Ex ATA L1011's going to the RAF
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahh sorry forgot of course its that easy! so what about all the other procurment issues then!?
Perhaps a more effective, and cost effective, solution would be remove the strategic transport task from the RAF and civilianise it. Better service, cheaper.
I don't know how much it costs to run a T* but typically the 744 runs to around $40K per hour assuming LLPs and burdened maintenance at around $3K per flt hour.
Last edited by The Real Slim Shady; 16th Jan 2009 at 17:47.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I quite agree with comments on this thread that procurement know nothing whatsoever. My limited experience with those lot is of gross incompetence. Furthermore, with little experience of procuring aircraft, they simply do not have the competence to do it. Of course, in this day and age, the powers that certify those aircraft to the mil register (or better the CAA if they remain civilian) might prevent such future acquisitions from massive over-modification...would they...?!
Anyone else agree with Digby Jones that the whole Civil Service should be lined up and shot?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know how much it costs to run a T* but typically the 744 runs to around $40K per hour assuming LLPs and burdened maintenance at around $3K per flt hour
As a matter of interest, has anyone ever tried to cost a RAF Tri* sector against a similarly-laden 767 sector, including maintenance costs etc? Even better...VC10?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The figure I quoted includes fuel, maintenance, crew costs etc, all the DOCs in fact.
Ignoring any emotive aspects, the issue is simple: how can the Govt provide the most effective and cost effective strategic air transport facility for the military?
Given that the C130Js and C17s can provide tactical, and strategic freight and para dropping, the question falls to the provision of tankers and AT.
By making 216 Sqn a 3 flt, 3 type Squadron the T*s can take full time responsibility for tanking. Buying, not leasing, 10 used widebodies to provide medium and long range AT is a better option, I contend, than having the numbers of the already stretched T* force increased.
Wet leasing or ACMI from BA or VS or bmi is not a practical option as they would have prohibitive clauses for the safety of their crews: moreover, you would also be tied to existing union agreements and FTLs. In addition, it would be expensive as they would want to make a profit, as much, if not more, than they could make running the same jet commercially.
A further option is to give a contractor a shed load of wonga to buy used airframes and set up a new independent dedicated civilian AT capability: the advantages are that the operator is not encumbered by existing work practices, it is a very quick fix ( 9 months max from go ahead to flying), a better service for the passengers and the MoD, much cheaper than using service personnel as civvies don't need the back up services, pensions etc and highly trained service personnel and equipment are released to do other tasks.
For around $50 million I could buy and refurbish a 744 with 400 economy seats, 45 flat bed business seats and full IFE. That will give a non stop capability to Iraq and Afghanistan and to the training areas in the US and Canada : it gives the capability to tech stop ASI and operate the MPA sector with ASI as the alternate carrying a full passenger load and up to 20 tonnes of freight.
Ignoring any emotive aspects, the issue is simple: how can the Govt provide the most effective and cost effective strategic air transport facility for the military?
Given that the C130Js and C17s can provide tactical, and strategic freight and para dropping, the question falls to the provision of tankers and AT.
By making 216 Sqn a 3 flt, 3 type Squadron the T*s can take full time responsibility for tanking. Buying, not leasing, 10 used widebodies to provide medium and long range AT is a better option, I contend, than having the numbers of the already stretched T* force increased.
Wet leasing or ACMI from BA or VS or bmi is not a practical option as they would have prohibitive clauses for the safety of their crews: moreover, you would also be tied to existing union agreements and FTLs. In addition, it would be expensive as they would want to make a profit, as much, if not more, than they could make running the same jet commercially.
A further option is to give a contractor a shed load of wonga to buy used airframes and set up a new independent dedicated civilian AT capability: the advantages are that the operator is not encumbered by existing work practices, it is a very quick fix ( 9 months max from go ahead to flying), a better service for the passengers and the MoD, much cheaper than using service personnel as civvies don't need the back up services, pensions etc and highly trained service personnel and equipment are released to do other tasks.
For around $50 million I could buy and refurbish a 744 with 400 economy seats, 45 flat bed business seats and full IFE. That will give a non stop capability to Iraq and Afghanistan and to the training areas in the US and Canada : it gives the capability to tech stop ASI and operate the MPA sector with ASI as the alternate carrying a full passenger load and up to 20 tonnes of freight.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wiltshire/Quadra Is. BC
Age: 77
Posts: 38
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A further option is to give a contractor a shed load of wonga to buy used airframes and set up a new independent dedicated civilian AT capability: the advantages are that the operator is not encumbered by existing work practices, it is a very quick fix ( 9 months max from go ahead to flying), a better service for the passengers and the MoD, much cheaper than using service personnel as civvies don't need the back up services, pensions etc and highly trained service personnel and equipment are released to do other tasks."
Far too simple, cost effective and logical!
Far too simple, cost effective and logical!
