An Independent Constabulary?

I want to declare upfront that I don’t like British Airways. Like most state protected monopolies they forgot who their customer was and engaged in cartel behaviour for many years with other state protected airlines to screw the customer with high fares and ridiculous conditions to protect their cosy monopoly. Once they kept me in Dublin airport for 3 days because their “condition” on their euro budget ticket called for the return leg to be re-endorsed by a travel agent. On a Sunday I went out to Dublin Airport to the BA desk to have the ticket “re-endorsed.” They told me they couldn’t do it as “travel agent” meant one of their agents not their own ticket counter. So I had to wait until travel agents were open on a Monday, miss my flight on Monday morning and pay extra to eventually go back on a Wednesday because of the silly restrictions they used to put on budget tickets. When competitors like Laker and Virgin started to take their market they fought back illegally with dirty tricks, having to pay compensation to Virgin and the liquidator of Laker Airlines. God knows what they go away with that we never heard about.

But even by their own standards they have taken the biscuit with their treatment of Nigerian passengers in an incident which also calls into question whether we should continue to pay a huge premium in our taxes to maintain an Independent Police Force, a question I have asked before.( http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/04/up-up-and-away-with-baa-no-2.html) More than 1,000 Nigerians have backed a call to boycott British Airways unless it apologises to 136 passengers who were ordered off a flight to Lagos after they complained about the forced deportation of a man on board.

A British Airways captain made the extraordinary decision to clear the whole of economy class on an aircraft due to take off from Heathrow in response to concern from travelers that security men were manhandling a man who was pleading not to be removed from the UK. The man, who was thought to be about 30, was being held down in his seat by four or five police officers as the other passengers filed on board, and was crying out in broken English that he was afraid he would die if he were sent back to Nigeria.

The officers took him off the plane, then returned and arrested Ayodeji Omotade, one of the passengers who had complained vociferously about his treatment. When others on board protested noisily about Mr. Omotade's detention, the captain ordered them all off the flight. The only person who eventually flew economy class on flight BA0075 was the unidentified deportee who did not want to go. Mr. Omotade – who pleaded tearfully with officers not to prevent him travelling to Nigeria, where he was due at his brother's wedding – was held in custody for 10 hours, accused of causing an affray, and banned by British Airways from travelling with them again.

Ayodeji Omatade


The police also confiscated all the money he was carrying, which came to £1,600 in notes, plus three £1 coins he had in his pocket, and abandoned him, penniless, in Heathrow airport. He was spotted there by one of his fellow passengers, who was waiting for the next flight to Lagos and loaned him the money to get home.

Mr. Omotade, an IT contractor from Chatham, Kent, who is married with a five-year-old daughter, said: "£1,603 is not a lot of money to some people, but to me it's a lot, and most of it wasn't mine. I told them I had letters written in English to show them why I was carrying the money, but they said they had strong reason to believe it was the proceeds of crime.

"By the time I got to the magistrates' court, the police had already applied for an extra 90 days to investigate. I still don't know whether they are going to charge me, or not charge me. I didn't even get my luggage back until a week later. They flew my luggage to Lagos. I need a public apology that I can get framed and hang in my living room."

The incident, on 27 March 2008, has created outrage among expatriate Nigerians in the UK, who have called on the Lagos government to intervene. A protest letter, signed by more than 1,000 Nigerians, has been sent to the country's President, Umaru Yar'Adua, and senior members of the Nigerian parliament.

It calls for a front-page apology in a national Nigerian daily newspaper to all passengers on flight BA0075, a written apology and appropriate compensation to Mr Omotade, lifting of the life ban which Mr Omotade says has been imposed on him by British Airways, and the dropping of any criminal charges against him. They say the airline has until 30 April to respond.

Nigeria's Favourite Airline?

"Failure on the part of the British Airways to comply with the above demands will result in us calling for worldwide boycott of British Airways by Nigerians," the petition warned. British Airways said: "Police were called to the BA75 service to Lagos on 27 March after a large number of passengers became disruptive. Many were removed. We take any threats against our crew or passengers very seriously and this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated."

Now I have many Nigerian colleagues and friends and I am sure they felt a great deal of solidarity with their compatriot who was being forcibly deported. After all this is a country which deported a terminally ill women to Ghana to die and is deporting a Filipino Man whose wife a nurse was, in the verdict of a Coroner’s Court, was “unlawfully killed” in the same hospital she worked in whilst given birth. Her husband has now lost his right to remain in the UK because the UK unlawfully killed his wife. The spirit of Frank Kafka is alive and well and living in the Home Office in Marsham Street, London.

Now as I said British Airways has an impressive track record in customer abuse but you may ask again why do the Police, who we pay for out of our taxes, see themselves as uncritical attack dogs for the transport industry not doubt using and abusing the many laws applying in airports and to “protect” us from terrorists. So why did they intervene in a civil dispute between BA and its passengers? If you paid £700 to go to Lagos would you expect the in-flight entertainment to be a distressed Nigerian deportee surrounded by 5 heavies? What was the threat to national security which required Ayodeji Omotade to be stripped of his money and possessions and abandoned at Heathrow? I confidently predict if the “case” against Ayodeji Omotade sees the inside of a court room it will be thrown out the same day. The independence of the Police Service and their duty in law to form an “independent mind” is fundamental to the contract they have with society to have the powers of a Constable vested in them. Every Police Officer has to make the following oath before becoming a constable.

“I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

The Police Reform Act 2002

Ayodeji Omotade and his 135 compatriots who were removed by the Police and treated like criminals could well ask where was the “fairness, integrity, diligence, impartiality, upholding of human rights …….and according equal respect……….” on the 27 March 2008 at Heathrow on flight BA0075 to Lagos, Nigeria. Indeed on the latter point of “ ..equal respect..” would the Captain of that flight and the obedient Constabulary have behaved with such uncaring arrogance to 136 white passengers in similar circumstances?

The Terminal 5 Song

Terminal 5 is the success Daithai C predicted!!

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/04/up-up-and-away-with-baa-no-2.html

This great video and song plays better tribute to this Great British World Beater than my words can!

Up, up and away with BAA & BA !!!!

Up, up and away with BAA No. 2?

Cardboard City at Heathrow Teminal 5

Well following on from my Blog of 14th March last;

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/03/up-up-and-away-with-baa.html

Terminal 5 has opened with a bang, but not the one its exclusive user British Airways, expected. In fact passengers at Heathrow's Terminal 5 have been reduced to sleeping in cardboard boxes as British Airways' woes intensified and the papers have carried Third World (or Waterloo subway) scenes of an impromptu cardboard city at Terminal 5 as disgruntled passengers camp out as flight upon flight gets cancelled. The flagship £4.3 billion building began to resemble a shanty town after the cancellation of more than 100 flights at the weekend left thousands of passengers stranded. The image of people huddling for warmth beneath the boxes, as snow and a technical fault with airport operator BAA's luggage system grounded the planes, was the latest embarrassment for both the airport and airline since the opening of Terminal 5.

Even British Airway’s own pilots have decided to kick them when they are down. Jim McAuslan, the general secretary of the pilots' union, BALPA, rounded on British Airways in an open letter.

"Banks, institutional investors and analysts need to wake up to the fact that there is something very wrong right at the heart of this company that is making our once great brand a laughing stock," he wrote.

Individual pilots have also started to voice their disquiet - at times on the public address system to passengers. One is understood to have said he was "ashamed" to work for the airline and another has urged passengers to email Willie Walsh, the chief executive, with their complaints. A BA spokesman defended the airline's chief executive. He said: "Willie Walsh said he will not resign and is determined to resolve the problems associated with the initial move to Terminal 5." A man of steel is our Willie who left Aer Lingus when the possibility of gaining a small fortune in a management buy out evaporated. The former Aer Lingus chief appeared to come from nowhere when he took over at the Irish airline in 2001. He joined the company in 1979 as a cadet pilot and gradually worked his way up through the ranks into flight operations management in the mid-1990s. In 1998, he became chief executive of Futura - the company's chartered airline in Spain - then was named chief finance officer in 2000.

Willie Walsh

Perhaps his claim that "a reasonable man gets nowhere in negotiations" - made in a staff publication when he represented pilots during their row with managers - was a hint of the man to come, as his tough decisions at the top made him few friends.

In 2004, he made it known that he wanted to explore the possibility of a management buy-out. Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern attacked him from the floor of the Dail, the Irish parliament, for trying to cash in on the airline. He left the airline in January 2005, four months ahead of schedule, amid reports that he was in talks about setting up a rival airline.

In fact British Airways has been so bad that they have succeeded in generating sympathy for Supermodel Naomi “Anger Management” Campbell who was led off one of their planes by Police called by BA staff after she paid £6,000 for a First Class fare to Los Angeles and BA lost one of her bags which contained an outfit for a memorial service she was attending. Naomi, with the BA Lottery, you pays your money and takes your chances - surely you didn't believe the publicity on their website about the "First Experience" giving you "Effortless Travel" and "Choice and Control" not to mention the clincher "A queue-less, personalised and stress free environment to check in your baggage."? What did you expect from British Airways for a mere six thousand pounds? Respect? Efficiency? Your baggage back? Keeping their promises to you? Oh Naomi, to think you used to be streetwise!! Heathrow Terminal 5 to Heathrow Central Police Station in only 10 hours!!

The Stress Free First Experience


It is notable that as Customer Service has deteriorated in the Transport industry fashionable posters have appeared saying something to the effect “Our Staff will not be abused” and threatening dire sanctions and Police action to those in Cattle (and First) Class who make outrageous demands to be treated with respect and civility on the unreasonable grounds that they have paid for a ticket. As Airport Operators and Airlines routinely abuse passengers, flaunt the Disability Discrimination Act and ignore EU Law No. 261 on the rights of airline passengers the Police (Security is paramount in the current climate!) seem entirely content to become attack dogs for an increasingly abusive and uncaring transport industry. It is for such Independence of Mind that we have a Police Service to apply the Law without fear or favour and 46 highly paid Chief Constables and one Metropolitan Commissioner who, by law, must be unfettered and independent in their operational responsibilities. You may not find this at your local airport Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly, where staff (often Agency badly trained minimum wage types) use the posters and Police to say Foxtrot Oscar to the old, the disabled and those with children.

Independent Constables of the Realm keeping the Queen's Peace and applying the Law without Fear or Favour

These are the rights the UK SHOULD be enforcing at UK airports for people with reduced mobility from the EU’s website:

Around 10% of the EU population is affected by reduced mobility – these are mainly disabled and elderly people, while others are unable to walk long distances as often required in modern airports. Most airlines and airports make genuine efforts to offer the necessary assistance. However, not all of them provide comprehensive assistance, free of charge. These problems are addressed by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006, adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 5 July 2006, which provides for persons with reduced mobility to travel by plane without difficulty. The Regulation’s provisions cover three areas; those covering the first area are entering into force tomorrow.

Equal treatment of persons affected by reduced mobility.
For flights from airports in the EU, the Regulation prohibits the refusal by airlines and tour operators to carry passengers, or to take bookings, on the basis of reduced mobility. Exceptions can be made only for duly justified safety reasons. This should put an end to (generally unintended) instances of discrimination.

Free assistance in all EU airports.
As from 26 July 2008, airports will have to provide a specific set of services for persons with reduced mobility.

Assistance on board.
On flights from EU airports, airlines will be obliged to provide certain services, such as the carrying of wheelchairs or guide dogs, free of charge. These rules will also enter into force on 26 July 2008.

The EU’s Member States, for their part, have to set up enforcement bodies responsible for ensuring that the Regulation is applied on their territory. Any person affected by a disability or by reduced mobility who considers that these rights have not been respected can bring the matter to the attention of the management of the airport or the airline in question. In case of an unsatisfactory response, a complaint can be made to the national enforcement body designated by the Member State.
For further information, go to:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/prm/index_en.htm

The link to this site also gives you access to the general rights you have at EU airports when flights are delayed, cancelled or you are denied boarding;

“Denied boarding.
The new regulation will dramatically reduce the frequency of denying boarding against a passenger's will, by a combination of two measures. First, when expecting to turn passengers away, and before doing anything else, airlines will be obliged to call for volunteers to surrender their seats in exchange for advantages; in other words they would try to strike a deal with passengers interested in giving up their seats. Only if insufficient volunteers came forward, would they be allowed to deny passengers boarding against their will. Second, if after all airlines or tour operators do deny passengers boarding, they would have to pay compensation at a dissuasive level:

• € 250 for flights of less than 1500 km
• € 400 for intra-Community flights of more than 1500 km and for other flights 1500 and 3500 km
• € 600 for all other flights.

This will create a strong incentive to make volunteering attractive and a powerful deterrent to deny boarding. In addition to financial compensation, passengers denied boarding will continue to enjoy these rights:

• the choice between reimbursement of their ticket and an alternative flight, and
• meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation.
• Minimise the inconvenience of cancellations.

When airlines or tour operators cancel flights on their own responsibility, passengers will have the right to compensation at the rate fixed for denied boarding, unless:

they are informed two weeks before the scheduled time of departure, or

they are informed on due time and re-routed at a time very close to that of their original flight.

In addition, in case of cancellations, passengers will receive three other rights:

• meals and refreshments, and
• hotel accommodation, when a cancellation obliges a passenger to stay overnight, and
• Reimbursement, when a cancellation delays a passenger for at least five hours.
• Assist passengers facing long delays.

When airlines reasonably expect a long delay, they will be obliged to give passengers:

• meals and refreshments, and
• hotel accommodation, when a delay obliges a passenger to stay overnight, and
• Reimbursement, when a delay delays a passenger for at least five hours.

Your rights are summarised on the poster (see link) which should be displayed at every UK Airport but those who DEMAND RESPECT often hide them around corners and in stairwells;

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/doc/2008_apr_poster/aff_apr_a4_en.pdf

The European Union provide a Freephone Helpline Number: 00800 678 91011 which is staffed 09.00 to 18.30 CET Weekdays.

By contrast the National Enforcement Body for the UK, the Civil Aviation Authority and its totally toothless passenger watchdog, The Air Transport Users Council, provide nothing because being British, they rely on everybody being good chappies!

Disabled Friendly?

We have seen what has happened in Terminal 5 – Elsewhere Ryanair’s respect for the law extends to NOT having the EU leaflets which should be available from all carriers and giving you a one page summary saying they disagree with the Law therefore they won’t apply it. Try this argument with the Police at a UK Airport the next time you receive the FOXTROT OSCAR treatment from the Oh, so law abiding, Airport Operators and Airlines. And Finally – The EU is prosecuting National Enforcement Authorities, including the CAA in the United Kingdom, for NOT ENFORCING EC LAW ON PASSENGER RIGHTS. Somebody should explain to people who do not pay for their flights, such as the Secretary of State for Transport and the Government’s “Respect Czar” that respect is a TWO WAY PROCESS. Let’s stand up for respect for Disabled People and Passengers in general. Indeed the UK Border Agency (Leadership by example?) could comply with the Disability Discrimination Act at entry points and so could Airport Security checks so I wouldn’t have to witness, as I did at Birmingham’s miserable airport, an elderly passenger tottering taking off a leg brace without even a chair being provided and being ignored by staff and a manager with no disability awareness training.

Perhaps the Constabulary could turn its attention to such illegality and stop helping badly run profit hungry private Airlines and Airports bully and intimidate passengers? Now there is a respectful thought?

Up, up and away with BAA?

Last Friday 14th March 2007 when BAA opened Terminal 5 at Heathrow should have been a day of celebration for the company but on the same day a committee of MPs has called for the break-up of BAA, saying that its dominance has proved stifling for competition. BAA, owned by the Spanish brick company Ferrovial, runs London's Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Southampton.

MPs said BAA's dominance is "bad for passengers" and the aviation industry. BAA said a break-up would only delay "the provision of extra runway and terminal capacity". However the MP’s committee has stated "BAA's monopoly position in the UK airports sector is unnecessary. Indeed, it is bad for passengers and bad for the aviation industry.

BAA was bought by Ferrovial for £12 Bn, mostly borrowed as the Spaniards put in only £460 of their own money and £10.5 Bn. of this debt still sits on its balance sheet. The real winners were BAA’s former shareholders who happily accepted their absurdly inflated bid. Now Ferrovial with the connivance of the so called regulator, the CAA, is saddled with these huge debts which it would like us, the travelling public to pay off. The company serves almost 150m passengers a year but in the past year has been attacked by the public and airline industry alike for its mismanagement of airport operations with third world style camp outs in its terminals and horrendous security queues.

The criticism of BAA is that it should have predicted the predictable and planned accordingly but basic infrastructure has been dismal such as the inadequate luggage handling system at Terminal 4. It also turns out that Terminal 5 has been built as a result of a succession of broken promises by BAA which has consistently lied about its intentions over the years.

BAA’s recently departed managing director Stephen Nelson admitted to MP’s that, 12 years ago BAA had given public assurances that proved to be false, saying that a third runway would not be needed.

In 1995 BAA stated in its official newsletter: “BAA has said repeatedly that Terminal 5 will not lead to a third runway. BAA has said repeatedly THERE WILL NOT BE A THIRD RUNWAY. And BAA has been proved right. The Secretary of State has accepted the BAA view. The issue has been settled; people’s concerns have been met. What now of those who claimed BAA was not telling the truth?”

In 2001 BAA and the Government accepted the recommendation of the planning inspector who approved Terminal 5 that the number of flights at Heathrow should be capped at 480,000. However, despite those BAA assurances in 1995, ministers now support a third runway and a plan was published in November that would increase the capacity to 702,000 flights.

The double standard has led to a rash of broken promises on Heathrow. Terminal 4 was approved in 1978, subject to a cap on annual traffic movements of 275,000. Two years later BAA recorded 287,000 movements and 376,000 in 1990. When Terminal 5 was approved in 2001, the planning inspector and BAA stated that a third runway would be “totally unacceptable”, and set a new cap of 480,000 movements. But by 2003 a White Paper aimed at 700,000.

But BAA has not misled the public on its own but has had a collusive relationship with central government with its current head of Public Affairs being Tom Kelly, former press secretary to Tony Blair. Take the current Heathrow greenwash first. Ministers repeat the mantra that “Heathrow's expansion will only go ahead within strict environmental limits”. But they know full well that the absence of legal standards on noise leaves communities defenceless. New EU air-quality standards had looked like an insuperable hurdle to a third runway, but are being fudged with ropey claims that road traffic emissions will fall. Two weeks ago the Advertising Standards Authority ordered British Airways to withdraw the claim, made by its CEO in an e-mail to Executive Club members, that the third runway would reduce carbon dioxide emissions because aircraft would no longer have to waste fuel queuing to take off or land. This flatly contradicted Whitehall models, which assume that the new runway will raise CO2 emissions by 2.6 million tonnes a year from the 200,000 extra flights. When I lived on the Great West Road in Hounslow directly under the landing approach a mile from the airport the houses had triple glazing and soudbox ventilators to cope with the environmental fall-out. Walking outside you inhaled air that smelt and tasted of Avjet, as modern aircraft are particularly inefficient at burning fuel when the engines are throttled back for landing.

Secondly, take the arguments about capacity. BAA's figures demonstrate clearly that Heathrow is not full. Not remotely. The appendix to the government consultation on the third runway states that 67 million passengers used Heathrow in 2006, and that this could rise to 122 million if a third runway were built. But it also shows that 95 million people could use Heathrow if “maximum use were made of existing runways”. At one stroke we are looking at a deception, perhaps the greatest ever perpetrated on the British people by the optimistically named Department for Transport. For BAA itself is telling us that 28 million more people could use Heathrow without a new runway and without breaking the cap on flights.

How? By using larger planes and filling more seats. Jeff Gazzard, of Airport Watch, says that if Heathrow were not allowed to expand, it could spur the airline industry to invest more rapidly in larger aircraft like the A380, on which some are already hedging their bets. Bigger planes would not solve climate change, although they would reduce local pollution. The point is that we have been told that Heathrow is full when it is not. That kind of distortion suggests that the DfT has ceased to function as an arm of government and has become a mere subsidiary of BAA.

The justification is the importance of aviation to the economy. It would be foolish to argue that air travel is not important to business. But some of the mythology is misleading. The growth in air traffic is overwhelmingly from leisure travel, not business. More than 80 per cent of international travellers at UK airports, and 60 per cent at Heathrow, are holidaymakers. Outbound tourism outstrips inbound, creating a whopping £18 billion balance of payments deficit. Only this week, the Travelodge chain of hotels called for an end to unfair tax breaks for budget airlines, which it said were “the single biggest cause of decline in traditional [UK] tourism resorts”. It is one thing to treat the air industry as a special case; it is quite another thing to distort the facts. And here the Government's collusion with the industry is a problem.

No where does this collusion seem more dramatic than with the unfit for purpose “watchdog” the Civil Aviation Authority, the CAA, and its passenger watchdog, The Air Users Council which has been so inept in enforcing air passengers rights under EU Law. 261 that the EU has threatened enforcement action against them and Ryanair actually give passengers a leaflet saying the law is stupid and they won’t comply with it. I must remember this defence the next time I’m stopped by a police officer! I’m sure I would receive a succinct response.

Anybody who has used Heathrow’s clapped out facilities over the past 5 years has helped pay for the gleaming new Terminal 5 but as it is reserved for British Airways customers they will not have the benefit of it if they fly with another airline. Despite this they will get to share the burden of a 23.5% increase in airport charges next month as in a dramatic award for failure the CAA has allowed BAA to double charges over the next 5 years. What does BAA have to do other than sit back and count the cash?

As for Terminal 5 when the Queen opened this terminal of broken promises on Friday this was a “soft” opening with a hand picked and screened audience lest Her Majesty, Government Ministers and BAA’s exceptionally talented and remunerated management be exposed to the gratitude of the travelling public. It will start to open to real people on the 27th March. One surprise is that 54% of gates will not have air bridges and consequently step free access as provided for under phase 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act which became law in October 2006. Indeed under our wonderful regulator disabled people are effectively excluded from UK airports unless they book “assistance” in advance, which is not what the Act says. Perhaps the Government could pursue its “Respect” agenda by respecting its own laws and ensuring its regulator enforces them?

Europe's worst airport?

The reputation of the Amalfi Coast precedes any trip with visions of La Dolce Vita, the stupendous beauty of the coastline and a magical and simpler Italy as seen in “Il Postino”. The reputation is not without some truth but the truth of today’s Amalfi Coast is somewhat more complex. The complexity begins with the probability that you will access Amalfi by flying into Naples Airport. This exercise in chaos is owned by our old friends B.A.A. who are in turn owned by Ferrovival, the Spanish brick company.

The previous year Naples had won the title of “Worst Airport in Europe” and from what I could see it was fighting hard to keep the title. Terminal 2 at Naples demonstrates BAA’s advanced sense of humour. It is a former cargo warehouse which has lost none of its ambience a mile from the airport to which the charter flight cattle are bussed. It has no luggage trolleys (either side!) and the “management response” when you mention this at the Information desk is to make a tannoy announcement which they have pre-printed in 12 languages that “there is a shortage of trolleys for operational reasons.” Indeed.

The ambience of the airport does not convey La Dolce Vita. There are not even proper air-conditioned buildings. We are talking about just a collection of pre-war aircraft-hangers in the middle of the one of the most heavily populated, poorest areas of Naples. Rubbish, barbed-wire fences and concrete covered in graffiti. Passengers are shipped in and out on coaches with no logical system or thought. Staff seem either too busy to help or would rather help their fellow Italians on domestic flights. Even the short runway is so full of potholes and rubbish that the pilots have to use all their skill and experience to take-off and land safely. The whole airport needs to be demolished and re-built outside the city.

Proudly wearing our “We saw Naples Airport and didn’t die” badges we made our escape from this proud gateway, but in dread of the thought that we had to come back through it in another week.

This is the spin on the airport website which promises happiness in the future:

" GESAC, the Naples International Airport Management Company, is committed to an important programme of airport development. By December 2008, new infrastructure will be completed which will make Naples airport more functional, safe and efficient."

Dammed with their own faint praise then that the current set up is not particularly functional, safe or efficient. Time will tell but let me tell you - the current crew are part of the problem with their years of experience of managing chaos and failure. Don't just replace the buildings!!