Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SWA grounding 41 aircraft

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Here is the article...



NEW YORK (Reuters) - Southwest Airlines Co said on Wednesday that it has taken 41 planes out of service, but declined to comment on the reason.
Southwest said on Tuesday that it suspended three employees in response to U.S. government allegations that it knowingly allowed planes to fly that had not been properly inspected for potential structural flaws.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last week proposed a record $10.2 million in connection with allegedly failing inspections.
The FAA said the grounding was due to a safety issue but would not elaborate.
The allegations that Southwest, one of the biggest U.S. airlines in terms of passengers carried, may have cut corners represents a startling mark against a carrier that has been an industry model for efficient operation for nearly 40 years.
Southwest shares fell 4 percent to $11.90 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange, as oil marked a new record high.
(Reporting by Chris
 
Southwest Airlines puts 3 employees on leave after safety probe


[SIZE=-1]10:27 AM CDT on Wednesday, March 12, 2008

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By TERRY MAXON and DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]; [email protected]
[/SIZE]

Under fire from regulators and a congressional committee, Southwest Airlines admitted Tuesday to concerns about lapses in regulatory compliance and placed three managerial employees on leave.
The airline's announcement constitutes a sharp turn from its initial reaction in February to news reports that a U.S. House committee was looking into its compliance with federal safety directives.
Southwest chief executive Gary Kelly said he doesn't like what he's seen so far from an internal investigation that began on Friday. In particular, he said he was "concerned with some of our findings" about how Southwest handles so-called airworthiness directives and other regulations.
"I have insisted that we have the appropriate maintenance organizational and governance structure in place to ensure that the right decisions are being made," Mr. Kelly said.
The Federal Aviation Administration last week proposed a $10.2 million penalty against the Dallas Love Field-based carrier for flying 46 Boeing 737 airplanes without required inspections for fuselage metal cracks.
The FAA alleged that after Southwest reported a year ago that it had missed the mandatory inspections, it improperly continued flying the aircraft for more than a week before completing the fuselage testing.
Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has sharply criticized both the FAA and Southwest, suggesting that the regulator and the airline have a too-cozy relationship that compromises safety.
The panel committee plans a hearing April 3 to look into allegations from FAA whistle-blowers that FAA officials repeatedly overlooked safety problems at Southwest.
The committee is looking into what the whistle-blowers call a history of cronyism between the FAA's maintenance inspectors in Dallas and Southwest Airlines.
Douglas Peters, one of the whistle-blowers, told investigators that an FAA maintenance supervisor pushed for a lower fine than inspectors recommended against Southwest for a separate set of maintenance violations that occurred in 2001 and 2003.
Southwest settled those cases with a fine of $300,000, according to an FAA enforcement report. The inspectors had recommended a fine of $886,000, according to Mr. Peters' statement.
Airworthiness directives are legally enforceable orders to correct safety problems involving aircraft. The FAA says it issues such directives when "an unsafe condition exists in the product and … the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design."
Southwest told the FAA in May 2007 — after its self-disclosure — that it had conducted a "comprehensive review" of its maintenance procedures, engineering guidelines and airworthiness-directive compliance.
The Southwest managers told the FAA that they had made changes to procedures that, "if properly followed, are adequate to preclude a similar event in the future," according to a report submitted to the FAA.
Managers on leave
The FAA's principal maintenance inspector responsible for Southwest Airlines, Douglas T. Gawadzinski, accepted the airline's review.
Several Southwest employees were responsible for the March 2007 decision to self-disclose the violations and to follow up with a "comprehensive fix."
The employees named in the carrier's March report to the FAA include Bill Krivanek, the airline's team leader for compliance with airworthiness directives, and Paul Comeau, a regulatory compliance official who previously worked at the FAA's office overseeing Southwest Airlines.
The carrier said it had placed the three unnamed employees on leave and said those employees "are cooperating with the investigation." A person familiar with the situation indicated that the three were managers.
The committee is looking into allegations that Mr. Gawadzinski eased up enforcement on Southwest after Mr. Comeau, his former employee, joined the airline, according to committee aides and documents.
But the latest disclosure from Mr. Kelly indicated that Southwest was finding problems as it scrutinized its own procedures.
Southwest said Tuesday it has "fully engaged with the FAA on its current audit of Southwest and committed to FAA leadership that it will investigate and address any deficiencies in its maintenance controls."
In addition, Southwest said it had hired "a respected outside consultant with proven experience to help review its maintenance program controls, especially airworthiness directive compliance."
The outside consultant, JDA Aviation Technology Solutions, is headed by former FAA deputy administrator Joseph Del Balzo, who was acting FAA administrator in 1993.
In February, when news of the federal investigation broke, the carrier said it had promptly made the necessary fixes to its jets and insisted that it was solely responsible for bringing the problems to the FAA's attention.
Others with JDA include former National Transportation Safety Board member John Goglia and former NTSB senior air safety investigator Greg Feith, as well as other ex-FAA and industry people.
A consultant for the International Air Transport Association reviewed Southwest's program for complying with airworthiness directives in December and didn't find any gaps in standards.
But the scope of the review was limited, however, said L. Nick Lacey, chief operating officer for the consultant, Morten Beyer & Agnew.
"If there are some bad actors along the way, that can compromise any well thought-out system," Mr. Lacey said. "But the system as it was industrially engineered was very impressive."
House committee
Jim Berard, a spokesman for Mr. Oberstar, said the airline's action Tuesday appears to support the committee's investigative findings.
The committee still plans to question Southwest in at its April hearing.
"We are looking forward to exploring the issue more thoroughly at our hearing," Mr. Berard said.
Southwest spokeswoman Beth Harbin declined to elaborate on the reasons the employees were put on leave.
"We're in the process of an investigation," she said. "They are cooperating with that investigation. We have not made any final decisions or conclusions. We just felt it was the right thing to do."
The airline's decision was announced a day before its lobbyists were to start visiting House members to brief them about the situation.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, plans to meet with the airline's representatives today, an aide said.
Terry Maxon reported from Dallas, and Dave Michaels from Washington, D.C.
 
Last time I checked SWA operates under FAR 121, and has since inception. So the "playing field" has always been level. Insinuating otherwise only makes you look ignorant.

The only "upper hand" SWA has is superior management compared to the rest of the industry. This is not my opinion as the numbers speak for themselves.

If that's true than why is SWA being charged with the largest FAA fine ever. Also, why did one of the inspectors overseeing SWA "look the other way." Its obvious that the "superior management" was in collusion with this guy to keep the fed off their backs while they intentionally violated 121 regulations. Wake up dude.
 
Last time I checked SWA operates under FAR 121, and has since inception. So the "playing field" has always been level. Insinuating otherwise only makes you look ignorant.

The only "upper hand" SWA has is superior management compared to the rest of the industry. This is not my opinion as the numbers speak for themselves.

SWA has NOT always operated under FAR 121. More importantly, SWA never operated under "regulation" where regulatory discipline was of paramount importance. (In fact, being unburdened with very expensive regualtory discipline is what the "SWA spirit" crap is all about IMHO)

However, to be perfectly honest I think SWA is not at fault here. This stuff happens. I think the problem is with the FAA; I think they [FAA] are just now starting to realize they don't know enough about commercial aviation to to properly administrate it.

SWA will pay the fine and quietly appeal.
 
Three hour inspection. They should be up by tomorrow morning.

With 3 hours per jet and since SWA does not fly may red-eye fights, sound like they could have knocked out a bunch every night (when they were really due). So why couldn't they have done it right the first time?

FNG
 
Last edited:
I cant answer that. I am a pilot not a mechanic. I think it was more of an oversight then anything else. We will have to see when the details come out.
 
I cant answer that. I am a pilot not a mechanic. I think it was more of an oversight then anything else. We will have to see when the details come out.

oversight, my butt. it was a calculated risk undertaken to save a few bucks. great corporate "culture" over there.

Did you guys save $10,200,001? If not, guess it didn't quite pan out.
 
19 of the planes are back in service already with the rest being on line later today.
Yeah, it probably doesn't take very long to pencil-whip some more records again.
 
I enjoy reading dissertations on our operation and how WE conduct OUR business. Like any of you know, unless you have a SWA employee number. Hell, I don't even know. Until the facts are revealed through various audits and investigations I will enthusiastically and wholeheartedly support the company that pays my bills.

For those that consider our relationship with the feds suspect, I would would question your experience with the process and ask you if you would rather it be adversarial. This is, from what I have read and heard from credible sources and not the media, an FAA problem and we shouldn't be surprised. FSDOs are run by the school children and not the head-master. I would bet that the feds shadowing our guys in mx are asking "what's that?", or "why are you doing that?". The FAA couldn't run an operation if they were left to their own devices.

When the facts are clear, good or bad, I will make my judgement then. Until then it is all speculation and if we are guilty, I'll probably look like Spitzer's wife and shake my head at the whole thing. Chances are the guilty chain has many different links and ours is only one of them.

Hey PCL, don't be too upset. You'll probably get to fly one of our poorly maintained aircraft real soon. By the way, have you ever been part of an operation other than flying the line? If not, your responses on this board are not a surprise. But continue to villify, if it makes you feel better.
 
Last edited:
With 3 hours per jet and since SWA does not fly may red-eye fights, sound like they could have knocked out a bunch every night (when they were really due). So why couldn't they have done it right the first time?

FNG

These are my thoughts exactly. With the productivity SWA gets out of its employees, if 90 minutes was all it took, why not do it right the first time? They could have knocked it out just like they are doing now, in a day/night or so... I don't get it but it doesn't seem like an oversight...
 
Yeah, it probably doesn't take very long to pencil-whip some more records again.

What an idiot. Yeah this is likely with the Feds all over the place. You are a real class act. How was it flying at Gulfstream again?

FNG320 thanks for the intelligent inquiry...this is why I think it is more of an aversight then anything. It doesnt make sense because the inspection could be done so quickly as well for the repairs. Time will tell as to why though.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom