About that Learjet....

Sparks

Information about Learjet usage - as released in the Dail

The Learjet entered operational service as part of the ministerial air transport service on 19 January. It has undertaken a total of 21 ministerial air transport missions to the end of February 2004.

The destinations were as follows:

Date - Destination
19 January - Brussels
20 January - Brussels
21 to 23 January - Monrovia
24 January - Zurich
25 January - Zurich
26 January - Brussels
28 January - Brussels-London
2 February - Brussels
6 February - Cork
9 February - Berlin
10 February - Paris
11 February - Belfast
12 February - Brussels
13 February - Paris
18 February - Brussels
19 February - Derry
20 February - Berlin
22 February - Brussels
23 to 24 February - Paris-Brussels-Belfast
25 February - Budapest-Brussels
26 February - Budapest

It should be noted that the Gulfstream IV aircraft remains in service and has carried out 19 missions during the same period. Also, due to the demands arising from the EU Presidency it has been necessary on nine occasions to make use of the Beech King aircraft, which is now primarily used in a training role.

Wow. Good thing they bought it then, given the complete lack of any and all commercial airline flights from Dublin to Zurich, Paris, Brussels and Berlin....

And what the hell was so important that someone had to fly to Derry in a Learjet?

sceptre

Originally posted by Sparks
And what the hell was so important that someone had to fly to Derry in a Learjet?

There's probably a good chipper in Derry.

rde

And what the hell was so important that someone had to fly to Derry in a Learjet?

This whole thing about the government jet has been annoying me ever since it first came up. The suggestion that the Taoiseach - the president of Europe - should fly Ryanair is asinine in the extreme. He's the bloody Taoiseach. Either you accept that it's necessary for him to maximise his time, or you don't. If you do, shut up about the damn jet. If you don't, then explain why it is that we should be happy with him getting to the airport at least 90 minutes before his flight, sitting on the runway for half an hour and then sitting - incapable of doing any work - for the duration of the flight.

The whole thing's ridiculous. It was started by Fine Gael as part of their 'we don't have any policies, so we'll just try and get in the papers instead' version of being the Opposition. It's since been followed up endlessly by people who haven't thought it through.

With regard to the specific trip to Derry: the implication in your remark was that there's no reason for a member of the government to be required at short notice to travel a few hundred kilometres. You don't know how many were on the plane, whether it was urgent, whom they were meeting... the list of qualifications goes ever on.

There are plenty of things over which the government needs to be taken to task. But this ludicrous story isn't one of them.

D

I do know that the air corp is very busy with VIP transportation. Their main tasks are police support (surveilence helicopter) search and rescue and diplomat etc transport. With the new dauphins going out of service the use of the lear will increase. oh and aparently mary hearny is not supposed to be the politest person in the world, and the setbelts in the dauphin won't close round her.
P.S. the dauphin is a helicopter.

Sparks

Originally posted by rde
This whole thing about the government jet has been annoying me ever since it first came up. The suggestion that the Taoiseach - the president of Europe - should fly Ryanair is asinine in the extreme. He's the bloody Taoiseach.
<snip>
It's since been followed up endlessly by people who haven't thought it through.

In the UK, as I've pointed out before on this forum, where their resources are far higher (by at least an order of magnitude), they have a strict policy on governmental flights. Yo can read it here, and here's a relevant quote:

III. AIR TRAVEL
Scheduled Passenger Services
21. All Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries on official visits have discretion to use civil scheduled flights in this country and abroad if they consider that this will save time. Wherever possible British airlines should be used, but if the route or time of a Minister’s journey makes this impossible, subject to any security restraints which may apply, a scheduled flight on a foreign airline may be taken.
22. Senior Ministers are entitled to use the best available class of air travel for all journeys by air. Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries may travel by the best available class for flights lasting longer than 2½ hours but should normally travel by Club or equivalent class, or economy class when an intermediate class is not available, on flights of less than 2½ hours.
Non-scheduled Special Flights
23. These are flights for official purposes, in this country and abroad, using aircraft belonging to the Ministry of Defence or commercial operators. They are generally much more expensive than scheduled passenger services and may only be authorised in the manner and circumstances described in the paragraphs below. They must not be used or diverted for journeys to or from Party business, such as constituency visits or attendance at Party meetings. When the time factor is critical, diversions from direct routes may, however, be authorised to collect or deliver a Minister to an airfield near his or her home provided that the only extra costs result from the extra flying time needed to carry out the additional landing and take-off.
24. Members of the Cabinet and Ministers in charge of Departments only have discretion to authorise these special flights either for themselves or for other Ministers within their Departments. Special flights may be authorised when a scheduled service is not available, or when it is essential to travel by air, but the requirements of official or Parliamentary business or security considerations or urgency preclude the journey being made by a scheduled service. Use of special flights by Parliamentary Secretaries should only be approved in exceptional circumstances.
25. In addition, all Defence Ministers travelling on Defence business and other Ministers engaged on business of the Defence Departments or visiting a Service or Defence Establishment may use Ministry of Defence aircraft in accordance with rules and procedures approved by the Secretary of State for Defence.

In short, those with far more resources, and who've thought this out in detail, wouldn't have bought an eight million euro learjet, especially when we already have two other aircraft, and budget problems.

With regard to the specific trip to Derry: the implication in your remark was that there's no reason for a member of the government to be required at short notice to travel a few hundred kilometres.

On the contrary, I accept that fully - I just don't accept that the situation was so urgent that driving up there wouldn't be fast enough. Derry is what, a five hour drive from dublin? And it's a one hour flight, which gets to nearly two by the time you add in travel time to and from airports and air traffic control delays. So what can be so urgent that those three hours are so vital?

dahamsta

Oops, never mind. Should have read the first link, eh, first.

rde

On the contrary, I accept that fully - I just don't accept that the situation was so urgent that driving up there wouldn't be fast enough. Derry is what, a five hour drive from dublin? And it's a one hour flight, which gets to nearly two by the time you add in travel time to and from airports and air traffic control delays. So what can be so urgent that those three hours are so vital?

I don't know exactly what situation requires the European President to save nearly half a working day in travel time; but (obviously unlike you) I can conceive of a few possibilities.

With regard to the UK's position: I'm happy for them. But I doubt that the savings would be that significant in this case. I don't know what (say) fifteen first-class tickets from Dublin to Derry would cost, but I don't think it would be that much more that the fuel for the Lear jet. Other costs - storage, maintenance, crew wages - would be paid anyway.

Then there's the fact that the UK MoD has a lot of hardware that'd be available for use. That's most emphatically not the case here.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sparks
And it's a one hour flight, which gets to nearly two by the time you add in travel time to and from airports and air traffic control delays.

Half hour flight at the most, and air traffic control delays are virtually non-existent for such a flight.

I will allow you the travel time to and from the airport though...;)

therecklessone

Originally posted by rde
I don't know what (say) fifteen first-class tickets from Dublin to Derry would cost, but I don't think it would be that much more that the fuel for the Lear jet. Other costs - storage, maintenance, crew wages - would be paid anyway.

I was going to debunk this by pointing out that Loganair operate the only scheduled service from Dublin to Derry in a Saab 340 (plane not car! ) and that I doubted they had any such thing as business class on one as little as that. Then I checked.

To fly Club class to Derry and back two weeks from now would cost just over €1000. Jesus H. Christ!!!

I think the economy fare is €28 one-way...

Sparks

Originally posted by rde
I don't know exactly what situation requires the European President to save nearly half a working day in travel time; but (obviously unlike you) I can conceive of a few possibilities.

Then please. Enlighten us. Because so far as I can tell, nothing happened that day in Derry that would demand such an extravagance. So far as I can see, this was the justification - an all-day trip round the north, which turned out to be as significant as the colour of the socks I'm now wearing. Which means that he could have just as easily driven up there and not have had his schedule comprimised.

With regard to the UK's position: I'm happy for them. But I doubt that the savings would be that significant in this case. I don't know what (say) fifteen first-class tickets from Dublin to Derry would cost, but I don't think it would be that much more that the fuel for the Lear jet. Other costs - storage, maintenance, crew wages - would be paid anyway.

Wonderful. Now what about the flights to Brussels, Zurich, Paris and Berlin? And what about the boost to Aer Lingus's buisness? Isn't it meant to be our national carrier? So why is the head of government shunning it?

Then there's the fact that the UK MoD has a lot of hardware that'd be available for use. That's most emphatically not the case here.

What's that got to do with the price of bread? The UK MoD hardware can only be used by Jack Straw or his lot. Or didn't you read that part of the quote?

garthv

And what the hell was so important that someone had to fly to Derry in a Learjet?

Derry has an airport now?

therecklessone

Yes, Eglington. (May not be a second G in there) ICAO designator is EGAE.

And its supposed to be a bitch to get to.

rde

Then please. Enlighten us. Because so far as I can tell, nothing happened that day in Derry that would demand such an extravagance. So far as I can see, this was the justification - an all-day trip round the north, which turned out to be as significant as the colour of the socks I'm now wearing. Which means that he could have just as easily driven up there and not have had his schedule comprimised.

I'm not sure what your point is, here; it seems to be that the significance of a given trip on a given day is indicative of how busy our Beloved Taoiseach is for the rest of that day. So you don't think meeting Ian Paisley is important. BFD. That doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything for the three hours that he saved (I apologise if I've misunderstood your point).

Of course, we're both assuming that it was the Taoiseach who used the jet.

Sparks

Originally posted by rde
I'm not sure what your point is, here; it seems to be that the significance of a given trip on a given day is indicative of how busy our Beloved Taoiseach is for the rest of that day. So you don't think meeting Ian Paisley is important. BFD. That doesn't mean he wasn't doing anything for the three hours that he saved (I apologise if I've misunderstood your point).

The point is this - were those three hours worth spending eight million on yet another private jet for the Hindmost, given that we have very specific and serious needs that were not funded as a result of that purchase?

Of course, we're both assuming that it was the Taoiseach who used the jet.

He was the most prominent figure in the cabinet going to Derry that day - it would seem logical to assume he took the jet.

rde

The point is this - were those three hours worth spending eight million on yet another private jet for the Hindmost, given that we have very specific and serious needs that were not funded as a result of that purchase?

No, of course not. If the jet were bought to save three hours, I'd be with you in complaining. But three hours a day over the course of the lifetime of the jet? That's probably worth it.

As for 'yet another jet'; I'm sure you saw the reports a while ago about the problems that arose in the government's existing jets; ignoring the safety aspects (at least two government leaders were involved in crashes in the last year), I'm sure you'd agree it's not desirable to continually have to apologise to various world/community/chess club leaders because the Irish government had to stop in a field somewhere because of yet another warning light on the plane.

And I'm not impressed by the usual "could be better spent on x" argument. I may change my mind when you can name one thing that we couldn't say that about. There's always something that can be pointed to where people can say "isn't this more important?"

Sparks

Originally posted by rde
No, of course not. If the jet were bought to save three hours, I'd be with you in complaining. But three hours a day over the course of the lifetime of the jet? That's probably worth it.

But does it save that much time? You have to drive to the airport anyway, so what's wrong with scheduling your day's activities so you take a commercial flight?

As for 'yet another jet'; I'm sure you saw the reports a while ago about the problems that arose in the government's existing jets

I did - I also saw the statement that the costs of fully servicing the gulfstream (which, by the way, can't be unusable as it is still in use) would be far less than those of buying a new jet.

And I'm not impressed by the usual "could be better spent on x" argument. I may change my mind when you can name one thing that we couldn't say that about. There's always something that can be pointed to where people can say "isn't this more important?"

That logic means that the sixteen thousand or so that Mary Harney spent on her makeup last year was justifable because you can't say "well, it would have been better spent on the educational system's capital spending program".

And for an example, please tell me what would be better than an air ambulance service which can take accident victims to not just the nearest hospital, but the most suitable hospital, and have them there inside the golden hour, thus improving their chances of survival by an enormous amount.

rde

We're going around in circles, here; so my final point on the subject of jets is this...

I did - I also saw the statement that the costs of fully servicing the gulfstream (which, by the way, can't be unusable as it is still in use) would be far less than those of buying a new jet.

Briefly:
1. The lear jet's a better plane than a gulfstream (AFAIK). The argument that 'the old plane is still capable of taking off as long as I've got my duct tape' would mean Bertie'd be still flying around in a biplane.
2. 'Fully servicing' will only bring you so far. At some point the jet'll have to be upgraded; you can be sure that when it does - be it now or fifty years hence - someone'll complain.
3. 'Still being used' is a relative term; just because it's capable of being flown for short hops we shouldn't assume it's capable of crossing the atlantic twice a week.

That logic means that the sixteen thousand or so that Mary Harney spent on her makeup last year was justifable because you can't say "well, it would have been better spent on the educational system's capital spending program".

If you need to compare expenditures to decide that sixteen grand is too much to spend on makeup, there's something wrong with you.

And for an example, please tell me what would be better than an air ambulance service which can take accident victims to not just the nearest hospital, but the most suitable hospital, and have them there inside the golden hour, thus improving their chances of survival by an enormous amount.

Let's give it a go...
You'd rather save ten lives a year by helicopter when ten times that number could be saved by spending the money on heart-attack treatment centres? The equipment isn't that expensive, and much more effective than flying in some asshole who got pissed and fell of a cliff. Or how many lives could be saved in Africa if it were spent on food aid? How many Africans are worth one Irishman?

Obviously my examples aren't meant to be taken seriously, but they do illustrate my point.

spongebob

Originally posted by D
Mary hearny is not supposed to be the politest person in the world, and the setbelts in the dauphin won't close round her.

Would she be polite in more appropriate transport ??

M

Sparks

Originally posted by rde
Briefly:
1. The lear jet's a better plane than a gulfstream (AFAIK). The argument that 'the old plane is still capable of taking off as long as I've got my duct tape' would mean Bertie'd be still flying around in a biplane.
2. 'Fully servicing' will only bring you so far. At some point the jet'll have to be upgraded; you can be sure that when it does - be it now or fifty years hence - someone'll complain.
3. 'Still being used' is a relative term; just because it's capable of being flown for short hops we shouldn't assume it's capable of crossing the atlantic twice a week.

Okay, those would be valid points - if it wasn't for the fact that the Gulfstream is currently at less than 20% of it's service lifetime.

If you need to compare expenditures to decide that sixteen grand is too much to spend on makeup, there's something wrong with you.

Exactly!

Let's give it a go...
You'd rather save ten lives a year by helicopter when ten times that number could be saved by spending the money on heart-attack treatment centres?

Not ten. In 2002, there were just under ten thousand casualties from road accidents alone in the state, according to the NRA.
Now add in other accidents that would require a very rapid transit to the nearest A&E department and you're going to be looking at a lot more than the number of fatal heart attacks per year (just over six thousand in 2002, according to the CSO).
So even though it's not a terribly serious criticism, it does show how serious a service is being neglected so Mary Harney can arrive in a Learjet rather than in a Dauphin with the flight crew sniggering because the seatbelt wasn't big enough to fasten around her....

rde

Not ten. In 2002, there were just under ten thousand casualties from road accidents alone in the state, according to the NRA.

That's a typical statistic, inasmuch as it's pretty meaningless in this context. How many of the 9000 people were sufficiently injured to require hospitalisation? How many of those 346 died because they weren't in hospital within half an hour? How many happened sufficiently close to a hospital that an ambulance would've been quicker?

But we're getting off-topic, here.

D

Originally posted by Muck
Would she be polite in more appropriate transport ??

M

I doubt it has anything to do with the belt.

Nuttzz

If they didnt fly the learjet to Derry they would have flown the Gulfstream and that would cost the taxpayer more, I believe that the idea behind the purchase of the new jet was to ensure that the Gulfstream was left to the long journeys.

Its better off flying to Derry than having the thing parked in Baldonnell, we have it now we may as well use it

Sleepy

Taking a government jet to Derry is an inexcusable waste of taxpayers money. Surely this trip could have been scheduled to start in Belfast which the Taoiseach could have taken the train to? Or even, just driven to Derry.

In this day and age, with our communications system (despite the fact the government have tried almost everything in their power to prevent us having a telecoms infrastructure) how can it be argued that the extra couple of hours it would take to drive to Derry couldn't be spent productively? If I can work on my laptop on the train, why can't Bertie? It's completely facetious to argue that the flight was necessary.

From what I can see, the jet seems to be almost exclusively used for flying to Brussels. Well, to my knowledge there are dozens of flights a day from Dublin Airport to Brussels. Why can't the Taoiseach / Fianna Fail take a commercial flight? My guess is because, dodgy business deals aside, this is the closest they'll ever get to owning their own jet. We have to pay for this jet to massage the egos of the Fianna Fail (it's so apt without the fáda) party faithful.

Sleepy

Originally posted by Nuttzz
If they didnt fly the learjet to Derry they would have flown the Gulfstream and that would cost the taxpayer more, I believe that the idea behind the purchase of the new jet was to ensure that the Gulfstream was left to the long journeys.

Its better off flying to Derry than having the thing parked in Baldonnell, we have it now we may as well use it

But wouldn't we be just better to sell it and use the money for something other than massaging Bertie's ego. I mean, we've already spent a few million on a big knitting needle to do that...

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Sleepy
But wouldn't we be just better to sell it and use the money for something other than massaging Bertie's ego. I mean, we've already spent a few million on a big knitting needle to do that...

like a new car, as soon as you drive it off the forecourt its lost 20% in its value, I didnt think we needed to buy it in the first place but we have it now and they are not going to sell it soon so we may as well use it rather than have it parted in baldonnell