MoD and the joys of PFI

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Kitmarlowe, Jul 31, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Daily Hate has this little piece within it's hallowed pages today

    Returning soldiers grounded for 48 hours in MoD tyre farce: Troops were forced to wait at Middle Eastern base in row over replacing aircraft's flat wheel | Mail Online

    Two questions

    1)Given that supposedly the airframe was selected because parts are easy to get in much of the world airports. Does the contract really say that repair work can ONLY be carried out in the UK with parts supplied by the planes owner ?

    2)if this is the case. Which f**kwit signed a contract that only allows for a strategic lift aircraft to be repaired with parts supplied by the owner and what's the difference in price that the RAF is paying ?
  2. Must have been blinding for those on R and R...
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Its a terrible piece, outrage all round for not that big a deal.

    Firstly, obviousy the work cannot only take place in the UK, the spares were flown in from the UK and the tyre was changed in Minhad.

    I haven't seen this contract but the point of a PFI is that we place a lot of the repair and maintenance burden onto the Company. Clauses are written into the contract that punish the MoD if we use someone else. This pretty much ties us into the PFI Coy. Why? Well probably because if we went elsewhere then it would have severe implications on the PFI Coy and if that was the case why would they agree to the PFI?

    The Daily Wail would have been the first to jump on the bandwagon if the MoD were forced to pay out millions in compensation for a blown tyre. The more pertinent question is why would a tyre not be held in a Stores Pack in Minhad/Cyprus?

    Also, have no sympathy for the lads who lost out on their holidays, you are told plenty of times not to book anything close to your return flight time due to problems on the airbridge.

    Have you worked in DE&S or had any experience with procurement contracts? I have and it is mindblowingly complicated
  4. I guess you haven't been sat on an airbridge aircraft recently then, and R and R days are not 'refunded'.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Um if that was aimed at me then yes I have and unless you've deployed on the last tour then more recently than you.

    I was stuck in Minhad on both R and R and EoT flights so have plenty of compassion for the blokes left in those shitty portacabins with just two dodgy chefs giving bolied eggs and ropey bacon for breakfast and shite haverdogs for the rest of the day. I have plenty of sympathy with them but my point was aimed at the paper for whipping up a pretty much non story.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Huh?

    Are you suggesting that the company would really have had a massive issue if someone else had paid for a tyre for their aircraft?

    It's a bit like Hertz getting upset if you puncture the tyre on your hire car and have a new (correctly specced) one fitted at your own expense.

  7. And that dear boy, is the sound of a nail being firmly schwacked with a big 7lb non utterly crap PFI contract hammer.

    Any takers that AirTanker were allowed to specify the spares contract outside the huge and immensely efficient AIRBUS global spares and support network?

    Material sales | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer
  8. What this incident highlights is the drama that a PFI project places on the RAF when the plane goes tits up. When the Tristar was relatively new spare parts were available and ground crew could have sourced locally and fitted themselves. Which this article suggests was what was planned. Somone in the UK turned round and said "Nope, got to be from the supplier" Which cost the RAF another flight and crew out to take said part out.

    1)How cost effective is that ?
    2) Is that really the best way for a military strategic lift aircraft to work ? Ryanair doen't piss around flying parts around the world if their planes go tits up
  9. Yep, I am. Thats exactly how the contracts are written. As much as it sounds silly over a tyre, where does it end? If we suddenly decide to use someone else then the PFI Coy go out of buisness. I was involved in the FEPS and C Veh PFI. With FEPS we had to make sure that all of the other generators in the 8-40Kw range, apart from those ground dumped, were recalled from service because if we were found to be using any then we would be subject to financial recompense written into the contract.
  10. Which goes to show why the MOD should never have got involved with PFI.

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
    • Like Like x 4
  11. I don't think you have a clue what PFI is or how it works. The one thing it does not do is encourage cost cutting; the contractors carry far more risk if things fail than on a conventional contract. They have to invest because they will loose money if they don't. Compare that with a 3-5 year service contract, where cost cutting is the norm.

    When all is said and done, PFI is just a way of . At the end of the day, government has only three ways of paying for a new item; buy it with cash, borrow the money or get someone else to borrow the money and pay it back in instalments. It is just like buying a car; you can empty your bank account of cash to buy it, go to the bank and borrow the cash or go to a leasing company and get a lease - purchase deal. In effect, PFI is a complex lease - purchase deal.

    One thing is sure; the government never had the money to build the PFIs of the 90s and 00s, nor the ability to go to the financial markets and borrow it. The only way Allenby-Connaught, Voyager etc etc were going to happen was through some sort of private sector borrowing. Just how the lads living in PFI accommodation have lost out through poor service is difficult to see - the alternative was 100+ year old 10 man rooms.
  12. For the PFI outfit? Very cost effective. Makes them a mint.

    Absolutely 100% not.

    Correct, Ryanair, like all airlines, will tie into Boeing and AIRBUS's huge global spares and support networks as can the owners of the AIRBUS Military tankers and troopers.
  13. Wordsmith

    Wordsmith LE Book Reviewer

    PFI is a way of deferring costs from the government borrowing figures: because it's a long term contract the figures don't show up at once. It lets governments buy bright shiny new things while claiming public spending is not getting out of control. In reality it costs more long term because private companies can't borrow as cheaply as a government can.

    The system was invented by the Tories and tested to destruction by Gordon (no boom or bust) Brown who brought lots of shiny things UK PLC couldn't afford - and for which we will be paying for over the next 20 - 30 years.

    If the Wail story is true, this smacks of a very badly drawn up contract. It should have said the contracting company had 6 hours to get its engineers and spares in place to effect a repair, or local engineers and spares would be used. This should have helped both parties because local spares and engineers would have been cheaper than flying out the engineers and spares.

    In which case the blame should go to the muppets who drafted and signed off on the original PFI contract.

    • Like Like x 3
  14. Not quite. There was plenty of money to waste on bribing voters with tat whilst racking up PFI debts that are currently rated at 5 times the capital value of the delivered product........Which is one of the reasons why the NHS is in the shite state it's in. The PFI bills have to be paid first and this Government is unable and unwilling to keep pumping more and more money in after 13 years of frankly wasteful rises in spending.

    But. The RAF was not given any choice but PFI when the desperately needed Tristar/VC10 replacement was first mooted. If the RAF wanted a new plane to fly troops to Bliars vanity wars in the Middle east then it was PFI ONLY. The RAF was pretty damn sure that PFI was not the best option but HM Government/Brown said No as that f**kwit knew better.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. The article says that:

    "...all repairs must be carried out by engineers based in the UK."

    So which other outfits using an Airbus product are constrained from using i) local engineers & ii) local sourced parts to fix routine problems on an aircraft?

    How can you get to a stage where thanks to PFI bollox something as simple as an aircraft tyre change requires Techs. and parts to be flown out from the UK?