LHL ride RSAF.Pak Lah VIP jet.
-
i still have no idea wad u r making noise for...Originally posted by lionnoisy:
u claim malaysia gov buys the plane??
but...Abdullah Denies Buying Executive Jet
so there... where got my gov buy any planes....
SEPANG, Jan 29 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Monday denied news reports that he had bought an executive jet, and explained that the government had only leased the aircraft from Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad.
or u saying... PM chartering plane is waste of money??
our PM also charters plane to travel also wad....
so wads the deal here?
i really dun understand... -
Another stupid thread by lionnoisy, booooooooo........
-
Abdullah Denies Buying Executive Jet
2.why u so naive.Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad is 100%
SEPANG, Jan 29 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Monday denied news reports that he had bought an executive jet, and explained that the government had only leased the aircraft from Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad.
owned by MY government.Full stop.
so,can i say MY Govt own the plane indirectly? -
Yes indirectly you can say that.Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.why u so naive.Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad is 100%
owned by MY government.Full stop.
so,can i say MY Govt own the plane indirectly?
Oh and im naive?...ok then...
since you compare MY with SG...
LHL also travels in a chartered SQ plane.... and its majority owned by government also wad...
so can i say... the planes belongs to LHL and family?
seriously... u have no strong basis abt this whole thing.... just becos its government owned... u say... he owns the plane...
on account to that... even if he travels in chartered flights... its not as if he alone use it...
same goes with other world leaders...
u wanna compare to them also?? -
this is by far the worst thread by lionnoisy, but he just refused to admit it. want to paul lampah also no need to liddat.
-
Wah, your logic is so good. Do you think that the PM gets to keep the jet even though he is no longer the PM? If he does, then can he can keep the jet in his own private hangar once he retires? Who knows? Maybe Tun Maha also got a secret jet in his secret hangar. I tell you what, if you become PM of msia, you will also have your own jet, fair or not?Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.why u so naive.Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad is 100%
owned by MY government.Full stop.
so,can i say MY Govt own the plane indirectly? -
How much fuel is consumed flying a RSAF KC-135 Airborne Tanker - compared to a Private VIP Jet - the size of an Airbus 319 ?
Was it necessary for PM LHL to use an Airborne Fuel Tanker to get to the Philippines ?
Was he afraid that refular planes flown by SIA or Silk Air will run dry of fuel ? -
2.Low pay but got a free private jet.Not a bad deal.Originally posted by saffron60:Wah, your logic is so good. Do you think that the PM gets to keep the jet even though he is no longer the PM? If he does, then can he can keep the jet in his own private hangar once he retires? Who knows? Maybe Tun Maha also got a secret jet in his secret hangar. I tell you what, if you become PM of msia, you will also have your own jet, fair or not? -
2.Fuel is small issue compared withOriginally posted by Atobe:How much fuel is consumed flying a RSAF KC-135 Airborne Tanker - compared to a Private VIP Jet - the size of an Airbus 319 ?
Was it necessary for PM LHL to use an Airborne Fuel Tanker to get to the Philippines ?
Was he afraid that refular planes flown by SIA or Silk Air will run dry of fuel ?
the initial purchase cost,(RM200 millin?)
maintenance and repair costs
and the opportunity cost of earning interest from initial purchase cost.
(say 5 % yield,ie RM10 million pa) -
why do u keep saying its private??Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.Low pay but got a free private jet.Not a bad deal.
becos u believe so is it? -
Oh my gawd! u r imposibble!!Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.Fuel is small issue compared with
the initial purchase cost,(RM200 millin?)
maintenance and repair costs
and the opportunity cost of earning interest from initial purchase cost.
(say 5 % yield,ie RM10 million pa)
MAS buys it. Then lease it to government. MAS makes money... can expand new route... pay their staffs and buy more planes! Thats their own corporation business...
So you prefer PM MY to use SQ plane instead?
But u r saying MY PM owns the plane..... why u keep harping to that issue? Just becos gov owns MAS is it?
So ... sg gov also owns SIA wad.... so....? LKY owns all the latest A380 ar? -
If the aircrafts in the RSAF, SIA, Silk Air, Tiger Airways are all already paid for - with excess funds from Singaporean's money - by way of Temasek's involvement in these ventures, is there any question of initial purchase ?Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.Fuel is small issue compared with
the initial purchase cost,(RM200 millin?)
maintenance and repair costs
and the opportunity cost of earning interest from initial purchase cost.
(say 5 % yield,ie RM10 million pa)
It is not as if we are discussing purchasing a new aircraft, but the best use of any one of the smaller aircrafts in the vast inventory of different aircrafts owned by the Singapore Government through Temasek and the Ministry of Defense.
Why fly a huge Military KC-135 aerial refuelling airborne tanker ?
If you are talking about opportunity cost - the amount spent on fuel flying a KC-135 could have been saved for some other investment opportuities, if a smaller aircraft meeting the load of PM LHL entourage would have sufficed.
Can a purpose built civilian aircraft converted into a military aerial tanker such as the KC-135 be cheaper than an Airbus A319 ?
Like for like, the Airbus A319 is about the size of a stretched Boeing 737, while the KC-135 without the onboard high-tech refuelling equipment is about the size of a DC-10 (which is about the capacity of a regular Airbus A330 or Boeing 727).
Price-wise the Airbus A319 or Boeing 737 is cheaper that an Airbus A330 or Boeing 727.
Surely, it is dumb to fly a high priced KC-135 aerial tanker than flying one of the smaller Lear training jets owned by Singapore Airlines ?
Those Lear jets are about the size of an Executive Jet with a seating capacity of 6 to 10 passengers - depending on seating configuration.
Even chartering a Tiger Airways Airbus A320 jet is cheaper than flying the RSAF KC-135. -
2.Civilian jet dunt come with missiles defense.Originally posted by Atobe:If the aircrafts in the RSAF, SIA, Silk Air, Tiger Airways are all already paid for - with excess funds from Singaporean's money - by way of Temasek's involvement in these ventures, is there any question of initial purchase ?
.....
Even chartering a Tiger Airways Airbus A320 jet is cheaper than flying the RSAF KC-135. -
wait wait....Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.Civilian jet dunt come with missiles defense.
but the whole basis of this thread is u r teling us that our pooooor PM is flying in a military plane while MY PM travels in a so called PRIVATE JET owned by him....
And i have point out so many points... and yet... u still say...badawi buys the 200m plane for his own use... -
"Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent."--- Napoleon Bonaparte
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
How many more ridiculous reason are you planning to come up with ?
2.Civilian jet dunt come with missiles defense.
El Al has missile defense built into their civilian aircrafts.
The same can be done to the smaller Singapore Airline Lear Jets - and with the same efficiency that Singaporeans displayed with such short notice to convert an SIA 747 into a mini-hospital to fly Madam LKY from London to Singapore.
The resourcefullness of the SAF - especially the RSAF and ST Aerospace - can easily incorporate the Lear jets with anti-missile defense.
The anti-missile defense is already in the inventory of the RSAF, and ST Aerospace has the expertise to install it.
The cost of installation plus fuel spent on flying a smaller aircraft can hardly be anywhere near the amount of fuel consumed by the larger KC-135.
The opportunity costs of the KC-135 performing training tasks for RSAF Pilots should be much higher than flying a commercially chartered smaller aircraft from within the Temasek owned inventory. -
Ya, so when are you going to be the next PM of msia? Private, opps..not private, sorry, indirectly gov owned jet will be yours and you can even borrow it when you retire, good deal eh?Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.Low pay but got a free private jet.Not a bad deal. -
Ya, so when are you going to the next PM of msia? Private, opps..not private, sorry, indirectly gov owned jet will be yours and you can even borrow it when you retire, good deal eh?Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.Low pay but got a free private jet.Not a bad deal. -
spend money you complain say peanuts this mee siam mai hum that..now he save money u also complain say no face, just what the hell do you want?
-
You are assuming the fuel consumption and costs of the KC-135 is higher than other available commercial aircraft in the inventory.Originally posted by Atobe:How many more ridiculous reason are you planning to come up with ?
El Al has missile defense built into their civilian aircrafts.
The same can be done to the smaller Singapore Airline Lear Jets - and with the same efficiency that Singaporeans displayed with such short notice to convert an SIA 747 into a mini-hospital to fly Madam LKY from London to Singapore.
The resourcefullness of the SAF - especially the RSAF and ST Aerospace - can easily incorporate the Lear jets with anti-missile defense.
The anti-missile defense is already in the inventory of the RSAF, and ST Aerospace has the expertise to install it.
The cost of installation plus fuel spent on flying a smaller aircraft can hardly be anywhere near the amount of fuel consumed by the larger KC-135.
The opportunity costs of the KC-135 performing training tasks for RSAF Pilots should be much higher than flying a commercially chartered smaller aircraft from within the Temasek owned inventory.
Perhaps you should check it out instead of mere assumption...also in view of the summit having been postponed twice and the assessment of the security situation and foreign relations by MFA/Mindef/ISEAS. It was not an overkill having to deploy the KC-135 and other units/assets. -
So is the jet his? He can sell it and make a profit even after his term has ended?Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.Low pay but got a free private jet.Not a bad deal.
Or are you a elite trying to sing praises adovcating high pay for our PM who has to sit a military plane, and later changing ur argument to that of security concerns.
So, have u not considered the opportunity costs if their PM's plane was shot down?
Make up your mind please. -
whoever said the msian ministers get low pay? mahatir owns an 8 million dollar villa
-
shhhh. wait our PM will demand his own private jet to be on par.Originally posted by vito_corleone:whoever said the msian ministers get low pay? mahatir owns an 8 million dollar villa
a civilian jet with missile defence, that is. -
Originally posted by pilotsnoopy:
How certain are you to assume that my post is based on some mere assumptions ?
You are assuming the fuel consumption and costs of the KC-135 is higher than other available commercial aircraft in the inventory.
Perhaps you should check it out instead of mere assumption...also in view of the summit having been postponed twice and the assessment of the security situation and foreign relations by MFA/Mindef/ISEAS. It was not an overkill having to deploy the KC-135 and other units/assets.
Compare the following specs between the KC-135R - with the 'R' series indicating the use of the new CFM engines - and some other smaller aircrafts in the Singapore inventory, it will be quite obvious that a lighter aircraft requiring smaller engines will consume less fuel.
The KC-135R weight empty at 53,654 kilogram, and each engine has a thrust of 10,000.8 kilogram per engine (total of four engines); it requrie 4 to 5 crew, while able to carry up to 80 passengers.
An Airbus A320 is fitted with only two similar CFM 56 engines as the KC-135 in the RSAF (which has four engines), and with the A320 being lighter at 42,818 kilogram when empty, and needing only 2 crew to fly the plane with a seating capacity of 120.
The point concerning security was a lame excuse for this thread, when his post was shown to be illogical and simply playing another useless appreciation to the supposedly thriftiness of LHL when compared to Malaysia's Badawi. -
I'm not sure if we should raise such a big issue here... the RSAF seems to be pretty happy to whisk our PM around in just about any aircraft of their fleet if it came to it. I'm sure we could raise plenty of issues on many things but I think there are plenty of bigger fish to fry on how the taxpayer's money should be spent.
For all we know the RSAF could just be using the KC-135 for wayang, to show off their latest toy.
Will we ever know? I don't know.