Southwest says it won't pay FAA fine by Friday
 

Southwest says it won't pay FAA fine by deadline
Tuesday August 26, 10:51 pm ET Southwest Airlines says it won't pay record FAA fine by Friday deadline
DALLAS (AP) -- Southwest Airlines said Tuesday it will not pay a record $10.2 million fine by Friday, the deadline set by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The FAA levied the fine against Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co. in March because it said the airline continued to fly dozens of Boeing 737s that hadn't been inspected for cracks in their fuselages.

"Our hope continues to be that we will resolve the matter amicably with the FAA, however long that takes," Southwest spokesman Beth Harbin said in a story Tuesday on The Dallas Morning News' Web site. "We would hope that the FAA will continue to discuss the matter with us in good faith as we have been doing all along."


FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown told The Associated Press that the FAA is continuing talks with Southwest. She declined to comment further.

The FAA set the deadline in an Aug. 12 letter, warning that it would refer Southwest's case to the U.S. attorney's office if the fine is not paid.

Great. Maybe DAL and AMR should sue SWA for the losses they incurred as a result of the FAA no longer granting waivers previously agreed to for their maintenance programs. The resulting chaos from the MD80 debacles in the spring were a direct result of SWA intentionally not playing by rules and in fact, subverting them. Any waiver here would be a crock in my opinion.

Your accusation is the most ridiculous thing I've read on the forum. I can't believe you blame SWA for your airlines debacles.

BTW, yes, we are the source of every problem in the whole world. Iraq, Darfur, Iran, the mortgage and credit crisis, etc. Blame that on us.

Everyone hates Southwest because the company makes to much money, gets special attention from ATC, and they keep on getting more airplanes. Cry me a river build a bridge and get over it. If I were any airline I wouldn't want to pay that much.

SWA doesn't make much money in the grand scheme of things. Pulls a profit every time but I don't believe I've seen it with cash on hand like the rest.

The ATC treatment is BS though.

SWA I don't think it loss a quarter since 1991. You're telling me they don't have money hidden somewhere?

Calm down. He isn't saying that SWA is to blame for anything more than what he specifically stated. I think it would be hard to argue that the crack down on American's MD-80 wiring harness MX wasn't a direct result from the issue involving SWA.

Several parties knew what was going on (at SWA) and looked the other way. American, among others, paid the price when the FAA higher-ups found out and subsequently over reacted. Simple as that.

I am calm duvie. I think you need to reread his post, he does blame SWA for the direct the result of the MD80 debacle.

The FAA came out with a big fat black eye after SWA colluded with, and intentionally flew aircraft that were not airworthy. The resulting crackdown had the FAA come down hard on various FSDO's who had granted relief to specific airlines. This happens all the time. It was unusual that the FAA went over the various POI's overseeing the airline's and issued blanket compliance orders that resulted in the meltdown of AMR and DAL's MD80 fleets.

As far as Iraq, Darfur, etc. You need to absolutely relax and calm down. I never inferred anything beyond what SWA did regarding the maintenance debacle. You guys flew unairworthy planes, and I'm the problem? That attitude is pathetic, not me. How can you defend those actions? If you intentionally fly below mins. are you not breaking the law? This was the same thing.

What's to negotiate?

If I don't pay a traffic fine that is owed, the Court issues a bench warrant for my arrest and pulls my driver's license. The FAA should expect payment of the penalty and if that doesn't happen, pull the Certificate.

Why do major corporations get different treatment under the law?

IMHO, if it is proven and if the airline blows off the FAA's authority, then the FAA would be acting appropriately to pull the certificate.

You forgot one small detail; you have the right to have your case heard by a Judge or in some states you can request a jury trial. Just because you're accused of something doesn't make it so, unless of course you live in China.

I'm not trying to defend SWA's action. I had no part in it, and I'm sure no other SWA pilot had any part in it either. No pilot in their right mind would knowingly fly an unairworthy aircraft.

I see alot of SWA bashing on this site, and I try to bite my lip, but your suggestion that we should get sued for any infractions levied against AMR or DAL is ridiculous.

$5.8 billion in cash and short term investments as of June 30, 2008.

How does this stack up against Frontier, United, AA, Continental and Delta?

CAL-3.4 billion, to lazy to look up the rest.

That's pretty funny DAL4ever - "Your maintenance violation is collusion with the FAA, ours is a matter of paperwork."

I think you have very little idea of the nature of the SWA "violation" so get off your horse.

Pull the certificate? In your dreams...

If you use quotes from me, use quotes from me. I never stated the above quote nor did I say pull the certificate. I simply stated they should pay the fine and I can't understand why you defend your company's actions. Please show a little more respect when you try and subvert someone. If you use a quote I actually said, then I can debate it. I can't defend a quote you make up. Remember, you should have learned in school that quotes defend an actual statement not supposed summary of what you think someone intends or infers.

The results from SWA's intentional breaking of the law cost AMR and DAL millions when the waivers they legally obtained through agreements with their respective FSDO's were summarily taken away. If SWA is so arrogant as to just publicly state they have no intention on paying the fine that was levied against them through their willful disregard, I simply asked if AMR and DAL should seek damages for this. Will it happen, probably not. But I can't defend actions of any individual or corporation that knowingly and intentionally engages in behavior that breaks the law. Sorry. Hope your kids are taught better values than the ones you are defending.

Don't think it was intentional. Meaning, I doubt they had a meeting and said "Hey, we think we can get away with not inspecting these airframes, so let's do it."

Everyone has their day in court and everyone has their price. These 2 ideas might as well be part of the constitution. SWA realizes this fact, and isn't jumping at the idea of tossing 10 mil out the front door.

Ever fought a speeding ticket? Same concept on a much larger scale.

DAL4EVUR As I said, you have very little knowledge of Southwest's "violation." After the infamous sobbing FAA inspector claimed that he was ingored, the FAA put everything under the scope, and decided that Delta's waivers were dangerous - are you defending dangerous maintenance practices? Furthermore, why should SWA be liable for Delta's collusion with the FSDOs that led to dangerous and deliberate maintenance malpractice? Why were Delta and AMR the only ones that were given those waivers if it was perfectly safe for everyone else to operate in the same careless manner?:rolleyes:

Now Ya'll be nice or I will call the TSA folks and have them climb around your planes!

Safety, it's all about safety.

They weren't talkiing in such good faith when swa tried to have an FAA mx guy transferred... or am I mistaken...???

Wait a minute Moose, I thought the libs laid the blame for all of that on Bush and Cheney?! Just like the union boards...you need to just scroll past the crap/conspiricies.

You need to look at more than just cash balance. Southwest owns almost all of its aircraft outright, has a very low debt/equity ratio & good cash flow. If you look at the debt loads of other carriers that have a "higher" cash balance, you will find that the numbers are in the billions and are at levels that are threatening the very existence of these carriers (even after shedding billions of debt & obligations to creditors, employees, etc. through bankruptcy). The most important thing to look at is credit ratings. Southwest is AA....most other airlines are considered in the "junk" range.

Southwest is extremely conservatively managed...has never furloughed...has never had to bail itself out with bankruptcy ...has never betrayed its employees, etc., etc. etc.

As far as the preferential treatment with ATC...as a former controller, I can tell you that we really like airlines (any airlines) that the pilots are always ready to comply with instructions that help us move aircraft, never need to wait for numbers, never "slow down" in some silly "job action" (and screw up the controllers flow), etc. From a controllers standpoint, WN pilots were just easier to deal with, completely professional and always willing to help. When it came time for me to change careers to going from the tower & center to flying for the airlines, there was only one major carrier on my list...Southwest.

I have seen so many pilots at other carriers completely miserable with their lives, but not one at Southwest. I know life is miserable right now at many carriers, but Southwest has done nothing except run a tight ship, make their employees happy & completely change the airline industry.

Would'nt want to ever be anywhere else.

Yet, you are admiring the FAA for their lapse in judement as well? Bet you have ugly kids then.

I hope we do fight it. It's ludicrous. If we'd found the cracks that they were saying were soooo darn dangerous, we legally had something like a year to fix them. So what's the big deal with going a weekend without the inspection if you have a year to do the repair?

Odd how a "professional" Delta guy would slam SWA for a fuselage eddy current inspection and then give his company a pass for electrical wiring irregularities. Anybody out there got an idea of how many fatalities have been caused in the last 20 years by wiring vs. fuselage cracks?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the difference is that we HAD authority from the FAA to operate the aircraft pending inspections to comply with the AD. You did NOT have authority to operate the aircraft. Perhaps I'm wrong and if so I stand corrected but that is the crux of my argument.

What lapse in judgement am I admiring?

Wife had a miscarriage so sorry, don't know how he would have looked. But thanks for that salt!:confused:

If SW was a small Part 135 operator the FAA would pull their certificate on Tuesday morning (Monday is a holiday). Texas based companies have been getting breaks, I wonder why.

Now that's just funny. I think I heard a black helicopter fly over as I read your post.

Thread reduced to petty bickering. Thread closed.

TOS excerpt:

"Please use the "good neighbor" policy when posting to this site. If you wouldn't say it to your neighbor face to face, than don't say it here"