SWA employees sure know how to talk crap about other airlines but it seems they can't handle it in return... 
SAFETY OVERSIGHT
- Thread starter SKY HIGH
- Start date
KCFlyer
Veteran
You know, As long as I've read this board I can think of maybe ONE poster who claims to be a SWA employee who "talks crap" about other airlines. But I see many of other airlines who waste no time in "talking crap" about Southwest. FWIW, I'm not a Southwest employee, nor am I defending their actions in this case.SWA employees sure know how to talk crap about other airlines but it seems they can't handle it in return...
USAir757 & a320av8r:
The reason the name "Valujet" comes to mind is because now, as then, many people (aviation and non-aviation types) will form an opinion based on a newspaper reporter's version of events. Try to remember the last time you read or watched a media report on something aviation-related that didn't contain a knee-slappingly ridiculous error. One of my most memorable was CNN's "aviation expert" (since he owns/owned a single-engine) Wolf Blitzer saying that he couldn't understand why the Alaska MD80 would have had any trouble flying with an electric trim problem, since "everyone knows" that ALL airplanes have a little manual trim wheel by the pilot's knee. Another was an article on TCAS that said "Pilots TEND to ignore TCAS warnings when taxiing". I don't believe all journalists are ignorant or intentionally print things that aren't true. But, newspapers and TV stations are in business to make money, and more money is made when stories are embellished and/or exaggerated. Reporters have deadlines to meet, and "get the story out first" sometimes trumps accuracy.
Some might think the FAA's decision to levy a fine against WN is "proof" of WN's guilt. In the article I read, it was reported that "an FAA whistle-blower brought to the FAA's attention" that WN was ignoring the inspection requirements, and the FAA initially didn't take any action. To paraphrase Sam Waterston on Law and Order, was the FAA wrong at first, or are they wrong now? It's one thing if someone looks at individual FAA actions, and forms an opinion of those actions; it's quite another if someone constantly berates the FAA as a whole, only to "fall in love" with them when they take action against that dastardly, pesky WN. I'm not saying any of the above applies to either of you, just possibly others...
Your (and many, many other's) opinion of Valujet is probably based on what you read/heard from our "expert", "gotta juice this story up, so it'll sell", media. Mine is based on having worked at VJ for the last 3 of it's 4 year existence, and doing duty at SaberTech in MIA just prior to the Everglades crash. I'm not saying I'm right/you're wrong, or that I know everything. Just that I know what I saw, what I didn't see, and I know first-hand that many stories I read/heard from the media about VJ were, in some cases sensationalized, and in others, an outright damn lie. If you want to debate the VJ thing, we can do that on the AirTran site.
Some aviation types are so wanting of anything bad about WN, that this is their "proof". So, go ahead and decide WN's guilty, keeping in mind the bevy of "aviation experts" that are feeding you info. WN may well be guilty as hell; but I choose to decide that for myself, based on anything other than the crap called reporting.
Respectfully
The reason the name "Valujet" comes to mind is because now, as then, many people (aviation and non-aviation types) will form an opinion based on a newspaper reporter's version of events. Try to remember the last time you read or watched a media report on something aviation-related that didn't contain a knee-slappingly ridiculous error. One of my most memorable was CNN's "aviation expert" (since he owns/owned a single-engine) Wolf Blitzer saying that he couldn't understand why the Alaska MD80 would have had any trouble flying with an electric trim problem, since "everyone knows" that ALL airplanes have a little manual trim wheel by the pilot's knee. Another was an article on TCAS that said "Pilots TEND to ignore TCAS warnings when taxiing". I don't believe all journalists are ignorant or intentionally print things that aren't true. But, newspapers and TV stations are in business to make money, and more money is made when stories are embellished and/or exaggerated. Reporters have deadlines to meet, and "get the story out first" sometimes trumps accuracy.
Some might think the FAA's decision to levy a fine against WN is "proof" of WN's guilt. In the article I read, it was reported that "an FAA whistle-blower brought to the FAA's attention" that WN was ignoring the inspection requirements, and the FAA initially didn't take any action. To paraphrase Sam Waterston on Law and Order, was the FAA wrong at first, or are they wrong now? It's one thing if someone looks at individual FAA actions, and forms an opinion of those actions; it's quite another if someone constantly berates the FAA as a whole, only to "fall in love" with them when they take action against that dastardly, pesky WN. I'm not saying any of the above applies to either of you, just possibly others...
Your (and many, many other's) opinion of Valujet is probably based on what you read/heard from our "expert", "gotta juice this story up, so it'll sell", media. Mine is based on having worked at VJ for the last 3 of it's 4 year existence, and doing duty at SaberTech in MIA just prior to the Everglades crash. I'm not saying I'm right/you're wrong, or that I know everything. Just that I know what I saw, what I didn't see, and I know first-hand that many stories I read/heard from the media about VJ were, in some cases sensationalized, and in others, an outright damn lie. If you want to debate the VJ thing, we can do that on the AirTran site.
Some aviation types are so wanting of anything bad about WN, that this is their "proof". So, go ahead and decide WN's guilty, keeping in mind the bevy of "aviation experts" that are feeding you info. WN may well be guilty as hell; but I choose to decide that for myself, based on anything other than the crap called reporting.
Respectfully
Coffee_Tea_Or_Me
Senior
I sure know of a couple who like to leave their negative two cents in the US boards. The bottom line is that this is a lesson learned -- even the best airlines make stupid mistakes. Utopian Perfect Airways does not exist. The best airlines become the worst, the worst airlines become the best (i.e., US Airways from first to worst; Continental from worst to first).
I am not talking crap about Southwest -- basically everyone on these boards is the victim or honoree of airline management teams. I hope this issue does not signify Southwest's downturn, but you never know. Things change in this industry on a dime, however, and we all know that.
Do you have proof of that last statement, or is that just you talking out your ass?
Either way, as far as I can tell, it looks like the FAA and Southwest both goofed, considering WN self-reported the event, but now the FAA is trying to pass the buck by filing a lawsuit a year after they approved of it.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
My major concern is not really directed at Southwest, but rather the FAA. The system they use to approve and monitor carriers allows the FAA's regional offices great leeway in how carriers are approved and monitored. The most immediate example is the way that Southwest is and was allowed to do their preflight announcements much differently then other airlines. No other airline, to my knowledge, was allowed to make that announcement humerous or anything other then a rote recitation of whatever was contained in that airline's flight attendant's manual.
Other differences appear on other levels and I don't blame Southwest for any of this, but rather the FAA's methodology in allowing significant variations based upon which regional office is responsible for that airline. In my opinion that practice is wrong and all airlines should be playing under both the same rules and the same interpretation of those rules.
Other differences appear on other levels and I don't blame Southwest for any of this, but rather the FAA's methodology in allowing significant variations based upon which regional office is responsible for that airline. In my opinion that practice is wrong and all airlines should be playing under both the same rules and the same interpretation of those rules.
Self reporting is not an avenue to seek approval with the FAA.
Self reporting is intended to reduce or minimize any action by the FAA as far as fines etc.
Now comes the part where the airline goofed.....they reported to the FAA the fact that they exceeded the time limits for the inspection but kept flying the aircraft knowing they were in violation.
10million dollar fine. Well SWA does enjoy doing things "big". This is very interesting. What was the maintenance award you guys were bragging about? Was it the "Dewey, Cheatam and Howe" award?
The fact remains that WN self disclosed, contacted Boeing and the FAA, and all parties agreed to the remedy. The inspections were completed in 8 days, two days faster than Boeing recomended. The reason this issue is coming up again is because someone has an axe to grind at the FAA. Could it be that the whistle blower mentioned in the Dallas Morning News was turned down employement at Southwest in the past?
signals
Veteran
I totally agree with you on this one. So why do some US employees make a big deal about it? The poster must have been affected more by the 'Kill US Airways' employees PRopaganda' than an extremely dangerous situation. Just my 2 cents...
signals
Veteran
No one was hurt or killed. Although it is 'good' to know, wouldn't it have been better if we were never told? My idea of putting a psychic with a crystal ball at every gate didn't go over well! If I was really worried about this incident, I'd be extremely pessimistic about getting on an old DC-9. Now I'm not naming names but I think I flew one of those from Italy in the 70s!
signals
Veteran
SWA employees sure know how to talk crap about other airlines but it seems they can't handle it in return...
Unlike US Airways where their employees talk crap about themselves
signals
Veteran
OK, I'm not going to stay at this board forever, but let me outline the article. Dr. LUV(NYSE) has failed to inspect 46 planes. Six had cracks. Forty did NOT! Those are pretty good odds.
It's like a car in NYS that has an expired inspection. You can get fined if past due. The reason for any inspection is to find if it meets the safety standards set by government.
There were cracks but no one was hurt, maimed or killed. Yes WN has gotten bad publicity, big deal. Did B6 suffer from that 12 hour tarmac incident? I still hear people bragging about being part of it as they head for B6's gate.
It may be a black eye for a champ, but it's not retired yet. I'll bet most will still fly WN.
I tend to see things from all sides of the arguement...Maybe planes are kept in service because others may be down and being repaired. And we all know how passengers take to cancelled and overbooked flights.
To cut to the chase, SouthWest will survive because their employees may be concerned about this but they don't trash and BLAME their CEOs or cry about working conditions.
I LUV how US EMPLOYEES can claim that WN is better than US, on other threads, because in Pitt SouthWest got their @$$es out of a sling by flying US employees when US cut flights to Pitt. Then as soon as WN trips they all come and kick it while it's down. Then again they bite the hand that feeds them. How low can they go?
It's like a car in NYS that has an expired inspection. You can get fined if past due. The reason for any inspection is to find if it meets the safety standards set by government.
There were cracks but no one was hurt, maimed or killed. Yes WN has gotten bad publicity, big deal. Did B6 suffer from that 12 hour tarmac incident? I still hear people bragging about being part of it as they head for B6's gate.
It may be a black eye for a champ, but it's not retired yet. I'll bet most will still fly WN.
I tend to see things from all sides of the arguement...Maybe planes are kept in service because others may be down and being repaired. And we all know how passengers take to cancelled and overbooked flights.
To cut to the chase, SouthWest will survive because their employees may be concerned about this but they don't trash and BLAME their CEOs or cry about working conditions.
I LUV how US EMPLOYEES can claim that WN is better than US, on other threads, because in Pitt SouthWest got their @$$es out of a sling by flying US employees when US cut flights to Pitt. Then as soon as WN trips they all come and kick it while it's down. Then again they bite the hand that feeds them. How low can they go?
Sorry but Self Disclosure does not hold water on deliberate acts. Much like committing murder but telling the police you did it does not absolve you of the fact that you did it or that you should withstand punishment. Self Disclosure is intended for unintentional acts and from all accounts it appears that SWA DELIBERATELY acted in a hazardous manner and against compliance and regulatory issues.
It is generally the cover up that gets you and this appears to have been an attempt at a cover up in addition to DELIBERATE violations. Looks like you guys might not be worthy of those "awards" in mtc.
Similar threads
