In recent weeks, United Airlines has been in the news for a series of incidents and accidents. Now the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is stepping up oversight of the airline. What a strange situation…
In this post:
Regulators reviewing United Airlines’ operation
Regulators in the United States are taking a closer look at United Airlines’ operation. As an FAA spokesperson explains:
“Due to recent safety events, the FAA is increasing oversight of United Airlines to ensure that it is complying with safety regulations; identifying hazards and mitigating risk; and effectively managing safety. Certification activities in process may be allowed to continue, but future projects may be delayed based on findings from oversight.”
As you can see, details are fairly limited as of now. I think a key point here is how “future projects may be delayed” based on the findings of this investigation. While we’ll have to see how this plays out, this could involve things like putting new aircraft into service, adding new routes, and more.
It’s interesting to see how United’s VP of Corporate Safety is framing this, in a memo to employees:
We have a strong safety culture at United. Still, the number of safety-related events in recent weeks have rightfully caused us to pause and evaluate whether there is anything we can and should do differently.
As you’d expect, we’ve stepped up our interactions with the FAA recently and they echoed these sentiments. They agree that we need to take an even closer look at multiple areas of our operation to ensure we are doing all we can to promote and drive safety compliance.
Over the next several weeks, we will begin to see more of an FAA presence in our operation as they begin to review some of our work processes, manuals and facilities. We welcome their engagement and are very open to hear from them about what they find and their perspective on things we may need to change to make us even safer. As part of this effort, the FAA will also pause a variety of certification activities for a period of time. Those activities will differ depending on the work group and we will learn more from the FAA about that soon.
The way this is written, you’d think that United reached out to the FAA for help with reviewing its operation, while clearly the opposite is true. I guess I can’t blame United for trying to frame it that way, though I’m not sure that makes the airline look any better? “Hey, I think we’re not capable of managing ourselves safely, so we’ve asked the FAA for help.”
This latest update comes just shortly after United CEO Scott Kirby sent a memo to employees, trying to address the spat of recent safety issues at United.
What’s going on with safety at United Airlines?
It’s hard to know what exactly to make of this situation as of now. There’s simply no denying that the US airline industry (and most of the global airline industry, for that matter) has historically had an unwavering commitment to safety. Heck, its just about the only thing you can rely on when you step onto a plane.
There’s also no denying that United has had a series of incidents in recent weeks that are concerning. That being said, to some extent it almost seems like the media is over reporting some situations, ever since the Alaska Boeing 737 MAX incident at the beginning of the year. Anything involving a Boeing jet suddenly makes national headlines. Just days ago, the San Francisco Chronicle reported when a United plane returned to the gate over a maintenance issue — this is something that happens a countless number of times daily, and isn’t news.
So has United just had a series of incidents that were an unlucky coincidence, or what has suddenly changed at United that has made the airline less safe? There are a few potential factors I can think of, though none fully explain the sudden increase in incidents:
- United has the oldest fleet of the “big three” US carriers, and while older aircraft are absolutely safe, it’s also not unusual for them to have more incidents over time; for example, you’ll find a lot more stories involving 767s than you’ll find involving 787s
- The industry overall definitely has a “juniority” problem, where you have a lot more junior pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, etc., than before the pandemic, and there’s no denying that the lack of experience eliminates a safety cushion (though that’s true of the entire industry, and not just at United)
- United has grown faster than American and Delta in the past couple of years, and one has to wonder if that has contributed to cutting some corners
I don’t know what exactly to think here. I do have to imagine that the FAA is investigating United for some reason other than just media hype of recent incidents. But I also have a hard time imagining that something radical has changed at United in recent weeks.
As much as US airlines continue to operate safely in terms of people getting to their destination unharmed, there’s no denying that the safety cushion in the US airline industry has decreased since the pandemic.
We’ve seen an increase in near misses across the industry. It also can’t be understated how much more junior the workforce is. In some cases you now have wide body captains at US airlines in their 20s, with just a couple of years experience at the airline. Meanwhile back in the day, it took 20+ years of seniority to get to that point. Experience matters, and at the moment the industry lacks experience.
Bottom line
The Federal Aviation Administration is stepping up oversight of United Airlines. We’re being warned that we could see delays in certification activities at the airline, which could eventually limit United’s growth in terms of new aircraft, pilots, and more. I’m curious to see what comes of this investigation, as this certainly doesn’t reflect well on the airline.
What do you make of the FAA investigating United?
Orange Con CRIMINAL TRUMP Gutted the FAA in 2017! And the rotation of leadership is so bad; the entire culture of oversight needs to be changed. Republicans want to cut funding for these agencies and let companies self-regulate; and people are stupid to not even care about their own safety. They want to give tax cuts to the rich!
BRAVO . . . . long overdue! (from my point of view, since the 80's).
Too many malfunction's on UA planes were just investigated but not much action ever happened afterwards!
You know what this smells like. An opportunity for the best airline in the world to gain more market share and take over this pathetic excuse of an airline. Better for my stock portfolio indeed.
first the (s) and guest next to your name means you are a fraud.
The original has Diamond next to his name.
It is noteworthy that you, not me, inserted Delta into your comment.
United execs have frequently compared themselves to Delta and said they are trying to achieve what Delta has done so there may well be some basis for Delta wanting to see United slow down. Delta and United BOTH grew at...
first the (s) and guest next to your name means you are a fraud.
The original has Diamond next to his name.
It is noteworthy that you, not me, inserted Delta into your comment.
United execs have frequently compared themselves to Delta and said they are trying to achieve what Delta has done so there may well be some basis for Delta wanting to see United slow down. Delta and United BOTH grew at 17% last year, the fastest in the industry, but Delta did it by spending much less on capex. Delta has 14 new widebodies coming this year and 11 next year – to be followed by the A350-1000s starting in 2026. So, yes, United undoubtedly sees Delta getting closer in the rearview mirror in international growth even while giving up nothing domestically.
But United also trash talked nearly every other airline and also Boeing which undoubtedly got tired of the media blaming Boeing for United’s problems which are clearly not manufacturer related. And UA did bank its growth plan on taking share from LCCs and ULCCs.
So, there were plenty of people that want to see UA slow down growth but a slower growing UA means other airlines BESIDES DL will see less share erosion to UA.
And Boeing will see less revenue loss to Airbus if United does not succeed at adding a bunch of Airbus aircraft as replacements for delayed Boeing aircraft
Tim
To be blunt I was kinda talking the piss and if you look at the (s) it kind of indicates sarcasm.
First off it is frightening about United's recent woes in the mechanical and safety sectors of their airline. Maybe the increased scrutiny will help them get on the right track.
In terms of Delta that is some pretty awesome logical deduction when all I said is that "they are the best...
Tim
To be blunt I was kinda talking the piss and if you look at the (s) it kind of indicates sarcasm.
First off it is frightening about United's recent woes in the mechanical and safety sectors of their airline. Maybe the increased scrutiny will help them get on the right track.
In terms of Delta that is some pretty awesome logical deduction when all I said is that "they are the best airline in the world."
But I don't know your history or anything, this was more just taking a playful jab because of how much you like Delta airlines to the point of being a bit annoying.
I don't guess what anything means, "s" included.
Your assessment of "best" doesn't matter. Your statement to gain market share does.
In fact, it was United that built a plan to take market share from other airlines. Delta is the only airline that managed to match UA's growth.
and the fact is that the FAA is all over UA's backside and they aren't going away as some suggested just because they have accomplished some political...
I don't guess what anything means, "s" included.
Your assessment of "best" doesn't matter. Your statement to gain market share does.
In fact, it was United that built a plan to take market share from other airlines. Delta is the only airline that managed to match UA's growth.
and the fact is that the FAA is all over UA's backside and they aren't going away as some suggested just because they have accomplished some political or PR goals.
UA's growth was at an unhealthy rate for the sake of the American public. The FAA stepped in.
UA will grow at a slower but healthier rate.
and they probably will not gain near as much market share advantage as they hope.
Check back in a couple years and see if I am right.
Tim Dunn (s): you played that quite well - I couldn't tell the difference.
and, again, you have to ask why anyone thinks they need to mock of mimic anyone else.
With all the letter and number combinations, why can't some people just come up w/ their own user name?
All this is because of deregulate-eveyrything crooked republican policies! If the crooked republicans get a hold of the white house, and the government, all this will be reversed. Even the FAA language of "promoting aviation" is in conflict with its duty; republicans love deregulation to promote businesses!
I really don't know what to make of it. I think it is naive to believe that the FAA wouldn't call for an investigation simply because some headlines are gaining traction. The FAA was caught drunk and asleep at the wheel with Boeing, and will be keen to show the general public they are on top of things even when they aren't. That said, the string of incidents at UA that made headlines have come...
I really don't know what to make of it. I think it is naive to believe that the FAA wouldn't call for an investigation simply because some headlines are gaining traction. The FAA was caught drunk and asleep at the wheel with Boeing, and will be keen to show the general public they are on top of things even when they aren't. That said, the string of incidents at UA that made headlines have come as part of a general trend of incidents that didn't make headlines. Ultimately, if this little FAA-UA "partnership" is wound up after a few news cycles, we'll know that it was all for show.
The simple fact is that UA has had more incidents involving parts falling off aircraft in flight and aircraft damage on landing than any other US airline over the past year.
Keep in mind that UA mainline is smaller than AA, DL or WN; UA operates lots of long flights but fewer total flights on its own metal.
The FAA is undoubtedly acting because the suggestions of too much outsourced maintenance and too much...
The simple fact is that UA has had more incidents involving parts falling off aircraft in flight and aircraft damage on landing than any other US airline over the past year.
Keep in mind that UA mainline is smaller than AA, DL or WN; UA operates lots of long flights but fewer total flights on its own metal.
The FAA is undoubtedly acting because the suggestions of too much outsourced maintenance and too much turnover post-covid in UA"s own maintenance as well as too fast of movement among UA's pilot ranks. They regularly have captain seats go unfilled on bids which is unheard of historically. Some of the pilot incidents have involved pilots that are new to their seats.
There have been people swooning about UA's growth and the ever-growing size of its network for years; the FAA undoubtedly can put high rates of growth and levels of incidents together which is why they are proposing some of the strictest restrictions on UA that they have ever proposed on a US airline. UA execs know what is at stake.
The implications whether the FAA imposes anything or not are very real; UA's supercharged growth was never going to happen for many reasons. The FAA is simply saying that to UA that you risk significant restrictions which will damage you if you keep trying to push through with such a high rate of growth before you get your house in order.
UA execs will do well to simply accept a normal rate of growth which means that they will have spent tens of billions of dollars on fleet replacement instead of excessive growth but they will be a safe airline.
In the meantime, currently weak competitors will fix their problems = including the Geared Turbofan engine issues which have taken substantial industry capacity out of the system - and UA will not be able to gain near the competitive advantage it thought it would while other airlines, esp. with larger Airbus orders, will be able to grow as those orders come in.
"...the spat of recent safety issues at United." should be spate.
Leave Tim Dunn alone!
You go, Timmy guuuurl...spread those delicate wings and post all you want! Don't mind that boring "Lucky" whats-his-name, who thinks he actually 'owns' this site (hahaha! what a joke, right?)...Regale us with your unrivalled universal wisdom and sheer awesomeness. We'll never EVER get tired of you and your exquisite pearls of wisdom on every topic under the sun...day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day..
#TimForTheWin
Leave Tim Dunn alone!
You go, Timmy guuuurl...spread those delicate wings and post all you want! Don't mind that boring "Lucky" whats-his-name, who thinks he actually 'owns' this site (hahaha! what a joke, right?)...Regale us with your unrivalled universal wisdom and sheer awesomeness. We'll never EVER get tired of you and your exquisite pearls of wisdom on every topic under the sun...day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day..
#TimForTheWin
#DontThinkJustTalk
#TimNeedsToGetLaidRightNow!
Does anyone know if United’s 777 incidents involved their 777’s that have Pratt and Whitney engines?
It started a long time ago when the airlines laid off union mechanics (which the other unions did nothing about) and outsourced heavy maintenance to central america.
T*m G*nn get your own blog. Lucky, why do you let one clown post more words than you in any given post?
sorry... this story will not go away.
It will be all over the national news tomorrow.
Who is going to oversee FAA?
No denying that they have conflicts of interest with Boeing.
Can't downgrade themselves to IASA category 2.
so does Boeing have a safety problem? if so, why does it not follow that the FAA also made the right decision with United?
If the FAA didn't act appropriately with United, how many deaths should there be before they act - or is better off to figure out the problem and prescribe the tough medicine before there are deaths?
Seems performative for the public. In a few months they'll announce "Mission Accomplished" without having done anything, and the majority of the flying public will continue buying the cheapest basic economy seat through the cheapest OTA.
just curious if you think the FAA is just putting on a show with Boeing or if they really see a problem.
And, if there really is a problem with Boeing, why should it not be a surprise that they see something wrong at an airline? After all, there are far more airlines than there are aircraft manufacturers.
The situations with Boeing and United are in no way similar.
Yes, it is all part of a dangerous history of deregulations by Boeing and United. They had a detrimental impact on the safety and quality control, which in turn facilitated, cutting costs, lobbying for less and less FAA oversight, getting rid of a competing union work force, etc. A vicious cycle of profit making by the companies. Boeing and United dont like to pay their workers properly and dont like unions that have bargaining power,...
Yes, it is all part of a dangerous history of deregulations by Boeing and United. They had a detrimental impact on the safety and quality control, which in turn facilitated, cutting costs, lobbying for less and less FAA oversight, getting rid of a competing union work force, etc. A vicious cycle of profit making by the companies. Boeing and United dont like to pay their workers properly and dont like unions that have bargaining power, but the end result is a disaster with two crashes and slew of ongoing problem, which cost Boeing dearly: Boeing like United just like to hire and fire the workers (as that EVIL JACK WELCH did), which of course affects the proper, regular functioning of a company with proper oversight (NOTE THAT the BOEING CEOs after the 1999 merger with Mcdonald and Douglas are acolytes trained by EVIL JACK WELCH who ruined the General ELECTRIC and ended the middle class). They were taught to only care about profits and they knew nothing about making airplanes. So Boeing now spend more money on stock buybacks and less than 10 percent on production with unregulated outsourcing. These crooks need to be in prison. AVOID UNITED and AVOID BOEING, the CASKET MAKER.
Maybe this has something to do with the quality of the people they are hiring who keep making these mistakes?
Don't discount the impact of COVID wrt airlines, ATC and the Boeing swamp. Once the PPP and other COVID money ran out, both airlines and Boeing laid off tens of thousands. Many more experienced workers took the opportunity to get out of the rat race and pursue other opportunities. This exacerbated the “juniority” problem, as the last boomers retire and Gen X enter golden years.
Long COVID is a thing. Repeated infections take a...
Don't discount the impact of COVID wrt airlines, ATC and the Boeing swamp. Once the PPP and other COVID money ran out, both airlines and Boeing laid off tens of thousands. Many more experienced workers took the opportunity to get out of the rat race and pursue other opportunities. This exacerbated the “juniority” problem, as the last boomers retire and Gen X enter golden years.
Long COVID is a thing. Repeated infections take a toll. Brain fog is a common symptom. And now the CDC says you can [employers say "must"] return to work when temperature is normal, even with a positive test.
that is all true but there is nothing unique about United in any of that other than perhaps its belief that it could just "grow, grow, grow" despite all of the warning signs that the aviation system and United itself wasn't ready for that level of growth.
The irony is that United might end up growing slower now because the FAA might force it than if it just accepted a normal growth rate
None of these issues resulted in a dangerous situation, whereas WN 1380 several years ago had someone die from engine failure.
The amount of near misses at airports is much more concerning than a string of unlucky, rare events that all happened to occur in a short time frame. This is the FAA trying to take focus away from their juniority problem in ATC because they know there’s no solution to that. That isn’t to...
None of these issues resulted in a dangerous situation, whereas WN 1380 several years ago had someone die from engine failure.
The amount of near misses at airports is much more concerning than a string of unlucky, rare events that all happened to occur in a short time frame. This is the FAA trying to take focus away from their juniority problem in ATC because they know there’s no solution to that. That isn’t to say that United may need to change some policies and procedures to not have components fall off their planes inflight (a wheel and a panel in these cases), but are minor compared to how we’ve seemingly almost recreated a Tenerife disaster a couple times in recent years without the visibility issues. Imagine if these ATC incidents happened with low visibility.
of course, the "the other guys are doing it and they are worse than us" defense.
No one said that the FAA is not dealing w/ its own issues or what is happening at other airlines.
They take component failure seriously and have grounded parts that have known metal failure issues. You do recall the Pratt and Whitney 4000 grounding that UA just went through?
If you want to blame anyone, Boeing probably got...
of course, the "the other guys are doing it and they are worse than us" defense.
No one said that the FAA is not dealing w/ its own issues or what is happening at other airlines.
They take component failure seriously and have grounded parts that have known metal failure issues. You do recall the Pratt and Whitney 4000 grounding that UA just went through?
If you want to blame anyone, Boeing probably got tired of the press trashing it for all of the United issues that anyone that understands the industry - which does not include most of the media - could see are airline induced.
Add in that United has also trash talked Boeing about delays.
With the FAA already all over Boeing, they undoubtedly spoke up and said "you better take a look at United.
don't bite the hand that feeds you
With all due respect, "the other guys are doing it and they are worse than us" is a tactic you constantly employ, especially when you compare carriers to your beloved Delta - the world's only PERFECT Arline. Why the double standard? No institution is perfect. They're run by human beings.
first, you can cling to your belief that Delta is perfect but you, and you only, say it.
And the standard is safety. Pure and simple.
It is precisely because humans have limitations and are not perfect that companies have to put standards and systems in place to ensure that the final product is of the highest quality.
UA has simply been in a high-growth mode which they have done for the sake of...
first, you can cling to your belief that Delta is perfect but you, and you only, say it.
And the standard is safety. Pure and simple.
It is precisely because humans have limitations and are not perfect that companies have to put standards and systems in place to ensure that the final product is of the highest quality.
UA has simply been in a high-growth mode which they have done for the sake of trying to gain an advantage because of the weakness of other airlines, esp. the low cost and ultra low cost carriers.
UA's strategy from the start was flawed; we are now seeing the outcome of that strategy which was never sustainable.
Right. So if a parent did drugs when they were teenagers they should do absolutely nothing if their kids did drugs. Maybe learn from mistakes and be better? Faa cited a long list of audit failures. Do you think the faa should say oh don't worry since we didn't do enough in some other incident years ago we won't do anything now. It's only fair. Honestly some of you need to spend more time thinking about how logic works.
Ben's assessment is spot on other than to add that UA execs have been trash talking large parts of the industry for years and thinking that they could grow faster and "take out" a number of competitors.
It was clear from the beginning of this rash of incidents which didn't just start at the first of March that there are pilot and maintenance issues involved. Mechanics don't have anything to do with hard landings,...
Ben's assessment is spot on other than to add that UA execs have been trash talking large parts of the industry for years and thinking that they could grow faster and "take out" a number of competitors.
It was clear from the beginning of this rash of incidents which didn't just start at the first of March that there are pilot and maintenance issues involved. Mechanics don't have anything to do with hard landings, tail scrapes, or high speed taxis that end up in the dirt and pilots don't have anything to do with parts falling off airplanes.
The rate of growth that UA proposed, whether it was intended for any negative effect or not, was at a rate at least twice the US GDP so was not only well above what any other US airline had ever done on a sustained basis but also one of the most costly and which would have had significant competitive impact. UA is spending more in the next decade on aircraft than AA, DL and WN COMBINED.
The supply chain simply would have never been able to keep up with all of that on top of orders from other airlines - Kirby touted how he needed to place huge orders because delivery slots would run out and yet Airbus and Boeing have announced multiple large orders.
UA's growth was excessive and unsustainable and it is clear that the FAA needed to slow it down to a level that ensures safety.
United NEXT was a high risk attempt to gain a competitive advantage that was likely never going to happen; after all of the noise about finding new planes from Airbus, United is simply going to have to settle into a rate of growth comparable to the rest of the industry which includes the repercussions of Boeing's production and delivery delays.
With all due respect, you've been the CEO of how many airlines?
why don't you ask the FAA. The answer from them would be NONE.
but that didn't stop them from having a "come to Jesus" call with Scott Kirby and let him know that the world is watching and the FAA is not going to allow Boeing to be the fall guy - which is the way the press has portrayed most of United's issues.
Is that what the United Airlines CEO said to the FAA?
With all due respect..
United is more focused on forcing diversity than safety. They are hiring people based on race and gender and that may be trickling down to expectations as well.
Only thing that should matter during hiring , training and performance reviews are your skills and values.
I see. So your implied reason to all these problems at UA is because people of color and those that don't always wear pants or conform to your expectations on gender are somehow less competent. The use of the word values there at the end is just the cherry on top of the bigotry sundae. Nice.
For the life of me, I can't understand what the confusion is between race and skills. They're not related in any way. If the most qualified or best trained person is in a pilot's seat (for example), that's what I want. I don't care if they are black, white or green. The issue with diversity, is that it has the potential to supersede skills. So, let's see...in commercial pilots class, there are 20 individuals, black,...
For the life of me, I can't understand what the confusion is between race and skills. They're not related in any way. If the most qualified or best trained person is in a pilot's seat (for example), that's what I want. I don't care if they are black, white or green. The issue with diversity, is that it has the potential to supersede skills. So, let's see...in commercial pilots class, there are 20 individuals, black, white, female, etc. Only the top 3 get to fly (I know I'm over simplifying). If there are no white pilots in the top 3, I don't want to see one of them in a cockpit. The same rationale goes if there are no blacks or females.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Always someone blames the issue on diversity. No, DEI does not mean putting unqualified people in critical roles. If you want to be a pilot you still have to pass all your qualifications, no matter how “diverse” you might be.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/12/19/pilot-of-doomed-amazon-air-flight-had-poor-training-record-seemed-confused-before-crash-ntsb-report-suggests/?sh=7099791d79cc
James, the argument people make on DEI seems to come from being qualified doesn't mean the best.
The issue becomes hiring the 5th best because 1-4 isn't diverse enough.
....all while ignoring the fact that for decades on end, the 1st-4th best may have never gotten a shot, because they weren't White/male enough.
So #5 got the job, and was always presumed to be the most qualified, because daddy went to the same [insert nepotism-factory here] that several guys in the C-suite did.
Unfortunately idealism is not always perfect.
The President of Harvard University was chosen because of her CV? No, she was chosen because of DEI and almost got away with it except for some influential donors who suggested that a plagiarized PhD was not acceptable.
It doesn't matter how badly some races/genders were treated in the past - n Aviation the best must be hired irrespective of any DEI issues.
And your direct evidence as it relates to this paricular situation is?... Please support with data as unsubstantiated opinions are less than useless.
There’s literally a sitting congressman bragging about how he “asked” for an investigation into United from the transportation secretary, obviously stemming from a customer service issue that his wife faced with a ticket agent several months back. Gee, wonder if these stories have any relation.
Are you suggesting a homophobic congressman from Houston has sway at DOT led by Mayor Pete?
This was sort of inevitable, even if for no other reason than public perception, though one could argue that the number of incidents at UA is beyond mere coincidence at this point.