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 never 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 but 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 "unsafe" airplanes. They realized they had missed a certain inspection (among many that are routinely done) and they told 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 technical 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 "Southworst" 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 "the other side of the story," especially in this instance.

CNN's Headline: Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes

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 "media-conspiracy" 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 "won't assign a seat."

Andrew said, "Southwest did not fly "unsafe" airplanes."

Then I read:
"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."

What am I missing here?

Neopatrick: What am I missing here?

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, "at no time were those cracks unsafe." 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 "X has NEVER happened" 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 "I told you so". I'll never fly that #*&@#** airline again. But since it was their "beloved" 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: It's only people who have little or no choice in airlines who love Southworst.

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 "regular" 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 want 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 "A" 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 "unsafe" 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.