Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Blackmac

The original "ORANGE"?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, GrayHorizons said:

 

So I vote for better coverage 

I'd rather see a smaller twins dotted in every major city across the whole province than some oversized cadillac model in only a few. Thats money well spent if its managed right. thats not selfish of me is it? Its not for me to decide this though. So I hope our government see's this too and adds this to their list of things to clean up. Its why I voted for them.

Smaller twins in every major city. OK. Ontario has 52 cities. Let’s say half are major? Now you go from 8 in service  with 2 more backup aircraft to what? 26 small twins and another 8 backup small twins. Minimum 160 pilots and medics up to 520.

10 Cadillacs to 34 taxis.

160 staff to 520. 

No wonder you like Doug Ford. He spent over 200 million to get rid of the 7 million dollar man. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bacon Inbound said:

Smaller twins in every major city. OK. Ontario has 52 cities. Let’s say half are major? Now you go from 8 in service  with 2 more backup aircraft to what? 26 small twins and another 8 backup small twins. Minimum 160 pilots and medics up to 520.

10 Cadillacs to 34 taxis.

160 staff to 520. 

No wonder you like Doug Ford. He spent over 200 million to get rid of the 7 million dollar man. 

does it bring better service for the money paid? 

then bring it on.

 

 

BTW - whatever happened to the 7 million dollar man  was a long time coming, and he never should have made that salary to begin with. you cannot argue that fact.

So in essence, to stop the bleeding, the arm had to be cut off. Consider how many more years that leach could have run the company and stole taxpayers money compared to the final payout that stopped it. I would like to see where the 200 million quote came from, can you offer a link? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blackmac said:

As an observer and Taxpayer, if a proper analysis was done prior, to the procurement of the of the AW139 and the PC12 by people that had an actual logistical background in transportation, in conjunction with the scope of the requirement from the Medical Branch there would have been a different outcome

From a procurement point of view, the request for (RFP) proposal must be fair to the public, achievable and by more than one entity.

If the procurement is slated around one supplier, it becomes a sole source contract.

I would love to see a copy of the RFP and subsequent evaluation.

Normally, prior to issuing an actual RFP, a letter of interest is posted on Merx to see what is available on the market.

From the list of responses from the suppliers, an actual RFP is formulated. 

As taxpayers, we all know that the previous government played games with our revenue like it was a monopoly game.

It gives you second thought on how honest are Public Servants are.

Politics are one thing Corruption is another.

IMHO

I also believe with an RFP, there has to be an independent review of some sort especially with government contracts. They themselves cited high fuel costs and complexity of the aircraft as reasons to consider other aircraft. Fuel hasnt gotten cheaper and the only saving grace is the engineers learn over time.

If the RFP is completely done in house, it lends fact that it can remain biased and in this case to protect the shady choices and the people involved to begin with. There's no doubt more high profile people were involved than just Mazza. They had their fall guy, no need to let more heads roll.

Imagine the further embarassment, as they are trying to recover from all the previous bruhaha under Mazza that the best choice actually wasn't their first choice with the 139. We all know the purchase went to Agusta because of the kickbacks and whatnot. No wonder other aircraft weren't considered. The other manufacturers wouldn't play ball.

Be a hard pill to swallow to admit further defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GrayHorizons said:

does it bring better service for the money paid? 

then bring it on.

 

 

BTW - whatever happened to the 7 million dollar man  was a long time coming, and he never should have made that salary to begin with. you cannot argue that fact.

So in essence, to stop the bleeding, the arm had to be cut off. Consider how many more years that leach could have run the company and stole taxpayers money compared to the final payout that stopped it. I would like to see where the 200 million quote came from, can you offer a link? 

 

 

 

Gray, 18Speed reckoned on around 8-10million per Ac for the question I asked - does that seem reasonable for an IFR Ac. Ornge has 11 Ac so that's 88-110 mill just for the RW; is 18Speed way off the mark?? [just by way of background info - one of our regular routes is 1h5 @ 145kts each way or a 4-5hr drive by land ambulance]

Would your idea of light twins in each city be able to carry the equipment required by the MOHLTC? I would guess only the H145, in the lt twin market, would have the capability of going to the H1 pads in the GTA. An H145 is US$9.7 mill new or 8 used......CHL must have chosen the S76 for a reason. Ornge, I believe, chose the AW139 due to the Cat A and icing capability. Plus apparently other things I've read in the news............neither are small Ac.....

To be able to staff twice the Ac and hence twice the people you'd have to half the wages of all frontline staff.

So how much would you charge (just rough ballpark numbers) for the 34 Cat A light twins with 240 ATPL pilots in 26 bases with maintenance & infrastructure? I don't disagree with your premise; just how much will the 'new idea' cost? Especially considering the Ac cannot be used for anything else, at any time, every day of every year.

How many hours would you need the Ac to fly to make a profit?

[While we are solving the provincial woes, maybe we should replace the huge ambulances we now have with minivans and just have more of them......they cost MILLIONS ;) joke]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GrayHorizons said:

I also believe with an RFP, there has to be an independent review of some sort especially with government contracts. They themselves cited high fuel costs and complexity of the aircraft as reasons to consider other aircraft. Fuel hasnt gotten cheaper and the only saving grace is the engineers learn over time.

If the RFP is completely done in house, it lends fact that it can remain biased and in this case to protect the shady choices and the people involved to begin with. There's no doubt more high profile people were involved than just Mazza. They had their fall guy, no need to let more heads roll.

Imagine the further embarassment, as they are trying to recover from all the previous bruhaha under Mazza that the best choice actually wasn't their first choice with the 139. We all know the purchase went to Agusta because of the kickbacks and whatnot. No wonder other aircraft weren't considered. The other manufacturers wouldn't play ball.

Be a hard pill to swallow to admit further defeat.

RFPs and RFIs are done for everything at Ornge, it's a requirement of the MOHLTC and Provincial government.....and audited.

www.rfp.ca is just one public website you can go look at.

I'm glad that both you and blackmac bring these questions out in semi-public forums and aren't just complaining at the bar. It helps all of us to learn what others think and solutions that may be better or at least worth considering. But there needs to be numbers and verifiable facts...

If we don't evolve we die. Don't be part of the problem be part of the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kiefk said:

Gray, 18Speed reckoned on around 8-10million per Ac for the question I asked - does that seem reasonable for an IFR Ac. Ornge has 11 Ac so that's 88-110 mill just for the RW; is 18Speed way off the mark?? [just by way of background info - one of our regular routes is 1h5 @ 145kts each way or a 4-5hr drive by land ambulance]

Would your idea of light twins in each city be able to carry the equipment required by the MOHLTC? I would guess only the H145, in the lt twin market, would have the capability of going to the H1 pads in the GTA. An H145 is US$9.7 mill new or 8 used......CHL must have chosen the S76 for a reason. Ornge, I believe, chose the AW139 due to the Cat A and icing capability. Plus apparently other things I've read in the news............neither are small Ac.....

To be able to staff twice the Ac and hence twice the people you'd have to half the wages of all frontline staff.

So how much would you charge (just rough ballpark numbers) for the 34 Cat A light twins with 240 ATPL pilots in 26 bases with maintenance & infrastructure? I don't disagree with your premise; just how much will the 'new idea' cost? Especially considering the Ac cannot be used for anything else, at any time, every day of every year.

How many hours would you need the Ac to fly to make a profit?

[While we are solving the provincial woes, maybe we should replace the huge ambulances we now have with minivans and just have more of them......they cost MILLIONS ;) joke]

Crewing is the biggest expense in most VFR operations never mind IFR operations, so with smaller helicopters more crew more expense more bases more cost. I think my thoughts on costing 8 to 10 million per year is a bit light, just when you look at how much infrastructure you need to run a around the clock service, really at the end of the day I don't believe the 139 is wrong helicopter for the mission. So to answer your question to run 34 light twins I would guess 340 million USD. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A committee should be set up to analyze the complete air operations of the Ontario Government and the actual air operations required by each Ministry, that can be turned over to the private sector on long term contracts.

Depending on the way the contracts are negotiated, the liability for performance rests with the contractor. The government is self -insured by the taxpayer, no problem, whereas the contractor has an insurance auditor on his back and is responsible for his contracted obligation. Should the contractor have his insurance revoked due to many mishaps, he loses his operating certificate and livelihood.

Should the Government Ministry screw up due to the above scenario, the onus is on the taxpayer to pick-up the cost. Due to unions nobody within the government is ever fired, there is no accountability.

 

HydroOne: Tweed accident.

The day after the accident I called up the Director of Safety and asked him what oversite his department was doing on the Hydro flight department and his answer was NON.

The flight department has a Chief PIlot who is responsible for the actions of his pilots, needless to say, he missed one. 

The department also has a Safety Management System in place that was not adhered to in conjunction with that operation.  

 Of course, TCCA does not do any oversite, they just call in TSB after an accident.

It's funny after all these years in operation, HydroOne in October 2018 appointed a Manager of Flight Operation.

Always after the fact.      Who picks up the cost, the taxpayer, one way or the other!!!!!!

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 1:53 PM, Blackmac said:

 A committee should be set up to analyze the complete air operations of the Ontario Government and the actual air operations required by each Ministry, that can be turned over to the private sector on long term contracts.

Depending on the way the contracts are negotiated, the liability for performance rests with the contractor. The government is self -insured by the taxpayer, no problem, whereas the contractor has an insurance auditor on his back and is responsible for his contracted obligation. Should the contractor have his insurance revoked due to many mishaps, he loses his operating certificate and livelihood.

Should the Government Ministry screw up due to the above scenario, the onus is on the taxpayer to pick-up the cost. Due to unions nobody within the government is ever fired, there is no accountability.

HydroOne: Tweed accident.

The day after the accident I called up the Director of Safety and asked him what oversite his department was doing on the Hydro flight department and his answer was NON.

The flight department has a Chief PIlot who is responsible for the actions of his pilots, needless to say, he missed one. 

The department also has a Safety Management System in place that was not adhered to in conjunction with that operation.  

 Of course, TCCA does not do any oversite, they just call in TSB after an accident.

It's funny after all these years in operation, HydroOne in October 2018 appointed a Manager of Flight Operation.

Always after the fact.      Who picks up the cost, the taxpayer, one way or the other!!!!!!

Another committee, I thought you were trying to lower government spending? Your wording "that can be turned over...and long term contracts" subtly implies that all aviation is better done by the private sector? Maybe the military should be privatised too.....again no figures for how much you'd charge - just 'it's not fair'

MOH, Hydro and Ornge are all 3rd party audited and insured by private sector but paid for through taxes? (I know people who work for the other 2)

Are you seriously saying that if Hydro had outsourced flying to another private company the accident wouldn't have happened? I would assume that Hydro's safety department is for the actual 'electrical and line work' and isn't for aviation safety - that is part of the job of the Chief Pilot in most (smaller) private companies.

SMS doesn't stop accidents; it just makes people aware if there is something out of the 'norm'.

"Of course, TCCA does not do any oversight, they just call in TSB after an accident." As they do with ALL companies. There are 3 open helicopter investigations and 15 reports that the TSB 'know about' in the past 5 years; and only 1 is non private. We all know that not all of the incidents/accidents that TSB should know about, they do know about.  This is because the private sector thinks they are not 'real accidents'.

If a private company were running these operations and had an accident and so had to change something not covered in the contract - guess who pays, the taxpayer!

Your post still just smacks of "it's not fair, how do I get some of that money..." unless you have a solution with costs. Not just a committee comprising of only private sector interests.

Having said all the above, I would agree with the premise of a well balanced overview of how savings may be made, for the benefit of taxpayer dollars. But the private sector does not fix all problems - just look at the US....would you be happy paying $45,000 for a 10 min Medevac in an Astar for example!?

It's aviation - there's never a perfect solution for all. Every solution creates another problem or 'out of the frying pan and in to the fire'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without prejudice, you should stick to your pastime, Location: Thunder Bay, ON  Interests: Adventure racing Snowboarding  Mountain Biking.

At present HydroOne has contracts with an excellent commercial operator out of Tbay doing power line work and at one time another company doing the same thing out of Rabbit Lake (Kenora). For all practical purposes if HydroOne is doing such a great job for the whole province, why don't they cover the whole province in power line/maintenance work????

A commercial operator had one fatal accident in power line patrol out of Tbay that I am aware of. The cause was placed on, both the company and Hydro for lack of training.

There is a good possibility that maybe you should re-read your SMS manual, the person responsible is the owner of the company or in this case, the Ontario Government or read taxpayer.

IMHO 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Blackmac said:

Without prejudice, you should stick to your pastime, Location: Thunder Bay, ON  Interests: Adventure racing Snowboarding  Mountain Biking.

At present HydroOne has contracts with an excellent commercial operator out of Tbay doing power line work and at one time another company doing the same thing out of Rabbit Lake (Kenora). For all practical purposes if HydroOne is doing such a great job for the whole province, why don't they cover the whole province in power line/maintenance work????

A commercial operator had one fatal accident in power line patrol out of Tbay that I am aware of. The cause was placed on, both the company and Hydro for lack of training.

There is a good possibility that maybe you should re-read your SMS manual, the person responsible is the owner of the company or in this case, the Ontario Government or read taxpayer.

IMHO 

Maybe Hydro One contracts out some of its' line work to keep down costs, when work outweighs their fleet? They operate their own Astars for the majority of their own line work and maintenance.

Same as the OMNR contract out their Fire work when their fleet is outweighed by their needs.

Both of which is surely financially responsible of them, which goes against your original premise doesn't it?? Aviation is expensive period.

SMS is a voluntary system to audit safety and training. It doesn't stop pilots and companies having accidents,it just creates a paper trail to find root causes. It doesn't cost a company or a taxpayer anything unless they did something blatantly wrong and are taken to court?

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/sms-basic-2838.htm

The taxpayer pays for health should we privatise: hospitals, paramedics, ambulances and nursing.

Taxes pay for police and fire departments, they costs alot too, should we privatise them also? All they do all day is sit around watching TV or in Tims drinking coffee - right...

Without prejudice, you should stick to your pastime - Not sure what this even means, but thanks for your concern over how I spend my down time. Or maybe you're saying I have no idea what I'm talking about, which is why I'm here trying to fill my knowledge gap from more experienced people like yourself.

So how does any of the above tie in with your original article that basically said:

All flying should be privatised, as it costs me too much (in taxes) or I don't have enough of the pie? (depending on your level of cynicism)

Heck maybe the more popular solution would be to privatise Politics - those people do nothing they say they will and get full pensions after just 8 years! You wanna save money there's your 'pot of gold' ;)  Again a great discussion and thank you for starting it Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...