By the sound of it they only offered earlier today after Heathrow was starting to get it sorted. Looks like someone in the government was looking for a quick kudos boost without much effort.
The Army can be called in to assist Local Authorities at time of crisis etc. (Fire Strikes, Floods)
I object most strongly to Cameron offering the UK Army to assist a private company (BAA).
It's up to BAA to sort out the mess they're in. Buy more snowploughs, employ more staff.
Why the hell should Army personnel having to deal with Afghanistan and all that comes with it, be employed shifting tons of snow just so some other sod can go on holiday?
I don't have a problem with the army helping at the airports, so long as they've finished clearing the roads and pavements by all of the hospitals, GP surgeries and pharmacies.
Its not like the army has anything else to do, let them do it.
Sure, the airport is ran by a private company but thats just because of how messed up our country is.
Its not like the army has anything else to do, let them do it.
Sure, the airport is ran by a private company but thats just because of how messed up our country is.
That's right, lets take soldiers just back from seeing their mates killed etc., and have them shovel snow for the minority who are fortunate to afford a foreign holiday at Christmas.
I don't have a problem with the army helping at the airports, so long as they've finished clearing the roads and pavements by all of the hospitals, GP surgeries and pharmacies.
Perhaps if less of the NHS budget was spent on managers, there would be some left for them to clear their own pavements?
Some people are critical of the government for offering. Others think that the army should have been ordered in.
Some people are critical of BAA for refusing. If they had accepted, they would have surely been criticised by others.
Personally, I think it's all spin. It didn't cost the government anything to ask as they knew BAA would decline as accepting the help would be very embarrassing, however it did allow the government to show it was taking the situation seriously and increased pressure on BAA to get things moving.
I have no problem with the armed forces coming to the aim of businesses but this incident should prompt a review of BAA's operating licence from the CAA.
Some people are critical of the government for offering. Others think that the army should have been ordered in.
Some people are critical of BAA for refusing. If they had accepted, they would have surely been criticised by others.
Personally, I think it's all spin. It didn't cost the government anything to ask as they knew BAA would decline as accepting the help would be very embarrassing, however it did allow the government to show it was taking the situation seriously and increased pressure on BAA to get things moving. If the government had been responsible for the airway the plans would have been taking off and landing on both runways and the Army could have been brough in from day 1.
As it happens, the government only offered this help today.
I have no problem with the armed forces coming to the aim of businesses but this incident should prompt a review of BAA's operating licence from the CAA.
Happy for private companies to run all sorts of things, but not infrastructure. Not railways, not power and gas distribution, not airports, not water companies. If they are all making massive profits, so could the government, or the government could help to keep prices down.
Sure, the airport is ran by a private company but thats just because of how messed up our country is.
Do you really think that if Heathrow was State run they would have all the resources they needed? At least a private company is able to make investments without the permission of the Man from Whitehall. If they don't then that a problem for the regulators.
That's right, lets take soldiers just back from seeing their mates killed etc., and have them shovel snow for the minority who are fortunate to afford a foreign holiday at Christmas.
The same applies. Why should the Armed Forces be denied their Christmas to salvage others'? Anyway a much bigger problem than the runway will soon be finding aircraft and seats to shift the backlog (because normal schedule flights will be near enough full of new passengers too).
Phillip Hammond just didn't say they offered help on Tuesday. They offered help days ago. BAA didn't want help, because the media would have wanted to get involved.
BAA is a private company, it is not the army's job to help private companies. Also, the amount of snow is piddling compared to other parts of the world, this has yet again made Britain into a laughing stock.
The same applies. Why should the Armed Forces be denied their Christmas to salvage others'?
Maybe because it's the Armed Forces job to do what they are ordered regardless of what day it is. I'm sure they rather be helping people at Heathrow than being blown up in Helmand.
I don't have a problem with the forces being used to help private companies if it's in the national interest. If the army had been used at Heathrow it would have cost BAA a lot next time their operating licence was up for renewal.
If the army had been used at Heathrow it would have cost BAA a lot next time their operating licence was up for renewal.
Isn't there some kind of charge for using the army for this sort of thing anyway?
Could be faulty memory, but I'm sure their coverage during fire brigade strikes wasn't provided for free.
The Daily Telegraph has learned that he will also receive a secret bonus for helping the Spanish-owned company reach pre-tax profits of nearly £972 million.
Maybe because it's the Armed Forces job to do what they are ordered regardless of what day it is. I'm sure they rather be helping people at Heathrow than being blown up in Helmand.
I don't have a problem with the forces being used to help private companies if it's in the national interest. If the army had been used at Heathrow it would have cost BAA a lot next time their operating licence was up for renewal.
Given that they've completely screwed up Heathrow at one of the most important times of the year, they aren't going to get an easy ride at renewal. Most likely they'll be called before a Commons Select Committee, especially if their BAA manager get another huge bonus.
Maybe because it's the Armed Forces job to do what they are ordered regardless of what day it is. I'm sure they rather be helping people at Heathrow than being blown up in Helmand.
And because of commitments in Afghanistan, you have personnel in combat, personnel just out of combat and personnel training to go into combat.
It's a question of priorities and I'm sorry but little Johnny missing his trip to Disneyworld just ain't one of them.
Frankfurt airport got roughly the same amount of snow as Heathrow and they had their runways back operating in 3 hours.
Yes, BAA are profitable. The point was that the nationalised industries usually weren't - and even when they were any profits went straight back to the Treasury rather be available for reinvestment.
I'd have thought the local air force bases would be a more obvious source of runway clearing equipment, rather than simple man-power. I'm sure a reasonable hire fee, and a crossing of fingers that an emergency wouldn't crop up, would have been enough.
I'm sorry, where did you get your info from? BAA does make profits according to....
Although pre-nationalisation it did make small profits, tax receipts for the government soared after privatisation.
The evidence is that government receipts were much higher after privatisation than before, so the claim that if these companies were nationalised then huge profits would be forthcoming to the exchequer are not bourne out by the evidence.
Although pre-nationalisation it did make small profits, tax receipts for the government soared after privatisation.
The evidence is that government receipts were much higher after privatisation than before, so the claim that if these companies were nationalised then huge profits would be forthcoming to the exchequer are not bourne out by the evidence.
It is. Re-nationalise and then their existing profits would be the same, plus all the money channeled in to dividends would be available for re-investment and additional profits.
In addition, the government (of whichever flavour) gets to blame a private company, dodging their responsibility for the transport system. When it is nationalised and things go wrong the ministers head will be on the line, as it should be.
National transport should be completely controlled in terms of infrastructure by the government, so they can't shirk their responsibility. Buses, rail carriages and Airlines would all remain private. Already in rail the track is controlled by the government - but why not runways. There is no difference.
Same goes for energy and gas supplied. The government should own the delivery system, cables and pipes, and charge suppliers (power providers) for its use. Same with broadband controlled by BT wholesale. This should be nationalised and ISPs charged to use it -- currently they pay their money to BT wholesale to use the copper in the ground. BT should be providing services just like any other telephone and Internet provider.
Water, gas, electricity, transport, and also Internet, are essential parts of the economy.
BAA is a private company, it is not the army's job to help private companies. Also, the amount of snow is piddling compared to other parts of the world, this has yet again made Britain into a laughing stock.
Not Britain as a whole, just BAA. Manchester Airport has remained open. Gatwick has remained open. Both not run by BAA.
Comments
The Army can be called in to assist Local Authorities at time of crisis etc. (Fire Strikes, Floods)
I object most strongly to Cameron offering the UK Army to assist a private company (BAA).
It's up to BAA to sort out the mess they're in. Buy more snowploughs, employ more staff.
Why the hell should Army personnel having to deal with Afghanistan and all that comes with it, be employed shifting tons of snow just so some other sod can go on holiday?
Sure, the airport is ran by a private company but thats just because of how messed up our country is.
That's right, lets take soldiers just back from seeing their mates killed etc., and have them shovel snow for the minority who are fortunate to afford a foreign holiday at Christmas.
That's a sure fire morale boosting winner.
Perhaps if less of the NHS budget was spent on managers, there would be some left for them to clear their own pavements?
Some people are critical of the government for offering. Others think that the army should have been ordered in.
Some people are critical of BAA for refusing. If they had accepted, they would have surely been criticised by others.
Personally, I think it's all spin. It didn't cost the government anything to ask as they knew BAA would decline as accepting the help would be very embarrassing, however it did allow the government to show it was taking the situation seriously and increased pressure on BAA to get things moving.
I have no problem with the armed forces coming to the aim of businesses but this incident should prompt a review of BAA's operating licence from the CAA.
Happy for private companies to run all sorts of things, but not infrastructure. Not railways, not power and gas distribution, not airports, not water companies. If they are all making massive profits, so could the government, or the government could help to keep prices down.
Do you really think that if Heathrow was State run they would have all the resources they needed? At least a private company is able to make investments without the permission of the Man from Whitehall. If they don't then that a problem for the regulators.
The airport isn't just outbound!
They didn't
They didn't
Maybe because it's the Armed Forces job to do what they are ordered regardless of what day it is. I'm sure they rather be helping people at Heathrow than being blown up in Helmand.
I don't have a problem with the forces being used to help private companies if it's in the national interest. If the army had been used at Heathrow it would have cost BAA a lot next time their operating licence was up for renewal.
Could be faulty memory, but I'm sure their coverage during fire brigade strikes wasn't provided for free.
I'm sorry, where did you get your info from? BAA does make profits according to....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8218553/Calls-to-deny-Heathrow-chief-his-bonus.html
(if we can trust the TELEGRAPH)
The Daily Telegraph has learned that he will also receive a secret bonus for helping the Spanish-owned company reach pre-tax profits of nearly £972 million.
Did the BAA make no profits?
After I'd said what I said I saw this article
Why we should nationalise our airports
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/21/nationalise-airports-baa
so it seems I'm not the only one who thinks that.
Given that they've completely screwed up Heathrow at one of the most important times of the year, they aren't going to get an easy ride at renewal. Most likely they'll be called before a Commons Select Committee, especially if their BAA manager get another huge bonus.
And because of commitments in Afghanistan, you have personnel in combat, personnel just out of combat and personnel training to go into combat.
It's a question of priorities and I'm sorry but little Johnny missing his trip to Disneyworld just ain't one of them.
Frankfurt airport got roughly the same amount of snow as Heathrow and they had their runways back operating in 3 hours.
Yes, BAA are profitable. The point was that the nationalised industries usually weren't - and even when they were any profits went straight back to the Treasury rather be available for reinvestment.
Although pre-nationalisation it did make small profits, tax receipts for the government soared after privatisation.
The evidence is that government receipts were much higher after privatisation than before, so the claim that if these companies were nationalised then huge profits would be forthcoming to the exchequer are not bourne out by the evidence.
It is. Re-nationalise and then their existing profits would be the same, plus all the money channeled in to dividends would be available for re-investment and additional profits.
In addition, the government (of whichever flavour) gets to blame a private company, dodging their responsibility for the transport system. When it is nationalised and things go wrong the ministers head will be on the line, as it should be.
National transport should be completely controlled in terms of infrastructure by the government, so they can't shirk their responsibility. Buses, rail carriages and Airlines would all remain private. Already in rail the track is controlled by the government - but why not runways. There is no difference.
Same goes for energy and gas supplied. The government should own the delivery system, cables and pipes, and charge suppliers (power providers) for its use. Same with broadband controlled by BT wholesale. This should be nationalised and ISPs charged to use it -- currently they pay their money to BT wholesale to use the copper in the ground. BT should be providing services just like any other telephone and Internet provider.
Water, gas, electricity, transport, and also Internet, are essential parts of the economy.