Hi Arty,
I like your post!
I agree, the provision of spares and manpower at a level similar to FSTA would have vastly improved daily TriStar airframe availability. I do not have the stats to compare but, I do not really agree that the TriStar could not achieve satisfactory down route reliability. If you might recall, it was deemed satisfactory for aircraft to go U/S rather than hold spares! The flyaway pack was a "serious" concession!
MMR, is in the equation. However, the real enhancement would be something along the lines of the Marshalls fleet proposal circa2004? A fleet expansion and mature aircraft programme. Wasn't going to happen by then because too many careers and retirements were linked into the FSTA!
Interesting that you lump the VC10 and TriStar fleet cost together. I believe the later VC10 costs were an order of magnitude greater than the TriStar and so your comparison is disingenuous to the TriStar which, in fact, was the cheapest widebody aircraft that the RAF will ever operate.
As for crews (people) leaving...tells its own story!
Now, I know this is mostly water under the bridge, but the TriStar and 216Sqn got an undeserved kicking that was really due to appalling RAF policies that came home to roost after around 2000.
Beyond that, I see no reason not to highlight missed opportunities (even dodgy dealing?
) that could have led to a different situation than the one we see today....and tommorrow...etc £££££££
OAP