Southwest Airlines weighs in on Y2K in their Magazine

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

As I made another futile attempt at an airline's magazine crossword, I came across this in the May issue of Southwest Airline's Spirit magazine, page 152:

"On January 1, 2000, will life as we know it end? Will the "millennium bug" ground air traffic, crash ATMs, turn out the lights, and create global chaos? Self-appointed "experts" are busy selling this scenario, but reliable sources say that although Year 2000 certainly will have some consequences, most people will experience few, if any, problems. Where difficulties do occur, they are likely to be temporary and localized--like the effects of a snowstorm."

Food for thought...

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), May 02, 1999

Answers

Nothing personal, Dan, but this 'news' just sounds like yet one more corporate cog parroting the same ol' party line -- and I might add rather patronizingly to boot !

-- Yan (no@no.no), May 02, 1999.

A lot of people are going to starve to death on this kind of "food"...

-- Yin (yin@yin.yan), May 02, 1999.

What I'd really enjoy seeing in one of those in-flight house organs is a notice like this:

If the new year occurs while you are on this flight, you are already dead and don't know it yet. Rather than panic, we suggest you use the phone located on the back of the seat in front of you to dictate your last will and testiment. Our legal representatives are standing by..."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.


I see that Drew Parkhill has said he is satisfied that Dan the Power Man has credentials within his own job area. However, after seeing him post something from a corporate rag and suggesting that it is food for thought, I now wonder, is Dan a Polly?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 02, 1999.

Gordon -- Yes, Dan is a big-time polly. But, you know, that is not a criminal act. MOST of my family and friends are pollys but you can't really tell until you see the little wind-up crank where their navals used to be before THEY got to them.

(We love them anyway, but we've told them they need to get some solar panels so we can keep them charged up after rollover ....).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 02, 1999.



Gordon,

And I wonder if you haven't just proven (once again!) your extreme bias. Are you saying that anyone whom you consider a "Polly" cannot, a priori, be a reliable source of information? :)

Shoot, I'm still trying to get over the way the Doomlit community has turned on Peter de Jager like a pack of wolves. I had assumed at least THAT much of an open mind on their part.

Silly me.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CEt (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 02, 1999.


Dan: I got that in-flight , time killing magazine too. In the back part did you notice the really cool golf balls with your initials in gold leaf. I think youd be better off with the golf balls , than their guidelines on Y2K. ..

-- Capt Dennis (souza@ptialaska.net), May 02, 1999.

Stephen,

Biased? Me biased? Is that how my simple little question struck you? No Stephen, let me tell you how it is. I don't know Dan, but I saw that Parkhill statement and thought, well gee, the Power Man must have some knowledge about his industry, or at least his company. Then I see his posting above and it strikes me that he's reeaally reaching for some good news, and didn't seem to care what the source was. Actually, I wish he would scarf up something from HCFA along the lines of that inflight mag. That would sure make a bunch of senior citizens (like me) feel a whole lot better. *That* would be the sort of happy news I could take to the bank. Oh, never mind about banks. So you see, I'm not biased toward Dan, just very very disappointed.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 02, 1999.


Gordon --- Yes, this thread is extremely inane and I was also surprised. Despite Poole's typical shrillness (BTW, put me in the wolf camp on De Jager, no apologies), I was hoping Dan might be a reliable industry source (I was one of the guys who encouraged Dan to share his bona fides with Drew). Maybe he is, but this was beyond lame.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 02, 1999.

I suspect a bit of a practical joke here. This in-flight magazines even tell you how great their meals are.

Think about it -- a house organ like that is like going down in warm maple syrup for the third time. Where could you find *less* objective reporting, really?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.



"Watch that first step as you deplane," the cabin attendant said.....

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), May 02, 1999.

Flint,

I liked your first comment - coupla problems though, the phone wouldn't work and the legal eagles would have flown the roost (not on SWA either...) :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.


Hey folks, sometimes things are just as they appear. I was trying to do the crossword, bored stiff on yet another plane trip (yes, those of us on the front lines of battling y2k must attend numerous conferences to keep abreast of the latest information), when I came across that statement. I thought that some folks on this forum might be interested to hear what the official line is from a major airline. Nothing more, nothing less. My motive was not necessarily to persuade anybody. I thought the article made two major statements at the heart of the y2k debate:

1) There are many people claiming to be experts on y2k that predict a doom and gloom scenario who also happen to be trying to sell something.

2) The consensus among those actually working on the problem is that if there are major problems they will be localized and are manageable.

And even though many of you consider the statement lame, trust me, if a single customer of SWA is negatively impacted, that article will stick out like a sore thumb in the process of discovery and will be used in a lawsuit against the airline.

Now Gordon, if using a label to call me a "polly" helps you understand my position, then so be it. Because I don't believe that in general there will be major problems due to y2k, I would definitely be toward the polly end of the polly-doomer spectrum. I personally dislike such labels and have never called anyone by one of those names.

[Dan quickly runs to hide in the corner, tail between his legs, wondering why he has to justify his posts]

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), May 03, 1999.


Dan

You said this article showed: 1) There are many people claiming to be experts on y2k that predict a doom and gloom scenario who also happen to be trying to sell something. 2) The consensus among those actually working on the problem is that if there are major problems they will be localized and are manageable. I could argue #1 but will let it pass......#2 however is out and out spin!! HOW do you get "consensus among those actually working on the problem" out of "RELIABLE SOURCES"??????

I hope you take more acurate information home from those numerous conferences to help you BATTLE Y2K.......

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), May 03, 1999.


Dan, Remember God is always watching,what we say,and the actions we do. Y2k is a formidable challenge. It could be very life threatening in many cases. Airlines have sh-t for brains if they dont ground every one of their flights on New year's eve this year. It wont surprise me if they don't. Several years ago I approached one of the major aircraft makers with a design concept that would better protect the flying public from terrorism. Their response was that they didnt want to spend the extra few 100k a plane because the airline's insurance companies would cover any such loses. It's this cavalier attitude toward protecting human life that will make y2k so dangerous. If were not certain the planes will work 100% they should be grounded. If were not certain the nuke plants will be safe they should be temporarily shut down, If were not sure an industrial plant that handles toxic chemicals or waste will operate safely it should be shut down until the critical time period is over. Safety over human life should take priorty. A lawsuite can't bring back a loved one from the dead. You have a responsibilty not to promote irresponsiblity on the part of Corporate America. The truth about y2k is that it can f- up a computers ability to function properly. This is fact. You know it and I know it. This is why so much money is being spent to beat the y2k deadline. If your little corner of the world is y2k ready, don't jump to the assumption that every one else will make it in time. They are not going to. We as responsible professionals have a duty to tell people what can happen if it's not fixed in time and to prepare them for the fallout.

Instead of harnessing the vast wealth of talent our nation pocesses to tackle this urgent challenge facing the world's safety, Corporate America has decided to ignore this challenge up until the last minute for the sake of dollars over the human cost. This mistake will come back to bite them any anyone else who isnt honest about the gravity of the y2k problem. People can get real angry when lies end up costing the lives of loved ones. A word of wisdom, tell them like it is. what are the most challenging problems with y2k that may not be fixable in time. Your responsiblity is to your family,friends and your nation's safety, not some corporate entity that wont give a rats behind for you if y2k shuts down society. I think that you are a good man dan, Do what is right. The world needs the facts. Not someone singing the corporate line. We have families that are already going to be hard enough to convince them to prepare for the rough patch ahead we are now facing, we don't need someone stiring confusion. If you have the hard core facts that we shouldnt be concerned. Put them on the table for the other experts here to verify. Lives are at stake with the y2k. we need independant verifiable evidence of compience. If you can't provide it you should not comment. God bless y2k aware mike

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @conservation .com), May 03, 1999.



Mike, you said:

"The world needs the facts. Not someone singing the corporate line."

Dan made a good point -- if the SWA corporate line is not accurate, publishing this statement places them in serious legal jeopardy. They don't do this lightly, they generally have excellent, verified reasons why they think they're in good shape.

So long as you cling to the belief that any corporate statement of confidence *must* be in violation of the facts, you cannot get anything resembling a clear picture of what the facts really are.

If SWA (and other companies) claim to be in good shape, these are data points. If the only data point you have on XYZ Inc. is such a statement, and you have no data at all to the contrary, just what are these contradictory, unknown 'facts' you imagine must exist?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 03, 1999.


Mike - very very well said - you've hit the nail on the head - something the ostriches would do well to contemplate...

Flint:

Please explain to me why VIRGIN airlines are grounding ALL flights on the day in question.

Richard Branson is a personal hero of mine and as sharp and honest as they come.

He has not done this lightly - he's no fool.

He knows pal.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 03, 1999.


Just a point - is the person who wirtes the magazine legally responsible if a plane fails to land safely with SouthWest passengers aboard?

If not, try waiting until the corporate office - not the in-flight magazine - declare themselves compliant.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 17, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ