LuvJockey, milky, (and those of you defending SW on this one),

You can spin it anyway you like but SW broke the law at least twice and violated the trust it's passengers AND CREWS placed in the company. SW will not be exonerated - read the FAA report.

The broke the law when they didn't comply with the AD within the timeframe mandated (60,000+ cycles) and they broke the law again after they discovered their first error yet continued to fly aircraft (1000+ cycles) before complying with the AD.

If I was a pilot or FA for SW I would be outraged that my pink body was put on an aircraft that wasn't in compliance with the airworthiness standards set up by the FAA. Some of you want to defend them for this. Unbelieveable!

If you want to sugar coat it and say "awh shucks, it wasn't that big of a deal, it's just some bitty ole cracks that shoulda been looked at", you're not very smart. The FAA airworthiness certification process was set up specifically to avoid this type of maintenence. The FAA, not individual operators, decides safety standards. That's why most AD's have dates associated with them. Some aren't much of a threat to safety and don't need to be complied with until the next heavy check. Some AD's are Emergency AD's and must be complied with immediately. This fell inbetween those extremes but regardless that AD was NOT complied with.

There is no defense for SW in this case. Pay the fine, fire the idiots who allowed this to occur and make sure it doesn't happen again.