Patrick, I agree!

There is SO much angst against specific airlines, and all of us have had good/bad experiences and have our preferences. I don't fly alot within the US, so I haven't flown Southwest alot, but there were okay (friendly group - I really liked that). But, as a constant traveler - I really do need assigned seating (it's an emotional thing, I know) and I want the frequent flyer miles with an airline that has a big partner network. I fly Delta or United as often as possible. I personally don't like American Airlines. I just don't have good luck when I fly them but many people love them, and they have a couple hubs that I will do anything to keep from flying through (Miami is at the top of the list). Since ALL the airlines are now pulling their planes to do these extra checks - can we let the airline bashing stop for just a bit? Also, not to be dense - but why would anyone have an ax to grind against any airline they've never flown - I guess I don't quite understand that part of it ....

I missed the part where Southwest KNEW they were flying planes with cracked fuselages.

In any event, AA was "forced" to do the inspections, and ground 80 of their planes, after an audit by the FAA showed that they too had missed some standard inspections.

I find all of these events only slightly unsetteling, but really, I just like to mess around with Gekko, because he loves to bash an airline he's never flown.

NeoPatrick: <i>Ummm. I'm not following this story all that closely</i>

Right, that's why you have gotten your facts so wrong. Perhaps you ought not to comment on a story if you aren't following it closely enough to get them right?

Here, I'll sum it up for you:

- Southwest themselves realized a year ago they had missed a key inspection on some of their planes. Southwest <i>told</i> the FAA of this as soon as they realized this, even though they had been flying those planes for a year or so.
- Southwest erroneously believed they had an FAA clearance to keep flying those planes for another week before finally inspecting them. (This is what got them fined.)
- Southwest recently <i>on their own</i> re-checked their own maintenance records carefully and re-inspected about 40 planes. During those re-inspections they found and fixed some cracks in the fuselage of a few planes.
- The FAA then required the <i>other</i> airlines to undertake similar inspections of their maintenance records.

So your assertion that Southwest knew there were cracks in these planes and kept flying them anyway is false.

The main point is that SW missed the inspection completely. AA did not, they just wanted to verify that it was done correctly. It was, and all the planes returned to service within 24 hours....

<b> WASHINGTON – Officials for Southwest Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration &quot;falsified the report&quot; that said the airline had come into compliance with rules for crucial safety inspections for jets, according to records released by a U.S. House committee.</b>

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2e20a.html?npc

&quot;The main point is that SW missed the inspection completely. AA did not, they just wanted to verify that it was done correctly. It was, and all the planes returned to service within 24 hours....&quot;

Actually, the inspections showed that everything was not done correctly:

&quot;American had inspected about 200 planes by Wednesday afternoon and found that 80 required being taken out of service while modifications were being made to wiring bundles near the landing gear, spokesman Tim Wagner said.&quot;

It's sort of akin to the IRS saying, &quot;We're auditing you...are there any tax returns you want to double check and re-file?&quot;

Author: Andrew
Date: 03/27/2008, 11:58 am

NeoPatrick: Ummm. I'm not following this story all that closely

Right, that's why you have gotten your facts so wrong. Perhaps you ought not to comment on a story if you aren't following it closely enough to get them right?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt ;

Andrew, why the pompous ass approach? As you clearly understood I stated that I wasn't following closely, and was clearly describing it as I had heard it. I certainly wasn't insisting that I was right or anyone was wrong. So why are you taking me to task for making clear that I was looking for explanation or clarification?

Why on earth would you suggest that no one be allowed to comment or ask about a situation if they don't know all the facts? That kind of defeats the entire purpose of &quot;discussion&quot; doesn't it? The last time I looked this was called a discussion board. And perhaps you need to look up what a question mark means!

On the other hand, it now sounds like you're the one who needs to get some facts straight, especially if you're going to play &quot;high and mighty&quot; and infallible! Particularly if you're just going to ignore the part about Southwest FALSIFING inspection reports, or pretend they didn't.

NeoPatrick: <i>Andrew, why the pompous ass approach? As you clearly understood I stated that I wasn't following closely,</i>

So why even make a comment if you admit you aren't well informed? Southwest didn't <i>FALSIFY</i> anything (doesn't sound like American or Delta did, either). Why on earth would you start making assertions like that based on a story you clearly don't understand? That doesn't sound like &quot;asking for clarification&quot; to me.

I indeed think you ought to limit your assertions until you understand the topic. Making statements like you have is not &quot;asking for clarification.&quot;

Again, Andrew, I suggest you go rent an English book and look up what a question mark means. Asking a question is NOT making a statement, nor is it &quot;making an assertion&quot;. If you wish to discuss things here, please learn the difference.

Get over yourself. Like it or not, you are the one who is professing to being a &quot;know it all&quot; here. I clearly introduced my post with a disclaimer that suggested the usual &quot;what am I missing here?&quot; Sorry, that concept was too complex for you to understand.

Interesting idea that no one should ever post a question or a &quot;supposition&quot; on a discussion board. The results would be kind of boring, wouldn't they -- if all we want are clear facts, we could pick up a newspaper -- there would be nothing to &quot;discuss&quot; now would there?