UK to award new support deal for RAF TriStars
 

UK to award new support deal for RAF TriStars


Marshall Aerospace is to receive a new contract to support operations of the UK Royal Air Force's Lockheed TriStar tanker/transports until their retirement from service

Oh good - another 'closed' contract awarded to Marshalls so they can continue to f**k up servicing and modifications to another AT fleet.:mad:

The servicing will continued to be "f**ked up" by ADAT. As it has been for the last 10 years.

Any date on the one they shedded at marshalls? Or is that yet another "Marshalls in rolling Goat f*ck shocker"?

If they are such a bad company, why continue to use them???

Shame if they are so bad, we only really have two companies left, them and Bae, and never seem to get much right unless there is actually to much government interference in the contracts and that is actually the problem.....

Shame we can't have two companies we can be really proud of and can deliver some great kit and excellent service.... or is that me just being idealistic and naive?


Duncan

Marshal's have a special relationship with Lockheed, they have "Sister Design Authority" on the Tristar and C-130.

The whole thing smacks of polishing a turd, but a polished turd's better than no turd at all I suppose...

Design Authority or Design Custodian is still an MoD appointment. MoD usually pays for such "relationships" (for example, via a licensing agreement).

Also, the contract for maintaining the build standard, the primary vehicle for complying with JSP 553 Ch. 5 (usually called the PDS contract), names two people - the MoD Technical Agency and the DA's PDS Officer. Other contracts simply state the post title. The latter is named because his appointment has to be approved by MoD and, uniquely, he is given delegated financial powers to commit MoD funding without having to seek approval. (Primarily to initiate fault investigations and mitigate safety problems). If he doesn’t perform, MoD can withdraw approval and insist he or she is replaced. A subtlety, and position of strength, not often appreciated by either party; and seldom exercised. I feel pretty confident saying I’m the only MoD TA to have withheld approval in the last 25 years! Funnily enough, I didn’t have any more problems with the company.

Don't forget Westland!:ok:

If it went to competitive tender, Marshalls would be bound to have the edge versus a rival.

They know the aircraft, the risks, how long it takes to carry out the maintenance, already have the tooling, the experienced workforce etc. etc.

The odds are stacked in their favour.

Then how do you excuse their shoddy workmanship and inability to produce an airframe on time, serviced and modified, as requested by the user?

Lack of competition.

Is the loss of the aircraft that's at Cambridge having a severe impact on operations?

In one way, I’m glad to see MoD being honest and stating they are going single tender - although I’m not sure why they withheld the reasons. The dogma of competition can cause years of delay. It has its place, but it need not be the default strategy. Too often, companies are misled by MoD into wasting serious money bidding for contracts they can never win. All this does is increase their overheads and hence the cost of contracts they do win. Often, MoD will give their preferred bidder access to key data to better inform his bid, while withholding it from other bidders. On larger contracts, the deciding factor is often the “industrial impact paper” – that is, the result of political lobbying from local MPs. And it can be very frustrating for an IPT, having run a 9 month competition, selected by far the best bid, and then told to award it to some fly by night outfit run by the boss’s mate at the golf club. Admittedly, it’s a long time since I was last told to do that. (I ignored him).

I can’t comment on Marshall’s performance to date, but if there are valid reasons for single source, then it would seem a firmer hand is needed when managing the contract. This is at odds with the softly softly approach of recent years, where the imperative has been to ensure the company make sufficient profit regardless of performance. Was the aircraft ever serviced by DARA? They were occasionally known for doing a good job. But I would never trust them to be an Aircraft Design Authority or even Custodian. That’s the trouble with these IOS contracts. The contractor isn’t necessarily any good at certain key components, which is why they were rejected in the late 80s – that and the fact they contradict the airworthiness regs. MoD use IOS to justify reducing staff levels, but in fact they generate a need for the retention of very experienced staff to manage the inevitable problems – staff which MoD don’t have in the first place. A minefield I’m afraid. Best of luck to the poor sod who has to run it.

Sods.

Don't forget our fantastic officer policy which sees them posted every two years.

About time that stopped for projects like these I say...

Trukkie
;)

Then how do you excuse their shoddy workmanship and inability to produce an airframe on time, serviced and modified, as requested by the user?

Many of the workforce at Marshalls are ex RAF, many from BZ. It does not help the maintenance time when the MoD insists that extra work is introduced into the maintenance plan 'while it is in the hangar'.

I understand that the bulk of the Ex Brize guys are in office positions, not on the shop floor as such

Having a friend who is employed by the immigration and works department of the government - the biggest employer of migrant workers (in that part of the UK) from the Far East and Eastern Europe is Marshalls of Cambridge;)

Does that explain why they can't wire a Tristar together or still completely f:mad: up installations and modifications to C130s?

There might be a lot of ex-RAF guys at Marshalls but how many of them are hands-on?

From what I've seen and personally experienced I wouldn't trust any airframe back from Marshalls until my unit engineers have given it a good inspection and made it fit for purpose.

How can we have a contractor with no late-delivery penalty clauses?

dunc0936
 

Quote…
“Shame we can't have two companies we can be really proud of and can deliver some great kit and excellent service.... or is that me just being idealistic and naive?”

“…I'm a deprtment Manager for a large Tesco Store. Been on here and Arrse for some time now…”

That’ll be you well qualified to comment then..

Unfortunately being an RAF engineer doesn't actually mean you are given testicles made of gold and the ability to perambulate over dihydrogen monoxide.

RAF training is still decent, but engineers don't do nearly as much in the way of deep rectification as they used to. All too often things are passed back to industry which would have been beneficial in terms of skills retention and pure interest to do in house. Assessing a monetary advantage, or lack thereof is more difficult; but being as defence logic can rely on thinking that because someone is employed by the Service their work is therefore free and diversions a lossless exercise we can make the bold presumption that handing such work to industry is expensive *if* it can still be done by the Service without excessive diversion.