Irish government jet

Savage93 · 15-09-2014 6:46pm

http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=Antonov&des=AN2&type=&grp=An-2&id=0

Click on VIP version in Germany

There ye go lads , change out of €170,000.
Costs about €100 per hour to run, I'd say she'll run on green diesel!!!!

SwiftJustice · 15-09-2014 7:29pm

NewSigGuy wrote: »

First one Was the Lear and the CASA from what I remember.

Second one was to fly Pax out of Beirut, they could have booked seats on any number of european airlines and any charter or fractional operator would have no problem flying to Beirut.

Didn't the government jet fly a few Irish Ranger Wing guys to Baghdad to rescue the journalist Rory Carroll during the height of the Iraq War. You cannot rely on civilian operators.

smurfjed · 15-09-2014 7:37pm

Besides this undercarriage issue hasnt been explained, so what caused it?
heavy landing? other unrecommended or incorrect practice or usage? some other unpredicted deterioration?

I would make a guess at corrosion! There is nothing stopping them from buying a 2nd hand undercarriage, the cheapest option for the GIV is actually the GIV, pay them maintenance costs and it will be cheaper than any of the other options. There are presently 490 or so GIV aircraft still operational (according to Flight Safety) that includes #1, so the aircraft has quite some life left in it yet.

cerastes · 15-09-2014 7:57pm

logie101 wrote: »

I think that it is extremely unlikely in the current economic climate that the government will replace the Gulfstream.
It would be political suicide for them.

On a side issue it is about time that a budget is made available to replace the Cessna 172s. These are versatile aircraft that play a multiple number or roles everyday for the AC. (Perhaps replacing with Cessna Caravans, 182s or PC-6s would be good)

Im sorry, but thats the same opinion that got rid of the siai marchettis for pc-9s to what end and replaced other able aircraft with less useful ones? why get rid of the 172's??
Most of those are larger than the 172, why does it need to be replaced, worth nothing to get rid of, cost more for all of the above. Maybe supplement the 172's with a 182 if its needed, but why suggest getting rid of them only to replace them with 182's???
The Pc-6 seems to come between the 182 and the caravan, just another aircraft to fill what role? what STOL rough strip need is there?
I could see the use of a cessna caravan, but what use of a PC-6? Also given they already have a miles britton defender type, it would be better to supplement that with another miles britton defender than add another aircraft type. But to top all that, arent there similar or even larger types in use that could be chartered?

Savage93 wrote: »

http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=Antonov&des=AN2&type=&grp=An-2&id=0

Click on VIP version in Germany

There ye go lads , change out of €170,000.
Costs about €100 per hour to run, I'd say she'll run on green diesel!!!!

I read somewhere of a chequered history, but that might be due to its proliferation as one of the most widespread in use transport/biplanes, flying in places where maintenance or training aren't great. Id say it some utility bus, can imagine it would be snubbed. That said, I think it'd be a great aircraft, reminds me of a DH aircraft.

Savage93 · 15-09-2014 9:14pm

smurfjed wrote: »

I would make a guess at corrosion! There is nothing stopping them from buying a 2nd hand undercarriage, the cheapest option for the GIV is actually the GIV, pay them maintenance costs and it will be cheaper than any of the other options. There are presently 490 or so GIV aircraft still operational (according to Flight Safety) that includes #1, so the aircraft has quite some life left in it yet.

Would this undercarriage problems have anything to do with the fact that (in Bertie's day , and others maybe) every flight originated in Baldonnell , then went to Dublin airrport to pick up the "VIP" , flew on to it's destination and then back the same so that , in effect, every flight had 2 landings and 2 takeoffs which is really what kills aircraft.

L1011 · 15-09-2014 9:21pm

cerastes wrote: »

I dont think you read my posts fully or got what I was saying?

Your repeated mentions of it didn't suggest you were just mentioning it in passing, and theorising that it could still be suitable; it did seem to be a suggestion that they should get one.

It was never suitable. Too big, too short range, four engines, hanger queen from the get go.

cerastes · 15-09-2014 9:25pm

Savage93 wrote: »

Would this undercarriage problems have anything to do with the fact that (in Bertie's day , and others maybe) every flight originated in Baldonnell , then went to Dublin airrport to pick up the "VIP" , flew on to it's destination and then back the same so that , in effect, every flight had 2 landings and 2 takeoffs which is really what kills aircraft.

Without knowing if it is corrosion, if so what kind, it'd hard to say what might have caused it?
Without any information, so pure speculation, high cycle usage might have caused fretting corrosion, so possibly, yes.
In that case they would have been better operating the GIV in its designed parameters and had any VIP helicoptered over, the cost might have ended up being less, should have kept a few Alouette or the remaining gazelle as an air taxi, it would probably have worked out cheaper than getting rid of them and replacing this undercarriage. If so, idiots, double or triple whammy. Get rid of useful aircraft and wreck another in the process.

EchoIndia · 15-09-2014 9:25pm

Savage93 wrote: »

Would this undercarriage problems have anything to do with the fact that (in Bertie's day , and others maybe) every flight originated in Baldonnell , then went to Dublin airrport to pick up the "VIP" , flew on to it's destination and then back the same so that , in effect, every flight had 2 landings and 2 takeoffs which is really what kills aircraft.

What you refer to applied only to travel by the then Taoiseach, not every mission flown. It was not as frequent an occurrence as you seem to believe.

Strumms · 15-09-2014 9:27pm

MYOB wrote: »

Your repeated mentions of it didn't suggest you were just mentioning it in passing, and theorising that it could still be suitable; it did seem to be a suggestion that they should get one.

It was never suitable. Too big, too short range, four engines, hanger queen from the get go.

It would be sheer madness, like a BBJ way too much aircraft.

The MX costs would be huge compared to a GIV. A bigger more complex aircraft and also 4 engines which makes a big difference too. Also the fuel burn compared to a GIV would be so much more. As crazy an idea as getting a regional prop converted to do the job.

cerastes · 15-09-2014 9:47pm

MYOB wrote: »

Your repeated mentions of it didn't suggest you were just mentioning it in passing, and theorising that it could still be suitable; it did seem to be a suggestion that they should get one.

It was never suitable. Too big, too short range, four engines, hanger queen from the get go.

I believe it could have been as suitable 20 years ago, or if we had the money now and had operated the GIV to its limits,a twin type of similar capacity, but we havent.
Im not aware of the 146 hanger bound maintenance limitations, no more than the hour usage of the GIV and its hanger limitations. The 146 it seems to have been used as passenger aircraft successfully, but I agree it isnt suitable now, 4 engines isnt a great thing either where a twin would be as capable, but Im suggesting an aircraft that can perform multiple roles, not just be hanger bound or doing taxi hops for ministers. The GIV has the range and the wow, but the seating capacity and it seems to me its design isnt for short hops to brussells or dublin airport or the ability to convert to other roles.

Either way, I believe if you want to buy an aircraft to reduce the operating cost and have full control over where you can go, then you operate it with the view to keeping it longterm and dont get rid of it, where repairing it will be cheaper than replacing not just the aircraft itself, but training costs, special tools.

No one aircraft is going to fill all roles anyway, from a point of view of longevity, usefulness to all potential roles, value. It seems the reasons to acquire certain aircraft aren't based on the real requirements, so what were they decided on? another story/thread.

cerastes · 15-09-2014 9:54pm

Savage93 wrote: »

http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=Antonov&des=AN2&type=&grp=An-2&id=0

Click on VIP version in Germany

There ye go lads , change out of €170,000.
Costs about €100 per hour to run, I'd say she'll run on green diesel!!!!

I only looked at the pics now, nice maybach in the foreground, is there a door at the drinks cabinet for the jax,
cant see our snobbish lot wanting to go in that, be like turning up in a morris minor.
I think its pretty cool, not sure about the green diesel :pac:
Maybe something more alcohol based, vodka.

smurfjed · 16-09-2014 5:02am

its design isnt for short hops to brussells

Thats exactly the sector length that I'm about to do today, it hasn't affected our aircraft

Irish Steve · 17-09-2014 12:08am

cerastes wrote: »

I only looked at the pics now, nice maybach in the foreground, is there a door at the drinks cabinet for the jax,
cant see our snobbish lot wanting to go in that, be like turning up in a morris minor.
I think its pretty cool, not sure about the green diesel :pac:
Maybe something more alcohol based, vodka.

Not a chance, the running cost would be considerably higher, and it has its own built in headwind that means getting anywhere sensible takes a LONG time, even with the wind behind you.

A good few years ago, I was involved with doing some flight plans that were being put together to fly 6 AN2's from Eastern Europe to Oshkosh, until someone worked out what the fuel burn would be to get them there, which killed that plan very quickly, It burns 43 Gallons per hour of Avgas, and the cruise speed is around 100 Kts, so while it's not quite gallons per mile, it's not far off, and Avgas is over €2 per Litre, so the fuel burn alone is over €200 per hour on today's prices.

folbotcar · 17-09-2014 12:00pm

logie101 wrote: »

I think that it is extremely unlikely in the current economic climate that the government will replace the Gulfstream.
It would be political suicide for them.

On a side issue it is about time that a budget is made available to replace the Cessna 172s. These are versatile aircraft that play a multiple number or roles everyday for the AC. (Perhaps replacing with Cessna Caravans, 182s or PC-6s would be good)

Agreed on the first part which is why they will soldier on with the Learjet and will hire in something bigger when needed or go commercial.

As for the 172s this has been discussed before and I wonder if they ever will in fact be replaced. Their main role right now seems to be hour building for newly qualified pilots. In most air forces these days there is no equivalent aircraft. The helicopter has replaced liaison and spotter aircraft for the most part. Many of the other non military roles they carry out could easily be done by hiring a commercial operator.

Neither the Cessna Caravan or the PC6 makes sense in the Air Corps context. As a taildragger the PC6 would be a positive liability with inexperienced pilots and the Caravan really isn't a replacement for a 172. A closer match would be the GA8 Airvan which is bigger, carries greater loads, is modern, easier to fly and can get in an out of short strips with low running costs.......but it costs over half a million dollars each if not more and it's still a piston engine aircraft and you have to assume the Air Corps would prefer turbines. There is a turbine version in the pipeline but again you have to ask if it's really needed at all.

I'd say the only likely replacement for the 172s are helicopters.

If that's true then it raises the question mark over the PC9s. Right now a trainee pilot get his or her wings and then proceeds to fly helicopters or 172s. What's the point of that?

The more you look at it you can see it's not just the GIV that has a question mark over it but everything the Air Corps does. Is it a military air arm or some form of uniformed aircraft operator that spends most of it's time engaged in work that would be better contracted to civil organisations?

cerastes · 17-09-2014 10:27pm

Irish Steve wrote: »

Not a chance, the running cost would be considerably higher, and it has its own built in headwind that means getting anywhere sensible takes a LONG time, even with the wind behind you.

A good few years ago, I was involved with doing some flight plans that were being put together to fly 6 AN2's from Eastern Europe to Oshkosh, until someone worked out what the fuel burn would be to get them there, which killed that plan very quickly, It burns 43 Gallons per hour of Avgas, and the cruise speed is around 100 Kts, so while it's not quite gallons per mile, it's not far off, and Avgas is over €2 per Litre, so the fuel burn alone is over €200 per hour on today's prices.

Im not suggesting that it should be acquired for MATs

or anything else by the AirCorps, it is an interesting aircraft though.

man98 · 17-09-2014 11:25pm

I think I'll stick with my observation that a Casa 235 would easily cover both the LJ45 and the GIV. Basically, most of the flights are to Brussels, right? Flight time would make little difference on these shorter hops. So, I feel more scheduled flights should be taken on Aer Lingus to the US. As many have pointed out, many flights are on short notice. What I propose in this case is that ministers need just 'make do' . The CN-235 can fly 4100km on a full tank, easily hitting St. John's. Stopping over there, the Casa could hit Miami I'd say. Just a reminder, the Casa 235 isn't the most glamorous. The public will go easy on them if they paint it as an 'old prop'.

smurfjed · 28-09-2014 6:25pm

I understand that Turkey has purchased a used but green B748i as its new government transport aircraft. Gonna love watching them show up in Brussels

roundymac · 28-09-2014 6:41pm

Argentina have added a 735 to their VIP fleet, and that's a country that has just defaulted on their loan's.

smurfjed · 01-11-2014 10:01pm

Noticed that the President is off to tour Africa, so it reminded me about the Gulfstream, what was the final resolution ? Fix, replace or dump?

newcavanman · 02-11-2014 12:15pm

Maybe he went in the Learjet. After all he can probably stand upright inside it

lord lucan · 02-11-2014 12:43pm

He arrived in ADD on an Ethiopian 777.

02-11-2014 1:52pm

smurfjed wrote: »

Noticed that the President is off to tour Africa, so it reminded me about the Gulfstream, what was the final resolution ? Fix, replace or dump?

Can you imagine him rocking up in his clapped out G4 to be greeted by all those leaders who fly around in BBJ's etc at a minimum.

I can't see much being done about it before the General election or in fact for the next 5 years. I'd say they will just hire in where needed when it becomes terminal.

smurfjed · 02-11-2014 2:02pm

Can you imagine him rocking up in his clapped out G4 to be greeted by all those leaders who fly around in BBJ's etc at a minimum.

We showed up in Gabon in an aged G4 to be greeted by the leader who operates a B777

02-11-2014 2:49pm

smurfjed wrote: »

We showed up in Gabon in an aged G4 to be greeted by the leader who operates a B777

When different worlds collide, can you imagine if the irish government announced they were buying a 777 to scoot around in ? Can you imagine even if they announced buying a Phenom ?

Strumms · 02-11-2014 3:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

When different worlds collide, can you imagine if the irish government announced they were buying a 777 to scoot around in ? Can you imagine even if they announced buying a Phenom ?

I'd imagine the headlines and the reaction of the general public if they decided to buy an equial replacment for the GIV considering the flack that the government is taking on many levels right now. At the end of the day there is a requirement for a long haul Government jet in my view but I'd on the other hand also like to know what is prohibitive about maintaining the Gulfstream we have. As I said previously it couldn't have had that may cycles really compared to a jet in say fractionalcorporate use of the same age ?

02-11-2014 3:47pm

Strumms wrote: »

I'd imagine the headlines and the reaction of the general public if they decided to buy an equial replacment for the GIV considering the flack that the government is taking on many levels right now. At the end of the day there is a requirement for a long haul Government jet in my view but I'd on the other hand also like to know what is prohibitive about maintaining the Gulfstream we have. As I said previously it couldn't have had that may cycles really compared to a jet in say fractionalcorporate use of the same age ?

We never got any official confirmation of the initial post, so it's hard to tell the state of play and what if anything needs to be done.

I think it's just one of those things that if the government is seen to spend money on the jets it will be front page news and they don't want that.

Jack1985 · 02-11-2014 3:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

We never got any official confirmation of the initial post, so it's hard to tell the state of play and what if anything needs to be done.

I think it's just one of those things that if the government is seen to spend money on the jets it will be front page news and they don't want that.

Definitely not with an election looming in 2016 and with the current controversy.

kub · 02-11-2014 7:42pm

Scary to think not so long ago we were sending money to the starving in Ethiopia, now our President gets there on one of their own planes, as we just don't have one.

02-11-2014 7:59pm

kub wrote: »

Scary to think not so long ago we were sending money to the starving in Ethiopia, now our President gets there on one of their own planes, as we just don't have one.

Crazy isn't it? The amount of money they've been able to spend on new metal !

100% owned by the Ethiopian government.

newcavanman · 02-11-2014 9:25pm

Supposing they bought a second hand 737 or A320 . Get it converted to Quick Change , a reasonable expense i would think . They could do a Ryanair, as in the early 737s, buy one that was used on long sectors, so low cycles relative to hours . Im sure the fuel burn would be higher, but there must be plenty of other economies with all the A320/ 737 type aircraft based in this country eg spares, simulator etc. They could even offer a Reserve commission to recently retired air corp pilots , who could be seconded to the Air Corp on occasions when the jet was needed. It would give us an aircraft capable of Head of State use, as well as routine military supply flights

kub · 02-11-2014 11:11pm

newcavanman wrote: »

Supposing they bought a second hand 737 or A320 . Get it converted to Quick Change , a reasonable expense i would think . They could do a Ryanair, as in the early 737s, buy one that was used on long sectors, so low cycles relative to hours . Im sure the fuel burn would be higher, but there must be plenty of other economies with all the A320/ 737 type aircraft based in this country eg spares, simulator etc. They could even offer a Reserve commission to recently retired air corp pilots , who could be seconded to the Air Corp on occasions when the jet was needed. It would give us an aircraft capable of Head of State use, as well as routine military supply flights

Absolutely and that then provides the Air Corp lads type experience when they move onto civil aviation.
Perhaps EI or RY might sponsor a machine considering how many state trained pilots they have gotten over the years.

folbotcar · 03-11-2014 1:47pm

All great ideas, except we don't need the capability a 737 or A320 provides. Nor can we afford it. I really think people have no concept of how expensive it is to keep one of those airworthy not to mention training crews both ground and air. It's all very well comparing us to countries in Africa with bigger aircraft. Their leaders are often not answerable to the democratic process so they do what they like with the aid money they get. Our money.

folbotcar · 03-11-2014 1:57pm

kub wrote: »

Scary to think not so long ago we were sending money to the starving in Ethiopia, now our President gets there on one of their own planes, as we just don't have one.

We're still sending money even now.

We send aid to India, a nuclear armed country with a space program. There are plenty other examples.

Not scary but insane.

kub · 03-11-2014 5:57pm

folbotcar wrote: »

We're still sending money even now.

We send aid to India, a nuclear armed country with a space program. There are plenty other examples.

Not scary but insane.

:rolleyes: We have a great little country.

cerastes · 03-11-2014 6:37pm

kub wrote: »

Absolutely and that then provides the Air Corp lads type experience when they move onto civil aviation.
Perhaps EI or RY might sponsor a machine considering how many state trained pilots they have gotten over the years.

The purpose of the AC isnt to train people up so they can go into civil aviation at the expense of the public purse, there is no requirement to buy aircraft base don how that will further certain peoples career opportunities, even if that has been the case in the past, it shouldnt stil.
The perpose of the Govt jet should be to get the best aircraft for the job for maximum use for the least cost to the taxpayer. Not get people hours or certified on twin fan engined aircraft.

folbotcar wrote: »

We're still sending money even now.

We send aid to India, a nuclear armed country with a space program. There are plenty other examples.

Not scary but insane.

How much? Id say their nuclear/space program might pale in comparision to other aspects of their budget, doesnt mean we should be funding it.
They have a massive standing army, (probably need it) as for aid, depends are they spending that money back here or is there some deal we are getting in return? that might reap rewards in the future? probably not, Id say we give it without much conditions, Id still rather see that money spent here on charity projects although not just handed over to individuals or companies to administer.

EchoIndia · 03-11-2014 9:45pm

Thread drift again...

cerastes · 04-11-2014 11:48pm

EchoIndia wrote: »

Thread drift again...

which part? mine?

cerastes wrote: »

The purpose of the AC isnt to train people up so they can go into civil aviation at the expense of the public purse, there is no requirement to buy aircraft base don how that will further certain peoples career opportunities, even if that has been the case in the past, it shouldnt stil.
The perpose purpose of the Govt jet should be to get the best aircraft for the job for maximum use for the least cost to the taxpayer. Not get people hours or certified on twin fan engined aircraft.

that bolded has as much relevance to the original post as any.
and
tbh if the president can make it to Africa and around without the use of a Govt jet, why have one at all? just work around what we have and what can be availed of/hired, they keep telling us we're broke as a nation and we need to foot the bill for this that or the other.

L1011 · 05-11-2014 12:43am

The presidents travel is rarely urgent. The ministers can be pretty urgent however. There is nothing hireable that can meet the occasional but critical at their times requirements of a MATS plane.

In a country with a less viscous, talentless media we'd probably have a BBJ or ACJ *and* a small longhaul bizjet, but no government would be let away with it here

Irish Steve · 05-11-2014 12:44am

The President is on a pre planned, long scheduled trip that is to places where it's possible to use scheduled transport.

There are times and circumstances where Government ministers and advisers have to go at extremely short notice to a meeting that is called to deal with circumstances that have arisen, (like for example the Ukraine crisis) it's not pre planned, and may be happening at somewhere that's off the beaten track, either because some of the participants are in that area already, or because the venue is appropriate to the discussion.

Getting to such a meeting by scheduled transport is not always possible, and not getting there is not acceptable, especially if Ireland has the EU presidency, which does happen every so many years. So, like it or not, there is a need for a suitable jet that is available at short notice, and that can be used to get to out of the way places, or long distances when appropriate. In the overall cost of Government, there are plenty of other areas that deserve to be looked at more closely before we start denying the people doing the job the tools they need to do it acceptably.

Right now, 200K per annum plus expenses, pension etc that they're paying to the IW chief would probably go a long way towards the maintenance required on the Gulfstream, and I know which would be the better bargain!

Preset No.3 · 05-11-2014 7:41am

Does everything to do with the government have to be dragged back to Irish Water?

Decision have been made, good and bad, well mostly bad, but they have been made. Those wishing for a new shiny tube to fly about can forget it. Its not going to happen in the lifetime of this government. Just like at days end of the previous boys, they wouldn't buy a fleet of BMW's for the garda fleet as it would be seen as sending the wrong message even if the cost of a mondeo was the same!

Irish Steve · 05-11-2014 5:49pm

Yes, decisions have to be made, there is a limited budget of spending across all areas that is available to be spent, and as far as I am concerned, if the choice came down to spending probably 300K on keeping the G4 in the air, or on hiring a suspect semi state lackey for a quango, then it's no contest, the G4 wins. There are times when that is the sort of decision that has to be made. The State NEEDS the G4 to enable the ministers of State to do the job adequately, it doesn't need another semi state failure at the top of yet another quango. Easy choice

Preset No.3 · 05-11-2014 6:57pm

Really? The state NEEDS a GIV?? I'm not disagreeing with you but average joe would disagree with you. Those who struggle to make ends meet, who have lost jobs etc etc. No need to re hash all that.

Now I'm not all pro government, or pro eu but a decision was made. Bailouts were made and stuff needs to be paid for. We've had it for 3 years and it will continue. The whole country can down tools and protest and the big guys will always be big and we will still end up paying. Water charges and here to stay as much as we all don't agree. So we have a water CEO on 300k. Could we not divert that money to pay for hospital beds or maybe some ambulances. Maybe 300k could be used for teachers. It's all relative and having a private jet so that government can fly to meetings and airplane nerds can crack one off to isn't justifiable.

So the irish solution will cost us more in the long run but it's how it looks.

EchoIndia · 05-11-2014 11:08pm

cerastes wrote: »

which part? mine?

that bolded has as much relevance to the original post as any.
and
tbh if the president can make it to Africa and around without the use of a Govt jet, why have one at all? just work around what we have and what can be availed of/hired, they keep telling us we're broke as a nation and we need to foot the bill for this that or the other.

I thought India's nuclear programme was a bit off-topic for this thread, but maybe others disagree.

L1011 · 05-11-2014 11:57pm

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Really? The state NEEDS a GIV?? I'm not disagreeing with you but average joe would disagree with you. Those who struggle to make ends meet, who have lost jobs etc etc. No need to re hash all that.

Now I'm not all pro government, or pro eu but a decision was made. Bailouts were made and stuff needs to be paid for. We've had it for 3 years and it will continue. The whole country can down tools and protest and the big guys will always be big and we will still end up paying. Water charges and here to stay as much as we all don't agree. So we have a water CEO on 300k. Could we not divert that money to pay for hospital beds or maybe some ambulances. Maybe 300k could be used for teachers. It's all relative and having a private jet so that government can fly to meetings and airplane nerds can crack one off to isn't justifiable.

So the irish solution will cost us more in the long run but it's how it looks.

Ah, the old Government can't buy anything without it being quantified in terms of hospital beds issue. Incredibly common way of getting a cheap sensational headline in our hysterical press, unfortunately it seems to have afflicted some of the population too.

The state needs the ability for ministerial travel to function as a modern state - this is not something that is negotiable. If you want us to continue to be a modern western democracy, that is.

Commercial airlines and NetJets cannot provide the service level required. Nothing other than owned/finance leased and fully operated craft can.

Its a near-uniquely Irish issue (the British have it too, and we inherited it from them) that every cent spent on something non-populist is seen as "wasted" despite how important it actually is. Hence us having two bizjets for MATS and the UK having nothing at all - a few 146s which are officially for Royal use.

BMJD · 06-11-2014 1:20am

If hospital beds / trolleys are going to be brought up then surely the jets' air ambulance services are legitimate responses to that argument. They don't just spend their days flying govt folk around. If their use was clearly and properly explained then future purchases would probably go down a lot better with the general public.

NewSigGuy · 06-11-2014 5:58am

MYOB wrote: »

The presidents travel is rarely urgent. The ministers can be pretty urgent however. There is nothing hireable that can meet the occasional but critical at their times requirements of a MATS plane.

In a country with a less viscous, talentless media we'd probably have a BBJ or ACJ *and* a small longhaul bizjet, but no government would be let away with it here

Have you proof that the required response time is not available in the market place??

IMHO a BBJ/ACJ would be drastically under-utilised... and not even remotely cost effective.

Preset No.3 · 06-11-2014 7:26am

I am not saying that we shouldn't have a jet for government use. I wouldn't be on an aviation forum if I was against it. I am saying this is the argument used by 'the people' when it comes to any kind of spending.

BMJD> Could you tell me ANY time that our beloved leaders have managed to make any statement and have it "clearly and properly explained"

It just seems impossible for them to do it.

BMJD · 06-11-2014 11:29am

Preset No.3 wrote: »

BMJD> Could you tell me ANY time that our beloved leaders have managed to make any statement and have it "clearly and properly explained"

It just seems impossible for them to do it.

I wouldn't let anyone from government near a statement tbh. I'd like to see figures on how the Learjet has been used over the last 24 months - I suspect it has spent way more time transporting ill children to UK hospitals than it has ferrying ministers around the EU, and hopefully zero hours on ribbon-cutting duty. Then the Dept. Of Defence can say " this is what we're buying, this is what it will be used for and this is how it is being paid for ".

Of course, most of the media would have no interest in this so what can you do?

Tabnabs · 06-11-2014 11:58am

folbotcar wrote: »

We're still sending money even now.

We send aid to India, a nuclear armed country with a space program. There are plenty other examples.

Not scary but insane.

Off topic, but have you a source for this, as Irish Aid does not list India as a country the State sends aid to.

As for Ethiopia;

We have developed a new five year strategy which covers 2014-2018 with an anticipated spend in the region of €27 million per year, subject to the availability of resources.

https://www.irishaid.ie/what-we-do/countries-where-we-work/our-partner-countries/ethiopia/

squonk · 06-11-2014 12:45pm

MYOB wrote: »

Ah, the old Government can't buy anything without it being quantified in terms of hospital beds issue. Incredibly common way of getting a cheap sensational headline in our hysterical press, unfortunately it seems to have afflicted some of the population too.

The state needs the ability for ministerial travel to function as a modern state - this is not something that is negotiable. If you want us to continue to be a modern western democracy, that is.

Commercial airlines and NetJets cannot provide the service level required. Nothing other than owned/finance leased and fully operated craft can.

Its a near-uniquely Irish issue (the British have it too, and we inherited it from them) that every cent spent on something non-populist is seen as "wasted" despite how important it actually is. Hence us having two bizjets for MATS and the UK having nothing at all - a few 146s which are officially for Royal use.

What's wrong with video conferencing? Yes, there are absolutely times when ministers etc. need to be on hand face to face for summits/emergency meetings etc. but it's a general flaw of all politicians everywhere that they're not keeping up with technology. Most multinationals manage to keep their operations running smoothly across the globe using voice and video conferencing and there's rarely a need for management to get boots on the ground in any territory to actually get work done. Not politicians however who are still stuck in their 19th. and 20th. century view of the world where everyone has to meet up face to face, get their family photo taken and then get on their jets and head back where they came from. I'm a plane enthusiast myself and I fully support the use of any gorvernment resource if it helps save a life or get a patient the medical care they urgently need but my point is that if politicians realised that face to face meetings need to be an exception rather than a rule, then we'd probably only need one jet.

Irish government jet

Comments