Airports face fines for travel disruption.....
Discussion
Only caught a bit of it on the news, but apparently the government are planning to impose fines on the airports for the recent travel disruption.
Isn't this a bit unfair considering that airports are advised by the government that snow is a thing of the past? Obviously people with common sense are aware that winters are becoming colder again, but when as a business you are continually told by 'experts' "The planet is warming, we'll be having warm and wet winters" you're not exactly going to invest in winter equipment as an airport are you?
What are your thoughts? Should the airports take the blame or should they point out the duff advice they've received for years?
Isn't this a bit unfair considering that airports are advised by the government that snow is a thing of the past? Obviously people with common sense are aware that winters are becoming colder again, but when as a business you are continually told by 'experts' "The planet is warming, we'll be having warm and wet winters" you're not exactly going to invest in winter equipment as an airport are you?
What are your thoughts? Should the airports take the blame or should they point out the duff advice they've received for years?
Eric Mc said:
It's a politician trying to garner some public kudos. As a species they always feel the need to attack any entity that they perceive to have poor public support - except themselves, of course.
And the proposed penalty, rather than helping to address the fundamental reasons for cold weather failures, i.e. politicians believing Green nonsense, will simply provide more tax to waste - though at least the present lot would waste less of it. Politicians should fine themselves as hinted, they are more to blame.
It would be relatively simple to impose a certain level of snow/ice clearance capability based on some kind of formula of runway area and frequency of usage.
It's about time BAA were forced to plan for the long term because they won't bother themselves. Since Gatwick was taken from them a year ago, they've made a large investment in equipment for the conditions seen last week and that has generally paid off considering it's the first year they've had to use it.
It's a shame BAA weren't forced to sell Heathrow rather than Gatwick and a couple of the others.
It's about time BAA were forced to plan for the long term because they won't bother themselves. Since Gatwick was taken from them a year ago, they've made a large investment in equipment for the conditions seen last week and that has generally paid off considering it's the first year they've had to use it.
It's a shame BAA weren't forced to sell Heathrow rather than Gatwick and a couple of the others.
Eric Mc said:
I notice that they are only "considering" it.
This is just a headline grabbing comment which will be allowed to fade out once the news item becomes old and stale.
not so sure, many people who got stuck for days were people simply transferring to another destination (e.g USA to Hamburg via London). Many will consider avoiding Heathrow (I've had this comment from a number of my German colleagues) and use another hub such as Frankfurt, Schipol etc whiche were affected to a much lesser extent and have many more runways between them (at least 3-4 each).This is just a headline grabbing comment which will be allowed to fade out once the news item becomes old and stale.
Eric Mc said:
I'm not saying Heathrow doesn't need to cop on to itself. But governments levying fines on airports (which they aren't going to do anyway) isn't going to help.
No, I agree. However, they need ti impose a minimum level of infrsatructure for an airport to operate when such conditions occur. That also included in-terminal infrastructure as well as the machinery outside.Silver993tt said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm not saying Heathrow doesn't need to cop on to itself. But governments levying fines on airports (which they aren't going to do anyway) isn't going to help.
No, I agree. However, they need ti impose a minimum level of infrsatructure for an airport to operate when such conditions occur. That also included in-terminal infrastructure as well as the machinery outside.But wern't the airports simply following the weather advice from government and the MET office? Afterall, we have all been told for the past decade that cold weather and snow will be rarer!
Why would the airports dispute this advice, when the MET Office has so much public money thrown at it, to have the best computers and weather people public money can buy?
Why would the airports dispute this advice, when the MET Office has so much public money thrown at it, to have the best computers and weather people public money can buy?
An airport can be open and you'll still experience massive disruption.
While Gatwick was wide open during the snow, BA and easyjet cancelled loads of flights simply to avoid knock on delays to other parts of their flying schedule. It's the same when we have fog, ATC strikes, flow control computer problem, Volcanoes. . . or any other delays.
While Gatwick was wide open during the snow, BA and easyjet cancelled loads of flights simply to avoid knock on delays to other parts of their flying schedule. It's the same when we have fog, ATC strikes, flow control computer problem, Volcanoes. . . or any other delays.
chris watton said:
But wern't the airports simply following the weather advice from government and the MET office? Afterall, we have all been told for the past decade that cold weather and snow will be rarer!
Why would the airports dispute this advice, when the MET Office has so much public money thrown at it, to have the best computers and weather people public money can buy?
There are many difficulties in getting the balance right here. Leaving the MMGW argument to one side (that is being done to death again over on the "snowfall is a thing of that past" thread), the UK weather is very hard to predict because it is so changeable.Why would the airports dispute this advice, when the MET Office has so much public money thrown at it, to have the best computers and weather people public money can buy?
A good way to look at it is to use the analogy of a horse race. If you study the previous form of the gee gees, you could calculate the theoretical positions of all of them at the finishing line. The trouble is, as many who give their money to elderly and sick animals every day at the bookies will tell you, what actually happens is unlikely to be what should happen based on previous form. But then again, it might be.
I am getting on a bit, and can remember the winter of 1962/63. I lived in Bristol at the time, and the Council took a great deal of stick because they were unprepared for the snowfall. They spent £2m (a not inconsiderable sum in those days) on snow clearing equipment so that they would be ready next time. All that kit sat unused in their Albert Road depot for 18 years, and they finally scrapped it during 1981.
Anybody remember the 1981/82 winter?
Crazy Torque said:
So, the local council refuse Heathrow planning permission to install additional de-icing rigs for aircraft...
...And the Government fine the them for not being able to de-ice the planes.
Sounds pretty normal to me.
How on earth can a local council have any say in what goes on in the country's biggest airport? Good grief. ...And the Government fine the them for not being able to de-ice the planes.
Sounds pretty normal to me.
Axe the entire board.
We need a few corporate examples.
The board knew they would be shut down if it snowed. The board took an economic gamble to not lease sufficient equipment.
Heathrow is the most important hub on the planet and essential to British interests.
The board should be taught not to gamble with British business interests just to ensure their bonus is paid.
There are a lot of companies which need to re-allign their board's interests with those of Britain and I do feel an example should be set.
We need to start putting some backbone back into this country and it needs to start at the top. We now pay excellent salaries and packages to British board members and there is little excuse for what happened.
We need a few corporate examples.
The board knew they would be shut down if it snowed. The board took an economic gamble to not lease sufficient equipment.
Heathrow is the most important hub on the planet and essential to British interests.
The board should be taught not to gamble with British business interests just to ensure their bonus is paid.
There are a lot of companies which need to re-allign their board's interests with those of Britain and I do feel an example should be set.
We need to start putting some backbone back into this country and it needs to start at the top. We now pay excellent salaries and packages to British board members and there is little excuse for what happened.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff