CAM Force 1

eeyore

eeyore

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,068
Name
eeyore
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-senior-ministers-to-get-dedicated-plane.html

I know we don't have much of an airforce left but...

Also are the savings for this really worth it?
It's going to cost £10 million to convert, but will save £775k a year.
So it's about 13 years to cover the cost of it. That's assuming the RAF don't want it back (there is a fleet of 14 in total however there will be times no doubt due to servicing etc)

So based on the last vc10 in a similar fuel transport role lasted 47 years. This would be a saving of £26 million pounds over the life of the jet if you take in to account the conversion cost.

Would it not be better to use the jet as it is? I.e not convert it and our ministers Pm etc who want to use it fly it as our armed forces staff do?
 
"I know we don't have much of an airforce left but..."

Don't have much of anything left. Total combined personnel in the armed forces is less than half the number employed by Tesco.

So there is a fleet of 14 Voyagers and 1 is to be converted for the PM's use. Read down the article and it states that the Buck Palace brigade are also to get using it.

The question that does not seem to be asked is are the PM's journeys really necessary ? The people that end up in that job are invariably nonentities who seem to convince themselves and try to con the rest of us into thinking that their presence here there and everywhere actually matters when it does not.
 
I'm ok with this keep it internal rather than spend money on external companies.
 
Remember, "We're all in this together" says that nice Mr Cameron from his new private jet.
 
i dont have a huge issue with it, assuming its only used for state visits.

the cost of business class travel plus security costs (and associated risks, I imagine the converted RAF plane will keep all of its countermeasures etc?) will add up.
 
To be honest I think for the savings made its not the best way forward.
Having looked more at its, one site says the jet rental deal has a 27 year life. I need to check that but if it's true. But if it is... The savings are now around £11 million after the cost of conversion. That's assuming the converted jet is brand new and not out of the packet yet.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm not that bothered about it either. We need to move important people around. We need to do it safely and it's a good idea to do it as economically as possible. £10M does seem an awful lot to refit a plane though.

I'd say they could have announced this at a better time, but I suspect they have been storing this announcement up for a decent opportunity. Right after a couple of terrorist attacks is hopefully the best chance they are going to get.
 
What will it be called?

Austerity One?
Papa Echo One - Penis Extension One?
SeeMeI'mImportantIGotsAnAiryplanePaidForByBenefitsClawBacks One

Will they paint a pigs face round the door?
 
Assuming this is run in a similar fashion as 32 sqd of the RAF then they the RAF or in this case Air Tanker will create a hourly pricing structure and the department using the asset will then be billed accordingly be that the office of the PM, the treasury, the home office, the royal family etc...and that being the case it's more than likely the royals will not use it all that often...

I don't really have that much of an issue having an aircraft set up for this fuction, if it allows our leader (like him or loath him) to firstly stay safe and secondly continue to run the country while in the air then that is a good thing, and genuinely if it will save money then all the better, though of course if there was a true desire to long term save money the government would do anything it can to rid the country from as many bloated PFIs such as air tanker as possible
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
eeyore said:
Would it not be better to use the jet as it is? I.e not convert it and our ministers Pm etc who want to use it fly it as our armed forces staff do?
Click to expand...
JonathanRyan said:
Remember, "We're all in this together" says that nice Mr Cameron from his new private jet.
Click to expand...

If they were taught to use a parachute, the plane wouldn't even have to land and pay parking fees :D
 
Steep said:
What will it be called?

Austerity One?
Papa Echo One - Penis Extension One?
SeeMeI'mImportantIGotsAnAiryplanePaidForByBenefitsClawBacks One

Will they paint a pigs face round the door?
Click to expand...

Sky News have referred to it as "Cam fly with me"

Funny how when the Queen's Flight was disbanded it was because it was cheaper to go commercial. Now it is cheaped to go dedicated.

Possibly security issues involved following recent stramashes.
 
OK. I know some people here know a LOT more about planes than I do (I have a vague understanding of why they don't usually crash). Does a 27 year life span for a luxury executive jet look remotely plausible to anybody?

1. Are the RAF still using 27 year old planes without upgrades?
2. Does anybody in government currently sit in a chair that is 27 years old?
3. How old (out of interest) is Air Force 1? Not the concept that actual current plane. I'd like to think that they have upgraded the one Harrison Ford used. Because I bet the bad guys have upgraded their kit in the last 27 years.

Come to think of it, I don't think even Easyjet use planes off of the 80s.
 
JonathanRyan said:
OK. I know some people here know a LOT more about planes than I do (I have a vague understanding of why they don't usually crash). Does a 27 year life span for a luxury executive jet look remotely plausible to anybody?

1. Are the RAF still using 27 year old planes without upgrades?
2. Does anybody in government currently sit in a chair that is 27 years old?
3. How old (out of interest) is Air Force 1? Not the concept that actual current plane. I'd like to think that they have upgraded the one Harrison Ford used. Because I bet the bad guys have upgraded their kit in the last 27 years.

Come to think of it, I don't think even Easyjet use planes off of the 80s.
Click to expand...

I believe the current VC-25's aka Air Force One for the US were built in 1989 and I think actually entered service about 1991/1992 again I think, I've not actually gone and checked but I seem to remember those dates from stuff I've read and watched in the past, and the plan is to replace them in the next 5 years when they will be in their early 30's so it's not unrealistic to expect the A330 based Voyagers of the RAF (Air Tanker) to last at least that long..

With aircraft it's not so much about age, it's about hours (time in the air) and cycles (take off/landing) the airframes are certified for a max of each, they also have extensive and strict maintenance schedules
 
i dont think 27 years is that unreasonable. hell the last remaining vulcan was only just grounded and that was in production in the 50s (granted I have no idea about upgrades).

i seem to remember watching something that was saying 20+ years is not uncommon for commercial planes?
 
Trying to find out more on the voyager aircraft, it seems it's not as protected as I thought it was( compared to 32 squadron jets)
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
i dont think 27 years is that unreasonable. hell the last remaining vulcan was only just grounded and that was in production in the 50s (granted I have no idea about upgrades).

i seem to remember watching something that was saying 20+ years is not uncommon for commercial planes?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I just can't imagine walking into a 27 year old office and thinking "wow, this looks state of the art!". But I bet sofas and stuff are a small part of the £10M.
 
27 years is fine for a commercial aircraft age. what kills they is the hours and cycles stressing the frames. Or in the case of an e3d sentry aircraft the raf have leaving it out to rot...
The vc 10 aircraft it replaces were far older then 27. The agreement for these voyager to rent them for 27 years.
 
Last edited:
f1charlie said:
Close, they entered service in 1990:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_One
Click to expand...

Like I said I think I was working from memory rather than hitting up Google :lol: :lol: but safe to say 25-30 years is nothing for the VC-25 they will still be nowhere near max cycles/hours when retired, and they are probably the most babied jets in the world, parts kept switched out of the blond before they would be on a normal commercial jet
 
There's a Dragon Rapide flying about somewhere, he could use that.
 
BBR said:
'UK Prime Minister delayed on way to G20 conference due to Easyjet technical difficulties' doesn't really add to gravitas. .
Click to expand...
He could always switch to Ryan air if that was the case, booking a spare seat on another airline, just in case, has to be the cheaper option :D

To be fair I've flown squeeze-me-jet a fair few times and they are always on time ( give or take 10 minutes )
 
neil_g said:
i dont think 27 years is that unreasonable. hell the last remaining vulcan was only just grounded and that was in production in the 50s (granted I have no idea about upgrades).

i seem to remember watching something that was saying 20+ years is not uncommon for commercial planes?
Click to expand...

Even the most latest version of the B52 has been in service since 1961 and is expected to continue to be operational into the 2040's.
 
Calling it Cam anything is aa wee bit DM.
He won't be the only one to use it....if it's even ready by the time he's done (look how long it takes to get things done here!)
:-)
 
Genius :lol:
 
They say it will cost 10 million to convert the plane, we all know that's likely to double as all MOD contracts do and if it really does last 20 years that's still a million pounds a year it's costing before he even gets in it! I can't see this being cheaper. Add to that the plane is going to stink of Avtur everywhere he goes though it will be a nice change for the Queen.
 
Steep said:
They say it will cost 10 million to convert the plane, we all know that's likely to double as all MOD contracts do and if it really does last 20 years that's still a million pounds a year it's costing before he even gets in it! I can't see this being cheaper. Add to that the plane is going to stink of Avtur everywhere he goes though it will be a nice change for the Queen.
Click to expand...

You don't actually know anything about voyager do you? The fuel tanks are not on the main passenger deck so there would be no smell of fuel
 
It was a joke, sorry forgot the smiley :)
 
eeyore said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-senior-ministers-to-get-dedicated-plane.html

I know we don't have much of an airforce left but...

Also are the savings for this really worth it?
It's going to cost £10 million to convert, but will save £775k a year.
So it's about 13 years to cover the cost of it. That's assuming the RAF don't want it back (there is a fleet of 14 in total however there will be times no doubt due to servicing etc)

So based on the last vc10 in a similar fuel transport role lasted 47 years. This would be a saving of £26 million pounds over the life of the jet if you take in to account the conversion cost.

Would it not be better to use the jet as it is? I.e not convert it and our ministers Pm etc who want to use it fly it as our armed forces staff do?
Click to expand...

Agree
Payback in 13 years if conversion cost does not go up, don`t think many companies would go ahead with that
 
nog said:
Agree
Payback in 13 years if conversion cost does not go up, don`t think many companies would go ahead with that
Click to expand...

That strictly looking at ROI from a fiscal standpoint, but that are a lot of much less tangible benefits, from sheduling, security etc...you've got to look beyond just the headline cost and savings to see the actual value in this...say for example you've PM and the chancellor travelling back from the G20 they could get on the jet right at the end rather than maybe having to wait for scheduled if the haven't chartered...if they haven't chartered in travelling back they would be limited to small talk, where as on their own secure jet they could realistically still conduct private business as they say time costs money
 
MWHCVT said:
That strictly looking at ROI from a fiscal standpoint, but that are a lot of much less tangible benefits, from sheduling, security etc...you've got to look beyond just the headline cost and savings to see the actual value in this...say for example you've PM and the chancellor travelling back from the G20 they could get on the jet right at the end rather than maybe having to wait for scheduled if the haven't chartered...if they haven't chartered in travelling back they would be limited to small talk, where as on their own secure jet they could realistically still conduct private business as they say time costs money
Click to expand...

Probably handy for hols as well, not that I`m suggesting anything like that would ever happen:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top