Retarded LHL and his merry ministers

[makapaaa]

<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - Retarded LHL and his merry ministers</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>AAAAAA50 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>10:00 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 5) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>35289.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Finally, after hiding, keeping quiet and exhibiting absolutely zero leedership over the Great Singapore Flood,LHL appeared in the news today and said in a sideline remark that the necessary infrastructure to contain floods would be "too costly" and "only used once every few years", hence ruling out any major investment.
This is the WORST piece of crap ever heard.
Why?
How would it be if let's say the airline industry takes his view and say oh, the expensive new emergency anti-collision flight and radar system is too expensive and probably be "used infrequently". An aircraft collision once every, say 10 years, killing everybody on board is perfectly acceptable and economical.
Or how about a car manufacturer refusing to recall and change an engine defect that will have a small chance (probably once every 10 years) of causing the engine to blow up, killing all the passengers inside.
If we take his retarded view, why do we even spend more than 6% of our GDP on defence since it is never used? (or let's say once a century?)
He obviously never considered the cumulative cost of the flood and the irreparable damage it caused to Singapore's reputation, retail and tourism industry.
And if we go down his slippery slope thinking, how about applying it to our other basic infrastructure such as power? Brownouts or blackouts once every couple of years is perfectly alright? Terrorist bombing of our trains are also acceptable once every 50 years? Mass water poisoning caused by inadequate filtration every other year?
This is the WORST shirking of responsibility and highly irresponsible comment coming from our Prime Minister who did nothing during the crisis yet collects world-record salary?

</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap> Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle> Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[HTOLAS]

Another own goal.

 

[Balls2U]

"I run the show here! What are you gonna do about it! Ha Ha!"

 

[Leongsam]

<table class="msgtable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="96%"><tbody><tr><td class="msg" valign="top"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3" style="vertical-align: top;">
</td><td height="8"></td></tr><tr><td class="msgtxt">
How would it be if let's say the airline industry takes his view and say oh, the expensive new emergency anti-collision flight and radar system is too expensive and probably be "used infrequently". An aircraft collision once every, say 10 years, killing everybody on board is perfectly acceptable and economical.
Or

</td></tr><tr><td> </td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="msgleft" width="1%"> </td><td class="msgopt" nowrap="nowrap" width="24%"> Options</td><td class="msgrde" align="middle" nowrap="nowrap" width="50%"> Reply</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

All decisions in all industries involve cost vs benefit analysis. The airline industry is no different.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121940584655212.html

LHL is being prudent and he should be commended for taking a practical approach towards issues that the country faces. Resources are always finite and a cool headed approach is needed when things go wrong. Emotional or politically motivated responses do no good in the long term.

 

[Leongsam]

Airlines Fight Cost Of Safety Measure






By MELANIE TROTTMAN and ANDY PASZTOR

The airline industry and Congressional leaders are at odds over funding for plans to speed modernization of the U.S. air traffic control system and improve aviation safety.


The central issue: a proposal headed for a Senate vote as early as this week requiring airlines to spend their own money to equip planes with upgraded navigation systems, a cost carriers feel the government should bear. The dispute over who pays is likely to delay the rollout of new technologies.


The Senate is scheduled to consider a $35 billion package that calls for tougher rules covering a wide range of airline safety issues from pilot hiring and training to mandatory scheduling changes to combat cockpit fatigue.
The package reflects broad congressional desire to beef up industry oversight, particularly of commuter carriers, in the wake of several recent U.S. airline accidents and incidents. The Federal Aviation Administration is moving to tighten regulations in many of the same areas, but sweeping Senate action could spur more-aggressive FAA rulemaking.


Legislation in both the House and the Senate includes passenger-rights sections; the Senate version sets three-hour limits for airlines to sit on the tarmac. The Department of Transportation has issued similar limits, but lawmakers seem intent on ensuring their permanence. This provision, too, has been controversial, with airlines saying they would cancel flights rather than risk fines.


But despite years of industry lobbying, the proposal contains no provisions to help cash-strapped airlines pay for billions of dollars in new cockpit technology, a gap that could slow implementation and delay benefits to passengers for years.


Like legislation previously approved by the House, the Senate bill aims to chart a course for transforming the current system of ground-based radars and controllers into a new generation of satellite-based technologies able to handle larger numbers of flights more efficiently and with less environmental impact.



Dubbed NextGen, the network is designed to allow aircraft to fly shorter, more direct routes with pilots taking over some of the core functions of controllers.



The government already has pledged to spend some $20 billion on the new system's backbone. According to the latest FAA projections, the system essentially would pay for itself through 2018 by reducing total anticipated flight delays more than 20% and saving airlines 1.4 billion gallons of fuel.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, had been the industry's best hope. As he brought the bill to the Senate floor last week, Mr. Rockefeller said it allotted roughly $500 million a year to fund the FAA's role in NextGen technology through 2025. But he emphasized that airlines would be entirely responsible for equipping their planes. "We're not paying for that," he said after a press conference Thursday. "They [the airlines] are going to have to do it; otherwise they're going to have a real hard time landing."


Gerard Arpey, the chairman and chief executive of AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, said at an FAA conference last week that he was "dumbfounded" that the stimulus bill didn't provide financial help to install new aircraft equipment. Industry estimates peg such annual costs at $1.5 billion or so through the middle of the decade. If "we are willing to spend billions of general tax dollars for high speed rail," Mr. Arpey asked, "why not a few for high speed aviation?"


Many lawmakers are eager to avoid election-year risks of doling out dollars to corporate beneficiaries already unpopular with many voters. Moreover, since the government has never before directly subsidized onboard navigation and air-traffic equipment, lawmakers and congressional staff members are leery of setting a precedent that could become a federal financial drain.


With some experts predicting that the number of U.S. passengers could climb by nearly 40% over the next two decades, even President Barack Obama said during a recent town hall meeting, "If we can upgrade those technologies" used to control air traffic, "we could reduce delays and cancellations."



Without commenting on specifics, an FAA spokeswoman said "we look forward to working with Congress" when House and Senate conferees take up the bills.



The airline industry, with more than $30 billion of losses in the past three years, seems unwilling to bear the cost. "This is about the complete overhaul of an infrastructure, said Dave Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, a trade group continuing to lobby on the topic.
With job-creation measures on the congressional front burner, airlines and equipment suppliers over the years have tried to sell rapid air-traffic modernization as a boost for industry employment. Some equipment manufactures even informally promised to start ramping up assembly lines before final legislation was signed. But so far, such arguments haven't swayed senior White House budget officials.


Until the past year or so, splits between groups representing general aviation pilots and the nation's airlines and business jet operators also hurt industry lobbying efforts. More recently, there has been unprecedented consensus on the user side of the debate. But now, deficit worries have chilled the appetite among Obama administration officials and congressional leaders to provide airlines with high-profile financial assistance.


Another tough hurdle for airline executives is that significant benefits from investing in next-generation cockpit equipment won't be available until later phases, when more planes and routes are covered. In response, the FAA has taken steps to start phasing in interim improvements, including more fuel-efficient approaches to various airports, closer spacing of airliners over some regions of the U.S. and enhanced tracking of flights over portions of the Gulf of Mexico currently without traditional radar coverage.


According to industry officials familiar with the details, FAA officials have been told by the White House to steer clear of supporting the industry's drive to get federal dollars. As part of a NextGen update released last week, FAA chief Randy Babbitt said airlines "must be ready to equip their cockpits with the certified avionics necessary" to make NextGen a reality.

Write to Melanie Trottman at [email protected] and Andy Pasztor at [email protected]