Originally Posted by
Neo380
Ever time, you deflect responsibility from NATS, are they entirely unaccountable?
The 90%/£90m cost was because one (NATS, senior) person's bonus depended on spending that much - so he was hardly likely to expose, any more than you are, that it was a complete waste of money!
So this was ENTIRELY NATS fault, nobody else's. And there is no evidence that NATS 'suffered' any consequences whatsoever. We know what happened to the 'expected price next time round' - NATS refused to improve on it!
There will be wastage and pet projects that shouldn't have been approved in any organisation of that size. But that's 65% of annual capital spend & 15% of the spend in a charging period. To pass that under the nose of the Regulator, Independent Reviewer, the customers and the shareholders (who fund part of the spend through retained profits) and not get found out is quite a feat.