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

[The Bread Guy]

Anyone else reading between the lines here?

Canada’s top soldier will seek an explanation from Defence Minister Peter MacKay over an unusual request for military personnel to dig up information on a Liberal MP.  Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk said he was reluctant to comment on the report in Friday’s Toronto Star until he had obtained all the details about what transpired the day after it was learned that MacKay had used a search-and-rescue helicopter to get from a private fishing lodge to the Gander airport in July 2010.  Once there, a Challenger jet was waiting to take him to a government announcement in Ontario.  But Natynczyk said the revelations that air force staff at the 9 Wing Gander base, at defence department headquarters in Ottawa and in MacKay’s ministerial office had rummaged through flight records involving opposition members of Parliament was “interesting.” .... While some officials privately expressed unease about the suggestion that military officers were put to work on MacKay’s political defence, Natynczyk reserved his judgment.  “It’s an interesting situation. Before I make any comment I want to know exactly what occurred. What I’ll do is I’ll go back to the minister’s office and find out what occurred. I’ll leave it at that,” he said Friday ....

Toronto Star, 24 Feb 12

 

[Strike]

As far as I'm concerned, if the parties want to start some tit for tat wrt flying in CF aircraft, they can put in an ATI like everyone else.  We, as members of the CF, should not be in the business of trying to justify what MPs (all of them) do in order to carry out their duties.

Feel bad for the guys whose names are now attached to this.

 

[Loachman]

As far as I'm concerned, if the parties want to start some tit for tat wrt flying in CF aircraft, they can put in an ATI like everyone else.

Which would likely be a waste of their time, as CF773 Daily Flying Logs are only required to be kept for five years. Very convenient for somebody who wants to attack,  from a postion of considerable safety, members of a government that has been in office for longer than that. No records covering the previous regime's flying activities.

We, as members of the CF, should not be in the business of trying to justify what MPs (all of them) do in order to carry out their duties.

Although several "members of the CF", probably in many locations, may recently have been reminiscing amongst themselves about flying ministers, MPs, and senior public servants with noticeably greater frequency about roughly six years ago and more - and bemoaning both the lack of records and media interest.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Caveat:  No indication of the "obtained" documents being shared, so no way to know if there's anything else there.
I stand corrected - you can look at the documents referred to in the story at the following links
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/d1/ad/fdeb35a845589c390764e51719c3.pdf
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/d6/ee/035dbf3a42018e5818c03a97d382.pdf
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/7e/8c/ee43f9484fb09c71b9723b9aa071.pdf
Thanks to the reporter for sharing....

Canada’s top soldier suspected the Conservative government was behind a plot to damage his reputation when reports emerged last fall that he had used a Challenger jet to join his family on a Caribbean cruise, the Toronto Star has learned.

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, aired his suspicion after learning a journalist got hold of flight logs that showed him using the military jet to attend sports events, the Calgary Stampede and to catch up to a family trip to the island of Saint Maarten in January 2010. He had missed his scheduled departure in order to attend a repatriation ceremony for four soldiers and a journalist killed in Afghanistan.

“Whenever (blank) is involved in a story I tend to suspect a certain source, placed high in Government,” Natynczyk wrote to his chief media adviser on the afternoon of Sept. 15, 2011.

That evening, CTV reporter Robert Fife broadcast his report, inciting a parliamentary fury over the use of government aircraft ....

Toronto Star, 23 Mar 12

Seems like plain old public affairs "what's happened?  why?  what could happen next?" - sorta like a lot of what's done in the military (or elsewhere in government).

 

[OldSolduer]

Caveat:  No indication of the "obtained" documents being shared, so no way to know if there's anything else there.
I stand corrected - you can look at the documents referred to in the story at the following links
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/d1/ad/fdeb35a845589c390764e51719c3.pdf
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/d6/ee/035dbf3a42018e5818c03a97d382.pdf
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/7e/8c/ee43f9484fb09c71b9723b9aa071.pdf
Thanks to the reporter for sharing....
Toronto Star, 23 Mar 12

Seems like plain old public affairs "what's happened?  why?  what could happen next?" - sorta like a lot of what's done in the military (or elsewhere in government).

This also was on FB this morning.

A common tactic to divert attention from an elected official is to plant a story about a non elected official who, no matter what they say or do, will have a difficult time defending what it was that they had done. (Does this make sense?)

This works particularly well when the center of attention is a military official.

 

[Kirkhill]

Jaysus.  Are we that concerned about appearances that the CDS can't give the Mrs a lift in the company jet?  What is the marginal cost of carrying her in a Challenger? She can't be that big a lass!!!

How many folks take their spouses along on business trips when the situation allows and they get put up in the same room?  Are they supposed to reimburse the company 50% of the room cost?

Crap.....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Defence Minister Peter MacKay denied Friday there was a high-level government campaign to tarnish the reputation of Canada's top soldier, Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk. 

"I don't believe that," MacKay told reporters when asked about smear allegations revealed in a Toronto Star story. 

The newspaper obtained documents under the Access to Information Act that offered insights into the discussions inside the general's office last September, after a television report revealed Natynczyk's past use of a military Challenger jet to join his family on vacation in the Caribbean. 

"What I know … having worked for almost five years with General Walter Natynczyk is that he is one of the finest men that I have ever met," MacKay told reporters at a news conference in Edmonton. "I have nothing but confidence and support for General Natynczyk in the important job that he does as the top soldier in the Canadian Forces." 

MacKay's comments echoed those released to the media earlier by Andrew MacDougall, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman.  "The Chief of Defence Staff has our full confidence," MacDougall wrote. "Taxpayers expect government officials to conduct the nation's business at a reasonable cost. We believe the Chief of Defence Staff did so in this case." ....

CBC.ca, 23 Mar 12

 

[The Bread Guy]

<slight tangent>
It appears Alberta's opposition is poking a variation of the same button there - with the AB Treasury Board not explaining itself well re:  the difference between "how much it costs to fly the plane" and "how much it costs to own the plane, even if it's not flying"
<slight tangent>

 

[The Bread Guy]

At looooooooooooooooong last (only 6 months, 17 days after the initial stories), someone explaining "all the time vs. only when flying" costs in a bit more detail in the media - shared with the usual caveats ....

DND’s financial analysts are affectionately called "bean counters" in recognition of their unique abilities to determine the exact cost of just about anything that is done within the Defence Department and the Canadian Forces.

Their information can be confusing to the uninitiated trying to learn about the costs of just about anything, from the war in Afghanistan to the purchase of paint and pencils.

It invariably involves responding to financial inquiries with what appears to be conflicting information.

For example, Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk, and staff members who must accompany him, sometimes take a Defence Department’s Challenger executive jet to particular events.

Senior military representatives are often required to attend international meetings, special events, consultations with allies and attend ramp ceremonies at CFB Trenton for one of Canada’s fallen soldiers.

There are inevitable media reports about the costs of the flight. But do such flights cost $10,000 per hour, $2,630 per hour, or something else?

DND’s bean counters and those responsible for conveying this information to the media and the public, to their credit, make every effort to be open and transparent in telling us about the Defence Department’s cost of doing business.

But the information is often difficult to understand as it can be "full cost" or "variable cost," and journalists, in their efforts to put the information into a context, often gravitate to the more expensive estimates.

Essentially, Challenger aircraft are aerial offices and, sometimes, command centres that take their passengers to wherever they need to go.

The benefits of using government-owned aircraft include personal convenience, minimized travel time, security and, frequently, economy.

Under some conditions, military material, vehicles and aircraft can be made available to non-defence and non-government organizations, and in most cases they are charged what is called "full cost recovery."

In the case of aircraft, this includes factors that DND’s costing analysts have identified to a level of detail that is nothing short of penny-perfect exactness. This includes fuel and lubricants, and the amortized hourly costs of use on the airframe, engines, tires, spare parts and many other factors.

This also incorporates the amortized hourly salaries, pensions and benefits of the pilots and cabin crew, technicians, administrative and support personnel, use of the runways, heat and maintenance of aircraft infrastructure (buildings and ground support equipment) and depreciation of the aircraft for the time it is assigned to the non-government user.

That non-government user would normally pay about $10,000 per hour.

The incremental "variable cost recovery" is dramatically less, and includes only the fluids and materials expended for that particular flight, including fuel, oil and lubricants.

In the case of the Challenger aircraft, the "variable" hourly cost would be about $2,630. Aircraft cost money even when they sit on the ground.

Maintenance, security and salaries and benefits of technicians and ground crew are only a few examples.

But there is another element to military passenger aircraft operations that goes virtually unnoticed.

All military pilots, including Challenger personnel, have to fly a minimum number of hours per month to maintain their currency, DND’s term for authorization to fly the aircraft.

Their training flights must include various distances, runways and conditions, and the expenses involved in these flights are part of the cost of doing business.

The flights can be made available for military personnel, but other government representatives are not permitted to accompany these flights.

The difference is that Canada’s military personnel are subject to requirements of the policy of unlimited liability, so any risks involved in travelling aboard military training flights are subsumed within this condition.

While other professions may have elements of risk, such as firefighters, police and corrections officials, they have the right to refuse.

Only military personnel may be required to assume unlimited risk as part of their responsibilities, including loss of life.

So long as these flights meet the specific requirements for pilot training, military personnel can "hitch a ride" and in some circumstances have the flight plan conform to their travel requirements.

When the staff members have to accompany "the boss," the cost of commercial air travel could be much more expensive.

So, when you read or hear that a senior Canadian Forces representative has cost the Canadian taxpayer $10,000 for the use of a DND Challenger aircraft, you might wish to ask: Was the flight fully-costed, variably-costed, operational or training?

( .... )

Tim Dunne is a Halifax-based communications consultant and military affairs writer, a Research Fellow with Dalhousie University’s Centre for Foreign Policy Studies and a member of the Royal United Services Institute (NS) Security Affairs Committee.

 

[Good2Golf]

Well done, Mr. Dunne.


Regards,
G2G

 

[SupersonicMax]

I bet that won't be on CBC...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Well, if this (from a CBC story based on ATIP'ed e-mails that CBC hasn't shared with us yet) is true, now we know who the CF's Challenger jets "belong" to....

.... MacKay's office refused to request the Challenger for a trip that took MacKay, Natynczyk and others to see Canadian Forces members working off the coast of Libya and in Kabul, Afghanistan, for a Dec. 22-25 trip.

Natynczyk's aide de camp had asked his assistant on Nov. 30, 2011, to prepare a rundown of commercial flight costs for 18 people to fly Ottawa to Kuwait via Rome, plus another nine to fly Ottawa to Kuwait.

"In order to show our homework when arguing for Challenger use, I require the following data," Maj. Steve Popowych instructed.

By the end of the day, Tasseron reported the request was denied.

"Notwithstanding my attempt to adequately explain the timing, security and feasibility considerations related to my proposal for using Challenger aircraft to move between Rome and Kuwait, Mr. [MacKay's chief of staff, John MacDonell] has indicated that the [Minister of National Defence's Office] will not consider its use," he wrote.

"Commercial it is," Natynczyk replied.

Gov. Gen. David Johnston and five passengers not named in the documents took a Challenger from Ottawa to Rome and back to join the visit to HMCS Vancouver off the coast of Libya.

 

[GAP]

This  "fly commercial" BS is getting totally out of hand. The Challenger type jets were bought for trips of this type where itinerary's change and security is an issue.

As usual, the PC way is taken to extreme....

 

[Edward Campbell]

The media will damn MacKay when he uses the Challanger and damn him when he doesn't ... "did you make good and proper use of he Challenger?" is a question of the same order as "have you stopped beating your wife?"

 

[The Bread Guy]

A "what's the CDS flying?" tidbit from a recent Canadian Press article based on an interview with the CDS:

.... Natynczyk said he is satisfied with the success of the Canadian mission to Afghanistan and pointed out that he flew into Kabul on a commercial airliner for the first time when he visited troops in the city last month ....

 

[fraserdw]

And yet again........


Labrador MP irked military chopper used for fishing trip

DND defends use as 'extraordinary measure,' saying search and rescue unaffected

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/07/20/nl-sar-helicopter-labrador-fishing-720.html


I am against this excuse we have all kinds of policy ways to compensate folks for hard work, helicopters for fish is not one of them!  Down right bad PA management given the crap we been in of SAR helos.

 

[aesop081]

I am against this excuse we have all kinds of policy ways to compensate folks for hard work, helicopters for fish is not one of them! 

This one achieves the aim, allows training to be carried out at the same time and has ZERO detrimental effects on the availability of  a unit that is not a primary SAR unit. The aircraft and crew remained in contact and was available to respond to a call if it came.

Canadians are retarded. It doesn't make things wrong.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Just like we had them respond to evac casualties (part of the scenario) but they could not guarantee they would have birds avail due to their SAR posture/maintenace cycle until 30 mins before we called in the evac request........

 

[GAP]

Whatever the reasoning...the point is that is horrific PR.

 

[aesop081]

Whatever the reasoning...the point is that is horrific PR.

The horrific PR is on the part of the CF info machine doing another piss poor job explaining basic facts to a public who's stupidity ranks on a biblical scale.