Southwest vs. the FAA

[SmitteyB]

Doesn't surprise me.

[mtsu_av8er]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Yeah, because dying in a rudder hard-over accident would be much better than riding a legacy jumpseat.

Usually, yes.

[MusketeerMan]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Yeah, because dying in a rudder hard-over accident would be much better than riding a legacy jumpseat.

Let me guess...

"We should deny SWA pilots a jumpseat" in 3....2....1.....

[tonyw]

Well, looks like there's a little more to it than a couple of whistleblowers.

This is from the Wall Street Journal, so I'm going to post it since you have to register and pay to get it.

The Federal Aviation Administration, imposing the largest financial punishment against an airline in about two decades, proposed a $10.2 million civil penalty against Southwest Airlines Co. for flying passengers in 46 of its planes without complying with mandatory inspections to check for possible structural cracks.

"The FAA is taking action against Southwest Airlines for a failing to follow rules that are designed to protect passengers and crew," said FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Nicholas A. Sabatini. "We expect the airline industry to fully comply with all FAA directives and take corrective action."

According to the agency, the airline flew hundreds of thousands of passengers in the planes from June 2006 to March 2007 without complying with a September 2004 safety directive to inspect for fuselage cracks. After advising the FAA of its mistake, the airline received verbal approval from the local FAA Dallas office to keep operating the aircraft, and the FAA said in a press release that the carrier flew an additional 1,451 flights before completing the inspections.

The FAA said the size of the penalty "reflects the serious nature of those deliberate violations." Southwest has 30 days to appeal.

[Gonzo]

Originally Posted by SmitteyB

Doesn't surprise me.

Coming from a guy who works for Colgan.

PS -Nice edit

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by MusketeerMan

Let me guess...

"We should deny SWA pilots a jumpseat" in 3....2....1.....

Nope. Lots of good trade unionists at SWA. The pilots shoulder no blame in this. The blame resides with a corporate culture that encourages cutting corners in order to run an ultra-efficient operation. It's a shame that a company with such great understanding of labor relations is so horrible on its safety culture.

[killbilly]

Originally Posted by tonyw

According to the agency, the airline flew hundreds of thousands of passengers in the planes from June 2006 to March 2007 without complying with a September 2004 safety directive to inspect for fuselage cracks. After advising the FAA of its mistake, the airline received verbal approval from the local FAA Dallas office to keep operating the aircraft, and the FAA said in a press release that the carrier flew an additional 1,451 flights before completing the inspections.

The FAA said the size of the penalty "reflects the serious nature of those deliberate violations." Southwest has 30 days to appeal.

Sounds to me like SWA realized they screwed up, advised the FAA (which they're supposed to do, right?) and got the okay from them anyway. Right? Am I reading that wrong?

Don't think they're wholly culpable in this light...

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by turbojet28

Is this how they reduce their costs?

Duh?

These LCC's are all the same. . .save a penny at any cost.

A smoking hole hasn't stopped the FAA from really enforcing their regulations since the beginning, so even if one of these LCC's make a smoking hole now nothing will change.

You get what you pay for. . .:/

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Yeah, because dying in a rudder hard-over accident would be much better than riding a legacy jumpseat.

Don't even bother man. Lloyd is very much a customer oriented pilot who is extremely friendly toward those who fly on these LCCs.

[killbilly]

Originally Posted by bike21

Yet another reason for me to dislike this carrier. My wife had to ride on them the other night and wasn't impressed at all. Dirty airplane and trash everywhere, apparently they don't clean their cabins to get those quick turns done? No wonder they can turn a 737 before we can turn and RJ out. Oncoming customers should ALWAYS have a 'clean' plane. And a safe one.

I've been flying them for 10 years very, very regularly. Matter of fact, I'm flying them tomorrow. In all that time, I have never had an experience like your wife experienced. I have never had a bad experience with them, actually. They have consistently given me a good product for my money.

[Gonzo]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Duh?

These LCC's are all the same. . .save a penny at any cost.

A smoking hole hasn't stopped the FAA from really enforcing their regulations since the beginning, so even if one of these LCC's make a smoking hole now nothing will change.

You get what you pay for. . .:/

Maybe not.

Do you know where SWA does the heavy checks on their planes? In the US.

If it was all about the dollar they would farm out the heavy checks overseas like almost all other airlines.(even the big ones)

[Airdale]

Southwest rocks! I hope this issue doesn't hurt them too much. From what I gather from various sources, it appears as though the FAA approved them to continue to operate the aircraft. Sounds to me like someone from the FAA should be on the block, not Southwest.

I still think they are the best carrier to fly Domestic. The people are always friendly, funny and I've never been late on a SWA flight.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Maybe not.

Do you know where SWA does the heavy checks on their planes? In the US.

If it was all about the dollar they would farm out the heavy checks overseas like almost all other airlines.(even the big ones)

Guess what SWA is about to start doing? Overseas maintenance. They're starting to send their aircraft to Central America this summer.

[PCL_128]

Guys, your local POI and PMI have no authority to approve these sorts of things. This is the same excuse that JetBlue used when they had their pilots flying over the max 8 hours block per day doing their "tests" on transcon turns. They got their POI to approve it, but the FAA came down on them and hit them with a big fine. Local FAA inspectors have no authority to waive these things. Airlines know that, but they pretend they don't when it suits them.

[Gonzo]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Guess what SWA is about to start doing? Overseas maintenance. They're starting to send their aircraft to Central America this summer.

Where are you getting this info.

[cfii2007]

I'm sure SWA isn't the only airline with these types of maintenance issues.

Just as long as the flying public gets their $49 fares so they can visit grandma......

[MusketeerMan]

Originally Posted by SmitteyB

Doesn't surprise me.

INCREDIBLE edit...

[Gonzo]

Originally Posted by cfii2007

I'm sure SWA isn't the only airline with these types of maintenance issues.

Just as long as the flying public gets their $49 fares so they can visit grandma......

They aren't just ask family members from Flight 261 or Flight 191 (UAL, Delta, NW, CAL all got lucky it wasn't one of them)

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Where are you getting this info.

From SWA employees. It's the whole reason they have a job opening posted for an International Security Manager:

Southwest Airlines Safety and Federal Airport Security Department
Manager, International Security Operations - Dallas, TX

For immediate consideration, please submit your resume using our Online Resume Builder. The Job Posting Number will be entered for you.
Job Posting Number: 8868
Position Title: Manager, International Security Operations - Dallas, TX
Summary of Essential Job Functions:

• Must determine all laws, regulations, requirements and best practices necessary to ensure a secure operation by Southwest Airlines outside the boundaries of the United States of America.
• Must successfully communicate these necessary requirements to Southwest Airlines Leadership and operating departments.
• Must analyze and recommend effective methods for compliance.
• Must develop and implement auditing procedures to ensure compliance.
• Must draft, develop, lead implementation, and maintain a Security Management System (SeMS) in accord with IOSA Audit requirements.
• Must assist the Director - Federal Airport Security, as required, to implement, communicate, and enhance the existing Southwest Airlines Federal Security program.
• Must serve at a minimum every fourth week in rotation as the 24/7 "on call" duty manager for resolving security issues and questions within Southwest Airlines, and to fulfill the statutory mandate imposed on the Southwest Airlines Airline Operations Security Coordinator (AOSC) to be available to the federal government as required by the Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001.
• Must be available to serve on special projects as directed by the Director - Federal Airport Security.
• Must be able to meet any physical ability requirements listed on this description.
• May perform other job duties as directed by Employee's Leaders.

Basic Qualifications:

• High School Diploma, GED or equivalent education required.
• Must be at least 18 years of age.
• Must have authorization to work in the United States as defined by the Immigration Reform Act of 1986.

Qualifications and Requirements:

• Education:
  • Graduation from an undergraduate university program, or a demonstrable ability to communicate and conduct analysis at an equivalent level required. Completion, or progress toward completion of a post-graduate degree preferred.
  • Ability to communicate bilingually preferred.
• Experience:
  • Minimum of two years experience in a position requiring high level analysis and communication required.
  • Job experience within an air carrier, governmental entity, or other organization in the areas of security, compliance, law or counter-terrorism strongly preferred.
  • Experience in drafting and/or implementing a Security Management System preferred.
  • A history of extensive foreign travel preferred.
• Licensing/Certification: Must be of sufficient character to successfully undergo background checks necessary to obtain a Federal Security Clearance at the Top Secret level.
• Physical Abilities:
  • Must be able to work, as needed when required, long and irregular hours.
  • Must be able to travel extensively to various destinations both within and outside the United States of America.
• Skills/Abilities/Knowledge/Work Style:
  • Must be able to comply with Company attendance standards as described in established guidelines.
  • Must be able to maintain strict confidentiality.
  • Must be able to represent Southwest Airlines before government officials.
  • Must be able to competently and confidently lead project teams.
  • Must be a competent public speaker.
  • Must successfully work within the Southwest Airlines Culture.
• Other Qualifications: Must maintain a well-groomed appearance.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Nope. Lots of good trade unionists at SWA. The pilots shoulder no blame in this. The blame resides with a corporate culture that encourages cutting corners in order to run an ultra-efficient operation. It's a shame that a company with such great understanding of labor relations is so horrible on its safety culture.

I thought the PIC had the final authority over the flight, and it is their (our) job to insure that the aircraft is airworthy. I personally know pilots who have had cert's pulled because their company failed to have the proper maintenance performed. Of course we don't want to think any of our brethren should be blamed for corporate decisions, but it is their life/career if one of those aircraft were to have an accident.

[SmoothLanderJ]

Originally Posted by mtsu_av8er

You can say that again!

I cry everytime I have to jumpseat on Airways . . . . you couldn't buy me a free ticket on that crap!

LOL....WOW......

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by madmax

I thought the PIC had the final authority over the flight, and it is their (our) job to insure that the aircraft is airworthy. I personally know pilots who have had cert's pulled because their company failed to have the proper maintenance performed. Of course we don't want to think any of our brethren should be blamed for corporate decisions, but it is their life/career if one of those aircraft were to have an accident.

At most airlines, at least at the majors, that responsibility is specifically removed from the pilots in the approved manuals. For instance, at AirTran, I have absolutely zero responsibility over determining whether the Airworthiness Cert, Registration, FCC permit, etc... is on board and valid. That responsibility is solely on mx. The only thing I have to look for is a valid airworthiness release in the last 5 days worth of logbook pages. If that's there, my responsibility is done.

[kellwolf]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Nope. Lots of good trade unionists at SWA. The pilots shoulder no blame in this. The blame resides with a corporate culture that encourages cutting corners in order to run an ultra-efficient operation. It's a shame that a company with such great understanding of labor relations is so horrible on its safety culture.

Based on what data? I worked there for 3 years, and I never saw anything like what you just described....

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

They aren't just ask family members from Flight 261 or Flight 191 (UAL, Delta, NW, CAL all got lucky it wasn't one of them)

You might want to rephrase that...look up Delta 191...

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

Based on what data? I worked there for 3 years, and I never saw anything like what you just described....

You and I would probably disagree on what a good safety culture includes, so I won't get into it. Suffice it to say that taxiing at 30+ knots is not what I consider a safe operation.

[Velocipede]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Dear God, please don't let us merge with this carrier.

AMEN!