Talk:Southwest Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(comments)
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Southwest Airlines article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Various comments

"The airline's 737-300 and 737-500 aircraft are not equipped with glass cockpit technology, as many other 737-300, -400, and -500 aircraft are. Instead, the flight decks are fitted with analog gauges, more similar to those of the earlier -100 and -200 variants.[citation needed]" I would like to add to this line that their 737-700s, although equipped with glass cockpits, display an instrument configuration similar to that of the 737 classics and is therefore also unique from the 'standard' 737NG. This was done to maintain pilot compatibilty across all of the aircraft from -200 to -700. I don't have a citation (because I am too sleepy to look for one right now) but hopefully someone can fill that one in to make it official.

WN flies from Providence to Phoenix, which can hardly be called "short-haul". 18.24.0.120 02:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It would be good to mention the Wright amendment here (see Love Field), since it essentially only affects Southwest. Mpolo 12:30, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Wright amendment doesn't "effectively" bar Southwest from offering service from Love (and Houston Hobby) to destinations in states not contiguous with Texas, it *does* bar said service.

Some clarifications. The Wright Amendment has zero to do with Houston Hobby--flights are not restricted from that airport at all. The Wright Amendment (1979) limited flights to the contiguous states (NM, OK, AR, LA). The Shelby Amendment (1997) added KS, MS, AL. In late 2005, a provision tucked away in a transportation appropriations bill added MO to the list of states that could be served from Love. Additionally, Southwest cannot sell tickets beyond those states, i.e. a routing Dallas-Albuquerque-Los Angeles.

The PSA article claims that Southwest borrowed many practices from PSA; if this is true, it deserves a mention in the article. -Branddobbe 21:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Against High Speed Rail?

Why was the mention of Southwest's lobbying against high speed rail connecting the Texas Triangle removed? If Southwest is indeed trying to stifle such projects its worth mentioning given the prominent mention of its efforts regarding the Wright Amendment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.90.34 (talk • contribs) .

  • I believe the Texas High Speed Rail project is still well in the planning stages and is not supported or opposed by Southwest. The Texas TGV Corporation was opposed by Southwest, but they had their franchise revoked, ending their high speed rail plan. Read more at this article, [1]. Michael Greiner 14:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destinations?

Is it right that Southwest Airlines has ended its flights to Houston at End of April 2005? May,17th, 2005, DEF

Southwest ended flights to Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), but continues to serve Hobby airport (HOU)

[edit] Crashes

Has Southwest Airlines ever had any crashes? I've heard that they've never had a crash, or a crash that involved a death.

Southwest A.L. has only one Crash: At March,5th. 2000 a Boeing 737-300 overshot runway at "Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport" and crashed, no death!! , the airplane (N668SW) was then scrapped, May,1st,2005 DEF

Make that two crashes as Southwest Airlines flight 1248 slid off the runway at Chicago's Midway Airport on December 8, 2005. During this crash the front landing gear collapsed during an emergency landing due to a snow storm. This accident killed 1 person, a boy of 6 years. The plane also hit several cars on the street ingering some people. No one on the plane was ingered.

It was NOT an emergency landing....it was a routine, scheduled landing until they couldn't stop the airplane.

The National Transportation Safety Board found that the aircraft was landed significantly beyond the normal touchdown point, over normal Vref, and with a tailwind. According to FAA regulations, both of these are not incidents, but accidents, as fatalities, totaling of the aircraft, or serious property damage were involved. Just for the record. The article is correct in mentioning that SWA has not killed a passenger. DolphinCompSci 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

--The NTSB has released various bits of information, and between incomplete and out-of-context info, and media filtering, definitive and accurate conclusions are tough to make 6 weeks after the accident. Let the NTSB do its job, and see what unfolds later as the official investigation progresses. There'll be plenty of time to update this page then.

[edit] Painting

Southwest Airlines has no airplane with Texas One Livery!! May,26 th, 2005 DEF

Fixed. Correct name is Lone Star One. June 4, 2005 - Hawaiian717 19:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • please look at the German Version of Southwest Airlines in wikipedia, DEF June,4th,2005

Southwest has several other crashes. They put an aircraft in the bay at oakland and tore both engines off a plane in Amarillo. Because of Southwests extensive advertising they are able to keep most crashes out of the media.

[Aircraft at OAK was a runway excursion and never entered the water. Aircraft at AMA did not have both engines torn off. Not even SWA is perfect, but let's not embellish, OK?]

[edit] Hubs vs Focus cities

Since Southwest does not operate hubs, I'm moving the hub cities in the infobox into the Focus Cities section. This should better reflect the way Southwest operates. Vegaswikian 23:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

-- Seems like it would be appropriate to list Chicago-Midway as a "focus city" in the table at the right considering they serve more non-stop destinations from there than most of the others listed (such as Houston-Hobby, Dallas-Love, Nashville, San Diego, LAX, etc.).

Given that Southwest operates point to point, I think the list of cities should probably be replaced with a total number of cities because otherwise it's going to be their whole network. But if a specific list is desired, Dallas Loveland should drop off the list; because of the Wright Amendment it has very few destinations compared to the rest of the network. Jon 15:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dallas "Love" may have fewer destinations permissible (currently), by why delete them? They're still serveable, even if there are fewer of them...

  • Southwest may "operate point to point" but that doesn't mean they don't have "focus cities" where their point-to-point operations deal with connecting traffic. Southwest doesn't schedule hub banks and MDW doesn't operate as a hub per se, but it's a de-facto connecting hub. FCYTravis 08:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Southwest Does not really opperate hubs. You could go ahead an call airports like Chicago, Dallas and Pheonix hubs if only because SWA has maintnence hangars there though.

[edit] Third-largest airline in the world

I am using the list at List of largest airlines for 2003 total passengers carried according to Air Transport World's annual report. There is a second list provided by the International Air Transport Association, which does not include non-member airlines. Southwest is not a member of the IATA, so please don't get confused by that wiki. --Kitch 12:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I was watching CNN and I thought they said Southwest #1.

(JJGlendenning 09:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

As of 2004, Southwest was #1 in full year domestic enplanements US Bureau of Transportation Statistics Official numbers for 2005 have not been released, but #1 ranking should remain. Joel 2006-01-30

Southwest Airlines carried more Customers than any other U.S. airline in August 2006, marking the first time that Southwest Airlines has topped the monthly list for combined domestic and international passengers, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Again, full numbers for 2006 would not reflect this, because SWA only topped out for the last months of 06 (december has not yet been released)

[edit] Corporate culture NPOV problems

Some claims look really weird. Someone knowledgable in the airline issues should check them:

Southwest is known for colorful boarding announcements and crews that burst out in song.
Southwest manages to maintain excellent customer satisfaction ratings. Its employees are generally well-known for their friendliness, which is often attributed to a unique "love-based" corporate atmosphere that made chairman and founder Herb Kelleher a celebrity in the business world.

Taw 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

From the biased perspective of an employee, this is all true. You can find anecdotal evidence on the internet by googling. Two books on Southwest's unique qualities written by academics include Nuts! and The Southwest Airlines Way Joel 2006-01-30

From the unbiased perspective of an airplane business nutcase, I can unequivocally say that Southwest serves as an inspiration to many. As an infrequent customer and distant observer it is safe to say that Southwest (like Apple and other brands / co.'s) just has nutty followers who are prone to toot the horn of the company too much (albeit for an encyclopedia.) However, this is normal given that they were mavericks (in their day) and continue to shine in an industry that is dismal, sad and hopeless for the average worker bee, shareholder, and passenger. I'll take a closer look at the neutrality of the page, but my guess is that this is just normal given that they are good at what they do in an industry that is littered with zombies, corpses and red ink. Airwebster 03:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am another Southwest employee...we like our airline, we like the work, and we are generally happier about it than employees at other airlines. I will try no to be too effusive :) Some of the flight attendants still do "break into song"...though not as often as in years past. Most of the songs are basically cute rewordings of popular songs, with some tongue-in-cheek humor. Many flight attendants will still give humorous safety briefings that carefully touch on all the FAA required information, but not in the way you would expect to hear it on other airlines. Some say passengers are more likely to pay attention... We do things differntly, and we try to be fun. Above all, though, we try to run a very safe, timely, inexpensive, convenient, and (relatively) comfortable service. Personally, I have never understood the desire of some passengers to have assigned seating. But, I have always made it a policy that if you want an assigned seat, I will tell you where to sit!

[edit] Discrimination

Why is one being described as "African American"? All the black people I know do not want to be called "African American". [unknown user]

Because in the US, it's very non-PC (especally in the news media) to refer to someone as "black". (It's also noteworthy that in the US, most "African American" skin tones are dark brown and not black.) Jon 14:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two seats for fat passengers

A "fat acceptance" blog is suggesting that its readers stop by and add their beefs against Southwest to the entry. Southwest enforces a policy that if you can't fit in the seat, with the armrests down, you need to buy two seats. link

This seems like an appropriate footnote for the fat acceptance entry, but out of place in the profile for the airline.

Why does it seem out of place in the profile for the airline? Why is a discussion of the flight attendants' demeanor more relevant than their policy on seat space?

Every airline has this policy or something like it. The block of text written by User:76.16.151.77 was way too POV. Edit referenced EDIT: Ok not all airlines but most including US Airways, Northwest Airlines and America West Airlines [2]. Michael Greiner 22:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the particular paragraph was too POV; however I feel it's important that this be mentioned. This has been an issue in particular for Southwest - they've been sued multiple times over it. This article should include this information.
I'm the person behind Big Fat Blog, the fat acceptance blog in question. First of all, I removed the fully copy-and-pasted text of my entry (just above) and changed it to a link, as it's copyrighted and was taken without permission. Second, nowhere do I suggest people "add their beefs". And finally, as said above, this *is* an issue with Southwest - moreso than any other airline. They've been sued multiple times over their demonstrably inconsistent policies. It'd be like moving any reference to Enron's wrongdoing over to an entry on corporate scandals, and leaving the Enron one pristine. C'mon - that's ignoring the facts. --Pmcaleer 13:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The comparison to Enron is way out of proportion, (Billions and billions of dollars and 4,000 lost jobs compared needing to buy an extra seat). If you can find sources that conform to WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources feel free to add any information you think is needed. Some links found from google by typing "Southwest overweight seating policy": Southwest FAQ, Opinion piece, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Article, USA Today on one lawsuit, San Fran Chronicle Article. BTW, the link for the blog posting is here. I don't think most Wikipedians like being talked about behind their backs. -- Michael Greiner 21:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


As this is a very widely known and widely talked about topic with Southwest Airlines in particular, I feel it's important to note it. As is, the Southwest Airlines entry reads as a commercial for the airline, with almost nothing but virtues and accolades. When there is a large boycott of an airline, it is noteable enough to be placed in Wikipedia. I agree it should be done in the proper format, properly cited. But I'm sure you could find 4,000 people who agree that this policy is not customer-friendly and an important reason for them choosing another airline. Who knows how much that lost business amounts to, or how much lawsuits and settlements will amount to in the end? Meiran 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"large boycott of an airline": Can this be shown by reference to disinterested evidence, for instance a mention as a financial fisk factor in a 10-Q or 10-K filing with the SEC? What appears to be "widely known" and "large" to someone in the particular fringe group, may not in fact be such in society at large.

I chose the word "large" because I had heard of it long before I even know a "fat acceptance" movement existed, and I've seen it advertised and talked about in numerous places. It's certainly gotten a lot more press and notice than most boycotts I've heard about. But no, I don't have evidence to back up that word. Which is why I'm not willing to write the mention in the article, because I personally wouldn't be able to do it properly. But it doesn't change the fact that it has an impact, several notable lawsuits, and lots of news coverage. Somebody should write it, and it should be left in there if it's done properly. Meiran 01:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I marked this article as requiring a cleanup. It needs to be more organized. Josh 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up most of the article, but I think more work still needs to be done. 141.153.171.3 23:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any problems with the cleanup tag being removed, or do they think more work needs to be done? Michael Greiner 22:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the page to be ok, and removed it. --BJ 04:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my first work with Wikipedia; I corrected some of the dates for policy changes in the Rapid Rewards section, and added the number of credits needed for a free flight. Rove312 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acronymtastic

WN currently redirects to Southwest Airlines. I think that people would be more likely to type in WN looking for White Nationalism than Southwest Airlines... thoughts? Drett 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • WN is the IATA airline code for Southwest. Most other major airline's IATA lead to a disambiguation page. (only exception I've found is Midwest Airlines, whose IATA is YX). Perhaps this should be done for WN. Michael Greiner 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking, 99. Done and done. Drett 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New NPOV Tag

Does anyone see reason for this tag to be here? All POV problems here on the talk page have been resolved. If noone has a problem with the article, this should be removed. Michael Greiner 22:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I read through the entire article and I can see no reason for the NPOV tag. I am going to go ahead and remove the tag, however, if someone does believe something in this article does not conform to NPOV, please detail exactly what the problem is on the talk page so that it can be addressed. Eberhart 02:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hairsplitting?

I've got a problem with the phrase "Southwest Airlines has never had a non-passenger induced passenger fatality", its hairsplitting and it requires a knowledge of symbolic logic to understand. There are two southwest fatalities the 19-year old who charged the cockpit, and the boy who died in chicago. Would anyone have an objection if this was rephrased to state "Southwest Airlines has had only one fatality as a result of an accident" This accurately excludes the 19-year old, and properly includes the boy from Chicago --Cliffb 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rephrasing to your suggested "Southwest Airlines has had only one fatality as a result of an accident" is also misleading, since it doesn't distinguish between a passenger fatality and a non-passenger fatality. You may think that as being hair-splitting, but you have to keep it in the proper context. Southwest, of course, is an airline, and as such they carry passenegers. A potential passenger is most concerned with numbers involving passeneger fatalities, of which, to-date, Southwest has yet to have any of. I'd suggest that the wording be left as is--it doesn't take any "symbolic logic" to figure out, just some careful reading and common sense. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by OPNLguy (talk • contribs) 10:14, 8 August, 2006 (UTC).

"requires a knowledge of symbolic logic to understand"=my witty way of saying, it requires careful reading. I think its fine to require careful reading if there is no way around it, but it isn't clear and could be clearer. One could argue it is trying to be a little too much like SWA propaganda. I went digging through the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Clearness - and I found "An article should be presented as clear-cut as possible. Ambiguity or confusion should be kept at a minimal. " This is an opening sentence, the details of all of the fatalities follows shortly, so this one sentence doesn't have to fully encompass every possibility, just be generally true. Southwest has had a passenger fatality, it just was not caused by an accident. Plus, this is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. --Cliffb 15:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "generally true" is that it can easily be "overly" general. Yes, Southwest has has a passenger fatality -purely- in the context that the guy on that Las Vegas to Salt Lake flight was a passenger, and he died. The appropriate context is that his actions precipitated his own death, and not anything that Southwest did. Otherwise, anybody who has ever passed away on any airline's aircraft (heart attack, etc.) is a "passenger fatality", but again, that's a generally true statement that lacks the proper context that the -airline- did not cause those kind of fatalities. You can call it hair-splitting if you'd like, but a little refinement is in order, IMHO, because what most people construe as "passenger fatalities" are those that were -caused- by the airline involved, not just technically because the deceased were "passengers." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OPNLguy (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 August, 2006 (UTC).

I'm not disagreeing that the passenger fatality was precipitated by his own actions. That is an unfortunate incident. The sentence "Southwest Airlines has never had a non-passenger induced passenger fatality" acknowledges this incident. "Southwest Airlines has had only one fatality as a result of an accident" actually excludes this incident, the sentence refers to the boy who died on the ground at midway. I think its okay if the first sentence is overly general, as the rest of the section explains the details.. OPNLguy, I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'm curious what others think... Anyone? --Cliffb 18:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particually like either wording of this. I say that the first sentence of the section should be removed to end this discussion. Michael Greiner 02:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael, good suggestion -- let the text speak for itself instead of summarizing it. I agree. How should we go about getting an agreement on this? --Cliffb 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph in question from:

"Southwest Airlines has never had a non-passenger induced passenger fatality, making it among the safest airlines in the world. The airline has had three major incidents of note, one involving a passenger fatality that happened due to the passenger's deliberate actions, and one involving a ground fatality."

to

"Southwest has had three major incidents of note, one involving a passenger fatality that happened due to the passenger's deliberate actions, and one involving a ground fatality."

based on the fact that two of the three people involved in this matter seem to agree with this change. (And the third did not disagree) If a third party doesn't not agree with this change please post here before changing the article.Michael Greiner 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No acquisation policy

Ha, apparently, the management think its lame to get involved in acquisations. [3] Mr Lloyd also points out the fact that Ryanair bases its operations model heavily on that of Southwest Airlines, which has a strict "no acquisitions" policy.

"Takeovers are disruptive, and considering Mr O'Leary has said he will step down from Ryanair in 2008, you have to ask if he will be there to see the thing through."

[edit] Commedian Quotes

I have removed the following, for the reasons stated below:

American comedian Carlos Mencia once observed that anyone trying to hijack a Southwest-chartered airplane would be incapacitated by the clientele that the airline attracts[4].

1. It's POV. The same statement could just as easily be made for any one of a number of airlines.

2. I think it's a bad precedent to be setting for Wikipedia since "jokes" about almost anything or anyone could be added to any Wikipedia entry, and doing so doesn't contribute to furthering information and understanding of the subject matter itself.

3. It's a plug for the commedian.

4. In this post-9/11 world *any* person(s) attempting to hijack an aircraft are likely to incur the wrath of able-bodied passengers, and it matters not what kind of "class" of people they are, or which airline they're flying.

[edit] 1970 litigation

One clarification point: the Texas Supreme Court was the court that reversed and denied the injunction barring the Texas Aeronautics Commission from issuing Air Southwest a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" on May 13, 1970 (such an injunction would of course keep Southwest from flying). The US Supreme Court then denied certiorari on December 7. I rephrased the text to make it clear that the important decision was the one of the Texas Supreme Court and that the US Supreme Court simply declined to review the case (which doesn't necessarily mean that they believed the lower court was correct; it could also mean that the high court was not interested in looking at this particular case). –Pakman044 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hub and Spoke compared to Point to Point

Southwest passengers generally fly directly to a destination rather than going through a central hub as in the Hub and Spoke system where the transportation goes to a central location where the passenger changes to plane to reach their destination. Southwest doesn't even refer to any city as a "Hub". They're all "Focus Cities". Southwest is even referenced on the Point to Point system page. Sox23 02:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what the text originally said. Southwest is one of the few airlines to depart from the more traditional "Hub-and-Spoke" flight routing system. In this case, "depart" means " to stop using, as in SWA does not use the hub-and-spoke system. The text needs to be rewritten to clarify this, though it was correct before you changed it. - BillCJ 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

The following used to be in the trivia section in the article. Not only is it unverified, but the vast majority of it isn't even trivia. It needs to be fact-checked and worked into the article in appropriate places.--chris.lawson 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

i deleted the section about the first african american pilot working for continental...it has nothing to do with southwest. the point in that trivia was that he was the first chief pilot, who also happened to be the companys first black pilot

Grrrr. People seem to insist upon having a GIGANTIC trivia section here. What part of WP:AVTRIV do you folks disagree with?--chris.lawson 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I hear you. I just removed a bunch that I think it sub-trivial, or at least below Wikipedia standards. Lots of it is also difficult because it's out of context compared to other airlines - is 1.6 billion gallons of jet fuel a lot compared to comparable sized airlines? Is 284k resumes a lot compared to other companies of comparable size? --Matt 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Something like the jet fuel use would be very difficult to put in context because Southwest is the only airline of its size that operates a homogenous fleet. That right there is a pretty good argument for removing this particular piece of trivia.
The number of resumes received is probably an order of magnitude or more greater than any other airline of comparable size, although I doubt you'd ever find reliable sources to back this up. (Again, without context, this is pretty useless.)--chris.lawson 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I worked as much of the trivia into the artical as i could. Southwest.com seemed like it needed its own section, because southwest.com is a very important part of the airline.

[edit] Lamar Muse

Lamar Muse (1930-2007) provided the airline operations experience needed to launch the new airline and served as president 1971-78. He attempted unsuccessfully to oust Rollin King, left SWA and founded another airline Muse Air. His name vanished from SWA corporate histories.

See links:

He's in this corporate history: http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/airborne.html

[edit] Airline on A&E

Southwest employees and customers are shown in reality TV fashion on Airline, soon to start its 5th season —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.159.158.210 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

  • The show was canceled over a year ago. Michael Greiner 20:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Service section

I don't think the New Service section of the article is encyclopediadic: it's constantly changing, it could be covered in a Destinations article (for example, United Airlines destinations (but without the frequency)), and it reads as advertisement. Opinions? --Matt 22:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so does anyone have an objection if I remove it again? --Matt 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is information that the airline has released and "New Destinations" are included in many other airline articles (JetBlue, Frontier, etc...) 24.12.170.21 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
There's way too much detail for the main article - maybe we could keep new service, but I don't think that we should cite "new service" when it's just a capacity increase. --Matt 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed "incr" service from new destinations and referenced them later in the paragraph, and only included "new nonstop service" to cut down on article size Sox23 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay thats fine 24.12.170.21 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
looks good to me - thanks --Matt 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/u/Talk%7ESouthwest_Airlines_d53f.html"