Biggest Advantages Of Leasing A Heating And Cooling System

By | October 1, 2018

byAlma Abell

These days there seems to be a debate going on about which is the best way to get a heating system. Some homeowners feel that it’s best to buy their heating and cooling system, others want to lease it with a rent-to-own option. Leasing AC units has become extremely popular over the last few years, as it is something you honestly can’t do without. There are many advantages to leasing over outright buying, now read on below for a few of those advantages.

No Fees to Pay UpfrontIf you have ever looked into financing a heating and cooling system, you already know that the upfront fees can get quite expensive. A good air conditioner can cost you upwards of $4,000, something most homeowners can’t come up with at the drop of a hat. Instead of freezing in the winter and melting during the summer, many homeowners are going with the option of leasing so that they get the heating and cooling system for low monthly payments with no upfront fees required.

It is Possible to Get a Government RebateIn some cases, leasing a heating and cooling system can result in you getting a government rebate of upwards of $600. This, of course, if depending on your contract and the company you go through to do your leasing.

Covered RepairsRepairs on a heating and cooling system can get pretty costly if something should go wrong. When you are leasing, you are covered for most repairs and they don’t have to come out of your own pocket.

These are just a few of the advantages of leasing your heating and cooling system. For more information on financing an HVAC system, contact the professionals at Microf for any concerns or questions you might have. They are happy to give you the answers you need.

Australian PM faces inquiry into Iraqi kickbacks

">
Australian PM faces inquiry into Iraqi kickbacks

By |

Friday, April 14, 2006

Wikinews Australia has in-depth coverage of this issue: Cole Inquiry

Australian Prime Minister, John Howard appeared before the Cole inquiry on Thursday, the first time an Australian Prime Minister has appeared before an inquiry with royal commission powers since 1983.

Unlike his foreign minister Alexander Downer who gave evidence before the inquiry on Tuesday, Mr Howard entered through the front door where he gave a brief address. He told the press that his government is being open about the Iraqi kickback affair. ” just want to make one point and that is that the appearance by me, earlier this week by the Foreign Minister and also by the Trade Minister, demonstrates absolutely how open and transparent and accountable the Government is being in relation to this matter” Mr Howard said to reporters.

Mr Howard was questioned by John Agius, counsel assisting the inquiry. Counsel for AWB, the company at the centre of the scandal did not apply to cross-examine the prime minister.

Terrence Cole, the inquiry’s commissioner received an application from Peter Geary and Micheal Long’s counsel to cross-examine the prime minister but refused it on the grounds that the proposed line of questioning was similar to that of Mr Aguis’ and that there was no evidence that Mr Howard had “ever met with Mr Geary or Mr Long”.

Mr Agius questioned the prime minister about a series of diplomatic cables sent to his office, which raised concerns about AWB’s contracts in Iraq.

Mr Howard told the inquiry that he doesn’t recall reading or being briefed about any of the cables referred to by the inquiry. The inquiry also heard that prior to 2003 there was no system in place to identify which cables had been bought to the prime minister’s attention.

In his statement to the inquiry, Mr Howard said that his office had not received four of the cables mentioned by the inquiry. Under questioning, Mr Howard confirmed this but conceded that it was likely that his staff had read the other 17.

When asked whether there were any guidelines which guided his advisors in deciding which cables should be bought to the prime minister’s attention, Mr Howard replied “No, there weren’t”.

The inquiry heard that the only discussions about which cables which should be bought to Mr Howard’s attention occurred when an advisor changed in very generic terms. Mr Howard told the inquiry that he would tell a new advisor “Well, you’ve got to exercise your own judgment, I can’t possibly read everything, and clearly I want things brought to my attention which are, in your judgment, important and are relevant to issues in front of the government at the time”.

Mr Howard admitted that the government had an interest in Iraq using the United Nations oil for food program for its own financial benefit, but said he did not expect cables dealing with alleged breach of UN sanctions to have been bought to his attention.

The questioning then turned to a statement Mr Howard made to the National Press Club on March 13, 2003, one week prior to the US-led Iraqi occupation. Speaking about Saddam Hussein Mr Howard said “He has cruelly and cynically manipulated the United Nations oil-for-food programme. He’s rorted it to buy weapons to supporthis designs at the expense of the wellbeing of his people”.

Mr Agius asked Mr Howard if his statement was based upon briefngs he had received. Mr Howard told the inquiry that the information was based upon “open source” intelligence stated at addresses by British foreign secretary Jack Straw and the United States state department. Mr Howard said one of his advisors “checked with some cables to confirm that those cables supported the open-source claims and was satisfied that they did”.

Mr Howard denied seeing the cables used by the advisor to support the claims, but believed he would have told her to be sure that everything they were saying can be supported by fact. Mr Howard told the inquiry that he never knew about cables which referred to Hussein rorting the UN Oil for Food program. Mr Howard admitted that at the time his “general knowledge” was that Hussein had breached UN sanctions and was rorting the Oil for Food program.

“My general knowledge at the time and belief was that the program had been rorted, and it was not seriously in dispute. Nobody was arguing it hadn’t been rorted” Mr Howard said.

The prime minister was questioned about an unassessed intelligence report which mentioned a Jordanian trucking company known as “Alia” paying kickbacks to Hussein. In response to this Mr Howard told the inquiry that he could not recall the information being bought to his attention, which was not unusual.

Preliminary report sheds light on SAS landing gear incident

">
Preliminary report sheds light on SAS landing gear incident

By |

Friday, September 14, 2007

A preliminary report by the Danish civil aviation authority, SLV, has shed light on the events leading up to a Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) airliner experiencing a landing gear failure upon landing in Denmark, one of two similar crashes that have resulted in the grounding of more than 60 of the model in question across the world.

The aircraft, a Bombardier Q400 (alternatively known as a de Havilland Canada Dash 8), crashed due to a landing gear failure after a nut worked loose, due in turn to rusting on the threads of its bolt, according to the SLV’s aircraft accident investigation committee report on Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209. The nut and bolt were vital to the locking mechanism for the starboard landing gear, and consequently the structure collapsed.

The SLV does not specifically address why this occurred, but according to SLV spokesman Thorbjoern Ancker the problem is a design flaw, and not a maintenance issue as previously suspected. In his own words, ‘All speculation that this was an error by SAS is now shown to be wrong… It’s a constructional weakness.’ He explained that Bombardier maintenance documents supplied with the aircraft did not require maintenance personnel to inspect the bolt in question, and that accordingly this had not been done.

Pending completion of landing gear inspections by SAS, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish authorities will make a decision regarding whether the air carrier’s Q400 fleet should remain grounded, or be permitted to resume operations.

A spokesman for Bombardier refused to comment on the findings when contacted by reporters, preferring instead to wait until the publication of the final report into the accident. He did, however, make one comment regarding speculation that SAS would be compensated if the accident was proven to be the responsibility of the supplier, saying, “That will be part of the discussions between Bombardier and airlines.”

Scandinavian Airlines have canceled 111 flights today as their Q400s are grounded per Air Transport Canada orders, while SAS have concealed 110 flights today and tomorrow while their aircraft are grounded.

Bombardier have circulated a document to all operators of the type, containing advice recommending a revised inspection program.

Shares in Bombardier fell 14 cents, or 2.2%, to CA$6.21 and most recent reports have them at $6.25. The company is therefore currently valued at $11 billion. Goodrich, who manufactured the equipment, fell 9 cents, or 0.1%, to US$65.11. SAS, who own Scandinavian Airlines, fell 2.25 kronor, or 1.9%, to 115.75 kronor. A continuing fall in SAS shares prices over the last six weeks has almost negated all gains this year.