SWA dealing with FAA over unauthorized parts
08-26-2009, 02:29 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777 Capt
Posts: 844
SWA dealing with FAA over unauthorized parts
Didn't see this posted on the forum, from the WSJ. Interesting reading about SWA and continuing issue with maintenance compliance.
"FAA inspectors and managers maintained that since the specific parts were never authorized for aviation use, the planes that had them installed technically weren't fit to carry passengers. Only an airline can ground its aircraft, but carriers don't want to continue flying planes contrary to the FAA's wishes. The agency has authority to impose fines and other penalties when it feels certain planes shouldn't operate."
L
"FAA inspectors and managers maintained that since the specific parts were never authorized for aviation use, the planes that had them installed technically weren't fit to carry passengers. Only an airline can ground its aircraft, but carriers don't want to continue flying planes contrary to the FAA's wishes. The agency has authority to impose fines and other penalties when it feels certain planes shouldn't operate."
L
08-26-2009, 06:46 PM
#2
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: SWA Poolie
Posts: 89
Originally Posted by Lambourne
Didn't see this posted on the forum, from the WSJ. Interesting reading about SWA and continuing issue with maintenance compliance.
"FAA inspectors and managers maintained that since the specific parts were never authorized for aviation use, the planes that had them installed technically weren't fit to carry passengers. Only an airline can ground its aircraft, but carriers don't want to continue flying planes contrary to the FAA's wishes. The agency has authority to impose fines and other penalties when it feels certain planes shouldn't operate."
L
"FAA inspectors and managers maintained that since the specific parts were never authorized for aviation use, the planes that had them installed technically weren't fit to carry passengers. Only an airline can ground its aircraft, but carriers don't want to continue flying planes contrary to the FAA's wishes. The agency has authority to impose fines and other penalties when it feels certain planes shouldn't operate."
L
* Unauthorized parts found on older Southwest 737s
* Parts do not pose safety threat, FAA says (Updates with FAA, Southwest comment)
4 Fan.
08-27-2009, 11:21 AM
#3
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
The FAA never fazes to amaze me. While flying B727's at Express One Int'l., they actually shut us down for "violations" concerning "non FAA approved" parts that we got from FAA APPROVED vendors!!! They also violated us for AD's on aircraft that were not performed 20 years prior to our purchase of the aircraft!!! Go figure..............and they wonder why no one respects them?????...
08-27-2009, 03:29 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: B737/Capt
Posts: 998
Originally Posted by Lambourne
Didn't see this posted on the forum, from the WSJ. Interesting reading about SWA and continuing issue with maintenance compliance.
"FAA inspectors and managers maintained that since the specific parts were never authorized for aviation use, the planes that had them installed technically weren't fit to carry passengers. Only an airline can ground its aircraft, but carriers don't want to continue flying planes contrary to the FAA's wishes. The agency has authority to impose fines and other penalties when it feels certain planes shouldn't operate."
L
"FAA inspectors and managers maintained that since the specific parts were never authorized for aviation use, the planes that had them installed technically weren't fit to carry passengers. Only an airline can ground its aircraft, but carriers don't want to continue flying planes contrary to the FAA's wishes. The agency has authority to impose fines and other penalties when it feels certain planes shouldn't operate."
L
The Oscar
08-27-2009, 03:32 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: B737/Capt
Posts: 998
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
The FAA never fazes to amaze me. While flying B727's at Express One Int'l., they actually shut us down for "violations" concerning "non FAA approved" parts that we got from FAA APPROVED vendors!!! They also violated us for AD's on aircraft that were not performed 20 years prior to our purchase of the aircraft!!! Go figure..............and they wonder why no one respects them?????...
For once I am totally on your level. If SWA has made "mistakes" than we will have to adjust accordingly. The implications by some that SWA did this without regard for public safety is well ...... again without credibility. Thanks for the support - I think.
Oscar
08-27-2009, 04:04 PM
#6
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: SWA Poolie
Posts: 89
Originally Posted by OscartheGrouch
Well LB, since I have been censored by the authorities that be, please explain what your implications are by pointing out another flaw that SWA has. Your credibility is in question when many of your previous posts are in fact "digs" towards SWA. As I stated in my censored post SWA has numerous aircraft now and growing pains (at least up to this point) require some MX management and organizational skills that might not be up to par with the "legacies." Throwing stones when ones house is not completely in order is well ..... without credibility.
The Oscar
The Oscar
08-27-2009, 04:17 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,920
Originally Posted by 4 Fan Trashcan
I gotta wonder why some people love to hate SWA so much.
08-27-2009, 04:31 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777 Capt
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by OscartheGrouch
Well LB, since I have been censored by the authorities that be, please explain what your implications are by pointing out another flaw that SWA has. Your credibility is in question when many of your previous posts are in fact "digs" towards SWA. As I stated in my censored post SWA has numerous aircraft now and growing pains (at least up to this point) require some MX management and organizational skills that might not be up to par with the "legacies." Throwing stones when ones house is not completely in order is well ..... without credibility.
The Oscar
The Oscar
You act like I broke in and placed unapproved parts on the SWA airplanes. Sir, this is news and this is a forum to discuss the news within the industry. If this was my carrier I am sure someone would have posted this along with comments on our demise.
This is life, deal with it.
L
08-27-2009, 06:23 PM
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: F/O New Hire
Posts: 89
Sorry Lambourne, but I'm going to throw the BS flag. You want to post "news" Good for you! I appreciate that. I think what Oscar took offense to was your lead in commentary...."continuing issue with maintenance compliance. "
You can stand above the fray when you post news without the negative commentary. Didn't American just have maintenance issues a couple months ago. It's an ongoing battle with the FAA, but now that you've opened the door to everyone slamming YOUR airline, I'm sure Oscar will hammer you for every piece of negative info.
Actually, I think he's above that....most of us are.
You can stand above the fray when you post news without the negative commentary. Didn't American just have maintenance issues a couple months ago. It's an ongoing battle with the FAA, but now that you've opened the door to everyone slamming YOUR airline, I'm sure Oscar will hammer you for every piece of negative info.
Actually, I think he's above that....most of us are.
08-27-2009, 06:23 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 712
Originally Posted by 4 Fan Trashcan
I gotta wonder why some people love to hate SWA so much.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
