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 letters to

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
A simple analogy to clear up some misunderstandings, suspend some normal thought however:

You are driving down the road and a policeman stops you and looks at your inspection sticker.

He says your car is not properly inspected. You show him the certificate in which the State of (fill in the blank) has certified this store as passing all tests to give car inspections. He says, sorry, you're going to be fined.

You chose the inspection station because the state gave them a license to do inspections. While you are smart with cars, you can't do all of the work.

End of analogy.

The FAA certified depot maintenance shop used faulty subcontractors.
Is the FAA responsible? Absolutely.
Is SWA responsible? Absolutely.
Joint responsibility and if SWA is wise, we scratch off this depot site for future work. Who knows why the unapproved part was used but eventually the FAA and Boeing approved of the fix as temporary, no sacrifice to safety. That was the bottom line but wasn't properly reported.

SWA flew aircraft that came from FAA approved maintenance facilities. The FAA caught the problem later and was addressed by all parties to the mutual agreement of all without jeopardizing safety or significantly altering operations. A win-win-win for SWA, FAA and passengers. A fault sub-contractor is now either going to fix things or folks will be unemployed now (maybe your neighbors or family members).


If the FAA thought the place was bad they owed it to SWA to notify all parties. At the end of the day it wasn't SWA folks working on the airplane (unlike the AA MD airplanes as I understand it...those were AA paid employees if I recall...no slam intended...just pointing out the difference), it was an FAA approved maintenance facility subcontractor who made the decision.

As stated, SWA manned up and is doing the right thing and learning from it. Safety must always be tweaked for improvements. I believe SWA is still the safest operations out there but hopefully everyone is operating as safe as can be. I believe there are nearly 6000 pilots out there doing the right thing every day as there are at other carriers.
 
This industry is cut throat with crappy margins and minimal profits in the best of times but with all we have in common as pilots you'd think we'd have at least some unity outside our individual companies. We'd be a force if we had just a shred of it. Instead, if you're in a good place we throw rocks at you. If you're in a bad place we roll boulders down on you. At least at SWA you can be happy you're just getting rocks thrown at you, I guess.
 
Last edited:
Scope, you need to see a professional for that little problem you're having;
MILPILOT:
Your old lady takes care of my little problem....And it isn't so little;):laugh:

and remember, you can always re-apply at SWA. You have some serious issues!!!
Thank God for Pay for training, because in your case it was the only way you could get hired.
 
38 years of flying and not one passenger ever killed on a SW flight. Hard to imagine how I feel safe in the back of their planes, isn't it.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top