$3.4 billion for Four Big Airplanes

[August1991]

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.

Sorry, Poly. But I couldn't walk away from this one.

As you have noted endlessly, banks can create "money" whenever they want.

So, it seems a good deal for Canada that we send this "money" to China and the Chinese send us big airplanes. Good deal, no? We send them money (paper, if you will) and they send us planes.

If the Chinese are happy to accept our "bank-created money", I - as a taxpayer - am more than happy to accept the real airplanes the Chinese send us.

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.

Good point. I don't want to buy a Dollarama C-47. I also don't want the Chinese to know everything about our planes. (If we had to send troops to Tibet, what would happen?)

Nevertheless, these planes are very complex and I'm sure there's a motherboard or two that has gone through a Chinese factory.

My point is that, as a taxpayer, I want value for money. I want the best plane and plane parts regardless of where the parts are made. Either leave the money in my pocket, or get me the best deal possible.

The (federal) government is my agent, buying on my behalf.

[HistoryBuff44]

Sorry, Poly. But I couldn't walk away from this one.

As you have noted endlessly, banks can create "money" whenever they want.

So, it seems a good deal for Canada that we send this "money" to China and the Chinese send us big airplanes. Good deal, no? We send them money (paper, if you will) and they send us planes.

If the Chinese are happy to accept our "bank-created money", I - as a taxpayer - am more than happy to accept the real airplanes the Chinese send us.

banks normally dont create money, when they do inflation runs rampant. (germany 1923) commercial banks just try to make money and central banks try to control inflation using interest rates to control the money supply.

you are right though, the money comes from us taxpayers.

but in understanding macro-economics you realize the money in an economy is cyclical, it goes from employer to employee to bank and starts over again. keeping the money here sends it round and round earning us all more in the form of new jobs and higher wages.

If you remove that money from the cycle then that cycle slows down. (eg US buying 800 Billion a year from china... not a good thing from the US perspective, that spending has to be financed somewhere. that is a lot of money leaving the US cycle and entering chinas).

letting the market set prices is supposed to determine the most efficient production of goods, but all to often governments interfere with that process and it distorts the system.

[jdobbin]

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.

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.

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.

I wouldn't categorize federal efforts as treason, just disappointing in light of what threats they already knew existed in civil aviation and from Osama bin Laden.

As far as federal responses to disasters, Hurricane Agnes had a $500 million dollar response from the Feds and it wasn't just restricted to cash.

The Chicago Fire in 1871 saw troops to dispatched to enforce law. It was highly controversial at the time.

By 1906, troops heading to an earthquake were welcomed. The feds sent 2000 troops to help San Fransisco.

Bush's response has to be measured by the speed of how these early disasters were handled.

[Charles Anthony]

Fewer children are a reflection of a higher standard of living not a lower standard of living.

You are completely sidestepping the issue (i.e., our standard of living and our wealth depends on imports) and arguing a different one.

I will defer to whatever statistics you show that says the opposite.

No you will not because you CAN not.

Do you need statistics to confirm the color of the sky?

But don't crap in the forums and tell us its gravy.

You mean throw pearls of economic insight before swine.

[jdobbin]

You are completely sidestepping the issue (i.e., our standard of living and our wealth depends on imports) and arguing a different one.

No you will not because you CAN not.

Do you need statistics to confirm the color of the sky?

This is what you said:

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.

You are sidestepping the issue. Does a decrease in lifestyle equal a reduction in children?

There are no statistics on blue skies except how many we may or may not get. There *is* science involved as to why we have blue skies which is easily available.

Show me the statistics on how a decrease in lifestyle ends up with fewer children.

[jbg]

I wouldn't categorize federal efforts as treason, just disappointing in light of what threats they already knew existed in civil aviation and from Osama bin Laden.

My reference to "treason" refers to far more than 9/11. Presidents since at least Roosvelt's time have found that that State Department seriously undermines their authority, and even the authority of the Secretary of State, in the conduct of foreign affairs. I will open an appropriate thread on this when a particular news development so justifies, but the State Department has for a long ime been an uncontrollable rogue department. To answer your original question, the part of the 9/11 response that was adequate was the maintenance of civil order and calm in NYC, something that New Orleans authorities failed at. My praise does not extend to rebuilding efforts.

As far as federal responses to disasters, Hurricane Agnes had a $500 million dollar response from the Feds and it wasn't just restricted to cash.

The Chicago Fire in 1871 saw troops to dispatched to enforce law. It was highly controversial at the time.

By 1906, troops heading to an earthquake were welcomed. The feds sent 2000 troops to help San Fransisco.

Bush's response has to be measured by the speed of how these early disasters were handled.

The sending of troops to maintain order by the Feds was decidedly supplementary to state and local efforts. From what I understand, evacuation, reconstruction and disease control efforts were handled locally.

As far as Hurricane Agnes, I remember well that the Fed's slow and inadequate response was one of the forces leading to FEMA. Like Katrina, Agnes struck hardest in many decidedly non-affluent areas of the country, particularly Appalachian areas of New York and Pennsylvania. It is hard to remember what assisting role the Feds played, given that much of the infrastructure in that region was never repaired. One prime example; I never got to ride the New York to Ithaca passenger train to go to colllege at Cornell.

If anything, the Agnes response was similar to the Katrina response for the same reason; the matter was not covered by Federal jurisdiction.

[madmax]

My point is that, as a taxpayer, I want value for money. I want the best plane and plane parts regardless of where the parts are made. Either leave the money in my pocket, or get me the best deal possible.

The (federal) government is my agent, buying on my behalf.

The Federal Government is not your "agent". I have read your opinions regarding having Airplanes Built in China.

I completely disagree with your position.

I am a tax payer too. I want value, security and Jobs for my tax dollars.

Price isn't everything.

[August1991]

I am a tax payer too. I want value, security and Jobs for my tax dollars.

Go to your closet and look at the clothes. How many were made in Canada? How many were made abroad?

Our government should buy airplanes the same way we all buy clothes.

[weaponeer]

As for the mian point of this thread, let a Airforce guy jump in. This is a really great day for Canada, a great buy. We are finally in the "big leagues". Militarily we have been completely irrelivant for way too long, I am glad to see a gov't that puts Canada first.

Finally we have somebody who gets it. We are starting to think BIG, that we matter. Far too long gov'ts of Canada have thought too small. We are absolutly filthy stinking rich in this country, an energy superpower. It is time to get moving here.

We are in the G8, but we act like a we can't afford anything. we need to overcome this pathalogical fear of spending $$ on the military. We are not warmongers, we are not going to take the canadian army and conquor the world, but we do need to defend OUR interests. We need to grow up as a country.

The C17 gives us a capability & flexability we have never had. We can now move almost anything, anywhere. We can move large numbers of troops to the arctic, fast, alnd on dirt airstrips. We can evacuate ENTIRE towns if need be now, as we saw in northern Ontario last year with the water probs. We can move our troop worldwide, we can get them out if need be, we acn evac Canadian people from the worlds hot spots without having to beg from the USA. WE ARE SOVERIGN!!!

Renting planes form Russia was a complete waste of time. I have been involved in various operations where we used the Russians & Ukraines. On several occassions I witnessed theses pilots arriving in theater with our equip, DRUNK. Often they would demand cash from us to unload. The Americans only have a limited strat airlift capability, they cannot babysit all they time. NATOs program is seriously flawed, why do you think UK bought C17's, why do you think Airbus is going ahead with their A400 project.

Why are they based in Trenton, because that is Canada's only military air transport hub. That's where the big maint hangers are, where the aireil port is to load & unload large military cargo planes. You do not spread 4 airplanes out across Canada, that's a waste of $$, very dumb.

They will all be based at CFB Trenrton, initially with 437 Sqn, then they will stand up a new Sqn, 429 that will operate them. all the training for pilots & ground crews will be conducted at Altus AFB Oklahoma.

Katrina, we Canadians should not in any way critic the US response. We are in NO place to mock them. At the peek of the Katrina rescue ops the US military had almost 1000 helos in the area. We don't have that many helos, military or civil in the whole country. Ther is NO way we could rescue that many of our citizens should disaster strike. At least now we will be able to move help in, and take lots of people out, using a dirt strip if required, instaed of standing on the side watching somebody else save our people.

But alas, watching SOMEBODY ELSE defend and protect us is a Canadian tradition......

[jbg]

Katrina, we Canadians should not in any way critic the US response. We are in NO place to mock them. At the peek of the Katrina rescue ops the US military had almost 1000 helos in the area. We don't have that many helos, military or civil in the whole country. Ther is NO way we could rescue that many of our citizens should disaster strike. At least now we will be able to move help in, and take lots of people out, using a dirt strip if required, instaed of standing on the side watching somebody else save our people.

Your country is placed in a manner such that most kinds of natural disasters are unlikely. Your earrthquake, hurricane, tornado, flood, and even blizzard exposure, on balance, is less than the US's. Part of that of course derives from the fact that a smaller part of your country is habitable.

But alas, watching SOMEBODY ELSE defend and protect us is a Canadian tradition......

You mean the US?

[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.

You are sidestepping the issue. Does a decrease in lifestyle equal a reduction in children?

I will entertain this side-issue but it properly belongs in a different thread. I suggest here in the Common Fallacies of Intelligent People one.

[jdobbin]

My reference to "treason" refers to far more than 9/11. Presidents since at least Roosvelt's time have found that that State Department seriously undermines their authority, and even the authority of the Secretary of State, in the conduct of foreign affairs. I will open an appropriate thread on this when a particular news development so justifies, but the State Department has for a long ime been an uncontrollable rogue department. To answer your original question, the part of the 9/11 response that was adequate was the maintenance of civil order and calm in NYC, something that New Orleans authorities failed at. My praise does not extend to rebuilding efforts.

The sending of troops to maintain order by the Feds was decidedly supplementary to state and local efforts. From what I understand, evacuation, reconstruction and disease control efforts were handled locally.

As far as Hurricane Agnes, I remember well that the Fed's slow and inadequate response was one of the forces leading to FEMA. Like Katrina, Agnes struck hardest in many decidedly non-affluent areas of the country, particularly Appalachian areas of New York and Pennsylvania. It is hard to remember what assisting role the Feds played, given that much of the infrastructure in that region was never repaired. One prime example; I never got to ride the New York to Ithaca passenger train to go to colllege at Cornell.

If anything, the Agnes response was similar to the Katrina response for the same reason; the matter was not covered by Federal jurisdiction.

Treason is such a loaded word. It equates executions in my mind.

The sending of troops to the Chicago Fire and the San Francisco Earthquake were not supplementary. They were primary efforts. In essense, both cities had lost control and the state did not have the resources to send in quickly.

You'll have to show me the slow response to Hurricane Agnes. I remember Nixon's speech on the issue and how people heralded it as the "new federalism."

http://beltwayblogroll.nationaljournal.com...trina/index.php

FEMA was created by Congress because federal aid was so helpful, not because it was unhelpful. The failures you mention seem more a result of local efforts than a poor federal response.

[jdobbin]

Katrina, we Canadians should not in any way critic the US response. We are in NO place to mock them. At the peek of the Katrina rescue ops the US military had almost 1000 helos in the area. We don't have that many helos, military or civil in the whole country. Ther is NO way we could rescue that many of our citizens should disaster strike. At least now we will be able to move help in, and take lots of people out, using a dirt strip if required, instaed of standing on the side watching somebody else save our people.

But alas, watching SOMEBODY ELSE defend and protect us is a Canadian tradition......

In 1997, one of the largest evacuations in modern Canadian history took places when tens of thousands of Manitobans were evacuated from the southern part of the province. The Canadian military was in immediately and because they were, there was only one death.

Vancouver for the next two weeks is under extreme earthquake watch. While having the C-17s present for that would be helpful, I have no doubt that the Canadian military would hit the ground within hours of a disaster. They always have and they always will.

[weaponeer]

Yes, and if, God forbid, anything serious happened in Vancouver the C17 fleet when we have it would move heavy equip in night & day. It can evac hundreds of people to hospitals in Calgary, Edmonton, Reginq etc.. It can fly in heavy equip like buldozers, backhoes trucks etc... They could move things in faster than truck or rail. They could "hold the line" unitl more help came by road. If need be, it could airdrop suplies to stranded people.

4 C17's loaded with Canadian paratroopres could drop them on an airport, seize it and evac Canadian citizens from a foreign country. Combined with our C130 fleet they can move our troops & equip to anywhere very quickly. I think Canadians at an airshow will see our C17, big Canadian flag on it, and smile..... The C17, she's OURS!!!

I say we should start a campaign to name each one, The Sprit of Vancouver, Harper's Haule......

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The C17 is needed badly, it is a must buy item. I think we need to consider getting a few C130 gunships, the new ones are something else. With our changing role in terms of international military alliances we need a greater degree of force deployment flexibility. The C17 does that nicely, but we need to consider force composition as well.

[weaponeer]

Interoperability is the MAJOR factor now in purchases for the military. We bought the C17, no accident, we did it because the US has them so does the UK & Australia, our major allies. We are purchasing a long list of equip, designed to be interoperable with these forces, as one huge force. This is by design. With few exceptions, we are not going to purchase equip that cannot be maintained by Canadian, US, UK or Aussie forces, will not happen. One exception could be the purchase of newer Leopard2 tanks from the Germans. it is the best tank in the world, NOBODY builds tanks better that the Germans.

As for the AC130, would love them, not going to happen. We are prob going to see Canadian Forces Apaches before them. An Apache is 9 million, the AC130U is 190 million.

We get our first C17 this august....

Here's some C17 info from a buddy who flies them......

1 - We will be getting the ER (Extended Range) aircraft. These aircraft (post block 12 aircraft mod) have the centre wing boxes modified into 4 internal centre wing fuel tanks which ups the total fuel capacity from 185,000 lbs to 245,000 lbs. Burning fuel at just under 20,000 lbs/hr we would have just over 10 hours of fuel burn on-board the new aircraft .... and currently we do not have crew duty days long enough to accommodate anything longer than that. 10 hours of flying (God forbid) would translate into a 15 or 16 hour crew duty day. The USAF fly with "augmented crews" meaning that they can increase the crew duty days to 24 and 26 hours. We will not be doing that - it is just too dangerous. The CF will remain with the basic crew (Pilot, copilot and loadmaster) and remain with the basic crew duty day as defined in the 1 Cdn Air Div Orders (14, 16 or 18 hours) .... so right now we don't have enough crew day to require air refuelling.

2 - No we can't modify the aircraft for probe and drogue. In fact, we have opted into the GSP - The Global Support Program - and in doing so we will NOT be making any modifications to the aircraft whatsoever. In fact, the RAAF have also done the same thing so that we can all belong to the "Virtual fleet". The RAF have not been allowed to make any modifications because they were confined/restricted by lease. We have "chosen/opted" not to make any mods at all.

In doing this we can participate in the JUG (Joint Users Group), and the CORT/SORT (Crew Operational Review Team) and also the GSP. This is a good thing for a couple of reasons. So, if I happen to be flying into Brize Norton and I toast an engine ... when I land I simply let Trenton know what the problem is ... and then I phone the UK Boeing reps and tell them to come and replace/repair the engine. I simply walk away from the aircraft and leave it to Boeing. While it has limited uses, the GSP will have some great benefits with it. However, in order to have these guys work on our aircraft they have to be configured identically to the USAF - RAF - RAAF. Everyone will be the same in the virtual fleet.

So, essentially every C-17 will be identical except for the paint scheme and the flag on the tail.

Furthermore, participation in the JUG and CORT will allow the aircraft to remain within the continual cyclic block upgrade program. We'll be getting block 17 aircraft, then when Boeing comes out with the block 18 and 19 software and hardware upgrades, we will also get our aircraft done in sequence as we cycle them back through Long Beach (Boeing) for major periodic inspections and overhauls. In this way we get to participate in the continual upgrade program.

Also, for the AR .... as you know, we don't have any KC-135s or KC-10s with the boom ..... so it would be a nightmare trying to coordinate periodic re-currency training for our C-17 crews to refuel off USAF tankers. As such we have opted out of the AR capability of the aircraft since it isn't really required for us .... trust me, you don't want to be a passenger in the back when the pilot is at the 26th hour of a crew duty day ..... and trying to approach and land at a major airport. It's not pretty ...

[weaponeer]

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070202d_nr.html

Here's a link to beoing, with Canadian C17...

[jdobbin]

Ottawa aerospace angry with C-17 deal.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/03022007/3/cana...oeing-deal.html

Given so little detail over where the contract will be spent, I think we are going to see a lot more wheeling and dealing for the Boeing deal. Let's hope that politicians won't be trying constantly to win more for their riding by interfering with the contract.

[jbg]

Ottawa aerospace angry with C-17 deal.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/03022007/3/cana...oeing-deal.html

Given so little detail over where the contract will be spent, I think we are going to see a lot more wheeling and dealing for the Boeing deal. Let's hope that politicians won't be trying constantly to win more for their riding by interfering with the contract.

The important thing is not which riding but that the workers and riding be Francophone.

[Saturn]

Each of us kicks in $100 on average

There goes our GST cut

[Canuck E Stan]

Each of us kicks in $100 on average

There goes our GST cut

Consider it insurance, when BC drops off into the ocean after the BIG one, they'll need these planes to pick up the survivors in Calgary and take them to the center of the universe in Ontario.

[jdobbin]

Consider it insurance, when BC drops off into the ocean after the BIG one, they'll need these planes to pick up the survivors in Calgary and take them to the center of the universe in Ontario.

They won't have the planes on time. B.C. is on a two week earthquake warning right now.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...47867f4&k=54205

[Canuck E Stan]

Consider it insurance, when BC drops off into the ocean after the BIG one, they'll need these planes to pick up the survivors in Calgary and take them to the center of the universe in Ontario.

They won't have the planes on time. B.C. is on a two week earthquake warning right now.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...47867f4&k=54205

This one coming up is only the electorate getting little ansy about what's happening to Lotusland with the weather and wanting the government to fix the problem right now. It's affecting their ability to get to Starbucks for their morning coffee.

[geoffrey]

Ottawa aerospace angry with C-17 deal.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/03022007/3/cana...oeing-deal.html

Given so little detail over where the contract will be spent, I think we are going to see a lot more wheeling and dealing for the Boeing deal. Let's hope that politicians won't be trying constantly to win more for their riding by interfering with the contract.

I wonder what would happen to the Quebecois if the maintenance contract when to Calgary or Saskatoon or something silly like that. They'd march on Ottawa. Quebec has this ridiculous notion that every project in Canada should be handed to them, without question.

I figure Harper won't make Mulroney's mistake of believing that is reasonable.

[August1991]

Each of us kicks in $100 on average

There goes our GST cut

The GST cut is annual. The plane purchase is one off and spead over a year or two. But point taken and the comparison is apt.

----

Too many Canadians believe this nonsense:

Aerospace industry leaders in Quebec have condemned the federal government's handling of a $3.4-billion deal to buy military cargo planes, saying the province isn't getting enough from the deal.

...

Nearly two-thirds of Canada's aerospace companies are located in Quebec and they had lobbied fiercely to get Ottawa to guarantee that 55 to 60 per cent of the economic spinoffs from the deal came to the province.

In fact, the deal was rumoured to have been delayed by almost two months as Manitoba and Quebec fought for larger shares of the spinoff subcontracts, known as industrial regional benefits, or IRBs.

CBC

Sad.