philipgbaker

As a 25+ yr flier with Southwest for most of my flights, I'm still troubled that Southwest did not stop flying their MAX planes after the second crash. Gary Kelly came out after the 2nd crash and said he had full confidence in FAA and Boeing's decision to keep the planes flying. And he reiterated their top priority was the safety of their passengers and employees. At the time my engineering experience told me this was just not right.

And now today in the WSJ we learn FAA employees had similar concerns after the first crash. My faith in Southwest's judgement was shaken at the time and continues to be. I'm now taking more flights on Alaska and United. Anyone else feel Kelly let his customers down and failed his customers and employees?

tusphotog

lougord99

I'm not sure I understand your logic. Correct me if I am wrong, but United grounded their max 8's the same day that Southwest did. Why are you flying United? Why do you feel that Alaska would have immediately grounded their max 8's if they had any? Why do you feel that Gary Kelly should be second guessing the FAA - who clearly had more knowledge and information than Southwest?

NoStressHere

There is way more information that none of us have. Lots of it.

If anyone thinks an airline exec would put planes in the air that they thought could crash, they are _______. If a plane had crashed at that point, that exec would be jobless in a heartbeat. He would become a mental case knowing he could have saved lives. The airline would be in a world of hurt. The list goes on. Pilots were okay to keep flying as well. Keep in mind there were some variances in the training and equipment on WN planes vs those that crashed. Did it matter? None of us know for sure.

There was significant incentive to just give in and ground the planes but they evaluated the situation and kept the planes in the air.

No, I do not think Kelly or the FAA failed us.

smmrfld

Nope, not at all.

copperred

[QUOTE=lougord99;31676934 Why do you feel that Gary Kelly should be second guessing the FAA - who clearly had more knowledge and information than Southwest?[/QUOTE]

It's pretty clear the FAA did not and likely does not have more knowledge and information and a fourth grader, given that they've given regulation of the aircraft over to the supposed to be regulated party Boeing. This truly is a textbook example of regulatory capture and the fallout that results. Boeing has always been testy and refused to fix design or build flaws until they finally give in or are forced to by regulators. See the 737 rudder issue as well. Their arrogance will be their undoing.

That Southwest continued to wave the Bowing flag looks ever more foolish. Even with a business model built around one manufacturer (a foolish proposition in some cases) for efficiency, it comes with risks.

ETA: sorry about the quote error, my browser seems to be acting up.

LegalTender

Boeing objectively failed us. They rushed to sell a new model of the 737 which was inherently less safe than earlier models. Southwest negotiated a rebate if pilots didn't have to re-train on the Max. Organizational design approval (ODA) and self-regulation implicate the FAA. Whether MCAS can ever make Max configuration as safe as NG is unresolved. In whose interest was the decision to leave it out of the training manual?

I don't think Kelly failed us. That level of malevolence is inconceivable.

NoStressHere

Yea, let's sell a plane that we know is going to fall out of the sky. Nobody will care. Profits are all we care about. Even if planes crash, we will continue to sell more and make more money.


Do people really believe that statement?

Of course not - I hope. Did they maybe not fully understand what they were doing and what could happen with the MCAS system? Maybe, maybe not.

copperred

It's all about managing risk, the Ford Pinto provides an excellent comparison. If you decide from the beginning that it's worth the risk of a "workaround" for what really needed a fundamental design from the ground up without pre-conditions, you've already committed to a certain amount of losses.

It's rather obvious at this point that MCAS was a cosmetic fix to a gaping wound; it getting infected and killing the patient seems entirely predictable. Did Boeing do so with full knowledge of the risks? All signs so far point to yes, Boeing apologists wherever they may be will always deny, deny, obfuscate and attack.

NoStressHere

The Ford Pinto has some comparisons, but quite different. In the car business, you can build a tank to better protect folks from accidents, but you always compromise to deliver a vehicle that people will buy. The gas tank thing surely was fatal for some, but not during normal operation. Nor did it keep many from buying more cars going forward. Bad decision by Ford - most probably, and assuredly based on the lawsuits, etc.

The MCAS is quite different as it forced a plane to CRASH without any other human causation vs a human caused automobile crash. And of course 100% for sure fatal in a plane crash. To think Boeing looked at the MCAS and decided that maybe a few crashes were acceptable is quite different than Ford saying the gas tank could be fatal in certain car accidents, but lets go ahead anyways.

Pinto thing was only a problem when a car was involved in certain auto crashes. And even then, many occupants would still survive. MCAS could happen at any time and be 100% fatal.

toomanybooks

I would never assume that some government agency/employees know more than a private business in any specific area.

azepine00

Probably true if we were talking about running airline operations.. however FAA has far more knowledge and experience in why planes fall from the sky - there is no private entity that can match that...

joshua362

No, the NTSB does, not the FAA...

kennycrudup

... not me

philipgbaker

Simple. Kelly said his first priority was the safety of his passengers and employees, yet that was clearly not the case. And Southwest has set higher expectations than United in providing customer focused policies and service.