Not news for most I fear....

[Guzlin Adnams]

Leasing RAF planes wastes nearly £500m - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4641415.ece)

Oh dear.........:sad::{

[brit bus driver]

£500M...pah!

A drop in the ocean compared to the cost of FSTA methinks.

[glad rag]

..at a weekend social event near Dundee, there were many comments about our PM, most starting with, "I hate to say this as he is Scottish..."

Gordo has been spotted as the fall guy for Nu Labia by his own kirth and kirn, but the most surprising thing was the fact that most distrusted the Nats almost as much!!

And openly said that he had squandered what had been left for him by the [bastardo] tories.
This is dynamite material no mistake. Scottish Conservatives need to wake up fast!!!:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:

[glum]

If the treasury hadn't been so bloody tight in the first place and had released enough cash to buy the jets from the start we wouldn't have wasted so much of the tax payers money over the following years.:ugh:

[forget]

Is this the same Gordon Brown? :bored:

From The Sunday Times. April 15, 2007

Brown lost £2bn selling UK's gold.

GORDON BROWN is to face questions in parliament after revelations that he disregarded advice from the Bank of England before he sold off more than half the country’s gold reserves at the bottom of the market.

PS.
If the treasury hadn't been so bloody tight in the first place and had released enough cash

At the time Brown was the Treasury.

[rolandpull]

I wonder what we have paid out in chartering all the An124's, OMNI and A300f/DC8's over the years. Do we really need to fly phalanx guns systems to the states for overhaul or would a boat trip be cheaper?

[forget]

There is no doubt that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, has revealed, in a more effective form than I could have done, the great military weakness in terms of aircraft on the transport side …………..

April 1960. (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1960/apr/06/the-air-estimates-1) Long read, but do a Word Search on key words.

[andyy]

Should have bought a dozen C5 Galaxy's when we had the chance in the 1980's. I seem to remember that the US wanted an order to justify keeping the production line open pending thier own order in the next FY budget. I think R-R were keen to get them fitted with RB211s (not that the design changes for a different engine would have reduced the purchase cost!!!)

[XV277]

Is the first comment written by a No 10 spin doctor?

The hours were exceeded because of the operations that Gordon and his buddy Tony imposed on them......

[moosemaster]

It may have been more expensive in the long run but would it have gotten into service so quickly had we bought them outright.

How long would QinetiQ have sat and played with them before releasing them to the squadron. How much extra Charter would have been needed. How many extra C130 hours would have been flown in the meantime.

366 days from signing the contract to first flight. Granted not an op flight, but they followed soon afterwards.

How much would Ex SS II have cost without them. How would Afghan have been supported without them. How many extra C130 hours would have been flown in the meantime and at what cost in both lives at risk and money.

Maybe I am biased, but I still reckon it was the best solution at the time, despite the eventual cost. Now they have proved their worth, I say buy more of them!!

Andyy, we didn't buy C5s because they are too big for our needs, not even slightly tactical and generally ruddy useless. That and the fact we didn't have anywhere to put them!!!

[D O Guerrero]

Is this for real? Do we really fly Phalanx to the US for overhaul?
I see spend to save is alive and well as ever!

[brit bus driver]

I wonder what we have paid out in chartering all the An124's, OMNI and A300f/DC8's over the years

Last I heard, the figure for charter was running at about £72M a year. An FOI request to DSCOM should get you the answer.

[livenav]

A mere £500m. A drop in the ocean to what our mate Gordon has signes us up to £15.7 Billion for FSTA. Even the Australians having looked at PFI an saw that it was hugely more expensive and bought their A330's (now 2 years late and not yet in Service!)......The reason we continued with it is because it was Mr Bruns own idea AND it saved him breaking his 'Golden Rules' when he was in the Treasury - Since 'renting' is not a purchase it does not appear on the governments speadsheets -I think its called Creative Accounting and this form of it would have you put in prison or fined if you tried it in business!
In charge of our country -i wouldn't trust any of them to sit the right way on a toilet seat :ugh::ugh:

However did I hear tell we have bought some more 'new' Tri*'s?? If so what another great management decision -lets buy something so old that the parts are going to become difficult to find and more expensive plus that with such a heavy footprint they can't go many places. Outstanding -cheap now but will cost a fortune in the future to operate-if the movers don't drive steps into them all and ground the fleet!!!!:hmm:

[zedder]

Why would getting some more Tri-*'s be such a bad decision. If any orgainization in the world has the experience and know-how to keep old pieces of crap flying well beyond their sell-by-dates it's us.:E

[mr fish]

BBMFs dak is starting to look more and more viable by the day!!!!:ok:

[BEagle]

My spies tell me that the Australians were somewhat forthright in their (quite justified) view of the whole PFI nonsense......:uhoh:

[The Helpful Stacker]

Isn't the PFI for FSTA really just a big boy version of pikeys buying flash cars on finance?

You get a shiny new toy to play with but by the time you've finished paying it off it'll be knackered and you'll have actually ended up paying twice what the thing was worth new. Oh and if you miss a payment some bloke called Frank will start taking an unhealthy interest in your kneecaps

[pr00ne]

The Helpful Stacker,


No

[cornish-stormrider]

I don't know, it sounded pretty apt in laymans terms.

PFI = We, the taxpayer rent these things at a rate that over their lifetime costs much moere than what it would actually cost to buy, provision and maitain for the same period of time.

We, the taxpayer has to cover all the risks (like it flying in a war zone and being shot at) and if anything goes wrong we get the bill. If it goes right and a profit is made then it goes into the coffers of the private company and the minister who signed the pfi. Only now he works for said company.

The way these rolling goat f*cks look cost effective is that between the time muggins at the bottom has worked out the actual cost with honest basic liney friendly maths and the contract being signed it has gone through so many re drafts and creative accountings black looks white, Satan is our saviour, there is an endless money tree in Gordys back garden and the firms are doing it for their "civic duty" or whatever bollox they spout.

How much of the Iraq restructuring funds have been mislaid?

[XV277]

No, it's simpler than that. PFI contracts don't count as capital spend, so Govt spending stays below the self imposed 'Golden Rule'