Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > Europe > U.K. and Ireland
Reload this Page >

UK PM to get his own RAF transport?

UK PM to get his own RAF transport?

Old Nov 19, 2015, 4:42 am
  #16  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
UK PM to get his own RAF transport?

Do we know either way whether the predicted savings are net of running costs?
LondonElite is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 4:46 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,641
This makes financial sense, and will ensure our country can be properly, and securely, represented at the increasing number of international forums.

I don't think it will cost much more than the exorbitant fees charged at last minute for charters, and will have many peripheral benefits.

I hope they go with a similar livery to that used by the Queen's Flight:



It's an aberration that we are the only one of the G20 countries without an official longhaul aircraft.
oscietra is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 4:46 am
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Either way, Private Eye is going to love this for the "Cameron Free School" newsletter.
Calchas is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 5:14 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ex-BA Gold, now no status at all!
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Boten
I don't see where in the article it is clear that running costs are excluded. It even mentions what the running costs are. The estimated saving is likely to have running costs included albeit an estimate based on previous PM travel plans. That is how business plans work.
I know that's how business plans work, but sadly its not how politicians or the media work.

The article says "The government will announce next week that it will spend 10million refitting an RAF plane which is normally used for air-to-air refuelling. Ministers insist that the plane will save the taxpayer up to 775,000 a year on the cost of Downing Street's flights because it will avoid the use of costly charter flights." Plenty of wiggle room there as it only mentions refit cost and current charter expenditure (possibly, depending in inetrpretation). One might infer that the break-even point is 12.9 years, but it is not clear. The article goes on to say This is about saving taxpayers money. There will be upfront costs but by using a refitted RAF Voyager instead of chartering private aircraft for each long-distance trip, we will save taxpayers around 775,000 a year. Again, no mention of running costs, and one might reasonable infer that they are included. But one might equally infer that the same 775K is an amount that won't be spent on charters, and does not include running costs for the refitted plane. I did see that later on running costs are indeed mentioned: "The converted RAF Voyager A330 is expected to cost 2,000 an hour, compared to the current average cost of 6,700 an hour.", but my point is that it is not as clear cut as it may seem on a brief glance. I would hope that the unequivocal statement that it will save tax payers money is true, but I do question how open they are being about the true costs.

As another airline related example of politician opaqueness, not so long ago an MP/Peer* was speaking in the House of Commons/Lords** in favour of a 3rd runway at Heathrow. Something, by the way, I'm broadly in favour of for various reasons. He/she*** argued that the UK was falling behind other countries in terms of airport infrastructure and UK Plc was suffering as a consequence. He/she justified this by saying that Frankfurt now has more direct daily flights to mainland China than LHR. Which is maybe be technically true, but only because the word "mainland" excludes Hong Kong which is often the airport of choice for anyone wishing to travel to southern China.

*/**/*** I forget exactly who and where.
bulkhead is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 5:19 am
  #20  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
There are plenty of creative ways for the saving to appear in the budget but actually still be borne by the taxpayer.

For instance they might assume that the RAF maintenance and crewing is going to be "free" or at significantly reduced cost because the RAF would have to do this anyway if the aircraft were left unconverted—but of course the RAF do not have infinite capability to absorb extra work and eventually someone will have to account for it.

It may even be an RAF idea so they have an excuse to buy some more aircraft after converting one or two or three for the PM and friends.

Without seeing the real report it is not really possible to say either way what the numbers are and assuming the government has done it the proper way is up to you, but I am a little cautious in interpreting media reports.
Calchas is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 6:30 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,503
What's the range of this aircraft? Forgive my ignorant question but if it's currently used for air-to-air refuelling, does that mean it has additional fuel capacity, that might mean a flight to Sydney could be done non-stop?
London_traveller is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 6:34 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by London_traveller
What's the range of this aircraft? Forgive my ignorant question but if it's currently used for air-to-air refuelling, does that mean it has additional fuel capacity, that might mean a flight to Sydney could be done non-stop?
8000 nmi, according to wikipedia.
Calchas is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 6:41 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by Calchas
There are plenty of creative ways for the saving to appear in the budget but actually still be borne by the taxpayer.

For instance they might assume that the RAF maintenance and crewing is going to be "free" or at significantly reduced cost because the RAF would have to do this anyway if the aircraft were left unconvertedbut of course the RAF do not have infinite capability to absorb extra work and eventually someone will have to account for it.

It may even be an RAF idea so they have an excuse to buy some more aircraft after converting one or two or three for the PM and friends.
The RAF's fleet of Voyagers (A330s) are run on a PFI deal, owned and maintained by the AirTanker consortium and effectively leased to the RAF. So, there's probably an argument that says the maintenance of this a/c is already paid for within the terms of that contract - as AirTanker would be charging the MOD for it regardless of whether it sits on the ground, flies big wigs around, or refuels fighter jets.

Sounds to me like the RAF is actually going to be short of a tanker while its being used for such VIP missions - and I don't imagine the re-roling of it will be a 5 minute job either.

Al.

PS - finally, my first post on here having finally found something I can meaningfully comment on
alhenderson is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 6:46 am
  #24  
Moderator: American AAdvantage, Signatures
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, National Exec, AA EXP Emeritus
Posts: 9,747
Originally Posted by alhenderson
Sounds to me like the RAF is actually going to be short of a tanker while its being used for such VIP missions - and I don't imagine the re-roling of it will be a 5 minute job either.
The MRTT is capable of filling the aerial refuelling role without having the main deck cabin reconfigured. In addition, the RAF have built in a "surge capacity" to their private deal, which allows some airframes to be available if needed but otherwise released for use in the civil market.

PS: Welcome to FlyerTalk.
Microwave is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 6:50 am
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by alhenderson
The RAF's fleet of Voyagers (A330s) are run on a PFI deal, owned and maintained by the AirTanker consortium and effectively leased to the RAF. So, there's probably an argument that says the maintenance of this a/c is already paid for within the terms of that contract - as AirTanker would be charging the MOD for it regardless of whether it sits on the ground, flies big wigs around, or refuels fighter jets.

Sounds to me like the RAF is actually going to be short of a tanker while its being used for such VIP missions - and I don't imagine the re-roling of it will be a 5 minute job either.

Al.

PS - finally, my first post on here having finally found something I can meaningfully comment on

Welcome to FlyerTalk alhenderson. ^ There's no need for every contribution to be so meaningful of course, but it's always good to have knowledgeable folk in this forum which I think lends it a very interesting character. Please do join in.
Calchas is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 6:50 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Quite close to NQY
Programs: BAEC Silver,clubcard,clubcard plus, BA Amex................ And Mucci x3 ;)
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by alhenderson
The RAF's fleet of Voyagers (A330s) are run on a PFI deal, owned and maintained by the AirTanker consortium and effectively leased to the RAF. So, there's probably an argument that says the maintenance of this a/c is already paid for within the terms of that contract - as AirTanker would be charging the MOD for it regardless of whether it sits on the ground, flies big wigs around, or refuels fighter jets.

Sounds to me like the RAF is actually going to be short of a tanker while its being used for such VIP missions - and I don't imagine the re-roling of it will be a 5 minute job either.

Al.

PS - finally, my first post on here having finally found something I can meaningfully comment on



Welcome to flyertalk me ansum

Lovely to have you onboard.

With ref to the previous poster. I very much doubt the aircraft will be repainted into any livery other than what it's already in. What's the point ?

Am I correct in thinking that the voyager aircraft do not have additional tanks in the main cabin ? If so this aircraft could be fitted for "VIP" duties and also serve as an a2a refulling platform with no need to reconfigure the cabin ?


cs
cornishsimon is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 6:52 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Quite close to NQY
Programs: BAEC Silver,clubcard,clubcard plus, BA Amex................ And Mucci x3 ;)
Posts: 9,488
Originally Posted by Microwave
The MRTT is capable of filling the aerial refuelling role without having the main deck cabin reconfigured. In addition, the RAF have built in a "surge capacity" to their private deal, which allows some airframes to be available if needed but otherwise released for use in the civil market.

PS: Welcome to FlyerTalk.

Isn't one currently in service for Thomas cook or Thomson ? Ex MAN. ?


cs
cornishsimon is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 6:57 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by Microwave
The MRTT is capable of filling the aerial refuelling role without having the main deck cabin reconfigured. In addition, the RAF have built in a "surge capacity" to their private deal, which allows some airframes to be available if needed but otherwise released for use in the civil market.

PS: Welcome to FlyerTalk.
The surge jets are leased to the likes of Thomas Cook (well, one is, don't think the rest have been delivered yet), so I can't see those ones being used. For one, they're painted in the charter company colours (David Cameron turning up in a Thomas Cook jet??). I'd have thought it unlikely that there's a stipulation in the contract that says the plane could be taken back at short notice if the PM needs to go and see his buddy in Washington.

There's a civil registered A330 used for the Falklands air bridge and other trooping flights which is painted in RAF colours, so I guess that could be the one in question. Although something would then need to fill in for that when it's away for days at a time at a summit - oh look, we're leasing someone else's planes again :-)

Thanks for the welcome!
alhenderson is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 6:59 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Peterborough, UK
Programs: BA Silver; IHG Spire; Avis P+; Global Entry
Posts: 1,504
Originally Posted by cornishsimon
Isn't one currently in service for Thomas cook or Thomson ? Ex MAN. ?


cs
Yes i was just going to say that we (TCX) use one currently on a 3 year wet lease
aidy is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2015, 7:02 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Peterborough, UK
Programs: BA Silver; IHG Spire; Avis P+; Global Entry
Posts: 1,504
Originally Posted by alhenderson
The surge jets are leased to the likes of Thomas Cook (well, one is, don't think the rest have been delivered yet), so I can't see those ones being used. For one, they're painted in the charter company colours (David Cameron turning up in a Thomas Cook jet??). I'd have thought it unlikely that there's a stipulation in the contract that says the plane could be taken back at short notice if the PM needs to go and see his buddy in Washington.

There's a civil registered A330 used for the Falklands air bridge and other trooping flights which is painted in RAF colours, so I guess that could be the one in question. Although something would then need to fill in for that when it's away for days at a time at a summit - oh look, we're leasing someone else's planes again :-)

Thanks for the welcome!
Air tanker had an excess of 3 planes which was avail, one is on lease to TCX one of the others will most likely be used (as they are pending conversion into the 330mrtt)
aidy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.