AirTanker First Officers
Hi 3eng, sorry, I think you must have read too much of the ATr blurb? 
Getting away from the pi$$ing contest...why do FSTA supporters always claim "it is better, carries more fuel, got wing pods, shinier.. better than VC10 and TriStar... etc"? Well, it all depends on the circumstances! The VC10 was the best in some circumstances! The officially quoted RAF view is that the FSTA has a "similar" capability to TriStar so, why all the catcalling?
Getting back to the issue (you will notice that I do not mention, outside these brackets, that TriStar K did routinely lift over 125t of fuel and that serviceability levels were at the level chosen by the RAF!), of course you love your new shiny fleet (if you are really part of it?) the issue is..the RAF has scrapped a perfectly adequate fleet and, at HUGE EXPENSE hired another on the never-never!
OAP
Getting away from the pi$$ing contest...why do FSTA supporters always claim "it is better, carries more fuel, got wing pods, shinier.. better than VC10 and TriStar... etc"? Well, it all depends on the circumstances! The VC10 was the best in some circumstances! The officially quoted RAF view is that the FSTA has a "similar" capability to TriStar so, why all the catcalling?Getting back to the issue (you will notice that I do not mention, outside these brackets, that TriStar K did routinely lift over 125t of fuel and that serviceability levels were at the level chosen by the RAF!), of course you love your new shiny fleet (if you are really part of it?) the issue is..the RAF has scrapped a perfectly adequate fleet and, at HUGE EXPENSE hired another on the never-never!
OAP
OAP,
The issue, as headlined in the title of this particular thread, would appear to be Air Tanker First Officers. Now, when you get back to it, would you like to give us your offerings?
The issue, as headlined in the title of this particular thread, would appear to be Air Tanker First Officers. Now, when you get back to it, would you like to give us your offerings?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
The article says, following it's conversion ATr will prepare it for civilian operation, i.e remove all military mods that are NOT covered by the civilian TC and convert it back to a modified A330 NOT at KC2. The military equipment will be removed, including the MSO panel, mil radio fit etc etc. Some mods will be eft, but these will be mainly pipework and electrical looms that are pretty much impossible to remove.
For someone who is constantly picking holes in this service, your knowledge is disappointing, I thought you had more awareness of the contract!!
The article says, following it's conversion ATr will prepare it for civilian operation, i.e remove all military mods that are NOT covered by the civilian TC and convert it back to a modified A330 NOT at KC2. The military equipment will be removed, including the MSO panel, mil radio fit etc etc. Some mods will be eft, but these will be mainly pipework and electrical looms that are pretty much impossible to remove.
For someone who is constantly picking holes in this service, your knowledge is disappointing, I thought you had more awareness of the contract!!
3engnever, the intemperate tone of your second paragraph is quite unreasonable.
I do not support the concept of PFIs and 'sponsored reservists' mercenaries; however, the RAF squadrons will continue to provide as good an AT/AAR service as they always have.
I do not support the concept of PFIs and 'sponsored reservists' mercenaries; however, the RAF squadrons will continue to provide as good an AT/AAR service as they always have.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP,
TriStar routinely lifted more than 125T of fuel? Really, well not when I was tasking them! Rarely did we have the runway length and met conditions to lift that amount of gas. Even when we did, the single hose limited how many receivers we could take as we ran out of airspace due to divs etc. This is only one of the reasons why I think Voyager is more capable. Serviceability level chosen by the RAF. Yes I cn imagine CAS asking 216 Sqn not to make it too serviceable.
Anyway, clearly you have more than this to moan about, so as I said before, what do you want to know!
TriStar routinely lifted more than 125T of fuel? Really, well not when I was tasking them! Rarely did we have the runway length and met conditions to lift that amount of gas. Even when we did, the single hose limited how many receivers we could take as we ran out of airspace due to divs etc. This is only one of the reasons why I think Voyager is more capable. Serviceability level chosen by the RAF. Yes I cn imagine CAS asking 216 Sqn not to make it too serviceable.
Anyway, clearly you have more than this to moan about, so as I said before, what do you want to know!
. Run out of divs? You don't plan on single hose?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP,
No, not always. If you have 2 hoses and need them to get the chicks across then plan for success. You can always divert if need be. Depends on the circumstances of course. I presume you are an ex-AARC?
No, not always. If you have 2 hoses and need them to get the chicks across then plan for success. You can always divert if need be. Depends on the circumstances of course. I presume you are an ex-AARC?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and by the way, I am not on the Voyager fleet before you ask! I am however ex AT/AAR and very proud of the aircraft I used to fly. It was a joy to operate and extremely capable, however, we really must look to the future, and in doing so recognise that the legacy fleets, however good they were, could not continue forever and did not provide the capability that can be achieved by Voyager.
No, 3eng, and I will not taunt you further. I know the TriStar did not lift 125t from BZZ but, it could and did routinely in the right circumstances. FSTA capabilities are good but, it is not so good that the RAF should have binned TriStar and sacrificed other core capabilities to afford its rip-off price tag. Just my opinion. 
OAP
OAP
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP,
I don't feel taunted. It is an expensive project, there is no doubt. But tech comes at a cost. I don't always agree with the PFI and there are times I see it not working well at all. The big test for those involved is not really about the aircraft, Voyager will be an incredible step forward (given time and opportunity), the hard work comes for those trying to provide and uphold the 'service'. If that part fails then the PFI fails. It is not equipment based, it is the wider service provision. Much of that rests in the hands of ATrS and not ATr or Airbus DS. It is there that we will see this project either pass of fail. In my own opinion, the key to success is to let the worker bees get on with it and make it work, just like a traditional sqn, rather than letting the commercial depts argue over a contract that could cripple both the companies and the service. Things have moved on since 2007 and those responsible for upholding the contract must understand that.
I know not all will see the benefit, and I am not trying to convince anyone, I am merely trying to state fact.
3EN
I don't feel taunted. It is an expensive project, there is no doubt. But tech comes at a cost. I don't always agree with the PFI and there are times I see it not working well at all. The big test for those involved is not really about the aircraft, Voyager will be an incredible step forward (given time and opportunity), the hard work comes for those trying to provide and uphold the 'service'. If that part fails then the PFI fails. It is not equipment based, it is the wider service provision. Much of that rests in the hands of ATrS and not ATr or Airbus DS. It is there that we will see this project either pass of fail. In my own opinion, the key to success is to let the worker bees get on with it and make it work, just like a traditional sqn, rather than letting the commercial depts argue over a contract that could cripple both the companies and the service. Things have moved on since 2007 and those responsible for upholding the contract must understand that.
I know not all will see the benefit, and I am not trying to convince anyone, I am merely trying to state fact.
3EN
10 THOMAS COOK PILOTS TO FLY VOYAGER
One learns that Tommy's Cock pilots aren't exactly falling over themselves to do so.......
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
No term and conditions have been offered yet, so why, exactly, should any 'fall over themselves'? There are some who may be interested to fill the slots available should the Ts & Cs be acceptable and, domestically, preferable to their current situation.
No term and conditions have been offered yet, so why, exactly, should any 'fall over themselves'? There are some who may be interested to fill the slots available should the Ts & Cs be acceptable and, domestically, preferable to their current situation.
beardy wrote:
I'm sure it is - but you should know.
Anyway, first hand opinion from Tommy's Cock pilots is "Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole! A few might think it's an easy way to gain a 330 TR and then leg it, but the Ts&Cs are worse than the Hajj...."
Good old PFI.....
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Anyway, first hand opinion from Tommy's Cock pilots is "Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole! A few might think it's an easy way to gain a 330 TR and then leg it, but the Ts&Cs are worse than the Hajj...."
Good old PFI.....
Ts & Cs have not been offered to anybody in Thomas Cook, so they cannot be known to be worse than the Hajj. Your informant has misled you. There has been an invitation to express interest which has, for the most, been ignored. This is because the company has not yet consulted BALPA, which it is obliged to do and may yet.
That said more than is required have expressed an interest.
There has, as yet, been no invitation to bid for the posts.
I was advising you that you had learned a little, a little is a dangerous thing especially when it bolsters your own opinion. There is much more about this that you don't know, nor should it concern you, it is a Thomas Cook matter, not Air Tanker nor anything to do with PFI.
That said more than is required have expressed an interest.
There has, as yet, been no invitation to bid for the posts.
I was advising you that you had learned a little, a little is a dangerous thing especially when it bolsters your own opinion. There is much more about this that you don't know, nor should it concern you, it is a Thomas Cook matter, not Air Tanker nor anything to do with PFI.
beardy wrote:
Well pardon me for living. What are you - some management suit or what?
The nonsense of PFI includes the notion that non-core assets can be offered out for 3PR. Such as the 'moist lease' being negotiated between AirTanker and Thomas Cook. But, as reported elsewhere, the significant difference as compared to a normal leasing deal is that TC crews are intended to support ATr's own non-military A330 operation rather than just the TC-leased Voyager.
There is much more about this that you don't know, nor should it concern you, it is a Thomas Cook matter, not Air Tanker nor anything to do with PFI.
The nonsense of PFI includes the notion that non-core assets can be offered out for 3PR. Such as the 'moist lease' being negotiated between AirTanker and Thomas Cook. But, as reported elsewhere, the significant difference as compared to a normal leasing deal is that TC crews are intended to support ATr's own non-military A330 operation rather than just the TC-leased Voyager.
Thomas Cook has negotiated similar, but not identical, deals in the past, they are not that unusual and are not unique to ATr.
No. But Thomas Cook internal politics are no concern of yours. They neither support nor contradict your stance on PFI. I also don't like it when you misinterpret the half of a tale that you heard to support your opinion.
Well pardon me for living. What are you - some management suit or what?
Last edited by beardy; 13th Aug 2014 at 06:53.