PFI- A crock?
Well, yes...
But for three reasons - firstly, any kind of hire-purchase / lease is going to cost more than straight purchase as the cost of borrowing the capital by the private sector will be more than the cost of the government borrowing the money.
Second, any self-respecting private company will negotiate a watertight contract to protect themselves and to ensure that they can make some money at this game - all very sensible. This is where Pr00ne and his mates come in, and do a good job. The downside for the RAF is that any changes to contract will only be possible in exchange for some money.... lots of it!
Thirdly, at least one point of PFIs was to transfer risk to the private sector - if they didn't perform, then they didn't get paid. If they were more expensive than they thought, then they lost money on the deal.
All very sensible, except for one smallish issue: the Government has to be ok with binning a project if the company providing the service goes bust - like Metronet doing up the tube. The smallish problem occurs when the service is so important that the Government needs it done at almost any cost, at which point the Government is over a financial barrel becuase the service HAS to be provided, so the State will have to stump up the cash to bail out the service provider.... like in Metronet's case....
Seems to me that AAR is a rather vital service without which the RAF is um, well, stuffed, and therefore emphatically NOT suitable for risk transfer to the private sector.
And this is all before we get to the operational issues of where are the bucket and spade brigade going to be going when the RAF needs them, who (RAF!) is repsonible for maintaining commercial ETOPS clearance in the midst of TACEVALs and all the rest of it.
Pity, as I wonder how many we could've bought with the money that's been spent on the project to date...
Juat my 0.02.....
S41