You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You think your boat is expensive to run...
- Thread starter Tortuga
- Start date
This happens to be one of my "pet peeves". Namely the inflated supposed cost of SAR missions.
The way I read it, full pay, benefits, vacation time, insurances etc are pro rated to a daily basis and included in the SAR expense. Also seem to be included is the depreciation on the "assets" used, namely aircraft, boats, electronics and all associated equipment.
These expenses go on day after day, year after year whether the men are home on leave, on a training mission or performing SAR. The same goes regarding equipment depreciation-it goes when the plane is in the hanger and the boat is at the dock.
There is probably an extra fuel expense. But some of these planes are in the air and boats are are on normal patrol anyway.
The men and women of the coast guard do a great job at the many tasks that they are called on to do. They have their hands full, I realize, and we should be thankful that they are on call 24/7.
They are a government service and some of the bean counters like to run these figures hoping to impress the likes of us-the ignorant tax payers.
Happy Boating.
Ron
The way I read it, full pay, benefits, vacation time, insurances etc are pro rated to a daily basis and included in the SAR expense. Also seem to be included is the depreciation on the "assets" used, namely aircraft, boats, electronics and all associated equipment.
These expenses go on day after day, year after year whether the men are home on leave, on a training mission or performing SAR. The same goes regarding equipment depreciation-it goes when the plane is in the hanger and the boat is at the dock.
There is probably an extra fuel expense. But some of these planes are in the air and boats are are on normal patrol anyway.
The men and women of the coast guard do a great job at the many tasks that they are called on to do. They have their hands full, I realize, and we should be thankful that they are on call 24/7.
They are a government service and some of the bean counters like to run these figures hoping to impress the likes of us-the ignorant tax payers.
Happy Boating.
Ron
The reality is that their accounting is cooked books... THe seamen and airmen will get their pay that day regardless of an SAR or sit in the station and play cards... The equipment will accrue another day of depreciation whether sitting idle, out on training missions, or in real use...
So the additional expenses of an SAR are the additional fuel burned, the actual running time on the boats and planes during a real SAR, extra pay for sea duty that day, and minor supplies...
Good thing there are SAR missions, otherwise the CG would have to pay all of their own expenses out of their own pocket - now that would be a disaster...
denny-o
So the additional expenses of an SAR are the additional fuel burned, the actual running time on the boats and planes during a real SAR, extra pay for sea duty that day, and minor supplies...
Good thing there are SAR missions, otherwise the CG would have to pay all of their own expenses out of their own pocket - now that would be a disaster...
denny-o
dumy":1unstnyw said:This happens to be one of my "pet peeves". Namely the inflated supposed cost of SAR missions.
The way I read it, full pay, benefits, vacation time, insurances etc are pro rated to a daily basis and included in the SAR expense. Also seem to be included is the depreciation on the "assets" used, namely aircraft, boats, electronics and all associated equipment.
These expenses go on day after day, year after year whether the men are home on leave, on a training mission or performing SAR. The same goes regarding equipment depreciation-it goes when the plane is in the hanger and the boat is at the dock.
There is probably an extra fuel expense. But some of these planes are in the air and boats are are on normal patrol anyway.
The men and women of the coast guard do a great job at the many tasks that they are called on to do. They have their hands full, I realize, and we should be thankful that they are on call 24/7.
They are a government service and some of the bean counters like to run these figures hoping to impress the likes of us-the ignorant tax payers.
Happy Boating.
Ron
Do you run a business? If so, you have to fully cover all the costs you need operate the business. Benefits, vacation time etc have to be paid. Also, while you claim that amortizing the equipment depreciation costs inflates the price, we the tax payers are still paying that cost. How many fewer people and how much less equipment would the CG need if they didn't do search and rescue or safety patrols? I don't know but my guess is that a reasonably large fraction of CG time is spent on safety inspections and responding to recreational and commercial boating incidents of a variety of forms - some life threatening but most are more minor.
Nonetheless, it would be nice to see some of the details behind the cost estimates as the numbers do seem quite high. Also, it's hard to believe that it costs almost as much to operate a 25' rigid inflatable as a 100+ foot cutter (but that may reflect much different depreciation time scales for the RIB) . My suspicion is that the major expense is in depreciation of highly specialized equipment. The CG's 25' RIBs are not std. off the shelf items but rather designed to complicated military specification and produced in very low volume. This adds a lot to the cost relative to a recreational boat.
1TUBERIDER
New member
If you can believe what you read (25 rhib 1617 and 179 cutter at 1597) I think I will have to start looking at bigger boats as a way to save money.