Please tell me this should on JB Jokes thread.

[MReyn24050]

RAF Planes May Be Used For Holiday Flights - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090917/tuk-raf-planes-may-be-used-for-holiday-f-45dbed5.html)

Fourteen Airbus A330s are being bought by the company AirTanker and these will be leased by the Ministry of Defence.

The deal will cost the taxpayer an estimated £13bn over almost 30 years and is the world's biggest defence Private Finance Initiative.

When the aircraft are not being used by the RAF, AirTanker will make them available for commercial hire.

[mymatetcm]

what no ETOPs !!

[Art Field]

Just in case anyone has missed it these are the FSTA aircraft. Mind you, since we first sought the aicraft[in 2000] I am not surprised that some people do not know that. Being a Private Finance Initiative deal the Government pretend they do not have to include the cost in the national debt. On time, OH YES???

[CirrusF]

Why?

This seems like a very efficient use of public money.

Other trades and services should take note.

[MReyn24050]

This seems like a very efficient use of public money

I would agree but the bit I don't understand is "If they don't want the aircraft, or they don't want to fly them, then we take those aircraft and earn some money out of them." .

If these aircraft are to replace the Tristar and VC10s then presumably they will be fitted with all the equipment necessary to operate into the current operational theatre and be flown in a manner to avoid possible threats from missile attack. Will the CAA be happy for these aircraft to be used for commercial purposes when not operated by the RAF?

[Chris Kebab]

It's a very old story but it raises several interesting points.

Presumably AirTanker has contractually sorted the issue of guaranteeing civil utilisation regardless of the MODs requirements.

Anbody know how long a re-role will take, as already stated all the mil kit will need to be removed. Does each return back to the civil world come with a guaranteed timescale? Presumably each frame will own both a civil and military registration mark to be applied a/r?

Why not make the crew all full time reservists and enable them to go back to the civil world with the aircraft?

[soddim]

There is a precedent for the crewing issues in that the Merchant Navy serves when required in hostile areas. The Falklands war utilised many civilians deployed to the South Atlantic. Cannot see any problems with the planned use of PFI crews.

[STN Ramp Rat]

Why?

This seems like a very efficient use of public money.

Other trades and services should take note.

they do .....

House of Commons - Defence - Eleventh Report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/462/46206.htm)

[BEagle]

When the aircraft are not being used by the RAF, AirTanker will make them available for commercial hire.

Hardly a market area for a new and rather small company with unpredictable aircraft availability, I would have thought.

Such a wunnerful idea, this PFI thing. Just note how many other nations have adopted it.......


....so that'll be a round fat zero then? Thought so.

[Pontius Navigator]

The Falklands war utilised many civilians deployed to the South Atlantic but then the merchant marine has a tradition of military and operational support.

[brit bus driver]

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that the deal is not 'when the MOD don't need them' but more like 'we(Air Tanker)'ll have 5 on permanent third party revenue (one of which will be used for FI charter, thereby a self-generaying cash cow as one assumes DSCOM will pay Air Tanker the going rate) unless it's crisis, tension or war, when we'll think about letting you have those 5 back'.

As I say, this may now be hoop but it certainly rings a bell.

So that'll be 9 aircraft to replace 18 or so?

Discuss....

[D-IFF_ident]

It's an old story, and the availability question is one that I don't think will be answered until the aircraft are in service, and required for a sojourn to the badlands. Although BBB's note is interesting - AirTanker should be able to guarantee availability if they ringfence 5 frames for their own use. And the FI airbridge sounds genius (on the part of AT) - the MOD pays AT to maintain a fleet of aircraft, then pays them again, to fly the jet to the FI.

So the 13Bn initial outlay will be augmented by leasing the aircraft twice?

[leader12uk]

may be wrong, but I seem to recall that the deal is not 'when the MOD don't need them' but more like 'we(Air Tanker)'ll have 5 on permanent third party revenue (one of which will be used for FI charter, thereby a self-generaying cash cow as one assumes DSCOM will pay Air Tanker the going rate) unless it's crisis, tension or war, when we'll think about letting you have those 5 back'.



BBB was right, this was in the document that was released by Air Tanker, However there is one thing I cant under stand. It says a quantity of tankers will be delivered as 2 point tanker while the others will be 3 point, however when the 3 point tankers are delivered a quantity will immediatly have equipent removed to make them 2 point!!!

[BEagle]

One understands that when the Rental Air Farce PFI option was explained in depth to the OzAF, it received the sort of robust antipodean response it undoubtedly deserved.....

Something along the lines of "What an utter crock of an idea!", but perhaps rather more colourful in tone.

[Saintsman]

When the MOD accountants realise that one aircraft with twice the capacity is not necessarily a replacement for two aircraft, I think you will see all the AirTanker aircraft fully utilised by the RAF.....