Preferrential Treatment to Southwest

I want to preface this and say that the guys and gals of our nations ATC facilities do an awesome job day in and day out under extremely difficult circumstances to help keep our skies safe. My hat goes off to them. Also would like to add that Southwest Airlines has been great to me when commuting getting me where I need to go.

However, it is blatantly obvious that Southwest gets preferential treatment when going into airports they serve. It happened to me yesterday and contributed to me missing my first option commute home. What is the deal with this? REALLY pissed me off yesterday.

Ask yourself who YOU do favors for. The guy who helps you out whenever he can? or the guy who says "screw you there's nothing in it for me?"

Years and years ago, before all this aviation nonsense, I used to deliver pizza. I tried to give all my customers the best and speediest service that I could, but when it came down to making a choice, I chose the custsomer who I knew tipped better.

Ask not what ATC can do for you, ask what you can do for ATC (little JFK lingo there).
 
Hey, us fancy 121 drivers call those Weight on Wheels detectors. :)

And yeah, they're tied in. In the sim, you can click 'em, count to three, then pull 'em. Not so much in the real airplane. I generally just push 'em in and hold 'em until they click. Might be different on that fancy-pants -900, though.

Heh no difference. More of the same. I hate the mechanism that's for sure.
 
However, maybe next time I think Southwest gets preferential treatment, I'll make sure I note the time, place, flight number, a little more closely, and ask for a number to call the ATC Facility to clarify why I slowed down.

Is this really how you want to spend your time between flights? By picking a fight with the men and women who safely and efficiently move us around? Maybe you should worry a little less about everyone else and just do your job. No one is stopping you from doing that are they?


I really don't want to get anyone in trouble or make a mountain out of an ant hill, BUT if enough guys and gals out there call it like they see it, maybe things will change.

What will change? You want Southwest punished because you feel slighted? Step back, read what you've written and seriously think about the mental power you're wasting on this.
 
Hey, I had a laserdisc player. I also had a Beta machine. Scratch that....HAVE. It still works.

I don't think we're that far apart in age. I remember when I was in elementary school they showed us a video using a laserdisc. I thought it was sweet. I mean, we have this gigantic disc with a color movie on it but only green machines with Oregon Trail. :D
 
That full reverse effort probably just wasted whatever fuel conservation effort was in effect for the flight...and I flat out refuse to throw everyone out of their seats to make a midfield turnoff. And the braking characteristics of the MD80 are such that it's lucky they ever stop on the runway in the first place! :)

True about the MD-80's.

Overall, reverse thrust is a lot of noise, a lot of drama and a barely discernible amount of braking authority.

Most places in Europe disallow you from using anything over idle reverse and with autobrakes, you really don't notice much of a difference.



I have to disagree.

As someone who has "thousands" of hours in the DC-9/C-9B/MD-88, I can tell you the airplane will stop on a dime - if you know what you're doing.

The reason the Mad-dog has a bad rep at Southernjets has much more to do with the inadequate training program there than the "real" performance of the aircraft.

/Rant.


Kevin
 
Performance tended to be the least understood subject when I used to teach school.

Manufacturers can choose to use systems other than wheel brakes too. I've attached the FAR from Part 25 to review.

I've included all of it, as it's interesting to read. I've bolded the parts pertinent to the discussion.

FAR25.125 said:
§ 25.125 Landing.

top
(a) The horizontal distance necessary to land and to come to a complete stop (or to a speed of approximately 3 knots for water landings) from a point 50 feet above the landing surface must be determined (for standard temperatures, at each weight, altitude, and wind within the operational limits established by the applicant for the airplane):
(1) In non-icing conditions; and
(2) In icing conditions with the landing ice accretion defined in appendix C if VREFfor icing conditions exceeds VREFfor non-icing conditions by more than 5 knots CAS at the maximum landing weight.
(b) In determining the distance in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) The airplane must be in the landing configuration.
(2) A stabilized approach, with a calibrated airspeed of not less than VREF, must be maintained down to the 50-foot height.
(i) In non-icing conditions, VREFmay not be less than:
(A) 1.23 VSR0;
(B) VMCLestablished under §25.149(f); and
(C) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in §25.143(h).
(ii) In icing conditions, VREFmay not be less than:
(A) The speed determined in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section;
(B) 1.23 VSR0with the landing ice accretion defined in appendix C if that speed exceeds VREFfor non-icing conditions by more than 5 knots CAS; and
(C) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in §25.143(h) with the landing ice accretion defined in appendix C.
(3) Changes in configuration, power or thrust, and speed, must be made in accordance with the established procedures for service operation.
(4) The landing must be made without excessive vertical acceleration, tendency to bounce, nose over, ground loop, porpoise, or water loop.
(5) The landings may not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.
(c) For landplanes and amphibians, the landing distance on land must be determined on a level, smooth, dry, hard-surfaced runway. In addition—
(1) The pressures on the wheel braking systems may not exceed those specified by the brake manufacturer;
(2) The brakes may not be used so as to cause excessive wear of brakes or tires; and
(3) Means other than wheel brakes may be used if that means—
(i) Is safe and reliable;
(ii) Is used so that consistent results can be expected in service; and
(iii) Is such that exceptional skill is not required to control the airplane.
(d) For seaplanes and amphibians, the landing distance on water must be determined on smooth water.
(e) For skiplanes, the landing distance on snow must be determined on smooth, dry, snow.
(f) The landing distance data must include correction factors for not more than 50 percent of the nominal wind components along the landing path opposite to the direction of landing, and not less than 150 percent of the nominal wind components along the landing path in the direction of landing.
(g) If any device is used that depends on the operation of any engine, and if the landing distance would be noticeably increased when a landing is made with that engine inoperative, the landing distance must be determined with that engine inoperative unless the use of compensating means will result in a landing distance not more than that with each engine operating.
[Amdt. 25–121, 72 FR 44666; Aug. 8, 2007; 72 FR 50467, Aug. 31, 2007]
 
So that would mean anything, ground spoilers, thrust reversers, blah blah blah eh?

I'd reckon any abnormal that you have a factor to increase your landing roll.

I know the whale has numbers for 4, 2 or 0 thrust reversers
 
A few weeks ago we were flying BOS-BWI and caught up to a SWA flight flying PVD-BWI. We were doing .81 and he was doing .74 at the same altitude (34K I think). The controller made us slow to .74 or less and follow him (5 miles in trail) all the way to BWI and down the final. We could have easily got a vector around him and passed him, but they would not do that. I still don't know why he was going so slow.


Yeah, i hate it when we are coming up from DCA, and are doing like .58... when we get stuck behind a dh8 200... who is diong .48, and like, we have to slow down?!? j/k

Have you felt the brakes on the Q400? Kinda goes like this : apply... nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, 3 WIRE. The anti skid system holds them off for 5 seconds, and then dumps every bit of pressure you got riding on them all at once.. much akin to slamming on the e-brake - In that effort i much prefer beta/reverse ... you actually know whats gonna happen then
 
I would agree with that description of a Q400 landing!

At Horizon they wanted us to literally "jump all over the brakes" because they were these "new fangled" carbon brakes...trouble was (I learned after IOE and jumping on said brakes), on my landings I was throwing people forward in their seats...the Q400 did quite well if you just touched down, came into DISC, and applied nice and steady pressure to the high speed.

I do recall coming to Lewiston, ID on one occasion (as PNF) and landing on Runway 11 (5000 ft)...touching down on the 1000ft-ers...max reverse (beta) and laying on the brakes...it was quite the experience that's for sure :nana2:
 
I always wondered if the QX training department was teaching you guys that horrendous stopping procedure. Let's work on a nice smooth flight then jam everyone's face into the seatback.

It seems to have abated in the last couple years, though.
 
Going into the same airport yesterday, the 737 in the corndog livery was given priority over me.

:banghead:
 
Hmmm they never seem to slam SW in front of us...... must be those rust-bucket Q400s ya guys have that just look too slow.:D

Just kiddin' seg!
 
Back
Top