Southwest vs. the FAA

Well, looks like there's a little more to it than a couple of whistleblowers.

This is from the Wall Street Journal, so I'm going to post it since you have to register and pay to get it.

The Federal Aviation Administration, imposing the largest financial punishment against an airline in about two decades, proposed a $10.2 million civil penalty against Southwest Airlines Co. for flying passengers in 46 of its planes without complying with mandatory inspections to check for possible structural cracks.

 "The FAA is taking action against Southwest Airlines for a failing to follow rules that are designed to protect passengers and crew," said FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Nicholas A. Sabatini. "We expect the airline industry to fully comply with all FAA directives and take corrective action."

According to the agency, the airline flew hundreds of thousands of passengers in the planes from June 2006 to March 2007 without complying with a September 2004 safety directive to inspect for fuselage cracks. After advising the FAA of its mistake, the airline received verbal approval from the local FAA Dallas office to keep operating the aircraft, and the FAA said in a press release that the carrier flew an additional 1,451 flights before completing the inspections.

The FAA said the size of the penalty "reflects the serious nature of those deliberate violations." Southwest has 30 days to appeal.
 
MusketeerMan said:
Let me guess...

"We should deny SWA pilots a jumpseat" in 3....2....1.....
Click to expand...

Nope. Lots of good trade unionists at SWA. The pilots shoulder no blame in this. The blame resides with a corporate culture that encourages cutting corners in order to run an ultra-efficient operation. It's a shame that a company with such great understanding of labor relations is so horrible on its safety culture.
 
tonyw said:
According to the agency, the airline flew hundreds of thousands of passengers in the planes from June 2006 to March 2007 without complying with a September 2004 safety directive to inspect for fuselage cracks. After advising the FAA of its mistake, the airline received verbal approval from the local FAA Dallas office to keep operating the aircraft, and the FAA said in a press release that the carrier flew an additional 1,451 flights before completing the inspections.

The FAA said the size of the penalty "reflects the serious nature of those deliberate violations." Southwest has 30 days to appeal.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like SWA realized they screwed up, advised the FAA (which they're supposed to do, right?) and got the okay from them anyway. Right? Am I reading that wrong?

Don't think they're wholly culpable in this light...
 
turbojet28 said:
Is this how they reduce their costs?
Click to expand...

Duh?

These LCC's are all the same. . .save a penny at any cost.

A smoking hole hasn't stopped the FAA from really enforcing their regulations since the beginning, so even if one of these LCC's make a smoking hole now nothing will change.

You get what you pay for. . .:/

PCL_128 said:
Yeah, because dying in a rudder hard-over accident would be much better than riding a legacy jumpseat. :sarcasm:
Click to expand...

Don't even bother man. Lloyd is very much a customer oriented pilot who is extremely friendly toward those who fly on these LCCs.
 
bike21 said:
Yet another reason for me to dislike this carrier. My wife had to ride on them the other night and wasn't impressed at all. Dirty airplane and trash everywhere, apparently they don't clean their cabins to get those quick turns done? No wonder they can turn a 737 before we can turn and RJ out. Oncoming customers should ALWAYS have a 'clean' plane. And a safe one.
Click to expand...

I've been flying them for 10 years very, very regularly. Matter of fact, I'm flying them tomorrow. In all that time, I have never had an experience like your wife experienced. I have never had a bad experience with them, actually. They have consistently given me a good product for my money.
 
surreal1221 said:
Duh?

These LCC's are all the same. . .save a penny at any cost.

A smoking hole hasn't stopped the FAA from really enforcing their regulations since the beginning, so even if one of these LCC's make a smoking hole now nothing will change.

You get what you pay for. . .:/
Click to expand...

Maybe not.

Do you know where SWA does the heavy checks on their planes? In the US.

If it was all about the dollar they would farm out the heavy checks overseas like almost all other airlines.(even the big ones)
 
Southwest rocks! I hope this issue doesn't hurt them too much. From what I gather from various sources, it appears as though the FAA approved them to continue to operate the aircraft. Sounds to me like someone from the FAA should be on the block, not Southwest.

I still think they are the best carrier to fly Domestic. The people are always friendly, funny and I've never been late on a SWA flight.
 
Gonzo said:
Maybe not.

Do you know where SWA does the heavy checks on their planes? In the US.

If it was all about the dollar they would farm out the heavy checks overseas like almost all other airlines.(even the big ones)
Click to expand...

Guess what SWA is about to start doing? Overseas maintenance. They're starting to send their aircraft to Central America this summer.
 
Guys, your local POI and PMI have no authority to approve these sorts of things. This is the same excuse that JetBlue used when they had their pilots flying over the max 8 hours block per day doing their "tests" on transcon turns. They got their POI to approve it, but the FAA came down on them and hit them with a big fine. Local FAA inspectors have no authority to waive these things. Airlines know that, but they pretend they don't when it suits them.
 
I'm sure SWA isn't the only airline with these types of maintenance issues.

Just as long as the flying public gets their $49 fares so they can visit grandma......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top