Defence in amuddle Your analysis "DoD switches its priorities," (Flight International, 15-21 February) over-estimates the coherence of weapons cuts contained in the Pentagon's proposed 2006 budget. Most of those cuts were made hastily in response to a last-minute request from the White House for savings that would reduce the government's budget deficit. But in the weeks since the cuts were disclosed, it has become clear that they are just the latest evidence of how loosely defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld manages his department. The Joint Common Missile, a money-saving munition that would meet the operational needs of four services, was terminated even though it is a model programme initiated to satisfy Rumsfeld's own call for greater "jointness". In the case of the Lockheed Martin C-130, the department has already conceded that it did not understand the consequences of cancelling the programme in the midst of a multiyear contract, and it will need to rethink its decision. In the case of the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F/A-22 fighter, the department proposes to kill the US Air Force's top modernisation priority at less than half of its stated requirement of 381 aircraft, even though the Boeing F-15 it would replace is exhibiting many signs of age-related decay. There's no question that Rumsfeld has advanced a bold vision of how his department should change. Unfortunately, he has not developed a management system that is capable of efficiently executing that vision. The arbitrary weapons cuts reported in your story reflect an amateurish and wasteful approach to decision-making all too typical of Rumsfeld's tenure. Loren Thompson Chief Operating Officer, Lexington Institute, Arlington, Virginia, USA
Better safe than sorry After reading an article "Flight refund rule may cost us dear" in one of the Sunday UK newspapers, I was dismayed to see your two reports "Balancing act" and "BA747 in fuel emergency after three-engine Atlantic crossing" (Flight International, 1-7 March). The latter did not mention the reason that the crew had to declare an emergency landing in Manchester was because one of the fuel pumps had malfunctioned and they could not use all the fuel in one of the tanks. It surprises me that the British Airways captain and the airline operator did not consider Murphy's Law, which states: "If anything can go wrong, it will." BA has denied that the decision to continue to fly the Los-Angeles-London flight on three engines was any way connected to the £100,000 ($190,000) compensation claim it would otherwise have to pay because of the European Commission's new "denied boarding regulation", which gives passengers the right to compensation if flights are delayed or overbooked. I'd rather arrive late and forego any compensation then not arrive at all. P Eves Ely, Cambridgeshire, UK
A380: can airports cope? Baggage handling arrangements were not mentioned in your report on airports' planning for the Airbus A380 (Flight International, 15-21 February), yet most airports to be served by the aircraft have inadequate baggage claim areas and carousels. There is also likely to be frustration and congestion if numbers of immigration and customs officials are not increased. While there is much going on in the planning sections of airports that will be served by the aircraft, little has been heard from those that may be used for A380 diversions (Anchorage, Birmingham, Tokyo Haneda and Paris Orly, for example). They may have difficulty getting finance for what they may consider non-essential work. Anthony Vandyk Oxford, UK
Source: Flight International
