AFAIK, the RAF aircraft were originally leased with strict hand back conditions but an option to purchase was taken up and the aircraft have been owned for sometime now.

It could have major damaged that’s not visible having suffered the nose gear collapse.

Sometimes repairable airframes are written of as the repairs are deemed un economic due to airframe age or perhaps if the aircraft was due to be retired sometime in which case it’s more use as spares. The 747 of BA at Jo’burg could have been repaired but it would have been costly and the type is on phase out.

I think if this aircraft was repairable or at least worth repairing, it would have been done. But the reality is this is an oldish aeroplane and airlines are still storing fleet members as there is not work for all the fleet. Perhaps it will be repaired, but doesn’t look like it given the time since the incident.

Basically if they needed it they would have sorted it.

This is not a US thing it’s NATO and they are very much watching and making changes.

As it stands it’s not the US getting involved in our area, it’s Portugal. Next year the US will be stioning troops and aircraft in Latvia and perhaps the other Baltic states. The currrent situatioon is four fighters on rotation based in Lithuania.

The US have been, or at least seemed to have been increasing activity off their own back and a quiet way.

But it should not be seen as a US v Russia situation, West v East in effect, yes, but it is a NATO v Russia situtation.

The US is only one of many countries involved of this side.

Airlines are quick to charge a fuel surcgane before they let you board when prices go up

I’ve yet to here of airline staff handing out cash to pax because it’s gone down.

A while ago when this happened the airlines said that they buy fuel on the futures market so had in fact paid more than the current price. So then, why the charge when it goes up, as they would have bought futures at an older, lower price. They, of course forget to mention that.

These things are always one sided and when they do come down it’s not by much.

It is of concern and the increas is, without doubt.

What i’m against is the media making more out of it than it really is,

As I mentioned, it’s not all over the media here, but there will be an increased NATO force actually based in Latvia in the New year instead of four fighter on rotation based in Lithuania.

I have seen fighters in and out of Helsinki, over the top here as mentioned and a ANG Boeing C-135 in Riga.

This have stepped up to the mark, but, again I stress keep it in proprtion

The classic case was the AN-26 that lost radio contact hyped up as “The Russians are Coming”…implying that it was some sort of Russian i9nvasion. It was a civil freight flight operation from Italy to the UK the carrier being a Latvian airline (RAF Avia). All are NATO coutries.

The fact the aircraft was originally built in Russia is irrelevent. Had it been operated by one of RAF Avia’s SAAB 340’s, that would presumably have been a Swedish invasion on the cards?

I agree Charlie…it’s just media hype.

I hear Bears over head now and then and fighters several times a week. On some days you can see the fighter trails in cicles with a big multi engine trail that have made a 180 back eastwards.

People feel a little threatened but take no notice and the media doesn’t mention it as they have nothing to add to what’s already obvious. If something real happens then yes it gets a mention, but they don’t go on and on about it, the news item comes up, gets present and the programme move on sometimes less than a minuet later, This day to day stuff…everyones got something better to do.

I also heard it was a simple case of being able to get the aircraft earlier.

In addition the A.380 just would be as big as the Beluga.