But there has to be a better way to transport Prime Ministerial delegations, and the troops and freight the planes are also used for than these unreliable planes.
Defence Minister Judith Collins is right that when the economy is in such bad shape it’s not the right time to be contemplating the expense of new planes, but when is the right time and what can be done to ensure more reliable transport until it is?
It’s more than time to apply some plane – and plain – sense to the issue.
The Taxpayers’ Union suggests leasing one of Australia’s VIP military aircraft, as and when required :
It’s more than time to apply some plane – and plain – sense to the issue.
The Taxpayers’ Union suggests leasing one of Australia’s VIP military aircraft, as and when required :
. . . New Zealand used to have a deal with the Australians to use federal VIP land transport. If we can do that for the limos, why not for the planes?
“The Australians have a fleet of two 737 Boeing Business Jets and three Challenger 604s operated by the Australian military but maintained by QANTAS. . .
That might be an option, but what’s wrong with commercial flights?
The NZDF plane is used when business delegations accompany the PM, but why should the taxpayer be paying for them.
Such trips would be legitimate business expenses for the companies, and the people going must do so in the expectation they will make deals that make the trips worthwhile.
There would be a benefit to taxpayers in that if they then increase export income, make better profits and pay more tax. But surely the bigger return on the investment in travel would be to the businesses themselves and that should be enough to justify them paying their own airfares.
Using the NZDF planes allows a bigger media contingent to accompany the travellers, but does the taxpayer get enough value from that to justify the cost?
Neither leasing Australia’s planes nor commercial flights would work for the freight and troops the NZDF 757s are used for, but both would stop the inconvenience and embarrassment of these far too common breakdowns.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
1 comment:
What few realise is that a modern aircraft needs to be constantly in use to avoid mechanical and system failures. A commercial airliner is in the air for much of the time - otherwise it is not earning money. A military aircraft like the 757 (and the 737s before these) only fly spasmodically. The NZDF does not have the money or the operational need to keep them flying at a rate of effort anywhere near that of a commercial aircraft.
And the 757s are in the inventory to facilitate the transport of large numbers of troops to deployments, for medivac, or for freight movement. None of these roles are time critical - that is less of an issue than it is for a commercial aircraft that has schedules to maitain for fare-paying passengers. Their availability for Ministerial tasking is a secondary role.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.