FAA Airworthiness *grumbles*

K Baum wrote:

Just remember when you fly a LCC you are ussually getting what you pay
for.
Frank

I'm paying for a safe, no-frills flight to my destination. I know I'm
getting the no-frills part, but do you have references that show I'm not
getting the "safe" part? Does SWA have a significantly worse safety
record than, say, Delta, another carrier I can conveniently choose?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

On Mar 7, 9:40*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I'm paying for a safe, no-frills flight to my destination. I know I'm
getting the no-frills part, but do you have references that show I'm not
getting the "safe" part? Does SWA have a significantly worse safety
record than, say, Delta, another carrier I can conveniently choose?

EG, this is a good question. I dont have much time to answer right now
but I will tell you this much; There are differing levels of
Regulatory compliance, operational oversight, maintenence standards,
training standards etc.. All the airlines fly the same planes, pay
similar wages, use the same fuel, and so on, so when you come across a
carrier that charges substantially less than all the rest, consider
that discount has to come from somewhere. I have jumpseated on SWA
flights and I have seen stuff on a regular basis that would get one of
our crews fired (Or at least some time off). Another good example of
cutting corners is the De/AntiIce procedures and policies. The next
time you are at the field during a snow storm take a look out the
window at SWA,s practices verses the other airlines. It may save alot
of time to cut corners in this area, but if one of their jets ever has
an engine problem on climbout that 89 dollar ticket isnt gonna seem
like such a bargain. This is one of the biggest complaints that my SWA
buddies have with the place.
Gotta run,
FB

Compare the safety record of SWA to ANY other airline in the world.
It speaks for itself. Everyone makes mistakes, but I would not pay
too much attention to the statements of a SWA competitor sitting on a
SWA jump-seat claiming unsafe operational practices. Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.

max-gross wrote:
Compare the safety record of SWA to ANY other airline in the world.
It speaks for itself. Everyone makes mistakes, but I would not pay
too much attention to the statements of a SWA competitor sitting on a
SWA jump-seat claiming unsafe operational practices. Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.



Other than little problems like running off runways into the surrounding
community, they do real well.



Jack

On Mar 7, 8:58*pm, J a c k wrote:
max-gross wrote:
Compare the safety record of SWA to ANY other airline in the world.
It speaks for itself. *Everyone makes mistakes, but I would not pay
too much attention to the statements of a SWA competitor sitting on a
SWA jump-seat claiming unsafe operational practices. *Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.

Other than little problems like running off runways into the surrounding
community, they do real well.

Jack

Not to be morbid, but I was talking more about body count. I'm not
going to post the numbers here, do your own research.

J a c k wrote:
.....Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.

Other than little problems like running off runways into the surrounding
community, they do real well.

Yeah, that happened *once*. Not to defend their actions but show me
*any* major airline with a better record - Qantas, maybe.

Tony

Dang, this has gotten WAY away from the topic I intended it to be. My
point had _nothing_ to do with SWA itself. It had everything to do
with the FAA giving a "pass" on inspections and AD compliance to an
airline, to help "minimize impact" on their for-profit-business. And
to be clear: there's nothing wrong with a company seeking to make a
profit for providing a service.

But a gov't organization "giving a pass" on safety-related issues to
that company (when they would NEVER allow for a private operator or
small / non-influential business) disgusts me.

--Noel

Tony Verhulst wrote:
J a c k wrote:
.....Wait till all
the facts come out on this issue before you pass judgment on the
safety of SWA operations.

Other than little problems like running off runways into the
surrounding community, they do real well.

Yeah, that happened *once*.


Wrong.

At least three times. The NTSB Database is available online for all to
see. Check it out.



Jack

On Mar 7, 9:12*am, K Baum wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:40*am, Eric Greenwell wrote: I'm paying for a safe, no-frills flight to my destination. I know I'm
getting the no-frills part, but do you have references that show I'm not
getting the "safe" part? Does SWA have a significantly worse safety
record than, say, Delta, another carrier I can conveniently choose?

EG, this is a good question. I dont have much time to answer right now
but I will tell you this much; There are differing levels of
Regulatory compliance, operational oversight, maintenence standards,
training standards etc.. All the airlines fly the same planes, pay
similar wages, use the same fuel, and so on, so when you come across a
carrier that charges substantially less than all the rest, consider
that discount has to come from somewhere. I have jumpseated on SWA
flights and I have seen stuff on a regular basis that would get one of
our crews fired (Or at least some time off). Another good example of
cutting corners is the De/AntiIce procedures and policies. The next
time you are at the field during a snow storm take a look out the
window at SWA,s practices verses the other airlines. It may save alot
of time to cut corners in this area, but if one of their jets ever has
an engine problem on climbout that 89 dollar ticket isnt gonna seem
like such a bargain. This is one of the biggest complaints that my SWA
buddies have with the place.
Gotta run,
FB

The fatalities per million flights stats would confirm that SWA is
safer than only a few US airlines, namely: Alaska, Aloha, American,
Continental, Delta, Midwest Express, Northwest, United and US
Airways. Jet Blue also hasn't killed anyone - but they haven't flown
nearly as many trips as SWA.

The argument that SWA's cheaper tickets come out of maintenance costs
flies in the face of the most strightforward analysis. For airlines
operating 737-800s (Continental, American, Delta, Sun Country, ATA,
Alaska) the average total operating cost is: 43% fuel, 23% a/c
financing, 18% crew and 9% direct maitenance. SWA can't cut enough
maintenance corners to make a difference in ticket price. The way
they get lower costs is by flying more trips per aircraft per year and
per crew per year. They do this because the have a far more efficient
operating model (all point to point flying, faster boarding, keeping
cews and a/c together to minimize the impact of disruptions) and less
onerous crew work rules leading to more flight hours per FAA "clocked"
hour - work rules at other carriers encourage building up non-
productive time to increase the number of union-dues-paying pilots
required per flight hour. None of these differences affects safety,
and some may in fact enhance safety.

No, I'm not excusing their skipping inspections - but apparently they
do less meaningful corner-cutting than most - at least according to
the actual facts.

9B

On Mar 8, 1:29*am, wrote:

The fatalities per million flights stats would confirm that SWA is
safer than only a few US airlines, namely: Alaska, Aloha, American,
Continental, Delta, Midwest Express, Northwest, United and US
Airways. *

??????????????????? Apples/Oranges. Take a look at the safety related
incidents that get reported every year and you will get a much clearer
picture. One of the biggest complaints that I have heard from pilots
at LCC's is the stuff that goes unreported.

The argument that SWA's cheaper tickets come out of maintenance costs
flies in the face of the most strightforward analysis.

It also flies (Pun intended ) in the face of my post. My point was
not about mainenence . It was about cutting operational corners in
general and I used the De/Anti Ice as an example. There are plenty
more.


For airlines
operating 737-800s (Continental, American, Delta, Sun Country, ATA,
Alaska) the average total operating cost is: 43% fuel, 23% a/c
financing, 18% crew and 9% direct maitenance.

Laughing now.

*The way
they get lower costs is by flying more trips per aircraft per year and
per crew per year.

They also do it by not training to cat ll or lll approaches or
installing ACARS and ignoring QTA limits. This list of things that
every other airline in the world has accepted as SOP and SWA (With the
FAA's blessing) gets to ignore is quite lengthy.


They do this because the have a far more efficient
operating model (all point to point flying, faster boarding, keeping
cews and a/c together to minimize the impact of disruptions) and less
onerous crew work rules leading to more flight hours per FAA "clocked"
hour - work rules at other carriers encourage building up non-
productive time to increase the number of union-dues-paying pilots
required per flight hour. None of these differences affects safety,
and some may in fact enhance safety.

Laughing harder now. Dont know who you fly for but you should have
just put your anti labor rant in the begining so we wouldnt have to
read the rest of your post. Did you know SWA has more unions on the
property than many other airlines

Frank