How true?
 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6836065/ministry-of-defence-thomas-cooke-jet2-holidays/amp/

i know there is always a bit of journalistic exaggeration but when you hear of some of the delays a d travel woes experienced.......

Maybe 3 or 4 years late but it's true as is everything is true that the Sun right's is true,

Gotcha RAF making money on the side by ripping of Brits going on holiday.

Utter drivel from The Sun... But then it did originate in the Mail on Sunday.

The RAF's AAR capability is obtained through the bolleaux of PFI at a cost of over £1M per day from AirTanker, which owns the aircraft. A small number of A330 aircraft surplus to the RAF's immediate requirements is available for third party revenue purposes, such as bucket-and-spading for Thomas Cook and Jet2.

At least the massive and expensive AirTanker facility at Brize is brand new - no longer do the AAR squadrons have to operate from decaying WW2-era hovels. The aircraft are kept in 'as new' condition and are pristine.

What are the markings on these aircraft?

Standard airline livery with Civ reg.

This is ZZ343

https://www.v1images.com/product/g-v...rbus-a330-243/

Plus G-VGGJ is in a civillianised version of the RAF scheme (with AirTanker titling) and is used on the South Atlantic air bridge, trooping flights etc

Leasing the 'spare' aircraft was always the intention and was included in the initial bid, so this is really old news.

As always they never compare like with like. The cost of the aircraft covers the operating costs over the term of the PFI and not just a straight purchase.

Doesn't make it cheap though.

What the papers didn't mention was the ludicrous expense of having the aircraft built and configured as tankers, and then flown directly to another facility to be reconfigured immediately for Thomas Cook, which is what I believe happened with the first "civilianised" AT 330.

A slightly different angle in The Times today.
Holiday firms leasing jets that cost RAF millions

I am waiting for the cabin PA announcement that informs the pax that their holiday in the sun will be slightly delayed whilst we refuel four Typhoons during the journey.

How true?
Very, as was always intended.
Take a look at the AirTanker website (airtanker.co.uk/leasing)

No - not ridiculous - they were bought as tankers and we'd have looked REALLY dumb if a couple of months after delivery we'd needed them and then had to do the conversion

Sure it costs to have the capability - renting them out was never supposed to cover those costs - just reduce them while still having the aircraft if we need them

Frustratingly, PPRuNe blocks part of this link - so replace the * with an o and you'll find some reasoned discussion of this.

The "news" organisations we rely on really are poor these days. :(
https://thinpinstripedline.bl*gspot....on-sunday.html

Does the aircraft get repainted each time it is 'brought back to core' or will we see Thomas Cook with a Typhoon on each wing?

I recall many years ago an American lady I knew telling me that when on a trooping flight from Germany to the US in a KC135 the aircraft had carried out AAR during the flight. I always thought this was pretty unlikely, and assumed she had probably dreamt it during an inflight nap, but could it have happened? Does anyone on here familiar with the type know if her story might have been true?

TTN, in the late 80s there was a massive AD operation. 4 pairs of Bear Foxtrot penetrated the UKADR before returning via the Denmark Strait. Northern and southern Q were launched as well as tanker support. A T* trooper returning from Cyprus had give away and was diverted to top up the 10s.

Have Air Tanker fitted a Boom to any of their fleet yet? Seems a bit daft that a number of RAF aircraft types reliant on just boom re-fuelling while the most expensive PFI deal ever fails to deliver.

You have just made me drown my laptop in Waddy's --great shout!

Yup, exactly what happened to me coming from Dover AFB to Germany on an empty (well inc me) KC 135 flight many years ago. Mind you the Nat Guard Copilot nearly killed us all on take off at Dover with a very sporty rotate and then weirdly a 50 degree bank turn at 300 ft. All suddenly settled as I think the Captain said those lovely words.....you know what they are don't you?

ORAC wrote: As is the KC-46A Pigsarse - unlike the A310MRTT, A330MRTT and Voyager.

Still, I suppose it's handy for the USA's rendition flights to keep their involuntary tourists disorientated...

Is that the standard pax fit on the KC 135 ORAC? I had visualised a small section with normal airline type seats, as in the RAFs VC10 tankers, but that looks a bit rugged! How would she have known? Maybe an announcement from the crew?

KC-46A will have 'palletised seats' - airline seats sitting on cargo pallets. How does that work with passenger facility units (in-flight oxygen, lighting etc.)?

It seems that the windowless KC-46A is only FAA-certified for 58 passengers (or 114 for 'contingency' operations). Palletised bog, palletised galley, palletised passenger bags - it really is 'Guantanamo Bay' Class travel.

Compare that with 'up to 300' passengers in the A330MRTT - all in normal airline seating. Seat pitch in Voyager is much more generous than in most airliners, due to the fact that military passengers with their equipment need more space.

BEags

Fair point about the seating etc, looking at the other role however, if the KC46 does finally get going it does have capabilities not available in the A330 family at present. It will (allegedly) be able to refuel large and small probe and drogue rx (KC30A cant do large -no FRU) and boom rx (Voyager cant do that) . Pity we ignored the STANAG on interoperability in favour of the PFI. Mind you the USAF would probably have had all/most of their KC45 s by now (and that did have the full gambit of receiver options).

High Spirits

You'd probably find the current stop at Cape Verde much better-especially if it goes u/s and you end up in an all inclusive hotel.

I flew KC-135s from 1975 to 1988. When I started we had to wear parachutes and helmets for refueling and obviously no passengers. When I retired carring passengers to and from overseas places was normal. The plane has room for a bout 50 rear facing airline type seats or a round 20 people sitting in the luxurious side facing seats. The fuel is all carried in below deck tanks so the upper part is basically a hollow tube as can be seen in the picture. Baggage and freight share the space with any passengers. That's why the passenger capacity is so low.

Thanks for all the replies re the KC 135 and pax. Seems like the lady wasn't dreaming or making it up!

Big Green Gilbert - you're not kidding. I once flew out to Masirah in the back of a C130 as spare crew. Endless misery! How grateful I was that someone went sick and I came back in my normal seat in a Victor, which seemed like first class luxury in comparison.