Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHAT? WE WORRY?
It's hard to figure out why any rational airline would ever be lax about inspection. A single crash is such a high profile media event that delivers such a disproportionate and enduring blow to the company's reputation and the consumer's feeling of security,that you'd imagine airlines would be way over-protective of their fleets. You wouldn' t imagine they're letting dozens and dozens of planes escape routine evaluation and maintenance.
Southwest knows how to run their business, I guess, but it seems like a weird place to cut corners. Good for the FAA for reviewing the records and levying a significant, and very public, fine, though, that woke Southwest up and put their competitors on notice. That fine may well have saved lives. This is why we need government in certain industries. The Libertarian solution here -- that a plane would crash and the market would punish the irresponsible -- would be sort of shitty for all involved.
(Photo used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user Zoomar.)
COMMENTS (5)
Well, this is from the airline that agreed to have a show made about it in which each episode primarily featured its employees being rude to customers or the airline screwing over its customers in some way (e.g., if you lose your paper ticket, you're fucked). I guess they figure there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Posted by: Glenn | March 13, 2008 12:39 PM
If you think about it, this is the corporate equivalent of what Elliot Spitzer has done.
Southwest has fucked us as surely as Elliot did the prostitute.
The difference is that Elliot has to resign and faces criminal charges. Southwest, being a corporation, need only be somewhat embarrassed and pay a fine. Fuck this corporatocracy.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 13, 2008 1:22 PM
There's really not much new here. When I interviewed mechanics more than 20 years ago, they had slang -- "putting the timber to it" -- for signing off on maintenance that hadn't been done. Moving that notion up the ladder into a corporate/FAA policy is just ("just") in line with all the other evolutions of business practices over the past 20 years. Think of it as the airline equivalent of going from individual mortgage brokers not checking proof of income to the institutionalization of no-doc loans.
And for the most part we can thank the aircraft companies for the lack of carnage -- the standard design rule is that a crack or similar failure should be able to continue growing over at least two inspection intervals (in case it's missed the first time around) without endangering anything.
Posted by: paul | March 13, 2008 3:43 PM
What? No libertarian has rushed into to comment on "The Libertarian solution here -- that a plane would crash and the market would punish the irresponsible -- would be sort of shitty for all involved."
I'll have to fill in for them: Yes, planes crashing would be preferable to government regulation and inspections! No airline executive would choose short-term profit over the safety of their customers! Wall Street would never reward such behavior!
Gag, I can't go on.
Posted by: SteveH | March 13, 2008 4:21 PM
It doesn't even take an actual plane crash to damage Southwest's reputation. Just the news that they've been lax on inspections is enough to give me pause. You don't need an actual crash for bad press, just the idea that they aren't living up to their responsibilities to prevent one is enough for me.
Posted by: Jake | March 13, 2008 6:07 PM