Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was avoidable, says presidential comission

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill was an avoidable disaster that resulted from management failures by BP PLC and its main contractors, a presidential commission has concluded. But the accident also reflected "systemic failures" by the oil industry and its government regulators to deal with the risks of deep-water oil exploration, the panel said. They go on to use such comments as "individual missteps and oversights" and "the root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur." But we knew that all along. More or less as soon as it happened people in the know were singing like canaries. This report just puts those songs down on paper!

One has to wonder if anything is going to change in the corporate pysche. Those managing these large corporations seem to have the idea that the 21st century allows them to ease up on integrity and pump up the deceit and the cunning and the spin. One day they might find good folk turning on them when the sheriff's out of town. Haven't they made any New Year's resolutions to be good guys?

Is Burger King barmy?

There are some jobsworths around. With such people common sense goes out the window and a mantra is maintained. In a Missouri Burger King the manager had read the company rules on dress code seemingly in the manner of a dullard. So when a mother came in with a baby he was quick to tell her that the child was a hygiene problem. No booties, no burgers!

The manager told the mother that they would have to leave the restaurant because the baby wasn't wearing any shoes. The mother put socks on the baby to try and adhere to the policy. She was then threatened by the manager saying that he would call the police. The baby doesn't walk, and can't even crawl yet, but the manager didn't want "baby germs" getting in the way of his business.

You'd think Burger King would want to respond by saying that it was all a ghastly mistake. But no. They've not bothered to squeak. More fool them. They've got enough trouble with the persistent publicity about junk food. Do they need any further bad press?

I'd suggest they got a real lesson in hygiene. Take a swab from the baby's feet and take another from the Burger King kitchen. It would be interesting to see who's got the bigger germs!

Willie Walsh and his weasel words!

The chief executive of British Airways has kissed the blarney stone and is off at full pelt with supporting the "we must have a third runway" proposals. I saw him on BBC's Question Time from Leeds. He got a free ride, that's for sure. Only David Dimbleby picked up "unnecessary flights" which an audience member had asked about. Dimbleby wryly suggested that these were those on competitors' flights. Audience laughter. Willie goes along with this and smiles.

Now I have no desire to see British Airways do other than prosper. However, it must be as a successful business because it attracts custom not because it out to do down others or create advantages paid for by the taxpayer. In short, these proposals as outlined by Geoff Hoon have nothing to do with jobs or the well-being of our economy. What they are about is securing advantage for British Airways and BAA, the owners of Heathrow at the expense of others.

When Terminal 5 was given the go ahead, this duo said they would not press for a third runway. They've got Terminal 5 and they still want the runway. On the programme, a woman asked why Leeds/Bradford Airport was not being given the extra flights. "We want to expand business here too!" she said. Willie was sympathetic but basically unconcerned.

He now wants all UK flights to go via Heathrow. This is so that BA can get the custom and not Air France or KLM or Lufthansa. He uses the mantra of "lost jobs" but anyone wanting to come to London already can from anywhere in the world. So all this is about forcing people to use Heathrow over Schiphol or CDG.

Willie Walsh also claims Heathrow has 180 destinations and some that the others don't have. Well Manchester has 225 and some destinations that Heathrow doesn't have. He never once mentioned Manchester! I wonder why?

This is not about the economy. It is not about jobs as such. The spin and subterfuge are there to obtain a goal. Perhaps when the enquiries come, we can find out how many planes are flying into Heathrow half full or empty? That's another question that needs answering.

British Airways left the domestic market as far as aircraft were concerned. However, they still sell flights from regional airports through codeshare arrangements as do other airlines. We don't need an expanded Heathrow for this to continue.

The only reason for Heathrow to get a third runway would be if there were no flights going from anywhere else. As this is patently not the case, the proposals for this runway are dead in the water.

Willie and his pals need to answer three questions.

1. Is it impossible now for a person to fly to London in order to visit as a tourist or to do business? YES or NO.
2. How many planes fly half empty or below full capacity into and out of Heathrow currently?
3. Is it impossible for a person to fly from any one of the top 20 regional airports to the USA, Europe, Australasia or anywhere else without flying though Heathrow? YES or NO.

These are the questions that may take some time to get answers to. We need integrity in business, not the handiwork of spinmeisters!

Alitalia cancels flights and may soon be flightless!

The long drawn out death throws of Alitalia is somewhat baffling. At least Lehman Brothers were put out of their agony quickly. The airline confirmed that a number of flights have been cancelled, but denied it had run out of aviation fuel. So something else has caused this?

They are a peculiar lot these CEOs of large businesses. It seems its all talk and no walk! Who in their right mind would supply Alitalia with any fuel unless it was cash up front?

Pass the smelling salts? No, I think a humane injection will be better!