Why hasn't the government or insurance companies pooled resources to purchase an doperate a few of these massive fire fighting planes????

The costs would be recouped in no time at all in saved policy pay outs???

To save embarrassment, Bob Carr and Bush Fire Commissioner Philip Koperberg said that fixed wing aircraft had no role in fighting Australian bush fires. Phil was later found a safe ALP seat (reward time?) and entered state politics.

It has more impact if we give AUD$500 million to Indonesia to build Islamic schools rather than buy fixed wing fire fighting aircraft to help AUSTRALIANS.

It isn't just the cost of the actual aircraft itself that needs to be considered, even though they are extremely expensive by any standard. There is also the cost of maintenance, fuel and wages for air crew. Also, you need to consider the fact that these aircraft would not necessarily be required every summer, thus wasting taxpayer funds with the aircraft sitting idle and under utilised. No, the cheaper and more effective option is to lease aircraft and air crews on an as-needed basis, which is what we are seeing happen these days. It'd be like Canberra airport buying a massive snow plow worth millions of dollars just because every few years there may be a decent amount of snow fall on the runways and taxiways. Outside those times, the equipment would sit unused.

salad in wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

... we give AUD$500 million to Indonesia to build Islamic schools ...

One of Alexander Downer's BETTER creations with the Howard regime, which was CONTINUED by Rudd/Gillard Government policy

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

salad in wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 6:33pm: ... we give AUD$500 million to Indonesia to build Islamic schools ... One of Alexander Downer's BETTER creations with the Howard regime, which was CONTINUED by Rudd/Gillard Government policy

But how many bush fires did the building of Islamic schools prevent? Was any money snipped from the annual AUD$17 billion cost of road trauma in Australia by building Islamic schools in Indonesia?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:40pm:

It isn't just the cost of the actual aircraft itself that needs to be considered, even though they are extremely expensive by any standard. There is also the cost of maintenance, fuel and wages for air crew. Also, you need to consider the fact that these aircraft would not necessarily be required every summer, thus wasting taxpayer funds with the aircraft sitting idle and under utilised. No, the cheaper and more effective option is to lease aircraft and air crews on an as-needed basis, which is what we are seeing happen these days. It'd be like Canberra airport buying a massive snow plow worth millions of dollars just because every few years there may be a decent amount of snow fall on the runways and taxiways. Outside those times, the equipment would sit unused.

Some thinking music for AP please....


Quote:

Estimating the net cost of the 2009 Victorian Black Saturday Fires to the affected regions The 2009 Victorian Black Saturday bushfires cost a net $942 million, calculate Catherine Stephenson, Research Officer, Centre for Risk and Community Safety, RMIT University and Bushfire CRC, John Handmer, Director, Centre for Risk and Community Safety, and Aimee Haywood, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. http://www.bushfirecrc.com/news/news-item/estimating-net-cost-2009-victorian-black-saturday-fires-affected-regions

AUD$942 million. A report prepared by academics no less. Can't doubt that can we.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:40pm:

It isn't just the cost of the actual aircraft itself that needs to be considered, even though they are extremely expensive by any standard. There is also the cost of maintenance, fuel and wages for air crew. Also, you need to consider the fact that these aircraft would not necessarily be required every summer, thus wasting taxpayer funds with the aircraft sitting idle and under utilised. No, the cheaper and more effective option is to lease aircraft and air crews on an as-needed basis, which is what we are seeing happen these days. It'd be like Canberra airport buying a massive snow plow worth millions of dollars just because every few years there may be a decent amount of snow fall on the runways and taxiways. Outside those times, the equipment would sit unused.

I don't know where you live, but in Australia this plane would be necessary at least a few times every year.
And it is not only the property damage, but lives could also be saved.
Are you really only an arm chair politician, or are you posting to protect politicians from criticism?
One thing is for certain, Australian politicians and  and people in reponsible position, mostly well paid, may not be the best in performing in case of crisis, but they are experts in finding excuses for their mistakes.

If you had 5 of these montrous planes in a single run they could put out 1.5Km of fire front??? the helicopters could then concentrate on the spot fires??

The outlay and ongoing costs woudl be more than offest by the savings on future fires??

they could be based in Canberra so they are central to most states, they only need a large lake to land in refill and take off, they could put out the fires before they became 20km fronts of firestorm???

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:40pm:

Also, you need to consider the fact that these aircraft would not necessarily be required every summer, thus wasting taxpayer funds with the aircraft sitting idle and under utilised

Rubbish ... thats the excuse the states use to avoid having to buy one.

However if the federal govt. bought it for use by all the states, you would not get a single summer without it being used. When was the last time we had a summer without bushfires somewhere across this country?

http://rense.com/general43/still.htm

interesting read

John Smith wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 10:00pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 6:40pm: Also, you need to consider the fact that these aircraft would not necessarily be required every summer, thus wasting taxpayer funds with the aircraft sitting idle and under utilised Rubbish ... thats the excuse the states use to avoid having to buy one. However if the federal govt. bought it for use by all the states, you would not get a single summer without it being used. When was the last time we had a summer without bushfires somewhere across this country?

Sure, we get bushfires almost every summer. But an aerial appliance isn't needed on all of them. When I turned off the news prior to heading off to work this morning, there were 137 fires burning across NSW alone. Are you saying we need a fleet of about 100 aircraft? The RAAF has only 260-odd aircraft. Do you want the government to fund a fire fighting air force??? This federal government is so broke it couldn't afford to fund paper planes!!!

Yeah, let's buy a couple. Right now.

Then, after a year or two when they're NOT needed, it will be a Labor waste of money (of course).

Or, we could buy a couple once Toe-nail gets in, and it will be the best money we've ever spent.

Kat wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 10:50pm:

Yeah, let's buy a couple. Right now. Then, after a year or two when they're NOT needed, it will be a Labor waste of money (of course). Or, we could buy a couple once Toe-nail gets in, and it will be the best money we've ever spent.

I remember watching an ITVV DVD documentary on a Virgin Atlantic flight from the UK to the US. At the pre-flight briefing the Captain stated that there were a number of alternate/emergency airfields that would be within range of their flight path during the journey and that they needed to know a fair bit about each just in case a need to land should arise. I specifically recall one he mentioned that was in Iceland. The runway was long enough, but it did not possess emergency equipment up to the relevant standard normally required for an airfield to receive a Boeing 747-400. The Captain went on to explain that in the normal course of business, this airfield would not normally expect to receive an aircraft of this size and so it is impractical for them to purchase and upkeep the necessary equipment for an eventuality that will almost certainly never occur. The same applies here with regard to purchasing aerial appliances. It is far cheaper to lease on an as-needed basis than it is to purchase aircraft that will almost certainly sit dormant for at least 7-8 months of the year!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 10:50pm: Yeah, let's buy a couple. Right now. Then, after a year or two when they're NOT needed, it will be a Labor waste of money (of course). Or, we could buy a couple once Toe-nail gets in, and it will be the best money we've ever spent. I remember watching an ITVV DVD documentary on a Virgin Atlantic flight from the UK to the US. At the pre-flight briefing the Captain stated that there were a number of alternate/emergency airfields that would be within range of their flight path during the journey and that they needed to know a fair bit about each just in case a need to land should arise. I specifically recall one he mentioned that was in Iceland. The runway was long enough, but it did not possess emergency equipment up to the relevant standard normally required for an airfield to receive a Boeing 747-400. The Captain went on to explain that in the normal course of business, this airfield would not normally expect to receive an aircraft of this size and so it is impractical for them to purchase and upkeep the necessary equipment for an eventuality that will almost certainly never occur. The same applies here with regard to purchasing aerial appliances. It is far cheaper to lease on an as-needed basis than it is to purchase aircraft that will almost certainly sit dormant for at least 7-8 months of the year!

10/10.

Agree.

so why bother having a fire department at all, they don't make any money cost millions to run and for what, put out the odd house fire that happens maybe once a month at best, hell there would be towns where they haven't had a house fire in years?? why have them??

woof woof wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:43pm:

so why bother having a fire department at all, they don't make any money cost millions to run and for what, put out the odd house fire that happens maybe once a month at best, hell there would be towns where they haven't had a house fire in years?? why have them??

I was going to answer your stupid question, but decided to save my breath...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 10:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 10:00pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 6:40pm: Also, you need to consider the fact that these aircraft would not necessarily be required every summer, thus wasting taxpayer funds with the aircraft sitting idle and under utilised Rubbish ... thats the excuse the states use to avoid having to buy one. However if the federal govt. bought it for use by all the states, you would not get a single summer without it being used. When was the last time we had a summer without bushfires somewhere across this country? Sure, we get bushfires almost every summer. But an aerial appliance isn't needed on all of them. When I turned off the news prior to heading off to work this morning, there were 137 fires burning across NSW alone. Are you saying we need a fleet of about 100 aircraft? The RAAF has only 260-odd aircraft. Do you want the government to fund a fire fighting air force??? This federal government is so broke it couldn't afford to fund paper planes!!!

you like to go from sublime to ridiculous don't you? Who mentioned 100? If you need help with English, ask ... the fact I said ' bought it' implies one ... but you just can't help but look like an idiot can you?

woof woof wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

Why hasn't the government or insurance companies pooled resources to purchase an doperate a few of these massive fire fighting planes???? The costs would be recouped in no time at all in saved policy pay outs???

Russian ones are better. Get those.

Yes, why haven't these liberal governments purchased these plans?  Shameful.  O'Farrell thought all he needed to do was lose some weight and he'd be the best premier ever. Der

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:44am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 10:32pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 10:00pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 6:40pm: Also, you need to consider the fact that these aircraft would not necessarily be required every summer, thus wasting taxpayer funds with the aircraft sitting idle and under utilised Rubbish ... thats the excuse the states use to avoid having to buy one. However if the federal govt. bought it for use by all the states, you would not get a single summer without it being used. When was the last time we had a summer without bushfires somewhere across this country? Sure, we get bushfires almost every summer. But an aerial appliance isn't needed on all of them. When I turned off the news prior to heading off to work this morning, there were 137 fires burning across NSW alone. Are you saying we need a fleet of about 100 aircraft? The RAAF has only 260-odd aircraft. Do you want the government to fund a fire fighting air force??? This federal government is so broke it couldn't afford to fund paper planes!!! you like to go from sublime to ridiculous don't you? Who mentioned 100? If you need help with English, ask ... the fact I said ' bought it' implies one ... but you just can't help but look like an idiot can you?

I wouldn't put it in that strong language, but armchair does come up with some comments which make no sense, like buying 100 aircraft.

hawil wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 8:44am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 10:32pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 10:00pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 6:40pm: Also, you need to consider the fact that these aircraft would not necessarily be required every summer, thus wasting taxpayer funds with the aircraft sitting idle and under utilised Rubbish ... thats the excuse the states use to avoid having to buy one. However if the federal govt. bought it for use by all the states, you would not get a single summer without it being used. When was the last time we had a summer without bushfires somewhere across this country? Sure, we get bushfires almost every summer. But an aerial appliance isn't needed on all of them. When I turned off the news prior to heading off to work this morning, there were 137 fires burning across NSW alone. Are you saying we need a fleet of about 100 aircraft? The RAAF has only 260-odd aircraft. Do you want the government to fund a fire fighting air force??? This federal government is so broke it couldn't afford to fund paper planes!!! you like to go from sublime to ridiculous don't you? Who mentioned 100? If you need help with English, ask ... the fact I said ' bought it' implies one ... but you just can't help but look like an idiot can you? I wouldn't put it in that strong language, but armchair does come up with some comments which make no sense, like buying 100 aircraft.

I've tried subtlety with him, it just doesn't work .....