Originally posted by 3WE
Although you have already taken flak for that statement, let me add, that your source, while wise in many respects, is not a public official, neither is he a member of the FAA or the DOT. While many of us here may fine both institutions to be outdated at time, or cumbersome, or bothersome, or redundant, let me remind you that for decades they have prevented BILLIONs of deaths by protecting us, the flying public, from the most one of the most dangerous aspects of this industry - inconsistency. One man's standards of safety are not necessarily another, and with that in mind, what may be safe to you, may just be "cute" to me, and vice versa. By having strict safety standards, and by standardizing the industry, the FAA and the DOT have made the industry safer. If other operators were allowed to operate according to their own standards, then who would be right? Yes, WN has the support of Boeing, but still, not the support of the governing body of the industry. The moral responsability was to take the aircraft out of service. Then the legal responsability matured next, to which they did not comply. BUT - here is where mitigating circumstances come into play - at this point the FAA was to oversee that the legal obligation was met. They turned a blind eye, and so now, they bear a part of the legal burden. Who is worng? WN? Yes. But blame is never 100%. Had WN operated in direct opposition to the FAA things would have been different. BUT the FAA (or at least corrupt members within the FAA) were working in cohorts. SO, is the FAA culpable? Yes. Both are to blame!
And now it raises the question - if the FAA was working well with WN? What about other airlines? Were the doing the same with other airlines as well? Are there more fiascos to come?
Comment