Southwest Airlines CEO Says It’s Safe To Fly

Airlines are in a tricky position when it comes to the messaging around the safety of flying. Southwest Airlines’ CEO seems to think it’s totally safe to fly again, going so far as to say that planes are as safe of an environment as anywhere.

Southwest Airlines CEO says it’s safe to fly

Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly appeared on “Face the Nation” yesterday, and the interview started off with a rather tough question — “is it safe to fly again?”

Kelly’s answer was an unequivocal yes, and he provided the following reasoning:

  • His answer to the question was “it is,” without any hesitation
  • Southwest Airlines is doing everything they can to encourage people to come back and fly
  • Southwest is doing everything they can to clean planes, they’re requiring employees and customers to wear masks, they’re deep cleaning planes every night, they’re using electrostatic misters, they’re exercising social distancing, and they’re not booking planes full
  • When asked how much risk there is to flying, he said “I don’t think the risk on an airplane is any greater risk than anywhere else, it’s as safe of an environment as you’re going to find.”

That last statement is quite something.

If you want to watch the full interview, you can do so here:

How Southwest Airlines sees demand recovering

When asked about how demand will recover, Kelly stated:

  • He thinks the airline saw the bottom in April, and that each week after the first week of April has gotten successively better
  • May will be better than April, and while June won’t be a good month, it will hopefully be better than May
  • Southwest is seeing a good number of future bookings into next year

What message should airlines be sending now?

Airlines are in a tricky situation here in terms of the expectations they should create when it comes to flying. It goes without saying that airlines succeeding relies on people feeling comfortable flying.

Perceptions around flying seem particularly complicated right now:

  • Many of us have been social distancing for about two months
  • There are still lots of new COVID-19 cases in the US
  • At the same time, in some areas we’re starting to see businesses reopen in a phased manner, though it’s far from a return to normal across the board

There’s no denying that airlines are moving in the right direction when it comes to creating the perception that it’s safe to fly, by adding some social distancing guidelines, requiring passengers to wear masks, etc.

However, is it really fair to say that an airplane is as safe of an environment as anywhere? If by “anywhere” you mean a full subway or maybe even a full restaurant, I could see that. But for most of us the alternative environment is the inside of our homes.

Beyond that, the statement hardly takes into account the risk associated with the overall travel process, from getting to & from the airport, being in the airport, etc.

To be clear, I don’t disagree with Kelly’s general sentiment here (though maybe it’s a stretch to say an airplane is as safe as anywhere) — I do think airlines are moving in the right direction, and it might be safe(ish) if precautions are taken, as part of a gradual reopening of the economy.

But I think it’s also important to call out that there’s no such thing as social distancing on a plane, and that’s a misconception that many people have.

Bottom line

Southwest Airlines’ CEO says it’s safe to fly again, and also says that a plane is as safe of an environment as any. The steps that airlines are taking to protect customers are a move in the right direction, but personally I’m not ready to get on a plane just yet… but hopefully soon(ish)?

What do you make of Kelly’s comments?

Conversations (33)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Samo Guest

1. It is safe to fly. 2. You have to wear a face mask. It simply doesn't match.

0
‼ 0
Chris Platinum

Where did all the RR comments go?!

0
‼ 0
Eddie Guest

It's easy tbh -- COVID deniers could open their own grocery stores & hospitals so they don't need to risk the essential workers working in those places. Also, the 70,000 deaths is on top of all the cancer deaths, car accident deaths, flu deaths, etc. So we are losing more people due to COVID at a faster pace, not that we are losing the same people but just due to a different reason.

0
‼ 0
Matt Guest

I love how a bunch of nobodies on the internet claims to know more than the majority of the world’s leading epidemiologists. Yes, the media obviously sensationalises certain things, but I feel like Trump has crossed a very dangerous line by his constant “fake news this and fake news that.” People should be able to watch what’s going on around the world and use what’s shown to them and make informed opinions. All I can say is I feel so, so lucky to be in Australia and not the poorly run excuse for a developed country the US has become.

0
‼ 0
George Guest

@RR and all your fake aliases, You're an idiot. The overwhelming evidence is that coronavirus deaths are systematically undercounted. The best analysis is to look at overall deaths, and how that correlates to historical trends. Generally indicates for most countries, reported figures are half of reality- so double the deaths to 120K. But even there, your analogy breaks down, because you repeatedly compare deaths that effectively happened in a month to annual figures for other forms of fatality. For locations with outbreaks, the death rate is about double historical norms. So you have twice the chance to die, carrying out normal daily activities. Best analogy to the current outbreak to me? London, during the Blitz. 40K civilians died during the bombing, so I'd expect you to argue that statistically, that's a pretty nominal number- probably way more people died of other causes. One reason why fewer people died is because everyone took shelter when the air raids went off, but I'd expect you to conveniently ignore that as well. Finally- the masks! 50 million respirators were manufactured and handed out, with absolutely no scientific proof they did anything at all - so wearing masks was useless!

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published