https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2019/02/06/southwest-airlines-flight-attendants-safety.html

I certainly don’t find this surprising. WN has been fined by the FAA many times, had FAA inspectors reassigned because of the payoff they were getting from WN to look the other way and the recent payment of FAA inspectors during the government shutdown paint a bad picture.

Add to this the investigation into the engine failure and passenger death that leads back to the maintenance program. WN finds itself in a spot it pays exorbitantly to avoid...the negative spotlight.

Not to downplay the concerns,but, is this a power play move due to:

"Both Southwest and American mechanics also are in the middle of protracted bargaining talks over new contracts."

Their MX is without a contract for 6yrs now.
Hawaii is fast approaching and back in the headlines. How do your drum up support for a long over due contract by stirring the pot.
That said I 110% agree with them on many issues. Why would you want to sub contract out MX to a foreign 3ed party when your have the world best 737 MX in your own house. WHY WN and GK can't clean up the riff between his MX department is beyond me. It's been 6 years already!
Take a play from Herb Take care of your own people already.

Flyguy

Even Pan Am went under.

Anything is possible, but safe operations and reliable operations are inextricably intertwined, so by this measure, they are probably pretty darned safe. In any event, no Southwest pilot is going to accept an aircraft that they believe is anything less than fully airworthy.

At the same time, however, to maintain a culture of safety, there needs to be a culture of trust, and going this long without a properly-finalized contract cannot help.

KICT wrote:

Even Pan Am went under.

Let's not go crazy

mcdu wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2019/02/06/southwest-airlines-flight-attendants-safety.html

I certainly don’t find this surprising. WN has been fined by the FAA many times, had FAA inspectors reassigned because of the payoff they were getting from WN to look the other way and the recent payment of FAA inspectors during the government shutdown paint a bad picture.

Add to this the investigation into the engine failure and passenger death that leads back to the maintenance program. WN finds itself in a spot it pays exorbitantly to avoid...the negative spotlight.

Power move by the unions. Just the kinda thing that happens when you have 6 yrs without a contract. Sad.

The thoughts of some on here saying that contracting MX work isnt safe... That generalization is false. Is there bad contract MX absolutely. Contracting out MX has and always will be part of the industry. Does any company do ALL of their own MX? Im thinking DL might, but even so its the exception not the rule. Thank goodness we have FLIGHT ATTENDANTS saying our MX is unsafe.

KICT wrote:

Even Pan Am went under.

The only major airline here in the US at risk of merging/going out of business is B6.

Ha.... this is a page from the union's "Trash your Company" playbook last ran by Allegiant's unions. So, so, preditable.

What is the over/under on the coming 60 minutes expose cause they are quite the union sympathizers over there. 6 months?

mcdu wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2019/02/06/southwest-airlines-flight-attendants-safety.html

I certainly don’t find this surprising. WN has been fined by the FAA many times, had FAA inspectors reassigned because of the payoff they were getting from WN to look the other way and the recent payment of FAA inspectors during the government shutdown paint a bad picture.

Add to this the investigation into the engine failure and passenger death that leads back to the maintenance program. WN finds itself in a spot it pays exorbitantly to avoid...the negative spotlight.

Given how you live to trash WN any chance you get, I take your commentary outside the link to the article as hyperbole...especially with the engine failure being blamed on WN's mx program (considering that several NTSB sources have said already that it was due to a microfracture that would have been nearly impossible to catch in a routine inspection).

AWACSooner wrote:

mcdu wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2019/02/06/southwest-airlines-flight-attendants-safety.html

I certainly don’t find this surprising. WN has been fined by the FAA many times, had FAA inspectors reassigned because of the payoff they were getting from WN to look the other way and the recent payment of FAA inspectors during the government shutdown paint a bad picture.

Add to this the investigation into the engine failure and passenger death that leads back to the maintenance program. WN finds itself in a spot it pays exorbitantly to avoid...the negative spotlight.

Given how you live to trash WN any chance you get, I take your commentary outside the link to the article as hyperbole...especially with the engine failure being blamed on WN's mx program (considering that several NTSB sources have said already that it was due to a microfracture that would have been nearly impossible to catch in a routine inspection).

Except that WN was proponent of extending the overhaul times. Had the overhaul times been a closer intervals this accident could very well not have happened.

All of the items in my post are real events that WN has been involved in over the years. They have conducted their business plan on shortcuts. They want slots they don’t have to pay for. Their pilots always “looking for a shortcut” when in a line of 30 airplane going into a major city. They taxi at the speed of sound and have had issues containing airplanes onto runways. The rush and shortcut mentality at WN has possibly killed two people. The next time it may be many more.

smokeybandit wrote:

Not to downplay the concerns,but, is this a power play move due to:

"Both Southwest and American mechanics also are in the middle of protracted bargaining talks over new contracts."

BINGO!!!!

mwmav8r01 wrote:

mcdu wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2019/02/06/southwest-airlines-flight-attendants-safety.html

I certainly don’t find this surprising. WN has been fined by the FAA many times, had FAA inspectors reassigned because of the payoff they were getting from WN to look the other way and the recent payment of FAA inspectors during the government shutdown paint a bad picture.

Add to this the investigation into the engine failure and passenger death that leads back to the maintenance program. WN finds itself in a spot it pays exorbitantly to avoid...the negative spotlight.

Power move by the unions. Just the kinda thing that happens when you have 6 yrs without a contract. Sad.

The thoughts of some on here saying that contracting MX work isnt safe... That generalization is false. Is there bad contract MX absolutely. Contracting out MX has and always will be part of the industry. Does any company do ALL of their own MX? Im thinking DL might, but even so its the exception not the rule. Thank goodness we have FLIGHT ATTENDANTS saying our MX is unsafe.

First, sad 6 years and no contract.

But this is a power move. I would fly WN any day.

This has been done too many times by unions. What Southwest (and all companies) need is a path to a more efficient, software driven culture. The unions need to propose a path forward. E.g., mining unions became so greedy that US mining became so mechanized each worker is 400x more efficient than before the big strikes that most here won't remember.

My friends who work automation always vote for higher minimum benefits and minimum wage. It is required for their job opportunities.

Lightsaber

Guess you all didn’t see AA has settled with at least six mechanics under the Whisleblower Act and signed NDAs.

Must be contract time again.

mcdu wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

mcdu wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2019/02/06/southwest-airlines-flight-attendants-safety.html

I certainly don’t find this surprising. WN has been fined by the FAA many times, had FAA inspectors reassigned because of the payoff they were getting from WN to look the other way and the recent payment of FAA inspectors during the government shutdown paint a bad picture.

Add to this the investigation into the engine failure and passenger death that leads back to the maintenance program. WN finds itself in a spot it pays exorbitantly to avoid...the negative spotlight.

Given how you live to trash WN any chance you get, I take your commentary outside the link to the article as hyperbole...especially with the engine failure being blamed on WN's mx program (considering that several NTSB sources have said already that it was due to a microfracture that would have been nearly impossible to catch in a routine inspection).

Except that WN was proponent of extending the overhaul times. Had the overhaul times been a closer intervals this accident could very well not have happened.

All of the items in my post are real events that WN has been involved in over the years. They have conducted their business plan on shortcuts. They want slots they don’t have to pay for. Their pilots always “looking for a shortcut” when in a line of 30 airplane going into a major city. They taxi at the speed of sound and have had issues containing airplanes onto runways. The rush and shortcut mentality at WN has possibly killed two people. The next time it may be many more.

What do you not understand about: " several NTSB sources have said already that it was due to a microfracture that would have been nearly impossible to catch in a routine inspection"

WN is as safe as they get. I'd fly the airline any day -- as a matter of fact, I will be flying WN later today.

lightsaber wrote:

I would fly WN any day.

So would I. More importantly, thousands of WN FA’s do fly WN all day, every day. Which clearly says they believe WN is safe.

mwmav8r01 wrote:

Thank goodness we have FLIGHT ATTENDANTS saying our MX is unsafe.

What can say a FA about MX ?

"Our hot cup is not working"

What do the F/As have to support their claims of Southwest being unsafe?

kiowa wrote:

What do the F/As have to support their claims of Southwest being unsafe?

It doesn’t matter, the fact that thousands of them fly one Southwest flight after another, day after day, says that they think Southwest is safe.

If you think a particular airline is unsafe would you fly dozens of flights on that airline every week?

Until the FA’s actions match their union’s propaganda, any claims that the FA’s think Southwest is unsafe have no credibility.

What did the FA's use to support that Southwest is dangerous/unsafe?

Super80Fan wrote:

KICT wrote:

Even Pan Am went under.

The only major airline here in the US at risk of merging/going out of business is B6.

If nobody else is “at risk of merging” then who is B6 going to merge with, themselves?

I don't have a dog in this fight: I don't work for WN, nor do I fly WN (I'm B6, HA, DL and AZ loyal) but I have to say, I'd fly WN anytime without a second thought. Life has taught me a few things, mostly: look at the timing, and look at the conditions. If there were systematic problems with mx at WN, I have a hard time believing we'd just be hearing about it now. Some folk(s) who DO have a dog in this fight, given what's coming up vis a vis unions, Hawaii, and any other situations at all, can sure be considered a catalyst for coming up with some headline-worthy nonsense about a company. Does WN have issues? Show me a company - ANY company - that doesn't. From Amazon to the local coffee shop, companies will always face challenges and overcome adversity... But being as I'm nowhere near a WN fanboy, I have to applaud them for decades of safe service. Not perfect - and no airline is - but decades of safe service nonetheless.

Whenever I read these kinds of things, I immediately follow the money and/or those who stand to gain from this kind of attention.

Would fly Southwest anyday anytime for domestic travel. They're by far the best for economy.

kalvado wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

kiowa wrote:

What do the F/As have to support their claims of Southwest being unsafe?

It doesn’t matter, the fact that thousands of them fly one Southwest flight after another, day after day, says that they think Southwest is safe.

If you think a particular airline is unsafe would you fly dozens of flights on that airline every week?

Until the FA’s actions match their union’s propaganda, any claims that the FA’s think Southwest is unsafe have no credibility.

Look at US roads. You can see at least some vehicles which seem to be ready to fall apart, yet being driven. Most likely, driven day after day. Because that is the way people make their living.
THere is a risk in almost anything you do; and flying an unsafe airline is still way lower risk that driving a top notch 18-wheeler - not to mention some rusty clunkers which are still on the road.

Not a good analogy. I don't know anyone who drives a car they believe is unsafe. Uncomfortable-yes. Unreliable-yes. But unsafe, as in they're knowingly risking their life to get to work or the store or wherever? No.

Keep your posts relevant to the topic, that being as the title says “southwest mechanics and FA’s say airline is unsafe”. All off topic posts plus all posts referencing those off topic posts have been removed

Let us not forget that Southwest disciplined a mechanic for doing his job.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia ... 1a726318db

This is getting zero play in the mainstream press because they all know that this is a standard union tactic in contract negotiations and that WN overall has an excellent safety culture and excellent track record. If there are localized problems or issues, they can and certainly will be addressed.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Let us not forget that Southwest disciplined a mechanic for doing his job.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia ... 1a726318db

yikes, that's a pretty ugly story and event.
doesn't really support the idea that WN has an "excellent safety culture". kind of the opposite, really.

and 6 years with a contract is really just inexcusable.

let me preemptively state that I've no beef or stake in WN.
but it sure sounds like they've got a labor problem with their MX group, and the management has some responsibility.

FlyHappy wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Let us not forget that Southwest disciplined a mechanic for doing his job.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia ... 1a726318db

yikes, that's a pretty ugly story and event.
doesn't really support the idea that WN has an "excellent safety culture". kind of the opposite, really.

and 6 years with a contract is really just inexcusable.

let me preemptively state that I've no beef or stake in WN.
but it sure sounds like they've got a labor problem with their MX group, and the management has some responsibility.

Is it likely that WN is not a homogenously perfect entity - yes. Is it likely that they (like any large entity) screw up - absolutely.

Do they facts support WN being unsafe in any ways? - no. Is it possible to be lucky for 30 years where you have a good safety record yet a bad culture - absolutely not.

FlyHappy wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Let us not forget that Southwest disciplined a mechanic for doing his job.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia ... 1a726318db

yikes, that's a pretty ugly story and event.
doesn't really support the idea that WN has an "excellent safety culture". kind of the opposite, really.

and 6 years with a contract is really just inexcusable.

let me preemptively state that I've no beef or stake in WN.
but it sure sounds like they've got a labor problem with their MX group, and the management has some responsibility.

Well, that was 5 years ago, and who knows where. A farflung organization is guaranteed to have idiots working in various places, and then will circle the wagons when they screw up. Southwest lost, got a bunch of bad publicity, and presumably corrected its act. I made no bones about the fact that Allegiant had some issues in its Florida maintenance operation -- not fatal-accident-likely issues, but issues serious enough to warrant some big changes. Management got the message, separate and apart from the pilots' action, and a whole group of idiots were replaced and the place is now up to snuff. Indeed, Allegiant now follows a policy that every squawk on an Airbus aircraft is to be addressed immediately, regardless of likelihood that it's aberrant and even if it causes a delay. This goes far beyond what most carriers do, but it has raised the bar on safety by making it clear that management is serious.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Let us not forget that Southwest disciplined a mechanic for doing his job.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia ... 1a726318db

There's no question that SWA attempted to send a clear signal to that mechanic and all others by taking disciplinary action, and there's no question that it was disciplinary and punitive in nature, despite SWA's assertion that both are not the case. A judge sided with the mechanic. There's no question that SWA clearly chose economics over safety here. This is not an isolated event.

I fly for a living, but have more years of turning wrenches than flying, having been working on airplanes since my early teens, and having never stopped. I have seen more than a few occasions over the years in which employers pressured me, and others, not to "find" discrepancies, or to overlook them. I have seen this at everything from agricultural operators to charter operators to government contractors to airlines, in small through large aircraft, piston through turbine, radial, turboprop, and turbojet. I once discovered significant corrosion in a Sabreliner 60, and upon showing it to the chief pilot of a corporate department, was told to put the panel back in place and forget it because "we're selling it anyway." I was once told to inspect a large, four engine airplane prior to closing up engines after an inspection, but "don't find anything." I found a lot of things that needed addressing before the engines could be closed, from loose fuel lines to numerous other issues that had to be corrected before engine runs or flight. I was called into the office of the Director of Maintenance, and accused of making a list for the FAA. I was told that I'd violated my instructions to "not find anything."

A pilot has a duty to get an airplane safely to its destination, but that duty also includes a legal and moral obligation to place safety above all else. This may mean a diversion, or in some cases may mean refusing or delaying a flight, approach or landing, or weight or condition. We're paid for our judgement. Likewise, a mechanic may have a particular assignment, but his overall duty always includes inspecting and looking for discrepancies. Attempting to censure a mechanic for doing that is a very, very dangerous thing, and in this singular case, SWA was caught.

Everybody who believes this was an isolated case, stand on your head in the corner until the sense drains back into your skull.

Do airlines cut corners? Yes, unquestionably. If you work for an airline and you don't believe it, you're blind. Probably deaf, and dumb, too. Whether it's mechanics falsifying a work card and applying incorrect grease to a stabilizer trim jack screw, applying incorrect rigging to a Beech 1900, to placing hazardous unsecured "COMAT" oxygen generators in the lower cargo of a passenger operation. Yes, they do. Occasionally they get caught.

Don't for a moment think or suggest these are isolated to third world operations. You'll find them anywhere that aircraft are flown, anywhere in the world.

wjcandee wrote:

This is getting zero play in the mainstream press because they all know that this is a standard union tactic in contract negotiations and that WN overall has an excellent safety culture and excellent track record. If there are localized problems or issues, they can and certainly will be addressed.

CBS News has done two national reports on it.

Do the recent incidents at Southwest not at least support this a little? When you look at which airlines are fined for MX issues it seems like WN is frequently on that list. Not to mention a couple high profile (one of which was deadly) engine issues in the last couple years. I'm happy everyone is such a fan of Southwest, but some of your trust may be displaced.

qf789 wrote:

Keep your posts relevant to the topic, that being as the title says “southwest mechanics and FA’s say airline is unsafe”. All off topic posts plus all posts referencing those off topic posts have been removed

My original comment was not off topic so why was it removed?

I was also wondering since Southwest always flies to secondary airports, those tend to have shorter runways than the big airports. Is that a factor in safety, as we have a few incidents where the plane could not stop in time?

Ziyulu wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Keep your posts relevant to the topic, that being as the title says “southwest mechanics and FA’s say airline is unsafe”. All off topic posts plus all posts referencing those off topic posts have been removed

My original comment was not off topic so why was it removed?

It was removed for trolling

Ziyulu wrote:

I was also wondering since Southwest always flies to secondary airports, those tend to have shorter runways than the big airports. Is that a factor in safety, as we have a few incidents where the plane could not stop in time?

Given your airline expertise, you'll already be aware that a dispatch requirement is that the flight must be able to land, in accordance with performance data, within 60% of the runway at the destination, and if the runway is wet or contaminated, then 115% of the landing distance must fit within 60% of the destination runway to be legal to dispatch the aircraft in the first place.

What the aircraft does when it arrives is in the hands of the pilot.

747Whale wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

I was also wondering since Southwest always flies to secondary airports, those tend to have shorter runways than the big airports. Is that a factor in safety, as we have a few incidents where the plane could not stop in time?

Given your airline expertise, you'll already be aware that a dispatch requirement is that the flight must be able to land, in accordance with performance data, within 60% of the runway at the destination, and if the runway is wet or contaminated, then 115% of the landing distance must fit within 60% of the destination runway to be legal to dispatch the aircraft in the first place.

What the aircraft does when it arrives is in the hands of the pilot.

Thanks for that information.
The 40% margin or more is quite impressive to say the least.

Given that 40% margin, you are still safer on a longer runway in case you do need additional length, correct?

Ziyulu wrote:

Given that 40% margin, you are still safer on a longer runway in case you do need additional length, correct?

Absolutely, the numbers don't always work and the crew does not always make good decisions. Burbank comes to mind.

Ziyulu wrote:

Given that 40% margin, you are still safer on a longer runway in case you do need additional length, correct?

What is the point that you're attempting to make here? Are you trying to fiat your argument into a corner and suggest that longer is always safer and thus anything shorter than the longest runway proves that SWA operates unsafely?

If one could land on 30,000' runways, would that be enough? If I have a 50,000' runway, which doesn't exist, and I land in 6,000' of it, then the rest is irrelevant, and doesn't make the landing safer. If I land in 4,000 of it, then the remaining 46,000' of mythical runway is also irrelevant, and hasn't contributed to "safety."

"Safety" is operating the aircraft within its limitations and making a safe flight; one which does not result in a mishap. With that in mind, if the aircraft can safely land on a 7,000' runway because the performance data shows that it can land within 60% of that distance, then the requirements are met. Changing it to a 12,000' runway doesn't increase safety; it just means a lot more runway that isn't used.

One could jump into the irrational and ask about brake failures, suggest that 737's get fitted with arrester hooks and that the runways have barriers, cables, and giant airbags...but it's not realistic and is really delving into the ridiculous. Likewise, attempting to assert that SWA operates in an unsafe manner by dispatching to locations in which it can land within 60% of the available landing distance is at best the language of the troll, and shows very little understanding or grounding in reality. What you're attempting to do is express a lie and couch it as a casual enquiry. We operate aircraft within the published limitations and we work within the margins that we're given. Most of the time, operations will land well within the 60% distance, adding even more available runway beyond what's actually needed...but that doesn't necessarily make the flight safer.

A flight must be operated at the correct airspeed, flap setting, and say on glidepath. Unforecast runway conditions or underreported runway conditions, gusts, and other factors can alter the landing, as can technique or handling. It's also why we calculate landing distances in real time on arrival, to determine that based on actual reported conditions we can still do what we planned on doing when released for the flight.

SWA, like all airlines, operates into some runways that are shorter than others, and like all airlines, meets the same requirements for dispatch.

What I was saying is the shorter runways might have caused Southwest to make the papers. I am totally aware it is supposed to be safe. The BUR and MDW incidents would not have made the papers if the runway was slightly longer.

Ziyulu wrote:

What I was saying is the shorter runways might have caused Southwest to make the papers. I am totally aware it is supposed to be safe. The BUR and MDW incidents would not have made the papers if the runway was slightly longer.

And what 747Whale is saying is that the BUR & MDW runways were deemed to be long enough for the conditions at the time; had they not been long enough, the PIC would have been in violation of the relevant FAR and subjected to reprimand.

WN flies thousands of flights a day; how often do they make the headlines?

Ziyulu wrote:

What I was saying is the shorter runways might have caused Southwest to make the papers. I am totally aware it is supposed to be safe. The BUR and MDW incidents would not have made the papers if the runway was slightly longer.

You don't know that.

Seeing as you're stipulating that which you couldn't possibly know, then lay down your solution. What is the minimum length that the Boeing 737 may be dispatched to or from?

This will be based on your experience with the 737, right? Or are you guessing?

QXorVX wrote:

Do the recent incidents at Southwest not at least support this a little? When you look at which airlines are fined for MX issues it seems like WN is frequently on that list. Not to mention a couple high profile (one of which was deadly) engine issues in the last couple years. I'm happy everyone is such a fan of Southwest, but some of your trust may be displaced.

No it does not.

Oh please show us your "list" of which airlines received mx fines so we can determine whether WN is on the "list" more frequently.

A quick web search shows plenty of articles about AA . UA, Dl and other airlines receiving fines -- Southwest too.

747Whale wrote:

Do airlines cut corners? Yes, unquestionably. If you work for an airline and you don't believe it, you're blind. Probably deaf, and dumb, too. Whether it's mechanics falsifying a work card and applying incorrect grease to a stabilizer trim jack screw, applying incorrect rigging to a Beech 1900, to placing hazardous unsecured "COMAT" oxygen generators in the lower cargo of a passenger operation. Yes, they do. Occasionally they get caught.

If airlines were not cutting corners the FAA fine coffers would be empty. Since 2000 the big four (AA, DL, UA & WN) paid a total of 137.5 million in safety violation fines.... 747Whale very informative post in its entirety.

bob75013 wrote:

QXorVX wrote:

Do the recent incidents at Southwest not at least support this a little? When you look at which airlines are fined for MX issues it seems like WN is frequently on that list. Not to mention a couple high profile (one of which was deadly) engine issues in the last couple years. I'm happy everyone is such a fan of Southwest, but some of your trust may be displaced.

No it does not.

Oh please show us your "list" of which airlines received mx fines so we can determine whether WN is on the "list" more frequently.

A quick web search shows plenty of articles about AA . UA, Dl and other airlines receiving fines -- Southwest too.

Here some data. Interpret the data to formulate your own opinion. From what I see since 2000 WN is the 2nd most fined (by dollar amount) airline and last in incidents both for safety violations

WN : https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst. ... t-airlines
DL: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst. ... -air-lines
UA: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst. ... ontinental
AA: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst. ... n-airlines