Swa maintenance issues?

[jke406]

That's great. Only, this thread is about SWA purposely violating FAA regulations...not about someone else following FAA regulations.

 

[Chewbacca]

yada yada...someone trying to dig up dirt on them.

wtf you smoking??

 

[StopNTSing]

Only four pages of piling on so far? C'mon guys, you can do better than that! :bomb:

We've now heard the lead-story, makes-great-copy above-the-fold headline version of this scoop--how about we wait for the rest of the story before being so hard on poor little SWA? I know, I know, it's so much more fun to just let your own agenda do the talking.

 

[Whataburger]

The recap how I see it.
We were told to do checks. Some accidentally got overlooked. 46 planes were re-checked. 6 were found to have extremely small cracks deemed too small to compromise safety. Boeing said it was okay to continue for 10 days. We disclosed to FAA. FAA did not ground the 6 planes for the 10 days. All was ok. FAA has reconsidered. I believe that we did this purposely is simply not true. These planes have greater than 98% MX dispatch reliability, rarely even have MELs, and corners don't need to be cut. My coolaid colored glasses might be foggy, but a sucessful airline in today's economy puts a bigger target on us than a heart shaped tatoo on the small of a chick's back.

 

[regionaltard]

Why all the haters?

I can't speak for the others, but I'm bitter because I'm not a Delta pilot and my frustration makes me lash out indiscriminately. Don't take it personally.

 

[captainv]

I'm not piling on, I was genuinely interested to see how the FAA would treat SWA. Not because I'm a hater, but to see if they would get hammered or get a slap on the wrist.

(My airline was fined $44,000 for flying a CRJ with a burned out no smoking light for four legs after a Fed mentioned it to the FA. the CA forgot to write it up. And we all know how deadly an inoperative no smoking light could be...)


CNN now says the FAA is seeking a $10.2 million fine, so there's my answer...

 

[jke406]

The recap how I see it.
We were told to do checks. Some accidentally got overlooked. 46 planes were re-checked. 6 were found to have extremely small cracks deemed too small to compromise safety. Boeing said it was okay to continue for 10 days. We disclosed to FAA. FAA did not ground the 6 planes for the 10 days. All was ok. FAA has reconsidered. I believe that we did this purposely is simply not true. These planes have greater than 98% MX dispatch reliability, rarely even have MELs, and corners don't need to be cut. My coolaid colored glasses might be foggy, but a sucessful airline in today's economy puts a bigger target on us than a heart shaped tatoo on the small of a chick's back.

"accidentally" overlooked? you believe that?

dude, you are smoking crack. a "target" on you? only because you guys take the moral high ground every chance you can.

oops.

You've always seemed to be a rational poster. My bad.

 

[IronCityBlue]

All the hooplah on this is clearly media BS trying to capitalize on the flying public's irrational fear of flying. SWA self disclosed, will pay a fine, learn from their mistake and not let it happen again. No pasengers were in serious peril because of this and anyone with a brain clearly knows that.

As for them getting preference from ATC, that is absolutely true. But like someone else mentioned, good for SWA. If there is ANY blame to go around for that, it rests with the FAA who owes every flight equal treatment, regardless of fruit baskets and plasms TV "thank you's" for mandatory services.

Yes SWA is always ready for takeoff, but that can't be the basis for system wide mass preference. ATC sincerely cares about SWA's operation on each and every flight. That can't last forever, and I predict it won't. But again, good for SWA for pulling it off, however they do it.

 

[canyonblue]

Ok all you third rate pilot wannabes, here is the Official word from Boeing about the inspections. It looks like the Clinton News Network jumped to conclusions again, along with the usual FI A-holes.

Boeing Statement on Southwest Inspections

“Southwest Airlines contacted Boeing for verification of their technical opinion that the continued operation of their Classic 737s, for up to ten days until the airplanes could be reinspected, did not pose a safety of flight issue. Based on a thorough review of many factors, including fleet history and test data, as well as other inspections and maintenance previously incorporated, Boeing concluded the ten-day compliance plan was technically valid. In Boeing's opinion, the safety of the Southwest fleet was not compromised.”

Boeing Q&A on Southwest Inspections

Q: Did Southwest Airlines fly “unsafe” 737 airplanes?

A: Based on a thorough review of many factors, including fleet history and test data, as well as other inspections and maintenance previously incorporated, Boeing concluded Southwest acted responsibly, and the safety of their fleet was not compromised.

Q: Does the FAA Airworthiness Directive 2004-18-6 have anything to do with the USAir, United Airlines or Aloha accidents mentioned in the CNN story?

A: The mandated inspection had absolutely nothing to do with the accidents mentioned in the CNN story. The AD was in response to a need to inspect, and if necessary repair, certain structural areas as part of the ongoing process to maintain an airworthy fleet.

Q: What is Boeing’s opinion of whether Southwest should have grounded their 737s until the inspections had been completed?

A: That would be a decision for Southwest to make. Boeing concluded their compliance plan was technically valid and maintained fleet safety.

Q: Were any of the skin cracks found by Southwest Airlines unsafe for the flying public?

A: All the analysis and abundance of test data developed by Boeing on the issue of skin cracking indicated that an immediate safety concern was not imminent. Southwest’s plan to complete the inspections and any necessary repairs ensured an acceptable level of safety.

 

[jke406]

Q: What is Boeing’s opinion of whether Southwest should have grounded their 737s until the inspections had been completed?

A: That would be a decision for Southwest to make. Boeing concluded their compliance plan was technically valid and maintained fleet safety.

Q: Were any of the skin cracks found by Southwest Airlines unsafe for the flying public?

A: All the analysis and abundance of test data developed by Boeing on the issue of skin cracking indicated that an immediate safety concern was not imminent. Southwest’s plan to complete the inspections and any necessary repairs ensured an acceptable level of safety.

That post is a farce and riddled with legalese. As if Boeing would ever admit their jets are "unsafe."

I'm beginning to see why the Air Force did not choose Boeing. They are a subsidized fat cat completely lacking in integrity.