If an operator wantd to deviate from an airworthiness directive the usual drill is to request a technical opinion from the manufacturer. If the manufacturer agrees with the operator's plan then the operator will take that to the FAA with a request for an Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOC) to the AD. If the FAA approves the AMOC (which is not automatic) then the operator is good to go within the limitations of the AMOC.

While being out of compliance with an AD makes an airplane unairworthy from a legal perspective, it is not always the case technically. Just because an AD requires an inspection of a skin panel at 20,000 cycles it doesn't mean that the airplane will break into tiny pieces at 20,001 cycles. Structural inspection interval requirements are designed to find cracks well before they can compromise the airworthiness of the airplane.

Another issue is that ADs and the related service bulletins can sometimes be horrifically difficult to interpret, from both a workscope and compliance perspective. I've seen people at more than one airline who do this stuff for a living have to go back to Boeing or the FAA with an AD or SB, scratching their heads and asking "what the h*ll are you talking about? There are a bunch of ADs out on the 737 fuselage and several of the related SBs are quite large and quite complex.

I'm not trying to defend SWA, Boeing, or the FAA here. Maintaing airplanes is a serious business and it must be done in accordance with the FARs. If SWA broke the rules then it deserves to get it's hand slapped. I'm trying to make the point that dealing with ADs is not always a black or white issue. Hopefully SWA will learn a lesson and make the changes to prevent a repeat of this.

For those of you who are crying that there's no exuse for not complying with the AD, you're right. However, in fairness I will hold you to the same level of accountability when a pilot bends an airplane or does something stupid.

Tanker - Boeing doesn't write AD's - that's the sole perrogative of the FAA. However, most AD's require accomplishment of one or more service bulletins, which are written by Boeing (or Airbus).

No reason you should be any different than mgt. but, in a perfect world, my fellow crewdawg will speak up long before that happens.