NATS ignored previous recommendations – IT cock-up report The National Air Traffic Services failed to implement recommendations to mitigate IT risks, according to an independent report into the mega systems failure in December which left thousands of passengers stranded in Blighty. In December 2014, 120 flights were cancelled and 500 delayed for 45 minutes, affecting 10,000 …
You seem to follow the low-brow "Marxist" view of what shareholding is all about and how investment works.
Please upgrade to IQ 75.
Also, saying that "investment was not as high as expected" could just mean that someone decided that things were good enough and didn't want to go for gold-plating or that traction could not be achieved because projects went slower than expected. Simples.
1. Failure to implement last set of recommendations. Question were they relevant to this case?
2. We welcome recognition of our crash strategic investment program brought on by senior management panic strategic planning.
I suspect a pox on both their houses is called for.
"To mitigate this we will continue to invest in making sure that failures are extremely rare and the impact of such failures on the travelling public are minimised as far as reasonably practical."
"Continue to invest"? - That sounds like no increase, ie continue to under-invest.
"as far as reasonably practical" - Who gets to define "reasonably"? The shareholders?
"as far as reasonably practical" - Who gets to define "reasonably"? The shareholders?
I'm sorry, shareholder companies don't work that way.
It's the safety assurance people. Who put up a recommendation to the board. Who then decides.Which then goes into the minutes. If the regulator is ok with that, cool.
That sounds like no increase, ie continue to under-invest.
Who gets to define "under-invest"? Retards in forums?
"Who gets to define "under-invest"? Retards in forums?"
That would be "Former business secretary Vince Cable" as reported in the article. And the lack of implementation of previous recommendations as per the official report referenced in the article although I suppose that might be incompetence rather than a lack of investment in training, procedures, people or equipment.
The failure may have caused delays and inconvenience, but I am not convinced that in the event it caused an unreasonable increase in risk to passengers. IIUC the controllers reverted to the old manual system which is just as safe, but has less capacity (though arguably there is greater risk of the possibility of human error in a manual system than of a computer [i.e. programming] error in an automated system).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
