Jump to content

Talk:Southwest Airlines/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Remaining -700s on order

The info in the Boeing chart was as of February 2008, while the counts here on wikipedia are as of each update I post. The latest Boeing chart shows there have been 302 -700 deliveries with 101 remaining. As of my last update on March 17th, there are actually 313 -700s active in the fleet. Subtracting 4 -700s that were acquired on the used market and not delivered as -7H4 models from Boeing, that's 309 delivered -700s, so 309-302 is a difference of 7, and 101 remaining minus that 7 = 94 remaining -700s to be delivered. I added the word "remaining" to the orders info to help avoid future confusion. OPNLguy (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Planes Grounded

There seems to be some disagreement on the number of planes grounded. Some sources say 42, some 43, and some 44. Is there a press release on this or official word from the airline or FAA? 69.12.151.48 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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.

As a nearly 30-year employee, I'd say you're right on target.. OPNLguy (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

It would be good to mention the Wright amendment here (see Love Field), since it essentially only affects Southwest. Mpolo 12:30, 30 September 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, 8 October 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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 June 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?]

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.

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)

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!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."

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.

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)

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)

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.

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

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).

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)

I dont like the sentence ending with "adding 36 new nonstop flights slated to begin from March to May, 2007." All flights are nonstop when you don't mention the point of origin or destination. Rdraugho 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Delta Air Lines#Complaint Links about the removal of the links to the complaints bulletin boards (such as www.southwestcomplaints.com, these complaints bulletin boards are all from one company and have minimal information) from airline articles. I invite you to discuss this change there. --Matt 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was part of this discussion in the Delta Air Lines article. I understand airlines want to protect their Wikipedia articles, but this is an open encyclopedia and purposefully omitting resources that are relevant to the topic and useful for readers goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. I looked at this Southwest Complaints site and it does indeed seem to be run by the same company/person as the other airline complaint sites (see links at the bottom of the site). However, since the sites are free and have no ads that I could find (e.g. it is purely informative and non-commercial), I do not see the relevance of it being maintained by the same people as long as it is a free and useful resource for readers. I do not see what the owners of these sites have to gain from being linked to by Wikipedia since they are not monetizing these sites. The site includes information on how to directly complain to Southwest (address, phone, e-mail link), articles on how to argue with airlines, and experiences from other passengers. This fits the Wikipedia linking guidelines, specifically "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews", so I think this link should also be added. Were these sites to become commercial and begin monetizing, then I believe we would have to review them again and consider removing them, but as they stand now, I can only see them benefiting readers. Furthermore, with the recent news regarding increasing airline hassles, it is hard to argue against the relevance of these complaint sites. --Scottyslist 02:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion on the Delta talk page. Thanks --Matt 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

This article is getting close GA and I'll probably review it at some point, but I'd like to point out that while {{Cite web}} isn't mandatory, it would ridiculously helpful here. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Date conflict

There's an obvious date conflict in this paragraph: "In February of 2005, Louis Freeman was recognized as Southwest Airlines' first African American pilot. He later become the first African American Chief Pilot of any major U.S. airline in 1992." Clearly, 1992 cannot be later than 2005. ````

-the dates are backwards/obviously

  • False. your interpretation of English is incorrect. "In February of 2005, Louis Freeman was recognized" merely means that's when he was awarded a recognition for that achievement.--Inetpup 06:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Well, if you're going to say something happened in 2005, you can't say that something LATER happened, but it was in 1992. It's poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.140.10 (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image captions

Why are they centered? It looks terrible. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 02:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. This is the only articles that I have seen that have the captions centered are the airline articles, and there is no apparent reasoning behind it. (Or mention at Wikiproject Airlines) --Michael Greiner 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I see it now on American Eagle Airlines, but it's too late and I'm way too lazy to figure out how many more have it or who's behind it. Sigh. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 07:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's on a bunch of airline articles, but not here anymore. I believe User:Sox23 is behind it. --Michael Greiner 12:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I did it here but not anywhere else Sox23 14:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Then explain this edit. Michael Greiner 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay so I did it to a few...what does it matter- the only ones that had a prob w/ it was SWA editors? It's not that big a deal-- just revert it Sox23 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Why? Just wanted to have a little experimental fun? -- Phoenix2 (holla) 07:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I saw it on a few other articles and thought it looked better just like you think left-justified looks better. Sox23 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I think it looks better, our own WP:MOS says that image captions should be left-justified. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK no big deal Sox23 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Int'l service

I added this new section. This is not speculation. A Southwest VP said it. Archtrain 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

should be included that Southwest will still partner with another carrier to do Canada and Mexico service BEFORE overseas as it appears from current wording to be saying that since ATA did not work out they will no longer do that and only do overseas later with another carrier Wikiman9223 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

dress code?

In fairly recent news, an off-duty Hooters waitress had some issues on a Southwest flight regarding her outfit being supposedly too obscene,... She was ultimately allowed to continue on the flight, but had to pull down her skirt and pull up her blouse, cover her legs with a blanket, and get a lecture on "acceptable dress" by the flight attendants, in order to continue. At first, I was rather surprised that this happened on Southwest, but here's the story. Dr. Cash 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this was official Southwest policy. I don't think it's notable enough for the article. --Matt 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is surprising too but why doesn't Wikipedia have an article about Kyla Ebbert yet? --Felix the hurricane 1:00PM, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that is boycottworthy. I'm taking one of those naturist flights next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
And another one: second woman. 128.227.81.185 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
And don’t forget about the man with the “Master Baiter” T-shirt. You would think SWA would be smart enough to send out a memo to their employees to NOT do these sorts of things when they start to get bad press for it.… Is it notable yet? — NRen2k5 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole section was deleted by User:NeilN

151.201.154.62 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nuts!

Should we add a link to that book? All it does is talk about SW's business model for hundreds of pages (off-topic, I really recommend it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.43.69 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Is there an issue preventing it from being a beneficial addition that I'm unaware of? WN1971 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus Cities

It seems inaccurate to assume that Southwest's Top Ten Airports are considered by them to be Focus Cities and more importantly the only ones that they have since they have never used the term "Focus City" in reference to them and do not publish an official focus city list. Despite what we may be see as a defacto hub, it is not what that this company designates those airports and therefore they should not be placed in the aritcle based on that oppinion if it is to be truly accurate. However, if the list is to remain regardless, then Nashville and Denver(the only city to actually called such by the CEO in recent history/Google News Archives can vouge for this) should be there also for the reasons cited. (Edit880 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

  • The list is simply based on daily departures, refuting everything you just said. I do find it funny how a reference published by Nashville Airport itself is used to prove it is a focus city. -- Phoenix2 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Rocky Mountain News serves as a source Denver is a focus city is Southwest - am I missing something? --Matt (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No you aren't. Those references were bogus and I have removed DEN and BNA from the list. Sox23 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The Rocky Mountain News article quotes the Southwest CEO saying that Denver is a focus city and the Nashville Airport site, the other source, says straight from the airport authority on that page that they have focus city status and you have ZERO proof on the other ones because nobody says the Top Ten list are "Focus Cities." Show me an official source from Southwest or those airports that gives THEM that title. I've put BNA and DEN back on the list. Technically a hub is a city with more than 50 departures a day so many cities above and beyond Southwests top ten fit that definition but that doesn't mean that Southwest calls them that. Just because you decide that the top ten are focus cities or "de-facto hubs"(love that one) doesn't make them such. Read "The point of out route network" on the Blog Nuts About Southwest and you'll see that they explicity state that while they bigger cities called "Mega stations" by them, that they have no hubs and he doesn't mention focus cities their either. You guys are really dreaming and grasping if you list anything for Southwest in that paricular box. Also, saying that the Top Ten which you guys just copied in the list that Southwest doesn't explicitly call focus cities is only a list based on number of departures and that refutes Edit880's point is wrong because that would back it. Looks like we have almost just as much in favor of no list or list with DEN and BNA as we do for a list without either with no citations for the other cities.
Nashville used to be on the Top Ten list too ladies and gentleman and I don't see how a quote from Gary Kelly for Denver and Herb Kelleher for Nashville as a place of expansion can't legitimize this. I don't even understand why you've argued about it as much as you have. After all, it is wikipedia. Looks like DEN and BNA are focus cities whether the Wiki says so anyway becuase of the goood sources they have and and 50 something flights with connections in Denver and over 80 in Nashville with connections and there are ALOT more than just what is cited here. Also, you folks should read the entry on Nuts About Southwest that guy just mentioned despite his spelling. It says what Edit880 was trying to tell you hands down right from their route planner. Sox man should really be more worried about United going out of business in his precious Chicago and losing a hub than Nashvillians especially who used to be an American hub as is cited in one these sources. After all even this site itself isn't allowed as source in most American colleges and schools. How wasteful of time and energy. 172.129.143.184 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I could care less about United Airlines. I would take WN anyday over UA. Chicago is the shit- it beats Nashville anyday Sox23 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Nashville and Chicago are both great cities. No violence here remember! Also, Nashville is now well cited and the Nuts About Southwest blog entry by their route planner and Ben Mutzbaugh's USAToday Hub and focus city list shoot down the notion that their Top Ten List is their focus city list by separating them. 172.167.77.14 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The top-10 list was implemented because Southwest has so many large operations that its rediculous to list all of them for focus cities, so to keep things simple, we have just listed destinations from Southwest's website's top ten chart. Sox23 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think your probably right. I wish someone had posted this at the beginning or I wouldn't have put the effort into citing Nashville. I came into to this late in the game so I didn't realize that was already established and thought I was helping. I'd also like to add that despite this group's choice of Southwest I would never wish any job losses or financial demise on United and their employees. It's a tough industry. 172.167.77.14 (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
So bottom line, what are we doing about BNA & DEN? Should we just keep them since they're cited? If we do, I think this is where we draw the line - otherwise pretty soon, we're going to have about 60 of Southwest's 64 destinations in that little infobox. In regards to my comment on UAL, I was just telling the anon who thinks I am in love with United Airlines that I don't really care for United and prefer Southwest. It does not mean that I hope United goes out of business. Sox23 04:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say hold and draw the line and maybe with the next top ten list post it fresh. This doesn't need to be like AirTran's article where their list hit the runaway train from what's on their website a long time ago..LOL. UAL comment understood...No Problem. 172.167.77.14 (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, keep for now and when SWA updates their top ten destinations then update the infobox? And in regards to AirTran, I agree-that's a mess but I just don't feel like dealing with it. Sox23 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, I'll deal with AirTran. Five destinations, three of which are other hubs/focus cities, does not a focus city make. And yes, we need to draw the line somewhere on WN. Maybe, make the threshold based on daily flights? 100 daily flights = focus city? I realize that's arbitrary, but... at some point, this is all arbitrary. FCYTravis (talk)

My suggestion is to rid of ALL of the focus cities in the infobox, and keep the Top 10 list in the article text. It is just easier to cite and it isn't arbitrary as it is directly from Southwest. --Michael Greiner 20:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have there be too many cities listed than none at all...Sox23 01:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
suggest to merge with Hubs vs Focus Cities discussion. Basically same debate(ie. What should be on the Hub/Focus City list).
How often does Southwest publish a new list of the Top Ten stations?? it seems like its been awhile. Braves99 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Every four months or so. And when they do release it is usually for a month previous to that date. I would expect a new list somewhat soon. --Michael Greiner 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Smith incident

Shouldn't the indecent with Kevin Smith in 2010 be listed on this page?

I copied this from Kevin's page

On February 13, 2010, Kevin Smith was on board a Southwest Airlines flight in Oakland bound for Burbank when he was removed from the plane, allegedly over concerns he was too obese to fly safely.[65] Per Smith, he was able to put both armrests down in accordance with Southwest Airlines policy, and both passengers on either side did not object to his presence. Smith was then removed from the flight after being told he was a safety concern. After being booked on a later flight and being offered a $100 Southwest Airlines voucher, which he turned down, Smith lashed out at Southwest Airlines on his Twitter account.

Southwest Airlines representatives later released two statements regarding the incident via their blog.[66] In the first statement, Southwest claimed that Mr. Smith "has been known to (...) purchase two Southwest seats" and cited its "Customer of Size" policy which requires that customers who cannot put their armrests down purchase two seats. In his podcast, Mr. Smith stated that he regularly purchased two seats, and had done so the previous week, because he preferred not having to sit next to anyone, not due to his size. In releasing this statement, Southwest disclosed Smith's personal travel details without his permission. The first statement also claimed that the flight captain has personally determined that Smith was too large to fly. In its second statement, Southwest contradicted this claim, stating that the captain had not singled out Smith.[67]

Smith later released an entire episode of SModcast devoted to the subject, giving a lengthy description of the incident, in which he claimed that he had been able to lower the armrests completely and comfortably and claimed to have been repeatedly lied to by airline personnel. He also referred to the airline as the "Greyhound of the Air" and vowed to never fly the airline again.

In his podcast, Smith stated that on his return flight a large female passenger was told to ask him if it was all right that she was sitting next to an empty seat he had bought between them, and it was suggested by Southwest staffers that she may need to purchase an additional seat due to her size, even though she had been placed next to an already-purchased empty seat. She was also the subject of an episode of SModcast.

Smith also released 24 video statements on YouTube further describing the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.169.189 (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Added a link to this from the controversy section Drew (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Automated archival

Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on an article talk page. (Emphasis added)

I don't think there needs to be an automated talk page archival for a talk page that averages about 1 new topic a month. There is no reason a topics should be removed after just 3 days when nothing else will replace it. I commented out the bot per WP:ARCHIVE guidelines which are stated above. --Michael Greiner 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Southwest as an commodities speculator that happens to run an airline

As I read this article [5], I started to wonder if WN should be thought of a commodities investor/trader that just happens to run an airline?!? It seems they guess the direction (of fuel prices) correctly every time, and perhaps they even derive direct profit from it by using market timing schemes. Perhaps it would be more profitable for them to shut down the airline and operate a hedge fund. Or perhaps did they engage in hedging for philanthropic reasons to help subsidize travel costs for passengers? Lots of questions! Another question that is tangentially related to this is, did WN realize that it bet the farm on this? If oil prices had gone south after it entered into contracts, it would have surely bankrupted! Are any of these appropriate topics for the article? Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Personally in following things I think far too much was made out of SWA's fuel hedging. They're clearly in the airline business. They recognized they needed to develop the expertise and tools to better anticipate and control a major cost of operations, fuel. There were many senior executives at traditional carriers at the time that scorned those actions saying that they weren't going to do it because it wasn't something airlines did.

There are several academic papers out there that do a much better job of digging into the situation than LA Times arguably sensationalized one-off article. That said it does touch on a few important points. SWA is in the middle of pushing their no fees service. Even today their ability to better anticipate fuel price changes has not only enabled them to avoid nickel and dimeing their passengers to death but also avoid layoffs or making their employees take huge pay cuts. It's not a perfect approach nor is SWA a perfect company but one has to wonder how much longer the traditional airlines can keep charging fees and pouring resources into mergers instead of service. Prk166 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

This is a very detailed but unnecessarily rosy article. Everything written in it just screams to me that some PR drone over at Southwest HQ is keeping tabs on it. There is no section dealing with criticism or controversy about some of its actions in the past (save for one scant mention in the "history" section), even though I know that the airline has come into a good deal of controversy.

By contrast there's a superfluous list of meaningless awards and commendations that gets a section devoted to it.--99.155.207.64 (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised there is nothing listed about "passengers of size" policy, something that does not exist on any other US airline. It came up rather frequently on the show "airline" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.221.163 (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The first comment belies a very polite individual. This is a nauseating fluff job, pure PR and absolutely no criticism or controversy (a children's book, a musical, a play). I never had an axe to grind with Southwest and have long admired the service it offers. However, the low number of complaints received by the DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division does not tell the whole story. Southwest is good, in fact very good, but the company's manner of handling complaints is shockingly bad. I come from a family of pilots, am a seasoned traveler, and as a retired reporter know the meaning of the word "objective." ˜˜˜˜caribketch

Nearly every airline has a "passengers of size policy," so if you want to write about it here, it should be noted on every airline's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.36.137 (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you read this article you would think everything was all sunshine and roses with Southwest... Here are just a few articles that say differently: 

* Customer of Size
* Muslim Women Kicked off Flight
* Green Day Singer Kicked off Flight Because of Pants
* 'L Word' Star Kicked off Flight After Kissing Girlfriend 
Shouldn't these at least be mentioned? 71.38.118.36 (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

History

Hi, I might try editing it myself soon, but I just wanted to put this out, since I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject... but it seems to me that right now the history section seems more like a description of the company and some of their policies, and only a brief historical overview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.22.98 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


The article states:

Some of the incumbent airlines of the time (Braniff, Aloha Airlines, United Airlines, Trans-Texas, and Continental Airlines) initiated legal action, and thus began a three-year legal battle to keep Air Southwest on the ground.

Please cite your references to the roles that you allege Aloha and United played in the Air Southwest legal battle of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Neither Aloha nor United operated in Texas at the time, and Aloha never did during its entire corporate life and probably never had an interest in intra-state Texas flying. --abl (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Destinations List

What is the point of the list of destinations on the main article when there is a separate article with the exact same info? Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the real problem is why is there a seperate article containing just list of destinations and number of gates? Jon (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Destination flags

Removed flags from destination list. They really serve no purpose since state flags are not widely recognized outside of that state and especially from people outside of the country. --76.118.163.208 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WiFi

Southwest airlines is now piloting a wifi program on two of their airplanes, where passangers can access the internet (for free). I wasn't sure where in the article (if anywhere) that should be added. meamemg (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I added this whoever edited edited thanks I accidently forgot some things! Kell65 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Flight Announcement Sample

[6] <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.213.214 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Southwest Fleet & Livery

Seeing how this article is too freaking long, should the sections about Southwests' fleet and livery go to their own main article? Just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padsquad43 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Southwest Bid for Frontier

The section on Southwest's bid for Frontier had several spelling and grammar errors and also contained some incorrect information without good references. I reworded the section and added a couple of news articles as references. Wxkat (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Retired Fleet

Should we add the 13 -300's that are currently retired to the "retired" section? It seems only logical to do so. Airplaneman talk 21:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them retired until at least the majority are retired or SWA announced an exit from service date. Since SWA is retrofitting alot of the 300 with new equiptment that give me the impression that the 300 will remain in the fleet for a while. Putting the 300 in the retired section gives me the impression that the entire 300 fleet is being activly replace and retired. Wikman123 (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus Cities

I would classify Nashville and even Tampa as a focus city long before El Paso. Crescent22 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Mineta San Jose International Airport be a focus city for Southwest since Southwest operates more than half of the flights there? Same thing with Sacramento International Airport. --Jmumman (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

SI One

It appears as of at least June 16, 2009 the SI Livery has been removed and the aircraft is back under the standard SWA blue Livery

As of March [[7]] As of June 16 [[8]]

(Wikman123 (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

Does Southwest operate hubs or not??

We need to know if Southwest Airlines use the word "Hub" instead of "Focus Cities". Need to settle a dispute at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport....IP continues to add Southwest as a hub to the airport's infobox. A discussion was started there....please add your thoughts to that page and here. Comments appreciated. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As listed at the top box of the article, there are focus cities only. A clear example that there is no hub operation, is that even for two cities with nonstop service, sometimes a flight (of the same number) will stop at one or two cities in between. For example, at focus city-Oakland yesterday, there was one that went from there to Seattle (regular nonstop) then to Spokane, before getting to Salt Lake City--the latter being another nonstop city for OAK. Neither SEA or SLC are focus cities, as of now, further illustrating the airline's commitment of point-to-point service. Even to get to Las Vegas--the busiest SWA city in the country sometimes involves a one-stop in Reno, when leaving OAK.

Hopefully that helps. The word "hub" should _never_ be used for southwest. dlikuski (talk) 17:56 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Focus Cities That Aren't Included on the page

On the Southwest Airlines article it says SWA's focus cities are Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, Chicago Midway International Airport, Dallas Love Field, Denver International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, McCarran International Airport (Las Vegas), Oakland International Airport, Orlando International Airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, San Diego International Airport, and William P. Hobby Airport (Houston),

but on "Southwest Destinations"(page) says Southwest's focus cities are;

Phoenix (Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport) Focus City, Los Angeles (Los Angeles International Airport) Focus City, Oakland (Oakland International Airport) Focus City, San Jose (San Jose International Airport) Focus City, San Diego (San Diego International Airport) Focus City, Sacramento (Sacramento International Airport) Focus City, Denver (Denver International Airport) Focus City, Orlando (Orlando International Airport) Focus City, Tampa (Tampa International Airport) Focus City, Chicago (Chicago Midway International Airport) Focus City, Baltimore (Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport) Focus City, Kansas City (Kansas City International Airport) Focus City, Las Vegas (McCarran International Airport) Focus City, Dallas (Dallas Love Field) Focus City, Houston (William P. Hobby Airport) Focus City; SHOULDN'T WE INCLUDE ALL THE FOCUS CITIES

Added the following...

to the end of the section on Southwest experience:

In July 2010, it became widely public that Southwest had classified mechanical difficulties as an act of God in their contract of carriage, a definition not shared with major competitors such as Delta, American, Continental and United. By doing so, Southwest is under no obligation to provide passengers compensation for "any type of special, incidential or consequential damages" and limits their recourse to receiving a refund of the used portion of their tickets. According to a Southwest spokesman, the airline will still assist affected passengers "just as in the past."
(source: "Southwest: Breakdown is now an act of God". Arizona Daily Star. July 24, 2010. 72.244.200.94 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New 737-700s

Boeing has confirmed that Southwest placed 25 more orders on the 737-700, to replace older 737 Classics (they didn't state which of the Classics they are to replace, though.) I had noted that in the Fleet section. If you wish to know how I found this out, here it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.190.81 (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Louis Freeman

Why is the paragraph "Southwest hired its first black pilot, Louis Freeman, in 1980. In 1992, he was named the first black chief pilot of any major U.S. airline." under the heading "Early losses and financial troubles"? It seems like this information belongs under a different heading or the heading needs to be changed. --Bushy1129 (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger

There's an article called Southwest Airlines (future) which seems like it would be better as a section of this article. 71.142.222.247 (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Flying to Hawaii

I think adding the "Mainland-Hawaii TransPacific[102]" in the 737-800 notes it very premature. The article it cites does not mention Trans-Pacific any where, the closest it has is that they will be ETOPS certified which could just as easily mean Trans-Atlantic. The only things I have read is industry experts mentioning it as a possibility. Not sure on the Wikipedia policy on expert speculation but I think its better to mention this in a paragraph in the fleet section as we can note that it is on speculation but the note in the table as it stands now says that it is certian. (37Fan (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

Yeps, you are correct. They may well try to reach Hawaii from the W.C.[1] However, WN is unaccustomed to long-haul flights, yeah?
I changed the section to read "To Enter Service in March 2012" and "Will be ETOPS configured upon delivery". (37Fan (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13688782

About the merger

The sidebar says: "FLYING TOGETHER
Southwest Airlines and AirTran Airways expect to merge later this year. Here are their operations now out of Hobby Airport:
Southwest
• Daily flights: 127 to 30 cities
• Houston employees: 2,808
•Gates: 17
AirTran
• Daily flights: Five to Atlanta
• Houston employees: 25
Source: Southwest Airlines and AirTran Airways" WhisperToMe (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the merger, since Milwaukee and Atlanta are "hubs" for AirTran. When they combine, will Southwest get "hubs' after the merger or will they become focus cities for Southwest since the airline do not use "hubs"? Snoozlepet (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a very good question. At the announcement of the merger, Southwest CEO told reporters that the company plans to not only keep the same number of flights out of Milwaukee and Atlanta but to actually expand in those markets. If Southwest doesn't consider those cities as "hubs" in the traditional sense, they certainly would be their major focus cities after the merger is complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.241.189 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fleet Numbers

In the infobox and introductory sentence, it states that Southwest has a fleet size of 690 aircraft. I believe that is the the number for Southwest and AirTran combined. Remember, the airlines are still and will remain seperated until a single operating certificate is achieved. Snoozlepet (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


Well spotted. Someone combined the fleet table twice and i reverted both time. I forgot to change the info box. I have sorted it now.
--Boeing747-412 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

New source

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Southwest/AirTran merger

Alot of IPs are jumping the gun with merger by putting Atlanta and Milwaukee to the list of focus cities. Remember, these 2 carriers (just like any airline merger) will continue to operate as seperate carriers until the FAA allows Southwest and AirTran to operate as one (i.e. single operating certificate achieved). Snoozlepet (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits section

Just wondering if there should be a section about lawsuits against Southwest. Over the years, Southwest has faced several lawsuits from passengers as well as its employees. There are pending lawsuits at this point in time too. In one of the cases, back in 2006 southwest was ordered to pay $27.5 million to one of its passengers for excessive harassment. I feel there should be a section about this too. If you do any search on google or elsewhere online, you would come up with several types of suits against southwest. So that could be under the incidents and controversies group or a separate section could be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.177.126 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Special Livery Details

Hi. Do we really need all these details about special liveries? It sounds like a plane spotter page. --JetBlast (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as nobody has replied to object i have removed the section. --121.208.226.98 (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for my delayed comment, but I think this sub-section is worth including. Perhaps it needs some cleanup to get it shortened a bit, but its contents is encyclopedic. Organising the information into a table won't hurt the article as well, and I suggest including a photo of each different livery for the sake of completion (see SkyTeam for an example of layout). It if gets too big, a stand-alone article would be fine too.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Southwest's 737 MAX purchase

I recently added that WN intends to purchase the -8 variant of the newly launched 737 MAX series. I citied, not only an article posted on FlightGlobal—a pretty well respected aviation journal—but also cited this was confirmed on a credible Southwest Airlines YouTube blog. The YouTube blog is maintained by Brian Lusk, who has been with WN for over 15 years, now, and his official job title is the "Corporate Historian" for Southwest Airlines. In his bio written on his blog, he writes:

"I joined Southwest (thankfully!) in 1995, as a Reservations Sales Agent, but then I moved to the communications group in the Executive Office, where I corresponded with our Customers on a wide variety of topics, but I also got to work on different projects like this blog. About four years ago I moved into the Communication & Strategic Outreach Department and worked primarily in our social media area. Then in 2011, I got my dream job as Southwest's Corporate Historian. I enjoy sharing and preserving Southwest's past with our Employees and the public at large."

Yes, this is not sealed in stone that the -8 MAX is the definite model, but the word comes from credible sources. Based on the hasty revisions made by User:Cali4529 (I'm not sure why it took three revisions to revert one, simple post) I have to raise a suspicious eye to the credibility of this user. If it turns out the the -8 MAX has definitely not been confirmed, the edit can be undone at a later date... but considering I've citied two relatively credible sources, stating that because the CEO himself didn't confirm the order, really has no relevance. That would be like saying that if Randy Tinseth (who is Boeing's Vice President for Marketing and the person who has more announcements of anything Boeing related) stated an upgraded 777 would be launched, it wouldn't be credible because the CEO, himself, didn't make the statement. The CEO is not the person who is primarily responsible for announcing corporate-related news, with the media.

Also, here is now a third credibile source, posted on Yahoo! Finance, also stating that the order is for the 737-8 MAX. http://biz.yahoo.com/e/111215/luv8-k.html

So, again, if these THREE reportings are all false... they can be changed at a later date. But, as of now, there's no reason why it can't be posted here on Southwest Airlines' official Wikipedia article. Feel free to add any valid thoughts or comments. Thank you. Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo issues

In my opinion, it's arguable that there are too many photos on here. However, what's missing (and maybe not available yet) is a Southwest 717 pic. Do any exist yet? YellowAries2010 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the AirTran fleet actually combined with Southwest?

There is an edit war going on over whether AirTran's aircraft should be listed as Southwest. Is AirTran still operating as a separate brand from Southwest? My understanding is that the 717s will never be branded as SWA aircraft and will be leased to DL. But what about the 737-700s? Are those part of the Southwest fleet or what? We need to come to an understanding on this. —Compdude123 18:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding they are running 2 separate entities. AirTran has not closed down or anything. --JetBlast (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I invited the IP editor to discuss here. Assume you meant to say "AirTran has not closed down or anything," right? —Compdude123 21:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Ooops error corrected --JetBlast (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone answer the second part of my question: Should the 737-700s be listed here or not? If not, at what point should they be listed here? —Compdude123 04:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

They should only be merged once they are operating as one airline. The same situation as UA & CO. --JetBlast (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "one airline"? Single operating certificate or both carriers' reservation systems, FFP's, crew, etc are combined when the AirTran name and code disappears? Snoozlepet (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
At no point will there be a combination. AirTran "things" will be converted to Southwest and then just be considered Southwest. The 737-700s that are branded AirTran should stay in the AirTran article and when they are converted we have source that will tell us so we can update. The 717 will never be with SWA and should not be put on the Southwest page. Going back to AirTran 737's, I have actually been updating the SWA fleet table as more -700s are being converted so we have no problem if that IP will just stop putting the AirTran planes on the SWA page. This is not like any other merger we have seen because it really is not a merger it is a "converter". Everything that is AirTran should stay on the AirTran page. This includes destination numbers as well. The numbers on the Southwest page should not reflect any destinations SWA does not serve on its own metal. I hope this helps a little. Kairportflier (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southwest_Airlines/Archive_1&oldid=1197995453"