The true cost of neutrality

Hagar

According to an article in today's Evening Herald the Government has paid €6,000,000 to the Irish Aviation Authority for landing charges incurred by US military aircraft at Shannon. Our govt allowed the aircraft to land for re-fueling but waived the landing charges. The taxpayer then had to make good the monies due to the IAA. So not only is our "perceived neutrality" being flaunted we are footing the bill for the privilege. :mad:

magpie

And our personal tax bill has gone up by €9,000 per annum each.

Can people please stop voting for FF / PDs now?

Sparks

That's not the government's choice (to waive the fees) Hagar, that happens for any and all foreign military flights through our airspace. ATC and landing fees are paid for by the taxpayer to the IAA (and a biggish chunk then goes on the the JAA in europe). We signed a treaty to that effect way back when. The upside is that when our enormous aerial armada streaks across foreign skies, their taxpayers pay for it. It's just that the fees are lower for two cessna's and a king air than for 140,000 troops and their munitions and logicstics in more C-150s than you can shake a stick at (without CAS aircraft getting overly interested in you, that is).

And yes, they knew all this before making their decision. I think the point was raised in one of the earlier fights^H^H^H^H^H^Hdebates on the topic.

Big al

I can only imagine what the secert activity at abbeyschrule is costing us too....

BolBill

magpie wrote:

Can people please stop voting for FF / PDs now?

I've never voted FF or PD and never will. :mad:

ixoy

Out of interest, do the troops get much time on the ground? Does the local economy prosper from it at all?

Sparks

By law the troops aren't meant to offically enter the country ixoy, they're not permitted past customs.
In practise, that's not quite what happens.

ixoy

Sparks wrote:

By law the troops aren't meant to offically enter the country ixoy, they're not permitted past customs.
In practise, that's not quite what happens.

Fair enough. Are there any small shops/cafes they're allowed enter within the confines of the airport? Places that can be supplied by local outlets, brining money back into the economy? Or are they stuck on board?

Just curious, for the sake of balance, if we get something economically out of it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Buying a few packets of crisps and sweets is hardly payback!!

Buying a few packets of crisps and sweets is hardly payback!!

Depends on many are doing it. <Shrugs> Alot of people have mentioned about the numbers of US troops that have used Shannon, some saying as many as 2/3 the total Iraqi contingent. Thats alot of crisps

magpie

Just curious, for the sake of balance, if we get something economically out of it.

In the aftermath of the first gulf war permission was granted to US troop planes to stop and refuel at Shannon on one condition: that all the troops be ushered off their planes and through the airport shop before reboarding.

I think Yeats said it best

What need you, being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till
And add the halfpence to the pence
And prayer to shivering prayer, until
You have dried the marrow from the bone

A nation of shopkeepers indeed. Or in Bertie's case, bookkeepers.

I've never voted FF or PD and never will.

Good for you Bill, neither have I. And amazingly I've never met anyone who owns up to it. Yet they keep getting re-elected.

Hagar

Sorry Sparks I never heard of that agreement, I'm not well up on things like that.
Mind you when all the debates and protests were going on, no Govt official saw fit to mention it to Joe Public who was going to foot the bill. Had it been made public knowledge then, I wonder what effect it would have had on the scale of the protests, would the average tax-payer viewed things differently?

Nuttzz

magpie wrote:

Good for you Bill, neither have I. And amazingly I've never met anyone who owns up to it. Yet they keep getting re-elected.

Prepare to be AMAZED!!! I do, actually I'm a card carrying member of the PD's :eek:

therecklessone

Hagar wrote:

Sorry Sparks I never heard of that agreement, I'm not well up on things like that.
Mind you when all the debates and protests were going on, no Govt official saw fit to mention it to Joe Public who was going to foot the bill. Had it been made public knowledge then, I wonder what effect it would have had on the scale of the protests, would the average tax-payer viewed things differently?

http://www.gov.ie/debates-03/5Feb/Sect7.htm]

Seamus Brennan wrote:

Under a Eurocontrol multilateral agreement to which Ireland is a party, various categories of flights - flights under visual flight rules, flights performed by small aircraft, flights performed for the transport of heads of state and search and rescue flights - are exempt from paying en-route charges. In the case of other categories - military flights, training flights, flights performed to test air navigation equipment and circular flights - states have the option to exempt such flights from payment of the en-route charge. In common with most Eurocontrol member states, Ireland exempts all such flights, including military, from payment of the en-route charge. Because of this arrangement the IAA costs in relation to military flights are met from my Department's vote.

Ireland also exempts military aircraft flights from payment of the communications charge and the IAA costs in relation to those charges are also met from my Department's vote

That was from February 2003.

Hobbes

I don't think they can win.

Don't pay = Taxpayer is getting stiffed, evil PDs!
Pay = Those Evil PDs are getting kickbacks for an illegal war.