Originally Posted by
Boten
I don't see where in the article it is clear that running costs are excluded. It even mentions what the running costs are. The estimated saving is likely to have running costs included albeit an estimate based on previous PM travel plans. That is how business plans work.
I know that's how business plans work, but sadly its not how politicians or the media work.
The article says "The government will announce next week that it will spend £10million refitting an RAF plane which is normally used for air-to-air refuelling. Ministers insist that the plane will save the taxpayer up to £775,000 a year on the cost of Downing Street's flights because it will avoid the use of costly charter flights." Plenty of wiggle room there as it only mentions refit cost and current charter expenditure (possibly, depending in inetrpretation). One might infer that the break-even point is 12.9 years, but it is not clear. The article goes on to say “This is about saving taxpayers’ money. There will be upfront costs but by using a refitted RAF Voyager instead of chartering private aircraft for each long-distance trip, we will save taxpayers around £775,000 a year.” Again, no mention of running costs, and one might reasonable infer that they are included. But one might equally infer that the same £775K is an amount that won't be spent on charters, and does not include running costs for the refitted plane. I did see that later on running costs are indeed mentioned: "The converted RAF Voyager A330 is expected to cost £2,000 an hour, compared to the current average cost of £6,700 an hour.", but my point is that it is not as clear cut as it may seem on a brief glance. I would hope that the unequivocal statement that it will save tax payers money is true, but I do question how open they are being about the true costs.
As another airline related example of politician opaqueness, not so long ago an MP/Peer* was speaking in the House of Commons/Lords** in favour of a 3rd runway at Heathrow. Something, by the way, I'm broadly in favour of for various reasons. He/she*** argued that the UK was falling behind other countries in terms of airport infrastructure and UK Plc was suffering as a consequence. He/she justified this by saying that Frankfurt now has more direct daily flights to mainland China than LHR. Which is maybe be technically true, but only because the word "mainland" excludes Hong Kong which is often the airport of choice for anyone wishing to travel to southern China.
*/**/*** I forget exactly who and where.