Originally Posted By Labuda "I think that the poor management at many US carriers (some of which are in bankruptcy as you point out) has caused them to respond to competition with Southwest by matching fares and cutting in-flight service to match. But the problem is that there's no way you're going to ever be competitive with Southwest by trying to match their low fares, since nobody is going to match their lower cost structure. You can't just take a mainline, full-service carrier and match SWA's cost structure by removing in-flight amenities. SWA is always going to be able to do this better than the other guy can." I'm curious - does SWA still turn a plane around quicekr than the other airlines? When I took a Six Sigma course for work a while back, the dude teaching the class used SWA and their thinking outside the box that allowed them to turn a plane around the way a pit crew does in auto racing to illustrate how we needed to thin outside teh box. Anyhow, I'm wondering if SWA still does that quicker than the reszt, or if the other airlines have adapted the same model for their planes? Anybody know?
Originally Posted By Mr X That makes me a little nervous, honestly. Not that being efficient isn't a GOOD thing, but sometimes "speedy" can result in "sloppy", which is something I'd rather not even THINK about when it comes to aircraft safety!! :O By the way, Buda...what the heck time zone are YOU in?? Up early, or something?
Originally Posted By Labuda I'm in Central. Almost 10 am here. In fact, I have to head out now, as I've got an 11 am call for rehearsal and there may be ice on the roads. Ugh! And, if they can do it safely, I think it's a VERY good thing! And, I don't recall the last time I heard of SWA planes having issues. Their flights do a great job of being on time - keep in line with the ibndustry, IIRC.
Originally Posted By Mr X I agree it IS a good thing, as long as safety is still number 1. Rehearsal...are you a performer somewhere? Sounds neat! DRIVE SAFE!!!! I was reading all the way out here in JAPAN about how awful the mid-west ice storms are!
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>I think that the poor management at many US carriers (some of which are in bankruptcy as you point out) has caused them to respond to competition with Southwest by matching fares and cutting in-flight service to match. But the problem is that there's no way you're going to ever be competitive with Southwest by trying to match their low fares, since nobody is going to match their lower cost structure.<< I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the problem not only lies on the management but also with the consumer, who demands the same type of low fares from them while still expecting better treatment. Not to mention the low cost structure being emulated by the full carriers like that of SWA, whihc have eroded pay and benefits for those emplpoyees who are delivering international service at SWA pay scales. I wonder if the SWA CEO frump stuffs as much cash bonuses in her purse as do the many other CEOs of bankrupted airlines such as DL, UA or NWA.. As for the full service carriers...You can't expect to pay for cheap when you go international. This is what's killing ATA as well with their code-sharing with SWA, since they lost all they had due to SWA's unapologetic raid of their system, which caused ATA to cut back their service by a whopping 80% and still today forcing ATA to undercharge for their Honolulu service to fulfill the requirements of the SWA code-share agreement. Comparing SWA to Walmart... well, that's a bit of a precarious comparison, because both companies are known for their cheap ways but at least SWA still delivers good service for the most part (unless you happen to be featured in their redneck extravaganza TV show on cable), but Walmart? Good service is non-existant there. They suck. Can you bring yourself up to say the same for SWA? >>Anyhow, I'm wondering if SWA still does that quicker than the rest, or if the other airlines have adapted the same model for their planes? Anybody know?<< Yes, that is still the case. SWA is known for being the Pit-stop airline of the World since many of their flights are hoppers from one city to the next. They are conditioned to be fast on the groud to keep the demand of their short ground time when planes are on the ground. This has also been criticized by some pilot unions and safety advocates in the industry as SWA has been known to fly planes in and out of airports in questionable weather and possibly with maintenance writeups that go unfixed until the end of the day... just to keep the planes on schedule. Whereas some airlines would rather wait for a storm to pass before taking the plane into the air or delay a flight to make sure a mechanical is fixed, some SWA flights have been known to go. I happened to be the witness to this last summer, as my flight out of Orlando was waiting for some wind-shear advisories to be lifted as there was a thunderstorm very near to the runway area. Then all of a sudden.. here comes a SWA planes taxing next to us and getting ahead, then taking off. Our pilot came on the PA to explain why we were waiting and why the pilots in command of that SWA had decided to takeoff. He basically said that the SWA pilots had agreed to be the guinea pigs for the control tower to test the flight corridor in the proximity of the storm; then he said, "I am just glad it's not us doing that!". For once, I had to agree with the pilot of my flight. It appears SWA's minimum safety margins might greatly differ from those of other carriers... what a safety minimun might be for UA for example, may not be the same for SWA... therefore they GO. Why do you think last winter one of their planes overshot the runway and ended up on the road at Midway airport, killing a child in a car, when other carriers were not landing due to icy conditions??? Obviously there seems to be a safety compromise with SWA in the name of keeping their planes going and going, fast as the speed of ligthing... Very questionable practice if you ask me.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< the problem not only lies on the management but also with the consumer, who demands the same type of low fares from them while still expecting better treatment. >>> Well, that's certainly a problem. The majors have found that the leisure traveler most often shops solely on price and won't pay even a $10 premium for better service. They want it cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. One of the ways they handle this is to meet the SWA fare, but charge for other things that SWA doesn't, such as change fees or last-minute booking fees for award travel. I think the US consumer is particularly prone to this "shop on price alone and then complain about poor service later" mentality, of which WalMart is a perfect example. Unfortunately, that's the reality of the situation, and an airline that doesn't deal with that reality is going to have problems, no matter how much you or I see what the problem is and discuss it here. <<< As for the full service carriers...You can't expect to pay for cheap when you go international. >>> But isn't there a happy medium between the current pricing structure and "cheap?" For example, for non-stop service beween Texas and Tokyo, the cheapest business class fare is about $7500 round trip, and most are over $8000. I just don't think that's a reasonable price. It's certainly out of range of most people to pay out of their pockets individually. Big corporate customers get discounts in the 40-50% range based on annual volume, but no such deal is available for the little guy. The independent traveler is forced to monkey around with upgrades or award travel in order to get a good seat. I think the carriers take this into account and aren't overly concerned about leisure travelers redeeming their miles for these "$8000" seats, since they know that virtually none of them would ever pay that amount, it keeps them happy, and it allows them to maintain the high price point for the business travelers that are paying the freight, so to speak. I think it's very shortsighted to put the problems of legacy carriers at the feet of the "freeloaders." <<< Comparing SWA to Walmart... well, that's a bit of a precarious comparison, because both companies are known for their cheap ways but at least SWA still delivers good service for the most part >>> I was making the comparison for the way they operate their business, not in the quality of service delivered. WalMart and SWA have a lot in common in that they've decided on their business model and have been remarkable at sticking to it for decades, without the wild swings in strategy that so many other companies go through. <<< I wonder if the SWA CEO frump stuffs as much cash bonuses in her purse as do the many other CEOs of bankrupted airlines such as DL, UA or NWA.. >>> I doubt it. SWA is on only their second CEO since the founding of the company 35 years ago. How many management teams have DL, UA, and NW had during the same time period? SWA seems to be led by people that understand and really believe in the business model, and not people that just say what they think they need to say. Also, they don't have to recruit endless numbers of "savior" management teams from the outside and lure them with large incentive packages.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< This is what's killing ATA as well with their code-sharing with SWA, since they lost all they had due to SWA's unapologetic raid of their system, which caused ATA to cut back their service by a whopping 80% and still today forcing ATA to undercharge for their Honolulu service to fulfill the requirements of the SWA code-share agreement. >>> The ATA/SWA situation is an interesting one. I haven't followed it all that closely, but the couple of articles I've read, I've had to re-read, thinking that I must be misunderstanding it somehow. It sure seems as if SWA bought out ATA and turned it into a subsidiary without literally doing so. But I think that the old ATA might have been toast without this arrangement, so who's to say. ATA was one of those carriers that was small enough that it could simply stop operating one day and not too many people would notice.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I'm curious - does SWA still turn a plane around quicekr than the other airlines? When I took a Six Sigma course for work a while back, the dude teaching the class used SWA and their thinking outside the box that allowed them to turn a plane around the way a pit crew does in auto racing to illustrate how we needed to thin outside teh box. >>> Much quicker. One way they do this is that unlike other carriers, they don't have ground cleaning crews, except for the overnight ones. That is, the flight attendants are responsible for having the aircraft clean before each flight. You'll notice that the SWA flight attendants go through the cabin with a trash bag much more frequently than is done on other carriers, and are much more particular about getting garbage that passengers have stuffed into the seat pockets, as it will be them that needs to get that stuff before the next flight if it's not done during the current flight. In fact, sometimes you'll hear a SWA flight attenant explain this to the passengers in a humorous way so that they'll have sympathy and pass the trash to the aisle instead of loading up the seat pocket. So not only does this allow for quicker aircraft turns since there's no need to bring a cleaning crew aboard, there's also no cleaning crew to be paid. Of course, this is made easier by the fact that SWA doesn't serve meals, but now that most other airlines have the same policy domestically, it would be possible for them to do so as well. But this is an example of where the unions get in the way. At least at some legacy carriers, the flight attendant unions have had the attitude of "our members are there for passenger safety, not to collect garbage or clean" and have required their carriers to maintain ground cleaning crews. This is one of many ways that the other carriers have a cost structure which is fundamentally higher than SWA's but is forced to sell tickets at the same price, and one of the ways that the unions have contributed to the situation. And before someone else points this out, I realize that the situation for long-haul international flights that last 12 hours and where 3 full meals are served is different and that in those cases, it's absolutely necessary to have a ground crew clean and prepare the cabin for the next flight.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Comparing SWA to Walmart... well, that's a bit of a precarious comparison, because both companies are known for their cheap ways but at least SWA still delivers good service for the most part>> But the ability for SWA employees to deliver service is far easier than it is for a WM employee to do the same. What exactly is so bad about WM employees anyway? I personally have never had a bad experience. But then I don't expect much from them anyway, because I know I don't shop there for the knowledge of the employees... but I could say that about Target as well.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It appears SWA's minimum safety margins might greatly differ from those of other carriers... what a safety minimun might be for UA for example, may not be the same for SWA... therefore they GO. Why do you think last winter one of their planes overshot the runway and ended up on the road at Midway airport, killing a child in a car, when other carriers were not landing due to icy conditions??? >>> That accident at Midway was SWA's first and only fatality in 35 years of flying, and only one person was killed. They operate about the same number of flights as the big legacy carriers (NW, UA, AA) and each of those has had far more fatal accidents in the last 35 years. So I think that the implication that SWA has spotty safety is not supported by the historical record. SWA has never had a tail rip apart mid-flight due to pilot error as allegedly happened on AA in 2001. SWA has never had an engine fall off a wing in flight as also happened at AA. SWA has never had a flight crash shortly after takeoff because the pilots didn't set their flaps properly, as happened on NWA. The list goes on. There may be reasons to avoid SWA, but a poor safety record certainly isn't one of them.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>but charge for other things that SWA doesn't, such as change fees or last-minute booking fees for award travel.<< Again, when was that changed? Because they wanted my to pay a lot of money to change my ticket from LAS to LAX in July 05. >>What exactly is so bad about WM employees anyway? I personally have never had a bad experience.<< Obviously you do NOT shop at our local WalMarts in Orlando. Lazy ghetto is what works there I am telling you. Maybe it's unfair to generalize but then again, I go to Target instead where service is better and surrounding are more pleasant and cleaner. >>the flight attendants are responsible for having the aircraft clean before each flight<< At SWA that is. NOWHERE in my contract will you find a clause requiring me to clean an aircraft. That is why dedicated cleaning crews are there to do after all passengers have deplaned. Yet, I do it, and many of my peers do it as well simply because it's simply courtesy to the passengers. >>You'll notice that the SWA flight attendants go through the cabin with a trash bag much more frequently than is done on other carriers, and are much more particular about getting garbage that passengers have stuffed into the seat pockets<< FYI... I do that^^ quite often myself on all of my flights and we are required to walk around the cabin at least every 20 mins inflight, not to pick up trash which we do anyways, but also to make sure no passenger is up to anything suspicious, like it was the case when the shoe bomber was caught by a Flight Attendant doing his/her job. I even am required to deliver an announcement before landing to ask customer to assist the crew by handing over any disposable items from their seat pockets and surroundings. I even bend down quite frequently in those narrow aisles to pick up anything I see on the floors, like napkings or plastic utelsils. I don't know what career you have been flying lately but on my flights, I find our crews are very good at doing this, concidering our contract does NOT state anywhere that we are required to pick up trash while in flight or on the ground. It's a basic thing to do just because we feel is necesary. That is not to say there is your ocasional problem person that won't do his/her job because of a bad attitude in light of the many abuses we have been dealing with from management and customers alike, but that I find are very few peers in my airline. I treat my planes the way I want my house guests to find my house: tidy and in decent order. That includes me going in the lavatories to make sure they are in decent and clean order as well....which again, I am not required to do by my contract. One thing many air travelers have to realize is that the management at some carriers have cut back so much that it makes the crews look bad. Do you know how many times people get mad at us for the bad decisions management has done...?? "Why do I have to pay for this lousy food?" (someone else's decision to charge) "Why do I have to wait so long to be served" (minimun staffing onboards which undermines safety) "Why are there no pillows or magazines onboard" (someone else's decision to take these items off as well) ..and my personal favorite comment.. "Do you stewardesses do this on purpose to p*** the hell out of us??" (as if we enjoyed being harrasessed and verbally abused by perfect strangers... GET REAL!) Those are some of the tough questions we Flight Attendants and Pursers have to answer to since management has taken away our tools to deliver good service, while taking away our very rightfully deserved livable pay scales. SuperDry, it's wasy to pass judgement on my career since you have never been in my shoes to know what it really is like to be on those planes and the hell we have to go thru to be certified to be there in the first place. Try not to be as ignorant as some other people who belong on this board that claim we have/need no skills to perform our duties. You are far too intelligent and well articulated to know better, or at least... understand.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>There may be reasons to avoid SWA, but a poor safety record certainly isn't one of them.<< Yes, they have been very lucky so far concidering they are flying Boeing's plane with the worst safety record: 737. They have been lucky like NWA which has been operating planes with scab mechanics who may or may not be knowledgeable as all of the more experienced mechanics were fired due to union disputes. Yes, Unions can be a real pain in the a** for all, but these are the same unions who are also giving consessions back to management, while those in charge stuff their pockets with golden parachutes and other million dollar worth perks as well.. So let's not be quick to place blame on the Unions as CEOs and upper management is just as greedy as anyone else.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Obviously you do NOT shop at our local WalMarts in Orlando. Lazy ghetto is what works there I am telling you. Maybe it's unfair to generalize but then again, I go to Target instead where service is better and surrounding are more pleasant and cleaner>> I agree Targets are far more pleasant and cleaner than Wal-Marts. As for the service, I guess I don't think WM is so bad because as I said previously, I don't really expect much, beyond them keeping merchandise on the shelves. I go into WM to buy; I don't go there to browse. That's undoubtedly their business model. They want turnaround. Target on the other hand, is obviously trying to get you to browse, and buy things you may not have come in for.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN Is that why the few times I have gone into a SuperwalMart (out of desperation) they have never had on the shelf what I need?? Furthermore.. do I have to listen to the two Bronx rican girl employees using obcenities while I shop there? Wal Mart is trash. At least the ones I have been into in Orlando.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< SuperDry, it's wasy to pass judgement on my career since you have never been in my shoes to know what it really is like to be on those planes and the hell we have to go thru to be certified to be there in the first place. Try not to be as ignorant as some other people who belong on this board that claim we have/need no skills to perform our duties. You are far too intelligent and well articulated to know better, or at least... understand. >>> I'm not sure where you're getting the vibe that I'm against flight attendants, don't respect their jobs or their skills, or anything along those lines. My only criticism of flight attendants in this thread was the one where I mentioned that some unions, at some carriers, have required the continued use of ground cleaning crews even on flights where meals are not served, and that this puts their carriers at a fundamental cost disadvantage as compared to SWA. And to this your response was: <<< At SWA that is. NOWHERE in my contract will you find a clause requiring me to clean an aircraft. That is why dedicated cleaning crews are there to do after all passengers have deplaned. >>> I don't think that anything could have possibly proved my point more than what you said above. But other than that, I really don't understand where you're getting the notion that I'm against flight attendants or don't respect them. The opposite is true. And this isn't the first thread where this has happened. And I'm at a loss to explain it. Can you please share with me why you think I'm passing judgement on your career or what I'm being ignorant about? I do think that the flight attendants through their unions have taken the wrong stance on some issues, such as the garbage issue I mentioned above. But I've never said anything even remotely close to not respecting the flight attendants, their jobs, or their skills. And this isn't just by omission, since I do in fact respect all of those things. I think you should read different things that I say independently, and not assume that because we happen to disagree on one or two things that I don't respect you or your profession. <<< those in charge stuff their pockets with golden parachutes and other million dollar worth perks as well.. So let's not be quick to place blame on the Unions as CEOs and upper management is just as greedy as anyone else. >>> I agree with you 100%. There's plenty of blame to be placed at the feet of management. But their mistakes don't speak one way or the other to situations where the union takes an unhelpful stance - one has nothing to do with the other. Unfortunately, they all add up over time.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>I don't think that anything could have possibly proved my point more than what you said above.<< Exactly the reason why I sided with you on that issue, but also as proof that we DO care to do our job *pass the spelled requirement of our duties* that define my reason to be on the plane, first and foremost. And YES, safety is the primary focus here. Long before you are employed and have to be a part of an Union, the airline training curriculum itself spends 95% of the time dealing with emergency issues, as opposed to barely a day or two to learn service skills on the aircraft. You seem to undermine and dismiss that important factor of my profession quite easily, as do many others in the traveling sector. It's what I call the "average Frequent Flyer opinion" on our career. >>My only criticism of flight attendants in this thread was the one where I mentioned that some unions, at some carriers, have required the continued use of ground cleaning crews even on flights where meals are not served, and that this puts their carriers at a fundamental cost disadvantage as compared to SWA.<< You make it sound so easily... No meals to serve! Gee, I wish that was the case!!! We may not be serving meals on trays like it used to be the case in main cabin years ago, but we still have to offer/sell some boxed snacks and deli sandwishes (or other products) that produce more rubbish than those items that sat on a tray, and you can trust me on this... people are pigs and yes, our "for sale" products now require more than ever that we be custodials onboard as well due to the sheer amount of loose trash they produce. Reason why SWA FAs may or may not collect trash more often than others since all they do is offer the same loose items that very easily find their way into seatback pockets or on the floors. >>I'm not sure where you're getting the vibe that I'm against flight attendants, don't respect their jobs or their skills, or anything along those lines. << Oh please, all you have to do is re-read your posts and in the condesending tone you put down other carriers while praising SWA. You seem to have the right attitude to be a magazine editor or company "advisor" as some other people on LP pass themselves off to be, and honestly? I expected more from you. SWA may be cheap and their employees nice (simply because the employees belong to the company profit-sharing program so of course they have to be nice and professional), but they also have some major faults with their service and operational requirements.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< And YES, safety is the primary focus here. ... You seem to undermine and dismiss that important factor of my profession quite easily, >>> Again, I have to ask where I even implied let alone said that a flight attendant's safety duties were unimportant, or was dismissive toward them. Please help me out here - where are you getting the impression that I feel this way? Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. <<< No meals to serve! Gee, I wish that was the case!!! We may not be serving meals on trays like it used to be the case in main cabin years ago, but we still have to offer/sell some boxed snacks and deli sandwishes (or other products) that produce more rubbish than those items that sat on a tray, and you can trust me on this... people are pigs and yes, our "for sale" products now require more than ever that we be custodials onboard as well due to the sheer amount of loose trash they produce. >>> Well, that's a situation I had not considered. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have to say that I have not ever been on a flight where food was offered for sale - I've been on flights with traditional complimentary meal service, no meal service, and SWA's snack box service. I'm curious - what percentage of people typically purchase a meal? <<< people are pigs >>> On that we can completely agree. I continues to boggle my mind how much this is so, and I don't quite understand why. <<< Oh please, all you have to do is re-read your posts and in the condesending tone you put down other carriers while praising SWA. >>> I like a lot of what SWA does. And when you make statement of facts that are incorrect (such as SWA having poor safety, or needing to wait 3 hours in line for an A boarding card), I'm inclined to set the record straight. But SWA isn't the answer to everything. It certainly won't get me to TDR, either directly or with award travel on a partner (since they have none other than ATA). And for the record, I almost always receive good service from the crew no matter what carrier I fly. It seems that you're very often criticizing the management of airlines, and use it as one of the primary causes of why they're in bad financial situations. But when I do the same, essentially agreeing with you, it rubs you the wrong way and you interpret it as a put-down. Regarding having a condescending tone, I'm not the one that stated "I'm always right." I often make mistakes and sometimes get my facts wrong, like in the situation above that you brought to my attention about the for-sale food items. That's one of the big reasons I'm here - to learn from others. <<< You seem to have the right attitude to be a magazine editor or company "advisor" as some other people on LP pass themselves off to be >>> Now you're making me laugh. I'll take that as a compliment. <<< and honestly? I expected more from you. SWA may be cheap and their employees nice (simply because the employees belong to the company profit-sharing program so of course they have to be nice and professional), but they also have some major faults with their service and operational requirements. >>> Well, I don't know quite what to say about this. You've repeatedly made disparaging remarks toward SWA passengers, and have on more than one occasion said something along the lines of SWA should not charge fares as low as they do since it makes it difficult for other carriers in the industry. SWA is a darned convenient carrier to deal with. Their fares are low, their website is simple, they make award travel a breeze, and their hub-less route structure means that if I have a multi-stop itinerary, I can generally fly directly between each destination (or in some cases make a connection along a direct path) without having to fly half way across the country to get to a hub. I get a good seat even if I purchase at the last minute as long as it's at least 24 hours ahead of departure. And it has an excellent safety and on-time record. But SWA won't get me to an international destination, it won't serve me a meal, it won't show me a movie, it won't give me a first class seat. If I needed to fly across the country, I'd probably have to make multiple stops and/or connect, but since I live in the middle of the country, that's not really an issue for me. I know that SWA has made life difficult for the legacy carriers and their employees. Some have adapted their business model and services to compete profitably in this environment, and others have done poorly at it and have landed in bankruptcy. You seem to have no problems blaming paying passengers, freeloaders, airline management, or SWA for the legacy carriers' problems. I'm sorry if it rubs you the wrong way when I point out that the flight attendants' unions have contributed to the situation, even if just a little bit.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN No, that's not what rubs me the wrong way. It's the huge ignorance about a career that takes a lot of dedication to perform and the constant abuse and misconceptions most of you seem to have about it, and how quick many are to point fingers to the very people who one day can be administering CPR on you in a crowded airplane aisle. There is simply no respect from management and the traveling public, especially the frequent flyer freeloaders. THAT's my main "rub the wrong way" argument. >>I'll take that as a compliment.<< Please don't. I am making a refenrence about some of the most vile people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. Phoneys if you will. Is that how we should view you as well??
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>the problem not only lies on the management but also with the consumer, who demands the same type of low fares from them while still expecting better treatment<<< I think you could start a whole thread about "the consumer", but I have to say I think the consumer WILL pay in some cases... I think there's just a mentality out there, and it feels rather true, that you are not going to get much and you're going to be treated like cattle on a flight no matter WHO you fly with or HOW MUCH you pay. Granted, SD pointed out how Continental is a bit different, but to be frank I don't think a meal and a movie mean much to most folks (the meal wasn't gourmet or anything, was it? could I have packed a nicer meal for myself from home?). So, for that reason, I think people figure they might as well just go as cheap as possible since it's all the same cattle call anyway. And a LOT of that these days isn't the fault of the flight crew at all, but the way things are on the ground before you even board. Lots of lines, tension, stress, and more lines. Now, about paying a premium I'm going to say something controversial. The consumer WILL pay more if it's marketed right. Think about this...WHY do so many insist on staying at extra expensive Disney hotels in Florida? Why do they stay at "all-star" for a higher price than a MUCH nicer hotel down the road...or a gigantic premium for Beach Club or Grand Floridian? We're still talking about the SAME consumer here (the generally budget minded, not too picky type, I mean). The airlines just have to figure out how to brainwash those folks like Disney did. ***SWA has never had a tail rip apart mid-flight due to pilot error as allegedly happened on AA in 2001. SWA has never had an engine fall off a wing in flight as also happened at AA. SWA has never had a flight crash shortly after takeoff because the pilots didn't set their flaps properly, as happened on NWA. The list goes on.*** Doing wonders for my fear of flying...thanks, buddy.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>WHY do so many insist on staying at extra expensive Disney hotels in Florida?<< Mr X, when was the last time you priced a WDW hotel on the net?
