Nope, I'll give credit where it's due. I'd rather have an ex fighter guy at the helm in the event of an upset, etc. Understand what I'm getting at. I've had the opportunity to be a witness to multiple 121 Flt Ops and training departments.

We all bring different strengths and weaknesses to the table. Ex fighter pilots have a HUGE challenge transitioning to a crew concept airline cockpit. I don't envy what they have to go through on that front.

Usually their MO is transformed by the culture and procedures at their new airline. What I'm saying is that the Flt Ops culture and procedures are so effed up at this airline (yeah I know, they used to be even worse), that that's all they learn. They don't have the previous 121/135 time to temper their mindset and outlook on how to operate an airliner WITH PEOPLE NOT BOMBS ONBOARD, where as those that have that experience have the ability to recognize that things aren't done "normally" at this airline and I don't mean that as a compliment.

It really is unbelievable that there haven't been more accidents at SWA.

 

The statistics do not support your contentions. Look at the methodology on the bottom and you will see it seems to be a comprehensive analysis. This data goes back 30 years if an airline has been in service that long. The following data is from the 2014 analysis.

Safety Ranking

# 1 AIR NEW ZEALAND NZ, ANZ Index 0,007
# 2 CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS CX, CPA Index 0,008
# 3 FINNAIR AY, FIN Index 0,010
# 4 EMIRATES EK, UAE Index 0,010
# 5 EVA AIR BR, EVA Index 0,010
# 6 BRITISH AIRWAYS BA, BAW Index 0,011
# 7 TAP PORTUGAL TP, TAP Index 0,012
# 8 ETIHAD AIRWAYS EY, ETD Index 0,012
# 9 AIR CANADA AC, ACA Index 0,012
# 10 QANTAS QF, QFA Index 0,013
# 11 QATAR AIRWAYS QR, QTR Index 0,013
# 12 ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS NH, ANA Index 0,015
# 13 VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS VS, VIR Index 0,015
# 14 HAINAN AIRLINES HU, CHH Index 0,015
# 15 VIRGIN AUSTRALIA DJ, VOZ Index 0,015
# 16 JETBLUE AIRWAYS B6, JBU Index 0,015
# 17 KLM KL, KLM Index 0,015
# 18 LUFTHANSA LH, DLH Index 0,016
# 19 SHENZHEN AIRLINES ZH, CSZ Index 0,018
# 20 EASYJET U2, EZY Index 0,018
# 21 THOMAS COOK AIRLINES MT, TCX Index 0,023
# 22 WESTJET WS, WJA Index 0,026
# 23 TRANSAERO AIRLINES UN, TSO Index 0,027
# 24 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES WN, SWA Index 0,028
# 25 JETSTAR AIRWAYS JQ, JST Index 0,030
# 26 AIR BERLIN AB, BER Index 0,034
# 27 DELTA AIR LINES DL, DAL Index 0,038
# 28 THOMSON AIRWAYS BY, TOM Index 0,046
# 29 CONDOR DE, CFG Index 0,050
# 30 SINGAPORE AIRLINES SQ, SIA Index 0,052
# 31 UNITED AIRLINES UA, UAL Index 0,057
# 32 SWISS LX, SWR Index 0,064
# 33 RYANAIR FR, RYR Index 0,066
# 34 MALAYSIA AIRLINES MH, MAS Index 0,072
# 35 JET AIRWAYS 9W, JAI Index 0,078
# 36 CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES MU, CES Index 0,082
# 37 AEROFLOT SU, AFL Index 0,103
# 38 ALITALIA AZ, AZA Index 0,121
# 39 LAN AIRLINES LA, LAN Index 0,127
# 40 AIR FRANCE AF, AFR Index 0,141
# 41 AMERICAN AIRLINES AA, AAL Index 0,145
# 42 AIR CHINA CA, CCA Index 0,168
# 43 US AIRWAYS US, AWE Index 0,169
# 44 IBERIA IB, IBE Index 0,172
# 45 ALASKA AIRLINES AS, ASA Index 0,180
# 46 JAPAN AIRLINES JL, JAL Index 0,208
# 47 THAI AIRWAYS INTL TG, THA Index 0,211
# 48 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CZ, CSN Index 0,235
# 49 ASIANA OZ, AAR Index 0,255
# 50 SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SK, SAS Index 0,282
# 51 TURKISH AIRLINES TK, THY Index 0,376
# 52 KOREAN AIR KE, KAL Index 0,396
# 53 SAUDIA SV, SVA Index 0,548
# 54 GOL TRANSPORTES AEREOS G3, GLO Index 0,689
# 55 GARUDA INDONESIA GA, GIA Index 0,802
# 56 TAM AIRLINES JJ, TAM Index 0,890
# 57 AIR INDIA AI, AIC Index 0,934
# 58 CHINA AIRLINES CI, CAL Index 1,130
# 59 VIETNAM AIRLINES VN, HVN Index 1,544
# 60 LION AIR JT, LNI Index 1,899
* Based on our annual safety calculations which include all hull loss accidents and serious incidents in the last 30 years of operations in relation to the revenue passsenger kilometers (RPK) performed in the same time. We also took into account the international safety benchmarks such as the IOSA Audit and the USOAP country factor. Furthermore we included a time weightening factor which increases the effect of recent accidents and weakening the impact of accidents in the past. All calculation data ends after a period of 30 years. Fatalities are only counted when they were on board a passenger flight. No ground casualties or 3rd party fatalities in other aircraft. All accidents that fulfills the above mentioned criteria were involved in our calculation, regardless of causes or responsibilities.
NOTE: Because of delayed publication by authorities, the Safety Index can increase in some cases, even if no serious incidents or hull loss accidents occured in the reference year.

The JACDEC Index Methodology and Definitions

The index is based on JACDEC now 12 years of accident analysis and a variety of official sources and documents of recognized institutions. During this time, the index every year got more complex and meaningful.

It now has a level which allows us to compare the safety status of all the busiest airlines in the world combined.

The JACDEC Safety Index calculation is currently based on eight basic components.

1 Annual Revenue Passengers Kilometers( RPKs ) By using this number , we determine the flight performance of an airline. At nearly all major airlines , it is a default value. For calculating the index we use the cumulative RPK ‘s – depending on the age of the airline – 30 years back .
2 Fatalities For calculating the index we include all deaths among all occupants on board commercial passenger flights of an airline. (Time from boarding to de-boarding) For calculating the Index we use the number of victims – depending on the age of the airline – up to 30 years back.
3 Total losses The so-called ” Hull Losses” are another core component of the calculation.
Thus all accidents, by definition, refer to operations where the aircraft is destroyed, or was no longer repairable.
4 Serious Incidents This ” ingredient” in our index calculation is still relatively new. Only since the "critical mass" of air accident authorities is achieved, generating the appropriate report density to be used to calculate in the JACDEC Index. The term “serious incident” is defined by international standards and referred to incidents where an accident was only narrowly avoided.
A serious incident is weighted less than a Hull Loss .
5 Accident -Free Years The number of years without a hull loss accident, backward from the current reference year to the most recent total loss (Hull Loss ) of an airline. The more accident-free years an airline got, the better the relationship between flight performance and accident history resulting in an improvement of the JACDEC Safety Index.
6 IOSA Membership Is an airline through the IOSA audit successful and receive an unqualified certificate , this is also included in the index . IOSA stands for ” IATA Operational Safety Audit ” to determine a recognized program of the airline association IATA, to operational structures and quality management within an airline. Meanwhile over 300 airlines have received an IOSA certificate. Although an IOSA membership has little impact on our index , airlines that doesn´t have it were downgraded by a small quantum. [IOSA website]
7 The Time Factor When calculating the total accident history of an airline, we applied an time weighting factor ( the Exponential Moving Average – EMA ). This additional formula ensures that older accidents contributes to the safety index by a lesser degree than newer ones. The farther an accident is back in time, the weaker its impact.
8 Country Transparency As a new component we introduced in 2013 was the transparency of the controlling authority of Aircraft Accident Investigation . Depending on which country we established different levels of transparency. Countries in the Level 1 best in terms of publication all relevant flight safety events in that particular country, Level 2 for single or only a few publications , and Level 3 for no publications of the Aircraft Accident Investigation , or the non-existence of the relevant authority.

Safety Ranking 2014 » JACDEC

 

Yep! That is exactly what I thought WM. Chip permanently inserted in whatever orifice you can imagine. You obviously feel you have qualifications that make you superior to others. What might those be oh grand one.

The killer is that you make assumptions about civ vs. mil and I can tell you you are dead wrong. Some of the most militant Union folks I have flown with are former military. Some of the most pro company and therefore anti-Union folks have been all civilian. Do you in fact engage in conversations with people who think differently than you? Or do you engage in group think and disregard those who feel differently? Quit acting like someone who is all knowing and admit you have a bias against former military pilots who have competed against you for flying jobs.

The Oscar

 

Oh and BTW WM.......I never said they deserve to be here more than you.......you made that up. I said they deserve more than you can imagine. Pulleez!

Oscar out for now.

 

Yeah, it blows my mind and many other's as well that you guys haven't had more fatals. Seemingly on a monthly basis there's a major incident whether it's a near CFIT (HOU, RNO, LGA), or taxiway excursion (ISP, DEN), or the almost totaled -800 in LAS. You guys have been DAMNED lucky!

The rushed, "must get the mission done" attitude is the major reason why and you can't tell me otherwise. I repeat Oscar, the problem with military guys is that they come to SWA as their first civilian gig and don't have the background to recognize that the Flt Ops department and their procedures and mentality are royally effed up at this carrier.

It wouldn't be a problem if they went to a "normal" carrier such as Delta, United, Alaska, etc. Eventually they find themselves in the left seat carrying on the same mentality to operating an airliner as was originally taught to them, and here we have the result.....a carrier that's "safe" on paper but not so much in real life.

 

Hey WM. Just so you know we have many former civilian pilots who are at SWA. They are involved in flight standards, chief pilots, training, etc. I have personally seen many be rushed on average irregardless of their background. It is not exclusive to military folks. Civilian folks have been rushed just like the their fellow employees from the military ranks. The pilots at SWA who are "rushed" are no different in their behavior whether they come from the military or from the civilian world. You again have a bias and wish to engage in group think and blame others for what........?

What exactly is a "normal" carrier? One dominated by exclusively civilian pilots? Or one who brings all experiences into the equation to come up with a carrier who operates safely?

Oh and BTW Whack. You are now part of this outfit. How about participating in making SWA a safer and better place. Instead of saying that "you guys" have problems. Your pay check (considerably less according to you) comes from where?

You are whining and complaining so often that your credibility is minimal. You don't seem to be able to recognize this fact but still insist that you are sooo..... smart. Not very obvious to others though. Just saying. Good luck in life with all your credibility.

The Oscar

 

Yaaaaaaaawn.

 

For someone who knows everything? You should get some sleep. You will need it for those red eyes.

The Oscar

 

I find it funny; my whole military career I was told to slow things down, not rush, and avoid pressure as it leads to mistakes.

 

So that is your enlightening and fact filled retort.....just lucky I guess. Sorry Whack, I'll trust the facts as opposed to your ludicrous and wholly unsubstantiated assertions.

There is no such thing as "safe on paper but not so much in real life." The paper version is real life. You can't fake accidents that aren't there in real life. The record is what it is, safe on paper and safe in the real world are in fact one in the same.