Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

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

  • A lot of the transfers of cheap equipment is from nato member to nato member so we don’t qualify.

    The Irish state does have to follow eu law on procurement unless it’s an absolute emergency

    Comment


    • I am struggling to understand how an Irish based aviation management firm Seraph Aviation which owns and leases aircraft cannot sell two used aircraft to its own Government because it will somehow be ultra vires to EU law. When just recently the same government bought two used patrol vessels from another state on the other side of the world. Actually, I just think that is political spin to deflect doing anything constructive with respect to the air corps.

      https://www.thejournal.ie/seraph-avi...04022-Nov2021/

      Comment


      • quite simply, the EU has shown that it can bend it's own rules to ship kit to Ukraine as and when it pleases and normal rules of disposal of equipment are being cast aside, yet we can't get two simple Casas when we badly need them.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
          quite simply, the EU has shown that it can bend it's own rules to ship kit to Ukraine as and when it pleases and normal rules of disposal of equipment are being cast aside, yet we can't get two simple Casas when we badly need them.
          Ukraine afaik aren’t purchasing anything and in this context it is the purchaser who has to ensure that they are in keeping with the legislation.

          there is provision for some purchases to be completely exempt for national security reasons for example

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
            quite simply, the EU has shown that it can bend it's own rules to ship kit to Ukraine as and when it pleases and normal rules of disposal of equipment are being cast aside, yet we can't get two simple Casas when we badly need them.
            You are right about the EU being able/willing to change it's rules as things change, however as before it's the perfect excuse for departments/governments for doing/not doing something and passing the buck. Nobody blinked when we picked up the fourth PC12 even though that was unplanned, and we were the ones that turned down the fifth one, nobody would have blinked if we had picked up the two CASA's at the time either, but clearly someone in the department didn't want to so killed it and blamed "the EU" for it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post

              You are right about the EU being able/willing to change it's rules as things change, however as before it's the perfect excuse for departments/governments for doing/not doing something and passing the buck. Nobody blinked when we picked up the fourth PC12 even though that was unplanned, and we were the ones that turned down the fifth one, nobody would have blinked if we had picked up the two CASA's at the time either, but clearly someone in the department didn't want to so killed it and blamed "the EU" for it.
              Same with the fourth P60. Nobody looked for it, it wasn't part of the Tender, we didn't have the establishment to crew it, let alone the crew. Someone just decided to buy it, completely at odds with the NS ship replacement plans.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment

              Working...
              X