Are you considering boycotting Southwest Airlines?

Thank you for providing some valuable insight into what appears to be a legitimate safety problem.

In the future, I'll think twice before I fly on Southwest in a 737. However, I still will probably fly Southwest, depending on how they resolve this matter. I just won't book a flight that uses their 737 jets. Luckily in most cases you can find out ahead online what plane they are likely to be flying.

On a different arena, I certainly won't invest in Southwest stock, however.

Southwest has 173 737-300's. 80 have not had skin replacements, it is only these 80 that are a concern so far as I know. the 737-300 is their oldest plane. The flight 2294 skin failure in 09 was also one of the 737-300's, though the failure was in the rear of the plane I am not clear if it was along the same seam. Reports have it that the latest case has multible cracks along this seam from front to rear of the plane, but that it failed near the front.

the 09 event
http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/ntsb-says-swa-737-fuselage-hole-incident-caused-fatigue-crack

after the NTSB report came out southwest said
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/08/ntsb-issues-report-on-southwes.html

When will it be time for FAA to step in and ground the oldest of the 737-300-series jets? Will they do it when it's too late and there are fatalities?

As it indicates from the articles, airframes have a log of mileage they have flown, correct? There is an industry limit - an absolute threshhold where the airframe has to be scrapped. Or perhaps there is one and they ignore? It's clear that as a routine procedure they x-ray these things periodically in their inspections.

What is the appropriate oversight and why does it seem that it's not being adhered to with these older 737-300 planes? Oh, yes profit and the poor economy and lax FAA regulators? Is it that simple?

The industry has been relatively safe from air fatalities so why do they take these potential risks? Or is it something that is just flukey coincidence?

Southwest's short-haul operations may be linked to jetliner rupture
FAA plans to order emergency inspections for metal fatigue on older 737s.
Officials say aircrafts' aluminum skin can be stressed by changes in cabin pressure from an average of six flights a day.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-southwest-safety-20110405,0,3395340.story

I've never flown with Southwest Airlines, but if I did, I would boycott them
for forgoing proper maintenance. Along with a fine to SW Airlines, the FAA
should be fined as well, since they're the ones who check if airlines uphold
proper maintenance schedules.

I am boycotting Lufthansa though. A young German studying abroad in Japan wanted to fly home after the earthquake and Lufthansa wanted $ 10,000 for a ticket from him. Outrageous to exploit people in distress like this. The student found another airline who charged him a fraction of what Lufthansa wanted. So, Lufthansa is definitely on my black list!

I'd probably have no problem flying Southwest. Right now, they're probably the most inspected planes on the planet.

Ragman it is my understanding this failure is more a function of how many pressure cycles a plane had gone through not just the flight hours.

A plane used more for short hops would reach a failure point faster then a plane used for longer hauls.

I remember flying one jet that seem more like a bus then a jet as it did a numbers of landings in one trip.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Southwest-finds-cracks-in-apf-2511707183.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=

This tells me that Southwest realized too late that they fucked up, they let the planes get too old which adds a lot of costs. somebody probably forgot to factor in that Southwest uses it planes a hour more per day than industry average, and gets two more take-off/landing cycles per day more than average...IE the beat the hell out of their planes, so they dont last as long.

OOPS

I'm on the West Coast, so luckily for me I have Alaska Airlines here. Here is why I'm saying "luckily". In the last 10 years many airlines began outsourcing maintenance to third-parties MRO (Maintenance and Repair Operations). Some MRO are overseas, some are controlled by overseas companies in US and some are US-controlled. Alaska outsource only to US and Canadian companies, where mechanics are properly licensed.

I suggest you guys check how and where Southwest is MRO-ing their planes. Because this is YOUR life that you entrust them with. I'd rather pay more and be safe.

The largest MRO in the US is Singapore company ST Aerospace (yes, huge service centers in the US). They go with “ST” because many people wouldn't like their real name, Singapore Technologies. According to reports, ST has been caught “pencil whipping” repair logs to cut costs; basically claiming that the repairs were done, when they were not. Local US mechanics are hired to ST without checking their papers and references. Besides, ST routinely brings in cheaper workers from overseas who can barely speak English and using them as mechanics in their US shop - some of them can't even read repair manuals. You can watch all of this on PBS Frontline’s report called “Flying Cheaper”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flying-cheaper/