Southwest faced grounding of planes due to maintenance/documentation issues

mcdu · Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:14 pm

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/faa-threatened-to-ground-38-southwest-airlines-jets-over-maintenance-concerns-report-says/ar-BBWBM6R

Southwest in the news for operating dozens of planes without maintenance verifications. Appears southwest acquired aircraft from foreign operators that required the aircraft to be inspected from nose to tail to assure all parts and maintenance actions were in accordance to FAA standards. Southwest failed to do all the inspections and have 38 airplanes that the FAA considered grounding because of non-compliance.

This story has lots of twist including whistleblowers. Another round of Southwest maintenance headaches it seems.

MIflyer12 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:36 pm

I'd give this a different title: Southwest doesn't know how to buy used aircraft. Have we seen these issues with the MD-90/A319 buys of DL/UA? I don't believe we have.

dcaproducer · Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:36 pm

Originally reported by the WSJ.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-consid ... 1573492428

These aircraft were all purchased after flying for foreign airlines. Reading the original article and the Wash Post version, it sounds like some of the foreign carriers didn't pass along all of the maintenance records, some were not in English, etc, ie: what they called "gaps in paperwork" in the article.

EMBQA · Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:42 pm

Having been a part of many "Bridging Inspections", they are not easy and take lots of record research. Throw in another language....oh my. If Southwest contracted someone to do these inspections, that would make them liable

kiowa · Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:09 pm

EMBQA wrote:
Having been a part of many "Bridging Inspections", they are not easy and take lots of record research. Throw in another language....oh my. If Southwest contracted someone to do these inspections, that would make them liable

That sounds like you are saying that they did not know what they were doing. The process is complicated but you don't buy used aircraft for millions of $ without doing proper research. They were also given an FAA deadline of last July which they seem to have ignored.

P1aneMad · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:03 pm

So are these aircraft still allowed to operate flights as we speak?
If yes why the FAA allows it? That is unbelievable negligence by all involved!!!

scbriml · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:13 pm

Typical shoddy maintenance practices by these third World airlines. :duck:

IWMBH · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:21 pm

Seems weird to me that the 38 planes under scrutiny aren't grounded, especially when WN itself found questionable repairs in the past.

par13del · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:33 pm

How does one not keep proper records in a regulated environment.
However as this seems to be a global problem, the way to ensure proper record keeping is to kill the second hand market by ensuring that whenever a second hand a/c is purchased it is immediately put through a D check or something similar to ensure that the a/c is physically safe versus a paper record saying it is technically safe, which would pax prefer? Now will that increase the cost of second hand purchases, yes, will it have an effect on proper record keeping, I think so, after all, in our society we are all about the money.
It could be a boom for leasing companies if they ensure that a/c that they lease have proper records, would put the small man out of business, but if that is what it takes to keep pax safe....who is going to complain?

par13del · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:36 pm

IWMBH wrote:
Seems weird to me that the 38 planes under scrutiny aren't grounded, especially when WN itself found questionable repairs in the past.

The article says there is a backup method / procedure in place, that could well be that if a repair is questionable because of missing records, the repair must be done by WN or at least physically verified that it was done. I can imagine all relevant AD's getting a physical look, will be expensive and time consuming, but that would be the price to pay for buying a/c from owners who do not maintain proper records.

77H · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:37 pm

scbriml wrote:
Typical shoddy maintenance practices by these third World airlines.

Right? Funny seeing all the posts about Lion Air and Ethiopian in the MAX threads where people are bringing up past runway excursions, maintenance issues, etc and attributing it to their status as airlines of the third world while also claiming how superior US Airlines and their personnel are.

Guess not.

77H

bob75013 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:39 pm

Actaully, the title of the artile should be "FAA Reminds Southwest that it has until 6/30/20 to make sure that Maintenace records are complete." A year and a haf ago it gve Southwest two years to comlete the process.

Two years to get it done? I guess the FAA was real concenred about the safety of planes --- NOT.

Of course we're dealing with MCDU here, so we wouldn't expect to have truth in title.

2175301 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:41 pm

I've read the article in Aviation Daily this morning:

FAA To Southwest: Evaluate Airworthiness Of 49 737s
https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... e3b4e84097

----

Overall: This actually sounds like the FAA is changing how it acts after the MCAS certification issues: While the FAA made agreements with Southwest on these aircraft before... and the agreement was to have all work done by July 2020; They are now questioning the wisdome of those agreements and putting more pressure on Southwest to get things done in a more timely fashion (all inspections now to be done by end of January - 6 months earlier than the original agreement); and it sounds like that the FAA is going to be a lot tighter on similar situations in the future.

As for Southwest... My guess is that they will end up changing their practices in regards to purchase of used aircraft from other companies. My guess is that other airlines will take note and change there practices as well.

Overall, I see this as a good thing. It appears to me that the FAA is no longer just depending on past record of success and being very lenient with how things are being done. They are tightening thing up; which they should. Of course there are companies and aircraft caught in the transition process and it's reasonable to ask for at least modest changes in the original agreements.

I suspect there will also be changes in the 77X certification - and that both Boeing and the FAA will at least look at overall Pilot workload which was not in the original agreed upon certification process. Perhaps a few other things as well. Implementation of a lot more of the changes recommended by the NTSB and JATR will be in the MOM (797) or other new aircraft or new derivative.

Have a great day,

tkoenig95 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:44 pm

Oh man, WN has been in the bad spotlight with maintenance this year. Hopefully 2020 is brighter.

mcdu · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:54 pm

bob75013 wrote:
Actaully, the title of the artile should be "FAA Reminds Southwest that it has until 6/30/20 to make sure that Maintenace records are complete." A year and a haf ago it gve Southwest two years to comlete the process.

Two years to get it done? I guess the FAA was real concenred about the safety of planes --- NOT.

Of course we're dealing with MCDU here, so we wouldn't expect to have truth in title.

The thread title came from the new article if you care to read the linked publication. The FAA threatened to ground 38 WN jets due to maintenance concerns. It did not say documentation. But it really shouldn't matter because during the documentation research for the other jets they found major discrepancy's. WN is finally being held accountable for some serious maintenance lapses over the years. They masked doing the job correctly with a cozy relationship with inspectors in the past.

Of course don't blame WN for the shoddy practices, blame the person that reports on the shoddy practices......why does that sounds so current worldly?

KlimaBXsst · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:55 pm

Would a start up such as California Pacific get a pass as WN seems to be?

I guess with WN’s admirable safety history... their planes are more safe undocumented correctly than many a start up trying to get certificated out of the box maybe?

BravoOne · Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:55 pm

EMBQA wrote:
Having been a part of many "Bridging Inspections", they are not easy and take lots of record research. Throw in another language....oh my. If Southwest contracted someone to do these inspections, that would make them liable

What is the difference, if any between a Bridge Inspection and a Conformity check? I suspect they may be the same but have not heard the term Bridge used before.

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... 8d24843b4f

jayspilot · Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:02 pm

if I remember correctly the early UA used China Southern 319's took forever to be accepted into the United fleet because United's onboarding process of the jet caught this stuff and caused huge delays in acceptance.. I think the jets were in GSO for months longer then planned. I think when they agreed to the additional purchase of the used jets the two airlines agreed to get the planes up to US standards while still operating in China to allow the future acceptance to be much quicker. its pretty darn scary to think about a major repair not done right. The largest single plane crash of the domestic Japan 747 was caused by this and it didn't' crash until years later.

KlimaBXsst · Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:08 pm

Did DL have any documentation snafu’s with AirTran / Southwest’s 717?

If not ...why do we seem to have these snafu’s with foreign sourced aircraft?

DiamondFlyer · Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:15 pm

jayspilot wrote:
if I remember correctly the early UA used China Southern 319's took forever to be accepted into the United fleet because United's onboarding process of the jet caught this stuff and caused huge delays in acceptance.. I think the jets were in GSO for months longer then planned. I think when they agreed to the additional purchase of the used jets the two airlines agreed to get the planes up to US standards while still operating in China to allow the future acceptance to be much quicker. its pretty darn scary to think about a major repair not done right. The largest single plane crash of the domestic Japan 747 was caused by this and it didn't' crash until years later.

It’s not uncommon for regional jets being shuffled between carriers in the US to need well over a month to get thru conformity checks, to be operated by the new carrier.

MO11 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:09 pm

EMBQA wrote:
Having been a part of many "Bridging Inspections", they are not easy and take lots of record research. Throw in another language....oh my. If Southwest contracted someone to do these inspections, that would make them liable

All of these airplanes went through the same maintenance vendor (which has been in the news before), and each inspection took +/- 75 days. Unfortunately, the airline is ultimately responsible to ensure that maintenance was done correctly.

But you're right; on the GA side I've seen people get a great deal on an imported airplane, only to spend the same amount getting it licensed in the US.

737max8 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:44 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Did DL have any documentation snafu’s with AirTran / Southwest’s 717?

If not ...why do we seem to have these snafu’s with foreign sourced aircraft?

Because foreign = different languages and different documentation requirements?

kiowa · Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:48 pm

737max8 wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Did DL have any documentation snafu’s with AirTran / Southwest’s 717?

If not ...why do we seem to have these snafu’s with foreign sourced aircraft?

Because foreign = different languages and different documentation requirements?

I believe southwest could find someone who can read a different language before buying a multi-million dollar aircraft.

rikkus67 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:08 pm

Southwest bought ~10 aircraft from Westjet. As a huge stretch... the only foreign language from that purchase would be French, and only if any of the maintenance was done in Montreal...

Canuck600 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:26 pm

Might there be some STC's that are legal wherever the aircraft came from that might not be legal under FAA rules? A bit different case because it was a helicopter but I know a Canadian company that imported a helicopter from Australia & they had to remove all the equipment that had Australians STC's if the those STC's weren't recognised under Canadian Aviation Regulations.

n797mx · Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:46 pm

rikkus67 wrote:
Southwest bought ~10 aircraft from Westjet. As a huge stretch... the only foreign language from that purchase would be French, and only if any of the maintenance was done in Montreal...

I believe the frames in question are the China Southern, China United Airlines, and China Eastern ones, rather than the WestJet ones.

Chemist · Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:13 pm

n797mx wrote:
rikkus67 wrote:
Southwest bought ~10 aircraft from Westjet. As a huge stretch... the only foreign language from that purchase would be French, and only if any of the maintenance was done in Montreal...

I believe the frames in question are the China Southern, China United Airlines, and China Eastern ones, rather than the WestJet ones.

Seems like some sort of a paradox here that the WN 737s with deficient paperwork were all from China, yet China was the first country to slam down the grounding on the 737 MAX.

WN732 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:21 pm

Chemist wrote:
n797mx wrote:
rikkus67 wrote:
Southwest bought ~10 aircraft from Westjet. As a huge stretch... the only foreign language from that purchase would be French, and only if any of the maintenance was done in Montreal...

I believe the frames in question are the China Southern, China United Airlines, and China Eastern ones, rather than the WestJet ones.

Seems like some sort of a paradox here that the WN 737s with deficient paperwork were all from China, yet China was the first country to slam down the grounding on the 737 MAX.

China is hardly the poster child of common sense policy.

Chemist · Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:42 am

WN732 wrote:
Chemist wrote:
n797mx wrote:

I believe the frames in question are the China Southern, China United Airlines, and China Eastern ones, rather than the WestJet ones.

Seems like some sort of a paradox here that the WN 737s with deficient paperwork were all from China, yet China was the first country to slam down the grounding on the 737 MAX.

China is hardly the poster child of common sense policy.

Agreed. But of course the US isn't any more, either. If we ever were.

foxtrotbravo21 · Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:54 am

These planes bought were between 9 to above 12 years old, and Southwest didnt do a full technical assessment of the aircrafts before they bought it or they know about it but go ahead to purchase due to priice and then do the mainteance on it?

WN732 · Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:43 am

Chemist wrote:
WN732 wrote:
Chemist wrote:

Seems like some sort of a paradox here that the WN 737s with deficient paperwork were all from China, yet China was the first country to slam down the grounding on the 737 MAX.

China is hardly the poster child of common sense policy.

Agreed. But of course the US isn't any more, either. If we ever were.

You're right. I should have said every government, not just China.

asdf · Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:27 am

par13del wrote:
...... ensuring that whenever a second hand a/c is purchased it is immediately put through a D check or something similar to ensure that the a/c is physically safe ...

97% of all aircraft are sold short BEFORE a D-check has to happen
so it would not make a lot of difference to make it mandatory for the buyer

can it happen that the buyer forces the seller to provide current D-check documents with the plane?
in the third world documents are not documents, its paper basically ....

this would safe the buyer a lot of money

fr8mech · Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:51 am

This is actually not an uncommon event, though the number of aircraft is high.

Let me give you an example of what may be happening.

Let's say the FAA is doing a document review, and comes across a structural repair made while the aircraft was operated by a foreign carrier under a foreign regulatory environment. In that environment, in that time, it may have been perfectly OK to sign-off the repair as "repaired per SRM" or even a simple "repaired".

The FAA may be looking to SW to provide the actual repair reference in the SRM, or any other repair documentation used in that repair. If they're unable to do that, SW may well have to do the "repair" again. It's happened to us before.

Hell, we had a ramp inspection by the FAA several years ago, and the inspector noticed a doubler repair forward of the forward cargo door. Common enough area, and he wanted us to produce the log page/non-routine that drove the repair and any documents surrounding it. We wound up taking off the repair and re-doing it because we weren't able to produce all the documents. We flew the aircraft until it was decided the documents were lost or non-existent.

Just speculation on my part.

dtw2hyd · Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:18 pm

There seems to be a never-ending discussion about improper maintenance documentation, without any solution. I think the key is to make documentation easy. With 30-45 minute turns became the norm with on-time performance strictly monitored, documentation seems to be the victim. Aviation spends so much on systems, turns around and blames someone not filling the real paper. Would radio tagging help like in the medical industry.

BTW, when did WN buy ex-AI aircraft.

Wacker1000 · Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:40 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
There seems to be a never-ending discussion about improper maintenance documentation, without any solution. I think the key is to make documentation easy. With 30-45 minute turns became the norm with on-time performance strictly monitored, documentation seems to be the victim. Aviation spends so much on systems, turns around and blames someone not filling the real paper. Would radio tagging help like in the medical industry.

These sorts of issues typically aren't looking at who changed a tire 10 years ago. You're talking AD compliance, repair compliance with Part 26 and SFAR 88, having the correct maintenance program for the installed components, etc. It isn't something that is going to bring a plane down immediately but it is something you need to know.

dtw2hyd · Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:13 pm

Wacker1000 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
There seems to be a never-ending discussion about improper maintenance documentation, without any solution. I think the key is to make documentation easy. With 30-45 minute turns became the norm with on-time performance strictly monitored, documentation seems to be the victim. Aviation spends so much on systems, turns around and blames someone not filling the real paper. Would radio tagging help like in the medical industry.

These sorts of issues typically aren't looking at who changed a tire 10 years ago. You're talking AD compliance, repair compliance with Part 26 and SFAR 88, having the correct maintenance program for the installed components, etc. It isn't something that is going to bring a plane down immediately but it is something you need to know.

Thanks a lot for the clarification. Probably misunderstood the broad generic term maintenance/documentation issues

glideslope · Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:47 pm

2175301 wrote:
I've read the article in Aviation Daily this morning:

FAA To Southwest: Evaluate Airworthiness Of 49 737s
https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... e3b4e84097

----

Overall: This actually sounds like the FAA is changing how it acts after the MCAS certification issues: While the FAA made agreements with Southwest on these aircraft before... and the agreement was to have all work done by July 2020; They are now questioning the wisdome of those agreements and putting more pressure on Southwest to get things done in a more timely fashion (all inspections now to be done by end of January - 6 months earlier than the original agreement); and it sounds like that the FAA is going to be a lot tighter on similar situations in the future.

As for Southwest... My guess is that they will end up changing their practices in regards to purchase of used aircraft from other companies. My guess is that other airlines will take note and change there practices as well.

Agreed. I see this a a positive as well. If one reads the complete article it clearly stems from procedural changes within the FAA. I also agree we will see significant additions to the 779 certification beyond the GE9X issues.
Overall, I see this as a good thing. It appears to me that the FAA is no longer just depending on past record of success and being very lenient with how things are being done. They are tightening thing up; which they should. Of course there are companies and aircraft caught in the transition process and it's reasonable to ask for at least modest changes in the original agreements.

I suspect there will also be changes in the 77X certification - and that both Boeing and the FAA will at least look at overall Pilot workload which was not in the original agreed upon certification process. Perhaps a few other things as well. Implementation of a lot more of the changes recommended by the NTSB and JATR will be in the MOM (797) or other new aircraft or new derivative.

Have a great day,

Agree completely. If one reads the article this clearly is being issued from procedural changes within the FAA. I see that as a positive. It will take a few years but the FAA will regain the trust it once had. I have no doubt about that. I agree the 779 certification will be lengthened as well in the evolving "new FAA."

Thank you for the well written summary of the article. :checkmark:

kiowa · Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:01 am

glideslope wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I've read the article in Aviation Daily this morning:

FAA To Southwest: Evaluate Airworthiness Of 49 737s
https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... e3b4e84097

----

Overall: This actually sounds like the FAA is changing how it acts after the MCAS certification issues: While the FAA made agreements with Southwest on these aircraft before... and the agreement was to have all work done by July 2020; They are now questioning the wisdome of those agreements and putting more pressure on Southwest to get things done in a more timely fashion (all inspections now to be done by end of January - 6 months earlier than the original agreement); and it sounds like that the FAA is going to be a lot tighter on similar situations in the future.

As for Southwest... My guess is that they will end up changing their practices in regards to purchase of used aircraft from other companies. My guess is that other airlines will take note and change there practices as well.

Agreed. I see this a a positive as well. If one reads the complete article it clearly stems from procedural changes within the FAA. I also agree we will see significant additions to the 779 certification beyond the GE9X issues.
Overall, I see this as a good thing. It appears to me that the FAA is no longer just depending on past record of success and being very lenient with how things are being done. They are tightening thing up; which they should. Of course there are companies and aircraft caught in the transition process and it's reasonable to ask for at least modest changes in the original agreements.

I suspect there will also be changes in the 77X certification - and that both Boeing and the FAA will at least look at overall Pilot workload which was not in the original agreed upon certification process. Perhaps a few other things as well. Implementation of a lot more of the changes recommended by the NTSB and JATR will be in the MOM (797) or other new aircraft or new derivative.

Have a great day,

Agree completely. If one reads the article this clearly is being issued from procedural changes within the FAA. I see that as a positive. It will take a few years but the FAA will regain the trust it once had. I have no doubt about that. I agree the 779 certification will be lengthened as well in the evolving "new FAA."

Thank you for the well written summary of the article.

Do you think the FAA is going to be stricter on all used aircraft or just on the used 737s being bought?
Do you also think that the FAA is trying to "cover their buts" for not paying close enough attention with regards to the 737 Max disaster?

2175301 · Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:18 am

kiowa wrote:
Do you think the FAA is going to be stricter on all used aircraft or just on the used 737s being bought?
Do you also think that the FAA is trying to "cover their buts" for not paying close enough attention with regards to the 737 Max disaster?

It is my opinion that I believe that the FAA is going to be stricter on all used aircraft purchases. Due to the numbers produced there will naturally be more 737s affected than other models of the Boeing Aircraft. The A320 series for Airbus.

As for your 2nd point. It's not about covering their butts. Its about lessons learned, and raising their internal standards. A reality is almost every company and organization in the world goes through a similar swinging of the pendulum on issues.

Have a great day,

glideslope · Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:34 pm

My reply would be identical to 2175301's response.

B757Forever · Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:44 pm

Wacker1000 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
There seems to be a never-ending discussion about improper maintenance documentation, without any solution. I think the key is to make documentation easy. With 30-45 minute turns became the norm with on-time performance strictly monitored, documentation seems to be the victim. Aviation spends so much on systems, turns around and blames someone not filling the real paper. Would radio tagging help like in the medical industry.

These sorts of issues typically aren't looking at who changed a tire 10 years ago. You're talking AD compliance, repair compliance with Part 26 and SFAR 88, having the correct maintenance program for the installed components, etc. It isn't something that is going to bring a plane down immediately but it is something you need to know.

Exactly. I've been involved in bridging aircraft into our fleet that had never been US registered and previously had 4 different operators in 12 years. It's no small task. We hired a company that (IIRC) was based in Ireland to translate / interpret all the records which were in Spanish and Turkish. Often times, records and the details in them do not translate well for many reasons. This drove us to re-accomplish repairs and to replace components that we could not verify back-to-birth records for. You must also scour the aircraft for repairs which may have inadvertently been accomplished in an AD area that did not comply with the AD. Similarly, you need to inspect/verify/validate repairs in an AD area which may have been accomplished before the area was subject of an AD. You also need to verify that no repair was done that inadvertently reversed or "un-did" the AD. All of these scenarios happen. As another poster stated; nobody cares who changed a tire or relamped a bulb 10 years ago. The focus on a bridge check is AD compliance, structural integrity, and conformity to the aircraft specifications.

WayexTDI · Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:04 pm

scbriml wrote:
Typical shoddy maintenance practices by these third World airlines.

You mean, by "non-American airlines"? :box:

kiowa · Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:15 pm

2175301 wrote:
kiowa wrote:
Do you think the FAA is going to be stricter on all used aircraft or just on the used 737s being bought?
Do you also think that the FAA is trying to "cover their buts" for not paying close enough attention with regards to the 737 Max disaster?

It is my opinion that I believe that the FAA is going to be stricter on all used aircraft purchases. Due to the numbers produced there will naturally be more 737s affected than other models of the Boeing Aircraft. The A320 series for Airbus.

As for your 2nd point. It's not about covering their butts. Its about lessons learned, and raising their internal standards. A reality is almost every company and organization in the world goes through a similar swinging of the pendulum on issues.

Have a great day,

I would agree with you about lessons learned and raising internal standards if we were not talking about a government agency. Although that is probably true in the private sector, my experience with governmental organizations is just the opposite. Covering your backside and pointing fingers is much more prevelant. Just look at the circus taking place at the highest level in the US government for the last several months.

asr0dzjq · Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:05 am

scbriml wrote:
Typical shoddy maintenance practices by these third World airlines.

r/iamverysmart

NWAROOSTER · Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:07 am

jayspilot wrote:
if I remember correctly the early UA used China Southern 319's took forever to be accepted into the United fleet because United's onboarding process of the jet caught this stuff and caused huge delays in acceptance.. I think the jets were in GSO for months longer then planned. I think when they agreed to the additional purchase of the used jets the two airlines agreed to get the planes up to US standards while still operating in China to allow the future acceptance to be much quicker. its pretty darn scary to think about a major repair not done right. The largest single plane crash of the domestic Japan 747 was caused by this and it didn't' crash until years later.

That domestic Japan Airlines 747 had previously had a tail strike that damaged the aft pressure bulkhead. Boeing at JAL's request performed the repair of the aft pressure bulkhead and all related damage. Boeing skipped a row of rivets in the repair and after several years the repaired bulkhead failed, the aircraft depeasurized causing the control of the rudder and elevator to be uncontrollable and crash. Boeing built the aircraft and yet Boeing did not complete the repair properly. Boeing is also an American company. :old:

kiowa · Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:46 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
I'd give this a different title: Southwest doesn't know how to buy used aircraft. Have we seen these issues with the MD-90/A319 buys of DL/UA? I don't believe we have.

Are these 49 737s the first aircraft that Southwest has bought used from non-US airlines?

mga707 · Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:00 pm

kiowa wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
I'd give this a different title: Southwest doesn't know how to buy used aircraft. Have we seen these issues with the MD-90/A319 buys of DL/UA? I don't believe we have.

Are these 49 737s the first aircraft that Southwest has bought used from non-US airlines?

I recall flying on a WN -700 at least a decade ago that had come from a now-defunct Indian airline (Sahara?--can't remember). Distinctly recall that it had a different interior configuration than the usual WN -700s, including a second lav in the back (which was nice).

kiowa · Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:15 pm

mga707 wrote:
kiowa wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
I'd give this a different title: Southwest doesn't know how to buy used aircraft. Have we seen these issues with the MD-90/A319 buys of DL/UA? I don't believe we have.

Are these 49 737s the first aircraft that Southwest has bought used from non-US airlines?

I recall flying on a WN -700 at least a decade ago that had come from a now-defunct Indian airline (Sahara?--can't remember). Distinctly recall that it had a different interior configuration than the usual WN -700s, including a second lav in the back (which was nice).

Having one lav in the back of a 737 makes for a miserable flight especially if you are in the last row. That is another reason that I avoid 737s as much as possible.

USAirKid · Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:58 am

An AP Story via the Seattle Times:

The airline has flown more than 150,000 flights on 88 jets it bought on the used-plane market and which had unconfirmed maintenance histories, the Transportation Department’s inspector general said in a report. That put more than 17 million passengers at risk, according to the report.

In 2017, FAA inspectors began finding “potentially serious gaps” in Southwest’s process for verifying the condition of the planes, including major repairs that weren’t documented and maintenance records that didn’t meet FAA standards.

Meeting U.S. standards normally takes up to four weeks per plane, but people hired by Southwest approved 71 of the planes on the same day, the inspector general said.

Its amazing that they inducted planes in a day, when usually it should take weeks...

Jshank83 · Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:59 am

I think there is already a thread on this. Seems like this has been gone over a bunch already.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net