If the title of this thread does not have political connotations then what does. 

That really is stretching it

22 minutes ago, G-RFRY said:

If the title of this thread does not have political connotations then what does. 

SAD!

Raymond - Yes, you are correct that the title can be read such, but in my defence of the title I was going off the fact that Boris had thought that the stock Voyager livery was boring. In addition we have had a prior discussion on here about the actual Air Force One and Pres. Trump's repaint idea.

Unlike that livery being somewhat boring (the repaint, not the current pale blue and polished bits) being just horizontal bands, our Voyager with its swooshes and non-serif text works well. Perhaps, apart from the flag design, they should have left the plane grey rather than white? Or... have the plane grey, but with the flag in another two shades of grey (not fifty!! )

It wasn't my intention to get more political than that - I just picked an article which had decent images. Had I inserted an image directly into my post I fear it might have caused issues in a similar fashion to when people request repaints and insert an image from airliners.net etc.

Sorry Chock, I had to be amused at Ray's put down regarding working for the MoD for 39 years.. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Chock said:

I wouldn't trust the MoD to get it right if I asked them to nip up the road to buy me a Twix. Have you ever worked for them?! 🤣

Yes 

Here's a Union Flag on a BA plane in anniversary BEA livery following that 'wrong way round' convention:

Edited June 28, 20205 yr by Chock

Found a decent video:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORFTpEVy9k

 

It strikes me that the aircraft was working perfectly well in its RAF grey and that £900,000 could have been spent on something useful, instead of something that could easily look like the prime minister of a small island off the coast of Europe trying to emulate another leader of a rather larger country. At some point, all of this nonsense has to be paid for and the humble taxpayer is the one watching their money pouring down an apparently bottomless drain.

Edited June 28, 20205 yr by Reader

I believe that ZZ336 was due a refurbishment anyway... just saying..

This PATRIOTIC taxpayer likes the scheme, more so once I realised that the plane needed a refurb...

Look , I really didn't want to go down this route...

If I can relate one slightly political rejoinder before this thread gets locked - the paltry 900k  is handsomely offset by the Mayor of London's proposed £millions cuts to London's services..  I quote from a BBC article. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53195825

Quote

Earlier this week Mr Khan suggested City Hall could move to east London to save £11.1m a year in rent and charges.

Potential cuts of almost £110m in policing and £290m at Transport for London (TfL) were outlined in proposals by Mr Khan.

Sorry mods, do what you need to do.. 

33 minutes ago, Reader said:

It strikes me that the aircraft was working perfectly well in its RAF grey and that £900,000 could have been spent on something useful, instead of something that could easily look like the prime minister of a small island off the coast of Europe trying to emulate another leader of a rather larger country. At some point, all of this nonsense has to be paid for and the humble taxpayer is the one watching their money pouring down an apparently bottomless drain.

You seem determined to take a political stance on this. Desist or you’ll be taking a holiday.

I had not read Mr Proudfoot's contribution, however, I have spotted it now and withdraw from the discussion.

In the interests of impartiality, he might care to review the second part of the post above his, which to the untrained observer appears to be not only overtly political but widely off topic.

Edited June 28, 20205 yr by Reader

I am not a painter, but $1.1 Million to paint an airplane? Can someone tell me what I’m missing? That would be the same cost as painting 200 houses. Something doesn’t make sense to me.
 

Cheers, Pete

The £900,000 cost also covered the D check which the aircraft had at Marshalls of Cambridge..

The popular press have failed yet again with this story!

It is believed that the $1.1 mill cost is attributed to a refurbishment which included the repainting. A quick and dirty google search reveals that a typical 777 repaint costs $100k to $200k (larger plane than a 330)

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13738/how-much-does-it-cost-to-give-an-airliner-a-fresh-coat-of-paint#:~:text=A 777 paint job can,can cost %2450%2C000 or more.&text=A news article that linked,average of 312 hours each.

55 minutes ago, Reader said:

In the interests of impartiality, he might care to review the second part of the post above his, which to the untrained observer appears to be not only overtly political but widely off topic.

You are right Reader, hence the wording used in that post and my final sentence of that post.

EDIT - it was not so off topic reply to your taxpayer reference, which could also be classed as off topic. Hopefully we shall agree to disagree on such matter.

Edited June 28, 20205 yr by HighBypass
clarification

1 minute ago, norman s said:

The £900,000 cost also covered the D check which the aircraft had at Marshalls of Cambridge..

Well that at least puts the cost into perspective!

Bill