Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Ex ATA L1011's going to the RAF

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Ex ATA L1011's going to the RAF

Old 13th Jan 2009, 12:20
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 51
Posts: 308
Pontius Navigator,
The only difference between a C2 and a civvy T* is the SIFF & DIRCM and it's only had that for couple of years (and the stupid grey paint scheme and the fact that Civvies are allowed to use their autoland). Why would you need UHF on a passenger jet?
Sideshow Bob is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 12:45
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
There is something else that hads probably been taken into account by those "in the know" but not by anyone here yet.

If the RAF buy nice shiny new Airbus 3xx, then teach everyone to use them, where do you think all those nice, newly trained people are going to go?

Pilots with a nice new Airbus A3xx rating are going straight to the airlines, and all those engineers with Airbus maintenance experience? They'll see them there too!!

Keeping out of date equipment ensures that the guys have some marketable experience, but you can't make it too easy, can you?


Or am I being toooo cynical?
moosemaster is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 14:09
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
My understanding of the main reason most larger airlines, at least, change their airplanes for later models is not because of higher maintenance costs, or even slightly higher running costs, but its because the airline wants the travelling public to see they're in a shiney new airframe, and the public like that to...not knowing anything else but what they can see, new seats and carpets.
No, the travelling public does not care or really understand. The difference in op costs is indeed that significant, that airlines are very keen to offload old aircraft and replace them with the new.

Now the sensible thing would have been to buy some off-market A330s to gain op experience on them. How silly of me for thinking that would be considered...!
Re-Heat is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 14:09
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,952
Well they had that with the VC10 in the early days so made Pilots acting Sqn Ldrs to make the pay comparable so as to reduce the migration to the Civilian market...

Perhaps the Government is working on the premise of reducing the Armed forces manpower to fit the capability we have opposed to doing it the other way round...... Now I am being cynical.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 14:52
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: under the sea
Posts: 2,257
"Now the sensible thing would have been to buy some off-market A330s to gain op experience on them. How silly of me for thinking that would be considered...!"

You would be very fortunate to get one!My airline has been looking for the last couple of years and still has not found any with the large doors at the three doors position.
tubby linton is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 15:02
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 2,190
If this is true, perhaps these old birds could be put to work on the South Atlantic, instead of the never-ending contracting-out?

One would imagine these a/c (it would actually only take 1 frame to run the pre-Globespan schedule) could be put to work on that route with no "mil" mods whatsoever?
Wycombe is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 15:04
  #27 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,593
Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker View Post
I take it you've never been on one of the RAF's current Tristars then?

None of the Tristars I flew in on my way to various hot and sandy places had the seats facing the other way.
Oh but I have. I had a forward facing window seat too. But that was a very long time ago before the aircraft did its PD to Lyneham - same skipper.

Seats was a cynical crack at the if it ain't broke we will improve it system.

As for UHF radios, I don't know if they were fitted to the C2 but they could just come in handy in a military environment?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 15:50
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 681
All of the cynicism here reminds me of that 'Ministry of Dements' faux memo that was posted on here last year. Made me giggle.

Keep it up!
harrogate is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 15:57
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 543
A lot of excellent comments by people with no money

Of course a nice shiny new Multi role something or other would be much better.
The problem is that it takes time and money neither of which seem readily available.

At around $1m each the L1011 is hardly capital expenditure.
To put them into sevice as people have said just to ferry troops up and down would be minimal cost.

Then they can save the pennies for the next generation craft

Yes the major airlines have to change equipment to keep up with the Jones's
But if you cannot get cheap finance you have to burn a lot of fuel to go from an L1011 lease at $80,000 and month to a fuel efficient Boeing lease at $700.00

BTW could someone remind me what the Mighty USAF are doing for their current tanker aircraft
GotTheTshirt is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 16:08
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
A better buy would be some 747-400s: there are enough available on the used market and they run to around $40 mill for a mid life example.

The 1011, as good an airplane as it is, doesn't make economic sense as the price of fuel rises: they are also maintenance intensive and the 400 can carry 25% more pax for not much more fuel. The problem you have is that the people who are in Procurement don't know the first thing about commercial aviation and airplane performance.
The Real Slim Shady is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 16:18
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 356
I'm fairly sure BA are getting shot of a couple of 744s.....

As superb as the TriMotor was, I'm sure there are stacks of newer cheaper-to-run, higher-spares-availability twin jets around too going for a song.

The RAF is spoilt for choice.
Farfrompuken is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 16:29
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 81
Posts: 2,132
Government of this Country on the other hand can't afford to buy shiny new transport aircraft. The kitty is empty, the cupboard bare, but three or four mid-life 744's should be affordable.

Last edited by brakedwell; 13th Jan 2009 at 16:44.
brakedwell is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 17:03
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 681
Any costs would be blown sky high by the government's inevitible engagement of a consultancy company to 'scope' the viability of other aircraft in a 2 year study, or something equally as inept.

You get what I mean.
harrogate is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 17:03
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PBI
Posts: 213
If the RAF are committed to keeping their existing L1011's until 2015 it makes logical sense to add & integrate a few 'cheap" L1011's to give them redundancy. They know the airplane and it seems to be doing the job for them.

If you can buy these (L1011's) which are recently flying aircraft at $1.5M how can you possibly compare these to B747's which they have no experience of operating and are not going to be priced in this dollar range?

By the way, these very same ATA aircraft were making regular runs ferrying troops in & out of Iraq & Afghanistan with very few hiccups. A lot more reliable than the DC10's

Last edited by OldCessna; 13th Jan 2009 at 17:05. Reason: spelling
OldCessna is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 17:13
  #35 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,593
Originally Posted by OldCessna View Post
If the RAF are committed to keeping their existing L1011's until 2015 it makes logical sense to add & integrate a few 'cheap" L1011's to give them redundancy. They know the airplane and it seems to be doing the job for them.
The point that was made above was that cheap is an illusory 5-letter word. The VC10s that were bought in were cheap to buy but not cheap to bring in to service.

It is true the T* might be a diferent kettle of fish but these ones are a lot older, I presume, than the others when we bought them. How well were they treated when put in to storage?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 17:41
  #36 (permalink)  

Usual disclaimers apply!
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 833
Snoop

I'm fairly sure BA are getting shot of a couple of 744s.....
Yep! Two parked up so far and at least one other to follow! Do a swop for the trimotors?
gas path is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 18:35
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the Air
Age: 73
Posts: 14
All the ATA L-10s are ex-somebody else. The RAF rumor concerns ATA's ex-RJ (Royal Jordanian) -500s. At least that makes them the same as the 9 the RAF already has. ATA used the -500s on Round the World cruises, so they must have been reasonably reliable. Also, the FAA took a very close look at them before they went to ATA. S/N 1217 needs closer scrutiny than the other 4 RJ -500s and could be a touch tail heavy.
lincman is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 19:02
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Where I rest my head!
Posts: 43
Ok, looks like a great opportunity for an ex-FE!

Where do I sign up? AFCO's don't even know what an FE or Air Eng is?

Yes, like a look I've tried to rejoin the RAF!
WildRover is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 19:32
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Beside the beach
Age: 48
Posts: 283
this is criminal if true. Who is the largest buyer of airliners in the world? AA? BA? Cathay? Nope, its ILFC. Who they? ILFC lease aircraft out to airlines around the globe so they don't have to buy them themselves. Now there's a crazy idea.

OK, for special mods like DIRCM I can understand why we need our own (and do we need DIRCM for the trips they do? really?), but is it only a matter of time before one of these knackered old birds with the best efforts of the engineers (and they have my total sympathy and admiration) fatigues out of the sky with a battalion of chaps returning from places sandy? I hope and pray it never happens, but until it does, then the criminals who allow this situation to continue will continue to get away with it. It's a f**cking disgrace.

Last edited by ChristopherRobin; 13th Jan 2009 at 19:35. Reason: (syntax edited due to blind rage)
ChristopherRobin is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2009, 21:20
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, Great Britain
Posts: 15
The ATA L1011-500 not quite identical as they sport a couple of extra doors!!! I would imagine that one aircraft would be used as donor parts for the others & the existing RAF L1011 fleet.
Raffles is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.