Whats wrong with people (SWA related)

[Cobra17]

Also in the news today....

Pilot-Fatigue Test Lands JetBlue
In Hot Water

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Airline Pushed FAA Limits
On Cockpit Time but Failed To Tell Passengers on Planes[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times,serif][FONT=times new roman,times,serif]By ANDY PASZTOR and SUSAN CAREY
October 21, 2006

[/FONT] [/FONT]
Last year, thousands of JetBlue Airways passengers became unwitting participants in a highly unusual test of pilot fatigue.


Without seeking approval from Federal Aviation Administration headquarters, consultants for JetBlue outfitted a small number of pilots with devices to measure alertness. Operating on a green light from lower-level FAA officials, management assigned the crews to work longer shifts in the cockpit -- as many as 10 to 11 hours a day -- than the eight hours the government allows. Their hope: Showing that pilots could safely fly far longer without exhibiting ill effects from fatigue.


The results of the test haven't yet been made public -- they are expected to be published by the end of the year -- and JetBlue executives say even they don't know the findings. But the experiment has landed JetBlue in hot water while fueling a fierce debate within the airline industry about how long pilots should be allowed to stay at the controls.


At a time when every airline is itching to cut costs, squeezing more flying time from pilots has become a huge financial issue for carriers. But it is also a hot topic for regulators: The National Transportation Safety Board has cited pilot fatigue as an increasingly important factor in aviation accidents.
It has been nearly 18 months since the novel experiment, but the test -- along with the FAA's ultimate conclusion that it amounted to a backdoor effort to skirt safety rules -- continues to roil parts of the aviation world. Senior FAA officials, angered by the move, privately say the airline's approach has backfired. Because of heightened emotions about the test, proposals to extend the workday for commercial pilots have been pushed even further down the list of priorities at the FAA, they say.


FAA headquarters heard about the test from pilot-union officials and their supporters. When the head office "became aware that JetBlue operated some domestic flights outside the standard rules, we immediately investigated and took corrective action," said James Ballough, head of flight standards for the agency. Mr. Ballough says officials are "confident that JetBlue's pilots are flying to the FAA's rules" now.


Another high-ranking FAA policy maker expressed his displeasure more bluntly: "We don't allow experiments with passengers on board, period."
The airline says it never intended to mislead anyone at the FAA, and the JetBlue spokeswoman chalked the situation up to "a miscommunication," though, she says, in retrospect the company understands "we have to widen the circle of consultation." JetBlue said: "Safety is our bedrock value. It is the fundamental promise we make, and keep, to our customers and crew members."


....


Anyways, speaking of frivolous, what was the fallout from that "intentional" experiment.

 

[Caveman]

1. It was a bad idea from the outset.

2. Local fed approved the test.

3. It was unworkable and the pilots hated it.

4. The idea was ********************canned.

 

[Cobra17]

1. It was a bad idea from the outset.

2. Local fed approved the test.

3. It was unworkable and the pilots hated it.

4. The idea was ********************canned.

Cavemeister, I'm starting to think you are straight out of a GEICO commercial...the one where he's walking though the airport with that vintage wooden tennis racket.

But you are presumably a former marine, and I will buy any marine a beer anywhere, anytime.

Semper Fi!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H02iwWCrXew&feature=related

 

[ivauir]

Put quite simply, SWA got caught cheating. The people on those jets are entitled to damages for (while I admit no pain) suffering. I'm sure their faith in the system is permantley shaken.

We got "caught" by self disclosing to the FAA. We are being fined for flying these jets past the inspection date WITH FAA PERMISSION.

If anyone here is guilty of anything it is too cozy a relationship with the FAA. There may be some truth to that accusation, but it takes two to tango. If we deserve to be fined what is the penelty to the FAA?

Bottom line. If people in any organization were circumventing safety they should go to jail. I spend as much time in those planes as anyone I know, I expect them to be as safe as they possibly can be. I have no loyalty to someone who would intentionally put my kid's dad in harms way just to save a buck. That's not Southwest spirit (how is that for a koolaide phrase?), but those who instantly think SWA is guilty are just as mindless as those who think we are pure and fresh as the driven snow.

It is all kool aide. Just different flavors.

 

[canyonblue]

2. Local fed approved the test.

Local Fed approved the missing inspection at SWA. You really need to read up on a subject before you decide to condemn Southwest.

And I hope you guys have stopped imprisoning passengers without food and water.

 

[~~~^~~~]

The anaolgy to a pax getting scared during an inflight emergency is also flawed.

I think they may have a case. YMMV.

State your case for damages, Counselor.

 

[~~~^~~~]

We got "caught" by self disclosing to the FAA. ....If people in any organization were circumventing safety they should go to jail.

Threats of criminalization would do wonders for self discolsure. How many drug cartels file accurate tax returns?

 

[Caveman]

State your case for damages, Counselor.

Fins,

Read everything I wrote and then get back to me. You're taking two sentences and using them out of context to imply I think I'm an attorney. Maybe it was this sentence that threw you off: In my nonlaw school noninsider information man on the street opinion, I think they may have a case. YMMV. I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss the law suit. I didn't know you had to be an attorney to participate. My bad. BTW, where did you go to law school?

 

[Caveman]

And I hope you guys have stopped imprisoning passengers without food and water.

Nevermind. I had really slick retort, but decided I didn't want to get in the gutter with you. I will say this: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[ivauir]

I hate to interrupt this muck fest. But if you think SWA (or any other airline) can create long term success by skimping on safety please pass the bong - you've had enough.

A little rationality for your conversation:

Flights on U.S. airlines have never been more crowded – nor have they ever been safer. The last crash of a commercial jet occurred in November 2001, although the number of flights has increased substantially in the past six and one-half years. Can more effective regulation by the Federal Aviation Administration explain the recent improvement in airline safety? Not according to Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee. He's expressed concern that a "carrier-favorable, cozy relationship" has set in at the FAA.

Corbis The 747: There have been no commercial jet crashes in the U.S. since 2001.
Mr. Oberstar formed his view after learning that an FAA supervisor allowed Southwest Airlines to fly planes that had not been inspected in a timely manner for fuselage cracks. Chaos followed: American Airlines cancelled thousands of flights, responding to the FAA demand that it comply with federal rules regarding how certain wires in the wheel wells of MD-80 jets are secured. Of course, American Airlines and other carriers hardly need the FAA to tell them how to operate their $50 million MD-80s safely. Imagine owners of a Rolls Royce relying on a government agency for directives on how to properly maintain their vehicles.
What Mr. Oberstar should have recognized is that the FAA needs a cozy relationship with the airlines. This is because the agency needs to at least give the appearance that it is having a significant impact on safety.
Indeed, the fundamental problem with most regulation is that the regulatory agency does not have sufficient information, flexibility and immunity from political pressure to regulate firms' behavior effectively. Fortunately, the market, and in some cases the liability system, provide sufficient incentives for firms to behave in a socially beneficial manner.

Consider why economic regulation of the U.S. airline industry failed. The Civil Aeronautics Board used to be responsible for regulating fares and the number of carriers serving each route. The CAB used a cost index to set fares between city pairs that, in principle, would enable airlines to earn an above-normal rate of return given the industry's inherent risks, such as unpredictable demand.
But flight frequency was not regulated. Hence carriers offered an excessive number of flights. This reduced the percentage of seats filled by paying passengers, increased average costs, and lowered industry returns. In addition, political pressure from small communities resulted in short-haul fares that were below costs – but were intended to be cross-subsidized by long-haul fares that were above costs. However, because the CAB prevented new competitors from entering regulated routes, air carriers had little incentive to reduce costs.
In a nutshell, the CAB did not have sufficient understanding of industry operations and strategy, the flexibility to facilitate and account for possible changes in industry competition, and immunity from political pressure to set efficient fares. When fares and entry were deregulated, market competition accomplished in large measure what the CAB could not.
Airline safety presents similar problems for the regulator. The FAA knows much less about aircraft technology and airline operations than do the airlines and aircraft manufacturers. In principle, the agency can be educated about such matters, and through consultation with the airlines, aircraft manufactures and expert advisers can develop certain rules and procedures that the airlines agree to follow.
But the airlines will always be far more informed than the FAA is about the condition of their planes. They will also know which procedures and practices are really essential to maintain a comfortable margin of safety. The airlines will be able to make appropriate adjustments to their safety practices – long before the FAA can develop new directives – when information becomes available about aircraft design flaws, appropriate precautions to take when flying in certain weather conditions, and the like.
The FAA may be subject to political pressure to promote the advancement of civil aviation, which may conflict with its mission to promote safety. But the airlines are subject to the unbridled pressure of the market. This pressure put Air Florida out of business following the crash of one of its planes in the Potomac River, and forced ValuJet to emerge as a new carrier, Air Tran, following the crash of one of its planes in the Everglades.
The carriers understand that they cannot attract passengers, employees and investors if they are not vigilant about safety. Consider Southwest – the carrier at the center of this latest "safety" crisis. It has had no passenger fatalities in its entire history. It also has the largest market cap in the U.S. industry, among the best labor relations, and a very high standing with the flying public.
Part of the FAA's mission is to adopt and implement the latest technological advances to expand the airspace where planes can fly safely. How has it done?
In the early 1980s, the FAA announced plans to upgrade the air traffic control system. The fully upgraded system is more than a decade late, billions of dollars over budget, and still nowhere in sight.
Now the FAA is focusing attention on developing a satellite-based air traffic control system – with apparently similar futility. The Government Accountability Office has concluded that the FAA has failed to provide the expertise to make the transition to such a system, and urged it to seek assistance from a third party. We and others believe stronger actions are advisable, actions which would transfer the FAA's responsibility for managing air traffic control to an independent private entity such as Nav Canada, the Canadian air traffic control organization.
Unfortunately, the FAA's inadequacies are shared by other federal agencies that attempt to regulate safety. In our research on the subject, examining available empirical evidence, we could not find any discernible improvement in safety that was associated with regulations promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Mine Safety and Health Administration, among others.
At first blush, the FAA appears to differ from these agencies because its drawbacks do not include stimulating consumers and workers to engage in "offsetting behavior" that compromises efforts to improve safety. Maybe so. But in response to the FAA's overly aggressive actions that caused American Airlines to cancel thousands of flights, many travelers shifted from air travel to highway travel. In the process, they greatly increased their probability of dying in an accident on their journey.
Messrs. Winston and Crandall are senior fellows in the economic studies program of the Brookings Institution. Mr. Winston is the author of "Government Failure Versus Market Failure" (Brookings Institution Press, 2006).

 

[ivauir]

Threats of criminalization would do wonders for self discolsure. How many drug cartels file accurate tax returns?

I agree, but self disclosure is for unintentional mistakes. If, and it is a BIG IF, people are intentionally putting/keeping unsafe airplanes in service that is a different matter. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Fins,
In my nonlaw school noninsider information man on the street opinion, I think they may have a case. YMMV.

No disrespect intended. Juries are made up of people from the "street." I was genuinely curious if the Plaintiffs had a case, how you would measure damages? Theoretical debate....

That has been the undoing of similar cases, that even if negligence, or even intent, was established there was no trigger for damages. Just curious if you thought of something that hasn't been considered.

 

[Caveman]

No disrespect intended. Juries are made up of people from the "street." I was genuinely curious if the Plaintiffs had a case, how you would measure damages? Theoretical debate....

That has been the undoing of similar cases, that even if negligence, or even intent, was established there was no trigger for damages. Just curious if you thought of something that hasn't been considered.

No, I haven't given any thought to damages. Based on the info ASADFW7 brought to the discussion I doubt if SWA could be held liable at all. If the feds knowingly let them delay the inspections I don't see how any one would win a lawsuit. They were in compliance.