Berlin-Montreal - $376,000 For Creep Class

[Lakelad]

.

Luka Magnotta's $376K repatriation supported by top government officials

A senior Conservative cabinet minister considered it a matter of 'national interest'

Feb 15, 2015 - CBC News
By Andy Blatchford - The Canadian Press

The big-ticket military mission to fetch fugitive Luka Rocco Magnotta from Germany in 2012 was ordered by a senior Conservative cabinet minister who considered it a matter of "national interest," The Canadian Press has learned.

In June 2012, the Air Force made a $376,218 decision to dispatch one of its largest aircraft to collect the accused killer in Berlin, where local police had collared him to end an intercontinental manhunt that made global headlines.

The low-budget porn actor and stripper fled to Europe after the brutal Montreal killing and dismemberment of 33-year-old university student Jun Lin.

Magnotta was given a life sentence in December after a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, among other charges. The 32-year-old is appealing the verdict and wants a new trial.

After Magnotta's conviction, National Defence released more than 1,700 pages of emails documenting the cost of repatriation, the debate over options and the scramble to whisk him home after he agreed to extradition, lest he change his mind.

The messages, obtained under the Access to Information Act, also offer a rare look behind the curtain at the government's efforts to keep details of the "sensitive" mission out of the public spotlight.

The decision to involve the Royal Canadian Air Force — and ultimately one of its CC-150 Polaris Airbus jets — was discussed at the upper levels of the country's political and military ranks, the emails show.

'I (am) satisfied that this support is in the national interest and that this matter cannot be dealt with effectively without the assistance of the Canadian Forces.'- Peter MacKay

Peter MacKay, defence minister at the time, ordered then-general Walt Natynczyk to lend a hand "as soon as possible" after Montreal police asked for federal help.

"We will support this request as an assistance to law enforcement," MacKay wrote to Natynczyk on June 16, 2012, in a partially redacted email.

"I (am) satisfied that this support is in the national interest and that this matter cannot be dealt with effectively without the assistance of the Canadian Forces."

He cited a section of the National Defence Act, which allows the defence minister to call on the military to help police in certain situations.

Natynczyk hit send on a reply to MacKay 21 minutes later.

"Sir, understood," Natynczyk wrote. "Your direction will be actioned."

After exploring their options, the military chose to bring Magnotta home on an Airbus, which can hold up to 194 people when configured for passengers. At the time, it cost an estimated $15,505 per hour to operate.

Taxpayers paid $376,128 for the National Defence portion of the trip, and the department footed the entire bill, a spokeswoman said.

'Mounties jet was unavailable'

.

[Fido]

Unfortunately a wide spectrum of the populace will accept that highly inflated figure of $376,000

[DEFCON]

I have no idea what the real price tag should be, but this was a government op Fido and everything about government costs twice what the public sector would spend.

Then there's the matter of the genius that went in to the decision to recover this creep. Germany let him in; why not just leave him there?

[Kip Powick]

I have no idea what the real price tag should be, but this was a government op Fido and everything about government costs twice what the public sector would spend.

Then there's the matter of the genius that went in to the decision to recover this creep. Germany let him in; why not just leave him there?

Really ??? And if was your child he murdered ??

[DEFCON]

If the Germans have the animal locked up, how does bringing him back at this kind of ridiculous cost change the situation for the parents?

[DEFCON]

Kip

I do appreciate there’s a legal need to return this A-hole to stand trial here (again?), but I will never agree that it should have been done at this kind of cost.

While I’d prefer to see the schlep shipped back by boat in a crate much like we would with a four legged critter, I do know that do-gooderism would never stand for it. The need to be seen to be all caring drives politicians to make completely unreasonable decisions, like the one in discussion, for which the actual taxpayer will add the huge and completely unnecessary cost to their collective debt.

edited to ad: (again?)

[inchman]

Hmmmm... 376,000/15000 = 25 hours. Last time I went to Germany it was only an 8 hour flight from YYZ. Stops in YUL would add 30 minutes each way and I'll give an extra hour on the way home. So.... maybe... 18 hours.

A lot of this is just a way for the military to get a bit more money in their budget. Crews are already being paid. Layover costs for 10 people might be $5000, fuel would be maybe $100,000 (much of it tax). Not sure if the military pays for landing or Nav fees. 18 hours of airframe time won't make much difference to the total eventual cost of operating that aircraft and there might be 10 hours of mtce max for an 18 hour flight. So, actual direct costs might be $150,000.

I'm not sure why they didn't charter something, but they may well have tried and been unable to.

Magnotta's trial and his upcoming un-ending appeals and parole hearings will cost a lot more than that flight.

[acsidestick]

They could have chartered a Lear for less than $50000. It would be nice if some newspaper would do their homework and really dig the details out. It is absurd that a wide body aircraft for 4 was deemed the only possible way to go, and if those making those types of decisions are that poor at it, time to look for better talent.

Even Bill Gates doesn't fly solo in a wide body.

If the Military needs to spend money so recklessly to maintain current budget levels to not risk losing some of thier bigger toys, then it might be time for the toys to go.

I have flown Killers in King Airs.

Mentals patients in Merlins

Psychopaths in Cessna's

There are lots of ways to do this that don't require an A310

[Super 80]

I have no idea what the real price tag should be, but this was a government op Fido and everything about government costs twice what the public sector would spend.Then there's the matter of the genius that went in to the decision to recover this creep. Germany let him in; why not just leave him there?

There was a serial killer who drifted around Southeast Asia in the 70's because Thailand was too cheap to extradite him from the various places he turned up.

[DEFCON]

Super 80

I agree that extradition treaties and procedures have all sorts of complicating shortcomings and I wouldn't suggest there isn't a need to do something to resolve them. My only wish would be for cost 'reflective' solutions.

[Kip Powick]

Hmmmm... 376,000/15000 = 25 hours. Last time I went to Germany it was only an 8 hour flight from YYZ. Stops in YUL would add 30 minutes each way and I'll give an extra hour on the way home. So.... maybe... 18 hours.

A lot of this is just a way for the military to get a bit more money in their budget. Crews are already being paid. Layover costs for 10 people might be $5000, fuel would be maybe $100,000 (much of it tax). Not sure if the military pays for landing or Nav fees. 18 hours of airframe time won't make much difference to the total eventual cost of operating that aircraft and there might be 10 hours of mtce max for an 18 hour flight. So, actual direct costs might be $150,000.

I'm not sure why they didn't charter something, but they may well have tried and been unable to.

Magnotta's trial and his upcoming un-ending appeals and parole hearings will cost a lot more than that flight.

They could have chartered a Lear for less than $50000. It would be nice if some newspaper would do their homework and really dig the details out. It is absurd that a wide body aircraft for 4 was deemed the only possible way to go, and if those making those types of decisions are that poor at it, time to look for better talent.

Even Bill Gates doesn't fly solo in a wide body.

If the Military needs to spend money so recklessly to maintain current budget levels to not risk losing some of thier bigger toys, then it might be time for the toys to go.

I have flown Killers in King Airs.

Mentals patients in Merlins

Psychopaths in Cessna's

There are lots of ways to do this that don't require an A310

I have to assume your time serving in the Military has given both of you inroads to make these statements........please enlighten all of us .......and just a simple question.....did either of you read the entire "linked" article??

Crews are already being paid.....Not that it makes much difference to your numbers but when a RCAF mission is tasked from Parliament Hill for a non-military task, the costs of the crew/fuel/maintenance/ etc.and every cent that it costs to complete the mission. are included in the total "bill"

aircraft for 4 was deemed.....and this information is found where??? Do you really think an A310 went to Germany with 3 persons and came back with 4 persons???? .......Really ?!

I spent Family Day with my kids and grandkids...looks like you two decided to spend part of the day making wild assumptions and rail on DND/RCAF for a decision they did not make.

[Kip Powick]

acsidestick

I do not believe I asserted that the aircraft was going on another mission and was re-directed for this mission, if you read that...where do you read that? The mission was "probably" assigned from NDHQ after direction from the Government to DND HQ. You have me really confused about passengers and such......

That seems to go against your first assertion that the plane must have been already going for another purpose.....Please tell me where I even came close to making such an assertion.Did you read the link??

my question to you then is who are the several hundred freeloaders going to Germany for free, relatives of Allison Redford?Where did this come from...who said there was, or was going to be, other passengers onboard? Again did you read the link in the first post?. The aircraft was pulled from Ops out in Alberta and left Canada for one task and one task only. It was not a "scheduled" flight .

I actually find your "assumptions" about pax load as confusing...let me explain. The aircraft is tasked but it would not be going with just three people in it.......two pilots and a Loadmaster make 3, but it probably carried a couple of FEs as well. possibly a Steward. There is no way an aircraft would go on such a mission with just "crew". There would be security personnel, probably MPs, (Military Police), as well as an RCMP officer or two....there always was when I flew the GG around. There was probably some low-level members of the Government on as well. how many...I have no idea. I did not, nor did anyone else suggest that the "prisoner escort serendipitously materialized" and took the "last three seats".

If DND was given enough time and the flight could be posted on the AMU, (Air Movements Unit), display board, or through word of mouth, and most importantly 'AUTHORIZED' by NDHQ the flight could have taken Military members, their spouses and families over to Germany BUT and it is a big BUT, it would be a one way flight only. They would not be permitted to fly back with the criminal onboard. Even a one-way flight would be considered a perq by many serving members....maybe they were going on a European vacation anyway and this would save them some of the costs associated with airfare.

All in all, you seem rather confused about the entire process when it comes to tasking a Military aircraft to commence and complete a civilian mission and that is understandable but as an ex-Mil guy I take exception to you posting wild assumptions with no evidence to support such assumptions....you know, there is nothing wrong in asking for information if you are not sure of the process.

Me and the cross and Family Day ?? Well when you have 3 female grandkids skidding about the casa, one does take a break and locking the office door and pulling up AEF has always been one of my hobbies and probably will be until I make the "Final Flight West".

PS......they all went home at 6:00pm EST

[acsidestick]

Kip, I already removed my post. There isn't much point. Spending over 300000 to move one passenger is absurd. No matter whether you're are civilian or ex military makes no difference. You have stated above I must be confused how military aircraft are tasked. If you can't see how ridiculous the wasted dollars here were, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[ILB]

They could have chartered a Lear for less than $50000. It would be nice if some newspaper would do their homework and really dig the details out. It is absurd that a wide body aircraft for 4 was deemed the only possible way to go, and if those making those types of decisions are that poor at it, time to look for better talent.

Even Bill Gates doesn't fly solo in a wide body.

If the Military needs to spend money so recklessly to maintain current budget levels to not risk losing some of thier bigger toys, then it might be time for the toys to go.

I have flown Killers in King Airs.

Mentals patients in Merlins

Psychopaths in Cessna's

There are lots of ways to do this that don't require an A310

Various aircraft were considered; they needed an aircraft that could complete without an intermediate refuelling stop due to customs and immigrations issue that might arise from a fuel stop in say Iceland.

Also considered were smaller, longer-range "business" aircraft, but there was a concern raised about the perception of using a "luxury" aircraft to transport the accused.

The "newspapers" have done at least some homework for us.

I recognize that if you watch the pennies, the dollars will look after themselves. But when in the same province the crime was committed, two legislative seats are deemed worth 300 million or so a piece, this seems rather less worthy of important. I would further postulate that the transportation bill on this is a smallish fraction of the total cost of investigation and prosecution of this murder--although that is admittedly a wild-ass guess on my part.

[Fido]

There can be a case made that there is not any cost to this operation.

1. The aircraft was available

2. The government did not go out and buy another aircraft just for this operation

3. The crew got paid no matter what

4. If they had not flown this there would have been a 'training' flight later on

5. As many of you know the air force flies until the fuel budget is spent

6. Landing fees, overflights are not charged to government flights

7. Hotels, meals would have been spent on a 'training' flight later in the year anyway

8.

[GDR]

Fido as well as KIp are right on the money. The crews are required to put in their hours to maintain competency. In the end it is probably cheaper to bring them home that way than chartering a Lear. The Lear just doesn't make as good a story.

[inchman]

Kip, this is clearly a "full price" bill. I understand the accounting of it all, but a lot of it is merry-go-round accounting.

As I said, the flight crews are being paid (by the customer) anyway. Whether they were flying that aircraft or attending courses or shining their shoes they get paid the same, unless I am terribly mistaken. And this 18 hours means they won't have to take 'er up just for competency.

The aircraft is being amortized whether it is sitting on the ramp or flying.

There would be some additional maintenance, but 18 hours is not going to make much of a difference as to when the next D check is scheduled. That will occur more based on availability of facilities than running right down to the wire.

Not sure if DND pays Nav Canada fees or landing fees in Canada or other NATO country.

Fuel tax and GST on same is a revolving door for the government.

If we assume that the 310 was a commercial aircraft with it's normal capacity of 200 seats, the price charged works out to $1835 return per seat. Any airline on earth would be ecstatic to get that for an economy return fare to Germany, especially when they're not paying tax on fuel.

Let say you own a plumbing company and pay your workers a salary. You need some plumbing work done around your house and there's a couple of slack days in the schedule. To be perfectly legal, you should hire your company and pay for the fair cost of the work... let's say you charge yourself full price... $1000 bucks. Your company would pay the workers their $500, (which it is already paying them anyway), parts and depreciation on the truck cost $400, so your company pays corporate tax on the $100 profit then give the balance back to you as $50 in dividends. From a pure account perspective, the job cost $1000. On a cost-only basis, it costs $900. But you were paying the plumbers $500 anyway and you got $50 back at the end of the day. So, really, it cost you, out of your pocket, the cost of the parts and the corporate tax you had to pay: $450.

The bottom line in the DND case is that everything above direct operating costs (parts and gasoline) (and taxes) is returned to the customer/slash/owner. And given that the customer/slash/owner in the also gets the taxes part, all the better for them.

Bottom line, there is no way that the overall cost to the taxpayer of this specific flight even came close to the quoted number. If the military and the government have to, or want to, account for it this way, they either have another column to offset the unspent non-operating costs, or the government has to hand the money over to the DND on the balance sheet. If the latter is the case, then the DND just made a couple hundred grand available for other projects.

[Kip Powick]

As I said, the flight crews are being paid (by the customer) anyway. Whether they were flying that aircraft or attending courses or shining their shoes they get paid the same, unless I am terribly mistaken.

I think you have it............. as long as you understand that everything about that flight is not charged to the DND budget. The crew certainly gets paid by DND but, in this case their wages, the hours they fly, the meals, the gas etc is then charged back to the government agency that tasked them.

You also have to take into account the costs associated with the tasked aircraft being pulled off a 'planned' military operation in Alberta and then flying back home, perhaps Ottawa to pick up some diplomats. police etc. Another aircraft would then have to be tasked to fill in for the mission that was preplanned in Alberta...that may have been added to the bill as well.

The cost for the newly tasked mission, (Germany), does not come out of the DND budget, it comes from another ? government department. Did DND pad the numbers?? Only the accountants would know and it really doesn't matter because.....

in actual fact all the money the government uses for any cause/expense comes from one big pot, locker, vault, somewhere near Disneyland North......the book keeping is just 'fun with numbers'

[Fido]

The cost for the newly tasked mission, (Germany), does not come out of the DND budget, it comes from another ? government department. Did DND pad the numbers?? Only the accountants would know and it really doesn't matter because.....

in actual fact all the money the government uses for any cause/expense comes from one big pot, locker, vault, somewhere near Disneyland North......the book keeping is just 'fun with numbers'

From my knowledge of federal government financing:

It is likely that if the DND made a $300k profit on this project, they would have their budget reduced by $300k somewhere else.

or by some other department charging them $300k for services.

As you say Kip, it would just be shuffling the dollars from one column to another.

[moeman]

Are we seriously debating whether the government wastes X dollars here or X dollars there, and that that is better than wasting it here or there?

[Kip Powick]

Are we seriously debating whether the government wastes X dollars here or X dollars there, and that that is better than wasting it here or there?

No, not seriously......because that would be pointless...nothing ever said on this forum has, or will have, any earth shaking consequences. Lots of "rants" can be found here and that is good. A great way to relieve yourself of internal pressure ....(rather than passing gas).

A good degree of knowledge is found on this forum, however, all in all the information here it is mostly personal opinions and for the lack of a more descriptive word, free flowing "entertainment".

Enjoy

[inchman]

Are we seriously debating whether the government wastes X dollars here or X dollars there, and that that is better than wasting it here or there?

There is a little of that, but my position is that it really didn't cost the taxpayers $376,000. It may have been that whomever put that number out there wanted to stick a needle in the eye of the administrator that insisted that they use a 310 to retrieve the **bleep**.

There is some acceptable number between zero and that number to extradite a criminal. This **bleep** couldn't be brought on a commercial flight and it is quite possible that the aircraft was used to move some stuff that needed to go anyway.

In the grand scheme of things, there is some value in showing potential criminals that we will go to significant expense to make sure that they are brought to justice and the $150,000 in real money that it probably cost taxpayers is peanuts compared to the millions that will be spent prosecuting him, defending him and dealing with his appeals... yes, we will be paying for both sides.

[John S.]

"Taxpayers paid $376,128 for the National Defence portion of the trip, and the department footed the entire bill, a spokeswoman said."

These kind of statements make me cringe. As others have pointed out everybody on the aircraft is going to get paid whether they are flying to to Germany or Edmonton.

But on a related topic - if you really want to see your tax dollars being inefficient get on a jury and see how (s-l-o-w-l-y) the wheel of justice churn. I'be been on a few and can recall staying awake by doing some mental calculations. Like how much per hour it's costing me (and my fellow taxpayers) to pay for four sheriffs, six lawyers (!), four court employees and the judge. Then add in the cost of the room, hmmm if you wanted to rent a room that size at the Sheraton it would cost xx. Pretty soon you realize that not starting the APU to save $100 worth of gas and maintenance compared to the cost of the justice system is like thinking how small you are when looking at the night sky.

​Now, wasn't THAT a niche change of topic?

[UpperDeck]

OOO!! OOO!! (Think of Horschact in "Welcome Back Cotter"). Can I chip in?

I'm a "niche" player.

Imagine briefly the cost to taxpayers---to society----were we to depend upon a "sense of fair play" amongst our citizens to ensure our peaceful co-existence with our neighbours. Lord knows it constitutes little restraint but at least the threat of being required to account inhibits unlawful behaviour to a degree. It is the "Rule of law"--more often honoured in the breach-----that gives us some semblance of personal safety.

So though I agree that the wheels of justice often seem to move (grind) slowly, the cost of that Judge, clerk, and court deputies is actually a very small investment relative to the benefit derived. I am confident you would rue the alternative.

As an aside----those four lawyers unless paid by Legal Aid were not taxpayer funded. If under a Legal Aid certificate, some portion of the fees were paid by the lawyer whose fees are SIGNIFICANTLY discounted; all lawyers in Ontario; the client; and (minimally) the Province of Ontario.

Surprisingly, most jurors come out of the experience with a new-found respect for our system of justice and a belief that they performed a valuable civic function.

[Airband]

Love is in (the somewhat fetid) air