So they want to cut costs?...If the aircraft were serviced here by one company and the others OS, how long would the former company last in a competitive world?
That's the typical "bottom line" approach. Cut costs and you end up risking safety. Just watch "Air Crash Investigation" and you will find many examples of airliners crashing due to maintenance incompetence, illegal (cheap) spare parts and blind eye turning at every level.
+1
There's at least one major power station, I won't name it other than to say it's privately owned, where they've cut maintenance by fully 85% compared to "the old days".
That'll be just fine for quite a few years until suddenly it isn't fine and there's a problem. A big problem most likely. But hey, look how much money we're making right now. And how many workers we've got rid of. And so on until that day occurs when whatever incident leads to an investigation which finds they've got to either spend huge $ or it's all over and they've got to shut the whole place pretty quickly.
Hence why I'm absolutely opposed to the use of nuclear power in Australia and most other places. Regardless of how well it can be designed, built and operated the reality is that shortcuts will be taken in practice at the expense of safety. The plant I'm referring to isn't a nuclear plant obviously, since we don't have any of those in Australia (Lucas Heights reactor is not for power generation), but the same principles apply.
Actually my post wasn't tonque in cheek, but I doubt you would understand it, the same way management didn't.I think sptrawler's post was tongue firmly in cheek, but your reply was worthwhile nonetheless.
That's the typical "bottom line" approach. Cut costs and you end up risking safety. Just watch "Air Crash Investigation" and you will find many examples of airliners crashing due to maintenance incompetence, illegal (cheap) spare parts and blind eye turning at every level.
So I guess we have some public servant(s) who are supposed to go round and inspect these stations to see everything is up to scratch ? Or as they are privately owned does that no longer apply ?
How many crashes have occurred involving Australian Aircraft on Australian soil?
Rebounding large scale solar and wind investment, coupled with a stable rooftop PV sector, has seen Australia register almost 50 per cent growth in clean energy investment in 2016.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) figures released this month reveal that total clean energy investment reached $4.29 billion in 2016, up from two weak years, but still below the $5 billion-plus milestone reached between 2010 and 2013.
Large scale wind and solar project financing was the bright spot in 2016, with BNEF noting that the ACT’s reverse auction attracted US$831 million (AU$1.112 billion) in project investment, while US$1.1 billion was invested towards meeting the Large-scale Renewable Target (LRET).
We have been lucky so far, but there have been a number of incidents where Australian aircraft have had to divert from plan due to technical difficulties like smoke in the cabin. As smoking is now banned on flights smoke in the cabin could well be caused by frayed wiring shorting out, and airliners have crashed due to that sort of thing.
We have been lucky so far, but there have been a number of incidents where Australian aircraft have had to divert from plan due to technical difficulties like smoke in the cabin. As smoking is now banned on flights smoke in the cabin could well be caused by frayed wiring shorting out, and airliners have crashed due to that sort of thing.
Because China is such a behemoth, its energy decisions absolutely dwarf anything any other country is doing right now. Case in point: Over the weekend, the Chinese government ordered 13 provinces to cancel 104 coal-fired projects in development, amounting to a whopping 120 gigawatts of capacity in all.
I think in 20 or 30 years time, they will make a movie, on the implosion of Australia due to political correctness.
To further the explanation, I was involved in an EBA discussion, where I suggested to management we were prepared to take a wage cut.
If the engineers were given the "permit to work" isolation responsibilities. Needless to say, it wasn't warmly taken on board.
It would, in some ways, improve productivity if maintenance were carrying out their own isolations.Why would maintenance staff (?) want to take responsibility for work permissions?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?