Which airline would you fly?

I was scheduled for 1 leg from SEA to SFO today and layover. If you followed the weather at all California was hit this morning by a strong frontal system that included heavy rain, low visibilities, turbulence, and very gusty winds. We launched out of SEA at 6:15 this morning for an arrival planned about 2 hours later. Typically when weather moves in like this there are significant ATC delays due to the SFO airport's ability to handle traffic - in this case landing south. When we got in the Bay area vicinity we held west of Santa Rosa near the Pt Reyes National seashore (not that it was visible).

Weather was as advertised - in one word - nasty! The steady winds were from the south at 45 knots gusting to 65 (51 - 70 mph) in heavy rain w/convective activity. ATC was advising losses on the approaches of up to 25 knots.

We were given an expect further clearance time (EFC), which generally means when our turn comes up to leave holding. As various planes EFC time came they left holding and commenced the approach. Many pilots reported to ATC that the conditions were just as advertised.

Alaska's policy prohibits landing in convective weather when conditions are heavy rain. They also prohibit landing when the wind exceeds 50 kts or a gust factor greater than 20. We had the double wammy against us - so we continued to bore circles in the sky hoping the weather would improve.

Finally the time came when our fuel reached a state that we had to leave and go to our alternate - in this case Ontario, CA 1 1/2 hours away.

My question to you dear readers - which airline would you rather fly? The airline whose policy errs on the safe side, at the expense of misconnecting a lot of passengers (let alone the out of place crew members, airplanes, the cost of the fuel, hotel & meal vouchers, etc.) - or the airlines who pushed on and landed in SFO, getting their folks there a tad late but well ahead of us?

The airplane needs lift over the wings to stay airborne. For landing this is done with safe airspeed's and flap settings. With losses on final approach of up to 25 knots repeatedly reported I am ashamed that my fellow pilots chose to continue rather than divert. All it would have taken is somebody getting a big loss of airspeed on very short final losing precious lift and splashing one in the Bay short of the runway. Fortunately that didn't happen today - and it only reinforces bad behavior and decision making for them to continue this kind of lunacy.

Alaska Airlines is no stranger to bad weather - in fact the weather in our namesake state is terrible most of the year. So procedures, guidelines, and policies were developed over the years (especially as the technology developed - GPS, digital weather radar, and wind shear warning systems, etc.) to get our passengers from point A to point B safely & sound. Sometimes that means that you won't be at point B when you thought, but when you get there you can be assured it was done with the utmost safety in mind.

I'm not one to toot my airline very often - but I think they did an outstanding job today in making tough decisions on where to ultimately go until the crappy weather blew through. Our folks in the back were updated repeatedly as to what we were doing & why. I doubt the other airlines talked to their ashen faced passengers about why they elected to continue to do what they did.

The safety of my crew & passengers lies with me and the various decisions (aided by our dispatchers, mechanics and others) made along each flight on each day. Ultimately it comes down to being comfortable with those decisions - I wonder how many of those other airline pilots were comfortable with their decision after the fact?

The saga continues tomorrow as the waves of weather continue to pound the West Coast through the weekend - happy trails!