A Crisis That Tops Them All

[LuckyDad]

Dizel, I'm not sure what the point of your post was... Yes, I would agree that a person has the right to drive anything they feel is safer. I didn't mean to sound as if I was slamming the lady in the humvee (though reading the post again, I can see why my wife says I don't communicate well), I was slamming the situation where she feels like thats what she needs in order to feel safe on our roads and highways. What I was trying to say is it is sad that, as a Nation, safer cars mean bigger, less efficient ones. You dont see this sense of entitlement in Europe, where high gas prices have reprioritized public thinking. If it was safe to drive a mini, you can bet my wife and kids would be in one, but until then, unless someone repeals the laws of physics, safer means bigger, and that's what I resent, in order to be "crashworthy", it has to get 10 mpg and weigh 4 tons. We have missed the boat. In school, in the 70's, there was an artical published by a group of engineering students attending Cal-Poly. Being in the middle of the gas crisis, when prices were high, they wrote the "Big 3" automakers asking why mileage was so low, and could they produce a car that got 100 mpg. The response from the automakers was "wasn't feasable, couldn't be done. etc. etc. So the students took a MGB, removed the engine, installed a Kubota turbo-diesel tractor engine, altered the gearing slightly, and got slightly over 100 mpg and a perfectly roadworthy vehicle.
You could certainly duplicate it now, but who in the hell would feel safe in the MGB? There has to be a better way than the system we have.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Honda Civic - Great safety rating, 4 door sedan, 40mpg.

 

[AMRCostUnit]

Honda Civic - Great safety rating, 4 door sedan, 40mpg.

04' Toyota Highlander 3.3L V6/All wheel-drive/7 pax/airbags everywhere.

30mpg on the highway at 65mph. 120 mile drive takes 20 min longer and 10mpg better than at 80mph.

Put in a CD, set the cruise and relax...

Unit

 

[80drvr]

I got to agree with Xanders post... I dont want to see any airline fail, SW is no 5 for me, all the past ones are gone, and I empathize with every single airline employee who is watching the cost of fuel skyrocket, and their employers losses mount. Still, what concerns me is as a Nation, we are not addressing consumption. I am sick of seeing a 125 pound mom picking up her kids in a 3 mpg Humvee. Admittedly, my wife drives a Tahoe, because I don't feel safe with her and the kids in anything smaller. Defensive driving now means being in a vehicle that can sustain an impact from some other knucklehead in an SUV that was talking on a cell phone and not paying attention. I was a new driver in the oil embargo and rationing in the 70's, and people talked about what they could do... carpooled, etc, etc. Back then, people who drove gas guzzlers were sort of ridiculed...I dont hear that now, just how much more it's gonna cost to keep on doing what we are doing. Perhaps if gas went to $10./gal, we'd get off the stick and start persuing some other energy sources. I'm no engineer, but no one will ever convince me it takes 200+ horsepower to get to the store for a pack of smokes. A beetle had 38 HP, got 20+ mpg, and could be overhauled for 300 bucks, but to drive one today is asking to get run over.

Isn't a Hummer H2 simply a Tahoe in disguise? Thought they shared the same chassis.

 

[AMRCostUnit]

To cover the costs, the legacy carriers would probably have to raise their fares by 30-40%. Do you really think a carrier, who raises their fares that much, wouldn't see a dramatic drop in traffic?

Last year AA carred about 90 million pax. A $10 increase gets 900million more in revenue. Until someone says "NO, I'm not buying the gas for the jet" management will just keep coming back. An it may come down to defying a court order or mass resignation.

It's not an issue of one or two people just quitting. We all have to put it on the line to be successful. When managment can no long count on labor to fund the company then they will have to raise fares.

Unit

 

[JoeMerchant]

It's not an issue of one or two people just quitting. We all have to put it on the line to be successful. When managment can no long count on labor to fund the company then they will have to raise fares.
Unit

You're living in a dream world if you think we will ever "all put it on the line" for each other. ALPA and APA have a very long history of sticking it to each other and eating their young. As someone else said, ALPA is latin for "every man for themselves". In a perfect world, you would be right. In this world however I will not fall on my sword for you.

You're union APA isn't exactly the poster child for getting us "all" to work together.

 

[AMRCostUnit]

I should have been more specific. By "all on the line" I meant all the AA pilots. As far as getting that to happen, you're right about me living in a dream world.

When U lost their pension we ALL should have shut the country down. Since that didn't happen it has been open season on labor in general.

As some says on another board, "It's all a matter of time and pain."


Unit


P.S. LMAO at the the latin translation of ALPA. APA must be a variation also

 

[canyonblue]

Canyonblue, how does that sound?

And you wonder why I post these things? It's the still constant barrage of morons that still treat Southwest like a 3 airplane Texas outfit not worthy of your consideration. That is why my "Southwest and Cannot" barb hit me as funny. The same ones who think that just because we are currently a 737 domestic only operation, that we should be happy we made it that far. I wouldn't count out Gary Kelly as much as many on this board do. Same old time pilots who blame their problems on everyone but their own mismanaged company, no wonder you still let them go back to you for pay cuts. How about telling them to get the next amount of cash from their passengers, that would really be a far fetched idea. Quotes like "The International stuff should be a profit center for the legacy's. LCC's and Southwest cannot compete here" is unbelievable. I guess that the other Non-Legacy airlines should just be happy that you allow us to share the ramps with you. And my post is arrogant? Some of you should read what you post.

 

[Doug Parker]

It's the still constant barrage of morons that still treat Southwest like a 3 airplane Texas outfit not worthy of your consideration.


Isn't that what they are ??????

 

[Flopgut]

I have no idea what color the sky is in your world.

And you wonder why I post these things? It's the still constant barrage of morons that still treat Southwest like a 3 airplane Texas outfit not worthy of your consideration. That is why my "Southwest and Cannot" barb hit me as funny. The same ones who think that just because we are currently a 737 domestic only operation, that we should be happy we made it that far. I wouldn't count out Gary Kelly as much as many on this board do. Same old time pilots who blame their problems on everyone but their own mismanaged company, no wonder you still let them go back to you for pay cuts. How about telling them to get the next amount of cash from their passengers, that would really be a far fetched idea. Quotes like "The International stuff should be a profit center for the legacy's. LCC's and Southwest cannot compete here" is unbelievable. I guess that the other Non-Legacy airlines should just be happy that you allow us to share the ramps with you. And my post is arrogant? Some of you should read what you post.

Why are you projecting this on yourself the way you are? Why do you never miss a chance to flatter yourself? The success of your airline is so unique that you can pretty much attribute it to one man, Herb. The second you start doing things that he did not do, you are going wildly outside your fundamentals, and that is bad. You better hope your airline doesn't do too much new stuff. I'm not saying that to belittle you, I don't want to see your airline screwed up (my regard for you notwithstanding). Your airline might go to Cancun or Cozumel or maybe Victoria BC; But I would not think that is a good thing if I were you. You are not going to go to Beijeng, Tokyo, Rio, London, Moscow, etc. Or, are you saying that you think SWA will? Please. You are not going to fly from Love to Hong Kong. And the fact that you actually can interpret that as a slight on your airline speaks volumes of the type of mentality festering at SWA.

Accept your stable and lucrative flying job with at least a shred of humility and excuse yourself from this sort of discussion.