First of the RAF's 'New' 146's Delivered

[clavel9]

Here we go, first photo of a shiny RAF grey 146...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7331190

I must say it looks very smart.

[TobyV]

Long overdue after all the attempts by BAe to create a military version in the 1980s, but very welcome. Will almost certainly by the last British designed and built "airliner" in RAF service.

[RobDob]

I've worked a few 146's out here in Doha on radar under the callsign 'Zap' but the registrations were G-POWF I think. Any idea what they are doing with those? Titan machines I think. Are they leased or something?

******Disregard.......just read the bottom part of the Flight Global article.....DOH!!!*******

[Trev Clark]

I remember the days when the RAF sold their old aircraft to minor operators (Brits to Redcoat, Belfasts to Heavylift for example), in this century the trend is now the other way round! Progress, I suppose!

[Garry Russell]

Titan usually fly for other carriers sometime under the carriers code and sometims under ZAP

I always thought it would be more fun if their code was TIT

[RobDob]

This was operating in & out of Al Udeid USAF base in Qatar. Didn't know 'Zap' was a civilian callsign.

[Garry Russell]

Titan do a lot of military work

HiFly do RAF charters and Seychelles had an aircraft based at Brize until recently.

I see a lot of UPS, GTI (Atlas), WOA (World) NAO (North American Airlines) and a few other civil carriers with or without their own flight codes with the operator down as US Air Force in various sub forms.

Starlifters have gone and Galaxys and C-17 not often seen so I guess that is what does the flight that used to be several a day in the Starlifter heyday with a few Galaxys a week.

The RAF seem much the same, just on a smaller scale.

Cheaper just to buy time on a carrier than take up resources maintaining a fleet or extra aircraft in a fleet to do jobs that civil carriers can manage well and in a climate of difficult business there are some bargains to be had.

This is why some freight carriers have pax aircraft in their fleets and the military is not really geared up to carry pax so that is a good solution and good for the industry as a whole as it helps keep that sector of the civil market in business.

With increasing limited resources the military can then focus more on defence.

[Tomliner]

Garry wrote

I always thought it would be more fun if their code was TIT

I thought that was Trotters Independant Traders! Bonnet de douche! EricT

[Garry Russell]

New York-Paris-Peckham

[Chris Trott]

As Garry alluded to, the CRAF (Civil Reserve Air Fleet) here in the US has taken on greater and greater roles since Desert Storm because of the limited airlift capability versus demand. It makes much more sense to have the C-5's and C-17's fly the equipment while a couple of 747's or similar fly the troops into their forward base than use additional transports to carry them in general packed discomfort on web seats or pallet-mounted airline seats.

BTW, one of the odd things is that the entire CRAF fleet (which is coordinated by the US Department of Transportation under the FAA, not directly by the US Military) is detailed online for public view - http://www.dot.gov/ost/oiser/craf.htm . A spotter's dream I'm sure though.