Swa maintenance issues?

[contrail67]

So will they be required to take all those aircraft out of service till the FAA is happy?!...not good.

 

[jetjock6]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/06/news/companies/faa_southwest.ap/index.htm

 

[Whataburger]

Because guys like you keep making excuses for it. "Sh!t happens?" Are you kidding me? Airplanes flying around for 30 months without the required rudder inspections? On airplanes that have a horrible history of rudder hard-overs? Why can't you just admit that your management was in the wrong here? It's obvious that they did this to save a buck, even though they knew that it was in violation of the law and a danger to their crews and customers. This is simply appalling.

Sounds like the planes in question were the ones where the Enhanced Rudder Control System had already been installed. Possibly believed that if the new rudder system was installed, the AD did not apply to that plane. NONE, I repeat NONE, of the planes that crashed had the new 737 rudder system which our planes in question had.
Yes, somebody made a mistake. I guarantee you that our mgmt did not jeopardize our crews or passengers on purpose to save a buck. Our company was founded on integrity. I am sure our mgmt will ask Jesus, Santa, and the FAA for forgiveness.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

The real problem is the FAA mandate to police AND promote aviation. If the NTSB had enforcement powers stuff like this wouldn't happen. I wonder if the FAA personnel who apparently knew about this were former SWA employees.

 

[jke406]

if this is true, SWA is no different than any other major airline, except that their planes are orange and maize. In fact, it appears that they are worse.

It's easy to make a profit when you're skipping vital and time-consuming maintenance requirements.

however, I don't believe a word CNN says. Leftist morons.

 

[PCL_128]

It was for skin fatigue, not the rudder.

It was both.

You are either naive or unrealistic about even your own company's practices. This isn't exactly uncommon, industry wide. If AAI makes every inspection, misses nothing, adequately respresents itself and their maintenece practices everytime without fail, I apologize for my unfair characterizations.

If my company did this, then I wouldn't be defending them. That's the difference.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

We missed inspections, not repairs.

Wow.

I guess you could say your maintenance was perfect because you never found any problems!

 

[Tanker Clown]

I'd hate to see what you would find if you got access to some mx records at DAL. A buddy of mine worked mx there and used to brag about the corners they cut.

 

[Falconjet]

Because guys like you keep making excuses for it. "Sh!t happens?" Are you kidding me? Airplanes flying around for 30 months without the required rudder inspections? On airplanes that have a horrible history of rudder hard-overs? Why can't you just admit that your management was in the wrong here? It's obvious that they did this to save a buck, even though they knew that it was in violation of the law and a danger to their crews and customers. This is simply appalling.

Come on PCL, we know you don't believe that any organization (say, ALPA?) could possibly do anything wrong. Surely it is the pilots' fault because they are complacent and aren't involved enough in their company.

Why can't you or your brother Rez admit that ALPA management is not perfect and has made mistakes, just like SW management apparently made a mistake here? Or do you still contend that ALPA is perfect and owes the pilot group nothing?

IF it is true, I do agree, however, that it is appalling. Just proof that even stellar organizations (even ALPA) can make mistakes. Big ones.

FJ

 

[PCL_128]

Falconjet, I admit all the time that ALPA's made huge mistakes. Scope ring a bell?

 

[Dude]

It's not that I'm defending our actions. It was our people that found the problem in the first place and then self-disclosed. We HAD a great relationship with our fed counter-parts, but whose to say what it will be now. Our industry is over-regulated and not on behalf of safety, but rather the illusion of it. I find it comical that the judicial and governing arms of the aviation industry are filled with folks that get circulated around and find no home. Rejects, scabs, wannabes, and little tyrants that get dismissed from reputable jobs only to land on the FAA or NTSB's front porch. Thank God our (FAA, SWA, Boeing) oversight didn't kill anyone. Like I said, the public doesn't want action, only outrage and the notion that something may get done.

You are witnessing the demise of non-jeapordy self-disclosure used for training purposes and this sort of knee-jerk reaction will only cause airlines to find new ways to hide mistakes in the future. We all make them and now it will be like watching street performers slide cups around a table. ASAP will fall next. No good deed will go unpunished.

 

[PCL_128]

You choose to look at this as a "mistake," and I think it's blatantly obvious that it was an intentional oversight to save a buck. The investigation will hopefully find out which of us is correct.

 

[Whataburger]

Isn't there an old saying about opinions and a$$holes?

 

[PCL_128]

Isn't there an old saying about opinions and a$$holes?

And that's why we have congressional oversight. Congressman Oberstar will hold hearings to get to the bottom of this. Facts, not opinions.

 

[Whataburger]

And that's why we have congressional oversight. Congressman Oberstar will hold hearings to get to the bottom of this. Facts, not opinions.

Then why do you spew your BS, like the media, before you know anything?

 

[PCL_128]

Then why do you spew your BS, like the media, before you know anything?

We can't have opinions before the hearings take place? If the hearings prove me wrong, then I'll gladly admit it.

 

[Whataburger]

We can't have opinions before the hearings take place? If the hearings prove me wrong, then I'll gladly admit it.

"I think it's blatantly obvious that it was an intentional oversight to save a buck."

Sure we all have the God-given and American right to an opinion, but what is your above quote even based on? Airlines that make profits can only do so by cutting corners? It has the smell of what we see on CNN when some doushbag sportpilot is giving his opinion on an accident when he doesn't know an F-ing thing about that carrier, airplane, or airline pilots in general. I also could be wrong, but your opinion seems to be baseless, possibly errant, and backed by animosity against SWA versus fact and knowledge. Just my opinion. Waiting anxiously for Oberstar's Oversight Observations.

 

[AV80R]

I was hoping this thread would be about missed mx inspections not swa bashing but oh well...

I understand the "older airplane inspections" were mandated after the infamous Alaska Airlines accident when part of the cabin blew off and sucked out a flight attendant...

What about the 4 or so airplanes (I think?) that were found to have cracks once the inspection were finally completed? Will they be able to repair them or are those airplanes history?

I mean, cracks in the fuselage sound like a pretty big deal, wouldn't you say?

 

[N1kawotg]

SWA on Fox just said they will continue to fly those planes. Its so dangerous it makes headline news yet its still status quo for their operations? Let the spins continue.

 

[jke406]

You choose to look at this as a "mistake," and I think it's blatantly obvious that it was an intentional oversight to save a buck. The investigation will hopefully find out which of us is correct.

for the first time in history, I agree with PCL.

SWA cut corners to save money. It was a calculated risk. It failed.

Sucks to be SWA. gonna have to reduce fares to get Jethro to fly on your corn dog again.

Or maybe this is a mgmt. leak to scuttle contract negotiations?