Alex you are right about BA getting its sums wrong, I was the POC in MOD for the initial Tristar operations and worked closely with BA on crewing, catering etc when we were hiring BA crews. Interestingly the BA Tristar 500s had been upgraded by Lockheed with active flying controls and other mods as they would not achieve the stated payload/range which was based on the London Vancouver sector. They were therefore probably the longest range Tristars ever built and we put them into use on sectors such as BZZ-Nairobi and BZZ-Calgary as well as the ASI and then FI run where they were capable of moving 300 pax. The savings achieved were significant as we could replace 2 VC10s operating over 2 days with a single Tristar taking one day moving more pax. As a result I started the campaign to retain at least one unmodified Tristar for pax as a cost savings measure which was ultimately successful. I believe that BA also rued the decision to get rid of these aircraft as within a few months of selling them to the RAF they were chartering less capable Air Lanka Tristars to operate some of their South American routes.

And then when they wheeled out those incy whincy little freight containers someone thought up that could fit through a PAX door I burst out laughing, it was as if someone had taken a normal freight container then carved it into 4, looked mighty impressive but could hold the square root of squat.

of course, but we're operating to a 98% despatch reliablity with aircraft running an average utilisation of 16 hours per day (includes all maintenance down time). That's pretty typical for most commercial airlines. (And no, not new aircraft. We're talking about aircraft with 80,000+ hours and 25,000+ cycles)

411A,

Please explain how you will lift from Kabul in a Tristar with enough fuel to make the UK with any meaningful load whilst still operating to Perf A?

(been there, done it :ugh:)

Returning from Swindon this afternoon, it was nice to see a Tri* turning over Devizes @ 1535Z, and then heading north over Melksham towards Lyneham.

That Tri* sounds it was in one of Brize director's better patterns.
:E

Very simple, Sideshow Bob, it requires a tech stop for refueling.
Done all the time with all of the UN flights, ex-ROB.
It really is an easy exercise, perhaps the RAF...don't know how?:rolleyes:

NB. This really rather basic question leads me to believe that some folks...haven't a clue.
No surprise...:ugh:

Within a UK CAA CAP371 regulated crew duty day 411?

Yes, and easy if you use crew positioning.

But I'm sure 411 will give you the patronising, smart-a$$ answer. :hmm:

Black Sheep,

So how do you explain this comment. Sick of this crap being used to belittle the RAF AT system.

The sad thing is that the RAF TriStars have less than half the hours and cycles you quoted.

For all the waxing lyrical 411 comes out with, he seems to spend an awful lot of time on pprune.

Walter Mitty wind up merchant perchance? :rolleyes:

Yes, with a crew change at the refueling stop.
Augmented (preferred) or double crew sent to the Afghan end to cater for possible loading/cargo/fuel delays, which by the way, are the charter customer responsibilities.
Nevertheless, the RAF 'performance' is what it is, and if it was better, this thread would not likely be here.:rolleyes:

Which begs the question, why were they prematurely retired by the original operator and why were there so many stored out in the desert?

I'm not belittling the RAF AT operation - I was part of it myself once. I'm questioning the choice of equipment provided for the task. Sideshow Bob has hinted that the Tristar can't operate to maximum load out of Kabul which may be a clue as to why the Tristars were prematurely retired from civilian service.

411A

Please continue with your suggestions and comments-they bring a smile to my face and are a joy to us all.

Clearly, Blacksheep you have never operated a 'heavy' out Kabul in the warm months. You may want to dust off your ATPL Perf note and do the maths.

PS

216 Sqn up and running; business as usual.

When was the last time an RAF Tristar flew into Kabul anyway? Not being a pilot, I would have thought that the lower altitude at Kandahar would mean more of a performance margin allowing greater loads to be carried.

Blacksheep

you question the choice of equipment! you obviously have no clue how aircraft work
Runway length! Airfield elevation! Pressure altitude! OAT! obstacles! it affects every type of aircraft!

411A
Damn you must pay yr crews pennies the number of them you can commit to one schedule and still operate at a profit, slip crews double or augmented crews, gobsmacked you still only have 3 airplanes if yr ops are so good

Well that's not direct then is it and is something the RAF have been doing for a number of years. What do you think we do just stop off somewhere and park up for the night?

You seam to think we are a bunch of amateurs, try working to our rules and regulations with the restrictions placed on us from above and deliver the same result day in day out for 9 years you sanctimonious tw@t.

You're not paying attention, Sideshow Bob, the tech stop for refueling also has a crew change, and in addition, catering uplift for the passengers (you do feed 'em in the RAF yes?), because... it would be operated as an airline operation not some off the wall military ops without adequate forethought.
The military is very good at what they were designed for, fighting, however, it would appear that the transport of personel could be greatly enhanced by adopting proven commercial airline ops, and at an expected lower overall cost.
One wonders...is the MoD up to the task?

411a
 

How many crews per frame are you running?

Same question for the 216 guys

It very much depends on the customer rotational schedule.
As an ad-hoc operator, we call 'em in as needed.
When they work, they are paid well, when not working, they sit by their pools sipping marguaritas.
Recent flying was a good example.
One augmented crew only needed initially (with two or three day slips at each end, as scheduled), however, extra turns were requested, so another crew was brought in on very short notice.

Still waiting for the military guys to reply but crewing was always the weak point on mil ops. In the 90's 216 were running at 2 crews per frame plus maybe an additional crew scratched form execs and standards. This was based on 8 frames and always caused delays and hold ups. Crewing at this ratio is insufficient to really support any extended slip patterns and other tasks. This meant that, except for a few slip patterns, most tasks involved the aircraft night-stopping along with the crew.

Considering the limitations that the RAF AT set up has imposed upon it by both the MOD and the treasury they do an excellent job. However, if one was setting up a company to do this type of operation exclusively for the RAF I doubt whether the L1011 would be the type of choice, nor would the crewing ratios be so poor and the engineers would have access to a large and readily available spares set.

So, one chap says they are and others are saying they are not performance limited in hot /high conditions? I'm puzzled by the disagreement with my questioning the suitability of the Tristar for the current military requirement. Whatever; the airlines operating them dropped them from their fleets when aircraft better suited to their operational needs arrived on the scene - even though they were low hour machines - and military air transport needs are not that different from the civilian environment.

There seems to be a lot of needless bickering on this thread. As has already been stated, the RAF AT fleet does a fantastic job with the hand it has been dealt (ie regulation, aging fleet, DAS requirements), but I have to agree that it could learn from the civil aviation industry.

Increased use of charter aircraft could give 216 a bit of breathing space, and ease the (significant) burden on 99 Sqn when things do go wrong. I speak as someone who returned home the best part of a week late immediately before Christmas, but can still appreciate the impossible task gifted to Brize when the Tristar was grounded.

Having said that, I think the use of charters needs to be more elegantly sourced. OAG or whatever they are called had good service, but it did seem that they needed a few stones thrown their way to get them airborne and on task.

There are several solutions to this conundrum. Firstly, the RAF bites the bullet and leases until the A330 enters service (and possibly beyond, as I am not completely convinced that the numbers they are quoting have the critical mass of capacity and flexibility to replace the Tristar and VC10). I am sure GECAS would love to hear from them.

The leased/charter aircraft could operate to and from a MOB in the ME (ie Minhad) freeing up the Tristar to shuttle to/from KAF. C130/C17 could also provide throughput into the strat system if required.

This solves the DAS problem, though if I had the time/money I would be looking very closely at developing a DAS equipped lease/charter fleet (other uses are UN work, extra capacity for El Al etc - there would not be a shortage of work).

Failing this, the RAF needs to source a reliable, yet cheap, charter partner and give them preferred status and a regular dripfeed of tasking. Their problems seem to come when they scrabble around at short notice looking for capacity.

Yes, all of this costs money. However, if we send our servicepeople into harms way, we owe it to them to get them home within a prescribed time period. They also need to have faith in this principle - and at present they don't. Getting people home on time should not be a matter of luck.

As a final point, none of this should detract from the fine work done by the RAF AT fleet. Your fleet are knackered, over regulated and your margin for error far to fine - but despite this, you have done a fantastic job for approaching 10 years (including Iraq).

411A is bombastic, and is trying to sell you something. Therefore anything he says needs a hefty pinch of salt. But you shouldnt dismiss everything he says because of it. Some, not all, of his points have merit.

AT fleet charters
 

BA have a number of 747-400 a/c stored in USA that would be eminently suitable for ME trips, with onward conections to theatre with RAF DAS equiped aircraft.
Crews are not a problem.
I operated to the Falklands after the war on BA 747 charters and wondered why they did not continue. Probably more expensive than the knackered old aircraft the MOD presently charter.

Minigun

:D Eloquently Put. Let's hope that's the end.

Now the cricket has finished, I look forward to waking up and reading the posts from over the pond, then all the replys from this side. It makes my morning read over coffee more amusing. (Just before I get the calls from pax telling me they are delayed). I have daily dealings with the Airbridge and although there are delays(most are minor), 216 are doing a fantastic job

A very important fact that probably doesn't enter the heads of those making decisions. S'pose that's the difference between them and us.

Quote! "You're not paying attention, Sideshow Bob, the tech stop for refueling also has a crew change, and in addition, catering uplift for the passengers (you do feed 'em in the RAF yes?), because... it would be operated as an airline operation not some off the wall military ops without adequate forethought.
The military is very good at what they were designed for, fighting, however, it would appear that the transport of personel could be greatly enhanced by adopting proven commercial airline ops, and at an expected lower overall cost.
One wonders...is the MoD up to the task?" Unquote

Now then 411A you really are showing yr ignorance! spookily enough we have pretty much got to grips with running a slip pattern around a route, with tech stops for fuel and crew change
We even have "in flight meals" we even have proper tray lay ups with forks and everything, ooh and scarily we have cabin crew that serve it with tea and coffee damn they even use the same trolleys as you lot.
Even had cabin crew from civvie airline compliment the catering as compaired to the very well astablished company she worked for.
Believe it or not we even provide steps and things for passengers to get on and off the airplane at either end.
Strewth we have even got to grips with cleaning the toilets on flag stops as well
Frightening really, very similar to any airline operation! And before you ask yes I have done an airline operation.

What do you think the RAF AT fleet has been doing quite succesfully for an awful long time, stumbling round the world giving the passengers a mars bar!?

just a few experiences of civilian flying this year for myself and a few other folk I know
Long haul! 13 hr flight! national airline! NO CATERING, NO HOT DRINKS

Long haul 12 hr flight National airline Delayed 3 hrs tech for lightening strike, lost half the toilets mid flight for 6 hrs

Short haul schedule flight delayed 9 hrs due to tech fault flight eventually carried out by replacement charter from another company.

Short haul budget airline cancelled due fog

8 flights 4 delays, a mixture of reasons a mixture of airline standards, lesson!? its the nature of the airline business. Just watch airline and Stellios with his outfit, the flights that go on time dont make for good TV but a lot of em get round on time. They just dont show that on tv

Quote:
What do you think the RAF AT fleet has been doing quite succesfully for an awful long time, stumbling round the world giving the passengers a mars bar!?

Don't know about the 'mars bars', however, this thread started with the thought that the RAF L1011's were...AOG, did it not?

Previous comments here on this forum seems to indicate that the RAF 'service' (such as it is/was) provided was somehow deficient/delayed etc.

The USDoD long ago decided that civvy operators could provide superior/reliable air transport service, for US service personnel.

Perhaps it's time for the UKMoD to actually...wake up?
OMG...shock/horror:uhoh:
I will repeat, civvy operators, properly chosen, are successful.
Omni International is one such airline, with their old (but reliable) DC-10's.

Also, when the last L1011 was retired at Delta, a senior VP there admitted to me, face to face that, and I quote..." the L1011's Delta operated (69 in total, as I recall) were the most reliable and generated the most profits than any other type that Delta has ever operated, to date.'

The L1011 gets a bad rap from...those operators that simply don't know how (hello...RAF) to maintain and crew the type, on a reliable basis, for the long term.
BA?
These folks were fools, operating the type...they costed it that same as the fuel consumed was equivilent to a B747.
Nope, not true.
Seat for seat, the L1011 250/500 are more economical, on a seat mile basis.
A proven fact.

Now, having said all this, some B767-200ER's (and 300ER's) are now coming available, with reduced operating costs.
However, the upfront purchase/lease costs are certainly more.
A LOT more expensive...and certainly more costly for the ...RAF.
A330?
Lots of luck with this type.:ugh:

411A,

Just a thought but if you guys are so good which implies you must all be V busy how come you have time to post on here on an almost hourly basis..........:confused:

Seldom..
 

...maybe it's all in the hands of his Marketing Manager who is ex-Laker, you know.

Remind me what year Laker went bankrupt...? :cool:

Omni air dc10? which company was it that had James Blunt on Board, looked a bit like a DC10 to me, errrr it had a tech snag

We would all like a new car every year most of us cant afford it
The Raf would benefit from being able to update its AT fleet when it wanted, unfortunatly the country cannot afford it! Thats basically what it boils down to, if it was the case the VC10 would still not be flying. If we had bought DC10's many years ago we would still be having the same discussion, if we had bought 747-200's folf would be saying why have we not got 400's
THE COMPANY ----- UK PLC!!!! cannot afford to update its AT fleet as often as it would like, so 411A a bit like you! we operate an oldish airplane.
We DO run it very much like an airline as I said before, schedules are NOT like an airline due to the work we do.
Contrary to popular belief the stats for the herrick are not that bad, sadly for those folk that get delayed for whatever reason because of the nature of the way the military work (R&R time at home is not recovered) it causes bad feeling. When folk get there and back on time though they dont post on here to say so, and lots of people do get there and back on time.
The fleet problem has been sorted and the schedule is back on track, coping with all the issues we have on a day to day basis

411A is clearly a wind up merchant.

His Freddy Laker marketing manager was also probably involved with the Ford Edsel and New Coke - only right that he should now be trying to convince the world to fly on his Tristars.

These slip crews that spend all their time sipping drinks by the pool - how current are they on the few remaining tristars? Doesn't sound like they get much practice!

Having operated both the L1011 civvy and RAF, and the DC10 in both short range and long range pax and freight, I feel qualified to comment.

In short, the TriStar was a far nicer aircraft to operate and Caledonian found that it made lots of money for them. It only went out of service when Caledonian amalgamated and the new company wished to change their image.

However, its nemesis was it was far too complicated for its time. The DC10 was far simpler and frankly the better aircraft - I disliked the FE panel as it was dis-organised in comparison to the TriStar.

But behind the panel, the systems were robust and well designed. Technically, the TriStar having 4 hyd systems vs DC10 3 might have looked better but the Sioux City deal would have taken the 4th system out as well, had it been a TriStar. That DC10 crew were also exceptional when it came to that 'test'.

Maintenance is everything though. BA maintained their aircraft very well and they were very popular with both crews, cabin crew and passengers. It was simply the bean-counters that missed the clue-in-the-name. Once their error was discovered, BA attempted to buy them back, but the RAF had those bloody useless underfloor fuel tanks fitted. When they were full they put the aircraft beyond its bending moments. They could have kept a fully functioning freight compartment and got around the stupidity of loading baggage through 1L.

BA operated both types and it's interesting to note that the BA DC10s lasted a lot longer than my greatest love, the TriStar (especially the 500).

I enjoyed my time on the RAF TriStars and they were great aircraft, that said, they have been asked to go way beyond the original planned life, so I wonder how many of the problems were due to lack of investment in spares and so on, because the aircraft was always 'going to be replaced soon'.

Best of luck 216, I loved flying with you.

Well, there've certainly been a number of TriShaws rumbling past BEagle Towers during the past few days, so I guess 21s 6d are busy again!

I expect in a short while that situation will change...the RAF has never been noted to be able to keep them flying for very long, without major snags.
Their operational record (such as it is) speaks for itself.

Don't know much about the TriStar, do you?
Due to specific number two engine placement, loss of all hydraulics in a Souix City type of situation is highly unlikely.

What we need to do is up the fare and if the RAF becomes profitable they can buy the A380 (should fit on the new strip??)
If we charged ooh lets say £30 x per day x (2 RIPs + IA) = £PA lots, that might be enough – you would get free food on board. :8

Indeed - an excellent operational record during Gulf War 1, the Balkan conflict and beyond...