Heathrow Terminal 5

I must admit I haven't followed the recent news stories concerning Heathrow, except for the news that all is not going smoothly *snigger* as usual...

Anyone have a news link with some information about Heathrow fiasco please?

John.

I guess it's more like MTDAAC (meet the deadline at all costs).

This is a fairly common occurrence. With Heathrow, it was just a matter of scale. Bigger size, bigger hickups.

I've been getting lots of doses of these lately. We're pushed to finish quickly, then when things go wrong during the start up, we're told, "you should plan more carefully".

Yeh, I've put contingency in a timescale for 'unforseen problems' before now... only to have that time take out.
When unforeen problems then occur I'm asked why I didn't forsee them...

_{But I did, that's why I put the contingency in...}

Hi Del,

Were you actually working on this?

There is an eternal disconnect between management and engineering - production is all-important for cash-flow. If "engineering" can't come up with a solution in x amount of time, then the temporary "fix" will have to be implemented. Production continues and the chief engineer leaves the company. Now you have equipment operating less than optimally, yea even damagingly. And management wonders why there are problems with the equipment!

Typical problems for today's engineer - I understand!

Mike

hiccups, rather...

Exactly, I've rated the thread: they had an airport which was working OK (well just about); it wasn't a matter of ramping up capacity slowly, but, transferring it slowly. I'm really pleased you posted this Del, I've made the same comment to friends and colleagues and been met with blank looks as though I'd committed some heresy.

Yeh..I just don't get it...it had all gone rather well.
All they had to do was slowly bring it upto speed and then have the official opening 6 months down the line. Or even round the other way...just don't try and go flat out from trick one .

Doubtless the engineers will get the blame and management will be showered with bonuses.

Still there is a serious question...was it a deliberate ploy? Does it somehow work out cheaper...any compensation they have to pay will be peanuts, and they presumably pull in revenue early....?
We need to ask the accountants...but we'd fall asleep before we got to the answer

This is a very interesting Thread.

I have always wondered if it is better to work for a company managed by an engineer or one managed by an MBA (or attorney)? I think of HP and Tektronix in their hey day as examples of very find places for an engineer to work, but recall Digital Equipment Corporation failed to follow new technology. Chrysler when managed by engineers was a great company ... since then it appears to be headed for oblivion.

Here is my challenge to the gurus in this thread: what kind of employment contract language would allow an engineer to assert engineering insight in a way that actually effects management decisions. Was this not the issue with the Challenger accident?

what kind of employment contract language would allow an engineer to assert engineering insight in a way that actually effects management decisions.

You don't need a contract...just balls.
I voted with my feet on the last job...you can kick me once, you may get to kick me twice...but I'm not going to stay for the third one.

The Challenger incident was classic....the engineers should simply have said 'No...if you want launch authorised then you authorise it....'
Ok I know it's easy for me to say that from my comfy chair.

Del

I voted with my feet on the last job...you can kick me once, you may get to kick me twice...but I'm not going to stay for the third one.

I did the same on my last job ... but the price society pays when an engineer who understand both the technology risk and opportunity departs (whether voluntarily or not) is often very high.

For example, how much federal money should be wasted on ethanol as a sound-bite solution to imported oil, rather than on viable short and long term solutions. As I see it, short term is coal and nuclear fission ... long term is nuclear fusion. We are not working coal or fusion as if we mean to make them happen.

And don't get me started on manmade global warming ...

I am with you all the way E-man! You get another 1 for good answer. Our chief accountant guy cannot even seem to differentiate between pounds and linear yards.

Accountants dictate where they buy my spare parts. Never mind if I need them tomorrow. If it takes three months to get them from a cheaper source, that's where they're going to get them.

Accountants dictate whether my request for additional manpower is approved or not (usually not). Never mind if I and my boys are working our tails off trying to keep up with the volume of work. Oh, and don't forget...no overtime allowed.

Accountants dictate when we can stop for a maintenance cycle. Never mind if the machines are breathing their last breaths. "Keep them running", is their motto.

I better stop, my blood pressure's rising.