Irish government jet

silverwood

smurfjed wrote: »

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

That's agreed smurfjed. I was just pointing out the difference between the NJ and EJME. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Effectively, the AC are managing the jets for them already.

I do think that the regular NJ fractional is worth considering though. Even if just for some extra lift when needed.

Marcusm

silverwood wrote: »

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

As I understand it, they are not used for government transport.

NewSigGuy

ANXIOUS wrote: »

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.

Chad?? Air France have a daily service to N'Djamena.. Insurance would not be an issue, I'd say you be surprised as to the locations NetJets Serves.

NewSigGuy

smurfjed wrote: »

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.

No the AC do not have an AOC but they do claim to be EASA compliant, a review of the AC's history and the recommendations of various reports would lead me to believe that they have a FTL scheme that is broadly in line with AOC holders.

Those figures are no where near the threshold for owning a Jet, NetJets business model was built on selling Quarter Shares in Aircraft(hence the US reg sequence has QS). A quarter share equates to 200Hrs, in most cases, corporations that use less then 200hrs Per Annum are better off chartering, from about 200-400Hrs PA the Fractional Ownership is the best option above 400 hrs per year ownership may become a viable option if the missions are broadly the same and one aircraft is sufficient. The Fractional's have attacked both ends of the market in recent years, for the lower end users they offer pre-paid cards that have an attractive per hour rate and reasonable access. For those that have higher usage they offer anything up to whole aircraft ownership and management which can still be competitive because they have economies of scale and access to a large fleet for maintenance cover etc.

Bebop

Why not buy a used B737?, I dont know if they do an ER version that would be trans Atlantic capable, presumably ETOP rules do not apply to a lightly loaded private aircraft, one half of the cabin could be fitted out as a VIP transport, the other as Medivac/transport or whatever the Air Corps require,

The Gov Jet does not do a huge number of miles, annual fuel costs would not be much higher that the Gulfstream, but maintenance could be done cheaply locally and spares are readily available, Air Corps Amhain would do a much better job of showing the flag abroad

EchoIndia

Although the ability to fly non-stop from Baldonnel to the US East Coast was one of the key requirements that led to the G-IV being selected, the aircraft has spent much of its career on intra-European duties. Using a 737 for such purposes would be major overkill, in my view. After all, the direct operating costs for a 737BBJ with maybe fewer than 10 pax would not be dissimilar to what Ryanair incur on their 737-800s with up to 189 passengers.

Strumms

A BBJ would be overkill, just obtaining one plus..the MX costs, landing fees, fuel costs etc..would all be far higher then say a GV. Sourcing a low hours GV could be the way to go.. In this economic climate there are bound to be a fair few around.

cerastes

EchoIndia wrote: »

Although the ability to fly non-stop from Baldonnel to the US East Coast was one of the key requirements that led to the G-IV being selected, the aircraft has spent much of its career on intra-European duties. Using a 737 for such purposes would be major overkill, in my view. After all, the direct operating costs for a 737BBJ with maybe fewer than 10 pax would not be dissimilar to what Ryanair incur on their 737-800s with up to 189 passengers.

Hence the need for a smaller aircraft, possibly turbo fan but maybe prop, in the 35-50 seat capacity standard fitted with a premier seated section, possibly conference table and even a few bunks, and the rest as standard/business class, all capable of being converted to max seating capacity or partial seated/medivac/cargo.
Purchased and operated within its designed purpose, potentially high cycle, short haul useage or operated to minimise the effects of high cycles.
and
use scheduled flights for long range preplanned infrequent use or some kind of netjets service.

Strumms

cerastes wrote: »

Hence the need for a smaller aircraft, possibly turbo fan but maybe prop, in the 35-50 seat capacity standard fitted with a premier seated section, possibly conference table and even a few bunks, and the rest as standard/business class, all capable of being converted to max seating capacity or partial seated/medivac/cargo.
Purchased and operated within its designed purpose, potentially high cycle, short haul useage or operated to minimise the effects of high cycles.
and
use scheduled flights for long range preplanned infrequent use or some kind of netjets service.

There are reasons why props such as the ATR and Dashes don't undertake this sort of work... They are noisy, in the case of the ATR and others they are quite slow compared to the speed of jets and in particular many business jets which are quicker as well. Remember they are called executive jets for a reason and range would be an issue for props not to mention many of them are not certified for CatIII ops so there are many minus points for them being used in such a role and they wouldn't be any cheaper to operate then many modern business aircraft.

cerastes

Strumms wrote: »

There are reasons why props such as the ATR and Dashes don't undertake this sort of work... They are noisy, in the case of the ATR and others they are quite slow compared to the speed of jets and in particular many business jets which are quicker as well. Remember they are called executive jets for a reason and range would be an issue for props not to mention many of them are not certified for CatIII ops so there are many minus points for them being used in such a role and they wouldn't be any cheaper to operate then many modern business aircraft.

Depending on the use of the aircraft is planned for, I did say probably a prop, generally shorter TO and for shorthaul flights, potential to land on rougher strips, but it really would be better having a cargo aircraft for that purpose, but in my opinion, but still a jet with a larger capacity to carry more people for what its mostly used for? possibly as far as European capital cities. The GIV was never suited for this, only looking good and the ability to complete transatlantic flights which were what percentage of usage?
In other words, sounds like it was bought to look nice, and not serve as practical and useful a purpose at the best price.
So a jet aircraft, in the 35-50 seating capacity or greater if one can be operated at the same or similar cost and has the ability to have multiple functionality.
Kitted out to fit as I mentioned, a premium seating, conference, possibly some bunks and have another section to carry the other potential pax, civil servants, aides etc all in the one go.
Operated if to be fast, a jet, ok, but operated in a way that minimises the effects of high cycle/shorthaul use, lower and fast if that helps.

edit, at one point Id have suggested the BAE 146, except it has 4 engines and their may be aircraft with 2 engines that can do the job, plus, Im not certain of the range of the 146.
Certainly the aircraft I suggest may not cover the long haul option, but a netjet service or scheduled airline services should be used for that.

L1011

cerastes wrote: »

edit, at one point Id have suggested the BAE 146, except it has 4 engines and their may be aircraft with 2 engines that can do the job, plus, Im not certain of the range of the 146.

Replacing one elderly hanger queen with another isn't particularly sensible - the newest Avro RJs are from 2002 and would have had fairly heavy lives.

Strumms

I agree 100% that where possible they should be looking to use commercial for advanced preplanned trips...

The Lear and the Casa are both multifunctional and seem to be fit for the purpose(s) they were bought for so there is really the flexibility that the Air Corps need rights there and to me that makes buying something bigger to fit the role of multi purpose transport unviable. The only role unfulfilled would be the ministerial transport element. If they would still be requiring something with range then I guess a Gulfstream or similar or if not perhaps another Lear...

cerastes

Strumms wrote: »

I agree 100% that where possible they should be looking to use commercial for advanced preplanned trips...

The Lear and the Casa are both multifunctional and seem to be fit for the purpose(s) they were bought for so there is really the flexibility that the Air Corps need rights there and to me that makes buying something bigger to fit the role of multi purpose transport unviable. The only role unfulfilled would be the ministerial transport element. If they would still be requiring something with range then I guess a Gulfstream or similar or if not perhaps another Lear...

Id replied in the thread before, I think the lear was never suited to the role nor the GIV but they have them now, replacing them will cost more than doing what all aircraft need, maintenance and sometimes, unscheduled maintenance.
As mentioned by someone else, the GIV has nothing on it in terms of hours like other GIV's or passenger aircraft. If an aircraft is ever purchased, it should be for the whole life, with a wide view taken as to maximise its usage for as many roles as possible. The US airforce has aircraft (B-52) that are near or over 50 years. Until the cost can be determined that operating an older aircraft has become less economically viable than buying new then cant see why change and I dont think for a second there is a safety concern, aircraft cost money to run/maintain and always will, as much so if they are sitting on the ground as if they are flying.

I dont think this cost assessment has been done, nor do I think the GIV is at the end of its life, it just seems its the mentality here, where Ive seen older equipment in use abroad in terms of cars, trains, buses, and edit according to this thread aircraft used by much wealthier nations than this one.

The wrong aircraft were purchased the first and second time around, shouldn't have been purchased at all.

If the CASA has another role, I dont think it should be siphoned off to a MAT role, where it could/would be prioritised over its intended role, other than as a backup with the potential to fill the role in the event the MAT aircraft was not serviceable.

As I said, Id have gone for a BAe 146 type aircraft, that type is now 20 years since the last model was built, so some similar newere aircraft, high wing monoplane possibly, Short take off potential, I just looked and one 146 type has the range to get past Moscow, no need to go much further than that. Although such an aircraft would have the range to go to Reykjavik and then as far as New york, if no other option was available, so a twin or other aircraft certified to fly that kind of route.

EchoIndia

I think people are losing sight of the primary purpose for which an executive jet in the Irish Air Corps is intended, i.e. Ministerial and other VIP transport. In these cases the numbers travelling are usually small and the value of the aircraft lies in being independent of airline schedules, having privacy to work/brief en route and minimising overall journey time. There is a wide variety of types that can meet these requirements and it will come down to deciding what is the most demanding mission that they would want the aircraft to be capable of, in terms of range, ability to operate off Baldonnel's 6,000ft runway and the payload to be carried on a max-range mission. In my view it makes sense to have a fairly capable aircraft and with transatlantic range but not essentially a small airliner that would be much more than is needed for almost any likely mission.

cerastes

MYOB wrote: »

Replacing one elderly hanger queen with another isn't particularly sensible - the newest Avro RJs are from 2002 and would have had fairly heavy lives.

I dont think you read my posts fully or got what I was saying?
Im saying that type of aircraft is suitable or would have been 20 years ago and would still be very able and suitable today had it been purchased then and kept going given it would have had a lot lower usage than an equivalent passenger aircraft, but given the age is around 20 years since the last was manufactured, I suggested buying something modern but similar as one possible option today, but Id have suggested it 20 years ago.
However, I till think, even though the GIV isnt the most suitable aircraft, we have it now, so it will just be more expense to replace it, much older GIII's are still going, aircraft have maintenance problems, it may be more attributed to its use or lack of.

Last I read it was an undercarriage issue causing the latest cost concern, aircraft have undercarriage and maintenance is an ongoing cost shocker?
I cant see how replacing the aircraft is going to be cheaper than replacing or repairing the undercarriage.

Besides this undercarriage issue hasnt been explained, so what caused it?
heavy landing? other unrecommended or incorrect practice or usage? some other unpredicted deterioration?

EchoIndia wrote: »

I think people are losing sight of the primary purpose for which an executive jet in the Irish Air Corps is intended, i.e. Ministerial and other VIP transport. In these cases the numbers travelling are usually small and the value of the aircraft lies in being independent of airline schedules, having privacy to work/brief en route and minimising overall journey time. There is a wide variety of types that can meet these requirements and it will come down to deciding what is the most demanding mission that they would want the aircraft to be capable of, in terms of range, ability to operate off Baldonnel's 6,000ft runway and the payload to be carried on a max-range mission. In my view it makes sense to have a fairly capable aircraft and with transatlantic range but not essentially a small airliner that would be much more than is needed for almost any likely mission.

An aircraft should have maximum usage, not soley kitted out for luxury travel of ministers, you're paying for it sitting on the ground so it's usage should be optimised for as many roles as possible, where the country needs to transport people, but how much of the usage requires transatlantic flights? why purchase a long range aircraft, which has a minimal passenger capacity and operate it on short haul high cycle usage that may shorten its life when extreme range isnt required most of the time anyway? an aircraft in the 35-50 seat capacity could be kitted out for multiple roles.
The costs of operating an aircraft based on its planned usage need to be determined in advance, and that usage should be optimised.

SwiftJustice

NewSigGuy wrote: »

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..

You cant order a civilian contractor to undertake a mission. What if we wanted to send in the government jet to pick up a wounded soldier in Syria but the company says it cant becuase of insurance. With military crew its not an issue.

cerastes

SwiftJustice wrote: »

You cant order a civilian contractor to undertake a mission. What if we wanted to send in the government jet to pick up a wounded soldier in Syria but the company says it cant becuase of insurance. With military crew its not an issue.

Thats a bit pointless, because I dont believe the Aircraft used as MATs transport are capable of defending against AAM's or any AC aircraft, and even if they were these systems can be either defeated, overwhelmed or bypassed. Injured soldiers would be evacuated the direction they have always been in that area, no point in sending in an aircraft, what amount to civilian type aircraft and having it shot down.
You cant acquire an aircraft based on how you'd evacuate a wounded person (from a peackeeping mission? or otherwise). With military crew it is an issue not to send someone on a suicide mission, if a civilian organsiation wont go, that suggests there is a credible threat. Thats not to say evacuation by air isnt possible where the aircraft cant be directed to an airport/airfield that is secure, but the immediate treatment and transfer of a wounded personnel wont be by a MATs aircraft, more like, jeep, possibly then helicopter to a local and prearranged facility. The MATs aircraft wouldnt even be at the location before all that had occured.

Graham

I'm not sure how these would have worked with a fractional jet.

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-team-leads-evacuation-of-16-eu-citizens-from-libya-93105-Feb2011/

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-jet-to-evacuate-irish-from-lebanon-268069.html

NewSigGuy

Graham wrote: »

I'm not sure how these would have worked with a fractional jet.

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-team-leads-evacuation-of-16-eu-citizens-from-libya-93105-Feb2011/

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-jet-to-evacuate-irish-from-lebanon-268069.html

First one Was the Lear and the CASA from what I remember.

Second one was to fly Pax out of Beirut, they could have booked seats on any number of european airlines and any charter or fractional operator would have no problem flying to Beirut.

logie101

I think that it is extremely unlikely in the current economic climate that the government will replace the Gulfstream.
It would be political suicide for them.

On a side issue it is about time that a budget is made available to replace the Cessna 172s. These are versatile aircraft that play a multiple number or roles everyday for the AC. (Perhaps replacing with Cessna Caravans, 182s or PC-6s would be good)

Savage93

http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=Antonov&des=AN2&type=&grp=An-2&id=0

Click on VIP version in Germany

There ye go lads , change out of €170,000.
Costs about €100 per hour to run, I'd say she'll run on green diesel!!!!

SwiftJustice

NewSigGuy wrote: »

First one Was the Lear and the CASA from what I remember.

Second one was to fly Pax out of Beirut, they could have booked seats on any number of european airlines and any charter or fractional operator would have no problem flying to Beirut.

Didn't the government jet fly a few Irish Ranger Wing guys to Baghdad to rescue the journalist Rory Carroll during the height of the Iraq War. You cannot rely on civilian operators.

smurfjed

Besides this undercarriage issue hasnt been explained, so what caused it?
heavy landing? other unrecommended or incorrect practice or usage? some other unpredicted deterioration?

I would make a guess at corrosion! There is nothing stopping them from buying a 2nd hand undercarriage, the cheapest option for the GIV is actually the GIV, pay them maintenance costs and it will be cheaper than any of the other options. There are presently 490 or so GIV aircraft still operational (according to Flight Safety) that includes #1, so the aircraft has quite some life left in it yet.

cerastes

logie101 wrote: »

I think that it is extremely unlikely in the current economic climate that the government will replace the Gulfstream.
It would be political suicide for them.

On a side issue it is about time that a budget is made available to replace the Cessna 172s. These are versatile aircraft that play a multiple number or roles everyday for the AC. (Perhaps replacing with Cessna Caravans, 182s or PC-6s would be good)

Im sorry, but thats the same opinion that got rid of the siai marchettis for pc-9s to what end and replaced other able aircraft with less useful ones? why get rid of the 172's??
Most of those are larger than the 172, why does it need to be replaced, worth nothing to get rid of, cost more for all of the above. Maybe supplement the 172's with a 182 if its needed, but why suggest getting rid of them only to replace them with 182's???
The Pc-6 seems to come between the 182 and the caravan, just another aircraft to fill what role? what STOL rough strip need is there?
I could see the use of a cessna caravan, but what use of a PC-6? Also given they already have a miles britton defender type, it would be better to supplement that with another miles britton defender than add another aircraft type. But to top all that, arent there similar or even larger types in use that could be chartered?

Savage93 wrote: »

http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=Antonov&des=AN2&type=&grp=An-2&id=0

Click on VIP version in Germany

There ye go lads , change out of €170,000.
Costs about €100 per hour to run, I'd say she'll run on green diesel!!!!

I read somewhere of a chequered history, but that might be due to its proliferation as one of the most widespread in use transport/biplanes, flying in places where maintenance or training aren't great. Id say it some utility bus, can imagine it would be snubbed. That said, I think it'd be a great aircraft, reminds me of a DH aircraft.

Savage93

smurfjed wrote: »

I would make a guess at corrosion! There is nothing stopping them from buying a 2nd hand undercarriage, the cheapest option for the GIV is actually the GIV, pay them maintenance costs and it will be cheaper than any of the other options. There are presently 490 or so GIV aircraft still operational (according to Flight Safety) that includes #1, so the aircraft has quite some life left in it yet.

Would this undercarriage problems have anything to do with the fact that (in Bertie's day , and others maybe) every flight originated in Baldonnell , then went to Dublin airrport to pick up the "VIP" , flew on to it's destination and then back the same so that , in effect, every flight had 2 landings and 2 takeoffs which is really what kills aircraft.

L1011

cerastes wrote: »

I dont think you read my posts fully or got what I was saying?

Your repeated mentions of it didn't suggest you were just mentioning it in passing, and theorising that it could still be suitable; it did seem to be a suggestion that they should get one.

It was never suitable. Too big, too short range, four engines, hanger queen from the get go.

cerastes

Savage93 wrote: »

Would this undercarriage problems have anything to do with the fact that (in Bertie's day , and others maybe) every flight originated in Baldonnell , then went to Dublin airrport to pick up the "VIP" , flew on to it's destination and then back the same so that , in effect, every flight had 2 landings and 2 takeoffs which is really what kills aircraft.

Without knowing if it is corrosion, if so what kind, it'd hard to say what might have caused it?
Without any information, so pure speculation, high cycle usage might have caused fretting corrosion, so possibly, yes.
In that case they would have been better operating the GIV in its designed parameters and had any VIP helicoptered over, the cost might have ended up being less, should have kept a few Alouette or the remaining gazelle as an air taxi, it would probably have worked out cheaper than getting rid of them and replacing this undercarriage. If so, idiots, double or triple whammy. Get rid of useful aircraft and wreck another in the process.

EchoIndia

Savage93 wrote: »

Would this undercarriage problems have anything to do with the fact that (in Bertie's day , and others maybe) every flight originated in Baldonnell , then went to Dublin airrport to pick up the "VIP" , flew on to it's destination and then back the same so that , in effect, every flight had 2 landings and 2 takeoffs which is really what kills aircraft.

What you refer to applied only to travel by the then Taoiseach, not every mission flown. It was not as frequent an occurrence as you seem to believe.

Strumms

MYOB wrote: »

Your repeated mentions of it didn't suggest you were just mentioning it in passing, and theorising that it could still be suitable; it did seem to be a suggestion that they should get one.

It was never suitable. Too big, too short range, four engines, hanger queen from the get go.

It would be sheer madness, like a BBJ way too much aircraft.

The MX costs would be huge compared to a GIV. A bigger more complex aircraft and also 4 engines which makes a big difference too. Also the fuel burn compared to a GIV would be so much more. As crazy an idea as getting a regional prop converted to do the job.

cerastes

MYOB wrote: »

Your repeated mentions of it didn't suggest you were just mentioning it in passing, and theorising that it could still be suitable; it did seem to be a suggestion that they should get one.

It was never suitable. Too big, too short range, four engines, hanger queen from the get go.

I believe it could have been as suitable 20 years ago, or if we had the money now and had operated the GIV to its limits,a twin type of similar capacity, but we havent.
Im not aware of the 146 hanger bound maintenance limitations, no more than the hour usage of the GIV and its hanger limitations. The 146 it seems to have been used as passenger aircraft successfully, but I agree it isnt suitable now, 4 engines isnt a great thing either where a twin would be as capable, but Im suggesting an aircraft that can perform multiple roles, not just be hanger bound or doing taxi hops for ministers. The GIV has the range and the wow, but the seating capacity and it seems to me its design isnt for short hops to brussells or dublin airport or the ability to convert to other roles.

Either way, I believe if you want to buy an aircraft to reduce the operating cost and have full control over where you can go, then you operate it with the view to keeping it longterm and dont get rid of it, where repairing it will be cheaper than replacing not just the aircraft itself, but training costs, special tools.

No one aircraft is going to fill all roles anyway, from a point of view of longevity, usefulness to all potential roles, value. It seems the reasons to acquire certain aircraft aren't based on the real requirements, so what were they decided on? another story/thread.