DART fleet under capacity - the truth.

DerekP11

DART fleet under capacity - The truth
Date: 12th November 2006
From: Derek Wheeler, Communications and Media Officer, Platform 11.
Contact : (086) 3452651
Issued by: Platform 11. The National Rail Users Organisation.

On the 12th of November the Sunday Business Post ran a story in relation to the delay with refurbishing the original batch of DART units[1]. The information about the DART refurbishment project going "off the rails" was provided to this Newspaper by Platform 11. It would not be in the public domain unless we had made it available. While we respect a newspapers right to put any angle they choose on a story, we wish to distance ourselves from the way this particular story was reported. It is not representative of the story we provided to the Sunday Business Post. It does not credit Platform 11 with making the discovery and makes no mention of the inconvenience caused to thousands of DART passengers through weekend closures to refit stations to accommodate longer DART trains. Nor does it mention the fact that DART passengers are experiencing unnecessary overcrowding due to the delayed introduction of 8 coach DART trains. Furthermore Irish Rail has already been the subject of a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority[2] in relation to misleading advertising of longer DART trains. Irish Rail have made every effort to keep this story from the public. Their annual report makes absolutely no mention of it. Many questions remain unanswered. For example.

If Irish Rail is seeking damages, why are they continuing negotiations with Siemens? In fact why haven't legal proceedings been issued already?

Irish Rail knew of the problems in May 2005, when they suspended further shipments. Why did they not recall the already shipped units to Dublin so they could continue in service until a new tender could be issued?

The new Mk 4 trains are also experiencing problems. They arrived in the country in the summer of 2005 and still haven't been fully introduced to service. In fact the new 2007 timetable has been delayed due to the problems with these trains.

Irish Rail management like to blame somebody else for their own shortcomings. If it’s not the staff, it’s the unions. If it’s not the unions, it’s the Dept. of Transport or maybe the Dept. of Finance. This time its multi-national company, Siemens. Do they ever take responsibility for anything?

These two projects show that Irish Rail have no system for the supervision of some projects. They obviously have no control mechanisms in place and they obviously failed to carry out any interim reviews of these projects. While all of this corporate muscle flexing is taking place, loyal passengers are suffering and aren't even given the respect of being told the truth. All they get are promises and misleading advertising. This is not customer service and it’s about time Irish Rail ran the railway for its passengers and not for the benefit of themselves and their egos. It’s imperative that this story is portrayed in the context of the inconvenience to passengers. DART capacity is being affected now, not next January as Irish Rail claim.

Links:


1. Sunday Business Post article, http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=18797-qqqx=1.asp

2. ASAI ruling on 8 coach DART posters, http://www.asai.ie/complaint_view.asp?CID=100&BID=6

Further details including links to tendering information and a timeline of the project is available http://www.platform11.org/campaigns/whereismydart/

ENDS

Slice

If Irish Rail is seeking damages, why are they continuing negotiations with Siemens? In fact why haven't legal proceedings been issued already?

Presumably the terms of IE's contract with Siemens would outline what recourse IE would have in the situation where Siemens did not meet the deadlines set in the contract?? Would this not be agreed upon by both sides to avoid the very outcome being demanded where you have a national railway company like IE taking a German multinational to court?

lostexpectation

so where is the amazing new info?

enterprise

lostexpectation wrote:

so where is the amazing new info?

Indeed I have been wondering that myself.

Have to admit the press release did give me a small chuckle.

MarkoP11

Buried deeply in a public domain document of legal record with respect to the contract there is the following sentence

II.3) Duration of the contract or time period for execution: 24 month/s.

That 24 months expires December 10th 2006

Heaps of people knew there was a problem but no one had the evidence to make it stick that there was delay, of course there is document again in the public domain again of legal record which gives the date the contract was signed so IE had no way out but to admit they where caught.This is the first time this has been shown prior to this it was impossible to prove a delay

Irish Rail refused to give any statement on this matter and in fact denied there was a problem, in fact despite the serious risk to the business the contract represented it was not disclosed in the Annual Report 2005 which was published in May 2006.

That one line resulted in a statement and an admission that it had gone wrong, it also resulted in an admission that there would be a shortage of trains i.e passengers standing needlessly owing to the contract going wrong. Until yesterday no one actually knew what was going on

Its all fully detailed http://www.platform11.org/campaigns/whereismydart/

It doesn't matter who IE contract with it goes pear shaped either the whole rail industry is a mess or IE can't manage and supervise a contract, need I mention mini CTC....

Of course Siemens have just lost any chance of the 200 coach DART order currently out to tender as a result of this. The real truth about what is going on in Germany has yet to come out as the cover story doesn't stack up, since the cover story 4 months ago was different

lostexpectation

MarkoP11 wrote:

Buried deeply in a public domain document of legal record with respect to the contract there is the following sentence

Irish Rail refused to give any statement on this matter and in fact denied there was a problem, in fact despite the serious risk to the business the contract represented it was not disclosed in the Annual Report 2005 which was published in May 2006.

That one line resulted in a statement and an admission that it had gone wrong, it also resulted in an admission that there would be a shortage of trains i.e passengers standing needlessly owing to the contract going wrong. Until yesterday no one actually knew what was going on

wheres is that statement? please ta.

I dunno I thought you guys had PR figured out, trains delayed. press release trains still delayed, ie no new story...

popebenny16

Have to admit the press release did give me a small chuckle.

I'm sure it did. Nice to see the usual suspects are all on this thread, by the way.

I dunno I thought you guys had PR figured out, trains delayed. press release trains still delayed, ie no new story...

The story is the fact that those who endured no DART at the weekend will have to wait an eternity for the benifit of that work to come to fruition, and that benifit was supposed to be in December this year.

The story is that as well as this IE have made a hash of the new Dublin Cork fleet, €117million of carraiges that dont suit the track

The story is that there is a new intercity fleet due in next Spring and supposed to go live for the December 2007 timetable. After the above that will not happen.

The story is about lack of foresight, planning, the total absence of a contingecy plan on behalf of IE.

The story isnt that IE are considering their options with Siemens but the fact that without P11 you wouldnt know anything about it in the first place.

Of course we wait for the day that you and Enterprise and the like actually start doing something about the state of the Rail Network as opposed to simply playing hurler on the ditch here as is usual.

MarkoP11

You can read most of what IE said http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=18797-qqqx=1.asp

Before yesterday the vast majority of the public where not aware of this problem, they are now. There are a number of options open to IE to dramatically speed things up and these options have been present since the contract started, pressure is on IE to get there house in order. IE buried this, hid it from reports and statements, fact is they got caught since someone bothered to research the problem

Facts are simple the third batch of coaches (8 in total) left April 24th 2005, the first coach (from batch 1) was due back sometime in May 2005, how on earth someone had not copped that there was no chance of that deadline being made on April 24th is beyond me, afterall Platfrom 11 can show that Siemens had not signed contracts with a CCTV supplier until August 2005 that would have kind of been noticeable if IE had being paying attention, someone in IE should have noticed that the coaches where not in Prague as originally planned. Clearly IE dropped the ball, its called project management and this stinks just like mini CTC did, everyone running for cover

My fare goes to IE, who gives a monkey about Siemens, IE promised 8 coach DART service from December 2006 its not happening, IE's problem

OTK

Platform 11 does a lot of good stuff but...

The press release is unclear and overlong. Much of it seems like a petulant attack on the journalist you spoke too. The title implies that the newspaper story was a lie. The journalist does not have to use your angle or print anything you give him. Nor does he have to credit you unless you have a prior agreement to do so. An uncredited story may in fact carry more weight than something that looks like a republished press release from a pressure group. He and others may be less likely to use you as a source in future.

I doubt any news source will print this press release. Why would they when you might issue a follow-up release to attack them?

You could just have said that IE was meant to refurbish some trains and is now trying to blame their sub-contractor for delays when the responsibility for service provision remains with them.

DerekP11

The press release is unclear and overlong.

Its very clear and Ive seen longer press releases about less.

Much of it seems like a petulant attack on the journalist you spoke too. The title implies that the newspaper story was a lie. The journalist does not have to use your angle or print anything you give him.

I disagree. We have stated that the paper is entitled to put any angle they want to the story.

Nor does he have to credit you unless you have a prior agreement to do so.

That's confidential, so I can't confirm or deny.

An uncredited story may in fact carry more weight than something that looks like a republished press release from a pressure group.

But an article that reads like a press release from Irish Rail is more appropriate?

He and others may be less likely to use you as a source in future.

The information we provided was factual and correct. However Platform 11 is not precluded from disagreeing with the angle taken and then presenting all aspects of the story, right down to the affect on passengers. Hence the use of the word truth in the title of the press release. Once again, I remind you that the information we are presenting, including our own press release is all factual, correct and verifiable.

I doubt any news source will print this press release. Why would they when you might issue a follow-up release to attack them?

We'll just have to wait and see. We did not "attack" the Sunday Bussiness Post. We disagreed with their presentation of a story we provided to them. In a democratic society, we are entitled to do that.

You could just have said that IE was meant to refurbish some trains and is now trying to blame their sub-contractor for delays when the responsibility for service provision remains with them.

That aspect of it is referenced in our press release.

While all of this corporate muscle flexing is taking place, loyal passengers are suffering and aren't even given the respect of being told the truth. All they get are promises and misleading advertising. This is not customer service and it’s about time Irish Rail ran the railway for its passengers and not for the benefit of themselves and their egos.

Irish Rail knew of the problems in May 2005, when they suspended further shipments. Why did they not recall the already shipped units to Dublin so they could continue in service until a new tender could be issued?

Irish Rail management like to blame somebody else for their own shortcomings. If it’s not the staff, it’s the unions. If it’s not the unions, it’s the Dept. of Transport or maybe the Dept. of Finance. This time its multi-national company, Siemens. Do they ever take responsibility for anything?

We make no apology for the tone of this press release and we will continue to highlight the importance of this issue and its impact on DART passengers.

DerekP11

lostexpectation wrote:

wheres is that statement? please ta.

I dunno I thought you guys had PR figured out, trains delayed. press release trains still delayed, ie no new story...

I'll be as polite as possible.

Which part of all this are you having difficulty understanding? Until yesterday, DART passengers had no idea why there were so few 8 coach trains. Today, due to Platform 11, they have a reason and a resource with all the detail they need. Despite the fact that we are unhappy that the passenger angle was not represented in the newspaper, we are of couse satisfied that the story itself is in the public domain.

If you use the DART on a daily basis you will appreciate the disruption that commuters endured to make the network ready for 8 coach trains. Only a small proportion of these longer trains are running, because the fleet is short up to 20 coaches and will continue to be short until this overdue refurbishment is completed. Platform 11 didn't complain when the first batch of coaches were sent away. We understood completely that this was necessary. However, we are perfectly correct to make a fuss now that the project has gone astray and its passengers who suffer.

DerekP11

enterprise wrote:

Indeed I have been wondering that myself.

Have to admit the press release did give me a small chuckle.

Who in Platform 11 said anything about "amazing new info"???? The story itself is new info as Ive outlined elsewhere is this thread.

shamwari

OTK wrote:

He and others may be less likely to use you as a source in future.

Yup. And turning on the SBP hack who ran this story in the first place is gonna win you no friends I'm afriad...

aliveandkicking

OTK wrote:

He and others may be less likely to use you as a source in future.

More like P11 will be less likely to provide the SBP with any exclusive stories in the future.

DerekP11

shamwari wrote:

Yup. And turning on the SBP hack who ran this story in the first place is gonna win you no friends I'm afriad...

There are no friends in this business as the SBP chose to demonstrate. We move on and deal with it. Next story, next paper. Ultimately they all rely on stories. At least the story is now out there. What a pity the discussion here is not focused on the content of the story. I thought it was a commuting and transport forum.

DerekP11

aliveandkicking wrote:

More like P11 will be less likely to provide the SBP with any exclusive stories in the future.

All's fair in love and war and that's a real possibility. Once bitten, twice shy and all that jazz.:)

Thanks for the support.

Slice

The angle P11 wanted probably would have been taken up by a tabloid paper but less so the Sunday Business Post. In fact for political leverage it probably should have been leaked to the Northside People as it's local papers like that where public opinion is really shaped and what politicians pay attention to.

wwhyte

Hi Derek,

I'm afraid I have to agree with other posters who've said that the press release isn't clear. The core of the story is that DART passengers are experiencing unnecessary overcrowding due to the delayed introduction of 8 coach trains. That should have been front and center. Inside baseball complaints about the way other people have chosen to cover the story won't interest anyone.

The story on http://www.platform11.org/campaigns/whereismydart/ is excellent -- well organized and hits all the main points up front. Have you put a press release out based on this story? That press release would get attention. This one reads like a letter to the SBP editor.

wwhyte

DerekP11 wrote:

I'll be as polite as possible.

Which part of all this are you having difficulty understanding?

You know, as a PR guy, when people say they don't understand things you should probably take that as useful feedback on your output rather than snarking at them. Just sayin'.

SeanW

Slice wrote:

The angle P11 wanted probably would have been taken up by a tabloid paper but less so the Sunday Business Post. In fact for political leverage it probably should have been leaked to the Northside People as it's local papers like that where public opinion is really shaped and what politicians pay attention to.

The article holds Irish Rail as blameless, when that clearly is not true: yes Siemens screwed up, but Irish Rail was supposed to be watching. They should have had oversight of the project, found out what the heck was going on, and pulled back into service any carraiges that were not being worked on. They didn't do that. AFAIK IE also played dirty initially by sending cannibalised out-of-service DARTs to Siemens which probably didn't help matters.

This story was not even befitting a tabloid who would at least have said a few nasty things about IE to score cheap points. This article reads like an IE press release, as sadly do many articles dealing with rail. Platform 11 is fully right to try to clarify what happened.

lostexpectation

DerekP11 wrote:

I'll be as polite as possible.
Platform 11 didn't complain when the first batch of coaches were sent away. We understood completely that this was necessary. However, we are perfectly correct to make a fuss now that the project has gone astray and its passengers who suffer.

apols for being quite so sharp in my post, I didn't click on to the sbp story to read a paragraph that wasn't quoted in you press release... still again you seem to have undermined yourself by putting out press release about the spb rather then the irish rail.

keep up the good work

DerekP11

wwhyte wrote:

Hi Derek,

I'm afraid I have to agree with other posters who've said that the press release isn't clear. The core of the story is that DART passengers are experiencing unnecessary overcrowding due to the delayed introduction of 8 coach trains. That should have been front and center. Inside baseball complaints about the way other people have chosen to cover the story won't interest anyone.

The story on http://www.platform11.org/campaigns/whereismydart/ is excellent -- well organized and hits all the main points up front. Have you put a press release out based on this story? That press release would get attention. This one reads like a letter to the SBP editor.

That link to the reference material is included in the press release.

DerekP11

wwhyte wrote:

You know, as a PR guy, when people say they don't understand things you should probably take that as useful feedback on your output rather than snarking at them. Just sayin'.

I do.

My final input to this aspect of the debate, is to say that I am disappointed by how some of this threads early posts have encouraged a scenario whereby the DART story has been ignored.

The press release was posted in good faith so board members could debate the story it was telling. That has failed to materialise.

enterprise

SeanW wrote:

The article holds Irish Rail as blameless, when that clearly is not true: yes Siemens screwed up, but Irish Rail was supposed to be watching. They should have had oversight of the project, found out what the heck was going on, and pulled back into service any carraiges that were not being worked on. They didn't do that. AFAIK IE also played dirty initially by sending cannibalised out-of-service DARTs to Siemens which probably didn't help matters.

This story was not even befitting a tabloid who would at least have said a few nasty things about IE to score cheap points. This article reads like an IE press release, as sadly do many articles dealing with rail. Platform 11 is fully right to try to clarify what happened.

C'mon now.

Do you really expect IE to hold on to their "cannibalised out-of-service DART" and send perfectly good ones to Siemens while the cannibalised unit gathers dust in Fairview. If that is the case just when is IE supposed to send its "cannibalised out-of-service DART" to Siemens for refurbishment?

I think it would be fairly commom practice to send long out of service units away for repair first. Wouldn't you?

Finally I’m sure IE were, and are watching with great interest. I would think it scandalous if they weren't. However maybe that’s just naive me?

At the end of the day I think P11 should have clarified the facts of the story in "the truth" press release instead of having a cheap rant at the SBP which is the feeling I get from the press release.

ENTERPRISE

Ken Griffin

DerekP11 wrote:

There are no friends in this business as the SBP chose to demonstrate.

This has been dragging on for a bit, hasn't it? I'm the journalist who wrote the SBP story. I was only alerted to this thread yesterday. I'm posting here in a personal capacity.

The SBP is not anti-P11 or pro-Irish Rail. There was P11 material in the story [about the affect on commuters etc] but it had to be cut at the last minute due to space restrictions. If there hadn't been a squeeze on space on that page, it would have gone in.

markpb

The problem with the story, as far as I can see, is that you left out so much that it sounded like Siemens were entirely to blame and IR were just innocent bystanders.

The real problem for commuters (as I see it), is that IR didn't manage the project, didn't take any steps to solve the problem and didn't let anyone know the reason the Dart is still overcrowded was because of Siemens. After reading your article, most commuters will still blame Siemens.

Victor

Slice wrote:

The angle P11 wanted probably would have been taken up by a tabloid paper but less so the Sunday Business Post.

Now if it was a "Luas trams delayed" story, the SBP would be all over it like chocolate on a three year old. (not pointed at you Ken , Welcome)

Ken Griffin

markpb wrote:

The problem with the story, as far as I can see, is that you left out so much that it sounded like Siemens were entirely to blame and IR were just innocent bystanders.

I don't wish to get involved too much more in the debate but I can say Siemens refused to comment which limited what could be written.

Navan Junction

In fairness, Ken wrote a very good piece on the railway campaigns around the country recently.

IÉ have in all probability gotten off the hook with this one, but at least maybe the next refurb will be better managed next time around.

From Platform 11's perpective it must be frustrating to chase down the details and not gain satisfaction from the end result.

But if an Ed cuts something, what can you do?

markpb

Ken Griffin wrote:

I don't wish to get involved too much more in the debate but I can say Siemens refused to comment which limited what could be written.

I think you're still missing the point somewhat. Sure, Siemens messed up and they don't want to talk about it so you can't write about that.

But the real problem for commuters is that Irish Rail messed up even more, lied about messing up and then pretended there was nothing wrong and they were running 8 unit darts when they patently weren't.

That's the story P11 wanted made public, not a b2b contract breakdown that, in reality, no-one cares about.

Like NJ said, you can't control your editor

Slice

I still think the angle of the P11 story is quite sensationally put though. Less guff has been made about a whole lot worse when it comes to transport, planning and the mismanagement of public sector contracts.

strassenwolf

DerekP11 wrote:

The press release was posted in good faith so board members could debate the story it was telling. That has failed to materialise.

A very good point, and fair dues to P11 for the work they have done on this. It is a pity that this thread appears to be about the articles in the SBP, the information provided by P11 to them and the subsequent press release from P11, rather than the actual issue of introduction of large numbers of 8-carriage trains, or indeed more trains

The amount of inconvenience that was caused to passengers during the process of lengthening the platforms was significant. If we had known that the arrival of a significant number of 8-carriage trains (rather than the rather small amount at present) was going to be more distant, more consideration might have been given to carrying out this work at night, or on a more staggered basis than we in fact had.

It might also have been possible to take a more detailed look at issues pertaining to increasing the platform lengths at certain stations.

Seapoint, for example, where significant sections of the platforms are narrower than would normally be permitted. Blackrock, where improvements to the path between the station and Blackrock Park might have been doable and advantageous. Or Sandymount, where the width of the path along the track was significantly narrowed, and where works that IE undertook to do as part of the project have still not been addressed.

There was a lot of inconvenience to passengers during the project, but the belief was there that it would speed up the introduction of a much improved service.

It is very disappointing that this aspect of the work, i.e., the carriage issue, has not been properly managed.

OTK

DerekP11 wrote:

...I am disappointed by how some of this threads early posts have encouraged a scenario whereby the DART story has been ignored.

Presumably you still don't accept that the structure of your press release led to the DART story being ignored.

You don't seem to welcome criticism but hey that's not going to stop me supplying unwanted advice as I share the goals of your organisation.

Of course I may be completely mistaken and deeply stupid so you can stop reading now if you like.

The title:

DART fleet under capacity - the truth.

Not bad.
'DART fleet under capacity' might not mean much to the average reader not familiar with the use of the word capacity in relation to transport planning. It's a bit technical. What about 'No end to overcrowding for DART passengers.'? This makes a statement about the effect on the reader.
Adding '- the truth' is good, it makes the reader curious to read on and discover what was untrue.

On the 12th of November the Sunday Business Post ran a story in relation to the delay with refurbishing the original batch of DART units[1]. The information about the DART refurbishment project going "off the rails" was provided to this Newspaper by Platform 11. It would not be in the public domain unless we had made it available. While we respect a newspapers right to put any angle they choose on a story, we wish to distance ourselves from the way this particular story was reported. It is not representative of the story we provided to the Sunday Business Post.

So now the vital first paragraph that determines whether anyone will read on. Is this going to provoke a reaction in the readers? Is there some specific piece of verifiable news in here?
Well no and no. There are about 9 people on earth who care about Platform 11's relationship with the sunday business post.


the rest:

It does not credit Platform 11 with making the discovery and makes no mention of the inconvenience caused to thousands of DART passengers through weekend closures to refit stations to accommodate longer DART trains. Nor does it mention the fact that DART passengers are experiencing unnecessary overcrowding due to the delayed introduction of 8 coach DART trains. Furthermore Irish Rail has already been the subject of a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority[2] in relation to misleading advertising of longer DART trains. Irish Rail have made every effort to keep this story from the public. Their annual report makes absolutely no mention of it. Many questions remain unanswered. For example.

If Irish Rail is seeking damages, why are they continuing negotiations with Siemens? In fact why haven't legal proceedings been issued already?

Irish Rail knew of the problems in May 2005, when they suspended further shipments. Why did they not recall the already shipped units to Dublin so they could continue in service until a new tender could be issued?

The new Mk 4 trains are also experiencing problems. They arrived in the country in the summer of 2005 and still haven't been fully introduced to service. In fact the new 2007 timetable has been delayed due to the problems with these trains.

Irish Rail management like to blame somebody else for their own shortcomings. If it’s not the staff, it’s the unions. If it’s not the unions, it’s the Dept. of Transport or maybe the Dept. of Finance. This time its multi-national company, Siemens. Do they ever take responsibility for anything?

These two projects show that Irish Rail have no system for the supervision of some projects. They obviously have no control mechanisms in place and they obviously failed to carry out any interim reviews of these projects. While all of this corporate muscle flexing is taking place, loyal passengers are suffering and aren't even given the respect of being told the truth. All they get are promises and misleading advertising. This is not customer service and it’s about time Irish Rail ran the railway for its passengers and not for the benefit of themselves and their egos. It’s imperative that this story is portrayed in the context of the inconvenience to passengers. DART capacity is being affected now, not next January as Irish Rail claim.

Only the bold bits are of interest to the average reader/passenger who might be encouraged by a strong lead in to read the reasons why there is a problem.

Although the press release has plenty of text it is short of information about the effects on customers. What are they? How long extra wil they have to wait for a place on the train? When were they promised the extra carriages? How much of the tax payers money did they spend and then fail to deliver?

popebenny16

OTK wrote:

Although the press release has plenty of text it is short of information about the effects on customers. What are they? How long extra wil they have to wait for a place on the train? When were they promised the extra carriages? How much of the tax payers money did they spend and then fail to deliver?

It's in the link.

wwhyte

DerekP11 wrote:

My final input to this aspect of the debate, is to say that I am disappointed by how some of this threads early posts have encouraged a scenario whereby the DART story has been ignored.

The press release was posted in good faith so board members could debate the story it was telling. That has failed to materialise.

Derek, it's your job to shape the press release so as to shape the discussion. If I were you I'd consider putting out a follow-up press release that focussed more on the DART and less on the SBP angle. I'm completely in agreement with OTK's comments here: this is an important story, but if you want the press to pay attention you need to focus on the important bits.

popebenny: I know the details are at the link, but journalists don't always read the link.

popebenny16

There are about 9 people on earth who care about Platform 11's relationship with the sunday business post.

but journalists don't always read the link.

Well, that's true, but I think that when you have worked on something for so long, and then you find what is, as was said above, a piece that read solely like it was printed by the IE PR department it can lead to our trying very hard to put the matter straight, from our perspective.

Dont forget that we were flagging this issue (perhaps in hindsight maybe not a good idea, I dunno, but I didnt object to it being done at the time so I bear as much responsibility for that as Derek) from a long time out, and we had a legitimate expectation that as it was ourselves to came up with the story that the story we came to the SBP with was the one that would run. Even a one-liner of a mention in relation to P11 would have changed the tone of the piece. Instead it was a totally different story. The one we were expecting to see is the one that several posters are mentioning here as being obscured ie the effect on the passengers of this fiasco.

Anyway, whats done is done, time to move on. I'm sure there'll be more things for us to worry about in the future.

wwhyte

popebenny16 wrote:

Anyway, whats done is done, time to move on. I'm sure there'll be more things for us to worry about in the future.

Agreed. I'll shut up now.