South"worst" Airlines Earns its Nickname
 

New questions on safety monitoring at Southwest

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...34452020080308

Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/sou...ref=newssearch

I know Southwest has its fans, but when I flew them fifteen years ago, I promised myself never again. I kept my promise.

I've <i>never</i> flown Southworst, and I certainly never will.

If Southworst can't assign a seat, I can't buy a ticket.

I feel sorry for those many people who have no choice <i>but</i> to fly Southworst. I'm fortunate enough to have many options.

Gekko, what you posted (your own comments) is not true. Read the links themselves for the truth. Southwest did not fly &quot;unsafe&quot; airplanes. They realized they had missed a certain inspection (among many that are routinely done) and they <i>told</i> the FAA about it, immediately. Someone at the FAA told them erroneously that they could keep flying the 737s for another week until they could be inspected.

That's the issue - FAA says they themselves told Southwest the wrong thing (technically, the planes were not supposed to fly until being inspected). Someone at the FAA who gave Southwest this wrong information was let go, yet the FAA is still fining Southwest, I guess because Southwest should have known better despite being told it was OK to keep flying them.

The FAA finds potential problems in airplanes now and then and requires these types of inspections. Some are required immediately based on judgment calls; some are less worrisome and can be done less urgently. There was confusion about the nature of the inspections, that's all.

Southwest flies nothing but 737s - they have the largest fleet of these planes in the world. No one knows those planes better than they do, except perhaps Boeing, who said this week there was never any danger to the passengers on those airplanes. This was a <i>technical</i> inspection, one of numerous inspections the FAA requires from time to time.

I fly Southwest whenever I can and am flying them again Tuesday and have not the slightest concern about this technical violation. Southwest has an outstanding safety record.

Why you would call them &quot;Southworst&quot; when you've never even flown them is just childish. It would be like me criticizing USAir and then never having flown them. But if you want to keep supporting USAir and their ever-mounting list of new fees, go for it - I'm sure they're happy to take the extra money. As for me, I'll continue to pay low fares, get great service, and great seats (exit rows on the two flights last week, surely two more next week, for no extra fee). And terrific leg room even in non-exit-row seats.

That's ok Gekko....stick with your USless Air, and good luck with trying to get them to stop charging for the 2nd bag.

I chose SW for my next flight because of price and the fact that I might be returning home with two bags plus I've got a non-stop flight. Recalling a recent thread about car vs plane fatalities and this week discovering my car had a brake problem that the mechanic deemed unsafe to drive ... I should be fine in the air after surviving who knows how many ice miles with a bad brake pad.

I fly Southwest whenever I can; they are flexible, their website is incredibly easy to use, even for making changes (which they nearly always do for free or at very little costt), and their on-time record is very good. It's too bad we rarely hear &quot;the other side of the story,&quot; especially in this instance.

CNN's Headline: <b>Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes </b>

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/sou...ref=newssearch

If anyone disagrees with the headline, please contact CNN. Alas, I did not write it.

And you think every headline on CNN is the gospel truth?

Headlines don't mean much, but the media SHOULD be reporting on government reports, government actions, etc. Here it doesn't matter whether it's cnn or reuters or AP -- it's about what the FAA found, what the fines are for, what the industry and the legislature thinks they should be doing.

Questioning the sources here is a diversionary tactic and verges on another version of &quot;media-conspiracy&quot; theory. At what point does reporting on failed inspections qualify as just a political figment of some reporter's imagination?

Well, shouldn't that include what the government agency did and did not do or say?

I'm not going to stop flying on Southwest just because they &quot;won't assign a seat.&quot;

Andrew said, &quot;Southwest did not fly &quot;unsafe&quot; airplanes.&quot;

Then I read:
&quot;The discount carrier, which flew more passengers in the United States than any other airline, flew at least 117 planes in violation of mandatory safety checks, CNN reported, citing documents submitted by FAA inspectors to congressional investigators.

In some cases, the documents say, the planes flew for 30 months after government inspection deadlines lapsed. The report said the planes were not airworthy.

U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., calling it one of the worst safety violations he has ever seen, was expected to seek a hearing on the matter.&quot;

What am I missing here?

Neopatrick: <i>What am I missing here?</i>

You're missing the fact that numerous other routine inspections were performed on the planes. The violation concerns one particular type of specific inspection - checking for potential skin cracks - that was missed. A few cracks were found and fixed after the inspections.

Boeing also said, according to Southwest's Gary Kelly, that, &quot;at no time were those cracks unsafe.&quot; Cracks presumably occur all the time in airplanes and are fixed.

http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/p...ty_record.html

And the fact that none of those supposedly unsafe planes fell from the sky.

I've NEVER had any issue flying Southwest. No hassles, no lost luggage, no problems with getting credits on unused flights, no cranky employees.

Y'know, I'm always fascinated by the argument that &quot;X has NEVER happened&quot; as if history guaranteed the future.

Some of us don't buy media reports. Some of us don't buy press releases from a corporation.

I suspect that this may be a combination of failures and embarrassments, and it may be a shot across someone's bow about laxity in inspections not only at SW but across the industry.

To make a blanket statement that planes that escaped certain kinds of reviews haven't crashed (yet), and then imply that's a reason to fly SW fearlessly isn't a lot smarter than declaring that you'll never fly them again.

Some common sense here, people!

I'm missing the screams from the AA and other airline haters here who by now would have been yelling &quot;I told you so&quot;. I'll never fly that #*&amp;@#** airline again. But since it was their &quot;beloved&quot; airline, then all is well and the reports are meaningless.

It's only people who have little or no choice in airlines who love Southworst.

Gekko: <i>It's only people who have little or no choice in airlines who love Southworst. </i>

Nope. I have a ton of choices out of PDX. Continental and USAir both have non-stop flights to the east coast where I need to go. I prefer Southwest, because even in &quot;regular&quot; seats I get good leg room. I flew Continental from EWR to PDX last year in one of their 737s (or was it a 757?) and it was a tight fit - I'm tall. I few AA to Italy last fall and I also was a bit cramped on their planes. I have more leg room on Southwest's 737s.

And I've changed my plans at least twice on Southwest the last year or so and simply made changes or canceled flights and used the credit on future flights, all for no fee. Can't do that on the other airlines. Why would I <i>want</i> to fly anyone else? You think I'm somehow getting better service from the major airlines because they'll assign me a tight seat and charge me a change fees? I'd rather be in the &quot;A&quot; group on Southwest and have a shot an an exit row for no extra fee.

I flew them once in 1999 and never again.

By the time all the parents with children (come on, a nine year old doesn't need help) and those who truly did need assistance boarded being in A group, we got the last two seats together on the plane.

I swore I'd never fly them again now matter how cheap the flight and I haven't.

I refuse to fly Spirit because it is like flying on a greyhound bus and they have zero customer service.

I do put my money where my mouth is.

i realize that the op basically created this thread due to their own longed hatred of southwest, and that with the recent headlines regarding southwest, they felt it supplanted their own rationale to voice their issue for support.

just about everyone despises someone, something, or some corporation in life. you can comb the internet for days and find endless rants from those that will use a recent story regarding some negative news about something, then purposely augment the nature of that story in their own favor.

i have flown a wide array of different airlines, and i have known others who have done so likewise.

consider me lucky, but i havent ever experienced any downfall with any airline ive flown. no lost luggage, no poor service, no delays, etc.

i have heard some bad things about delta, and united.

one of my friends was about to board a one-way flight from virginia to san diego on united airlines, and as they were about to depart for the runway, the captain announced they had to taxi back because one of the mechanics forgot to refuel the jet (basically they had insufficient fuel to make the trip). things like that, i find absurd.

but nitpicking southwest, which is well known as a low-cost airline, because they dont serve meals, dont have assigned seating, dont have adequate legroom (or maybe someone is just in denial of being obese), etc etc..is senseless.

its like going to walmart or kmart and ranting that they dont carry armani, calvin klein or hugo boss.

get real. youre flying a discount airline.

but going back to the safety issue regarding them flying &quot;unsafe&quot; aircraft, youll read also that its being heavily contested by southwest and that they indicate that they never have flown any aircraft that they deemed to be unsafe.

i guess we can all wait around to see the outcome of this heated court decision to finally begin to point fingers in each other's faces (if thats your forte)

but the history of air travel has shown that there are few air carriers that have a totally spotless safety record.

I love SWA! Since they are one of the few airlines that makes money, it would appear I'm not alone.

PS: Keep the lousy airline food away from me

GoTravel: <i>By the time all the parents with children (come on, a nine year old doesn't need help) and those who truly did need assistance boarded being in A group, we got the last two seats together on the plane.</i>

That was 9 years ago. They have since changed that policy; families/kids don't board until after A now. And you get numbers now not just A/B/C letters, so you don't have to camp out before boarding; you have a reserved place in line.

mireaux7: <i>but nitpicking southwest, which is well known as a low-cost airline, because they dont serve meals, dont have assigned seating, dont have adequate legroom (or maybe someone is just in denial of being obese), etc etc..is senseless.</i>

Not just senseless but erroneous in the case of &quot;adequate legroom.&quot; I'm 6'3&quot; and one of the reasons I fly Southwest is that they have better legroom than the Continental and AA jets I've been on in the last year and half (in coach of course).

Actually &quot;low cost&quot; isn't one of the reasons I fly Southwest. In most cases the &quot;major&quot; airlines match their prices. I am in the middle of a trip to the east coast and Continental had a direct flight PDX-EWR for about the same price as I paid PDX-PHL on Southwest, but why would I want to sit for 5.5 hours in such a tight seat?

We now know <i>why</i> Southwest &quot;makes money.&quot;

Ignoring FAA inspection requirements is certainly one way to &quot;cut costs.&quot;

And, hey, what's a few fuselage cracks amongst friends?

Gekko: <i>We now know why Southwest &quot;makes money.&quot;

Ignoring FAA inspection requirements is certainly one way to &quot;cut costs.&quot;</i>

They did no such thing.

<i>And, hey, what's a few fuselage cracks amongst friends?</i>

You realize that USAir (when they were still called America West) has their own history of violations with the FAA, right?

http://www.wsws.org/workers/1998/july1998/air-j16.shtml

<i>The dimensions of the alleged violations of safety regulations are staggering. According to the FAA, 17 America West Airbus A320 jets made 41,000 flights after they were overdue for structural inspections. Airbus Industrie, the European manufacturer of jetliners, notified airlines in 1994 that the A320 jets needed structural inspections of the cargo doors, but America West did not carry them out for two years.</i>

Or that they were fined in 2004 for violating laws in the treatment of disabled people?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...19/ai_n6159060

<b>&quot;Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes&quot;</b>

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/sou...ref=newssearch

And surely USAir's alleged past sins don't excuse Southworst's current ones.

I guess you didn't bother to read the story I posted? The title was

<b>America West Airlines fined for 41,000 safety violations</b>

But gee, Southwest is fined for violations and see what a bad airline they are! USAir/America West has thousands of safety violations and you don't give a damn - HYPOCRITE!

Okay I know I live in New Zealand but I thought SW airlines had the one of the best air safety records in the US.

In any case we flew them last year on our US friends's recommendation and found them to be a great airline, had no problems at all, we did the check in online, an A boarding pass and got great seats.

The thing I liked was if the price of the ticket came down you could cancel and rebook and get a refund or a credit for the price difference. There is no charge at all to change a flight, unlike here in New Zealand. I would certainly fly with them again.

Have to say I don't understand gekko's vendetta against Southwest. I fly with them every so often since I live in Seattle and have family in Spokane and Boise; these are non-stop flights and with an &quot;A&quot; boarding pass I usually end up in a bulkhead aisle seat. Haven't flown since the new numbering system was put in place, but I'm sure this improvement, in addition to the new non-priority boarding of families, will make things even better. Customer service, as others have noted, is generally excellent.

I'm not sure I would use SW for a long-distance flight, as I prefer non-stops...I generally use Alaska to get to California and JetBlue for the east coast. But Southwest is far and away the least expensive and most convenient way to get to other places in the NW region.

As I have no axe to grind about SW (they don't serve any routes I fly) may I offer these comments:

I think some more information is required before one either exonerates or condemns SW.

What, exactly, were the nature of these safety complaints? If we were to have our own homes inspected, I'm sure that this or that safety issue would be found. Some if found would require immediate compliance (get those obstacles off the stairs); some probably ought to be handled in the next month or two (bring the dryer vent up to code); and some might reasonably be left till a more convenient time (fixing a chimney that has taken years to degrade, and which while deteriorating won't in all probability cause an immediate problem) could probably wait until the end of oil-heating season.

In short, there are violations and there are violations. What were the nature of SW's violations, and what were the roles of the various players, still has to come out. Especially since most of us probably need some tutoring on the essential, let alone the finer details, of aircraft engineering and maintenance.

And if we're going to do a decent job of processing the information, we can't have our minds made up beforehand - one way or the other.

I don't have a &quot;vendetta&quot; against Southworst.

I posted two headlines &amp; linked articles about Southworst ignoring required safety inspections:

New questions on safety monitoring at Southwest

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...34452020080308

Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/sou...ref=newssearch

Like I said, I'm fortunate to have a choice in airlines, so I've never flown Southworst and never will.

Thank you all for NOT flying Southwest Airlines Just keep away when the only two legacy airlines left standing will be AA and a combined DL+UA+NW+CO +USair. Just more seats on poor old Souhtwest for me.
Thank you very much.

Gekko, I am not disappointed that you do not fly Southwest airlines. I'm with Joe on that one. Although it seems if you are so worried about an airline that has been fined by the FAA for safety violations you will need to stop flying USAir as well - oops, that's right, you don't give a damn about USAir's past safety violations, because they aren't Southwest.

Key word: &quot;past&quot;

What year did these violations occur?

(And I'm on the warpath against USAir and its proposed policy to charge for 2nd check bags.)

Southwest will let you fly with 2 checked bags. Charge $ 25 for the 3rd one!

I've flown USAir once and never will again.

At least I'm one up on Gekko, who has NEVER flown SWA.

Gekko: <i>Key word: &quot;past&quot;

What year did these violations occur?</i>

So the year after these violations came out, 1999, you were all upset about America West's safety violations. Right? And at some point (how many years?) you decided they were an OK airline again?

No, my point is that you don't give a damn about an airline's safety violations, or you'd realize that Southwest isn't the only one to have been fined and you should be consistent. You simply don't like Southwest Airlines. You had no problem with America West's violations at the time, no doubt, because you didn't hate them.

Why not simply have an on-going thread called &quot;I hate Southwest Airlines&quot; and every time you can find something negative about them in the media you could post it there? You could keep that thread going as long as your &quot;tell USAir not to charge $25&quot; thread that you and only you seem to care about.

It's still baffling that you have such a vendetta against an airline you've never flown.

Seat pitch. Check out seat guru for Southwest airline vs any other legacy airline in coach.
Southwest only flies Boeing 737 and always gives you at least 31&quot;-32&quot; leg room.
Very rarly do you find that much legroom (usually 29&quot;-31&quot;) on AA or CO or USair UA DL or NW. in coach, because they fly so many different types of aircraft you just don't know what you are going to get unless you fly Business class or better.
Continental also offers 31&quot; on their 737 and other planes so I choose to fly them when I don't fly Southwest.

Interesting viewpoint:

Philly Road Warrior: Travelers needn't fear flying on Southwest - or on any U.S. airline

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/16440931.html ((*))

From Jed's link: <i>&quot;In 2006, the last year for which there is detailed data from the National Transportation Safety Board, U.S. airlines had 0.1 - yes, that's zero-point-one - major accidents for every 1 million hours flown. According to the website planecrashinfo. com, the chances are 1 in 6 million that one of the 25 airlines with the best safety records in the world will be involved in a fatal crash.&quot;</i>

Now THOSE are the kind of statistics that are reassuring -- with not one mention of car crash statistics. Of course, the article goes on to demonstrate just how effective quoting statistics IS for the fearful:

<i> &quot;So each time we're rolling down the runway for takeoff, we chant that key statistic to ourselves: 1 in 6 million, 1 in 6 million.&quot;</i>

:-D