Sharks are coming out already

[eolesen]

I agree that AA has a dismal safety record at best the last 10 years.

Fatality records and safety records are mutually exclusive. Tower Air had a zero-fatality record, but I don't think you'll find anyone who would go so far as to call them safe...

Where did you get the 587 fatalities and what time period does this cover?AA has been in business since the late 1920's and has flown millions of flight hours.Do these numbers include Sept 11,2001 which were INTENTIONAL?Total numbers do not always tell the rest of the story.

They appear to, but even there, 587 is wrong...

Looking at AA's non-9/11 record for the past 30 years, there are 441 fatalities (AA587 = 260 + 5 on the ground, AA1420 = 11, AA965 = 160) from three accidents.

Add in 156 from the two terrorist attacks, and the total would be 592.

There is no doubt that SWA has the BEST safety record of any major carrier flying today.

Actually, that record would now go to Jetblue, since they're a major.

 

[corl737]

Actually, that record would now go to Jetblue, since they're a major.

True. I wish for JetBlue the ability to hold this distinction forever just as I hope that this boy will be always be known as the last fatality associated with commercial aviation.

 

[goingboeing]

Fatality records and safety records are mutually exclusive. Tower Air had a zero-fatality record, but I don't think you'll find anyone who would go so far as to call them safe...
They appear to, but even there, 587 is wrong...

Looking at AA's non-9/11 record for the past 30 years, there are 441 fatalities (AA587 = 260 + 5 on the ground, AA1420 = 11, AA965 = 160) from three accidents.

Add in 156 from the two terrorist attacks, and the total would be 592.
Actually, that record would now go to Jetblue, since they're a major.

SWA has a lot more total flying hours than Jet Blue as they have been in business 35 years.
Aviation accident safety records are not based only on total numbers but also a ratio of accidents to flight hours.

 

[Ch. 12]

An airline's safety record is only as predictable as their last recorded landing. Bragging about it is pointless.

I've said in the past and I'll say it again...safety records are not a point to compete on. You have a history of argueing for the sake of argueing and any intelligent person would know (as I stated...did you not read?!) that it was ridiculous for avek to post gibberish about a company's safety when it IS a safe airline...nobody can argue that without using baseless assumptions. I posted an equally ridiculous retort but with numbers. Fair enough. But if you want to argue about anything I post, go ahead but I'm done trying to water down or re-explain things to you. Everyone else seems to get it.

boeing-

You are right that AA's #'s are reflective of terrorists and a longer history. Again...I'm not saying which airline is most or least safe but was just trying to make a point to avek (and now buddy moderaator) that WN is not a dismally unsafe company just b/c of two runway incidents that were quite minor in the grand scheme of things.

 

[WNrforlife]

Does anybody know if A&E was in MDW filming episodes of "Airline" at the time of the incident?

 

[FWAAA]

They appear to, but even there, 587 is wrong...

Looking at AA's non-9/11 record for the past 30 years, there are 441 fatalities (AA587 = 260 + 5 on the ground, AA1420 = 11, AA965 = 160) from three accidents.

Add in 156 from the two terrorist attacks, and the total would be 592.

Excellent post, but I think you overlooked the 271 souls lost on Flight 191 and the two on the ground that day less than 27 years ago.

Stil, AA's safety record and fatality record are very favorable in terms of seat-miles flown.

Ch 12's linked list doesn't disclose the parameters at all (at least none I could find).

I now see where the 587 comes from: Subtract the five ground victims from the flight 587 total, add the September 11 pax, and the total is 587 fatalities. That leaves out the Flight 191 victims, of course.

 

[Ch. 12]

Excellent post, but I think you overlooked the 271 souls lost on Flight 191 and the two on the ground that day less than 27 years ago.

Stil, AA's safety record and fatality record are very favorable in terms of seat-miles flown.

Ch 12's linked list doesn't disclose the parameters at all (at least none I could find).

I now see where the 587 comes from: Subtract the five ground victims from the flight 587 total, add the September 11 pax, and the total is 587 fatalities. That leaves out the Flight 191 victims, of course.

The data below is for the period, 1/1/03-6/30/05 and shows incidents/accidents per 1,000,000 hours flown...Straight from NTSB incident and traffic/ops data...

Since NTSB hours flown data is squirrely, to say the least, when looking at feeders, I did not include feeder carrier accident data. I do believe, though, that their hours flown show up under the mainline carrier. Again...those carriers with feeders have a slightly lower than actual rate in this data b/c they get credit for the hours but not the incidents (i.e. Great Lakes had zero hours but multiple incidents.)

AA Hours Flown: 5,638,787
Accidents: 2.31
Incidents: 1.06
Total: 3.37
AS Hours Flown: 921,046
Accidents: 1.09
Incidents: -
Total: 1.09
CO Hours Flown: 2,593,998
Accidents: 1.16
Incidents: 0.39
Total: 1.54
DL Hours Flown: 3,911,562
Accidents: 1.28
Incidents: 0.51
Total: 1.79
HA Hours Flown: 167,840
Accidents: -
Incidents: 5.96
Total: 5.96
HP Hours Flown: 1,282,214
Accidents: 1.56
Incidents: -
Total: 1.56
NW Hours Flown: 2,914,517
Accidents: 1.37
Incidents: 0.69
Total: 2.06
TZ Hours Flown: 461,967
Accidents: 2.16
Incidents: 2.16
Total: 4.33
UA Hours Flown: 4,112,412
Accidents: 1.70
Incidents: 2.19
Total: 3.89
US Hours Flown: 2,214,024
Accidents: 0.90
Incidents: 0.45
Total: 1.35
WN Hours Flown: 3,415,006
Accidents: 1.76
Incidents: 0.88
Total: 2.64

 

[goingboeing]

Ch12- Thanks for posting the numbers.
In previous threads I have stated that SWA still has a very admirable safety record.

 

[Ch. 12]

Ch12- Thanks for posting the numbers.
In previous threads I have stated that SWA still has a very admirable safety record.

You're welcome, goingboeing. I know that you have been on record as saying that WN has an admirable safety record. I just needed to post something for those that constantly state how unsafe WN is and how the MDW incident proves what a nightmare they are. Safety records are the only objective measure.

 

[robbedagain]

to me, the two SWA runway incidents/accidents to say the least arent half has bad as it could have been/ I feel for the boy's family.
I hope that no airline will go thru 5 crashes in 5 yrs as was the case with USAIR back in the 1990s-1980s. Good luck to all

 

[eolesen]

Safety records are the only objective measure.

They're only objective if you use them correctly. And having actually participated in the actual accident and incident investigation process several times, forgive me if I don't think you're all that informed on this, Ch.12.

I don't see anyone saying WN has a poor record, but forgive me if I see an attempt by you specifically to try and point fingers at other carriers based on a few statistics you first Googled and then tried to manufacture on your own from the public NTSB database.

As foolproof as it sounds, even the NTSB's database won't give an across the board picture of how safe carriers are in relation to each other, mainly because a large percentage of those incident/accident reports are self-disclosed by the carriers. I'll guess you weren't aware of that, otherwise you'd have been more selective in your data query, right?...

If anything, the carriers who are more safety minded will have more incidents recorded in the database than the unsafe carriers, since the unsafe carriers tend not to report unless they have no choice.

Information is only useful when the person who is interpreting it actually understands it. Otherwise, you run the risk of starting to sound like Mary Schaivo....

 

[Ch. 12]

They're only objective if you use them correctly. And having actually participated in the actual accident and incident investigation process several times, forgive me if I don't think you're all that informed on this, Ch.12.

I don't see anyone saying WN has a poor record, but forgive me if I see an attempt by you specifically to try and point fingers at other carriers based on a few statistics you first Googled and then tried to manufacture on your own from the public NTSB database.

As foolproof as it sounds, even the NTSB's database won't give an across the board picture of how safe carriers are in relation to each other, mainly because a large percentage of those incident/accident reports are self-disclosed by the carriers. I'll guess you weren't aware of that, otherwise you'd have been more selective in your data query, right?...

If anything, the carriers who are more safety minded will have more incidents recorded in the database than the unsafe carriers, since the unsafe carriers tend not to report unless they have no choice.

Information is only useful when the person who is interpreting it actually understands it. Otherwise, you run the risk of starting to sound like Mary Schaivo....

Right, right...you win b/c you know it all...as always.

And as always...you are wrong again. I happen to have worked for a number of years at a major aviation safety consultancy Aerosafe. Unlike you, I do not pretend to know it all and do not know all aspects of the investigation (nor do you...sorry) but I, too, have been involved in several investigations so please understand you aren't above it all. And you should know the information about people posting here before you make allegations/accusations. You lose credibility and look ignorant by throwing out false allegations...that's why I stay away from them and attack the message and not the messenger.

And I didn't say that people were saying WN did not have a good safety RECORD. The facts prove otherwise and nobody would counter that. I said that some here are saying that WN is UNSAFE b/c of the MDW incident and their own perception. I don't believe it's a conspiracy, as you seem to allude to, that WN just doesn't report incidents and all other carriers do. Don't take this personally b/c again...the data is to support that a couple of incidents don't make WN unsafe.

Now...I've already said it but will stick to it now so long as you only keep argueing for the sake of it (I couldn't let personal attacks go unresponded to...although I guess it's pointless as you'll come back with more)...I'm done with battling with you on this thread b/c I have already clearly made my point and you are the only one who cannot see. All you are doing is diverting from the argument and making this a nonsense thread.

 

[lovinglcc]

And when you become one, you would be absolutly slaughtered (at least based on your quoted statement) by whatever counsel WN and their insurance carriers retain.

They have (And still have) the safest safety record of any airline that has operated during LUV's corporate lifetime. Other jets landed on that same runway prior to the LUV flight's approach.

But enjoy the rhetoric. It'll make the objections that much more amusing for the guys across the aisle.

Yes, and The Concorde had the highest safety rating of any aircraft in history until . . . Where is The Concorde now?

 

[KCFlyer]

Yes, and The Concorde had the highest safety rating of any aircraft in history until . . . Where is The Concorde now?

Seems to me that the airlines operating the Concorde, being as old as it was and as expensive to operate as it was, might have used the accident as a good excuse to retire it.

 

[Ch. 12]

Seems to me that the airlines operating the Concorde, being as old as it was and as expensive to operate as it was, might have used the accident as a good excuse to retire it.

You hit the nail on the head, KC. It was a business decision. Not unlike blaming the pull-out of such markets as DFW-GRB/LIM/LGB/etc were blamed on having to compete with WN due to the addition of MO to the WA. Just a good business decision that comes at a pivotal decision-making point (i.e. where it can be blamed on something else).

The Concorde was such a specialized piece of equipment that it not only cost the operating airlines alot, it cost the manufacturers alot as the parts were not used elsewhere. Just like the Fokker is being retired everywhere b/c it is no longer supported (unless you want to pay an arm and a leg for parts).