vinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 727 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
There seem to be plenty of available A345 at cheap prices. Now I don't want to get into an 34x vers 77x war but to me it seems pretty obvious that given their price and their range, they'd make excellent government planes!
Correct me if i'm wrong but government planes are usually lightly used. So acquisition cost is a major concern for them. Secondly government officials are busy people that fly in far flung locations with often an entourage compromised of business people, journalists and other officials. Given the capacity of the plane, it's exceptional range compared to a normal A343, and it's low acquisition cost. Surely there must be a market for them at government level.
I'd go even further and suggest that european leaders could team together and buy 2 or 3 for official use. It's a hell of a plane and whilst over specified in many circumstances, I think it could be a good fit!
smws From Estonia, joined Jun 2012, 66 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4152 times:
To me the real question is whether purchasing and maintaining such aircraft for government use (for example for European countries) warrants the strain on taxpayers? It is certainly cheaper to use regular, scheduled flights or just to charter an airplane if officials need to be moved in bulk.
Considering the current obsession with austerity measures, I just can't see this happening.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2823 times:
It is indeed a possible application, for either wealthy or spendthrift nations.
The 747SP was popular in that role in the Middle East for similar reasons.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
Kent350787 From Australia, joined May 2008, 888 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2492 times:
Being at the "arse end of the earth" (to quote a former prime minister), Australia could probably justify a larger VIP aircraft than the current BBJs. However, given how lightly loaded they normally are, it would be hard to justify a four holer unless is was extremely cheap to purchase, even if it could reach almost anywhere non-stop in VIP config.
Ireally think Oz should be considering A330 VIP aircraft.
bj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 444 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4): The 747SP was popular in that role in the Middle East for similar reasons.
Another advantage the A345 like the 747SP would have in the middle east is good hot air performance. I am no engineer but I read somewhere that for hot and high performance more engines is usually better, which sort of makes sense to me. Four engines having to compress x amount of hot air or two engines having to compress the same amount. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?
Quoting CO38 (Reply 3): But I guess one should add another 20-30mill for maintenanc/VIP config.
Actually it will probably be a lot more than that. Outfitting a B757 or A321 will already get you in that ballpark, granted it will have gold fossets and stuff but still. I read in an article that a simple business jet seat will cost 50.000 Dollars and that was 6 years ago.
Quoting smws (Reply 1): To me the real question is whether purchasing and maintaining such aircraft for government use (for example for European countries) warrants the strain on taxpayers? It is certainly cheaper to use regular, scheduled flights or just to charter an airplane if officials need to be moved in bulk.
I doubt any plane bigger than an A320 can make financial sense for both business and government use. An A320 size aircraft can meet most demand. The ACJ version can be fitted with a decent amount of seats and a conference table and still fly a decent distance. There won't be a whole lot of missions that will require a large capacity aircraft. I think it is mostly a prestige thing. France, Germany, Russia and the US all use these large VIP aircraft as a diplomatic tool to show off their wealth and power. Here in the Netherlands we fly around in a Fokker 70 to show off our budget savvy mindset. For everything else we use the blue Air France planes.
Quoting smws (Reply 1): Considering the current obsession with austerity measures, I just can't see this happening.
Agreed, in most countries it could mean the end of a political career if you buy one of those.
All that said, if I ever earn hundreds of millions I will be running to Airbus for one of those brand new undelivered 345s they have sitting on the ramp and build me a flying 5 star hotel.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1911 times:
Quoting bj87 (Reply 7): France, Germany, Russia and the US all use these large VIP aircraft as a diplomatic tool to show off their wealth and power. Here in the Netherlands we fly around in a Fokker 70 to show off our budget savvy mindset. For everything else we use the blue Air France planes.
The 2 A343s Germany has replaced aging A310s and that was about time. Compared with what Russia has, these aircraft are spartan. That high ranking government officials who tour the world on duty need a shower and a compartment to sleep is Ok, golden faucetts are not needed and not installed.
Besides the 2 large kets there are A319s and some Gulfstreams, The costs are high but flying regular services can be and is done by ministers when time permitts, it is not a choice for the Chancellor for a good number of reasons.
I know from a country I am doing business with that each time they charter a 767 from their local airline for use of the PM or the President it is about a million US$.. Not sure if that is cheaper than owning.
stealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5433 posts, RR: 49 Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1853 times:
Quoting Kent350787 (Reply 5): it would be hard to justify a four holer unless is was extremely cheap to purchase,
Would have to be better than cheap!!
Both the A330 and the BBJ make sense for Aus as the RAAF operates other variants* of both types. A single(or 2) 4 holers of any breed would be a pretty dumb decision, not the first one an Australian government made!!
Considering we already have the BBJ I guess that decision has been made and will stand for some time.
Another consideration is that Aus political leaders have very few urgent meetings in Reykjavík and usually like to stop off for sightseeing... er.. I mean, urgent high level talks so ULH aircraft would not really be needed even from the "arse end of the earth"
Cheers
* Even more variants of the 737 when they finally get around to making the P-8 aquisition official.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1393 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1762 times:
Quoting bj87 (Reply 7): Another advantage the A345 like the 747SP would have in the middle east is good hot air performance. I am no engineer but I read somewhere that for hot and high performance more engines is usually better, which sort of makes sense to me. Four engines having to compress x amount of hot air or two engines having to compress the same amount. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?
It's about engine-out performance; if you have an engine failure during takeoff you need to be able to maintain a minimum safe climb rate using the remaining engines; so a twin essentially needs to be able to complete takeoff and climb using one engine whereas a 4-holer only needs to do the same on 3 engines (only 25% performance drop vs 50% for a twin).
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 727 posts, 
From Estonia, joined Jun 2012, 66 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, 
From Norway, joined May 2009, 96 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 444 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1393 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
