FAA is proposing a $12mil civil penalty Maintenance Issues

[700UW]

FAA is proposing a $12mil civil penalty against Southwest Airlines for failing to comply with three separate previous enforcement cases related to repairs on Boeing 737.

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16754
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

with the highest level of outsourcing among the big 4....

this isn't the first multi-million dollar penalty for WN.

someone needs to get the message with a little more clarity.

“The FAA views maintenance very seriously, and it will not hesitate to take action against companies that fail to follow regulations,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.

 

[700UW]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/faa-proposes-fine-southwest-airlines-12m-24745033

 

[WorldTraveler]

In 2009, Southwest settled on a fine of $7.5 million with the FAA for allegedly operating Boeing 737s on nearly 60,000 flights without performing mandatory inspections of the fuselage for cracking. The FAA had originally recommended more than $10 million in penalties.

hmmm.... no 744/767/757/777s, Airbi, or McD D jets in involved?

 

[700UW]

In 2009, Southwest settled on a fine of $7.5 million with the FAA for allegedly operating Boeing 737s on nearly 60,000 flights without performing mandatory inspections of the fuselage for cracking. The FAA had originally recommended more than $10 million in penalties.

hmmm.... no 744/767/757/777s, Airbi, or McD D jets in involved?

Ignorance at its best and you wonder why have a 2,000+ negative score.
 
No that would be Delta:

 

ATLANTA – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing two civil penalties totaling $987,500 against Delta Air Lines of Atlanta, for allegedly operating an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737-800 on flights when they were not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.
 
In the first case, the FAA alleges Delta failed to repair a chip in the nose radome, or nose cone, on the B-737 after an FAA inspector conducted a pre-flight inspection and informed Delta he had observed chip damage. Delta’s structural repair manual requires the airline to seal radome chip damage before further flight. The enroute inspection took place Feb. 25, 2010, and the airline operated the plane on 20 additional flights between that date and March 1 while the aircraft was not in compliance.
 
The FAA further alleges Delta again failed to repair the radome during layover inspections of the aircraft on Feb. 25 and 28. The proposed civil penalty is $687,500.
 
“Safety is our highest priority,” said FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta.  “Operators must follow the proper procedures to maintain their aircraft.”
 
The FAA also proposes a civil penalty of $300,000 against Delta for allegedly operating an Airbus A320 on 884 flights between May 25, 2010 and Jan. 3, 2011, when it was not in compliance with FAA regulations.
The FAA alleges the carrier incorrectly deferred repair of a broken cockpit floodlight socket at the first officer’s position. Maintenance procedures allow the airline to defer repairs on a dome light for no more than 10 days before repairing or replacing it.  The FAA discovered the alleged violation during a routine inspection.
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

how about you find those things about AA, your new alma mater, even though you have NO CONNECTION with either US OR AA?

you do realize that AA has the HIGHEST FINE ever levied against a US airline...

 

[700UW]

Keep thinking what you want.
 
I know your not a delta employee, your not inflight nor a ramper.

 

[blue collar]

Ignorance at its best and you wonder why have a 2,000+ negative score.
 
No that would be Delta:
 

Spectator has a lot of work to catch up on.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Keep thinking what you want.
 
I know your not a delta employee, your not inflight nor a ramper.

neither are you. You never have been a DL employee, never worked in in-flight, and left US without any package.
it's all about an effort to position yourself as "authorized to speak" but I am not... yes, we know the drill.

none of it has anything to do with the subject at hand which is that WN is facing yet another multi-million dollar fine.

 

[swamt]

Wow!!  WT still trying to spread NOTHING but negative news once again.  You and one other poster in this thread YOU started WT.  Speaks volumes sir, speaks volumes once again.  Your pathetic man, get out and stay out.  Your the first to post this news as it was against SWA, SWA looky bad, which makes Delta look just a little better.  This speaks volumes on your issue and your propaganda at hand, and BTW, thx for bringing it all to light for us all...

 

[WorldTraveler]

if you or anyone else has paid ANY attention for any length of time to this forum, you would know that 700 and I could hardly be described as on the same page.

We are discussing a business issue that is much a part of the reality of the industry as the double digit increase in revenue at DAL that you want to tout.

If you want a board - and a life - where you can talk solely about what you want to talk about, may I suggest the life of a monk - or nun. Monasteries - and convents - are great places to hide oneself from the realities of the world you don't want to have to face.

Great for all WN has accomplished and is doing.

The FAA has made it clear multiple times before in similar cases that failing to follow FAA approved maintenance procedures - for an airline or its contractors - is not acceptable and won't be allowed.

perhaps 700 and I both thought that you as a mechanic would have been the first person who would have recognized that.

 

[1AA]

Keep thinking what you want.
 
I know your not a delta employee, your not inflight nor a ramper.

Neither are you. You persist as well. So continue.

 

[paul1]

what was aa fined for the clamps being off a 1/4 inch? on the md80

 

[WNMECH]

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-28/faa-suggests-southwest-pay-12-million-fine-over-jet-repairs?campaign_id=yhoo

I don't usually comment on these things but a few facts should be noted.

This was work done in 2006-2009 at ATS.
It was resolved years ago.

Read this part of a story:
The FAA said Southwest flew the planes on numerous flights in 2009 and that the agency later approved the repairs after the airline provided proper documentation that the work had met safety standards. But the aircraft did not meet compliance for a certain period while they were being flown, which led to the fine announced on Monday.

In other words, WN proved that the skin change methods were satisfactory but are being fined for flying the planes before proving it.
At least that is how I read it.

 

[WNMECH]

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-28/faa-suggests-southwest-pay-12-million-fine-over-jet-repairs?campaign_id=yhoo
I don't usually comment on these things but a few facts should be noted.
This was work done in 2006-2009 at ATS.
It was resolved years ago.

The other problem seems to be due to a bonding strap installation I think.
 
I would also like to note that that the picture that was with the story I linked to, appears to be of the skin tear that was determined to be because of a manufacturing defect at boeing.
 
story here:
http://seattletimes.com/html/boeingaerospace/2014870757_boeinghole26.html
 
It has noting to do with the skin changes done at ATS.