Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
SWA dealing with FAA over unauthorized parts >

SWA dealing with FAA over unauthorized parts

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

SWA dealing with FAA over unauthorized parts

Old 08-30-2009, 08:00 AM
  #41  
Careful w/that axe Eugene
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: HOTAS...and a SWA gear lever
Posts: 369
Default

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot View Post
I'm am not a duuuude
Sorry I got your gender wrong.

BTW-I thought your disclaimer at the end of your post was funny...after your (misinformed) dig at SWA baggage policy and the Wright Amendment. You even used CAPS to emphasize your points, but then you hide behind a disclaimer.

So according to your logic, a person can throw out a misinformed statement, but as long as he includes a disclaimer he is immune to any rebuttal? GMAB!

But at least we can probably find some common ground on our opinions of FAA inspectors, etc.
Nortonious is offline  
Old 08-30-2009, 08:24 AM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KC10 FATboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,094
Default

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot View Post
I'm am not a duuuude. So I post something here that wasn't factual (and put in my post which so many on here failed to read that if I was wrong I stood to be corrected). So now I guess I'm in the "he's the ONLY person to ever write something on error" on this forum list. Geez, God forbid a SWA pilot to write something in error.
Anyone who works for SWA should grab some ducttape and wrap it around their head before reading any posts from this guy. He is a serious SWA hater. It is unsure where his anger comes from.

But you guys are having the last laugh. SWA continues to eat up profit margins from his airline.
KC10 FATboy is offline  
Old 08-30-2009, 11:39 AM
  #43  
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
 
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Default

Originally Posted by Herkulesdrvr View Post
ewr,

I want to be civil here so I'm going to put it out there. As far as checking bags, you may be thinking of Dallas flights under the wright ammendment but that has changed in recent years, I dont know all of it, but yes if you 2 hopped it through dal I believe some flights to a state that didnt touch texas had to be claimed and rechecked, but that was not a swa thing, it was the wright ammendment driving it. Other than Dallas you are completely wrong, all bags are checked through to the final destination like any other airline. Seriously, I don't know where you were getting this from but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

.....
Thanks for being civil........and YES, you are right (Wright..), that was where I goofed up. So I'm SORRY............I misposted. As far as some on here thinking myself or anyone else hates SWA, YOU are WRONG. Every airline has its problems. I guess no one is allowed to say anything when an airline has a problem? If CAL goofs up, I'm not on here crucifying everyone who posts a negative comment about my airline.
ewrbasedpilot is offline  
Old 08-31-2009, 06:13 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 117
Default SWA Presents Dilemma for FAA

Any bets on which way this goes?





From the Wall Street Journal
Southwest Presents Dilemma for FAAThe Federal Aviation Administration's discovery of a significant maintenance lapse at Southwest Airlines Co. -- unauthorized parts used for up to three years on 82 planes -- presents a vexing policy question for the agency.
Associated Press Both Southwest and FAA agree that the parts don't pose an imminent hazard, but over the years FAA officials generally have taken a hard line by demanding that airlines temporarily ground aircraft until unauthorized parts are replaced.



Should the FAA force the airline to ground the planes to enforce longstanding air-safety rules, even though the violations don't pose an immediate danger?
Taking the jets temporarily out of service would seriously disrupt operations at the largest domestic carrier measured by passengers. Southwest said it is seeking an exemption to continue using the planes.
FAA managers and company officials are trying to work out a compromise by a Tuesday deadline.
The problem initially was believed to affect 46 jets, which Southwest grounded for several hours Aug. 22, causing major flight delays. But a lawyer for the airline said Sunday that 82 Boeing 737 planes had been fitted with the unauthorized parts.
The lawyer said government-approved replacement parts -- pieces of a system designed to protect movable panels on the rear of the wings from hot engine exhaust -- were expected to be installed on as many as 30 of the planes by early Monday.
But that still would leave some 52 jets -- roughly 10% of Southwest's fleet -- technically in violation of FAA regulations because the parts lack required paperwork showing they were designed, made and tested for aviation uses.
Southwest has told the FAA that swapping out all the suspect parts could take up to three more months, and the airline has pledged to significantly step up inspections of the parts until then.
Both Southwest and FAA agree that the parts, some of which have been on the planes for up to three years without causing apparent problems, don't pose an imminent hazard. Boeing Co. also said it doesn't believe the parts pose a safety threat.
Still, over the years FAA officials generally have taken a hard line by demanding that airlines temporarily ground aircraft until unauthorized parts are replaced.
In this case, according to people familiar with the details, FAA officials want to avoid creating a dramatic disruption to Southwest's schedules. But at the same time, factions inside the agency are concerned that allowing the jets to continue flying could set a precedent by opening the door for other carriers to seek similar special treatment in the future.
An FAA spokesman said Sunday: "We are still considering the options available to us."
Dane Jaques, an outside lawyer for Southwest, said Sunday that relations with the FAA were "positive" and regulators "appear to be open to our suggestions." But Mr. Jaques said, "We have not yet received FAA permission to continue flying the planes after Tuesday."
Mr. Jaques said Southwest used an FAA-approved contractor, Phoenix-based D-Velco Aviation Services, which in turn subcontracted work on the affected systems to another company.
The subcontractor wasn't authorized by the FAA to provide those particular parts, Mr. Jaques said. The parts had slightly different dimensions than Boeing-approved brackets, and the aluminum alloy differed slightly from Boeing specifications, he said.
Southwest has since suspended D-Velco as a maintenance contractor, Mr. Jaques said. D-Velco didn't respond to requests for comment Sunday.
An exemption not only would seem to go against decades of FAA policy, it's likely to spark criticism of the agency at a time when lawmakers on Capitol Hill are prodding the FAA to be more aggressive in policing airlines and enforcing safety rules. Such a move also could create internal FAA procedural problems, since it would bypass typical public comment requirements. The airline, according to people familiar with the matter, is arguing that the public interest would be best served by avoiding the extensive economic and personal disruptions stemming from a protracted grounding.
Mr. Jaques said the latest friction with the FAA highlight the broader industry-wide problem that there isn't ``a quick and easy'' way agency inspectors can sanction planes to continue flying with unauthorized parts that nonetheless have been deemed safe. He said he hoped that in the future, the FAA will develop some way to address that shortcoming.
In the spring and summer of 2008, the FAA seriously disrupted schedules at AMR. Corp's American Airlines and other carriers by demanding that planes be kept on the ground while certain maintenance work was redone. Those repairs also weren't considered to pose an immediate safety hazard.
Last month, a Southwest jet carrying 126 passengers and five crew members developed a one-foot-wide hole in its main body midflight, and federal investigators are still trying to determine the cause. The incident was a setback for the discount airline just four months after it agreed to pay $7.5 million for flying dozens of its older 737s on nearly 60,000 flights between June 2006 and March 2007 without performing necessary inspections.
The latest safety issue and related expenses come at an inopportune time for Southwest, which, like many carriers, is struggling to make a profit amid a recession-fueled downturn in business and leisure travel. The airline has booked 36 straight years of profits but lost money in three of the last four quarters, and Chief Executive Gary Kelly has cautioned Southwest could finish in the red again in the current quarter. Although Southwest is faring better than most large airlines, its revenue slumped 7.9% to $4.97 billion in the first half of 2009 from the year before.
tsquared030 is offline  
Old 08-31-2009, 06:30 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 839
Default

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy View Post
But you guys are having the last laugh. SWA continues to eat up profit margins from his airline.
The only thing eating CAL's profit margin is our management.
jdt30 is offline  
Old 09-01-2009, 03:27 AM
  #46  
Don't want to participate
 
LuvJockey's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: 737 Left Seat
Posts: 1,016
Default

Originally Posted by jdt30 View Post
The only thing eating CAL's profit margin is our management.
That applies everywhere. SWA's management seems intent on the same thing with great decisions like outsourcing maintenance.
LuvJockey is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
StormChaser
Major
378
08-10-2009 12:25 PM
Todzilla
Cargo
34
06-30-2009 11:29 AM
Donkey
Hangar Talk
1
03-29-2009 11:42 AM
EWRflyr
Major
2
01-09-2009 03:12 PM
DWN3GRN
Major
81
11-17-2008 01:04 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