$3.4 billion for Four Big Airplanes

[blueblood]

And renting aircraft costs us less than buying our own. Now why do we need cheaper planes from China when the most cost-effective option is to rent planes when needed and let others take care of the maintenance and risk involved?

For the same reason we don't pull the plug on our military and hire mercenaries to do our fighting for us.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I say build them in China if it's cheaper and the quality is good.

That is almost an oxymoron. Most products from China are crap. I try to avoid buying stuff made there, but it is well nigh impossible. If I do buy something 'Made in China', I realize from the start that I am buying something disposable and have bought it on the cheap with that reason in mind.

[Charles Anthony]

And renting aircraft costs us less than buying our own. Now why do we need cheaper planes from China when the most cost-effective option is to rent planes when needed and let others take care of the maintenance and risk involved?

I am open to that. If the numbers show that it is cheaper, I would go for it. People do that often by leasing cars for a few years and then exchanging them for a new lease.

At the risk of thread drift, the Tories are following through on that strategy (originally planned by the Liberals) with a few federal government buildings: selling the buildings and becoming tenants. One advantage is that the government, as tenants, are no longer saddled with non-governmental duties and expenses like building maintenance.

For the same reason we don't pull the plug on our military and hire mercenaries to do our fighting for us.

---and what reason would that be?

If we are fighting foreign commercial wars, I see no reason why we should not employ those local labor forces.

I say build them in China if it's cheaper and the quality is good.

That is almost an oxymoron.

[i can only speak for myself]The truth is that most third world cheap quality imports are good enough for me. Everything is relative.

I try to avoid buying stuff made there, but it is well nigh impossible.

The alternative is a Western world that would not be able to support its lifestyle and population. Both you and I would probably not be here today pecking at a computer otherwise. We may not even have been born.

[PolyNewbie]

August 1991:I say build them in China if it's cheaper and the quality is good.

It would still be bad for the economy to build them in China. When we pay for them that money goes away from the country. When we build them here we help preserve our capability for airplane manufactering and the money that stays here generates tax dollars here and stimulates the economy here. In the final complete analysis its going to be cheaper to build them in Canada but that strategy doesn't help with the destruction of our economy that the government is following.

Everything is cheaper in China, we could by that reasoning have everything made in China but then we get a service economy and a service economy will in fact collapse quickly.

I don't think we need to invade any more countries so I don't think we need the planes.

[jbg]

Remember how embarassing it was for Bush to have the lack of resources to respond to Katrina? I'm sure the Canadian government doesn't want to be caught off guard. The purchase of these aircraft make moving vast numbers of troops within Canada alot easier, providing a much more timely and comprehensive response to civil emergencies.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but the US is built arouind a system, primarily, of state and local government responsibility for disasters. The Feds do give some logixtical and coordination help, but the response, in the first instance, is always locally based. Witness the successful response to 9/11.

There were two major complicating factors with Katrina:

1. Hopelessly corrupt, innefficient state and local governments that were busier with infighting than rescuing people neither really wanted to help: and
   
2. Equally important, almost the sole multilane access to New Orleans is Interstate 10 going West (going East conditions were even more dangerous) and there are only so many cars and buses that the road can handle.
   

Thus, the problem was not a physical lack of equipment. Getting equipment into a disaster area is often not easy, since during Katrina New Orleans' airport was closed, and the weather was pretty awful at Baton Rouge, the nearest location that was functioning (even it had 60 mph/100 Trudeau Unit winds).

[jdobbin]

It just takes one situation where 4 are needed in an emergency for the government to be called incompetent for only buying 3.

It's a good idea, the price isn't outrageous from what it seems, if it includes a maintenance agreement.

Likewise, it only takes one situation where 5 are needed and only 4 were bought. You can't win sometimes.

As far as the price goes, we won't know if we got a good deal until the auditor goes over it. And don't forget costs overruns. The Tories have already shown a precedent for not penalizing companies for delays.

[jdobbin]

The alternative is a Western world that would not be able to support its lifestyle and population. Both you and I would probably not be here today pecking at a computer otherwise. We may not even have been born.

Is that because we would not have had Chinese mothers to give us birth?

[jdobbin]

I know this is a bit off-topic, but the US is built arouind a system, primarily, of state and local government responsibility for disasters. The Feds do give some logixtical and coordination help, but the response, in the first instance, is always locally based. Witness the successful response to 9/11.

There were two major complicating factors with Katrina:

1. Hopelessly corrupt, innefficient state and local governments that were busier with infighting than rescuing people neither really wanted to help: and
   
2. Equally important, almost the sole multilane access to New Orleans is Interstate 10 going West (going East conditions were even more dangerous) and there are only so many cars and buses that the road can handle.
   

Thus, the problem was not a physical lack of equipment. Getting equipment into a disaster area is often not easy, since during Katrina New Orleans' airport was closed, and the weather was pretty awful at Baton Rouge, the nearest location that was functioning (even it had 60 mph/100 Trudeau Unit winds).

Just what exactly was the successful response to September 11? Was it the federally controlled airlines? Or was it the federally monitored security? Or if we go earlier, was it the federally controlled intelligence agencies? Was it the federally controlled military responding to an air threat? Was it the federal shutdown of air travel that left thousands of airline travellers with no where to land except friendly nations like Canada?

As far as Katrina goes, the federal government's response was so slow that Canada's RCMP was able to hit the ground days faster than American rescue efforts.

State and local can take their lumps more certainly but I think that Americans clearly thought and continue to think that Bush's response to Katrina showed federal weakness.

[Keepitsimple]

Nato has apparently created a "pool" of large transport planes from which Nato nations can draw from when needed. I doubt the pool will have anything available when you really need it for large undertakings - because then everyone will need them at the same time. My point is that Canada will likely be able to add a couple of aircraft to the pool so that we can make "rental" money when we don't have an active mission. In other words, not only will be have our own aircraft and not have to rent then - but we can now be in a position to "rent" to other nations. Those rental revenues will help to offset some of the cost. There is an intangible here as well - it further shows the world that we are a country that pulls its own weight - that we are serious about trying to make a difference in the world.

[White Doors]

Great pickup! This gives our armed forces a whole new strategic capability!

We are slowly on our way back to relevance!

[HistoryBuff44]

It just takes one situation where 4 are needed in an emergency for the government to be called incompetent for only buying 3.

It's a good idea, the price isn't outrageous from what it seems, if it includes a maintenance agreement.

Likewise, it only takes one situation where 5 are needed and only 4 were bought. You can't win sometimes.

As far as the price goes, we won't know if we got a good deal until the auditor goes over it. And don't forget costs overruns. The Tories have already shown a precedent for not penalizing companies for delays.

I agree, there will always be a situation that arises which will incur (sp) the wrath of the dogs just waiting for something to bite at.

[HistoryBuff44]

Some Quebecors think they should be built soley in Quebec.

Some Manitobans think they should be built in Manitoba.

I say build them in China if it's cheaper and the quality is good.

Final Assembly for aircraft this large is not done in canada. remember C 17 globemaster is a large aircraft, I suppose some stuff like avionics or landing gear and such will be done here, but it all is shipped to the large assembly hangers in the states.

Part of the cost is a 20 year maintenance contract i beleive. And we do need to be able to resupply ourselves, right now we lease russian or american aircraft to airlift large cargo.

And renting aircraft costs us less than buying our own. Now why do we need cheaper planes from China when the most cost-effective option is to rent planes when needed and let others take care of the maintenance and risk involved?

therein is the problem Saturn, many times when we have needed to rent them there were none available to rent. America and Russia are the only two nations that have the capacity to rent out their airlift units, unfortunately many times russia's aircraft are in dissrepair and cannot be used. and america's units seem to be fairly busy lately...

In fact thats why the idea of purchasing those aircraft was put in motion in the first place. E.G. when DART tried to respond in Dec 04 (tsunami) part of the delay was trying to get it over there, that delay meant more lives lost.

Also determining which one is cheaper is a function of how much they are needed. only time will tell us that.

[jbg]

Just what exactly was the successful response to September 11? Was it the federally controlled airlines? Or was it the federally monitored security? Or if we go earlier, was it the federally controlled intelligence agencies? Was it the federally controlled military responding to an air threat?

I'm assuming this isn't an endorsement of the various conspiracy theories. I know you're more solidly grounded and smarter than that.

Was it the federal shutdown of air travel that left thousands of airline travellers with no where to land except friendly nations like Canada?

At the time, that was prudent, since presumably the terrorists didn't have Canadian targets mapped out.

As far as Katrina goes, the federal government's response was so slow that Canada's RCMP was able to hit the ground days faster than American rescue efforts.

The Feds, as I indicated, have little or no proper role in a Katrina-type situation.

State and local can take their lumps more certainly but I think that Americans clearly thought and continue to think that Bush's response to Katrina showed federal weakness.

You're quite right that bush should have known that Louisiana in general and New Orleans in particular do not have functioning governments. Acting on that assumption prior to the event would have been deemed "racist" by some.

[geoffrey]

It just takes one situation where 4 are needed in an emergency for the government to be called incompetent for only buying 3.

It's a good idea, the price isn't outrageous from what it seems, if it includes a maintenance agreement.

Likewise, it only takes one situation where 5 are needed and only 4 were bought. You can't win sometimes.

As far as the price goes, we won't know if we got a good deal until the auditor goes over it. And don't forget costs overruns. The Tories have already shown a precedent for not penalizing companies for delays.

But eventually you get to hundreds and realise it's silly.

The government is comfortable with 4 being adequate. If that's what the forces think is needed to respond to emergencies in Canada and internationally, then great. So buy 'em.

[Charles Anthony]

The alternative is a Western world that would not be able to support its lifestyle and population. Both you and I would probably not be here today pecking at a computer otherwise. We may not even have been born.

Is that because we would not have had Chinese mothers to give us birth?

What is the meaning of your question?

1) being in denial of the fact that the standard of living of Western nations has depended on cheap imports for more than at least one generation, you resort to being flippantly silly

2) genuinely being completely clueless of the fact that the standard of living of Western nations has depended on cheap imports for more than at least one generation

Which one is it?

[jdobbin]

I'm assuming this isn't an endorsement of the various conspiracy theories. I know you're more solidly grounded and smarter than that.

At the time, that was prudent, since presumably the terrorists didn't have Canadian targets mapped out.

The Feds, as I indicated, have little or no proper role in a Katrina-type situation.

You're quite right that bush should have known that Louisiana in general and New Orleans in particular do not have functioning governments. Acting on that assumption prior to the event would have been deemed "racist" by some.

No conspiracy theory. Just a fact that the federal government has a responsibility for air travel and dropped the ball. They also dropped the ball on intelligence.

As for Katrina, if one state is devastated, it may not have the means to help itself. This why FEMA was created to help manage such disasters. I wonder how the state of Washington would stand up in a major quake that took out Seattle? It would probably be crippled and totally dependent on federal help. Not unlike New Orleans.

I'm not excusing state and local incompetence but it is federal management that took care of the levees and dikes, it was the federal hurricane service and FEMA who were responsible for warnings and coordinating disaster assistance.

Once again, there was no excuse for Canadian relief services to be on the ground ahead of any local, state or federal response in the U.S. You can well imagine the surprise of the RCMP when they were first on the scene and there for days before they saw American authorities. The Coast Guard was surprised to see the Canadian flag flying from the flagpole in town.

[jdobbin]

What is the meaning of your question?

1) being in denial of the fact that the standard of living of Western nations has depended on cheap imports for more than at least one generation, you resort to being flippantly silly

2) genuinely being completely clueless of the fact that the standard of living of Western nations has depended on cheap imports for more than at least one generation

Which one is it?

I think your statement was flippantly silly. People are born, live and die whether there are cheap goods from China or not.

Clueless and in denial I'll leave to you. I'll defer once you show me those amazing stats that the birth rate is controlled by cheap goods from China.

At any rate, the Chinese don't make a cheap cargo plane. The Russian one was ruled out by our military so it came down to Airbus and Boeing.

[Charles Anthony]

People are born, live and die whether there are cheap goods from China or not.

No.

We would have to give up a VAST amount of wealth to substitute cheap imports. As a result, our cost of living would be enormous without cheap imports. Canadians would probably still be at a subsistence level economy and at the whim of the beaver-skin hat fashions in Europe. I do not know about you, but my parents came to this country a few decades ago because they could not afford to live in their home country.

I'll defer once you show me those amazing stats that the birth rate is controlled by cheap goods from China.

Why stats?? It is called basic principles of international trade.

Hiring a statistician to provide empirical evidence when logic can suffice is called a boondoggle.

Should we look up stats to figure out whether the sky is blue or not?

At any rate, the Chinese don't make a cheap cargo plane. The Russian one was ruled out by our military so it came down to Airbus and Boeing.

Congratulations. You missed the point. [shall I say it went over your head?] The issue of accepting Chinese airplanes was raised by Aug91 as a principle of efficiency and demanding better bang for our tax-dollar -- a concept which clearly seems irrelevent to some people.

[jdobbin]

No.

We would have to give up a VAST amount of wealth to substitute cheap imports. As a result, our cost of living would be enormous without cheap imports. Canadians would probably still be at a subsistence level economy and at the whim of the beaver-skin hat fashions in Europe. I do not know about you, but my parents came to this country a few decades ago because they could not afford to live in their home country.

Why stats?? It is called basic principles of international trade.

Hiring a statistician to provide empirical evidence when logic can suffice is called a boondoggle.

Should we look up stats to figure out whether the sky is blue or not?

Congratulations. You missed the point. [shall I say it went over your head?] The issue of accepting Chinese airplanes was raised by Aug91 as a principle of efficiency and demanding better bang for our tax-dollar -- a concept which clearly seems irrelevent to some people.

And when we had a subsistence economy, we had more children because we needed the labour. Should we look at stats on that or is that over your head?

I'm not suggesting we go back to an economy that eliminates trade (and cheaper imports with China) but don't suggest it means fewer children when you don't have anything to back it up.

The Chinese plane argument was a poor one since China doesn't produce a plane that large, nevermind that cheap. I have no idea why the Russian plane wasn't chosen since we rent them already but it might have something to do with technologies needed to integrate with NATO rather than the Russian Airforce. I never saw the technical specs so I don't know.

As for getting the best deal possible, I have no disagreement with that. This is why I am against sole sourcing and using national security to decide what regions of the country benefit from the deal.

[Charles Anthony]

And when we had a subsistence economy, we had more children because we needed the labour. Should we look at stats on that or is that over your head?

We are going to have to look up statistics because clearly there is no use appealing to a basic understanding of international trade and economics with you.

By the way, what statistics are you going to fabricate for comparison???

I'm not suggesting we go back to an economy that eliminates trade (and cheaper imports with China) but don't suggest it means fewer children when you don't have anything to back it up.

I will continue to suggest it because it is logical.

Our standard of living depends on cheap imports. Without cheap imports, the same number of people in Canada will not be able to survive at the same standard of living. Given that some people in Canada are already poor today, being poorer than poor does not leave many options for survival.

[Topaz]

3.4 Billion plus another billion for whatever, they need a huge airplane hangar, what's the cost for fuel with one of these? Do we not only need these planes in a time of war? Is Canada now going to be in war as much as the USA now? How much pollution does war put out, especially these plane on take off. The Canadian military is having shortages with personnel. People are quitting or retiring out, probably for the fact their life has more of a chance of seeing action than ever before, since the Korea War. Watch the spending with this government in the military, especially, since the Minister of Defense was part of the military. It's like kids in a candy store, there always going to have a good reason why they need this or that.

[jdobbin]

We are going to have to look up statistics because clearly there is no use appealing to a basic understanding of international trade and economics with you.

By the way, what statistics are you going to fabricate for comparison???

I will continue to suggest it because it is logical.

Our standard of living depends on cheap imports. Without cheap imports, the same number of people in Canada will not be able to survive at the same standard of living. Given that some people in Canada are already poor today, being poorer than poor does not leave many options for survival.

It might sound logical to you but in reality it isn't. Fewer children are a reflection of a higher standard of living not a lower standard of living.

I will defer to whatever statistics you show that says the opposite. But don't crap in the forums and tell us its gravy.

[jdobbin]

3.4 Billion plus another billion for whatever, they need a huge airplane hangar, what's the cost for fuel with one of these? Do we not only need these planes in a time of war? Is Canada now going to be in war as much as the USA now? How much pollution does war put out, especially these plane on take off. The Canadian military is having shortages with personnel. People are quitting or retiring out, probably for the fact their life has more of a chance of seeing action than ever before, since the Korea War. Watch the spending with this government in the military, especially, since the Minister of Defense was part of the military. It's like kids in a candy store, there always going to have a good reason why they need this or that.

I'll agree with you that personnel shortages are one area that is still in need of improvement. I don't think they quit because of lack of action though.

Canada has to be cautious and judicious about the use of the Canadians Forces. They're our first line of defence for disasters in Canada and are needed for whatever roles that might be required in the world.

I don't think you need to fear that they'll be required to fight a war in Iran that the U.S. initiates.

[Wilber]

Why do we need 4 of them?

Possibly because that is the minimum number which would allow us to maintain a heavy lift capability to most parts of the world. It would allow two or more oceanic flights per day with all aircraft serviceable and at least one if up to two aircraft were not. The civil airliners I used to work on required monthly checks that took two days and annual checks that took two weeks. That didn't allow for missed flights for unserviceabilities in between which although not common, do happen. Things have changed some since then and I'm sure the military does things somewhat differently but I don't think I would be that far off when it comes to total down time. With only four of them, these aircraft will probably be working pretty hard.

[jbg]

No conspiracy theory. Just a fact that the federal government has a responsibility for air travel and dropped the ball. They also dropped the ball on intelligence.

That point is fair. And I would expand it by saying that the people in the State Department (which basically controls the CIA), whether under Democrats or Republicans, operate one step away from rank treason. I hold them somewhat responsible for 9/11 by trying to avoid any disruption to "business as usual". The CIA was not trying too hard to find evidence of incipient Arab terror, since it would certainly disrupt cushy diplomatic jobs.

As for Katrina, if one state is devastated, it may not have the means to help itself. This why FEMA was created to help manage such disasters. I wonder how the state of Washington would stand up in a major quake that took out Seattle? It would probably be crippled and totally dependent on federal help. Not unlike New Orleans.

I'm not excusing state and local incompetence but it is federal management that took care of the levees and dikes, it was the federal hurricane service and FEMA who were responsible for warnings and coordinating disaster assistance.

Here we differ. The reocvery from the San Fransisco earthquake of, I think, 1908, the Chicage Fire of the 1880's, Hurrican Agnes in 1972, and other naturel disasters have been state and local efforts. FEMA was set up, in theory, to house the disparate, and largely small, disaster relief components of the Federal Government under one roof. In reality, it was the result either of a campaign promise and/or desire for Presidential legacy, much the way Homeland Security is. It is an agency designed to create the illusion of action rather than real action.

A proper understanding of the United States would demonstrate that precious little in our country is under Federal control. The main positive federal role is in defense, in protecting individual rights against oppressive State action, and in acting as a giant revenue collector/distributor. Otherwise, it does astonishly little.

Once again, there was no excuse for Canadian relief services to be on the ground ahead of any local, state or federal response in the U.S. You can well imagine the surprise of the RCMP when they were first on the scene and there for days before they saw American authorities. The Coast Guard was surprised to see the Canadian flag flying from the flagpole in town.

Those were highly praiseworthy volunteer efforts. Since their mission is to do good things, they can swing into action right away. Organizations with more comprehensive missions have to triage, and sort out, their efforts. If the RCMP had the responsibility of handling the entire evacuation that took place along I-10, it would have acted more slowly. Granted, anything is fast compared to the dysfunctional Louisiana state government and non-functional municipal government. I do hold Bush responsible, especially as a former governor of a neighboring state to Louisiana, to know that it's government is a joke, and not a funny one at that.