Irish government jet

Irish Steve

Yes, decisions have to be made, there is a limited budget of spending across all areas that is available to be spent, and as far as I am concerned, if the choice came down to spending probably 300K on keeping the G4 in the air, or on hiring a suspect semi state lackey for a quango, then it's no contest, the G4 wins. There are times when that is the sort of decision that has to be made. The State NEEDS the G4 to enable the ministers of State to do the job adequately, it doesn't need another semi state failure at the top of yet another quango. Easy choice

Preset No.3

Really? The state NEEDS a GIV?? I'm not disagreeing with you but average joe would disagree with you. Those who struggle to make ends meet, who have lost jobs etc etc. No need to re hash all that.

Now I'm not all pro government, or pro eu but a decision was made. Bailouts were made and stuff needs to be paid for. We've had it for 3 years and it will continue. The whole country can down tools and protest and the big guys will always be big and we will still end up paying. Water charges and here to stay as much as we all don't agree. So we have a water CEO on 300k. Could we not divert that money to pay for hospital beds or maybe some ambulances. Maybe 300k could be used for teachers. It's all relative and having a private jet so that government can fly to meetings and airplane nerds can crack one off to isn't justifiable.

So the irish solution will cost us more in the long run but it's how it looks.

EchoIndia

cerastes wrote: »

which part? mine?

that bolded has as much relevance to the original post as any.
and
tbh if the president can make it to Africa and around without the use of a Govt jet, why have one at all? just work around what we have and what can be availed of/hired, they keep telling us we're broke as a nation and we need to foot the bill for this that or the other.

I thought India's nuclear programme was a bit off-topic for this thread, but maybe others disagree.

L1011

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Really? The state NEEDS a GIV?? I'm not disagreeing with you but average joe would disagree with you. Those who struggle to make ends meet, who have lost jobs etc etc. No need to re hash all that.

Now I'm not all pro government, or pro eu but a decision was made. Bailouts were made and stuff needs to be paid for. We've had it for 3 years and it will continue. The whole country can down tools and protest and the big guys will always be big and we will still end up paying. Water charges and here to stay as much as we all don't agree. So we have a water CEO on 300k. Could we not divert that money to pay for hospital beds or maybe some ambulances. Maybe 300k could be used for teachers. It's all relative and having a private jet so that government can fly to meetings and airplane nerds can crack one off to isn't justifiable.

So the irish solution will cost us more in the long run but it's how it looks.

Ah, the old Government can't buy anything without it being quantified in terms of hospital beds issue. Incredibly common way of getting a cheap sensational headline in our hysterical press, unfortunately it seems to have afflicted some of the population too.

The state needs the ability for ministerial travel to function as a modern state - this is not something that is negotiable. If you want us to continue to be a modern western democracy, that is.

Commercial airlines and NetJets cannot provide the service level required. Nothing other than owned/finance leased and fully operated craft can.

Its a near-uniquely Irish issue (the British have it too, and we inherited it from them) that every cent spent on something non-populist is seen as "wasted" despite how important it actually is. Hence us having two bizjets for MATS and the UK having nothing at all - a few 146s which are officially for Royal use.

BMJD

If hospital beds / trolleys are going to be brought up then surely the jets' air ambulance services are legitimate responses to that argument. They don't just spend their days flying govt folk around. If their use was clearly and properly explained then future purchases would probably go down a lot better with the general public.

NewSigGuy

MYOB wrote: »

The presidents travel is rarely urgent. The ministers can be pretty urgent however. There is nothing hireable that can meet the occasional but critical at their times requirements of a MATS plane.

In a country with a less viscous, talentless media we'd probably have a BBJ or ACJ *and* a small longhaul bizjet, but no government would be let away with it here

Have you proof that the required response time is not available in the market place??

IMHO a BBJ/ACJ would be drastically under-utilised... and not even remotely cost effective.

Preset No.3

I am not saying that we shouldn't have a jet for government use. I wouldn't be on an aviation forum if I was against it. I am saying this is the argument used by 'the people' when it comes to any kind of spending.

BMJD> Could you tell me ANY time that our beloved leaders have managed to make any statement and have it "clearly and properly explained"

It just seems impossible for them to do it.

BMJD

Preset No.3 wrote: »

BMJD> Could you tell me ANY time that our beloved leaders have managed to make any statement and have it "clearly and properly explained"

It just seems impossible for them to do it.

I wouldn't let anyone from government near a statement tbh. I'd like to see figures on how the Learjet has been used over the last 24 months - I suspect it has spent way more time transporting ill children to UK hospitals than it has ferrying ministers around the EU, and hopefully zero hours on ribbon-cutting duty. Then the Dept. Of Defence can say " this is what we're buying, this is what it will be used for and this is how it is being paid for ".

Of course, most of the media would have no interest in this so what can you do?

Tabnabs

folbotcar wrote: »

We're still sending money even now.

We send aid to India, a nuclear armed country with a space program. There are plenty other examples.

Not scary but insane.

Off topic, but have you a source for this, as Irish Aid does not list India as a country the State sends aid to.

As for Ethiopia;

We have developed a new five year strategy which covers 2014-2018 with an anticipated spend in the region of €27 million per year, subject to the availability of resources.

https://www.irishaid.ie/what-we-do/countries-where-we-work/our-partner-countries/ethiopia/

squonk

MYOB wrote: »

Ah, the old Government can't buy anything without it being quantified in terms of hospital beds issue. Incredibly common way of getting a cheap sensational headline in our hysterical press, unfortunately it seems to have afflicted some of the population too.

The state needs the ability for ministerial travel to function as a modern state - this is not something that is negotiable. If you want us to continue to be a modern western democracy, that is.

Commercial airlines and NetJets cannot provide the service level required. Nothing other than owned/finance leased and fully operated craft can.

Its a near-uniquely Irish issue (the British have it too, and we inherited it from them) that every cent spent on something non-populist is seen as "wasted" despite how important it actually is. Hence us having two bizjets for MATS and the UK having nothing at all - a few 146s which are officially for Royal use.

What's wrong with video conferencing? Yes, there are absolutely times when ministers etc. need to be on hand face to face for summits/emergency meetings etc. but it's a general flaw of all politicians everywhere that they're not keeping up with technology. Most multinationals manage to keep their operations running smoothly across the globe using voice and video conferencing and there's rarely a need for management to get boots on the ground in any territory to actually get work done. Not politicians however who are still stuck in their 19th. and 20th. century view of the world where everyone has to meet up face to face, get their family photo taken and then get on their jets and head back where they came from. I'm a plane enthusiast myself and I fully support the use of any gorvernment resource if it helps save a life or get a patient the medical care they urgently need but my point is that if politicians realised that face to face meetings need to be an exception rather than a rule, then we'd probably only need one jet.

L1011

Video conferencing at best replaces what is done on scheduled airlines. Its not and never will be a replacement for physical presence when required

Irish Steve

squonk wrote: »

What's wrong with video conferencing? Yes, there are absolutely times when ministers etc. need to be on hand face to face for summits/emergency meetings etc. but it's a general flaw of all politicians everywhere that they're not keeping up with technology. Most multinationals manage to keep their operations running smoothly across the globe using voice and video conferencing and there's rarely a need for management to get boots on the ground in any territory to actually get work done. Not politicians however who are still stuck in their 19th. and 20th. century view of the world where everyone has to meet up face to face, get their family photo taken and then get on their jets and head back where they came from. I'm a plane enthusiast myself and I fully support the use of any gorvernment resource if it helps save a life or get a patient the medical care they urgently need but my point is that if politicians realised that face to face meetings need to be an exception rather than a rule, then we'd probably only need one jet.

Most multinationals are not dealing with the aftermath of something like MH17, or the issues surrounding the activities of IS, or any of the other sensitive issues that are happening around the world, and while video conferencing has it's uses, there are times when the people involved with sensitive negotiations need to be able to really see right into the eyeballs on the other side of the table, and to be able to get the real feel for the body language that's being manifested by the other people in the room.

There's no way to do that with video conferencing, and it's even harder to do if the conference is being run over satellite links with the significant and often confusing time delays that imposes as a result, Just try watching a confrontational interview on SKy News sometime, and see how confused it gets because of the time delays on the links, that's just NOT going to work on a conference that's possibly already highly charged with strong emotions,

So, the people have to be in the room, across the table, and there are times when that has to happen in places where scheduled airlines don't go, and if it means the difference between good government and bad government, then I'm all for good government, even if it does end up costing us a bit more to run the executive.

BMJD

squonk wrote: »

Most multinationals manage to keep their operations running smoothly across the globe using voice and video conferencing and there's rarely a need for management to get boots on the ground in any territory to actually get work done. Not politicians however who are still stuck in their 19th. and 20th. century view of the world where everyone has to meet up face to face, get their family photo taken and then get on their jets and head back where they came from.

most major multinationals have their own executive jets

google it
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/11/googles-3-top-executives-have-8-private-jets/ :pac::pac::pac::pac:

cerastes

EchoIndia wrote: »

I thought India's nuclear programme was a bit off-topic for this thread, but maybe others disagree.

In fairness it is a bit off topic, but Im merely replying to an already raised point.

man98

I'd agree with several viewpoints here. A further suggestion would be that the government picks up a used cheap jet somewhere, somehow (Provided it can make it out of Baldonnel, which a BBJ probably couldn't). The government need a transatlantic jet and have 1 jet only. The in a European short notice meeting, call out the Casa. Yes, it may need to be Quick Change, but interior doesn't overly matter when 1 minister needs to get to Geneva on a few hours notice. We have 2 Casas, so I'll assume they're always quite close to, or in a hangar, in Baldonnel. So, a newer G4 and sell the LJ45 (Let the public know all about that sale), problem solved...?

cerastes

man98 wrote: »

I'd agree with several viewpoints here. A further suggestion would be that the government picks up a used cheap jet somewhere, somehow (Provided it can make it out of Baldonnel, which a BBJ probably couldn't). The government need a transatlantic jet and have 1 jet only. The in a European short notice meeting, call out the Casa. Yes, it may need to be Quick Change, but interior doesn't overly matter when 1 minister needs to get to Geneva on a few hours notice. We have 2 Casas, so I'll assume they're always quite close to, or in a hangar, in Baldonnel. So, a newer G4 and sell the LJ45 (Let the public know all about that sale), problem solved...?

We have a cheap used jet, what makes you think what could be located would have less hours on it than the current GIV?

We have a transatlantic capable jet, they dont need more than one anyway.

Depending on the cost and usefulness and the requirement, Id say maybe sell the LJ45, but a newer GIV, NO, aircraft can be old and be continued to be operated and maintained. Any of the problems with this aircraft are potentially either to its usage/cycles and a not having a complementary maintenance to account for that, either closer schedule for certain inspections or repairs or operate the aircraft differently.
Whats to say a newer GIV wont have the same problem due to its usage in MATs role here?

Its like having a lambo or a ferrari and now the owner having towed hay bales around with is suprised its got problems, could get it fixed and use it correctly but still prefers to have a newer one anyway.

Disclaimer, the last paragraph may only be in my head, but abusing it as an airport taxi in its life doesnt help discredit that view in my eyes.

Preset No.3

What is the status of the GIV now? Is it still in the US? Are the crew being kept current, or will this lack of flying put them in need of recurrent training?

newcavanman

folbotcar wrote: »

All great ideas, except we don't need the capability a 737 or A320 provides. Nor can we afford it. I really think people have no concept of how expensive it is to keep one of those airworthy not to mention training crews both ground and air. It's all very well comparing us to countries in Africa with bigger aircraft. Their leaders are often not answerable to the democratic process so they do what they like with the aid money they get. Our money.

My reason for suggesting this class of aircraft was because it has multiple uses. You will remembervthat years ago einhad 737-200QCs which did passanger flights dyring the day and freight at nights, I think they could also do combi, with seats andpallet cargo on the main deck. I think if you include the facts that such an aircraft could be based in Dublin, with access to airline line maintenance, simulators etc and possibly reserve air crew, similar to Air National Guard or Royal Aux Air Force. It would be thecheapest way to give us some real capability.

folbotcar

Yes but the problem is that there is no requirement to carry large numbers of passengers, neither is there a need to carry cargo on an ongoing basis. If the need arises and ad hoc charter will easily cover both roles. Also most of the time only a few people need to travel. Imagine the furore if the public found out that an A320 was regularly used to transport five or six people at a time?

Using reservist crews is also non runner. Most will have proper jobs and their bosses would be less than pleased to have to release them at short notice. Plus you would need a fairly large pool of pilots, not to mention keeping them current on type.

In any case no way would serving pilots would allow a reservist to get the best job in the Air Corps!

It's a creative idea but the costs and practicalities would kill it stone dead.

Idbatterim

the daily cost of running the country is 175.5 million, why the big hooplah over a few million here or there on the government jet?

cerastes

Idbatterim wrote: »

the daily cost of running the country is 175.5 million, why the big hooplah over a few million here or there on the government jet?

The cheapest option when your car has a maintenance problem is, well obviously, crush it and start again.

or fix the aircraft, the maintenance staff can only follow the maintenance schedule, not develop it, so this looks like a management problem, misuse of the aircraft or allocating the correct resources for the usage.

GIV is not the ideal aircraft, but its whats there, cheapest option, fix it and fly it on as other GIV's do.

Tenger

squonk wrote: »

What's wrong with video conferencing? Yes, there are absolutely times when ministers etc. need to be on hand face to face for summits/emergency meetings etc. but it's a general flaw of all politicians everywhere that they're not keeping up with technology. ......

Wonder why Facebook, Google, Apple, and all the other tech companies are buying so many tickets on the DUB-SFO route then...................



As for the perceived cost of a new jet......its all about perception. Even if the Irish Govt got a knockdown price on a newer bix-jet (1 careful owner) the media and public perception would be that they are squandering taxpayers money.

cerastes

Tenger wrote: »

Wonder why Facebook, Google, Apple, and all the other tech companies are buying so many tickets on the DUB-SFO route then...................



As for the perceived cost of a new jet......its all about perception. Even if the Irish Govt got a knockdown price on a newer bix-jet (1 careful owner) the media and public perception would be that they are squandering taxpayers money.

and they would be, they have an aircraft, aircraft require maintenance and can be fixed, why buy a new aircraft and do the same to it, the hours have been reported as being significantly lower than other operating GIV's

smurfjed

aircraft require maintenance and can be fixed

The aircraft needs a replacement landing gear, I don't know if it timed out or is affected by corrosion, but to me the logical solution is to overhaul the gear. Since we started this discussion, the gear could have easily been taken off the aircraft and overhauled. I would be extremely disappointed if they grounded the aircraft because of the gear overhaul cost.

cerastes

smurfjed wrote: »

The aircraft needs a replacement landing gear, I don't know if it timed out or is affected by corrosion, but to me the logical solution is to overhaul the gear. Since we started this discussion, the gear could have easily been taken off the aircraft and overhauled. I would be extremely disappointed if they grounded the aircraft because of the gear overhaul cost.

Exactly, the same gear would not need to be refitted, a new or overhauled assembly could be fitted, depending on what their maintenance agreement is for such items they may be able to exchange that undercarriage item for an overhauled assembly. civil airliners have arrangements like this for larger sub assemblies like engines.

The fact the aircraft is on the ground and alternative transport was used when the aircraft is meant for this purpose is a further waste of money, may as well not have the aircraft if they are going to do that and all the other maintenance and associated costs, training, storage, and on, if they are going to let it fall out of use and leave it on the ground for an undercarriage leg as they may as well just not bother if they are going to do that, which makes all the talk of replacing it with something else irrelevant if they will allow the same problem develop and just leave that on the ground too, thats a worse waste. If its a structural problem, then Im fairly sure (thought it was grumman, upon googling turns out its general dynamics), so sure GD has the experience (or other authorised/certifed repair/maintenance organisations) to do such a structural repair, dont have to go to the main dealer!.
If that isnt the cheapest option Id be stunned, aircraft maintenance involves replacing structural elements of the airframe by people trained in that, and other more recognisable maintenace such as engines and controls, electronics etc.

smurfjed

thought it was grumman, upon googling turns out its general dynamics

Google again and you will find out that its now called Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation

cerastes

smurfjed wrote: »

Google again and you will find out that its now called Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation

A wholly owned subsidary of General Dynamics

Dont even know why the aircraft is over there, surely there are certified organisations that can carry out the repairs in Ireland? Uk surely.
Why send the entire aircraft there, or is it part of a maintenance contract, and why that cant mean there is somewhere with GAC/GD support and authorisation to do that on this side of the Ocean rather than fly it all the way there!
what do they do if the aircraft ends up on the ground for a maintenance issue on the apron of some airport anywhere else in the world? ship it back??

Growler!!!

There's another famous irish gulfstream owner who sent their aircraft to the U.S. each year for heavy maint.

Tenger

cerastes wrote: »

and they would be, they have an aircraft, aircraft require maintenance and can be fixed, why buy a new aircraft and do the same to it, the hours have been reported as being significantly lower than other operating GIV's

I was trying to look at the wider picture rather than focusing too specifically on the issue at hand. I agree with your point. Buying a replacement jet should be an option if repair/replace is no longer an option.

smurfjed

what do they do if the aircraft ends up on the ground for a maintenance issue on the apron of some airport anywhere else in the world?

They call the GULFSTREAM FAST TEAM, these guys have trucks and even aircraft equipped to come and fix you.

aircraft to the U.S. each year for heavy maint

The ferry costs are easily absorbed by the difference in costs.