Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
WN More Influential in Early 737 Max ... >

WN More Influential in Early 737 Max ...


Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

WN More Influential in Early 737 Max ...

Old 05-12-2022, 05:26 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Apr 2019
Posts: 339
Default WN More Influential in Early 737 Max ...

Southwest Airlines More Influential in Early 737 MAX Training Than Previously Known, Legal Filing Suggests

Documents show carrier worked with Boeing on issues including whether pilots should be trained on a new flight-control system; airline disputes the claims

May. 12, 2022 7:00 am ET

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

How should regulators handle Southwest’s involvement with the Boeing 737 MAX saga? Join the conversation below.

As a launch customer for the 737 MAX, Dallas-based Southwest was involved with the airplane’s development, as the company was going to be among the first airlines to fly the new jet. Such involvement by launch customers isn’t unusual. The automated cockpit feature known as MCAS was a new addition to Boeing’s latest 737 model.

After the first 737 MAX crashed in late 2018, Southwest’s pilot union and others in the aviation industry were critical of the exclusion of information about MCASand its potential hazards from manuals. The global aviation community eventually learned that the automated feature was changed during its development, becoming more potent without sufficient safeguards.

It couldn’t be determined whether Southwest was aware of later changes to MCAS that made the system more hazardous. But Southwest’s apparent involvement in removing references to MCAS from flight manuals could help to answer a question that emerged shortly after the first 737 MAX crash about why pilots initially weren’t told about the system.

Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King said the airline vigorously disputes the plaintiffs’ characterization of facts cited in the litigation and said its allegations are completely without merit. She said the airline didn’t recommend the system be removed from pilot manuals.

“The plaintiffs have lost ground in the courts and are regurgitating false and unfounded allegations improperly directed at Southwest and its leadership team,” she said. She declined to elaborate, citing the case’s pending appeal.

Boeing declined to comment.
The fatal plunge of a Lion Air flight in the Java Sea off Indonesia in 2018 was one of two deadly crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX that were tied to an automated flight-control feature called MCAS.Photo: Fauzy Chaniago/Associated PressThe legal filing, which was made in an appeals court proceeding in late March, stems from a class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 on behalf of plaintiffs who claim Southwest colluded with Boeing in an alleged scheme to defraud ticket buyers with artificially inflated prices. A federal judge certified the suit’s class-action status last year. The recent appeals-court filing includes quotations from internal documents and depositions that were heavily redacted in earlier filings in the case.

The underlying documents provide a glimpse into Southwest’s role in the developing 737 MAX pilot training before one of the worst corporate crises in modern American history began to unfold—regulators grounded the 737 MAX for nearly two years to fix MCAS, and the Justice Department launched a criminal probe. The investigation resulted in Boeing agreeing to pay a $2.5 billion criminal settlement and the unsuccessful prosecution of a former company pilot. Much of the U.S. government focus on the disasters in recent years was on the roles of Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration, its primary regulator.

The plaintiffs’ legal filing also cites documents showing Southwest was focused on another new 737 MAX feature, a cockpit alert to help pilots stabilize the aircraft.

In April 2016, according to the filing, Southwest and Boeing representatives discussed a plan to install the alert on a single current 737, and then deactivate it once the new MAX model entered service, according to the filing. The plaintiffs’ filing characterized the plan as an effort to “outflank the FAA’s” training officials by misleading them into believing the alert wasn’t a new feature.

Former Boeing engineers said in interviews they recalled hearing of the plan. “I didn’t believe they would get away with it,” former Boeing engineer Rick Ludtke said.

The FAA declined to comment. It couldn’t be determined what became of the plan, but the cockpit alert eventually wound up on the 737 MAX.

In addition to the airline’s involvement with training issues during the aircraft’s development, Southwest executives closely coordinated with their Boeing counterparts about the airline’s responses to the initial crash, according to the filing and documents it cites. That accident involved a 737 MAX operated by Indonesia’s Lion Air.

Southwest, the busiest U.S. domestic carrier by passenger traffic, at first considered grounding its own 737 MAX fleet days after the Oct. 29, 2018, crash, according to the legal filing.

Newsletter Sign-up

The 10-Point.
A personal, guided tour to the best scoops and stories every day in The Wall Street Journal.
Southwest’s Ms. King said the airline had considered grounding the 737 MAX in late 2018 as part of a risk assessment, but the airline determined its pilots were properly trained and prepared to continue safely flying the aircraft.

A second 737 MAX crashed less than five months later in Ethiopia. In all, the accidents took 346 lives. The March 2019 accident prompted regulators around the world to ground the aircraft for nearly two years.

Yavar Bathaee, who is the lead plaintiff’s attorney in the case, declined to comment.

Southwest’s involvement in decisions about MCAS is a focus of the plaintiffs’ legal action, which points to the system as an example of the airline’s close coordination with Boeing. In 2015, when the airplane was under development, Southwest conducted a review of differences in pilot checklists and other materials for older 737s and Boeing’s latest MAX models and noticed the new flight-control system, according to the filing.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Southwest, which operates only 737s, stood to benefit from minimizing any differences between its existing fleet and MAX jets on order so that U.S. air-safety regulators wouldn’t require that its pilots undergo simulator training to learn how to fly the new planes. Such training can prove costly for airlines, requiring they pull pilots off revenue-generating passenger flights.

After evaluating the new MCAS system and comparing it with an existing automated cockpit feature, a Southwest committee determined there wasn’t a significant difference between the two that needed to be documented for flight crews, according to the legal filing.

“[T]he SWA Team concurred with the Boeing MAX Team that no difference was indicated,” according to an internal document excerpted in the plaintiff’s legal filing. The filing says Southwest and Boeing both agreed to remove MCAS from the manuals.
According to a new legal filing, Southwest Airlines President Mike Van de Ven misled the leader of the carrier’s pilot union about a deal with Boeing about 737 MAX simulator training.Photo: Christopher Goodney/Bloomberg NewsThe legal filing claims Southwest provided false answers in response to a 2018 Wall Street Journal inquiry about the airline’s work on 737 MAX training.

“Southwest was a recipient of, not a driver of, the training established” by FAA officials who approve pilot training, Ms. King, the airline spokeswoman, said at the time. “Again, making decisions on aircraft training programs is not the role Southwest should or did play in the certification process.”

The legal filing also claims Southwest misled the leader of its pilot union about a deal with Boeing about 737 MAX simulator training. The plane maker had agreed to pay the airline $1 million for each new plane that required such training.

Before the deal became public, Jon Weaks, then president of Southwest’s pilot union, asked airline operations chief Mike Van de Ven in 2019 about it, telling him in an email it was “a rumor I keep getting asked about,” according to the legal filing.

The plaintiff’s legal filing claims Mr. Van de Ven lied in response. Through the Southwest spokeswoman, he declined to comment on the specific exchange but reiterated the company’s view that the plaintiffs have mischaracterized facts in the case. A lawyer for Mr. Weaks declined to comment.

Mr. Van de Ven, who is now also Southwest’s president, told Mr. Weaks: “I never talked to Boeing about training requirements,” according to the filing. “I don’t remember any financial penalties.”

The filing said Mr. Van de Ven had negotiated and signed Southwest’s agreement with Boeing.

Write to Andrew Tangel at [email protected] and Alison Sider at [email protected]
docav8tor is offline  
Old 05-12-2022, 05:59 AM
  #2  
At your mom's house
 
hoover's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: cpt 737
Posts: 2,752
Default

Of course they did. Sw was supposed to be the launch customer and Boeing knew they'd but 1000 of them. SW IS the reason Boeing made the max v a new twin aisle.
hoover is offline  
Old 05-12-2022, 09:59 PM
  #3  
weekends off? Nope...
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,991
Default

Originally Posted by hoover
Of course they did. Sw was supposed to be the launch customer and Boeing knew they'd but 1000 of them. SW IS the reason Boeing made the max v a new twin aisle.
I believe AA had a huge potential airbus order that factored in as well
Smooth at FL450 is offline  
Old 05-13-2022, 10:04 AM
  #4  
At your mom's house
 
hoover's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: cpt 737
Posts: 2,752
Default

I know the guy who was in charge of the program at Boeing back then. He literally said we will do whatever SW wants.
hoover is offline  
Old 05-13-2022, 03:00 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 758
Default

Originally Posted by hoover
I know the guy who was in charge of the program at Boeing back then. He literally said we will do whatever SW wants.
So fly it like a -200?
Crockrocket95 is offline  
Old 05-13-2022, 03:10 PM
  #6  
At your mom's house
 
hoover's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: cpt 737
Posts: 2,752
Default

Originally Posted by Crockrocket95
So fly it like a -200?
pretty much why it has the overhead panel it does and how everything is still from the 60s. It was so SW could operate it at the same time as the classics just like how they did with the NG
hoover is offline  
Old 06-04-2022, 10:09 AM
  #7  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,750
Default

Eye opening analysis of SWA involvement...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXuRthTO-nw
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-04-2022, 01:20 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PineappleXpres's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2022
Posts: 1,000
Default

SWA is a ruthless competitor, so I’d expect nothing less.
PineappleXpres is offline  
Old 06-04-2022, 02:57 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,573
Default

Dear lord. Let it rest, people.

Boeing has done an amazing job of scapegoating everyone but themselves in the max debacle. This is what happens when you take a manufacturing company and turn it into an investment bank.

They made the decision to produce the max and under-engineer MCAS and hide it. They need to own it. But they won't. Ever.
e6bpilot is offline  
Old 06-04-2022, 03:18 PM
  #10  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Apr 2022
Posts: 70
Default

The feds don’t care about saving lives unless it includes disarming the population. This negligent, known, avoidable mess that killed 346 innocent people will stay under the rug.
BLMPilot is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sailingfun
Delta
511
07-25-2022 08:54 AM
docav8tor
Southwest
7
12-23-2020 09:17 AM
docav8tor
Southwest
66
11-26-2020 02:24 PM
docav8tor
Safety
5
01-12-2020 01:16 PM
deltabound
Delta
9
10-10-2019 02:09 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices