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.