Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 148

Thread: Premier Prentice to sell Air Alberta fleet

  1. #1
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Where ever Visa is accepted
    Posts
    4,504

    Default Premier Prentice to sell Air Alberta fleet

    EDMONTON - Premier Jim Prentice announced Tuesday that he will be selling the Alberta government’s taxpayer-funded fleet of planes after consulting with his new cabinet.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...127/story.html
    Go ahead, speed pass me... I'll meet you at the next red light.

  2. #2

    Default

    ^good move, about time. Private companies can pick up charters now where there is a need, and where there isn't, the politicians can fly / travel like the rest of us do.

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry N View Post
    EDMONTON - Premier Jim Prentice announced Tuesday that he will be selling the Alberta government’s taxpayer-funded fleet of planes after consulting with his new cabinet.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...127/story.html
    Where consulting means told.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    A change done to look good rather than being fiscally intelligent.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    A change done to look good rather than being fiscally intelligent.
    I disagree, the private sector is way more efficient at charter flights than any government, and this puts the onus on politicians to provide business case for travel (not just, I want my daughter to fly to me, oh there's a spare plane that isn't full).

  6. #6
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Should be a good boost to charter companies in Northern Alberta.

    I'm wondering what kind of security clearances the flight crews will have to go through beforehand. That's one of the advantages to having government flight crews...

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    A change done to look good rather than being fiscally intelligent.
    I disagree, the private sector is way more efficient at charter flights than any government, and this puts the onus on politicians to provide business case for travel (not just, I want my daughter to fly to me, oh there's a spare plane that isn't full).
    You might just want to call around and see what a King Air costs per hour on a short notice charter as well as stand by costs and other expenses.

    It ain't Westjet.

    In addition most of the use of those aircraft was not elected officials, most use was bureaucrats, legal and operations.

    I'm going to agree with Sundance on this one.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    You might just want to call around and see what a King Air costs per hour on a short notice charter as well as stand by costs and other expenses.

    It ain't Westjet.
    I expect 99% of the time they will be flying West Jet or Air Canada. For those other 1%, a charter makes sense, it might not be cheap but it will be a lot cheaper than owning aircraft just for that purpose. The Province is asking for tenders, per the AG report, I have no doubt costs will go down.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-09-2014 at 12:59 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    A change done to look good rather than being fiscally intelligent.
    I disagree, the private sector is way more efficient at charter flights than any government, and this puts the onus on politicians to provide business case for travel (not just, I want my daughter to fly to me, oh there's a spare plane that isn't full).
    You might just want to call around and see what a King Air costs per hour on a short notice charter as well as stand by costs and other expenses.

    It ain't Westjet.

    In addition most of the use of those aircraft was not elected officials, most use was bureaucrats, legal and operations.

    I'm going to agree with Sundance on this one.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    The Saher report says it cost $3.9m more than using alternate travel arrangments in 2012. You are comparing apples to apples when it is apples to oranges. I'm sure if private charters were used as much as government planes, you may have a point. However, other options will present themselves without the ready availability of a provincial fleet of planes. Regular airlines and (gasp) actually driving to where you need to go.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PJC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    A change done to look good rather than being fiscally intelligent.
    I disagree, the private sector is way more efficient at charter flights than any government, and this puts the onus on politicians to provide business case for travel (not just, I want my daughter to fly to me, oh there's a spare plane that isn't full).
    You might just want to call around and see what a King Air costs per hour on a short notice charter as well as stand by costs and other expenses.

    It ain't Westjet.

    In addition most of the use of those aircraft was not elected officials, most use was bureaucrats, legal and operations.

    I'm going to agree with Sundance on this one.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    The Saher report says it cost $3.9m more than using alternate travel arrangments in 2012. You are comparing apples to apples when it is apples to oranges. I'm sure if private charters were used as much as government planes, you may have a point. However, other options will present themselves without the ready availability of a provincial fleet of planes. Regular airlines and (gasp) actually driving to where you need to go.
    PJC

    I read the report and in my opinion there were many gaps on the actual costs of alternatives...lost productive time and similar.
    Almost all of the areas that the AG aircraft fly to in their normal use (not elected officials) are places where there is no commercial service.

    Don't get me wrong, all the attention on the abuses is well deserved, I am simply quite convinced we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    Fact is we won't know the actual costs for a couple of years, but I beleive time will prove my thoughts correct.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    You might just want to call around and see what a King Air costs per hour on a short notice charter as well as stand by costs and other expenses.

    It ain't Westjet.
    I expect 99% of the time they will be flying West Jet or Air Canada. For those other 1%, a charter makes sense, it might not be cheap but it will be a lot cheaper than owning aircraft just for that purpose. The Province is asking for tenders, per the AG report, I have no doubt costs will go down.
    West Jet to High Level? Fort Chip? Peace River? and so many more.

    I believe you have the percentages backwards and when the "real" costs of driving and charter come to light in a couple years it will show.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    West Jet to High Level? Fort Chip? Peace River? and so many more.
    Chartering flights for occaional trips to remote locations isn't going to cost $9.5m per year.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    You might just want to call around and see what a King Air costs per hour on a short notice charter as well as stand by costs and other expenses.

    It ain't Westjet.
    I expect 99% of the time they will be flying West Jet or Air Canada. For those other 1%, a charter makes sense, it might not be cheap but it will be a lot cheaper than owning aircraft just for that purpose. The Province is asking for tenders, per the AG report, I have no doubt costs will go down.
    West Jet to High Level? Fort Chip? Peace River? and so many more.

    I believe you have the percentages backwards and when the "real" costs of driving and charter come to light in a couple years it will show.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Fort Chip is served by scheduled service, Northwestern Air

    Destinations[edit]
    As of May 2013, the airline serves the following locations:[2]

    Alberta
    Edmonton (Edmonton International Airport)
    Fort Chipewyan (Fort Chipewyan Airport)
    Fort McMurray (Fort McMurray Airport)
    Red Deer (Red Deer Regional Airport)
    British Columbia
    Abbotsford (Abbotsford International Airport)
    Kelowna (Kelowna International Airport)[3]
    Northwest Territories
    Fort Smith (Fort Smith Airport)
    Yellowknife (Yellowknife Airport)
    Hay River (Hay River/Merlyn Carter Airport)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Air

    High Level is served by Central Mountain Air.

    Peace River is serviced by Northern Air.

    Scheduled service all.

    The Tories have shown they can't be trusted to use the aircraft like responsible adults. Time to take away the toys.

  14. #14

    Default

    Let's face it. Those planes were grossly abused by Redford. She wracked up so many unnecessary flights. In fact, her whole tenor as premier was squandered and those planes used when they should not have been. How many trips did she take just to play the role and pad her resume. Flying to the states, flying to Ottawa, B.C., Jasper etc. etc. She used them as her holiday charters and for party business. Then how many of her ministers abused them for their own purposes. When they realize they have to schlep to the airport and catch regular planes like the rest of us I should imagine their fleet of Escalades will start to look very comfortable. Those planes should fly off into the sunset.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Let's face it. Those planes were grossly abused by Redford. She wracked up so many unnecessary flights. In fact, her whole tenor as premier was squandered and those planes used when they should not have been. How many trips did she take just to play the role and pad her resume. Flying to the states, flying to Ottawa, B.C., Jasper etc. etc. She used them as her holiday charters and for party business. Then how many of her ministers abused them for their own purposes. When they realize they have to schlep to the airport and catch regular planes like the rest of us I should imagine their fleet of Escalades will start to look very comfortable. Those planes should fly off into the sunset.
    Agree with your quote Gemini

    So ban the elected officials. Why make the guys and gals doing the job suffer? That is the bulk of the use of the aircraft

    kkozoriz

    Play with this for a bit http://www.nwal.ca/flights/ and then tell me how often this service would work for those that have to do the job.

    Then add the extra overnights, meals and lost wage time and see how it works.

    Then bear in mind multiple staff for things like education meetings, court dates and appearances etc.

    Northwest is a great service and a good company but there are tons of limitations because of the (necessary) low frequency.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    West Jet to High Level? Fort Chip? Peace River? and so many more.
    Chartering flights for occaional trips to remote locations isn't going to cost $9.5m per year.
    We will find out after a couple years of operation.

    When you add the cost of the charter(s) and the frequency used by those in functional government positions (not the elected officials) you will be very surprised fast.

    You really think that Syncrude and other corporations use Business aircraft to move staff, consultants, engineers and others around cause its kewl...get real, they have flight departments because it saves them money and makes them more efficient.

    The same reason London Drugs started their air service and many others.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 16-09-2014 at 05:10 PM.

  17. #17

    Default

    When it comes to court appearances in remote areas circuit court is usually once a month or less. It does not always happen when the circuit court is in town that a prisoner has to be flown in from a remote area. What with video conferencing and what not I should imagine a prisoner could plead guilty/not guilty over the internet. When they do get a trial date they will have lots of time to be driven to the courthouse. Usually the lower peons that have government business or training to do are required to make their own way to the facility they are training at. As for elected officials having to spend a night in a hotel. To bad, so sad. When you think of all the people who spend weeks at a time in work camps in Ft.Mc a night in a hotel will sound wonderful to them. I am sure when the government planes were used some people just went along for the ride. Say Dave, I have to go to Grande Prairie for the day, fancy coming along for the ride. Sure, I've got nothing pressing to do, might as well.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  18. #18
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,562
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I moved these posts out of the initial Prentice thread as these were starting to confuse the conversation in that one. Also, this conversation deserves its own thread.
    Ow

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Let's face it. Those planes were grossly abused by Redford. She wracked up so many unnecessary flights. In fact, her whole tenor as premier was squandered and those planes used when they should not have been. How many trips did she take just to play the role and pad her resume. Flying to the states, flying to Ottawa, B.C., Jasper etc. etc. She used them as her holiday charters and for party business. Then how many of her ministers abused them for their own purposes. When they realize they have to schlep to the airport and catch regular planes like the rest of us I should imagine their fleet of Escalades will start to look very comfortable. Those planes should fly off into the sunset.
    Agree with your quote Gemini

    So ban the elected officials. Why make the guys and gals doing the job suffer? That is the bulk of the use of the aircraft

    kkozoriz

    Play with this for a bit http://www.nwal.ca/flights/ and then tell me how often this service would work for those that have to do the job.

    Then add the extra overnights, meals and lost wage time and see how it works.

    Then bear in mind multiple staff for things like education meetings, court dates and appearances etc.

    Northwest is a great service and a good company but there are tons of limitations because of the (necessary) low frequency.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Perhaps we can save on a bunch of these flights if the alternative is slightly less accessible. Maybe we don't need as many face to faces as we've been led to believe. There's alternatives available now that weren't before (video conferencing on a laptop for example). The idea that we're facing some sort of collapse of government because we no longer provide minister and bureaucrats with private planes at their beck and call is silly. If someone wants to take a charter then they can pay the government the difference between the commercial and charter fare.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Let's face it. Those planes were grossly abused by Redford. She wracked up so many unnecessary flights. In fact, her whole tenor as premier was squandered and those planes used when they should not have been. How many trips did she take just to play the role and pad her resume. Flying to the states, flying to Ottawa, B.C., Jasper etc. etc. She used them as her holiday charters and for party business. Then how many of her ministers abused them for their own purposes. When they realize they have to schlep to the airport and catch regular planes like the rest of us I should imagine their fleet of Escalades will start to look very comfortable. Those planes should fly off into the sunset.
    Agree with your quote Gemini

    So ban the elected officials. Why make the guys and gals doing the job suffer? That is the bulk of the use of the aircraft

    kkozoriz

    Play with this for a bit http://www.nwal.ca/flights/ and then tell me how often this service would work for those that have to do the job.

    Then add the extra overnights, meals and lost wage time and see how it works.

    Then bear in mind multiple staff for things like education meetings, court dates and appearances etc.

    Northwest is a great service and a good company but there are tons of limitations because of the (necessary) low frequency.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Perhaps we can save on a bunch of these flights if the alternative is slightly less accessible. Maybe we don't need as many face to faces as we've been led to believe. There's alternatives available now that weren't before (video conferencing on a laptop for example). The idea that we're facing some sort of collapse of government because we no longer provide minister and bureaucrats with private planes at their beck and call is silly. If someone wants to take a charter then they can pay the government the difference between the commercial and charter fare.
    Decision is apparently made...so time will tell.

    But even in your last comment "ministers", the elected officials, are the driver behind the overall attitude.

    As I said above I would be happy to see elected officials banned from the use of the aircraft, but at the same time just in education I know of many that have used the service to carry out contracts, technical difficulties, face to face negotiations, consulting and many other functions in a fast timely manner that was far more cost efficient that burning dollars on lost time, meals, overnight expenses etc.

    That is from one department, when I consider other departments from the Courts, legal aid, infrastructure design and consulting and more I can clearly see the cost benefit from sending teams on fast day trips as opposed to multi day overnight adventures with the attached expenses.

    Business uses company aircraft as a method of savings and efficiency for staff, consultants and other needs...long term they are proven to save dollars not cost more.

    Which in the end is the overall goal while providing all Albertans access to government services in a timely fashion.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  21. #21
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    for Prentice to sell Air fleet is a huge wake up call for most MLAs or ministers that abusing for using the government planes has to end it.

    I hope many voters satisfied that this Air Fleet has to go and save taxpayers's money
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  22. #22

    Default

    Who cares if elected officials have to sit in a vehicle to get from A to B. They have some pretty fancy $60,000 Escalades at their disposal. They come with a driver as well. When they sell their vanity planes they can buy a couple more. As for the members that go home on the weekend after the ledge sitting. I should imagine the working part of their Friday afternoons will now get shorter as they will be wanting to get out sooner if they decide to drive or go commercial flight. Maybe Prentice should send a couple of his newly minted advisors to provinces who do not have their own planes. Find out how they manage to run their provinces by keeping themselves on terra firma.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    My mom used to be a director for an area in the government, and she occasionally flew on the government plane down to Calgary for a hearing, or to make a presentation. I asked her, and she said she rarely rode with other politicians, though Stelmach was on a flight once, but the plane was often full. It's people like my mom that were often on the flights to do business, and that's one of the reasons I think it's foolish for the government to sell off these planes. Yes, they were occasionally abused, and those abuses made headlines and were absolutely ridiculous, but I suspect most of the flights were legitimate uses of the planes that saved the taxpayers money in the long-run.

    Like Tom, I'll wait to see how this pans out in a few years, but I suspect we'll see an increase in the amount the government spends on flights and hotel rooms for government employees.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  24. #24

    Default

    What's the difference going on a commercial plane as opposed to a government plane. Convenience, ( and a feeling of miss placed grandeur) that's what it is. To get over that hurdle just go on line and look up commercial plane scheduling and then organize your day around it. It's not rocket science. If you are travelling within Alberta either go commercial or rent a vehicle, better yet, take your own vehicle. Why the f*** should the public pamper officials for doing their job. Do the guys working on the pipeline get to stay at the local Hilton and dine on the finest fare. No, they get to stay at whatever motel there is. And these are guys are working 12 hour days, 7 days a week. Ditto for the guys working on rigs and in McMurray. Meanwhile some government dick wad is scared of getting their manicures wrecked. Lawd, you would think we were torturing them by making them mingle with the common folk. We voted them in to be at our service, not the other way round. If you want to be pampered, got to the Spa.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  25. #25

    Default

    This is 100% getting the political football off the field. The air service became a lightening rod the moment Klein created it, except at his peak he dynamited hospitals without even being noticed, an airline was nothing. At this post-Redford time, debating its merits is missing the point. Keeping it would have guaranteed electoral failure.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  26. #26
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Starting to lean towards Tom's point of view...I took a peak at some of the manifests and saw that the fleet was going to a lot of places that definitely do not have scheduled service:

    -Mildred Lake
    -Grande Cache
    -Vulcan
    -Drayton Valley
    -Loon River
    -etc.

    The vast majority were trips between YEG and YYC though, and they should clamp down on those. And really, why does it seem Treasury Board folks from Edmonton need to have so many face-to-face meetings in Calgary? Ever heard of a conference call?

    I think they could have gotten rid of the Dash 8 and kept the three King Airs. I've always questioned the need for that Dash 8...

    Anyway, if the Saher report says it costs $3.9M more to use the government fleet than alternatives, then we're really making a mountain out of a mole hill. Remember that the Ontario government sunk $950M into gas power plants that were never built and the Liberals were re-elected to a majority.

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,557

    Default

    Undecided on this from a practical point view although I think it's wise from a political point of view. Sometimes you need to remove the cookie jar.

    On the practical side, do any other provinces in Alberta have their own aircraft? If not, why not?

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Undecided on this from a practical point view although I think it's wise from a political point of view. Sometimes you need to remove the cookie jar.

    On the practical side, do any other provinces in Alberta have their own aircraft? If not, why not?
    Haven't looked in a while and don't have time right now but yes a number do.

    Off the cuff, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec with a couple in the Maritimes.

    For those that have never flown in a King Air...even a nice one...there is nothing fancy or "special".

    Business Aircraft are a tool just like any other and when used properly (as Alberta were most of the time) a very effective tool that saves time and therefore money.

    Over and over I see in this thread that there is an attitude that there is something "over the top" about using business aircraft. Not the case.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 17-09-2014 at 09:08 AM.

  29. #29
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    For those that have never flown in qa King Air...even a nice one...there is nothing fancy or "special".
    Very true...not even enough headroom to stand up.

  30. #30
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    On the practical side, do any other provinces in Alberta have their own aircraft? If not, why not?
    B.C. does not, which strikes me as odd given that the province is larger than ours, has just as many (if not more) remote communities, and has its capital on an island. It also takes forever to get anywhere on the highways as I'm sure most of you know.


  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    I've always questioned the need for that Dash 8...
    Dash 8 is a good example of a well used aircraft

    While it had a quick change executive interior it was rarely installed (literally when the Queen was in Alberta and a few other times).

    All but those rare occasions it was used summer for moving fire fighting crews and winter for similar workers to off the route locations and hauling supporting equipment.

    Even in the hey day of the Klein era it was off limits as it was busy doing "hard work".

    BTW this
    Convenience, ( and a feeling of miss placed grandeur) that's what it is.
    is what most of the argument is about and it clouds the argument.

    There is no grandeur in a King Air...Gulfstream VI sure but a King is little more than a passenger van and a long way from an Escalade.

    Business aircraft are all about saving time and money...from CEOs to rig pushes.

    When you seriously look at lost time for a team (it doesn't matter if they are bureaucrats, engineers, lawyers or consultants and rig pushes) and the additional costs of overnighting and related vs using a corporate aircraft the savings are often considerable.

    In this day and age of hourly rates of $500.00 per hour for many professions and trades it takes no time at all to show savings.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    On the practical side, do any other provinces in Alberta have their own aircraft? If not, why not?
    B.C. does not, which strikes me as odd given that the province is larger than ours, has just as many (if not more) remote communities, and has its capital on an island. It also takes forever to get anywhere on the highways as I'm sure most of you know.

    BC was one of the Provinces that were among the first to have Provincial aircraft, as far back as the 60s. Heavily used by their highways department during the time of Phil Gilardi as Hi way minister while they were in the process of a series of infrastructure projects (dams, highways etc).

    They were dropped back in the mid 80s (IIRC) during one of the massive down cycles in the BC economy. Neither BC or their Provincial air service ever really recovered IMO.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 17-09-2014 at 09:08 AM.

  33. #33

    Default

    In my view a dumb vote-pandering move from Prentice and his advisors. A small fleet of craft saves money, a friend of mine used to pilot one of the Telus jets. The problem was a few people randomly abusing the privilege of having readily accessible flights.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Starting to lean towards Tom's point of view...I took a peak at some of the manifests and saw that the fleet was going to a lot of places that definitely do not have scheduled service:

    -Mildred Lake
    -Grande Cache
    -Vulcan
    -Drayton Valley
    -Loon River
    -etc.
    Seriously, Drayton Valley? Vulcan? Those are a very easy drive from Edmonton and Calgary respectivley. This is going to save a lot of money, and stop a lot of abuse / uneccesary trips, its a no brainer.

    As to the corporate world, while there are a few large corproations with air fleets (e.g. TransCanada, who also use them to inspect pipelines from the air), most corporations that operate in Alberta, even those with operations in various remote locations, manage just fine with scheduled service and rental cars. With the occasional charter for a big trip, the Province is more than sufficiently covered by commercial providers.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-09-2014 at 08:56 AM.

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Say Dave, I have to go to Grande Prairie for the day, fancy coming along for the ride. Sure, I've got nothing pressing to do, might as well.


    Good one Gems.

    Just another day in the life of an MLA.

  36. #36

    Default

    Vulcan?
    minimum 4.5hrs one way from Edmonton...9.0hrs round trip

    So a very simplistic example:

    9.0hrs round trip plus meetings or whatever the assigned job/mission/task is.

    Hypothetical team of (5) as from my the information I have it is never a single provincial bureaucrat, legal type, employee, technician or consultant always a team.

    Billing rate of $500.00 per hour per person 9 hours travel time X 5 X 500.00 = $22,500.00
    plus mileage for driving, meals and over night expenses.

    Corporate aircraft (King Air for sake of argument)
    1.0 to 1.5 each way for max 3.0hrs, 5.0hrs to deal with job/mission/task and back same day

    Savings... 6 hrs travel time X 5 X $500.00 per hour = $15,000.00
    and no mileage, overnight, meals or other related expenses.

    Job/mission/task completed in (1) day

    Yep its a no brainer

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 17-09-2014 at 09:07 AM.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Vulcan?
    minimum 4.5hrs one way from Edmonton...9.0hrs round trip
    Or you could fly to Calgary on WJ or AC, rent a car and drive for just over one hour, a two hour trip each way. Oh the humanity, such a horrible expectation for our poor politicians...
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-09-2014 at 09:13 AM.

  38. #38
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Seriously, Drayton Valley? Vulcan? Those are a very easy drive from Edmonton and Calgary respectivley. This is going to save a lot of money, and stop a lot of abuse / uneccesary trips, its a no brainer.
    ...except that the flight to Vulcan left from YEG at 9:54 carrying the Environment Minister plus 5 others and arrived at 10:45. It left Vulcan at 15:15 and had everyone back in Edmonton at 16:07. Put those 6 people in 2 vehicles and the round trip driving time (assuming no stops) is 7 hours 22 minutes. So, in order to meet with the Sustainable Resource Development official in Vulcan along the same timeline, they'd have to leave YEG at 7:24 and wouldn't be home until 18:36 at the earliest.

    Kind of a long day...

  39. #39
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Seriously, Drayton Valley? Vulcan? Those are a very easy drive from Edmonton and Calgary respectivley. This is going to save a lot of money, and stop a lot of abuse / uneccesary trips, its a no brainer.
    ...except that the flight to Vulcan left from YEG at 9:54 carrying the Environment Minister plus 5 others and arrived at 10:45. It left Vulcan at 15:15 and had everyone back in Edmonton at 16:07. Put those 6 people in 2 vehicles and the round trip driving time (assuming no stops) is 7 hours 22 minutes. So, in order to meet with the Sustainable Resource Development official in Vulcan along the same timeline, they'd have to leave YEG at 7:24 and wouldn't be home until 18:36 at the earliest.

    Kind of a long day...
    Why are the shipping six people to meet with one instead of shipping one to meet with six?

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Vulcan?
    minimum 4.5hrs one way from Edmonton...9.0hrs round trip
    Or you could fly to Calgary on WJ or AC, rent a car and drive for just over one hour, a two hour trip each way. Oh the humanity, such a horrible expectation for our poor politicians...
    Who is talking politicians? I certainly wasn't.

    I've already said I'm good with elected officials being banned from the aircraft.

    Edmonton to Vulcan your way...

    Travel time
    Arrive EIA 1hour early
    45 minute flight
    Arrive YYC 1 hour early
    45 minute flight
    1.0 to 1.5 drive to Vulcan X 2

    6.5hrs plus:

    Cost of flights
    Cost of rental cars
    Overnight (to do the same 5hr job/mission/task)
    and overall lost day of productivity.

    So total time 6.5 hours vs 3.0 and no overnights and related expense

    3.5 X 5 X $500.00 = $8,750.00 savings

    So again a very simplistic example but makes the overall point about corporate aircraft used properly.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  41. #41
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Vulcan?
    minimum 4.5hrs one way from Edmonton...9.0hrs round trip
    Or you could fly to Calgary on WJ or AC, rent a car and drive for just over one hour, a two hour trip each way. Oh the humanity, such a horrible expectation for our poor politicians...
    A slightly better option. Assuming the flight schedule lined up perfectly, and assuming they get to the airport 60 minutes before the flight leaves, and assuming they hop in a car straight out of the terminal and go, they'd now have to be at YEG at 7:32 to make the 10:45 meeting with the Sustainable Resource Development official. A time savings of 8 minutes over just driving there based on a lot of assumptions!

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Seriously, Drayton Valley? Vulcan? Those are a very easy drive from Edmonton and Calgary respectivley. This is going to save a lot of money, and stop a lot of abuse / uneccesary trips, its a no brainer.
    ...except that the flight to Vulcan left from YEG at 9:54 carrying the Environment Minister plus 5 others and arrived at 10:45. It left Vulcan at 15:15 and had everyone back in Edmonton at 16:07. Put those 6 people in 2 vehicles and the round trip driving time (assuming no stops) is 7 hours 22 minutes. So, in order to meet with the Sustainable Resource Development official in Vulcan along the same timeline, they'd have to leave YEG at 7:24 and wouldn't be home until 18:36 at the earliest.

    Kind of a long day...
    Why are the shipping six people to meet with one instead of shipping one to meet with six?
    Get your point exactly Paul which is why I was trying to keep it simple.

    But case Adam is making makes sense if it's 2 teams meeting, or if site inspections are required or other varied circumstances.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  43. #43
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Why are the shipping six people to meet with one instead of shipping one to meet with six?
    I have taken the exact case out of the flight manifest. Flight from YEG to Vulcan and back on July 15. I don't know how many people they actually met with in Vulcan or what the circumstances were.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    So total time 6.5 hours vs 3.0 and no overnights and related expense

    3.5 X 5 X $500.00 = $8,750.00 savings

    So again a very simplistic example but makes the overall point about corporate aircraft used properly.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    I think you are making a lot of bogus assumptions, we pay burecrats the same whether they are on a plane, a bus, or in a car, they earn a salary, whether or not they are going to see the latest Star Trek proposal for Vulcan. We shouldnt be sending lawyers at $500 per hour to vulcan. As to government staff having to occasionally fly, rent or overnight for those very few locations that don't have direct air service, I don't for one minute have a problem with that, as its perfectly normal in the corporate world (aside from a very few companies, whose shareholders they are accountable to). Our princesses (aka government workers) can suck it up a bit like the rest of us do.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-09-2014 at 10:28 AM.

  45. #45

    Default

    These politicians can go commercial, drive or even take the Greyhound to were they are going. Then if they have to get airborne, say to look at pine beetle infestations, they can hire a helicopter. And really, who cares if the minister of health has to take a commercial flight to Grande Prairie to cut the ribbon on a new hospital. Why should it bother us that they have to work a bit longer one day because they are cutting a ribbon. There not paid by the hour, they get a very generous salary with a lucrative expense account. It's not like they have a flying gig everyday either. Reading this thread it seems some people think that the politicians in this province have to be flying every day to one pressing problem after the other. In fact, probably the only pressing problem they face each week is getting out of the ledge on a Friday afternoon and stampeding for a government plane to get to their home ridings. Let them fit their fat derrieres on anything but a government plane. There paid to work not to jet set.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  46. #46
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,694

    Default

    One point that I have not seen is that this may help solidify scheduled service and possibly expand it to some of these far reach areas by having more paying customers. In that way the economic benefit is expanded and helps reduce the risk of the small airlines providing the service to remote areas of the province. This would be a very good side benefit of the removal of the provincial plane service. Although I do agree with Tom that efficiency of travel will likely be reduced and a higher cost (which will take a couple of years to compare)
    My antidepressent drug of choice is running. Cheaper with less side effects!

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    So total time 6.5 hours vs 3.0 and no overnights and related expense

    3.5 X 5 X $500.00 = $8,750.00 savings

    So again a very simplistic example but makes the overall point about corporate aircraft used properly.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    I think you are making a lot of bogus assumptions, we pay burecrats the same whether they are on a plane, a bus, or in a car, they earn a salary, whether or not they are going to see the latest Star Trek proposal for Vulcan. We shouldnt be sending lawyers at $500 per hour to vulcan. As to government staff having to occasionally fly, rent or overnight for those very few locations that don't have direct air service, I don't for one minute have a problem with that, as its perfectly normal in the corporate world (aside from a very few companies, whose shareholders they are accountable to). Our princesses (aka government workers) can suck it up a bit like the rest of us do.
    Speaking of Bogus assumptions:
    we pay burecrats the same whether they are on a plane, a bus, or in a car, they earn a salary,
    Yes and if we get no work, no productivity it is wasted dollars.

    We shouldnt be sending lawyers at $500 per hour to vulcan.
    Well aside from the fact that goes against the concept equal services it may not be a lawyer or a bureaucrat, it could just as easy be an engineer or consultant on an infrastructure project...either way we get "0" work or productivity if we are paying them to travel.

    as its perfectly normal in the corporate world (aside from a very few companies, whose shareholders they are accountable to).
    It is also perfectly normal to use corporate aircraft where it makes sense, London Drugs in a perfect example or Syncrude and many others. BTW, we as the tax payers of Alberta are the shareholders and I prefer to see value for my dollar. Cheaping out, as most of have learned over the years, often costs more and delivers less.

    Our princesses (aka government workers) can suck it up a bit like the rest of us do.


    This is what it is really about...you think and believe they are getting something you can't have and it chokes you.

    Get over it, in fact there is nothing special happening, its a common business practice and used properly a money saver.

    As I said earlier...there is no Gulf Stream VI Jet of the Stars, its a passenger van that flies...no more, no less.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  48. #48

    Default

    Tom, are you being willfully blind....................

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=inter...iw=942&bih=410
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    These politicians can go commercial, drive or even take the Greyhound to were they are going. Then if they have to get airborne, say to look at pine beetle infestations, they can hire a helicopter. And really, who cares if the minister of health has to take a commercial flight to Grande Prairie to cut the ribbon on a new hospital. Why should it bother us that they have to work a bit longer one day because they are cutting a ribbon. There not paid by the hour, they get a very generous salary with a lucrative expense account. It's not like they have a flying gig everyday either. Reading this thread it seems some people think that the politicians in this province have to be flying every day to one pressing problem after the other. In fact, probably the only pressing problem they face each week is getting out of the ledge on a Friday afternoon and stampeding for a government plane to get to their home ridings. Let them fit their fat derrieres on anything but a government plane. There paid to work not to jet set.
    Thanks Gemini you sum up the attitude well...but miss the point.

    This isn't about the politicians...I've already said several times I'm good with banning them from using the aircraft.

    It is about the people that get the work done, as quickly, efficiently and cost effectively as possible. With the size of our Province and the limitations of scheduled air service, cost of travel, lost productivity and other factors there is a time and a place for using corporate aircraft.

    They are paid to work...and they are not working if we are paying them to travel in a wasteful fashion.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Speaking of Bogus assumptions:
    we pay burecrats the same whether they are on a plane, a bus, or in a car, they earn a salary,
    Yes and if we get no work, no productivity it is wasted dollars.
    I assume you have never worked on salary, I have the same tasks to accomplish no matter how many hours I do or don't work, and I expect it to be exactly the same for a government worker. The $500 rate is ridiculous, a government worker isn't a professional service provider with all the overheads they need to cover assoicated with that. If travelling to Vulcan is one of those tasks (virtually no harder than travelling to Airdrie/Oklotoks from Edmonton, or Stony Plain from Calgary), that comes with the job, there's no right to an elite travel plan above and beyond what 99% of normal companies do.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-09-2014 at 11:16 AM.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Tom, are you being willfully blind....................

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=inter...iw=942&bih=410
    Sorry Gemini I am not, you did not read what I wrote
    As I said earlier...there is no Gulf Stream VI Jet of the Stars, its a passenger van that flies...no more, no less.
    There is no grandeur in a King Air...Gulfstream VI sure but a King is little more than a passenger van and a long way from an Escalade.
    Your link is a Gulfstream Jet...choice of Hollywood, not a King Air.

    King Air is more like this link...This is a King Air 350i which is the latest and somewhat fancier than the older King Air 200s in the Alberta Government fleet.
    http://www.beechcraft.com/beechcraft.../interior.aspx

    Ours are much more like this...
    http://melancholymons.files.wordpres...3/sam_0422.jpg

    Makes you wish for WestJet

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  52. #52

    Default

    You assume way too much
    I assume you have never worked on salary, I have the same tasks to accomplish no matter how many hours I do or don't work, and I expect it to be exactly the same for a government worker.
    I have only ever worked on salary, except for when I was a business owner.

    As a business owner paying someone for zero productivity is called a waste of money.

    The $500 rate is ridiculous, a government worker isn't a professional service provider with all the overheads they need to cover assoicated with that.
    Far from it...$500.00 an hour billing is common in legal circles, professions in high technology, specialized trades and many high level consulting areas.

    I am sure there are people on this forum that have skills their employer bill out at $500.00 an hour or more.

    All skills we as a Province use on everything from education to infrastructure.

    An auto mechanic is billed at 100.00 to 120.00 an hour fer crying out loud. Base line computer tech is billed out over $120.00hr.

    From an Government point of view...there are many workers/bureaucrats/professionals in the government making $150,000.00 and far beyond. Team of 6-7 and you're in the same numbers fast.

    Again this is what it is about...
    there's no right to an elite travel plan
    When you finally figure out there is nothing elite about a King Air and stop looking at it from your personal point of view and instead look at it from a corporate one you will likely understand.

    But I doubt you will get past your personal prejudices on this issue.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PJC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    A change done to look good rather than being fiscally intelligent.
    I disagree, the private sector is way more efficient at charter flights than any government, and this puts the onus on politicians to provide business case for travel (not just, I want my daughter to fly to me, oh there's a spare plane that isn't full).
    You might just want to call around and see what a King Air costs per hour on a short notice charter as well as stand by costs and other expenses.

    It ain't Westjet.

    In addition most of the use of those aircraft was not elected officials, most use was bureaucrats, legal and operations.

    I'm going to agree with Sundance on this one.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    The Saher report says it cost $3.9m more than using alternate travel arrangments in 2012. You are comparing apples to apples when it is apples to oranges. I'm sure if private charters were used as much as government planes, you may have a point. However, other options will present themselves without the ready availability of a provincial fleet of planes. Regular airlines and (gasp) actually driving to where you need to go.
    PJC

    I read the report and in my opinion there were many gaps on the actual costs of alternatives...lost productive time and similar.
    Almost all of the areas that the AG aircraft fly to in their normal use (not elected officials) are places where there is no commercial service.

    Don't get me wrong, all the attention on the abuses is well deserved, I am simply quite convinced we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    Fact is we won't know the actual costs for a couple of years, but I beleive time will prove my thoughts correct.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

    Then how come no other province (Ontario for example which is far bigger and where it would make more sense to have aircraft) has a fleet? If provinces like BC and Ontario "(who both have far more remote locations than Alberta) can do without, so can we.

    And sorry Tom, I'll defer to the expertise of the AG on this and not you.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    I am sure there are people on this forum that have skills their employer bill out at $500.00 an hour or more.
    There is a difference between the cost of a salary, and the cost of a consultant service. The typical model for a consultant is the revenues they charge break down as:

    1/3 Overhead (e.g. leasing premises)
    1/3 Staff (all the staff who work at the firm)
    1/3 Partner (the profit).

    For the cost of a government worker, the only one relevant is the second, as the first is fixed. So 1/3rd of your 500 "might" be a comparable, but as I noted, expecting someone to make a short simple trip is hardley outrageous. By your time claims, it would also be inappropriate to send someone from Calgary to Stony Plain, or from Edmonton to Okotoks.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PJC View Post

    Then how come no other province (Ontario for example which is far bigger and where it would make more sense to have aircraft) has a fleet? If provinces like BC and Ontario "(who both have far more remote locations than Alberta) can do without, so can we.

    And sorry Tom, I'll defer to the expertise of the AG on this and not you.
    Ontario has several fleets, per wiki
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministr...gency_Services

    Including (2) King Airs and a selection of helicopters (non fire fighting)

    They also operate their own air ambulance service with both fixed wing and helicopters.
    http://www.ornge.ca/Pages/Default.aspx

    As to the AG...please defer to who you wish to believe.

    But as I noted earlier the decision is made and the results will eventually come to light as to the costs of disposal, costs of travel without the aircraft AND costs in services.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    I am sure there are people on this forum that have skills their employer bill out at $500.00 an hour or more.
    There is a difference between the cost of a salary, and the cost of a consultant service. The typical model for a consultant is the revenues they charge break down as:

    1/3 Overhead (e.g. leasing premises)
    1/3 Staff (all the staff who work at the firm)
    1/3 Partner (the profit).

    For the cost of a government worker, the only one relevant is the second, as the first is fixed. So 1/3rd of your 500 "might" be a comparable, but as I noted, expecting someone to make a short simple trip is hardley outrageous. By your time claims, it would also be inappropriate to send someone from Calgary to Stony Plain, or from Edmonton to Okotoks.
    You are avoiding the point.

    As I have repeatedly said "when used properly"

    Time and a place...a single someone to Stony Plain from Calgary, depending on billing rate driving most likely makes sense.

    (4)...have to look at it harder

    Change destination...changes economics.

    As your consultants billing model, last one I met with (local) the rate was the rate, didn't matter whose office or what coffee shop.

    They control the rate you don't

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  57. #57

    Default

    ^^ My bad on Ontario but as mentioned there are far more remote locations there than we have.

    Thomas, running an enterprise like a museum, I'm sure you're familiar with how audits work. I manage a business that has tens of millions of dollars in revenue and expenses. We are audited extensively every year. Those reports are to say the least, detailed. I will always defer to forensic accounting reports (which is what an audit is) over someone's anecdotally driven opinion. I have no doubt regarding the amount of empirical evidence that led the AG report to its conclusions. And you have presented none to support your conclusion. Only "just you wait and see". Sorry, not good enough.

    Considering the scandals the PC government has dealt with this year thanks to Alison's empirical attitude they can't just do the right thing. They have to APPEAR to be doing the right thing - which is tubing the fleet. Sorry for the 27 getting pink-slipped but they will be fine getting a job in the hottest economy on the planet.
    Last edited by PJC; 17-09-2014 at 12:09 PM.

  58. #58

    Default

    Provincial Government aircraft…well they are making it harder to find them but…

    BC Government aircraft
    Air Ambulance
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...revac_response
    Firefighting
    http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/0...rritories.html
    Other

    Saskatchewan seems to still have theirs plus fire fighting aircraft
    http://gtds.gov.sk.ca/pages/Details....1-a9fc91634fdc

    Manitoba as well
    http://www.pilotcareercentre.com/Air...ce+of+Manitoba
    A more extensive fleet than Alberta

    Quebec…this link defines the Government of Quebec’s use of government aircraft, so they still have them
    http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gou.../C8_1_1_A.html

    Then there are a couple in the martimes but I don't have time to dig right now.

    Point being Alberta is not the only Province.

    Some even venture into their own fire fighting and air ambulance fleets, something we don't do.

    How they are specifically used is getting even more difficult to find on the net...I'll hit the aviation forums when I have time and see.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  59. #59

    Default

    ^so you are saying because other provinces have firefighting and amblance planes (something we do as well), and some have aircraft for burecrats, we should have a fleet of aircraft for sending around politicians and burecrats ? Great logic, but its not a game of keeping up with the Jones, its about what's fiscally responsible per the AG. Anyway, decisions been made, there will be no going back.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-09-2014 at 12:17 PM.

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PJC View Post
    ^^ My bad on Ontario but as mentioned there are far more remote locations there than we have.

    Thomas, running an enterprise like a museum, I'm sure you're familiar with how audits work. I manage a business that has tens of millions of dollars in revenue and expenses. We are audited extensively every year. Those reports are to say the least, detailed. I will always defer to forensic accounting reports (which is what an audit is) over someone's anecdotally driven opinion. I have no doubt regarding the amount of empirical evidence that led the AG report to its conclusions. And you have presented none to support your conclusion. Only "just you wait and see". Sorry, not good enough.

    Considering the scandals the PC government has dealt with this year thanks to Alison's empirical attitude they can't just do the right thing. They have to APPEAR to be doing the right thing - which is tubing the fleet. Sorry for the 27 getting pink-slipped but they will be fine getting a job in the hottest economy on the planet.
    I can appreciate our point of view PJC, particularly with the background you outline.

    Yes I am very familiar with audits...but seeing as I cannot access the AGs info I have to compare to private industry...where the cost savings is all over the net.

    I also agree that "politically" tubing the fleet is the right optics.

    But I read the report you mention and the AG didn't call for the tubbing the fleet...greater accountability (which I agree).

    As to the 27 ...senior pilots are likely to retire with a heck of a package.

    Maintenance personnel most likely move to go corporate wiht a great pay out.

    10 years...if the economy continues...Government of Albert will be buying again.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^so you are saying because other provinces have firefighting and amblance planes (something we do as well), and some have aircraft for burecrats, we should have a fleet of aircraft for sending around politicians and burecrats ? Great logic, but its not a game of keeping up with the Jones, its about what's fiscally responsible per the AG. Anyway, decisions been made, there will be no going back.
    Addressing the point "no other provinces have aircraft"

    No Alberta does not have fire fighting or air ambulance aircraft...they are private contractors.

    Manitoba has an expanded fleet with executive executive aircraft..Citation Jets.

    As does Ontario...King Airs

    So other than missing your point and not knowing what aircraft Alberta has, your point was...

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    No Alberta does not have fire fighting or air ambulance aircraft...they are private contractors.
    So its OK to contract out fire fighting aircraft, but its not ok to contract out charter flights? Both are occasional need requirements, and with the way technology is going for communications without travelling, I expect that will be even more the case in the future.

  63. #63

    Default

    How much of that government air travel is ceremonial. Cutting ribbons, photo ops etc. I guess it's nice to make an occasion of some things but don't make part of the occasion on a private jet. Plus, with those private planes gone it takes away the ruling parties chance of using them for none partisan purposes, which apparently, they did quite often.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  64. #64
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    How much of that government air travel is ceremonial. Cutting ribbons, photo ops etc. I guess it's nice to make an occasion of some things but don't make part of the occasion on a private jet. Plus, with those private planes gone it takes away the ruling parties chance of using them for none partisan purposes, which apparently, they did quite often.
    1) The Alberta government never owned any jets.
    2) If they're using them for non-partisan purposes, that's a good thing...

  65. #65
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Gemini, you are so short-sighted sometimes. You only see what you want to see, and ignore everything that doesn't fit into your little box. You're focusing on the few instances where the flights were abused, and ignoring all the other flights where PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES (non-elected people) flew to do their jobs. Educate yourself.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Yes I am very familiar with audits...but seeing as I cannot access the AGs info I have to compare to private industry...where the cost savings is all over the net.
    Well, if you are right and the AG is wrong, you should be really happy, because that will be great for aircraft industry in Alberta - as more spent on aircraft. If I, and the AG are right, and you are wrong, I guess it will be a bit of a shame for pilots and similar as there won't be as much waste, which they benefit from. Luckily, there's a shortage of trained aviation professionals.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    How much of that government air travel is ceremonial. Cutting ribbons, photo ops etc. I guess it's nice to make an occasion of some things but don't make part of the occasion on a private jet. Plus, with those private planes gone it takes away the ruling parties chance of using them for none partisan purposes, which apparently, they did quite often.
    1) The Alberta government never owned any jets.
    2) If they're using them for non-partisan purposes, that's a good thing...
    For partisan purposes..............
    Not sure if a type Beechcraft King Air(s) the government had is a small jet or plane.
    What does it matter, they are not going to be around to be used and abused anymore.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Gemini, you are so short-sighted sometimes. You only see what you want to see, and ignore everything that doesn't fit into your little box. You're focusing on the few instances where the flights were abused, and ignoring all the other flights where PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES (non-elected people) flew to do their jobs. Educate yourself.
    Well, those same PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES can now fly COMMERCIAL on the public dime. Why should the particular PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES you are talking about be PAMPERED for doing their jobs.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    No Alberta does not have fire fighting or air ambulance aircraft...they are private contractors.
    So its OK to contract out fire fighting aircraft, but its not ok to contract out charter flights? Both are occasional need requirements, and with the way technology is going for communications without travelling, I expect that will be even more the case in the future.
    Never said its ok...said that what we do.

    Fire Fighting is seasonal (ever hear of a forest fire in December in Alberta?), but even then there have been many times fire fighting aircraft were not available in numbers due to contracting or lack of lead time. (I would love to see the loses of forest due to to fires that went out of control).

    That said Alberta has (2) of the largest aerial fire suppression companies around and it is very seasonal.

    I have never understood contracting air ambulance...it is a year round issue and requires full time on stand by abilities which are expensive contracted.

    Plus other issues

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  70. #70

    Default

    PAMPERED
    Again...nothing pampered about a King Air, hope you looked at the pictures on the links I posted

    As to a King Air
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcr..._(BE10)_03.JPG

    Nothing fancy there and not a private jet.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  71. #71
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    No Alberta does not have fire fighting or air ambulance aircraft...they are private contractors.
    So its OK to contract out fire fighting aircraft, but its not ok to contract out charter flights? Both are occasional need requirements, and with the way technology is going for communications without travelling, I expect that will be even more the case in the future.
    Never said its ok...said that what we do.

    Fire Fighting is seasonal (ever hear of a forest fire in December in Alberta?), but even then there have been many times fire fighting aircraft were not available in numbers due to contracting or lack of lead time. (I would love to see the loses of forest due to to fires that went out of control).

    That said Alberta has (2) of the largest aerial fire suppression companies around and it is very seasonal.

    I have never understood contracting air ambulance...it is a year round issue and requires full time on stand by abilities which are expensive contracted.

    Plus other issues

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    bc actually has a much larger air fleet than alberta, they just choose to charter it rather than own it ( http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/minist...rtin-mars.html ):
    Wildfire Management Branch has the following 31 aircraft available for fighting wildfires in B.C.: 16 airtankers, 8 bird dogs, 6 medium-lift helicopters and 1 light-lift helicopter on long-term contract.
    besides, i don't think ownership is the issue. it doesn't matter to the user or the shareholders as an example if westjet or air canada own their planes or lease them. the question will still come down to whether or not they are being used appropriately. if determining that is better served not only by analyzing their cost effectiveness but by their perception (which can be at least as important as reality) through not owning them rather than owning them, then so be it.
    Last edited by kcantor; 17-09-2014 at 03:31 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  72. #72
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    (...)if determining that is better served not only by analyzing their cost effectiveness but by their perception (which can be at least as important as reality) through not owning them rather than owning them, then so be it.
    exactly...

    It is not like they cannot charter....
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  73. #73
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Gemini, you are so short-sighted sometimes. You only see what you want to see, and ignore everything that doesn't fit into your little box. You're focusing on the few instances where the flights were abused, and ignoring all the other flights where PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES (non-elected people) flew to do their jobs. Educate yourself.
    Well, those same PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES can now fly COMMERCIAL on the public dime. Why should the particular PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES you are talking about be PAMPERED for doing their jobs.
    Once again, educate yourself. You clearly have no idea what airplanes they're flying on because you don't do any research, or click the links that Tom is posting.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  74. #74

    Default

    ^Obviously you do not fly to much on commercial planes. You know, the ones were you have to be at the airport way before take of. The ones were you are packed in like sardines, were you fight with the overhead luggage compartment. Were you have to put up with noisy kids, people eating potato chips or someone who had half a pound of garlic the night before. If Tom is pointing out that the government fleet is not as cushy as it sounds it's still a heck of a lot better than what most commercial flights offer. You get driven to the airport, maybe right onto the tarmac or at least to the closest hangar. Get on a plane where there is more seat and leg room. If your lucky there might be a handful of your peers flying. If your very lucky you could have the whole plane to yourself. You get off and maybe get picked up by a waiting car. No, I don't agree with your rational for keeping them just because your mother once had a flight on a government plane. Big woop. There are plenty of charter companies who can pick up government business. Maybe by not having government planes it might stop a lot of flying around for totally bogus photo ops.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  75. #75
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Oh, she went on government flights more than once. She used to tell me tales of the champagne they'd sip while dabbing their faces with napkins woven from $100 bill fibers. The spa service she received was top-notch as well.

    The funny thing is that you would rather have government employees wasting their time getting to the airport early, going through security, spending time waiting for the plane... time that WE are paying for. I'd rather have people, you know, actually working for US than spending their time doing stupid stuff like that.

    And I really don't care that my mom was on a government place. I brought it up because she wasn't a politician that you seem to think only fly on these planes and she wasn't going to a ribbon-cutting ceremony, she was using the plane to get from point A to B to do her job.

    And at this point I'm bowing out of the conversation. I've said all I have to say, so you can have the last (uneducated) word on the matter, Gemini.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  76. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    but by their perception (which can be at least as important as reality) through not owning them rather than owning them, then so be it.
    Agreed...its not if its right or wrong, its about looking good to those that think its a Gulfstream service.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Oh, she went on government flights more than once. She used to tell me tales of the champagne they'd sip while dabbing their faces with napkins woven from $100 bill fibers. The spa service she received was top-notch as well.

    The funny thing is that you would rather have government employees wasting their time getting to the airport early, going through security, spending time waiting for the plane... time that WE are paying for. I'd rather have people, you know, actually working for US than spending their time doing stupid stuff like that.

    And I really don't care that my mom was on a government place. I brought it up because she wasn't a politician that you seem to think only fly on these planes and she wasn't going to a ribbon-cutting ceremony, she was using the plane to get from point A to B to do her job.

    And at this point I'm bowing out of the conversation. I've said all I have to say, so you can have the last (uneducated) word on the matter, Gemini.
    Highlighted by me.
    Now your just being stupid.

    Don't talk to me about the Provincial Government. I worked for them for many years. I'm not a total outsider to their excesses. I'm not a total outsider to when they get things absolutely right either. I've worked plenty of overtime in government offices were the clerks got a pittance to spend on their supper and the managers had expense accounts that afforded them steak and lobster. I've met ministers that appeared to be barracudas
    but were real nice people. Then there are the pr!cks that think the world revolves around them. I've spend a few days on government courses were people have driven (used their own vehicles) to be at the same course. Given lunch tickets for the canteen and if we did not want to eat there in the evening we bought our own food at a restaurant or a mall food court.
    Then to round the week off nicely people who were on these courses had to find their own way home, to Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Calgary, Grande Prairie and a few places in between. The government may have used those planes to fly people around the province but it sure in heck was not anyone I worked along side.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Oh, she went on government flights more than once. She used to tell me tales of the champagne they'd sip while dabbing their faces with napkins woven from $100 bill fibers. The spa service she received was top-notch as well.

    The funny thing is that you would rather have government employees wasting their time getting to the airport early, going through security, spending time waiting for the plane... time that WE are paying for. I'd rather have people, you know, actually working for US than spending their time doing stupid stuff like that.

    And I really don't care that my mom was on a government place. I brought it up because she wasn't a politician that you seem to think only fly on these planes and she wasn't going to a ribbon-cutting ceremony, she was using the plane to get from point A to B to do her job.

    And at this point I'm bowing out of the conversation. I've said all I have to say, so you can have the last (uneducated) word on the matter, Gemini.
    Highlighted by me.
    Now your just being stupid.

    Don't talk to me about the Provincial Government. I worked for them for many years. I'm not a total outsider to their excesses. I'm not a total outsider to when they get things absolutely right either. I've worked plenty of overtime in government offices were the clerks got a pittance to spend on their supper and the managers had expense accounts that afforded them steak and lobster. I've met ministers that appeared to be barracudas
    but were real nice people. Then there are the pr!cks that think the world revolves around them. I've spend a few days on government courses were people have driven (used their own vehicles) to be at the same course. Given lunch tickets for the canteen and if we did not want to eat there in the evening we bought our own food at a restaurant or a mall food court.
    Then to round the week off nicely people who were on these courses had to find their own way home, to Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Calgary, Grande Prairie and a few places in between. The government may have used those planes to fly people around the province but it sure in heck was not anyone I worked along side.
    Holy cow Thomas, I don't know how many times you have to repeat yourself to Moa and Gemini. Wow.

    I think everything Thomas has said makes sense. I think Gemini and Moa are just letting their personal views of the PC Party cloud their judgement.

    1) Were the planes abused by the PC Party? Yes. Particularly by Redford and so therefore politicians who abused the planes should be suspended as a penalty.

    2) Do the planes save the government itself (not the PC Party) money? Yes (as CLEARLY outlined by Thomas many many times)

    3) Do the lower ranking government peons have to drive sometimes? Yes, of course. Not everyone can take the plane as it isn't feasible to do that. But I'm sure if they had a meeting in Calgary and a spot was open in the plane they'd probably be given the opportunity to use it. If a meeting was up in Slave Lake or High Prairie and there was no flight readily available... well, here are the keys to the sedan...

  79. #79

    Default

    Uh, the Auditor General disagrees with your point #2.

    Last month’s Special Duty Report from Alberta’s Auditor General identified several misuses of government aircraft. The report also showed that the ATS program cost $3.9 million more than comparable travel alternatives in 2012.
    http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xid=37...07b1a102b3687d

    The fact you've cited Gem & Moa's PC party biases & not Thomas' massive interest in the GA industry is a little hilarious too.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  80. #80

    Default

    Let's remember that if Thomas would have had his way there'd be no 63 story tower downtown. He was quite vocal about his personal opinion about keeping the airport open. There's more than a little bias on his part regarding the planes.

    What we need is a two pronged approach to life without Alberta Air. First, we need to look at commercial and charter services WHEN NECESSARY.

    Second, we need to look at why we're sending so many high priced employees to the far reaches in the first place. With video conferencing we can probably cut a sizeable percentage of the travel right out of the equation.

    Just because it's been done this way in the past doesn't mean we're required to continue to do so in the future. Let's keep the high priced taken in the office where they can do their work instead of sending them hither and yon. You can have a face to face meeting with a laptop on either end. Presentations are almost as easy.

  81. #81

    Default

    Yeah, it's always wonderful when people who haven't worked for the government seem to know it's inner workings. The people at the top travelling first class and the front line workers better get there even if they have to walk. I also agree that Thomas is biased in his Air Alberta stance even his signature suggests it. He is entitled to his opinion though, like every one else. Or someone who thinks Air Alberta is a good idea simply for the fact their relative boarded it. Reminds me of a person they interviewed when they were voting to close down the CC airport. This women said they should keep it open as she remembered very well the day her grandfather flew out of the airport in 1962 to go to Moose Jaw. Well, I'm thinking, if there is ever a reason to keep the airport open it's that one. I don't buy into the notion that it's not an actual comfortable ride to fly Air Alberta either. Air Kings are not all that comfortable blah, blah, blah. Well, put it this way. It's probably way more comfortable than driving to Edmonton from Grande Prairie on a Sunday night in a snowstorm because your government supervisor has sent you to a course. The reasons your driving is because the government department you work for would not even spring for a commercial flight. Oh yes, and not to forget you can't spend more than $20 for your supper or your expense claim will be forensically audited. No doubt they would be stupid enough to fly an auditor on a government plane to do the audit because you ripped the department off for $4.67.
    Last edited by Gemini; 18-09-2014 at 11:23 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  82. #82
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Let's remember that if Thomas would have had his way there'd be no 63 story tower downtown. He was quite vocal about his personal opinion about keeping the airport open. There's more than a little bias on his part regarding the planes.
    I think Tom would be quick to point out that the tower could have been built with the airport open and a few changes to the airport protection overlay by city council which would have been relatively simple given that the tower isn't being built under the runway 16/34 or 12/30 approach/departure, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.

    And really, how did YXD come up anyway? How does it have ANYTHING to do with this discussion??

  83. #83

    Default

    ^You would have to read all the posts to find out how the CC airport came into the picture. Threads don't always stick to a set script, fact.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  84. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Oh, she went on government flights more than once. She used to tell me tales of the champagne they'd sip while dabbing their faces with napkins woven from $100 bill fibers. The spa service she received was top-notch as well.

    The funny thing is that you would rather have government employees wasting their time getting to the airport early, going through security, spending time waiting for the plane... time that WE are paying for. I'd rather have people, you know, actually working for US than spending their time doing stupid stuff like that.

    And I really don't care that my mom was on a government place. I brought it up because she wasn't a politician that you seem to think only fly on these planes and she wasn't going to a ribbon-cutting ceremony, she was using the plane to get from point A to B to do her job.

    And at this point I'm bowing out of the conversation. I've said all I have to say, so you can have the last (uneducated) word on the matter, Gemini.
    Highlighted by me.
    Now your just being stupid.

    Don't talk to me about the Provincial Government. I worked for them for many years. I'm not a total outsider to their excesses. I'm not a total outsider to when they get things absolutely right either. I've worked plenty of overtime in government offices were the clerks got a pittance to spend on their supper and the managers had expense accounts that afforded them steak and lobster. I've met ministers that appeared to be barracudas
    but were real nice people. Then there are the pr!cks that think the world revolves around them. I've spend a few days on government courses were people have driven (used their own vehicles) to be at the same course. Given lunch tickets for the canteen and if we did not want to eat there in the evening we bought our own food at a restaurant or a mall food court.
    Then to round the week off nicely people who were on these courses had to find their own way home, to Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Calgary, Grande Prairie and a few places in between. The government may have used those planes to fly people around the province but it sure in heck was not anyone I worked along side.
    Holy cow Thomas, I don't know how many times you have to repeat yourself to Moa and Gemini. Wow.

    I think everything Thomas has said makes sense. I think Gemini and Moa are just letting their personal views of the PC Party cloud their judgement.

    1) Were the planes abused by the PC Party? Yes. Particularly by Redford and so therefore politicians who abused the planes should be suspended as a penalty.

    2) Do the planes save the government itself (not the PC Party) money? Yes (as CLEARLY outlined by Thomas many many times)

    3) Do the lower ranking government peons have to drive sometimes? Yes, of course. Not everyone can take the plane as it isn't feasible to do that. But I'm sure if they had a meeting in Calgary and a spot was open in the plane they'd probably be given the opportunity to use it. If a meeting was up in Slave Lake or High Prairie and there was no flight readily available... well, here are the keys to the sedan...
    Holy cow, were do you get your half baked ideas from. Is there a book you can buy. Is Thomas the leading financial expert on Air Alberta or are they just maintained and kept in a hangar were he works?. I do know the AG said that the Government could save money by getting rid of the fleet. Thomas, I am sure is very competent at what he does
    but he is not the AG in charge of taxpayers money. As for lower ranking government peons (your words) hitching a ride on Air Alberta or if no seat available giving the keys to the sedan (by the way, Redford replaced the sedans with Escalades, try to keep up). There must be a village out there that is looking for you.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Uh, the Auditor General disagrees with your point #2.

    Last month’s Special Duty Report from Alberta’s Auditor General identified several misuses of government aircraft. The report also showed that the ATS program cost $3.9 million more than comparable travel alternatives in 2012.
    http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xid=37...07b1a102b3687d

    The fact you've cited Gem & Moa's PC party biases & not Thomas' massive interest in the GA industry is a little hilarious too.
    Lol, bingo. I have my beef with the PCs but that's more related to broken trust and in power to long, this is something they have done I agree with, the second good move by Prentice (license being another.- he has to stop doing this lol, I don't want to have to vote for the PCs). How anyone other than someone with an interest is supporting general aviation can conclude that it makes more sense for government employees to fly on government planes rather than commercial ones, when 99 percent of the flights they make can easily be met by scheduled service (and a charter for those others), is beyond me. When Prentice needs to go to Vulcan, I like the idea of him weighing up the options of jumping in his car in his Calgary home (if that's where his electorate will be), and having a 30 minute longer drive than his normal commute, versus chartering for thousands of dollars a flight from his office in Edmonton, if the costs are transparent the choices will be to, the later choice would be better for general aviation in Alberta, but the former one is much better for us paying the price. As to time savings, you might as well advocate that government own retail liquor stores as well to save politiicians and burecrats time because you could supply booze faster to them for events if it was a government agency in charge like in Ontario
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-09-2014 at 05:59 AM.

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JBear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Oh, she went on government flights more than once. She used to tell me tales of the champagne they'd sip while dabbing their faces with napkins woven from $100 bill fibers. The spa service she received was top-notch as well.

    The funny thing is that you would rather have government employees wasting their time getting to the airport early, going through security, spending time waiting for the plane... time that WE are paying for. I'd rather have people, you know, actually working for US than spending their time doing stupid stuff like that.

    And I really don't care that my mom was on a government place. I brought it up because she wasn't a politician that you seem to think only fly on these planes and she wasn't going to a ribbon-cutting ceremony, she was using the plane to get from point A to B to do her job.

    And at this point I'm bowing out of the conversation. I've said all I have to say, so you can have the last (uneducated) word on the matter, Gemini.
    Highlighted by me.
    Now your just being stupid.

    Don't talk to me about the Provincial Government. I worked for them for many years. I'm not a total outsider to their excesses. I'm not a total outsider to when they get things absolutely right either. I've worked plenty of overtime in government offices were the clerks got a pittance to spend on their supper and the managers had expense accounts that afforded them steak and lobster. I've met ministers that appeared to be barracudas
    but were real nice people. Then there are the pr!cks that think the world revolves around them. I've spend a few days on government courses were people have driven (used their own vehicles) to be at the same course. Given lunch tickets for the canteen and if we did not want to eat there in the evening we bought our own food at a restaurant or a mall food court.
    Then to round the week off nicely people who were on these courses had to find their own way home, to Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Calgary, Grande Prairie and a few places in between. The government may have used those planes to fly people around the province but it sure in heck was not anyone I worked along side.
    Holy cow Thomas, I don't know how many times you have to repeat yourself to Moa and Gemini. Wow.

    I think everything Thomas has said makes sense. I think Gemini and Moa are just letting their personal views of the PC Party cloud their judgement.

    1) Were the planes abused by the PC Party? Yes. Particularly by Redford and so therefore politicians who abused the planes should be suspended as a penalty.

    2) Do the planes save the government itself (not the PC Party) money? Yes (as CLEARLY outlined by Thomas many many times)

    3) Do the lower ranking government peons have to drive sometimes? Yes, of course. Not everyone can take the plane as it isn't feasible to do that. But I'm sure if they had a meeting in Calgary and a spot was open in the plane they'd probably be given the opportunity to use it. If a meeting was up in Slave Lake or High Prairie and there was no flight readily available... well, here are the keys to the sedan...
    Holy cow, were do you get your half baked ideas from. Is there a book you can buy. Is Thomas the leading financial expert on Air Alberta or are they just maintained and kept in a hangar were he works?. I do know the AG said that the Government could save money by getting rid of the fleet. Thomas, I am sure is very competent at what he does
    but he is not the AG in charge of taxpayers money. As for lower ranking government peons (your words) hitching a ride on Air Alberta or if no seat available giving the keys to the sedan (by the way, Redford replaced the sedans with Escalades, try to keep up). There must be a village out there that is looking for you.

    BTW I'm also a "lower ranking government peon". I meant no disrespect by it and apologize to any taken.

    a) Personal attacks are pretty low. Was that really necessary and have you no shame?
    b) He does make sense when it comes to cutting travel time and therefore cutting other expenses. Like everyone has said on here, No one really knows if this is going to cost more or less but I'm going to speculate that it will.
    c) I don't see how Thomas' love of GA comes into play. Does he or the museum somehow profit from the gov't having these planes?

  87. #87

    Default

    Wow

    Typical C2E

    You can't discuss without going down to the typical personal attacks.

    Dredging up YXD, come on now lets get real

    No I don't work in the hangar with the Government aircraft...you might recall they are now at the International Airport not the former YXD.

    Finances...

    Lets see
    I read the AG report as linked by the media and I do recall any break out of MLA abuses and uses vs Government worker transport. Seeing as I have already stated I'm fine with elected officials off the aircraft I wonder how that would effect the AG number, particularly with the out of province flights off the books.

    Not a financial expert but have done a ton of research on business aircraft use (which is how this should be treated) and it doesn't take long on a google to see the cost savings advantages to a properly run flight operation...particularly in terms of lost productivity.

    But this going typical C2E fashion so I'm out....time will show how it works out, if ever released.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  88. #88
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,557

    Default

    The debate here is odd. They only thing that should matter is efficiency and cost. All the talk about pampered civil servants and such is irrelevant. If it's cheaper and more efficient to fly them around then that's what we should be doing. If it's cheaper and more efficient for them to drive or fly commercial then that's what we should be doing.

    Personally I don't know which is the most cost effective way but I do think Prentice's decision was based more on optics than on any detailed analysis.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    If it's cheaper and more efficient to fly them around then that's what we should be doing. If it's cheaper and more efficient for them to drive or fly commercial then that's what we should be doing.
    While I think scrapping the planes was the cheapest move and the one which will bring the most fiscal accountability, I'm not convinced that's the only reason to do it. Politically, for a conservative party, you should be supporting the private sector to suceed, rather than building up the public sector (the government doesn't need to own bus companies for when it takes a bus, or catering companeis for when it needs a meal), and using commercial providers is consistent with that.

  90. #90

    Default

    They only thing that should matter is efficiency and cost.
    Thank you Paul

    And the efficiency and cost "includes" lost time, productivity and other expenses just as it does in the corporate world.

    but I do think Prentice's decision was based more on optics than on any detailed analysis.
    Agreed completely

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    If it's cheaper and more efficient to fly them around then that's what we should be doing. If it's cheaper and more efficient for them to drive or fly commercial then that's what we should be doing.
    While I think scrapping the planes was the cheapest move and the one which will bring the most fiscal accountability, I'm not convinced that's the only reason to do it. Politically, for a conservative party, you should be supporting the private sector to suceed, rather than building up the public sector (the government doesn't need to own bus companies for when it takes a bus, or catering companeis for when it needs a meal), and using commercial providers is consistent with that.
    Yes and I agree with you, unless there is a way to save money for the gov't, with of course not being short-sighted and actually costing more in the long run, which I doubt sticking with the fleet does.

  92. #92
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    If it's cheaper and more efficient to fly them around then that's what we should be doing. If it's cheaper and more efficient for them to drive or fly commercial then that's what we should be doing.
    While I think scrapping the planes was the cheapest move and the one which will bring the most fiscal accountability, I'm not convinced that's the only reason to do it. Politically, for a conservative party, you should be supporting the private sector to suceed, rather than building up the public sector (the government doesn't need to own bus companies for when it takes a bus, or catering companeis for when it needs a meal), and using commercial providers is consistent with that.
    So you think the government should use private sector even if it costs more and therefor results in higher taxes?

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    ]So you think the government should use private sector even if it costs more and therefor results in higher taxes?
    Yes, companies employ people and they pay taxes on their profits when they are more efficient than government (when they are not, compeitition will get their contracts), so those higher costs come back in revenue / economic growth. If you don't think that, the logical conclusion is government should run everything, like a communist government (or Ontario of late).

  94. #94
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    They only thing that should matter is efficiency and cost.
    Thank you Paul

    And the efficiency and cost "includes" lost time, productivity and other expenses just as it does in the corporate world.

    but I do think Prentice's decision was based more on optics than on any detailed analysis.
    Agreed completely

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    except it's not just about efficiency and cost versus optics.

    just as it's perfectly valid - if not outright necessary - to balance efficiency and cost, it's just as valid - if not outright necessary - to balance both of them against or with the optics.

    optics are just as important and in some cases more important than efficiency and cost. to dismiss optics and/or decisions that reflect optics as trivial or as a distraction is simply wrong.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  95. #95

    Default

    Not sure how much they will get for these planes but whatever they get can be turned over and put back into the finance bucket. Or maybe towards commercial travel. I heard 27 people will loose their jobs once the planes are gone. Very unfortunate but we are in a hot economy where I am sure their skills will be picked up by other companies. Not sure if the hangar the were in was leased but I'm sure wherever they were housed was not free. Would be interesting to know how much and how often the fleet was used. Was half of it sitting idle on any given day. Anyway, they are gone now. The temptation is not there to abuse them and the taxpayers money that pays for them. Serving the public should not mean helping yourself.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  96. #96
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Not sure how much they will get for these planes but whatever they get can be turned over and put back into the finance bucket. Or maybe towards commercial travel. I heard 27 people will loose their jobs once the planes are gone. Very unfortunate but we are in a hot economy where I am sure their skills will be picked up by other companies.
    You're right...as far as pilot jobs in Alberta, this was highly sought after. Based at YEG, home almost every night, government pension/benefits, etc. I'm sure the government had their pick of the creme de la creme of holders of Dash 8/King Air type ratings.

  97. #97
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    On an aside, are any of the fleet historic? If so perhaps the aviation museum might be able to convince the government to donate it.

  98. #98

    Default

    If what I read on an aviation forum is true this is very unfortunate.

    If true...apparently the 27 employees found out they were losing their jobs through the media and as of the post made yesterday have yet to be informed officially.

    If true....Nice

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    On an aside, are any of the fleet historic? If so perhaps the aviation museum might be able to convince the government to donate it.
    Thanks for the thought Sundance but no none are historic.

    The oldest, a King Air 100 IIRC, would make a great aircraft to set up as a fixed wing air ambulance display (part of the story we are not able to tell right now) but it is a valuable sought after aircraft so I don't see it happening by any stretch.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    If what I read on an aviation forum is true this is very unfortunate.

    If true...apparently the 27 employees found out they were losing their jobs through the media and as of the post made yesterday have yet to be informed officially.

    If true....Nice

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Someone should have told them just before announced publically (obviously couldn't be well in advance as would leak out). That is very disappointing regardless of whether support this decision or not.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •