Originally Posted by
NutLoose
I would be interested in where your cut off point exists, The BBMF, perhaps The Reds, heck why not simly flog off the F-35 fleet, that will bring in lots on nice monies to maintain the peoples first, in fact you wouldn't need the base at all after that, even more nice savings....
(etc)
The cut off point is obvious and consistent from place to place. One gate guardian per station... the one for which funding is provided.
Minor infrastructure faults costing less than a couple of thousand to fix are generally covered by a regional maintenance contract while major new build is typically delivered by centrally-funded projects not under the station’s direct control. Everything in between (which is a lot...) has to be funded from a limited pot of discretionary spending under the station commander’s control. Using it to maintain a collection of additional gate guardians instead of addressing infrastructure issues is not only a strange order of priority but is also potentially difficult if, for instance, there are health and safety deficiencies going unfixed. Which again is not uncommon.
I realise I’m taking a blunt approach to this but I think it’s reflective of the ‘enough is enough’ stance finally being taken after many years of failing to prioritise adequately. Hopefully more of the same to come on a much grander scale in the big review!