Before we get carried away on how the RAF does it, the MoD will not mind maintaining old motors and burning a few tons of fuel spent in order to maintain their task readiness. There is no comparison!
Donkey497
... But had BAA been a bit more proactive with pre-travel warnings and pre-emptive consolidations of flights in consultation with the airlines, then much of the disruption could have been "managed" out of existence.
That was how things were done 25 years ago but a big change started to affect ALL companies, in short, they moved from planning to avoid problems to just dealing with the problem when it occurred. The reason for this was money. Whilst there is a
PR element, the cost of planning and provision is often higher than the cost of correction.
In the recession of 89/91 this plan gained acceptance as a way to save money. When the recession was over, no one wanted to start spending money on maintenance and preventative measures. Subsequently, this change in approach has now been adopted by large swathes of government too. The approach is this:
- Save money
- When it goes wrong: Send in the cavalry and apologise all over the place.
- You may have to spend MORE money than you saved but, mostly, you don't.
- Make a big PR of how much effort you put into fixing this once in a lifetime problem.
- Rely on people having short memories and that, since customers are not as loyal as they used to be, why worry if some change their choice of supplier?
- Those that saved the money (and caused the problem) are then promoted or given bonus'.
- Those members of staff that warned of the impending problems are ignored, become disaffected and leave/take early retirement.
In the UK, this approach works very well - for the directors and many shareholders who are totally unaware of what is being done in their name, as long as the money comes in.