Roland,
You are right in that the original requirement for FSTA was based on AAR tasking, however it became apparent during the Assessment Phase that without the AT tasking the PFI was even more unaffordable than it is now. Therefore AT was included in scope of the project although the title was never changed for presentational reasons (HM Treasury might ask why we were permanently hiring pax ac as opposed to spot hiring pax lift), and the decision to settle on 9+5 ac was the result of modelling on the total AT and ARR requirement. Slightly more than 50% of the ac and 50% of the peacetime AFT requirement is now based on AT.
I also agree that charter can't always be hired direct to the final destination, but in recent years we have always managed to hire ac for as much of the route as we put out to the market. However, sometimes the boot is on the other foot; the Army couldn't understand why we in theatre were being resupplied by commercial freighters whilst 2 Gp refused to fly in a Tristar or VC10 prior to the fitting of LAIRCM!
Squirrel 41
For AT tasks the FSTA will be in the same as any commercial A330, i.e. all seats, and no cargo door or floor on the main deck. Despite the IPT for years trying to tell the world that DAC could be carried in the hold, it means we are taking a step backwards compared to the KC1.
Surely, new capability should improve on the old. Instead we will get an ac that can't move frt except for non-dangerous cargo in hold baggage bins, doesn't have the flexibility to undertake mixed pax/frt/AAR tasks, can't land at many of the airfields used by the VC10, is too large for many small pax moves, and with only 9 ac available to us daily the ac will be overstretched to meet the daily tasking.
End result for pax and frt tasks: pay more, get less!!