Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
GE90man wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/passengers-cry-scream-in-southwest-airlines-landing/ar-AAvUKsY?ocid=spartanntp
Just me, or does it sound like a *slight* overreaction by the passengers? Some were even texting their loved ones good bye
Doesn't seem like something that was nearly serious enough to warrant acting as if you were going to die.
N766UA wrote:Did it land safely? Yes? No story.
I’d like the hear some facts about it. Honestly, pax perception and the reality of the situation are almost always going to be very, very different. Back when I flew for commuter airline X, people would often get off saying “that was the worst turbulance I’ve ever seen!” Once a woman asked me “1 to 10, how bad was that?” When I replied “2,” her jaw dropped. “I thought you’d say 9 at least!”
Pax have every right to feel what they feel, and making the flight comfortable is important, but when you start saying “Southwest put us in danger,” then you need something more than “I was airsick” to back that up.
N766UA wrote:Did it land safely? Yes? No story.
I’d like the hear some facts about it. Honestly, pax perception and the reality of the situation are almost always going to be very, very different. Back when I flew for commuter airline X, people would often get off saying “that was the worst turbulance I’ve ever seen!” Once a woman asked me “1 to 10, how bad was that?” When I replied “2,” her jaw dropped. “I thought you’d say 9 at least!”
Pax have every right to feel what they feel, and making the flight comfortable is important, but when you start saying “Southwest put us in danger,” then you need something more than “I was airsick” to back that up.
N766UA wrote:Did it land safely? Yes? No story.
I’d like the hear some facts about it. Honestly, pax perception and the reality of the situation are almost always going to be very, very different. Back when I flew for commuter airline X, people would often get off saying “that was the worst turbulance I’ve ever seen!” Once a woman asked me “1 to 10, how bad was that?” When I replied “2,” her jaw dropped. “I thought you’d say 9 at least!”
Pax have every right to feel what they feel, and making the flight comfortable is important, but when you start saying “Southwest put us in danger,” then you need something more than “I was airsick” to back that up.
WaywardMemphian wrote:And... if the flight had been cancelled they would have bitched to high heaven as well.
N766UA wrote:Did it land safely? Yes? No story.
I’d like the hear some facts about it. Honestly, pax perception and the reality of the situation are almost always going to be very, very different. Back when I flew for commuter airline X, people would often get off saying “that was the worst turbulance I’ve ever seen!” Once a woman asked me “1 to 10, how bad was that?” When I replied “2,” her jaw dropped. “I thought you’d say 9 at least!”
Pax have every right to feel what they feel, and making the flight comfortable is important, but when you start saying “Southwest put us in danger,” then you need something more than “I was airsick” to back that up.
zakuivcustom wrote:Looking at Flightaware:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA ... /KFLL/KECP
A "red" thunderstorm cloud right over the airport when they attempt to land (the first time), wouldn't be surprised if there are microbursts involved also.
On the other hand, things DO get exaggerated in the media. Planes are design to handle that plus more easily anyway. And as some would say, the pilots hate turbulences just as much as the pax.
JAAlbert wrote:What was that lady doing texting when the plane is on approach?
GE90man wrote:JAAlbert wrote:What was that lady doing texting when the plane is on approach?
Wait a second...... that's a good point
ODwyerPW wrote:I don't blame the passengers for being scared.
I do however blame the media outlet for blowing it out of proportion.
alggag wrote:GE90man wrote:JAAlbert wrote:What was that lady doing texting when the plane is on approach?
Wait a second...... that's a good point
In her defense Southwest has gate to gate wifi and also sells a discounted tier at $2 for messaging services only. If she had purchased it earlier in the flight then she would be able to send the texts without breaking the rules.
GE90man wrote:JAAlbert wrote:What was that lady doing texting when the plane is on approach?
Wait a second...... that's a good point
N766UA wrote:Did it land safely? Yes? No story.
flyingclrs727 wrote:WN has never killed any of its passengers.
LAX772LR wrote:N766UA wrote:Did it land safely? Yes? No story.
So by that rather dismissive standard:
the Gimli Glider, Sully's landing, Air Transat transoceanic fuel starvation, BA volcanic engine shutdown, "Titanic in the Sky" (QF032), etc... all were "no story" either?
Seriously?
wingnutmn wrote:As an airline pilot, I can assure you that pilots don't willfully fly into a situation that they don't have an out from. Moderate chop to me and the industry may feel like severe turbulance to a not frequent flyer. Just because it is red on the map, doesn't mean it is a severe thunderstorm. At the end of the day, the flight crew has access to much more information than the passengers in the back. Trust them, they are professionals.
Wingnut
LAX772LR wrote:N766UA wrote:Did it land safely? Yes? No story.
So by that rather dismissive standard:
the Gimli Glider, Sully's landing, Air Transat transoceanic fuel starvation, BA volcanic engine shutdown, "Titanic in the Sky" (QF032), etc... all were "no story" either?
Seriously?flyingclrs727 wrote:WN has never killed any of its passengers.
At some point any airline could make that claim... not sure why anyone would use that as if it were a predictor of future events.
N766UA wrote:Please tell me you're comparing this with crashing in the Hudson. I want you to actually type out "This non-story is comparable to an A320 going in a river."
frmrCapCadet wrote:LAX772LR wrote:the Gimli Glider, Sully's landing, Air Transat transoceanic fuel starvation, BA volcanic engine shutdown, "Titanic in the Sky" (QF032), etc.
Most aviation enthusiasts would like have found those events a thrill.
DDR wrote:In my years of flying, I've had some doozy landings. It's even worse when you are in the rear jump seats and can't see out side. Back in my early days, we had an aborted landing in DCA on a 757 where we actually touched down but bounced and the pilots went around. The pilots never intended to touch down but there was wind shear and we were too far down the runway. There were lots of screams on that one, lol.
But for people who aren't frequent flyers, I completely understand where they are coming from, and I do my best to make them feel at ease. I've held plenty of hands over the years.
LAX772LR wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:LAX772LR wrote:the Gimli Glider, Sully's landing, Air Transat transoceanic fuel starvation, BA volcanic engine shutdown, "Titanic in the Sky" (QF032), etc.
Most aviation enthusiasts would like have found those events a thrill.
Quite possibly THE oddest claim I've ever seen on this forum. Wow.
frmrCapCadet wrote:In retrospect only, would you be angry now that you were on the 320 in the Hudson River?
frmrCapCadet wrote:In retrospect only, would you be angry now that you were on the 320 in the Hudson River?