Marshall does not have design authority for the RAF and any L-1011 Tristar, that is still held by Lockheed Martin.

From the Marshall web site: Marshall has full technical support and Conversion Design Authority for the Royal Air Force’s L-1011 Tristar Tanker....

So Marshall only has design authority over those portions of the TriStar modified my them. The won (under bid) Lockheed Martin for the technical support contract in 2005.

Guys.
If you really love the Tristar, get in touch with our top brass and put an offer in. They will be surplus to the RAF's requirements sometime this decade and you might be able to pick them up at a reasonable price if you bid now.

Quote "Marshall Aerospace is the Sister Design Authority for the Royal Air Force fleet of Lockheed L10-11 TriStar Tanker/Freighter aircraft which Marshall converted to these roles."
Taken from the company web site

And where is the lower deck stowage on the RAF K models??

411 good to hear yr happy to fly around the world with double crew on board, have you installed bunks on yr -500 as well

Don't need bunks, FD crew are supplied with F/C leathered covered seats, that fully recline.
This is called...dozing for Dollars.
The only way to fly....:}

Which means Marshall has "Design Authority" over the converted parts of the tanker/freighters, not entire airframe.

I worked with Mashall for 20 plus years on the TriStar. If fact when I retired, Marshall and the RAF, each gave me a retirement gift. Which is more than I can say for Lockheed.

When I retire I will have worked for the RAF for 34 years. The only retirement gift I am expecting from the RAF is my pension.... :)

This thread is starting to turn into a childish rant from some quarters.

Lets not keep arguing with 411A. It is obvious that his airline is the best at what it does (despite having aged, maintenance hungry and fuel inefficient aircraft in tiny numbers), and so may be in great demand in the future for work that the RAF Tristars are currently doing.

Although it is obvious to almost everyone here that his airline CANNOT do the role now, and would be uninsurable for the purpose, that is not to say that if:

His company get an 'end user' certificate to buy DAS equipment; they they put their aircraft in for deep maintenance to have DAS equipment (of suitable quality, and with total loss of revenue during this period) to all their aircraft; they employ extra staff and engineers to be able to service and overhaul the DAS gear; they train their crews on how to operate the gear; they obtain full insurance for this new 'in theatre' type role; their crew can also get suitable insurance; they get MOD/DOD permission for their crews to be 'eyes on' with secret MOD equipment (a hurdle for many carriers).

Then they will be on a level playing field, and the massive extra costs involved in this move will no doubt make them more expensive than the RAF, due to their tiny size.

Just my two penneth. I am of course happy to be corrected that 411A's friends are all DAS trained and experienced, and suitably insured for combat/in theatre type operations rather than airline operations.

No gratuity Biggus - or have the rules changed?

wonder if we'd be having this debate is FSTA had been a straight buy instead of this PFI B0ll0x?

A2QFI,

I consider the gratuity to be part and parcel of the pension deal, rather than a separate entity in itself... :)

OK! I haven't been in your position since 1974 so my perception is perhaps a bit skewed!

Perhaps the 'best' option for the RAF to use their TriStars to Kaubl (or Bagram AFB) and then thereafter...civvy air transprt out of theatre, directly to the UK.
With our ops, no delays, guarenteed. Double crews (always) solved the duty time 'delay' difficulities.

IE: it is surprising (maybe not:}) that that the RAF is knee deep in 'problems'..:rolleyes:
IE: when will they ever learn?...:ugh:

Guarenteed? Quick, sign them up. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

411A...

Sacrifice your ample lower hold space with FTIS?
Routing: UK to theatre direct? theatre to where before UK?
Augmented crews been done. No longer done for good reason.

I Admire your commercially charged optimism.

If there is no delay then why worry about the extra crew. No airline in the world can say no delays, utter nonsense!!

This thread has turned to utter hoop!!!

Or...the RAF.:\

seam to remember why we got them in the first place we needed modern long haul aircraft for the Airbridge to port stanley, BA had mothballed them because of the recession and the DC10 had such a poor reputation "Not the nine o'clock news" were running DC10 jokes almost weekly!

YouTube - NOT THE NINE O'CLOCK NEWS I BELIEVE SONG

and like most transport aircraft the RAF have pushed them beyond what they were expected to do because transport aircraft come some way down their airships list of priories slightly above transport helecopters.

411A

Please read the earlier posts. It is UK (not RAF) policy that all flights in Afghanistan (intra and inter) that carry UK military passengers are undertaken in aircraft equipped with DAS. It doesn't matter where these land (KAF, Bastion, Kabul, Bagram, MAS....). Therefore, if a civilian company was to do this job it would need DAS equipped aircraft and DAS equipped crews.

Now it would be different if we took your suggestion and used civilian air to transport personnel to an airport in a nearby country and then move them into Afg in a DAS equipped aircraft. Perhaps then the MOD (not the RAF) could charter civilian airlines to do the leg between the UK and a regional country. You may wish to contact the MOD (not the RAF) and suggest such a thing.

Our marketing manager (ex-Laker) has done just that...just yesterday, in fact.

The TriStars were originally bought to fulfil a requirement to tank a C130 down to Stanley, for it to fail to get in, and tank it back. That requirement very quickly disappeared when MPA was built and the political climate improved but no-one wanted to admit it in case the purchase was binned. That is why the freight bay was filled up with nearly useless fuel tanks by Marshalls. Most of 216 at the time would have preferred the -500s to stay in their full civvy fit with 300 odd passenger seats and a usable freight bay.

This sort of incompetence was not confined to the military, though. The rumour in BA in the early 80's was that the TriStar was judged too expensive to operate by the accountants. They had looked at the fuel flow per engine compared to the B747, amongst other things, to work out the costs per seat mile. Allegedly, once the sale to the RAF had been agreed, someone pointed out that multiplying the fuel flow by 4 was always going to make the TriStar compare badly to the Boeing.