QTG!
The reason Police Authorities and Chief officers buy aircraft rather than lease them is that they get at least 40% HO grant towards the purchase of the primary asset. Importantly, at the end of any typical 10 year period they, (the owners), have a very significant capital asset. Had they a leased, they would have nothing. - Nevertheless, the lessor would have made a very nice profit thank you, and also had the aircraft to sell or lease to another operator.
Direct purchase has to be better for the tax payer. Even taking into consideration these recent blips. Just look at the record over the past 25 years, I think that direct ownership has proved itself time & time again.
UK Police aviation has consistantly proved itself to be a leader in its field; so lets not knock it. I would submit that if only half as much time as is given to condeming units for poor security, as was given to catching the scroats responsible, it would be Job well Done!
But going back to the oricginal thread, - why was it done? Well that just goes to prove how effective the concept of Police Air Support is, - someone was finding the ever overhead presence of airborne plod, just too restricting.
Tigerfish
Last edited by tigerfish; 14th June 2009 at 00:09.