Challenger/"VIP" Jet/CF Chopper Use (CDS, others) [merged]
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 18,800
- Points
- 1,360
ModlrMike said:
Yeah, the media can't even get the transcript from their own interview correct. not-again
Gen Natynczyk said "90,000"; which is the approximate total of the Regular and Reserve forces.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 4,965
- Points
- 1,060
I just watched the interview. The Boss aquitted himself clearly and honestly. If anyone looked like a goof, it was Newman. It didn't go well for him, no matter how he tried to paint the CDS into a corner.
- Reaction score
- 4,965
- Points
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 2,579
- Points
- 1,260
In an ideal world, in a democracy, a range of media can shine a range of different lights on an issue - let's see what other outlets are focusing on.....ballz said:
- The Canadian Press: "Defence chief says no need to pay back taxpayers for personal jet travel" - mentions Minister of Defence OK'ed the trip to St. Maarten in paragraph 7
- QMI/Sun Media: "Top soldier won’t reimburse public purse for flights" - mentions Minister of Defence OK'ed the trip to St. Maarten in paragraph 8
- Globe & Mail: "Military chief sees no need to reimburse taxpayers for plane use" - mentions Minister of Defence OK'ed the trip to St. Maarten in paragraph 6
E.R. Campbell said:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Wow...
As soon as the Mission changes, (Or "Ends" as the media like to say...) The knives come out, and public opinion changes....
I hope we dont have "Decade of Darkness part II" looming in the near future...
My take;
This is a pathetic non-event news story and a baseless smear campaign on the CDS....
It's ridiculous.
As soon as the Mission changes, (Or "Ends" as the media like to say...) The knives come out, and public opinion changes....
I hope we dont have "Decade of Darkness part II" looming in the near future...
My take;
This is a pathetic non-event news story and a baseless smear campaign on the CDS....
It's ridiculous.
- Reaction score
- 18,800
- Points
- 1,360
ballz said:
Yes.
Aircraft activity is planned using a metric called YFR, or 'yearly flying rate'. For each aircraft fleet, the YFR is determined the year prior, based on past years' activities and future tasks, so as to provide the requisite capabilities and services that the CF is mandated to provide the following year (to be totally accurate, YFR is planned forward for three years using current business planning practices.) The YFR for any fleet has a minimum level necessary to address aircrew readiness and annual proficiency requirements (sequences such as instrument approaches, simulated emergencies, mission-specific training sequences, etc...). On top of that minimum aircrew readiness YFR, is the user-specific YFR that provides the airlift or air support to the CF and Governmental organizations that require it. Over the years, RCAF leadership has made significant efforts to minimize the untasked, readiness YFR by directing what is called 'collateral training', i.e. aircrew conducting, where air regulations allowed, readiness training while providing user support. There are exceptions, such as aircrew prohibited from conducting certain simulated emergencies while carrying passengers, but the overall intent was to optimize YFR usage by minimizing standalone readiness, but it can't be totally eliminated. In the case of the aircrew conducting readiness training while flying the CDS to St.Maarten because he had forfeited his own personal travel arrangements, this is YFR that had been planned for the previous year and that the crew would have flown, whether there was anyone on board or not. For the media to say that "the CDS spent $92,000 flying to St.Maarten" for his vacation is not accurate. The aircrew would have flown those 9.2 hours (and other readiness YFR) during the year anyway. The fact that Gen Natynczyk had missed his personally-purchased flight for his vacation, and the Minister approved the crew to take the General to meet his family in fact saved the taxpayer the cost of reimbursing the CDS for his airline ticket. (edit: see UPDATE LINK #1, below) Ironically, Treasury Board directives require DND/CF to reimburse a CF member who has committed personal travel expenses after being authorized leave and the Department/CF having rescinded that leave for official purposes. (edit: see UPDATE LINK #2, below) I've had that happen myself, where the CF reimbursed me for airline tickets I had purchased after receiving leave authorization, and which I forfeited because I was recalled from leave by my chain of command.
Interestingly, what APPEARS* wasteful was the case where Cabinet Ministers flew to Europe on the Challenger, then took commercial air back to Canada, instead of coming back on the Challenger, which dead-headed (returned crew-only, no passengers) back to Canada. The Challenger YFR TO Europe was task YFR, but the YFR FROM Europe would likely have been assigned to aircrew readiness YFR allocations....all YFR previously planned and funds assigned -- the additional cost to the taxpayer for all the Cabinet Ministers' commercial tickets was something that could have been avoided, but the "perception" by many was, "Oh look, those Government personnel are SAVING money by not taking a VIP jet [home]" The reality was different, of course. The Challenger's YFR was a sunk cost to the Department (Government) already resourced and paid for, not an incremental cost that could be attributed to an individual or group of officials.
It's understandable that the use of CF air assets (or ships or vehicles, for that matter) can present themselves as confusing activities, particularly when described in a "cost per hour" manner that the media or others have interpreted from previously acquired information for the Access to Information Act - I suspect CTV was using the "full-up (sunk) costs" for the CT-144 in the CF Cost Factors Manual, but that particular figure is only meaningful in assessing annual costs of a particular aircraft, as it also includes Departmental cost like personnel salaries and pension and infrastructure, etc... The 'hourly' rate is simply the entire annual costs then divided by the annual fleet hours, and is meant as a comparative figure between aircraft fleets and other CF transportation/mobility capabilities. That figure loses its meaning and legitimacy when taken out of its comparative context incorrectly into an absolute, incremental context. True incremental cost (even if resourced within fleet YFR levels) would be how much Jet-A and what in-flight meals were consumed on the flight....and it was a lot less than $92,000.
A parting thought is have we ever once heard Gen Natynczyk ask to be reimbursed for his own personal airline tickets that he couldn't use because of his attendance at the soldiers' and journalist's repatriation, even when government policy rightly would support his reimbursement?
:2c:
Regards
G2G
UPDATE LINK #1 - clarification of CDS' entitlements, given that he had purchased his vacation, but not yet his air ticket.
UPDATE LINK #2 - references to the CF Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&Os) and Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBIs) related to recall from leave and reimbursement of personal costs if recalled.
* - edit to note "appearance" of waste (vice confirmation) in taking one-way Challenger trip; I am not able to personally confirm that the Challenger was available for the Minters' return to Canada.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
G2G Very well said. Thank you for explaining that so well.
Browsing the various news sites, Canoe.ca seems to be the most unbiased that I have come across. Reporting it as news, and not as an attack on the General's personal character. The reporter in this video even says "...Shake your head on where these stories come from, and why they're being reported."
http://en.video.canoe.tv/video/news/canada/1896809958/defence-chief-defends-travel-spending/1167180417001
Browsing the various news sites, Canoe.ca seems to be the most unbiased that I have come across. Reporting it as news, and not as an attack on the General's personal character. The reporter in this video even says "...Shake your head on where these stories come from, and why they're being reported."
http://en.video.canoe.tv/video/news/canada/1896809958/defence-chief-defends-travel-spending/1167180417001
- Reaction score
- 18,800
- Points
- 1,360
Dimsum said:
Dimsum, I have no problem with that. It's as accurate as I can make it, but not being a Challenger guy, I can't say for certain how the guys run their YFR specifically, but the general principle is the same across the fleets. You can add a disclaimer as you see fit.
I have personally flown Gen Natynczyk (while he was VCDS) on my own readiness YFR on a different aircraft and the fact that I was able to transport him and his aide between two locations that I would have otherwise flown between anyway on my currency training, saved the taxpayer at the very least, a couple of airline tickets. I have great respect for the man, and I find the 'angle' that some in the media are taking to be disappointing. What I found especially disappointing was Kevin Newman so badly wanting to ask his question about whether the PM's "lack of support", in the form of a statement that the issue would be "looked into" should cause the CDS to consider his own resignation, that Newman entirely missed/ignored Gen Natynczyk's very clear and forthright explanation of the use of the Challenger.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 9,317
- Points
- 1,260
Good2Golf said:
Outstanding, G2G.
It's unfortunate that the PA crowd didn't have something like that prepared for the initial questions from the MSM; though they wouldn't have printed the whole explanation, at least they'd have the straight truth to the matter.
- Reaction score
- 18,800
- Points
- 1,360
Infanteer said:
Infanteer,
The fact that the media had the CDS himself speaking with them, and yet the explanation was essentially ignored, indicates to me that any effort by the PA folks to provide the same explanation would likely have been treated in the same manner that Gen Natynczyk's explanation was.
As I mentioned to Dimsum, I can't speak with authority on the Challenger activity specifically, but the principles of YFR allocation and aircraft usage are guided by the same principles for all aircraft in the RCAF.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 13,962
- Points
- 1,260
Good2Golf said:
I have a feeling that even if they listened to his explanation, the idea that we would be burning holes in the sky for x hours *anyway* would have been cause for an article with the headline something like "Canadian Military wastes gas over CFB Comox."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Dimsum said:
Technically speaking, we are... >
But that gets into the same lines as our truck fleet and the maintenance budget that they keep burning through, because we're not using them enough, and they sit and leak fluids.... but that's a whole different story altogether.
- Reaction score
- 4,392
- Points
- 1,160
I cannot find a link on their website, but CBC Radio News is reporting (at 0500 Hrs on the flagship radio news programme) that:
1. Gen Natynczyk's uncomfortable tour in the media spotlight may be part of a campaign for discredit him and force him out; and
2. The CDS will meet, as soon as today, with an all party, ad hoc group to explain his use of the Challengers.
Perhaps there is a sub-text in the CBC's reporting: CTV got it wrong and is being manipulated in some nefarious, back room, 'Inside the Greenbelt' plot.
But: it is still and issue, Monday morning, even with parliament returning today, and that means, in my opinion, that Gen Natynczyk is losing this battle.
1. Gen Natynczyk's uncomfortable tour in the media spotlight may be part of a campaign for discredit him and force him out; and
2. The CDS will meet, as soon as today, with an all party, ad hoc group to explain his use of the Challengers.
Perhaps there is a sub-text in the CBC's reporting: CTV got it wrong and is being manipulated in some nefarious, back room, 'Inside the Greenbelt' plot.
But: it is still and issue, Monday morning, even with parliament returning today, and that means, in my opinion, that Gen Natynczyk is losing this battle.
