Vulcan XH 558 Threads (merged)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Blaby
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are obviously, passionately involved with this project. However, I think that passion has clouded your judgement somewhat.
WAS closely involved..... I was involved with the aircraft from 1994 until I retired from the Trust in 2009 as Access/Visitor Centre Manager...........
How do you consider that it has clouded my judgement?
Being a junior member of the management team and the face of the project to the general public for so many years I believe that if anything I have a clearer insight into the facts of what the public would probably do
I've never subscribed to the 'air ambulance' scenario. When this project started all those years ago, it was understandable that a fundraising effort was needed to get the project on it's way. I don't think those people who did give to the appeal expected to be asked so many more times for additional funds. That could be down to people not understanding what a four jet engined aircraft needs to keep it flying.
There is the whole problem with the project.... The planning was for public subscription and Lottery Grant to kick the project off... with the expected & promised industrial support to appear later, in the form of Corporate Sponsorship.
Great idea but the aircraft didn't fly until Oct 2007.. slap in the middle of the worst recession in god knows how many years..and the companies so supportive 6months before.. melted away.. leaveing the project cash strapped, a situation that has persisted to this day..... thank god for the little people who have saved this aircraft so many times.....
I stopped giving ages ago because I felt that VTTS were never completely transparent about it's dealings (I know a lot of my mates also went the same way because of this). The Trust, rightly or wrongly, earned a reputation for being very clicky and secretive, not a good trait when you ask for thousands of pounds from Joe Public.
The Trust was like any other small engineering company and it made sense to keep it's confidentiallity as any such company would do. I can say that from the inside it was not clicky or secretive, maybe a little un-worldly
Whichever way you cut the pie, the Vulcan is an expensive folly. Only time will tell if the public are willing to continue to support her.
Too true only time will tell lets just hope
WAS closely involved..... I was involved with the aircraft from 1994 until I retired from the Trust in 2009 as Access/Visitor Centre Manager...........
How do you consider that it has clouded my judgement?
Being a junior member of the management team and the face of the project to the general public for so many years I believe that if anything I have a clearer insight into the facts of what the public would probably do
I've never subscribed to the 'air ambulance' scenario. When this project started all those years ago, it was understandable that a fundraising effort was needed to get the project on it's way. I don't think those people who did give to the appeal expected to be asked so many more times for additional funds. That could be down to people not understanding what a four jet engined aircraft needs to keep it flying.
There is the whole problem with the project.... The planning was for public subscription and Lottery Grant to kick the project off... with the expected & promised industrial support to appear later, in the form of Corporate Sponsorship.
Great idea but the aircraft didn't fly until Oct 2007.. slap in the middle of the worst recession in god knows how many years..and the companies so supportive 6months before.. melted away.. leaveing the project cash strapped, a situation that has persisted to this day..... thank god for the little people who have saved this aircraft so many times.....
I stopped giving ages ago because I felt that VTTS were never completely transparent about it's dealings (I know a lot of my mates also went the same way because of this). The Trust, rightly or wrongly, earned a reputation for being very clicky and secretive, not a good trait when you ask for thousands of pounds from Joe Public.
The Trust was like any other small engineering company and it made sense to keep it's confidentiallity as any such company would do. I can say that from the inside it was not clicky or secretive, maybe a little un-worldly
Whichever way you cut the pie, the Vulcan is an expensive folly. Only time will tell if the public are willing to continue to support her.
Too true only time will tell lets just hope
Last edited by Zero-1; 2nd Apr 2011 at 06:11.
Here's a really nice, well researched article by Dominic Holtam in the Torygraph. Slightly odd that it appears in the Motoring section, but none the worse for that. (I think it's because of the Bruntingthorpe/cars connection)
The last Vulcan - Telegraph
airsound
The last Vulcan - Telegraph
airsound
From the Telegraph article:
Is that true?
No Vulcan ever flew with a live nuclear weapon
I believe that no V-bomber ever flew with a live nuclear weapon, and that is sometimes quoted as an indication that MAD* actually worked.
airsound
* mutually assured destruction, for anyone of a young persuasion
airsound
* mutually assured destruction, for anyone of a young persuasion
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight shame that the article didn't mention the generosity of the Northern business man, Sir John Hall, who gave over £1 million some time ago when the project was within a week of folding.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Watford (Gap)
Age: 58
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that no V-bomber ever flew with a live nuclear weapon, and that is sometimes quoted as an indication that MAD* actually worked.
I think you would have to qualify that statement to include the word operationally. Otherwise the Grapple (and other tests) Valiant(s) would contradict it.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane Australia
Age: 81
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Cottesmore they were loaded but not dispersed. I was there from '61 to '64 and to my knowledge no aircraft ever took off with a live weapon on board.
Slight shame that the article didn't mention the generosity of the Northern business man, Sir John Hall, who gave over £1 million some time ago when the project was within a week of folding.
Are you A2QFI, thinking of Sir Jacks Haywoods £500K donation of 2006 or is my memory failing me?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did the best check I could but may have been wrong. The name you metion rings a bell; I thought there was a connection between the gentleman, Newcastle FC and money made in steel. Google failure perhaps
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: dorset
Age: 73
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
donations
To answer some of your questions regarding donations,look at the charities website VULCAN TO THE SKY TRUST :: OpenCharities .Interesting reading, and you can see why R/P wants to keep it going at £72,000 in wages plus pension.Even the trustee's think 2010 would be the last season.
I have been a supporter for many years but sorry, not very active.I have asked and debated questions on the club forum over the years but have noticed for the last six months or so ,that there was no negative posts. Untill I posted one last night and found that it has not been put on the site. I know it was negative but in "who's who" poor coastergirl was being pulled apart by certain people.I tried to defend her and said i thought the project had come to the end and they were fighting like dogs and like vultures picking at the bones.Has any one else found there posts have never appeared.Sad but the best things come to the end.
I have been a supporter for many years but sorry, not very active.I have asked and debated questions on the club forum over the years but have noticed for the last six months or so ,that there was no negative posts. Untill I posted one last night and found that it has not been put on the site. I know it was negative but in "who's who" poor coastergirl was being pulled apart by certain people.I tried to defend her and said i thought the project had come to the end and they were fighting like dogs and like vultures picking at the bones.Has any one else found there posts have never appeared.Sad but the best things come to the end.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zero-1 I agree with lightning_lad .
Every year we get the threats that The Trust needs £350K plus to keep her flying.
Why does it cost so much? The Trust does not pay a Lease cost for the aircraft , I assume if it goes to an Airshow the organisers pay for the fuel plus a contribution to overheads so the major cost must be engineering, keeping the crew current and staff.
You say it is a complex a/c and there is no arguement in that statement however so is a Boeing 737 and that will fly 4000 plus hours per year in airline use and cost around £300K for its annual check which I will imagine involve far more man hours than the Vulcan check due flying around 3500 more hours in a year.
I do not want to see the Vulcan parked however the managment of The Trust should be more transparrent on where the money is going.
I for one suspect that certain companies and persons who publically put themselves up as doing it for charity are getting WELL paid for their work.
Every year we get the threats that The Trust needs £350K plus to keep her flying.
Why does it cost so much? The Trust does not pay a Lease cost for the aircraft , I assume if it goes to an Airshow the organisers pay for the fuel plus a contribution to overheads so the major cost must be engineering, keeping the crew current and staff.
You say it is a complex a/c and there is no arguement in that statement however so is a Boeing 737 and that will fly 4000 plus hours per year in airline use and cost around £300K for its annual check which I will imagine involve far more man hours than the Vulcan check due flying around 3500 more hours in a year.
I do not want to see the Vulcan parked however the managment of The Trust should be more transparrent on where the money is going.
I for one suspect that certain companies and persons who publically put themselves up as doing it for charity are getting WELL paid for their work.
The memberhowever so is a Boeing 737 and that will fly 4000 plus hours per year in airline use and cost around £300K for its annual check
What's an 'annual' check for a Boeing 737?
From 2008 this is a figure that is interesting
Bloggs has got one important figure on his mind: $500,000. That is the princely sum, on average, that his airline will save in labour costs alone on each Boeing 737-800 C-check that his maintenance and engineering operation now performs.
I suspect if you can do 'annual' checks for £300k you should go into business. This is probably where someone does the 'how do you become a millionaire in aviation?' joke.
What's an 'annual' check for a Boeing 737?
From 2008 this is a figure that is interesting
Bloggs has got one important figure on his mind: $500,000. That is the princely sum, on average, that his airline will save in labour costs alone on each Boeing 737-800 C-check that his maintenance and engineering operation now performs.
I suspect if you can do 'annual' checks for £300k you should go into business. This is probably where someone does the 'how do you become a millionaire in aviation?' joke.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jumpseater the arguement is not about the cost of a C check on a B737 but I am sure ATC at Lasham can enlighten you with the cost of such check in the UK , it is about the cost of keeping the Vulcan flying.
There is no doubt in a lot of peoples minds that it is a con and it could be kept flying for a lot less if there where a few less noses in the trough.
There is no doubt in a lot of peoples minds that it is a con and it could be kept flying for a lot less if there where a few less noses in the trough.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Blaby
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to answer like this but I aint worked out how to get a Quote box in my replies....
Zero-1 I agree with lightning_lad .
Every year we get the threats that The Trust needs £350K plus to keep her flying.
The actual costs of keeping her in the air are way above the 350k that just gets them to the end of May.. all this has to be funded with little or no income save donations from September to May, they still have their running costs and overheads.
Why does it cost so much? The Trust does not pay a Lease cost for the aircraft , I assume if it goes to an Airshow the organisers pay for the fuel plus a contribution to overheads so the major cost must be engineering, keeping the crew current and staff.
One of the biggest costs is engineering (not Management)... I could go into the figures but I would be , (as an ex-employee) be breaking my Confidentiallity Agreement I have with the Trust. The Trust runs on a very small team and I can say from my expeirence they don't pay anyone excessive wages
You say it is a complex a/c and there is no arguement in that statement however so is a Boeing 737 and that will fly 4000 plus hours per year in airline use and cost around £300K for its annual check which I will imagine involve far more man hours than the Vulcan check due flying around 3500 more hours in a year.
The airlines save by haveing stocks of comparitively cheap current spares manufactured in their thousands and large teams of engineers, turn round times are quicker for any repairs also the more units they own the unit mantainance costs are lower.
The more they fly the more money they make, whereas the Vulcan is limited by Airframe Hours and Engine Cycles, a short revenue generating Airshow Season and NO spare engines.. How oftern does a 737 have engine changes per year??
With the Vulcan you have a one off..a Dinosaur ....There are very few and dwindling spares stocks left apart from what is held by the Trust which isn't large, I know I transferred them all from a card index to a computer database.. everything required needs to be manufactured in single or small lots or by reverse engineering therebye increasing the unit costs enormously, I know I've seen the invoices, you can't expect the OEMs to do all this work for nothing, much as the majority would love to do.
Plus they are working with old technology... its replace an item by dismantling the aircraft not replacing slide-in units.
Even a minor modification is a major expensive operation,requireing new design drawings, tooling and manufacture.... and they don't come cheap...
I believe that the Vulcan is still the only ex-military complex airframe on the civil register anywhere in the world? therefore it is closely scrutenised and controlled by the CAA & Marshall Aerospace (Design Auth Holders?) and it has to be in 110% operational condition, she couldn't carry known deferred faults when I worked there and it all has to be paid for.
I do not want to see the Vulcan parked however the managment of The Trust should be more transparrent on where the money is going.
Would you expect a small engineering company (because thats what VTTST/TVOC is) to open it's books to the general public.. This is what you are demanding..... commercial confidence is the important thing here, and anyway what do you wish to find out that is not in the year end figures?
As I said earlier I've seen the invoices and it would make your eyes water if you saw them..
I for one suspect that certain companies and persons who publically put themselves up as doing it for charity are getting WELL paid for their work.
Here comes my confidentiallity agreement again
but I will say that it was a CAA stipulation that all members of staff had to be employed..... no volunteers were to be allowed to work on the airframe apart from unskilled work like cleaning..etc..
Zero-1 I agree with lightning_lad .
Every year we get the threats that The Trust needs £350K plus to keep her flying.
The actual costs of keeping her in the air are way above the 350k that just gets them to the end of May.. all this has to be funded with little or no income save donations from September to May, they still have their running costs and overheads.
Why does it cost so much? The Trust does not pay a Lease cost for the aircraft , I assume if it goes to an Airshow the organisers pay for the fuel plus a contribution to overheads so the major cost must be engineering, keeping the crew current and staff.
One of the biggest costs is engineering (not Management)... I could go into the figures but I would be , (as an ex-employee) be breaking my Confidentiallity Agreement I have with the Trust. The Trust runs on a very small team and I can say from my expeirence they don't pay anyone excessive wages
You say it is a complex a/c and there is no arguement in that statement however so is a Boeing 737 and that will fly 4000 plus hours per year in airline use and cost around £300K for its annual check which I will imagine involve far more man hours than the Vulcan check due flying around 3500 more hours in a year.
The airlines save by haveing stocks of comparitively cheap current spares manufactured in their thousands and large teams of engineers, turn round times are quicker for any repairs also the more units they own the unit mantainance costs are lower.
The more they fly the more money they make, whereas the Vulcan is limited by Airframe Hours and Engine Cycles, a short revenue generating Airshow Season and NO spare engines.. How oftern does a 737 have engine changes per year??
With the Vulcan you have a one off..a Dinosaur ....There are very few and dwindling spares stocks left apart from what is held by the Trust which isn't large, I know I transferred them all from a card index to a computer database.. everything required needs to be manufactured in single or small lots or by reverse engineering therebye increasing the unit costs enormously, I know I've seen the invoices, you can't expect the OEMs to do all this work for nothing, much as the majority would love to do.
Plus they are working with old technology... its replace an item by dismantling the aircraft not replacing slide-in units.
Even a minor modification is a major expensive operation,requireing new design drawings, tooling and manufacture.... and they don't come cheap...
I believe that the Vulcan is still the only ex-military complex airframe on the civil register anywhere in the world? therefore it is closely scrutenised and controlled by the CAA & Marshall Aerospace (Design Auth Holders?) and it has to be in 110% operational condition, she couldn't carry known deferred faults when I worked there and it all has to be paid for.
I do not want to see the Vulcan parked however the managment of The Trust should be more transparrent on where the money is going.
Would you expect a small engineering company (because thats what VTTST/TVOC is) to open it's books to the general public.. This is what you are demanding..... commercial confidence is the important thing here, and anyway what do you wish to find out that is not in the year end figures?
As I said earlier I've seen the invoices and it would make your eyes water if you saw them..
I for one suspect that certain companies and persons who publically put themselves up as doing it for charity are getting WELL paid for their work.
Here comes my confidentiallity agreement again
but I will say that it was a CAA stipulation that all members of staff had to be employed..... no volunteers were to be allowed to work on the airframe apart from unskilled work like cleaning..etc..
Last edited by Zero-1; 13th Apr 2011 at 14:59.
I do not want to see the Vulcan parked however the managment of The Trust should be more transparrent on where the money is going.
Would you expect a small engineering company (because thats what VTTST/TVOC is) to open it's books to the general public.. This is what you are demanding..... commercial confidence is the important thing here, and anyway what do you wish to find out that is not in the year end figures?
Would you expect a small engineering company (because thats what VTTST/TVOC is) to open it's books to the general public.. This is what you are demanding..... commercial confidence is the important thing here, and anyway what do you wish to find out that is not in the year end figures?
A small engineering company doesn't write to people asking them to help keep their comapny afloat!
It's all well and good begging for money on a regular basis but those people who do donate want to be assured that their hard earned cash is being used wisely. You can't have it both ways.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Blaby
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small engineering company doesn't write to people asking them to help keep their comapany afloat!
I disagree if you held shares in said engineering company this would not give you access to the day-to-day book keeping, only the year end accounts as with VTTST
This what the donors give the money for to keep the project afloat.?. ergo to keep the aircraft flying.. no donations... no VTTST, no Aircraft...
It's all well and good begging for money on a regular basis but those people who do donate want to be assured that their hard earned cash is being used wisely. You can't have it both ways
It seems a pity you only focus on this minute bit of my, I thought, extensive answer, I tried to explain the facts without breaking my CA...
I still can't see what information you wish to see that is not in the returned year-end accounts..... can you be specific?
I disagree if you held shares in said engineering company this would not give you access to the day-to-day book keeping, only the year end accounts as with VTTST
This what the donors give the money for to keep the project afloat.?. ergo to keep the aircraft flying.. no donations... no VTTST, no Aircraft...
It's all well and good begging for money on a regular basis but those people who do donate want to be assured that their hard earned cash is being used wisely. You can't have it both ways
It seems a pity you only focus on this minute bit of my, I thought, extensive answer, I tried to explain the facts without breaking my CA...
I still can't see what information you wish to see that is not in the returned year-end accounts..... can you be specific?
Last edited by Zero-1; 13th Apr 2011 at 15:39.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a discussion starting here:http://www.pprune.org/5969162-post3013.html which expressed concern about some of the information in the last accounts and the lack of explanation surrounding some items. You can see I didn't understand the salary bill or why the doctor was paying himself £72,000. Others had other concerns.
I know the accounts for the last year ending in October 2010 do not have to be in until July, but why should supporters have to wait until then? The more transparent and current the accounts the more likely supporters are to believe their money is being well directed and hence give again.
As for the threatening marketing, it just grates with me. Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative please.......
I know the accounts for the last year ending in October 2010 do not have to be in until July, but why should supporters have to wait until then? The more transparent and current the accounts the more likely supporters are to believe their money is being well directed and hence give again.
As for the threatening marketing, it just grates with me. Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative please.......