Elvis90

I think this series of decisions speaks well of SWA's executive leadership:

Alone in Crisis, Southwest Was Fast to Ground Flights

After Southwest Fuselage Rip, Airline Moved Fast on Groundings - WSJ.com

I'm not impressed by Boeing's missteps, however.

KC10 FATboy

Yes I work for "God's gift to aviation" which automatically makes me a card carrying Southwest hater, well, not exactly. But let's be honest. They had another aircraft that experienced a hull rupture back in July 2009 and they didn't ground the fleet nor launch a big PR campaign to save face. They did what they did because they had too, especially since they were levied one of the largest fines at the time for a maintenance fiasco ... whether it was their fault or not ... and because off-shoring of aircraft maintenance is under the microscope right now.

B757200ER

They also were able to inspect other jets, and found (4) more with cracks.

Elvis90

Fat Boy,

I think you're right about the outsourced maintenance not getting enough FAA oversight...may even be found causal in this incident which would be a big black eye to SWA. I had forgotten about the July 2009 incident that resulted in a different reaction.

Union: Airlines outsourcing plane maintenance - The Hill's Transportation Report

Southwest Airlines, Flight 812: How Globalization and Outsourcing Nearly Killed 118 People American Everyman

NEDude

This is hardly an issue limited to Southwest. In fact it is an issue that goes far beyond the airline industry itself. Outsourcing is the new American way of doing things. What is funny is that in some cases, the outsourcing companies are now starting to outsource themselves. We are seeing that in the 787 development, where some of the companies Boeing outsourced to, have outsourced the work as well.

Smokey23

While it is certainly a valid issue, I don't think that outsourcing of heavy mx is a real factor here. SWA was one of the last of the majors to get on the foreign heavy-checks bandwagon, and very few of our aircraft have even been touched by South American hands so far. The real story that is (predictably) being under-reported in the media is that the "classic" 737s are simply not living up to their advertised service life. This has become increasingly apparent over the last several years, with numerous fixes (up to and including complete fuselage re-skinning of some aircraft) still not proving satisfactory. As the largest 737 operator with some of the highest cycle airframes, it really should be no surprise that SWA was bound to be first to experience the effects of this problem. Through all the recent events, even during the FAA inspection flap & fine, I do not think you will find any evidence of SWA being out of step with Boeing recommendations for managing the aging of these aircraft. At the end of the day it is still a Boeing product and a Boeing problem, but since it has SWA paint on the outside, in the court of public opinion it is all SWA's fault.

LuvJockey

The airplane in question never had heavy maintenance done outside of the United States. This aircraft only had 39,000 cycles on it, and was not very old.

Personally, I'm all in favor of requiring all U.S. carriers do all of their heavy maintenance in the United States.

chuckyt1

I would also like to see them doing there own maintenance, as opposed to contracting it out. Seems there was a little more pride in workmanship when we did it that way.

Purely anecdotal, of course...

B757200ER

I'll vote for workers in the 1st world as opposed to the 3rd world. Anyone disagree? Forget costs---what cost safety?

OrionTanker

The heavy mx in that third world country is supposedly actually pretty good. I am just saying.