Talk:Air transport of the British royal family and government

This title, whilst not perfect, was arrived at after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Force One and Talk:Air transports of Heads of State. Please discuss any change of name here before making it. Thank you Mark83 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Propose changing "executive" to "government"

"Executive" is a US term not really used in the UK. "Government" is what is being referred to and would make the article title more accurate. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I wholly disagree that executive is "a US term not really used in the UK." Mark83 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "executive of the United Kingdom" is not a commonly-used one. If we mean Her Majesty's Government, then call it that, IMHO. Letdorf (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Cost data of royal air travel

The expenses of royal air travel seem to be of a great deal of interest, particularly to the British media. The expense account has been posted on their web site for the last four years. Particularly the perceived need for a dedicated jet. The issue with helicopter travel seemed to particularly resonate in the media. I think that people would be interested in where the money goes.Pacomartin (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate you coming to the talk page but you should not really re-add contested content until a consensus is met (refer Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). What may of interest to the British media is not always encyclopedic, a long list of journeys and their cost is not really necessarily. Some of what was added was unreferenced and some of it was opinion. I have no objection to a smaller referenced section discussing the cost and the media reaction but listing the indiviudal costs is not really needed just a link out to the relevant government report whould do. Remember this is an encyclopedia and we also have to give a balanced and neutral view of the information and use only report factual information. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I put the data back in, but I tried to edit it to make it shorter. Since the larger BAE jets used in the squadron are coming to the end of their life, the question of their ultimate replacement is of a great deal of interest. The United Kingdom is one of the few world powers without dedicated aircraft for their head of state and head of government. I thought that the section about "who is using the helicopter" would be of general interest. If your problem is with the numbers then perhaps I should eliminate them.Pacomartin (talk)

I made a concentrated effort to reduce the section to as small as seems practical. It conveys who is doing the travelling and gives a good idea of relative costs without digging into the details as much. The cost of PM air travel is higher than that of the royal family, but I don't know where that is posted.Pacomartin (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Still think you have to much fine detail for an encyclopedic article, I will have a closer look and see what can be done. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, going into great detail about the operations and finances of Royal Family travel arrangements over the last few years (even with reliable sources) probably counts as undue weight in this article. Letdorf (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

It seems to me that this topic is of huge interest in the media, but I will just add the breakdown in the discussion section. If someone else feels it is of general interest, maybe they can add their two cents and they can put it back into the general article. Every other head of state in Europe has a Gulfstream or an Airbus corporate jet for travel. UK is the only major power that seems to rely on this kind of constant chartering. The senior ministers also charter a large number of jets.

• £162,703: Princess Anne went to Central and South America: Scheduled flight plus chartered a jet.
• £735,000: Prince Andrew made 11 trips to countries beyond the range of the military jets using scheduled and charter aircraft.
• £266,125: Prince of Wales made a visit to the Caribbean. Scheduled flight plus chartered a yacht.
• £316,061: Prince of Wales made a formal visit to Uganda and Turkey on a chartered flight.
• £135,200: The Queen visit to Uganda on a charter flight.
• £381,813: The Queen state visit to USA on a charter flight.
• £375,358: Short charters, short scheduled flights, and staff trips.

Pacomartin (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever put all those ridiculous {{cite}} tags. All the financial information comes from the same source that leads off the article (reference 15). Isn't that obvious?Pacomartin (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added some additional refs directly from the report rather than the covering website. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of the itemization back in FY2005 would be to highlight that the considerable expenses of the helicopter are to serve the extended royal family, and not primarily The Queen. The fact that she was only on 3 of the 105 itemized helicopter flights seems important to me. I don't think media criticism would be as sharp if The Queen was flying about in her helicopter. The POTUS routinely uses helicopters to go 10 miles, since it is easier than worrying about ground security for a motorcade. The media criticsm was more against the children, the wives, and the cousins.However you keep deleting this comment.Pacomartin (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears (by bolding) that you are trying to make a WP:POINT but really it is not relevant none of the references say that the royal travel is just for the Queen. It is just another detail that is not encyclopedic. Your conclusion on why itemization was introduced is not reliable sourced just a guess on your part. You need to explain and provide references why only three out of the 105 heli flights being used by the Queen was important. You dont know that the other hundred shorter flights were not undertaken by the Queen which is adding undue weight to what is original research. The conclusion is more likely that the Queen does not use helicopters for longer flights as she prefers the train or a fixed wing flight to a nearer airport first then perhaps a heli flight. The fact she also goes more mob handed than some of the other users is also a factor. So unless you can provide some reliable sources to back up your comments then it can not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pacomartin, it does look like you may be trying to make some kind of point about the expenses incurred by the royal family. I respectfully suggest you read the WP policies WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV. Also, details of rail or sea travel are not really appropriate in this article. Letdorf (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

Actually I think I am doing the opposite of a WP:SOAPBOX. Virtually, every country of even middle income has a full size jet, or a modern ocean crossing business jet for use by senior government officials or monarchs. UK has one of the world's largest economies, and the best known and best travelled monarchs. Yet they have a collection of small aging regional jets operated by the RAF. I was trying to convey in a factual way, what the royal family does to function without dedicated long distance aircraft. The purchase of an American helicopter by The Queen was of a great deal of interest, as was the decision to purchase British helicopters for the new version of Marine One by the POTUS. Since TQHF is a substantial portion of travel costs, I thought that it was worth mentioning who is using the helo (to the extent that this information is released). In previous years, the prince(ss) sometimes flew to a remote city like Beijing, and were followed by the RAF aircraft which had to make at least one or two refueling stops. The RAF jet shuttled them around from point to point. Now they seem to prefer chartering a local smaller fixed wing jet. The question of security also seems to be of some interest. Presuming that a jet charter company does not have the security features of dedicated aircraft, it is possible that the princes are vulnerable to terrorist actions.Pacomartin (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You may have some interesting points, but editors have to be very careful not to express opinion or editorialize on WP. Also some more citations to back up your assertions would be good. Letdorf (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC).

Presumably all the figures in the prose and table about costs are in £m rather than just £ as £2.60 for royal travel would be an incredible bargain for a single trip, let alone a whole years worth! Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

RAF BAe 146s

As far as I know, this is the history of the BAe 146 in RAF service: during 1983-84, two BAe 146-100s, ZD695 (c/n E1004) [1] and ZD696 (c/n E1005) [2], designated BAe 146 CC1 (or possibly BAe 146 C1) by the RAF, [3] were evaluated by 240 OCU for potential use by The Queen's Flight.[4]

Subsequently, in 1986 two VIP-configured BAe 146-100s (sometimes referred to as the BAe 146 Statesman variant, though I suspect the Statesman name was only introduced by BAe for VIP-configured 146s later), ZE700 (c/n E1021) [5] [6] and ZE701 (c/n E1029) [7] [8] [9] were procured for TQF. These were joined by a third VIP BAe 146-100, ZE702 (c/n E1124) [10] [11] in 1991. All three were designated BAe 146 CC2 in RAF service. ZE702 was subsequently disposed of in 2002, becoming G-CBXY [12] and later, PK-OSP. ZE700 and 701 continue in service with 32 (TR) Sqn.

So, to summarize, there were two aircraft used for evaluation purposes, a total of three have seen service with TQF and 32 Sqn, and all are -100 variants. Letdorf (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

A couple of minor corrections to the above from the August 1983 issue of Air International: ZD695/696 were designated BAe 146 C.1, and they were operated by 241 OCU (the VC10 OCU), not 240. Letdorf (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

Charter jets and the Environment

This section is written in an editorial and discursive style. In particular there are no citations to explain the relevance of the "motor yacht Leander" or the Piaggio P180 to the subject of this article. As I've said before, WP is not a place to speculate, hypothesize or express opinions.Letdorf (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

I have limited this section so that it only reflects opinions expressed in the news article.Pacomartin (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a definite improvement. You obviously have a great interest in the general travel arrangements and funding of the Royal Family - have you considered creating a new article which would be a more appropriate place to go into greater detail on these topics? Letdorf (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

Proposed split

I propose the section "Cost of Royal Travel" to be split into a separate article as the size of the section, level of detail and scope of the section would appear to constitute undue weight and recentism. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

As a counterproposal, I suggest that you remove sections from the cost that you think give it undue weight. I have endeavored to keep the comments short as per your suggestion from two years ago. Since the RAF jets were only used for 2 out of roughly 200 flights last fiscal year, the charters (including the long term helicopter lease) are essentially the entire present day topic. So the entire article will be about history if you remove the cost data.It may also make sense to remove the endless history about plans to purchase dedicated aircraft. Since none of these have come to fruition, it remains dead beauracratic history. I will shorten the cost data so that only the most recent year applies.Pacomartin (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose split just need to cut out all the non-notable detail, list of individual journeys are just not encyclopedic and should be just a short summary of the cost and types of journey. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose split. I have endeavored to cut it back the text so that it contains the essence of the cost drivers. It acknowledges charges of overspending by Republican organizations without giving them undue weight in the article. Since the Royal Air Force only did two flights for the royal family this fiscal year, it may be down to zero next year. Also the VIP planes may be retired from the RAF due to age. At that point, that whole discussion can move to the history section. I suspect there will be a renewed call by the Royal Household to purchase a secondary air vehicle (either another helicopter or a small jet).Pacomartin (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

and government

Any reason why the article makes no real mention of the government? MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/bae146/bae1465.html

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Captain of the King's/Queen's Flight

A provisional list:

• 1936-1962: Air Vice-Marshal Sir Edward Hedley Fielden, GCVO, CB, DFC, AFC (later Senior Air Equerry to the Queen, 1962-1969)
• 1962-1964: Air Commodore Sir Arthur Dennis Mitchell, KBE, CVO, DFC*, AFC
• 1965-1967: Air Commodore John Hubert Lempriere Blount, DFC
• 1968-1982: Air Commodore Sir Archibald Little Winskill, KCVO, CBE, DFC*, AE
• 1982-1989: Air Vice-Marshal Sir John de Milt Severne, KCVO, OBE, AFC
• 1989-1995: Air Commodore The Hon. Sir Timothy Charles Elworthy, KCVO, CBE

Deputy Captains:

• 1956-1959: Air Commodore Sir Arthur Dennis Mitchell, KBE, CVO, DFC*, AFC
• 1960-1962: Air Chief Marshal Sir Thomas Neville Stack, KCB, CVO, CBE, AFC
• 1960-1963: Air Commodore James Wallace, DSO, MVO, DFC, AFC
• ??
• 1969-1972: Air Vice-Marshal Sir Richard Charles Fairfax Peirse, KCVO, CB
• ??
• 1975-1976: Air Vice-Marshal James Donald Spottiswood, CB, CVO, AFC

CO

• 1950-1953: Group Captain Roy Charles Edwin Scott, CBE, MVO, AFC*
• 1953-1956: Group Captain John Evelyn Grindon, CVO, DSO, AFC
• ??
• 1960-1963: Air Vice-Marshall Donald Laurence Attlee, CB, LVO, DL

The sources are Who's Who/Who Was Who, except for Blount (for him, see [13] and e.g. [14]) —Noswall59 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC).

Merger proposal

I propose to merge RAF Voyager (VIP Transport) into Air transport of the British royal family and government. I think that the content in the RAF Voyager (VIP Transport) article can easily be explained in the context of Air transport of the British royal family and government, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging of [RAF Voyager (VIP Transport) will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Furthermore the information is repetitive and we have now have articles on RAF Voyager (VIP Transport), Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and AirTanker Services which is too disparate, potentially confusing and adds to maintenance requirement of articles. Mark83 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal. I think we should keep the article and instead link and refer to the article wherever this is mentioned. Mostly for two reasons: (1) There is significant interest surrounding air transport of heads of states, and the UK PM is no different. This article can provide a wealth of detail (and history as time goes on) whereas the current mentions of the plane are brief at best. (2) Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and AirTanker Services could probably be merged, given they concern the same thing: air-to-air refueling tankers for the UK. However, this particular VIP transport plane is different and will becoming increasingly different as Boris Johnson appears to be keen on making it solely for the purpose of VIP transport. CityPride (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I respectfully disagree. On point (1), there is nothing that can't be covered here. It's not like the article is getting too big. If we did merge and found the content on ZZ336 was getting too large we could split it out in the future. But I just don't see it. If you look at the article for Boeing VC-25 it is not large at all, and the text covers the large history and bespoke development of a unique aircraft. That's not the case here. (2) Not opposed to having that conversation, but it is a separate issue. Admittedly I brought it up, but I was making a wider point.Mark83 (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Greg. I see your points as well. One more point I would like to add is that especially after the BoJo repaint, this will truly be a unique plane and will be visible all over the world, and will garner attention (unlike before, when it was indistinguishable among other Voyagers). However, I'll leave it up to you and the rest of the community to decide how to move forward on this. While on a personal nerdy level I would love to see the page stay and grow as more details and history builds, I guess this can happen within the air transport page as well.CityPride (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Merge: no reason for a separate article!!--Petebutt (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Merge looks like recentism and looks about enough material for a paragraph or two in a more comprehensive article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

PS If it is retained, I don't know what the article title should be but not the current one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Merge Material works better in historical context. Not enough content to justify own page. Agree the name of this page is cumbersome. David Crayford ☎ 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't merge. This article is about the various organisations, regiments, squadrons involved in conveying the personages from place to place. The individual aircraft should be given their own articles, just as we did for Boeing_VC-25 and Commando (aircraft). Similarly RAF_Voyager_(VIP_Transport) should retain its own article. It's a specific aircraft - registration number ZZ336 in fact - and as such will have a home base, decor, flight characteristics, livery, and so on. Merging it to this is not a good idea. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It's part of a contracted fleet, if AirTanker desired, the seating etc will be pulled out of ZZ336 and put into one of the other aircraft.[15]GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is true but it still makes ZZ336 unique - given its primary role of being VIP transport for the PM and Royal Family, and given its unique livery (which makes it less suitable for military use - and will definitely attract attention). We have articles for other planes like Japan Air Force One or Air Force 3701, no reason the UK shouldn't have one. Attention on this one specific plane has grown significantly in recent days and weeks. Check this out - they gave the plane an official name: https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/vip-raf-voyager-ready-for-global-role/ CityPride (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The ten Short Belfasts and the Vickers VC-10 in RAF service all had names. GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Also the Boeing Poseidon MRA1s. Mark83 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The difference between ZZ336 and VC-25s is that the latter are aircraft that are highly customised and unique. ZZ336 is very ordinary in the sense that it's 1 if 14 with just different seats fitted and now a different livery. The large amount of content in the VC-25 article will never be replicated in any article on ZZ336 to anything like the same extent, therefore it can be part of the merged article.Mark83 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the ZZ336 article will be expanded to your satisfaction over time and the "Commando" aircraft article offers proof of that. But the question is not how big the ZZ336 article is, the question os whether it should be merged into this article. This article is obviously an umbrella article that covers many things: various organisations, regiments, squadrons, etc. ZZ336 is a specific aircraft and - as such - should have its own article, for exactly the same reason that the "Commando" aircraft has its own article. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Not the best example - the vast majority of that article is notable simply because the aircraft crashed and will hopefully never be replicated in any article about ZZ336. (i.e. I say hopefully because I hope that aircraft has a long and relatively uneventful service history). The article could easily be rewritten/restructured to address your later concerns mentioned above.Mark83 (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Merge: Relevant content can go in the Royal Air Force and Air transport of the British royal family and government articles without the need for this one. Cloudbound (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Majority in favour of merging. Having now completed the merger, the amount of duplication in both proved the point to my mind. But of course, happy to work with everyone to ensure the merger is successful. Mark83 (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1 JS214180508.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This image has been deleted. Mark83 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Cost of Voyager paint job

It didn't cost 900K to repaint! That would have been the cost of the overall service / check, and the repaint was probably due anyway. So the incremental cost was probably very small. Unfortunately I have no sources with which to make an edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.130 (talk • contribs) 27 June 2020 11:33 (UTC)

Replying to unsigned comment. Agreed, but we need a source. Mark83 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Engine850 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Apologies, I am no expert on 'talk' pages. The original source for the cost were simply newspaper articles written by left wing journalists, a particularly unreliable source, it is common knowledge amongst serving, and retired Royal Air Force personal that this was scheduled maintenance, this is why it took place so long after Boris originally wanted it done, to reduce the costs, as the airframe had to be stripped, inspected and NDT checks c/o anyway.

You're no expert on Wikipedia policies either. You removed cited material from a reliable source - sky news, not a left wing newspaper. I happen to believe you are right, that the 900k included more than paint. But to be very clear the RAF reference you added does not say that. It also doesn’t mention 900k. So all you have done is damage the accuracy and verifiability of this article. Find an article that startes the 900k includes all you say it does. Until then you can’t use a reference which DOES not say any of that because of knowledge you have personally and have not proved with verifiable sources. Mark83 (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. The language I have stricken out is impolite and I withdraw it.Mark83 (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither Sky News, or any of the left wing newspapers are reliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Engine850 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 June 2020(UTC)

Please stop removing verifiable material. Your sources do not cover what you say. The inference that the livery change is part of the 2015 refit is original research. Your judgement on Sky News is irrelevant. Also you removed reference from the BBC and the Daily Telegraph. How does the latter fit in with your self-imposed "left wing" ban.Mark83 (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

NO, IT IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/vip-raf-voyager-ready-for-global-role/ "The paintwork concludes a refurbishment stemming from the 2015 SDSR." the cost of this was ALREADY referred to previously in the article with a reference to the MOD costing of £10,000,000 TOTAL for the refurbishment (read the article above with the links about the cost and who was doing it). My links were to verifiable sources from the Royal Air Force stating that the the TOTAL cost was within the original budget. Please stop removing my Ministry of Defence and Royal Air Force links and sources, they are far more accurate than newspapers. Nobody denies the respray cost 900k, but what everybody is ignoring, is the fact this was already planned (although it was originally supposed to be just grey) it is probably impossible to accurately quote the cost of the union jack instead of the grey, but I know from personal experience, that these resprays cost almost £1,000,000 anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Engine850 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a tenable argument.

• You are suggesting that a refurbishment announced in 2015 and completed in 2016 (go back and read the references to confirm COMPLETION) is only just being finished in 2020! That is not accurate. The RAF reference itself says ""This project was a privilege to have been involved in and I am delighted to have seen it delivered so quickly and efficiently, together with our industry partners." which clearly shows this to be a separate contract. If it took them over 5 years to respray it they wouldn't be claiming it was quick and efficient.
• It also doesn't mention "£10,000,000 TOTAL for the refurbishment" as you claim. That was the previously announced and completed spend. Mark83 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what it says "The paintwork concludes a refurbishment stemming from the 2015 SDSR." Having spent 35 years in the Royal Air Force or as a civilian contractor for it (it's all I have done my entire life) that is how these things work, the money would have been allocated during the SDSR, the maintenance, upgrade and respray was planned back in 2015, the only change, instead of the planned grey respray, it got the new scheme instead, https://i2.wp.com/ukaviation.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Voyager-Plan.jpg the cost difference would have been negligible. The reason many thought the flag 'backwards' is because the nose of the aircraft is the 'pole' not the fin, as everyone seems to think, we always did it that way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Engine850 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You ignored my point, The RAF reference itself says ""This project was a privilege to have been involved in and I am delighted to have seen it delivered so quickly and efficiently, together with our industry partners." which clearly shows this to be a separate contract. If it took them over 5 years to respray it they wouldn't be claiming it was quick and efficient. You are leaning on your personal experience to interpret a press release how you wish to. That is contrary to Wikipedia:No_original_research. Please also see that page for preference of newspapers over primary sources. The 900k is clearly addtional spend and I'm not willing to let this disinformation stand unless you can prove it's part of the £10m from 2015/16. All the (preferred) sources say it's additional spend. Mark83 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we can be sure that the £900k is "new money". I've done some further digging and in a House of Commons answer in 2016, in response to questions about the late 2015 announcement of a £10 mil refit by the Cameron era government, the minister at the time (Philip Dunne) stated there was no intention to change the aircraft's livery [16]. So the refit was announced and funded in 2015, completed in 2016 at which time there was no intention to repaint the aircraft. In 2018 the then Foreign Sec complained about the colour and it never being available to him. 2 years later he's PM and some budget is found to repaint the aircraft. Both the PM's spokesperson and the Minister of State for Defence are on record as saying the paint cost £900K and that is what the press have reported. There has been no official mention of any maintenance checks being funded from that £900k as they are already covered by the annual payments to Air Tanker, as indeed would be a fresh coat of grey paint. Skenu (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"The RAF says that repainting was part of a larger refurbishment effort that came about as a result of the U.K. government's 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, but it remains unclear if it had already been paid for through previous contracts" https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34368/behold-the-controversial-1-1m-paint-job-on-the-united-kingdoms-version-of-air-force-one . .

"Secondly, the total cost is reported to include additional maintenance that will have taken place while the aircraft was at the facility. The Voyager is likely to have undergone a D-check, which is required to take place every six to ten years. The maintenance visit is one of the most thorough and demanding for an aircraft. In most cases the paint must be removed so the skin can be inspected for and damage. Therefore, it’s likely that a D-check was completed during the jet’s visit to the paint shop. When considering all these factors, the price of £900,000 for a repaint is a little misleading. Taking into account all the other work that is reported to have taken place goes some way to explaining the large figure." https://www.key.aero/article/why-boris-johnsons-jet-cost-ps900000-paint

"The VIP Voyager aircraft's primary role remains Air-to-Air refuelling, and it remains available to meet a range of operational commitments. The aircraft is already used to fly senior Government Ministers and members of the Royal Family on official business. The new livery better reflects this prestigious task, however, if required, the aircraft can be returned quickly to a more traditional military livery, the costs for which are marginal and absorbed within the overall Voyager running costs." https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-questions-answers/?dept=11&house=commons%2Clords&max=100&page=1&questiontype=AllQuestions

"The move to paint the aircraft in a bespoke livery has come under intense criticism, as the new paint job is reported to have cost £900,000. A significant amount of that sum, however, does include regular maintenance and what is believed to be some ‘military upgrades" . . https://www.ifn.news/posts/united-kingdom-unveils-new-livery-on-government-airbus-a330-mrtt/

The link concerning the change of livery is irrelevant, all that proves is that back in 2015 they planned to paint it grey, my point is, the respray was planned, previous mentions that a respray cannot take 5 years is a stupid comment to be honest, these things are planned years in advance, money is allocated, all that happened here, is that Boris decided, as it was getting painted anyway, why not do something different, the RAF statement, The statement in the House of Lords and the simple fact that it has been a minimum of 6 years since a previous and every aerospace engineer in the world knows (as the link points out) aircraft are painted every 5 years proves the point . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engine850 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

All you have done here is provide references which state that there is no proof that the £900k was included in the original £10m. So why on earth would you edit the article again to say it was!Mark83 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have given you a comprehensive list of evidence, all traceable, from the MOD to the RAF, that proves beyond doubt it was part of a much larger project, yet you still keep referring to ridiculous newspaper stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engine850 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There are repeated statements from Defence ministers to the House of Commons and / or Lords in the period 2016-2018 that say that ZZ336 will not have its livery changed due to its role is a tanker. I'd suggest these are a primary source and more reliable than press releases and, given that ministerial answers in the house are often obscure but very very rarely actually lies it seems clear there was no intention in 2016/17 when this project happened that they were going to change the colours.Skenu (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Engine850 - Can you please direct me to the Wikipedia policy which allows you to dismiss references as "ridiculous" just because they don't fit with your narrative? I have no doubt you are coming at this from a well-intentioned position, but Wikipedia requires that content is fact-based, verifiable, and not original research. The references you have provided up until this point do not state that the recently-reported £900k is part of the £10m work completed in 2016. You are inferring what you want from the references you are presenting, i.e. original research. Mark83 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As stated before, this is NOT personal research, the sources clearly state this involves other maintenance work and was part of the original schedule, which yes, does take years to plan, budget and complete, The MOD, RAF, Parliament, and various aerospace sources are considerably more accurate and reliable than the left wing rags you are using as sources. Your lack of knowledge of everything aerospace does not excuse you from knowing that all airframes of this type are resprayed every 5 years, that alone, would force anyone of industry knowledge to admit this was a scheduled respray, they simply changed the colour scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engine850 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Left wing rags" is ridiculous. For that everyone should read 'sources you don't agree with'. Also laughable is your patronising suggestion that everyone with less than your self-professed knowledge should back down. Wikipedia isn't written with the assumption of knowledge - it's written with the basis of verifiable sources. To further disprove your original research see this months Air Forces Monthly:

"Ultimately, most concern centred on the cost of the endeavour - a reported £900,000. While it was confirmed in parliament that this included "related costs", it is unclear exactly what these were. Since the Voyager fleet is operated under a [PFI] with AirTanker, costs of routine maintenance, for example, should be built into the existing deal." Mark83 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Your constant replacement of Ministry of Defence, Royal Air Force, UK Parliament, Aviation specialist opinions sources with blogs and newspapers to support your political opinion is simply not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engine850 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To add, I fail to see why you seem unable to comprehend this statement ny the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force . . "The aircraft, known as Vespina and also often referred to as 'ZZ336' which is its military registration number, was previously visually indistinguishable from the rest of the Operational Voyager Fleet. This external paint scheme will better reflect its VIP mission and contribution to ‘Global Britain’. The paintwork concludes a refurbishment stemming from the 2015 SDSR" the link to this source I have posted several times . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engine850 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Because your interpreting that to mean the cost was included in the £10m spent in 2015/2016. Read Wikipedia:No original research, which states that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. In this case the MoD has an interest in not fully disclosing the cost of the new livery. It also lists the most reliable sources:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian are mainstream newspapers. Sky News is also widely recognised as a reliable source. And Air Forces Monthly, quoted above, is a specialist aviation source which makes my point: "Ultimately, most concern centred on the cost of the endeavour - a reported £900,000. While it was confirmed in parliament that this included "related costs", it is unclear exactly what these were. Since the Voyager fleet is operated under a [PFI] with AirTanker, costs of routine maintenance, for example, should be built into the existing deal."

As an aside, please sign your talk page comments using ~~~~ (or the Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~ 'button'). Also please use edit summaries. It's good practice in general, but especially necessary when reverting and when involved in contentious issues.Mark83 (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well this back and forth on the question of was the change in paint scheme funded in 2015 trundles on. I really have read all the supplied references and none of them say the £900K was allocated in 2015. I've also read the plenty of source material that says there was no intention of repainting the aircraft in a distinctive colour scheme back then. For instance in Feb 2017 (well after the 2015-2016 refit was complete) Conservative peer Lord Blencathra asked the Conservative govt if they will paint the aircraft in something other than "sky camouflage grey" and was told "There are no plans to repaint the Voyager aircraft, as its primary role remains the provision of military air-to-air refuelling capability." <ref>https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2017-02-06/HL5237/</ref> Other parliamentarians asked similar questions and were given the same answer. If there really was a plan in 2015 to change the paint scheme, they would have said so. They didn't and there wasn't and ergo the budget was not allocated in 2015. Skenu (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"The paintwork concludes a refurbishment stemming from the 2015 SDSR" is clearly stated by the RAF and the MOD. NOWHERE does it state that ADDITIONAL funds were required or added. Nobody is claiming that the colour change was planned in 2015, but a Major overhaul was (this includes a respray), therefore already budgeted for, at the 2015 review, the budget for the inflight contract would have been agreed for all airframes, all costs included. All they did in 2020 was change the respray colour choice. — Engine850 (talk 23:35, 22 Aug 2020 (UTC)

So AirTanker paid for the design and necessary checks? How public spirited of them. Mark83 (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

What checks would they be ?? The design cost is negligible, the actual respray and maint is already paid for, as proven a dozen times, and included in the almost £400 million a year paid to AirTanker. Engine850 (talk 21:35, 23 Aug 2020 (UTC)

I think you're arguing against your own point there. If this was part of the ongoing costs, or costs previously allocated, the government would have said that there was 'no additional cost'. It politically it makes no sense for them to say it's £900K if it is already paid for because that makes them look profligate. Ref your second point, you wonder what checks or work there may be to reach that cost, I appreciate you say you were in the Air Force and may know this but there is a detailed certification requirements for paint colours. This is due to the vulnerability of the structure to damage due to the thermal characteristics; less of an issue for an aluminium aircraft on the ramp at Brize Norton, big issue for composite structure in the Middle East and it is very sensitive to variations in paint colour. Air Tanker's contract has performance guarantees for a specific configuration of aircraft in a specific colour scheme over a very long period of time. This colour change varies that contract and if I was the contractor I would want to be absolutely certain it wouldn't affect contract delivery and inadvertently trigger penalty clauses in 15 years time. This could include getting expert opinion, structural testing, digital modelling or all of them and a chunk of cash into an insurance pot. Add in a quick flight test to ensure you don't get blinding reflections that affect the tanking role and the total adds up very quickly. And of course maintaining a VIP colour scheme is likely to cost more than a standard one. People notice when bits are dirty, or peel off or get dinged by the baggage truck and so the ongoing maintenance cost (wrapped into the contract variation) will probably be higher, again this is a fixed contract being varied and so the costs are very high. Honestly having seen how much manufacturers charge for this sort of consulting I'm actually surprised it's not more than £900K. Of course none of that could be the case and all the money could have been spent on fluffy cushions for the sofa and restocking the booze cabinet. We don't know because the contract isn't published, but what IS published is that in 2020 the aircraft was repainted and the design and paint cost £900K. Skenu (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Whilst some of what you say is correct, there are no 'detailed certification requirements' certain checks are required, but this was a pretty standard colour scheme for this aircraft type, so nobody had to 'test' if white was suitable for an airliner, ergo, it was very straightforward (you're correct, I have been involved in various display aircraft colour schemes, so know more than the 'average joe'), weight is far more critical. "Air Tanker's contract has performance guarantees for a specific configuration of aircraft in a specific colour scheme" no, it doesn't, the colour scheme is not part of the contract. They are contracted to supply and maintain the aircraft, if the MOD said paint them all purple, then they would (pending the usual checks). The £900k is still not in dispute, and that was the cost, everyone agrees, but the RAF and MOD stated it was part of the SDSR, that is the budget for the RAF for the next 10 years or so (from 2015), ZERO additional funding was requested, or they would have to publish the request. Engine850 (talk 10:00, 25 Aug 2020 (UTC)

Engine850 you continue to claim both that this money was allocated 5 years previously but there really isn't any evidence that this was the case. You've been shown plenty of contemporaneous sources which said there was no intention to change the colour scheme. Your interpretation of the various summer 2020 post-hoc descriptions for the work is that somehow there was money put aside in 2015 for something no one intended to do which is utterly improbable. I can't see us agreeing on this issue and the constant back and forth edits are bad for page stability. Can I suggest we remove this section and simply say what can be agreed on which is that in 2020 the aircraft was repainted at the cost of £900,000. Skenu (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement from the MOD and RAF was clear 'The paintwork concludes a refurbishment stemming from the 2015 SDSR' perhaps you are unaware, but it is common knowledge, budgets are set and paid for 10 years in advance, included in the 2015 SDSR was the budget for the Voyager fleet, this incorporates all maintenance. 5 yearly resprays are part of that budget, they simply used a different colour scheme for a scheduled respray, and that is the reason no additional funding was required. If additional funding was required, they would have had to make it public knowledge as required by law. Engine850 (talk 14.43, 12 Oct 2020 (UTC)

And yet that isn't the case The timeline is clear, in 2015/16 the budget was set for the refurb at which time there was no intention to paint the aircraft in different colours. In 2020 the aircraft was painted and oooo look here is RAF air command in a letter setting out that it cost an additional £900,000 because of the design, certification and paint " The total cost of the new livery was around £900k which represented good value for the taxpayer as it included detailed design work, certified engineering drawings and buying specialist paint and preparing the facilities to repaint the aircraft." Skenu (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

That FOI finally clears this up. Thank you. @Engine850 - that you still are saying things like “ perhaps you are unaware, but it is common knowledge” is proof of the lack of verifiability of what you’ve been adding to this page all along Mark83 (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, Skenu's response is nonsense, the SDSR was NOT a budget for a refurb, it was the budget for the ENTIRE ROYAL AIR FORCE FLEET, thats what a defence review is. The email reinforces earlier statements, that the Aircraft had never been painted and therefore would have been due to be repainted anyway. Nobody ever claimed it did not cost £900k, what is disputed is did it require additional funding, NOWHERE in that email does it state additional funding was required, in fact it specifically confirms exactly what I've said "The repaint of this aircraft would have happened, at some point, but would otherwise have been repainted in the same colours as previously." all they did, what paint it a different colour, the MOD parted with no further cash. Engine850 (talk 23:58, 20 Oct 2020 (UTC)

Just to summarize, everyone agrees that it cost £900k to paint, industry experts agreed that it was due a respray anyway, and this was confirmed by the FOI request, both the RAF and the MOD have stated that the cost stemmed from the SDSR (MOD budget for 2015-2025) so no additional funding was required, but Skenu and Mark think that the RAF and the MOD are lying, the industry experts are wrong, the FOI request is also wrong (in stating that the aircraft was due a respray anyway) and the Government MUST have wasted £900k and given extra money to the MOD on top of the £350 BILLION+ that the MOD already had been given in the 2015 SDSR . . doesn't sound likely. Engine850 (talk 00:58, 21 Oct 2020 (UTC)

Nobody here has said the government "wasted" £900,000. I and others have said the government has spent £900,000, I'm sure I don't need to point out that one implies a value judgement on the activity and by extension the authors perspective on it while the other merely reports the facts. I probably also don't need to remind you that it was you, Engine850, who suggested that this was funded in the SDSR of 2015 so I fail to see why my pointing out what was allocated in 2015 (and that this did not include painting the aircraft) is in any way nonsense. I have no doubt the MOD has simply reallocated funding from somewhere else to enable this repaint to occur and in the grand scheme of the MOD budget it is a trivial sum. But that doesn't mean it didn't involve additional payment from the government to contractors to carry out an activity over and above that which was already contracted. To suggest, as you have done on 20 Oct that the contractors have; designed, certificated and carried out the repaint of this aircraft in a novel colour scheme without seeking additional payment for that work is improbable and, given the evidence, incorrect. Skenu (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You stated "in 2015/16 the budget was set for the refurb at which time there was no intention to paint the aircraft in different colours." and you are correct, although it was 2015 not 2016, the £10 million refurb was a single, 1 off payment to convert the aircraft for secondary use as a transport. And that is maybe where the apparent confusion stems from. The SDSR was NOTHING to do with the refurb, it was the 5 yearly budget set by the Government, 2015/2016 for the MOD to allocate to the 3 services, it covers EVERYTHING, every round of ammunition, every rifle, every aircraft, part of that budget is the contract for the voyager fleet, that includes all maintenance, groudcrew, fuel etc, everything, which would include a respray every 5 years during a major overhaul (standard for all aircraft of this type). That is what both the MOD and the RAF have stated in the press release, 'the respray stemmed from the SDSR budget' the 'normal' grey respray that would have taken place, as scheduled and confirmed in the FOI request, was simply replaced with a white respray. Yes, it likely cost slightly more, as someone had to design it, and that extra money was likely diverted from elsewhere, but it would have been 'tens of thousands' extra, nowhere near the entire cost of £900k. We used to produce multiple display paint jobs each year, for fast jets, it's a big job, lots of trials to ensure visibility etc. However, painting an airliner white, as I'm sure you know yourself, is very straightforward, it's been done, a million times before, and we already had several similar schemes available. I suspect, it went something like this 'why can't we paint it white with a union jack?' and the answer (eventually) would have come back from the RAF 'we're gonna paint it anyway in a couple of years time, if you can wait until then, the cost difference will be negligible . . . '

The links I have posted clearly substantiate this, from both RAF, MOD (who don't lie) and various expert aviation opinions, and that is all that I have stated, supported by facts, on the page. Just stating 'it cost £900k' is extremely inaccurate and misleading, and it's exactly what the press and any opposition to the project was trying to achieve with all the 'clickbait' headlines. Engine850 (talk 00:19, 22 Oct 2020 (UTC)

The argument has become somewhat circular. For anyone just reading back (citations all in the above paragraphs): It has been argued that this painting did not cost £900k and that this must include service costs or something else. Indeed shortly after the repaint some publications, trying to explain the apparently extraordinary costs, said they thought as much. However, it has become clear from the MOD and RAF that the paint scheme, design, certification and application did indeed cost £900k and no other work was included. I appreciate people may not believe that it could cost 900k when they compare it to other aircraft repaints in other circumstances but the UK tanker project of a leased, civil owned, capability with a complex contract specifying very tight performance requirements is unusual. Contract variations are seriously expensive in part because they have large penalty clauses and a 20 year legacy, in part because you have no competition for the work and in part because bits falling off your head of state / tanker aircraft because you've specified the wrong paint for political reasons is seriously embarrassing and yes that has happened though not to the UK. It was then argued that the cost was irrelevant because it had been allocated and held in a budget from the 2015 SDSR. However the many questions and answers in parliament and elsewhere between 2015 and 2020 show that there was no intention to repaint the aircraft in any other colour scheme than original grey therefore the money could not have been previously allocated. Thus the cost and times are clear. In late 2019/early 2020 for various reasons it was decided to repaint this aircraft into a unique colour scheme. The aircraft owners were asked to vary the lease contract to enable this to happen and a price of c£900,000 was agreed. The money was spent, the aircraft was repainted and here we are. Skenu (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You continue to post the same things, without evidence, using the same link, to the same email THAT EMAIL DOES NOT STATE THAT ANY MORE MONEY WAS ALOCATED. FACT, I have provided multiple, creditable sources stating clearly, that the money was already allocated during the 2015 SDSR, and that NO FURTHER MONEY WAS ALLOCATED. Again, and why I have to keep repeating the same thing is beyond me, NOBODY is denying the cost of the respray, I know how much it cost, I know how its done, I HAVE DONE IT MYSELF. What I am telling you, and again, this is backed up by various, credible sources, is that the respray was planned already, the only change, was the colour or the paint. Please do NOT keep posting newspaper blogs and personal, political, opinions. Engine850 (talk 13:01, 21 Jan 2021 (UTC)

No you haven't. You are inferring, i.e. original research. And you are dismissing accurate sources that meet the Wikipedia standard for reliability as per Wikipedia policies simply because you don't agree. That's not how Wikipedia (or society in general) works. The fact that you are putting in caps "I have done it myself" is proof you are leaning on your own knowledge/opinion rather than verifiable facts. You are being disruptive. A consensus has been reached. We can go for a Request for Comment if you want? But in the meantime respect the consensus and leave this part of the article how it is please. Mark83 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am simply repeating facts, as they are 100% reliable sources, the MOD, RAF and Government, you continue to post the same things, without evidence, using the same link, to the same email THAT EMAIL DOES NOT STATE THAT ANY MORE MONEY WAS ALOCATED. FACT, I have provided multiple, creditable sources stating clearly, that the money was already allocated during the 2015 SDSR, and that NO FURTHER MONEY WAS ALLOCATED. Again, and why I have to keep repeating the same thing is beyond me, NOBODY is denying the cost of the respray, I know how much it cost, I know how its done, I HAVE DONE IT MYSELF. What I am telling you, and again, this is backed up by various, credible sources, is that the respray was planned already, the only change, was the colour or the paint. Please do NOT keep posting newspaper blogs and personal, political, opinions. To add . . "if there's a way of doing it that is not exorbitantly expensive" Boris Johnson . . "The paintwork concludes a refurbishment stemming from the 2015 SDSR." The RAF/MOD . . "The move to paint the aircraft in a bespoke livery has come under intense criticism, as the new paint job is reported to have cost £900,000. A significant amount of that sum, however, does include regular maintenance and what is believed to be some ‘military upgrades'" International Flight Networks (a better source than the Independent far left newspaper) . . "the aircraft can be returned quickly to a more traditional military livery, the costs for which are marginal and absorbed within the overall Voyager running costs" Baroness Goldie . . "The repaint of this aircraft would have happened, at some point, but would otherwise have been repainted in the same colours as previously" your own email. All of which confirm, the aircraft WAS due to be repainted anyway, all they did was change the colour. Engine850 (talk 15:22, 09 Feb 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Skenu and Mark83. Originally, they were going to repaint the aircraft grey, and this was accounted for in the £10 million budget. The cost of doing so would apparently be "marginal", i.e. not £900k. So the additional £900k was incurred for "detailed design work, certified engineering drawings and specialist paint". These would be the "related costs" mentioned by Jeremy Quin in the House of Commons on 22 June 2020 when he confirmed that "The total forecast cost for completing the repaint of the RAF Voyager VIP aircraft (including related costs) is approximately £900,000. The project will be carried out by Marshall Aerospace Defence Group (MADG) in Cambridge ... to be funded by the Ministry of Defence".[17] Firebrace (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

International Flight Networks - looks to be someone's hobby and not a WP:RELIABLE source... Firebrace (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Engine850 - using caps such as "I HAVE DONE IT MYSELF" shows how much you are basing this on your own opinion which unfortunately is inadmissible. And you can't just refuse to accept reliable sources because they don't suit your opinion. You've dismissed The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and Sky News by my count. But a website that was "was started by Nick Wenzel in June 2016 solely as a Twitter account." is more reliable??

I have received a reply to a FOI request which will clear this up. Unfortunately I'm not able to include it yet because it hasn't been published publicly by the MoD, but the text is below for reference. In the meantime please respect the consensus.

Ref: FOI 2020/07396, XXXXXXXXXXXX, email: XXXXXXXXXXX, 29 January 2021

Dear XXXXXXXXXX

Thank you for your email of 30 June 2020 requesting the following information:

• When was the decision made to repaint the RAF Voyager ZZ336 (i.e. the repainting that was completed in June 2020 and widely reported in the media)?
• This was reported in the Hansard as costing "approximately £900,000"
  • Is this part of the £10m refit completed on the same aircraft in 2016?
  • Or is this an addtional/separate spend from that widely reported £10m budget?

I am treating your correspondence as a request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I have now completed a search of our paper and electronic records and I can confirm that information is held. Please accept my apologies for the lengthy delay in replying. The final decision to repaint the RAF Voyager aircraft was made in February 2020. The RAF Voyager aircraft used by senior Government Ministers and members of the Royal Family on long-haul official business was re-painted to ensure that the new livery will benefit the UK by more clearly promoting Global Britain the world over, supporting the Government’s prosperity agenda. The cost was additional to the refit in 2016 and included detailed design work, certified engineering drawings, trials and certification, and buying specialist paint to withstand the extreme climatic conditions in which aircraft operate.

Elaine Kerr, Air Command Secretariat, Spitfire Block, Room 2E21-33, Headquarters Air Command, Royal Air Force, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP14 4UE

Thanks. Mark83 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC) & edited Mark83 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

2 people does NOT make a consensus. I do note, that you specifically worded your request to NOT ask if it was additional funding or from existing finds. I suspect, thats because you do not want the real answer, so I still do not accept this. You email was the same as before, merely asking if it cost £900k, and still, NOBODY DENIES THIS. I state "I HAVE DONE IT MYSELF" because it used to be my job, therefore I understand how the system works. My sources are impeccable, and are NOT my opinion, but those of the MOD/RAF/Government. As for Nick Wenzel, you're damn right he is a better source than the point scoring political journalists at any rag. He has a degree in aviation law, several years at Airbus, and could certainly be considered an expert in the field. Please consider, all the experts and official sources support my statement. Not your rags. Engine850 (talk 09:09, 10 Feb 2021 (UTC)

Please read the question again. "Is this part of the £10m refit completed on the same aircraft in 2016? Or is this an addtional/separate spend from that widely reported £10m budget?" How could that question (and subsequent answer be any clearer)??? The RAF is literally starting here "The cost was additional to the refit in 2016" which shows what you have been saying is incorrect. I'm not going to debate your opinions on the BBC, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and Sky News any further. They are all reliable sources as per WP:RS. 09:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC) & edited Mark83 (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"This external paint scheme will better reflect its VIP mission and contribution to ‘Global Britain’. The paintwork concludes a refurbishment stemming from the 2015 SDSR." . . Statement from the Royal Air Force. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/vip-raf-voyager-ready-for-global-role/ "the costs for which are marginal and absorbed within the overall Voyager running costs" Baroness Goldie https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/ PLease accept the the verifiable sources presented to you, and stop being so disruptive Engine850 (talk 13:34, 10 Feb 2021 (UTC)

That still doesn't say "no we didn't spend an extra n thousand pounds on a special paint scheme" In fact "the costs for which are marginal and absorbed within the overall Voyager running costs" could be interpreted as saying "given how much it costs to run these things, the extra costs for a special paint job are a rounding error in the overall budget" GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You cannot interpret the facts because you see fit. AAR were paid, during the SDSR, to maintain the fleet, for a set period of time, that includes all maintenance, manpower everything, ,lock, stock and barrel. That would include a respray, approx. every 5 years. Yes, resprays cost approx. £1 million, every expert agrees on that figure, and nobody denies it. That is what I have written, the only disagreement, is that the RAF, MOD, Government etc. all state, it came from the existing budget, and I list those sources. No additional funding was required, instead of grey, they went white. There was no 'special' paint, I don't care what the lady in the office says. Thats nonsense, and the Royal Air Force’s Camouflage Working Group only get involved with fast jets, you really believe a white airliner is new and needs testing for visibility etc. ? ? Engine850 (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. You cannot interpret facts as you see fit. Mark83 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am producing facts, and evidence from undeniable sources, please do not tell me that https://www.ifn.news/about/ is a less reliable source than ANY daily newspaper when it comes to aviation. There are almost all qualified in Aviation, and are not politically motivated at all. Unlike all the newspapers. Engine850 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

a couple of years ago IFN was just social media accounts, and as they say "we cannot assume liability for the timeless accuracy and completeness of the content." GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You presume, because they are new, they cannot be accurate and well qualified ? ? P.S. Just about to rubber stamp AAR's new contract . . oh how I wish I could post it on here . . Engine850 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to elaborate on that? It seems to me like you may have failed to disclose a conflict of interest? WP:CONFLICT Mark83 (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest

User:Engine850 has yet to follow the correct process since I raised the conflict of interest concern, but to be fair it will take a while for anyone to read that policy and enact the requirements. In the meantime I'll direct everyone to this relevant edit. Mark83 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Cost of Voyager paint job (part 2)

User:Engine850: the RAF, MOD, Government etc. all state, it came from the existing budget — NO they don't !! I can tell you are heavily invested in this theory and you don't want to let it go. But it's wrong and the sources, even the more reliable ones, don't back it up. Please stop edit warring. You have now reverted others 6 times in 24 hours, violating WP:3RR, which I warned you about on your Talk page, but you still carried on, and now there is talk of a conflict of interest! Enough. Firebrace (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"This external paint scheme will better reflect its VIP mission and contribution to ‘Global Britain’. The paintwork concludes a refurbishment stemming from the 2015 SDSR" https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/vip-raf-voyager-ready-for-global-role/ . . Are you claiming the Royal Air Force are liars ? ? 9 times in 24 hrs they have reverted my sources, and you are threatening me ? ? now you are claiming conflict of interest and that I am biased. ROFL . . you are abusing your position, ignoring facts, and doing whatever you please, completely ignoring 'friends' of yours breaking the 3 revision rule. Engine850 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you denying you have a conflict of interest? Mark83 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The paintwork concludes a refurbishment stemming from the 2015 SDSR – does not mean the £900k spent on painting the aircraft red, white and blue was part of the original £10 million budget. Other sources say this colour scheme was a departure from the original plan to repaint it grey and that additional costs were incurred to have it painted in Union Flag branding... Firebrace (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have zero conflict of interest. Happy ? Firebrace, NOBODY has claimed it was not a departure from the original plan, of course it was, however, my point, and what the sources I link point out, is that the cost of respraying a civil airliner of this size is around £1 million, this expenditure and respray was already planned, and paid for, so, as all my sources point out, the additional cost would have been negligible, certainly nowhere near £900k. As Boris pointed out on the current link "if there's a way of doing it that is not exorbitantly expensive" and Baroness Goldie points out in her statement "if required, the aircraft can be returned quickly to a more traditional military livery, the costs for which are marginal and absorbed within the overall Voyager running costs" it costs the MOD/RAF very little, if anything, as they have already paid for the contract. I can assure you, they already have white paint, they use lots of it for various other aircraft in the fleet. The Camouflage Working Group is only involved for fast jets, this would have been a very straightforward switch of colour. Engine850 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And yet you claimed to be involved in a relevant contract somehow above? Who are AAR by the way? The Voyager contract is AirTanker Ltd.? Genuine question.

But overall, you are being disruptive by ignoring consensus. Read WP:LISTEN. Mark83 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A321

I've added the now public information on the new UK government contracted A321. Given previous history here (and to save reading the whole thread above) I'm trying to represent the facts of the contract existence and not whether or not the aircraft is a good idea. I think I've kept of the post factual and avoided any inference of politics but I am entirely open to discussion. Others, of course may wish to take a different approach depending on how the available information develops now that the procurement method is public. Skenu (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)