Loading Notifications...

RAF Voyager's paint job

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Le Sapeur 25 Jun 2020

When I read the news headlines I was really dismissive of this paint job plan. However it looks pretty good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53183925

About the same price as Salvator Mundi's right thumb.

7
 Toccata 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

Looks like any other BA plane. 

 Andy Johnson 25 Jun 2020
In reply to the thread:

I've read elsewhere that when it's not being used by the royal family and the prime minister, it's used for mid-air refueling. How does that work? Can they just swap-out the interior seating and fit fuel tanks, or do the two uses co-exist without requiring modification? It seems like an odd combination.

 Stichtplate 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Johnson:

Perhaps our lizard overlords prefer to loll about in large tanks during their downtime? Ask LeeWood, he’s sure to know.

1
 mrphilipoldham 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Johnson:

Air refuellers don't have their entire fuselage space filled by tanks, nor even the traditional 'lower' cargo hold - just some of it. The Voyagers will have some tanks in the lower cargo compartment, as well as cargo storage and the upper will generally be available to either cargo or seating - I think this one has been decked out in a comfortable configuration (more like an airliner) as part of the quoted £900,000. 

Loads of photos of the interiors on Google. Same goes for the Yanks KC-135s. 

 NathanP 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Johnson:

The aircraft is one of 14 A330 MRTTs (Multi Role Tanker Transport). They were always intended for a mix of refuelling, troop transport and military cargo use. The fuel tanks aren't in the passenger compartment so swapping between the roles isn't such a big deal. 

They were contracted under a controversial PFI contract from 2008. The idea was to have 9 in full-time use by the RAF and the others available at short notice but otherwise offsetting the costs with commercial work. I don't think the commercial offset work panned out as hoped and this is one of the 'spare' 5.

The interior was modified some time ago to act as a VIP transport. I guess there would be a cost for swapping between that and troop or cargo transport but not for tanking use.

I'd think there are plenty of cheap low mileage airliners available at the moment so whether converting such an expensive and specialist aircraft was a good idea seems a bit questionable.

 mondite 25 Jun 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

>  I think this one has been decked out in a comfortable configuration (more like an airliner) as part of the quoted £900,000. 

nah that was done under Cameron and it cost a tad more than that.

1
 mrphilipoldham 25 Jun 2020
In reply to mondite:

That’s why it was only an ‘I think’

In reply to Le Sapeur:

I don't like the Gold script. 

Gold text on white, so cliche. Lazy design frankly.

 Mike_Gannon 25 Jun 2020
In reply to mondite:

I wonder if they used Ozbournes family interior decorating business?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I think we all know that the repainted didn't cost £900,000, however the spec for Johnson's (f)lying shag pad won't have been cheap!

Edit to correct my rather appropriate typo.

Post edited at 00:01
2
 mondite 26 Jun 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> I think we all know that the repainted didn't cost £900,000, however the spec for Johnson's (f)lying shag pad won't have been cheap!

That 900k did originally come from No10 spokesbod though. Not everyone elses fault they cant provide accurate information.

The actual conversion to shagpad was ordered by Cameron and is listed as 10million. Not sure he actually got to fly in it though since was due for completion around when he resigned.

In reply to mondite:

> That 900k did originally come from No10 spokesbod though. Not everyone elses fault they cant provide accurate information.

> The actual conversion to shagpad was ordered by Cameron and is listed as 10million. Not sure he actually got to fly in it though since was due for completion around when he resigned.

That won't have included the mirrored ceilings

 jkarran 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

Looks smart in a minor gulf prince kinda way.

My question is how straight they're being with us about its multirole function but I hardly care anymore. They've won, lies are truth now.

Jk

 DancingOnRock 26 Jun 2020
In reply to mondite:

Initially planned by Blair as they were spending best part of £1m a year chartering private flights. 
 

Makes sense really, practically every other country has dedicated VIP jets for their government. 

 DaveHK 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

Still not finished the tail...


In reply to NathanP:

> The aircraft is one of 14 A330 MRTTs (Multi Role Tanker Transport). They were always intended for a mix of refuelling, troop transport and military cargo use. The fuel tanks aren't in the passenger compartment so swapping between the roles isn't such a big deal. 

Cummings is behind this.  The plan is to fill the plane's tanks up with bullsh*t and then spray it across the country from a great height.

4
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Cummings is behind this.  The plan is to fill the plane's tanks up with bullsh*t and then spray it across the country from a great height.

Wing mounted drop tanks when running as a tanker.  That’s got to compromise handling quite a bit of it comes under fire.  Air to air tankers aren’t exciting enough to have got anyone who knows actually commenting online however.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Cummings is behind this.  The plan is to fill the plane's tanks up with bullsh*t and then spray it across the country from a great height.

The paint job is a fraction of the cost of what sturgeon has ploughed into prestwick airport. Pure dead brilliant. Only the middle word is appropriate. 

4
In reply to jkarran:

You really couldn't imagine a greater mess of a design. Almost predictably they've painted the Union Jack upside down, but worse, in trying to make it too big for the fin, it just screams inferiority complex. Really embarrassing. And stupid, because Air Force 1 is used to fly royalty etc. The previous grey made it very inconspicuous at a distance, and indistinguishable from many other transport planes, but now it glaringly draws attention to itself.

8
 toad 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Johnson:

They drain the fuel tanks and refill them with a 60/30/10 mix of peasant blood,  puss and pomposity. Johnson and his clique can then wallow in this for the duration of their journey and emerge refreshed and ready for a solid 20 minutes of international grandstanding before sleazing off to a media barons villa of choice for "high level meetings"

Post edited at 08:48
 Graeme G 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

It’s ridiculous. If you’re going to do grand gestures to unite a country at least spell out its complete name.

 Oceanrower 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Almost predictably they've painted the Union Jack upside down...

Or have they?

https://ukaviation.news/think-the-flag-is-backwards-on-the-raf-uk-voyager-youre-wrong/

In reply to Oceanrower:

A poor argument, based on a convention (flag flowing backwards from nose, rather than on what it looks like). Most people looking at it would take the more vertical rear of the fin to represent the flagpole, rather than the steeply sloping leading edge. They would anyway surely have done far better not to try and crush the Union Jack in there, but base the design on its colours.

13
 jon 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Most people looking at it would take the more vertical rear of the fin to represent the flagpole, rather than the steeply sloping leading edge. 

Well perhaps if it was flying backwards. Or taxiing, of course.

In reply to jon:

Anyhow, the debate about it being upside down or not is trivial compared with the mess. When it gets to the fuselage ... And then someone obviously said, what about the RAF roundel? So they've put it in ludicrously small, as if we're embarrassed by it, or wanting to hide the fact that it's an RAF plane.

3
 nufkin 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>  they've painted the Union Jack upside down

Is it perhaps the right way up from the point of view of a pilot in an inverted F14 above?

 jkarran 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> The previous grey made it very inconspicuous at a distance, and indistinguishable from many other transport planes, but now it glaringly draws attention to itself.

In fairness the NOTAMs issued in advance of royal/government flights are rather more conspicuous than this pimped up BA paintjob to anyone who might be properly interested in doing them a mischief.

I suspect the bigger issue with painting a massive target on it is operating it in and out of bases overseas where the friendly faces stop at the perimeter fence.

jk

 DancingOnRock 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

They’re supposed to be a standard size. 
 

And it’s the same size as on the old grey one. 

Post edited at 10:25
 jkarran 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

Anyone know what the paired platinum and gold stripe clusters are each side of the forward and aft fuselage, also on the tip extensions and at the end of the ailerons?

Given the livery weirdly gives them a wide berth I presume they're functional rather than decorative but with the size and location I don't think they can be cut into the skin, whatever they are they're very slim or simply paint. Patch antennas maybe or are they just military insignia of some sort? The weird colours make me think coated optics but with no depth that seems unlikely.

jk

 mondite 26 Jun 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> In fairness the NOTAMs issued in advance of royal/government flights are rather more conspicuous than this pimped up BA paintjob to anyone who might be properly interested in doing them a mischief.

Its still supposed to be an air to air tanker though which wouldnt have the NOTAMs.

 Mr Lopez 26 Jun 2020
In reply to nufkin:

> Is it perhaps the right way up from the point of view of a pilot in an inverted F14 above?


Outstanding

P.s. TG2 is out any time now, Can't wait.

P.p.s. I see the plane has already acquired the name "Air Farce 1" if my Facebook feed is anything to go by

P.p.p.s. Ow.... It was releasing today but got postponed till Christmas

Post edited at 11:07
In reply to Le Sapeur:

I like it. Now all we need is a Prime Minister we can be proud of to fly in it.

 DancingOnRock 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

It’ll never happen. Look at the people who elect them. 

Post edited at 11:19
 malk 26 Jun 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Anyone know what the paired platinum and gold stripe clusters are each side of the forward and aft fuselage, also on the tip extensions and at the end of the ailerons?

formation lights for AAR mode according to the experts at pprune;)

Post edited at 11:24
 malk 26 Jun 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I don't like the Gold script. 

> Gold text on white, so cliche. Lazy design frankly.


also spacing and alignment issues with the windows and serial number/RAF logo;)

i wonder what fell off on takeoff? https://www.youtube.com./watch?time_continue=179&v=fpRkX9Gv9FM&

Post edited at 11:49
 colinakmc 26 Jun 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I don't like the Gold script. 

> Gold text on white, so cliche. Lazy design frankly.

Dictator chic

1
 Graeme G 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Union Jack 

Can we please get this correct, it’s the Union Flag!!

Until the plane goes down that is.....

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/articles/9-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-union-jack-flag/

 DizzyVizion 26 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

Comparing money spent on an airport with money spent on a planes paint job?

 DizzyVizion 26 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

Prestwick Airport has strategic significance to Scotland, like it or not. This paint job doesn't. It looks fine though so no complaints here 👍

 jkarran 26 Jun 2020
In reply to malk:

> formation lights for AAR mode according to the experts at pprune;)

Cheers, that makes sense.

jk

 deepsoup 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

"Surprisingly, with a flag that is known so synonymously as the Union Jack, its official name is the Union Flag!"

This is just plain wrong, there is no "official" distinction between 'Jack' or 'Flag', it's just a matter of personal preference.  Also I don't think he's using the word "synonymously" correctly there, can something be "known synonymously"?  Perhaps "ubiquitously" is the word he was looking for.

https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags-2/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/

 jkarran 26 Jun 2020
In reply to malk:

Left over masking presumably, torn off as the airflow changed.

jk

 alastairmac 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

Another "butcher's apron" stoke up the fires of British Nationalism. It'll be banners from every lamp post and town hall next.

2
 Graeme G 26 Jun 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> "Surprisingly, with a flag that is known so synonymously as the Union Jack, its official name is the Union Flag!"

> This is just plain wrong, there is no "official" distinction between 'Jack' or 'Flag', it's just a matter of personal preference.  Also I don't think he's using the word "synonymously" correctly there, can something be "known synonymously"?  Perhaps "ubiquitously" is the word he was looking for.

You expect me trust the opinion of a well researched website dedicated to the history flags vs culturetrip.com? 

Madness!

 neilh 26 Jun 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

Where is Sheldon Cooper when you need him to do a short video on the flag. Those who watch TBBT will understand.

 Ridge 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think you're overthinking the design a bit Gordon. Looks OK to me, compared to the sort of garish horror I was expecting.

 deepsoup 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

Ha, yes, fair point.  When you put it like that I don't know what I was thinking.

 malk 26 Jun 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Left over masking presumably, torn off as the airflow changed.

yah prob, but shocking turn for liftoff- look at the skid marks;)

In reply to alastairmac:

> Another "butcher's apron" stoke up the fires of British Nationalism. It'll be banners from every lamp post and town hall next.

Scottish nationalism acceptable though? 

 Rob Parsons 26 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

> The paint job is a fraction of the cost of what sturgeon has ploughed into prestwick airport.

What's the story about Prestwick? I honestly don't know. Thanks.

 Rob Parsons 26 Jun 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> I suspect the bigger issue with painting a massive target on it is operating it in and out of bases overseas where the friendly faces stop at the perimeter fence.

Exactly. This plane is still supposed to be a dual-purpose thing, and it can be expected to be operating as a military plane in hostile environments. That's why it was painted drab.

The new paint job is a ridiculous waste of money as a vanity exercise, and completely counterprodutive to the plane's official dual-purpose.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

> What's the story about Prestwick? I honestly don't know. Thanks.

They've ploughed millions into it because it's not financially viable but some how essential at the same time. 

4
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Exactly. This plane is still supposed to be a dual-purpose thing, and it can be expected to be operating as a military plane in hostile environments. That's why it was painted drab.

Given it's size. It would show up like a dog's... on any radar, operationally colour is irrelevent. 

In reply to summo:

> The paint job is a fraction of the cost of what sturgeon has ploughed into prestwick airport. Pure dead brilliant. Only the middle word is appropriate. 

Also, the cost of the paint on the door of Downing Street was a fraction of the costs of the Queensferry Crossing. 

Of course it costs less to paint the tail of one plane than bail out an entire airport.

 DancingOnRock 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Are you sure it’s still supposed to have a dual purpose? I thought it was now dedicated for VIP transport?

 Rob Parsons 26 Jun 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

That is what I have understood from the news reports. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/vip-raf-voyager-ready-for-global-role/ :

"Alongside its VIP Role, the aircraft remains certified for its original use, including Air-to-Air Refuelling and personnel transport."

Post edited at 16:47
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Of course it costs less to paint the tail of one plane than bail out an entire airport.

What revenue for the Scottish taxpayer has the bail out since generated? 

As much as you dislike them, the British flag and the royal family are brands that sell well, benefiting everyone in the UK, including everyone in Scotland. 

3
 mondite 26 Jun 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Are you sure it’s still supposed to have a dual purpose? I thought it was now dedicated for VIP transport?


That was the claim being made by the No 10 spokesman. I suspect it is now dedicated but they dont want to admit to it since that will incur extra costs.

In reply to summo:

> As much as you dislike them, the British flag and the royal family are brands that sell well, benefiting everyone in the UK, including everyone in Scotland. 

Bollocks.  If we really wanted all the Royal sh*t - we should get the Stuarts back and put them in Holyrood Palace and have Saltires on our tourist products.    There's a f*ckton more money to be made in Scotland from tourists by exploiting the Jacobite myths, Bruce, Bannockburn etc than acting like an English colony.

We would also get all the tourist revenue from soldiers poncing about on parade in front of palaces, royal weddings, funerals etc in Scotland instead of it all going to London. 

Having royals in London does f*ck all for the Scottish economy.

Post edited at 17:42
16
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Exactly. This plane is still supposed to be a dual-purpose thing, and it can be expected to be operating as a military plane in hostile environments. That's why it was painted drab.

> The new paint job is a ridiculous waste of money as a vanity exercise, and completely counterprodutive to the plane's official dual-purpose.

One reason for the grey colour was surely that it's much safer when the Prime Minister or members of the royal family have to travel to quite dangerous places, e.g. in the Middle East, that they can do so relatively incognito. 

Another big problem is that the new colour scheme could become redundant if, as seems possible, the United Kingdom (even now more disunited than it's ever been) breaks up as a direct result of Johnson's no-deal Brexit policy. The flag would then have to be repainted as necessary.... Then, another future possibility would arise, if Brexit turns out to be an economic disaster and there's another referendum, that we'll rejoin the EU. ... Then, in the scenario that Scotland has meanwhile become independent, it might want to reunite with us. ... Then, it's just possible that some bright spark will come up with the brilliant idea of just painting the aircraft grey again ...

<tongue in cheek post – but it really is a farce>

 DizzyVizion 26 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

> What revenue for the Scottish taxpayer has the bail out since generated?

About as much as HS2. Care to cancel that? Or is that an investment in future critical infrastructure also?

Post edited at 17:52
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Bollocks.  If we really wanted all the Royal sh*t - we should get the Stuarts back and put them in Holyrood Palace and have Saltires on our tourist products.    There's a f*ckton more money to be made in Scotland from tourists by exploiting the Jacobite myths, Bruce, Bannockburn etc than acting like an English colony.

We get all that anyway too! It's a win/win situation for Scotland!

1
 Le Sapeur 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Anyhow, the debate about it being upside down or not is trivial 

Umm, you brought it up.

 Le Sapeur 26 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>   There's a f*ckton more money to be made in Scotland from tourists by exploiting the Jacobite myths, Bruce, Bannockburn etc than acting like an English colony.

I think after almost 300 years you should be over it. The only '45' of significance to me is 1945. The year the really big war ended. Not the Highland skirmishes or the battle of Culloden which only lasted 1 hour.

7
 Le Sapeur 26 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> We would also get all the tourist revenue from soldiers poncing about on parade in front of palaces, 

Or the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo as it's known here.

In reply to Le Sapeur:

It wasn't such a big deal (because for all the reasons we've discussed above it's nearly impossible to get it 'right'). I'm fairly sure that my post said something like 'Apart from [the issue of it being upside down] ...' My second point was my main point.

I've just looked it up. I said 'But worse ...' My main point was that, the way it's been done (too large for the fin), 'it screams inferiority complex.' I stand by that. But don't let's have a huge argument about something that, by any standards, is an unnecessary, money-wasting farce.

Post edited at 18:44
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> I think after almost 300 years you should be over it. The only '45' of significance to me is 1945. The year the really big war ended. Not the Highland skirmishes or the battle of Culloden which only lasted 1 hour.

That's a very dismissive remark. It may have only lasted an hour, but it was a bloodbath of huge significance. Arguably the biggest date in Scottish history. There are still plenty of things we don't seem to be able to 'get over', e.g. we still go rabbiting on about 1066, over a millennium later ... for the very same reason.

 DancingOnRock 26 Jun 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

There’s a difference between certified and available. I understood that last year it was frequently unavailable. I also understood the Voyager’s primary use was as a troop carrier. 

 kevin stephens 26 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Bollocks.  If we really wanted all the Royal sh*t - we should get the Stuarts back and put them in Holyrood Palace and have Saltires on our tourist products.    There's a f*ckton more money to be made in Scotland from tourists by exploiting the Jacobite myths, Bruce, Bannockburn etc than acting like an English colony.

> We would also get all the tourist revenue from soldiers poncing about on parade in front of palaces, royal weddings, funerals etc in Scotland instead of it all going to London. 

> Having royals in London does f*ck all for the Scottish economy.

If you think any royal has and will have in the future more global draw than the current queen you are dreaming. 

1
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> Or the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo as it's known here.

Royal highland games. Royal highland show, Balmoral, Castle Mey etc. Etc. 

 Rob Parsons 26 Jun 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> There’s a difference between certified and available.

So what's the official position in this case? Is the aircraft still officially dual-purpose, or not?

> I also understood the Voyager’s primary use was as a troop carrier. 

Also, a tanker.

 DancingOnRock 26 Jun 2020
 Rob Parsons 26 Jun 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

That two-year old article explains some of the (already-known) background - but it doesn't clarify the position which actually pertains now. Does it?

In reply to summo:

> If you think any royal has and will have in the future more global draw than the current queen you are dreaming. 

The current queen and royal family draw tourists to London, not to Scotland. 

If you don't think the Highlands and Jacobites are a major tourist draw which would increase with a Scottish King descended from the Stuarts to play into the whole Bonnie Prince Charlie thing you are dreaming.

Personally I think independent Scotland should be a republic but if we were going to have a Royal Family there would be more tourist money in having one which actually lived in Scotland.

Post edited at 21:06
7
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'd imagine the Americans will start queuing now for a jacobite museum! ;) All three of them. Socially distanced of course. 

1
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> I think after almost 300 years you should be over it. 

That wasn't my point.  My point is that tourists who want to see royals do not go to Scotland they go to London because that's where the royals live.  That's where they have changing of the guard and sh*t like that and it is London that gets all the royal weddings and funerals and so on.

There is a substantial myth around the Jacobites etc and major Hollywood movies and series like Outlander which bring tourists.  If our goal was to increase tourism in Scotland we'd do far better with Jacobite descended kings/queens living in Holyrood Palace than English ones living in London.  We need to play to our own historical myths to get tourists to come to Scotland.

As  said, I think Scotland should be a republic.  But it is obvious nonsense to think a king/queen in London is better for tourism in Scotland than a king or queen in Edinburgh would be.

Post edited at 21:15
1
In reply to kevin stephens:

> If you are flying the flag it would be good to have it the right way up, or are aerobatics planned?

This is explained by a Link provided by Oceanrower earlier on in the thread:
https://ukaviation.news/think-the-flag-is-backwards-on-the-raf-uk-voyager-youre-wrong/

 kevin stephens 26 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

Thanks, I stand corrected

 mrphilipoldham 26 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I see there was another Nessie sighting the other day?

 EdS 27 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:f

The well known Scotts man Edward Charles Stuart - born in Rome to a Polish mother and mix European father.

And dint for get the large numbers of English and Irish Jacobites. 

Wasn't so much about Scotland but the Royal blood line of the UK..... You seem to have conviently forgotten that

 jkarran 27 Jun 2020
In reply to malk:

> yah prob, but shocking turn for liftoff- look at the skid marks;)

I noticed that too, I'd not be happy about that if it were my runway getting chewed up.

Jk

Post edited at 10:01
 Le Sapeur 27 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

As someone explained earlier in the thread it is the correct way up.

 kevin stephens 27 Jun 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

Yes and if you actually read the thread you will see that I acknowledged that

 Graeme G 27 Jun 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

Happy to be corrected. I always thought the naming convention was correct.

Still ugly though.

In reply to EdS:

> f

> The well known Scotts man Edward Charles Stuart - born in Rome to a Polish mother and mix European father.

So what?  The Georgian Kings/Queens were imported from Hanover in Germany.  Prince Philip is Greek.

The Stuarts were also the royal family in Ireland and France and had lands in Germany.  That can easily be spun into a story for tourists from the EU.

> And dint for get the large numbers of English and Irish Jacobites. 

Which just makes the story better.

> Wasn't so much about Scotland but the Royal blood line of the UK..... You seem to have conviently forgotten that

No.  Like I said several times I think kings and queens are bullsh*t and would prefer to have a republic.  However, if the goal is to use historical myth to attract tourist money then the Jacobite myth/narrative would work better for Scotland than English royals in London.    

In reply to summo:

> What revenue for the Scottish taxpayer has the bail out since generated? 

There is a cluster of aviation related business around Prestwick Airport which make use of its facilities.  They are still in business and paying taxes and providing employment.  The revenue from the airport itself does not represent the revenue from the local economy which is indirectly dependent on having the airport.

In reply to Le Sapeur:

> When I read the news headlines I was really dismissive of this paint job plan. However it looks pretty good.

Seems to me that the Government would be better off buying Boris a Platinum Card from Netjet and let him rent a Gulfstream when he needs it.   More flexibility - if two ministers need planes at the same time then they can get two - cheaper, and a far more reasonably sized (and fuel/CO2 efficient) aircraft to take a couple of VIPs where they need to go,

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There is a cluster of aviation related business around Prestwick Airport which make use of its facilities.  They are still in business and paying taxes and providing employment.  The revenue from the airport itself does not represent the revenue from the local economy which is indirectly dependent on having the airport.

Seens odd it needs a massive bail out if it's viable? 

 Rob Parsons 27 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There is a cluster of aviation related business around Prestwick Airport which make use of its facilities.  They are still in business and paying taxes and providing employment.

Is all that the argument for maintaining Prestwick (or, otherwise, putting money into it)? If so, has there been a convincing cost-benefit analysis?

Post edited at 20:31
 pec 27 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> we still go rabbiting on about 1066, over a millennium later

Exactly how many years do you think there are in a millennium?

In reply to pec:

I think I wrote that after I'd had a bit of whisky.

 Graeme G 27 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

> Seens odd it needs a massive bail out if it's viable? 

Banks, 2008?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Is all that the argument for maintaining Prestwick (or, otherwise, putting money into it)? If so, has there been a convincing cost-benefit analysis?

I have no idea if there's been a cost-benefit analysis.  However I would bet that there was a lot more analysis and justification involved for less money spent than when the Tories rent ferries or buy PPE.  

In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Is all that the argument for maintaining Prestwick (or, otherwise, putting money into it)? If so, has there been a convincing cost-benefit analysis?

Seems like they got a 40 million quid loan with delayed payment terms.  Not peanuts but not a 'massive bailout' either.  The Tories p*ss twice as much money away before breakfast.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38364427

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I have no idea if there's been a cost-benefit analysis.  However I would bet that there was a lot more analysis and justification involved for less money spent than when the Tories rent ferries or buy PPE.  

Both of Scotland's largest cities have their own airports. One has just had a fortune spent connecting it with trams. Why does that region really need a third that's stuck out on a limb miles away? Golf? Troon?

This is ignoring the green debate and post covid air travel, which arguably couldn't have even been imagined at the time. 

Yeah 40m isn't a fortune, but neither is 0.9m if it's going to be used to generate some post recession business. What Scotland should be doing, is instead of ranting about independence, is making sure it has some representation on that plane. Build bridges, not burning them down. 

3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Airports aren't just for passengers.

Indeed. And if it was viable without them, why did it need the bail out? Just admit it's political and nothing else, a stone's throw from sturgeons home town? 

 Siward 28 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> ...in trying to make it too big for the fin, it just screams inferiority complex. Really embarrassing...

Worth a look a British Airways livery through the ages. It is common for only a part of the flag, or representation of it, to appear on the tail. It's not the naval ensign.

https://www.yesterdaysairlines.com/ba-liveries-1974-2015.html

In reply to Siward:

Yes, they work so much better. In so many areas of life we seem to be becoming less and less capable.

 Graeme G 28 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

>  is making sure it has some representation on that plane.

How do you propose they do that?

 Ridge 28 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Yes, they work so much better. In so many areas of life we seem to be becoming less and less capable.

I think you're making too much of this. As Siward has shown in his link, BA have had similar tail designs, The “Chatham Dockyard” is very similar to the current voyager design, and some of the BA designs are really pretty ropey. In fact, if you look hard enough, you could conclude some of those partial union flags used by BA over the years are upside down when you look at the relative widths of the diagonal white stripes.

As symbols of national decline go, this is mere trivia.

In reply to Graeme G:

> How do you propose they do that?

Instead of having msps and mps spend their day lobbying for indef2, they should lobby to have as many Scottish trade representatives on the aircraft as possible, when global travel resumes. 

Most trade deals aren't done when the plane flies off with Boris or the queen to do some waving, or even president Blair grinning. It's when the plane takes 50 delegates off to trade conventions etc. meeting face to face with industry leaders in other countries. 

2
 Graeme G 28 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

> Instead of having msps and mps spend their day lobbying for indef2, they should lobby to have as many Scottish trade representatives on the aircraft as possible, when global travel resumes. 

Given the current state of derision and division between the two parliaments do you believe that’ll happen?

Do you believe the UK is a stronger ‘brand’ than the Scottish ‘brand’?

Post edited at 11:40
 alastairmac 28 Jun 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

From all the most recent polls it's clear that a growing majority of Scottish voters are clear about where you can stick the union jack and all it's backward looking colonial associations.....because we want our country back!  

In reply to Graeme G:

> Given the current state of derision and division between the two parliaments do you believe that’ll happen?

I agree. But that's what you get with a nationalist party in Scotland. 

> Do you believe the UK is a stronger ‘brand’ than the Scottish ‘brand’?

Is it a competition? Or perhaps representatives from the 4 countries should work collectively under the UK or British banner? 

Post edited at 12:45
 Graeme G 28 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

> I agree. But that's what you get with a nationalist party in Scotland. 

Do you not think the SNP are as much a symptom, as a cause? The PM was seen as so toxic in Scotland his own party leader didn’t invite him to their own party conference. You can’t put that solely on the SNP, even the Tories in Scotland didn’t want him.

> Or perhaps representatives from the 4 countries should work collectively under the UK or British banner? 

If only. My take on devolution is that whilst everywhere else was busy building a ‘national’ brand, England blindly went on believing everyone agreed we were all British.

I sit on both sides of the Indy fence, but I am absolutely convinced that whilst the blame game goes on (of which, at times, you are guilty) it is inevitable. It will take a supremely strong leader to re-unite the UK. If it ever was that united anyway. 

In reply to Graeme G:

> If only. My take on devolution is that whilst everywhere else was busy building a ‘national’ brand, England blindly went on believing everyone agreed we were all British.

Everyone born in Scotland is British. They might decide to be Glaswegian first, then Scottish, then British, but they are all three. In escaping the coming recession countries need to capitalise on every selling point they have and not risk cutting off their nose.

The emerging markets of Asia are vastly different to Europe and the USA, Scotland does well at times with brands in USA by selling its heritage, ancestors who travelled there many generations ago etc... The same trick won't work with Asia, but the royal connection is worth exploiting, to the benefit of everyone in the UK.  

1
 Graeme G 28 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

> Everyone born in Scotland is British. 

So are the Irish but I don’t hear anyone ramming that down their throats. What we are, or aren’t is irrelevant. It’s what people want to be, and like it  or not the momentum is only going one way.

In reply to Graeme G:

> So are the Irish but I don’t hear anyone ramming that down their throats. What we are, or aren’t is irrelevant. It’s what people want to be, and like it  or not the momentum is only going one way.

Well should i look forward to claiming my Scottish passport through one of my grand parents? Russell; which is in all likelihood French anyway stemming back to the Norman barons and the then French words for red. But then the Normans were originally nord men from Scandinavia. Picking points in time to freeze history or arc back to can be problematic. 

1
 Graeme G 28 Jun 2020
In reply to summo:

All salient points. Nationalism is illogical and defies history. Which is why, returning to the original point, painting a ‘presidential’ plane is just laughable. Every time the Tories play the ‘red, white and blue’ card is, IMO, another nail in the coffin of the very thing the ‘red, white and blue’. 

Anyway, it’s Sunday, go and do something more useful. I’m just bored cause it’s pissing down here 😢

In reply to summo:

> Everyone born in Scotland is British. They might decide to be Glaswegian first, then Scottish, then British, but they are all three. 

F*ck off.  That's as bad as telling the Irish they are actually British.  

> The emerging markets of Asia are vastly different to Europe and the USA, Scotland does well at times with brands in USA by selling its heritage, ancestors who travelled there many generations ago etc... The same trick won't work with Asia, but the royal connection is worth exploiting, to the benefit of everyone in the UK.  

Unless you are selling kitsch or tourism the whole royal connection is negative.  You want your country to look modern if you are selling technology.   Plenty of countries, including China and India, had negative experiences with the British Empire and actively dislike all the symbols of it.

7
 Rob Parsons 28 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Unless you are selling kitsch or tourism ...

A great deal of the current Scottish economy is based on both.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> F*ck off.  That's as bad as telling the Irish they are actually British.  

Oh!!  do tell at what point in the last 10,000  years do you wish to freeze history and claim nationality to that era? 

1
 Ridge 28 Jun 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> > Unless you are selling kitsch or tourism ...

> A great deal of the current Scottish economy is based on both.

You mean the McScnitzelburger tartan you can buy in Edinburgh is just made up for American tourists??

 Rob Parsons 28 Jun 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> You mean the McScnitzelburger tartan you can buy in Edinburgh is just made up for American tourists??

Tartan itself - alongside all that 'traditional' Scottish stuff - is largely a invention popularized by Queen Victoria. It's all about as authentic as the turrets on Balmoral Castle.

(In that respect, it was amusing to see Sturgeon wearing a tartan facemask the other day - talk about a cliché ...)

Post edited at 21:55
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Actually, Scotland's makes more from aerospace (4 billion) than it does from tourism (3.9 billion).

https://www.scotland.org/business/key-sectors

2
In reply to summo:

> Oh!!  do tell at what point in the last 10,000  years do you wish to freeze history and claim nationality to that era? 

2021.  After the SNP is re-elected we will be independent and my nationality will be European and Scottish.   

I just wish this had happened when I was 15 and putting Scotland's Oil stickers on lamposts for the very first devolution referendum which was stolen by English deceit (lying about the amount of oil in the North Sea while classifying the McCrone report to ensure the electorate would not find out) and gerrymandering (insisting on a majority of the electorate rather than a majority of votes cast and basing the calculation on a grossly outdated electoral roll making it impossible to achieve).

7
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Actually, Scotland's makes more from aerospace (4 billion) than it does from tourism (3.9 billion).

Those are aspirational figures. If you read the text in your own link. 

"Scotland has an exciting and fast-growing space sector. In 2017 it was worth £2.5 billion, and the industry aims to grow this to £4 billion by 2030."

I'm not sure which growth estimate will now apply in any country with covid. 

Post edited at 06:26
1
 Rob Parsons 29 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Actually, Scotland's makes more from aerospace (4 billion) than it does from tourism (3.9 billion).

As mentioned, that's a lie - read your own link.

Why do you insist on making shit up? It does your case no favours at all.

1
 deepsoup 29 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Insisting on a majority of the electorate rather than a majority of votes cast on a referendum with potentially huge consequences is hardly 'gerrymandering'.  It's the only sensible thing to do.  If you want to bring about huge changes, you need a proper mandate. 

Otherwise there's a risk of ending up with a massively divisive and damaging clusterf*ck of epic proportions.  Perhaps even the risk of dodgy populists seizing control on behalf of the largest minority whose view they claim represents the irrevocable "will of the people" and riding roughshod over the constitution, the rule of law and any subsequent democratic processes that may threaten their referendum 'victory'.
(I'd cite an example of that actually happening somewhere in the world if only I could think of one.)

In reply to Le Sapeur:

I think Mickey Mouse or clouds  andcuckoos would be more appropriate

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> F*ck off.  That's as bad as telling the Irish they are actually British.  

Don't be ridiculous (and offensive). Scotland is (whether you like it or not) part of the UK. Scottish people are (whether they like it or not) British. They have British citizenship and British passports. Just like the English.

 Graeme G 29 Jun 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Don't be ridiculous (and offensive). Scotland is (whether you like it or not) part of the UK. Scottish people are (whether they like it or not) British. They have British citizenship and British passports. Just like the English.

Now see, this is where I have a problem. We have UK citizenship and UK passports.

Happy to be corrected but Ireland is one island in the British Isles. British people come from The British Isles, therefore the Irish are also British.

Calling ourselves ‘British’ is just confusing. We should have a nationality semantically rooted in our country’s name;

France - French

Bolivia - Bolivian

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - ????
Although even that’s wrong because Great Britain is only one island, what about all the rest?

Just gives me a headache......

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Don't be ridiculous (and offensive). Scotland is (whether you like it or not) part of the UK. Scottish people are (whether they like it or not) British. They have British citizenship and British passports. Just like the English.

'You are British' is exactly what the English told the Irish and the Americans before they got independence.   The most recent polls all show a majority for independence in Scotland.   

People do not want to be governed by the English any more - and yes, it is governed by England when 90% of the votes for Westminster are cast in England and it is decades since Scotland got the government we voted for.

The Westminster system is antiquated, corrupt and in the hands of a cabal of powerful people who live in London and the South East.  It will always favour those regions.

5
 mondite 29 Jun 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

> Although even that’s wrong because Great Britain is only one island, what about all the rest?

The rest is Little Britain. Which depending on which particular interpretation you go with could be Ireland (from Ptolemy) or Brittany.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

To say you are British does not mean you live in the (geographical) 'British Isles'. If you are (southern) Irish, you are not British. It means you have a 'UK of GB and NI' passport.

 Graeme G 29 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think that’s debatable.

In reply to Graeme G:

You're not seriously claiming the Irish (in Eire) are British, are you? The historical/ political fact of Irish independence from Britain (1922) is not 'debatable'.

 Graeme G 29 Jun 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

No, of course not. Can’t real be arsed being drawn into a long history debate, but surely I’m not the only one who thinks the naming convention(s) in the UK are just ridiculous?

I live in the UK but my nationality is British. But British actually means coming from The British Isles, which includes Ireland. Who historically are Celtic, like the Scots. The Britons actually came from the southern parts of Great Britain, which isn’t actually a country but just one of The British Isles. And so it goes, an endless confusion of geography, history and politics. 

If I live in France, I’m French (unless I was born somewhere else). Germany, German......etc

but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland means I’m British. Why can we not just have a nationality linked semantically to our country? My vote goes for Uckers. I mean what could go wrong with that?

Anyway attempting to stay on subject, the plane fits the joke perfectly.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.