• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Challenger/"VIP" Jet/CF Chopper Use (CDS, others) [merged]

Container said:
Like a trip to Shamattawa is some kind of perk.

The first trip is a bit of adventure......the second trip you hold the plane on the ground........
 
In the movie Rising Sun, a Japanese CEO famously states: "If they do not want people to buy it, then don't sell it".

To paraphrase here, we could say: "If you do not want people flying in it, then don't have it". And, that is the only valid political question at issue here.

The cost of having a fleet of government planes for "VIP" flights will always be very high if you divide it by the number of hours in the air, regardless of what department operates them. It is so for all the CEO's and rich people jetting around in private jets too if you look at it by the hour. The question is, is having such jets around of importance or necessity for any reason (from the image of Canada abroad when on state visits, any diplomatic reason such as "shuttle diplomacy", security concerns for the passenger being ferried, secrecy of flight, access to uninterrupted secure communications, etc.). That is a political decision to be made by politicians (IMHO the answer should be a resounding: yes we need them). But once the decision is made to have such jets and the funding allocated, both politicians and journalists should lay off any user that employs the jet in accordance with the rules set up for use, regardless of the "hourly" cost associated.

However, I have no problem with the politicians or journalists going after improper use not otherwise permitted by the rules. That is quite appropriate behaviour on their part.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with politicians revisiting the issue from time to time - just don't do it by going after ministers, top bureaucrats or military leaders using the jets within the rules - have the honesty of framing the issue in proper terms (debate in this assembly: Should we still have this capability?).

My  :2c:   
 
GAP said:
Chicken!!

Bomber Stadium is a short drive from my place....so the Challenger is impractical.  ;)

St James St would not be a great runway....... >:D
 
Jim Seggie said:
St James St would not be a great runway....... >:D

Just prior to and just after the game....why...........it'll be just like 10 pin bowling.....with squishies......
 
Container said:
It is the absolute worst journalism- the hunting equivalent of walking through the woods shooting a shot gun hoping you hit something good.
Ah, the Dick Cheney School of Journalism and Quail Hunting.  ;)
 
Odd, it cuts off the end of that picture when I zoom in on my android.

On topic:  I cannot help but wonder how much these journalists spend on the company dime themselves.
 
The herd continues to pick at the scab, or has someone been talked to?
If Defence Minister Peter MacKay felt any pressing need to defend his use of government-owned Challenger jets, it certainly wasn't evident in his first trip the U.S. since the controversy about flying habits erupted.  MacKay, meeting Friday at the Pentagon with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, was asked by a reporter whether he flew aboard a Challenger for the short jaunt to the American capital.  "I certainly didn't," MacKay responded during a media availability with Panetta.  Why not?  "Because there's commercial flights available."  And with that, MacKay changed the subject. After a brief speech about how it was "wonderful to be a reliable, robust security partner" with the U.S., MacKay turned to Panetta and said a quick farewell before jumping in a waiting van.  "I've got to catch a plane," he said. "I am flying commercial." ....
Postmedia News, 1 Oct 11
 
Unless they were planing to fly the Challenger into Reagan National rather than Andrews, it made more sense to fly commercial regardless due to the proximity of Reagan to the Pentagon compared to Andrews, and Beltway traffic is a bitch at the best of times.
 
STILL at it, even with the Parliamentary Secretary (I guess CTV didn't have enough time to ask if the CDS has the support of the government followed all the rules, too):
Commenting on an investigation that found the minister of national defence racked up nearly $3 million worth of flights aboard federal jets, the minister's parliamentary secretary reiterated on Sunday that Peter MacKay did not break travel rules.

When asked on CTV's Question Period whether MacKay "at no point" contravened the government's guidelines for ministerial travel, Chris Alexander said "the short answer is yes," before adding that members of the Conservative government have "used challenger aircraft three-quarters less" than their predecessors.

"This government has been extremely exacting of its ministers and everyone in government by putting in place the toughest measures for accountability, transparency, making sure we know what assets ministers have and making sure we watch like hawks what their means of travel are," Alexander said.

"Every ounce of evidence shows MacKay and others members of government have followed the rules." ....
CTV.ca, 2 Oct 11

I couldn't find any scab-picking smileys for this one.
 
Almost three weeks after the first stories came out about the CDS and how much it "costs" to run the Challengers, and now that a Minister is being called on it, the CF Info-Machine shares this:
Calculating Costs

To estimate the hourly cost of flying Canadian Forces (CF) aircraft, the Department of National Defence (DND) normally uses the Cost Factors Manual—a publication that provides a common basis for the generic estimation of DND personnel, equipment, and facility costs. Based on historical data, the manual provides an estimate of costs per flying hour based on fleet-wide averages, for use when actual costs are not available.

While the Cost Factors Manual is useful in estimating costs, current cost data from local units is used wherever possible to provide more accurate and complete information for planning and decision making.

For example, 412 (T) Squadron maintains its own current tables on the cost of flying the CC-144 Challenger, an aircraft assigned to transporting senior government officials, providing command and liaison, and conducting medical evacuations. The 412 Squadron Challenger Fleet Annual Cost Chart contains the actual variable and fixed costs for fiscal year (FY) 2010/2011, and more precise estimated variable and fixed costs for FY 2011/2012. Based on 412’s planned maintenance program and a projected Yearly Flying Rate of 3,440 hours, the FY 2011/2012 current planned variable cost for the Challenger is $3,285 per hour, as opposed to the $2,631 planning figure indicated in the Cost Factors Manual (the manual is updated annually with the best available data).

As with the Cost Factors Manual, 412 Squadron breaks the costs into two groups.Variable Cost includes all operating costs such as aircraft maintenance costs, fuel, aircraft handling and landing fees, crew costs while flying, catering, and incidentals. The second category is Fixed Costs which include crew salaries, rental fees, special services fees, pilot training, office communication, supplies, and amortization of capital. The DND/CF use variable costs for planning and reporting purposes, since the only incremental cost to DND is the one associated with the flying of the aircraft.

Training Hours

While the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) carefully tracks the variable and fixed hourly costs to operate its aircraft, many flying hours for each aircraft are paid out of training funds. Military pilots and crews are required to fly a minimum number of hours to maintain their certification to fly a particular type of aircraft. For cost-effectiveness, training hours are often allocated to real-time missions to fly CF personnel or cargo, including flights in support of military and government personnel. Such training hours are critical to maintaining the high professional standards of the RCAF and to ensuring that pilots and crews are ready to fly anywhere, anytime, and under any conditions.

Military vs. Commercial Flights

The option to fly commercial is often considered by defence officials, and the hourly variable cost to fly military aircraft provides a basis of comparison. However, there is no direct comparison between military and commercial flights for many reasons. Commercial flights are normally restricted to landing at civilian airports in accordance with set departure and arrival times, do not allow weapons or sophisticated communications gear in the cabin, and do not offer service to all communities, including Trenton, Ontario, where military repatriations occur. Military aircraft determine their own flight schedules, can land at both military and civilian airports, and for certain missions do allow weapons and sophisticated communications gear.

The Challenger, for example, provides access to a classified communications suite that enables the Chief of Defence Staff to maintain command and control of the Canadian Forces from anywhere in Canada or the world. The aircraft also has space for key support staff and an armed close protection (or security) team when needed. Prior to, during, and post flight, the Challenger is equipped with secure marshalling areas that enable military and government personnel to handle and secure classified documents.

Specialized military flight service provides the Canadian government with the mobility, agility and security required to fulfill their Ministerial and Command functions. This service operates throughout the year, seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and is operated strictly in accordance with Treasury Board of Canada guidelines and policies. Over the last decade, ministerial use of the Challenger has declined and utility flights have increased. The DND/CF take their role as a steward of public resources very seriously and make every effort to ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent.

-30-
Backgrounder, published 5 Oct 11
 
From ctv.ca:

Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife and Field Producer Philip Ling
The Royal Canadian Air Force is defending a decision to fly a vacationing captain back to Canada aboard a Challenger jet after a motorcycle accident left him seriously injured in the United States.

The flight, which cost about $24,000, occurred last July after Capt. Terry Hunter was injured during a trip to Upstate New York, CTV News has learned.

Initially, Hunter spent 10 days in a U.S. hospital before the Canadian Forces dispatched a Challenger jet to bring him back to Canada.


"Yeah, it was considered a mercy flight," Hunter told CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife.

Hunter said that he was on holidays with his daughter when his bike's back tire blew out. The crash left him with 16 broken ribs.

Hunter said he did not ask to be flown back to Canada, adding that he assumed his superiors were simply trying to help after a debilitating crash.

"It was either that or go through an eight-hour ambulance drive," said Hunter, who has served in places like South Sudan during his tenure.

According to Lt.-Col. Norbert Cyr, senior public affairs advisor to the chief of defence staff, bringing the injured air captain home aboard an executive jet was appropriate, even though he was on vacation at the time.

"We are always on duty," Cyr said, adding that Hunter's "serious condition required specialist in-flight care and did not allow him to be transferred via commercial air."

In a written statement to CTV News, Cyr added that members of the Canadian Forces to do not have access to regular health care like OHIP or provincial care, as the Canadian Forces are responsible for providing it.

Cyr's statement stressed that "due to the high cost" of U.S. healthcare and the high quality of Canadian healthcare, it is often in the best interest to bring the patient back to Canada.

Cyr added that the Challenger aircraft "have three missions: medical evacuations, command and liaison, and VIP transport. The case in question was clearly a medical evacuation as the member was severely injured."

Challenger jets are often used to bring wounded Canadian soldiers home from hospital care in Germany, where many are sent after suffering injury on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

Marc Garneau, a Liberal MP and former astronaut, suggested that flying home an injured, vacationing Canadian Forces member is unprecedented. Garneau noted that he'd never heard of such a scenario during his 23 years of service in Canada's navy.

NDP MP Charlie Angus shared that sentiment, saying that the flight was unnecessary, as Hunter was being cared for adequately in the U.S. hospital.

"Why are we spending this kind of money? Who would make such a decision?"

This is the latest in a series of controversies regarding the use of government jets.

It was recently revealed by a CTV News investigation that Defence Minister Peter MacKay has racked up nearly $3 million in VIP flights since he assumed his current role in 2007.

CTV's Ottawa Bureau also revealed that a search-and-rescue chopper picked up a vacationing MacKay at an exclusive east coast fishing lodge. MacKay's office stated that the chopper flight was for demonstration purposes, and that the Challenger flights fall within regulations.

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's chief of defence staff, has also been criticized for his Challenger jet use. Natynczyk's flights have cost taxpayers $1 million over the past three years.

The NDP has said that the government should set an example of restraint and sell at least two of its fleet of six Challenger jets.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I sat back and watched when CTV, in particular the author of this article, "questioned" the use of the Challengers by the Minister, CDS, and other government leaders.  However, I draw the line when CTV questions whether or not is was useful to fly an injured member of the CF back from wherever.  I am sure that someone has an agenda out there and it is clearly to discredit the military at every turn that they can.  Not sure who it is, but I have my general ideas, but I frankly have had enough of CTV attacking the military.  Don't even get me started about the NDP and their so called "defence critic".  CTV and their "reporter" have gone too far this time !!!!    :rage:

- mod edit to add link to article -
 
ALL CF TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT can be or are used for medevacs...it's in fact one of the Challenger's roles.  But of course the folks looking to make mountains out of molehills don't mention that.  As per normal...

MM

Edited for a little oops.
 
" Cyr's statement stressed that "due to the high cost" of U.S. healthcare and the high quality of Canadian healthcare, it is often in the best interest to bring the patient back to Canada."

That is key right there.
 
He was on leave approved by a CF leave pass so the DND was footing the bill.  Our transport aircraft have a spot for stretchers.  Getting home was in the interest of all involved.

But the media still has an infatile infatuation with each MPG of AVGAS burned in the last couple months.... :waiting:
 
Back
Top