• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Sharm stranded - Why can't BA send out A380s/747s?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DasLunatic

Member
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
696
I don't know if they're already doing this, but in order to get people back home, why are the airlines not operating their largest craft to aid those stuck in Sharm-el-Sheikh? The runways are 10,000ft long, enabling these monster aircraft to land and takeoff, aren't they?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,100
Location
Redcar
Yes the problem isn't getting aircraft to move them the problem is ensuring that anything they take onto the aircraft is safe and no-one has smuggled a bomb or other nasty on-board.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,101
Location
Sheffield
I think the issue is also a fear of hand held rockets at lower altitudes - RAF fighter aircraft escorted the two airliners that flew out last week, I'm led to believe they were in a "sacrificial" formation just in case of a last resort. I can't begin to imagine what must be going through the fighter pilots mind at that time.
 

Hornet

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2013
Messages
748
Followed this extensively on the PPRUNE forum. The Russians, who have most visitors in the area are also not allowing any hold baggage. Sharm is full with hold bags to be sent forward, to the point that people have been told to leave their luggage at their resort hotels for collection and onward carriage. The irony of this is that the investigation of the downed Metrojet A321 are now focusing on the theory that a bomb was planted in a holidaymaker's luggage at a hotel. Given the appalling lack of security in the hold baggage handling area at Sharm, (flagged up when the UK authorities who went to Sharm to check security after the crash, checked the CCTV images, and immediately advised airlines to stop hold luggage to be loaded onto any flights), the backlog occurred.

It also has not helped that the Egyptians are more accommodating about repatriation flights to Russia (seeing as they are the resorts biggest spenders and represents the majority of the resorts visitors). Keeping them sweet is far more important than UK visitors, so their aircraft have been given priority to the point of UK flights heading down to Sharm to pick up passengers having to divert to Paphos and Larnaca when Egyptian ATC denied them landing permission.

Easyjet hired a Titan Airways 767 (which was also diverted to Cyprus) to try and clear the backlog, whilst Monarch had one flight turn back to the UK when over Croatia and another divert whilst on final approach to Sharm and head for Hurgada. Egyptair have flown a cargo flight to Stanstad with what is believed a large amount of UK passengers hold baggage being repatriated. Its not the size of plane but the pecking order, and because the UK flagged the problem first, and hacked off the Egyptians their citizens are at the bottom of the pile. Its more political than logistical.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,923
Location
Fenny Stratford
Cant the RAF just send in some C17's and take everyone,without baggage, off to Cyprus. Escort by Fighter jets to deter with any nut jobs in the area and inform the Egyptians the planes are coming in and wont be returning unloaded.
 

Hornet

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2013
Messages
748
Cant the RAF just send in some C17's and take everyone,without baggage, off to Cyprus. Escort by Fighter jets to deter with any nut jobs in the area and inform the Egyptians the planes are coming in and wont be returning unloaded.

How do you propose to get UK Military flights into Sharm without the agreement of the Egyptian Government and their ATC?
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,101
Location
Sheffield
Cant the RAF just send in some C17's and take everyone,without baggage, off to Cyprus. Escort by Fighter jets to deter with any nut jobs in the area and inform the Egyptians the planes are coming in and wont be returning unloaded.


I think you'll find that how wars are started...
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
8,376
Location
Back in Sussex
Cant the RAF just send in some C17's and take everyone,without baggage, off to Cyprus. Escort by Fighter jets to deter with any nut jobs in the area and inform the Egyptians the planes are coming in and wont be returning unloaded.

I assume you forgot to put the ;) or the :D at the end of your post
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,665
Location
South Yorkshire
The use of larger aircraft assumes that the Egyptians would approve it, which in the current climate is an assumption that is probably not be taken for granted.
 

Tim R-T-C

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2011
Messages
2,143
I think the issue is also a fear of hand held rockets at lower altitudes - RAF fighter aircraft escorted the two airliners that flew out last week, I'm led to believe they were in a "sacrificial" formation just in case of a last resort. I can't begin to imagine what must be going through the fighter pilots mind at that time.

Not much, those fighters have got more than enough countermeasures on board to keep them safe and their heat signature is so tiny compared to that of an airliner that they are in no real risk.

Their presence is to use their countermeasures against any detected missile launches and for peace of mind for the passengers on board the planes.

I would imagine the routes the airliners are flying are far outside of the 'risky' areas anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Cant the RAF just send in some C17's and take everyone,without baggage, off to Cyprus. Escort by Fighter jets to deter with any nut jobs in the area and inform the Egyptians the planes are coming in and wont be returning unloaded.

C17 is not that big, they can only carry some 140 odd people on board. A civilian airliner would be a much better choice.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,100
Location
Redcar
C17 is not that big, they can only carry some 140 odd people on board. A civilian airliner would be a much better choice.

Indeed and if we were going to send a military aircraft it would probably be a Voyager seeing as they can seat nearly 300 people in far more luxury than they would get in the back of a C17 what with them being intended to ferry people around.
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
"Why can't BA send out a 747?"

While they might be the nominal flag carrier, they no longer have government ownership, and have been entirely commercial for quite a long time. That means that their first (and, to an extent, only) obligation is to their shareholders, and not the public good or any humanitarian issues (unless the risks are reasonable and the PR win from such flights makes it worthwhile, or someone somewhere assumes the risk and costs for them).

A 747-400 is approx. US$250 million. I don't know for certain, but I'd guess that there could well be issues with insurance coverage if they were to do that mission while the FCO travel advice is basically declaring it a hot zone. No normal commercial entity will take on that mission unless the risk:reward is reasonable for them (or underwritten by someone to make it reasonable).

N.B. I'm not saying that's good/bad/right/wrong/etc. It's just the cold hard commercial reality of the situation.

Best bet would probably be a USAF C-5 if going down the military transport route. Although they are not commonly used for passengers, I believe they have done humanitarian rescue airlifts historically, and it would probably be possible to rig up some form of palletised seating or something.
 
Last edited:

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,035
Location
St Albans
It has been established that those still unable to return to the UK are under no real danger whilst still in Sharm. Knee-jerk reactions like sending in emergency transport for what is not really a 'humanitarian' issue but more a domestic inconvenience for most of the few thousand still there. Most of those there interviewed by the media have confirmed that they feel quite safe but just want to get home. They are staying in the same hotels that they were when on holiday so can hardly claim that the government needs to organise an airlift of 'mercy' flights.
The practice of fighter escorts for flights leaving is a sound one as RAF front line aircraft have both ESM systems that detect threats and ECM systems that provide a range of countermeasures to self-protect and other aircraft in close proximities.
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
It has been established that those still unable to return to the UK are under no real danger whilst still in Sharm. …

I agree entirely, and that's basically what the current FCO advice is saying. No immediate quantifiable major risks on the ground inside the resort area. Significant risks still being quantified in any form of air travel to/from the resort. Far safer for people to stay put and suffer some inconvenience, until the risks are properly quantified and managed for air travel.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,923
Location
Fenny Stratford
How do you propose to get UK Military flights into Sharm without the agreement of the Egyptian Government and their ATC?

I think you'll find that how wars are started...

I assume you forgot to put the ;) or the :D at the end of your post

The use of larger aircraft assumes that the Egyptians would approve it, which in the current climate is an assumption that is probably not be taken for granted.

Obviously (!) i am not suggesting that you do this without local cooperation and permission. However I would expect it to be stressed that permission will be granted pdq and that the operation will not be frustrated by any local incompetence. I assumed that such permission would be obtained before starting any operations

I am not suggesting the RAF shoot its way in followed by the deployment of the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines to secure the airport! We aren't Americans!

However, IF civilian planes are having to be escorted then is it appropriate to ask civilian crews to enter such a dangerous zone. Should the flights not be military in nature in this case?

Indeed and if we were going to send a military aircraft it would probably be a Voyager seeing as they can seat nearly 300 people in far more luxury than they would get in the back of a C17 what with them being intended to ferry people around.

Oh - i thought the Voyagers were tanker only
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
BA, Virgin, or any of the big carriers simply don't have a few spare 747's or A380's to fly to Sharm. Any time an aircraft is sat idle on the ground it is costing the airline money (which is why the likes of "Squeezy-jet" fly the proverbial arse out of their aircraft) so they are all either in scheduled maintenance or in use on scheduled flights.

And as others have said sending in the RAF is very very politically sensitive considering the harm to the Egyptian economy the ban on flights to/from the UK has done.

You only have to look at the fact Squeezy-jet weren't allowed to land at Sharm to start with in a kind of retaliation move by the Egyptians. Unfortunately a lot of ordinary British nationals have been caught up in a war of words with the politicians, and sadly the politicians are likely to be the one group who don't lose out in this whole fiasco.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh - i thought the Voyagers were tanker only

Yeah the Voyagers are simply A330's converted by Airtanker (at insane costs) to military aircraft which are then leased to the RAF. Airtanker are of course making a mint out of the deal!
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,100
Location
Redcar
Yeah the Voyagers are simply A330's converted by Airtanker (at insane costs) to military aircraft which are then leased to the RAF. Airtanker are of course making a mint out of the deal!

Yeah but in the short term it looks much cheaper than doing it properly and that is, of course, all that matters. Never mind that the whole life costs are probably going to be much much higher than just buying the things ourselves (even allowing for the MoD's procurement incompetence) :roll:
 

atillathehunn

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2010
Messages
1,525
Location
NL
There has been an MS A300 running every night from Sharm to STN every night. I would imagine this is full of luggage.

There have been extensive negotiations on slots and processing of passengers in Sharm, and so it's not as simple as just operating a bigger flight. Further, it's the weight not always runway length which affects which flights can operate to a particular airport. There is probably no facility at the airport to deal with an A380 nor B747. Further, and the usual answer to things on this forum: where from? And who will pay? And what will the passengers due to be on the flight operated by that equipment do? The present arrangements are fine. Those who wish to travel home will have done so by Tuesday, though this does not mean all those who are there will travel home. Scheduled flights appear to be suspended until mid-December (cf: FCO statement; Monarch statement).


Waging war by sending in military jets without the permission of the government or ATC is inadvisable. There appears to be limited danger to those in the resorts, nor even particularly in the air space around the region, rather it appears to be low flying flights over the region, including approach and t/o from the airport.

There
 

heart-of-wessex

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2005
Messages
3,087
Location
Trowbridge
If they were sending Voyagers or retired Tristars I'd have gone there to fly back on one!!

Seriously though, as mentioned you can't just wheel out a few A380's, there's not that many spare, some sit at Heathrow all day but are either maintained or working a nightflight.

BA have already packed off some of their 747's all bar one are dumped at Victoriaville with one stored at Kemble.

Using someone like HiFly would be more appropriate I would have thought, or other lessors
 

HMS Ark Royal

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2015
Messages
2,798
Location
Hull
Actually, the suggested idea of taking them to the BSB at Cyprus is a good idea - gets things moving quicker
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
Actually, the suggested idea of taking them to the BSB at Cyprus is a good idea - gets things moving quicker

Yeah, that seems like a good solution to me. Evacuate them to the nearest safe and friendly place which can both cope with the airlift logistics and provide comfortable temporary refuge for the people. Onward travel from there should then be "easy".
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,665
Location
South Yorkshire
Using someone like HiFly would be more appropriate I would have thought, or other lessors

As mentioned by Hornet earlier easyJet did charter a Titan Airways B767 to Sharm, Titan is an airline that BA also regularly use for additional capacity or in case of shortages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top