Irish government jet

L1011

hmmm wrote: »

I'd have thought a sub for someone like Netjets would be sufficient.

Netjets can't guarantee the response time required without you having 100% ownership of a frame - and then it becomes cheaper to let the Air Corps own it.

cerastes

Irish Steve wrote: »

Not particularly new news, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-jet-may-be-grounded-by-lack-of-repair-budget-1.1812976 from May of this year highlighted that there is no budget for other than routine maintenance, and it's not a new jet any more, BA are in the middle of a process of scrapping most of their 747's of similar vintage, and other aircraft of that vintage are also being parted out.

Depending on what's happened, it's altogether possible that something like a bird strike has damaged an engine, and if it's not on a maintenance contract or similar, that could be a large bill, which clearly is not funded right now.

Age as someone pointed out is no indication of anything with an aircraft.
It's flying hours and cycles will be and I suspect the IAC GIV doesnt approach what other GIV or what BA aircraft have on them.
I read it was an undercarriage problem, bit vague but

EchoIndia wrote: »

An online production list for the Gulfstream IV records none of the 825 built to date as having been scrapped to date and the type is still in production in developed form as the G-450.
If the Government decides not to retain the aircraft, barring some major structural problem it would be sold, as have previous transport types such as the King Airs and the HS125.

At this stage I cant see how it couldnt be worth keeping, based on whats already been spent, operate at minimum hours for maintenance and training/usage (to not lose more). This seems like a surprise to them, aircraft cost money and to keep (even on the ground), the optimal usage for the aircraft needs to be known and I dont think this was determined when procuring it as I never thought that aircraft was suitable.

man98 wrote: »

Why do we need a big fuel burning private jet? What we need is something like a Casa 235 or Embraer 135. The Casa would be cheap, and the Air Corps already have 2 of them. If speed is really an issue, an Embraer 135 could do just fine. VIP Configured of course to each. 20 passengers could comfortably fly in each.

Idbatterim wrote: »

the below looks cool and asking 4.5 million ish USD... http://cars.ie.msn.com/news/honda-type-air-hondajet-takes-flight-1#image=20

That looks as small as a learjet or smaller, how about they dont buy new?
Rather than pour more money into another new aircraft, figure out what the requirements are, and its quite possible that two aircraft would need to cover that requirement, based on it being calculated its not cheaper to hire private charters as mentioned.
Instead they chose two aircraft that dont really suit what they need, small and sporty looking for sure but no use other than transporting a small number of people in luxury.

One small commercial airline equivalent aircraft for shorter hops (cycles) but with the ability to bring along a delegation, carry cargo, kitted out for a medical team or ability to evacuate a max number of people in one go.
I'd have suggested something similar in seating capacity to or larger than an Embraer 135 and with a better record, 35-50 seats, kitted out with a split between the premium "presidential seats" not to be spoiled and then something for the civil servants and other hangers on, but with the ability to be fully converted as above, as pretty much all aircraft can be converted. Extra space could be used for conference table, sleeper etc.
I say that, meaning this is what they should have done, but they have the aircraft now, so they need to see can their needs be met cheaper by getting rid, which is usually wasteful in any scenario,
ie Marchettis, King Airs, Even the Dauphins were rid of and someone got them at a good bargain because they kitted them out for and purchased them for the right demand (and no doubt at the right price, the sensible one).

An aircraft that is fully utilised for all needs rather than sitting idle waiting for a ministerial use, or prioritised for ministerial transport, instead of mixing requirements when necessary.

Long haul (transatlantic or otherwise) could have been either covered (how frequently?) either by leasing out business jet aircraft individually planned in advance or by having another larger aircraft capable of all of the above, plus long haul (and not incorrectly used for short haul high cycle use), which I dont think we have a consistent need for, and it might put the brakes on bad usage.

Lear jets are nice, like a ferrari maybe, but both it and the GIV are not the best aircraft, but they are there now. Idiotically they seem to have been purchased for other reasons.
Its like they bought a Maybach (and a Ferrari), have hardly used it relative to what others do, are stunned to realise it costs money to run, isnt that suitable to the need, or could be better served by another marque anyway, but to save money they think its better now having suffered the worst part of the costs to dispose of it and buy a new maybach and a Lambo.

They dont seem to be able to pick some of the aircraft well and I consider its more ego for some involved (not just the politicians but in some cases specifically the politicians) the reasons aircraft types were chosen and then disposed of.

At this stage, we cant afford it, but it might cost less to keep than get rid of it, a proper evaluation of the requirements,costs of whats needed and then the usage and availability of whats on hand.

Brian Lighthouse

sully2010 wrote: »

Brian Lighthouse wrote: »

Its Rathlin Island.

Well that rules out Bertie sitting in Charlie's seat.

keroseneboy

suasdaguna2 wrote: »

So we keep a Learjet type? Not comfy but point and squirt. It'll put off the jolley merchants but will get a minister on site if required . Surely the govt to can lower itself and be a net jets client?

Good idea. Fractional ownership could replace both the Learjet and GIV. The only reservations could be the need for privacy and other security concerns.

silverwood

MYOB wrote: »

Netjets can't guarantee the response time required without you having 100% ownership of a frame - and then it becomes cheaper to let the Air Corps own it.

That's incorrect. NetJets actually guarantee to have an aircraft in position within a maximum of 10 hours.......no matter how little of the aircraft you own (even as little as 6.25% or a 1/16 share). In reality, I believe it's always very much quicker.

And you also have access to the entire fleet for different missions. For example, if you are a Global 6000 owner but you simply need a Phenom 300 for a short flight then you can simply request that instead.....or vice versa. As an owner, you have full access to the entire fleet.

NewSigGuy

keroseneboy wrote: »

Good idea. Fractional ownership could replace both the Learjet and GIV. The only reservations could be the need for privacy and other security concerns.

I'd say NetJets or the like is the only way to go. On response times, flexibility cost etc it would be far more efficient and cost effective then the AC option, and you can increase or decrease the usage to suit the needs of the state without the huge capital cost.

I think many of the current customers of NetJets would have higher security and privacy concerns then our elected officials.

smurfjed

Do fractional jet pilots have duty time restrictions under EASA? Thats one of the primary reasons that my boss operates his aircraft privately. There are times when they need to go somewhere, meet someone and immediately return, we don't have any duty time limitations so this is possible.
You lose the benefits of a corporate state aircraft when flights must be planned around the crew. The Aer Corp operating under military rules probably don't have the same restrictive duty times.

keroseneboy

NewSigGuy wrote: »

I'd say NetJets or the like is the only way to go. On response times, flexibility cost etc it would be far more efficient and cost effective then the AC option, and you can increase or decrease the usage to suit the needs of the state without the huge capital cost.

I think many of the current customers of NetJets would have higher security and privacy concerns then our elected officials.

Agreed. Netjet customers must already have the security/privacy issue covered. It would be interesting to see Netjet aircraft using Baldonnel

silverwood

smurfjed wrote: »

Do fractional jet pilots have duty time restrictions under EASA? Thats one of the primary reasons that my boss operates his aircraft privately. There are times when they need to go somewhere, meet someone and immediately return, we don't have any duty time limitations so this is possible.
You lose the benefits of a corporate state aircraft when flights must be planned around the crew. The Aer Corp operating under military rules probably don't have the same restrictive duty times.

Smurfjed, all NetJets Europe crew operate under EASA flight time limitations, just like any airline does. You are correct in that this is quite restrictive from a scheduling perspective, however, frequently, there would be more than one crew assigned to a tail so that the duty issue doesn't arrive. Crew would airline in and out to back up a tail for maximum flexibility for owners.

That said, if you have an aircraft managed by EJME (Executive Jet Management Europe) which is NetJets' aircraft management business, the normal flight time limitations don't apply. With this, the owner owns the aircraft but NetJets manages it on their behalf. It is not operated under a public AOC.

silverwood

keroseneboy wrote: »

Agreed. Netjet customers must already have the security/privacy issue covered. It would be interesting to see Netjet aircraft using Baldonnel

I agree. Many of NJ's current clients would require security and privacy at the same level (or higher) than that of an Irish government minister. That would not be an issue.

Tabnabs

man98 wrote: »

Mr. Workingman and Mrs. Workingwoman can think what they like about a new government jet. The fact is, it is highly beneficial to have our own. Comparing us to similar countries, such as Denmark (4 Cl604s), Norway (1 Dassault Falcon 20, charters), Sweden (2 G4s and 3 Saab 340s) and the Czech Republic (2 Yaks, a Challenger and 2 A319CJs).

Norway and Denmark are both members of NATO and as such, have a significant military capacity. Sweden, a country twice Ireland's size, takes its neutrality very seriously and also invests heavily in its military programme.

Ireland is still too reliant on parish pump politics and begrudgery. There is also the left wing media bias of equating everything to numbers of nurses/gardai/ the State could have employed etc. It's an uphill struggle to realise anything so relatively essential to a modern first world state (especially if it has a military or political dimension).

L1011

silverwood wrote: »

That's incorrect. NetJets actually guarantee to have an aircraft in position within a maximum of 10 hours.......no matter how little of the aircraft you own (even as little as 6.25% or a 1/16 share). In reality, I believe it's always very much quicker.

And you also have access to the entire fleet for different missions. For example, if you are a Global 6000 owner but you simply need a Phenom 300 for a short flight then you can simply request that instead.....or vice versa. As an owner, you have full access to the entire fleet.

Thats about nine hours too much

Tenger

NewSigGuy wrote: »

......I think many of the current customers of NetJets would have higher security and privacy concerns then our elected officials.

I can remember about 6-8 years ago, seeing the then Taoiseach of Ireland board a commercial flight from CDG-DUB with no assistants or bodyguards near him. (I only spotted him in the boarding queue,may have had escort up till that point) He was travelling as a private citizen at the time but still....the position deserves the security if not the actual person. He had to queue in the jetway with everyone else and was deated in a window seat in themiddle of the cabin with an Irish couple beside him. The cabin crew did offer him a different seat but he declined...looked like he was trying to keep a low profile. Funny, its was on the evening of the big horse race in Paris (Prix de l'arc de Triomphe)

billie1b

Tenger wrote: »

I can remember about 6-8 years ago, seeing the then Taoiseach of Ireland board a commercial flight from CDG-DUB with no assistants or bodyguards near him. (I only spotted him in the boarding queue,may have had escort up till that point) He was travelling as a private citizen at the time but still....the position deserves the security if not the actual person. He had to queue in the jetway with everyone else and was deated in a window seat in themiddle of the cabin with an Irish couple beside him. The cabin crew did offer him a different seat but he declined...looked like he was trying to keep a low profile. Funny, its was on the evening of the big horse race in Paris (Prix de l'arc de Triomphe)

The 2 guys in the suits about 10 people behind him in the queue acting all business like and the same 2 guys about 4 rows back from him on the aircraft were his bodyguards

Tenger

billie1b wrote: »

The 2 guys in the suits about 10 people behind him in the queue acting all business like and the same 2 guys about 4 rows back from him on the aircraft were his bodyguards

Don't think so.
I have seen head's of state and ministers travelling before. Ministers of the Dutch, Italian, Irish, and Brunei govts, as well as 2 serving Irish presidents and 1 ex-Irish President. (I was also in Chicago 2-3 years ago on the day a NATO conference finished up, spent 3 interesting hours watching many delegations passing by)
I do get what you are saying but this was definitely not normal. He was met at the door in Dublin and straight into a car, no-one else from the flight joined him.

EDIT: I must say the Brunei ministerial party was the best. (Had them about 10 years ago) 3 guys who looked like Tongan rugby players in tight fitting suits. Not obvious at all. Looked like they would be able to barge through a wall.
Dutch and Italian were very low key, but were low level ministers. Irish ministers usually travel with 2-3 in their party (1-2 assistants and 1 Garda) when on Govt business. Seen them travel alone when on private journey.

L1011

billie1b wrote: »

The 2 guys in the suits about 10 people behind him in the queue acting all business like and the same 2 guys about 4 rows back from him on the aircraft were his bodyguards

Any bodyguards at all would have been bad for his very constructed "man of de people" image.

billie1b

Tenger wrote: »

Don't think so.
I have seen head's of state and ministers travelling before. Ministers of the Dutch, Italian, Irish, and Brunei govts, as well as the 2 Irish presidents. (I was also in Chicago 2-3 years ago on the day a NATO conference finished up, spent 3 interesting hours watching many delegations passing by)
I do get what you are saying but this was definitely not normal. He was met at the door in Dublin and straight into a car, no-one else from the flight joined him.

Cool, could of been by himself, you'd never know, I doubt highly any normal member of the public in another country would recognise the Irish Taoiseach, not being smart saying that, I just think thats the way it is.
Anytime i've dealt with them on my flights, Taoiseach, Ministers, President etc, they usually disembark into the car and drive away and myself or another dispatcher would be met by their bodygaurds at the steps of the a/c and we would escort them to get their bags from the hold and they walk in normal like the other pax, again not saying this is what happened, just saying how it has happened with me before

hmmm

he Government has used the jet on 218 occasions between coming into power and March 21st last.The Taoiseach was the most frequent flier in that time, having used the jet on 71 occasions, the first of which was a trip from Baldonnel to Brussels and onto Knock in his home county of Mayo on March 10th 2011.The Tánaiste, Eamon Gilmore has used the jet on 61 occasions since taking office, the most expensive of which was a €73,780 trip to Washington last year with an entourage of five others where he met with members of the US congress to lobby for their support for new immigration legislation for an estimated 50,000 undocumented Irish living in the US. The Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan has used the jet 55 times since the Government came into power. Over two thirds of these trips were to Brussels or involved a stop in the Belgian capital. Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Alan Shatter has used the jet on 19 occasions since the formation of the Government the most expensive of which was an official State visit to the Middle East during with stops in Beirut, Amman and Tel Aviv at a total cost of €64,260.

There's nothing in the above paragraph that indicates such an extreme emergency that it requires the people involved to get to Baldonnel and be in the air within an hour - all those trips would have been comfortably scheduled on commercial flights, or on a fractional ownership basis on a private jet.

CEOs in far more important and useful positions that Irish government ministers can plan their schedules properly, and just because some Irish minister wants to be flown back to their home constituency to attend a clinic the day after is no justification for a 40 million quid jet standing available at an hours notice.

At worst, a small jet that could put most of Europe within reach would be more than enough. Any trips to the US or further can be scheduled commercially.

NewSigGuy

MYOB wrote: »

Thats about nine hours too much

Does the AC do 1 Hour Notice??

Irish Steve

If Netjets, (or any other part share/ownership scheme) was viable, you can be sure that another country would. by now, have gone with that option, but there are too many issues with going that route.

Getting back up crew in and out of places that don't have scheduled services is problematic, unless you are going to have a second aircraft shadowing the prime mover, and that's massively serious expense. Some Government jet destinations have significant security implications, so just the hassle of getting reserve crew in and out can be another major issue, and the problems of timings and availability have already been done to death a lot earlier in the thread.

Yes, lots of people around the country hate Politicians, and with some justification, but is that the job or the manner in which those elected are selected and promoted, by their relevant party mechanisms, and the manner in which those elected seem to be incapable of delivering on their pre election promises, while ensuring their own gold plated future?

The reality is that if we discount the hatred towards the individuals, (many of whom deserve that hatred and more for their inept incompetence, corruption and self serving), the Government of the State requires that the people providing that government are facilitated to do the job, and to do that job wherever they are needed to do it.

It is appropriate that they travel to important and significant meetings in a manner that ensures they are capable of doing the job they are there for, and that doesn't happen if you have just spent 8 or 10 hours in economy on a long haul flight, which some people here seem to believe is appropriate.

Meetings at high levels are not deciding what colour ink should be used to print posters promoting Ireland, (or at least, they shouldn't be), they are usually discussing matters that can and do affect the future economic prosperity of the entire country, or sometimes, of Europe, if the meeting has EU implications, there are times when decisions about the entire EU are being managed by Irish Politicians.

That being the case, I for one want people making decisions at that level to be very much on top of their game, and if that means they need to travel at a time to suit their agenda, and in a machine that facilitates working in whatever manner is deemed appropriate, then that IS the cost of having efficient and appropriate governance by the people that we've chosen (or at least approved of) to do the job, and some of the suggestions being made in this thread are a sad reflection on the begrudgery of the nation.

I may not like the people that are representing Ireland Inc, and I may well not have voted for them personally, but they ARE responsible for doing the very best they can for Ireland Inc, so they need to be given the right tools to do that job.

Yes, too many of the recent incumbents in high office should never have been there, but do we blame the individuals, or the party mechanisms that selected them in the first place, or the voters that put them there even when they'd shown themselves to be self serving and incompetent?

To put this into some sort of context, there is the very real and distinct possibility that Gerry Adams (or his successor) could find him/her self occupying space on a State owned and operated aircraft before too long if recent voting trends continue. Personally, I find that a very worrying trend, but do I blame the system, or the voters, or who if it happens?

Regardless of how I feel about the individual, if he/she has a high level job to do on behalf of Ireland Inc, then it is appropriate that "the state" should provide the right level of services and facilities to enable them to do the job, and to do it to the very best of his capabilities.

To be really picky, it is completely feasible to send any Government representative to Brussels without using air transport, but the time involved, and the cost of doing so would be significant, using a car and ferries to get to Brussels would take a lot of time, and require intermediate night stops, or similar, and the chances of the relevant representative being on good form on arrival are mixed, especially if the ferry crossing was as rough as some of them can be.

If the meeting is unscheduled, then getting there quickly is best done by air. Some of the recent meetings are at short notice, because things like the Ukraine situation are fast moving, and the implications of what's happening in that part of the world don't bear thinking about if they are not dealt with appropriately, and quickly.

Standing at Portrush at the weekend and watching 2 Lancasters fly past, and then later watching the symbolism of dropping poppy petals from a Huey brought home only too clearly just how high a price was paid by so many when politicians and diplomats failed to achieve a sensible solution to what became a century with 2 massive conflicts in it.

If providing an acceptable Government Jet helps to avoid ever seeing new conflicts like the 2 World Wars, then the price becomes irrelevant in the global scale of things, and it IS a price worth paying.

pajor

For the NATO summit last week, I saw on FR24 that the Greeks were using an Embraer. Somebody mentioned having something similar in a two class configuration. Don't see why that wouldn't work as a multi-function jet for air ambulance as well as MATS etc.

NewSigGuy

The NetJets option is viable, just because other countries have not done it does not prove any argument. They provide an excellent service with good response times and guarantees should there be a tech problem with the primary aircraft. They also allow the customer to trade up or down depending on the mission. As far as I am aware they have a worldwide AOC and therefore could fly into any airport that the AC have flown the G-IV into, if you have an example of somewhere the AC G-IV has been that commercial operators would not go to please let us know.

The Duty hours restrictions should be the same for the AC as they are for NetJets, the difference is that NetJets have the economy of scale to pre-position crew and or aircraft to allow for such situations.

There are countries that are far more affluent then Ireland who have decided that all or virtually all Governmental Travel be via the commercial route, Norway being the prime example..

Marcusm

Is it not the case that the UK has no dedicated government air transport relying on commercial flights and charters?

pajor

NewSigGuy wrote: »

There are countries that are far more affluent then Ireland who have decided that all or virtually all Governmental Travel be via the commercial route, Norway being the prime example..

Well if Alitalia is good enough for the Pope.. :pac:

A joke.

silverwood

Marcusm wrote: »

Is it not the case that the UK has no dedicated government air transport relying on commercial flights and charters?

RAF 32 Squadron in Northolt are the VIP transport section for the UK government and royal family.

silverwood

A few of the posts above seem to suggest that governments don't use charter operations. In fact, there is hardly a nation in Europe that don't utilise services such as these as and when it is needed. This includes nations with access to their own aircraft, but particularly at times when it is not available due maintenance etc..

Also, whilst the movies might show otherwise, in my experience, very few flights are unexpected and need to be arranged at short notice.

Preset No.3

So we need a new jet?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/state-spent-7m-on-21500-plane-tickets-for-highflyers-30571730.html



Almost €7m was spent last year buying more than 21,500 airline tickets to whisk high-flying State officials across Europe and around the world.

Their carbon footprint swelled as the State spent €6.97m, a 13pc increase on the €6.1m spent in 2012.

The spend by officials on hotel bed nights on business also increased by 29.5pc, increasing from €1.12m to €1.45m with room nights going up from 7,237 to 9,061. The average spend per hotel bed night stood at €160.

The figures show that in spite of being Ireland's largest airline, Ryanair scooped only 13.5pc of the business enjoyed by Aer Lingus from state travel.

Ryanair recently claimed the Government could save €3m a year if officials choose to fly with the airline between Dublin and Brussels' main airport.

The statistics show that last year the State, through its contracted firm, Carlson Wagonlit Travel, bought 9,364 air tickets from Aer Lingus compared to 1,268 from Ryanair.

The most popular destination for State officials last year was Brussels where 6,734 trips were recorded compared to 1,703 to London.

Tabnabs

And the Irish State owns in the region of 25% in AL. One could argue that are supporting their own and at the same time, increasing dividend ROI.

smurfjed

That said, if you have an aircraft managed by EJME (Executive Jet Management Europe) which is NetJets' aircraft management business, the normal flight time limitations don't apply. With this, the owner owns the aircraft but NetJets manages it on their behalf. It is not operated under a public AOC.

But isnt the Aer Corp basically a management company for that aircraft, so what advantage do EJME offer over the AC?

The Duty hours restrictions should be the same for the AC as they are for NetJets,

Why are they the same? Do the AC actually operate under an EASA AOC?

There is a cut over point where owning your own aircraft is more viable than fractional, considering that the G4 was used 218 times, lets say with an average flight time of 1 hour, i believe that would put the governments use of the aircraft over the threshold for owning their own jet.

ANXIOUS

I don't think net jets would work. I'd say it'd be an insurance issue flying into places like chad. Also people who were picked up after hurricane Katherine and I'd be fairly sure netjets would not have got permission to do that.