A330 conversion by AirTanker
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 conversion by AirTanker
My apologies if already covered under a different forum/title.
Reported by Flight Global, an A330-200 has been modified in Spain to become a two-point air refuelling aircraft, and has now been delivered to AirTanker at RAF Brize Norton to have all the military modifications removed over a three month period so that the jet can be leased to Thomas Cook in May this year registered as G-VYGK.
Would it be fair to assume that should the RAF ever want to fly the aircraft, a similar timescale would be required (and huge cost) to modify it to the specification it had when it landed at Brize?
AirTanker starts A330 conversion for Thomas Cook - 2/6/2015 - Flight Global
Reported by Flight Global, an A330-200 has been modified in Spain to become a two-point air refuelling aircraft, and has now been delivered to AirTanker at RAF Brize Norton to have all the military modifications removed over a three month period so that the jet can be leased to Thomas Cook in May this year registered as G-VYGK.
Would it be fair to assume that should the RAF ever want to fly the aircraft, a similar timescale would be required (and huge cost) to modify it to the specification it had when it landed at Brize?
AirTanker starts A330 conversion for Thomas Cook - 2/6/2015 - Flight Global
No need to remove the TCX interior if it needs to go tanking, and notice as it retains the anti-collision markings, presume that means in times of crisis it will tank in its current livery
Pfiffle ?
While I much prefer the fine optimism of 3engnever's brief answer, and there is no doubt Nantucket Sleighride's comment provides a theoretical short term solution, I can't help thinking the real life scenario will go more like this ......
An innovative way will have been found to covertly (double ?) bill the tax payer for the three month process of de-modding and subsequent three year storage of delicate mission electronics, two pods and 291 pax seats in the AT hangar or wherever. It is probably all in the original contract.
For the re-installation (shurely not another three months AOG ?) at the end of the three year TC contract, or in the event of urgent earlier need, it will more likely be - "Where are all those mil bits we removed .... ?" Re-issued, robbed, walked or "the storeman's gone 'ome wiv the keys." If the mil bits can be found, it will likely be discovered that they no longer work properly. For emergency recall ("You must realise we are rather busy, Air Marshal ... ") they may as well use them right away in TC's all pax fit and colour. Roundelling (by stickers) would probably suffice at a pinch. The emergency will likely be over by the time they could be re-tankered - assuming enough crews could be found at short notice ....
Multiply that by five if AT succeed in leasing the remaining surge airframes for pax work. At least with learning practice the AOG timescale should be reduced.
Multiply by an X factor if further leases take the re-installation circus many years down the 30 year AT contract. Delicate mission electronics, refuelling pods and seats all well paid for, sitting in store doing nothing ? And for the leased airframes – do we see mid-life tanker-specific mods, SLEPs and other updates being carried out between Cancun missions ? On that basis, it would obviously be preferable for 'UK National Security' if AT kept their surge aircraft as tankers and made their money by providing tanker services to other nations or organisations – if they can find any customers.
However, I noted recently that the French who (due to a tanker shortage) currently have 'operational control' of a couple of USAF KC-135s for their operations in Africa, appear to have considered hiring air refuelling capacity from AT but were discouraged by the price, which it seems would be negotiated direct with AT rather than with the UK Government.
LFH
An innovative way will have been found to covertly (double ?) bill the tax payer for the three month process of de-modding and subsequent three year storage of delicate mission electronics, two pods and 291 pax seats in the AT hangar or wherever. It is probably all in the original contract.
For the re-installation (shurely not another three months AOG ?) at the end of the three year TC contract, or in the event of urgent earlier need, it will more likely be - "Where are all those mil bits we removed .... ?" Re-issued, robbed, walked or "the storeman's gone 'ome wiv the keys." If the mil bits can be found, it will likely be discovered that they no longer work properly. For emergency recall ("You must realise we are rather busy, Air Marshal ... ") they may as well use them right away in TC's all pax fit and colour. Roundelling (by stickers) would probably suffice at a pinch. The emergency will likely be over by the time they could be re-tankered - assuming enough crews could be found at short notice ....
Multiply that by five if AT succeed in leasing the remaining surge airframes for pax work. At least with learning practice the AOG timescale should be reduced.
Multiply by an X factor if further leases take the re-installation circus many years down the 30 year AT contract. Delicate mission electronics, refuelling pods and seats all well paid for, sitting in store doing nothing ? And for the leased airframes – do we see mid-life tanker-specific mods, SLEPs and other updates being carried out between Cancun missions ? On that basis, it would obviously be preferable for 'UK National Security' if AT kept their surge aircraft as tankers and made their money by providing tanker services to other nations or organisations – if they can find any customers.
However, I noted recently that the French who (due to a tanker shortage) currently have 'operational control' of a couple of USAF KC-135s for their operations in Africa, appear to have considered hiring air refuelling capacity from AT but were discouraged by the price, which it seems would be negotiated direct with AT rather than with the UK Government.
LFH
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose we will only find out for sure if we call them back into service. Interestingly I don't think we could fly them on the Mil reg in Tom Cook cabin config as it is not an approved fit for the Mil TC.
The scepticism regarding additional charges etc though is pretty unfounded and to be honest a little offside as I am sure you know?
I prefer short answers though as it saves on all the irrelevant bollox so often found on here!
The scepticism regarding additional charges etc though is pretty unfounded and to be honest a little offside as I am sure you know?
I prefer short answers though as it saves on all the irrelevant bollox so often found on here!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously flasheart? If any of that's even half true, we're in serious trouble since the RAF relies on lots of expensive but seldom-used kit being quickly available if the balloon goes up. In this case though, unlike "regular" RAF kit, there are heavy legally-enforceable penalties if the aircraft isn't ready within the agreed timescale. If only we could say the same about, say, the Chinooks left gathering dust in a hangar for years because they didn't have the engine software codes! Was anyone was even censured for that debacle, still less sued?
Rant on:
Flash's naïve perception of what needs to be done now would lead to even more down time if he had his way and this aircraft was ever needed for ops. He is obviously money focussed and ignorant of the RAF's history of keeping stuff "just in case" - and good engineering practices.
To have a decent return-to-service process time, this aircraft and its following sisters will need to know where all their bits fitted; that they actually have them ready to fit; and that they do indeed fit, before storing them for later use. The issue of losing the bits or worse, mixing them all up, will probably continue in standard RAF Stores mis-management style - but that's another story/problem.
Personally, the RAF now has a good fleet of useful (and considerably more safe) Tanker / Freight / PAX carriers instead of the junk it had before.
The RAF just have to get used to the fact that they are NOT crumbling 10s or trembly Tri-Stars. They are actually BETTER! but you guys cant seem to see past your haughty opinions and old preferences/practices.
MoD had avoided the true cost of operating an essential fleet for many decades and is now, literally, paying the price for that cost-cutting era. If you wanted cheap - you could have kept the fleets you had, but suffered ever deepening delays and frustrations...and, inevitably, fatalities.
The cost of hiring one of these beasts is nothing to do with the RAF or indeed any other service. The 'customer' either pays or he isn't a customer. AT are allowed to charge what THEY like to other customers. Profit is the prime aim of all companies. How safe they do it largely depends on the profit made.
Think of profit this way:
The more profit made by AT; the less thrift AT needs from their standards.
Rant off:
Flash's naïve perception of what needs to be done now would lead to even more down time if he had his way and this aircraft was ever needed for ops. He is obviously money focussed and ignorant of the RAF's history of keeping stuff "just in case" - and good engineering practices.
To have a decent return-to-service process time, this aircraft and its following sisters will need to know where all their bits fitted; that they actually have them ready to fit; and that they do indeed fit, before storing them for later use. The issue of losing the bits or worse, mixing them all up, will probably continue in standard RAF Stores mis-management style - but that's another story/problem.
Personally, the RAF now has a good fleet of useful (and considerably more safe) Tanker / Freight / PAX carriers instead of the junk it had before.
The RAF just have to get used to the fact that they are NOT crumbling 10s or trembly Tri-Stars. They are actually BETTER! but you guys cant seem to see past your haughty opinions and old preferences/practices.
MoD had avoided the true cost of operating an essential fleet for many decades and is now, literally, paying the price for that cost-cutting era. If you wanted cheap - you could have kept the fleets you had, but suffered ever deepening delays and frustrations...and, inevitably, fatalities.
The cost of hiring one of these beasts is nothing to do with the RAF or indeed any other service. The 'customer' either pays or he isn't a customer. AT are allowed to charge what THEY like to other customers. Profit is the prime aim of all companies. How safe they do it largely depends on the profit made.
Think of profit this way:
The more profit made by AT; the less thrift AT needs from their standards.
Rant off:
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk, boringly, of answering the OP's question, yes it's been covered on another thread, about 70% of which lapsed into the usual arguments for and against the principle of PFI. I believe the contract requires the aircraft to be available in 90 days. In practice it could probably be available sooner; it was said refitting the AAR pods & panel only took a day or so. Removing the airline livery takes a couple of hours with a heat-gun; the most time-consuming job would be a full repaint if this were deemed necessary. And as 3eng rightly pointed out, the cabin fit is slightly different although neither this nor the paint job would stop it pumping gas if it was needed in a hurry.
