FAA proposes $162million fine for AA

[700UW]

TLANTA – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing two civil penalties totaling $987,500 against Delta Air Lines of Atlanta, for allegedly operating an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737-800 on flights when they were not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.
In the first case, the FAA alleges Delta failed to repair a chip in the nose radome, or nose cone, on the B-737 after an FAA inspector conducted a pre-flight inspection and informed Delta he had observed chip damage. Delta’s structural repair manual requires the airline to seal radome chip damage before further flight. The enroute inspection took place Feb. 25, 2010, and the airline operated the plane on 20 additional flights between that date and March 1 while the aircraft was not in compliance.
The FAA further alleges Delta again failed to repair the radome during layover inspections of the aircraft on Feb. 25 and 28. The proposed civil penalty is $687,500.
“Safety is our highest priority,” said FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta. “Operators must follow the proper procedures to maintain their aircraft.”
The FAA also proposes a civil penalty of $300,000 against Delta for allegedly operating an Airbus A320 on 884 flights between May 25, 2010 and Jan. 3, 2011, when it was not in compliance with FAA regulations.
The FAA alleges the carrier incorrectly deferred repair of a broken cockpit floodlight socket at the first officer’s position. Maintenance procedures allow the airline to defer repairs on a dome light for no more than 10 days before repairing or replacing it. The FAA discovered the alleged violation during a routine inspection.
Delta has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letters to respond to the agency.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, indeed. which proves that the FAA is certainly not picking on AA at the expense of everyone else.

so, let's see $987,000 or $162,000,000. The comparison isn't even close.

 

[700UW]

You post that AA was horrible in maintenance, and your beloved DL is just as guilty, flying planes that werent airworthy.

Pot meet Kettle.

And AA's issue with the MD-80 wiring was an approved repair that the FAA went back on and rescinded the approval.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, I didn't say DL or any other airline was or ever will be spotless.

I have said that there must be something dramatically different from the way AA handles its maintenance and interfaces with the FAA that is different than other airlines for AA to end up w/ the equivalent of 8X larger than the previous largest fine to WN - and about 1/160th of what they are proposing against DL.

 

[700UW]

Apparently you dont understand, it affected more planes at AA that is why the fine was larger.

 

[WorldTraveler]

bingo.. it affected more planes because there were more issues and AA apparently didn't get the message that they needed to correct things and continued to fly planes with the problems... as you know, FAA fines are based on how many times you repeat a violation.
If you have multiple issues multiplied by hundreds of flights per issue, the fines add up real fast.

and according to the FAA, on top of it all, they copped an attitude.

Find me an example where any other airline has faced what AA is facing.

 

[jimntx]

Precisely. DL failed to repair two airplanes. AA failed to repair legions of airplanes for long periods of time after they were advised of needed repairs if the FAA reports are correct. This is not just the S80 wiring harness issue--and that was a snafu by the FAA. This includes a/c of every type we fly.

 

[700UW]

The FAA approved the AA repair then didnt agree with it, is that too hard to comprehend?

There were reports that FAA inspectors disagreed on the procedures, one would approve and then another one would look at it and disapprove the repair, that is why AA is fighting it.

 

[riceweevil]

See what happens when you do not have Airline people running an airline.

Even more so at TULE you have NON-Aircraft Maintenance Directors/ Managers/Supervisors who are supervising aircraft maintenance.

 

[FWAAA]

FWA,

I have a feeling we might find that your interpretation of the law is not what the courts will find.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I've been in a bankruptcy court and I've helped write plans. I've even beaten the IRS on what should have been priority taxes. We'll revisit this after AA's POR has been confirmed and we'll see how these claims are treated.

But the mindset that you seem to have is that AA is free to violate the law, walk into court and have their debts reduced to pennies on the dollar, and then walk out w/o having changed a thing about the way they run their maintenance operation.

That is precisely the reason why the FAA will do what it takes to make sure the fine is large enough to hurt - and ensure that real change does occur.

It is precisely the cavalier attitude that you seem to think is acceptable is the number one reason why AA is in the position they are in with the FAA.

You have a knack for making things up out of whole cloth, and the above is a perfect example. Your assumption about my feelings is completely wrong.

 

[jimntx]

The FAA approved the AA repair then didnt agree with it, is that too hard to comprehend?

There were reports that FAA inspectors disagreed on the procedures, one would approve and then another one would look at it and disapprove the repair, that is why AA is fighting it.

Will you please go read the article before commenting again. This proposed fine is NOT just about the S80 wiring harness issue. That is just a small part of the fine. There are also instances of repairs ordered but not made to 737s, 757s, 767s, AND 777s. In the case of the 757s, the FAA is citing over 15,000 unrepaired flights made after the repairs had been ordered.

 

[BigMac]

I think the future and survival of the FAA depends on AA's future. Without AA the FAA would be but a fraction of what it is now. The FAA holds AA as the standard for maintenance. We pay them sometimes millions every year. In my opinion if AA fails so does the FAA. My two cents

 

[chris perry]

Big surprise Not.We have watched the degradation of aircraft maintenance since 911.Now most is done overseas now where
there is little oversight. China for example doesn't report incident or accident data,it's all swept under the rug..profit before safety!

 

[WorldTraveler]

While no one is going to argue that overseas MROs do everything at the same level of quality as can be done here, it doesn't change the fact that the FAA monitors aircraft IN THE US. They don't care who repaired the aircraft as long as it meets FAA regs when it goes into revenue service here. The fines AA is facing are as large as they are because AA operated hundreds of flights on each of the incidents the FAA cited in violation of the regs.
There are mechanics on these forums who work for other airlines and say they spend alot of time fixing mistakes that come from MROs. I don't doubt that to be true - but that is something the airline has to consider in whether it is really worth it to send that work out. But those airlines KNOW they have to get the airplane airworthy based on US standards.

But it still comes down to that other airlines have to meet the same standards and work w/ the same FAA. There is something that alot of people don't want to admit that is wrong at AA that isn't wrong w/ other airlnes.
And if AA mgmt continues to believe they are not at fault, then that is precisely why the FAA will make the fine large enough to make it clear they are the regulators and they want aviation to work the way they say it should - or else changes should be made through the proper channels.

I have no idea where the logic comes from that says that AA is the standard of quality for US aviation but yet they are facing the largest fines in the history of aviation.

And as Jim has pointed out, this action affects multiple fleet types and multiple types of problems. That says this is more about culture and mgmt than about anything else.

 

[jimntx]

One can argue all you want that the FAA-ordered repairs/maintenance is stupid, trivial, and/or not needed. However, the FAA is still the one in charge. The speedometer on my BMW says it can go up to 160 mph, but, you know, the state of Texas has a different view of the situation. lol

Stupid or not, the law is the law.