FAA Airworthiness *grumbles*

max-gross wrote:
Compare the safety record of SWA to ANY other airline in the world.
It speaks for itself. Everyone makes mistakes, but I would not pay
too much attention to the statements of a SWA competitor sitting on a
SWA jump-seat claiming unsafe operational practices. Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.



Other than little problems like running off runways into the surrounding
community, they do real well.



Jack

On Mar 7, 8:58*pm, J a c k wrote:
max-gross wrote:
Compare the safety record of SWA to ANY other airline in the world.
It speaks for itself. *Everyone makes mistakes, but I would not pay
too much attention to the statements of a SWA competitor sitting on a
SWA jump-seat claiming unsafe operational practices. *Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.

Other than little problems like running off runways into the surrounding
community, they do real well.

Jack

Not to be morbid, but I was talking more about body count. I'm not
going to post the numbers here, do your own research.

J a c k wrote:
.....Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.

Other than little problems like running off runways into the surrounding
community, they do real well.

Yeah, that happened *once*. Not to defend their actions but show me
*any* major airline with a better record - Qantas, maybe.

Tony

Dang, this has gotten WAY away from the topic I intended it to be. My
point had _nothing_ to do with SWA itself. It had everything to do
with the FAA giving a "pass" on inspections and AD compliance to an
airline, to help "minimize impact" on their for-profit-business. And
to be clear: there's nothing wrong with a company seeking to make a
profit for providing a service.

But a gov't organization "giving a pass" on safety-related issues to
that company (when they would NEVER allow for a private operator or
small / non-influential business) disgusts me.

--Noel

On Mar 7, 9:12*am, K Baum wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:40*am, Eric Greenwell wrote: I'm paying for a safe, no-frills flight to my destination. I know I'm
getting the no-frills part, but do you have references that show I'm not
getting the "safe" part? Does SWA have a significantly worse safety
record than, say, Delta, another carrier I can conveniently choose?

EG, this is a good question. I dont have much time to answer right now
but I will tell you this much; There are differing levels of
Regulatory compliance, operational oversight, maintenence standards,
training standards etc.. All the airlines fly the same planes, pay
similar wages, use the same fuel, and so on, so when you come across a
carrier that charges substantially less than all the rest, consider
that discount has to come from somewhere. I have jumpseated on SWA
flights and I have seen stuff on a regular basis that would get one of
our crews fired (Or at least some time off). Another good example of
cutting corners is the De/AntiIce procedures and policies. The next
time you are at the field during a snow storm take a look out the
window at SWA,s practices verses the other airlines. It may save alot
of time to cut corners in this area, but if one of their jets ever has
an engine problem on climbout that 89 dollar ticket isnt gonna seem
like such a bargain. This is one of the biggest complaints that my SWA
buddies have with the place.
Gotta run,
FB

The fatalities per million flights stats would confirm that SWA is
safer than only a few US airlines, namely: Alaska, Aloha, American,
Continental, Delta, Midwest Express, Northwest, United and US
Airways. Jet Blue also hasn't killed anyone - but they haven't flown
nearly as many trips as SWA.

The argument that SWA's cheaper tickets come out of maintenance costs
flies in the face of the most strightforward analysis. For airlines
operating 737-800s (Continental, American, Delta, Sun Country, ATA,
Alaska) the average total operating cost is: 43% fuel, 23% a/c
financing, 18% crew and 9% direct maitenance. SWA can't cut enough
maintenance corners to make a difference in ticket price. The way
they get lower costs is by flying more trips per aircraft per year and
per crew per year. They do this because the have a far more efficient
operating model (all point to point flying, faster boarding, keeping
cews and a/c together to minimize the impact of disruptions) and less
onerous crew work rules leading to more flight hours per FAA "clocked"
hour - work rules at other carriers encourage building up non-
productive time to increase the number of union-dues-paying pilots
required per flight hour. None of these differences affects safety,
and some may in fact enhance safety.

No, I'm not excusing their skipping inspections - but apparently they
do less meaningful corner-cutting than most - at least according to
the actual facts.

9B

On Mar 8, 1:29*am, wrote:

The fatalities per million flights stats would confirm that SWA is
safer than only a few US airlines, namely: Alaska, Aloha, American,
Continental, Delta, Midwest Express, Northwest, United and US
Airways. *

??????????????????? Apples/Oranges. Take a look at the safety related
incidents that get reported every year and you will get a much clearer
picture. One of the biggest complaints that I have heard from pilots
at LCC's is the stuff that goes unreported.

The argument that SWA's cheaper tickets come out of maintenance costs
flies in the face of the most strightforward analysis.

It also flies (Pun intended ) in the face of my post. My point was
not about mainenence . It was about cutting operational corners in
general and I used the De/Anti Ice as an example. There are plenty
more.


For airlines
operating 737-800s (Continental, American, Delta, Sun Country, ATA,
Alaska) the average total operating cost is: 43% fuel, 23% a/c
financing, 18% crew and 9% direct maitenance.

Laughing now.

*The way
they get lower costs is by flying more trips per aircraft per year and
per crew per year.

They also do it by not training to cat ll or lll approaches or
installing ACARS and ignoring QTA limits. This list of things that
every other airline in the world has accepted as SOP and SWA (With the
FAA's blessing) gets to ignore is quite lengthy.


They do this because the have a far more efficient
operating model (all point to point flying, faster boarding, keeping
cews and a/c together to minimize the impact of disruptions) and less
onerous crew work rules leading to more flight hours per FAA "clocked"
hour - work rules at other carriers encourage building up non-
productive time to increase the number of union-dues-paying pilots
required per flight hour. None of these differences affects safety,
and some may in fact enhance safety.

Laughing harder now. Dont know who you fly for but you should have
just put your anti labor rant in the begining so we wouldnt have to
read the rest of your post. Did you know SWA has more unions on the
property than many other airlines

Frank

Tony Verhulst wrote:
J a c k wrote:
.....Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.

Other than little problems like running off runways into the
surrounding community, they do real well.

Yeah, that happened *once*.


Wrong.

At least three times. The NTSB Database is available online for all to
see. Check it out.



Jack

wrote:


Jet Blue also hasn't killed anyone - but they haven't flown
nearly as many trips as SWA.


If you mean to say that SWA is not responsible for any fatalities in
it's flight operations, you must be avoiding the death of a child in a
car run over by a SWA 737 at MDW, on 12/8/05:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X01964&key=1

Running off of runways is not something with which SWA is unfamiliar.
The rarity of fatalities is a matter of luck:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X20606&key=1

A cavalier attitude toward ground operations is indicated from a reading
of the many taxi accidents in which SWA crews are involved. Numerous
ground collisions, turbulence encounters, runway misidentifications and
other accidents and incidents in the NTSB Database serve to paint a
picture of an airline whose business model does not include adequate
respect for the safety of their passengers or cabin crews. Training and
maintenance have been throughout the company's history sources of
operational problems.

No airline is perfect, of course, but I avoid using SWA. Blaming the FAA
for their own inability to keep track of the maintenance history of
their aircraft is unacceptable. The inconsistency of FAR interpretation
and application is another problem, but that doesn't let SWA off the hook.



Jack

"Could you imagine the immediate legal action and penalties that
would
be imposed on a soaring operation or a private owner, if it was
discovered that they took paying passengers up in aircraft that were
in violation of ADs?"

Yes, I imagine if a private owner took a paying passenger up the FAA
would get incensed.

I'm only replying because I got myself suckered into reading this
thread, which seems to have virtually no relevance to soaring. We
know how the FAA administers soaring, and that we're not going to get
any breaks for any reason, so grumbling because someone else may or
may not have gotten a break doesn't have much relevance to our
interests.

Well, my only point is I wish the forum was only used for topics that
are primarily soaring. There are plenty of places to go over the pros
and cons of SWA vs. FAA.

On Mar 6, 5:55 pm, "
wrote:
Actually, they are already leveling a fine (unjustly) against
Southwest. From today's WSJ:

The Federal Aviation Administration, imposing the largest financial
punishment against an airline in about two decades, proposed a $10.2
million civil penalty against Southwest Airlines Co. for flying
passengers in 46 of its planes without complying with mandatory
inspections to check for possible structural cracks.

...

According to the agency, the airline flew hundreds of thousands of
passengers in the planes from June 2006 to March 2007 without
complying with a September 2004 safety directive to inspect for
fuselage cracks. After advising the FAA of its mistake, the airline
received verbal approval from the local FAA Dallas office to keep
operating the aircraft, and the FAA said in a press release that the
carrier flew an additional 1,451 flights before completing the
inspections.
...
So, Southwest realized it was in error and had not properly inspected
for ADs. It informs the FAA who say go ahead and keep flying, so
Southwest follows the verbal directions of the FAA. Then the FAA
comes back and slaps them with a $10MM fine. ...

My interpretation is that they were fined 10 M$ for the violations
they reported to the FAA, not for continuing to fly with the
verbal approval that followed.

--

FF