L1011 start-up charter in Cardiff

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Does anyone know anything about another attempt at raising the Tritanic?

Job Details: Experienced L1011 First Officers and Flight engineers for charter company operating long haul charters.
Must be L1011 certified and longhaul experienced
Base: Cardiff Toronto US (south West)
Job Posted: January 30th 2009
Flightdeck Recruitment.

TCF

[wiggy]

Wait for it........

[Final 3 Greens]

Still a little bit early in the morning for the good ole boy's in Arizona to put in an appearance :}

[411A]

Still a little bit early in the morning for the good ole boy's in Arizona to put in an appearance :}

Actually, it ain't however...I have no idea about these folks.
However, I do know about another new one....but can't say at the moment.;)

[TheChitterneFlyer]

ASFKAP, I didn't say that I believed it, I simply quoted the crewing advert at 'Flight Deck Recruitment' and put the feelers out for any further information.

TCF

[bcgallacher]

I have 45 years experience as an LAE working with many types and can say with certainty that the 1011 was the most difficult to maintain.It was loved by aircrew as a pilots aircraft but for us it was a nightmare even when new - I have done more landing gear swings than with any other type. When operated with 747s I estimate it took at least 25% more manhours to keep it serviceable - I did not grieve when my company took it out of service.Ask any old hand about mixing ejectors and watch them turn purple!The hydraulic systems were fragile,pneumatics just as bad and the APU was an overcomplicated disaster - easily replaced was its saving grace.Great aeroplane to fly in but to maintain - no thanks.

[411A]

I have generally found that those who are unable to understand a particular bit of machinery, constantly throw stones at it, in order to cover up their own inabilities to master the technology involved.


Sound familiar, bcgallacher, after reading the thread referenced by our constant L1011 critic?
Simply...can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
IE: if you have no particular specialized knowledge nor factory training, you will find yourself behind the eight ball, regardless of the particular type.

[Dan Winterland]

The Guv'ner hasn't been let out of prison, has he?

[bcgallacher]

I worked with the things for about 13 years - I understood them as well as anybody - I have a fairly good reputation in the business. I could rectify the defects but the just had more defects than most.My own opinion is that too many British designers were involved and as usual made the thing more complex and difficult to maintain. Cracking hydraulic lines,ruptured pneumatic ducts etc were a daily problem.The hydraulic fittings were unique to Lockheed and the lines were installed at assembly so that in some cases the only way to remove them was to cut them into short pieces.The APU was the work of a lunatic -the control system was supposed to make it possible to parallel the generator with the engine generators.On more than one occasion I have seen the turbine blades emerge in a shower of sparks when the main engine start button was pushed - spectacular and expensive!
As far as 411a is concerned, I suspect he and I have met as I believe we worked for Saudia and Air Atlanta at the same time.
His perspective is from the point of view of a pilot - I dont think I have met a pilot that did not like to fly the Tristar - good handling is one of the benefits of having British nationals involved in the design.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

I was a Flight Engineer on the lovely lady for many years, but despite its complications and latter day poor serviceability record... it was a joy to operate. However, I do empathise with the ground engineers.

TCF

[bcgallacher]

Another of the tristars unique features was the Tri-wing screw - for the uninitiated this was a screw like a Phillips head except it had 3 slots instead of 4.I have drilled these out by the score - what the purpose of this type of head was I have no idea except maybe to sell screwdriver bits - If the aircraft had a problem away from base who the hell had the appropriate screwdriver bits to open panels! Even Rolls had to install them on the engines.

[411A]

So are you suggesting this A/C can only be maintained by people with some sort of "specialized knowledge" or specific "factory training".....?



Lets put it this way, it ain't a Boeing, nor a Douglas...and you had better understand the systems (and have the specialized tooling) to maintain the airplane properly.
The largest operator of the type was Delta, with over sixty...and a senior VP told me personally that the 'ole TriStar made more money for Delta than any other type, operated at the time.
Now, if the airplane was so successful at Delta, one wonders why other airlines had such a difficult time?
TWA did well, so did Eastern, as did ANA.
RJ had no complaints, and indeed the airplane held up rather well at SV, and at CX, where it made handsome profits for that far eastern carrier.
Even little UL, who operated seven for quite a long time, maintained out of a blister hangar at Colombo, did well.

I would then ask again, why were some carriers (especially BA) so apparently unsuccessful with the type?

[bcgallacher]

A screwdriver specialised tooling? Not being an accountant I have no idea if the L1011 was a successful aircraft with regards to making profits for its operators.Possibly it would have been even more profitable if it had been easier to maintain.Accessability to many components was poor and added to the ground time for defect rectification.I have considerable experience of Boeing,Airbus and older British types - the HS Trident series run the L1011 a close second for difficult maintenance. The Trident was another aircraft that was loved by its crews for its handling qualities in spite of being underpowered.
All this is a bit off thread so I will now belt up.

[411A]

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/35444...tar-no-fe.html


Sorry, ASFKAP, no particular knowledge with that mob.
Lets face it, the 'ole L1011 was the first...
Widebody to operate to CATIIIB, straight from the factory...
First widebody with a proper FMS, that incorporated engine thrust management and VNAV, all in one neat little (big) box(es), courtesy of Hamilton Sundstrand, and...
provided an unmatched approach/land automatic landing capability (dual/dual/fail operational) that is the GOLD standard, even today.

Ha!
All the rest, at the time, trailed far far behind, make no mistake.

Is the TriStar unique now?
No, other types have ahhhh...caught up.:rolleyes:

Finally.:}

Is the 'ole L1011 a true 'pilots aeroplane?

You bet...just like its forerunner, the Electra.

Superb!:ok:

Forget to add...the first widebody certificated for stange III ops, at all weights.
Thanks to the RR engines, which are quite good in revenue service.
TriStar, yes complicated, but for the airline that sent their folks for PROPER training, a cinch.

BA... back of the line....apparently.:}

[TheGorrilla]

Grief.... Why the hell would someone design an aeroplane to have three engines if it weren't a cock up?? :rolleyes:

[411A]

....three engines if it weren't a cock up??

B727, DC10, MD11, L1011...even the Trident, sold quite a few.
727, especially.

A cock-up?
Hardly.
Back in 'yer box:}

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think my original thread was a simple enquiry as to who might be the operator of the Cardiff L1011 charter.

Moderator
Could we perhaps create a 'sticky' for the sole use of 411A? Call it what you will, but perhaps it should aptly be titled 'Inept Crewmembers Who Have Pi**ed Me Off'.

Not being a frequent user of PPrune, I've researched some of the other contributions made by 411A in other threads and I have to say that in all of my years of flying I've never witnessed such arrogance and self righteousness that 411A so obviously displays.

I believe we've all, at sometime or another, been guilty of making the wrong comment at the wrong time but that we come back and appologise and make ammends; however, 411A really does 'take the biscuit'. I've obviously never met the man, but if I were to arrive at Crew Report and discover who I was planned to fly with... I'd turn around and go home! Furthermore, if I were a passenger and heard his introduction to 'his' passengers on the PA... I'd get off and go home! Is anyone out there going to follow me?

TCF

[HZ123]

Could not agree more with the last poster

However, this is not going to happen, it defies any logic that in the present climate someone would set up an operation using the L1011. There are any number of twins and 747/4 doing nothing that would be the first choice.

[sec 3]

Hey ASSKAP. Enough already ****ting on Tristars. We get your point, you don't like them. You obviously never had the privilege to fly one.

[Conan The Barber]

Enough already ****ting on Tristars.Is that even possible?

[411A]

Is that even possible?

I suspect not...by those at the only airline that couldn't make it work.:rolleyes:

[TheGorrilla]

If it was such a great design why are no modern tri-jets being produced now? All those 411B listed above are old and past it!

[411A]

If it was such a great design why are no modern tri-jets being produced now?

For a very simple reason, Gorrilla...engines are now available with enough thust to produce a twin that can do the job.
Of course, the twin has operational restrictions that the trijet...or 4-engine airplane, does not.

At the time, the 'ole L1011 was the most modern, automated aeroplane in the skies, bar none.
It still is a viable performer in certain niche markets.
Comments to the contrary, not excepted.
IF it was soooo bad, the RAF would have eliminated the type, long ago.
Maybe.....:}

Many large international airlines made money with the TriStar, and yet...one quite large airline stands out amongst others, as having been a failure in this regard.

We know the reason...operational expertise.
IE: they simply could not cope.

Hardly surprising, now is it?:}

I must say however, that that lack of opertational expertise did NOT extend to the flight operationas department.
I personally know many of their former folks, and they rave about the TriStars performance, from a pilots perspective.
Apparently, the problems with the type at this one particular large airline was critically centered in the maintenance department.
Surprise, surprise.:E

IE: many there simply couldn't read (nor, apparently understand) the Lockheed supplied maintenance manual, or....had no comprehension of the maintenance required.

Other airlines...not so.
Among those were...

TWA
EAL
Saudia
AirLanka
Royal Jordanian
ANA
Gulf Air
Cathay Pacific
Delta (the larget operator with over sixty L10 aircraft)

The list goes on.
All quite satisfied operators.

Amazing...sour grapes from only one source.:rolleyes:

[bcgallacher]

I wonder if 411a remembers how they were sold - the briefcases full of money used to bribe airline executives notably the Japanese - and the resulting scandals and resignations

[JW411]

Please don't try to ban dear old 411A. Every website in the world needs at least one 411A. Life would be so boring if we were all the same.

He obviously loves his dear old Tripestar and I can understand that, since my mates who have flown it tell me that it was the best and most comfortable over-engineered crew transport that was ever built.

It's just such a shame that it runs out of fuel after five and a half hours with max payload (otherwise Fedex would be flying at least 100 of them instead of DC-10s).

[411A]

Please don't try to ban dear old 411A.

It wouldn't happen, JW, for one very important reason.
I (rarely) personally insult contributors...only their misguided, disconnected, off the wall....ideas.
There is a very large difference.
Having been in the airline business for over forty years gives me quite a unique perspective...pilots...bit@hing and moaning all the time, ground engineers, the same bit@hing and wailing...but many miss the program altogether.
You MUST cooperate to graduate, simply because aircraft and maintenance decisions are made at the board level, which (few appreciate) are made rather above their pay grade.

Don't like it....quit, and find another job.:E
These folks who actually DO quit, will find that no one cares.

Nobody.

Next question?:}

[Conan The Barber]

I (rarely) personally insult contributorsTrue, you limit yourself to insulting people en masse. As if that showed more class.

[411A]

The same could be said about the Nimrod....



In spades.
The P3 is (was) far superior, yet the UK presseed on with a totally outdated design.

The actual reason that the UK MoD cannot afford a TriStar replacement...TriStar does the job at a fraction of the cost of a new(er) design*.

Fact.

*Except.
IF some jack@ss commander decides to try an autoland from too low a selected height (never read the AFM, apparently:{) and prangs the beast beyond repair.:E

[411A]

Quote:
I (rarely) personally insult contributors

Quote:
IF some jack@ss commander

And you were doing so well.........

Quite...except for one thing, said jack@ss commander ain't a contributor here on pprune...and even if he was, he would be told in no uncertain terms, that before one pushes the bat handles up to the command position, certain conditions have to be met...if only the he had read the AFM....and complied with same.:{

In short, and this applies to every type...RTFB.

[Brian Abraham]

411A, I've got you on my "must read" list, so one fan, but then I'm same generation more or less. Wonder what that says about me? :ok:

[411A]

411A, I've got you on my "must read" list, so one fan, but then I'm same generation more or less. Wonder what that says about me?

More than likely...been there, done that...and have the hat and Tshirt to prove it.:ok:

[TheGorrilla]

Ahhhh.... Of course!! The engines on the tristar must be crap
then! Silly me!!! :ugh:

I foolishly thought it was an overweight, outdated lump of iron that was at fault! :eek:

[Brian Abraham]

Some of you people need to grow up IMHO.

[TheGorrilla]

To quote the words of a legend... "The day I grow up, is the day I give up!!"

Sound advice. :ok:

[CEJM]

The actual reason that the UK MoD cannot afford a TriStar replacement...TriStar does the job at a fraction of the cost of a new(er) design*.

Fact.

Sorry 411A, but I have to disagree with you on this one. The Tristar is costing the RAF (British taxpayer) loads of money as they are on the ground most of the time. How do I know? Because we do a lot of MOD flights because the RAF can't operate these flights themselves due to tech aircraft.

[411A]

...due to tech aircraft.

If they put civvy folks in charge and had proper funding (very important), these aircraft, just like many older types, could be kept flying for a very long time.
Penny-wise, pound foolish with the MoD....apparently.
Lockheed still has a rep there, I believe....wonder if he is even listened to?:}
IE: Keep what you have and properly maintain it...far less expensive than purchasing new.
Provided, of course, that the airplanes are flown properly, to begin with....:rolleyes:
Trying to engage A/L at too low an altitude, ain't good.:ugh:
RTFB.
Perhaps a new concept to the RAF?:}

[bcgallacher]

Proper funding? surely you mean unlimited funding!

[Conan The Barber]

If this is what you do with your cashcow, then......

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2057/2049904480_0f3f6afa6b.jpg?v=0

By the way ASFKAP, it was actually the Loughead brothers he told how to do things.

[411A]

The RAF moves troops to and from the UK mainly using Tristar jets, some of which are 30 years old.
The figures showed 27% of the fleet was regularly out of action between April 2007 and March 2008.



It would seem that the RAF has about as much expertise as did BA in the operation of the type....must be something in the local water supply.:}

[OldCessna]

Heard the airline was "Fly for Beans" and they have 2 EASA L1011 500 series located ready to go.

There's a good demand for charter work presently as both Luzair & Euro Atlantic are down having C Checks and engine AD done.

[caaardiff]

It just gets better!
FlyforBeans is supposed to be a new lo-cost airline flying from Cardiff throughout Europe. They were due to start well over a year ago, but nothing materialised, but still occasionally pop up in the press saying they are still there and waiting for the right time!
There's currently no long haul from CWL, so there is a market. But not for a startup with an elderly Tristar!

[Bus429]

Hey 411A,
Have you got extra-wide doors in your house? If not, with a head like yours, you must live outside.
Why do you throw so many stones? I cannot believe the other operators of L1011s to which you refer were paragons of operational efficiency.

[Conan The Barber]

I have been told that an inflated ego is actually more buoyant than a life jacket, so that's at least something.

[GotTheTshirt]

Gorilla,
Three engines ??:ok:
You have obviously never had to ship a big fan engine to delightful out of the way holiday island to get a twin with an engine out rescued :*

Plus of course much improved dispatch capability :)

BTW some tristars had 4 engines :cool:

[OldCessna]

Doesn't the RAF (MOD) have Marshalls do most of their maintenance?

No wonder it's expensive!

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Jeez, please remind me to not ever, ever, open another thread with the words L1011 in it...

TCF

[411A]

Jeez, please remind me to not ever, ever, open another thread with the words L1011 in it...


And, why not?
The one seemingly common demominator amongst operators that had 'problems'?
Brits.

All others?
The 'ole L10 worked OK, and made a handsome profit for their operators.
Delta
ANA
Royal Jordanian
Gulf Air
TWA
Eastern

Many more.
Perhaps it was that there were no Brits involved, to any great extent?

A blessing, it would appear.:}

[CR2]

I think some posters here should get a life. One in particular is what is known as a "stalker". You know who you are.

[camilo1]

why all the animosity against 411A?

Leave him alone, while I may not agree with some of his views and ways, I respect his knowledge and expertise, if some of you don´t like what he says then don´t stalk him, he has a lot of patience, but I would hate to see him leave pprune because of some of you and your outright hatred.

Maybe it is just that some of you envy him?.

:=

[411A]

...if some of you don´t like what he says then don´t stalk him,

Sad to say, it's mainly the Brits, who simply could not make a quite good aeroplane conform to many of their outmoted/outdated ideas.
This is maintenance folks, especially.
UK pilots, on the other hand, quite liked the 'ole L1011, and its superb handling qualities.
The RAF is especially challanged, it appears, having these types in 'charge' of their aircraft servicing.
Outsourcing might be the answer...certainly it might tend to improve their dispatch reliability.
UL had, at one time, the highest daily utilisation of all TriStar operators...17 hours, and up.
I never had a tech delay in over five years there.
Zero, nada, none.
Good old fashioned maintenance, properly applied.
It certainly can be done, provided certain folks are kept firmly at arms length...:} and not allowed to muck up the works.:rolleyes:

[Bus429]

You know, 411A, under the current regime in the UK, we Brits could claim that you are rather racist. However, rather than stifle your right to free speech, I hope the moderators keep you going.
You must be a very bitter person or a very good wind-up merchant. Nobody could possibly envy you.:ugh:

[411A]

Nobody could possibly envy you.
I couldn't really care, Bus429, but if you examine the facts in a rational and consistant manner, you will find that there are (or were) only two organisations that had significant problems with the type under discussion.
Both of these were in the UK.
It would appear to me that although the type is old, it certainly can be maintained reasonably, if primarily two conditions are met....

Sufficient funding is provided.
Sufficient technical expertise is available.

In regards to the RAF, I rather suspect funding is the issue.
If, on the other hand, technical expertise is the problem, outsourcing is clearly the answer.

One would hope that from a flight operations perspective, the very necessary lessons have been learned regarding how to properly fly the aeroplane, as it really is quite simple...RTFB.

[sec 3]

If you're retired 411, your a lucky guy cuz you won't have to sit beside the likes of ASSKAP and listen to his pointless drivel for hours on end:}, or maybe at his 9 to 5 office job he's boring his co workers to tears with his holier than thou baloney:{

[pipertommy]

So does anyone have an idea who this new set up is?? Or even website link?

Thanks

[Flintstone]

Yup. I know.

Because I read the whole thread before posting :rolleyes:

[pipertommy]

?? I did read the post`s ??

[Flintstone]

Posts #52 and #53.

Search Flyforbeans on here. They're a bit of a running joke.

[pipertommy]

Flyforbeans have NOTHING to do with this topic, I wondered who is behind the L1011 start up;)

[Flintstone]

In the absence of any information to the contrary they're as good a guess as any.

[Brian Abraham]

Theres no excuse for operating Tristars in the 21st century
I guess you'll tell us that applies to a DC-3 as well.

[Dan Winterland]

WRTo the RAF Tristars. The RAF got bigger tanker/transport aircraft to fulfil the airbridge requirement to the Falklands which it needed in a hurry. It so happened that the then government owned BA had surplus aircraft - 6 Tristar 500s. The only reason it got them is because they were cheap and available. If a full procurement process had been carried out, it proably wouldn't have got the Tristars. But on the other hand, they would have only just been coming into service now!

All of the RAF Tristar guys who flew the KC10 on exchange agree that it is a far more capable and reliable aircraft.



Speaking as someone who has had his various scentences in HMP Mount Pleasant extended by 5 days due to Tristar unserviceablities!

[411A]

All of the RAF Tristar guys who flew the KC10 on exchange agree that it is a far more capable and reliable aircraft.


You might understand why when it is realised that those maintaining those KC10's no doubt actually knew how, whereas....those 'maintaining' (using the term in its loosest possible sense) the RAF aircraft simply do not know how.
Several airlines operated their TriStars in excess of 15 hours per day, with few if any cancellations.
The question then becomes...why cannot the RAF?
Perhaps our resident TriStar critic has the answer...'****forbrainz'.:ugh:

[Dan Winterland]

KC10 vs Tristar. It wasn't just reliability (which was much better). It was about the fact it had better payload, better range, better performance and was a better tanking platform which could dispense fuel to more than one aircraft at a time.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb73/dbchippy/P6230035.jpg

Picture by Mr Bernoulli

[B-HKD]

Fact is that 411A shares great stories and lot's of knowledge :ok:

So where is the problem guys? Appreciate.

Leo:8

[411A]

It was about the fact it had better payload, better range, better performance and was a better tanking platform which could dispense fuel to more than one aircraft at a time.


Yes, but...the KC10 was designed as an air refueling tanker.
The TriStar was not.
TriStar was designed as a passenger aeroplane.
That the RAF mucked it up is their problem, not Lockheed's.

In the end, of course, the RAF apparently simply does not have the funds to make it work....even in the passenger role.
Hardly suprising.:rolleyes:

[The Real Slim Shady]

The 10 and the Tri* are both great aeroplanes: up to around 3000nms the Tri* is economically the better. Go beyond 3000nms and the 10 edges it out.

[dixi188]

bcgallacher.

Tri-wing screws not unique to Tristar. Also used on DC-10 and Bae 146/RJ. (probably others too.)

The problem with getting them out is not removing paint or dirt from the grooves and allowing the bit to slip. Agree that once damaged, drilling is often the only answer.

[411A]

.... what chance would some 'Tin Pot Start-up' airline in Cardiff have....?


Hard to say, however, not having RAF (or...ex-RAF) folks in charge of anything would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction.:ok:

ex-Military folks in charge in a civvy outfit....guaranteed failure.:eek:

[Brian Abraham]

Absolutely, but there has to be room for contrary opinions to his which are also soundly based on knowledge and experience.
ASFKAP, tis a pity you came up with the following post, to wit, its not soundly based on either knowledge or experience. How do you explain the use of a 1011 as a mother ship to lauch satellites (Pegasus), and they rely on an extensive fleet of just one aircraft to support their operations.
Theres no excuse for operating Tristars in the 21st century unless you've got either....
(a) No Choice
(b) No Money
(c) No Standards
(d) No obligation to deliver any level of customer service (eg RAF)
(e) No plans to stay in business after the first season
And what has the fact the US military never operated the aircraft got to do with anything? Last time I looked they didn't operate any 777s, must be an unsuccessful aircraft by your reckoning. All I see is cheap shots without supporting argument. 411 is entitled to his opinion, and from his pedigree and longevity in the business he has obviously sat at the feet of some great teachers. Did you accuse him of name dropping? I see just an insight into a mans life, history, and an explanation for his beliefs.

Grade: F- Do better.

[Old Fella]

ASFKAP. Your assertion that the Brits are unable to maintain the L1011 is absolute and unadulterated crap. Maybe you should look up Stuart Johns, former head honcho of Cathay Pacific Airways maintenance and get set straight. Cathay operated up to 19 Tristars with plenty of Brit and Australasian expats leading the way. They were maintained to as good a standard as any and better than most. As for 411A's assertion that any civil outfit being run by ex-Military people is doomed to failure, equally absolute crap. Stick to the facts guys and keep your prejudice's to yourselves. I think 411A flies a kite as well as the L1011, which by the way the Brits had much input into as far as the design of the auto-flight system was concerned, to say nothing of the RB211 family of engines.

[411A]

...which by the way the Brits had much input into as far as the design of the auto-flight system was concerned,

Urban legend, Old Fella, nothing more.

Now, as to the Brits and the L1011 are concerned...it's not the individuals themselves, it clearly is the (for want of a better term) organizations.
Cathay Pacific did just fine with the L1011, in actual fact, they made huge profits with the airplane, just as Delta...and many other aircarriers did.

However, strangely enough, BA (in the past) and the RAF (now) just simply seem to be unable to keep the airplane going...and yet, many other airlines could, and in fact made handsome profits with the specific airplane.

Therefore, we must look at the absolute failure of the Brit 'organizations' to cut the mustard.

A fine how-do-you-do, wouldn't you say?
The Brits invented the jet engine, and RADAR, and LORAN...and a host of of other major accomplishments (not to mention the best kept secret of WWII, Bletchley Park) and yet, they simply could not keep a rather fine three-engine Lockheed airliner going.

One wonders why?:ugh::ugh:

Answers on a postcard.

[Old Fella]

Cathay made huge profits out of the L1011 because they got about 10 aircraft from the Arizona desert for "peanuts", refurbished them and flew them on high density routes. As for the input of the Brits into the autoflight system, that was a very strong "urban myth" within HK which indicated that the British Trident team was heavily involved. If you know something which differs from that "urban myth" 411A, please share the info with the rest of us. By your own admission, (Tech log Cat IIIC thread 2ndMarch2009) Smiths and Hawker Siddley who designed the Trident autoflight system are the ones to thank for the L1011 precise Autoland system.

[411A]

By your own admission, (Tech log Cat IIIC thread 2ndMarch2009) Smiths and Hawker Siddley who designed the Trident autoflight system are the ones to thank for the L1011 precise Autoland system.

Only because Smiths and Hawker Siddley did it first, Old Fella, not that they assisted with the L1011 design.
The Smiths system on the Trident was triplex, the automatic approach/land system on the L1011 is dual/dual.
It was, if I recall correctly developed by Collins Radio, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

And, you just proved my point about profits that could be made with the 'ole TriStar (Cathay Pacific is but one example)....properly maintained, the airplane was (and still is) a good performer.

[Pugilistic Animus]

AFSKAP, I'm not picking on you, but,...

It seems to me that 411A [like Brian Abraham says, has been in the aviation industry since the time when flying really was dangerous; jets were new and wierd and death was always around you,...as such I feel his discussions have a lot of merit and much of what he says is sound airmanship I don't agree with all of his views but someone like that is NOT a dinosaur:*---I say [too] frequently that 'the mountains don't know your name ---- but ---Pilots who've been around as long as 411A definately know their names!!!

sometimes you just seem to attack him without merit that's very ungentlemanly [ and very unbecoming of an aviator] conduct

Chill:cool:

PA

[pipertommy]

So who is this new Airline??

[Old Fella]

ASFKAP. Of course Cathay Pacific Airways recruited from BA. They also recruited from Qantas and Air New Zealand, as well as from other sources, not just because of any L1011 expertise, but to grow their engineering capacity as the airline fleet grew. Cathay took delivery of their first L1011 only a year after BA took delivery of their first example of type, so just how much more expertise and experience than Cathay, on the L1011, did BA have? Cathay became one of the largest non-USA based operators of the type and through their engineering arm HEACO became an approved RB-211 overhaul facility and gained major L-1011 heavy servicing contracts from other operators. BTW, BA were among those who sent their B747's to HEACO for the Section 41 Inspections and Mods. And in defence of 411A, the Tristar is a great example of advancement for its time and did not, as you claim, require two ground engineers to be carried to keep it going. Tech delays were a rarity with Cathay Pacific and no ground engineers were carried, just a crew who knew their aircraft technically as well as operationally.

[411A]

Tech delays were a rarity with Cathay Pacific and no ground engineers were carried, just a crew who knew their aircraft technically as well as operationally.
Yup, and we are certainly not surprised.
Of course, CX has rather good tech support at each outstation I would suspect, as for an adhoc charter operator (like us) that tech support is simply not available, so we carry our own.

One wonders....perhaps the RAF would do well to adopt the 'enroute tech support' that most charter carriers have, in this way, perhaps they would not be AOG half the time.
Or more....:}:ugh::ugh:

[Old Fella]

411A, yes CX did have good tech support at outstations, some contracted and others CX employees. The whole point is, however, the Tristar rarely gave any significant problems which were not able to be covered within the MEL limitations due in no small part to the quality of maintenance they received. Personally, I am a Lockheed fan whilst at the same time acknowledging that the Boeing products are very reliable and practical aircraft. From a crew perspective I always found the Lockheed product made provision for crew comfort much better than did Boeing. The B747 seemed to me to be just as cramped for space as the B707 despite the obvious difference in size. The Lockheed's were much more spacious and overall a nicer environment in which to work. The ground engineers would generally enjoy maintaining the Boeing's more so than the Tristar I suspect, if only because the Boeing's were less complicated. Maybe the RAF have not put in enough backing for their engineering people, certainly I do not believe the Brits lack anything in their technical abilities, civvy or military.

[Pugilistic Animus]

ASFKAP:

This is professional PILOTS network, therefore we ALL* talk lots of HOOEY :}sometimes, but it does not negate his value to Pprune:=

besides, he's pretty thick skinned, I don't think that he cares:zzz:


*Except John_Tullamarine, but I think, instead of having sweet ol' Misses Tooey for kindergarten, He was down the hall in Lester:E's class [see some of his W&B posts:ok:]

PA:)