Minister Dempsey "refused to discuss way of cutting €500m rescue contract"

  • Thread starter MrFunkyBoogaloo
  • Start date
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

Minister refused to discuss way of cutting €500m rescue contract - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

TRANSPORT Minister Noel Dempsey refused to meet a former head of the Air Corps to discuss a cheaper alternative to a €500m national maritime search and rescue contract with a private outfit.

Confidential correspondence seen by the Irish Independent reveals Brigadier General John O'Brien advised Mr Dempsey that the Air Corps could provide the same service for "significantly less" than the Government planned to pay a Canadian firm, CHC Helicopter.

Brig Gen O'Brien estimates tens of millions of euro could have been saved if all or part of the contract had gone to the Air Corps.

His intervention came in May, two months before the award of the contract to CHC would eventually be announced.

However, Mr Dempsey refused to discuss the proposal with Brig Gen O'Brien and the Air Corps was never asked to tender for the contract.
Is it beneath Mr Dempsey to save this state some cash?

"Let them have cake!"
 


M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

He (Noel Dempsey), on behalf of the taxpayer, has agreed a €23million-per-year increase on the earlier contract.
 

spidermom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
9,148
Another "e-voting machinery" type thing you mean?????
 
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

CHC gets about 150 callouts per year from its' Dublin, Shannon, Sligo and Waterford bases. Yet in the states' perilous financial position Minister Dempsey refused to enter discussions to save the state money. Instead he increased it. ??
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
He (Noel Dempsey), on behalf of the taxpayer, has agreed a €23million-per-year increase on the earlier contract.
yep, and the reason for that is because they are upgrading from 1960s helicopters to brand new helicopters.

There are many positive aspects to the new CHC contract, not least because they will be providing an integrated SAR service to the entire British Isles, with the training base at RAF Valley in Anglesey.


But that does not take away from the need to explain why Dempsey did not even look at other alternatives. The Brits made sure CHC integrated with the RAF's SAR training capability, whereas there is not, as far as I am aware, any integration between the Air Corps and CHC at this end.

::
:
 

Mushroom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
15,474
Minister Dempsey was 100% correct not to allow anyone to interfere with an EU public procurement competition.

Furthermore, the Air Corps is a component of the Defence Forces and the Minister for Defence is responsible for Defence policy - if the Minister, advised by his officials and the General Staff, had felt that it was practical for the Department to have tendered for the contract, then no doubt he would have done so.
 

spidermom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
9,148
yep, and the reason for that is because they are upgrading from 1960s helicopters to brand new helicopters.

There are many positive aspects to the new CHC contract, not least because they will be providing an integrated SAR service to the entire British Isles, with the training base at RAF Valley in Anglesey.


But that does not take away from the need to explain why Dempsey did not even look at other alternatives. The Brits made sure CHC integrated with the RAF's SAR training capability, whereas there is not, as far as I am aware, and integration between the Air Corps and CHC at this end.

::
:
The helicopters are being leased..according to the link...and CHC will own them after the lease arrangement finishes!!


Is the nation paying for the lease??..one would presume so...but will not own them??
I know we are bunched when it comes to money..but this could come back to bite us in the ass.....!!


M50 toll bridge anyone????
 
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

The helicopters are being leased..according to the link...and CHC will own them after the lease arrangement finishes!!


Is the nation paying for the lease??..one would presume so...but will not own them??
I know we are bunched when it comes to money..but this could come back to bite us in the ass.....!!


M50 toll bridge anyone????
Well, thank the sky-fairy that someone else read the article. Kudos spidey ;)
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
What? No defence? Run out of steam or excuses?
This is where you get it wrong all the time. When I say you btw I mean all the head cases, not just you personally.

What you should do is wait for 1 of 2 things to happen, 1. The other side of the story, always worth waiting on. or 2. Wait for eejits to make statements of "fact" that they then can't support when challenged.

As neither of these 2 things has happened yet, I keep my powder dry.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The helicopters are being leased..according to the link...and CHC will own them after the lease arrangement finishes!!


Is the nation paying for the lease??..one would presume so...but will not own them??
Yes dear, that's what leased usually means.
 

spidermom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
9,148
Well, thank the sky-fairy that someone else read the article. Kudos spidey ;)

Ta for that....!!

Yes dear, that's what leased usually means.
Apologies for my ignorance Tonic...no doubt you will now lead us to the CBA carried out independantly to show us the benefits of this arrangement??


Oh sorry...this crowd don't do long term!!!....


M50 toll bridge anyone...e voting anyone...co-location anyone....PPARS anyone....!!
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Apologies for my ignorance Tonic...no doubt you will now lead us to the CBA carried out independantly to show us the benefits of this arrangement??
Well my leasing experience would be with less complicated issues, like cars and other equipment. Your ongoing costs are usually about 2/3's of ownership costs, you get new equipment more regularly and are in a better position to go into the next deal free of the old cars/machines you need to shift. On the other hand you have no residual value in your equipment.

Generally it makes for cleaner, better business, but at a slightly higher overall cost.
 
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

Well my leasing experience would be with less complicated issues, like cars and other equipment. Your ongoing costs are usually about 2/3's of ownership costs, you get new equipment more regularly and are in a better position to go into the next deal free of the old cars/machines you need to shift. On the other hand you have no residual value in your equipment.

Generally it makes for cleaner, better business, but at a slightly higher overall cost.
an 85% increase is not slight, by any standard!
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
He (Noel Dempsey), on behalf of the taxpayer, has agreed a €23million-per-year increase on the earlier contract.
Explained by new aircraft mostly methinks.

A few other points.

1. The Air Corp have NOTHING like the aircraft to be used by the contracted company, either in endurance or reliability. They would have to purchase or lease them.

2. The Air Corp have insufficient pilots to keep the service operational as envisaged in the contract. They would have to recruit. They, at present, cant even provide top cover 24hr's for the air/sea rescue helicopters.

3. The Air Corp pilots have NO hours flight time in long distance aircraft, nor have their crews, anymore, experience in night time and endurance flights. One of the pilots now crewing for the air/sea rescue has the MOST amount of flight hours in type in the whole of Europe. It would take YEARS of flying to get them up to a proper level of experience.


Can someone explain to me, practically, both in flight hours and equipment, how the Air Corp proposed to actually do this?
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
Well my leasing experience would be with less complicated issues, like cars and other equipment. Your ongoing costs are usually about 2/3's of ownership costs, you get new equipment more regularly and are in a better position to go into the next deal free of the old cars/machines you need to shift. On the other hand you have no residual value in your equipment.

Generally it makes for cleaner, better business, but at a slightly higher overall cost.

And it greases a few donors palms.

It is always good to create a middle man when paying a bill with other peoples money, especially when the middle man has a reason to pay you commission for his slice of the action.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top