Author Topic: Super-Twat  (Read 401371 times)

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1575 on: November 19, 2015, 09:34:17 pm »
^ Choice.

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1576 on: November 19, 2015, 09:35:07 pm »
Actually, the proposal is a minor adaptation of an aircraft that already exists and is in service. If it gets more use out of an asset that is underused at present, I have no difficulty with it. And it'll reduce the likelihood that I have to fly him anywhere.
If you do ever fly him anywhere, please turn the seatbelt signs off and then do a loop the loop.

The last words on the cockpit voice recorder were "Sorry about the collateral damage".
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

Pingu

  • Put away those fiery biscuits!
  • Mrs Pingu's domestique
    • the Igloo
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1577 on: November 19, 2015, 10:16:29 pm »
Amber Rudd

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1578 on: November 20, 2015, 05:39:36 pm »
Actually, the proposal is a minor adaptation of an aircraft that already exists and is in service. If it gets more use out of an asset that is underused at present, I have no difficulty with it. And it'll reduce the likelihood that I have to fly him anywhere.
On the figures presented, it would take several decades to be cheaper than chartering.

The figures I heard were something like 13 years until break-even. That is presumably based on the refurb/adaptation cost being no greater than the £10m quoted (ha ha), but also on those costs only being set against the costs of ministerial travel: if the newly modded plane was used for other purposes too (I dunno, flying generals somewhere), then presumably some of the cost should be amortised against their budgets too. £10m didn't seem an inordinate amount to me.

As an aside, the report I heard suggested that charter costs for an airliner were about £6 or £7k an hour - that seemed pretty cheap.

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1579 on: November 20, 2015, 05:45:01 pm »
What is not mentioned anywhere is the running costs of the converted aircraft.   I think some presidential aspirational fog has been allowed to cloud judgement. 

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1580 on: November 20, 2015, 11:55:45 pm »
No, the report I saw reckoned £6-£7k per hour commercial charter vs £2k per hour for the newly converted tanker.

Assuming a £4.5k ph saving, that gives 2222 hours to break even on £10m, which over 13 years is 171 flying hours per year. That doesn't seem very many, but I guess CMD probably doesn't go to foreign parts *that* much.

It does make sense to me that ministerial transport should be set up with secure comms links and the like (which probably either aren't available on a commercial charter or have to be fitted every time then stripped out again), and whether or not he's suffering presidential delusions I can think of far greater things to get worked up about.

TimC

  • Bike pilot
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1581 on: November 21, 2015, 12:09:37 am »
The aeroplane would not be converted. It would still fulfil its role as a tanker and freight/passenger transport, but as in the days of the old 10 Sqn VC10s, it would have a VIP fit for those occasions when it was to be used for carrying CMD and other senior politico's around. This isn't a new thing, it's been done for years and years. It's really only been in the Iraq 2/Afghanistan era that the RAF hasn't been able to spare any of the large, long-range tanker-transport aircraft for VIP duties.

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1582 on: November 21, 2015, 12:23:23 am »
Converted, upgraded, modified - whatevs ...

(I hadn't realised that the tankers were dual role - I'd always had a mental picture of the entire fuselage sloshing with fuel. I was quite surprised to see windows on the one they showed on the telly the other night. You may gather that I don't have a particularly strong interest in military aircraft ...)

TimC

  • Bike pilot
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1583 on: November 21, 2015, 12:32:36 am »
With the pure tanker VC10s, you'd have been about right! The ex-passenger deck housed several additional fuel tanks to raise the capacity to something useful. But the Tristar, which has just retired, and the Airbus A330, which is the subject of this current teacup tornado, carry sufficient fuel in the normal tanks to function perfectly well as tankers whilst simultaneously carrying either a few hundred troops, 20 or 30 tonnes of freight, or a couple of political egos.

Steph

  • Fast. Fast and bulbous. But fluffy.
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1584 on: November 24, 2015, 02:31:09 am »
What is not mentioned anywhere is the running costs of the converted aircraft.   I think some presidential aspirational fog has been allowed to cloud judgement.
I am puzzled. Apparently, according to CMD and Gideon, the most efficient and cost-effective way to supply public services is to sell all the assets, sack all the staff and hire in TasercoG4S as outsource suppliers. Except when it involves CMD ego transport, where using existing public employees and assets, kept in-house, is more efficient and cost-effective.
Mae angen arnaf i byw, a fe fydda'i

TimC

  • Bike pilot
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1585 on: November 24, 2015, 07:45:58 am »
Not so, Steph. Well, not entirely, anyway. The A330s are owned by by AirTanker Ltd, and operated on behalf of the RAF using a mix of RAF and civilian crews under a (something like) 20-year lease agreement. A number of the aircraft are used for civilian charter when the RAF demand allows. These aircraft have joint civil/military registration. They tried to interest me in working for them, but going back to military spare-time training and occasional living in tents for half my current pay didn't appeal (and they'd have deducted my military pension from that pay). That was before the VIP role was added to the list. But we've (Virgin) had that PM transport contract for several years now; I've managed to avoid getting involved.

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1586 on: November 26, 2015, 10:04:00 am »
Can I put in a word here for George Osborne?  He seems to have tried so hard to be nominated yesterday, and hasn't been rewarded for those efforts.

Tax Credit Cuts/Not Cuts/Actually Sneaky Cuts Really
Tampon Tax to subsidise 'women's things'
Defining an 'affordable' house as approximately ten times the average wage
Planning (half-heartedly) for less than half of the houses required to deal with the housing shortage
Setting aside a tiny fraction of a per cent of the amount needed to deal with potholes.
it goes on...
Getting there...

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1587 on: November 26, 2015, 10:05:29 am »
And Jeremy Hunt, for his rubbish brinksmanship, for a massive u-turn he didn't have to set himself up for, and for writing to the wrong person regarding talks.  Bravo, sir!  Incompetence and Twattishness of the highest order.
Getting there...

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1588 on: November 26, 2015, 12:23:06 pm »
Tampon Tax to subsidise 'women's things'

Cringeworthy though it is, I sympathise that EU law means they can't zero-rate sanitary products.  (For the same reason they can't zero-rate anything else.)  If it weren't for that, I expect it would have gone through promptly just to stop everyone talking about periods.

Ringfencing the tax for something worthy is a rubbish PR exercise.  Mandating that sanitary products be provided free of charge in places that provide bogroll would be a better one.



None of which really detracts from his general over-qualification for the thread...
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1589 on: November 26, 2015, 01:39:22 pm »
Tampon Tax to subsidise 'women's things'

Cringeworthy though it is, I sympathise that EU law means they can't zero-rate sanitary products.  (For the same reason they can't zero-rate anything else.)  If it weren't for that, I expect it would have gone through promptly just to stop everyone talking about periods.

Um, what? Lots of things are zero rated. PPE for one. Children's shoes.
It's also perfectly normal for different tax rates to apply for the same goods in different EU countries.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1590 on: November 26, 2015, 01:43:01 pm »
The rule is that you can't reduce the rate to zero for something which has previously attracted VAT. The items you mentioned have never been subject to VAT.
Of course when we entered the Common Market far more of our MPs were male and they wouldn't discuss periods in public.
"No matter how slow you go, you're still lapping everybody on the couch."

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1591 on: November 26, 2015, 02:02:50 pm »
ty for the clarification.

Of course, that doesn't rule out the whole EU making a change. But then a lot of male MPs would have to discuss periods. In front of each other.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1592 on: November 27, 2015, 08:32:03 am »
Donald Trump again: the gift that keeps giving.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34931215

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1593 on: November 27, 2015, 01:36:42 pm »
He is an insensitive twat.
Rust never sleeps

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1594 on: November 27, 2015, 04:33:28 pm »
He is an insensitive twat.
No, he's a nasty , bullying , evil shitpile of a person

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1595 on: November 27, 2015, 06:29:37 pm »
If Osborne goes on about fiscal rectitude any longer I may be tenpted to give him rectal fistitude.
Never tell me the odds.

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1596 on: November 27, 2015, 07:00:16 pm »
If Osborne goes on about fiscal rectitude any longer I may be tenpted to give him rectal fistitude.

He'd probably enjoy that sort of thing  ;D
Not fast & rarely furious

tweeting occasional in(s)anities as andrewxclark

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1597 on: November 27, 2015, 07:02:38 pm »
If Osborne goes on about fiscal rectitude any longer I may be tenpted to give him rectal fistitude.

He'd probably enjoy that sort of thing  ;D
De rigeur at St Paul's and Magdalen College*, probably.

*SO went there.  Ozzy's gormless Father Dougal expression was still legendary, apparently, even though he'd graduated a few years previously.  It's his default face.  Was called "povvo" by the Eton kids because he'd only been to St Paul's.
Never tell me the odds.

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1598 on: December 01, 2015, 11:24:29 pm »
David Aaronovitch - most recently, for his smug performance on Newsnight.

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #1599 on: December 02, 2015, 12:17:49 am »
Donald Trump again: the gift that keeps giving.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34931215

Given that he appears to be leading the race, it's really not funny any more