Whistleblowers faced threats over airline safety
By Steve Benen Monday Apr 07, 2008 7:30amThis isn't an especially political story, but I was nevertheless amazed by what we learned at a hearing late last week of the House Transportation Committee. We're not allowed to fly with more than a few ounces of shampoo in a carry-on, but you might be amazed at what airlines can get away with.
In startling disclosures to Congress, federal inspectors overseeing Southwest Airlines say they were repeatedly thwarted by senior government officials from reporting critical problems that compromised the safety of passengers.
Federal whistle-blowers, other federal aviation inspectors and the independent investigator for the Department of Transportation testified Thursday that problems at Southwest were far more widespread than has previously been reported.
Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin Scovel said investigators in recent months found violations at the airline in addition to the breaches last year that prompted a $10.2 million fine against the carrier. Southwest violated four different crucial safety requirements on eight occasions since December 2006, including five this year, Scovel said.... Southwest knowingly flew 46 jets that had not received required inspections for cracks in the fuselage. When the inspections were finally completed, mechanics found cracks on six of the jets. Similar cracks caused a fatal air disaster on a jet in 1988 in Hawaii.
If this were simply a story of an airline trying to cut corners, and in the process putting passengers at risk, it would be startling enough. But in this case, we're talking about federal inspectors who were pressured by their superiors to allow an airline to put passengers at risk.
Apparently, the Texas office of the Transportation Department was staffed with people sympathetic to Southwest, so when inspectors raised concerns about safety breaches, regional managers reportedly ignored the warnings.
And as if negligence wasn't enough, Transportation Department officials apparently threatened inspectors who sought to protect public safety. Indeed, inspectors testified about "attempted revenge, orders to destroy incriminating documents and fears that a conspiracy may have extended to the FAA's Washington headquarters."
In one example, whistleblower Bobby Boutris told lawmakers about his experience after he found evidence of missed inspections. Boutris' Transportation Department supervisor ordered him not to enter negative findings against Southwest into the FAA's computer. Here's the punch-line: that supervisor has since been reassigned, but faced no disciplinary action. "What do you have to do to get fired there?"
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) asked.
I've been wondering the same thing about the Bush administration for years.
Login or Register to post comments.
Government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations… and their buddies.
It is a political story. The fox watches the hen house, or hires other foxes to do so.
Regulation hampers business...Ronald Reagan said so.
Oh...and FRIIIIIIIST.
Bush Laissez-Fare at its worst. I cant imagine what it is like to be a big enough criminal asshole to be a policy person for bushco.
That's a conservative Republican mentality at work...You can't regulate the free market!!
OK...cancel the Friiiiist.
But, we can't have all these inspectors and regulations...they are a drag on business and business needs to be free of overbearing government, so that it will prosper and the prosperity will trickle down to the rest of us. If we impede that with frivolous regulation, like airplane inspections and safety standards, then we impede freedom and democracy...and the....THE TERRORISTS WIN!!!
And this Administration also opposed the Passenger Bill of Rights a/k/a the anti-detainee bill.
The Bush Administration: Doing their part to decimate oversight.
so, who was the corporate scumbag who the chimp put in charge of our safety?
a brownie or a shill like the mine safety lowlife?
Govt that governs least, governs best. At least if you're a crook.
What the hell kind of a banana republic is this?
As if the republitards haven't embarrassed us enough; now they're trying bring us horrifying, firey death? It'll be a sad day when you see the U.S.A. listed on airport signs as one of the countries to which foreign governments warn their people against visiting for safety reasons.
Yep, drown that government in a bathtub . . .
Headline should read: "Whistleblowers and Passengers faced threats over airline safety"
And even better, if a plane did crash, it could be listed as a terrorist attack...not criminal negligence of the owners.
Hm... Re-assigning problem employees from one parish to another... hmm... why does that sound familiar?
(aw naw I di'nin!)
Does this mean that SouthWest can get their money back?
I fly NorthWest which has the oldest fleet in the business. Do you think I feel comfortable getting in their decrepit old planes? I flew in one that was only 2 years younger than I was at the time.
They took those plaques out of their planes shortly after that. No relation to me I'm sure but those DC-9's are tough planes but shit, some are over 40 years old! A testament to the over engineering of the past when costs were high and revenues were too.
It makes me wonder how long the 777, 787, A380, RJ900 are going to hold up over time. I doubt that they will make it to 40 but still, the industry/regulator brothel that the Bush administration has actively encouraged makes me wonder when the next nuclear disaster is going to happen. The next plain crash. The next horrific fires. The next mine disaster. The next ecological disaster. Putting the industry in charge of regulating themselves isn't a good idea at any level of common sense. Why is the business community behind McCain? I think you have your answer.
It's going to be painful to uncover all of the collusion between the loyal Bushie agency heads and the industries they paid allegiance to. It's going to take time. A McCain presidency will continue to foster and support that dangerous ideology.
I haven't flown in over 10 years and have no intention of ever doing so again... for 10,000 easy reasons.
Verdillac @ 13:
Ooooh good call, right before the election too, to give people that nice little jolt of fear that makes em vote republican. Very crafty!
Pinkyleftbrain @ 15 said:
woah woah woah! Don't forget many businesses contribute heavily to both parties in the hopes that they'll get favorable treatment in the next administration. What makes you think that the Democrats will be any tougher on businesses? Remember: it's a two party system, and the US doesn't have a socialist party.
I've been pushing this study which the Feds (NASA) witheld for a long time, then finally released the data, but no roadmap to distill it. Note that it was witheld 'over concerns it would upset travelers and hurt airline profits.'
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080101_NASA_releases_a_cryptic...
Alice Hussein @ 1:
The government that protects the least, protects the best.
It is NewSpeak:
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is knowledge.
Oppression is salvation.
---
One hell of a job Brownie…
Who says it's not a political story? This is VERY political - it results from republican deregulation of corporations.
Well, this is a no-brainer. President Bush and his Republican buddies couldn't give a shit about the average American or our safety. Ever since Bush and Co got in to office, the have systematically destroyed every safe guard put in place during the Clinton years. FDA, Coal mines, Air quality, all have been sacrified for the sake of big business. What a legacy!
The BushCo LLC is a takeover of all branches of government.
I found this on ITunes yesterday........This American Life: The Audacity of Government
It is about 50 minutes and well worth a listen
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=353
In the great capitalist shrub co. 'free market' paradise human life has a dollar value of 0.01 cents. When compared to all those expensive plane parts, labor costs, lost ticket fees and down time losses there is NO contest.
Corporations must be protected at all costs. Humans.. meh, not so much.
A horse & buggy sure sounds safe.
What government oversight departments haven't been in a scandal over regulation rollbacks?
Are there any left?
rain @ 25:
Walking is safe. If you trip, you don't have far to fall.
Just don't cross bridges or walk near roadways...
hey chill out, it's part of the plan.
the "terrerists" won't know which planes aren't capable of flying so they can't hijack them for nefarious purposes
News from Chiang Mai
Everyone here, every expat American, Brit, Aussie, German, all of us are meeting in groups and homes to watch the talk with the general in just minutes from now, The house I am in there are seven people who brought their lap-tops to get the streaming video. The air is electric with anticipation. Many of our Thai friends have also joined us, this is not just an American thing.
The World is watching.
Back after the talks.
BB in Chiang Mai via anon server.
so WHERE IS THE LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF ALL FLIERS FOR THE RISK TO OUR LIVES???
ISN'T THERE A CLASS ACTION LAWYER WAITING IN THE WINGS FOR THIS ONE??
I just flew on Southwest the day this stuff hit the front pages. Their usually easygoing flight attendants were downright surly. I can't blame them. Where is their union in all this (or don't they have one)? I would think the employees' reps would be very vocal about their members' safety. While passengers were endangered for one flight, the Southwest cabin crews were the most vulnerable with many flights a day on these planes.
It was pretty sad that the flight attendants on my plane were telling us we couldn't put our paperback book in the seat pocket (with all the magazines and other stuff). Other passengers were grumbling to each other about potential cracks in the plane and the crew was worried about a paperback book!
I won't be flying Southwest again for a long time.
In the years just before 9/11 McCain actually held back funding (as chair of the senate commerce committee) for security improvements to National Airport in DC because he wanted the airport to open up direct flights by Southwest from Phoenix. Phoenix is outside the 1250 mile limit for flights to National. Imagine putting the safety of an airport at risk for that. I'm surprised this hasn't come up as a campaign issue. But the point here is that McCain has a history of protecting Southwest's interest. It would be interesting to see if he used any influence to impede federal oversight into Southwest's saftey records.
You people just don't understand how a truly free market works.
You see, the government shouldn't have to pay to inspect privately owned aircraft. A few cracks develop, a few crashes happen, there is some ... er ... collateral damage. The collateral damage causes bad press so revenue falls. The airline realizes that this is not in their best interest, so they begin internally financed inspections. It's cheaper than the bad press generated by collateral damage.
Sure there will be a few crashes and some collateral damage before the corporation has enough statistics to fully predict the acceptable level of collateral damage.
But, in the end, the free market will handle this inspection problem without government interference.
/snark
Regardless it's still safer flying then driving. Thank God drivers (morons) are not allowed to operate high performance equipment.
Aaaah, Republican oversight is a thing of beauty. Now attack the whistleblower, fellow morons!
So when do we start building temples with huge $ on top of them?
deregulation at work
Why do you say this not a political story? What possible reasons would there be to put pressure on federal inspectors? Let's answer the questions on this important topic without prejudging the motivation.
So explain to me what about this story isn't really political? IT'S ALL POLITICAL.
I'm a bit disappointed with the link. The USA Today story does not present comments by the FAA or Southwestern. There are plenty of stories on this to choose from like FAA officials let Southwest keep flying despite safety violations, panel told from the McClatchy paper in DC. If we demand a higher level of journalism from stories that say things we don't like, we should maintain the same critical eye on stories we do like.
This is a political story. It's another dramatic example of how Katrina, Bear Stearns-style laissez faire Republican government gets out of the way of big corporations, letting the foxes run the henhouse, to the detriment of everyone else. One witness at the Southwest hearing said he quit his safety inspector job a couple of weeks ago because he was tired of the FAA officials acting primarily to "please" the airlines instead of keeping passengers safe.
Thanks for reporting this story! My Republican mother regularly uses the example of Southwest Airlines to illustrate how corporations and competition allow innovation and price decreases. This might help to convince her of what I've known for years: Southwest Airlines sucks big-time, and the entire industry needs help to protect both its customers and its workers.
Here's what happened to the Aloha Airlines plane:
http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/index.htm
And, some info about what caused it:
http://discity.com/ghost/
http://www.disastercity.info/ghost/sfdecomp/
Among other things, this aircraft was 14,680 flights past its design limit. Speaking of planes as old as we are.
Southwest flies a later model of the very same thing.
centralilgirl @ 36:
The "$" symbol is the only thing missing from institutions like the Oral Roberts U, the crystal cathedral and other like monstrosities.
It's there. You just can't see it.
You obviously don't understand that dying in an aircrash is only a problem when said crash is caused by terrorists. Dying in an aircraish caused by lack of maintenance is your patriottic duty!
See Rodney Stich's "Unfriendly Skies" for much more on the subject of airline safety and what happens to whistleblowers.
Partial download of the book: http://www.druggingamerica.com/EUnfriendly_Skies_part.pdf
I love the prevailing "business is a monster" mentality that pervades this site.
Let's pause for a brief taste of reality.
Southwest Airlines has been flying ONLY 737's for a total of 37 years. In that time, SWA has carried more than 1.1 billion customers throughout the U.S. and has operated more than 33 million separate takeoffs and landings without a single structural failure related to faulty maintenance. SWA has never killed one of its customers.
Since the company began business in the early 1970's it has never had a strike by its union employees, has never had a layoff, all the while providing value and return to its investors and employees. SWA established the FIRST profit sharing plan in airline history for its employees and made air travel affordable for the masses...LIKE YOU.
I challenge you to name another domestic airline that can say ANY of the same...if you can pry yourself away from the usual "corporation bashing" that seems to be the norm here. Educate yourself before writing.
Bananaphone @ 42:
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Very soon, Hillary Clinton will share a story of how she cleaned up corruption in the Transporation Department, and how she encouraged the whistleblowers to come forward. (snark)
While you're busy wallowing in the mainstream media hype, wringing your hands and shaking your fists
at "big corporations," it should be noted that the aircraft involved in the 1988 Aloha Airlines incident, a Boeing 737-200 that first entered commercial service in 1969, was an early, non-advanced 737 that used production techniques that are different from anything found in Southwest’s current fleet.
Oh, and by the way, the March 2007 events were triggered when Southwest undertook a modification of certain “lap joints” on their aircraft. Once this FAA approved modification is performed, it resolves the skin crack issue addressed by the 2004 FAA advisory, eliminating the need for more frequent skin inspections in most of'the affected areas. A record-keeping error in SWA's inspection paperwork did not include a small portion of the hull
that still needed to be inspected under the 2004 AD even after the lap joint modification was performed.
Contrary to some suggestions, SWA did not miss any inspections. They conducted the required inspections,
but, we inadvertently omitted a small area (0.6% of the skin surface) that ordinarily should have been specifically inspected under the advisory. The “missed” area continued to be inspected by our other regular and routine inspections, as well as by an additional advisory that called for crack inspections along a line that ran within 0.7 inches of the short length of the “missed” area.
This whole story is hype.
OneTrickPony @ 47:
Yeah, we know, and Kelleher picks up loose peanuts after every flight. Southwest's history does not excuse behavior like this. That said, this is just as much the FAA's fault as it is Southwest's.
I actually have tickets for a June flight on Southwest, and this cover-up greatly lowers my confidence in them being able to deliver me safely to California. But I suppose it is my patriotic duty to go down with the plane, just so no one can be fired, right?
Yeah, we know, and Kelleher picks up loose peanuts after every flight. Southwest's history does not excuse behavior like this. That said, this is just as much the FAA's fault as it is Southwest's.
I actually have tickets for a June flight on Southwest, and this cover-up greatly lowers my confidence in them being able to deliver me safely to California. But I suppose it is my patriotic duty to go down with the plane, just so no one can be fired, right?
Exactly what "behavior" is it that you're referring to?
Your logic is as disconnected as your paranoia and you've missed my point entirely as is convenient for malcontents who wish to believe anything they're told by the media. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that American had to ground damn near half their fleet two weeks ago for an entire service day for violations, but Southwest redundantly inspecting 46 planes overnight, now, there's a news story! I say sell your SWA tickets and drive to California. Take your chances out on the interstate highway system and pay the popular gasoline price. But, in the meantime, don't confuse facts with media hype. Your decisions as a consumer are your own, but that's my advice to you.
Oh, and Herb Kelleher is an Entrepreneurial American Hero who puts his devotion to his employees above anything else in his company. He does what is right for employees first, customers second and shareholders third.
You'd be lucky to work for a man like him.
Yeah, we know, and Kelleher picks up loose peanuts after every flight. Southwest's history does not excuse behavior like this. That said, this is just as much the FAA's fault as it is Southwest's.
I actually have tickets for a June flight on Southwest, and this cover-up greatly lowers my confidence in them being able to deliver me safely to California. But I suppose it is my patriotic duty to go down with the plane, just so no one can be fired, right?
Let's see....SWA has been flying 737's for 37 years. As of today they've carried 1.2 billion people safely to their
destinations....never had a structural failure and their maintenance has even REVEALED flaws to the FAA in the 737 airframe that improved the aircraft for all airlines. BUT, your confidence has been shaken so much that you doubt their ability to deliver you, one customer, safely to California. I'd say you have an incredible faculty for rational, critical thought.
The story is about the government allowing corporations to get away with potentially hazardous planes, and that we allow the government to no longer serve the citizens best interest.
It's that simple.
OneTrickPony @ 52:
Holy Cow, is this how you regularly talk to customers? Calling them names and insulting them? I'm not a knee jerk artist, you will note that I haven't disposed of my Southwest tickets as of yet. I'm certainly not paranoid and I have never been confused with a malcontent before. I'm not even questioning Southwest's service record, I know it is very good.
My concern, based on multiple newspaper accounts and whistleblower details, is that it appears that regulatory overisght is being compromised by certain individuals in the Transportation Department and FAA, and for whatever reasons they are providing very good cover for Southwest Airlines. This lowers my confidence, and yes, the recent grounding of AA planes lowers my overall confidence as well.
Hey, if the whistleblower is lying through his teeth, please enlighten us. But the public relations work you are trying to do here is not exactly raising my confidence either. If all Southwest Airlines employees talk as rudely to their customers as you do, I may have to rethink that flight to California. But I'm sure as hell not taking a 36 hour car ride!
P.S. I'm sure Kelleher is a fine guy. In no way did I imply that he was involved in any wrongdoings.
Though I do not work in the industry, I have several friends who are retired FAA employees. Not a single one of them will fly on a commercial flight, regardless of the airline. The most often sited reason is that, under the Bush Administration, the FAA senior management has become dominated by incompetence.
Oh, and in answer to One-Trick-Pony: Alaska Airlines used to have the same safety record as Southwest, not losing a single passenger despite tens of thousands of flights in Alaska, home of some of the worst flying weather in the world.
Then came Flight 261, from Cabo San Lucas bound for San Francisco and Seattle. As I'm sure "One-Trick" knows, that flight crashed, on a perfectly beautiful day, due to faulty maintenance causing insufficient lubrication of the rudder's jack screw assembly. All 88 people on board were killed as the pilots tried to land with no rudder control.
I flew on that flight, and most likely that same aircraft, exactly one week prior to the crash. Until then I hadn't taken my former FAA friends seriously. Now, you cannot pay me enough to step on a plane.
Just another shining example of what happens when you elect people who have no respect for government to run your government. "Heckuvajob, Brownie!"
Correction: Flight 261 lost its horizontal stabilizer control, not rudder control as I incorrectly stated above. My apologies for the error.
What's so shocking? In all GOPer administrations, without exception, money is more important than people.
solid @ 55:
Just for the record, your assumption is wrong. I don't work for Southwest. I do, however, get bored of all the conspiracy theorists playing the "they're just out to get you to make a fast buck" game. You all need to get real. All of this crying and moaning about the Bush Administration and all the bogey men in the bureaucracy makes me yawn. The problem with both the Left AND Right in this country is that they're chock-full-o-nuts. If you think an airline would purposely avoid maintenance to dodge costs, you're out of your mind. Do you realize how much a 737-500 costs? Do you realize how much crash lawsuits and insurance cost? The next time you see a Southwest 737 with "winglets" (the upturned wingtips) realize that the retrofit parts for those wingtips cost over $100,000 per pair. Now, how much sense does it make that an airline that will go to that expense to make an aircraft more fuel efficient would willingly endanger that asset by failing to maintain it properly?
There is absolutely no correlation between Alaska Air and Southwest...none.
No, no, no, it's the eeevil Mexicans' fault! (according to Neil Cavuto)
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/04/07/neil_cavuto_claims_mexican_airline_r...
"One-trick" sez no regulation is needed because airlines have incentives to make sure their planes don't crash. But then notes:
There is absolutely no correlation between Alaska Air and Southwest…none.
Thanks for negating your own argument. Don't they both have the same incentive to protect their investments? Aren't they both airlines that are regulated by the FAA? What, exactly, makes Southwest different from Alaska when it comes to human error and lack of competent oversight?
It doesn't matter to the 88 people who died on that plane whether the error was due to cost-cutting or human frailty. Both can become fatal when there is a lack of oversight, and that is the reason my former FAA friends won't fly. (I know eight former FAA inspectors, many of whom don't know each other, and they all have the same opinion.)
Whether you work for SWA or any other airline, or not, you couldn't possibly be naive enough to deny that there is tremendous pressure in the industry right now to cut costs in order to maintain profits, or at least avoid bankruptcy. The question is, could you be naive enough to believe that such pressure, combined with incompetent oversight, could never result in unsafe flights?
Yes, flying is still safer than driving (especially in Mexico), but my retired FAA friends and I all agree that flying is considerably less safe than it should be.
OneTrickPony @ 59:
First of all, I suspected you worked for Southwest because of this at post #50:
"Contrary to some suggestions, SWA did not miss any inspections. They conducted the required inspections,
but, we inadvertently omitted a small area (0.6% of the skin surface) that ordinarily should have been specifically inspected under the advisory."
You included "we inadvertently omitted...." I assumed by "we" you were talking about your company, Southwest Airlines. However, you may have pasted a comment from Southwest Airlines and failed to properly attribute it with quotation marks, who knows.
You may have some plausible points, but pardon me for being suspicious of the Bush Administration, who totally stocked the Federal Government with Regent University grads and a whole host of rotten neocons. For crying out loud, look at all the unqualified cronies in positions of extreme importance who have made a shambles of oversight, regulation, and response in this country. Sometimes a conspiracy is more than a theory you know.
OneTrick, tell me why the Dept. of Transportation whistleblower came forward saying that his superiors were trying to keep him quiet. Why would they do that?
P.S. I made no correlation between Southwest and Alaska Air. That would be another poster.
Eric Hussein Almighty @ 10:
Had an aircraft crashed, the gubment would have blamed "Al Qaeda" and "extremisttsss".
When the Alaska Airlines crash of 2000 was investigated, one of the issues that came up was that the FAA was airlines were on some type of honor system. They were allowed to self-inspect, and their records weren't regularly checked. You think they would have learned from that tradgedy.
Unfortunately, in this era of 'less government," everything can fall apart, as a result of that attitude. Mortgages, highways, you name it.
How dare you tell the Truth! Seize Him!
The upholstery in every SW plane stinks to high heaven. If they aren't taking care of the the public spaces, it follows that much more is in disrepair on their planes. I flew them last in 2006, never again, $30 more at other carriers is always worth it.
I don't fly anymore.
I don't trust the airlines.
I'll travel by boat or plane, thank you.
At least when a boat sinks, it's a softer landing.
That just leaves a horrific trainwreck...but since Bush became President, what's another little ol' trainwreck to me?
what do you have to do to get fired? point out the flaws in administration policy, of course!
David Hill @ 68:
How to get fired in the Bush administration? If you are faced with a situation where you have to choose between what is good for the general public and big business and choose the general public. That's socialism.
Login or Register to post comments.