Billy BogginsQuite a few shows are organised by the same company and so they can beat down the cost of individual items by offering a number of similar displays, that is why some shows are very samey. The acts were booked in bulk.
IM not so HO, the general public, the ones that don’t read up on here, are better informed than some people on here, and outside, think. I remember seeing a Flamant pulling up to the crowd barrier at Coningsby years ago and a crowd of normal, non-aviation, people forming as it was just plain unusual.
Some shows are very predictable, but it does not take much to get a theme running through a show that can make it more interesting or an item or two from outside the normal run of bulk buys.
I remember the first recent Dunsfold show, that had the theme of everything being connected with Hawker or Dunsfold. That worked. One or two other shows definitely need a kick up the tailpipe and it need not be expensive. It just needs a little more thought in presentation.
Billy BogginsThere are at least 7 aircrew so that would be costs of about £31K or so each (assuming each paid the same, but it really doesn’t matter), from which PAYE, NI and employer’s NI will be deducted leaving take home pay for each person at around the £21.5K mark.
I’m sure you’ll agree this is a pretty poor wage for aircrew.
Just for fun, let’s assume they work five hours for every one they fly.
that makes 300 hours.
That is just over £71 per hour ON A PART TIME JOB
That is, as you say, pretty poor pay…………….
NOT!
It is a simple fact, that has been pointed out on here many many times, there is simply not the budget available to operate of fly this. Even if people have fingers in the pie, as has been suggested, there is STILL not enough money to fly it if you stopped the pie dipping.
None of the figures on this have EVER added up.
Billy BogginsFrom an enthusiastic supporter I am fast becoming a disillusioned supporter. But one thing interests me, as a relatively new forumite. The deep and clearly stated antipathy and barely hidden anger even, amongst longer standing forumites to the Vulcan project, for want of a better phrase.
Is it because the whole thing has been badly conceived and run or because they can see vast amounts of money going to one big project which would be better distributed amongst a host of smaller but, in their eyes, equally desrerving projects.
Surely we should applaud the fact that this iconic aircraft was restored to flight and has been flying for the last two years and seen by huge numbers of enthusiastic fans?
The fact that it was restored to flight is an achievement, the problem is that sustaining that was never going to happen. There are a number of people on here who have questioned the finances for a very long time. Even before the Vulcan flew again it was clear there was not going to be a level of income generated that would sustain it. The figures simply did not add up, and when people in positions of power were asked HOW it would be funded the inevitable answer was ‘something will turn up’. Questions about the business plan were answered with ‘there is no business plan’ which should have set alarm bells ringing with people that were stumping up cash but no, there was a rose tinted glasses inspired ‘need’ to see the aeroplane back in the air and anyone that questioned HOW that was going to happen was labelled as being a nay-sayer, a destructive force in aircraft preservation or a heretic.
I am surprised that there is not a lot of ‘told you so’ going on but to be honest I am glad there is not, it would prove nothing. This situation has been a certainty since the project started. It appears that the allegedly ‘top heavy’ management style and salary questions are not helping but the simple fact is there is not enough money out there to finance the operation of the Vulcan and there never has been. To be honest anyone that thinks otherwise, or thinks that the current salary questions are making all the difference, is in cloud cuckoo land and is wearing several pairs of the afore-mentioned spectacles.
It was an achievement to get her flying and there are some very dedicated people who have put a lot of effort in that should definitely be applauded but should this have ever happened?
You mention whether the money have been better spent on other projects? Well, the fund raising was for the Vulcan and so the amount spent may now have been available for other projects but it would be nice to see the same level of fund raising applied to other aircraft that have a more significant service history. Let us remember that the Vulcan is most famous for its flying displays (and the ones that I have seen in the last two years are not a patch on them) and for one dubious long-range mission. It is not, no matter how much you would like to think otherwise, a historically significant aeroplane.
There is a down side to the displays too. The Waddington debacle (which in my view was an appalling example of mismanagement) led to people complaining there was not much else at Waddington. Well, they had had to budget for the Vulcan and one Vulcan display would pay for a lot of other airshow acts. How do we know this? Well, ask some of the people that have not been booked much this year what THEY think of the Vulcan.
The best we can hope for out of this sorry state (that has been predicted since it all began) is that some of the education that was supposed to have happened as part of the deal has had some benefit, although there appears to be little evidence of any of it happening, or that some apprentices were able to gain working knowledge of techniques that could be used elsewhere in historic aviation, but again I have no idea if any of that has gone on. If it has not then it is another wasted opportunity.
I didn’t give a penny to the Vulcan, and equally didn’t go out of my way to see it either, as I could see this was a non-sustainable dream. It is clear it has not only been mismanaged but also mis-concieved. I prefer to remember seeing the Vulcan when it was in service, when it would seem to tear the sky apart in its displays, something that was also never going to happen with a Permit to Fly aeroplane. I admit I was lucky enough to see that and there are people that are younger than me that would still love to see it BUT IT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. It is only ever going to do flybys, it is interesting to see that the flybys were a little more enthusiastic towards the end of last year and hey presto, the fatigue life is being used up quicker than had been anticipated.
I am also surprised that the CAA took no action over its illegal appearances at a couple of shows last year when it was operated IFR and above cloud in conditions that were below the minima needed for the VFR flight ii is licenced for.
It would be a shame to see it grounded but I believe it is the best thing.
Sorry if that upsets anyone, it is not meant to be inflammatory, but the NUMBERS HAVE NEVER ADDED UP.
Billy BogginsOn another note i see people saying that they never gave a penny toward the Vulcan because they could see it would never succeed, well nothing will be a success if we all had that attitude would it?
Which is a reference to me, my point was that I may well have donated and supported the cause if I had seen anything that resembled a clear idea of where the funding might come from. There was no clear idea of how any revenue path could be generated other than a magic wand. When someone said there was no business plan I laughed out loud in horror. If you want people to invest in something, either for a return or for the enjoyment they get out of it, then there has to be a clear plan of how that might be achieved. At no point in any of the years running up to the point the programme is at now have I seen anything that remotely suggests there was a structure in place and a realistic expectation of what was needed. Had anyone convinced me this was not going to turn out just how it has, then I might have stumped up.
It had all the makings of this mess that has happened, right from the start and that is why I chose to put my money elsewhere.
Now Bubbles, please don’t think for one moment that, as one of the ‘heretics’, that I scorn all things Vulcan. I don’t, it is a magnificent aeroplane although, as I said earlier, it’s place in history is not as significant as some would like to think, but I have nothing but admiration for the people that got their hands dirty and got her flying, and for supporting her up and down the country as you say you have done. I’d happily buy you a beer and discuss it sensibly too, and listen to all the stories of what happened. The only thing you have said that I will disagree on is that what the management set out to do was acheiveable. I don’t believe the ongoing operation of the aeroplane is, or ever was, achieveable. That is a shame but I believe it is the truth (you are at liberty to believe otherwise).
On a different tack.
I also just looked Plemming’s statement that the 2.5million people who went to see her have not been forthcoming with their money….
Hang on a minute…. were they not the 2.5 million people who PAID to go and see her and support her and would be expected to PAY to go and see her in years to come and are now being expected to stump up even MORE money to finance the close season?…
Billy BogginsKev
Don’t some projects have to move forward on hope and expectation,
True enough
… based on a plan, as much as anything else?
Yes, but as we have been pointing out, there has to actually BE a plan. There was little sign the onward financial planning was ever done. That is what some of us were so sceptical about. A plan would have been good but there does nto appear to have been one.
Surely no one would be fool enough to guarantee a successful long term outcome when pitching for HLF cash. Particularly when other funding was also needed.
True, but the HLF pitch was not for long term funding, they wanted an idea that the aeroplane would have a purpose, in terms of education, after the flying had started but their interest stopped as soon as it flew. They had no legal or moral obligation to be involved after that point, that was all up to the VTS people. All this has been discussed here in the past. The HLF did their bit and are no longer involved.
Billy BogginsHaving read the previous thread two things stand out.
Firstly the deep passion and anger engendered over the restoration of an, arguably iconic, aircraft. And secondly the strength of the doubting Thomases in wanting the project to fail then.
And here we see it again – financial crisis approaches and the same, dare I suggest, pleasure of the “I told-you-so” variety expressed by some posters on this thread.
Why are some of you so angry? It can’t just be, as you would see it, money wasted, because serious money is being wasted on our behalf, daily. It must be something about the Vulcan………
When are you going to get this? None of us want it to fail, none of us are sitting here rubbing our hands with glee that it is all going wrong. “..pleasure of the “I-told-you-so” variety by some posters on this thread” Oh, c’mon. This goes much deeper than one aeroplane, it doesn’t matter if it is a Vulcan or anything else, the fact that it is failing (ok as predicted, that does not make me a bad person OR even happy) casts a shadow over all aircraft preservation. It will be a big news story when it finally ends in grounding (yes, I still hope it doesn’t) and if you think little old me has it in for the Vulcan then wait until the papers get hold of the story.
What is annoying to listen to time and time again is the fact that there is a financial crisis, when this was built into the whole project by an abject lack of financial planning at the very start. The financial crisis is not new, it was BUILT IN.
Forget all the talk about wages and everything else. What is fundamentally wrong with the programme, and has been from the start, is the simple economics of what was ever likely to be possible.
Am I glad what was predicted years ago is coming true?
No I am not. It is a shame, there are a lot of very good, very genuine people who have put money they cannot really afford into something that may well fail as a result of a fundamental lack of financial planning. This sort of makes fools of them. Does that make me happy?
No, it doesnt.
What DOES annoy me is the fact that being realistic about the project is so hard for some people to take.
Billy BogginsSo you know something that we don’t and you wanted to shout about it.
I am impressed,
No, really I am
Billy BogginsAnother triumph of not keeping those people that KEEP stumping up money informed on a regular basis.
So has anyone announced whether it is at Waddington?…….
Of course not, we all know it isn’t, but there were a lot of people hoping and probably wishing there was just a tad more information.
Same old same old.
At this rate they might get her flying in time for the next heartfelt appeal to save her from going to the US.
Even if this was not an unsustainable money pit, it could be handled better.
But then, that is harly news either.
Billy BogginsContinental 0200 powered actually, and its a Replica Plans 7/8 replica thats not based on the Curry Wot at all!! What were you saying about crap information:rolleyes:
OK, my mistake, so shoot me. I know you took part and I am not criticising you, you didn’t write or edit the programme
But the Replica Plans ‘SE5a’ is NOTHING like an Se5 in terms of construction, power, speed or complexity of systems, it also flies nothing like it, has a different weight and wing loading and is NOT representative of WW1 aeroplanes.
The programme had some good ideas and then watered it down with duff information. Some parts were fine, the aerial photography bit was well done, why couldn’t the rest of the programme be up to that standard.
Billy Bogginsdebateable with that, I doubt they stayed awake. I had trouble
Billy BogginsNear as dammit, based on the design as I remember. Anyhow about as near to a real SE5 as a Tiger moth is to a Spitfire.
Lycoming engined 7/8 scale aeroplanes are not at all significant historically.
And Richthofen was dead before the reached him. He did NOT utter ‘Kaput’
So much promised ruined by bad editing and crap information
Billy BogginsWay WAY too long and the stuff about ‘flying an SE5’ and ‘Dogfighting in original aeroplanes’ is just total rubbish. Currie Wot and Bowers Fly Baby. mmmmm
There was some good stuff but there was a lot of padding. It has not even finished yet and I am bored. It needed a much better editor
Billy Bogginsinteresting comparison and a good case for them to pack up and go home as the charitable donations are not sustaining the project now, nor will they ever do so.
unsustainable is what i said from day 1.
plt
Absolutely true but you will now be accused of single-handedly scuppering the finances by your negative attitude.
The FACT that the finances have never added up is the one thing the rose-coloured specs brigade will not accept.
It is not, nor ever was, sustainable.
Billy BogginsI do not say that no one can get the photo.
But I do want to know what is happening with my Photo and where it will be published.So if someone realy want this picture without my name on it. Just mail me…..
I only want to know what your will do with my picture. So I know it is ok by me. If you want to publish it on a site of somewhere els, no problem, but I do want to know where and I want my name below the picture as owner. Seems fair to me….
You only own a print. That does not give you any rights to the copyright of that photograph. Anyone can copy it, as it is in the public domain having been around for years.
Unless the rights are included in a deal, from the original holder of those rights, they are not automatically transferred and you, quite simply, are wrong to list it as your copyright.
The original photographer was probably a German soldier and so the copyright may well be German national Archives.
Certainly it ain’t yours. Sorry if that comes as a shock.
Billy BogginsFollowing on from the discussion regarding the above on the Unknown Spitfire thread, I wish to clarify what does and does not pertain to someone owning a photo having copyright even though he/she isn’t the original photographer.
For instance, I have sets of photos passed on to me by my late father that were given to him by the base photographer at various air bases where he worked.
I’ve seen some of one of the sets of prints I have on another website copyrighted to a certain person’s (not the photographer) collection. Does this mean I don’t have copyright and therefore must get that person’s permission to publish or not?
Thanks for any help in advance, I’m not looking to profit on the photos, I just want to know where I stand regarding posting them here or elsewhere.
Photographs taken by the base photographer are Crown Copyright. No question. Anyone claiming copyright is wrong.
Sign In
