Indeed Southwest is Nuts! if they think that any ad campaign or email blast will ever convince me they care about my safety.

I originally posted on this here.

And I tried to keep my mind open.

No longer.

Sorry, I've tried to remain open about Southwest's (alleged) negligence--and forget any credibility I might have placed with the FAA--but Southwest's reputation is just shot (cracked?) with me.

They needn't send me anymore emails saying how they take safety seriously or post to that affect on their blog (thanks to Paul Soldera for the link). Be the cracks in the fuselage 3.3 inches, 3.7 inches or 4 inches, I just cannot comprehend how keeping their fleet in circulation--now to the tune of 60,000 flights without inspections not "just" 1,450 after they knew of the issues--trumps safety.

I get that people need to get where they're going. But the point is that they actually need to get there.

And, again, you get what you pay for (even when you pay bottom-dollar).

When it comes to mass transit, convenience, price and comfort are important. But safety is not only at the top of the pile...it needs to be the cost-of-entry. I can't imagine what it feels like to work for Southwest now knowing that while you were part of a flight crew taking care of passengers...your employer didn't care enough to take care of you, either.

As for the FAA? A very big, very sad joke of an agency--as they absolutely share the blame.

PS: Those inspections? According to Southwest they take 90 minutes per plane. Yeah, I'll happily check more email, stuff my face with (yet) another airport burrito and flip through another trashy tabloid for the 90 minutes while I wait for my flight.

Update (03.14.08): In today's Wall Street Journal, Southwest's CEO Gary Kelly concedes: "I am not satisfied we are as compliant with maintenance requirements or as safe as we could be." Article here.

Update (04.03.08): Now Southwest has hidden safety problems. And the FAA let them. Article here.

Comments

[pissedoffmike]

Happy birthday early, cutie

MM

[Musician]

I read some comments Boeing made about another incident regarding the 737 aircraft ... long before the latest Southwest issue.

In it, they said that cracks of the nature found on the Southwest aircraft in question pose no immediate safety hazard even if they are 6 or even 8 inches (we're talking microscopic cracks, not gapping holes).

It is easy to understand an uninformed person's concern, but it just that ... uninformed.

While Southwest was technically out of compliance, it appears from the facts that they we not, in fact, unsafe.

[CK]

@Musician: Thanks for voicing in. I've read the statement from Boeing.

This is what I do understand -- the FAA has a particular compliance check for these 737s (I think 737 is the aircraft) because these aircraft pose certain risks and can result in cracks in the fuselage...which is a safety hazard. There was an accident in Hawaii (I think it was HI) on this particular aircraft due to these problems.

Hey, machinery gets cracked and things break--which is why we have maintenance, compliance and federal agencies.

Southwest missed this compliance check and found out weeks or months later and then self-reported (so, problems at SW missing compliance checks--remember, this is the only type of plane they fly, so they should be well aware of the compliance initiatives). The FAA gave them more time and allowed them to fly unchecked planes (so, problems at the FAA not noticing SW missing their checks and then giving them longer to do so--as well as fly in the interim). Now it seems these FAA whistle blowers have been concerned about the SW/FAA relationship for some time. So much so, they've requested "whistle blower" status--as I can imagine it's a tough position to be in to report the very employer you work for.

And, as of yesterday I read that SW has grounded 40 of its planes--I'm assuming those planes were in constant rotation and carried several hundred people per flight over many flights per day over many days of many months.

All the while the public is assuming that of course SW is in compliance and, if that's not the case, that the FAA protects against such violations. While I believe blame is absolutely shared--between SW and FAA--it is just so apparent (to me) that neither entity did the very core job of ensuring safety. But I do hope to become more informed during the hearings; that's for sure. This story has just really hit a nerve for me. Am thankful that no accidents have happened. Am also very thankful for the whistle blowers coming forward--and am really let down in SW and the FAA. (Also understand that hearings start 4/3, btw, so stay tuned).

[GENE DEWITT]

As marketers I think we need to focus on the damage the airline caused itself by these missteps. It's all well and good to say that they were in some sort of technical 'compliance' and that the cracks in their aircrafts' fuselages 'posed no immediate safety hazards', the fact is that the message that I and most people in the general public take away from these actions is that Southwest sucks. This negative perception is worth tens of millions of dollars in loss brand equity. I'm a bit tired of the 'didn't inhale' form of defense. Southwest screwed up big time and this threatens long term damage to their brand.

[CK]

@Gene: Agreed as marketers we need to focus on the deplorable damage that SW did unto itself (and all its innocent employees). Do like your use of "didn't inhale" defense ;-).

The fact is, and we'll find out many more facts in short order, the bell has rung and no matter how many statements that Boeing, SW and the FAA issue, that brand now translates to "UNSAFE".

If I were the competition that was higher priced (as SW is the low-cost provider), I'd be really hitting on how safety shouldn't be something you discount. Yeah, you've had to give up pillows, in-service food and blankets, but safety was never part of the budget fat to cut, it was always bone.

I will be watching these hearing closely, this one has struck SUCH a nerve with me (as both human and marketer). It now appears we can't trust federal agencies or commercial airlines...which leaves us nothing--except for the airlines that can maintain our trust. Because now we're thinking about the very core issue of safety.

[Musician]

I agree that the PR/Marketing issues are probably more important (and interesting) at this point.

Southwest should have been 100% compliant in the first place, even though the original fault that made them only 99+% compliant was a typo in a document.

My point is that your insinuation that the 4-inch cracks (microscopic cracks, not detectable by the naked eye) represented impending doom, in fact, did nothing of the sort ... according to the aircraft manufacturer. And it is inflammatory rhetoric like yours that makes it impossible for the average person to rationally evaluate the situation.

Who knows. Maybe that is you goal. I hope not.

[CK]

@Musician: My goal is putting the safety of people before profits. I've actually not been talking the marketing angle (even tho' this is a marketing blog and I should address that, too).

The FAA issues these particular compliance measures for this type of plane (because of past problems). SW missed these compliance checks (that is negligent). The FAA then allowed them to keep flying amid missed inspections (that is irresponsible).

I do see past problems + negligence + irresponsible = road to disaster.

Ostensibly the whistle blowers seem to feel the same way, too--as both SW and FAA are under fire fire for this.