Slashdot Mirror


Southwest Adds 'Mechanical Difficulties' To Act Of God List

War, earthquakes, and broken washers are all unavoidable events for which a carrier should not be liable if travel is delayed according to Southwest Airlines. Southwest quietly updated their act of God list a few weeks ago to include mechanical problems with the other horrors of an angry travel god. From the article: "Robert Mann, an airline industry analyst based in Port Washington, NY, called it 'surprising' that Southwest, which has a reputation for stellar customer service, would make a change that puts passengers at a legal disadvantage if an aircraft breakdown delays their travel. Keeping a fleet mechanically sound 'is certainly within the control of any airline,' Mann said. 'Putting mechanical issues in the same category as an act of God — I don't think that's what God intended.'"

223 comments

  1. Check their payroll by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is God part of their fleet maintenance engineering crew?

    1. Re:Check their payroll by kg8484 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he goes by Larry when he's on the job.

    2. Re:Check their payroll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but there is a Jesus Hernandez that works in baggage... are lost bags now under the Act of God clause too?

    3. Re:Check their payroll by rrhal · · Score: 1

      No that's Morgan Freeman - he only played God in the movies.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
    4. Re:Check their payroll by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know, have you seen the latest security measures?

      "Thou shalt not bring liquids over 3 oz in thine carry-on luggage, for it is an abomination and potentially a bomb (anation).

      Thou shalt remove thine shoes from thine feet, for thee art in a place of holy security, and also we want it to look like we learned something from that shoe bomber incident.

      Thou shalt not bring hammers onto the plane, for in the face of a terrorist wielding a hammer all are paralyzed with fear and would not be able to stop him from hammering out the windows and depressurizing the cabin, causing extreme discomfort for all therein.

      Thou shalt not question TSA rules, for they keep you safe so long as terrorists continue to be inconceivably stupid and incapable of lighting the bombs they hath smuggled aboard the airplane"

      Pretty sure God works for TSA and doesn't take his job very seriously.

    5. Re:Check their payroll by rev_sanchez · · Score: 1

      At one point in his career the Christian god was a carpenter who could turn water into wine at will. If he's like any of the carpenters I know that's a terrible combination. I'm thinking that there's a reason that the bible didn't mention his skill as a craftsman. Combine that with a slight grudge toward humanity over that whole brutally tortured to death thing and a difficultly with holding things like small screws and such and I might grab the next flight if he'd worked on it.

      --
      If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
    6. Re:Check their payroll by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 3, Funny

      He should be since all thier mechanics pray to him before every take off.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    7. Re:Check their payroll by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. After cutting nearly everyone else to keep fares low, they now just pray that nothing breaks.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    8. Re:Check their payroll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Thou shalt remove thine shoes from thine feet, for thee art in a place of holy security, and also we want it to look like we learned something from that shoe bomber incident."

      Thank God that the US are prude or they would have learned something from the underwear bomber too.

    9. Re:Check their payroll by IvyMike · · Score: 1

      Does some dude named "Jesus" count?

    10. Re:Check their payroll by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank God that the US are prude or they would have learned something from the underwear bomber too.

      Alternatively, it's too bad we're prudish and not in better shape physically.

    11. Re:Check their payroll by SpongeBob+Hitler · · Score: 0

      Is God part of their fleet maintenance engineering crew?

      Well, whatever role he plays, I wish he would smite the TSA!

      --
      Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?
    12. Re:Check their payroll by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      "Thou shalt remove thine shoes from thine feet, for thee art in a place of holy security, and also we want it to look like we learned something from that shoe bomber incident."

      Thank God that the US are prude or they would have learned something from the underwear bomber too.

      Umm... virtual strip search anyone?

    13. Re:Check their payroll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about God, but Jesus certainly is.

    14. Re:Check their payroll by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Funny

      "First shalt thou take out the Holy ziploc bag, then shalt thou count to three ounces, no more, no less. Three shall be the number of ounces, and the number ounces shall be three. Four ounces shalt thou not bring, neither thou two ziploc bags, excepting that thou then proceed to check one. Five ounces is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then handest thou thy Holy ziploc bag to thy TSA screener, who being arbitrary in My sight, shall confiscate it anyway."

    15. Re:Check their payroll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is a neo-version of "the devil made me do it" ...how friggin lame.

    16. Re:Check their payroll by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's what God intended.

      I don't remember seeing a book in the bible that covers aircraft maintenance or aviation component failure.

      Was it in one of the commandments?

      "Thou shalt not allow a faulty inertial reference sensor to delay departure."

      Maybe it's part of the 8th: Thou shall not steal - the right of your passengers to sue you for failing to uphold your departure commitment.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    17. Re:Check their payroll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but he created physics. And under his physics, things break or wear out. Therefor it's God's fault when there is a mechanical problem.

    18. Re:Check their payroll by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Considering the physical shape of most Americans it is most prudent to be prude.

      Furry man-boobs just aren't the rage like they used to be.

      - Dan.,

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    19. Re:Check their payroll by jmrives · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I am sure they have someone named Jesus working there.

    20. Re:Check their payroll by jd · · Score: 1

      What would they need that for? God can see through clothes - and informs me that CowboyNeil is wearing lace.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    21. Re:Check their payroll by jd · · Score: 1

      It's the Eleventh Commandment, which never got written down again after the original tablets were smashed. "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Airline's Ill-Gotten Gains".

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    22. Re:Check their payroll by sharkey · · Score: 1

      "Then sqeezeth thou thrice the Holy Hand Cream."

      Aww, fuckit.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    23. Re:Check their payroll by dwbassett42 · · Score: 1

      Amen.

    24. Re:Check their payroll by kmoser · · Score: 1

      No need for divine maintenance; it's all ball bearings these days.

    25. Re:Check their payroll by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      "First shalt thou take out the Holy ziploc bag, then shalt thou count to three ounces, no more, no less. Three ...

      Ounces? Ounces? Haven't you had your religion metricated yet? Do you have no scruples?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    26. Re:Check their payroll by lxs · · Score: 2, Informative

      A fully metricated person would indeed have no scruples at all.

    27. Re:Check their payroll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found this today in the daily updates. It’s not talking about mechanical failures of Southwest aircraft, it’s talking about mechanical failures outside of Southwest’s control such as the airport de-icing system or air traffic control.

      Questions about our Contract of Carriage
      By EmployeeNews

      Some of you may be aware of news stories relating to Southwest Airlines Contract of Carriage (CoC), and how recent changes to the CoC regarding accommodating Customers during “mechanical events” are being perceived incorrectly or taken out of context by the media. Your Communications Team has been working with our Director of Customer Advocacy, our General Counsel Department, as well as our media contacts to set the story straight. Here’s the straight scoop, in case you get questions or concerns about this issue from Customers, friends, or family:

      Simply put, Southwest had never before defined Force Majeure Events in our CoC. In our latest update, we offered our Force Majeure definition (which can be found in its entirety on SWALife >Tools >Policies >Contract of Carriage >page 2) which states that "Force Majeure Event means any event outside of Carrier’s control" and so the "mechanical difficulties" we refer to as Force Majeure events would be those outside of our control, such as airport mechanical difficulties (e.g., the airport de-icing system breaks) or Air Traffic Control issues (e.g., airport or regional tower goes down). We are not referring to our own aircraft maintenance difficulties, which would clearly be under our control. Our policies and practices confirm this interpretation. None of our procedures have changed—we still accommodate Customers exactly the same as we did previously in the event of our own aircraft maintenance issues occur.

    28. Re:Check their payroll by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing something about that in History of the World Part 1 (Mel Brooks)

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    29. Re:Check their payroll by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      What was that rather disturbing image that I heard a few days ago on here? Oh yes, "golf clap". Tiger has been doing what he didn't oughta. Again.

      OK, you didn't see the several other weights and measures puns I worked into the original version, before deciding that less is more, and deleting the lot. Sheesh, do people think that I just type the first random thought that comes into my head?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. I think they're right by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    Statistics should be considered an "Act of God".

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:I think they're right by capnchicken · · Score: 1

      Don't say that near any 6-Sigma guys :-)

      --
      A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
    2. Re:I think they're right by mmkkbb · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know those belts don't indicate actual martial arts skill, right?

      --
      -mkb
    3. Re:I think they're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you can't rely on either of them.

    4. Re:I think they're right by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      As long as the eventuality is documented in the process binder, it's OK if it happens.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:I think they're right by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Wars too, it would seem...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:I think they're right by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

      >> Statistics should be considered an "Act of God".

      So should arriving on time with all you luggage intact.

    7. Re:I think they're right by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. If a part fails within its operating parameters, which is always a possibility, that's a circumstance outside of human control.

      Of course, operating a part outside of its operating parameters, or defining unrealistic operating parameters, would be negligence.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    8. Re:I think they're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing my luck I'd try arguing with a green belt that's a black belt.

    9. Re:I think they're right by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A part failing is outside of human control. Whether or not you have spare parts on hand, however, is well within human control. Similarly, whether or not you have a spare plane to use while the first one is being repaired is also well within human control. The question of whether force majeure or equivalent contract clauses should apply is not one of whether a failure could have been prevented, but rather whether the failed flight could reasonably have been prevented by having plans in place to handle equipment failures gracefully.

      Failures are a part of doing business. The term "acts of God" is intended to protect only against failures that either cannot reasonably be foreseen (overthrow of a government, for example) or are so catastrophic that they cannot be dealt with when they do occur (a hurricane, for example). It is not intended to allow a company to not take responsibility for normal day-to-day failures. A competent, responsible company is expected to have contingency plans in place to deal with a reasonable number of normal day-to-day failures. If a company does not, it is inept and should be allowed to go bankrupt as quickly as possible so that more competent companies can take its place.

      Remember that any delay caused by aircraft equipment failure could have been prevented with a single spare plane in the right location.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:I think they're right by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a spare plane. They cost millions of dollars and so each one is used to its fullest extent. It is like having a spare datacenter or supercomputer. If you have it, you are using it because it costs too much to not use it.

    11. Re:I think they're right by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Most corporations that have data centers do have hot swap failover, whether it's in the same center or multiple centers, and do have multiple routes to the outside world. Having spare capacity is part of doing business in pretty much every industry.

      The argument that it's too expensive to have spares is true for anything if you get right down to it. It costs too much to buy a spare car at twenty or thirty grand. However, I do have a spare car. When I bought my new car, I kept my old car. For the two grand they would have given me, it didn't make sense to lose a perfectly functional vehicle in good condition. Spares don't have to be new. You can get spares by stretching the life of your fleet a little and using the older, near-EOL planes as your spares. By doing so, the cost of keeping the spares around is basically limited to a little bit of regular maintenance plus the cost of leasing hangar space for them or whatever.

      Besides, even if you did it by buying more planes than you normally would, as I said in another post, amortized over the long term, that increases your operating costs by a few percent. If you increased the cost of tickets by that percentage, you could then buy an extra plane every so often and in a decade, you'll be up to your quota.

      Seriously. It's just not a big deal.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:I think they're right by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      I do expect plans for graceful failure to be in place, however even with an appropriate failure plan, are you going to be able to guarantee the original arrival time? There are a lot of logistical details that have to be rearranged.

      Subject to the premise that they are taking appropriate measures to mitigate these problems and that that completely eliminating these problems is beyond possibility, I don't see a big problem with placing these sorts of problems in the same category as problems created by weather which seem to satisfy the same conditions.

      I guess in my mind, a company offering a service for hire is providing a contract for factors they can control. If a company is offering a guarantee related to factors they can't control, then they're offering an insurance contract (possibly embedded within a service contract). I think a company offering a service should necessarily see to it that the service is done as far as they can control, but I don't think it is strictly necessary that they must include insurance for things they can't control.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    13. Re:I think they're right by brufleth · · Score: 1

      Joking? I work in the aircraft industry and most of the mechanical problems we see are due to human error. There's almost certainly some selection bias but at least a good chunk of mechanical problems are the fault of the airline, not random.

    14. Re:I think they're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parts failing are well within human control. We drive our cars till something breaks, and then have it repaired. Not so with aircraft. They replace parts before they break, scrapping stuff that still works. A simple system that avoids planes crashing "now and then" as parts wear out.

    15. Re:I think they're right by treeves · · Score: 1

      It's controllable to a large degree: if you have failure rate data and PM program to replace or test critical components before they are likely to fail, you have controlled it to the best of your ability. If you fail to collect the data or act on it (for critical components), you're negligent.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  3. What does Kevin Smith think of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, wait, I bet he doesn't fly Southwest anymore after his "weight" incident.

  4. Some bean counter ... by capnchicken · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... probably figured that this might overcome their bags fly free policy while still remaining competitive. Marketing won't like it if this story gets any bigger, kudos to the Arizona Daily Star for breaking it.

    --
    A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
    1. Re:Some bean counter ... by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gary Kelly is a Bean Counter. He was CFO prior to being named to his current position and it's just a way that they don't have to book you on another airline or pay for overnight accommodations if they have a mechanical problem. From a marketing perspective this is an incentive to buy "Travel Insurance." Bah...

      http://www.southwest.com/swamedia/bios/gary_kelly.html

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  5. Mechanical failure by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if my car breaks and crashes into a state trooper, killing him, I can claim that my shoddy repairs were an act of god? AWESOME! *goes for a drive*

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Mechanical failure by Binkleyz · · Score: 4, Funny

      And thus the obligatory "Slashdot automobile analogy" requirement is fulfilled.

    2. Re:Mechanical failure by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And thus the obligatory "Slashdot automobile analogy" requirement is fulfilled.

      Yeah. I feel dirty too.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Mechanical failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you would have figured it out by now... government employees are protected from us minor peons far better than that! You'd be shipped to gitmo and tried for terrorism.

    4. Re:Mechanical failure by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Tear jerking scenario aside (you might as well have tried the "Think of the children" route and made it a little girl holding a puppy with a bow in it's hair), no, if you are in an accident caused by a verifiable mechanical breakage than you are not going to be considered at fault.

      Being legally at fault in a criminal matter though is a very different matter than claiming no fault in a Terms of Service document.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Mechanical failure by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      "Dirty girl" comments coming in 3... 2... 1...

    6. Re:Mechanical failure by epp_b · · Score: 1

      Girls? On my Slashdot? I don't think so.

    7. Re:Mechanical failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a trap!

      (No, seriously, it's a trap.)

    8. Re:Mechanical failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if my car breaks and crashes into a state trooper, killing him, I can claim that my shoddy repairs were an act of god?

      Maybe if it was a lawyer.

    9. Re:Mechanical failure by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

      Make sure your car got "God is my co-pilot" bumpersticker.

      And may be something about Jesus. To impress latinos in jury.

  6. Aging fleet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the fleet is getting too old to maintain properly. Perhaps the FAA needs to investigate the veracity of Southwest's maintenance records.

  7. If 'mechanical difficulties' has been added... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...to the acts of God list, you better add 'my angry fist to your prone crotch', you cheap assholes. Typical Southwest bullshit.

    1. Re:If 'mechanical difficulties' has been added... by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every airline sucks. I mean, come on: doesn't Delta charge you for breathing now?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:If 'mechanical difficulties' has been added... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How in the world do you punch someone's crotch when he's lying prone?

    3. Re:If 'mechanical difficulties' has been added... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Funny

      No- Thats RyanAir

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:If 'mechanical difficulties' has been added... by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 1

      skill

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
    5. Re:If 'mechanical difficulties' has been added... by Holi · · Score: 1

      your right, I'd kick 'em.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    6. Re:If 'mechanical difficulties' has been added... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Through the ass. That way then really know how it feels to book a flight with them.

  8. Another suggestion.... by mseeger · · Score: 1

    Just add "Management Incompetence" to the list or add it at least as natural constant.

    1. Re:Another suggestion.... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Just add "Management Incompetence" to the list or add it at least as natural constant.

      I don't think there is an airline that doesn't have that one on their list...

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:Another suggestion.... by mseeger · · Score: 1

      Just add "Management Incompetence" to the list or add it at least as natural constant.

      I don't think there is an airline that doesn't have that one on their list...

      Dunno what you're talking about *** Humming United Breaks Guitars ****

  9. It only makes sense by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

    ... once you start babbling about the effect of capricious supernatural sky fairies on mass transportation. What's the difference between a transistor burning out in a VOR receiver, versus a sudden hailstorm that shuts down the whole airport? Only a matter of scale.

    1. Re:It only makes sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Lets see, one is a mechanical problem, the other is weather. I'd say a big difference, and not just in scale.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:It only makes sense by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I agree, do they have an "acts of leprechauns" or "acts of gremlins" section too?

      Even weather delays are often partly the airlines fault for not having enough spare capacity. I have been delayed more than once due to a weather issue at another airport thus delaying the plane I was supposed to board.

    3. Re:It only makes sense by Meshach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The trouble is that the TOS modification we are talking about explicitly does not define what a mechanical failure is. From TFA:

      I can see (carriers) saying, 'It wasn't our fault the airplane broke down

      . Until this is better defined I cannot see it holding any legal power in any court.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    4. Re:It only makes sense by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Funny

      You don't think an angry sky wizard could burn out a transistor?

      Maybe the pilot and copilot are gay lovers, or maybe they had shrimp for lunch, or failed to say the correct prayers at the correct times, it seems from the relevant documentation anything pisses off those types.

    5. Re:It only makes sense by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ... once you start babbling about the effect of capricious supernatural sky fairies on mass transportation. What's the difference between a transistor burning out in a VOR receiver, versus a sudden hailstorm that shuts down the whole airport? Only a matter of scale.

      None actually.

      CFR 14, Part 25, Rule 25.1309.

      (a) The equipment, systems, and installations whose functioning is required by this subchapter, must be designed to ensure that they perform their intended functions under any foreseeable operating condition. (1) The occurrence of any failure condition which would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane is extremely improbable, and [(2) The occurrence of any other failure condition which would reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions is improbable. [snip] (g) In showing compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section with regard to the electrical system and equipment design and installation, critical environmental conditions must be considered.

      http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/EF544B3CFE11DB2B85256673004D3EC4?OpenDocument

    6. Re:It only makes sense by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I saw that episode as well. I was surprised that Kirk didn't get any action from the stewardess and Spock wasn't helpful at all.

    7. Re:It only makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad weather can supposedly be prevented by frequent and vigorous prayer...

      Maybe there is room for a "Christian Airlines" company which would hire professional prayer workers to pray for good weather on each flight.

    8. Re:It only makes sense by tbird20d · · Score: 1

      ...effect of capricious supernatural sky fairies...

      I know diety disdain is popular here on Slashdot, but "Act of God" is a legal term of art. You can calm down now.

    9. Re:It only makes sense by cgenman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exceptions for acts of god makes sense. After all, should an airline be held responsible for the unknowable, infallible actions of our omnipotent creator?

      Of course, they want notarized proof if your sick and need to change planes. I want Southwest to get a note from God that He authorized the act. Also, a xeroxed copy of His driver's license or passport proving His identity. And His signature, which must match the signature card from a local bank.

      Also, I want to know why He keeps making the Yankees win.

    10. Re:It only makes sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Still not seeing the connection between it and the transistor.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    11. Re:It only makes sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Since I don't know of any sky wizards (or sky fairies) I cannot answer your question.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    12. Re:It only makes sense by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      It's a freaking figure of speech. Not one (Well, no one who matters) really thinks that divine beings actually take an interest in whether your plane takes off on time. The point is that "act of God" typically refer to matters outside the control of the airline, thus allowing them to make an valid argument that they can't be expected to pay for the result. Maintenance is well within the control of the airline and should not be considered under "acts of God" protection.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    13. Re:It only makes sense by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      because replacement parts for planes should be something planned for. I know for my servers at work they have 4 hour contracted terms to turn around the part...they're an airline for god's sake, they should be able to move parts inventory between airports in less than one hop, putting your flight no more than 1-2 hours behind tops. If they're flying with problems that can't be fixed in just a few hours, then they're negligent for not keeping some kind of spare plane around... they're selling TRANSPORTATION... wings in the air is their BUSINESS, if they can't do that, they shouldn't be in business.

      Airlines don't want to keep requisite staff around that any manufacturing company would, many manufactures lose an entire plane's worth of income in an HOUR of downtime and they manage to do just fine. There is positively no excuse for keeping passengers standing around more than a few hours... those incidents are PEOPLE problems, cold callous bastards at every level that simply don't give a damn. Not having a plan to properly handle people when a plane can't fly IS negligent and cruel.

    14. Re:It only makes sense by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I think we should change it to "evolutionary opportunities" to be more PC.

    15. Re:It only makes sense by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      If wings in the air is their business, they clearly have no business keeping wings on the ground that cost a huge amount with no predictable return.

    16. Re:It only makes sense by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ... once you start babbling about the effect of capricious supernatural sky fairies on mass transportation.

      What if you're and Atheist or Buddhist and dont believe in the sky fairy?

      What is stopping the plane from falling apart?

      This ladies and gentlemen, is why middle eastern airlines is are kicking arse. Allah is great and all but they are still paying Indians to maintain their planes for them (also I'll never fly Garuda Indonesia, I have an issue with an airline named after the bird ridden by Vishnu the Destroyer).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    17. Re:It only makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think "weather" at the quantum-mechanical level. Chaos. A single transistor fails, while a thousand others are still working great in the same application. Just as with inclement weather, no specific act or omission on the part of any specific person or company can be blamed. The result is the same: your plane stays on the ground.

    18. Re:It only makes sense by BigMarv · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also, I want to know why He keeps making the Yankees win.

      Pretty sure that was the other guy.

    19. Re:It only makes sense by flanktwo · · Score: 1

      Of course, they want notarized proof if your sick and need to change planes.

      Don't worry, getting sick will soon be an Act of God.

      Also, a xeroxed copy of His driver's license or passport proving His identity. And His signature, which must match the signature card from a local bank.

      I wonder if any deities have tried to open bank accounts after being denied trading accounts? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100717/oddities/india_stocks_religion_hindu_offbeat

    20. Re:It only makes sense by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      What does it really cost to mothball a jet, especially in the climates that Southwest has their hubs in? Hangar and minor maintenance time? I think annual inspections would be required whether the plane put any hours on in that year or not, but inspections are required for all the planes, and it's figured into the ticket price. Really, keeping a few spare planes at key hubs can be figured into the books somewhere. As someone else pointed out earlier, they don't have to be new planes. Currently older planes are sold to other countries, or scrapped for pennies on the dollar. We pay for new planes with our fares.

      As a guy who travels extensively, if it meant a decision between keeping a closer departure time or flying in a newer plane, I'd pick staying on schedule, every time. As long as it's safe, I don't care if the carpets are shag green or the tail says TWA.

    21. Re:It only makes sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Now that's a stretch.

      Mechanical problems can be avoided or quickly (relatively speaking) fixed in a number of ways. Weather cannot be fixed (by humans, at least).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    22. Re:It only makes sense by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      not really, they could keep an extra plane or two and do proper maintenance on them rather then cutting every repair to the wire. That is what causes unnecessary "mechanical" delays when they purposefully go over their fight hours for maintenance and PLAN to make the passengers wait... then a repair person takes a sick day, gets stuck in traffic, would go into OT and the airline's schedule is "unexpectedly" held up.. or more importantly, don't plan to make the passengers NOT wait.

  10. Sorry, but SWA can PROVE this is valid. by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 5, Funny

    How many passengers sit down in those oh-so-comfy airplane seats, buckle in and quietly say, "Oh god, PLEASE don't let this airplane fall apart!"

    If god chooses not to listen, should SWA be held liable?

    --
    I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
    1. Re:Sorry, but SWA can PROVE this is valid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Have you been on a soutwest plane recently? you dont say it quietly

    2. Re:Sorry, but SWA can PROVE this is valid. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Do you suppose an entire plane full of passengers praying for mercy counters what I say when I get on a plane: "hey god, you've been waiting for a long time, now's your chance - take your best shot?"

      Not that I've ever flown Southwest.

    3. Re:Sorry, but SWA can PROVE this is valid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many passengers sit down in those oh-so-comfy airplane seats, buckle in and quietly say, "Oh god, PLEASE don't let this airplane fall apart!"

      If god chooses not to listen, should SWA be held liable?

      If god doesnt listen, then the passengers arent going to be around to file a lawsuit.

  11. isn't the lack of maintenance inaction by God? by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    if God acted to properly maintain the plane, the mechanical failures would not have happened. unless purchasing engine parts that don't follow quality control guidelines is also an act of God... or if the head of southwest maintenance is God.

    1. Re:isn't the lack of maintenance inaction by God? by vlm · · Score: 1

      purchasing engine parts that don't follow quality control guidelines is also an act of God.

      According to "intelligent design" those were put there by the devil to fool us.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:isn't the lack of maintenance inaction by God? by sjames · · Score: 1

      And if God would get busy smiting the evil bastards that have taken over law and commerce, these things wouldn't be such a big problem.

    3. Re:isn't the lack of maintenance inaction by God? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      of course if you can plan for "acts of god" in a contract, then they're not really "acts of god" are they?

      In reality the problem is not the plane missing it's flight, it happens and most folks would understand. The real problem is that the managers of these companies are bastards that don't pay attention to their planes, their employees, or their customers. They KNOW there are going to be delays, people shouldn't have to rebook flights at moment's notice, there should be a plan for that at the airline level, at the terminal level, and at the airport level to get folks where they need to go, even if that means OT for the crew, or keeping the airport open extra hours to get the last fights connected. That people are left for 8 hours in a plane is petty cruelty... people that allow that to happen are psychopaths that tortured small animals as children.

  12. This WASN'T on their list before? by notommy · · Score: 1

    Clearly the mechanic that was supposed to do the checks was told (psychically ofcourse) by God NOT to them. Resulting in the mechanical failure not being discovered.

    This is classic God influence. And is exactly what God intended, Mr. so called Mann.

  13. Yay, free auto repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    By this logic my insurance company should be liable for when my car breaks down. Woohoo!

    1. Re:Yay, free auto repair by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You won't say that when you see the new premiums.

    2. Re:Yay, free auto repair by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is a little ironic that if my car breaks down it is an act of God, yet I only able to buy an extended warranty from companies who are agents of the Devil...

    3. Re:Yay, free auto repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also helps if you have a God-Is-My-Copilot bumper sticker. If you get in an accident you can say God had the wheel.

    4. Re:Yay, free auto repair by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      yet you get the AAA plan for the towing because you KNOW your car has pretty good chances of breaking down in a full year. By paying for the tow package you are reducing your inconvenience later, maybe even a dangerous situation for you and your passengers like being stuck where you don't belong over a flat tire.

    5. Re:Yay, free auto repair by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > By paying for the tow package you are reducing your inconvenience later,
      > maybe even a dangerous situation for you and your passengers like being
      > stuck where you don't belong over a flat tire.

      Which will help you not at all when you can't get where you are going because one of the state's bridges fell into the river. Which is the automobile analogy for the situations Southwest means.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Yay, free auto repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They undermine the will of God, who else would you think they are working for?

  14. God Does Not Roll Dice... by Rollgunner · · Score: 4, Funny

    But He has been known to loosen a nut from time to time.

    1. Re:God Does Not Roll Dice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But He has been known to loosen a nut from time to time.

      Particularly those of some of the nut jobs that claim to be one of his/her greatest followers.

    2. Re:God Does Not Roll Dice... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Jesus! God has individual control over each nut?

    3. Re:God Does Not Roll Dice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded.
      Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
      "Looking God in the Eye"

    4. Re:God Does Not Roll Dice... by auLucifer · · Score: 1

      hahaha. It might be wrong but I sure hope at least one of his disciples asked that

      --
      If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
    5. Re:God Does Not Roll Dice... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      He might even bust a nut now and again.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:God Does Not Roll Dice... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "God has individual control over each nut?"

      Which kind of nut are we talking about, here? The carbon-based ones with AI or the inorganic metal ones that just hold things together?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:God Does Not Roll Dice... by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 1

      Jesus! God has individual control over each nut?

      He must. They all claim to either know him or be him

    8. Re:God Does Not Roll Dice... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Or the organic ones in the soft pouches that hang from the lower regions of nearly every male creature on the planet ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  15. Not "Act of God" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But "Act of *A* God." In this case, Loki.

  16. God? by asukasoryu · · Score: 1

    I thought mechanical problems were due to gremlins, not God. I guess He does it all.

    --
    There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    1. Re:God? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Who do you think created the gremlins?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:God? by straponego · · Score: 1

      You're implying God created gremlins? That's ludicrous. There's no such thing as God.

    3. Re:God? by asukasoryu · · Score: 1

      Are the gremlins aware of this? Someone should tell them.

      --
      There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
  17. War? by maliqua · · Score: 1

    But war is on the acts of god list? only in america

    1. Re:War? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      But war is on the acts of god list? only in america

      Also Iran, Palestine, Lebenon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  18. This story is false by longacre · · Score: 5, Informative

    The story has already been debunked as the result of the deadly combination of a poorly worded contract, lazy reporting, and/or a confused Southwest spokesperson who commented on the initial report.

    "Mechanical difficulties" refers those occurring at an airport or in the air traffic control system: For example, if a control tower has an outage which forces the closure of an airport; or if the fuel delivery system at an airport breaks down.

    See: Truthsquadding the Southwest Airlines “Act of God” controversy: “Ultimately this is a reporting error run amok”

    1. Re:This story is false by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those still seem like maintenance issues that the airline is responsible for as they rent those services to provide service to their customers. They in that case sure as hell should be refunding tickets and compensating travelers stuck in those closed airports. The airline should then seek relief from the airport under whatever contracts they have.

    2. Re:This story is false by blair1q · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those aren't acts of god.

      Those are acts for which the people who are liable are liable.

      They may not be Southwest's fault, but they're certainly the responsibility of someone who should pay for the delays.

      The air travel system didn't sell me a lottery ticket, it sold me a takeoff and landing time at two identified airports. If any of those things is wrong, it's on their heads.

    3. Re:This story is false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If any of those things is wrong, it's on their heads."

      Unless you die in transit due to whatever, in which case you've waived all their liability.

    4. Re:This story is false by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      The air travel system didn't sell me a lottery ticket...

      Then why is it that I feel like I've hit the lottery on the rare occasion when I actually make a connecting flight?

    5. Re:This story is false by cprocjr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What southwest is saying is that it's not THEIR fault that the control tower broke, so don't sue them. Instead sue the people responsible: the airport.

    6. Re:This story is false by unix1 · · Score: 1

      That's right. However, those events in the contract were under a bigger umbrella of Force majeure and not under Act of God. GP is right - the contract was just poorly worded in a way that this was not clear.

      Disclaimer: IANAL

    7. Re:This story is false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this "God" person, anyway? And why is he disrupting air traffic?

    8. Re:This story is false by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      "Mechanical difficulties" refers those occurring at an airport or in the air traffic control system: For example, if a control tower has an outage which forces the closure of an airport; or if the fuel delivery system at an airport breaks down.

      So, if the fleet of fuel trucks Southwest owns and keeps at an airport all break down, Southwest thinks they aren't liable?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    9. Re:This story is false by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      It's like Battlesarred Galactica all the machines are GODS FAULT.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    10. Re:This story is false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mechanical difficulties" refers those occurring at an airport or in the air traffic control system: For example, if a control tower has an outage which forces the closure of an airport; or if the fuel delivery system at an airport breaks down.

      So planting an explosive and blowing up both the air traffic control system and the fuel delivery system is no longer a crime but an act of God?

      Right. These hypocrites will still charge people for terrorism with no trial for these "acts of God"

    11. Re:This story is false by Burdell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I pay the airline, and the airline pays the airport, the fuel service, etc. The airline owes me if they don't deliver me to my destination on time; if it is somebody else's fault, the airline can go after their suppliers, vendors, etc. to recoup their costs (presumably they have that type of thing in their contracts).

    12. Re:This story is false by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      Those aren't acts of god.

      Indeed, and the only people calling them so are the people who are making up this story or falling for it. The contract language refers to mechanical failures beyond SWA's control as one variety of force majeure, at the same level as "act of God." The actual language of the contract:

      Force Majeure Event means any event outside of Carrier's control, including, without limitation, acts of God, meteorological events, such as storms, rain, wind, fire, fog, flooding, earthquakes, haze, volcanic eruption or any other event, including, without limitation, government action, disturbances or potentially volatile international conditions, civil commotions, riots, embargoes, wars, or hostilities, whether actual, threatened, or reported, strikes, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout or any other labor related dispute involving or affecting Carrier's service, mechanical difficulties, Air Traffic Control, the inability to obtain fuel, labor or landing facilities for the flight in question or any fact not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by Carrier.

      Read that carefully, at least three times.

    13. Re:This story is false by maxume · · Score: 1

      As a matter of law, or as a matter of good service?

      At the moment, I'd rather pay 10% less to fly on an airline that has difficulties that they do not compensate me for some of the time than I would pay 10% more to fly on an airline that buys me a hooker if there is any flight delay.

      (But I do want the market to be such that the airlines are providing alternative flights or refunds, I mean compensation beyond the immediate value of the ticket)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:This story is false by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Those still seem like maintenance issues that the airline is responsible for
      > as they rent those services to provide service to their customers.

      The air traffic control system is not a service they rent. It's a Federal government monopoly. They use it or they don't fly and they have no recourse when in breaks down.

      > The airline should then seek relief from the airport under whatever
      > contracts they have.

      The airports are generally local government monopolies. It's unlikely that the airline has any recourse their either.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    15. Re:This story is false by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > If any of those things is wrong, it's on their heads.

      Good luck suing the FAA or the Metropolitan Airport Commission.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    16. Re:This story is false by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      The airline owes me if they don't deliver me to my destination on time

      Not if you fly southwest, read the contract you now need to agree to.

      --
      -
    17. Re:This story is false by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >than I would pay 10% more to fly on an airline that buys me a hooker if there is any flight delay.

      That depends, for 10% of some airline tickets - you can get a pretty high-class hooker.*

      *I made this up in the interest of humor, I have no idea what hookers actually charge but feel free to correct me if you do and I'm wrong...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re:This story is false by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that the government monopoly will claim sovereign immunity to avoid liability? Or that they put not-to-sue clauses in their (monopoly) contracts?

    19. Re:This story is false by forkazoo · · Score: 3

      I pay the airline, and the airline pays the airport, the fuel service, etc. The airline owes me if they don't deliver me to my destination on time; if it is somebody else's fault, the airline can go after their suppliers, vendors, etc. to recoup their costs (presumably they have that type of thing in their contracts).

      Yeah. If my rent is late, my landlord has an issue with me. It doesn't matter if I got paid, or if my paycheck bounced, or if it has been a slow quarter for sales of the new FooBar 2000. The landlord doesn't have to sue my boss, or the HR department, or the customers who aren't buying our product, or my company's landlord who took all their money for rent. My landlord only has a problem with me. I may then have to sue the company where I work in order to get compensation for the fact that my paycheck bounced and it resulted in my landlord suing me.

      If the airport promised the airline a working tower, then the airline can sue them. If the airline promised me a flight, I can sue them. I really don't think we should have all these special aristocracy-style exceptions in the law for specific types of corporations. The airline could operate their own fueling hardware and invest in a backup tower if they didn't trust the existing infrastructure. The decision not to do that was by the management, and they sure as hell aren't deities. Regardless of what the law says.

  19. Won't stand in a court of Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ahead, Southwest, PROVE the existence of DOG, errrr, GoD.

  20. Probably changes nothing, but still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Customers' whose flight is delayed because of mechanical failure would probably be able to get reimbursed or sue the company or something, as it is the customer's right to obtain a decent service. The company is entitled to provide some level of quality in their product or service. Only the procedure could be lenghty and/or costly so Southwest probably counts on the fact that most angry people just won't sue them, therefore they will not lose cash because of bad service.

  21. I hope other companies don't follow suite by suman28 · · Score: 1

    With enough material sciences knowledge about how an object breaks down, and under what circumstances, I am surprised that any company can reasonably say that "We don't know why / when a part can break down suddenly" and let me sit you on the tarmac for who knows how many hours, while we replace what we should have in the first place.

  22. You think that's bad... by syousef · · Score: 1

    ...you should see their pilot training. Instead of learning correct operating procedure for an airplane and controlled airspace, their pilots are taught to shut their eyes and repeat "oh god! oh god! oh god!". Apparently this has allowed them to save a lot of money by combining training for their pilots and hosties.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  23. RTFA much? by zorg50 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Despite the FA headline, 'mechanical difficulties' is in fact NOT in an acts of God list. Rather, they added it to their list of 'Force Majeure' events, along with 'acts of God.' From their Contract of Carriage:

    Force Majeure Event means any event outside of Carrier’s control, including, without limitation, acts of God, meteorological events, such as storms, rain, wind, fire, fog, flooding, earthquakes, haze, volcanic eruption or any other event, including, without limitation, government action, disturbances or potentially volatile international conditions, civil commotions, riots, embargoes, wars, or hostilities, whether actual, threatened, or reported, strikes, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout or any other labor related dispute involving or affecting Carrier’s service, mechanical difficulties, Air Traffic Control, the inability to obtain fuel, labor or landing facilities for the flight in question or any fact not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by Carrier.

    Likewise, the body of the FA correctly states that both mechanical difficulties and acts of God are in the same list. Of course, that doesn't make for such an eye-grabbing headline...

    1. Re:RTFA much? by Albanach · · Score: 1

      Despite the FA headline, 'mechanical difficulties' is in fact NOT in an acts of God list. Rather, they added it to their list of 'Force Majeure' events, along with 'acts of God.' From their Contract of Carriage [southwest.com]:
      -snip-
      Likewise, the body of the FA correctly states that both mechanical difficulties and acts of God are in the same list. Of course, that doesn't make for such an eye-grabbing headline..

      Force Majeure means 'superior force', so perhaps not an act of your God but of some other deity? Presumably that would be one of the Greek Gods, say Hermes, God of Travel or Lelantos, God of Air?

    2. Re:RTFA much? by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      ......dispute involving or affecting Carrier's service, mechanical difficulties, Air Traffic Control, the inability to obtain fuel.....or any fact not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by Carrier.

      Seeing as they have put all these fine examples into their contract, one could argue that they have been forseen them as possible. If they've forseen them, then they're not really Force Majeure and measures should be in place to mitigate their effects. Like, for example, booking flights on other airlines, or organising accommodation for people.... which strangely, seems to be what they used to do.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    3. Re:RTFA much? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Force Majeure means 'superior force', so perhaps not an act of your God but
      > of some other deity? Presumably that would be one of the Greek Gods, say
      > Hermes, God of Travel or Lelantos, God of Air?

      No, the FAA and the local government's airport authority. They might as well be gods for all that the airline can do about them.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:RTFA much? by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Also "...means any event outside of Carrier’s control, including..blah blah blah..." would seem to mean that mechanical difficulties, strikes, wars, and volcanic eruptions that that the Carrier does have control over wouldn't count. But IANAL

  24. More like "Act of Accounting." by twidarkling · · Score: 1

    This seems like a ploy to be able to skimp on maintenance people and stores of replacement parts. After all, if mechanical difficulties is on their "Act of God" list, they don't need to rush to repair the plane, so they can just keep a few of the most common parts and some mechanics at a few central locations, and then fly them out to where they're needed. Ran out of parts and available mechanics? Too bad. God shouldn't have broken the plane.

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  25. That is fine wih me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they accept a bounced check from me as an act of God.

  26. it's called by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Funny

    intelligent maintenance.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  27. I have to say... by N0Man74 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've never been a fan of deus ex machina.

  28. The God of Airlines... by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1

    ... sure ain't no Intelligent Designer.

    --
    -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
  29. This wasn't "lazy reporting" by sirwired · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This wasn't "lazy reporting" or a "reporting error", the plain wording of the contract was quite clear. If they meant "mechanical difficulties with things we don't own or operate", then they should have said so.

    SirWired

    1. Re:This wasn't "lazy reporting" by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They retroactively decided that's what they meant after it started getting bad press.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:This wasn't "lazy reporting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, they just redefined God. You have a problem with that, sue Jesus.

  30. Act of God it could fly by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

    Well I suppose it would be an Act of God that the plane actually flown with mechanical problems and safely arrives for the repair before it takes on another load of passengers.

  31. God Clause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hitherto and for the purposes of this contract Southwest Airlines will be refereed to only as God."

    (Sorry, just watched that episode of Newsradio last night.)

  32. What is this "act of god" you speak of? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Troll

    Last I checked I live in a secular state, where I am free to chose which god to worship - or none at all. Why then should I be held to someone else's beliefs of a god when traveling by air?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:What is this "act of god" you speak of? by longbot · · Score: 1

      It's what the huddled masses perceive chaos theory as. Also, lawyer weasel words that enable them to get out of being responsible for certain circumstances.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
    2. Re:What is this "act of god" you speak of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, you don't. So, shut your fucking mouth.

    3. Re:What is this "act of god" you speak of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your pocket -- don't you folks still have "in god we trust" on your coins? You've got a long way to go to actual freedom from religion. Don't stop working on it yet.

    4. Re:What is this "act of god" you speak of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "God" is a capricious, fictitious, omnipotent bastard who is seen in modern mythology as frequently destroying people's hard-earned houses and downing full aircraft in untargeted acts of blind, drunken rage.

    5. Re:What is this "act of god" you speak of? by ncohafmuta · · Score: 0

      They should change "acts of God" to "acts of Nature"

    6. Re:What is this "act of god" you speak of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here my friend we introduce you to the difference between a private or incorporated company and the federal government. While the Bill of Rights grants your freedom [of] and [from] religion imposed or otherwise induced by the federal government, no such protection is offered nor guaranteed nor imposed upon any given company. Thus, although I'm not aware of it, if SW decided that in order to board you must Genuflect... they can...it's a matter of choice whether you choose to do so and whether they allow you to board. Thus, if SW determined that "Acts of God" are possible, they can contract with you to account for said acts. Again...your choice to contract with them or not.

      That's the fundamental difference in my mind, government is non-optional short of the next revolution. Commerce from a given vendor IS optional and thus not protected. Just to make sure I get marked as flame bait or other non-informative...and since I'm leaving the realm of the story...this begs the question...can the federal government mandate that I BUY health insurance from a private company? Certainly they could tax us for that service, but to require purchase from a private company, at least to me...and apparently others hence the various state lawsuits...seems to step over this line requiring that I purchase from a private company. If that stands...then yes, that private company better have completely secular protections...thus no religious affiliation and most importantly...no such thing as an illness without a cure/science based solution...i.e. "no acts of god"

    7. Re:What is this "act of god" you speak of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear that brother. Amen!

    8. Re:What is this "act of god" you speak of? by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Last I checked I live in a secular state, where I am free to chose which god to worship - or none at all. Why then should I be held to someone else's beliefs of a god when traveling by air?

      [I may be replying to a troll, but...]

      Seriously? Put your atheist hard-on back in your pants. "Act of God" is a legal term in the US. Would you have preferred instead the phrase "result of entropy"?

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    9. Re:What is this "act of god" you speak of? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      It might be a legal term, but that doesn't make it all right as a legal term. The law shouldn't be referring to God.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  33. Nothing to see here, move along. by horatio · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is lazy reporting, nothing more. If the AZ Star et al. had bothered to talk to Southwest about it, they might have gotten a clue. It is a sensationalist headline to draw eyeballs and gin up controversy where there is none.

    In our latest update, we offered our definition, which states that “Force Majeure Event means any event outside of Carrier’s control” and so the “mechanical difficulties” we are referring to as Force Majeure events would be those outside of our control, such as airport mechanical difficulties (e.g., the airport de-icing system breaks) or Air Traffic Control issues (e.g., airport or regional tower goes down).

    We are not referring to our own aircraft mechanical difficulties, which would clearly be under our control. Our policies and practices confirm this interpretation.

    None of our procedures have changed — we still accommodate customers exactly the same as we did previously in the event of our own aircraft mechanical issues occur.

    --
    There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
    1. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by demonbug · · Score: 1

      This is lazy reporting, nothing more. If the AZ Star et al. had bothered to talk to Southwest about it, they might have gotten a clue. It is a sensationalist headline to draw eyeballs and gin up controversy where there is none.

      In our latest update, we offered our definition, which states that “Force Majeure Event means any event outside of Carrier’s control” and so the “mechanical difficulties” we are referring to as Force Majeure events would be those outside of our control, such as airport mechanical difficulties (e.g., the airport de-icing system breaks) or Air Traffic Control issues (e.g., airport or regional tower goes down).

      We are not referring to our own aircraft mechanical difficulties, which would clearly be under our control. Our policies and practices confirm this interpretation.

      None of our procedures have changed — we still accommodate customers exactly the same as we did previously in the event of our own aircraft mechanical issues occur.

      Quit trying to inject your "facts" into our parody-fest.
      I was about to say something about adding "Not feeling like it" or "insufficient funds" to my list of Acts of God that do not require me to pay for my airline ticket, but then I saw your comment and I have to confine myself to this paltry idiotry.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree. The new Southwest CoC clearly states that "mechanical difficulties" are a Force Majeure event. It clearly does not say "mechanical difficulties with equipment outside Southwest's control". If it meant that, it would say it.

      Just because some Southwest PR person says now that "we don't mean just any mechanical difficulties", that doesn't mean that the Southwest lawyers will sing the same tune when someone brings it to court.

  34. No, as the ubiquitous bumper sticker sez... by zizzybaloobah · · Score: 1

    He is their co-Pilot

    1. Re:No, as the ubiquitous bumper sticker sez... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Ha, you're gonna need him.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  35. Is this the same Southwest regularly making news? by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 1

    Southwest, which has a reputation for stellar customer service

    Do they? Last I checked, they hate people and they do not enjoy making money. First, there was the Kevin Smith incident, and more recently, there was an incident where a skinny woman was kicked off a plane so a fat person could have two seats. In what world is this "stellar" customer service?

    --
    Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
  36. Excuse me... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    What does God need with a jetliner?

    --
    That is all.
    1. Re:Excuse me... by sznupi · · Score: 1
      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  37. You buy a ticket from a carrier, not a system by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    They may not be Southwest's fault, but they're certainly the responsibility of someone who should pay for the delays.

    Yes, and the contract is about saying you can't sue Southwest for what YOU YOURSELF just said is the responsibility of someone else. So what's the issue again?

    In that case you go after the airport or whoever else actually caused the delay Southwest cannot control.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You buy a ticket from a carrier, not a system by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I should go after southwest if they do not refund the tickets or provide accommodations over this, they can seek relief from the airport. They sold me the ticket, not the airport.

  38. What about pilot error? by OutSourcingIsTreason · · Score: 1

    God is my co-pilot.

    --
    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
  39. What's an Act of God? by Glasswire · · Score: 1

    A washer mysteriously disappearing because God wills a plane full of evil people to crash is an Act of God.
    A washer breaking and plane crashing because Southwest elected to buy cheaper and, hence, poorer quality washers is not an Act of God.

    1. Re:What's an Act of God? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      A washer mysteriously disappearing because God wills a plane full of evil people to crash is an Act of God.

      Or for that matter God willing a plane full of good people to crash because he wants to meet them sooner rather than later.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  40. 8 year olds, Dude. by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2, Funny

    You said it, man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.

    1. Re:8 year olds, Dude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Jesus was nailed to a Cross." "Thor has a hammer."

  41. God is their co-pilot by tylersoze · · Score: 1

    And mechanic apparently.

  42. There is no God by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    Putting "god" in a law ... makes you trust the justice system so much ...

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:There is no God by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Putting "god" in a law ... makes you trust the justice system so much ...

      What law are you talking about?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:There is no God by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      "act of god" is a legal term. It is part of contract law, which is the one governing this kind of EULAs or terms of service. They used that term because that's the one specified in contract law regarding this kind of extraordinary events. It should actually be casus fortuitous or something like that.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    3. Re:There is no God by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >It should actually be casus fortuitous or something like that.

      Ah yes because "fate" and "fortune" are much more reliable, scientific and factual concepts than "God" right?

      "Casus non imperium" would probably be the best, possibly qualified to "casus non imperium humana" - e.g. beyond human control*

      *I suspect my Latin grammar is probably wrong, but I think my choice of words is not.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  43. Re:Is this the same Southwest regularly making new by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    Do they? Last time I flew Southwest (July 2009) they:

    - Got me where I was going on time,

    - Offered me two (2) packages of peanuts as a snack, and two packages of cookies as well.

    - Had room for my bags in both directions.

    The last time I flew Delta (July 2010) they:

    - Would not let me change seats online.

    - Would not tell me my seat assignment on the commuter segments until after boarding, so that 'passengers with special needs could be accomodated'. They seated three standby passengers before me on one flight, despite my having a confirmed ticket. I enjoyed oen of only four seats that did not recline. The passenger in front of me enjoyed reclining HIS seat, very much thank you. I can still smell it.

    - Delayed me at EVERY stop to and from my destination.

    - Gave me precisely one (1) package of peanuts, OR one (1) package of cookies, on each segment.

    - Had no room in the bins for my bag on the first segment of my flight, and had to check them at the gate.

    - On my return flight, delayed me at the destination gate for 20 minutes while they found a crew to offload our gate-checked baggage.

    - On the connecting flight, delayed it 20 minutes due to a problem getting the incoming plane to the gate.

    - On this connecting flight, delayed us 40 minutes to load on catering (food).

    - On this connecting flight, waited 2 hours into a 5 hour flight to begin serving drinks and snacks to Coach (us).

    MY wife flew back a few days later, and

    - Was delayed an hour on the initial segment.

    - Was that hour late for her connecting flight.

    - Cancelled the connecting flight after a 90 minute delay, due to 'mechanical problems'.

    - Flew in a replacement plane FROM THE INTENDED DESTINATION to replace the failed plane.

    - Gave her a $6 food voucher for a meal. The least expensive sandwich she saw was $8.

    - Eventually got her onboard and on her way to the destination, 6 hours late.

    - Gave her a $25 travel voucher for her inconvenience. This is equal to the baggage allowance for one bag.

    So Delta may have valued my wife's troubles at $4.16/hr, but she did not. We will not be using the travel voucher. 6 years ago, flying out of Portland, Maine, we took an early flight to Baltimore and then on to Orlando in January. We were delayed 4 hours as one of the engines would not start on an below-freezing day. It had been a long time since I sat on a cold Maine apron and got told the engine would not start. Southwest is beating Delta maintenance hands down in my experience.

    ps- It is the height of inefficiency to permit maintenance to cause groundings and lost flights. Planes don't make any money on the ground; they make money in the air. And accidents are entirely inefficient. Now, claiming maintenance troubles for a lightly-loaded flight used to happen to me a fair amount in the 80s, and it was blatant. Sitting at a gate lounge with 6 other people for a flight from Boston to Bangor at 1900 on a Friday night, I got cancelled 50% of the time. Go up the next morning, we had maybe 10 people on board usually. And in Bangor, they had maybe 12 people waiting to go to Boston, 6 of them from last night. I'm not fooled by that.

    Very little advantage to Southwest to add mechanical trouble to the 'act of God' list, but it belongs on 'force Majeure'. Even CF-18s fail and they get even better maintenance than 737s. No machine is perfect.
     

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  44. In other words... by hackingbear · · Score: 1

    God gets a promotion and works at the airport or traffic control instead of as an engineer for the aircraft maintenance team.

  45. In contrast by Slyder · · Score: 1

    I recently had a Delta flight from Atlanta to Newark, NJ. Bad storms in NJ caused us to be delayed by a couple hours.

    Delta gave me 1000 bonus SkyMiles as an apology. For the *weather*.

    I don't have status, and they've always treated me well.

    1. Re:In contrast by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Delta gave me 1000 bonus SkyMiles as an apology. For the *weather*.

      You dont see how insidious this is, they gave you a reward you can only redeem with them. When Singapore Airlines overbooked my SIN-HKT flight, they upgraded me to business class and gave me SG$120 (about US$88) cash for 6 a six hour delay. When Air Asia delayed my KUL-HKT flight I managed to negotiate and upgrade to Premium economy on my return KUL-PER flight (about A$200 difference and Air Asia is a budget airline).

      Granted, Singapore Airlines is one of the best airlines in the world and Air Asia are the best budget airline in the world.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  46. Parts break by rjkimble · · Score: 1

    Do you really want to push airlines into flying aircraft with broken parts? Having to pay tens of thousands of dollars to a plane load of passengers might just make an airline decide that a particular break isn't bad enough to down the aircraft.

    --

    Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
    But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    1. Re:Parts break by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      They'll continue to do that anyway; at an absolute minimum, they're still on the hook for mandatory refunds if a flight doesn't happen, which customers can and will take to another carrier if Southworst can't get them where they are going. All this change does is guarantee that when something fails badly enough that the FAA won't let them fly, they consider it to not be their problem, so they can leave customers stranded and won't have to pay the hotel bill.

      Personally, I think there should be a law about the minimum percentage of your fleet that you must keep ready as hot swap spares. Even a two or three percent spare rate should be enough to make these problems go away almost entirely. And I think that somebody at Southwest should be taken out and strapped to the wing for this change.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Parts break by abradsn · · Score: 1

      Your comment about keeping a spare plane is ridiculous. There is no way even to conceivable have a 2 percent spare in the current market because there is maybe 3 flights per day to a location. To have a spare would be like leaving 30 percent of your capacity unused. This means hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue (every day) for the airline inside a market space with very thin margins already. Not to mention that these jets are hundreds of millions of dollars to buy. It's not like an extra bus, taxi, train trip. Those are cheap vehicles with many more repeated trips daily. It's important to think things through before you comment. There are a lot of impressionable minds that look up to people that use numbers to inflate the meaning of their statements. I'm sure that's not what you intended. So, just help us out and be careful. Thanks for the post though. It definitely leads in the right direction. Maybe there is something that the airline can do to cover the problem... such as not booking all of their flights beyond capacity every trip.

    3. Re:Parts break by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      There is no way even to conceivable have a 2 percent spare in the current market because there is maybe 3 flights per day to a location. To have a spare would be like leaving 30 percent of your capacity unused.

      I didn't say you had to have one spare per location. I said 2-3 percent, and I meant it. Stop making incorrect assumptions about what I'm suggesting. Here's how it could work:

      • Just having spares at your hub cities would statistically cut the number of delays in half; every flight is either flying into or out of a hub, so half the time, a failed plane is flying out from a major hub. Not having spares at your hub city is just plain inexcusable, yet this seems to be the norm.
      • A significant percentage of the time, planes are taken out of service because of a failure that does not require grounding the plane immediately, but limits the number of flights you can make before repairs are enacted. Having extra aircraft at your hub means that you can more easily swap out the plane before that fourth or fifth flight leaves it stranded in Albuquerque.
      • Even when a failure requires you to immediately pull the plane out of service, there's a sizable percentage of failures that occur in flight. If you have even a small number of aircraft scattered around the country in reserve, you could have a pilot fly the nearest spare directly to the destination city and meet the ailing aircraft there, largely reducing or even eliminating the delay that would otherwise occur on the return flight for that aircraft.

      So that basically means that your aircraft delays would be mostly limited to equipment failures that are noticed on the ground during preflight checks in cities that are not hub cities. And even then, the maximum delay is capped at the amount of time it takes a pilot to fly a spare from a regional depot to that city. Assuming you call the pilot to head to the airport as soon as you think there might be a problem, you could probably keep that delay at under two hours, including the time to unload and reload the passengers and luggage. Either way, that's a lot better than the current practice, which usually involves the airline canceling the flight and trying to cram those passengers into other flights spread out over a day or three.

      Alternatively, if you really want one spare airplane per airport, you could create a company that leases spares to all the airlines. Then, all the airlines at a small to medium-sized airport could share a single spare.

      Not to mention that these jets are hundreds of millions of dollars to buy. It's not like an extra bus, taxi, train trip. Those are cheap vehicles with many more repeated trips daily.

      And cost several hundred bucks per flight, unlike buses that average two or three. Either way, keeping 3% of planes in reserve provably means increasing the total cost of operations by no more than three percent (averaged over the long term, anyway), and realistically, probably more like a fraction of a percent, as a resting plane consumes no fuel, incurs no administrative overhead for booking passengers, incurs no costs for stewardesses or gate agents, incurs no gate fees from the airport, incurs no baggage handling expenses, etc. I'd be willing to pay an extra five bucks per flight for an airline that did this, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

      This means hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue (every day) for the airline inside a market space with very thin margins already.

      If the government mandated it as I suggested, then the airlines' thin margins would be largely moot. It would simply result in a small fare hike (or, knowing the airlines, a small spare vehicle cost recovery fee). I've never seen any expense that any company didn't find a way to pass on to their customers, and I can't imagine the airlines starting now. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Parts break by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm, you're also assuming they will have "spare" pilots in the hub cities ready-to-go at a moment's notice. And that the spare aircraft will always be ready-to-go at short notice, too. I'm sure there's significant costs associated with both of these. Even an idle airframe needs inspection before you can be sure it's safe to fly (and all the avionics, etc.). Then there's parking fees at airports, which are going to be pretty significant. So there's more costs involved than merely purchasing an extra couple of planes.

      Fares may be in the hundreds of dollars, but flying a jet costs a lot more than running a bus.

      Additionally, we're talking $50 million dollars plus to buy a 737, which is apparently most or all of Southwest's fleet (unusual for an airline - most would also have to grapple with the logistics of having multiple types of spare plane). And even assuming every ticket costs $500 and ALL of that goes to the airline as profit, you need to make 729 flights before you've paid off the initial investment. Assuming that there's no maintenance and staff and fuel costs, and that you bought the cheapest version of the plane. Clearly, the actual profit is nowhere near 100%.

      Assuming a 10% profit margin on that $500 ticket (which seems awfully expensive and way more than your average one-way ticket is going to cost) - that's 1,000,000 tickets to pay for that $50 million plane, which works out to 7,299 fully-booked flights. At 7 flights per day, an aircraft will take 1,042 days to pay for itself. Assuming it's actually carrying full-fare paying passengers, and not sitting in a hangar somewhere.

      So, I agree with your assessment that this would have to be mandated by the government. But I don't think most people would be willing to pay more for a ticket just for reducing the chance of a delayed/canceled flight. Because if they were, airlines would already be offering this to give themselves a competitive advantage.

      Btw, your $5 extra per ticket, assuming it goes entirely to paying for the $50 million spare plane, would require nearly 73,000 fully-booked flights in order to pay off a single spare plane. If a plane makes 7 flights per day, they can recoup the costs for a single "spare" plane in a mere 28 plane-years!

    5. Re:Parts break by eth1 · · Score: 1

      So, I agree with your assessment that this would have to be mandated by the government. But I don't think most people would be willing to pay more for a ticket just for reducing the chance of a delayed/canceled flight. Because if they were, airlines would already be offering this to give themselves a competitive advantage.

      Actually, I *would* be willing to pay for that in some circumstances, provided there was a significant reduction or elimination of the chance of delay. Flying home the evening before I have to be at work, flight leading to an overseas connection, etc. Unfortunately, the primary cause of delays would probably be weather, and no amount of extra money will fix that (yet).

  47. Legal term for random event by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Acts of God" is a legal term encompassing chance events, sudden natural disasters, and other unforeseeable and uncontrollable happenings. Forest fires, lightning, earthquakes, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, sudden sinkholes, etc.

    The lawyers and judges understand what it means. It's a standard part of contracts and has nothing to do with any deity or religious belief whatsoever.

    1. Re:Legal term for random event by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't have anything to do with any deity, the text should probably be changed to something that doesn't impose a certain ideological view on people...

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:Legal term for random event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it doesn't have anything to do with any deity, the text should probably be changed to something that doesn't impose a certain ideological view on people...

      Well, it's an established term with a legal meaningthat is well understood. Attempting to substitute a more neutral term like "act of nature" would open you up to all sorts of confusion over what, exactly, constitutes an act of nature in legal terms.

      More importantly, I doubt you'd be able to seriously claim that that term imposes an ideological view. You don't have to believe in any god or gods to use the term, any more than any of the dozens of words in modern language that are derived from Greek/Roman/Norse mythology.

    3. Re:Legal term for random event by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Well, it's an established term with a legal meaningthat is well understood. Attempting to substitute a more neutral term like "act of nature" would open you up to all sorts of confusion over what, exactly, constitutes an act of nature in legal terms.

      No more confusion than what "acts of God" means now, really.

      More importantly, I doubt you'd be able to seriously claim that that term imposes an ideological view. You don't have to believe in any god or gods to use the term, any more than any of the dozens of words in modern language that are derived from Greek/Roman/Norse mythology.

      Yes, I can claim that it imposes an ideological view. It clearly refers to God. Language shapes society. This kind of language justifies forcing religion on people.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  48. > Mann said. 'Putting mechanical issues in the same category as an act of God -- I don't think that's what God intended.'"

    Really! If God wants you dead, He'll snap a spar or something while you're up in the air, praise be His kind and holy name, and praise to His kindness as our Father.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Cool! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Do other passengers at least get more lax treatment, at judgment, as a reimburstment?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  49. To have it removed... by lionchild · · Score: 1

    I suspect it may not last too long, if customers who are delayed and stranded by these 'acts of God' simply make sure they get the name of the person at the counter telling them so. "Could you please spell your name, so I can be sure to get it correct in my letter to the FAA, BBB, and when I ask about it in the Stockholders meeting?"

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  50. Isn't everything an act of God? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  51. Looking forward to the day... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...where difficulties caused by crabby and vindictive ticket agents are considered an act of God.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  52. Just the first step... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    They're working their way towards being able to charge extra for the plane being on-time. Mark my words.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  53. God is science by Somniak · · Score: 1

    Its really not that much of a stretch now that a few of the states are talking about teaching creationism in science class.

  54. Re:Is this the same Southwest regularly making new by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    It sounds like you have a very small flight sample size.

    I travel a fair bit. In the past 4 years I have had at least one instance where I have experienced atrocious customer service by EVERY single airline in the US. I have rotated through them all. I would call getting in 6 hours late a mild delay.

    Southwest has never given me a food voucher for a delayed flight. (Probably since they don't give out meals.) They did give me a hotel voucher once when they diverted me to a different airport at 9PM on New Years Eve due to fog. The voucher paid for $50 of the $120 hotel room that THEY directed me too. They have also lost my bags, are incredibly reluctant to put me on an earlier flight (with space) unless I pay their $100 flight change fee, and I can never find a Southwest attendant staffing any of their counters to help me with any problems unless it is 10 minutes before a flight departure time. And I won't even mention my last flight, where I had place a mentally disabled gentleman's bag in the overhead bin for him because the flight attendant was too busy screaming at him that it wouldn't fit, instead of doing her job and helping him.

    Of course, all of these grips are not specific to Southwest, but can be applied to any airline nowdays.

    And who cares how many damn bags of peanuts and cookies they give out? These are $0.50 snacks. This isn't Halloween and I am not 10 years old. Remember when the airlines used to give you full meals before Southwest undercut their prices with their food-free flights? Remember when you didn't have to be pumping the "Check me in" button 24 hours before your flight to get a window seat?

    If it sounds like I hate Southwest, I do. I hold them responsible for the loss of many of the creature comforts that we used to have as airline passengers. Sure, they brought air travel to the masses by lowering fares by 20%, but they decreased flight comfort by 70% in my opinion. And they also increased the chances that I will have to sit next to an obnoxious moron dressed like a slob, who is watching a movie on their computer without headphones while yelling at their friend in the next aisle. And since all of the other airlines have now matched them, the only option for increased comfort is to pay 400% more for first class.

    It's a lose-lose situation, no matter how many cookies you get on the flight.

  55. Re:Is this the same Southwest regularly making new by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    I had the pleasure of flying more in the 70s and 80s, when you could get some service. Many a Friday was spend hustling to LaGuardia (and then JFK) to catch the shuttle to Boston, then being driven across the airport to catch the last Delta flight to Bangor. I missed it every 3rd or 4th time. Stayed in the Airport Hilton on their nickel (rack rooms, no real money), ate the free downstairs breakfast, and on the 7:05 to BGR. My luggage never made it, they called me Monday and I was happy to drive over.

    And the stretch where I had to fly from PWM to GSO. Ah, Continental lost my luggage 4 times in 6 trips. And found it a week later. Now you can't really carry toiletries, not to mention a Micra which is such a handy tool for so many reasons, so I would be gate checking and doing without some stuff. Nice.

    But the big airlines got cheap in the wrong places. And fuel prices crushed them. And deregulation means we are probably travelling somewhat cheaper, much more often, and much less comfortably then we might. I try not to whine about the seating or the 'food'. I'd just as soon pick up a $8 sandwich as eat whatever they call food today.

    Now to work out how to afford business class to avoid the cattle drives.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  56. What would God Do? by Macrat · · Score: 1

    Mann said. 'Putting mechanical issues in the same category as an act of God — I don't think that's what God intended.'

    Maybe not your God.

  57. Heading the way of software by cheros · · Score: 1

    We will take your money, but you should not have the temerity to demand anything in return. Hell, you should not even *expect* anything in return. Just give us your money.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  58. American already uses this excuse by FerociousFerret · · Score: 1

    American used the "mechanical failure" excuse on our vacation flight at the end of June. They cancelled the flight 3 days ahead of time, citing mechanical failure, and bumped us to a flight the next day, costing us (11 total passenger in our group) an entire day of paid vacation time at the resort (roughly $3500). After multiple phone calls, complaints, etc. they refused any sort of reimbursement. So putting "mechanical failure" on an Act of God list or not, it is still an industry excuse not to be liable for messing up your plans.

  59. Re:Is this the same Southwest regularly making new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is on 'force Majeure.' If you RTFA, you'll see that's what all this hubbub is about, mechanical problems being listed alongside acts of god in the Force Majeure list.

  60. All Airline Mishaps Are Acts of God by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

    I mean, Jesus IS my co-pilot...