It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada to buy 16 new Airbus search-and-rescue planes for $2.3 billion

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Fairly old news, but I don' t understand the price tag.
The Star

The announcement, which includes an option for a 20-year maintenance contract that would increase the price-tag to $4.7 billion, has been a long time coming.


Thats 293 million dollars apiece for a plane that other countries seem to be purchasing for around 30 million a piece.
Why can't Canada maintain their own planes?
Hell for that price they could have bough 150 of them and just thrown them away when they broke down.
Canadas procurement system sucks donkey balls, always has.
Old Brian Mulroney was caught accepting bags of money from Airbus, wonder who got it this time.



edit on 30-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
Fairly old news, but I don' t understand the price tag.
The Star

The announcement, which includes an option for a 20-year maintenance contract that would increase the price-tag to $4.7 billion, has been a long time coming.


Thats 293 million dollars apiece for a plane that other countries seem to be purchasing for around 30 million a piece.
Why can't Canada maintain their own planes?
Hell for that price they could have bough 150 of them and just thrown them away when they broke down.
Canadas procurement system sucks donkey balls, always has.
Old Brian Mulroney was caught accepting bags of money from Airbus, wonder who got it this time.




Canada has always bought used planes from the US and were always out of date. My guess is maintenance on those old ones with new technology today has been costing more than the purchase of new planes.

My question is why can't Canada LEASE these planes instead? That way it would be more cheaper to run and stream line the costs? $293M per plane PLUS maintenance will cost more in the long run but on the other hand give Canadians ownership of them.

I don't know about this purchase. Kind of fishy if you ask me....someone is going to make a killing off this deal!
edit on 30-1-2017 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

One more thing...if this is under Trudeau...Canada is going to be in a big f#ing hole in debt after this PM is through. I hope the term "impeachment" comes up in headlines after 2017 is done.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Yes, leasing would be a great idea.
I've looked into the contract, airbus basically gets to set up shop in Canada and build all the infrastructure associated with the maintenance of these 15 planes, the price is outrageous, yet there is nothing said in the media. It's a complete fraud somewhere along the line. Thats enough money to buy 150 of these planes, not 15.
If Canada can't service their own equipment, it's time to rethink the way they are operating.

Maybe there are some aviation enthusiasts that would understand this issue better than I do that could chime in.
edit on 30-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I am outrageously looking at the Canadian Debt Clock under Trudeau and it is bloody scary

www.debtclock.ca...

Every second the debt goes up $1,000.00

Think about that! OMFG



edit on 31-1-2017 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Canada can't currently build their own aircraft. Their Aerospace industry is in bad shape.

Leasing costs you more in the long run, and leaves you with nothing at the end. Your limited in upgrades you can do, as well as other drawbacks.

Purchase contracts aren't just for the aircraft. They include modifications to the basic aircraft, training and support, in some cases simulators, spare parts and engines, etc. There's a lot more to that price than just the aircraft itself.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

I know, I'm scared to click that link...

Pretty boy is digging a big hole.

His carbon tax will be his undoing, he is an idiot, did he not see the way it worked out in Ontario?

Energy is so expensive there it's driving business's bankrupt.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes understood it's more than just the price of the aircraft, but 10 times more?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

This is an example.

www.dsca.mil...

32 F-18s, at list price would be $3.1B, roughly. The other $7B is spares, training, support equipment.

With the C-295 deal, they're having to build the infrastructure from nothing. That includes brand new support equipment and everything else, down to hangars.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They are replacing existing aircraft, a different model, but still it's not like they didn't have a search and rescue program. The Canadian procurement system is famous for buying (or paying cancellation fees for products they said they were going to buy and don't) overpriced systems.
I wish the media would get onboard and make the people realize this.
It's 10 times the purchase cost of the planes themselves, thats outrageous.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Just because they're both search and rescue aircraft doesn't make them the same. They currently use CC-115 Buffalo and CC-130 Hercules for search and rescue. Both have radically different support requirements. The Hercules is quite a bit larger, and the Buffalo is smaller. The Hercules is also used on an as needed basis and isn't a true dedicated SAR platform.

That price includes 20 years of support. It's actually a good price for the entire deal.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I don't know.. those are actual CASA planes not Airbus - build under the Airbus brand but not designed by Airbus. No offense to the Spanish but CASA planes don't have like the best track record.

Also they don't buy "canada-only" aircrafts. The payload in this 295's is pretty much standardized and all the individual customer selects is the sensor package. So I highly doubt that 90% of the cost of each aircraft is a simulator or spare parts.

Something very fishy with this deal. Now Airbus already maintains service facilities within Canada as well a dedicated Helicopter Shop.. So Airbus gets a free aircraft shop with this deal? Paid by the canadian tax payers...



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It is a cradle to grave price, yes.
Canada did need new planes.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Maintenance cost on a airplane over 20 years is not 900% of the aircrafts price.

Edit: Except Airbus throws in unlimited fuel ...
edit on 31-1-2017 by flyandi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes, they did. The CC-115 first flew in 1968.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: flyandi

Did you miss the part where I said this deal will include spare parts, hangars, and other infrastructure? Aircraft deals, when you're buying an entirely new type of aircraft aren't cheap. You don't have any of the required support in place and setting it up is expensive.

The Philippines ordered 3 C-295s, and paid over $100M for them.
edit on 1/31/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Maybe a dumb question (I haven't really studied it too much), but why didn't Canada opt for the C-27J instead?

Slightly higher unit cost, but there would have been economies of scale with the remaining US fleet of C-27's. Plus, they're already built and there's an assembly plant in FL (which could be relocated to Canada without too much difficulty).

It's a better plane.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The 295 has a lower per hour rate, as well as lower procurement cost. The C-27J, and KC-390 were offered in this competition.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, but there's more than (16) practically brand new C-27J's sitting at Davis Monthan. Some of them, their only flight was to DM (which is a colossal waste, but that's another story). Seems like they could have worked out a pretty sweet deal with the US on those. This, plus the economies of scale, seemingly would have had a significant impact on procurement costs anyway.

I don't know, just a thought.

ETA...The KC-390 is a whole lot more airplane, and a whole lot more money too. Almost 2x as much.

edit on 1/31/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

No there aren't. The Coast Guard got most of them. The Forest Service was interested in some, and SOCOM got the rest.

Also, EADS refused to support them if the Pentagon sold them to another country, so they wouldn't have had any warranty and there would have been support issues.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join