Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

Southwest Airlines Incident Highlights Cracks in Federal Oversight


The airliner may have an "overly collaborative relationship" with the Federal Aviation Administration.


The five-foot tear in the roof of a Southwest (LUV) 737 last week has not only brought renewed attention to the problem of aging planes, but also to problems in oversight of the airline industry.

In a report that received limited attention when it was released in December, the Transportation Department's inspector general raised questions about the Federal Aviation Administration's safety checks of airliners. According to the report, the agency had failed to perform on-time inspections of the major airlines in more than 300 instances [PDF] between fiscal years 2005 and 2009.

Its record was the worst with Southwest: "The Southwest Airlines inspection office missed the most inspections at the required time intervals," the report said.

The FAA said in a statement at the time that it had made several changes to its inspection program and "is confident in its ability to oversee the National Aerospace System."

In 2008, the FAA faced criticism from investigators for acting too cozy with the airline industry. In particular, its relationship with Southwest had been described by the inspector general as an "overly collaborative relationship."

That conclusion came after two former FAA inspectors-turned-whistleblowers exposed a number of problems with the agency's oversight of Southwest. Among them: The agency had allowed Southwest to operate Boeing (BA) 737s that had not undergone mandatory inspections to detect cracks. Six of those planes were later found to have them, and the company settled with the FAA for $7.5 million.

A 2008 government report also found FAA oversight lagging as major airlines increasingly outsourced maintenance work to contractors in a drive to lower costs.

Cracks in the fuselage, or the body of the plane, are believed to have caused Friday's emergency aboard Flight 812. The National Transportation Safety Board is still investigating but has said that the 15-year-old aircraft had "pre-existing fatigue" along the entire length of the tear. A former member of the NTSB told the Wall Street Journal that existing inspection procedures "weren't adequate to uncover" the problems.

The FAA is issuing an emergency directive today requiring airlines to conduct safety inspections on older models of the 737 after inspections over the weekend detected cracks on three more Southwest 737s. It has issued a number of directives over the years aimed at addressing concerns about cracks in aging Boeing 737s. Most of the US-registered planes to which the latest directive applies are operated by Southwest.

Southwest has said that the particular cracks on Flight 812 are "a new and unknown issue." The company said the plane involved in Friday's incident had undergone all required inspections. It also shifted the focus to Boeing: "This is a Boeing-designed airplane. This is a Boeing-produced airplane," a Southwest spokeswoman told the AP. "It's obviously concerning to us that we're finding skin-fatigue issues."

Boeing did not comment to the AP. Agence France Presse reported yesterday that Qantas, an Australian airline, is putting its aging Boeing 737s up for sale, intending to replace them with a newer model.

This article by Marian Wang originally appeared on

Lasting through April 15, 100% of the donations made to
The Ruby Peck Foundation for Children's Education will be channeled to the children of Japan as they attempt to find their footing following this natural disaster; and to kick off this drive, we'll pledge $5000 to get it started. Please do what you can, as it will add up, and thanks.

< Previous
  • 1
Next >
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Videos