[Closed] Missing plane- Who pays for the searches ?

Australia are probably doing it as practice, we are specialising in finding foreigners at sea. They just want to make sure none of them claim asylum.

There's a concept called humanitarian assistance. It doesn't require financial reimbursement.

There's a concept called humanitarian assistance. It doesn't require financial reimbursement.

I wouldn't be so sure of that !

Which means ernie that each government participating pays (or their tax payer does) nothing in life is free, some things are just written off as a loss.

Of all the questions about this incident, I think this is about the least important.

Id assumed any country helping was volunteering and covering its own costs.

Which means ernie that each government participating pays

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I wasn't sure - I thought that perhaps stuff like aviation fuel miraculously appeared.

TrekEX8 - Member

Of all the questions about this incident, I think this is about the least important.

Yes it is and no it isn't !

ernie
There's a concept called humanitarian assistance. It doesn't require financial reimbursement

You're not a civil servant by any chance are you?

The cost of a few days of fuel won't matter in comparison to the amount used in training exercises for this type of event and most military personnel will be on salary anyway so that would have been paid with or without a plane to look for.

Costs will be covered by whichever country is dispatching the aircraft to help.

If you've already got the kit, and it already spends time flying around, then having it flying around doing a specific thing probably doesn't work out very expensive in the grand scheme of things.

Only civil servants understand the concept of humanitarian assistance ? No I'm not.

http://news.oneindia.in/india/mh-370-airline-search-may-cost-more-than-rs-800-crore-1414377.html

[i]"Close to 26 countries have chipped in their resources to find the plane"[/i]

ernie the point I'm guessing wasn't about civil servants being the only ones who can understand humanitarian assistance, more that they don't get that everything actually needs to be paid for by someone.

Really ? I thought not having a receipt to justify expenditure would be a civil servant's nightmare ? But as I say I'm not a civil servant, so what do I know about bureaucracy

more that they don't get that everything actually needs to be paid for by someone.

In the UK Civil Servants really do understand that things have to be paid for. They have to justify everything.

However, their justifications and logic in that process can be very flawed.

If you've already got the kit, and it already spends time flying around, then having it flying around doing a specific thing probably doesn't work out very expensive in the grand scheme of things.

You would be surprised how difficult it is to get permission to actually do that.

I think the Australians have justified this before in the case of Tony bullimore. The expenditure has already been approved-training and normal operations for their ships/aircraft involves sailing/flying around, so they would be doing it anyway. I would argue the same applies to all the countries involved.

In the UK military assets are just that, for the military.

For example the RAF and RN SAR helicopters only exist to rescue ditched airmen, all their other stuff is "training".

Quote from

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/fromthearchive/story/0,,1985507,00.html ]Guardian Story on Tony Bullimore rescue:[/url]

Australia's defence minister last night dismissed any criticism of the cost. Ian McLachlan said the experience gained was something money could not buy. 'We're not going to duplicate those hours. They would probably have been run up anyway, probably practising somewhere else.

'We have an international legal obligation. We have a moral obligation obviously to go and rescue people, whether in bushfires, cyclones or at sea.'

Missing plane- Who pays for the searches ?

Who cares?

I just hope they find it and put an end to the relatives suffering one way ore another.

There were also 6 Australians on board, so they were always going to get involved, they do tend to look after their own.

Merchant ships.. can claw back through their insurance… mainly cost of fuel and loss of hire.

USCG probably performs the most Search and Rescue operations and the US tax payer picks up the bill. Though it can also depend on whether the incident is caused by recklessness or negligence but difficult to prove.

The countries participating are exercising their naval and air forces. Especially in the case of the US, demonstrating the capacity to weigh into a large-scale search and rescue operation in the Indian Ocean is a very potent demonstration of US reach, which will not go unnoticed in the region.

Imagine for a moment if a US ship had recovered wreckage from the South China Sea. Everyone would have been delighted, except for some Chinese admirals, who would have been shouted at quite a lot by their superiors.

This isn't the most important consideration, of course. But whether or not the US, China, India and Australia especially can pull off complicated missions far from base is an area of huge interest strategically.

as per Gobuchul

If the SAR services aren't SARing they're practising at SARing.

Or that used to be the case before accountants got involved with a nice little menu of service costs. Of course it might be different in other countries involved. Of course this particular search appears to be using far more than just regular search teams.

Isn't there also some principle that private vessels are required to one assistance but they can be repaid out of salvage? (Thinking more about sinking ships etc obviously).

Australia are probably doing it as practice, we are specialising in finding foreigners at sea. They just want to make sure none of them claim asylum.

The suggestion from some that it won't cost much because "they're all there anyway" is laughable. It will be very expensive but sometimes that is just the cost of being a country. (Something that escapes the Australian government when it comes to Australia's responsibilities to asylum seekers and refugees as a sovereign state).

cbmotorsport - Member

Who cares?

Top post.

ernie the point I'm guessing wasn't about civil servants being the only ones who can understand humanitarian assistance, more that they don't get that everything actually needs to be paid for by someone.

brilliant levels of spin there, ****ing amazing how you nanage to get such digs in off the back of around 300 people being dead. You should be proud of yourself.