Kath

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up here yet, but I don't see a post. Wondering how all the Southwest fans feel about this.

Documents submitted by FAA inspectors to congressional investigators allege the airline flew at least 117 of its planes in violation of mandatory safety checks. In some cases, the documents say, the planes flew for 30 months after government inspection deadlines had passed and should have been grounded until the inspections could be completed.

The planes were "not airworthy," according to congressional air safety investigators.

Calling it "one of the worst safety violations" he has ever seen, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minnesota, is expected to call a hearing as soon as possible to ask why the airline put its passengers in danger.

My guess is that Southwest is going to have a hard time turning this into a joke.

WillTravel

I don't condone breaking the rules, but is Southwest different than other airlines in this respect?

I know Alaska basically had a serious maintenance problem which resulted in the crash of an MD80 off Los Angeles some years ago. However, I presume Alaska has improved.

Does anyone know if this is typical of airlines in the US, or just unique to Southwest?

AAFrequentFlyer

Here's my take on this issue and by no means it's the final word....

When a government regulatory office comes out publicly with a damning report about a HUGE corporation than it only means one thing. They tried to work with the airline, probably gave it every which way out, but if the airline was stubborn, the agency had no choice but to make a report.

rkkwan

I think it's too early to decipher what's going on. The actual "breaking news" isn't about Southwest's maintenance, but how FAA handled it after Southwest voluntarily admitted of non-compliance to operational directives, i.e. not going to fine Southwest.

Now, a couple of FAA inspectors are blowing the whistle and alerting some members of congress. That seems to be real news right now.

But then, we have the media who likes to sensationalize everything, politicians who will do/say anything to have themselves re-elected, FAA inspectors who aren't happy about decisions by their superiors, and of course all the Southwest fanboys who think SW can do no wrong...

I'll leave it at that, and just watch from the sidelines.

AnthonyGA

The report I read was wildly sensationalized, making what sounds like a mere technical oversight sound like something that would have planes dropping out of the sky. Perhaps someone has some scores to settle.

Granted, Southwest should have moved more quickly, and the FAA should have been more strict, but there were no accidents, and it's over now, so it's a bit late for panic.

rkkwan

Now, the proposed fine is $10.2m, not $3m as reported earlier today:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...0080306?rpc=44

And the charges seem pretty serious.

diann24

I fly SW all the time. It is one of my favorite airlines. They took a big risk with there valued customers. It is lucky there have not been any serious accidents. They must be feeling the crunch I just email for $52.00 flights for the month of April. I am due to fly them in March!! Now I am afraid where I was not before.

AnthonyGA

The charges might be serious (although $10 million isn't much money for a company like Southwest), but there is no risk to safety.

rkkwan

AnthonyGA - If there's no risk to safety, then why even bother with airworthiness directives or deadlines? Why don't FAA just say "please inspect your aircrafts at you leisure, and if you don't want to do it, that's fine too"?

rkkwan

I think what you mean is that "the charges may be serious, but luckily nothing happened".

AnthonyGA

The aviation industry errs on the side of caution, so much so that minor oversights very often have no real influence on flight safety.

There are zillions of oversights of the type for which Southwest is being castigated, at many different airlines; the only distinction in this case is that Southwest brought the oversight to light. With the industry's obsession with safety, it takes quite a cascade of errors, mistakes, or negligence to actually lead to accidents. The Alaska Airlines incident, for example, was the result of multiple problems combining to greatly increase risk, and wasn't a consequence of any one problem alone.

I worry far more about Southwest's intolerance of passenger attire than I do about the safety of its aircraft.

Andrew

I flew Southwest last week and will fly them next week. I have complete confidence in their maintenance - they know those 737s and have an excellent safety record. This violation sounds like a technical oversight, a inspection on a bunch of airplanes that was supposed to happen sooner rather than later, just one of many inspections that are done on planes.

It's not like Southwest got caught hiding something - they <i>told</i> the FAA they had missed the inspections. The issue is, Southwest waited a week after that to test the airplanes. Someone at the FAA apparently told them they could keep flying the planes but that was wrong information (that FAA person has been fired). Apparently, Southwest should have understood the regulations and not relied on an erroneous verbal assurance from someone at the FAA, hence the fine.

rkkwan

This just in. SW grounding 41 planes right now for inspection. Over 100 flights today canceled.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....492e3dea.html

Andrew

Sounds like they are just being ultra-conservative. From the article:

<i> Carl Kuwitzky, president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association called it a “minor inconvenience” and said the jets would likely be back in service sometime Wednesday.

“They are trying to clear it up and do what the right thing is,” Mr. Kuwitzky said. “They are taking a conservative approach, even if that looks bad.”
</i>

Glad I flew Southwest yesterday and not today! I'd be more worried about cancellations than about any safety issue with Southwest at this point.

rkkwan

SW has a news release:

phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=92562&amp;p=irol-newsArticle_Print&amp;ID=1118083

Seems like a minor issue.

diann24

I am flying them March 26. I hope by then some of these issues are resolved.

EricH

If their records leave ambiguities about whether required inspections have been conducted, this is not a minor problem. This is how very major problems occur.

Andrew

I don't work in aviation and I'm nothing but an amateur when it comes to flying. But, from what I've read, I don't think there are any flight-related issues, diann24, and haven't been for over a year. Last year, they realized they'd missed a type of required inspection on some planes, immediately notified the FAA, and then inspected the planes in question a week later.

This latest inspection seems to have been done to satisfy an interpretation of the FAA regulations, not because anyone at Southwest thinks those planes aren't really safe. They're doing it just so the FAA won't come after them yet again with some other nuance and make their passengers nervous when they hear things in the media that aren't well explained.

If you've ever worked at a big company as I have, you know there are some things that are really important (in Southwest's case, like making sure the planes are really safe - the basic, routine inspections and regular maintenance) and then there is some BS work that isn't very important but still must be done. These latest inspections seem to fall into the latter category, from what I have read. Honestly, while I'm not surprised this is news, I think the media is making way too much out of it.

diann24

Andrew,

All this might be true and I myself have worked for a large company for over 20 years. The #1 defense contractor in the U.S. I just have to wonder why SW was being targeted when there are so many other airlines out there. I happen to love SW. I fly it reguarly I just wonder if they have had the luck of the Irish, or what since they haven't had any serious crashes. or was the FAA bored and had nothing else to do with there spare time?

AAFrequentFlyer

Both the FAA and SW are guilty here. There will be some heads rolling at the FAA. 2 whistle blowers at FAA were trying to notify somebody but were shut down by their supervisor(s). I have to disagree with <b>Andrew</b> that this is really nothing. There are some reports that perhaps one or two FAA supervisors had a &quot;very friendly&quot; relationship with the airline, whatever that means. I'm sure we will be hearing more in the near future.

Interesting read here:

<i>The agency said Southwest had flown 46 planes from<b> June 18, 2006, to March 14, 2007</b> — on 59,791 flights — without complying with an order to inspect them for cracks. The inspection order covered older planes.

Rather than grounding the planes immediately when it discovered its lapse, Southwest kept operating them from March 15 to March 23, 2007, on 1,451 more flights. The size of the fine, a record, was because of what the FAA called these &quot;deliberate violations.&quot;

All the planes have been inspected; cracks were found and fixed on six planes. </i>

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/...s/12cndair.php