UK PM to get his own RAF transport?
Nov 19, 2015, 7:15 am
#32
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: 9,765
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 :-)
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 :-)
Nov 19, 2015, 7:31 am
#33
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 56
My point wasn't that the surge aircraft would be used for this VIP transport, it was more than this won't necessarily leave the RAF "short of a tanker" since there's provision for extra capacity as needed. I'd assume that one of the RAF's 9 "full time" tankers will be configured on the main deck for VIP use, which retains its ability to function in the aerial refuelling role between VIP missions. Then, if use of the aircraft for a VIP mission leaves a hole in the fleet big enough to warrant a backfill then a "surge" aircraft could be put into use to fill the gap–not put into use as a VIP transport, but put into use in whatever role the RAF needs operationally that may have been caused by having one of the "full time" aircraft unavailable due to VIP use.
Al.
Nov 19, 2015, 7:53 am
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
I guess that depends on the contracts under which the surge a/c are leased out. I'd have thought we'd only need cover for a matter of days, in which case getting one of the surge a/c back from the likes of TCX sounds difficult when they are presumably utilising them fairly heavily. Mind you, the same occurred to me about getting them back in times of war, no idea how all that's supposed to work.
Al.
Al.
Nov 19, 2015, 9:47 am
#35
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: AMEX PP;BAEC Bronze;Tesco CC Preferred;
Posts: 219
Long overdue in my opinion, although it's fair to say that until the Voyager was in service there was no other aircraft on the RAF inventory that was suitable for this dual role - their Tristars were notoriously unreliable and the VC10 tankers very costly to run and right at the end of their life.
Of course we are simply going back to the status quo ante as until 1975 the RAF always provided the Royal Family and government (and very senior military officers) with long-range VIP aircraft. The last in line were the five beautiful Comet 4Cs of No 216 Squadron which had a variety of roles, and the transport version of the RAF VC10's of No 10 Squadron which had a removable VIP fit.
I travelled on these several times as a staff officer, and it was a great way to fly. The layout can be seen here: http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/fi...5485b3-98.html The pics are a very accurate computer image of the real thing save that the upholstery in the dining / lounge area was a rather vivid turquoise.
It will be interesting to see how the £10M conversion cost will be spent. Of course there will be extra secure communications, and maybe some more defence aids, but I would be surprised if the fit didn't go beyond a few lie-flat beds for the flunkies and some comfortable seating for the hacks that invariably are invited to travel along in the back. Fixed beds certainly are an option, as fitted to the Comets and VC10s, and in Air Force One.
As for the projected savings, these will be - and remain - deliberately opaque, such is the opportunity to fudge them
and so disarm the critics.
Of course we are simply going back to the status quo ante as until 1975 the RAF always provided the Royal Family and government (and very senior military officers) with long-range VIP aircraft. The last in line were the five beautiful Comet 4Cs of No 216 Squadron which had a variety of roles, and the transport version of the RAF VC10's of No 10 Squadron which had a removable VIP fit.
I travelled on these several times as a staff officer, and it was a great way to fly. The layout can be seen here: http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/fi...5485b3-98.html The pics are a very accurate computer image of the real thing save that the upholstery in the dining / lounge area was a rather vivid turquoise.
It will be interesting to see how the £10M conversion cost will be spent. Of course there will be extra secure communications, and maybe some more defence aids, but I would be surprised if the fit didn't go beyond a few lie-flat beds for the flunkies and some comfortable seating for the hacks that invariably are invited to travel along in the back. Fixed beds certainly are an option, as fitted to the Comets and VC10s, and in Air Force One.
As for the projected savings, these will be - and remain - deliberately opaque, such is the opportunity to fudge them
and so disarm the critics.
Nov 19, 2015, 11:23 am
#37
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,605
Rather goes against Dave's oft spoken mantra that "the open market is best". Shouldn't he have used market forces to get a cheaper deal than the RAF could provide?
If the public sector was the best option it makes you wonder about other government decisions where profitable public sector companies were privatised.
If the public sector was the best option it makes you wonder about other government decisions where profitable public sector companies were privatised.
Nov 19, 2015, 12:30 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Rather goes against Dave's oft spoken mantra that "the open market is best". Shouldn't he have used market forces to get a cheaper deal than the RAF could provide?
If the public sector was the best option it makes you wonder about other government decisions where profitable public sector companies were privatised.
If the public sector was the best option it makes you wonder about other government decisions where profitable public sector companies were privatised.
Nov 19, 2015, 3:29 pm
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,138
The Americans have put an airstream motorhome/caravan in the cargohold of a C17 (I think) for transporting VIPs in the past. I think they now have dedicated pallet based units they can easily load.
Last edited by Jimmie76; Nov 19, 2015 at 4:22 pm
Nov 19, 2015, 4:17 pm
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,507
Nov 19, 2015, 4:30 pm
#41
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 1,174
Think it is very good news, as an aircraft representing The UK on foreign soil needs to look good and have been very disappointed by The Queen using much smaller blank private jets on her tours of late.
Will be interesting to see how she and the rest of the family will get to Malta next week - my bet is on one of the G-GAT* aircraft.....
Will be interesting to see how she and the rest of the family will get to Malta next week - my bet is on one of the G-GAT* aircraft.....
Nov 19, 2015, 5:21 pm
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,138
I was thinking more of this which is much more VIP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071703161.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...my-ride--.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071703161.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...my-ride--.html
Last edited by Jimmie76; Nov 19, 2015 at 5:39 pm
Nov 19, 2015, 5:54 pm
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,507
I was thinking more of this which is much more VIP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071703161.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...my-ride--.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071703161.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...my-ride--.html
Nov 23, 2015, 6:09 pm
#44
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newcastle, UK
Programs: BA Silver, IHG Gold, Hilton Gold, Hertz 5*, Avis Preferred Plus, Amex Plat
Posts: 2,080
I'm all for the PM having a shiny plane to swan around in if it really does work out cheaper than other options, but I rather suspect some 'man maths' has been in use here.
And an A330. Really? How many flunkies is he travelling with? Great for longhaul jaunts, but hardly the best choice for nipping up to EDI or CDG.
I know he can't be expected to fly commercial all the time, but I would expect him to do so on occasion. The rest can be a mixture of a smaller plane for Europe and the number of charters could reduce.
Also "It's less than we were spending on charters" isn't the same as "it's the best value for money for the taxpayer".
Nov 23, 2015, 6:19 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
I think so too!
I'm all for the PM having a shiny plane to swan around in if it really does work out cheaper than other options, but I rather suspect some 'man maths' has been in use here.
And an A330. Really? How many flunkies is he travelling with? Great for longhaul jaunts, but hardly the best choice for nipping up to EDI or CDG.
I know he can't be expected to fly commercial all the time, but I would expect him to do so on occasion. The rest can be a mixture of a smaller plane for Europe and the number of charters could reduce.
Also "It's less than we were spending on charters" isn't the same as "it's the best value for money for the taxpayer".
I'm all for the PM having a shiny plane to swan around in if it really does work out cheaper than other options, but I rather suspect some 'man maths' has been in use here.
And an A330. Really? How many flunkies is he travelling with? Great for longhaul jaunts, but hardly the best choice for nipping up to EDI or CDG.
I know he can't be expected to fly commercial all the time, but I would expect him to do so on occasion. The rest can be a mixture of a smaller plane for Europe and the number of charters could reduce.
Also "It's less than we were spending on charters" isn't the same as "it's the best value for money for the taxpayer".
For some reason he doesn't fly commercial for business. The problem is that (for instance as was noted in the article) obtaining a jet with range to go to Riyadh at short notice can be quite expensive.