TTSC & Marshall Aerospace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: ???
Age: 58
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTSC & Marshall Aerospace
I see from this weeks Flight International that Marshall Aerospace has been selected to do B767 conversion work, if TTSC get the FSTA contract.
Good to see this work going to a UK company, regardless of opinion on which aircraft is best, the B767 must be the cheaper option.
Good to see this work going to a UK company, regardless of opinion on which aircraft is best, the B767 must be the cheaper option.
Cheaper? Well cheaper to buy, certainly, but the RAF isn't buying them, it's going for an availability type contract.
And because the A330 is a more modern design, with low operating costs, availability will be high, while the aircraft's formidable cargo capacity (two containers side-by-side) and sheer capacity will give the contractor a real edge in gaining the third party revenue which will allow them to reduce the cost of the service being offered to the RAF.
So the 767 may not, in fact, be any cheaper insofar as the RAF is contained.
And because the A330 is a more modern design, with low operating costs, availability will be high, while the aircraft's formidable cargo capacity (two containers side-by-side) and sheer capacity will give the contractor a real edge in gaining the third party revenue which will allow them to reduce the cost of the service being offered to the RAF.
So the 767 may not, in fact, be any cheaper insofar as the RAF is contained.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if the ex BA767s aren't used, how will the government get the backhanded subsidy to BA?
Reminds me of the ex-BA Tristars we bought in the mid 80s - we got the wrong aeroplane there, too.
Reminds me of the ex-BA Tristars we bought in the mid 80s - we got the wrong aeroplane there, too.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: fantasyland
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AM
Disagree. We bought 6 L1011-500's for the price of 5. The KC1 has turned out to be a brill freighter/tanker. The K1 is a waste of time bar as a tanker. Marshalls however ripped out all the lower hold PDU's and roller and either flogged them on or ditched them - now we need the spares......
Disagree. We bought 6 L1011-500's for the price of 5. The KC1 has turned out to be a brill freighter/tanker. The K1 is a waste of time bar as a tanker. Marshalls however ripped out all the lower hold PDU's and roller and either flogged them on or ditched them - now we need the spares......
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adrian Mole, and I think they were only about 4 years-old at the time of the purchase. The 3 ex-Panam about the same age.
Interestingly, recently retired AOC #2 Group, who I think was involved in setting up the original 216 sqn operation, is currently on gardening leave, prior to joining one of the AirTanker partners. Apparently TTSC threw their toys out when they heard he might be on the "other" side!
Interestingly, recently retired AOC #2 Group, who I think was involved in setting up the original 216 sqn operation, is currently on gardening leave, prior to joining one of the AirTanker partners. Apparently TTSC threw their toys out when they heard he might be on the "other" side!
Whereas the ex-BA 767-336ERs, having entered revenue service with BA in February 1990 would be how old were they to enter RAF service in 2008? And would then be expected to soldier on for another 27 years.......??
Hmmmm
Hmmmm
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: ???
Age: 58
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Mole
ALL the removed equipment from the L1011 during their tanker/freighter conversion was returned to the MOD. It used to be stored at Aston Down. The problem being that none of the equipment was labelled up. We went to visit in the early 90's and we counted over 20 wire pallets of equipment that could have been put to use on the ex Pan Am aircraft (even something as stupid as a loo seat).
No doubt all this kit was either sold for pennies or is still sitting in an old hangar.
As for costs i believe the 3 ex Pan Am aircraft cost more than the 6 ex BA ones. There was also tech differences in the aircraft.
Lots of previous arguments about which is the best aircraft for the FSTA, the only thing we all agree on is that it should be "new build".
ALL the removed equipment from the L1011 during their tanker/freighter conversion was returned to the MOD. It used to be stored at Aston Down. The problem being that none of the equipment was labelled up. We went to visit in the early 90's and we counted over 20 wire pallets of equipment that could have been put to use on the ex Pan Am aircraft (even something as stupid as a loo seat).
No doubt all this kit was either sold for pennies or is still sitting in an old hangar.
As for costs i believe the 3 ex Pan Am aircraft cost more than the 6 ex BA ones. There was also tech differences in the aircraft.
Lots of previous arguments about which is the best aircraft for the FSTA, the only thing we all agree on is that it should be "new build".
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK but would prefer Fr/Esp (at least part-time)...
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSTA
As an ex-user (OK, it was often abuser) of the finest flying gas stations in the world (RAF AAR, respect!) who now flies with Big Airways, I can see 2 v. good reasons for the 767 to be FSTA: 1. The US Forces are buying the first 100 or so replacements for the KC135 fleet (total fleet 750-ish?) so trials/clearances commonality for receivers will be great for NATO a/c. 2. BA might well go for A330 as 767 replacement once the 321 order is completed which doubtless would keep Airbus/BAe happy. What thoughts from those in FSTA procurement at MOD??? PS Maybe clear the 767 to M0.86ish like the US airlines so it doesn't drop too far behind a mighty charging VC10 doing 0.92!!!
Unless the 767 is much cheaper, (and cheaper to operate) it will (and should) be the A330.
My suspicion is that the 330's better third party revenue potential will make it very competitive, price wise.
My suspicion is that the 330's better third party revenue potential will make it very competitive, price wise.
GZip - it's not quite that simple!
The TTSC aircraft will be around 20 years old if they enter service with the RAF - and would then be expected to keep going until they're 45 years old or thereabouts. They haven't been sitting in the desert doing nothing for the past few years - or in bags at Abingdon - but have been in busy revenue service! Also, they are quite different to the US KC-767A being based upon the 767-336ER and not the 767-200. The engines are also unique amongst 767s in being Rolls Royce RB211s....
The fuel capacity is 73.5 tonnes whereas the A330-200 offers 111 tonnes. The A330s are being offered as new-build, although 'pre-owned' ac are understood to be on offer as well. But they won't be nearly 20 years old like your 767s will be!
Regrettably its been a long time since the dear old Vickers Funbus was allowed to fly at such speeds as you quote!
BA's marketing decisions will be unlikely to influence Whitehall, I would hope. In any case, surely Boeing will try to sell you the 7E7 which will be their 757/767 replacement? Whilst you've got 747s and 777s in your large ac fleet, can you really see them letting Airbus win?
The TTSC aircraft will be around 20 years old if they enter service with the RAF - and would then be expected to keep going until they're 45 years old or thereabouts. They haven't been sitting in the desert doing nothing for the past few years - or in bags at Abingdon - but have been in busy revenue service! Also, they are quite different to the US KC-767A being based upon the 767-336ER and not the 767-200. The engines are also unique amongst 767s in being Rolls Royce RB211s....
The fuel capacity is 73.5 tonnes whereas the A330-200 offers 111 tonnes. The A330s are being offered as new-build, although 'pre-owned' ac are understood to be on offer as well. But they won't be nearly 20 years old like your 767s will be!
Regrettably its been a long time since the dear old Vickers Funbus was allowed to fly at such speeds as you quote!
BA's marketing decisions will be unlikely to influence Whitehall, I would hope. In any case, surely Boeing will try to sell you the 7E7 which will be their 757/767 replacement? Whilst you've got 747s and 777s in your large ac fleet, can you really see them letting Airbus win?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK but would prefer Fr/Esp (at least part-time)...
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, thanks for your points. It surprises me that new A330s are a cheaper package than ex-BA 767s. I'm sure Marshalls can get an easy design for extra internal tankerage from Boeing. Yes, the 7E7 has potential but probably too late for 767 replacement and we have yet to see Common Crew Quals across 744/777/7E7 proposed whereas this could greatly increase simplicity of rostering at BA. I appreciate that I've largely ignored the Transport Capability on offer (since the RAF has recently started to enjoy anew the Strategic Transport capability of the C17) but wouldn't be surprised if FLA jumped into this slot as a cheap option - or is that a dead duck now in RAF colours? PS Have always found that the application of logic can be a dangerous thing in the politico-military arena.
GZip,
The RAF will be buying a service. Not an aeroplane.
The price of that service will reflect the running costs of the aircraft platform. (New tech A330 or knackered, 25 year old 767?)
The price of that service will reflect how much third party revenue the operator will earn from the aircraft when they are not being used as tankers.
(New tech, big A330 with ample freight volume 'as is' or knackered, 25 year old 767s with no underfloor cargo capacity with tanks in place?)
Assuming that 767s will necessarily represent the cheapest option may therefore be dangerous.
The RAF will be buying a service. Not an aeroplane.
The price of that service will reflect the running costs of the aircraft platform. (New tech A330 or knackered, 25 year old 767?)
The price of that service will reflect how much third party revenue the operator will earn from the aircraft when they are not being used as tankers.
(New tech, big A330 with ample freight volume 'as is' or knackered, 25 year old 767s with no underfloor cargo capacity with tanks in place?)
Assuming that 767s will necessarily represent the cheapest option may therefore be dangerous.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Jacko, that's just naughty!
TTSC say that at the time of introduction to service (Jan 2008) , the oldest 767 will be just 13 years old. Mind you, a 12-year delay to the programme could be on the cards, the rate they've been going!
Both bids seem to have their strengths and weaknesses, but the A330 does look rather nice in the recent ad in RAF News. And isn't this a case where size does matter?
TTSC say that at the time of introduction to service (Jan 2008) , the oldest 767 will be just 13 years old. Mind you, a 12-year delay to the programme could be on the cards, the rate they've been going!
Both bids seem to have their strengths and weaknesses, but the A330 does look rather nice in the recent ad in RAF News. And isn't this a case where size does matter?
Gzip, 'FLA' is now the A400M. It is on order for the RAF and will be an exceptionally capable aeroplane. It will be able to act as a tanker with or without additional cargo bay tanks and the Common Standard Aircraft will be fitted with provision for flight deck AR controls and fuel management. wing hard points for the AR pods plus associated wiring and plumbing, video surveillance equipment and a detachable AR probe. The A400M will also be capable of refuelling helicopters - in addition to its impressive cruise performance which far exceeds that of the C130J as it will be capable of M0.72 at up to FL370.
Jackonicko, I doubt whether Nigel would ever allow his 767-300ERs to become 'knackered'. But they are getting on a bit - they first entered service with BA in 1990 and the BA Fact Book gives their utilisation rate as 6.6 hours/day per aircraft on shorthaul routes, 11.6 hours/day on longhaul. Even though they would receive what TTSC describe on their website as a 'substantial refit including engine upgrades', unlike the KC-767A, they would still only offer the same 73.1 tonne of fuel as they currently do. Whereas AirTanker's A330-200s will need only 'minimal modifications' and will offer 111 tonne - over 50% more than the B767.
In pure capability terms, on a busy-ish North Sea Towline the ex-BA 767 could only offer a few minutes more time on task than a VC10K3. However, even if the A330 took off from Toulouse, flew to the same towline, refuelled fighters at the same rate and then flew back to Toulouse, it could still offer an hour longer on task than the B767! Or over twice the time of a VC10K4. In Air Transport terms you couldn't quite get an ex-BA 767 from Brize to the Falklands direct; an A330-200 could do the trip direct with 200 happy passengers enjoying the 24" wider cabin than that of the 767.
So whilst it's a bit cruel to talk of 'knackered, 25 year old 767s', you wicked journo, the capability of the A330-200 does rather speak for itself.....
Please note that these are purely personal and unofficial comments!
Jackonicko, I doubt whether Nigel would ever allow his 767-300ERs to become 'knackered'. But they are getting on a bit - they first entered service with BA in 1990 and the BA Fact Book gives their utilisation rate as 6.6 hours/day per aircraft on shorthaul routes, 11.6 hours/day on longhaul. Even though they would receive what TTSC describe on their website as a 'substantial refit including engine upgrades', unlike the KC-767A, they would still only offer the same 73.1 tonne of fuel as they currently do. Whereas AirTanker's A330-200s will need only 'minimal modifications' and will offer 111 tonne - over 50% more than the B767.
In pure capability terms, on a busy-ish North Sea Towline the ex-BA 767 could only offer a few minutes more time on task than a VC10K3. However, even if the A330 took off from Toulouse, flew to the same towline, refuelled fighters at the same rate and then flew back to Toulouse, it could still offer an hour longer on task than the B767! Or over twice the time of a VC10K4. In Air Transport terms you couldn't quite get an ex-BA 767 from Brize to the Falklands direct; an A330-200 could do the trip direct with 200 happy passengers enjoying the 24" wider cabin than that of the 767.
So whilst it's a bit cruel to talk of 'knackered, 25 year old 767s', you wicked journo, the capability of the A330-200 does rather speak for itself.....
Please note that these are purely personal and unofficial comments!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags, I am wary of getting into a factual argument with you but I do seem to remember you feeling strongly a little time back that the A300 would be too large a frame for the sort of fields the RAF would want to operate from. Has it shrunk?.
I admit to an interest in the 767 case.
I admit to an interest in the 767 case.
No - but having done some number-crunching, I consider that the capabilities it offers far outweigh the supposed infrastructural issues.....
The ex-BA 767-336s are now old. 9 first entered BA service in 1990, 5 in 1991, 3 in 1992, 4 in 1993, 2 in 1994, 1 in 1996, 1 in 1997 and 3 in 1998. I'm sure the problems associated with operating geriatric jets has been learned by the RAF; as the capability of the ex-BA 767 cannot begin to approach that of the brand-new A330 in either AR or AT applications, it appears to have little going for it.
I was once in favour of the 767 - bu that was when I thought that it would have certain additional modifications. The TTSC website indicates it won't have those, should they win the competition. But unlike the new KC-767A, at least it would have cabin windows.
And why the Smiths' AR pod? If that's still on offer after the end of this month, of course.......
Please note that these are purely personal and unofficial comments!
The ex-BA 767-336s are now old. 9 first entered BA service in 1990, 5 in 1991, 3 in 1992, 4 in 1993, 2 in 1994, 1 in 1996, 1 in 1997 and 3 in 1998. I'm sure the problems associated with operating geriatric jets has been learned by the RAF; as the capability of the ex-BA 767 cannot begin to approach that of the brand-new A330 in either AR or AT applications, it appears to have little going for it.
I was once in favour of the 767 - bu that was when I thought that it would have certain additional modifications. The TTSC website indicates it won't have those, should they win the competition. But unlike the new KC-767A, at least it would have cabin windows.
And why the Smiths' AR pod? If that's still on offer after the end of this month, of course.......
Please note that these are purely personal and unofficial comments!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad even you did not notice I mentioned the A300 when I meant the A330, put it down to senility and the heat (on my part). Even I am surprised re Smiths pod. perhaps Cobham PLC forgot to buy lunch again or sent one of their so called experts like Wright Pat.
I didn't want to be picky - I knew what you meant! Incidentally, when you mentioned 'senility', were you referring to the 767-336 or yourself?
Another hot one in British West Oxfordshire today. But it'll probably rain tomorrow as it's the AFI. My - how I miss those
Another hot one in British West Oxfordshire today. But it'll probably rain tomorrow as it's the AFI. My - how I miss those
Last edited by BEagle; 16th Jul 2003 at 15:34.
