Records: Southwest Airlines flew 'unsafe' planes

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: CNN

By Drew Griffin and Scott Bronstein
CNN Special Investigations Unit

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- -- Discount air carrier Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on aircraft that federal inspectors said were "unsafe" as recently as last March, according to detailed congressional documents obtained by CNN.

Documents submitted by FAA inspectors to congressional investigators allege the airline flew at least 117 of its planes in violation of mandatory safety checks. In some cases, the documents say, the planes flew for 30 months after government inspection deadlines had passed and should have been grounded until the inspections could be completed. The planes were "not airworthy," according to congressional air safety investigators.

Calling it "one of the worst safety violations" he has ever seen, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minnesota, is expected to call a hearing as soon as possible to ask why the airline put its passengers in danger.

Southwest Airlines, which carried more passengers in the United States than any other airline last year, declined comment....

The documents obtained by CNN also allege that some management officials at the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency responsible for commercial air safety, knew the planes were flying "unsafely" and did nothing about it. "The result of inspection failures, and enforcement failure, has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, unairworthy, and at risk of lives," Oberstar told CNN. He said both FAA managers and the airline may also have broken the law as well as threatened the safety of Southwest passengers.

The documents were prepared by two FAA safety inspectors who have requested whistle-blower status from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which is headed by Oberstar. The two inspectors have been subpoenaed to testify before the committee. The whistle-blowers say FAA managers knew about the lapse in safety at Southwest, but decided to allow the airline to conduct the safety checks on a slower schedule because taking "aircraft out of service would have disrupted Southwest Airlines' flight schedule."...

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/southwest.planes/index.html

[Warpy]

1. Yet that airline is #2 in the world safety record

and has never lost a passenger. Luggage, yes. Passengers, no.

Southwest is run on a shoestring. I wouldn't be at all surprised if their inspection program was a lot slower than that of other airlines.

Still, their safety record is impressive.

[Sherman A1]

2. Their record is impressive, yet

FAA regulations still must be followed and are not optional. If they did indeed violate the rules, then they must be held accountable.

[Dirigo]

4. Southwest Safety Or Lack Thereof

Then be prepared to pay a princely sum for your flight ticket. Their safety record is indeed impressive. I use them frequently day or evening flights and never have had a problem. I like a Hundred-buck seat as much as anyone and arriving on time or ten minutes early. SWA does a magnificent job and I hope they keep pressing on. I am sure they're weighing all safety memos.

[iaviate1]

8. Their record is impressive?

Did we just read the same article about one of the largest violations ever? Their fleet is relatively new... think of what these poor management practices are leading up to.

[Dr.Phool]

10. Weighing all safety memos?

Why do they get charged by the pound for rubbish removal?

These inspections aren't optional. They're mandated by law.

[Sherman A1]

20. I hope they get keep pressing on as well,

nevertheless, if they are providing you those $100.00 seats by breaking FAA safety rules then they are not only cheating, but risking your safety as well as everyone else who flies on their a/c as well as many on the ground. The rules are the rules, they don't get to weigh the safety memos and elect to follow them or not. I suspect you will see some hefty fines imposed as well as monitoring which in the end will wind up costing them more than the original cost of doing things correctly in the first place.

[Warpy]

7. Agreed.

Some things are better to overdo. Airline safety is one of them.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. I find this pretty frightening. I've always worried when flying SW...

that the priority is on turnaround speed, getting off on time -- which, I know, however, is important and appealing to passengers. But I've wondered -- are they short-shrifting something?

[AndyTiedye]

12. The More Interesting Question is Did SWA Get Special Treatment from the FAA? If So, Why?

If SWA were allowed to skate on safety violations for which they would have grounded another airline, then SWA was getting special treatment, and we need to know why.

[DeepModem Mom]

17. Good question. Although, again frightening, I think I heard on CNN...

that there was speculation that FAA agents develop cozy relationships with airline people, and sometimes let them "skate." If that is at all the case, other airlines might be doing the same thing.

[Zhade]

19. So far.

Believe me, people will be hearing about this from me.

[VP505]

5. Safety record or not

its illegal for an air carrier to operate aircraft that are not in compliance with FAA Regs. Its part of the cost of doing business and there is no excuse for not doing what's required.

[pattmarty]

6. "We don need no steeenkin FAA".

[mainer]

9. Oh, that's sad. I love SWA.

I remember how they kept right on flying their planes -- even though they were often half-empty -- after 9/11, and they didn't lay off a single employee, while Delta, United, American, etc. were cutting personnel left and right. SWA believed that uninterrupted service would earn their customers' loyalty, and they were smart to stay with that.

Also, they pre-set the price of fuel to be purchased, so they were financially in good shape compared to other airlines. I don't see that their flying on a shoestring should have affected their safety, since they seemed to be in less debt than all the other airlines.

[Angleae]

11. This started about 3 years ago

3 years ago Southwest started having their fuel contracts dry up (fixed price from 2000-2001) and started having to pay full price for fuel. Basically they were in the same situation that the other airlines were experiencing in 2002 but SWA couldn't tap into 911-mania so they cut back. Their inspection checks were completely re-designed for economy considerations.

[BlueCollar]

13. when you outsource your maintenance

you can offer cheaper fares...none of that pesky oversight stuff. rely on the Feds for that...Play the odds

Works well enough that almost all major overhaul maintenance in the country is now outsourced to third parties.

[Angleae]

16. What are you talking about?

There is just as much oversight at third-party repair stations (in the US) as there is for an airline repair station.

[BlueCollar]

21. actually

there is significantly less routine oversight of repair stations than there is of direct airline maintenance operations done in-house. The problem is compounde when the repair station is actually overseas.

I'm sure that SouthWest contracts within the US but the point is that third party maintenance is cheaper than doing it in-house and generally, the level of attention to detail tends to be less of a priority than if the work is done in house.

[Angleae]

22. Could have fooled me

And I work in one of those places.

[BlueCollar]

23. so have I

I work for a major now. Didn't mean to sound disparaging. Please accept my apologies, but it remains that the oversight of third paty maintenance by the FAA is much less constant than it is of the in-house work.

Plenty of documentation to that effect.

[Angleae]

24. Then they must make up for it

By assigning the biggest assholes to the third-party stations. :P

[Shakespeare]

14. What do you expect from Air Walmart?

Thank goodness there are other far, far superior budget airlines out there now.

[hedgehog]

15. But at least you don't have to worry that you might see someone's boobies! nt

[reprobate]

18. Question for any airline flight officer on board.

Do the inspectors still work for and paid by the airlines as they were in the past?