AirTanker First Officers
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is that foolish? ...or would you have us pay to have it painted grey, knowing tht a few days later we'd have to pay someone else to strip that paint off then pay again for it to be put in airline livery? Wouldn't that be the most moronic waste of taxpayers money?
It would be if the taxpayer was paying (mind you, given the way that Defence has been stitched up by this contract, maybe we are) but surely the lessee should be paying to paint it in their colours and then paying for it to be returned to camo grey when it's returned to its primary military role?
Champagne anyone...?
vasgodegama
Your sarcasm aside, it's actually irrelevant which one/s I was referring to; I was querying the concept.
If they only have one pax ("Green"
) aircraft then I would've thought it would make sense to wait until they had more before they started derigging tankers to lease. That said, they're a commercial enterprise with an eye on the bottom line. Someone will have done the maths.
which Pax /Cargo ac are you referring to ;the ones not yet built or the only Green ac which is used for the run South?
If they only have one pax ("Green"
) aircraft then I would've thought it would make sense to wait until they had more before they started derigging tankers to lease. That said, they're a commercial enterprise with an eye on the bottom line. Someone will have done the maths.
I think you'll find that, due to the lengthy time it took to get Voyager into service, ATr acquired a 'green', plain vanilla non-Voyager A330 for military contract passenger / freight work, so at least they could garner some revenue at the time.
All ATr A330s will be Voyagers; I gather than the non-Voyager A330 will eventually be returned to Airbus.
The aircraft which Thomas Cook will operate is one of the 5 'surge' fleet aircraft - if I recall correctly, the RAF will operate 9 x Voyagers and the others will, like the TC aircraft, be leased out for third party revenue generation. However, I suspect that one significant benefit of the deal for ATr is the availability of more civilian aircrew to augment those flying their A330. Plus more cabin crew who actually want to be cabin crew.....
But if the poo hits the fan and there is an urgent need to generate all 14 aircraft as tankers, I suspect that the engineering work will be less of a problem than generating CR AAR crews - including the required training to bring the 'sponsored reservist' mercenaries up to speed.
Although quite what 14 tankers would be refuelling in today's pale shadow of an air force, is difficult to imagine. NATO interoperability would at least be much improved if, say, 3 x Voyagers were delivered with 2 pods and a boom...
I note that AiM are to fly an 'enhanced' A330MRTT in 2 years' time. Perhaps by then they might have a mission system which actually works....
All ATr A330s will be Voyagers; I gather than the non-Voyager A330 will eventually be returned to Airbus.
The aircraft which Thomas Cook will operate is one of the 5 'surge' fleet aircraft - if I recall correctly, the RAF will operate 9 x Voyagers and the others will, like the TC aircraft, be leased out for third party revenue generation. However, I suspect that one significant benefit of the deal for ATr is the availability of more civilian aircrew to augment those flying their A330. Plus more cabin crew who actually want to be cabin crew.....
But if the poo hits the fan and there is an urgent need to generate all 14 aircraft as tankers, I suspect that the engineering work will be less of a problem than generating CR AAR crews - including the required training to bring the 'sponsored reservist' mercenaries up to speed.
Although quite what 14 tankers would be refuelling in today's pale shadow of an air force, is difficult to imagine. NATO interoperability would at least be much improved if, say, 3 x Voyagers were delivered with 2 pods and a boom...
I note that AiM are to fly an 'enhanced' A330MRTT in 2 years' time. Perhaps by then they might have a mission system which actually works....
Last edited by BEagle; 26th Jun 2014 at 07:55.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scratch the surface and Thomas Cook Air Force is probably still in a greater financial predicament that the real one, so of course it can't afford its own resprays. What happens if it goes bust, like it almost did a year or two back?
You are not even "probably" wrong about Thomas Cook's finances.
Your argument is fallacious, to extrapolate a conditional statement "probably" into a fact "of course" is the symptom of a bigoted opinion. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
What relevance is your comment to the title of the thread concerning First Officers, you don't say?
Your argument is fallacious, to extrapolate a conditional statement "probably" into a fact "of course" is the symptom of a bigoted opinion. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
What relevance is your comment to the title of the thread concerning First Officers, you don't say?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harriet Green did a great job of saving the Group. In terms of the longer term future, we'll agree to differ. For the record, I bought (very modestly) into what she was doing (literally) - it's a hold with me but as a buy, I think it's over valued and would have my doubts. The recovery that she oversaw has been spectacular but is more than priced in - and this contract demonstrates how it sees future growth being derived. The debate commercially, is whether her new infrastructure can deliver - how is it placed? I like the way she is fleet of foot, but she is caught short if the market generally, does well.
Thomas Cook is still, in my eyes, the subordinate partner to the Crown. Thats my brief opinion for you. I don't intend to get into a bunfight about it - peace out.
Thomas Cook is still, in my eyes, the subordinate partner to the Crown. Thats my brief opinion for you. I don't intend to get into a bunfight about it - peace out.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The aircraft which Thomas Cook will operate is one of the 5 'surge' fleet aircraft - if I recall correctly, the RAF will operate 9 x Voyagers and the others will, like the TC aircraft, be leased out for third party revenue generation. However, I suspect that one significant benefit of the deal for ATr is the availability of more civilian aircrew to augment those flying their A330.
AL R
You are of course entitled to your opinion of the direction Thomas Cook is taking. You seem to confuse one of the 4 airlines with the whole group and to concentrate on one of many leases to the detriment of the larger picture. Still, it's your money to gamble with as you wish.
I still don't see what relevance your comments are to the 'Air Tanker First Officers', the title of the thread. And now, of course, to contracted captains (as well as first officers) from Thomas Cook.
You are of course entitled to your opinion of the direction Thomas Cook is taking. You seem to confuse one of the 4 airlines with the whole group and to concentrate on one of many leases to the detriment of the larger picture. Still, it's your money to gamble with as you wish.
I still don't see what relevance your comments are to the 'Air Tanker First Officers', the title of the thread. And now, of course, to contracted captains (as well as first officers) from Thomas Cook.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be entitled to your opinion, Al but how would you feel about erroneous internet posts that your IFA business was in a financial predicament or going bust?
Irrespective of who was paying, how could anyone think it's a good idea to insist on an extra and entirely pointless repainting exercise?
Irrespective of who was paying, how could anyone think it's a good idea to insist on an extra and entirely pointless repainting exercise?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly don't want to get into a scrap about it. I have three businesses, send me your contact details - under the right circumstances, you're quite welcome to take a look at any of them so that your opinion will be informed and reliable - not erroneous. I didn't say TC was about to go bust. I said "what if?". It's a fair minded question, especially given TC's well documented turbulent commercial roller coaster of a history. I'm sure someone has considered it, but if there are a dozen aircrew or so, all funded by Harriet Green, do you really think JV partners will be at the top of the list of any administrators concerns?
I liked TC because at the time, there was only one way up for it, and a feisty and spicy boss was about to be parachuted in. I invested a very modest part of my play fund.. doing so served the purposes of said fund as a bit of something to provide alpha/volatility. Nothing more, nothing less. Would I buy it now to achieve same? If I had different objectives, I would look at the stock in a different light. I wouldn't ask if we had a surplus of footy fans looking for somewhere warm to drown their sorrows. I'd look at how much its fuel hedging was (at the time I looked I recall, only 90% or so but the oil price was going south, is it still?), and why it's cost saving, selling and consolidating (wasn't there an issue at Bristol recently, when there was no cover for an ill pilot?) all over the place.
I look at TC in the same light. I (as in my opinion) don't think it IS well placed to capitalise on an upswing, I think it might be exposed too if the price of oil soars (didn't it have to levy a fuel subsidy a few years ago?) - that is my personal opinion, it does not make it erroneous. I think TC suffers from the British malaise of generally, under capitalisation, it's always running hot, there never seems to be much meat on the bone. That doesn't make it bad.. for someone who might have different objectives and priorities, it will look different and attractive - Green has been superb at paying down the debt. I think that it is being geared towards a sell off; if that view floats your boat, you might take a long term position.
I really like Thomas Cook.. having a couple of commercial analyst mates living a few miles away and working in Peterborough has certainly helped. By contrast, today I'm researching a UK based company for me, one which is well placed to be a preferred supplier in French DIY chains just as the French government introduces legislation to cancel domestic home insurance if a smoke detector isn't fitted. It has appeal for my play fund but/and as a long term placing, you have to ask if we will one day have similar legislation..? If so, should I put a little less (if that is possible!) in? Finally, you're right - repainting is pointless so let it remain lo-viz grey. Lots of kudos for Harriet to be associated with the RAF. Apols for the thread drift. Pax, out.
I liked TC because at the time, there was only one way up for it, and a feisty and spicy boss was about to be parachuted in. I invested a very modest part of my play fund.. doing so served the purposes of said fund as a bit of something to provide alpha/volatility. Nothing more, nothing less. Would I buy it now to achieve same? If I had different objectives, I would look at the stock in a different light. I wouldn't ask if we had a surplus of footy fans looking for somewhere warm to drown their sorrows. I'd look at how much its fuel hedging was (at the time I looked I recall, only 90% or so but the oil price was going south, is it still?), and why it's cost saving, selling and consolidating (wasn't there an issue at Bristol recently, when there was no cover for an ill pilot?) all over the place.
I look at TC in the same light. I (as in my opinion) don't think it IS well placed to capitalise on an upswing, I think it might be exposed too if the price of oil soars (didn't it have to levy a fuel subsidy a few years ago?) - that is my personal opinion, it does not make it erroneous. I think TC suffers from the British malaise of generally, under capitalisation, it's always running hot, there never seems to be much meat on the bone. That doesn't make it bad.. for someone who might have different objectives and priorities, it will look different and attractive - Green has been superb at paying down the debt. I think that it is being geared towards a sell off; if that view floats your boat, you might take a long term position.
I really like Thomas Cook.. having a couple of commercial analyst mates living a few miles away and working in Peterborough has certainly helped. By contrast, today I'm researching a UK based company for me, one which is well placed to be a preferred supplier in French DIY chains just as the French government introduces legislation to cancel domestic home insurance if a smoke detector isn't fitted. It has appeal for my play fund but/and as a long term placing, you have to ask if we will one day have similar legislation..? If so, should I put a little less (if that is possible!) in? Finally, you're right - repainting is pointless so let it remain lo-viz grey. Lots of kudos for Harriet to be associated with the RAF. Apols for the thread drift. Pax, out.
Regarding the repainting or other wise: I can't see the great unwashed revelling in the "kudos" of going on their hols in a grey aeroplane. Quite the opposite. I would assume that in the event of surge aircraft being recalled to military service it would be more a case of removing or painting over company logos and flying them in a predominantly white colour scheme.
Not really the end of the world, after all we used to operate a fleet of white, wide body MRTTs did we not?
The leasing deal does make a lot of sense to me, as it should to the many on here who base their opinions on this website on perceived value for money issues. If you want 14 tankers in time of crisis but only need 8/9 the rest of the time it sort of makes sense given the alternative of parking 1/3 of your fleet.that said, having a large number of aircraft but only flying a small portion of them has always been in vogue in the RAF.
Not really the end of the world, after all we used to operate a fleet of white, wide body MRTTs did we not?
The leasing deal does make a lot of sense to me, as it should to the many on here who base their opinions on this website on perceived value for money issues. If you want 14 tankers in time of crisis but only need 8/9 the rest of the time it sort of makes sense given the alternative of parking 1/3 of your fleet.that said, having a large number of aircraft but only flying a small portion of them has always been in vogue in the RAF.
Arty Fufkin wrote:
Yes, the RAF did indeed operate such aircraft. But the 2 which went to KKIA in 1991 had first to be repainted in desert pink to reduce their visibility. I did a quick check and found that the pink pigs reflected about half the light of the white whales.
Later, all TriShaws (except for ZD949, which spent years at Marshalls, only to be scrapped as soon as the flight trials had been completed, wasting several £M in the process...
) were repainted in battleship grey. Not just because, with so few ships left in the RN, that there are warehouses full of 'paint, grey, war canoes for the use of' - but for tone down reasons.
Would the great unwashed worry about the colour of their charter flight transport aeroplane? I doubt it very much - the only issue which would concern them would be the price of the flight. It's perhaps more likely that some foreign airports wouldn't be too keen to be seen to be accepting 'military' aircraft? But, in reality, is there much of a risk of the RAF actually needing 14 x tankers in this day and age?
With 8 x C-17s, 24 x C-130Js, 22 x Atlas and 9 x Voyagers, not to mention around 60 Chinooks, the RAF will soon have a very considerable AT fleet to support operations....but where?
Not really the end of the world, after all we used to operate a fleet of white, wide body MRTTs did we not?
Later, all TriShaws (except for ZD949, which spent years at Marshalls, only to be scrapped as soon as the flight trials had been completed, wasting several £M in the process...
) were repainted in battleship grey. Not just because, with so few ships left in the RN, that there are warehouses full of 'paint, grey, war canoes for the use of' - but for tone down reasons.Would the great unwashed worry about the colour of their charter flight transport aeroplane? I doubt it very much - the only issue which would concern them would be the price of the flight. It's perhaps more likely that some foreign airports wouldn't be too keen to be seen to be accepting 'military' aircraft? But, in reality, is there much of a risk of the RAF actually needing 14 x tankers in this day and age?
With 8 x C-17s, 24 x C-130Js, 22 x Atlas and 9 x Voyagers, not to mention around 60 Chinooks, the RAF will soon have a very considerable AT fleet to support operations....but where?
Isn't the OSD for the C-130J still 2022?
Mind you, they must be getting fairly 'well-used' by now, after all their work in Iraq and Afghanistan....
Mind you, they must be getting fairly 'well-used' by now, after all their work in Iraq and Afghanistan....
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an airline perspective I can say that when pitching up to take folk on their jollies, military camouflage would be an absolute and total deal-breaker. On the other hand, provided correct insignia is carried, does it really matter the other way round? White and grey were the RAF "in colours" for many years, after all. I'm sure the fuel would taste the same.
Last edited by ShotOne; 28th Jun 2014 at 15:46. Reason: typo