SWA lands at wrong Branson Airport

[Dumb Pilot]

You need to network more, then. Many, many, many corporate flight departments fly very very weekends or Holidays. I know quite a few -91 guys who are in their own beds 24-25 nights a month and have all major holidays off. How many 121 guys can say the same? Of those who can, how many years after being hired at a major can they claim the same? I know many 121 major guys who are in their 40s who can't get thanksgiving and Xmas off. One thing to get them off have them off with little kids at home, quite another to have them off when the house is empty.

I spent the first 16 years of my time in this paid hobby of ours flying corporate, sure there are a handful of jobs on the corporate side that are as you described, but the reality is that most of the corporate jobs just plain suck.....! You spend most of your time playing a very delicate dance around your boss's mood, and worst yet, dancing around his wive's mood.....! Always in constant politics, with the partners, the guest (that most of the time were more of a pain in the rear end) obligated to be all up on their business because there is no way that you can separate their private lives from your day to day. I'm happy for your friend as it seems he got a hell of a job, but to say that this kind of lifestyle is the norm flying corporate is just plain nonsense.

 

[Ty Webb]

I was flying Lears at 21 yrs old . Right out of college .

It was considered a good corporate job.


Corporate sucks .

So, your job at 21, flying as a Lear FO, convinced you that "corporate sucks", huh?

 

[slaquer5]

So, your job at 21, flying as a Lear FO, convinced you that "corporate sucks", huh?

That and how many corporate pilots I have flown with that have said how much better the airlines are.

Actually Ty corporate is great , why don't you go get one of those jobs.

 

[Ty Webb]

That and how many corporate pilots I have flown with that have said how much better the airlines are.

Actually Ty corporate is great , why don't you go get one of those jobs.

I've actually had a good corporate job. If you'd had one (instead of believing you had one), you would realize how stupid your generalization sounds.

If a good corporate job came around now, I sure wouldn't be stupid enough to dismiss it out of hand. The key is knowing how to tell the difference. I'm betting you can't.

 

[slaquer5]

I've actually had a good corporate job. If you'd had one (instead of believing you had one), you would realize how stupid your generalization sounds.

If a good corporate job came around now, I sure wouldn't be stupid enough to dismiss it out of hand. The key is knowing how to tell the difference. I'm betting you can't.

Prove me wrong. Go get one

 

[twepilot]

The best line I ever heard about corp flying is...
Me: Do you guys get weekends off?
Pilot: Yes, and Thanksgiving and Christmas as long as were not flying.

God Bless Eddie Shaw!!

 

[booo]

I had a GREAT corporate job! Hired, got typed and current, furloughed and made the mins for a job in the majors! Love those guys, still feed my dogs their pet food to my animals, too!

 

[imacdog]

So, your job at 21, flying as a Lear FO, convinced you that "corporate sucks", huh?

Of course! It was considered a good job, after all. Because, you know, the best corporate jobs out there are the ones looking for low time fresh college grads.

 

[Ty Webb]

Of course! It was considered a good job, after all. Because, you know, the best corporate jobs out there are the ones looking for low time fresh college grads.

Exactamente . . . . and ones with such winning personalities, too.

 

[LiveFreeorDie]

Wow, this thread is a new low. How can any professional airline pilot use another carrier's tragic loss to further there schoolyard antics.

I have never read a more class-less thread. Of course there are criminal, negligent, or just plain stupid actions that sometimes lead to these tragedies, but sometimes there isn't.

If you guys weren't so he'll bent on trash talking each other perhaps we could actually learn something.

For instance studying accidents and statistics would show you that incidents will pile up on one person or one carrier just from random chance, so if American has more fatal crashes per cycle than United, it means very little and can not be used as an argument that the pilots or procedures at one airline are better than another.

But by all means let's keep disrespecting dead kids, vilifying pilots who were set up to fail (the actual winds and runway condition at Midway that night) and pulling our puds out to beat the same tired topics to death.

 

[PCL_128]

I would argue that the only people who are "disrespecting dead kids" are the ones continuing to claim that their airline has never had a fatal accident, despite a dead kid.

 

[redflyer65]

Let me fix it for you PCL...


No passenger has ever perished on a SW plane. Ever.

Even after 3000 flights a day for almost 42 years (that's over 15 thousand days). And I hope that record continues for another 40+ years.

Was the MDW accident tragic? Absolutely. But you have trouble with the SW safety record above?

 

[canyonblue]

I would argue that the only people who are "disrespecting dead kids" are the ones continuing to claim that their airline has never had a fatal accident, despite a dead kid.

Just shut up while you're behind.

 

[PCL_128]

red, while that's a more honest statement, it's still intentionally deceptive. Your company's airplane struck a car and killed a child. Perhaps instead of talking about how no one has died on your airplanes, you should instead just stick to touting the overall safety record. Frankly, the record is impressive (even though I think it's purely luck). You shouldn't need to spin the truth to make it sound good.

 

[HowardBorden]

Frankly, the record is impressive (even though I think it's purely luck).

luck
noun: luck
1. Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

Yep, that's most definitely it.

 

[PCL_128]

luck
noun: luck
1. Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

Yep, that's most definitely it.

Are you arguing that your company's practices are superior in safety than Delta's, United's, American's, etc.? I think that would be a difficult argument for you to make. Luck is the obvious explanation.

 

[HowardBorden]

Are you arguing that your company's practices are superior in safety than Delta's, United's, American's, etc.? I think that would be a difficult argument for you to make. Luck is the obvious explanation.

No, I'm arguing that our safety record is exemplary and attributing it to luck is absolutely ridiculous. If you truly believe that luck is what prevents aviation accidents then I submit you are a buffoon.

 

[redflyer65]

Frankly, the record is impressive (even though I think it's purely luck). You shouldn't need to spin the truth to make it sound good.

Impressive? Yep.

So your assertion is 40+ years of luck?

I can see where a college class in Statistics may have helped you here. Is it possible that some luck was involved? Sure, but the shear number of years more than make up for 'just luck'.

 

[PCL_128]

No, I'm arguing that our safety record is exemplary and attributing it to luck is absolutely ridiculous. If you truly believe that luck is what prevents aviation accidents then I submit you are a buffoon.

That's not what I said, clearly. But you've had no fatalities on your airplanes over the same time period that most other airlines have had at least some. My point is that that is luck, because your safety practices are certainly not superior to theirs. The overall radical improvement in safety industry-wide has definitely not been luck, which can be attributed to a lot of things.

 

[twepilot]

Toad, instead of digging to china, why don't you go outside and help clear the roadways here. At least by doing that you'll accomplish something...

RV

 

[HowardBorden]

you should instead just stick to touting the overall safety record. Frankly, the record is impressive (even though I think it's purely luck).

That's not what I said, clearly... because your safety practices are certainly not superior to theirs.

The only way to evaluate safety practices is to measure their effectiveness. The only way to measure their effectiveness is to analyze statistical data about how well those practices mitigate and prevent accidents. You are making subjective judgements about safety practices in direct opposition to statistical data refuting your claims. If you want to continue to make arguments that are in no way backed by factual data and chalk it all up to luck then be my guest, just don't expect anyone to lend any credence to your ramblings.

 

[PCL_128]

So to be clear, you are claiming that your safety practices are superior to all of the other airlines?

Funny. Hilarious, in fact.

 

[HowardBorden]

So to be clear, you are claiming that your safety practices are superior to all of the other airlines?

Funny. Hilarious, in fact.

I'm claiming the only way to evaluate safety practices is to analyze the data about how each airlines practices mitigate accidents. If you have another method please share it. If not, take a look at the statistical data available and draw a conclusion based upon that data. I'm making no claims as to whose practices are better or worse, I'm simply analyzing available statistical data about which practices are statistically effective at preventing accidents. Clearly some airlines have more effective practices and some airlines have practices that are less effective than SWA. If you choose to refute that, please do it with some other argument than: "Because I said so."

 

[Nindiri]

I think when the same type of incidents keep happening to an airline, it's not just random chance. It's probably time for Southwest pilots to stand down, stop trying to explain away these incidents, and figure out what we're doing wrong, before we really do screw up bad.

 

[tankerhead]

Let me fix it for you PCL...


No passenger has ever perished on a SW plane. Ever.

Even after 3000 flights a day for almost 42 years (that's over 15 thousand days). And I hope that record continues for another 40+ years.

Was the MDW accident tragic? Absolutely. But you have trouble with the SW safety record above?

Ever? Never ever? Didn't some of yall's pax put a hurtin' on some deranged fool soon after 9-11?

 

[slaquer5]

Ever? Never ever? Didn't some of yall's pax put a hurtin' on some deranged fool soon after 9-11?

That was pre 9-11. Not after

. I am off for some. IPA.

 

[redflyer65]

Ever? Never ever? Didn't some of yall's pax put a hurtin' on some deranged fool soon after 9-11?

Yes ever. I'm sure we've had some heart attacks and strokes too if you want to throw them in. Operationally...none.

Nindiri,

I completely agree with you and it can happen to anyone. We've had some recent events and need to learn from them. No doubt. I'm not throwing stones at others because I know it can change quickly. Still proud of our record, and again, I pray it continues. We have some fine aviators.

Many years ago we had a complete flap spindle failure. Sheared off completely. Those pilots (thru skill) saved that aircraft and everyone on board. It should have been a hull loss with multiple deaths but it wasn't.

I hope we all (every carrier operating) has an unblemished safety record year after year. Loss of an aircraft and life is a horrible event.

 

[SWA Bubba]

I think when the same type of incidents keep happening to an airline, it's not just random chance. It's probably time for Southwest pilots to stand down, stop trying to explain away these incidents, and figure out what we're doing wrong, before we really do screw up bad.

Really? While Southwest certainly can learn from any incident (as well as could other carriers learn from anyone's incident), what are you getting at here? The "same type of incidents" that apparently keep happening to Southwest? What exact "same type" is that?

As I see it, the incidents that have happened to Southwest in recent years have been considerably different from each other, and we have learned from each of them. From each incident (with a complete investigation, that is), Southwest has "figure[d] out what we're doing wrong," and addressed the issue at hand.

Do you have specific examples of Southwest "explaining away," or ignoring what we're doing wrong? ('Cause I can give you numerous examples of what we've learned and changed after some of our worse incidents).

Or did you just wanna' bitch about Southwest on an anonymous board like everyone else? If that's the case, then by all means, carry on.

Bubba

 

[Nindiri]

Well, lets see. Just since 2000, two disastrous runway overruns that could have been prevented by go-arounds, an airplane driven into the runway and wrecked at LGA because the CA wouldn't go-around, and now a crew rushes into landing at the wrong airport and narrowly averts a deadly overrun. Do you really not see how this keeps happening?

Maybe it happens at other airlines too, but that's their concern. We need to step back and see what it is that we need to change here at SWA before our luck runs out and we hurt someone.

 

[waveflyer]

red, while that's a more honest statement, it's still intentionally deceptive. Your company's airplane struck a car and killed a child. Perhaps instead of talking about how no one has died on your airplanes, you should instead just stick to touting the overall safety record. Frankly, the record is impressive (even though I think it's purely luck). You shouldn't need to spin the truth to make it sound good.

In 7 years here at SWA I've yet to find one line pilot or exec who claims we haven't had a fatality.

And you won't source who has-

So please- either source it or shut up. And red- I draw no good conclusion from distinguishing between a passenger and someone on the ground. As a pilot I think it's worse to kill people on the ground. At least when one buys an airline ticket they are agreeing to take on the risks of an airline flight, however minimal they may be

Pcl- you're acting like garbage lately- what's your deal?
You understand and represent a lot of good ideas that you now seem to be working hard to discredit. I don't think there's any winners with your online postings about SWA -
Hint: you aren't discrediting swa- you're just finding new ways to discredit yourself and alpa