$3 million thats all? I can think of airlines that were hit with huge fines for EACH flight that ONE airplane took with the incorrect paperwork or missing inspection. I think $3 million is just the tip of the iceburg right now.

I do agree with the above.....3 Million Dollars sounds like the tip of the iceberg. In the threads opening article, they said that they are preparing for an "investigation."....the words of the SWA spokesman. I'm sure there is going to be a lot more info to come about once they open a hearing and dig further. With 117 aircraft in violation (per the article) to various degrees, 3 Million sounds like a "deal" of a fine.

WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - U.S. aviation regulators on Thursday proposed a $10.2 million fine against Southwest Airlines (LUV.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the largest safety penalty ever, for allegedly failing to inspect planes for structural cracks.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Southwest continued to fly uninspected aircraft even after notifying regulators that the checks had not been performed.

Southwest can appeal the proposed fine. (Reporting by John Crawley; editing by Leslie Gevirtz)

You obviously know exactly how SWA, and all other airlines operate.

There's a huge difference between cost conscious and unsafe.

You've been told that they ask for the nearest rwy? Funny, I always ask for the one furthest from the gate b/c I like to burn as much gas a possible and take the most amount of time as well.

Think before you speak.

I'm sure some are happy to see a negative article on SWA, because most probably believe that a black eye for SWA will help their own company. Here's some food for thought, though -

This inspection error was discovered and disclosed by SWA last March, and was resolved within days. Rumor so far here is that SWA asked the FAA for permission to fly the aircraft for the approx 7 days until all aircraft could be inspected, and the FAA agreed. The issue that the Senate hearing is now going to be FAA oversight of airlines (specifically SWA in this case) and if the FAA has been effective, as well as if SWA has gotten some type of preferential treatment at the expense of the safety of passengers. The FAA had considered the matter settled, but yesterday announced a proposed fine of 3 million, soon followed by a proposed fine of 10 million to show that they're not being too easy on SWA.

The question is, how can they tell if SWA has been given preferential treatment if they don't bring up the behind-the-doors actions against other airlines and make them public? Sure, there could be a congressional hearing, but I wouldn't be wishing for one no matter who I worked for. Nothing like politicians in the media spotlight to try to scare the crap out of the public, but don't expect that spotlight to be solely on your competitor. In the mean time, go ahead and enjoy the stumble of a competitor.:o

Dude, you need to change your sign on...it says CRJ-200 CA (Soon). If that's correct you're not the one requesting the furthest runway........:cool:

Somehow I see the government re-regulating the industry once again.

One would think it will be challenging to put the toothpaste back in the tube ...

Sometimes you gotta make a new tube then.

The saga continues...

Boeing press release:

Southwest Airlines contacted Boeing for verification of their technical opinion that the continued operation of their Classic 737s, for up to ten days until the airplanes could be reinspected, did not pose a safety of flight issue. Based on a thorough review of many factors, including fleet history and test data, as well as other inspections and maintenance previously incorporated, Boeing concluded the 10-day compliance plan was technically valid. In Boeing's opinion, the safety of the Southwest fleet was not compromised.