This might put Jet2 in an awkward position if it goes ahead, with their relationship with AirTanker..divisive topic I know *hides*

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-airline-talks

Why would Jet2 care about one of their trusted partner airlines taking on (completely legitimate and right) additional work which has no bearing on their contract.

Indeed it'll all be fine, no one will notice a thing; LOL
Anyways Jet2 Holidays are prime time advertisers with the Jess Glynne TV ad (I love it) on both GB News and Talk TV so they won't care. (Giggles)

You sarcasm is completely misplaced.

Atleast

95% of the population ether don’t know about, don’t care about, or support the deportation flights.
95% of the population will have no idea on the relationship between Jet2 and AirTanker.

And the few people that both a) disagree with the flights and b) are knowledgeable about jet2/airtanker operations, will have enough critical thinking capacity to realise that a business agreement made by one company has absolutely no bearing on the other.

Were your average bucket and spade holiday maker bothered about whose steed carries them to their week in the sub there might be an issue, but by and large they don't.

However the fact that you felt the need to write what you did in brackets just underscores the contentious nature of the contract and journalists could indeed make trouble for Jet2 were they so inclined.

Deep.....lol
Its Friday afternoon, its the Weekend - soon will be G&T time, the sun's out so let's keep it light ---- I was having a laugh - It's' Pprune everybody!

😂😂🫣🫡😘

Once I have to disagree with you. To take on such a contract would be morally wrong. I would not travel with any airline that took part in deporting people, against their will, to a country that is actually far from democratic and corrupt.
I believe gay people are still imprisoned and executed there too. Appalling!

It's naive to think that nobody will make the link and that Jet2 won't get dragged into the negative publicity.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, you’re being stunningly naive if you don’t think this would trigger a social media storm. Given it is now public, and Jet2 seem pretty savvy about their brand reputation, I’d be surprised if there hasn’t already been a phone call to find out what’s what.

On the other side of the coin is the Air Tanker/RAF contract due for renewal before the next election?

Interesting point on the above, sky news this morning have pushed an MP hard during an interview on who the airline is should the bill be passed.

No doubt now that any airline associated with the bill will have its name dragged through the mud by the British press, and as mentioned above, Jet2 have a brand reputation they are massive on maintaining so won’t want to be associated with an airline running these flights.

It’ll be very interesting to see how this plays out

I watched the same interview. Leaving aside the shear uselessness of the minister and, for balance Dodds for the opposition I got the distinct impression that if Air Tanker were considering taking the Rwanda contract they may have got cold feet.

I would imagine Jet2 might have fired a shot across their bows and pointed out possible consequences of taking the business. Problem for Air Tanker must be that the MOD, and therefore the govrnment must be their largest revenue stream and there could be some serious financial arm twisting in play.

It’ll be an interesting one to watch how it plays out.

Big article in The Times about it today.
No mention of Jet2 though.

The Air Tanker issue was discussed in the Sky News Press Preview last evening. The suggestion was that within their contract with HMG / MOD they are obliged to take the job if the client requests them to.

Can anybody shed any light of the situation with G-SUNG?

It has a very prologed and delayed testing and finishing phase at XFW, and was eventually delivered after NF which rolled out of the production line weeks later. Been at MAN for over 3 weeks now and not even turned a wheel, while NFs entry into service was a matter of a couple of days.

The AirTanker issue is indeed an interesting one for Jet2. It’s quite telling that no one wants to operate the flights despite the Government I’m sure offering to pay above the odds, and even Rwandair think it will do damage to the brand!

I'd be amazed if Air Tanker was able to decline missions tasked to it by Government. At the end of the day, it was created to become and replace the likes of 101 and 216 Squadron - could you imagine a response which says "we're not flying there - there's a war on"? It surely has an obligation to undertake whatever missions the Government of the day may demand of it - whether you, I, the media or anyone else may like the policy in question or not.

I'd have thought that also gives the ability to offer the most straightforward answer for both Jet2 and Air Tanker should the issue come up more widely. Unless someone can enlighten me to the contrary, if Air Tanker is effectively a Government transport department which has been out-sourced, it has a job to do and has no exercise of discretion in the construct of that tasking.

Flightrider,

Your analysis is probably spot on, though I can still see some discomfort for Jet2. All they could do is try and source alternative wide body equipment for the summer from, for example, Wamos or Privilege Style, supposing carriers have capacity this summer.

Cancelling the Air Tanker contract could potentially be costly.

Flightridar
By the time those who were to be transported actually get near an aircraft post legal objections, you could probably get away with an A319 or if it goes really badly a Learjet !!! I should say I am against it for clarity.

Cheers
Mr Mac

To the best of my knowledge, Airtanker is a purely Civilian company that won the contract to provide the RAF with 9 A330 aircraft to replace the VC10s and Tristars. They have a fleet of 14, the others being used for contacting work such as flying for Jet2. It is not a Government Transport Department. The only way Airtanker aircraft could be forced to fly asylum seekers to Rawanda is if the RAF did it, which I suggest is unlikely to happen. In my experience most Jet2 passengers don’t even know what type of aircraft they are on, let alone who owns it!

You’re right (same for any airline) but all it takes is one single person with a reasonable following to clock they’re flying with ‘the Rwanda guys’ and outrage will follow, amplified by the same rags cheerleading the Rwanda scheme because its divisive and good for the clicks.

This is where it gets murky. It’s not a military operation. It’s a political operation which is not what the military is there for.

Yet to that argument... all military operations are political operations.

This association between Air Tanker and Jet2 appears to have taken a twist beyond Jet2’s control (Or my comprehension). Have I got it wrong?

Wikipedia is a resource I do not rely on. Yet this article does raise questions (In my mind!) as to how Air Tanker were granted their AOC and for what purpose?

AirTanker Services - Wikipedia

Jet2 have used Air Tanker for a long period over past years. There has always been mention on this forum that Jet2 have been looking at long haul operations. Could this have come from someone within that thinking that there is a long-held contract with Air Tanker, which opened up the opportunity for rumours of long-haul aircraft for misguided long-haul operations?

My take (On face value only!) is that what most folk have failed to realise is that apart from the aircraft operating for Jet2, Air Tanker have additional aircraft.

The fact that the aircraft seconded to Jet2 has always implied to me that this was/is a long-held contract which was between Air Tanker gaining their AOC in the public eye whilst not disclosing the full intension to the public from a government point of view.

Were Jet2 led to believe that that long-haul operations were within their grasp and were sucked in? or has been seemed apparent – they saw the light?

Government – Air Tanker – Jet2?, raises questions.

Have I got wrong? You decide!. Please educate me.

Is there any basis to the long-haul plans other than forum speculation?

https://www.ch-aviation.com/news/126...hree-year-deal

I'm not sure what your question is, but Air Tanker used to operate long haul services for Thomas Cook before they went bust.
Whether jet2 will ever go long haul is an open question, and one only their senior management can answer. My gut feeling is they will, eventually

This may have been asked before, but anyone know why GDFF and GDFJ have never been fitted with winglets? They’ve been around for years and seems strange to have a Sub-fleet of 2 pretty much isolated in London or Manchester?

Seems to be one at MAN and one at STN at any one time. I’ve always wondered the same! Maybe not worth the expense for these two of fitting winglets.

Also i stand to be corrected but I believe all other second hand 738’s were delivered to jet2 with winglets already fitted, these two came without

Don't quote me on it but I'm sure I heard they would require extensive and expensive work to the wings to enable them to be fitted. For 25 year old aircraft, it's probably not justified. Bit like many of the 752s never had winglets fitted.

Depends on line number. Early NG didn't have the extra structure in the wing installed. So much more extensive mod to retrofit winglets.

G-DRTB & JZHD were delivered without winglets too

I wouldn't call it a Sub-fleet. They just simply don't have winglets. They are however able to operate to every destination the other 737-800s operate to in the fleet interchangeably. The only difference being, the fuel saving generated depending on the flight lengths.

A Sub-fleet would be where they have a different interior layout or major differences in operational restrictions, that mean they cant be interchanged with the daily flying program. These non-winglet 738s will be seen across the network.

I would ordinarily agree, but it seems like a conscious decision has been made to keep these at MAN and London and they are rarely seen in the Canaries so it feels like they are treated as a sub-fleet?

I see what you're saying, but you could say that about a number of different aircraft wihin the fleet which have varying different weights and performance advantages/disadvantages. E.g the newer batch from Boeing, used to have a preference for being based at LBA where possible, due to better performance being used from that airport. Ofcourse ops will always have a preference, if they can get better performance or fuel savings from certain registrations, they'll probably deploy them where they get that benefit. Both of FF and FJ have been to the Canaries as much as a number of other 738s in the fleet over similar time periods after a random check. Not often admittedly, but neither has the likes of 'FW' etc. They both operate longer sectors and I myself flew onboard FJ last summer from LCA on a scraping 5 hour flight.

There is a difference from winglets and the new scimitar blades that Ryanair and TUI use which are retro fitted, very easy to tell as they point downwards as well

I think they will eventually as well, but probably not for a good few years and not until they have their own wide-body long-haul aircraft, as opposed to just two leased A330-200s. Couldn't see them doing anything meaningful long-haul on the A321neos.

I could see a network of probably Cancun, Montego Bay, Orlando and Punta Cana principally and a few others mostly centered around BHX, MAN and STN, possibly BRS, GLA and NCL too. But it won't happen anytime soon.

i belive 737-800s of an older age can not be refitted with wing tips, of what ever design -correct me if wrong there of course
it same as the Airbus A320 some have gained winglets similar to the NEO's again certain age etc etc
also cost of fitting,

There is a reason FF & FJ never got the blended winglets, even had an engineer tell me but.... 🙈 I've forgotten. However, its not necessarily vintage/line number that is the reasoning. Note FD is one of the oldest -800s still operating in the world and has winglets. Not sure it will be arround long enough to get the scims mind.

Setting aside for a moment a desire for fleet consistency, it is a fine decision whether to fit such winglets. They do increase cruise fuel efficiency, but also have an additional weight to be carried, so there is a calculation to be made based on route structure. Then of course they have to be bought and fitted, and the manufacturers know the numbers of what sort of savings they typically deliver, and price accordingly - there is, as with many aviation purchases, a lot of sunk R&D costs to recover.