# DND training contract could go to B.C. or Quebec



## Bograt (19 Dec 2004)

Not sure where to post this. Considering this is going to effect me, anyone have any comments on this piece of news?

Martin's billion-dollar dilemma
DND training contract could go to B.C. or Quebec, but PM can't make both happy
   
a journalist 
The Ottawa Citizen 


Saturday, December 18, 2004


The Canadian government is poised to award a billion-dollar contract to the embattled Bombardier Inc. or to a British Columbia-based consortium in a hotly contested program to provide military pilots with training for the next 20 years.

Kelowna Flightcraft is going head-to-head against Bombardier of Montreal for a contract to build a new pilot training centre at Portage La Prairie, Man., and provide ground training there on helicopters and multi-engine fixed-wing aircraft for Canadian Forces pilots. The contract, expected to be worth slightly more than $1 billion, will cover training for the next two decades and is seen as a key program in the military's privatization efforts.

Aerospace industry executives expect the winner to be announced by the end of January. Defence officials will only say the contract is to be awarded some time early in the new year.

But that announcement could give Prime Minister Paul Martin's government a major political headache. Pressure is intensifying from Quebec Liberals for federal help in bailing out the financially ailing Bombardier. But Mr. Martin is also trying to make inroads with Western voters and passing over a major B.C. aviation firm in favour of the Quebec-based aerospace giant could hurt his party at the polls.

A team made up federal bureaucrats will determine the winner, but that selection will be reviewed by cabinet because of the value of the contract.

Defence analyst Martin Shadwick said cabinet will be carefully looking over the air training contract, particularly in light of Bombardier's financial problems. Bombardier shares tumbled by almost 19 per cent earlier this week, raising concerns about the future of one of the world's largest aerospace companies.

"Even if Bombardier is clearly the winner in this program, the optics will look bad," said Mr. Shadwick, a strategic studies professor at York University. "It will be perceived as a gift to Bombardier. It will be a Bristol-type of thing all over again."

He was referring to the controversy that erupted when former prime minister Brian Mulroney awarded Canadair of Montreal a CF-18 maintenance contract even though its competitor, Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg, had a lower bid.

Jim Rogers, who is overseeing Kelowna Flightcraft's bid, said the company has put together a strong package involving industrial partners in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. But he acknowledged that Bombardier is a formidable competitor.

"Any time you're competing against Bombardier, it's a little bit of David and Goliath," Mr. Rogers said in an interview done before this week's announcement that Bombardier had run into financial problems.

"We have strong points they don't have and they have strong points we don't have. They're probably stronger politically, but theoretically that doesn't enter into it. We'll just have to see how it comes out."

Bombardier is running the flight training project, but that contract expires next summer. In its place, the Canadian Forces plans a much more elaborate program.

The winning bidder will build a new training centre and will provide new flight simulators and more advanced aircraft. The winner will also deal with all support activities, including ground training, weather services, emergency response and air traffic control.

The Canadian military will continue to provide instructors for the actual flying training, as well as monitor how the contractor provides services.

"It's called a re-tendering of the training services," said Canadian Forces Lt.-Col. Randy Palmer. "But the scope of the training programs are so substantially new that I would consider it a new training program."

David Jurkowski, vice-president of government relations for Bombardier Military Aviation Training, said the company brings with it more than a decade of experience in pilot training. It can also provide a smooth transition from the current program to the new one, he added.

"If the customer wants a certain thing we've got a really solid handle on what it's going to cost," said Mr. Jurkowski.

Bombardier has also put together a team of suppliers from across the country.

The issue of Western Canadian aerospace firms being snubbed by the federal government was an issue this summer after the awarding of a $5-billion contract for new Canadian Forces maritime helicopters to a U.S. firm. Western Canadian companies will only be in line to receive $390 million worth of work from that project. The lion's share of the helicopter program work -- $2 billion -- will go to Ontario firms. Another $2 billion is being divided up between Quebec and Atlantic Canada companies.


----------



## sdimock (19 Dec 2004)

Not likely BC will get it.

I say that because the Liberals can win a federal election without BC but not without Ontario and Quebec.

They may want to make inroads into the west but not at the cost of loosing power.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (19 Dec 2004)

I think that the contract will go to the firm in BC.  The Liberals have constantly been slaughtered in the west.  Giving the contract to BC could be the start of a new beginning, not likely.  Quebec gets the majority of defence contracts, its time to spread the wealth out.


----------



## Zoomie (20 Dec 2004)

In the end, the decision will be made and the result will be transparent to the user (ie Airforce).  PFT and AFT will undergo some cosmetic upgrades and new fleets - but the training program will remain relatively the same and the training base will remain in Southport.

Bograt - most lilkely you will still fly the Slingsby Firefly at PFT, but if and when you return to 3CFFTS you will be on the new fleet of Multi-engine aircraft or helicopters.


----------



## nULL (20 Dec 2004)

I wonder if decisions are ever made on who's actually the better choice? 

Who is best able to provide the training?


----------



## Inch (20 Dec 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> I wonder if decisions are ever made on who's actually the better choice?
> 
> Who is best able to provide the training?



As Zoomie said, who wins will be transparent to the military. It's CF pilots that instruct at AFT now and it's going to remain that way. All the civilian contractor will provide is the aircraft and maintenance, exactly the same as what's happening now. IMHO, as long as we've got serviceable aircraft, it doesn't matter who provides them since they won't be providing any of the training, with the exception of PFT. PFT is very minor flight training, more just to see if you've got the aptitude for it than actually teaching you much about flying. The actual military flying training starts in Moose Jaw and you're taught by military pilots.


----------



## jmacleod (25 Jan 2005)

Who is best to provide Air Pilot Training in the CF? No question in my mind, the Canadian Forces
-no Air Force in the world is/was as competent and focused on Air Pilot training than the Canadian
Air Force. Starting with the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP) right up to the decision
to "contract out" (a major mistake in my opinion) the RCAF/CF were the best. Centralia, Gimli,
Moose Jaw, Portage, are some of the Flying Schools recalled, plus Central Flying School, (CFS)
Trenton. If the government has a billion dollars to provide a training program, give it in one
lump sum to the Air Force, and get on with it. MacLeod


----------



## Inch (25 Jan 2005)

What training have we contracted out other than PFT macleod? None. We've contracted out the aircraft and maintenance in Moose Jaw, same in Portage and Cold Lake (for the Hawks), and maintenance on the Cormorants. We've also contracted out 3rd line maintenance for most of the aircraft in the inventory. For the amount of times an aircraft goes into 3rd line maintenance, it's far cheaper to have a civilian contractor do it than try to train and retain technicians that are needed on Sqn. In the case of Moose Jaw, again, we no longer have a need to train technicians on the Harvards or Hawks and since they don't deploy, it's not a concern that there are no military techs. Any aircraft that deploys has military techs since we can't deploy civilians. 3rd line maintenance isn't done in theater.

Buying the aircraft is one thing, training technicians and maintaining a supply chain are things that we no longer have to worry about in Moose Jaw or Portage.   The pro to this is that we always have a contracted number of aircraft on the line for flying, ask anyone if this is the case on Sqn and you'll get a resounding "that doesn't happen here". I really don't see any cons to this, at least as far as Moose Jaw and Portage go.

As for flight training, civilians teach PFT since it's just the absolute basics and it's a huge waste of a qualified CF pilot to teach it, CF pilots (and a few foreign pilots) teach the flying in Moose Jaw and beyond.

For all the former BCATP sites you listed, not necessary. We only put 144 pilots a year through training, Moose Jaw and Portage can handle this flow so there's really no need for more airfields.


----------



## jmacleod (27 Jan 2005)

Contracted out maintenance and training in support of the Canadian Forces, particularly the Air Force
will escalate - DND have prepared a position paper on the plan. My associates and I, all with decades
in the aerospace sector, are currently advocating that all aircraft support occupations training provided
by 16 Wing Borden, be upgraded to TC CARS Standards, (full AME AMT Certification), since most
CF AF technicians are going to be regulated to line servicing. Our other point, provided to the MND
-if all these critical military activities are being contracted out, why bother with a military training air
arm at all. Contracting out is not the answer, and the cost savings are nebulous. The former CF/RCAF
bases I mentioned were the backbone of CF/RCAF/NATO training under 14 Group in "the good old
days", when CF/RCAF technicians could actrually rebuild an aircraft (6 Repair Depot,Trenton ON). The
irony in this contracted out situatiuon is that today, virtually all CF technicians cannot be employed in
overhaul and related maintenance on commercial aircraft, because they lack Certification, required by
another arm of Government, Transport Canada. MacLeod


----------



## Garry (29 Jan 2005)

The contracting out of technicians will eventually bite us. Military folk do things that Civ contractors will not- war zones, forced overtime, etc.

Further, the more techs you have the more flexibility the CF will have. Yes, the "schools" don't deploy- and maybe our Military techs would enjoy the break from deployments and sabre Sqn life with a few years at the school- and some family time before heading back.

As well, there has always been a flow from the Mil life to Civ life- and certifying our Techs to Civ standards is an excellent benefitr for our pers.

We can only downsize so much- at some point we write our own death notice.

Cheers-Garry


----------

