Author Topic: Harper wants a pretty white plane ... (Read 11661 times)

RangerBoy · « **on:** February 13, 2011, 17:51:45 »

Micromanaging from the PMO (again) ...

Prime Minister's Office wins tug of war over VIP aircraft: documents
By Dean Beeby
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been locked in a lengthy tug of war with his defence minister over the future of the military's VIP Airbus, newly disclosed documents show.
Peter MacKay has repeatedly rejected requests from the prime minister's staff to have the Airbus painted a civilian white and red instead of its current military grey.
MacKay and senior officers argue that the white colour scheme would be too visible whenever the passenger jet is sent on troop and cargo missions to risky locales, as happens now when the aircraft is not needed by the prime minister or the Governor General.
Senior government officials say no final decision has been made. But internal emails indicate the Privy Council Office -- Harper's own department -- in fact ordered the military last September to arrange for the new paint job at the next scheduled maintenance.

Full story here ...
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110213/Harper-VIP-Airbus-11-0213/

medicineman · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2011, 18:10:12 »

Wonder how much of this is some pretentious dweeb in the PMO vs the actual PM?

MM

milnews.ca · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2011, 18:11:53 »

Quote from: medicineman on February 13, 2011, 18:10:12

Wonder how much of this is some pretentious dweeb in the PMO vs the actual PM?

MM

Good point - if you believe the paper trail mentioned, 2 years of political and bureaucratic wrestling over this?

RangerBoy · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2011, 18:22:45 »

On the one hand, who knows?
On the other, I find it hard to believe that any of the PMO/PCO weinies would be taking on a Minister like this without the PM's at least tacit approval.
Hopefully, they'll be the ones riding the big white target into KAF ...

Strike · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2011, 18:28:55 »

Quote from: RangerBoy on February 13, 2011, 18:22:45

On the one hand, who knows?
On the other, I find it hard to believe that any of the PMO/PCO weinies would be taking on a Minister like this without the PM's at least tacit approval.
Hopefully, they'll be the ones riding the big white target into KAF ...

Okay, now THAT's funny. I don't find it unlikely at all.

MJP · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2011, 18:50:53 »

Quote from: RangerBoy on February 13, 2011, 18:22:45

Hopefully, they'll be the ones riding the big white target into KAF ...

That is a red herring the airbuses don't fly into KAF in any case.

I somehow don't find it strange that we as a G8 nation would want to have a plane painted to represent Canada. A quick perusal of wikepedia shows that many nations have aircraft painted to showcase and highlight their respective country. Why should we be any different?

CDN Aviator · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2011, 18:53:25 »

Quote from: MJP on February 13, 2011, 18:50:53

Why should we be any different?

Alot of country have dedicated presidential aircrafts, we do not.

MJP · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2011, 18:57:48 »

Quote from: CDN Aviator on February 13, 2011, 18:53:25

Alot of country have dedicated presidential aircrafts, we do not.

So what? The colour on the aircraft hardly detracts from its performance while conducting other missions.

CDN Aviator · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:00:21 »

Quote from: MJP on February 13, 2011, 18:57:48

So what? The colour on the aircraft hardly detracts from its performance while conducting other missions.

Well, as a matter of fact, yes it does. Hence why we stopped painting our aircraft white with the red "lightning bolt" in the first place.

Strike · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:03:02 »

Quote from: MJP on February 13, 2011, 18:50:53

That is a red herring the airbuses don't fly into KAF in any case.

I somehow don't find it strange that we as a G8 nation would want to have a plane painted to represent Canada. A quick perusal of wikepedia shows that many nations have aircraft painted to showcase and highlight their respective country. Why should we be any different?

We already have pax aircraft that fit that bill. They already have a huge honkin' CANADA and Cdn Air Force Roundel on the side. It may be subdued, but only in colour. Still pretty easy to see.

MJP · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:07:20 »

Quote from: CDN Aviator on February 13, 2011, 19:00:21

Well, as a matter of fact, yes it does. Hence why we stopped painting our aircraft white with the red "lightning bolt" in the first place.

Please expand, I am not fully understanding what you are saying.

CDN Aviator · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:09:46 »

Quote from: MJP on February 13, 2011, 19:07:20

Please expand, I am not fully understanding what you are saying.

There is more to aircraft performance than how fast it flies. Big white airplanes are easy to see (track, target....) on certain systems due to certain inherent properties.

MJP · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:15:54 »

Quote from: CDN Aviator on February 13, 2011, 19:09:46

There is more to aircraft performance than how fast it flies. Big white airplanes are easy to see (track, target....) on certain systems due to certain inherent properties.

Ack. I see what you are talking about now and I agree white things are easy to see and hit. However I am saying that having a well painted plane that flies our PM and the like around doesn't seem that big of a deal. Lots of other countries have big white easy to hit planes that do the same.

CDN Aviator · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:18:30 »

Quote from: MJP on February 13, 2011, 19:15:54

Lots of other countries have big white easy to hit planes that do the same.

Do these countries use them for regular airlift missions when the boss isnt using it ??

Are US VIPs flying into KAF on VC-25s ?

GAP · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:19:13 »

The PM attends how many international conferences/meetings in the course of the year? Our colors/maple leaf should stand out.

George Wallace · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:30:17 »

Quote from: RangerBoy on February 13, 2011, 17:51:45

Micromanaging from the PMO (again) ...

Prime Minister's Office wins tug of war over VIP aircraft: documents
By Dean Beeby
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been locked in a lengthy tug of war with his defence minister over the future of the military's VIP Airbus, newly disclosed documents show.
Peter MacKay has repeatedly rejected requests from the prime minister's staff to have the Airbus painted a civilian white and red instead of its current military grey.
MacKay and senior officers argue that the white colour scheme would be too visible whenever the passenger jet is sent on troop and cargo missions to risky locales, as happens now when the aircraft is not needed by the prime minister or the Governor General.
Senior government officials say no final decision has been made. But internal emails indicate the Privy Council Office -- Harper's own department -- in fact ordered the military last September to arrange for the new paint job at the next scheduled maintenance.

Full story here ...
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110213/Harper-VIP-Airbus-11-0213/

I don't see a problem with this, as long as it is the PMO and the PCO who fund the numerous paint jobs and not DND. If they want it, they should pay the bill. Too easy.

HavokFour · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:30:59 »

I present to you, a compromise:

A removable red maple leaf that can be taken on and off. On when the PM or the GG are on board, and off when they're not.

SherH2A · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:40:49 »

This is silly. The primary mission is the CF's needs not the PM's occasional needs. Yes a nice white aircraft with Canadian insignia would be nice but why does it need to be an Airbus.

Why not something like a Bombardier Global 8000, it has the range 7900 nautical miles, speed .85 mach and will use 6000 feet runways. It does transport 8 passengers with an office and stateroom. We could purchase 3, 1 for the PM, 1 for the GG, and 1 for backup. When the PM needs more seats for staff and reporters, let them lease a plane from Air Canada.

MJP · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:43:18 »

Quote from: CDN Aviator on February 13, 2011, 19:18:30

Do these countries use them for regular airlift missions when the boss isnt using it ??

Are US VIPs flying into KAF on VC-25s ?

I don't know about other countries and I really don't care. I hardly think that the sustainment flights undertaken are into high risk locales that many other big white easy to hit planes don't already fly into.

Quote from: CDN Aviator on February 13, 2011, 19:18:30

Are US VIPs flying into KAF on VC-25s ?

I don't know about KAF but there was one big white & blue easy to hit VC-25 (or similar American airlift, I'll admit civvy AC ID is not my strong point) sitting on the tarmac in Kabul in 2004 when I arrived in country.

Strike · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:46:34 »

Quote from: HavokFour on February 13, 2011, 19:30:59

I present to you, a compromise:

A removable red maple leaf that can be taken on and off. On when the PM or the GG are on board, and off when they're not.

As good of an idea as that thought is when we talk about cars and buses, I'd be surprised if one could be manufactured for a plane that would stay on during flight.

As for the justification, then perhaps the PCO and PMO should see what the effect on operations would be to remove the use of that white Airbus because of its inability to fly to certain locations (read: increased risk to crew and pax because of its identification as the PMs plane).

Zoomie · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:51:58 »

Quote from: SherH2A on February 13, 2011, 19:40:49

Why not something like a Bombardier Global 8000, it has the range 7900 nautical miles, speed .85 mach and will use 6000 feet runways. It does transport 8 passengers with an office and stateroom. We could purchase 3, 1 for the PM, 1 for the GG, and 1 for backup.

We have a fleet of Challengers for this very task. Unlike the Polaris aircraft, these aircraft might actually see the poo-pond.

GAP · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:54:10 »

If we have Challengers for this purpose, why are they using an Airbus?

benny88 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2011, 19:58:47 »

Quote from: HavokFour on February 13, 2011, 19:30:59

I present to you, a compromise:

A removable red maple leaf that can be taken on and off. On when the PM or the GG are on board, and off when they're not.

Made of what? Removable how? The logistics are a bit more complicated than a magnet when the vehicle goes 0.8 Mach.

SherH2A · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2011, 20:08:48 »

Quote from: GAP on February 13, 2011, 19:54:10

If we have Challengers for this purpose, why are they using an Airbus?

Bureacratic bloat. Do you think when the PM travels that he can be without his staff, PR, support staff, security, press etc. Challengers don't have that much space, of course they could use Air Canada for transport, if they want a honking big Airbus let them lease it for the mission

recceguy · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2011, 20:24:24 »

Why are you people getting so upset, and carried away about a friggin' paintjob? Who cares? If it even provides the most minutae of protection, to whoever is flying in it, it's worth it.

I want no part of a country, or political party, that fights an upcoming election based on the colour of our planes, and anyone that votes on that criteria is a ******' moron and doesn't deserve to be given the pencil to mark the circle.

RangerBoy · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2011, 23:40:01 »

Quote from: recceguy on February 13, 2011, 20:24:24

Why are you people getting so upset, and carried away about a friggin' paintjob? Who cares? If it even provides the most minutae of protection, to whoever is flying in it, it's worth it.

I agree. If PMO wants a pretty new plane, let them buy another Airbus out of their budget and give it to the VIP Transport Sqn (412 Sqn I think) to operate. But I'll betcha my pension the CF ends up eating the cost ...

a Sig Op · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2011, 23:52:14 »

What cost? Pay for grey paint, pay for white paint, still paying for paint.

Forgive my ignorance, but are these aircraft really flown into a threat environment? Does it really matter if we paint brightly or subdued? They are already painted with glossy paint vs the matte paint of other air craft.

Though if anything, you'd think the PMO would accept a grey plane coloured the same as the rest for the simple matter of security in anonymity.

MarkOttawa · « **Reply #27 on:** February 14, 2011, 09:58:26 »

SherH2A: All those wonderful Canadian journalists must be accommodated too;).

Mark
Ottawa

dapaterson · « **Reply #28 on:** February 14, 2011, 10:23:04 »

Quote from: RangerBoy on February 13, 2011, 23:40:01

I agree. If PMO wants a pretty new plane, let them buy another Airbus out of their budget and give it to the VIP Transport Sqn (412 Sqn I think) to operate. But I'll betcha my pension the CF ends up eating the cost ...

One CF role is to provide tn to the PM (and others). Government gives us money to accomplish those missions.

And, frankly, if the best advice has been given ("Grey is better because") and the direction comes down to proceed regardless, CAS has two choices: paint the goddamned plane already, or quit. Finding the money to paint the aircraft is trivial in a department with roughly $20B per year - lots of fat that could be trimmed (Juno the Army bear and Sonar the Navy dog both come to mind immediately). Whining and bitching that the military must follow legal orders from above is just plain stupid.

Pusser · « **Reply #29 on:** February 14, 2011, 10:31:54 »

Quote from: RangerBoy on February 13, 2011, 23:40:01

I agree. If PMO wants a pretty new plane, let them buy another Airbus out of their budget and give it to the VIP Transport Sqn (412 Sqn I think) to operate. But I'll betcha my pension the CF ends up eating the cost ...

That makes even less sense. The Airbus in question is already fitted out as a VIP aircraft (even has a shower). If anything, buy an new Airbus to put into general service to replace the newly painted one.

On another note, I always though the lightning bolt was pretty cool. If they do end up painting the plane in another colour (and I'm not saying they should) I at least hope the paint scheme chosen reflects that it's still a military aircraft (i.e. lightning bolt and CF roundels) and not some political platform.

SherH2A · « **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2011, 11:17:21 »

Quote from: MarkOttawa on February 14, 2011, 09:58:26

SherH2A: All those wonderful Canadian journalists must be accommodated too;).

Mark
Ottawa

Why? Are they a part of the government or the Civil Service who need to be there to do a job for Canada?

No, they are part of a commercial enterprise who make money from being there. I would suggest they should fly commercial.

If the PMO insists on them being flown by the CF, then let them ride on our normal military aircraft and be subject to the same risks as the CF members.

Oldgateboatdriver · « **Reply #31 on:** February 14, 2011, 11:59:53 »

Quote from: MJP on February 13, 2011, 18:50:53

That is a red herring the airbuses don't fly into KAF in any case.

I somehow don't find it strange that we as a G8 nation would want to have a plane painted to represent Canada. A quick perusal of wikepedia shows that many nations have aircraft painted to showcase and highlight their respective country. Why should we be any different?

I don't know if you can trust Wikepedia on this one: The entry for Canada says that we operate five Airbus', four of which are Bombardier's Challengers 600

Personally, and regardless of the debate on the usefulness of the colour scheme, I like the current grey plane's camo because it stands out from the others (all nice and white) on the tarmac when they park together and it says: look, I'm flying with my airforce, not some pamby-mamby civvy airline in disguise.

Oh. and dataperson: The PM (and the PMO even less) is not in the chain of command. He can't give the CDS "lawful orders". We work for HM the Queen, which means we get our orders from the GG in counsel. PM may "counsel" her, but she gives the order. It may seem like a distinction without difference, but it legally holds a lot because its the nuance that makes any direction the CDS gets from the PM or MoD non binding unless they specifically go through the GG with a written order to the CDS and which gives him/her the discretion to apply it as he/she interprets without risk of court martial every time there is a disagreement on intent/application of the directive received (such as the recent problems over application of the TB financial directives).

NFLD Sapper · « **Reply #32 on:** February 14, 2011, 12:24:51 »

Quote from: Oldgateboatdriver on February 14, 2011, 11:59:53

I don't know if you can trust Wikepedia on this one: The entry for Canada says that we operate five Airbus', four of which are Bombardier's Challengers 600

We own 5 Airbuses and 6 CC-144 Challengers (Bombardier Challenger 600)

milnews.ca · « **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2011, 12:44:26 »

Quote from: Strike on February 13, 2011, 18:28:55

Quote from: RangerBoy on February 13, 2011, 18:22:45
On the one hand, who knows?
On the other, I find it hard to believe that any of the PMO/PCO weinies would be taking on a Minister like this without the PM's at least tacit approval.
Hopefully, they'll be the ones riding the big white target into KAF ...
Okay, now THAT's funny. I don't find it unlikely at all.

Don't know about PCO, but if it was PMO, if the PM didn't like the idea, I'm guessing we wouldn't have to wait too, too wait long for him to say, "belay his last".

RangerBoy · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2011, 12:48:21 »

Quote from: milnews.ca on February 14, 2011, 12:44:26

Don't know about PCO, but if it was PMO, if the PM didn't like the idea, I'm guessing we wouldn't have to wait too, too wait long for him to say, "belay his last".

Which I suspect was the whole idea behind someone feeding the story to the media in the first place ...

milnews.ca · « **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2011, 12:52:01 »

Quote from: RangerBoy on February 14, 2011, 12:48:21

Which I suspect was the whole idea behind someone feeding the story to the media in the first place ...

The primary source of the story is apparently an Access to Information request. How did the reporter know exactly what to ask for? Good point you raise.....

dapaterson · « **Reply #36 on:** February 14, 2011, 12:55:30 »

Quote from: Oldgateboatdriver on February 14, 2011, 11:59:53

Oh. and dataperson: The PM (and the PMO even less) is not in the chain of command. He can't give the CDS "lawful orders". We work for HM the Queen, which means we get our orders from the GG in counsel. PM may "counsel" her, but she gives the order. It may seem like a distinction without difference, but it legally holds a lot because its the nuance that makes any direction the CDS gets from the PM or MoD non binding unless they specifically go through the GG with a written order to the CDS and which gives him/her the discretion to apply it as he/she interprets without risk of court martial every time there is a disagreement on intent/application of the directive received (such as the recent problems over application of the TB financial directives).

First, it's the "Governor General in Council"; if you're going to be condescending and pedantic, at least try to be correct.

Second, PMO/PCO in this case will direct TB, acting as GGinC, to issue the direction to the CF. While waiting for the written direction is following proper form, once intent is received it is best to begin planning and preparation. (Sort of like a warning order).

Finally, the recent "problems over application of the TB financial directives" have everything to do with no TB directives in existence, and nothing to do with disagreement over intent/application.

Journeyman · « **Reply #37 on:** February 14, 2011, 13:02:57 »

Quote from: dapaterson on February 14, 2011, 12:55:30

...if you're going to be condescending and pedantic, at least try to be correct.

MilPoints enroute

Oldgateboatdriver · « **Reply #38 on:** February 14, 2011, 14:13:54 »

Quote from: dapaterson on February 14, 2011, 12:55:30

at least try to be correct.

And I would return the favour here: The TB hasn't and does not in any case at all act as GGinC - only the GG can act as GGinC unless Parliament enacts a delegation of power to someone else. The constitution does not provide for it and the Parliament has never adopted a law delegating GGinC powers to the TB. If you go through Chap. 1 of QR&O's (from 1.14 onto 1.25), for instance, you will see Regulations originating from the GGinC, TB and M.N.D. as three different sources of delegated powers. QR&O's are, for instance mostly regulations from the GGinC.

But i'm glad you ultimately changed your vocab in this matter: Your first post dealt with someone in the CF refusing to obey a lawful order (your own words). You are now talking about directives, as am I. Yes the PMO/PCO/TB can give DND (again, not the CF, which gets such directives through DND) directives. And that is my point: if you screw it up as a higher ranked officer or do not agree with the directives, you can be removed or you can quit, but you can't be courtmartialed (the consequence of refusing a "lawful order").

MCG · « **Reply #39 on:** February 14, 2011, 14:17:51 »

Quote from: RangerBoy on February 13, 2011, 17:51:45

... white colour scheme would be too visible whenever the passenger jet is sent on troop and cargo missions to risky locales, as happens now when the aircraft is not needed by the prime minister or the Governor General.

I thought the lack a counter-measures system was the reason we do not fly the aircraft into "risky locales" in any case. If we already will not fly into such locations, then does the colour really matter?

just me... · « **Reply #40 on:** February 14, 2011, 14:39:36 »

We own 5 Airbuses and 6 CC-144 Challengers (Bombardier Challenger 600)
[/quote]

We only have 4 operational CC-150 Polaris left in the fleet. 01 and 02 are normally used for VIP transport, 02 being the standby. 03 is in an air to air refueling configuration and 04 is used as a standard passenger carrying variant. 01 was put on the market awhile ago for sale...........no one was interested. There's talk of putting it back on the market sometime this year, but who knows.

CDN Aviator · « **Reply #41 on:** February 14, 2011, 14:43:39 »

Quote from: MP 811 on February 14, 2011, 14:39:36

03 is in an air to air refueling configuration and 04 is used as a standard passenger carrying variant.

That is incorrect. The tankers are 15004 and 15005.

15004 seen here :
http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=9038&site=casimages&catalog=casimages

15005 seen here :
http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=7875&site=casimages&catalog=casimages

Haletown · « **Reply #42 on:** February 14, 2011, 16:07:22 »

Quote from: recceguy on February 13, 2011, 20:24:24

Why are you people getting so upset, and carried away about a friggin' paintjob? Who cares? If it even provides the most minutae of protection, to whoever is flying in it, it's worth it.

I want no part of a country, or political party, that fights an upcoming election based on the colour of our planes, and anyone that votes on that criteria is a ******' moron and doesn't deserve to be given the pencil to mark the circle.

Amen bro . . . a ridiculous tempest in a paint pot

milnews.ca · « **Reply #43 on:** February 14, 2011, 20:23:20 »

A bit more detail is creeping out, via Postmedia News:

Quote

.... Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for the prime minister, said the aircraft is due for a paint job next year and that the government was "looking at some options."

MacKay spokesman Jay Paxton added paint jobs are restricted to the regular maintenance cycle, which is every six years.

"Minister MacKay believes that to ensure costs are negligible for Canadian taxpayers, the repainting of military assets should take place in the established maintenance cycle when the operational tempo is such that there (are) no negative ramifications on the Canadian Forces mandate," he said.

"This recommendation is agreed by all and no decision has been taken on repainting the Airbus."

I guess until the media decides to share the documents obtained, we'll just have to triangulate based on what's written and said second hand.

milnews.ca · « **Reply #44 on:** February 15, 2011, 06:46:48 »

What the Minister said in the House of Commons in response to questions from the Liberals,

Quote

There has been no decision taken with respect to the repainting of transport aircraft. In fact, the repainting of military assets occurs on a regularly scheduled, established maintenance cycle. It is done when the operational tempo will not be affected. I can assure the hon. member and members present that we would never do anything that would interfere with the operations of the Canadian Forces, or that would negatively impact the forces in any way.

the NDP,

Quote

.... the member should press rewind and watch the tape. The answer is the same. It is not happening. There is a regularly scheduled maintenance program that occurs when an aircraft is in need of repainting. There has been no decision taken with respect to that. I can assure the hon. member and members present again, nothing this government will ever do is going to impact negatively on the forces and their operations, their families, the work they do that brings so much pride and purpose to our country. The forces have a great friend in the Conservative Party when it comes to giving them assets.

and the Bloc:

Quote

I repeat that no decision has yet been made about the colour scheme. No decision will be made in this regard that will have any sort of negative impact on Canadian Forces' operations.

ModlrMike · « **Reply #45 on:** February 15, 2011, 08:43:20 »

Another pathetic attempt to manufacture scandal where there is none. Shame on the media, shame on the opposition, and shame on some of us for getting a twist in our knickers.

just me... · « **Reply #46 on:** February 16, 2011, 10:14:10 »

Quote from: CDN Aviator on February 14, 2011, 14:43:39

That is incorrect. The tankers are 15004 and 15005.

Ok then.....I can assure you though as of last week, 03 was in an air - to air- refuelling configuration, as I did some training on it. Never saw the 5th but I'm sure you would know more about that than me.

cheers

Macey · « **Reply #47 on:** February 16, 2011, 22:28:32 »

IMO,
I say we buy the used Warsaw Pact era Helo's from Skylink company in KAF. Always seen the poo pond. And battle harden too. Oh BTW... THEY ARE WHITE!

"In Mother Russia, HIP flies you!"

Regards Comrade,
TN2IC

http://www.skylinkaviation.com/

CDN Aviator · « **Reply #48 on:** February 17, 2011, 16:07:46 »

Quote from: MP 811 on February 16, 2011, 10:14:10

I'm sure you would know more about that than me.

No need to get snoty. I can read tail numbers so thats what i am going by, as per the pictures i linked in my previous post.

just me... · « **Reply #49 on:** February 17, 2011, 16:29:54 »

lol.........I wasnt getting "snoty" at all......I truly meant you would know more about it then me as your involved with various aircraft platforms.......im not!

plus, I wouldnt have put "cheers" in my post if I was trying to be a smartass!

CDN Aviator · « **Reply #50 on:** February 17, 2011, 18:57:53 »

Quote from: MP 811 on February 17, 2011, 16:29:54

lol.........I wasnt getting "snoty" at all......

Fair enough, my apologies.

Do you have any pictures of the configuration that 15003 was in when you did that training ?

I ask because i know for a fact that 04 and 05 have been modified for AAR ( i was parked next to both on 2 occasions......and pictures of them are widely available with clear serials on them) and Canada only contracted for 2 to be modified. No official DND site states that a third was modified and i cannot even locate a non-official site that indicates this would have been done. Thus, to me its a case of a) You were not on 15003 or b) The aircraft was in some other configuration.

captloadie · « **Reply #51 on:** February 18, 2011, 03:09:26 »

I can say that Cdn Aviator is correct in his comments. Having flown on the aircraft in question as crew, and lived through the reconfiguring to the AAR role, it is fairly simple to tell which aircraft have been modified. On the inside, just as you enter the upper cargo area, there will be a refueling console in a locked cabinet, with rails on the floor to install the seats. The last I had heard, 001, 002, and 003 were all still in full pax config and although 004 and 005 were in combi/AAR config, they were only being used in an AAR role. There has been some recent discussions on converting 003 back to a combi configuration, so that we would have one VIP config, one gull pax config, one combi config, and two AAR configs.

dapaterson · « **Reply #52 on:** February 18, 2011, 09:03:55 »

Of course, given the hours we've put on the fleet in recent years, might it be a better idea to find a "newer" second-hand Airbus, and configure it for the VIP role? It would relieve some of the pressure on the fleet.

just me... · « **Reply #53 on:** February 18, 2011, 12:35:47 »

I didnt obtain any pictures but I know it was 03...........half the seats, large forward cargo area..plus I was down in the avionics section and walked into the front belly cargo area and saw the big fuel tank. Sorry I cant be anymore help gents. Only reason why I know it was 03 is we were suppose to do our work on 01 as most our work will be on that frame anyways, but it wasn't around and 02 was having engine work done.

CDN Aviator · « **Reply #54 on:** February 18, 2011, 12:48:21 »

Quote from: MP 811 on February 18, 2011, 12:35:47

I didnt obtain any pictures but I know it was 03...........half the seats, large forward cargo area..plus I was down in the avionics section and walked into the front belly cargo area and saw the big fuel tank.

Well, 15003 is not a tanker so it may have been some other configuration. On the CC-150 tankers, IIRC, the additional fuel tanks are mounted in mid-fuselage, sandwiching the main center tank.

Haletown · « **Reply #55 on:** February 18, 2011, 13:06:32 »

"walked into the front belly cargo area and saw the big fuel tank. "

hmmmmmm . . . has anyone reported any missing beer at Trenton? If so we may have discovered how they are getting the goods off base.

Gramps · « **Reply #56 on:** February 18, 2011, 14:28:11 »

I can say with 100 percent certainty that 03 is not configured as a tanker, I was on it today.

just me... · « **Reply #57 on:** February 18, 2011, 21:59:49 »

can they change the config's in 2 weeks?...........anyways. I guess it really doesnt matter. What were we originally talking about with this thread anyways?.............lol

WingsofFury · « **Reply #58 on:** March 10, 2011, 18:04:00 »

Personally, I think the grey looks amazing in some nice light - no reason to change it at all.

CDN Aviator · « **Reply #59 on:** March 10, 2011, 20:01:02 »

Quote from: just me... on February 18, 2011, 21:59:49

can they change the config's in 2 weeks

Not on 03.

Quote from: WingsofFury on March 10, 2011, 18:04:00

Personally, I think the grey looks amazing in some nice light - no reason to change it at all.

i do like the grey as well. Nice photo.

WingsofFury · « **Reply #60 on:** March 10, 2011, 21:33:44 »

Quote from: CDN Aviator on March 10, 2011, 20:01:02

i do like the grey as well. Nice photo.

Thanks!

milnews.ca · « **Reply #61 on:** July 04, 2011, 17:58:17 »

More on this - voices from an unnamed "top government official" - linked to the royal visit - highlights mine:

Quote

Will and Kate's visit is adding ammunition to a campaign by the prime minister's office to repaint Canada's military-looking VIP plane.

Images of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge boarding the "drab" looking grey aircraft are feeding calls from some corners to paint the Airbus A310 — designated as a CC-150 Polaris — in a scheme that would make the country proud.

"It is drab, it's very military, it's utilitarian. I suppose for security purposes it's a good colouring in that in blends into the background but it terms of flying the flag for Canada, of showing when the prime minister, the governor general or members of the royal family represent us abroad . . . it's a bit underwhelming," said Matthew Rowe, a spokesperson for the Monarchist League of Canada. "The end result is it just reflects poorly on the country."

A top government official said his first thought watching Prince William and his new bride board Canada's airplane for their first foreign trip was that it looked as if they were boarding an aircraft "belonging to a third-world country."

The Prime Minister's office (PMO) has tried for at least three years to get the Department of National Defence to change the paint scheme on CC-150 Polaris 001, a plane normally used to transport the Prime Minister.

The department was recently tasked with coming up with different possible red and white colour schemes to use on the plane — in a similar style as was used on its precursor, the Boeing 707 which was painted white with a red line and Government of Canada logo and flag.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas told Postmedia Monday that "no decision has been made" about changing the aircraft's colour but "any change would only be contemplated if it were cost neutral." ....

Source: Postmedia News, 4 Jul 11

Michael O'Leary · « **Reply #62 on:** July 04, 2011, 18:11:17 »

Quote

Boeing 707 which was painted white with a red line and Government of Canada logo and flag.

Oh yes, because we all know how patriotically inspiring standard bureaucratic branding can be.

If we're going to do this, can we at least have an open design competition without some nameless "top government official" narrowing the choices to some weaselly common look and feel blandness?

recceguy · « **Reply #63 on:** July 04, 2011, 19:13:37 »

Quote

The department was recently tasked with coming up with different possible red and white colour schemes to use on the plane — in a similar style as was used on its precursor, the Boeing 707 which was painted white with a red line and Government of Canada logo and flag.

The last thing we need is another symbol that looks like that great purveyor of corporate greed, crass incompetent management and uncaring, loathsome employees. A company so totally devoid of the GAF factor, Air Canada.

I like Michael's idea. An open competition would cost little in the great scheme of things, could give us a design envied around the world and actually be a bit of fun.

milnews.ca · « **Reply #64 on:** July 04, 2011, 19:41:39 »

Quote from: Michael O'Leary on July 04, 2011, 18:11:17

If we're going to do this, can we at least have an open design competition without some nameless "top government official" narrowing the choices to some weaselly common look and feel blandness?

Quote from: recceguy on July 04, 2011, 19:13:37

I like Michael's idea. An open competition would cost little in the great scheme of things, could give us a design envied around the world and actually be a bit of fun.

Who would judge? CF? Panel of civilians & military?

ANYTHING but MERX, please....

Michael O'Leary · « **Reply #65 on:** July 04, 2011, 19:47:57 »

Quote from: milnews.ca on July 04, 2011, 19:41:39

Who would judge? CF? Panel of civilians & military?

ANYTHING but MERX, please....

Let it be judged by all the recipients of the Order of Canada.

List of Companions of the Order of Canada

Quote

Up to 15 Companions are appointed each year, with a limit of 165 living Companions at any given time. ... As of June 14, 2010, there were 164 living Companions (including 4 honorary).

57Chevy · « **Reply #66 on:** July 04, 2011, 21:24:10 »

Nice array of carefully chosen words and paraphrases aimed at trying to coax the general public into demanding change:

"the "drab" looking grey aircraft"
"It is drab, it's very military, it's utilitarian"
"it just reflects poorly on the country.
"it's a bit underwhelming,"
"belonging to a third world country"

Nice try but I don't buy it.

Mr. MacKay clearly pointed out that it has been painted in a colour scheme appropriate for its multi-role nature.

The Aircraft looks great just the way it is, and changing it is never actually "cost neutral" anyway.

so, from reply #44:

...press rewind and watch the tape. The answer is the same. It is not happening.

And where the heck is "some corners" located.

dapaterson · « **Reply #67 on:** July 04, 2011, 21:46:02 »

Quote from: 57Chevy on July 04, 2011, 21:24:10

Nice array of carefully chosen words and paraphrases aimed at trying to coax the general public into demanding change:

"the "drab" looking grey aircraft"
"It is drab, it's very military, it's utilitarian"
"it just reflects poorly on the country.
"it's a bit underwhelming,"
"belonging to a third world country"

Nice try but I don't buy it.

Mr. MacKay clearly pointed out that it has been painted in a colour scheme appropriate for its multi-role nature.

The Aircraft looks great just the way it is, and changing it is never actually "cost neutral" anyway.

so, from reply #44:

...press rewind and watch the tape. The answer is the same. It is not happening.

And where the heck is "some corners" located.

Aircraft do require periodic repainting. If a change is done when the palne is already shceduled for repainting it would be more or less cost neutral.

However, in this instance, we are seeing increased demand for airlift in non-VIP situations. Perhaps the CF should be looking to increase the size of its fleet by acquiring some gently used aircraft to augment the Polaris fleet. Having more tails available might also permit having one or two painted white (or Air Force (Tory?) Blue) and still maintain sufficient numbers in tactical colours.

Thucydides · « **Reply #68 on:** July 04, 2011, 22:14:29 »

For a really high LCF, paint a fake cockpit on the underside......

dapaterson · « **Reply #69 on:** July 04, 2011, 22:33:24 »

Quote from: Thucydides on July 04, 2011, 22:14:29

For a really high LCF, paint a fake cockpit on the underside......

Nah, can you imagine a CF-18 pilot in command of a Polaris? I don't think Airbuses are certified for barrel rolls...

On the other hand, we'd get more operational use out of 65 new Airbuses than 65 F-35s... Just compare the log books of Herc pilots with Hornet pilots...

Jim Seggie · « **Reply #70 on:** July 04, 2011, 22:37:01 »

Quote from: Thucydides on July 04, 2011, 22:14:29

For a really high LCF, paint a fake cockpit on the underside......

Or maybe paint it AridPat.............just sayin...

Gronk · « **Reply #71 on:** July 05, 2011, 17:50:00 »

Quote from: 57Chevy on July 04, 2011, 21:24:10

Nice array of carefully chosen words and paraphrases aimed at trying to coax the general public into demanding change:

"the "drab" looking grey aircraft"
"It is drab, it's very military, it's utilitarian"
"it just reflects poorly on the country.
"it's a bit underwhelming,"
"belonging to a third world country"

Nice try but I don't buy it.

Mr. MacKay clearly pointed out that it has been painted in a colour scheme appropriate for its multi-role nature.

The Aircraft looks great just the way it is, and changing it is never actually "cost neutral" anyway.

so, from reply #44:

...press rewind and watch the tape. The answer is the same. It is not happening.

And where the heck is "some corners" located.

milnews.ca · « **Reply #72 on:** November 18, 2011, 17:21:48 »

Quote from: dapaterson on July 04, 2011, 21:46:02

Aircraft do require periodic repainting. If a change is done when the plane is already scheduled for repainting it would be more or less cost neutral.

Funny you should mention that - further along the lines of "only the peons have to follow standardized branding rules", if the Huffington Post is to be believed (highlights mine)....

Quote

After battling with the Department of National Defence over the right to repaint his airbus red and white, The Huffington Post has learned Prime Minister Stephen Harper is getting his way.

The Prime Minister's grey aircraft, an Airbus A-310, which is designated as a CC-150 Polaris, has been slotted for a fresh paint job in August 2013 and sketches of the new design are currently being tossed around the Department Of National Defence, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office.

In fact, the first batch of drawings has already been nixed by political officials.

An early sketch by Jim Belliveau, obtained under Access to Information legislation, shows a colourful plane with native art on the tail. One side of the plane would have represented western Canada and the other side eastern Canada, but officials rejected the concept. Their response, however, hasn't discouraged Belliveau, the graphic designer at 410 Tactical Fighter Squadron at the Royal Canadian Air Forces' base 4 Wing Cold Lake in Alberta.

"As an artist being involved in this is a lot of fun," the man whose drawing will likely be emblazoned on the Prime Minister's aircraft for years to come told HuffPost.

Since most of the public's attention is focused on one side of the plane, the side with the door, officials are being cautious to ensure the aircraft looks uniform.

Belliveau has been drawing plane designs for the Canadian Forces for 28 years. He said he has been asked to come up with three final drawings for the aircraft.

"A product which is easy to produce but at the same time looks professional and puts us in a good light," he said.

"I want the best looking government airplane in the world," Belliveau added. "Regal? Yeah and polished. And it has to be better looking than the rest."

Records suggest Belliveau has been given a few pointers. The words "Government of Canada" must appear in large letters above the side windows in French and English. Under the cockpit window, phrases from Canada's national anthem will be written: "True North Strong and Free" in English, and in French, "Des plus brillant exploits."

A tender for the paint job will be released after the Prime Minister's Office picks a graphic scheme, which is expected sometime in the next year.

The cost of repainting the plane was deleted from the records obtained by HuffPost. Harper's office, however, has insisted it will be "cost-neutral" since the paint job will be delayed until the plane is up for routine maintenance. The mid-1980s Airbus, which was procured in 1993, is repainted approximately every six years ....

More on the proposed paint scheme for the PM's plane from QMI's David Akin here.

milnews.ca · « **Reply #73 on:** November 19, 2011, 07:49:31 »

From Question Period yesterday (PDF)

Quote

Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam Speaker, lots of smug talk about fiscal balance, but we have just learned that the Prime Minister has overruled his own Minister of National Defence and is forcing National Defence to repaint a VIP government aircraft because he does not like its colour. The current fleet of aircraft are painted military grey because they are used in critical military operations. The Prime Minister's vanity paint job will make the plane unsafe for those very military operations. Why is the Prime Minister putting his own vanity above the needs of the military?

Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Madam Speaker, apart from being a complete non sequitur with the member's first question, the accusation made is completely unfounded. These changes would only happen in accordance with the regular maintenance cycle of National Defence and if they are cost neutral. These aircraft are repainted every six years and there is no current plan to change the paint scheme for any airbus aircraft."

(....)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago in question period I said in this House, in reply to a member's question, that there was no plan to change the colour scheme on any of the airbus aircraft that the government possesses. I would like to be perfectly clear that there has been no decision in that regard and to ensure that the record reflects that additional clarification.