medichill

It's not possible that new information has come to light that has made WN reconsider it's relationship? Just because a relationship has been around for 25 years doesn't mean that it should never change. If animals are in a poor environment, why should WN support that?

BearX220

That's the debatable part. Without taking sides myself (because I have no firsthand information, although I visited SeaWorld once about 14 years ago and enjoyed it), popular and Internet media have been inundated by anti-SeaWorld propaganda with a high emotion-to-science ratio, celebrity influencers have fallen into line, and perception is as good as reality in this information marketplace. Southwest is backing away not because it's suddenly discovered scientific evidence that SeaWorld is now a "poor environment," so far as I know, but because the noisiest popular sentiment has turned against SeaWorld and if WN doesn't separate itself Southwest might also be targeted.

SFO777

Unlikely

Precisely

FWAAA

I agree with the pragmatism shown by today's posters. Late last year, when this story first surfaced (prompting this thread), I wondered whether WN was vulnerable to backlash from pro-Sea World types if it cancelled the partnership too quickly.

Looks like Southwest may have avoided that problem by allowing the relationship to run its course and simply not renew. Probably the best possible outcome for both WN and Sea World.

I was at Sea World a week ago and while attendance may be down slightly due to the controversy, traffic was backed up on I-5 at the Sea World exit and the park was as crowded as might be expected on a typical weekend in July.

Humans have been keeping animals imprisoned in zoos for a long time. The farther back we go, the more inhumane the confinement appears. These days, most zoos are increasing the size of the enclosures and giving the animals more room to roam.

For most people, I suspect that's sufficient improvement. For others, no amount of improvement in living conditions will suffice and the only acceptable solution is to free all the animals. Problem with that is many species have little chance for long-term survival, especially those animals that kill other animals for food (lions, tigers, bears, wolves, all other big cats, etc). Humans continue to destroy the habitat of such animals, reducing their chances. And if the animal produces ivory tusks or fingernail-type horn, then it's curtains for them in the wild until we convince various cultures that consuming same won't increase their virility.

On the other hand, look at all the animals that seem to co-exist very well with man in the suburbs, like coyotes, possum, skunks, raccoons, etc, all of which are regular visitors to my suburban San Fernando Valley neighborhood.

Anyway, a 737's shape is similar enough to an orca whale to make sense. Which other animals could WN affix to the planes? Bald eagle? Condor? California Sea Lion? San Diego Zoo has all of those - perhaps a cross-town change in partnership is in order?

I personally like West Indian Manatees - and those can be found throughout Florida's zoos and aquariums (Tampa and Miami come to mind) as well as plenty of wild habitats.

toomanybooks

Great white shark?

oswaldjacoby

I don't really think this was "giving into crazies and nut jobs." Rather it was a simple business decision. In the past, the association with Sea World was probably good marketing and and helpful to the Southwest image. Times have changed, and Sea World now has a negative connotation for many, and the association is no longer good for Southwest.

It is kind of easy to say that Sea Word is just a problem for "crazies and nut jobs"---but if this were really true, Southwest would not be ending the relationship. The Blackfish documentary was a game changer---It was one of the most watched documentaries of all time, and blackened the image of Sea World for many of us who have never had any association with animal rights groups (and are neither members of PETA nor vegetarians).

Perhaps you disagree with the concerns about Sea World, but it would be a mistake to believe those concerns have not entered the mainstream. I suspect Southwest ended the relationship because it just would not be a good business decision to maintain a relationship that creates harm to its corporate image in the eyes of many customers.

formeraa

I, for one, respect the right of people to voice their opinions. It's a major part of the uniqueness of our country. As long as I can have a constructive dialog with respectful exchanges (and not being publicly called "crazy", by the way). After all, isn't this what we do here every day.

If WN chose to not renew the relationship with SeaWorld, I bet it has a whole lot more to do with catering to business travelers instead of the vacation crowd. Certainly, their fare levels over the past couple of years tend to favor the business traveler arguement.:-:

iahphx

I could certainly understand why an airline doesn't want to "get involved" in an animals rights dispute. Still, I would hope that they wouldn't make this decision lightly, given their 25-year-relationship.

Have there been any reliable polls about how many people care about this "blackfish" thing? I would guess the percentage is low, but significantly higher among "opinion leaders." I have no strong feelings either way, but I'm pretty sure that SeaWorld is being picked on, which is a strategy every activist knows is effective (go for the, um, big fish).

UNHBuzzard

So people who believe in animal rights and try to have a voice for who don't are crazy & nut jobs? Interesting.

joshua362

In this particular case, absolutely, IMO.

rsteinmetz70112

Some of them indisputably are crazy not to mention intolerant of other opinions.

Andrea Waters

I'm in intolerant of animal abuse and equally as intolerant as animals being used for entertainment. Much of the information presented about Sea World in Blackfish and other media outlets is scientific fact. There's absolutely no opinion involved.

If you truly feel that wild marine life should be held captive in a thimble sized pool for your benefit, I'd have to turn the table and accuse you of being crazy. No compassionate or rational person would justify such cruelty.

rsteinmetz70112

If that is what you think I said you need to check for reading comprehension.

smmrfld

+1. Agree completely.

corbetti

^

+1