• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Challenger/"VIP" Jet/CF Chopper Use (CDS, others) [merged]

Pencil Tech said:
From what I've seen today, press and public opinion are turning strongly in support of the CDS. The whole flap was a stupid media creation and now the media is turning it around. I think the PM jumped the gun a bit saying that the CDS should reimburse any of those flights.

I think the PM played it down the middle. He effectively said that there are rules and the CDS like everyone else has to abide by the rules. That's probably why this is going nowhere. Fife et al were likely looking to make the PM look bad at the expense of the CDS.
 
Wasn't the PM's comment something to the effect that they would review things, and of course the CDS would be asked to repay IF there was anything amiss?

In other words, yes, we'll look at it, yes, of course he will follow the rules like everyone else.....but the unstated part being that there probably isn't going to be found anything amiss?
 
This for me comes down to one sentence.
We have the jets, they have to be flown, the crews needs the hours, the maintainers need the time to train and maintain the aircraft.
Final sentence for me.
I DO NOT CARE IF THE GENERAL USED THE JETS, USE THEM OR LOSE THEM
 
ModlrMike said:
I think the PM played it down the middle. He effectively said that there are rules and the CDS like everyone else has to abide by the rules. That's probably why this is going nowhere. Fife et al were likely looking to make the PM look bad at the expense of the CDS.

Well this isn't the first time that Fife has gone after a CDS and I'm glad to see that this is blowing up in his face now. I remember a few years he came out with 'inside information" that Gen. Hillier was going to get the can, which turned out not to be true.
 
Pencil Tech said:
Well this isn't the first time that Fife has gone after a CDS and I'm glad to see that this is blowing up in his face now.
I think it's more like the balloon he was hoping would float high and pretty just deflated.
 
ModlrMike said:
So after spending the weekend putting the knife in his back, the press is now trying to take it out?  :facepalm:

But the press is not a single entity; individual journalists, or at least individual media outlets, act somewhat independently.  I hope they'd react to a changing picture as information becomes available.

Pieman said:
He is not just some random MP, this is a high profile defense figure. Pretty sure there are a number of people who would knock the guy off given the chance. In my books, the government has a responsibility to ensure this man`s safety at all times.

That's certainly a fair point, but the commercial air travel system is one of the last places I'd expect anyone to get knocked off.  Even a 200 ml tube of toothpaste is considered too dangerous to fly with ( ::) ), never mind anything resembling a weapon.
 
A bloggers perspective:

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2011/09/is-this-how-we-should-treat-our-heroes.html

Is this how we should treat our heroes?

The Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk has been flying on government aircraft to attend private functions, including a military flight to join family members on a St. Maarten vacation. We know this thanks to CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife, and his scoop is causing quite a buzz in newspapers across the land.

CTV News, which is caught in a squeeze between the giant CBC News Network and the pesky new Sun News Network and is trying very hard to remain relevant, needs something of their own to bang on about. So, for this week, a trumped-up scandal over Gen. Natynczyk’s use of government jets will CC-144_Challenger_-_VIP_Transport have to do.

The Royal Canadian Air Force operates a small fleet of dedicated executive jets—similar to the one pictured—in two squadrons. This is the Challenger fleet all the fuss is about. Four jets, I think, of the fleet are configured as VIP transport and are used by Canada’s monarch, governor general, other members of the Royal Family, prime minister, other senior members of the government of Canada, and other dignitaries. The jets, I’ve heard, are outfitted to the standard of a nice mobile home, i.e., not luxuriously.

This seems reasonable to me. We are the second largest country in the world, and we are a wealthy, modern, industrialized nation with leaders who have responsibilities and obligations worldwide.

For accounting purposes, a cost per hour of a Challenger jet’s flying time is calculated at about $10,000. It’s important—and crucial to understanding this issue—to be aware that this hourly rate includes amortization of the purchase cost of the jets, use of their hangers and salaries, etc., of their crews, i.e., all costs that have/will be expended regardless of whether or not the jets leave the ground.

Now, if a journalist is looking for a high-impact story, and cares little about fairness, this is the cost per flying hour he’d use. And that’s the cost per hour Robert Fife used to report on Gen. Natynczyk’s January, 2010 flight to St. Maarten, which works out to about $93,000. The fact that about $67,800 (74%) of that cost would have to be borne by taxpayers even if the jet had stayed on the ground seems lost on Fife—or perhaps been ignored by him because it wouldn’t have made as good a story.

Another salient point is how the RCAF operates it’s VIP fleet and manages its aircrew. Sound practice dictates that pilots maintain their proficiency by flying a certain number of hours whether or no they have passengers on board. This is to maintain the certification of the aircraft and their pilots.

So, anyone on board during those flying hours are, in a real sense, flying for free. And, because Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has so dramatically cut the use of these government aircraft by politicians, the jets would often fly empty, if senior staff like Gen. Natynczyk did not use them.

Here’s a nicely stated recap of Gen. Natynczyk’s flights by Craig McInnis of The Vancouver Sun:

    “Many of the flights were to attend sporting events as a representative of the military. Although he may have enjoyed those games, they were still legitimately working trips, even when he took along some of his family.

    “The flight to the Caribbean for a family vacation came after he had been delayed by a repatriation ceremony in Kingston for the bodies of four soldiers and Canadian journalist Michelle Lang after they were killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.

    “A worthy cause and as his employer, it would be verging on mean for taxpayers to refuse to cover Natynczyk's costs for rejoining his family after his original holiday plans were disrupted by his call to duty.”

According to CTV, since 2008, Gen. Natynczyk incurred more than $1-million in travel costs while flying on government aircraft for what it characterized as “personal business.” According to my calculations, the real out-of-pocket expense would have been more like $260,000 or $87,000 per year, which includes only incremental costs and excludes “anyhow” costs like depreciation.

Given the significant nature of his responsibilities and obligations, is $87,000 really too much for our top soldier to spend in a year on this sort of travel, especially when the plane he used would have flown without a passenger, at least, some of the time? Does the fact that Natynczyk runs the military not give him some latitude, or have we become a nation of envious cheapskates?

I gather from news reports that the prime minister will force the general to reimburse the government for some of his flights at commercial rates. This “looks” better, of course, but is it really fair? We pay out billions of dollars annually to tens of thousands of civil servants and employees at crown corporations across our land at rates far in excess of anything the private sector would consider appropriate. Where’s the CTV News scoop on this excessive burden on taxpayers?

Far too little is ever written about those excesses. But let a senior politician or general take a free ride on a government jet to make his or her job a bit easier, and its “Stop the Presses!” time at CTV News.

Legitimate questions to be asked of our political leaders are: Why is so much of the VIP fleet underused? Shouldn’t we sell some of the jets if there isn’t enough real work for them? Such questions would serve Canadians better than singling out of our top soldier and publicly embracing him so unnecessarily.

In this faux scandal, we have treated one of our genuine heroes and finest citizens shoddily. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Most of us don’t get the opportunity to travel in government jets, so why should our top soldier do so? Is that supposed to be our attitude? How very egalitarian of us—or just pettiness.

While Robert Fife should not be criticized for bringing the issue forward for debate, he should be taken to task by not providing a more through analysis of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s travelling costs, especially since they were pre-authorized or incurred to satisfy the obligations of his position as head of the military.

CTV knew the optics here and chose sensationalism over fair journalism.
 
So, let me get this straight.

Someone was bitching about the CDS using the jets and spending anywhere from $0.01 to $1,000,000.99. The underlying purpose and /or target of the bitching may be in dispute.

The PM gives a questionable defense of the CDS, and then reiterates that the policies will be observed, and officials need to keep travel costs down (perhaps a subtle backhanded dig).

HOWEVER, we now find out that the government has signed a contract with a consulting firm at a rate of $90,000 per day ($19,000,000 current value) with an option to extend for an additional year. And the consultant is to study where the government can reduce expenditures. Hmmmmm. :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Nope, no hypocrisy here. :facepalm: :sarcasm:
 
Just caught a part of the 11pm CTV news before I had to drive home.

Now they are going after Peter McKay for doing the same thing the CDS did, only this time it was a search and rescue helicopter. They seem to be trying really hard to get someone, anyone, in trouble.

Pitiful

I'm sure there will be more on this from someone here in less than an hour.
 
Haha read your post and went and looked at CTVs site.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110921/search-and-rescue-chopper-picked-up-mackay-110921/

They're saying it costs ~32,000/hr so the half-hour "limo service" costed $16,000. Can't wait to find out that the real cost is 5k/hr and that it would have done the trip empty anyway...

Ridiculous.
 
Both of these "stories" (read inflammatory attempts at investigative journalism) were "scooped" (read regurgitated) by the same reporter, Robert Fife.  I had a lot of respect for him as a journalist before this, but now...what a clown!  Someone obviously wants to milk an ATI request for all it's worth.
 
A bit more to chew on about the SAR chopper ride from Question Period....
Defence Minister Peter MacKay stood behind his use of a Canadian Forces search-and-rescue helicopter on Thursday, saying he is just one of many MPs who have participated in training exercises over the years.

On Wednesday, CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported that MacKay used one of the three search-and-rescue helicopters stationed in Newfoundland and Labrador, to transport him from a vacation spot last year.

MacKay was picked up at a private salmon fishing lodge along the Gander River by a Canadian Forces Cormorant helicopter in July, 2010.

Military sources said the order to collect MacKay came from the defence minister's own office.

MacKay's office, however, said he shortened his trip by a day in order to take part in the 30-minute training exercise, which had been planned, then cancelled, on several previous occasions.

MacKay came under fire in question period in the House of Commons on Thursday, accused by New Democrat MP Jack Harris of using the military as "his own personal chauffer service."

"His government is paying consultants to tell them how to save money but the minister of defence uses a helicopter that should be on standby for search and rescue to pick him up from a personal fishing trip," Harris said.

"This helicopter was ordered on the day, Mr. Speaker, from his office in Ottawa. How can this minister possibly justify such an inappropriate use of public funds?"

MacKay reiterated that he shortened his vacation in order to participate in the training exercise and get a first-hand look at the work of the search and rescue crews operating out of 9 Wing Gander.

"Had any emergency arisen that would have required search-and-rescue access they would of course have been immediately diverted," he said in the Commons.

"As the member would know, having participated in the parliamentary program with the Canadian Forces, members of parliament -- 20 members including himself -- took part in search and rescue activities in the past."

Harris responded that "being picked up at a cost of $16,000 from a fishing camp is not the way you learn how search and rescue helicopters operate."

A military source told CTV News that the situation was unusual.

"This is not a common practice . . . this is the only time a search-and-rescue asset was used as shuttle service," the source said.

The Department of National Defence has three Cormorant helicopters based out of Gander, N.L. Together, they are expected to cover a massive region of eastern Canada 24 hours a day.

Military sources say no search-and-rescue demonstration was planned until the very day MacKay's office made the request to pick him up ....
CTV.ca, 22 Sept 11
 
So what about the Parliamentary Secretary - (one Mr Bob Dechert) to Foreign Affairs Minister Baird, who's been caught with his hand in the Chinese cookie jar? Where is the cry "off with his head" amongst the media??


It certainly gives a new spin to Foreign "Affairs".
 
Does anyone know if members of the press pay a "commercial equivalent" fee when they travel on CF aircraft in the company of politicians or other Government officials? (e.g. press corps travelling with PM Harper in 2009 for the 65th Anniversary of D-Day, etc...)


Regards
G2G
 
This article:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/28/is-stephen-harper-a-hologram/ states:

To get a seat on those planes is not an easy proposition. The Conservative party charges media organizations $50,000 for a seat. In return you get fed and watered—after that, all bets are off. There is no guarantee you get to ask a question, just the guarantee you won’t.
 
Hmmm...that would be a good tongue-in-cheek article that maybe one of our esteemed journalists who frequent the site could write.  >:D

"Media flies free to military memorials."  ;D

Container - Your link references the campaign trail, in which politicians must charter a plane as they cannot legaly use CF assets during those periods.
 
Container said:
This article:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/28/is-stephen-harper-a-hologram/ states:

Those are during political campaigns, a different situation.
 
Have the number of hours spent "flying empty" for crew training by aircraft type ever been published, or estimated?
 
Back
Top