Inspired by an ARC thread: What if USAF outsourced tankers to the airlines?

[Diamondback]

Saw a thread titled "Delta tanker" on ARC, and should have figured it would be about a Vulcan K.2, but for some reason my brain got this funny mental picture of a 767 or 777 tanker in Delta Airlines markings.

So, as a thought experiment, what if the USAF started to outsource tanker flight-ops to airline contractors, aside from the AF providing the specialist personnel required to operate the refueling equipment? How might things change, and would the aircraft be camo, civil varnish or some hybrid thereof given that tankers are usually the beneficiary of making every effort to keep them out of harm's way? What other ripples across the surface of the pond might there be, or what other dominoes would pushing this one theoretical possibly knock over?

[PR19_Kit]

Dunno about the USAF but other airforces are already doing it effectively. The RAF's ENTIRE tanker force is supplied by a commercial entity, Airtanker, although they fly with RAF crews while on pukka RAF tanking missions.

There's also Omega Tanker in the field, who have a DC10-40 and two 707-320s rigged as tankers, but only seem to have probe-and-drogue systems installed, not the Flying Boom system that the USAF would require.

[Captain Canada]

In my what-if world, the RCAF would have combi type airliners with inflight fuel offloading capability used by a National like Air Canada. It would be like a reserve force, when needed they would be converted and also participate in exercises. Pilots and crew have freedom of choice wether to be a reservist.

Conversely, it baffles me how a private firm can profit while a government loses billions.....

[Mossie]

Not strictly airlines, but their are civil air refuelling contractors.  The RAF outsource their tankers to a conglomerate called AirTanker, the aircraft are in full RAF livery.  There also Omega Air Refuelling that contract to the USN, their aircraft are civil registered and in their own livery.

I guess you could have an airline offer the service, there may be rules preventing it but these can be re-written for big money contracts.  I don't think there would be to many ripples, outsourcing is they way of the world now.  There would be commercial considerations, would an airline want military aircraft in their livery?  There's precedent though, with the Qatar Amiri Flight, although most are purely VIP aircraft in their livery, there are the C-17's.

Kit mostly beat me to it!

[scooter]

Conversely, it baffles me how a private firm can profit while a government loses billions.....

::cough:: single source contracting ::cough, cough::

[sandiego89]

Saw a thread titled "Delta tanker" on ARC, and should have figured it would be about a Vulcan K.2, but for some reason my brain got this funny mental picture of a 767 or 777 tanker in Delta Airlines markings.

So, as a thought experiment, what if the USAF started to outsource tanker flight-ops to airline contractors, aside from the AF providing the specialist personnel required to operate the refueling equipment? How might things change, and would the aircraft be camo, civil varnish or some hybrid thereof given that tankers are usually the beneficiary of making every effort to keep them out of harm's way? What other ripples across the surface of the pond might there be, or what other dominoes would pushing this one theoretical possibly knock over?

In my opinion the idea of having a major airline run part of the USAF tanker fleet could work. If they chose the same airframe as those in commercial service ther could be good economies of scale with the same engines, servicing, training etc.

The most realistic contract solution would be similair to what the UK is doing: the contractor does the maintainence and support, but military crews fly the aircraft.   

I do not think that wholly outsourcing the crew would ever be done.  I highly doubt that the aircraft would be in commercial livery. If you are thinking about transtioning the aircraft between civil use and military use, a very neutral all white, gray or natural metal paint job would be best. There are restrictions on what civilian crews and equipment can do in warfare and compat support roles.  Having a civilian contract crew refuel tactical aircraft for stateside training (like Omega does), or taking loads of toilet paper into Bagram is fine; but you soon get into a grey area if you talk about combat support- like a tanker passing fuel to a B-1 or B-52 on a combat mission.  Having a fully painted "Delta" jet conducting combat support is a non-starter. 

I could see applications for other air forces as well, especially those with a national, government owned airline.  Aircraft could be primarily be used for commercial ops, but quicky transtition to tanker ops for wartime. Again a neutral paint job would best.  You would not have time for a repaint as the war heats up.       

[PR19_Kit]

There's an ATC issue too, and I'm sure Jaybee and Kitbasher will able to fill in the gaps of my knowledge here.

When a tanking operation is actually taking place the tanker crew calls the local ATC and says it's taking local control of the operation. There's an acronym for it starting with 'M' that stands for 'Military', but I can't remember the rest.  This call can only be made by serving military staff, so civvie crews couldn't do it legitimately.

AFAIK when Omega have tanked RAF flights it took place outside UK airspace so I guess the rules are different worlwide.

[Dizzyfugu]

I think that target tug companies are a good benchmark - I remember that an American company used retired but revamped A-4 Skyhawks here in Germany for Luftwaffe training. The private tanker fleet could also be handled by a leasing company - you frequently see rather bare airliners in the summer's charter business, doing extra work on tourist lines. Not certain how the cargo airliner business runs, but having a private "leasing" tanker in rather bare livery (say, all-white, just with private registration) would look and be IMHO very plausible. Not fancy, sure, but that's something for exhibitions where you can test the audience... 

[McColm]

Watch out for the unions. As we all know the RAF work Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm unless they are at war or helping out an another country. Time and a half for the first four hours and double time after that. Double double time bank holidays, 24 hours notice of all flying no sub-contractors if staff are unavailable.

[Diamondback]

There's an acronym for it starting with 'M' that stands for 'Military', but I can't remember the rest.  This call can only be made by serving military staff, so civvie crews couldn't do it legitimately.

MARSA: "Military Accepts Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft."

Part of what I was thinking of was something akin to 1980's CRAF, where USAF subsidized US airlines' purchases of certain aircraft in return for having the right to call those aircraft up for use in emergency rather like an individual Guardsman or Reservist. And a simple way to handle the MARSA call would be to have at least one Guard or Reserve officer aboard, easy enough since IIRC unless you're medicaled or Other Than Honorabled out as an active-duty officer you're listed as "Individual Ready Reserve" for several years thereafter, and many airline pilots are Reservists, so it seems like it'd be fairly simple to require that those aircraft be captained by Guard or Reserve members, or just stick an active-duty "mission controller" aboard.

[kitbasher]

There's an ATC issue too, and I'm sure Jaybee and Kitbasher will able to fill in the gaps of my knowledge here.

When a tanking operation is actually taking place the tanker crew calls the local ATC and says it's taking local control of the operation. There's an acronym for it starting with 'M' that stands for 'Military', but I can't remember the rest.  This call can only be made by serving military staff, so civvie crews couldn't do it legitimately.

AFAIK when Omega have tanked RAF flights it took place outside UK airspace so I guess the rules are different worldwide.

Do you mean 'MARSA' (Military Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft)?   That's a separation thing that applies to any formation, Kit, not specifically a tanking thing.  A very old US acronym that has crept into the worldwide ATC lexicon. All it means that the formation is self-separating, and ATC can cease application of standard separation between aircraft , especially when handling a join-up.

As for tanking and other formation ops, you'll find that this tends to get ATC (at least in the UK) from military service providers.

I think Omega may have tanked in UK airspace, but I'm not certain.

'civvie crews couldn't do it legitimately' - perhaps not - but why not a contracted crew in a contractor-owned, contractor-operated aircraft (military-owned, contractor-operated) undertaking a State function in accordance with State regulations (i.e. non-ICAO)?

[PR19_Kit]

Yes Dave, 'MARSA' is the call I couldn't remember, thanks. 

I know it's also used for for other purposes too, but I've actually heard a tanker crew make that call when I was in the Tower at Lossie a few years back, so that was my only personal experience of it.

Would a civvie tanker crew work under the same responsibility rules that an RAF crew would?

[McColm]

You could use retired crews under the 'Reservists ' banner.They would be fully paid and still wear their old uniforms.

[Weaver]

Even if civvie crews couldn't do all the things a military crew could, they'd still be enormously helpful. In peacetime, civvie contractors could handle cover for the military fleet's maintainance downtime, and in a war situation, the civvie tankers could provide service to ferry and logistics flights, leaving the military tankers to do the "nearly in harm's way" stuff, refuelling tactical aircraft on combat missions.

[Captain Canada]

You've got some good points there Weaver !