Government jets cost 4500 euros per hour when they are not in use.

OS119

yeah, i am.

neither of the sources you quoted was able to say how those figures were arrived at, they just quoted verbatum what other people (bear in mind that the DoD seems not to know what assets it owns, so i'd be wary of them knowing what they cost) have told them the costs are.

not one has been able to demonstrate the breakdown of those costs.

it looks to me like a method of accounting that looks impressive - and shows the need for more expensive accountants - while giving no indication of how much actual money goes up in smoke whenever these assets are used or the cost of owning them.

FlutterinBantam

OK.. That's that then.

diverdriver

Look it's all very well arguing about the actual costs whether it be flying or sitting in the hangar. The simple reality is that maintaining two jets for the sole use of the Irish government is stupidly expensive. Donkeyballs mentioned the solution a long time ago. Netjets or similar.

The fact is, whether we like it or not. It makes sense to transport ministers around in their own aircraft whether it be by jet or helicopter. What doesn't make sense anymore is getting the Air Corps to do it. In fact a great deal of what the Air Corps does could be more cheaply done by civilian contractors.

Netjets for example can have a jet of the appropriate size at the airport of your choice to the destination of your choice. All you have to do is pick up the phone. Like a taxi service. It doesn't cost you anything when you're not using it, unlike the MATS jets which cost money sitting in the hangar. The crews need training, the aircraft needs maintenance etc.

Sometimes it would be more sensible to go commercial. For example the USA. Fly Aer Lingus to JFK and if you need to fly on, have a private operator place a business jet there ready for onward transit.

It's the same with the helicopters, a private operator could do it much more cheaply. There is no need to waste flying hours on the Air Corps fleet flying freeloading politicians around the country. Rent one from Irish helicopters or similar. Put some tax money back into the economy.

The MATS aircraft are now an expensive luxury and the money spent on them would be better spent on the Air Corps itself.

OS119

i think that because of the way the politicians have utilised the MATS there is a very good argument for going commercial - that they would have to justify every single penny of 'hired MATS' expenditure to the public as there are no overheads to muddy the water of exactly how much it costs to have and use this capability.

on the other hand having the MATS airframes/crew in AC ownership does mean that they are available for other things while not taking fat politicians to the opening of an off licence - the obvious example being maritime/fisheries patrol - granted the G-IV isn't a MPA, but it wouldn't take much cash/effort to allow it to operate in a 'MP-lite' role that would benefit the state in backing up the CASA-235 MPA's and give 3.5 airframes where currently there are 3.

its also i think a wise idea to be very careful about removing completely the ability of any state to move its most senior and valuable (i can't believe i've just said that) ministers/officials around in secrecy and rapidity. if the MATS work was completely outsourced then either you'd have to gamble on them not having another customer when you want to hire them, or pay them a retainer to keep aircraft soley for your use - which might well end up as expensive (and financially complex) as the current model.

diverdriver

Horses for courses. The GIV could be converted but that would render it unsuitable for the VIP role. It won't happen anyway.

In any case I would argue for removing the fishery protection role from the Air Corps and giving it to the Coastguard and or Customs, along the lines of the SAR. The British civilianised it some time ago. It doesn't need to be a military role.

You can argue that taking away the ability to move ministers rapidly and secretly is a negative. But this is Ireland not the USA. In any case an anonymous privately operated jet is far for secret than landing with a big harp on the side.

I really don't think it's a gamble that an aircraft won't be available when needed. The business of these operators depends on them making aircraft available NOW! Whether you be a movie star or a prime minister. Even having a retainer is cheaper than keeping a jet. That is actually what sustains their business model. It also has the advantage of being able to supply an appropriate aircraft. No need for a GIV if only one or two people are flying. Get a Citation. If it's a big deputation hire a Boeing Business Jet or charter something bigger. It makes a lot more sense and would be completely transparent financially.

donkey balls

diverdriver wrote: »

Horses for courses. The GIV could be converted but that would render it unsuitable for the VIP role. It won't happen anyway.

In any case I would argue for removing the fishery protection role from the Air Corps and giving it to the Coastguard and or Customs, along the lines of the SAR. The British civilianised it some time ago. It doesn't need to be a military role.

You can argue that taking away the ability to move ministers rapidly and secretly is a negative. But this is Ireland not the USA. In any case an anonymous privately operated jet is far for secret than landing with a big harp on the side.

I really don't think it's a gamble that an aircraft won't be available when needed. The business of these operators depends on them making aircraft available NOW! Whether you be a movie star or a prime minister. Even having a retainer is cheaper than keeping a jet. That is actually what sustains their business model. It also has the advantage of being able to supply an appropriate aircraft. No need for a GIV if only one or two people are flying. Get a Citation. If it's a big deputation hire a Boeing Business Jet or charter something bigger. It makes a lot more sense and would be completely transparent financially.

+ 1 again the company i mentioned 3 posts back do exactly what driver is on about they have different size acft to meet the needs of there customers with no markings on the acft except the reg.

as for converting the GIV to a maritime acft it would be a waste of $$$$$ better of with a c130.(they can plod along at a slower speed&height than a jet).
my old line of work needed that if our company/wet lease acft went tech i could have a spare acft within 1/2 hours to operate our flight.