By: Anonymous
- 14th December 2010 at 11:04Permalink- Edited 9th December 2020 at 16:35
Money is in sort supply (unless its International development, lending money to Ireland or MPs allowances, but that is another argument) so this and the previous government decide to waste even more money on another PFI which report after report has shown to be financial failures.
The helicopter of choice is not even British when Agustawestland produce the ideal product i.e. the Merlin which has had considerable export success which implies that it is actually a quality helicopter.
I'm sure that some sort of financial package would be available for the MOD to purchase Merlins from Agustawestland and as stated in previous posts look at alternative crewing, maintenance possibilities etc. or even let the Coast Guard own their own helicopters using their own crews etc. (ex RAF and RN) similiarly to the US and other countries.
There are alternatives rather than let an consortium making money out of saving lives.
By: pagen01
- 14th December 2010 at 13:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Respectfully I know fully well that the previous Labour government initiated the process of privatisation of SAR, actually I find your suggestion that I don't do research or even look at previous posts rather insulting!:mad:
My point was the Conservatives like privatising things a fact well born out by history! If you would do a bit of research of lets say the 1980's you would find that to be the case...
Apologies, certainly not meant as an insult, but your post didn't in anyway indicate that you were aware that it was a previous mobs idea.
I'm well aware of my Tory history, but infairness they sometimes seem to get a bashing for being lumbered with Labour strategies from the past.
I actully don't think that privatising the SAR role is a bad idea, so long as sufficient safe guards are in place. The coastguard helicopter service runs well in a contractorised environment.
By: SC 034
- 14th December 2010 at 14:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This has been mooted for a long while, it was definitely spoken about when I was working at Mawgan alongside the resident 203 Sqn Sea King training unit ('04-'05 ish, so not party politics), I seem to remember that it was talked about happening for 2013.
I would image that it would run along similar lines to the Coastguard now.
Havent there been mumbles about it being privatised going back to the mid/ late 80's?
I seem to remember rumours about it when I was at RAF Mountbatten with the ATC back in the '86 or '87.
By: atr42
- 16th December 2010 at 21:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What happens when the weather's bad? I'm no expert but I thought that under military rules there was more leeway about when to fly than under civi rules? I certainly don't want anyone to fly if it isn't safe but are we likely to see more rescue requests turned down because of civilian rules?
By: Creaking Door
- 17th December 2010 at 12:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Money is in sort supply (unless its International development, lending money to Ireland or MPs allowances, but that is another argument) so this and the previous government decide to waste even more money on another PFI which report after report has shown to be financial failures.
The helicopter of choice is not even British when Agustawestland produce the ideal product i.e. the Merlin which has had considerable export success which implies that it is actually a quality helicopter.
I'm sure that some sort of financial package would be available for the MOD to purchase Merlins from Agustawestland and as stated in previous posts look at alternative crewing, maintenance possibilities etc. or even let the Coast Guard own their own helicopters using their own crews etc. (ex RAF and RN) similiarly to the US and other countries.
There are alternatives rather than let an consortium making money out of saving lives.
Too bloody right! Far too often 'the government saving money' means one government department saving money (short term) and the overall cost to the taxpayer going up not down!
The driver here seems to be the 'cost' of replacing the Sea King helicopters but the foreign consortium will have to buy new helicopters (foreign built, so exporting skills and cash), and operate them for thirty years.....and make a healthy profit too! So how is this saving the taxpayer money?
This is another example of our governments overspending on our credit card! :rolleyes:
By: benroethig
- 18th December 2010 at 08:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ne real surprise it was always on the card whatever, the Tories love privatising stuff!
I do agree that the UK should look at adopting the US model of reservist pilots it would offer cost savings whilst maintaining capability.
I have been surprised by how active duty heavy the UK is and how much reluctance there is to change it. The British Army could shift a lot of capability to the TA saving money and the RAF has no reserve squadrons at all while the USAF is almost half National Guard and Reserve. You guys could save a ton of money by having your pilots work for BA during the week.
By: pagen01
- 18th December 2010 at 15:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What happens when the weather's bad?
Thats' s a very good point, and I can't imagine civil helicopters even taking off in the conditions that RN SeaKings did during the Penlee lifeboat disaster.
That and the recently announced shrinking of the coastguard service dosen't bode well for all conditions rescues.
By: benroethig
- 18th December 2010 at 15:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats' s a very good point, and I can't imagine civil helicopters even taking off in the conditions that RN SeaKings did during the Penlee lifeboat disaster.
That and the recently announced shrinking of the coastguard service dosen't bode well for all conditions rescues.
Yep, but HM treasury can't see anything beyond monetary values. Private firms are cheaper because they will do whatever they can to ensure a healthy bottom line, in this case it means being far more conservative with deployment of assets.
By: Fedaykin
- 18th December 2010 at 16:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have been surprised by how active duty heavy the UK is and how much reluctance there is to change it. The British Army could shift a lot of capability to the TA saving money and the RAF has no reserve squadrons at all while the USAF is almost half National Guard and Reserve. You guys could save a ton of money by having your pilots work for BA during the week.
I agree, I think the army should mothball most of its heavy armour and artillery (armoured vehicles can be easily mothballed) and transfer much of the capability to the TA. The TA would only need a small number of tanks active to keep crew trained. In that way the UK maintains a nascant capability that can be ramped up quickly (by pulling vehicles out of storage and activating TA reservists) in the event of a crisis!
By: Anonymous - 14th December 2010 at 11:04 Permalink - Edited 9th December 2020 at 16:35
Money is in sort supply (unless its International development, lending money to Ireland or MPs allowances, but that is another argument) so this and the previous government decide to waste even more money on another PFI which report after report has shown to be financial failures.
The helicopter of choice is not even British when Agustawestland produce the ideal product i.e. the Merlin which has had considerable export success which implies that it is actually a quality helicopter.
I'm sure that some sort of financial package would be available for the MOD to purchase Merlins from Agustawestland and as stated in previous posts look at alternative crewing, maintenance possibilities etc. or even let the Coast Guard own their own helicopters using their own crews etc. (ex RAF and RN) similiarly to the US and other countries.
There are alternatives rather than let an consortium making money out of saving lives.
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 14th December 2010 at 13:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apologies, certainly not meant as an insult, but your post didn't in anyway indicate that you were aware that it was a previous mobs idea.
I'm well aware of my Tory history, but infairness they sometimes seem to get a bashing for being lumbered with Labour strategies from the past.
I actully don't think that privatising the SAR role is a bad idea, so long as sufficient safe guards are in place. The coastguard helicopter service runs well in a contractorised environment.
Posts: 62
By: SC 034 - 14th December 2010 at 14:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Havent there been mumbles about it being privatised going back to the mid/ late 80's?
I seem to remember rumours about it when I was at RAF Mountbatten with the ATC back in the '86 or '87.
Posts: 338
By: atr42 - 16th December 2010 at 21:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What happens when the weather's bad? I'm no expert but I thought that under military rules there was more leeway about when to fly than under civi rules? I certainly don't want anyone to fly if it isn't safe but are we likely to see more rescue requests turned down because of civilian rules?
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 17th December 2010 at 12:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Too bloody right! Far too often 'the government saving money' means one government department saving money (short term) and the overall cost to the taxpayer going up not down!
The driver here seems to be the 'cost' of replacing the Sea King helicopters but the foreign consortium will have to buy new helicopters (foreign built, so exporting skills and cash), and operate them for thirty years.....and make a healthy profit too! So how is this saving the taxpayer money?
This is another example of our governments overspending on our credit card! :rolleyes:
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 17th December 2010 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
PFI is a waste BUT it avoids the upfront costs of a direct purchase! It makes the yearly balance sheet look nicer!
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 18th December 2010 at 00:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it makes this year’s balance sheet look nicer.....but next year’s looks worse.....and next year’s.....and next year’s...
Posts: 487
By: benroethig - 18th December 2010 at 08:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have been surprised by how active duty heavy the UK is and how much reluctance there is to change it. The British Army could shift a lot of capability to the TA saving money and the RAF has no reserve squadrons at all while the USAF is almost half National Guard and Reserve. You guys could save a ton of money by having your pilots work for BA during the week.
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 18th December 2010 at 15:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats' s a very good point, and I can't imagine civil helicopters even taking off in the conditions that RN SeaKings did during the Penlee lifeboat disaster.
That and the recently announced shrinking of the coastguard service dosen't bode well for all conditions rescues.
Posts: 487
By: benroethig - 18th December 2010 at 15:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep, but HM treasury can't see anything beyond monetary values. Private firms are cheaper because they will do whatever they can to ensure a healthy bottom line, in this case it means being far more conservative with deployment of assets.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 18th December 2010 at 16:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree, I think the army should mothball most of its heavy armour and artillery (armoured vehicles can be easily mothballed) and transfer much of the capability to the TA. The TA would only need a small number of tanks active to keep crew trained. In that way the UK maintains a nascant capability that can be ramped up quickly (by pulling vehicles out of storage and activating TA reservists) in the event of a crisis!
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 18th December 2010 at 20:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I bet the British Army think that the RAF should do the same with most UK based fighter aircraft! ;)