Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Southwest Taking Some Heat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by 3WE
    Oh come on flyboy it's just a nit-picky safety inspection, there's so much redundancy in planes today, what does it matter if you are late for an inspection, seems perfectly safe to me.

    To hell with the regulations, Alex says WN is safe. That's good enough for this WN customer and member of the general public.

    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 While many of us here may fine both institutions to be outdated at time, or cumbersome, or bothersome, or redundant, let me remind you that for decades they have prevented BILLIONs of deaths by protecting us, the flying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?
    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

    Comment


    • #62
      You're worse than I am!
      Last edited by DAL767-400ER; 2008-03-12, 00:22. Reason: Deleted quoted post

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by AA 1818
        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.
        I really, really think he was joking, being sarcastic.

        Alex
        Stop Searching. Start Traveling. southwest.com

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by AA 1818
          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!
          The FAA did not turn a blind eye but instead agreed to allow WN to continue operating the aircraft for a period of time allowing WN to conduct the required inspections. WN blew the deal sky high.
          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?
          Fiasco's? No. But I have worked within the FAA's system for 43 years without a single problem. No that does not mean their were no differences of opinion or discussions regarding findings. But the FAA never demanded that an aircraft be grounded when it was found out of compliance. "WE" grounded it as soon as we found the problem. "WE" called the FAA and they came running.
          The FAA does not have the resources to police the industry. They provide oversight which allows the industry to police its self. individuals at It appears a few misguided SN just threw a monkey wrench into a well oiled machine.
          If this goes where I think it goes, someone needs to go to jail. If this is as flagrant as I think it is, someone(s) needs to go to jail for a long time. The industry moved beyond the "What Can We Get Away With" mode in the 70's.
          Don
          Standard practice for managers around the world:
          Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by ATrude777
            I really, really think he was joking, being sarcastic.

            Alex
            You sure?

            Hey, keep up the good public relations work. I DO hear you that the saftey issues were more technical than genuine.

            Nevertheless, hurling thousands of passengers through the sky, 5 miles high at 500 MPH, in thin aluminum tubes requires airlines to be prety anal-retentive about following the inspection rules, so it appears there may be some wrists to be slapped here.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by 3WE
              so it appears there may be some wrists to be slapped here.
              There will be more than wrist slapping, trust me.
              Don
              Standard practice for managers around the world:
              Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Dmmoore
                There will be more than wrist slapping, trust me.
                There will certianly be more than wrist slapping on corporate level, but I doubt any individual or even a group will be held responsible. The responsibility for continuing compliance of an airline lies with too many people.

                There way a similar failure to comply with an AD where I worked. It did not result in a/c grounding as an compliance extension was provided by FAA. No one was fired. No one was suspended. Everybody got a speech about importance of ADs.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Southwest grounds 41 planes...

                  NEW YORK (Reuters) - Southwest Airlines Co said on Wednesday that it has taken 41 planes out of service, but declined to comment on the reason.

                  Southwest said on Tuesday that it suspended three employees in response to U.S. government allegations that it knowingly allowed planes to fly that had not been properly inspected for potential structural flaws.

                  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last week proposed a record $10.2 million in connection with allegedly failing inspections.

                  The FAA said the grounding was due to a safety issue but would not elaborate.

                  The allegations that Southwest, one of the biggest U.S. airlines in terms of passengers carried, may have cut corners represents a startling mark against a carrier that has been an industry model for efficient operation for nearly 40 years.

                  Southwest shares fell 4 percent to $11.90 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange, as oil marked a new record high.

                  (Reporting by Chris Reiter; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz, Richard Chang)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Dmmoore
                    If this is as flagrant as I think it is, someone(s) needs to go to jail for a long time. The industry moved beyond the "What Can We Get Away With" mode in the 70's.
                    But the issue is whether we have moved back to that mode, in that the financial and operating pressures under which the airline industry operates may have pushed individuals to compromise standards in a culture of intense competition and profit pressure, and that managements may be complicit in such a culture.

                    As I write, this seems to be escalating, as the news is talking of 41 aircraft being grounded. This is doing Southwest's hitherto stellar reputation no good at all.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Vinco
                      There will certianly be more than wrist slapping on corporate level, but I doubt any individual or even a group will be held responsible. The responsibility for continuing compliance of an airline lies with too many people.

                      There way a similar failure to comply with an AD where I worked. It did not result in a/c grounding as an compliance extension was provided by FAA. No one was fired. No one was suspended. Everybody got a speech about importance of ADs.
                      I would totally agree "IF" this weren't an overfly of the extension! Southwest is way past the speech giving stage, That event should have occurred last spring.

                      As I understand the issues, 41 aircraft made 60,000 flights without receiving the required inspections. 60,000 flights times the maximum fine of $10,000 per occurrence is $600,000,000. I'd slap that one on them and let them stew for a few weeks. I'd then file criminal charges against all management members responsible for maintenance planning and QA. Let them stew on that!

                      A self enforcement program is worthless without some teeth to ensure those charged with enforcing the policy accomplish the task. Southwest (and the rest of the industry) needs to clearly understand the program, how, why and what if.

                      An accidental overfly is one thing but this one looks deliberate, planned and officially sanctioned. Unless they can prove a clerk made a simple mistake or a computer program glitched, if they can prove that, I'd drop the charges on all but those reporting the original overfly, They KNEW.

                      Sorry Southwest employees but your company has committed an inexcusable event. Should the airline be shut down? No! But management needs a BIG wake up call as to their responsibilities.
                      Don
                      Standard practice for managers around the world:
                      Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by ATrude777
                        Yes.

                        Whenever I have to go to meetings or interviews in Dallas for SWA, I have no qualms about getting on board their aircraft or any airlines aircraft. Will continue to fly them.

                        Alex


                        I just find it funny, because I would never say that about any aircraft. Theres no possible way you can know that everything on a given aircraft is in working order and something won't go wrong. You can diminish the risk, but the risk is always there in flying.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Leftseat86
                          I just find it funny, because I would never say that about any aircraft. Theres no possible way you can know that everything on a given aircraft is in working order and something won't go wrong. You can diminish the risk, but the risk is always there in flying.
                          What is funny about it? You have to have faith the airlines are doing the best to keep safety their priority, not just SWA but every airline.

                          Do you have the time before boarding a flight say on US Airways to ask for the MX sheet to claim the aircraft is in good working order? I don't, and just have to put faith they are doing the best.

                          Alex
                          Stop Searching. Start Traveling. southwest.com

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            [QUOTE=Purdue_AAE]........................Southwest said on Tuesday that it suspended three employees in response to U.S. government allegations that it knowingly allowed planes to fly that had not been properly inspected for potential structural flaws.......................................
                            [QUOTE]

                            An employee can do tremendous damage to a company; a few years ago I when I worked for a major US aerospace company - one employee disregarded the rules and cost the company hundreds of milions of dollars in government fines, lawsuites, and lost business (in this case the employee was not only fired but was subjected to criminal charges).

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Just adding this along , though seems no one cares anyway.


                              Southwest Airlines Continues Its Internal Investigation and Audit

                              Airline Makes the Decision to Temporarily Remove 38 Aircraft from Scheduled

                              DALLAS, March 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Yesterday, Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) CEO Gary Kelly said the airline is taking action on preliminary findings of its own internal investigation into allegations that it violated FAA regulations in March 2007. Kelly vowed to make any changes necessary to ensure that the airline is in full compliance with FAA Airworthiness Directives and all of its own maintenance programs, policies, and procedures.




                              Alex
                              Stop Searching. Start Traveling. southwest.com

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by ATrude777
                                What is funny about it? You have to have faith the airlines are doing the best to keep safety their priority, not just SWA but every airline.

                                Do you have the time before boarding a flight say on US Airways to ask for the MX sheet to claim the aircraft is in good working order? I don't, and just have to put faith they are doing the best.

                                Alex

                                Exactly, but I don't discount the possibility that it may not be the case. I think its good to be constantly reminded of the risk involved, and not get a false sense of security. It doesn't matter how awesome the safety record, how rigourous the inspections, etc...when i board an airplane I go hoping that everything will work, but I don't have any illusions that the shit can and will sometimes hit the fan. Frankly, while safety is important to most airlines, the industry as a whole has to find a balance between being overzealous and keeping risks reasonable. We could always be doing more, but we maintain a balance between the risks and practicallity. I always have faith in an aircraft I board, but it isn't blind.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X