Titan airways-2
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appears confirmed...
`XATW = Royal Air Force operated by Titan Airways.
The 321NX could hardly be described though as a Northolt/Royal Flight `146 replacement as it will be capable of flying most missions to be asked of the A330 though less capable perhaps of accommodating Governmental sized egos.
Titan Airways are working well to find replacement work around what was regarded normalcy until this time last year.
The erstwhile 2PF `POWZ is also due out on 6 month lease eventually to Amerijet in MIA as is the first 2PF.
`XATW = Royal Air Force operated by Titan Airways.
The 321NX could hardly be described though as a Northolt/Royal Flight `146 replacement as it will be capable of flying most missions to be asked of the A330 though less capable perhaps of accommodating Governmental sized egos.
Titan Airways are working well to find replacement work around what was regarded normalcy until this time last year.
The erstwhile 2PF `POWZ is also due out on 6 month lease eventually to Amerijet in MIA as is the first 2PF.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmmmm...standby.
AWC`s 2nd A321NX as yet undelivered may now well wear the registration G-GBNI....wonder what those letters could represent for a flying contract?
AWC`s 2nd A321NX as yet undelivered may now well wear the registration G-GBNI....wonder what those letters could represent for a flying contract?
Great news. It's a basic requirement of modern govt and I note that France, Germany, Italy etc have small fleets of A320 series aircraft for govt missions. Only in Britain do people get upset over this.
As for NHT ops, well it's not carrying 200+ passengers and if it can't make it out with an exec load then LHR is literally just down the road. And if it's not actually flown by the RAF then LHR makes more sense.
As for NHT ops, well it's not carrying 200+ passengers and if it can't make it out with an exec load then LHR is literally just down the road. And if it's not actually flown by the RAF then LHR makes more sense.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most EU nations have the aircraft as national assets and operated by their Air Force, or Armed Forces. They don't have them operated on a wet-lease basis, which would arguably be better for the skillset of the Armed forces, rather than subbing everything out. But government procurement process favour low capital expenditure and these kind of PFI-type deals.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is hard to see how utilising people already employed by the RAF and procuring a brace of aircraft for the role couldn't be cheaper than buying in the service from the private sector, perhaps someone in Titan is a donor to the Tory party. I can't see Titan being allowed to use a government liveried aircraft for ad hoc charters.
I have absolutely no problem with the government having a fleet of aircraft at its disposal for government business, but the UK must be quite unusual in using civilian carriers for the task.
I have absolutely no problem with the government having a fleet of aircraft at its disposal for government business, but the UK must be quite unusual in using civilian carriers for the task.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...& a pic of the erstwhile `GBNI on the Finkenwerder website all white & under power ready for its first flight a few days ago...this website also claims it as destined for the Royal Air Force & will operated by Titan Airways.
Interesting when the official announcement will be...perhaps in the finer print of the Defence Review this pm.
Interesting when the official announcement will be...perhaps in the finer print of the Defence Review this pm.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same applies. Can the UK MoD and the armed forces under it's umbrella really be so inefficient that it can't compete with commercial businesses that, after all, have to turn a profit, something which no government department ever has to do.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness One Foxtrot
I think much of the 'upset' is how uk.gov goes about this. Instead of buying the aircraft outright and operating them in-house, they contract to a private company who needs to make a profit and who in turn is leasing from ALC who needs to make a profit. And of course when they go for mx the maintenance provider needs to make their profit. So we're paying extra as tax-payers to make sure that everyone else down the stack gets their margin.
I've no issue about the Government using a small fleet of suitable aircraft for special missions, but there's no consideration of commonality with the RAF fleet ( e.g. BBJ - Poseidon - Wedgetail ) nor any interest in maintaining the institutional skills built through 60 years of RAF transport provision.
I think much of the 'upset' is how uk.gov goes about this. Instead of buying the aircraft outright and operating them in-house, they contract to a private company who needs to make a profit and who in turn is leasing from ALC who needs to make a profit. And of course when they go for mx the maintenance provider needs to make their profit. So we're paying extra as tax-payers to make sure that everyone else down the stack gets their margin.
I've no issue about the Government using a small fleet of suitable aircraft for special missions, but there's no consideration of commonality with the RAF fleet ( e.g. BBJ - Poseidon - Wedgetail ) nor any interest in maintaining the institutional skills built through 60 years of RAF transport provision.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATNotts
....and it's precisely for that reason that the private sector is more efficient. Cost saving is in the DNA, whereas public sector organisations "have to" spend their grant by March 31st, or it will be cut next year. Also, public sector employees have notoriously low productivity, and enjoy very expensive perks that the private sector just can't afford. What's more, profit levels are usually over-estimated by those who don't understand the private sector, and see every penny of profit as greed.
....and it's precisely for that reason that the private sector is more efficient. Cost saving is in the DNA, whereas public sector organisations "have to" spend their grant by March 31st, or it will be cut next year. Also, public sector employees have notoriously low productivity, and enjoy very expensive perks that the private sector just can't afford. What's more, profit levels are usually over-estimated by those who don't understand the private sector, and see every penny of profit as greed.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree about the ability of the public sector to spend (other peoples) money - the annual council tax rip-off has just hit the mat, with an extra 6.3% allocated to Mr. Invisible (the Police and Crime Commissioner)!
I don't believe people object to the private sector making a profit, but I do understand that peoples perception of profits can often be wide of the mark. I have worked for a business where a mark up, as opposed to margin, was 10%, and another where the minimum required mark up was 43%. One provided a service, the other a manufacturer and distributor.
I don't believe people object to the private sector making a profit, but I do understand that peoples perception of profits can often be wide of the mark. I have worked for a business where a mark up, as opposed to margin, was 10%, and another where the minimum required mark up was 43%. One provided a service, the other a manufacturer and distributor.
El Bunto
I think one of the reasons is that the MOD is wholly incapable of buying anything off the shelf and notoriously financially incontinent. Everything has to come with the maximum bells and whistles and bespoke to the highest level. Look at the fiascos of Nimrod AEW3, Nimord 2000, even TriStars converted rather than buy the KC10 off the shelf or even three different versions of VC10 tankers. Then you have the A330 where the aircraft is the right one but the PFI funding is insane. Sometimes all you need is a leased A321 outside of all that madness?
I think one of the reasons is that the MOD is wholly incapable of buying anything off the shelf and notoriously financially incontinent. Everything has to come with the maximum bells and whistles and bespoke to the highest level. Look at the fiascos of Nimrod AEW3, Nimord 2000, even TriStars converted rather than buy the KC10 off the shelf or even three different versions of VC10 tankers. Then you have the A330 where the aircraft is the right one but the PFI funding is insane. Sometimes all you need is a leased A321 outside of all that madness?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness One Foxtrot
Yes IIRC that PFI contract guaranteed thousands of hours/year MORE than the Govt required in the original spec, at an av hourly rate which was around 10x the open market rate on a standard A330. Yes there were hose conversions to do, but 10x multiple and guaranteed excessive hours for about two decades is what PFIs are all about. Titan will look SO cost-effective by comparison. And they know what they are doing and are almost an institution in British Aviation.
Yes IIRC that PFI contract guaranteed thousands of hours/year MORE than the Govt required in the original spec, at an av hourly rate which was around 10x the open market rate on a standard A330. Yes there were hose conversions to do, but 10x multiple and guaranteed excessive hours for about two decades is what PFIs are all about. Titan will look SO cost-effective by comparison. And they know what they are doing and are almost an institution in British Aviation.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a house
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprised the RAF didn't contract the A318 rather than the A321neo if they were seeking a replacement for the Bae146 of the Queens Flight.
Probably could have secured the ex BA sistership now it too has been withdrawn from LCY JFK services.
What exactly are these A321neo going to be used for? Surely they are too big for occasional overseas visits by the PM and Foreign Secretary.
Probably could have secured the ex BA sistership now it too has been withdrawn from LCY JFK services.
What exactly are these A321neo going to be used for? Surely they are too big for occasional overseas visits by the PM and Foreign Secretary.
