Originally Posted by
skunker
I propose a more reasonable rationale for the increase between the Dallas office proposed fine and the actual fine levied. From the article:
Typically, once the FAA officially proposes a civil penalty, the airline and the agency negotiate the amount down, a process that can take years.
Dallas FAA suggests a $2M fine. Washington FAA office <redacted> knows AA will fight it and get it lowered so they raise it to make a statement knowing these were serious issues and the fines should reflect that, so they propose a $25M fine. Sometime down the line AA pays a fine around the original amount proposed by Dallas office. The end.
<redacted> Agree that you could be right. But my personal experience with regulators other than the FAA suggests an explanation that is less benign.
Originally Posted by
MauiTigerShark
I guess there's also the possibility that Washington took the position that the Dallas office (based in AA's hometown) took a far too lenient approach to an infraction on it's own turf. Perhaps they consider the relationship between the Dallas regulators and Dallas based AA to be too cosy?
I'm not saying that this is what happened...just pointing out that there are other reasons that may explain the increase in the fine.
Agree. That is certainly a possibility, as well. The problem is that if the FAA was indeed dissatisfied with its employees in Dallas, then they would have the recourse to assign a new team to Dallas and reassign the existing team elsewhere. Since there is no mention of such an action, I find this scenario less plausible.
If anything, the theory put forward by skunker is more likely since it would in essence be a negotiating strategy...no more, no less.