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

Whats wrong with people (SWA related)

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
The difference between SWA and the others is that SWA didn't make a 'mistake'. They simply chose not to do the required inspections. They knew about the requirement. They just didn't do it. That is quite different from discovering you screwed up, immediately selfdisclosing and immediately fixing the error. I absolutely detest frivilous lawsuits like the McDonalds case, but this appears to be a situation where safety was intentionally ignored in order to keep the revenue flowing. It is particularly onerous because there is a catastrophic precedent of what could happen to overstressed 737's which is why the inspection was required in the first place. We're not talking about burned out bulbs here folks. The inspection is trying to prevent another 737 from becoming a convertable. IMO there could be a valid complaint in this case.
 
The difference between SWA and the others is that SWA didn't make a 'mistake'. They simply chose not to do the required inspections. They knew about the requirement. They just didn't do it.

You know this how? From the pinpoint accuracy of the media reporting? Hold that thought, I'm busy trying to land this beast in a 150mph crosswind under sniper fire.

That is quite different from discovering you screwed up, immediately selfdisclosing and immediately fixing the error.

Really? In the case of American, they had to REACCOMPLISH the inspections and maintenance after 9 out of 10 aircraft failed subsequent FAA inspections. The concern was over a potential fire hazard in the wheel wells related to wiring bundles, not light bulbs.

I realize success breeds contempt, but enough is enough. Give it a rest.
 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Airline, FAA staff switch seats often[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Regulators come from, and go back to, industry positions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Last updated April 17, 2008 8:27 p.m. PT[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]By RITA BEAMISH AND SHARON THEIMER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

[/FONT] WASHINGTON -- What the airline industry wants from Washington it often gets, and no wonder. The people who regulate airlines on one day can become company executives the next -- and the other way around.

Industry leaders who were once under the Federal Aviation Administration's authority now sit in top positions at the agency. Many former FAA officials and congressional aides have found lucrative jobs in the air travel industry or with its lobbying groups. One top official left the FAA two years ago to become the airline industry's top lobbyist.

Just Thursday, the law firm Jones Day announced that former FAA attorney Andrew Steinberg, until recently the Transportation Department's assistant secretary of aviation and international affairs, will join the firm's government regulation practice as a partner.

Throw in millions of dollars in campaign and lobbying money, and factor in the airlines' importance to lawmakers' home cities and states, and it adds up to a powerful industry that even some of the nation's most frequent fliers -- members of Congress -- can be reluctant to tackle. Broad deregulation and multibillion-dollar government bailouts are among the industry's major victories in recent decades.

The FAA says it hires experienced people who understand how airlines operate, and that its ethics rules prohibit officials in many cases from regulating their former employers. However, it plans to expand restrictions on safety inspectors who quit to take jobs with airlines. Former FAA employees who earned more than $148,000 there already are barred from contacting the FAA on behalf of new employers for a year. All former FAA employees are banned for two years from contacting the agency about subjects they worked on during their final year with the government.

The FAA plans to extend the ban for safety inspectors so they can't work on inspection issues for the first two years at a new job, spokeswoman Laura Brown said.

Airlines have had few problems finding lawmakers to compliment them or help them. This year's presidential candidates are no exception, according to correspondence from the candidates, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Two months after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Sen. John McCain wrote to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta urging him not to let his agency's new focus on airline security distract it from a review of a proposed business deal between American Airlines and British Airways. Though an obscure issue for most Americans, airlines compete fiercely for international routes.

At the time, McCain was the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which handles airline issues. Mineta assured McCain he wouldn't rush a decision.
Sen. Barack Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, pressed Mineta to approve United Airlines' application for a $1.8 billion federal loan guarantee, writing that the economic health of Illinois was "inextricably linked with United Airlines' financial condition."

Despite pressure from Obama and other Illinois lawmakers, the government turned down that and other loan applications from United, rejections that forced it to go through bankruptcy proceedings to cover its debts.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton urged Mineta in 2006 to consider JetBlue Airways' application for permission to offer flights from New York's John F. Kennedy Airport to Cancun in Mexico.

"JetBlue hopes to offer low fare connecting service to Cancun from these important parts of New York," wrote Clinton, D-N.Y., "and I am hopeful that their plans for expanding service will produce positive economic and other benefits to New York and our nation."

JetBlue got the route.
 
Tanker, its obvious you were turned down by SWA and now have a chip on your shoulder. I havn't seen you mention anything about the other airlines getting caught too. I openly discuss this issue with any passenger who brings it up. All of the passengers I have talked to are aware this was going on industry wide and a few have complimented SWA for being the only one to admit to it. Sorry you were turned down by SWA but it is pretty clear as to why. Our HR folks do a really good job.

I think folks who flew other airlines have a right to persue leagal ramifications for negligence as well.

By the way Donald, I hear you SWA guys forgot to inspect your "squibs." Rumor around town is that 70 -700's were grounded today.

Seriously, you guys really need to take safety and aircraft inspections more seriously. You have people's live in your hands.
 
I noticed you failed to include Alaska, American, Delta, and United, which also allegedly flew passengers on aircraft with overdue or missing inspections or maintenance. Those folks have a case too?

As far as I know....we (Delta) did not miss inspections....we re-checked what was done.
I think the same holds true for some of the other legacies.
SWA DID go overdue. Not pointing fingers...just trying to inject some fact. Not all, some.
 
You know this how? From the pinpoint accuracy of the media reporting? Hold that thought, I'm busy trying to land this beast in a 150mph crosswind under sniper fire.



Really? In the case of American, they had to REACCOMPLISH the inspections and maintenance after 9 out of 10 aircraft failed subsequent FAA inspections. The concern was over a potential fire hazard in the wheel wells related to wiring bundles, not light bulbs.

I realize success breeds contempt, but enough is enough. Give it a rest.

You must drink koolaid from SWA huh?
 
http://supreme.justia.com/us/499/530/

A good friend of mine managed the Eastern Airlines case involving the loss and shut down of all three engines on an L1011. The jet barely got on the ground in Miami, but landed safely with no injuries.

The passengers had been briefed for ditching. Several passengers sued, seeking compensation for their fear and suffering.

The Supreme Court held that absent a physical injury a passenger can not sue for mere fear. The Justices position was that if allowed, everyone could sue for fear of everything, however irrational that fear might be. Literally, if we can sue airlines for fear we could sue every airline that flew over our homes.

This SWA case will not be considered under the Warsaw limitations, but the logic remains the same and I'm sure the "Floyd" decision will support the airline's defensive motions.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know....we (Delta) did not miss inspections....we re-checked what was done.
I think the same holds true for some of the other legacies.
SWA DID go overdue. Not pointing fingers...just trying to inject some fact. Not all, some.

You are correct, Delta's re-inspections appear to have been voluntary. My bad.
 
You know this how? From the pinpoint accuracy of the media reporting? Hold that thought, I'm busy trying to land this beast in a 150mph crosswind under sniper fire.



Really? In the case of American, they had to REACCOMPLISH the inspections and maintenance after 9 out of 10 aircraft failed subsequent FAA inspections. The concern was over a potential fire hazard in the wheel wells related to wiring bundles, not light bulbs.

I realize success breeds contempt, but enough is enough. Give it a rest.

It's been reported that SWA chose not to do something they knew they were required to do. I haven't seen any information anywhere that disputes this. If you have some different info please share it with the rest of us so we can accurately understand what happened. Has there been an error in the reporting? Was the $10M fine a fairy tale?

If things are as reported there is a big difference between unintentionally doing something incorrectly and intentionally choosing to avoid doing the inpections at all. Unless you can prove intentional neglect on AA's part all they are guilty of is making a mistake. SWA appears to be guilty of intentionally avoiding required inspections. The two scenarios aren't even remotely the same.

The anaolgy to a pax getting scared during an inflight emergency is also flawed. Things happen in flight. Airplanes are not perfect. If all required maintenance/inspections are done and due diligence in the dispatching and operation of the flight has occured the company has done nothing wrong. If SWA did what they are accused of they knowingly put the four plaintiffs in situations where a potentially catastrophic failure could have occured. There is a difference between random circumstance, an honest mistake and intentional neglect. SWA may be guilty of intentional neglect.

Success also doesn't mean you are exempt from criticism when you screw up. Besides, SWA's success isn't the issue here. This thread is about whether or not the lawsuit is frivilous. In my nonlaw school noninsider information man on the street opinion, I think they may have a case. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Cavemen, I have read most of what you have written. You appear very sure that SWA deliberately circumvented the AD's that were required to accomplished to purposely not adhere to the requirements. SWA gave both written and oral testimony in Washington at the hearing. If you care to read it perhaps you balance out your information from media based information.

If you want the cliff notes. 1100 pages of AD's and multiple overlapping inspections, the paperwork for a modification completed without a sign off of a two inch area of the aircraft.

Yes they did not comply, they did not do so intentionally. It was disclosed, and approved by both Boeing and the FAA to complete the reinspection in a required period. No families were harmed.
 
Cavemen, I have read most of what you have written. You appear very sure that SWA deliberately circumvented the AD's that were required to accomplished to purposely not adhere to the requirements. SWA gave both written and oral testimony in Washington at the hearing. If you care to read it perhaps you balance out your information from media based information.

If you want the cliff notes. 1100 pages of AD's and multiple overlapping inspections, the paperwork for a modification completed without a sign off of a two inch area of the aircraft.

Yes they did not comply, they did not do so intentionally. It was disclosed, and approved by both Boeing and the FAA to complete the reinspection in a required period. No families were harmed.

Thanks for the additional info. If this is what actually happened then I agree the lawsuit is frivilous.
 
It's been reported that SWA chose not to do something they knew they were required to do. I haven't seen any information anywhere that disputes this. If you have some different info please share it with the rest of us so we can accurately understand what happened. Has there been an error in the reporting? Was the $10M fine a fairy tale?

If things are as reported there is a big difference between unintentionally doing something incorrectly and intentionally choosing to avoid doing the inpections at all. Unless you can prove intentional neglect on AA's part all they are guilty of is making a mistake. SWA appears to be guilty of intentionally avoiding required inspections. The two scenarios aren't even remotely the same.

The anaolgy to a pax getting scared during an inflight emergency is also flawed. Things happen in flight. Airplanes are not perfect. If all required maintenance/inspections are done and due diligence in the dispatching and operation of the flight has occured the company has done nothing wrong. If SWA did what they are accused of they knowingly put the four plaintiffs in situations where a potentially catastrophic failure could have occured. There is a difference between random circumstance, an honest mistake and intentional neglect. SWA may be guilty of intentional neglect.

Success also doesn't mean you are exempt from criticism when you screw up. Besides, SWA's success isn't the issue here. This thread is about whether or not the lawsuit is frivilous. In my nonlaw school noninsider information man on the street opinion, I think they may have a case. YMMV.

If....appears....may....

I tried to avoid convicting them. I said if it was as reported I think they have a case.
 
Caveman:

Thanks for your mature debate on this subject. I urge to to watch or read the transcripts from the congressional hearings in order to familiarize yourself with the TRUE issue.

Again, thanks for the honest debate.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom