BA to sell 21 767's
Guest
Posts: n/a
Considering that the value of one of BA's 767s is currently around the US$10m mark - due in large part to their being about the only airline using RB211s on them (a la DC10-40) the ascribed value of US$50m each is a trifle, er, over-optimistic! 
The RAF prefers the A330 because they want to have wing drogues as well as body ones - the 767 apparently cannot acommodate this without seriously expensive wing mods.
The RAF prefers the A330 because they want to have wing drogues as well as body ones - the 767 apparently cannot acommodate this without seriously expensive wing mods.
Guv - 100% wrong on this one!
I hope that this rumour is true - the 767K would be ideal for our needs. The A330K wouldn't - for many reasons. Size, pavement loading, autopilot characteristics.....
So the suits will no doubt go for the A330...
The absoutely last thing we'd need would be more ancient TriShaws. Guv - you're welcome to every last one of the damn things!
I hope that this rumour is true - the 767K would be ideal for our needs. The A330K wouldn't - for many reasons. Size, pavement loading, autopilot characteristics.....
So the suits will no doubt go for the A330...
The absoutely last thing we'd need would be more ancient TriShaws. Guv - you're welcome to every last one of the damn things!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering that the value of one of BA's 767s is currently around the US$10m mark - due in large part to their being about the only airline using RB211s on them (a la DC10-40) the ascribed value of US$50m each is a trifle, er, over-optimistic!
Does the fact they have RB211's make them more or less valuable??
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas is rumoured to be taking up to 10 more.
Apparently 2 are a certainty - to replace the 2 763s currently operating for QF wet-leased from AWAS. I also wouldn't be surprised to see 3 more replacing the wet-leased AC a/c on trans-tasman services again on behalf of QF.
No idea if this will be lease or purchase.
Apparently 2 are a certainty - to replace the 2 763s currently operating for QF wet-leased from AWAS. I also wouldn't be surprised to see 3 more replacing the wet-leased AC a/c on trans-tasman services again on behalf of QF.
No idea if this will be lease or purchase.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Boston, MA, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talks are in "very early stages", and the plan is part "of longer term thing", as part of the plans to replace the 767s with Airbus A320s.
Here is an article from Reuters, as reported on Yahoo:
BA in talks to sell aircraft for RAF project
Monday December 10, 1:23 pm Eastern Time
BA in talks to sell aircraft for RAF project
LONDON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - British Airways Plc, Europe's largest airline, said on Monday it was in talks to sell its Boeing 767s
to a consortium bidding for a contract to supply Britain's Royal Air Force with in-flight refuelling tankers.
"The talks are in the very early stages,'' a spokesman for British Airways
told Reuters. The carrier has a fleet of 21 Boeing 767s, of which six were
grounded as part of cuts in capcity to cope with the drop in demand for air travel.
The spokesman said that the discussions with the Tanker and Transport Services Company were not
prompted by the September 11 attacks in the United States nor the weak economic conditions.
"It's much more of longer term thing which started a couple of years ago reviewing our fleet,'' said the
spokesman, referring to plans to replace the 767s with smaller Airbus A320 planes.
Two consortia are bidding for the 13-billion-pound ($18.62 billion) Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
contract and the UK defence ministry is not expected to award it until late 2002.
The Tanker and Transport Service Company includes British defence and aerospace company BAE
Systems Plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: BA.L), Boeing Co (NYSE:BA - news) and UK services
company Serco Group Plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: SRP.L).
The rival bidder for the contract is the Air Tanker consortium of the European aerospace group EADS, which owns 80 percent of Boeing's civil aircraft rival Airbus SAS, and aeroengines maker Rolls-Royce plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: RR.L).
Other Air Tanker consortium members are French defence electronics and contracting group Thales SA and in-flight refuelling specialist Cobham Plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: COB.L) of Britain.
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: SK ]
Here is an article from Reuters, as reported on Yahoo:
BA in talks to sell aircraft for RAF project
Monday December 10, 1:23 pm Eastern Time
BA in talks to sell aircraft for RAF project
LONDON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - British Airways Plc, Europe's largest airline, said on Monday it was in talks to sell its Boeing 767s
to a consortium bidding for a contract to supply Britain's Royal Air Force with in-flight refuelling tankers.
"The talks are in the very early stages,'' a spokesman for British Airways
told Reuters. The carrier has a fleet of 21 Boeing 767s, of which six were
grounded as part of cuts in capcity to cope with the drop in demand for air travel.
The spokesman said that the discussions with the Tanker and Transport Services Company were not
prompted by the September 11 attacks in the United States nor the weak economic conditions.
"It's much more of longer term thing which started a couple of years ago reviewing our fleet,'' said the
spokesman, referring to plans to replace the 767s with smaller Airbus A320 planes.
Two consortia are bidding for the 13-billion-pound ($18.62 billion) Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
contract and the UK defence ministry is not expected to award it until late 2002.
The Tanker and Transport Service Company includes British defence and aerospace company BAE
Systems Plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: BA.L), Boeing Co (NYSE:BA - news) and UK services
company Serco Group Plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: SRP.L).
The rival bidder for the contract is the Air Tanker consortium of the European aerospace group EADS, which owns 80 percent of Boeing's civil aircraft rival Airbus SAS, and aeroengines maker Rolls-Royce plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: RR.L).
Other Air Tanker consortium members are French defence electronics and contracting group Thales SA and in-flight refuelling specialist Cobham Plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: COB.L) of Britain.
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: SK ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The RB211 is a fantastic engine - outshines the CF6 and the JT9/PW4000 family hands down - but the reason that these aircraft would be worth less than those equipped with the PW4000s (worth the most); CF6 (next highest) or JT9Ds is simple - there are a lot fewer of them around.
This is the same problem that the DC10-40 (which had the JT9Ds installed) had - all other DC10s had CF6 power. It's a question of commonality, as well as training, support, etc.
This is the same problem that the DC10-40 (which had the JT9Ds installed) had - all other DC10s had CF6 power. It's a question of commonality, as well as training, support, etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The RB211 on those airplanes does make them worth less if you are among them that know. Going to be hard for RAF to certify them and to whomever said that they can't handle wing booms needs to check their source. the 767 tanker already has wing booms.
Quote
"How can one A330 do the same job as 21 B767s?"
If they all have the same reliability record as "whisky hotel", then you will need 21 767s!!!!!
And another thing, if the A320 is replacing 767s in BA, hadn't it better get etops clearance soon??
"How can one A330 do the same job as 21 B767s?"
If they all have the same reliability record as "whisky hotel", then you will need 21 767s!!!!!
And another thing, if the A320 is replacing 767s in BA, hadn't it better get etops clearance soon??
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As somebody who did air-to-air refuelling from the receiving end before converting to liners (also did certification tests behind new pods for export ..) please consider that apart from flying the big heavy boat with pods and so, to really now if the aircraft is suitable you have to be fly in many configurations for hours with different types of fighters in the back. You have to monitor turbulences especially, otherwise apart from putting the fighters upside down which is the limit, first you will have a very touchy business to master for the fighter pilot (and it's not on autopilot..)
Now which one will fly best "through" the air, the 330 or the 767 ?
Anyway, that's unquestionably a big contract
From the back, the best one was the VC10 - the worst the KC10 !
Now which one will fly best "through" the air, the 330 or the 767 ?
Anyway, that's unquestionably a big contract
From the back, the best one was the VC10 - the worst the KC10 !
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: ACT
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle "The A330K wouldn't - for many reasons. Size, pavement loading, autopilot characteristics....."
Interesting comment, I believe that the A330 is a strong contender for the RAF FSTA (tanker) solution. Could you expand on your comment please?
BEagle
Interesting comment, I believe that the A330 is a strong contender for the RAF FSTA (tanker) solution. Could you expand on your comment please?
BEagle
OK, toxic avenger:
1. I share the opinion of the Italians who rejected the Airbus for its unproven technology in the AAR role, its inability to operate from most Italian Air Force aerodromes and the fact that it is way over the requirement in terms of fuel capacity.
2. The A330 is too big to operate from most UK military aerodromes. It is also too big to fit into any RAF hangar. Whereas 767K is the same size as the current VC10.
3. The autopilot configuration in the A330 is currently unsuitable for the AAR role - you cannot allow the ac to turn 'automatically' during AAR, it must maintain a predictable constant attitude and only turn when it is commanded to - the roll rate, angle of bank and final heading must be continuously adjustable by the pilot; rates of roll acceptable to airliner passengers are NOT necessarily acceptable to receivers maintaining contact throughout the turn. 'Taking out the autopilot' is not an acceptable alternative.
4. I have serious doubts about what the A330 tanker FBW would decide to do when a receiver disconnects and gives the tanker a transient yawing moment and change in apparent drag.
5. If a 74-94 fuel tonne 767 is compliant with the requirement, the surplus capacity of a 111 fuel tonne A330K is effectively irrelevant. Nice to have perhaps, but far from essential to have!
6. Personally I'd trust a company with a proven record in providing military aircraft to end users such as Boeing rather than one with a non-military background such as Airbooooooooos.
(Edited because on second reading some of my comments were perhaps not as clear as I'd intended.)
[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
1. I share the opinion of the Italians who rejected the Airbus for its unproven technology in the AAR role, its inability to operate from most Italian Air Force aerodromes and the fact that it is way over the requirement in terms of fuel capacity.
2. The A330 is too big to operate from most UK military aerodromes. It is also too big to fit into any RAF hangar. Whereas 767K is the same size as the current VC10.
3. The autopilot configuration in the A330 is currently unsuitable for the AAR role - you cannot allow the ac to turn 'automatically' during AAR, it must maintain a predictable constant attitude and only turn when it is commanded to - the roll rate, angle of bank and final heading must be continuously adjustable by the pilot; rates of roll acceptable to airliner passengers are NOT necessarily acceptable to receivers maintaining contact throughout the turn. 'Taking out the autopilot' is not an acceptable alternative.
4. I have serious doubts about what the A330 tanker FBW would decide to do when a receiver disconnects and gives the tanker a transient yawing moment and change in apparent drag.
5. If a 74-94 fuel tonne 767 is compliant with the requirement, the surplus capacity of a 111 fuel tonne A330K is effectively irrelevant. Nice to have perhaps, but far from essential to have!
6. Personally I'd trust a company with a proven record in providing military aircraft to end users such as Boeing rather than one with a non-military background such as Airbooooooooos.
(Edited because on second reading some of my comments were perhaps not as clear as I'd intended.)
[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]