Let me begin my statement by saying I took part in a mistranslation, and now believe that the word charter is not the appropriate word but rather lease agreement. I believe it was also an error to just lump these two different topics in one amendment. Those were all my errors and mine alone.
Before I present my two new amendments, and withdraw my previous one I would like to address the comments made by the Speaker.
To start with, Reitzmag has yet to donate this final aircraft to the European Union, and has repeatedly through their councillor request that this aircraft not be covered in this motion multiple times. Noting the nation would donate the aircraft if some Eurostar project is completed. Regardless, the EU only controls 39 aircraft at the moment, and should therefore only legislate on those 39.
Secondly, I may not be some aerospace engineer, but VIP transport and whatever needs the ERF might require are two very very situations. Sure they can just be used to ferry refugees and light cargo, but an A340-300 which is what was ordered are not type rated for the very situations that the EU would need its own relief logistic capabilities. If these A340-300s can get somewhere, chances are so can more readily available commercial air freight operators.
The A340-300 or any variant of the A340 is not type rated for sole freight use. There has never been an actually built conversion for these operations. It is not a simple overnight retrofit, its not an oh just move some seats there. Its a complete redesign of the airframe. Also Airbus still says there is a cost to retrofitting these aircraft for a job they should not be doing whatsoever. If you wish to bring up headlines Mr. Speaker here is one:
"Multi-billion dollar ERF fleet unable to get aid to refugees!"
"ERF planes fly empty unable to carry more supplies, should have made a better deal!"
"ERF's planes can't land where needed! Sad!"
A cost that the URR specifically did not say they would cover, and one only supposedly described by Airbus as low.
We do not even know what kind of aircraft is being donated, the press release initial lists them as Airbus A340-300s, a relatively inefficient unreliably aircraft. Now the Councillor for the URR describes them as A340-400Xs, a variant not known to be described to or released to the public.
((((OOC: I should note that Airbus belongs to the French/Spain/UK/German producers slot only which two are filled right now by Gallorum and Angleter. Obviously Airbus has a commercial sector, but its pretty closely connected with its defense sector in terms of development and research. So I do not know if we can even consider comments made by Airbus without consultation with Gallorum or Angleter as canon.)))
This circus will continue as long as these aircraft remain in our possession. The Speaker wishes to talk about us not have a real budget so far, alright then. Where is the money to move these aircraft to new parking locations? Upkeep them while they sit around? Do we really even need 39 of them to begin with? Most commercial freight operators do not even have that many besides the giants. Maintenance on the A340 will be a nightmare considering its history of engine issues, not to mention building up an entire infrastructure of staff, facilities etc. to house them.
It costs 12,600 Euros per flight hour for an Airbus A340 to operate, but that is under commercial schedules. These aircraft will be sitting around much of the time driving up costs substantially. We should either invest in a smaller fleet of C-130J Super Hercules or A400M aircraft, which are far more suited to the mission of the ERF, and of which we can purchase second hand. Using these aircraft will also allow the ERF to integrate with military forces assisting with relief operations more easily. Most of the time you are not moving people as a relief operation, that is secondary to the supplies needed for the region. The C-130J or the A400M can be modified for passenger only flights or a mix of both. I wish to stress that no where in my amendment does it necesitate buying brand new aircraft, and that the ERF would be open to purchasing second hand aircraft for far cheaper. The extra money from selling brand new A340s would likely keep the program going for quite a few years on its own.
That or we should sell them all outright. It should be up to the ERF really. The Speaker wishes to just throw these aircraft to the ERF and hope the issue goes away. It. Will. Not. They will pile up over and over with issues, budget constraints etc.
Now its not going to be easy to sell these A340s, and if some end up sitting it will only cost the European Union money to keep them park. I advocate on allowing these aircraft to be leased to private operators. No European Union branding or support etc. just a plane for use if they do not wish to buy it. You are right they should not work for profit, but as a Speaker who wishes to bring up the budget, aircraft sitting around will only burn a hole through the Union's budget.
Now, I will withdraw my previous amendment and present these two new ones.
Amendment 1:
I. The European Council shall transfer all 40 39 of the recently donated aircraft from the United Reichs of Reitzmag from the possession of all Councillors to the ownership of the European Relief Force.
II. All 40 39 of the recently donated aircraft may not be used for the private transportation of Councillors , and must instead be used exclusively by the European Relief Force in their humanitarian endeavors.
III. The European Relief Force shall work with the European Aviation Agency to sell all or part of the newly donated fleet. Said funds created shall be used to establish the logistical capability for a fleet of tactical and strategic airlifts more suited for the role of the European Relief Force. The European Relief Force shall have a period of two years to sell some or all of the newly donated aircraft.
IV. Any additional funds still available shall be rolled into the European Union budget for the European Relief Force.
Amendment 2:
V. The European Relief Force may lease these newly donated aircraft to private operators as a way to generate additional revenue. This is not intended as a long term solution, and only as a short term solution to avoid budgetary issues should they arise.
The Kingdom of Spain
