It's not even that easy though A and C. An RAF officer has been trained to be more than a stick monkey. What is the value to the RAF of that wider capability?

Airborne_artist
 

You exactly make my point that without considering all the issues you can't decide if the PFI is good value for money.............. I had omitted the leadership and other training that is part of being an RAF officer, but on the other hand a sick monkey ( your words ) will do the job just fine 99% of the time.

The whole PFI debate will be littered with these questions of value for money and quality of personnel but the latter is very subjective, it is only the hard money issues that can be proved without doubt and it will take 25-30 years to prove this one way or the other.

However I personally have flown with at least three of the civilian guys that AT have recruited and all of them are very good pilots and have demonstrated officer qualities, if these guys are an example of the quality of the recruits then I think the RAF should have no worries over the AT recruitment policy.

My personal opinion is that PFI is a mistake and the military should run the tanker fleet as a totally military operation, I don't think PFI is a good idea largely because very few military officers understand the ways of sharp business practice and weasel word lawyers and can counter such people, this results in the contractor gaining the upper hand and telling the RAF what to do.......... I have seen this in another PFI contract.

And the other 1%? That's the difference between wearing a white shirt to work and a grow-bag, and paying for your flight-training and being selected for it.

Provision of the rolling airframes under PFI is one thing, what we have now is something very different.

*I hope the monkey isn't sick. Stick monkey is of course pure banter ;)

I was under the impression that the FOs in question are only going to be flying the civilian aircraft for AirTanker the airline under their AOC.

As such, I guess they won't need to cope with the extra demands of flying an aircraft that has ROYAL AIR FORCE painted down the side. Obviously that can only be done by people who have endured the rigours of 120 hrs flying on 45sqn, not to mention the hugely important skills gained by completing IOT ( the efficacy of which is clearly demonstrated by the adminers and ops support dudes who set the world on fire daily....although only accidentally!)

Anyway, It doesn't really mater what their wider military worth is: They won't work for the military.

Lucky them.

Should they succeed in their bid Airtanker will be using subsidised crew and aircraft to undercut long haul charter airline costs next year thus distorting the market. That'll be popular.

Could get interesting, especially if MoD are using the subbed airline for civvie pax charter...

We could debate endlessly the intangible benefits, or otherwise, of completing RAF officer training. Having done so AND having considerable commercial experience I feel it ought to qualify me for especially generous financial treatment!::)

But what about the TANGIBLE cost of operating a given fleet in-house versus contracted out? The alleged high relative cost of the Air Tanker contract is the cornerstone of the "anti's" argument, but relative to what? ATrS, whether you love or hate them, have placed their financial cards on the table from the outset. So why can't anyone tell us how much it would cost the RAF to fulfil the terms of this contract?

To civilian engineering standards or what we do at the moment?

10 THOMAS COOK PILOTS TO FLY VOYAGER
 

According to Flight, Thomas Cook will be operating a 'surge' Voyager under 'damp lease' from AirTanker from May 2015. That's a Voyager KC2, not just a standard A330. It will be put back into transport configuration, but with a grockle-fit 323 seat cabin and will be painted in Thomas Cook's colours, rather than the normal John Major grey. See: Thomas Cook to lease A330 from AirTanker - 6/24/2014 - Flight Global

Part of the deal includes 10 Thomas Cook pilots being 'seconded' to AirTanker to 'assist' with ATr's schedules to the South Atlantic.

:hmm:

ATr consider that the risk of MoD putting its 90-day recall requirement for surge aircraft into effect to be 'low'...... I recall that we had an MoD briefing about this graduated TTW requirement; when I queried this flight of fancy by reminding the speaker that, for every single recent war they've wanted 100% of the tankers on Day One, there was a shuffling of feet and rapid change of subject.....:rolleyes:

Beags, thanks for posting. Is there any "watering-down" of the declared crewing policy for ATr crewed Ops/airframes here?
As far as "surge" goes, you either have it on day one or it is not worth counting. Seems more like a strange way of having a "reserve", one that is not crewed or actually available. Hmmm, 90 days?... "Yes Minister, we will have them back, repainted and on the line for day 91. Of course, there may be some minor charges to satisfy.:rolleyes:". Good job that there will be loads of combat ready crews available...

OAP

OaP asked: Sorry, I have no information about that.

Could be interesting if there's a need for immediate diversion - a suitable airfield suddenly becomes unsuitable due to the above!

Far from being the negative that some feel determined to find in any Air Tanker story, the ability to offset the cost with airline sub-charters was, from the very start, a major selling point of the contract. If it were needed in a national emergency it's never more than 12 hrs away, another 25 minutes to put "RAF" stickers over the logos, yes a full repaint takes longer, so what?

Cuba would in any case be a last choice for any unsched div. as a bureaucratic nightmare -in any aircraft. But if it was a life-or-death emergency, well, land then argue the toss later.

This sort of thing was one of the original fundamentals of ATr's business model so I'm glad to see them closing this deal.
I must admit however that I find it odd that they're leasing out a tanker airframe. I thought it would've been one of the pure pax/cargo aircraft? Admittedly UK Plc probably has little or no use for the original number of tankers planned but I would've thought a tanker variant wouldn't make a particularly tempting option for a commercial operator. Whilst the KC2 doesn't have a fuselage refuel point surely there is a fair bit of associated plumping etc that, for a civilian operator, is just dead, revenue-stealing weight. Or can it all be easily removed?

Shot One It would take a lot longer to put the ac back into the AAR fit-a drawback BEags has already pointed out.

Stop Start -which Pax /Cargo ac are you referring to ;the ones not yet built or the only Green ac which is used for the run South?

No digs at the Company from me, but..

Never more than 12 hours away assumes there is a slip crew immediately available to bring the jet back - not necessarily true.

25 minutes is pure dreamland, particularly as the aircraft will have to move from the civil register to the military register for all sorts of legal reasons. That was estimated to take days, if not weeks, and certainly not minutes (unless they have found a way of speeding the process up - either way it's not going to be 25 minutes).

A full repaint won't be required, unless some fool has allowed the "green aircraft" to be painted in a charter air line's colour scheme (aren't all Voyagers being delivered in a proper military paint scheme?).

Roland, in the airline world there's ALWAYS a crew waiting to take it back. Our aircraft don't ever sit idle on sunkissed aprons! If only! Perhaps in the good old days.

I don't doubt the truth of what you say about legal process but if we're talking about a national emergency, hopefully the neddies would have some volts applied.

Vasco, your issue re. AAR fit isn't really swayed by it being an airline contract. It would take the same amount of time if it was away trooping Squaddies for MoD.

Shot One -not true. If the ac was left in the Voyager fit ( as opposed to the refit that is going to happen) it would be available as soon as it returned to BZN. Don't forget this is one of the original 9 ac we are talking about. I have no issue with a dual role ac but this is pushing it a bit.

Don't forget.....you're wrong.

According to the Flight article, that's exactly what some fool has done:
There's an artist's impression of the livery in the article.