[Newsbot]

Title: Tories take heat for unreliable C-17s
Category: Military
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2008-05-24 15:27:33
Canadian

[Streaker]

Half of the ''fleet'' broken down, eh.... lol

[rockindel1]

The "extended warranty" was only a couple extra buck a month , now I wish we had gotten it St**en Ha**er

[DerbyX]

$1:

renting a Russian Antonov heavy lifter

Thats the plane some people on this forum (I think Bootlegga) were suggesting we purchase instead of the C-17. Perhaps they were right?

I wonder if the same critics who attacked the Liberals for the subs will show some character and respond likewise to a gov't that has simply wasted billions with almost nothing to show for it.

[commanderkai]

Ahem...didn't we just buy these? I think a US company (Boeing?) owes us a bit

[Streaker]

One of the arguments put forth by the defenders of this deal was that spares for the C-17 would be readily available, whereas support from Antonov or Ilyushin would be iffy.

Now we have two of them sitting on the tarmac, waiting for spares.

This programme has been a folly, and billions have been wasted.

[Canadian_Mind]

Wow, this is dumb... Considering we just received the last two. We've relied on chartered Antonovs for years, and they've been fucking reliable when properly looked after by the commercial companies that own them. I'm no expert, but the only thing I see the C-17s have going for em is their ability to land and take off on shorter runways, and they can be bought from right next door. Antonovs are larger, carry more, and fly farther... plus we have people here in Canada who know how to maintain them. Personally I think we should have committed to the Canadian company that charters the Antonovs or bought our own. Ohwell, least the tanks haven't turned out to be lemons.

[bootlegga]

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

renting a Russian Antonov heavy lifter

Thats the plane some people on this forum (I think Bootlegga) were suggesting we purchase instead of the C-17. Perhaps they were right?

I wonder if the same critics who attacked the Liberals for the subs will show some character and respond likewise to a gov't that has simply wasted billions with almost nothing to show for it.

Yep, it was me.

Hmmm...$42 million/year to rent from Skylink in Toronto or $3.4 billion to own yet more hangar queens.

It's odd that some people were worried about getting spare parts from the Ukraine and here we can even get them from a factory in fucking Seattle.

[meaden24]

I can't believe these liberal/ndp cowards that just can't jump fast enough at any story they read that says anything negative about the cons. As a member in the Air Force I can say for sure that The C-17 is the most capable aircraft available for a heavy lift capacity, fact is these were ordered new, we got them off the assembly line so the fault is not with the government for buying the equipment. Maybe you should direct your "evil harper government" attitudes towards the people that should be getting the hate mail, boeing, for delivering NS aircraft.

[Canadian_Mind]

meaden24 meaden24:

I can't believe these liberal/ndp cowards that just can't jump fast enough at any story they read that says anything negative about the cons. As a member in the Air Force I can say for sure that The C-17 is the most capable aircraft available for a heavy lift capacity, fact is these were ordered new, we got them off the assembly line so the fault is not with the government for buying the equipment. Maybe you should direct your "evil harper government" attitudes towards the people that should be getting the hate mail, boeing, for delivering NS aircraft.

I see one post that has any hint of being anti-conservative. The rest are all griped against the aircraft and/or Boeing.

And I'm actually curious about what makes the C-17 more capable than any other heavy lifter. I'm hoping that actually being from the air force you will have something other than the specs.


Lily: Even liberals hate on Dion.

[Scape]

Where the hell are the spare parts?

[Canadian_Mind]

I think the whole deal behind the story is that we are waiting on the Americans to manufacture parts to give to us.

[RUEZ]

Something the libs here should keep in mind is that we have 4 of these planes. Two are currently on assignment. So how many planes would we need to rent if we didn't have these two already being used? I'll admit it's disturbing that we should have two planes broken down, or even if they are on regular maintenance we should have the parts available. This could be a sign of their success though after all Canada was given a jump in the queue just to get them as quickly as we did. Perhaps the company is just having a hard time meeting all orders. Never the less I would trust Boeing any day over a Russian company, and who's to say this wouldn't have happened if we had gone with the Russian planes. If the Liberals think renting is such a great idea how come they didn't rent us some decent helicopters back in the 90's? Maybe they could have rented us some transport helicopters when they sent us into Afghanistan.

[Scape]

Something the cons should keep a keen eye on is the multi Billion dollar price tag and the fact that these fresh off of the assembly line aircraft are grounded and it isn't even a year since we had them. Not only did Boeing drop the ball here by not doing effective quality assurance they then failed to make sure a supply of parts were readily available. WHY ELSE DID WE PAY SUCH A HIGH PRICE? THESE AREN'T RENTALS! I'm glad we got these birds but I expect far better service out of them.

[commanderkai]

Scape Scape:

Something the cons should keep a keen eye on is the multi Billion dollar price tag and the fact that these fresh off of the assembly line aircraft are grounded and it isn't even a year since we had them. Not only did Boeing drop the ball here by not doing effective quality assurance they then failed to make sure a supply of parts were readily available. WHY ELSE DID WE PAY SUCH A HIGH PRICE? THESE AREN'T RENTALS! I'm glad we got these birds but I expect far better service out of them.

I'm sure Boeing will cover the expense, I mean, assembling these things aren't like assembling Hotwheel cars or something, and there was a mistake or two. I'm glad that they caught it before we started trying flying it.

IF Boeing doesn't cover this, I say lawsuit. Like people mentioned, brand new aircraft shouldn't go straight to maintenance.