Hmmmm, some really bad press comes out about the FAA giving Southwest a pass on many requirements and inspections. Suddenly the FAA is out there raising the level of previously (lower level) identified problems to extreme, and causing massive tumult for the flying public. Looks like they're just out there trying to rehabilitate, or just divert attention from the story of their malfeasance. Thoughts?
Word I heard from a woman at my coffee hang out who works at United in their IT security dept…
“The FAA thinks that the inspectors were getting to buddy buddy with the airlines and is ending that once and for all”.
I agree that inspectors need to not be peers, nor co-workers. In this industry the inspectors need to be feared and be hard nosed about the safty of the flying public.
Any airline with MD80s (and DC9s) got these airworthiness directives a long time ago and the FAA gave them more than adequate time to get the fix done. AAs maintenance Veep’s head is going to get lopped off for letting this one slide by. We check these wire bundles all the time. Not because they’re any more prone to problems as other parts or systems in the airframe, but because we really push maintenance for aircraft that may have what we call “high time” (lots of takeoffs and landings) and are approaching the end of their service lives. AA’s got a lot of MD80s with high time.
T.
Is that why AA jets always smell like grandma piss? Serious, the United RJ’s are so much nicer than AA’s jets (IMO).
This is a big problem with most of the regulatory agencies. Under the current administration, the American people are no longer the “customers” of these agencies. The industries being regulated are considered the customers. Seems like hens guarding the fox house to me…
While the "in" party is ultimately responsible, I think favoritism as was shown toward Southwest has little to do with those in the white house. It's gone on forever, heck it was by design before the Valuejet crash a bunch of years ago, because one of the roles of the FAA was to promote competition, so they often went easy on the little guy.
No they smell like that because AA wouldn’t pay for metal waste tanks. The plastic ones develop little cracks which keeps the odors despite emptying the tanks. They’ve instituted a new cleaning system but as long as the tanks are plastic the odor will remain.
kelli
Wouldn’t be so sure any heads are going to roll over this. Right now the company line is that the mechanics made the modification on their own and that it poses no safety risk (not sure why they don’t think a plane exploding isn’t safety related). No way maintenance did this without orders from higher-ups but for now nobody in management is accepting responsibility for the mods. Bad thing is they don’t expect stupid 80’s to be back in service until the 12th but I bet maintenance is working extra diligently now that they are being blamed and we may not see them flying until after the weekend.
kelli
Right now the company line is that the mechanics made the modification on their own and that it poses no safety risk (not sure why they don’t think a plane exploding isn’t safety related). No way maintenance did this without orders from higher-ups but for now nobody in management is accepting responsibility for the mods.
As a former aviation mech, I agree. This is total BS. You don’t modify anything without 10 levels of permission and a manufacturers rep looking at it first.
This is a big problem with most of the regulatory agencies. Under the current administration, the American people are no longer the “customers” of these agencies. The industries being regulated are considered the customers. Seems like hens guarding the fox house to me…
Sounds like the FDA to me…
No they smell like that because AA wouldn’t pay for metal waste tanks. The plastic ones develop little cracks which keeps the odors despite emptying the tanks. They’ve instituted a new cleaning system but as long as the tanks are plastic the odor will remain.
I’m always amazed out how much a customer will put up with. Even when blue juice (clean or dirty) and the tanks start creating pleasant odors in the cabin. We flew a planeload full of passengers on a DC10 from Minneapolis to Honolulu once, and only two people (none of them 1st class) even complained. Lots of cheap fares on that flight.
T.
Flew 767 to HNL for a whole month that didn’t have potable water and nobody complained, at least complained in-flight, about it. FAA allowed the write-off as long as we had hand sanitizer on board. Before I blab way too much about what we fly or don’t fly with let’s just say I’m very relieved to see the FAA taking a firm stance on their directives. Now let’s see if they’ll do the same thing about write-offs and what seems to be a very fluid no go list.
kelli
No they smell like that because AA wouldn’t pay for metal waste tanks. The plastic ones develop little cracks which keeps the odors despite emptying the tanks. They’ve instituted a new cleaning system but as long as the tanks are plastic the odor will remain.
I’m always amazed out how much a customer will put up with. Even when blue juice (clean or dirty) and the tanks start creating pleasant odors in the cabin. We flew a planeload full of passengers on a DC10 from Minneapolis to Honolulu once, and only two people (none of them 1st class) even complained. Lots of cheap fares on that flight.
T.
I was on a Northwest Airlink flight yesterday from DC to Indy and it smelled like shit the whole way. I thought it was the guy in front of me. It was a Canadair regional jet, btw.
I was scheduled to be in San Fran, CA, today through Sunday on business (attending professional conference). My flight out of KC, MO, was on Midwest but their plane never left Wisconsin. It was grounded and my trip was blown.
I have mixed emotions. On one hand I am not in one of my favorite series and my Cards are playing there this weekend. On the other hand, I am alive and live to cycle another day.
I place blame on the FAA for lack of enforcement and airline companies for not enforcing good mechanical policy.
I’m puzzled.
Haven’t I been told for years that the FAA, FDA, FTC, etc. were just impediments to business and that the market should self-regulate so that these “incidents” shouldn’t occur in the first place. Or as Jon Stewart put it, plane crashes are just the market self-regulating?
Why the sudden concern over the efficacy of the FAA? Weren’t we supposed to believe that working *with *business was the way to go?
I’m puzzled.
Haven’t I been told for years that the FAA, FDA, FTC, etc. were just impediments to business and that the market should self-regulate so that these “incidents” shouldn’t occur in the first place. Or as Jon Stewart put it, plane crashes are just the market self-regulating?
Why the sudden concern over the efficacy of the FAA? Weren’t we supposed to believe that working *with *business was the way to go?
The nation in general (key word) does not want gvt regulation (FAA, etc) until they feel that they themselves are at risk (e.g., gvt stepping into the housing market).
As I stated, the blame is on both sides. FAA was created to look over and ensure that airline companies are doing things correctly. Airline companies need to stop pocketing profits (or lack of if you believe all the press) and invest in the upkeep of their products.
I don’t disagree, but there is a vast gulf between what business thinks is “efficient” and what the users of their products might find prudent. This exists in practically every area, from air transport to mines to drugs to consumer products. I think its very difficult to immerse oneself in the anti-regulation dogma which argues that planes would never crash (or at least crash with a frequency which makes some level of maintenance reasonable, assuming a functioning tort system) and then find that even with a stripped-down and friendly regulatory regime that even that level of oversight results in potentially dangerous conditions. And given that aircraft failures, while not universally fatal in nature, tend to be much more low-probability high-impact events than say car accidents, this does place a greater emphasis on safety.
I think the problem is that the real world is a lot messier than orthodox economic theory would have. There are meaningful human failures and weaknesses, significant information gaps and areas of deliberate obfuscation. And given that passengers themselves are not in the best position to evaluate their potential risks when boarding an aircraft (who does their own inspection?), it begs the question as to whether the market could ever be efficient in the face of an even lighter regulatory load.
My larger point is that I think there is often this messianic zeal to reduce regulation on everything without a real sense for how the rubber actually meets the road. This is often left lacking and you end up with a sort of faith-based economic idea which in reality is lubricated by either a series of “market failures” or real harm caused as the market regulatory force. The real question then is are we willing to use ourselves and our well-being as the barometer for whether a particular market is running smoothly or not? So that’s why Stewart’s comment, as pointed as it was, wasn’t particularly off the mark, for in the absence of a more paternalistic regime, how does the market regulate.
It’s like the Ford Pinto example, writ large.
"The Star-Telegram says AA “is conducting new inspections with three-person teams that include a maintenance technician, a quality-assurance inspector and an engineer.” One unnamed airline official tells the paper: “We are crossing every ‘i’ and dotting every ‘t.’ It’s pretty clear that we’re in a new era, and we’re starting from scratch. So we’re going to have to figure out how to live in this world.” Indeed, industry observers predict airlines will have to keep pulling aircraft out of service as the FAA responds to criticism on maintenance oversight following a $10.2 million fine it levied on Southwest. “Of course this is going to happen again, probably more than a few times,” aviation consultant Mike Boyd tells the Star-Telegram: “The FAA is trying to look tough.” "
FAA got egg on it’s face due to some whistle-blowers at Southwest, and are now downing more A/C than they have in 30 years. necessary? maybe…suspicious timing? No doubt.
"The Star-Telegram says AA “is conducting new inspections with three-person teams that include a maintenance technician, a quality-assurance inspector and an engineer.” One unnamed airline official tells the paper: “We are crossing every ‘i’ and dotting every ‘t.’ It’s pretty clear that we’re in a new era, and we’re starting from scratch. So we’re going to have to figure out how to live in this world.” Indeed, industry observers predict airlines will have to keep pulling aircraft out of service as the FAA responds to criticism on maintenance oversight following a $10.2 million fine it levied on Southwest. “Of course this is going to happen again, probably more than a few times,” aviation consultant Mike Boyd tells the Star-Telegram: “The FAA is trying to look tough.” "
FAA got egg on it’s face due to some whistle-blowers at Southwest, and are now downing more A/C than they have in 30 years. necessary? maybe…suspicious timing? No doubt.
I think the takeaway is that the airline industry and airline flying public was lucky here in that there the cost of dereliction wasn’t enumerated in lives. Given in what sorry shape the industry is in, with high fuel prices, diminishing quality of service and customer satisfaction, its amazing that it hasn’t completely come apart at the seams.
A bit of advice to everyone. Prior to flying, contact your insurance company and inquire about travel insurance. The cost is usually much less than the peace of mind and buffer against misc. travel issues.
I heard in the news where 1) Frontier has filed for Ch11, and 2) United is increasing price again (10th time this year I believe).