Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps air ambulance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The EAS hours being funded by HSE
    Myth.......

    Regardless of what they do, because we have them they are being funded anyway!!!!!. Its just an excuse to attempt to justify why they have bee removed from the role that they were purchased to provide!
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
      You are engaging in fallacies. There is no additional funding needed to operate the existing aircraft for transfers.
      I'm not saying there is a requirement for additional funding... there is a hidden cost that the policy makers are not highlighting

      The state has to buy the aircraft and the state has to replace them!...and then they are not available for their original taskings.... if we went down the road of outsourcing we have no liabilty in funding the purchase or replacement of aircraft, if we continue to service it with the Air Corps shared assets , we lose the availabilty for military purposes and we accelerate the requirement to replace the machines.
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • Is there something I am missing here, are they really going to spend 7 Million for Two years of service.. This seams outrageous. Lear 31A's are available too buy for significantly less then 1 Million..

        How about the AC buys a nice used Lear 45(about 3Million) and if they are stuck for pilots hire some contractors to get the operation up and running and give them time to train their own pilots.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
          Myth.......

          Regardless of what they do, because we have them they are being funded anyway!!!!!. Its just an excuse to attempt to justify why they have bee removed from the role that they were purchased to provide!
          Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
          I'm not saying there is a requirement for additional funding... there is a hidden cost that the policy makers are not highlighting

          The state has to buy the aircraft and the state has to replace them!...and then they are not available for their original taskings.... if we went down the road of outsourcing we have no liabilty in funding the purchase or replacement of aircraft, if we continue to service it with the Air Corps shared assets , we lose the availabilty for military purposes and we accelerate the requirement to replace the machines.
          We are talking about 1 aircraft here which is on standby in daylight only, doing <900 flying hours annually. The HSE pay for those hours. Those hours are spread across the 139 fleet.

          I guarantee you nothing like 900 hours was going to Army Support pre-EAS. The point is the aircraft weren’t and aren’t being used to their full potential. They will need to be replaced anyway (and EAS will not cause them to be replaced any quicker)

          I agree we do lose the availability of 1 a/c, 2 pilots, 1 crewman and a few techs that could be otherwise employed on more military missions but it only 1 ! And the issue is that it wouldn’t be employed on them anyway even if available



          Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
          Is there something I am missing here, are they really going to spend 7 Million for Two years of service.. This seams outrageous. Lear 31A's are available too buy for significantly less then 1 Million..

          How about the AC buys a nice used Lear 45(about 3Million) and if they are stuck for pilots hire some contractors to get the operation up and running and give them time to train their own pilots.
          Worse..... that’s for a night service only for 2 years!
          Last edited by DeV; 15 June 2018, 08:56.

          Comment


          • When you say "The HSE pay for those hours" what you mean is those hours come from the HSE budget instead of the Defence Budget.
            So, either way the taxpayer is still footing the bill. The Taxpayer who paid for the aircraft.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • sorry, there does seem to be some confusion on this thread - some people are talking about what work a two-bit civilian aviation outfit with bills to pay should be hawking around for, and others are talking about the military air arm of a first world, European state that is an engaged member of the EU's foreign policy and defence and security structures, as well as being a participating member of the EU's and UN peacekeeping and peace enforcing operations.

              perhaps it would be better if the thread was split along those lines... HTH.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                When you say "The HSE pay for those hours" what you mean is those hours come from the HSE budget instead of the Defence Budget.
                So, either way the taxpayer is still footing the bill. The Taxpayer who paid for the aircraft.
                Well unless you are asking VHI to fly people to the UK for transplants.... it’s always the taxpayer

                Defence shouldn’t be paying the cost of non-Defence tasks otherwise other Departments will be taking Defence resources while Defence cannot deliver its Defence outputs.

                If EAS conducts 900 flying hours (tasked by HSE), then the HSE is currently paying DoD for those hours. Afaik this wasn’t the case at the start of EAS.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                  Is there something I am missing here, are they really going to spend 7 Million for Two years of service.. This seams outrageous. Lear 31A's are available too buy for significantly less then 1 Million..

                  How about the AC buys a nice used Lear 45(about 3Million) and if they are stuck for pilots hire some contractors to get the operation up and running and give them time to train their own pilots.
                  Connie pilots in the Air Corps!!?? wash yer mouth out with soap at once! It's to hell or to Gormo for you...........might as well buy a Netjets card.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                    Connie pilots in the Air Corps!!?? wash yer mouth out with soap at once! It's to hell or to Gormo for you...........might as well buy a Netjets card.
                    It was done in the past.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                      I'm not saying there is a requirement for additional funding... there is a hidden cost that the policy makers are not highlighting

                      The state has to buy the aircraft and the state has to replace them!...and then they are not available for their original taskings.... if we went down the road of outsourcing we have no liabilty in funding the purchase or replacement of aircraft, if we continue to service it with the Air Corps shared assets , we lose the availabilty for military purposes and we accelerate the requirement to replace the machines.
                      But you are funding the private company's aircraft, multiple times over.
                      The Air Corps requires no additional funding to operate the existing aircraft for transfers, which has been done so for decades and continues to be done regardless of this contract.
                      A fraction of that €7 million as a retention package would have solved the transfer's problem and all the other problems the Air Corps is surfing as a result of the DF wide retention crisis.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                        Is there something I am missing here, are they really going to spend 7 Million for Two years of service.. This seams outrageous. Lear 31A's are available too buy for significantly less then 1 Million..

                        How about the AC buys a nice used Lear 45(about 3Million) and if they are stuck for pilots hire some contractors to get the operation up and running and give them time to train their own pilots.
                        There is no need for an additional aircraft, the aircraft are there, it's the pilots, ATC'ers and tech's that need to be retained to solve the problem. A financial retention package is the only way.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                          Well unless you are asking VHI to fly people to the UK for transplants.... it’s always the taxpayer

                          Defence shouldn’t be paying the cost of non-Defence tasks otherwise other Departments will be taking Defence resources while Defence cannot deliver its Defence outputs.

                          If EAS conducts 900 flying hours (tasked by HSE), then the HSE is currently paying DoD for those hours. Afaik this wasn’t the case at the start of EAS.
                          Are you forgetting that Atcp, once the bread and butter of the DF is a non military task? Have you also forgotten that fishery protection which makes up the majority of casa flights is also a non military task? That's before I even mention the Naval service.
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                            Are you forgetting that Atcp, once the bread and butter of the DF is a non military task? Have you also forgotten that fishery protection which makes up the majority of casa flights is also a non military task? That's before I even mention the Naval service.
                            and being multi-role agency is still much cheaper and more effective

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
                              But you are funding the private company's aircraft, multiple times over.
                              The Air Corps requires no additional funding to operate the existing aircraft for transfers, which has been done so for decades and continues to be done regardless of this contract.
                              A fraction of that €7 million as a retention package would have solved the transfer's problem and all the other problems the Air Corps is surfing as a result of the DF wide retention crisis.
                              Sure practically the only allowance DoD got rid of completely during the bust was the Pilot Retention Scheme saving €700k

                              Comment


                              • because it was a much-derided scam, that's why....the DoD's version of retention these days is punishment; before you go on a course, you have to sign the kind of bond that would be laughed out of a court. Six weeks in Pilatus or at the Agusta plant will get you a four year bond, where it used to be a year. A friend of mine had planned to leave and went and checked what he thought he owed them, with a 139 tech course on his sheet. EU 16 K. So what guys are doing now is sitting tight, waiting for eventual departure date, volunteer for nothing, sign nothing. Consequence: morale shot to shit, no prospect of promotion.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X