Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ministerial Air Transport Service

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

  • Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
    Well actually Dev it's not. The Defence Forces benefit output from the IAC is flight hours, the cost of those flight hours is the ENTIRE cost of running the Don including EVERYTHING. You can then easily work out either an average cost per hour or a sliding scale where a GIV operation quite rightly costs more per HR then a 172. What you cannot do is say it's too hard throw yours hands up in the air and pluck figures that make no sense out of the clouds.

    As for all the ancillary tasks is it time for a full review of the IAC what it does and how much it costs. After all, using one of your examples, if the State is paying for an engineer who is instead doing guard duties is it time to contract out mx operations and only employ a small security detachment? Many ways to play that one.
    That is not a correct view. Flying hours is only one of the outputs of the Air Corp so to allocate all the fixed costs of the corps and just allocate against flying hours you would be creating a distortion. It is part of the defence force and therefore has a contingency role in the defense of the state. It would be like allocating the fixed cost of the army to the number of cash & security escorts being provided. It is a simple mathematical exercise but it would produce an incorrect figure. Similarly you shouldn't allocate the entire cost of the coast guard against its flying hours.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bravo20 View Post
      That is not a correct view. Flying hours is only one of the outputs of the Air Corp so to allocate all the fixed costs of the corps and just allocate against flying hours you would be creating a distortion. It is part of the defence force and therefore has a contingency role in the defense of the state. It would be like allocating the fixed cost of the army to the number of cash & security escorts being provided. It is a simple mathematical exercise but it would produce an incorrect figure. Similarly you shouldn't allocate the entire cost of the coast guard against its flying hours.
      +1

      It is like staying the CHC S92s are costing €6,200 per hour (based on 2000 hrs of contracted ops (not training) annually per aircraft)).

      By the way, i very much doubt hours are anywhere near that.

      Each heli is currently averaging 120 callouts annually, lets say that rises and allowing for training (which some dont allow the AC to do) totals 200. Say the average flight is 3 hours. Thats 600 hrs per aircraft per year.

      If my maths is correct that is over €20,000 per hour!
      Last edited by DeV; 12 June 2013, 15:02.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
        As an example, there is probably one ESB Networks meter for the whole of Baldonnel, there is a non-DF unit based there (the GS element of GASU) that also use Baldonnel's electricity.
        The GASU buildings in Baldonnel was designated a station some years ago, and as such it's running costs come from the Garda budget. I'm not sure if they installed separate utilities meters for them, but I would imagine that they did.
        "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

        Comment


        • It is a simple mathematical exercise but it would produce an incorrect figure.
          Exactly. You could work out a formal cost/benefit analysis of the AC (as presently formulated), but it would need to use a far broader set of metrics than just flying hours.

          Comment


          • So gents, tell me this, if the Air Corps had no aircraft in the morning what would it's purpose be in the Defence Forces? Exactly, none. It's reason for existence is the operation of aircraft, therefore its cost is the cost of operating those aircraft. All the little ancillary things would soon be parcelled out to the wider DF with a hell of a lot less then 750 personnel and a he'll of a lot less infrastructure cost if the IAC ceased to exist.

            It's primary output is operation of aircraft and therefore that is the primary cost driver. If you want to take a few % of the total bill for those ancillary tasks fair enough but it won't vastly change the outcome.

            I also never said to exclude training hours, thats you assuption to make. As for the CG maths maybe you aren't to far off but tell me this, what was the total flight hours produced by 750 personnel and 20 odd aircraft in the IAC EXCLUDING ALL training flights? That's a double edged sword I'm afraid

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Aidan View Post
              Exactly. You could work out a formal cost/benefit analysis of the AC (as presently formulated), but it would need to use a far broader set of metrics than just flying hours.
              Not sure a Cost/Benefit analysis would be relevant (the existence of any Military Force is essentially insurance) but you could do an ABC (Activity based costing) exercise. ABC was proposed for the Air Corps/Naval service study that was awarded to PWC but was rejected on cost. They are horribly expensive and, as Dev said above, horribly complex to carry out.
              “The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.”
              ― Thucydides

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
                So gents, tell me this, if the Air Corps had no aircraft in the morning what would it's purpose be in the Defence Forces? Exactly, none. It's reason for existence is the operation of aircraft, therefore its cost is the cost of operating those aircraft. All the little ancillary things would soon be parcelled out to the wider DF with a hell of a lot less then 750 personnel and a he'll of a lot less infrastructure cost if the IAC ceased to exist.

                It's primary output is operation of aircraft and therefore that is the primary cost driver. If you want to take a few % of the total bill for those ancillary tasks fair enough but it won't vastly change the outcome.

                I also never said to exclude training hours, thats you assuption to make. As for the CG maths maybe you aren't to far off but tell me this, what was the total flight hours produced by 750 personnel and 20 odd aircraft in the IAC EXCLUDING ALL training flights? That's a double edged sword I'm afraid

                That would be a Government decision, if they were to do it and retain the AC, the role could be to operate a secure airfield and contribute to other DF taskings, which it already does.

                The primary role of the DF, including the AC, is to defend the State from armed aggression. Everything else is secondary.

                The hours that are published exclude training hours but some assume incorrectly that the hours given in reports are the total hours, they aren't they are operational only.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
                  So gents, tell me this, if the Air Corps had no aircraft in the morning what would it's purpose be in the Defence Forces? Exactly, none. It's reason for existence is the operation of aircraft, therefore its cost is the cost of operating those aircraft. All the little ancillary things would soon be parcelled out to the wider DF with a hell of a lot less then 750 personnel and a he'll of a lot less infrastructure cost if the IAC ceased to exist.

                  It's primary output is operation of aircraft and therefore that is the primary cost driver. If you want to take a few % of the total bill for those ancillary tasks fair enough but it won't vastly change the outcome.

                  I also never said to exclude training hours, thats you assuption to make. As for the CG maths maybe you aren't to far off but tell me this, what was the total flight hours produced by 750 personnel and 20 odd aircraft in the IAC EXCLUDING ALL training flights? That's a double edged sword I'm afraid
                  Well the Coastguard got by nicely for years with neither ships nor aircraft.

                  Comment


                  • Actually Danno the ICG have always had aircraft and boats. Maybe you are thinking of IMES which, even they, had aircraft from about 30 years ago. Before that however they had distinct roles, maritime radio operations, maritime SAR coordination and coast and cliff rescue for which their staffing levels and budget were consumate.

                    Now, take your example and put it with the IAC. Remove the aviation aspects, what distinct roles from the Army do they now have and what manpower and budget would it require to run them? Now you have the answer as to the total cost of IAC aviation operations.

                    Comment


                    • The ICG do not have any aircraft unless I'm missing something. They have an expensive contract to a private company to do that role for them, they do not own as much as a helmet never mind an aircraft. When were those second hand aircraft supposed to arrive?? Seems like they are late! As for boats well they just appear to station ribs next to already existing RNLI stations!

                      Comment


                      • Not sure a Cost/Benefit analysis would be relevant (the existence of any Military Force is essentially insurance) but you could do an ABC (Activity based costing) exercise
                        In theory you can monetise any externality for the purposes of a CBA, so you could well try and come up with a figure for all of the outputs that the AC deliver. Some of these would be easy (like the cost of providing pilots for the GASU or of MPA activity), other less so (like the contribution they could make to national defence, or the contingent benefit of having such a base' force in place that can be stepped up in a time of crisis). Some of these elements would be very subjective, others less so, but there is no way on earth you'd use a metric like flight hours as the only output metric in any formal analysis. By that measure the AC could rapidly increase their contribution to the general good by just flying more, for no purpose. And then people would bitch and moan about it being a flying club for Col. Blimp types.

                        One could be forgiven for getting the distinct impression that no matter what the AC do, or no matter what they did to improve their service or cut costs, there would still be people coming on here having a strangely oriented dig at them.

                        Comment


                        • +1

                          The AC provides capability and flexibility by not flying aircraft to the max possible

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Shaqra View Post
                            Not sure a Cost/Benefit analysis would be relevant (the existence of any Military Force is essentially insurance) but you could do an ABC (Activity based costing) exercise. ABC was proposed for the Air Corps/Naval service study that was awarded to PWC but was rejected on cost. They are horribly expensive and, as Dev said above, horribly complex to carry out.
                            I'm calling bullshit on this one. ABC is not a horribly expense process, if you hire top consultants to do it for you it becomes very expensive. If you do it yourself it costs nothing. Surely out of those military college educated professionals there is someone who can buy a book, read and understand the principles and then apply. If there isn't someone like that in the AC there definately is someone like that in the RDF.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                              ... other less so (like the contribution they could make to national defence...
                              if it helps - it won't, but i'm trying to be helpful - the IAC's contribution to national defence against outside agression, as judged by 'outside', is absolutely zero.

                              its military capability against any outside force that can get itself to Irish territory is absolutely nil. if anyone were to be looking at the possibility, the G3 brief labelled 'Air Threat' would be only marginally longer than that given about the Talibans Air Force. the Army would give an enemy force a run for its money, and the NS would keep the Amphibious fleets Int section awake, but the AC would barely figure in anyone calculations. this is of course as things stand - however any dramatic change to the air picture is going to be eye-wateringly expensive, whereas the Army and NS have a vastly higher base level from which very significant changes could be made without massive funding increases.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Happyman View Post
                                The ICG do not have any aircraft unless I'm missing something. They have an expensive contract to a private company to do that role for them, they do not own as much as a helmet never mind an aircraft. When were those second hand aircraft supposed to arrive?? Seems like they are late! As for boats well they just appear to station ribs next to already existing RNLI stations!
                                Alright UNhappyman!
                                Those a/c are in Shannon at the minute, they will be gettin a lick of paint shortly and then will be sent to the next two bases. Shortly after that another two will arrive and the process will be repeated.
                                I'm sure your station will get loads of training with the new a/c as will the CG unit beside you (something your obviously a wee bit bitter about) - let the thread creep begin to distract from the issue raised!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X