Hi aI446,
Thankyou for your feedback. I will address your concerns in order:
'It appears that this is the relevant part of the post'
- I take the whole of the post as being relevant. It is a short message.
'He is simply asking a question'
- No he isn't. He is asking a *leading* question. It is phrased in a manner which invites the reader to sneer at Manchester Airport's perceived status for not rushing work with significant safety implications.
'you ... appear to try to belittle him'
- There are no personal remarks in my response. My reply to the contributor is robust, but he has elected to make a provocatively phrased posting concerning Manchester Airport on a public forum so a firm response is justified.
'what is the point of your post?'
- Britain has a culture of ridiculing organisations for prioritizing safety. Note how railway companies are lampooned in the media for canceling or delaying trains affected by leaf mulch. Note how airports are criticized for delaying flights in wet snow conditions. It is very easy to make a cheap jibe at the expense of safety measures.
The contributor's posting makes a jibe about MAN's world-class status to invite derision towards the company for not rushing essential safety equipment into service. The point of my post is to nip that attitude in the bud. Safety issues are not a joke. I will defend any company which takes its safety responsibilities seriously from commentators who would invite public ridicule against them for the inconvenient consequences of so doing. We must not encourage a climate in which companies are rewarded by public approval for rushing or cutting corners on works which have safety critical implications.
That is the point of my post.
Cheers, SHED.