Government Jet Being sold

Delta Kilo

Looks like it is going to be announced that they are selling one of the government jets.

Its hard to tell which one they will try and sell.

I wonder will people be queuing up to buy it or what will ever come of it?

Could be an interesting one to follow!

cocoshovel

How many do they have? alls I know is that they have at least 1 gulfstream and king air. Also how much do you think it will go for?

Delta Kilo

They have a gulfstream 4 and a Learjet 35. The Learjet 35 is newer but I think the GIV is a better jet and gets used more often.

I wonder will it effect the staffing levels of the air corps?

Steyr

Or sell the Beech.

highlydebased

Beech has been out of use for a while anyway.

Get rid of the Learjet, not as versatile as the GV.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Steyr

Yup id rather the Lear gone too im just thinking the Beech was embarassing too, smoke inside etc I know she is WFU but that might be the 1st to go, she was a MATS Aircraft aswell as a Multi-engine rating Aircraft and Emergency Transport Aircraft for ill Children.

Cessna_Pilot

I can see Ryanair getting a lot of business out of this, especially after the President flew with them recently to make a point!

Klunk001

According to the news the first to time ex will be the one to go, so probably the G IV.

Delta Kilo

Maybe the reason they lowered the travel tax back to €3 is because they are going to be using Ryanair themselves a whole lot more often!!

Typical TDs, looking after themselves once again! :P

EchoIndia

This decision will fall to be implemented by a new Government, not the current one. I don't think a timescale has been specified. It will be interesting to see in due course whether a future Government will follow through with this, as the GIV is a far more flexible and capable machine than the Learjet.

Mr Simpson

According to the budget document no jet will be sold, the gulfstream will be decommissioned when it reaches the end of its operational lifespan, leaving the learjet as the sole government jet.
see page 40

EchoIndia

The Department of Defence website says:

"There are currently 2 aircrafts (sic) available for the Ministerial Air Transport Service. The Gulfstream IV aircraft is in service for almost 20 years and no provision has been made in the Estimates for a replacement or for any major structural repair. The Learjet aircraft will continue in operation."

Considering that there are earlier Gulfstreams still in service which were built in the 1970s, I think it is stretching things to say that the Irish G-IV is "at the end of its operational lifespan" (which is what the statement says). If it is disposed of, I expect that it would continue to fly with a new owner. Corporate aircraft don't as a rule rack up huge airframe hours, so it could be good for many years yet.

muppet01

The Lear Jet is only good for short haul junkets. Gulfstream sale will raise little revenue giving its age . Could the govt use its disposal and the Lear to partially fund a purchase of now unneeded Hawk2 aircraft from RAF..... It will never happen but......

Cessna_Pilot

Selling it for a fiver and not getting a replacement would benefit the states finances. It not flying, and the fat cats getting "public" transport would save the tax payer a fortune in itself.

EchoIndia

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

Selling it for a fiver and not getting a replacement would benefit the states finances. It not flying, and the fat cats getting "public" transport would save the tax payer a fortune in itself.

The kind of budgetary difficulties the country faces will not be solved by populist gestures. This will not save a fortune and successive Governments dating back to the 1970s have considered it cost-effective not to have to rely on inflexible airline timetables when trying to juggle demands on Ministers at home and abroad. However there are sound enough political reasons for the Govt. to want to demonstrate its willingness to make sacrifices like this....which will have to be put into effect by parties currently in Opposition!

Run_to_da_hills

It would make sense to hold on to something decent and reliable, these jets are also used for civilian emergencies where larger commercial jets are impractical.

Future Junket travel should be closely monitored and made transparent to the tax payer.

xflyer

There is no need to use 'inflexible airline timetable' or to have them on stand by for civilian emergencies. There are plenty of bizjet operators ready at a moment's notice to fly anyone anywhere less expensively than keeping a jet going all year round. Same with emergencies. Lots of air ambulance operators out there with all the expertise and equipment for civilian emergencies.

There is no longer any justification for the MATS service.

donkey balls

xflyer wrote: »

There is no need to use 'inflexible airline timetable' or to have them on stand by for civilian emergencies. There are plenty of bizjet operators ready at a moment's notice to fly anyone anywhere less expensively than keeping a jet going all year round. Same with emergencies. Lots of air ambulance operators out there with all the expertise and equipment for civilian emergencies.

There is no longer any justification for the MATS service.

The likes of Netjets have a base here in Dublin and through out all Major cities within Europe&USA,Im sure they could easily do the job for the govt.

ian_m

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It would make sense to hold on to something decent and reliable, these jets are also used for civilian emergencies where larger commercial jets are impractical.

This is not something that is widely known. Keep the ministers out and the air patients in, me paying more tax won't feel so bad.

Stinicker

I can't see why they need these to begin with, let them fly first class on commercial aircraft and charter the odd plane. Cowen is hardly Obama after all :eek:

Steyr

donkey balls wrote: »

The likes of Netjets have a base here in Dublin and through out all Major cities within Europe&USA,Im sure they could easily do the job for the govt.

**Cough** why not Aer Lingus? If the UK Govt can proudly fly the Flag using BA then we should be using Shamrock!

donkey balls

Steyr wrote: »

**Cough** why not Aer Lingus? If the UK Govt can proudly fly the Flag using BA then we should be using Shamrock!

My post was in regard to the use of private jets due to the fact that other posters mentioned that Airlines time table might not suit govt ministers.
P.S I wonder will that muppet Dempsey take out the GV out for a spin before getting booted out/steping down from govt.:rolleyes:

Steyr

donkey balls wrote: »

My post was in regard to the use of private jets due to the fact that other posters mentioned that Airlines time table might not suit govt ministers.

Surely they could arrange one for that.

donkey balls wrote: »

P.S I wonder will that muppet Dempsey take out the GV out for a spin before getting booted out/steping down from govt.:rolleyes:

Probably for a Photo Op.... :rolleyes:

Joe 90

Stinicker wrote: »

I can't see why they need these to begin with, let them fly first class on commercial aircraft and charter the odd plane. Cowen is hardly Obama after all :eek:

Why first class?

Run_to_da_hills

Joe 90 wrote: »

Why first class?

You are hardly going to fit Mary Harney into economy class. :pac:

Davidth88

To be honest , I would get rid off the IAC totally . I would transfer the helicopters to the army , and maybe increase them with the money saved .

The CASA's I would transfer to the Navy, base them at Cork or Shannon.

All training I would have done overseas , or perhaps at commercial schools. I am sure that Cranfield would welcome Irish pilots for example .

The jets are just not needed. If a sick child needs moving , then there are private ambulances , must be cheaper to hire one than have a learjet on standby.

Sorry I know I won't be popular saying this. I am sure I have overlooked some important reason to keep the IAC , lets hear it.

basill

To anyone that thinks that there will be huge savings to be made in getting rid of a corporate jet then take 5 minutes to check out what a fully flexible ticket from A to B costs on a national carrier. Multiply that by say 5 for a business delegation. Then factor in as well the downtime in getting to the airport, checking in, putting up with nasty things like slots (avoided if your VIP and have your own jet). Add in more time and money for them to connect if the destination is not one served directly. The list goes on and on.

Hey maybe they could go on FR and find that their flights have been cancelled due to MOL being unhappy with his airport charges or the tourist tax or anything else that takes his fancy.

xflyer

I'm not in favour of getting rid of the IAC completely but it has outlived it's usefulness in it's present form. It's not cost effective and is expensive for what it does. But we do need an air arm for the defence forces.

Perhaps the new government might have some ideas.

punchdrunk

Davidth88 wrote: »

To be honest , I would get rid off the IAC totally . I would transfer the helicopters to the army , and maybe increase them with the money saved .

The CASA's I would transfer to the Navy, base them at Cork or Shannon.

All training I would have done overseas , or perhaps at commercial schools. I am sure that Cranfield would welcome Irish pilots for example .

The jets are just not needed. If a sick child needs moving , then there are private ambulances , must be cheaper to hire one than have a learjet on standby.

Sorry I know I won't be popular saying this. I am sure I have overlooked some important reason to keep the IAC , lets hear it.

in some ways I agree with you but
I think we need the aircorps,but I think it needs a complete shakedown/re-org

FiSe

punchdrunk wrote: »

in some ways I agree with you but
I think we need the aircorps,but I think it needs a complete shakedown/re-org

Well, I'd like to see that on 18mil budget
But, it needs every support possible to finally get rid of that urban myth of 'expensive, no need for, useless' label.
Pity that PR of IAC is not able to capitalise on their work. If you ask someone, who was up in the air delivering supplies, evacuating citizens, monitoring situation, dropping medical aid and so on during last year's floods and harsh winter /or even in the last few weeks/, nobody will know. Oh, maybe they say 'army' as most of the journalists would too...
Anyway I think that IAC personnel do their best with the equipment they have and with such a tiny budget, it's miracle that the IAC is still around.

Back to topic, I think that the main reason behind the proposal sale of the gov. jet is unwillingness to pay for the general overhaul of the a/c. Well, if it's gone, I will not miss it.

Andrew42

donkey balls wrote: »

My post was in regard to the use of private jets due to the fact that other posters mentioned that Airlines time table might not suit govt ministers.
P.S I wonder will that muppet Dempsey take out the GV out for a spin before getting booted out/steping down from govt.:rolleyes:

Yeah, he should take it for a spin, I'm thinking along the lines of a flatspin all the way to FL00. He should take a few of his collegues along too:D

Andrew42

Didn't Bertie Basset mention buying a 737BJ during the crazy years? Thank God that didn't come to pass!

Steyr

Andrew42 wrote: »

Didn't Bertie Basset mention buying a 737BJ during the crazy years? Thank God that didn't come to pass!

Correct he did want a BBJ "Bertie's Business Jet".

Davidth88

basill wrote: »

To anyone that thinks that there will be huge savings to be made in getting rid of a corporate jet then take 5 minutes to check out what a fully flexible ticket from A to B costs on a national carrier. Multiply that by say 5 for a business delegation. Then factor in as well the downtime in getting to the airport, checking in, putting up with nasty things like slots (avoided if your VIP and have your own jet). Add in more time and money for them to connect if the destination is not one served directly. The list goes on and on.

If there is a large delegation , then HIRE a jet . It can't cost as much as owning one.

As for ' downtime etc ' ...... I manage to work via WIFI/phones , I also don't have access to a car and driver to get me to/from the airport.

Why do they have to have fully flexible tkts ? You can usually purchase tkts 1-2 days before travel still well below the price of a fully flexible tkt ( I know I do it all the time )

The recent crazy situation of a minister taking the jet to Derry capped it all for me .

To FiSe.

Most of the work you mention is with the helicopter fleet, I would say expand that , just get rid of the the silly vanity jets, and the ' fast jet trainers ' .
Of course the IAC do useful work , but do they need a seperate chain of command to achieve this work ?

FiSe

Davidth88 wrote: »

To FiSe.

Most of the work you mention is with the helicopter fleet, I would say expand that , just get rid of the the silly vanity jets, and the ' fast jet trainers ' .
Of course the IAC do useful work , but do they need a seperate chain of command to achieve this work ?

I would like to see more helis as well, but that was my point, you can't re-organize, re-equip and maintain current situation on such a tiny budget the IAC getting year after year...
Speaking about 'fast jet trainers' the only fixed wing trainers of the IAC are PC-9s. These are turbo props and some people spend more on their 4X4 than what is the cost of one of these a/c.
I believe though, that some IAC personnel are visiting RAF bases to maintain their jet skills on some, let's say acceptable, level.
And yes, I believe that there is need to have separate infrastructure and chain of command for all three parts of Irish Defence Forces as every one of them deals with very specific problems both organisational and technical. And as I've said in my previous post, it doesn't matter what shoulder patch is sewn on the uniform, those particular people will have to be there and doing their jobs regardless, so let's just pretend that Navy and Air Corps personnel is Army people, or that Army and Air Corps are Naval Service

logie101

FiSe wrote: »

I would like to see more helis as well, but that was my point, you can't re-organize, re-equip and maintain current situation on such a tiny budget the IAC getting year after year...
Speaking about 'fast jet trainers' the only fixed wing trainers of the IAC are PC-9s. These are turbo props and some people spend more on their 4X4 than what is the cost of one of these a/c


You might be a little ill informed as to the cost of the pc-9s!!!
The pc-9 is a state of the art turbo prop trainer used as a lead in fighter trainer to many airforces around the world. They cost in the region of 6 million each. The Air Corp spent around 60million for 8 pc9s including spares, training etc.

So just a little bit more than a 4x4!

FiSe

My bad...
The point I was trying to make was, that the PC9s are cheap to buy and operate.

Andrew42

FiSe wrote: »

My bad...
The point I was trying to make was, that the PC9s are cheap to buy and operate.

Yeah, but there's no way Harney or Cowen would fit in the jump seat!:D

Joe 90

Andrew42 wrote: »

Yeah, but there's no way Harney or Cowen would fit in the jump seat!:D

You could possibly fit one of them in the ejector seat, sans parachute. Possibilities?

donkey balls

Andrew42 wrote: »

Yeah, but there's no way Harney or Cowen would fit in the jump seat!:D

A C-130 Hercules is your man it can get down to 100ft above water and land, Very handy for rolling out /jettison cargo.

Steyr

donkey balls wrote: »

A C-130 Hercules is your man it can get down to 100ft above water and land, Very handy for rolling out /jettison cargo.

As can a C-17. The herc can go lower for that as can a C-17 for doing a LAPES drop.

xflyer

I believe though, that some IAC personnel are visiting RAF bases to maintain their jet skills on some, let's say acceptable, level.

I very much doubt any visit amounts to anything more than an exchange visit with a couple of joyrides thrown in. As the Air Corps never had fast jets and never will there is no need to maintain jet skills. It's rather pointless exercise other than as a friendly visit to a neighbouring air arm.

PC9's may be cheap to own and operate in the context of air forces around the world. But in the context of Ireland they are expensive basic trainers and ineffective militarily. One of the reasons they were bought was to aid retention of pilots who were leaving during the boom years in part because of opportunities elsewhere and in part because the Air Corps had obsolete aircraft long overdue for replacement.

Nowadays it's the Air Corps that's obsolete in it's present form. It really should be a heavily helicopter based force for the army and emergencies. Not a highly expensive tax payer funded training school for future airline pilots.

donkey balls

Steyr wrote: »

As can a C-17. The herc can go lower for that as can a C-17 for doing a LAPES drop.

Yeah I know what the Herc can do having loaded them and flown on them as well.;)

OS119

FiSe wrote: »

My bad...
The point I was trying to make was, that the PC9s are cheap to buy and operate.

rubber dogshit is cheap to own and operate, but you don't get much out of that either!

as xflyer has pointed out, they don't do anything that contributes to the whole - their own 'capabilities' are of bog all use, and the 'stepping stone' argument is a laughable delusion.

they take up resources just by existing - fuel, spares, tech crew, air crew - and by existing they are an 'opportunity cost': the money wrapped up in them and the contracts to keep them flying could be better spent, whether by buying things the DF actually needs or even by just paying off a bit of interest on the sovereign debt.

muppet01

xflyer wrote: »

I very much doubt any visit amounts to anything more than an exchange visit with a couple of joyrides thrown in. As the Air Corps never had fast jets and never will there is no need to maintain jet skills. It's rather pointless exercise other than as a friendly visit to a neighbouring air arm.

PC9's may be cheap to own and operate in the context of air forces around the world. But in the context of Ireland they are expensive basic trainers and ineffective militarily. One of the reasons they were bought was to aid retention of pilots who were leaving during the boom years in part because of opportunities elsewhere and in part because the Air Corps had obsolete aircraft long overdue for replacement.

Nowadays it's the Air Corps that's obsolete in it's present form. It really should be a heavily helicopter based force for the army and emergencies. Not a highly expensive tax payer funded training school for future airline pilots.

Strangely enough the AC have operated fast jets starting with the Vampires.The PC's are totally pointless as are the outdated 172's still used
, no point in dreaming that any jet will arrive in the near future.
The biggest problem seems to be choice of aircraft:

AW139 expensive toy as opposed to rugged workhorse needed for overseas support.We had to rent Hips while the new toy stayed at home.
Pc9 Why?????
172 past it

andy_g

Simple system they used was.
cessna's=basic trainer. Another example RAF use/used the grob 115 and before that the scottish avitaion bulldog.

Pilatus PC9=advance to trainer used to advance to basic fast jets. Another example of this is other airforces use the tuscan to advance to fast jet.

Steyr

andy_g wrote: »

Pilatus PC9=advance to trainer used to advance to basic fast jets. Another example of this is other airforces use the Tucano to advance to fast jet.

Fixed above for you Andyg is correct, the PC9M's are there so the IAC Jockeys can gain jet like experience for the believeing being if the poo hits the fan we can just get jets asap.

Steyr

OS119 wrote: »

the money wrapped up in them and the contracts to keep them flying could be better spent, whether by buying things the DF actually needs

Out of interest as i enjoy your well informed replies what would you do? I suggest UAV's for a start.

Steyr

muppet01 wrote: »

Strangely enough the AC have operated fast jets starting with the Vampires.The PC's are totally pointless as are the outdated 172's still used

Strangely enough the Fouga CM170 Super Magisters were considered vastly underpowered as they were, the Vampire was acually faster.

As for the Reims I believe the Cessna Caravan was being discussed about which would be a good improvement.

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

Out of interest as i enjoy your well informed replies what would you do? I suggest UAV's for a start.

Helicopters and UAV's.

UAV's could complete all the DF's fixed wing roles (maritime patrol, SAR topcover, ISR and light strike/CAS (snigger...)). there's an issue with transport, but the 235MPA is so limited in its transport capability that its no real loss.

helicopters for everything else.