• 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]

Good2Golf said:
The story would have raised a lot less interest if it was reported as: 

Gen Natynzcyk was recalled from leave and a planned vacation that he had paid for personally, in order to attend dead soldiers' and a journalist's repatriation.  The Government did not reimburse Gen Natynzcyk for the cost of his personal airline ticket he forfeited to attend the official function.  The Canadian Forces did, however, fly the General to his destination and the aircrew from 412 Squadron in Ottawa used flight hours already budgeted and allocated to the squadron to maintain required aircrew currency levels.


...but that doesn't have paper-selling panache...

Shouldn't some high ranking PAO be doing exactly that? Or do we take the, seemingly, high road and let the press hacks win the accolades of people that are too lazy to understand anything beyond what some third rate journalist writes?
 
recceguy said:
Shouldn't some high ranking PAO be doing exactly that? Or do we take the, seemingly, high road and let the press hacks win the accolades of people that are too lazy to understand anything beyond what some third rate journalist writes?


...one would think...
 
Good2Golf said:
The story would have raised a lot less interest if it was reported as: 

Gen Natynzcyk was recalled from leave and a planned vacation that he had paid for personally, in order to attend dead soldiers' and a journalist's repatriation.  The Government did not reimburse Gen Natynzcyk for the cost of his personal airline ticket he forfeited to attend the official function.  The Canadian Forces did, however, fly the General to his destination and the aircrew from 412 Squadron in Ottawa used flight hours already budgeted and allocated to the squadron to maintain required aircrew currency levels.

...but that doesn't have paper-selling panache...
Also, imagine the alternative headline:  "CDS No Show at Journalist's Repatriation:  Cost Savings Cited".  Not the mention the editorials....

recceguy said:
Shouldn't some high ranking PAO be doing exactly that? Or do we take the, seemingly, high road and let the press hacks win the accolades of people that are too lazy to understand anything beyond what some third rate journalist writes?
Media outlets can be VERY reluctant to make corrections or clarifications, even in cases where facts are misreported.  While a letter to the editor may be doable in short order, if it was from the CDS himself explaining, it would look too CYA.  And since the PM (who appoints the CDS) says they'll be reviewing the policy, I'm guessing a cabinet minister won't be writing to clarify, either.
 
BadEnoughDude said:
Hey newsflash for ya bud, if you don't like this so-called "baseless whining" and "self-victimization" that you seem to think Canadian soldiers constantly express, don't post on an Army forum.

Regardless of the fact that I agree with you, let's end this right now, because that is what caused this thread to be locked last time.
 
ouyin2000 said:
This goes along the lines of Rank Has Its Privilages. Being the top military member in the country, there are certain perks to the job. One of those being that he gets to attend high profile events, as a representative of the entire CF. Sure it's a good gig, but it's not 100% private/pleasure. I, myself, got the opportunity to attend the Grey Cup game on the taxpayers dollar; but I also had a job to do, just like the CDS.

The first time he got to do that it was a privilege.  The second time, a bit less.  By now, an invitation to Vancouver means 3 1/2 hours in a plane (a Challenger or commerical jet, it's all the same), plus the duration of the event, plus another 3 12 hours back, which is all time away from his family or causing him to be away from other events in other places, usually over an evening or weekend so he misses that time off... it's hardly appealing, no matter what some may say.  All for a pay that is, arguably, significantly less than it should be.  For example, the head of Canadian Blood Services is paid more than the CDS, as is the head of Ontario's "MaRS Discovery District".. whatever that is.
 
FYI, here's a page where CBC.ca is asking "Do you think Natynczyk's use of government VIP jets was appropriate? Why or why not?".  (A little better question than their "assault rifle" survey).

Here's your chance to share your views, even if only by clicking "Yes" or "No" on the survey.  As of this post, here's the tally to the question "Do you think Natynczyk's use of government VIP jets was appropriate? Why or why not?":
Yes.  32.6%  (295 votes) 

No.  63.09%  (571 votes) 

I'm not sure.  4.31%  (39 votes) 

Total Votes: 905
 
recceguy said:
Shouldn't some high ranking PAO be doing exactly that? Or do we take the, seemingly, high road and let the press hacks win the accolades of people that are too lazy to understand anything beyond what some third rate journalist writes?

Just more of an fyi....

Whatever statement Public Affairs puts out will never effect the story that a reporter is going to write.  Once the Editors get their hands on information, the story is defined before any member of the Forces is ever asked for content and even when they are asked for content, you'll often see it at the very end of the story where people never end up reading it.

In my opinion, the General shouldn't be in any kind of trouble.  I wonder what type of information would be unearethed for the duration of the Liberal party's stay in power, where they never reimbursed us when they used the Challenger for non government business.

And there you have it....I just showed my immediate bias before asking anyone for a comment.  ;D
 
There is a well known saying to the effect that news stories are used to fill the space between the ads in newspapers, just as tv reports keep the commercials from taking over the air waves. The aim is to come up with a product story that grips the attention of the public, while being as close to the facts as possible. In this case, the various stories are accurate as far as they go. Even the DND factual explanation is included, albeit towards the end and couched in a "DND claims general has stopped beating his wife" manner*. As for retractions or corrections, some of us may remember when wikileaks included an American sitrep that claimed four Canadian troops were killed by friendly fire on 3 September 2006. Immediately many in the media, including one of the most breathless reporters of the "misuse of Challengers" by the CDS story, reported in their best gotcha mode that DND had delberately covered this up. No effort was made to verify the accuracy of one report against a mountain of evidence to the contrary, including the personal experience of at least one Army.ca member. (The FOO Party's log includes the statement "One bomb did not detonate and bounced very close to friendlies.") Instead the outrageous implication was that there had been a huge cover up with the willing participation of all sorts of people, may of whom had lost friends that day. Again, the cover up angle was soon refuted, but to the best of my knowledge, no retraction or clarification was offered.

* I am being sarcastic here.
 
My rule of thumb is that - and this is a lower bound - 1/3 of any given media story is misrepresentation if not outright wrong, rising to 1/2 for any story involving military issues (mostly due to the Hollywood effect - the adoptation of someone else's misconception of military matters as rendered on screen or in print fiction).  That assessment is based on the occasions on which I have known something about the real details of the particular story.

Media are approximately reliable at reporting "what" and "when" and "where", but not "how" and especially not "why".  I believe they lack the time to delve enough into the latter two, and suffer a tendency to "situate the estimate".
 
There are media and there are media.
And yes they all have to make money but my go to list, in no particular order, New York Times, Globe and Mail, CBC, BBC and for some Middle East stories AL JAZEEERA.
 
Loachman said:
Regardless of the fact that I agree with you, let's end this right now, because that is what caused this thread to be locked last time.

I apologize for running the risk inciting another flame war, but the comments that I was replying to really struck a nerve. Still, it's no excuse for my little tirade which was thankfully removed to prevent such a flame war from possibly re-erupting.

I swear, this thread is as potentially explosive as a bottle of nitroglycerin being juggled by a blindfolded man ;)
 
DAP:
The first time he got to do that it was a privilege.  The second time, a bit less.  By now, an invitation to Vancouver means 3 1/2 hours in a plane (a Challenger or commerical jet, it's all the same), plus the duration of the event, plus another 3 12 hours back, which is all time away from his family or causing him to be away from other events in other places, usually over an evening or weekend so he misses that time off... it's hardly appealing, no matter what some may say.  All for a pay that is, arguably, significantly less than it should be.  For example, the head of Canadian Blood Services is paid more than the CDS, as is the head of Ontario's "MaRS Discovery District".. whatever that is.

And he does not sit in his seat looking out the window during the trip. Can you imagine if the CDS and his Aide pulled out a bunch of "Secret" or above documents on CAL?
 
After a bit of back handed character assassination by Kevin Newman and Craig Oliver, the CDS is given some time on CTV's Question Period to answer these baseless charges - starts at at 1:35 but the intro matters because that's where Newman and Oliver sew some doubt.


 
E.R. Campbell said:
After a bit of back handed character assassination by Kevin Newman and Craig Oliver, the CDS is given some time on CTV's Question Period to answer these baseless charges - starts at at 1:35 but the intro matters because that's where Newman and Oliver sew some doubt.
And when they say "exclusive" and pump it as their story, it means less likelihood of backtracking even a notch on their original position.

Edited to add:  Just watched the interview - well handled by the CDS.

Interesting that the Minister reportedly said "OK" and the PM has been quoted saying "we've got to be frugal and we'll have to look into it."
 
hamiltongs said:
I like how it's attributed to "Staff"; basically, no journalist with a recognizable name wanted to be associated with this POS story. The G&M has already bumped it down from top of the national section to a less prominent spot, and I don't believe it ran in the print edition.

An unappreciated part of how the media works is just how much leeway overnight "editors" (i.e. web page maintainers) have, and just how much their work gets scrutinized and revised once the grownups show up in the morning. I think we can look forward to this one disappearing quite quickly, to be honest.


Unfortunately it's still here, still (as of 1245 Hrs) at the top of the Globe and Mail's main webpage; it has "legs," as they say - if only because there is nothing else to discuss. And the PM has been roped into the issue ... maybe it's harmless, maybe not. I'm inclined to believe in both pack journalism and "gotcha journalism", too. And I believe that once the pack gets the scent of blood they will chase and chase until the prey is exhausted.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
.... I believe that once the pack gets the scent of blood they will chase and chase until the prey is exhausted.
Hoping you're wrong, but not impossible
smiley_goodluck_yellow.gif
 
Shared with the usual caveats...

"Natynczyk: No apology, no payment for VIP flights"
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110918/natynczyk-question-period-110918/20110918/?hub=CalgaryHome

Canada's top soldier says he sees no reason to reimburse taxpayers for spending more than $1 million on personal flights using VIP government aircrafts.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk defended his use of the air force's Challenger jets on Sunday, saying he wouldn't apologize for using Crown-owned aircraft to go to sporting events, fundraising dinners and to join his family on vacation in the Caribbean.

"I've been very transparent. I've been very ethical throughout my entire 36 years of service," he told CTV's Question Period.

CTV News obtained documents indicating that Natynczyk spent more than $1 million flying on jets since 2008. His trips included NHL and CFL games as well as fundraising galas and dinners in major Canadian cities.

Natynczyk said all the flights he took were already scheduled and prepaid. He said the jets would have flown around empty even if he wasn't aboard.

"The problem is the aircraft are not being used enough," he said. "The aircraft are flying around empty because we have to maintain the proficiency of the pilots and indeed the crew."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed the issue of personal travel on Friday, saying that government staff should reimburse Ottawa for the costs of any personal trips they take in Crown-owned aircraft.

"When they are used for personal or private travel, we expect that travel at commercial rates to be reimbursed to taxpayers," said Harper, speaking to reporters in Saskatoon.

NDP MP Pat Martin said Sunday while he has no interest in trying to "nickel and dime" the head of the armed forces over his travel budget, all non-combat military operations should fall under the same level of oversight as other public service sectors.

Natynczyk's travel budget should also be subject to the same belt-tightening asked of other government departments.

"Nothing that the general says can really justify spending $100,000 to go to drop a puck at a hockey game," Martin told CTV News Channel in an interview from Ottawa.

"The general's budget, frankly the budget line for the military, has been ballooning in recent years, and it just seems to be that some of their spending must be getting a little bit cavalier for an alarm not to go off, or a bell not to go off, to say this can't be explained satisfactorily to the Canadian people."

Unlike the prime minister and the governor general, the chief of the defence staff is not required to fly on a Challenger jet for security reasons.

But Natynczyk said he's unapologetic for the fees incurred during his time in the air.

"I'm the commander of the Canadian Forces and I have a responsibility to go out and see the 9,000-plus men and women in uniform who serve coast to coast to coast," he said.

The top military commander said he has no plans to resign over the report and sees no reason to reimburse taxpayers.

When the report was released in mid-September, Natynczyk's office responded saying he usually works with his command team while flying in a Challenger to ensure a secure communication link while in the air.


If your day is going well, don't read the comments. People are eating the spoonfed BS right up and calling for his resignation ::)
 
E.R. Campbell said:
After a bit of back handed character assassination by Kevin Newman and Craig Oliver, the CDS is given some time on CTV's Question Period to answer these baseless charges - starts at at 1:35 but the intro matters because that's where Newman and Oliver sew some doubt.

Geez talk about loaded questions from Newman...

I think the CDS handled himself good... and he used an excellent point about him needing secure comms can't get that on Scare Canada or any other CAL
 
Theres no story here, there never was. Theres only the fabrication of a story as you can see in this line:

Canada's top soldier says he sees no reason to reimburse taxpayers for spending more than $1 million on personal flights using VIP government aircrafts.

None of these flights were for personal reason. Even if you consider the St-Marteen trip as "personal", it still did not add up to $1M.
 
Back
Top