Southwest Airlines in MDW Overrun - Part 2

ikramerica · Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:06 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Female reporter; “The SOUND BARRIER, isn’t that really fast? Why were the pilots flying that fast on landing?”

Hired for their looks, TV reporters, especially female, are useless.

Quoting Socalfive (Reply 31):
Exactly! Now consider this, imagine all the issues that are fed to us on a daily basis that we're not as educated about as aviation! The best thing to do with the news is find out what happened (More or less) period. Details will rarely be accurate, unbiased, unspun, or just blatantly mis-reported.

Very true. We can laugh at the misinformation about topics we know about, but we often don't know enough to understand the misinformation about other topics. For example, Doctors will tell you most mainstream medical news is incorrect, most studies are skewed and twisted by the media to fit an agenda and it is doubtful that many newspeople read the studies they report on, or understand them if they do, since they had no training in medicine, statistics, etc.

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 10):
Especially hard when hearing that the only fatality so far was a boy. Just horrible.

Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 37):
Either way, a loss of life that young in an incident such as this is just tragic.

Any innocent loss of life is tragic! Would it be less tragic if a widowed father of four was killed, orphaning 4 children? Of course not.

Chi-town · Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:33 pm

Chi-town · Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:34 pm

Chi-town · Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:34 pm

Chi-town · Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:35 pm

APFPilot1985 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:45 pm

you can see pretty well in those that the fuselage isn't bent.

legacytravel · Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:56 pm

My prayers go out to the family. I have a 8 Y/o myself and cannot imagine losing my son. I think I would go off the deep end.
God Speed to him and his prayers to his family.
Mark in MKE

leelaw · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:20 pm

The threshold of Runway 13C/31C and the intersection of 55th St. and Central Ave. are at the bottom right corner of the airport property in the shots. The WN hangars are on 55th St at the bottom center of the airport:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=332622

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=332588

OPNLguy · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:24 pm

Quoting Co757 (Reply 58):
Damn Southwest to hell for thinking they would be the silver lining in the sky, and the only flight that tried to land in this mess, when everyone else diverted! This time it cost a young boy his life...Hope they sue the Shit out of SWA !!!!!!!!!!

You know, I've got friends at various airlines (including yours), and while we're all competing with one another, I'd no more make tasteless comments like the above about their airlines than they would about mine.

If you can't say anything nice...

[Edited 2005-12-09 09:25:50]

eha · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:27 pm

Quoting Litz (Reply 13):
And, of course, we have no idea what damage there is underneath. This plane hit a WALL (concrete reinforced with steel bars) before entering the street.

Quoting Dw9115 (Reply 16):
Even with the landing gear collapsing and the plane skidding and the fact it had a fuel leak does not matter. The fact is that plane is to new and still in it's current condition is worth way to much money to write off.

Quoting Dw9115 (Reply 40):
Still making it cheaper to buy the plane from Southwest and fix it on their own then buying it them selves.

Wait and see for the assessment of the structural damages. How much the structure has been overstressed during the sliding off the runway. Boeing people will tell and provide guidance for the fix (it will be a major repair they must be involved).

Sure you can fix it, but will Boeing certify the A/C can be back into service and considered as new as it was before (i.e able to assume the cycles it was meant to assume before the crash ?)...

E.

ntspelich · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:28 pm

Quoting Drewfly (Reply 4):
Also, what is the Southwest "Go" team?

A team of on call employees from HDQ that are in the air and en route to the site of any incident involving a WN a/c. There's folks from public relations, a/c mx, faa relations and a slew of other departments that I can't think of at this moment.

Basically, they work with the NTSB and FAA and whatever agencies may be on site following the incident.

NTS

APFPilot1985 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:30 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 61):
You know, I've got friends at various airlines (including yours), and while we're all competing with one another, I'd no more make tasteless comments like the above about their airlines than they would about mine.

If you can't say anything nice...

Not saying that I agree with him, but if its true, it will be pretty damning in the public eye.

We're Nuts · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:33 pm

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 64):
Not saying that I agree with him, but if its true, it will be pretty damning in the public eye.

It's not true, and even if it were WN wouldn't be liable.

Just suggest deletion and get back to intelligent discussion.

YukonTrader · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:34 pm

Folks, it's a bit premature to speculate about a write off or repair, but please let me add two or three general remarks...

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 56):
you can see pretty well in those that the fuselage isn't bent.

First: Structural damages need not be superficial nor superficially visible. Or in other terms, wrinkles in the skin are fairly easy to repair, but a wingspar or fuselage section that was exposed to excessive stress during the impact with that wall will be a costly and time consuming part to replace. After all, you need to be sure that none of the parts holding the entire frame together was weakened - or even just potentially weakened - in the accident, as this could be leading to a catastrophic failure a few years down the road.

Second: Although the plane is relatively new, the airline and insurance companies will make the equation whether it is more economic to write that one off, salvaging any parts that remained undammaged, and scrap the hulk. This migth well be more profitable than testing the entire frame for structural integrity and repairing any one of the structural parts should such a test produce a need to replace it.

Third: Especially since the supply of replacements is abundand, be it in the form of leasing/buying a replacement NG or classic 737, be it by including a replacement aircraft in the next SWA order with Boeing, there is no real need to get that particular frame repaired at any cost. Also I have the gut feeling that the fleet is definitely large enough to absorb the temporary absence of one frame from the roster...

So, with some educated guessing, it is most probable that once the frame is recovered from the scene and put into a hangar, WN and its insurers will take a close look at what parts (might have) suffered in the course of the overrun and base their decision about 471's fate on the cost of repairs vs. the cost of a write off minus selling salvageable parts.

Cheers, Lukas

OPNLguy · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:35 pm

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 64):
Not saying that I agree with him, but if its true, it will be pretty damning in the public eye.

As I said earlier, I'm not going to comment on specifics, but I will note that the FAA/NTSB investigation has yet to begin, yet the other gent has somehow already come to some conclusions. Accurate ones?

I'll wait for the official version, thanks...

APFPilot1985 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:37 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 67):
As I said earlier, I'm not going to comment on specifics, but I will note that the FAA/NTSB investigation has yet to begin, yet the other gent has somehow already come to some conclusions. Accurate ones?

I'll wait for the official version, thanks...

I agree with you 100% im just wondering where the guy got that from or if he pulled hit out of his Alpha Sierra Sierra

APFPilot1985 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:38 pm

Quoting YukonTrader (Reply 66):
First: Structural damages need not be superficial nor superficially visible. Or in other terms, wrinkles in the skin are fairly easy to repair, but a wingspar or fuselage section that was exposed to excessive stress during the impact with that wall will be a costly and time consuming part to replace. After all, you need to be sure that none of the parts holding the entire frame together was weakened - or even just potentially weakened

I was responding to this

Quoting United787 (Reply 50):
That picture looks like significant structural failure to the front portion of the aircraft. Just above the cockpit there are some clear structural lines that are jarred. I predict that this will be written-off.

pillowtester · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:50 pm

It makes me feel really sad that such a bizzare, unfortunate accident resulting in the death of this poor child and severe injury of other people happened on the very street corner that I haven driven through hundreds of times. I don't know why, but it's eerie seeing a familiar place in the pictures in such terrible circumstances. If they had only gotten there ten seconds earlier they would have been fine.

dw9115 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:51 pm

Quoting Eha (Reply 62):
Wait and see for the assessment of the structural damages. How much the structure has been overstressed during the sliding off the runway. Boeing people will tell and provide guidance for the fix (it will be a major repair they must be involved).

Sure you can fix it, but will Boeing certify the A/C can be back into service and considered as new as it was before (i.e able to assume the cycles it was meant to assume before the crash ?)...

As sad as it may sound that does not really matter much. I personally know of one the company I work fours competitors and they had a plane they were leasing to an airline in Europe had a similar thing happen as Southwest had happen today and they sold the plane unfixed to an African airline with a less then stellar safety record and they fixed it. The airline if they tried could never get it certified to fly in the US or Europe but some how they were able to get the plane certified to fly in their country and it is still in service today. Southwest could do the same with this plane and sell it as is and they will not be responsible if that plane has another mishap because they sold it as is now they can say they thought the other airline was going to use it for parts if it has a problem later down the road. I know what I say next will piss a lot of people off but it happens every day in the corporate world. They put forty to fifty million in a plane and they want the best return they can get on it, now that means if they can not fix it in the US and fly it here then hey sell it to some one that can get it certified were they are and fly it there, whether or not that certification came from bribe or not does not really matter much. They will sell it to get as much cash back as they can get then word the contract just right so if there is a mishap that they are not in any way responsible.

[Edited 2005-12-09 09:53:22]

widebody · Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:13 pm

That looks like quite severe buckling above the cockpit - not just skin buckling, there is a clear step in the fuselage which would indicate damage underneath.

airforum · Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:38 pm

Kindof bizarre that this happens exactly 33 years after a UAL 732 crashed at the very same airport. On December 8 (1972) the plane also departed from a Washington airport.

45 casualties at the time, two on the ground.

swaopsusafatc · Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:39 pm

Quoting Co757 (Reply 58):
Damn Southwest to hell for thinking they would be the silver lining in the sky, and the only flight that tried to land in this mess, when everyone else diverted! This time it cost a young boy his life...Hope they sue the Shit out of SWA !!!!!!!!!!

You really think SWA was the only plane to land there with in the previous 30 min or more? You may want to look in to this. For instance Flightaware shows 1 arrival every 2 min for at least 10 min before them. This was a really poor comment.

Justin

EI747SYDNEY · Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:01 pm

Quoting SWAOPSusafATC (Reply 74):
This was a really poor comment.

Lets just wait till all the facts are out and then we can start pointing fingers.

Rob wave

johnboy · Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:01 pm

Quoting Co757 (Reply 58):
Damn Southwest to hell for thinking they would be the silver lining in the sky, and the only flight that tried to land in this mess, when everyone else diverted! This time it cost a young boy his life...Hope they sue the Shit out of SWA !!!!!!!!!!

I'm really shocked that someone who claims to be an airline supervisor at IAH would even type something like that.

darrenthe747 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:41 pm

Co757 said that just to get a rise out of people. Either that or he is very, very unintelligent. Based on your name, Co757, I will assume that is short for Continental757, let's not forget about the accusations of one of your DC-10's in Paris, ok?

Nobody knows what happened here so we'll have to wait until the investigation comes out. Speculation is fine, pointing fingers and blaming is not ok. Anything could have gone wrong here that had nothing to do with Southwest or the pilots.

richm · Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:27 pm

Wouldn't it be considered morally wrong to repair an aircraft that has killed someone? I don't know whether or not that is taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to repair the aircraft or write it off. Just a thought....

cjpark · Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:54 pm

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 74):
Nobody knows what happened here so we'll have to wait until the investigation comes out. Speculation is fine, pointing fingers and blaming is not ok. Anything could have gone wrong here that had nothing to do with Southwest or the pilots.

The name on the plane is Southwest and that is all that will matter to the attorneys.

Hey SC what do you bet ol Turley is licking his chops over this one?

Kay · Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:56 pm

Quoting RichM (Reply 75):
Wouldn't it be considered morally wrong to repair an aircraft that has killed someone? I don't know whether or not that is taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to repair the aircraft or write it off. Just a thought....

I am no expert, but I am sooooooo sure that it is not taken into consideration at all...

I think a passenger died from hitting the ceiling in turbulence once. It's not like the plane was written off at landing..

Kay

ltbewr · Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:03 pm

As we found out overnight, a child was killed in one of the vehicles this a/c hit. Unfortuntally there will probably some 'ambulance chaser lawyers' already knocking on the door of the family to sue WN for millions for them and some for the victims. WN should (as Swissair did with the Nova Scota crash) make some large payment soon to blunt a large lawsuit. Still, it doesn't bring the child back and it is the saddest part of this tragedy.
It will probably take months for the investigation to show some results. Weather is still the major factor, but also potential factors include the amount of snow/ice on runway at the time of touchdown, wind, the point on the runway where the a/c first touched down, speed when touched down, any technical or mx issues.
One also has to question ops in such conditions, especially with the relatively short runways at MDW (about 6500' vs. 10000'+ at ORD) and the lack of buffer zones at the ends of the runway. Perhaps MDW will have to take over some streets and adjacent properties to improve safety.
As to the a/c itself, it will have to be brought to a indoor hanger and throughly inspected. Yes, there could be hidden damage, and the snow could hide some obioius visual signs of 'kinks' in the fusulage. Even this inspection could cost a couple of million, and only after that can they really determine the cost to repair and the financial decsions to repair or write-off.

MoodyBlues · Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:11 pm

Don't really know what to say here. I would like to apologize for a mistype in the old "MDW Overrun" thread where I said thankfully no one was hurt. I did mention in a later post that I had written that wrong, as it was well known that someone in the car was seriously hurt. I meant to say that no one in the plane was hurt.

Of course the morning brings new details, new speculations. The last thing I heard before going to bed was that the boy in the car had died. CNN said he was eight years old, but Southwest's news release says he was six.

Either way, a terrible thing. My heart goes out to his family, and to the pilots who are surely feeling horrible right now. And to all of Southwest's loyal employees, I hope that you don't get verbally attacked or worse, people do dumb things, as evidenced here.

OPNLGuy, thank you for sticking to your guns, you are a rare breed.

Looks like lots of things caused this. I for one, while speculating in my head, would prefer to wait for the NTSB Report.

P.S. Just heard on the TV that Southwest if supposed to be doing a press report at about 8:30 Eastern Time from Dallas.

KarlB737 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:12 pm

Courtesy: WLS-TV

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3708676

Video Report:

http://ww2.abc7chicago.com/global/vi...=info&playerVersion=1&rnd=56492746

Still Shots:

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/slideShow?section=local&id=3708863&slide=1

Courtesy: WBBM-TV

Report & Video Available:

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_342202850.html

HR001 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:58 pm

Quoting Litz (Reply 43):
Not only do they need airplanes, but I imagine they'd like to get rid of anything old (and therefore gas guzzling) they can, as fast as they can ... and to do that, you need fresh metal, in addition to what you need for expanded capacity.

what gas guzzling type is SW replacing?

BUFjets · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:03 pm

Is MDW's short runway length a consideration in deciding if/when to close an airport? Could a situation arise where MDW should be closed but ORD is OK to stay open?

Longer runways do reduce the risk of this type of accident. With this logic, some would conclude it is safer to fly into ORD in the winter than into MDW.

It's too bad MDW is so penned in by the surrounding streets. Some overrun areas would be nice.

LongbowPilot · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:35 pm

you people really need to stop hyperventolating on A.Net. Please one post is enough with over 290 replies, why start another? I mean you are just overstating the issue like the media does, and OH YEAH, everyone is watching the program right now as well. Chill Out!

redflyer · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:35 pm

Quoting BUFJets (Reply 82):
Is MDW's short runway length a consideration in deciding if/when to close an airport? Could a situation arise where MDW should be closed but ORD is OK to stay open?

The problem is ORD does not have the capacity to handle the additional traffic if Mayor Daley gets a wild hair up his rectal orifice and decides a public park would be better in lieu of MDW.

Tod · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:39 pm

Quoting Eha (Reply 59):
but will Boeing certify the A/C

As the TC holder Boeing will be involved with a major repair, but they do not certify airworthiness. That is a function of the regulatory agency with which the aircraft is registered. If the aircraft is to maintain N registry, the FAA with be the certifying body. But as DW9115 mentioned, get it out of the county and all bets are off. It's an understatement to say that some countries regulatory agencies certify airworthiness easier than others.

Tod

2H4 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:42 pm

Quoting LongbowPilot (Reply 83):
Please one post is enough with over 290 replies, why start another? I mean you are just overstating the issue like the media does, and OH YEAH, everyone is watching the program right now as well. Chill Out!

Yeah, god forbid major aviation news items are discussed at length in an *gasp* aviation forum!

Oh, the horror! Wink

2H4

wdleiser · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:43 pm

From what I just read, the plane just had maitenence check on wednesday. Seems just like what happened to me last december in my 73 Chevy Nova. Day after I got it out of the shop, it fishtailed on me right after it began to rain so all the oil was present and not washed away. My first thought was, it was the mechanics fault. But, really its just bad luck. I nailed a curb and bent the frame a bit Sad

. I am sure SWA can go get a used 737 or lease one until the damaged one gets fixed.

Feel bad for the kid btw.

sccutler · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:44 pm

Quoting Dw9115 (Reply 68):
. I know what I say next will piss a lot of people off but it happens every day in the corporate world. They put forty to fifty million in a plane and they want the best return they can get on it, now that means if they can not fix it in the US and fly it here then hey sell it to some one that can get it certified were they are and fly it there, whether or not that certification came from bribe or not does not really matter much. They will sell it to get as much cash back as they can get then word the contract just right so if there is a mishap that they are not in any way responsible.

What you describe does not happen every day in the corporate world, and to have made that statement is irresponsible.

Air carriers have hull insurance for a reason. If a frame is damaged beyond economic repair (meaning, if the aircraft cannot be made safe and certified thus for an amount of money which is not out of proportion to the aircraft's total value), it will be written off. Simple math. From that point on, the aircraft is worth the salvage value of its many parts (not an insignificant sum for a low-cylcle airframe, by the way).

While there may be aviation maintenance facilities in some places which would repair an aircraft which has been de-certified and written off here, no legitimate first-world carrier would operate such a plane in their fleets, nor would the aircraft be legally airworthy to operate in our airspace.

When an aircraft is involved in an accident involving airframe stress, the repair is more than "bending it straight"; it involves extensive engineering stress analysis and design of repair protocols, and the engineers who do that work are placing their own professional certificates and reputations on the line. These documents, drawings and methods become a permanent part of the aircraft's records and are also preserved and maintained in the records of teh appropriate civil aviation authority (e.g., FAA for the US, CASA for Australia, etc.).

ord · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:47 pm

Quoting CHI787ORD (Reply 19):
It just seems as if everyone here in the city was pretty much caught off guard by this storm.

I'm not sure about that. I watched the weather on Wednesday and they said a snow storm was coming on Thursday that would start around late afternoon with a total of 3-5 inches in Northern Illinois and 10-12 inches south of the city. It seems to me that's exactly what happened.

Plus, nearly all streets in Chicago are cleared this morning so I would guess that the Chicago cleanup crew was prepared to jump on this.

syncmaster · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:47 pm

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 78):
WN should (as Swissair did with the Nova Scota crash) make some large payment soon to blunt a large lawsuit. Still, it doesn't bring the child back and it is the saddest part of this tragedy.

I'm quite positive one of the first calls made was to their law firm, they probably have been working with whatever they have since it happened and will continue to do so for probably many years to come.

Quoting Tod (Reply 85):
As the TC holder Boeing

Excuse my ignorance, but TC holder?

-Charlie

2H4 · Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:49 pm

Quoting Syncmaster (Reply 90):
Excuse my ignorance, but TC holder?

I believe the reference was to the Type Certificate.

2H4

litz · Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:09 am

Quoting Tod (Reply 85):
As the TC holder Boeing will be involved with a major repair, but they do not certify airworthiness. That is a function of the regulatory agency with which the aircraft is registered. If the aircraft is to maintain N registry, the FAA with be the certifying body. But as DW9115 mentioned, get it out of the county and all bets are off. It's an understatement to say that some countries regulatory agencies certify airworthiness easier than others.

Case in point : Delta's Ship 802 ... this particular MD11 had an engine fire that damaged the fuselage during MX in Atlanta.

It sat for a long time (a couple of years, I think) first at Delta TOC, then at Delta North until finally Boeing came in, erected their big tent, and went to work.

The plane is now fixed to Boeing's specs, but the FAA has, so far, not yet granted a standard certificate to the plane; it still has the Experimental Certificate granted for post-repair flight testing ...

Now it may well end up with a normal certificate (and this is just governmental slowness) or it may not, and if not, who knows where it will go (if anywhere - it may just get scrapped, which would be a shame) ...

- litz

(You can fly an Experimental cert as a private aircraft, can't you? If so, anyone want a MD-11 as a private jet? I bet this one would go cheap ... Might be an inexpensive way for the Airliners.Net liveried plane ... Smile

)

KarlB737 · Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:30 am

Friday Morning Update Video - 6:32AM

Courtesy: WLS-TV

http://ww2.abc7chicago.com/global/vi...=info&playerVersion=1&rnd=98717176

[Edited 2005-12-09 16:33:46]

fraspotter · Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:30 am

Judging by the pictures provided on the internet, I think that the damage looks too severe to attempt to repair. IMHO I think that it is going to be W/O...

qxeguy · Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:39 am

I can't believe I am about to defend the media...

I watched the coverage of this last night for about an hour and was laughing at some of what the talking heads were saying. Some of it seemed reasonable, some of it filler drivel. There were some aviation experts/consultants interviewed, and they seemed to know what they were talking about.

I read the coverage of this last night in the forums here, and was laughing at some of what the thread posters were saying. Some of it seemed reasonable, some of it "gotta hear my head rattle" syndrome filler drivel. There were some some aviation experts posting stuff, and they seemed to know what they were talking about.

My point? People in this forum clearly have a higher than average knowledge of aviation in general OVERALL. No question. But there are just as many wingnuts needing to point out their self proclaimed "extensive" knowlege of aviation, only to end up looking like a fool and getting absolutely slammed by another self proclaimed expert who happens to know even just a BIT more about aviation than them.

The media is a business, they need to sell ratings. Plane incidents/accidents sell big time, so they really stretch them out and end up 'acting' like they know more than they do. They do this with EVERYTHING they report on. There are topics out there where people in this forum know no more than the general public, and when the media reports on them we have no idea what is accurate and what is "isn't landing at the sound barrier too fast?" being an intelligent question.

So, take the media with a grain of salt, shake your head and move on with life. It will never change. Sorry, I just had to vent as I have seen it here over and over, and I just HAD to post because I havn't heard my head rattling in a while.

ultrapig · Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:47 am

I remember the UAL crash 32 years ago-and I remember King Richard Dailey I going to the crash scene and being screamed at to "Get the Airport out of here!"

I fly to MDW alot its very conveninet and the new terminal is excellent but it sure doesn't seem like there is much room for error--It would obviously be impossible to move the traffic to ORD-Any pilots out there who fly commercial into MDW-is it more difficult than flying to STL or is that just the obersvation of a passenger who does not know what he is talking about?

litz · Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am

Quoting Qxeguy (Reply 95):
Plane incidents/accidents sell big time, so they really stretch them out and end up 'acting' like they know more than they do.

Remember the JetBlue "stuck landing gear" incident?

Almost every media outlet was gloom/doom - despite the knowledgable experts they had on the phone going "no big deal".

There's video from one of the helicopters, during the landing, the announcer is going "any second you'll see those doors pop open, the slides inflate, and they will evacuate the airplane" followed with statistics on the types and numbers of injuries from evacs, on average.

As we all know, it ended up being a total nonevent - plane landed, lots of sparks, passengers walked down the stairs.

The announcer on the helicopter video almost sounds disappointed.

- litz

OPNLguy · Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:08 am

Quoting Litz (Reply 97):
The announcer on the helicopter video almost sounds disappointed.

When the media gave our partial gear-up landing at ONT (1996) the same treatment, I noticed the same thing...

Quoting Litz (Reply 97):
Remember the JetBlue "stuck landing gear" incident?

Almost every media outlet was gloom/doom - despite the knowledgable experts they had on the phone going "no big deal".

The funny thing is that had this JetBlue flight taken off at a weight below its max landing weight, this thing would have just landed at LAX or LGB, and would have done so before the media could turned a single rotor blade.

cloudy · Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:26 am

Quoting Syncmaster (Reply 33):
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I knew WN was kind of strapped for planes right now, they are not going to write-off an aircraft unless they absolutely must.

Planes are like cars in that the insurance company usually decides their fate when they are in an accident, not the owner. Even if the insurance company thinks the plane is worth saving, Southwest may choose to part it out or sell it for public relations reasons after collecting the insurance money intended for repairs.

If this plane is repairable, it will probably take months. At least, that is my uneducated guess. That is not long enough to simply exercise one of their options on new 737's, but it may be enough to trade or buy a delivery slot from another Boeing customer. As you may have noticed, many airlines are financially strapped now and may not want new aircraft they have previously ordered.

More likely, they will simply delay expansion somewhat. The impact would be minor since this is only one plane out of more than 400. Southwest has not fully rebuilt their New Orleans service yet - this has reduced their need for new planes somewhat even with their current expansion projects.

BOTTOM LINE....In the short term, they are not strapped for planes. In the long term, the plane is either repaired. Or they could exercise an option from their previous order, or they could take over a delivery slot from an airline that does not want it. I would be very surprised if the loss of one aircraft causes significant hardship. Bad PR and lawsuits are the greater danger.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net