Talk:Southwest Airlines/Archive 2

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

Wrong logo image

The color logo of the twin-engine jet, File:Southwest Airlines Logo.svg, also called the Takeoff Logo, is not the corporate logo, although Southwest Airlines uses the image in its advertising. The official corporate logo, a winged roundel with a heart symbol in the center, may be found through the Southwest Airlines site and can be viewed as a JPEG image at http://www.swamedia.com/channels/Logos/photos/Southwest-Corporate-Logo-1?page=2&channel_key=Logos&photo_key=3f4db1e7-ce85-643c-e2bd-27004d40b15f. If the correct corporate logo is eventually used in the article, it should first be converted to an SVG vector image. A rather large raster image is hosted at the site, which could be the basis for a vector conversion, but unfortunately it is only available for download to members of the press with an account. I just checked at BrandsOfTheWorld.com, but the corporate logo isn't posted there. — QuicksilverT @ 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone can download the largest possible raster they can i will see if i can convert it in Vector Magic. --JetBlast (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know that the airplane logo wasn't their actual logo! If we do upload it, let's keep the takeoff logo in the corporate affairs section. —Compdude123 19:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you there about the cooperate affairs Comdude123. On the other note, I actually have a SWAmedia account, you don't actually need to be in the press to have one (I am not part of the press). I do not know how to add images to wikipedia so if someone helped me with this I can do it. Kairportflier (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
On the left-hand side of the page, under the toolbox menu, click "upload file." That's how you upload files to Wikipedia. Non-free images like logos should be uploaded to Wikipedia; photos you took yourself or that the author released to the public domain or under the CC-BY-SA license should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. —Compdude123 04:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Done! Kairportflier (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for confusing section

Reason for lobbying and the term "United States Amendments" are unclear. Listroiderbobtalk'tribs 22:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Focus cities

Should the focus cities in the infobox be limited to 10? Right now it is difficult to determine what is and is not one and probably no way to reference these. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidents & Accidents

I Noticed tonight that this section is at the very bottom of the page near the external links, i don't know how to fix this someone please fix this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.141.177 (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


So a southwest jet slid off the runway last Dec at MacArthur airport on Long Island NY, why is this not listed in Incidents & Accidents? here is the story from WNYW-TV... http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20431367/southwest-plane-goes-off-runway-at-macarthur-airport Wouldn't this be an incident?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.146.181 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed incidents

A couple of incidents which have been reported by secondary sources were removed [1] and [2]. Is there a Wikipedia criteria for Notability specific for airline incidence? How hot is the sun? (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You will find some info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable aircraft

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_19_2014_p0-665368.xml

Is AvLeak a RS for the claim that SWA 737s are suffering from reliability problems? Hcobb (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably is a reliable source but this just looks like the director of engineering trying to scare his suppliers to get a better deal, lots of older 737s still in service you would expect ADI obsolescence to have been reported by other users. So doesnt look to be an issue worth mentioning at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Incidents of questionable notability

I removed to non-notable accidents but have been reverted, 12 January 2014 wrong airport landing is not significant or particularly notable and the 18 June 2014 bird strike is a common occurrence. I will remove them again unless somebody can explain why they are notable to Southwest, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor readded them again. I suggest he/she discuss this, the wrong airport landing definitely does not meet criteria (airplane wasn't damaged and no one was killed). Bird strikes are very common incidents in aircraft these days and the source states that the aircraft will be repaired. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The wrong airport incident is something that is VERY uncommon, and should have never happened. This would have led to procedure changes to make sure it never happens again.
I don't think bird strikes requiring returning to the airport are that common. The criteria at WP:AIRCRASH says that there had to have been significant damage to the airplane, so if the plane was not airworthy and required repair, I think that qualifies as significant damage.
How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
While not good, both are not too uncommon. I don't think either should be listed as neither were caused any notable damage to the plane or passengers. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not quite sure what is "not too uncommon". In today's age of instrumentation flight, you never hear about commercial planes landing at wrong airports, so that is VERY uncommon. Since this airport was not designed for a Boeing 737 to land at, this was actually scandalous. Regarding the bird collisions, I don't think collisions with birds causing enough damage to require terminating the flight are "not too uncommon". While collisions requiring repair are, not collisions that are severe enough to cause a cancellation of the flight. How hot is the sun? (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The incident you're referring to is uncited as of this moment. That's a bigger issue than its notability. --Michael Greiner 23:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
There are two incidents: the bird collision had two references, and it was not very hard to find a reference to the wrong airport incident, as that incident attracted a lot of attention. How hot is the sun? (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

New Logo.

Southwest have a new corporate logo, as seen on the top of their home page. someone should change it on the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.156.155 (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Completed. New file uploaded taken from Southwest media page. Mahka42 (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Stevens Aviation dispute

I have not seen any source state that Stevens actually threatened a lawsuit. Rather, they informed Southwest that they were infringing on the trademark and proposed this armwrestling match/publicity stunt to resolve it rather than a lawsuit. Therefore, I'm changing the wording here. MosheEmes (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Southwest Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Southwest Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Special liveries and decals

Not sure that the special liveries justify such a large detailed section and the addition of a bit of an image fest, if it is notable (which is doubtful with some many) it should be moved into a separate article or wound back to some basic details only. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me add that Wikipedia is not an image repository.--Jetstreamer Talk 03:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

South West Airlines Started service at Orlando April 7 1996.

Please correct the day of SWA started service at Orlando International Airport April 7th 1996 Airliner13 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination against muslim passengers

I added two additional incidents to this article and cited reputable news sources regarding these incidents. User:Aviationspecialist101 deleted them with the explanation of (revert unnecessary info and false info) however they fit in with the suggested criticism that the Economist made in this article. I'm happy to discuss if there is a better way to include them, but they are not "unnecessary" or "false". Thoughts anyone? cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of vandal edits to the infobox that were still in the article from before your edits started that need to be removed (and will be more than an undo). I doubt that's why it was reverted, but its there. --Michael Greiner 02:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Good catch, thanks for fixing that. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
User:WilliamJE and User:MilborneOne didn't seem to want to discuss this and instead engaged in a bit of a reversion war. In the interest of peace, I have linked to another wiki article on the subject with a See Also. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
One revert each is not a revision war just a challenge to the addition. Not sure adding the see also (which should be at the bottom of the article really) add anything to the article. Southwest refuses to board people all the time for various reasons mostly due to rules and regulations from others mainly government agencies and most of them will think they are hard done to for various reasons so highlighting a few small cases balanced against the forty-odd year history of the airline is undue weight and really not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
4 times booting passengers of a specific religion in 5 months is a pattern, and it received international coverage. That's notable, and widely been reported as alleged discrimination. I trust we agree the current way of displaying facts is acceptable? cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
There was no targetting. The airline was responding to peoples fears, legitimate or not. If any muslim feels targetted, then they are only feeling the same as every other passenger in the world and should grow a set!!!--Petebutt (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Split

Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split into new articles entitled History of Southwest Airlines and Southwest Airlines fleet. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Support split - Yes, will very much appreciate a separate article created. 115.66.29.26 (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)115.66.29.26

Oppose - I agree with the history article but there isn't enough content for a fleet article. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The article could use some tidying up and trimming of extraneous facts or news tidbits, but it is well organized and easy to read. A good chunk of that size is refs, images, and tables, but the 100k suggestion applies to prose text only. If it's split, be sure to leave a nice summary here. Reywas92Talk 05:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else? Anyone at all? No? No one? When we start splitting articles so aggressively, we get articles like JetBlue Mint which isn't even encyclopedic, and could easily be included in the JetBlue article. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Support in part - I support the split of the History section, considering there's a good chunk of that from the AirTrans merger. But there isn't enough info in the Fleet section to support it having it's own seperate article...yet. See Delta Air Lines fleet and American Airlines fleet pages for examples. --KevCor360 01:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Or just go ahead and split it yourself with no consensus, why don't you. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of focus cities

Hi @Aviationspecialist101: I removed the focus cities because Southwest Airlines does not say it has any. I can't find any ref in the article nor in the List of Southwest Airlines destinations article that shows the list of focus cities. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could list the Pilot/FA Bases that WN displays on their website, which are: Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Oakland, Chicago, Baltimore, and Orlando. See [3]. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tofutwitch11: We definitely could do that, but we couldn't list those destinations as focus cities, right? Unless the airline or some reliable source says so. I actually think it's fine that the article already states the top 10 destinations by the number of gates WN has at the airport. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we'd just list them as "bases" and leave it at that, replacing the list of Focus Cities. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tofutwitch11: Do you think we should also list airports where Southwest conducts maintenance? Is maintenance considered part of an airline's operations base? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say no -- a lot of airlines do maintenance at airports where they don't operate a lot of flights. For example, American Airlines main maintenance base is at Tulsa International Airport -- however you'll note American doesn't conduct a lot of operations there. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 03:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. I removed Los Angeles and Tampa accordingly. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding my 2 cents here. I agree with the changes made, however I believe this issue goes deeper than just this page. There are still multiple airport pages featuring SWA under the focus city section. I'm not about to make such bold edits without a proper discussion first. I believe SW should be removed from this category in all airports based on the fact there is no verifiable source behind that information. Garretka (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

On slide 47 of Southwest's investor day 2016 presentation, they say they do not have hubs and instead have "large operations." They list the cities they serve that have more than 60 fights per day. Would this be considered their focus cities?
http://www.southwestairlinesinvestorrelations.com/~/media/Files/S/Southwest-IR/events/2016-investor-day-v1.pdf
Southwest in a lot of ways, is like Ryanair, rather than having a set 10 hubs, they just have a lot of airports that they are large at and do focus on. I think this list that they call their "large operations" would be a good idicator of their focus cities, and none of the airports are particularly surprising if you follow Southwest like I do. Thoughts? Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and make the change and we can discuss it further here since it comes directly from Southwest. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aviationspecialist101: Sorry for the late response. I think we should stick to listing the crew bases; Southwest explicitly refers to certain destinations as "crew bases" on their website. (Ryanair also explicitly calls 86 of its airports "bases.") However, the slide in the presentation you provided seems more vague. It is just listing the airports where Southwest operates over 60 flights per day. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aviationspecialist101:: unless they are explicitly referred to as focus cities I think we should keep it to crew bases, or operating bases. Garretka (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Fleet size

Total fleet size does not add up correctly. 87 + 478 + 125 = 690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.24.32.43 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Special Liveries

Looks like there used to be a detailed table of all the Special Liveries which was deleted on January 6, 2017. A minor edit war ensued with the table being restored on January 13 and promptly reverted a little over an hour later.

The table was then partially restored on June 3. The current state of the table (which is essentially the same as the version restored on June 3) is effectively useless. For one thing, the aircraft type column is useless, since they are all type Boeing 737.

The only discussion I can see on the special Livery is in Archive 2, in which two editors reached the consensus that the images should be removed because of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Per WP:IUP, "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". Therefore, if the consensus is to list all the special liveries, I contend that it should be appropriate to add to the list the images (whose resolution can be reduced). It does not make sense to me to list the special liveries, but prohibit showing the images, as the images do precisely what they are designed to do: "to increase readers' understanding of the [content]". -- 96.41.32.39 (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hyperlinks not working.

It looks like this wiki page has been hacked. All the hyperlinks redirect to an organization site called GNAA.PRESS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.129.17 (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Passenger experience - not neutral?

There is a comment in this section stating "[t]he neutrality of this section is disputed" - by whom? Seems odd that whoever tagged this failed to put supporting comments here, and the comment box even states "[r]elevant discussion may be found on the talk page". Given that there is none, this box should be removed.

Just a driveby/flyby? comment to say that I did have to revert and warn one IP editor recently for making non-constructive comments from an address identified as SouthWest Airlines. I've not checked, nor do I plan to myself - though do feel free yourself - to see which user added content and especially to make an assessment whether comments on 'Passenger experience' are neutral in tone and content and, critically, are supported by reliable third-party sources. If what was tagged just looks like WP:PROMOTION you'd be doing the article a favour by deleting both the content and the tag, and equally so if too much irrelevant detail bloats the article unecessarily (see WP:CRUFT).
To find out when and who made a particular revision, just check the article's Page History yourself. Select a point back in time and use the radio buttons to 'Compare Selected Revisions' to see if the content and/or tag were present at that chosen point. If it wasn't, just split the difference going forward and repeat the process until you see the content that interests you. It doesn't take too long to get the asnwers you seek. PS: Don't forget to sign your own edits with four tildes so everyone can tell who said what, and when.~~~~ Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent incidents

I wanted to discuss the recent addition of two incidents on flights 957 and 6263. I do not believe that these incidents rise to the level of notability as outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. These are relatively minor incidents that resulted in no passenger injuries, no hull losses, and at this point, no notable changes to operating procedures. Is there any opposition to removing these incidents from the table? Thanks in advance for your opinions! --RickyCourtney (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, those incidents seem quite minor. I support removing them. Mirza Ahmed (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Removed - one did not describe what actually happened and the other was a very run-of-the-mill event within the aviation industry. YSSYguy (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Accidents and Incidents Flight 1643 deletion

Hello and good day. The last incident, Flight 1643 which went off a runway in Omaha should be deleted, after snow and cold weather hits an airport this happens once in a while and is not uncommon but not serious, its a run of the mill minor aviation incident.2601:581:8000:21B0:3C17:F16A:192D:9C8E (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree, I have removed it and also the previous ran of the runway at Burbank as well neither particularly noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Mention "no major incidents" in the lead?

This article used to note how the airline has never caused a passenger death (see e.g. /Archive 1#Hairsplitting?). While that is no longer true, Southwest still has never had a serious crash or other safety incident happen (say one where multiple people were killed). Should this be mentioned in the introduction? It seems notable given the length of time they've been around and the amount of flights they do. Jason McHuff (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Table Formatting Issue

There appears to be an issue with the formatting of the incidents table. Somehow the section below was added into the notes section of the Flight 1380 incident. But I cannot find the formatting issue in the code. Anyone with more code experience able to assist in correcting this? Dnclark (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Focus cities

Should we really be listing the focus cities (Austin, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, St. Louis and Tampa)? There is nothing from the company that officially lists them as such, and the definition can be a bit arbitrary. For example, why is Austin considered a focus city and New Orleans isn't, but both have similar activity levels? Also, WP:SECONDARY support is weak.

I think it would be better to list only official bases. Blissfield101 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have removed the non-base focus cities due to the lack of WP:SECONDARY sources supporting them. Blissfield101 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Split the 'passenger experience' section into a separate article

IMO, it's time that parts of this article be split into a separate one (I'm talking about the 'passenger experience' section). The new article for that section's content shall be 'Passenger experience on Southwest Airlines'. Okay? --69.160.29.201 (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As it is mainly promotional and not particulary encyclopedic in parts, it may be kinder to cull it and reduce it size, pretty sure it is not noteworthy here so would not survive as stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Do not split ~ I agree w/ MilborneOne ~mitch~ (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Do split ~ I agree with splitting. Rng0286 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - In terms of length, the main article is a reasonable length, and the section is a reasonable length, so I see no reason to split based on length. In terms of topic coherence, the topic of 'Passenger experience on Southwest Airlines' is mainly an aspect of the main topic 'Southwest Airlines'; I see no reason to make a separate article to separate the topic. In terms of parallel structure, there is no similar passenger experience article for other airlines like American, United, Delta, so I see no reason to split based on parallel structure. Krubo (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Southwest Airlines Co. is a major American airline headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and is the world's largest low-cost carrier and its Support number is [SCAM REMOVED] Cruss1258 (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't include phone numbers in our articles, just encyclopedic information, as we try not to be a directory. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Copied codeshare history

I've copied the recently deleted discussion of historic SWA codeshare arrangements to the History of Southwest Airlines article, with a few subtle edits for chronology. Carguychris (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Add AirTran acquisition

From the AirTran page: "On September 27, 2010, Southwest Airlines announced it would acquire AirTran Holdings, along with its subsidiary AirTran Airways. The companies operated separately for a period of time until the absorption of the owned and leased aircraft within AirTran's fleet was completed. On May 2, 2011, AirTran Holdings was purchased by Southwest Airlines. As a result, AirTran Airways and AirTran Holdings both became fully owned subsidiaries of Southwest Airlines." — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenParkerPhD (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The AirTran acquisition is already discussed at length in the History of Southwest Airlines article (along with the Muse Air and Morris Air acquisitions). This sort of historical information would quickly overwhelm the main article, hence there is a separate history article. Carguychris (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Airbus A220 rumors

As I write this, unconfirmed sources claim that SWA is dropping the A220 acquisition proposal and buying more MAX 7s; however, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS, the discussion should not be removed or modified until the airline's decision is formally confirmed on the record. Carguychris (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Fleet size

Fleet size is wholly unsourced, and so has no place in the article (it isn't even mentioned) nor the infobox. That's my explanation for reverting The Whovian's unexplained reversion of my removal of the unsourced number. I don't see how a reasonable argument can be made to disregard WP:V, so I've reverted the reversion. Also, I would expect a usable edit summary for a reversion like The Whovian's; it might go a long way towards aiding understanding. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Dubious claim–Southwest a “legacy carrier”

The claim that Southwest is a legacy carrier is dubious. They were established in the regulated era, but they certainly didn’t share any of the other characteristics of the other legacy carriers. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems dubious to me, as the definition of legacy carrier on the target page says that A legacy carrier... is an airline that had established interstate routes before the beginning of the route liberalization permitted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978... Prior to the passage of the Act, Southwest operated exclusively within Texas precisely because its low-cost business model depended on being exempt from interstate regulation. Carguychris (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Boeing 717s

Can you tell me why all the Boeing 717s were sold to Delta during the AirTran merger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 04:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not really what talk pages are for. However, you'll find the sourced answer in Boeing 717#Operators, second paragraph. BilCat (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Could I also suggest you check the Wikipedia:Reference desk? That could help you a LOT more. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose merging 2022 Southwest Airlines flight delays here per WP:NOTNEWS. Airlines delay or cancel their flights routinely from time to time and the 2022 instance doesn't seem outstanding, particularly due to transient weather conditions. Brandmeistertalk 11:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge into Late December 2022 North American winter storm I am the same IP as the above, and I will definitely say that this article needs to be merged. That being said, the winter storm article is a better merge target and the information is likely to get more views there. It would necessitate a critical loss of information in the history of Southwest Airlines article but not in the winter storm article.--12.206.84.79 (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I would support this as well. More than one target article is possible. Brandmeistertalk 12:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, I think the article should be selectively merged into Late December 2022 North American winter storm and History of Southwest Airlines, as the scheduling crisis has substantially outlasted the storm itself and can clearly no longer be attributed solely to the storm. Carguychris (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose merge, I've reconsidered and decided that the topic is notable in its own right. Carguychris (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Wait for further developments. I don't think we've seen the last of this fiasco. However, if no other major developments occur, then support merger, though the storm seems like a marginally better target than a Southwest-dominated article. In any merger, however, this should be its own section. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep article; don't merge. The nominator is seriously underestimating the seriousness of this story. The storm partiallly instigated it, but the bigger factor is the airline's poor computer and scheduling systems failing and corporate deciding to reset the whole system without regard to consequences. Not all of the United States is in storm range. This has been a major event causing controversy and government investigations. Once that has concluded, the article will expand with that content, as well as other aftermath. There's lots of future development in this article/event that can reasonably be foreseen without straying into crystal ball range. This article can stay as is. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any lasting impact of this. Similar technical failures happened previously to other airlines around the world, causing identical temporary discomfort. Brandmeistertalk 18:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep separate for now. The New York Times calls it "a nightmare week of cancellations that left Southwest Airlines scrambling to repair its reputation" and "possibly doing damage to Southwest’s brand that could take years to repair." That sounds like lasting impact to me. If the Times is wrong, and Southwest emerges unscathed in a few weeks or months, then sure, merge it. But for now this looks like one of the bigger business events of the year. blameless 04:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose merge; This isn't a "routine" event. While weather conditions were a catalyst, the problems are systemic and widespread throughout the entirety of the Southwest organization. The situation has been described as the worst disruption event for any single airline in U.S. history.([4]) This is an historic event. The 2017 United Express passenger removal incident affected one passenger (albeit in a dramatic fashion). This event has affected many thousands of passengers. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - "The disruption to operations is the most costly and largest in the history of U.S. airlines". Furthermore, we should not rush to delete articles about events that occurred recently. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with the above statement. I think that the sheer volume of delays and cancellations as well as the historicism (most costly and largest) is enough reason to have a separate article. Furthermore, I don't think that merging would allow a full explanation of the event to occur. Jmaxx37 (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge; changing my position per recent comments by Hammersoft, Blameless, Jmaxx37, and others. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge for reasons brought up by Hammersoft. - CreationFox Talk Page 12:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Per Hammersoft. Thriley (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge From the way I see it, the cancellations are in no way "routine" and the number of flights cancelled can certainly be called unprecedented. Given that major news outlets both within and outside of the US has covered this, that the DOT and even the Senate has already launched an investigation,[1] [2], and based on the Seeking Alpha article that Hammersoft has pointed out, this is almost certainly satisfying WP:GNG, WP:LASTING and WP:COVERAGE. SBS6577P (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2022/12/27/dot-ready-to-take-action-to-hold-southwest-accountable-over-thousands-of-cancellations/
  2. ^ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3790028-commerce-committee-chair-vows-to-look-into-southwest-debacle/
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southwest_Airlines/Archive_2&oldid=1191741615"