ.

Every, and I do mean every SW employee has always treated me pleasantly. Most times better than my past employers.

The original author stated his opinion in a fair manner. He wasn't attacking any one individual, but just questioning how the Southwest's philosophy might contribute to unsafe practices.

Southwest's safety record is more than respectful, but in personal observations and other accounts, it is not uncommon to see Southwest jets taxiing faster than the speed of a brisk walk. I was told by an ATC specialist that SWA aircraft landed in CAT II conditions in STL prior to the installation of the HUDs, personal observations of go-arounds in my hometown of Tampa since I live close enough to the south final approach course to personally observe it.

-However-

In the grand scheme of things, SWA and it's employees run a profiable, envious ship with an overtone of professionalism, humor, and friendliness-a very unique and refreshing quality in the airline business. Although their safety record is better than any major airline, I believe SWA operates on the liberal side of the safety equation. I think the original author was stating that. Does it really add value, IMHO; probably not. Then again, my postings are usually mental dribble on a good day.

Just my two peso's worth, your guacamole may vary.



FF

Pelican

Fortl-
I appreciate and respect your post, it was respectful and was a great counter-argument to that specific story. I agree that the 3rd person revision of the story does not hold as much water as if it were 1st person. That is why I said upfront that it was indeed 3rd person.

As far as equipment on-board the aircraft, I don't know what they all had. However, if I saw an aircraft abort a takeoff due to some weather warning system they had, I would probably think twice before I blasted off myself.

As far as AA's decision to abort or taxi clear and SWA's decision to continue and takeoff.....I'm not condemming either, it just seems like a bi-polar outlook on safety vs mission.

Again, this is ALL 3rd person, I was not there, I did not see the weather, I'm just using this as an example.

ClipperJet

Maybe the AA crews found an excuse to increase their block time for the month by taxiing clear and waiting.

You can find an example at ANY carrier that you could use "question" whatever culture you wanted to. Sliding off the runway at MDW or at LIT. Taking off into a microburst at MSY or landing in one at DFW. Landing at the wrong airport, taking off from the wrong runway, not deicing at DCA, the list goes on and on.

I think, on the whole, everyone does a great job.

Lighten up, Francis.

Wasatch Phantom

This is not third hand.

A number of years ago I was flying in to OKC. Our radar showed a large thunderstorm over the airport, and that's exactly what the OKC ATIS reported. ATC gave us VFR holding instructions. At the time, there was an AA flight holding and a TWA flight holding, too. We were all waiting for the storm to move off the airport before attempting an approach.

Well, here comes SWA. They don't want holding instructions. ATC asks them if they are aware there is a large thunderstorm over the field. "Yes" they reply, but they "want to give it a try". ATC is incredulous at this, and we in our aircraft are too.

So, they attempt an approach and execute a go-around due to "severe turbulence on final". After that experience I thought they would have accepted holding instructions. Nope, they wanted another approach.

Obviously, I wasn't in their (SWA) aircraft, but this example of "airmanship" is, I believe, what the OP was speaking of.