The Southwest spin machine continues.

Flying aircraft with AD's that werent complied with.
There is NO excuse or spin you can put on that.

I have seen no information that suggests SWA ever flew an unsafe plane, only that planes had failed to complete required inspections as directed by a date certain. Failure to meet an inspection deadline constitutes grounds for an "not airworthy" designation as I understand it. To the extent that this took place and was knowingly ignored either by the company or the FAA, then appropriate steps and sanctions are in order. My understanding is that the fine is approximately $10 million. But this is a long way from saying that the planes in question were, in fact, unsafe. Only that they were delinquent in their testing. In recent days, the web site crankyflyer.com has written extensively on the topic. I urge you to read his post for further clarification.

I have been a loyal SWA flyer for many years and believe that the company remains fully committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to provide the flying public with the safest possible product. If I had a flight tomorrow, I would not hesitate to travel.

I know that we unfortunately live in a hypersensitive and self-righteous society, but I personally would love to see SWA organize another hilarious sale slogan like with the mini-skirt sale. Perhaps "SWA is Cracking Prices" or something like that :)

Regardless, everything is gravy and this whole issue is a media field day on much ado about nothing. I personally look forward to my next LUV line flight. Keep up the great work and thank you to all your employees for having the confidence to smile and treat us nicely.

I have flown SW for 30 years since the flight attendants were called "Stewardesses" and wore hot pants! They weren't made #1 by being incompetant, they're everyone's favorite because they are reasonably priced and fun. It's the only airline I fly if I can because I trust and feel safe flying them. I completely believe that this was an oversight, beaucracy or just a plain big ole mistake and NOT done on purpose by anyone at Southwest. We got that Wright amendment taken care of; we''ll get past this and go on to being the airlines we all LOVE! LZ

where's herb when ya need him?

My husband and I have been loyal SW customers for a long time, flying frequently (weeky & monthly) all over the country. We have always been treated very nicely, but on 2/1/08, I arrived late at Midway after we sat on the runway in Columbus, Ohio for 2-1/2 hours for a mechanical problem that should have been caught at Midway. To make matters worse, I arrived at Midway along with 3 other customers, ran to the gate where they had just shut the doors but were still at the gate (waiting on our luggage to be loaded) and we were not permitted to board. Needless to say our luggage arrived in Portland without us that night. The SW customer rep was very rude. My husband is flying today in the mess SW officials call 4% of the planes being out of commission and still being 90% on time - how is being 12 hours late to arrive at your destination being on time? And how do you check 44 planes with each inspection taking 90 minutes in one day - not possible! Many, many customers have been inconvenienced today. SW should offer them a deep discount or free ticket to keep their customers. Step up to the plate Southwest and show us why we should stay loyal customers!

There is a reason why their flights are cheaper. Think about it. They have been skimping on their maintenance for a long time and just got caught.
I was warned years ago -- by a certified non-Southwest mechanic -- about their maintenance practices, or lack thereof, and haven't flown Southwest since.

and the CEO is crying about a $10m fine? Give me a break.

Posted this in the other thread, thought it was worth repeating here. Of course, the first comment was that Feith was obviously paid to lie by Southwest. Yes he was paid, but as a respected, well-known aviation professional. I doubt he'd sell out his entire reputation and career for a consultant's fee. Regarding the cracks, the information I've been given says that cracks have to be in several parts of the aircraft in order to cause a structural failure. Even an 8-inch crack in one section isn't enough to cause failure.

Southwest is stuck because flying is an emotionally charged "fear" issue for most people. Therefore, logic and facts seem to play no role. It's like trying to convince people that sharks aren't man-eating death machines.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080307/laf070.html?.v=28

I strongly urge everyone to read this statement by former NTSB Investigator Gregory Feith. Some points that jumped out at me:

***Ã

In the SWA/Kelly statement FAA is not mentioned. SWA should state whether FAA brought the problem to SWA's attention, or that they noticed it, and told FAA.

Will my flight from Oakland, CA at 9:30 AM on Friday 3/14 be affected by these planes being taken our of service?

See, here's the sad part in my eyes. I trust Southwest more than any other airline in existance, and I STILL DO... If this happened at Southwest, what is going on across the entire industry... Wake up people... This is probably going on everywhere, and Southwest is the only one who will fess-up because they are a well run, respectable company.

It is honorable to try to be a "Company man" when the Company is taking such a beating. However, as EEmployees were righteously defending thier beloved Southwest, the Company grounded 41 aircraft. "Doing the right thing" AFTER you get caught doesn't cut it.
Courteous and friendly service doesn't go a heckuva long way when the skin of your plane is ripped off at 30,000 feet, does it? Furthermore, Southwest's flat out denial of any wrongdoing on Monday, and then "suspending" three MX yuckety-yuks (only three???), and now grounding 41 A/C in less than 48 hours speaks volumes about the integrity of the Company. Ivestigation, investischmation. If anything, the American public should be aware that if SWA is good at anything, it is maintaining a good "brand" on its Company name. Besides the last year or so, when was the last time you heard anything bad about SWA? It's not because bad things, lawsuits and the bad press isn't readily available- I can assure you of that. It is because SWA hides, covers up, pays off, settles with...etc- however you want to word it- anyone that may make the Company look bad. They have the cash and funding to afford that luxury. This time, they could not do that- and of all things, it had to involve not a skimpy skirt, not oversized Customers, but the MOST important facet of any airline- safety. You can spin that however you want. Yes, the MX folks at Southwest are among the best in the biz. Sure, they "care". It would be one thing if this involved one or two aircraft- an easy paper mistake.
But 41 airplanes?
Even the "king of name branders" can't duck and cover from that one. Sorry- it's a bitter pill to swallow (especially for Employees). Emplyees must now ask themselves: "now that the Company can't cut corners with the safety of the flying public anymore, where will that money come from?" Contracts for all major Employee groups are expiring soon...stay tuned!

Why is this on your BLOG and not on your HOMEPAGE???

Southwest did the right thing today in pulling those aircraft. Nonetheless, given all the recent publicity, I don't feel any less safe flying Southwest now than any time before.

There is a reason why there has never been a fatality aboard a Southwest flight since 1971, and it's not just luck.

I love flying on Southwest. But I must admit, when this story broke I was in the middle of a trip from California to Florida and I was pretty nervous. I have never had a problem with flying but this was a long flight for me because of the worry I had about the plane's safety.

I hate to admit it, but I am strongly considering canceling a second trip to Florida using Southwest. I have no problem putting my on neck on the line, but this time my daughter will be flying with me and I'm not so sure it is worth saving a few bucks.

Southwest is going to have to get a clean bill of health from the experts before I will feel at ease about flying SWA. In a way I feel that the trust I had in SWA of being a top notch airline has been lost. How could Southwest allow this to happen. I certainly don't know enough about cracks in the fuselage and maintenance records but SWA will have to prove to me that those planes are safe.

Bill Mead,

It is misstatements like yours that continue to muddy the waters and make it impossible for the average person to get a clear picture of the real issues.

"This decision by someone at Southwest to fore go the inspection ..." is simply not true. The original problem was a clerical mistake, not a conscious decision by anyone, and the secondary decision to re-inspect the planes over a short period of time was a combined decision by Boeing, Southwest, and the FAA.

"One is the growth of Southwest that is now occurring faster than people can be trained ..." is misleading and does not consider the fact that Southwest has a huge base of qualified mechanics to choose from. Most from numerous qualified people who have been laid off over the past years due to other airlines' bankruptcies and down-sizing.

As for re-ids, that is a fact of life in our world and is a TSA issue, not a Southwest issue.

And finally, all of Southwest's new boarding policies were tested extensively before they were decided on, and all of them are as efficient, or more efficient, than previous policies.

"Some manager made a decision not to pull those planes until after the Christmas rush ... " again totally unfounded and without any basis in fact.

It is amazing to me how poor a grasp of the facts most posters have and how careless they are in stating their unfounded opinions are if they were facts.

Let's have good, open debate about the real issues, but let's also choose our words carefully and draw clear distinctions between opinion and fact.

Keep up the great work SW!! Glitches, problems, oversights...whatever you want to call them, happen in all companies. You're taking a proactive stance. Good for you! Behind you all the way!

AnotherView:

It is interesting how you point out that so many people are making assumptions and, to prove this, you provide your own assumptions. How do you _know_ that there was not a concious decision to skip inspections? It seems strange that after SWA volunteered that they were out of compliance, that they admit that they did not fix the situation. That is, until yesterday when they were probably informed by their legal counsel that they were very exposed to any liability should an accident of any type occur.

I tend to feel that most people want to do a good job and are basically honest. But I also know that everyone really looks out for themselves first. Think about it, have you ever heard of a manager laying themselves off because they were not needed? If upper management in SWA pushed down to reduce costs, who is not to say that someone didn't decide it would be better to generate revenue than take needed planes out of service?

I would really hope that this was a paperwork issue, but it doesn't matter if it was an honest mistake or not. Safety inspections are required because they are needed. As an earlier poster noted, it was SWA that originally told the FAA that they were required. So if they were the first to know, why are they now the ones accused of skipping inspections that SWA felt everyone else should perform?

Keith,

I honestly don't think I based anything on an assumption. To the best of my knowledge, no one has suggested that Southwest purposely skipped any inspections prior to their self-disclosure last year. They were already doing 99+% of the AD-related inspection that is in question, and it would make no sense not to do the other -1%, except for an acknowledged documentation error, which they self-reported.

Who did what after they self-disclosed is less clear, and I think we should all wait before jumping to any conclusions. But it is clear that Southwest moved quickly to re-inspect based on their self-disclosed error.

Also, based on what I have read about the inspections conducted after the fact on the planes in question and on what Boeing has said about what type/size of cracks are safety concerns and what type/size are not, none of Southwest's plane were ever unsafe to fly.

Keith and others who think Southwest "deliberately" skimped on inspections: if that is the case WHY would Southwest self-disclose this issue? They did that a YEAR ago! Why would you self-disclose if you were deliberately skipping inspections? Disclosure is going to mean scrutiny, just look at what is going on now! It makes no sense. If Southwest really put profit before safety they would have kept their mouths shut in March 2007 and the FAA never would have been the wiser. And by the way, the FAA NEVER knew about ANY of these cracking issues until Southwest brought them to the FAA's attention years ago - well before the 2004 AD that is at issue right now.

Southwest has been ahead of the FAA and probably the other airlines in terms of safety. If not for Southwest, no one would know that the 747s have this problem. And I *know* that and hopefully when all the investigations are over, the rest of you will *know* that in an official capacity. This is included in Gregory Feith's statement linked above. The perception seems to be that these planes just flew and flew and flew and were never inspected. All planes are inspected on a regular basis and the areas at issue were inspected regularly. There was never a safety issue; there was a paperwork issue.

I am dissapointed in southwest,why did whistle blowers have to bring this to the front.How long would this lapse in inspections go on if not for the whistle blowers?the director of maintenance should be terminated ,along with any others that contributed to this lack of judgement and disreguard of the flying public.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/527869.html

Posted on Thu, Mar. 13, 2008

Southwest Airlines finds cracks in 4 grounded planes

BY: TREBOR BANSTETTER

TBANSTETTER@STAR-TELEGRAM.COM\

Southwest Airlines discovered fuselage cracks on four of the airplanes that it grounded for inspections Wednesday, the airline said today.

The Dallas-based carrier took 38 Boeing 737 planes out of service to check for cracks in the exterior above and below passenger windows. It also checked five planes that were already parked for maintenance, and one plane that had recently been retired from the fleet.

A spokeswoman said that 34 of the planes passed the inspections and were returned to service today.

"Four were held for surface repairs, and we expect to have them back in service by the weekend," said spokeswoman Brandy King.

Southwest parked the jets in the wake of a congressional investigation into its airplane inspections. The FAA proposed a record $10.2 million fine last week against the carrier for failing to ground dozens of jets last year after it discovered they had not been examined for potentially dangerous fuselage cracks.

Congress is also investigating whether some FAA officials allowed the airlines to keep the planes in service for up to 10 days despite the inspection lapse.

The airline said Tuesday that it suspended three of its employees in the wake of an internal investigation, and is auditing its inspection records. That review unocovered an additional inspection lapse, which prompted WednesdayÃ

Will Southwest allow people to cancel their reservations if this issue is of concern to them?

I am very surprised at the overly dramatic outrage expressed by some of the bloggers ( see Fiona). This is an unfortunate situation for travelers , Southwest, and the FAA. I can't help but think that if Southwest was managed so poorly we would have had proof YEARS before now. Were you flying Southwest because you vowed to NEVER fly American, Delta, Continental Northwest, etc.? No company is without problems, issues, mis-steps. Are you driving? The same FAA that monitors Southwest monitors all the other airlines.

Anotherview:

You insist on a reliance upon facts, but you state flatly that 99% of FAA-mandated inspections were performed properly. How do you know?

Please explain why 8% (44 of 525, give or take) of the fleet was grounded, if SWA was 99% compliant.

Reinspections Complete; Normal Launch of Operations this Morning

Last night, we successfully completed reinspection of all aircraft that we had previously removed from scheduled service. Out of the 44 affected aircraft we told you about yesterday, only 38 aircraft were removed from service because five aircraft are in regularly scheduled heavy maintenance and one is retired. Of the 38 aircraft, 34 were cleared and put back into the schedule by early this morning. Four of those aircraft were held for surface repairs, and we expect to have them back in service by the weekend.

Thanks to the efforts of ALL Employees who worked tirelessly to complete these reinspections overnight, we had a normal launch of operations this morning. I hope this post helps relieve some of ya'lls fears. Thank you for Flying Southwest Airlines.

I have been a loyal Southwest Flyer for 28 years. I feel as if I have grown up with this airline. I am deeply distressed with the recent reports regarding a possible cover up regarding the care of their planes. I am hopeful that Southwest Airlines will resolve this matter soon.

Wylie...Amen! That's what I have been thinking since day 1. Oberstar & Northwest definitely a connection. I didn't even think of American...good call!

GO SWA!!!!!! Is Oberstar to Comfy with Northwest???? HMMMM!!!

I am amazed at the misinformation out there and the hysteria on this issue.People need to realize that Southwest (obviously, they work closely with Boeing as the largest owner of 737 aircraft)has been very open regarding the issues at hand, and not attempted to hide anything.Just because "sources say" and " a confidential source said" does not mean it is true.I have no hesitation in putting my family or myself on any Southwest flight now as I have many times.Those not knowledgeable about aviation and aircraft do not fully understand the procedures in question.A little research will show that other airlines have done much worse regarding maintenance issues and Southwest took action when they needed to.This is an election year also for most, and therefore the grandstanding by some politicians without having all the facts!(not to mention some with hidden agendas against Southwest also)as well as negative national media regarding any airline issue as they attack first and then get the facts.

Anon,

According to Wikipedia, "[Oberstar] has served on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee since his first term."

His first term began on January 3, 1975.

Very interesting situation! When I was sent the information it included the following statement "Southwest Airlines has never had a catastrophic crash." Have people forgotten about flight 1455 on March 5, 2000 at Burbank, California when a Southwest 737 overran the runway on landing. The Captain failed to Ã

>>I am an Aviation Safety and Human Factors Specialist working in Europe. Behaviour like this and the failure to follow mandatory checks hardly warrants an airline being considered safe!

If you're truly the safety professional that you say you are, certainly you realize that absolute fallacy of such a statement that takes an isolated event(s) and tries to project them on an entire group. That kind of comment is something someone might expect from someone with a non-aviation background or someone in the media, but an aviation safety specialist? Pluh-eze...

Safety *isn't* a functional outcome--it's a process and state-of-mind. It's clear that, like all airlines out there, Southwest has experienced both incidents and the far less frequent accident over the course of the years. I can't imagine Southwest not having "learned something" from its BUR and MDW accidents, and used that information in the training processes to prevent recurrences. That said, it has to be recognized that the system runs with human beings involved, and as long as they are, mistakes are still possible. The secret is to keep any mistakes small, recoverable, and non-hazardous, and I think Southwest's record of only a single hull loss (BUR, aircraft damaged beyond economical repair), and single non-passenger fatality (MDW) indicate that Southwest has been doing more "right" that many "experts" are giving them credit for.

Part of the reason that doesn't happen is the media, and how their reporting (or lack thereof in some cases) confuses the public and otherwise leads to some erroneous conclusions. For example, say an airworthiness directive (AD) is issued by FAA, mandating inspections that consist of 100 different tasks. For whatever reason(s), the airline goofs-up and only gets 97 of the 100 tasks actually done, and it's discovered later. The media then reports "The aircraft missed required inspections" which can erroneously lead viewers to conclude that *no* inspections were conducted. That's no excuse for an airline having missed the 3 tasks that it did that made the aircraft technically "unairworthy", but wouldn't the public have been better-served by knowing that the majority (97 of 100) of tasks were accomplished properly? In their quest to "simplify" things for the general public, the media often "dumb down" information so much that any meaningful context is lost. Add that to the public's tendency to readily believe any mistakes are a result of deliberate actions ("Why, they *must* be doing it to save money") and that aircraft fuselages are eggshells and *any* crack means "certain doom" like they've come to "expect" via movies and TV, well, it's no wonder that some folks are scared snotless. The truth be known, they have little reason to be.

Maybe, someday, the public will come to demand more from the media, but until then, the media will tend to confuse more than it informs.

Sorry, Southwest has lost my companies business. No need to risk anyones life. We too will speak with our dollars. If you want to take the risk, go for it, just don't ask the rest of the flying public to pay for your risk taking.

No need to recommend nything, as I'm already quite familar with Dr. Helmreich's work, and that of Prof. Reason's too.

>>>The main purpose that I posted a reply was of the statement Ã

>>>Maybe if the poor child who was killed in the accident had been your own, what would your feelings have been then?

What a cheap emotional shot, and how incredibly insenstive of a human factors specialist to even ask. I'd never even think about asking about 111, or any other crash in the last 50 years.

The fact that you continue to reject the other poster's common sense use of the word "catastrophic" suggests that maybe you have another agenda to advance, or axe to grind. I don't know what, if anything, it is, nor do I care, but there does seem to be a certain lack of objectivity on your part. All airlines are run by humans, and humans sometimes make mistakes, so does that mean all airlines are "unsafe"?

I'm unable to debate the semantics of "catastrophic" further, since my son has just advised me that the oven timer just went off and dinner is about to be catastrophically unedible if I don't intercede.

Dear CharlieWest219,

What a pity you need to criticize the person and not stick to the interesting points in the discussion. Great, mentality - perhaps you even work for Southwest!!!!!

And I was crushed when I couldn't get an interview for the Inernal Audit department.....shoulda hired me, SWA!

LltoFL, I don't think you know much about airplanes. Planes are over-engineered so that a single minor human error doesn't bring down a flight. If you look at many of the major crashes of recent history, the crash wasn't usually due to a single mistake. There was usually a cascade of mistakes that culminated in the plane going down. If planes weren't built this way you'd have planes falling out of the sky on a weekly or even daily basis.

In addition, airlines have overlapping inspection programs so that, in SW's case, the "missed" FAA mandated inspection wasn't really "missed" at all. It was "missed" in terms of the paperwork, but other, overlapping Southwest maintenance programs ensured that this area of the plane had eyes, ears and tools all over it. The way it is reported makes it sound like these planes were just flyin' around all over the place with no one checking them out - totally not true. And sorry, planes have cracks in them all the time, it is routine, that's why they have programs in place to deal with the problem. It's simply routine wear and tear on the airplane like wear on your auto brakes and tires.

Southwest Airline's continued disregard for passenger safety should have resulted in the maximum allowable penalty of $36M.

We no longer trust SWA and will not permit any of our employees to book company travel on SWA.

Sorry SWA, We LUV life more!

Let's see how those "safe" airlines you all are switching to fair from the announcement today that the FAA will be checking all domestic airlines paperwork. At least SWA came forward and let them know they missed an inspection, albeit not something that was critical to the safety of it's passengers.

With that said, I hope that aircraft with original delivery dates prior to 1989 should be placed on an expedited, gradual retirement program. And if some of the specials are on the list. N334SW (Shamu I) is with a May 22nd 1988 delivery date. All of the others are younger. Hopefully an upcoming delivery
will come in Shamu colors so that 334 will get retired gracefully soon.

i think SWA are doing the best they could to retrieve all the aircraft efficiently. it is scary to know that something like this happened and it is hard for us to trust that the planes will be in good condition for flights. however, SWA doesnt have any fatal accidents (not to jinx it) but other airlines have had accidents but people still get on their airlines SWA are doing the best they could to protect and assure us a safe flight.

To CharlieWest219 and my fellow supporters of SWA --
Thank you for your well-reasoned and intelligent comments regarding this current situation. As you have pointed out, and as many of the negative blog entries have verified by their tone, this has become an issue of emotions more than one of facts.

There is no question that much of the media relies on hype and sensationalism when they feel that it will serve their agenda, and that when mistakes made are egregious enough, they will print a retraction of the incorrect front page headline back on page 37. Right here in the hometown of Southwest, now that the damage has been done, the local paper has moved on to newer and other things to rail about. How easy it is to fire up a controversy and then just move on to another issue. Responsible reporting carries an obligation to get the facts right up front and then to keep your audience informed as the story continues to unfold.

As several bloggers have pointed out, Southwest Airlines, like every other company, is made up of people, and people make mistakes. It seems valid to examine whether incidents occur because of premeditated actions and shortcuts or because of unintended human errors. To make accusations of purposeful efforts to avoid costly inspections and secret agendas to knowingly put people's lives at risk is irresponsible at best and intensely paranoid at worst. Thanks to movie moguls like Oliver Stone, many folks have been encouraged to look for a conspiracy behind every incident.

In addition, you and others have correctly mentioned the inherent and redundant safety of today's airframes. The planes of today's fleets, and I believe Southwest's specifically, are some of the best maintained and inspected pieces of equipment in the air. It remains a very accurate statement to say that you are at much greater risk driving to the airport than you are flying. Many people outside the aviation industry try to raise the spectre of average age of the fleet for an airline without understanding the amount of upgrades, repairs and ongoing work is done to keep those planes safe. If people maintained their cars as well as airlines maintain their airplanes, we could still be driving automobiles from 1970.

In fact, during all of this hue and cry over airframe age, I don't see a similar concern for the members of our U. S. Air Force, who in some cases are flying planes that are over 40 or 50 years old. Our people in uniform are dealing with Congressional budget restraints that keep them in airframes that could be considered antiques compared to what Southwest has in the air. If you think some hairline cracks in a Boeing 737 are risky, consider the challenges of wings that are ready to fall off of some planes that entered the USAF fleet in the 1950s.

All of this excitement over the Southwest situation is also being made towards a company with the best safety record around. As you said above, that is not meant to excuse or trivialize events such as the unfortunate death at MDW, but based on cycles flown, or numbers of passengers, or quantity of flight segments per day over the last 37 years, Southwest has nothing to be ashamed of. You notice that all of this criticism towards SWA is coming from emotional passengers who believe that in hindsight they might have died. There is no other airline that is willing to stand up and point any fingers at Southwest because they know that their records are worse, and that to do so would invite greater scrutiny into their own procedures, which may not have been as rigorous as Southwest's.

The public has spent a lot of effort wailing and gnashing their teeth over Southwest and how something "could have happened", even though it didn't, but they fail to get equally emotional over crashes that DO happen. According to the lastest figures I can find just for the state of Texas, there were 170,190 alcohol-related car crashes in a year. That averages to 466 wrecks per day. In 2007, there were 1569 fatalities in Texas due to alcohol-related accidents. That would be equivalent to a fully-loaded Southwest 737 in the 137-pax configuration crashing with no survivors almost every month of the year (11.45 times to be precise). Where is the indignation over THAT?

If all of these concerned and highly-principled travelers truly intend to boycott any airline that does not have a perfect maintenance record and that has never missed any deadlines or required work, then our interstate highways are going to become even more crowded than they already are, because they will not be able to fly again.

Southwest is a great company run by excellent leaders who would not put the lives of their passengers, the lives of their employees or their public safety record at risk to save a few bucks. If you are looking around for a corporate culture of deceit, reckless disregard for safety and wanton evasion of legalities, you'd better look elsewhere. Southwest didn't become one of the most highly-desired places to work and a frequently-cited business model of success by being or doing what they are accused of by so many people.

Thanks to CharlieWest219 and the others who understand that!
Kim
External Blog Boy

As a smidgen of evidence that there may be a bit of a smear campaign being waged against Southwest Airlines, I'd like to offer the following tidbit for your contemplation.

When questions about inspections began to surface, the "Southwest story" was FRONT PAGE news here in Dallas and a number of other cities. It made the TV news networks as well. So, out of curiosity, how many of you heard the story about American Eagle grounding 25 of their jets last week over questions about whether they had met some FAA-mandated inspection guidelines?

The story seems similar to the one at SWA, except of course for the fact that the Southwest story was from last year, and the American Eagle one occurred last week. So, since it was old news, it needed to be trumpeted from the top of the front page. Recently, Southwest voluntarily grounded a portion of their fleet to insure compliance, and that, too, was front page fodder. Eagle did the same thing last week themselves, and to quote a portion of the article in the Dallas paper:

"Federal Aviation Administration officials in Fort Worth raised the questions during an audit to ensure compliance with airworthiness directives, which address potential safety problems."

Gee, I feel a sense of deja vu. But, I'm sure that in your town, it was as equally publicized as the situation involving Southwest Airlines, right? Let's see, where was in published in Dallas? On page 4 of the Business section. Counting the front page section, the Business portion is the fourth section. Four pages inside of the fourth section.

Hmmmmm -- I guess the front page section was full...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/032508dnbuseagle...

Kim
External Blog Boy