Yes, those (cheap) tin tubes carry (priceless) lives--not just vanishing commodities.

I just cannot shake this despicable story from my mind. The worst part for me is that I keep hearing about the "record fine." I don't give two cents about a ten million-dollar fine (though I understand the economic incentive of doing so).

What I care about are the priceless people inside those tin tubes. With something like safety called into question, I feel like passengers have unknowingly been flying blind.

While it appears that fault is certainly shared between BOTH Southwest and the FAA--as both allowed lapses on very old, cheap planes--I can't help but think that this safety violation wasn't conveniently overlooked due to the low-cost airline needing to stay low cost by staying in heavy flight rotation.

I'll be glued to the TV on these hearings and I'm really working to defer judgment. While my trust has precipitously dropped in both Southwest and the FAA, I really am trying to wait for the information to be delivered and investigated until I better understand the facts (but I admit it's very hard for me as my perception has definitely been altered). That said, this appears to be a mighty egregious error in judgment. And an even bigger one in ethics. Will it be that Southwest becomes the low-cost, low-ethics airline and that the FAA does not have a zero-tolerance policy? We'll see.

In any case, on thing is certain: you get what you pay for--especially when you pay less.

See, the reason that Southwest can be the low-cost airline is that it hinges on volume (lots and lots of people in those tin tubes). We learn this time and again, just look at all the "hidden costs" to outsourcing. Cheap is a BIG gamble, folks. And with lead paint in toys being distributed en masse to innocent kids and planes that have small cracks that could lead to large loss of life...cheap may wind up being the BIGGEST gamble of all.

Because those tin tubes don't just carry freight, they carry people.

Folks, if you see any oral statements by Southwest, can you send me the links? Thanks so much.

Update: Besides fuselage cracks, Southwest might have missed rudder checks, too. As for the FAA's whistle-blowers? It appears they were ignored for some time--three years' worth. Despicable indeed.

Another Update: President of American Consumer Council finds this to be criminal intent on the part of Southwest and FAA inspectors.

PS: Just to clarify as I've had several ask me about the "vanishing commodities" term--a vanishing commodity is a revenue opportunity that you can never get back--as it's contingent upon time--like vacant hotel rooms or vacant seats for an event (or flight). With products, like books or cars, you certainly don't want to hold onto merchandise too long but you can always still sell that merchandise...but you can never go back in time to recoup missed revenues for a vacant flight, event, hotel room, advertising spot during a particular first-run TV program, etc.

Comments

[Paul]

I agree CK, it will be very interesting to follow this one. I've done work for airlines in the past and when it comes to safety, they are usually (in my experience) very fanatical about it. The reason being that the fastest way to kill an airline is to incur a safety related issue/problem. It's one of those risk factors where the downside really does out-weigh the upside by a considerable margin. And if the upside for SW was only a few more flights for planes not in an inspection, it is really a no-brainer. So someone has royally screwed up somewhere or SW has not been properly managing its risk. Or both.

[CK]

@Paul: It appears there's fault on both SW and the FAA. Which is the worst of all scenarios being we can't trust those we pay to fly us safely and those we pay to regulate safety measures. Yup, can't shake it from my mind and I hope the hearings are productive and produce some real change as this is nothing short of despicable--all those lives risked.

[Paul]

Did you see the blog response on SW corporate site? http://www.blogsouthwest.com/2008/03/06/we-take-safety-seriously/?

I am in two minds as to how effective this is as a PR tool. I guess it shows they aren't afraid to face criticism in public - which is good. The discussion itself though is a mix of rant and counter-rant that doesn't really enlighten you. I stopped reading after about the third comment. How do you really manage this kind of feedback on a corporate blog though?

[Musician]

I came to this thread because it's where you said you still had an open mind. People with open minds do not begin a post with "I just cannot shake this despicable story ..."

If you think this represents an open mind, how can anything you say be taken seriously?