You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Civil Aviation

The Never Ending BER Thread

All about Airlines and Airliners.
 

bhmbaglock 19 May 12, 09:08Post
Nosedive wrote:
Zak wrote:
Thorben wrote:Airlines will have to live with it. Delays in such a big project are not un-common, that's why companies have risk-management divisions.

Delays are not uncommon, indeed. What is uncommon, however, is annoucning a delay of 9 months, 3 weeks prior to the planned opening. They need almost another year to finish the damn thing, and notice that only when the first aircraft are already on approach?

During my trip to Asia this week, I was mocked by quite a few people about this. Comments ranged from "did you hire Nigerian project planners?" to "you should have had the Turks build the airport, then it would be ready by now". All coming from Asians who have studied in Germany, most of them Berlin.

And airlines will certainly not just have to live with it. They had valid contracts with the airport operators, that now have not been met by the latter. They will make them pay for that. Which wouldn't be so bad, if it wouldn't once again be the tax payer who has to pay the bill.

And Wowereit keeps talking while saying nothing at all.



Pfft.... Stop trying to out Denver, Denver
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/03/us/de ... itely.html


No way will they screw up the baggage system as badly. I'll bet they don't need thousands of buckets to catch the rain leaks either shortly after opening. I flew to DEN within a week of opening and it was a disaster. Never mind the fact that it was ten years after opening(more or less) before they had proper roads to the airport for those traveling to points west and/or north of the airport.
Thorben 19 May 12, 09:56Post
The information management has been extremely bad. I agree about Wowi- he is not fit for this job. Platzeck the same in my opinion. People in Asia can say what they want, with the damage you have the laughter, as we say in Germany. People bring up Denver here, I also remember T5 at LHR. It's not that all those outside Berlin are working perfectly.

I wonder how it effects the major airlines individually.

U2 probably doesn't have much trouble, they are big at SXF and they can keep using it for their already large route net.

AB has been screaming the loudest, but there was also a lot of talk about "image damage". But they were not going to do so much more at BER than they already do at TXL, so it is not as comfortable for the pax, but they still can do the majority of their plans.

LH will probably suffer the most. I don't seen how they can have all the flights they want to have at BER at TXL. They were to an extent also aiming at connecting pax, and TXL is not a connection airport, at least in the main terminal, which LH uses.

What will TP do? They wanted to start serving Berlin once BER is open. Will they use TXL? They are in the Star Alliance, so LH etc. could make it possible for them, although LH etc. do not have enough room for themselves if they do everything intended.

Compensation claims? I hope Berlin has made good contracts with the airlines. The airport should be the one making the conditions here, so I hope it will not end up with the taxpayers paying for inept politicians.
I demand a fifth Emirates (EK) destination in Germany: Berlin, coolest and biggest city.
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 21 May 12, 19:07Post
There are rumors - from the German Financial Times no less - that the new opening date of 17 March 2013 may not be realistic, either.

Several construction companies involved in the project said this ready date could only be reached if a reliable project plan would be available until latest mid of June.

Seeing how half of the project management has just been fired, some doubts about this seem in order.

The main reason for the recent cancellation of the planned opening was the lack of a security concept, as required by authorities to issue the operating license. As experts from the certifying company had pointed out, the fire and security measures had not just failed the tests - there actually was nothing they could have tested in first place. The documentation simply did not exist.
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
cornish (Certified Expert - Aviation Economics & Founding Member) 21 May 12, 19:15Post
I'm guessing the legacy of the Dusseldorf Airport disaster means that the issue of fire protection is a particularly important one to German authorities. It should be important anywhere, but probably more emotive here than anywhere.

Right now the Berlin Airport story is big news across the airport construction industry. Especially if the March 17th new opening date isn't even realistic.
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 21 May 12, 19:25Post
cornish wrote:I'm guessing the legacy of the Dusseldorf Airport disaster means that the issue of fire protection is a particularly important one to German authorities. It should be important anywhere, but probably more emotive here than anywhere.

You are certainly right, this is being taken very seriously here. But if it is true what I read - that there was no real fire safety concept at all, and that the installations would have required essential measures to be activated manually in case of a fire - I really hope that this would have led to a rejection of the operating license anywhere.

cornish wrote:Right now the Berlin Airport story is big news across the airport construction industry. Especially if the March 17th new opening date isn't even realistic.

What's the common opinion on the whole story?
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 21 May 12, 19:29Post
cornish wrote:I'm guessing the legacy of the Dusseldorf Airport disaster means that the issue of fire protection is a particularly important one to German authorities. It should be important anywhere, but probably more emotive here than anywhere.

Right now the Berlin Airport story is big news across the airport construction industry. Especially if the March 17th new opening date isn't even realistic.

Can you give me a little more technical explanation as to what is the actual problem out there.

FYI, where I work we do mechanical, plumbing, electrical and fire sprinkler engineering, and I've been talking to our resident expert in fire protection to get an idea of what may have happened.
Zak wrote:As experts from the certifying company had pointed out, the fire and security measures had not just failed the tests - there actually was nothing they could have tested in first place

{boxed} {boxed} {boxed}

Our fire sprinkler man first asked if they had actually forgotten to install a system, because often fire protection and sprinklers are 'missed' during the design and construction process... {bugeye} {bugeye} {bugeye}
Zak wrote:that there was no real fire safety concept at all, and that the installations would have required essential measures to be activated manually in case of a fire

The fire fans do actually require some form of manual control.
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
cornish (Certified Expert - Aviation Economics & Founding Member) 22 May 12, 08:09Post
AndesSMF wrote:Can you give me a little more technical explanation as to what is the actual problem out there.


I wish i could directly, but I'm no technical expert in the field of systems and facility requirements. I will however ask one of my engineering colleagues who specialise in airport construction monitoring to see if they can explain the problem exactly.

Zak wrote:What's the common opinion on the whole story?


In simple terms the main view is it is a complete and utter project management failure. For such an issue to be brought to light so late in the build, so close to opening is pretty unforgiveable. And particularly in a western country where health & safety and security issues are paramount.

Its one thing to have not tested something enough prior to opening (i.e. LHR baggage systems - blame the management for that one), but this just looks like people who should have been thoroughly checking all aspects of the build, throughout the build, have not done, or not been competent in doing their jobs.
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 21 Jun 12, 08:18Post
Bump. The buildings department of Dahme-Spreewald county (where BER airport is located) does not expect the airport to be operational by 17 March 2013.

According to a department official, the shortcomings that led to the recent delay have not been addressed sufficiently so far. Thus, the department has its doubts that an opening in March 2013 would be realistic.

Meanwhile, also Deutsche Bahn (German railways) are demanding compensation from the airport operator. A total 500 companies and corporations have filed compensation claims so far, the biggest single claim being €45m.

Source (German only): http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/flu ... 40055.html
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 21 Jun 12, 08:33Post
This can IMHO only mean that an important system was forgotten and not installed. It has happened more than once before in this world.
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
MD11Engineer 21 Jun 12, 16:17Post
According to this week´s Spiegel magazine, the airport company is almost broke and will probably need a massive injection of public money (ha ha, Berlin is broke as well!) to get bthe project finished.

Jan
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 21 Jun 12, 16:20Post
LH Cargo were complaining about not getting an extra runway, and their pax don't need a terminal... sounds tailor-made :))
My friend and I applied for airline jobs in Australia, but they didn't Qantas.
Click Click D'oh (Photo Quality Screener & Founding Member) 21 Jun 12, 17:33Post
Zak wrote:The main reason for the recent cancellation of the planned opening was the lack of a security concept, as required by authorities to issue the operating license.


Hmmm... It's been a while since I've been to Germany...
We sleep peacefully in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf
Fumanchewd 05 Aug 12, 02:02Post
There are a couple of Berlin threads, this one seems as good as the next for an interesting Der Spiegel article. I remember the issues that delayed DEN when it opened, but that seemed to be more of large technical error rather than an issue with macro-design and project management...Looks like it won't be for another year, Mid 2013.


It was the first good news in months. Last Tuesday, specialists performed what's known as a "hot gas smoke test" on the fire safety system at Berlin's new airport, finally giving the facility's operating company something positive to report. "Initial results show a successful exercise," the company' press office was quick to report, explaining that "despite a simulated power failure," smoke created in a controlled fire "escaped the building safely."

For a moment it seemed there was a glimmer of hope for Berlin-Brandenburg Airport. After all, since the scheduled opening date was pushed back by nine months in May, it has been generating nothing but negative headlines. Embarrassing setbacks have been plentiful.

The favorable test, though, would seem not to have turned things around. Even as the smoke was escaping from the terminal into the Berlin sky as planned, dark storm clouds were gathering elsewhere around the multi-billion euro project, plagued as it has been by sloppy planning and construction delays. Furthermore, the project faces potential damages claims worth at least €80 million ($98 million). Lawyers around Germany are currently poring over a complaint the airport operator filed against architectural firm gmp in mid-June at the regional court in Potsdam, capital of the state of Brandenburg where the airport is located.

The myriad documents on the case, which together fill a good half dozen binders, read like a recipe for disaster. They suggest that by the spring of 2009, airport officials were aware of significant problems, including the fire safety issues which ultimately ended up forcing the opening date back to next spring. The documents also detail notifications of defects filed by the airport operator. These should have served early on to raise a red flag for the project's supervisory board, which includes Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit and Brandenburg Governor Matthias Platzeck -- assuming the board was aware of the notifications at all.

'Barely Manageable'

If these documents are to be believed, the planning phase for the airport saw far too much emphasis on architectural design and too little on functionality. Particularly the terminal security and automated systems that are at the heart of this prestigious project are said to have suffered from this reversal of priorities, according to the complaint, which describes an "unnecessarily complex" concept designed according to "purely visual considerations," which proved to be "barely manageable" in its implementation.

All together, the complaint amounts to well over 1,000 pages and helps reconstruct the scandal around the airport whose true opening date it seems no one can predict. The internal documents, which include correspondence between the architects and the airport operator, as well as various records, contracts and expert reports, offer illuminating pieces of a puzzle that add up to a megalomaniac picture. They document the way the public was misled, and they tarnish the image of an icon in the world of architecture, Meinhard von Gerkan, who has contracts around the globe, but whose employees apparently weren't capable of applying the same diligence to technical details as they did to the artistic aspects of their design.

This tale of hubris and failure began in 2009. That was three years after Germany's Federal Administrative Court approved construction of a new airport for the German capital, to be named after Willy Brandt, and one year before Mayor Wowereit oversaw the topping-out ceremony. The airport's operating company, which includes representation from the city-state of Berlin, the state of Brandenburg and the federal government, hired Gerkan's renowned architectural firm gmp, which in turn enlisted Frankfurt-based architectural firm JSK to oversee commercial aspects and a mid-sized engineering firm to take care of complex technical solutions. Together, these companies formed a general contractor known as the Berlin-Brandenburg International Planning Consortium, or "pg bbi," and initially set the airport's opening date for October 30, 2011.

It was an ambitious timeline, and one that would soon prove misguided. In June 2010, Wowereit and airport director Rainer Schwarz announced the opening date would be pushed back by seven months, to early June 2012. At the time, they cited the EU's stricter safety standards as the cause for the delay, with the unexpected bankruptcy of the engineering firm in the consortium causing additional upheaval.

Significant Errors

But neither Wowereit nor Schwarz mentioned the most crucial reason. Schwarz already knew then that the contractor's plans for installing building and safety technology, including terminal fire safety systems, were so faulty that construction was massively behind schedule. In its complaint now filed in Potsdam, the airport operator clearly outlines what it concealed at the time: "The postponement of the completion date was without a doubt necessary due to planning deficiencies concerning installation of the building's technical systems."

As early as the spring of 2009, construction companies hired for the project complained of significant errors in the drawings and calculations provided by pg bbi, which they said made on-time completion of the project impossible. An external expert opinion that these construction companies presented to the airport operator on September 30, 2009, supported their case against the architects, but left airport management unimpressed. Instead of pressuring gmp and its associates to make improvements, the airport operator commissioned an external expert opinion of its own -- which "unfortunately reached the same conclusion," according to the complaint now submitted against the architects.

The airport operator's construction specialists began to have doubts about whether Gerkan's company was the right choice for the job. According to the complaint, they even considered terminating pg bbi's contract, but ultimately dropped the idea after "a difficult decision process." Instead, the airport operator made an unusual pact with the planning consortium in November 2010. A "memorandum of understanding" established that the airport operator was "entitled to file claims for compensation for improperly executed planning services," but that it would refrain from asserting such rights "as long as pg bbi makes an effort to complete the project by the contractually established deadline."

Yet even a few weeks later, pg bbi didn't seem to be making all that much of an effort. By the end of the year, work on the airport's safety systems was 15 months behind schedule. Pressure put on the construction companies and additional costs of €20 million succeeded in reducing that delay to 11 months, but it was still clear the new opening deadline would be impossible to meet.

'Impossible to Control'

Gerkan's architects frequently revised their drawings and their calculations for implementing the project, but this had only a limited effect, since they reportedly made new mistakes frequently as well, for example drawing in cable shafts where pipelines were meant to be, failing to indicate precisely where fire dampers should be installed, or even forgetting some fire detectors completely in their blueprints. One inspector noted 2,800 such discrepancies, adding that three quarters of these could be traced back to poor planning -- and that some could have serious consequences.

On January 26, 2011, according to an internal timeline from the airport operator, it became known that "the sprinkler system technology in some parts of the airport wouldn't be operable until sometime between September and December."

In April 2011, the building regulatory authority, known as the BOA, stepped in, expressing considerable concerns. A confidential status report notes that, with a trial operational run scheduled for that November, government inspectors stated: "If the current approach does not change, the project will become impossible to control."

In November, when the trial run should already have been underway, the BOA's concerns apparently escalated into a considerable quarrel with the architects. An internal memo indicates that the airport operator's inspectors were requested to "provide the BOA with obligatory statements at 14-day intervals concerning the status of the facility's safety technology."

Construction inspectors from the administration of the Dahme-Spreewald region, where the airport is located, were not the only ones sounding the alarm at this point. Electronics company Bosch, tasked with installing the airport's safety technology, sent the airport operator repeated complaints of delays, with Bosch's technicians complaining that they were constantly having to break off their work. In November 2011, for example, the technicians reported they were unable to complete the installation of video cameras in the ceiling of one area of the terminal, because when the ceiling was designed, the architects had not taken into account the depth at which the cameras would need to be anchored. Another written complaint from Bosch to the airport operator stated that the company was likewise unable to install surveillance technology in the stairwells, because "access panels are located where the cameras are to be installed."

Problems with the Matrix

As the installation of the airport's security systems and general building technology, including the complex fire safety system, faltered, the supervisory board continued to operate under feigned or true ignorance. Minutes from a supervisory board meeting on December 9, 2011, certainly give the impression that these serious complications came as a surprise the board. The manager in charge of planning and construction, for example, mentions "problems that have recently arisen in the area of fire safety," continuing on to note that important smoke exhaust flaps had been obstructed without the permission of the supervising authorities, and that an additional permit would be necessary in order for the airport to begin operations on time.

The minutes do indicate that Wowereit, as chairman of the board, criticized these issues being "identified so belatedly." But the airport's technical director at the time, Manfred Körtgen, offered his reassurance that "the start date of June 3, 2012, remains realistic."

In hindsight, of course, it seems that only breathtaking naiveté could possibly explain such an assessment on the part of the technical director, who has since been fired. Soon, though, hiding problems at the airport construction site was no longer possible.

In spring 2012, according to a statement later written by the airport operator, "considerable shortcomings in the fire safety design emerged." The original plan for the highly complex system's controls to be fully automated "had to be abandoned." Contractor pg bbi proposed having various tasks performed by hand instead. But according to the statement, even with this "reduced concept" there would have been "extensive problems due to delayed planning," especially in the "fire control matrix and overarching fire safety coordination" designed by pg bbi, and the proposed solution would not have met approval.

The term "fire control matrix" refers to a detailed design meant to provide individual solutions to 310 possible fire scenarios. The statement continues on to say that pg bbi handed this matrix over to an external company, which only resulted in more time lost: The outsourcing failed allegedly due to poor planning.

Postponed

On May 4, 2012, with just a few weeks left before the airport was scheduled to go into operation, the companies working on the project began to rebel against pg bbi. Internal airport documents indicate that technicians had "serious complaints about the fire control matrices." Airport director Schwarz later wrote to pg bbi: "On May 4, you had to admit that it would no longer be possible, following your plans, to complete the necessary tests by the planned start of operations."

It must have been clear to Schwarz by that Friday at the latest that it wouldn't be possible to meet the planned start date. Yet two days later, the Berliner Morgenpost ran an optimistic interview with the airport director. No, Schwarz told the newspaper, he wasn't losing sleep over the imminent opening of the airport; all work necessary to prepare the airport for passengers and air traffic would be finished on time.

Those are embarrassing statements in retrospect, since the entire project made its crash landing just two days later. On May 8, news agencies buzzed with the breaking news that the airport's opening had to be postponed, due to fire safety problems.

Six days after that, the architects wrote to the airport operator, admitting that the opening date had been unrealistic and setting a new date for early January 2013.

But the airport's management wasn't interested in going through the whole thing again with Gerkan and his company. On May 23, the airport operator terminated pg bbi's contract without notice. The six-page termination letter is outraged in tone: "Our trust in you as the general contractor in charge of the project was shaken so irrevocably that we simply cannot be expected to continue this collaboration." For months, the letter continues, architects presented airport management with "unrealistic and flawed scheduling, deliberately choosing to accept" that the airport's opening would have to be delayed at the last minute, resulting in "millions in damages for many parties involved."

Picking Up the Pieces


Because of the ongoing legal dispute, the airport operator and the architectural firms JSK and gmp from the planning consortium pg bbi declined to comment for this article on the occurrences described in the complaint.

The man left to pick up the pieces is Horst Amann, an experienced airport construction manager from Frankfurt. Amann starts as new technical manager for the Berlin airport on August 1. Two weeks later, he'll report back to the supervisory board on whether the airport can be ready to begin operations by the new opening date of mid-March 2013.

In the German capital, the general mood is one of skepticism -- among the technicians working on the airport, among some politicians and certainly among the general public. Even national railway operator Deutsche Bahn appears to have its doubts about the new opening date, if flyers placed on the seats of one ICE train from Düsseldorf to Berlin last week are any indication. "Please note," Deutsche Bahn advised its passengers in the flyer, "that this train will not stop at Berlin-Brandenburg Airport until further notice." The reason, the railway operator wrote, is that the airport's opening has been delayed "indefinitely."
Image




http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 47434.html
"Give us a kiss, big tits."
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 05 Aug 12, 03:12Post
Wow...stunning lack of everything...2013 seems impossible to get close to.
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
PlymSpotter (Photo Quality Screener & Founding Member) 05 Aug 12, 13:28Post
Words pretty much fail me - the incompetence is just staggering on so many levels. It's amazing they kept it covered up for so long, which again is no good thing that parties colluded to subvert the truth.

This is going take at least another year to sort out.


Dan :)
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 06 Aug 12, 14:26Post
It looks more and more likely that the currenly targeted opening date of 17 March 2013 will have to be postponed again.

Financial Times Germany quotes unnamed sources within the operating company, saying that the opening could take place earliest in summer 2013.

Due to the costs related to the new delay, the project starts running out of funds. The operating company is thus said to prepare issuing bonds worth hundreds of millions of Euro. This, however, could collide with European legislation.

The operating company did not comment on the rumors, but did confirm that they will not publish an official new opening date in August, as it had been planned earlier.
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
Thorben 15 Aug 12, 09:59Post
Almost official by now. There will be another board meeting on September 14th. At that meeting there will probably a new date set for the opening. People are already joking that it would be easier to move Berlin close to an operating airport then to keep going on with this mess.

Currently sounds like fall of 2013.

Lots more spotting in TXL. :))
I demand a fifth Emirates (EK) destination in Germany: Berlin, coolest and biggest city.
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 15 Aug 12, 21:10Post
Thorben wrote:Currently sounds like fall of 2013.

Highly doubt it. It will take them a while just to figure out what to do, then engineering solutions on a building that is almost done. That in itself could be a nightmare. If rewiring is required, then cutting walls to get to where they need, and then patching after the work is done in itself is a nightmare.

Just go back and see how much delay the A380 and 787 had over rewiring work. This could be similar, and in many ways worse.

2014, that's my professional opinion.
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
GQfluffy (Database Editor & Founding Member) 15 Aug 12, 22:44Post
I'm still failing to see how any engineering/design firm over there could f*** up this badly...
Teller of no, fixer of everything, friend of the unimportant and all around good guy; the CAD Monkey
Thorben 16 Aug 12, 17:25Post
AndesSMF wrote:
Thorben wrote:Currently sounds like fall of 2013.

Highly doubt it. It will take them a while just to figure out what to do, then engineering solutions on a building that is almost done. That in itself could be a nightmare. If rewiring is required, then cutting walls to get to where they need, and then patching after the work is done in itself is a nightmare.


All speculation at this point. BER hired a skilled guy from FRA, probably the first really skilled person at the BER management, but he needs time to assess the problems. Today there was a meeting but no outcome on the opening date or the costs.
I demand a fifth Emirates (EK) destination in Germany: Berlin, coolest and biggest city.
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 16 Aug 12, 17:44Post
Thorben wrote:BER hired a skilled guy from FRA, probably the first really skilled person at the BER management

About time, isn't it? Did I get the impression right that plenty of the people that created this mess didn't have the ability to deal with a project this size in the first place?
Thorben wrote:but he needs time to assess the problems

A LOT of time. Can't wait to read his preliminary report.
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 16 Aug 12, 18:27Post
The ongoing delays seem to push Air Berlin on the brink of bankruptcy. I mean, not that they weren't headed that way, anyway. But the BER disaster certainly doesn't help them to get back on track.
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
Thorben 17 Aug 12, 09:13Post
AndesSMF wrote:About time, isn't it? Did I get the impression right that plenty of the people that created this mess didn't have the ability to deal with a project this size in the first place?


Can't say for the people really working on it, but the politicians overseeing it certainly have neither the education, nor the experience, nor the general management skills for their jobs as board members.

Zak wrote:The ongoing delays seem to push Air Berlin on the brink of bankruptcy. I mean, not that they weren't headed that way, anyway. But the BER disaster certainly doesn't help them to get back on track.


I saw comments like the first phrase coming.

AB might go bust within the next six month (their own capital is less than what they lost in the first six month of the year) and due to low-quality press reports there will then forever be this dagger-stab-legend that it was mainly/only due to the delay of the airport. And not to many years of show-business morons without the skills for it running the place like a 20-people family business.
I demand a fifth Emirates (EK) destination in Germany: Berlin, coolest and biggest city.
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 17 Aug 12, 09:50Post
Thorben wrote:I saw comments like the first phrase coming.

That's why I added the second phrase. ;)

If AB goes bust, then certainly not only because of the BER delay. Neither would AB necessarily survive if BER was operational already.

Still, the delay certainly causes them problems, and in the tight situation they are in, that might just be the straw to break the camel's back.

Thorben wrote:the politicians overseeing it certainly have neither the education, nor the experience, nor the general management skills for their jobs as board members

That is a general problem with major public construction projects these days.

The projects are usually ambitious - BER airport, Hamburg's Elbphilharmonie, Stuttgart 21. Politicians can't think small, they are keen on prestigious projects.

At the same time, you can't sell a project to the electorate that will cost billions. So the plans are squeezed to the max, resulting in a funding that is already unrealistic for the project.

Then, the project has to be tendered - a process where the bidders both are squeezed even further, and also cannibalize themselves in an attempt to win the tender.

In the end, the project is dramatically underfunded before the first sod is cut. It is clear from the get-go that it cannot be finished without extra funding, nor would it be profitable for the leading construction company.

However, the construction companies have experts who will find the smallest flaws and misalignments in the original tender contract - things that were planned wrongly, or simply forgotten. And that's when things become costly. Because companies would sometimes ask 5-digit amounts for just a few extra screws. And the (public) principal will often have no other choice than to accept it, especially since - as you say - they are lacking the expertise to handle the project.

But one thing is always a given - in the end, the tax payer is screwed.
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 17 Aug 12, 10:28Post
Zak wrote:Still, the delay certainly causes them problems, and in the tight situation they are in, that might just be the straw to break the camel's back.


That's the impression I get from the various articles on the matter. The other possibility is that AB could use the situation to appeal for a bail-out/compensation and limp on for that bit longer, which is no good for anybody, particularly (as Zak points out) the German taxpayer.

If/when AB do succumb to their troubles, what sort of hole will that leave in BER as a viable airport in world terms? AB seem to have an awful lot of routes due to fly from BER, and losing them looks like it would leave substantial gaps in services from the airport.
A million great ideas...
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT