Click, click, click.
One click brings up the image (small), second click makes it bigger (screen-sized), third click blows it up really big. But I'll give you the Cliffs' Notes- these are SWA-specific procedures. For whatever it is worth, detail-man, the HUDs have been joining the fleet for years. I even have a nice picture of my son in the sim showing the HUD in the background; that was about 2.5 years ago, and it was not new then.
As for the comments about the tragedy at MDW, I guess I wonder how those nail holes in your hands are doing; every flight crew feels pressure to complete every flight, but it's how you respond to any given event that matters. Most every aircraft accident starts with a failure to follow procedure, and sometimes bad things happen.
Still, you cannot cheat the laws of gravity, taxation or probability. With by far the most daily flight ops of any carrier, you simply cannot fake safety. I have to admit, I have a bit more legitimate knowledge of the culture of safety and excellence that permeates at Southwest, but by now, that knowledge is not all that important to our discussion.
There is something that is more telling.
I have had the privilege of becoming acquainted with a pretty good number of professional pilots (airline, military, fractional and 135), as have a great many of the participants on this board, and I don't know of any who would make blanket condemnation of another operator without actual and intimate knowledge- something substantive, not "I know some guys who tell me about cowboy stuff." It is just not done, at least, not by legitimate professionals, and most certainly not without actual and legitimate knowledge. Pilots, and committed air-safety professionals, recognize and emulate best practices.
Now, an example of useful information: someone definitively (and derisively) posts that a carrier does not have Cat II or Cat III cert, and specimens of carrier-specific IAPs are provided (scanned in black & white, indeed they are) to refute; this is known as evidence. You may opt to disregard it if you choose, but one's ignorance of the facts does not make them any less true.
We always welcome a rousing good-faith discussion, especially one that promotes open understanding of genuine issues of safety and character. I do apologize to all who read this thread for using the "talking out of your ass" expression- it was beneath the ordinary level of discourse for our forum. I'll recast it, then, by saying this- blatantly false statements, easily-refuted (example: "From everything I have been able to gather they are planning to certify its use beyond CAT I minimums. Time will tell i guess.") just don't allow for a reasonably critical reader to conclude the writer has any actual knowledge.
. Sorry man, but when I clicked on the attatchment I got a fuzzy enlargement that I could barely read. No biggie because I have a chart just like it. The shadow next to the number just means that this chart is issued for special coverages. If it were specific to Southwest or any other airline it would be green in color and the numbering would start with 10-0 (Such as 10-0a, 10-0b, etc.). 
