558's Future.

Discussions on XM655, XH558, XM607, XL426 or any other preserved aircraft

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:45 pm

Thanks for taking the time to write all of that Gully.
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Gaz » Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:51 pm

And for keeping it brief ;)
NB; Any negative comments I post about the Vulcan are posted SOLELY to wind Gregg up!
User avatar
Gaz
Boeing 747
Boeing 747
 
Posts: 8187
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Za150 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:45 pm

Two very interesting arguments(in a good way) which both provide some thinking
Lover of the Tens, Worker on the Hercs
User avatar
Za150
AgustaWestland Merlin
AgustaWestland Merlin
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:20 am

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Coastergirl » Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:48 pm

Gully wrote:
<snip>

2. The Club Committee has a responsibility to both members and the aircraft (completely clear in the constitution), with the latter support applying equally to '558's flying days and in subsequent 'retirement'. However, what the Club does not have is any influence or control over the destiny of '558 should the Trust go into administration / receivership, nor do we have any influence over '558's eventual resting place if the Trust continues to operate her until the end of her flying life is reached. Any suggestion that we do have any rights or powers is erroneous.

<snip>

Gully


So, the Club has no more control over her next move than I do or the guy who makes cheeseburgers at McDonalds? I can see that. I think that has been clear all along.

What I am wondering, is if the Club has explored any avenues for collaboration following the (potential) demise of the Trust? Have the Club approached or been approached by anyone, like DW or an aviation museum with a view to joining forces to ensure the best possible option for the next phase of '558's life?

The Club has declared its support for the Trust and as such probably cannot be seen to be looking at alternatives. The Club must have belief that this 'goal' is achievable in time and perhaps therefore don't see a need to think of
a back-up plan. My own belief is that this is foolish and just exploring options for future possibilities does not betray loyalty to the current set-up.

If, as you say (quote: "as it is ultimately the HLF's decision"), it will be the HLF's decision what happens to 558 then I wonder if they will invite 'offers' or 'tenders' for her purchase or management? An alliance between the Club and a commercial aircraft operator, just for example, would surely be a most favourable contender for the HLF to consider? However, there would be no sense in waiting until it all happens to make that alliance - that is the sort of thing we all used to bemoan the VOC for!! Remember the 7 P's! ;)

That'll do for now, lol.

Rach x
Genealogists never die; they just swap places in the family tree
User avatar
Coastergirl
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: Thornbury
Also Known As: themeparkgirl

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Checkflaps » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:22 pm

How nice to have a sensible discussion allowing everyone to have a viewpoint - no slagging off (YET), and some good points raised on both sides.

Whilst I don't expect a definitive answer on the future from anyone; afterall, why would one person know 'that' much more than others and then be expected to share it with us lot? It is making us all think about the possible implications of the next few weeks and then subsequent months / years.

I look forward to seeing where this discussion goes and ends up. Thanks also Gully for putting up a 'Club Committee' viewpoint. Whilst I'm not suggesting you are their official spokesperson - it is nice to hear from a member.

G
User avatar
Checkflaps
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:23 pm

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Jigsaw » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:26 pm

Checkflaps wrote:How nice to have a sensible discussion allowing everyone to have a viewpoint

G


CF, Iconic is full of Mass Debators mate. Long may it continue :D
Kev
User avatar
Jigsaw
Boeing 747
Boeing 747
 
Posts: 6456
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:58 pm
Location: Scunthorpe
Also Known As: photo_lincs

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Checkflaps » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:36 pm

Jigsaw wrote:
Checkflaps wrote:How nice to have a sensible discussion allowing everyone to have a viewpoint

G


CF, Iconic is full of Mass Debators mate. Long may it continue :D


I'll take your word on the 'inmates' of Iconic. :))

G
User avatar
Checkflaps
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:23 pm

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:37 pm

Well he is the biggest mass debator in here!
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Mayfly » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:39 pm

and all with humour too!!!! :ymapplause:
In memory of a very dear friend - Mike Pearson

Very fond memories of Robbie Gilvary - DTs 1st Vulcan Captain who taught DT all he knew.
User avatar
Mayfly
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 29760
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bomber County

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:41 pm

Mayfly wrote:and all with humour too!!!! :ymapplause:




SO FAR, but some members are not on line at the moment! ;)
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Jigsaw » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:43 pm

Xplumberlives wrote:Well he is the biggest mass debator in here!


Not the biggest mate, I just remember where I tucked it last time :p
Kev
User avatar
Jigsaw
Boeing 747
Boeing 747
 
Posts: 6456
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:58 pm
Location: Scunthorpe
Also Known As: photo_lincs

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Sooty655 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:44 pm

Mayfly wrote:
Sooty655 wrote:
Mayfly wrote:Sooty can you tell us who told you she isn't going to China? ........... :p


Sorry, I couldn't possibly reveal my (sweet and sour) sauces. :D


Some how I think Sooty just isn't taking this seriously =))


You might think that, But I couldn't possibly comment. :p
Sooty

One Olympus 301 has twice the power of a complete F1 starting grid.
XM655 has four of them, all serviceable.
When we make noise, WE MAKE NOIZE ! !
User avatar
Sooty655
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 8871
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:17 pm
Location: Weedon, Northants

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Checkflaps » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:45 pm

Xplumberlives wrote:Well he is the biggest mass debator in here!


Looking at your stats XP, and in best westcountry accent - Are you sure? =))

G
User avatar
Checkflaps
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:23 pm

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:46 pm

I just post a lot!
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Old Rigger » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:51 pm

It has been a while to see such reasoned posts from two sides of the fence, with the support for both views being expressed in a polite sensible way. By the way from my perspective I also agree with Bubbles.

I wish it could be so on the VTSC forum, I decided to give in and submit a response to a thread and got a disgraceful PM in response, to which I decided that I no longer want to be part of something that breeds an us and them atmosphere and seems to promote a clique type environment where any person who expresses an opinion that is not praising the trust, or living in a big pink fluffy cloud, or hocking themselves to donate/pledge or asks 'awkward questions' is castigated publicly and privately as being negative, wanting the project to fail and worse. Then eventually someone infers that those negative people are criticizing the people who most of us are only staying around for - to support the engineers.

I have no doubt that a last minute donation will succeed in reaching the target as before and then all those who see no wrong in what has/is happening with all things 558 will no doubt do as they did last year, relax on their laurels with statements like 'see we told you we have the best people in charge and don't need any changes', told you you were being negative and then during and at the end of the flying it will be the same i.e. nothing except the efforts of the Vulcan Village Crew and volunteers to keep the funding effort going, then last minute panic for funding from the trust to get it flying in 2011. I look forward to being proven wrong this year.

Also to those that say education is dependent on a flying aircraft, I will say again; this is what we were told last year and we had our best years flying season and nothing happened so why with the same people in charge do you think it will be any different this year, in fact with some off the things that are still happening to some of our hard working colleagues it would appear that it is carry on as before, still. oh sorry I have just realised we probably cannot change them either because it is in the CAA rules, or the HLF rules or maybe we would not be where we are today if it was not for them.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Image
User avatar
Old Rigger
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:38 am
Location: Lincoln

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:54 pm

Some interesting points there Mick!
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Nickolas » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:32 pm

Wow, what a fantastic thread.

Maybe it should be posted on the dark side (sorry if the title offends but that's the way I currently feel about the Trust NOT the Club) so that they can see that reasoned debate can take place without all the back biting and personal sniping.

A great read.

Thanks everyone.
Proud parent of Tom.com & King Willy.
Chairman of 309 (Sawbridgeworth) Sqn Association Committee RAFAC
West Sector Chairperson Essex Wing RAFAC
Owner of Stanley Schnauzer.... and Alfie Cockerpoo
User avatar
Nickolas
Airbus A380
Airbus A380
 
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Sawbridgeworth Hertfordshire
Also Known As: Dad to Cllr TDC

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Bubbles » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:37 pm

I could also spend hours but I'm well aware how these discussions turn so i wont, however i will ask just how long do we support an organization that has shown on a numerous occasions that it is incapable of operating 558? Year after year of "pay up or we fold" appeals, the absolutely disgusting fiasco that was Waddington this year, and it wasn't just the the fact they ballsed the permit up either it was also the shoddy way it was announced, and no amount of P.R. spin can dress it up as anything other than a farce!

By doing what's best for the aeroplane doesn't mean carrying on raising funds for the current organisation, it is now simply throwing peoples hard earned money down the drain just to stave off what is the inevitable, better to end it now whilst there is still goodwill among people, there is noway we will survive another appeal like this. No doubt someone will come along with saying how things are changed etc, but if Gully is correct and the club has no say etc then wheres the change? what and who is different in the set up? I have seen nothing to suggest that this time next year we won't be in this mess again. I am not calling for heads to roll but i believe that any faith or trust in the current set up has gone and when that goes you've had it.
Image



Yes, yes you did!
User avatar
Bubbles
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Lost And Confused.

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Gaz » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:43 pm

Do we know what the fate of the club will be if/when the trust folds?

I would hope that plans are afoot to, at least, split from the trust (I know they are separate entities, but the club supports the trust) and keep a hand on the aircraft.

I, for one, believe that the club is a massive incentive for any potential buyer of the aircraft
NB; Any negative comments I post about the Vulcan are posted SOLELY to wind Gregg up!
User avatar
Gaz
Boeing 747
Boeing 747
 
Posts: 8187
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Bubbles » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:45 pm

The club is going to support 558 where ever she ends up, The club also could have influence if it was teamed with the right people and/organisations.
Image



Yes, yes you did!
User avatar
Bubbles
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Lost And Confused.

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Checkflaps » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:55 pm

Bubbs.

We all know how much you have done for the aircraft and operation before and after the restoration. Hopefully, if any committe members have taken 'offense' they will take the comments as they were meant - as you have clarified since - and you can move on and still remain friends.

In my mind, it is funny how one aircraft can generate so much 'passion' in people. Having looked around the other forums. there is no other aircraft that generates as much discussion as XH558 - and then by some margin. If only that level of interest could be transformed into £s.

Lets hope this discussion will run for a while in its current honest and open format.

G
User avatar
Checkflaps
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:23 pm

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Sploosher » Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:00 am

Mayfly wrote:and all with humour too!!!! :ymapplause:




as some of you may realise, my sense of humour is rathy whacky........................ :ymblushing:
User avatar
Sploosher
BAE Hawk
BAE Hawk
 
Posts: 2993
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:31 pm
Also Known As: jangor

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Sooty655 » Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 am

Checkflaps wrote:In my mind, it is funny how one aircraft can generate so much 'passion' in people. Having looked around the other forums. there is no other aircraft that generates as much discussion as XH558 - and then by some margin.

That could be because 558 is one of the few historic aircraft discussed on aviation forums that is actually (sometimes) airworthy, but I suspect the amount of "passion" and discussion generated may be most closely related to the various examples of spectacular mis-management we have all seen.
Sooty

One Olympus 301 has twice the power of a complete F1 starting grid.
XM655 has four of them, all serviceable.
When we make noise, WE MAKE NOIZE ! !
User avatar
Sooty655
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 8871
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:17 pm
Location: Weedon, Northants

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Dan4th » Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:00 pm

BUT!

And this is a Very BIG BUT!

(no offense, Sooty...) :p

The one thing that glues us all together and allows
a thread like this one where all the ideas and perspectives
and emotions can swirl around and bump up against
one another is that everyone loves the aircraft and
above all else wants to see her keep doing what she was
designed and built to do.

It's been such a long, twisty road and SUCH a long one
that I think all anyone wants at this particular point
in the timeline is just to see her fly -- any Way, any How!

This is a really outstanding thread and a tribute to
the basic greatness of this site and its forumeers!

Danf.
I like to do my planning retroactively!
User avatar
Dan4th
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
 
Posts: 14733
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:42 pm
Location: Bangor, Maine, USA
Also Known As: Token Murkin

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:02 pm

All very good points, but you just know that someone will come online soon and decry what has been posted!
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

PreviousNext

Return to Anything Vulcan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests