I'll believe it when I see it.
No. Just. No.YVR has acres of languishing terrain they're looking to monetize in some way. The CAF should make them an offer and move back in to the South Terminal area.
As part of the Financial Sustainability lens of our 2022-2024 Strategic Plan, we outlined how we will aim to drive value from land assets to diversify our revenues and grow our core airport business while supporting regional economic development. To strengthen the non-passenger related business to a higher proportion than in the past, we will put our land assets into productive use, expanding our focus in cargo and logistics, and activating digital opportunities.
In February 2022, the Minister of Transport formally approved the proposed amendment to YVR’s 2037 Land Use Plan. We’re exploring new and innovative ways to strengthen our role as a diverse global hub while aligning YVR to the future growth and needs of British Columbia. This includes unlocking development opportunities on Sea Island that will benefit our community and the economy that supports it.
Well actually the posting instruction kinda does…Nobody says that any posting has to be permanent. Seasonal campaigns. Two weeks on - Two weeks off. The civilian world uses a variety of solutions to those types of problems. -- Different thread -- overlap.
Well actually the posting instruction kinda does…
Possibly, but then we need double the people to keep up the maintenance.In which case there may be an opportunity for some creativity in devising new posting instructions.
Maybe the Cold Lake guys can join the Fort McMurray flights from Montreal and St John's.
Or reduce ops to properly reflect manning levels.Possibly, but then we need double the people to keep up the maintenance.
The Estonian Defence page is quite informative.Where's Waldo? - Go to the link for legible text - You still won't find Waldo.
View attachment 75663
View attachment 75664
In 1960, the year I enrolled in the Army, as a private soldier, Canada spent 4.2% of GDP on defence - that was about $1.7 Billion and it had bought us 18 new, modern destroyers and several smaller ships, the Army had four full or nearly full strength (85%) brigade groups and we flew 130 CF-101 Voodoo jets in Canada and 8 squadrons of CF-104 Starfighters in Europe. There were 120,000 men and women in the regular force.
By the time I was promoted to LCol and took command of my own Regiment (1978) our defence budget was 1.85% of GDP, almost $4 Billion in 1978 dollars. We had about 100,000 men and women in the regular force but "rust out" was a real issue.
I retired in 1997, our defence b budget was 1.25& of GDP but almost $8 Billion. We had about 90,000 regular force members but they had new, modern frigates (only 12 of them) and 135+ new, modern CF-18s. The Army had given a good account of itself in UNPROFOR and IFOR in the Balkans but some senior officers argued it was too small even as a mobilization base for a serious war.
Defence spending in dollar terms is meaningless ... inflation drives numbers up and up and up, but each larger number "buys" fewer mean and women and less and less capable equipment for them to use.
Defence spending as a % of GDP is a fair indicator of national will. Our "national will" had declined sharply after 1952 (when defence spent almost 7% of GDP) because there was less need. The threat, by 1960, was still real but it was contained. Our will remained well above average, for NATO (2.75% to 3%), until 1968 when it took another precipitous fall, down to below 2% by 1973. It stayed above 1.5% until 1982 and it rose only because of threatened trade actions by Germany. It stayed above or near 2% during the Mulroney years but fell again after 1993.
Spending rose sharply, in real dollar terms, from 2002 to 2011 (Afghanistan) but in 2012 Defence Minister Peter MacKay decided, on the advice of his admirals and generals, to disobey a pretty clear directive from Prime Minister Harper to cut the HQ bloat and the PM, in his turn, cut DND's funding sharply. By 2014 Canada spent less than 1% of GDP on defence and that, I think, was a shot aimed directly at Rick Hillier and Walt Natynczyk and so on.
Under pressure from the GOB (Great Orange Buffon in the White House) Prime Minister Trudeau has made the defence budget rise from 1.15% ($18B) to 1,4% ($23B) but that is not even keeping pace with inflation.
The message I get from the numbers is that Canadians are unwilling to spend on defence. 2% may be a red line that Canadians are unwilling to allow any government to cross.
That's perfectly fine. Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.
Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.
Mark my words the chickens will come home to roost. When or where I can't say BUT it will be a huge scandal with many empty headed people asking "what went wrong? "That's perfectly fine. Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.
Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.
Mark my words the chickens will come home to roost. When or where I can't say BUT it will be a huge scandal with many empty headed people asking "what went wrong? "
Yes and no. The vast majority of Canadians, in fact people in general, are followers. They are also selfish in that they want the things that OW promises them and don't think any further than their own best interests. They are extremely naïve but at the same time afraid to think for themselves in spite of the evidence in front of them. They have also become used to their entitlements as Jean so eloquently said. The guilt lies with the people who are lying to them and in the people who knowingly are profiting from those lies.You're absolutely right and the people of Canada are to blame.
But they've already announced the place(s), and none of them are Goose.There are lots of places in which we could establish a well-founded drone facility and remain close to civilization. Centrallia for example in southwestern Ontario. North Bay, although a little remote does offer good hunting, fishing and a reasonably large community so there is no need to maroon people in places like Goose.
Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?Or reduce ops to properly reflect manning levels.
Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?
Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?
To save money buy equipment that doesn't require people.
Or at least requires fewer people.
Maybe you only need a 6 man security section and a regional maintenance team with a circuit to support.