what the F*(k does that have to do with the topic at hand? We get it, you have a hard on for WS, and that's great. But seriously, what the F does that have to do with this? Regardless of the events that transpired, why does an AC incident have to do with it?
But hey, if you want to compare the two, why is it that WS, with it's fleet of 4 763's seem to be having IROP's left right and centre? Engine failures, diversions, AOG's, losing main gear wheels. From a fleet of 4 birds. AC and Rouge have a much larger fleet, yet they seem to operate them reliably. Same with Jazz/PD and their Q400's compared with Encore's nearly brand new fleet.
Or why did C-GWSV air return to YYC with fumes in the cockpit & cabin? And mtce just did a "ground test serviceable" and released it, only for it to air return the next day? Is WS Mtce slacking? (Or are you going to go "Oh! Well AC had a DC-9 that had fumes once!(AC797) The plane caught fire and people died! That's why WS is so great!")
Notice that no one is making comparisons like you to try and defend WS. Getting defensive and pointing out an incident at another carrier does nothing to advance the topic at hand. If anything, it's obfuscating and entirely off topic, and your post should be removed.
If you're a WS fan, and hate AC, that's great. Don't fly them. If you work for WS, great, but you come across as a d*ck, and it seems you're not a good fit for the overly happy WS crowd.
The topic at hand was about the SXM go around. Clearly, the crew made the right decision by executing a missed approach. The fact that your favourite blue and teal folks had an unstable approach and went around doesn't mean you need to get all defensive and point out any sort of incident with AC. Yeah, bashing AC is a bit of a national past time around these parts, but your blabber comes across as childish and it's entirely unnecessary, and, judging from the responses you've gotten, entirely unwanted on this board.