Will privatising SAR mean rescue charges?

[chanelyacht]

Indeed. My first reaction was negative, but on finding out a bit more about it it seems to be a good thing. Channel 4 News was doing their best to rubbish it last night - at one point their "reporter" said "They say the new service will arrive on scene four minutes faster - but with a finite number of helicopters, can they really provide as good a service as the RAF?" I actually shouted "So the RAF has an infinite number of helicopters, does it?" at the telly at that moment.

Pete

Meeja idiots Pete.

Our local tv news covered the story by showing footage of an air ambulance

 

[emsworthy]

If you like, but it's not a new thing. Commercial companies have supplied the government since medieval times.

Pete

And almost always doing it more efficiently than the "in-house" alternative.

An example, in the 'old' days in Pompey Dockyard if a fluorescent strip light needed changing at high level it would require the services of an Estimator, a Rigger (and mate), Scaffolder (and mate) and an Electrical Fitter (and mate). All of which would be charged out at minimum hours. Once an external contractor took over building services maintenance the job took one electrician on a cherry picker... job done!! (didn't need a final salary pension either!!)

 

[prv]

And almost always doing it more efficiently than the "in-house" alternative.

An example, in the 'old' days in Pompey Dockyard if a fluorescent strip light needed changing at high level it would require the services of an Estimator, a Rigger (and mate), Scaffolder (and mate) and an Electrical Fitter (and mate). All of which would be charged out at minimum hours. Once an external contractor took over building services maintenance the job took one electrician on a cherry picker... job done!! (didn't need a final salary pension either!!)

To be fair, it can sometimes work the other way round too. Where the in-house staff will just get on and do stuff that clearly needs doing, whereas the outsourced company says "sorry, not in the contract" and you get into negotiations and lawyers and increased costs to do the simplest things.

Difference is whether you have effective management and leadership of the in-house organisation, to nip the "17 different trades and their mates" in the bud before it becomes entrenched, and encourage an attitude of getting the whole job done rather than just protecting your area.

Pete

 

[dylanwinter]

And almost always doing it more efficiently than the "in-house" alternative.

An example, in the 'old' days in Pompey Dockyard if a fluorescent strip light needed changing at high level it would require the services of an Estimator, a Rigger (and mate), Scaffolder (and mate) and an Electrical Fitter (and mate). All of which would be charged out at minimum hours. Once an external contractor took over building services maintenance the job took one electrician on a cherry picker... job done!! (didn't need a final salary pension either!!)

I am sure you are correct that it is sometimes more efficient.

however, when it comes to rescue services I think that I am extremely interested in it being done well -slightly less interested in it being done efficiently as judged by an excell spreadsheet.


after all..... the RNLI does its job superbly well .... I am not sure that it is all that efficient when it comes to maximising the use of resources.

I fear the spreadsheet jockies will have even more power - so while the Solent gets great coverage..... am not convinced that it will be "cost effective" to keep the more remote places covered.

Dylan

 

[prv]

while the Solent gets great coverage..... am convinced that it will be "cost effective" to keep the more remote places covered.

It will be if you're being paid by the government to cover all the places, and will not get paid if you don't cover them.

At the moment it's the MoD who are not covering some places, like Manston.

Pete

 

[Tranona]

I fear the spreadsheet jockies will have even more power - so while the Solent gets great coverage..... am convinced that it will be "cost effective" to keep the more remote places covered.

Dylan

That does not seem to be the case if you read the proposals the new bases which cover areas that have not been well served in the past.

In every aspect - coverage, quality of kit and response times the new arrangements are superior to the existing. The only thing that is difficult to determine is whether there is a cost saving because it is impossible for an outsider (or even an insider!) to work out the real cost of using military resources for civilian work.

 

[wadget]

That does not seem to be the case if you read the proposals the new bases which cover areas that have not been well served in the past.

In every aspect - coverage, quality of kit and response times the new arrangements are superior to the existing. The only thing that is difficult to determine is whether there is a cost saving because it is impossible for an outsider (or even an insider!) to work out the real cost of using military resources for civilian work.

It would seem logical to me that having a larger company operating SAR will allow them to use economies of scale to give the same or better service at a lower cost.