Strictly daytime, continental US flying isn’t the argument I’d be making for “more risk”.

Pretty sure operating 3-4 takeoffs and landings per day, is a higher risk than flying 1 leg from X to Z.

How about operating a loaded (Heavy) flight into a snow covered low vis, windy night into MDW?

I think the argument is that 5 legs touching 5 airports a day, usually 2 aircraft, often several different crews, 24 hours a day ops, into 115 or so cities, carrying 150 ish pax per leg is a bit more risky than napping half a flight between the same two international cities and getting three landings in a sim each quarter. Airlines don’t pay by risk, or by revenue generated. They pay as little as they can get away with using any justification possible. Our unity is the only thing keeping us from being paid like an Uber driver.

have you seen our schedules or even heard our call sign when flying?
not sure why you'd say this.
I'd like to hear arguments for more risk in other operations.
I'd say operating in foreign countries where aviation isnt as mature is more risk.
how much flying in these territories do the bug 3 do as a percentage? I'm generally curious. 10%?

US Cargo operators flying adjacent to war zones.
LCC’s that do red eye TURNS.
Any non augmented red eye that blocks over 7 hours.

Other majors have the same risk going in and out of LGA for instance. Plenty of airports with short runways that is operated by mainline. Europe gets plenty of storms where you can find some interesting YouTube videos of planes landing…..didn’t see Southwest.

I agree about war zones- do they get an override for that?
I'll push back on Sw not doing red eyesbor the risk associated therein. SW schedules flights that report at 0400 and then one that land at 0200. Two different schedules.
I'd say that a true redeye may be easier in that you only have that flying to do and can prepare for it. Waking up at 0200 to report is very tiring. Then flying 3 legs and having your 4th finish at 0200 is also very tiring.
having done night cargo for yrs I think that was an easier schedule than these SW one. Maybe I was just younger.
I'd say that true red eyes and SW crap schedules are in par at inducing risk.

The point isn't that the other majors don't ever fly a garbage schedul, into snow on a short runway, or late/early hours. It's that due to the fact that we operate a significant margin of flights more per year, re inherently take on more risk than our peers at other airlines. We fly more people on more flights.

The revenue side is harder to figure out because 4 fights with 175 for 2 hours each with 2 pilots doesn't necessarily equate to the revenue/cost balance dictated by 1 flight with 300 people for 8 hours with 3 pilots. Harder because we may fly more people, but fewer premium passengers, but we also touch more people which gives more opportunity for ancillary revenue such as credit cards, early boarding, etc.

let's move away from risk and say in any operation there are inherent risks.
How about creating revenue? If you make more for the company shouldn't you get paid more? That's the idea of getting paid more to fly bigger planes, correct?
so by flying more block hrs a yr wouldnt one make more revenue or at least he in par with the bigger planes if we're counting pax flown ?

Don’t you have some gas to pass? GMAB

Simmer down bud. I’m not looking for a fight, so relax. I was asking a legitimate question. Thanks to the other guys/gals for a respectable, coherent response. It’s certainly a question the company is going to be asking. I’m cheering for you guys, with the whole rising tide thing…