# Harper wants a pretty white plane ...



## GGboy (13 Feb 2011)

Micromanaging from the PMO (again) ...  :

Prime Minister's Office wins tug of war over VIP aircraft: documents
By Dean Beeby
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been locked in a lengthy tug of war with his defence minister over the future of the military's VIP Airbus, newly disclosed documents show.
Peter MacKay has repeatedly rejected requests from the prime minister's staff to have the Airbus painted a civilian white and red instead of its current military grey.
MacKay and senior officers argue that the white colour scheme would be too visible whenever the passenger jet is sent on troop and cargo missions to risky locales, as happens now when the aircraft is not needed by the prime minister or the Governor General.
Senior government officials say no final decision has been made. But internal emails indicate the Privy Council Office -- Harper's own department -- in fact ordered the military last September to arrange for the new paint job at the next scheduled maintenance.

Full story here ... 
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110213/Harper-VIP-Airbus-11-0213/


----------



## medicineman (13 Feb 2011)

Wonder how much of this is some pretentious dweeb in the PMO vs the actual PM?

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Feb 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Wonder how much of this is some pretentious dweeb in the PMO vs the actual PM?
> 
> MM


Good point - if you believe the paper trail mentioned, 2 years of political and bureaucratic wrestling over _this_?


----------



## GGboy (13 Feb 2011)

On the one hand, who knows?
On the other, I find it hard to believe that any of the PMO/PCO weinies would be taking on a Minister like this without the PM's at least tacit approval.
Hopefully, they'll be the ones riding the big white target into KAF ...


----------



## Strike (13 Feb 2011)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> On the one hand, who knows?
> On the other,_* I find it hard to believe that any of the PMO/PCO weinies would be taking on a Minister like this without the PM's at least tacit approval.*_
> Hopefully, they'll be the ones riding the big white target into KAF ...



Okay, now THAT's funny.  I don't find it unlikely at all.


----------



## MJP (13 Feb 2011)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> Hopefully, they'll be the ones riding the big white target into KAF ...



That is a red herring the airbuses don't fly into KAF in any case.


I somehow don't find it strange that we as a G8 nation would want to have a plane painted to represent Canada.  A quick perusal of wikepedia shows that many nations have aircraft painted to showcase and highlight their respective country.  Why should we be any different?


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> Why should we be any different?



Alot of country have dedicated presidential aircrafts, we do not.


----------



## MJP (13 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Alot of country have dedicated presidential aircrafts, we do not.



So what?   The colour on the aircraft hardly detracts from its performance while conducting other missions.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> So what?   The colour on the aircraft hardly detracts from its performance while conducting other missions.



Well, as a matter of fact, yes it does. Hence why we stopped painting our aircraft white with the red "lightning bolt" in the first place.


----------



## Strike (13 Feb 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> That is a red herring the airbuses don't fly into KAF in any case.
> 
> 
> I somehow don't find it strange that we as a G8 nation would want to have a plane painted to represent Canada.  A quick perusal of wikepedia shows that many nations have aircraft painted to showcase and highlight their respective country.  Why should we be any different?



We already have pax aircraft that fit that bill.  They already have a huge honkin' CANADA and Cdn Air Force Roundel on the side.  It may be subdued, but only in colour.  Still pretty easy to see.


----------



## MJP (13 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, as a matter of fact, yes it does. Hence why we stopped painting our aircraft white with the red "lightning bolt" in the first place.



Please expand, I am not fully understanding what you are saying.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> Please expand, I am not fully understanding what you are saying.



There is more to aircraft performance than how fast it flies. Big white airplanes are easy to see (track, target....) on certain systems due to certain inherent properties.


----------



## MJP (13 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There is more to aircraft performance than how fast it flies. Big white airplanes are easy to see (track, target....) on certain systems due to certain inherent properties.



Ack.  I see what you are talking about now and I agree white things are easy to see and hit.  However I am saying that having a well painted plane that flies our PM and the like around doesn't seem that big of a deal.  Lots of other countries have big white easy to hit planes that do the same.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> Lots of other countries have big white easy to hit planes that do the same.



Do these countries use them for regular airlift missions when the boss isnt using it ??


Are US VIPs flying into KAF on VC-25s ?


----------



## GAP (13 Feb 2011)

The PM attends how many international conferences/meetings in the course of the year? Our colors/maple leaf should stand out.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2011)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> Micromanaging from the PMO (again) ...  :
> 
> Prime Minister's Office wins tug of war over VIP aircraft: documents
> By Dean Beeby
> ...



I don't see a problem with this, as long as it is the PMO and the PCO who fund the numerous paint jobs and not DND.  If they want it, they should pay the bill.  Too easy.


----------



## HavokFour (13 Feb 2011)

I present to you, a compromise:

A removable red maple leaf that can be taken on and off. On when the PM or the GG are on board, and off when they're not.


----------



## cphansen (13 Feb 2011)

This is silly. The primary mission is the CF's needs not the PM's occasional needs. Yes a nice white aircraft with Canadian insignia would be nice but why does it need to be an Airbus.

Why not something like a Bombardier Global 8000, it has the range 7900 nautical miles, speed .85 mach and will use 6000 feet runways. It does transport 8 passengers with an office and stateroom. We could purchase 3, 1 for the PM, 1 for the GG, and 1 for backup. When the PM needs more seats for staff and reporters, let them lease a plane from Air Canada.


----------



## MJP (13 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Do these countries use them for regular airlift missions when the boss isnt using it ??
> 
> 
> Are US VIPs flying into KAF on VC-25s ?



I don't know about other countries and I really don't care.  I hardly think that the sustainment flights undertaken are into high risk locales that many other big white easy to hit planes don't already fly into.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Are US VIPs flying into KAF on VC-25s ?



I don't know about KAF but there was one big white & blue easy to hit VC-25 (or similar American airlift, I'll admit civvy AC ID is not my strong point) sitting on the tarmac in Kabul in 2004 when I arrived in country.


----------



## Strike (13 Feb 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I present to you, a compromise:
> 
> A removable red maple leaf that can be taken on and off. On when the PM or the GG are on board, and off when they're not.



As good of an idea as that thought is when we talk about cars and buses, I'd be surprised if one could be manufactured for a plane that would stay on during flight.

As for the justification, then perhaps the PCO and PMO should see what the effect on operations would be to remove the use of that white Airbus because of its inability to fly to certain locations (read: increased risk to crew and pax because of its identification as the PMs plane).


----------



## Zoomie (13 Feb 2011)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> Why not something like a Bombardier Global 8000, it has the range 7900 nautical miles, speed .85 mach and will use 6000 feet runways. It does transport 8 passengers with an office and stateroom. We could purchase 3, 1 for the PM, 1 for the GG, and 1 for backup.



We have a fleet of Challengers for this very task.  Unlike the Polaris aircraft, these aircraft might actually see the poo-pond.


----------



## GAP (13 Feb 2011)

If we have Challengers for this purpose, why are they using an Airbus?


----------



## benny88 (13 Feb 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I present to you, a compromise:
> 
> A removable red maple leaf that can be taken on and off. On when the PM or the GG are on board, and off when they're not.




Made of what? Removable how? The logistics are a bit more complicated than a magnet when the vehicle goes 0.8 Mach.


----------



## cphansen (13 Feb 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> If we have Challengers for this purpose, why are they using an Airbus?



Bureacratic bloat. Do you think when the PM travels that he can be without his staff, PR, support staff, security, press etc. Challengers don't have that much space, of course they could use Air Canada for transport, if they want a honking big Airbus let them lease it for the mission


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Feb 2011)

Why are you people getting so upset, and carried away about a friggin' paintjob? Who cares? If it even provides the most minutae of protection, to whoever is flying in it, it's worth it.

I want no part of a country, or political party, that fights an upcoming election based on the colour of our planes, and anyone that votes on that criteria is a fuckin' moron and doesn't deserve to be given the pencil to mark the circle.


----------



## GGboy (14 Feb 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why are you people getting so upset, and carried away about a friggin' paintjob? Who cares? If it even provides the most minutae of protection, to whoever is flying in it, it's worth it.


I agree. If PMO wants a pretty new plane, let them buy another Airbus out of their budget and give it to the VIP Transport Sqn (412 Sqn I think) to operate. But I'll betcha my pension the CF ends up eating the cost ...


----------



## chrisf (14 Feb 2011)

What cost? Pay for grey paint, pay for white paint, still paying for paint.

Forgive my ignorance, but are these aircraft really flown into a threat environment? Does it really matter if we paint brightly or subdued? They are already painted with glossy paint vs the matte paint of other air craft. 

Though if anything, you'd think the PMO would accept a grey plane coloured the same as the rest for the simple matter of security in anonymity.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Feb 2011)

SherH2A: All those wonderful Canadian journalists must be accommodated too.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (14 Feb 2011)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> I agree. If PMO wants a pretty new plane, let them buy another Airbus out of their budget and give it to the VIP Transport Sqn (412 Sqn I think) to operate. But I'll betcha my pension the CF ends up eating the cost ...



One CF role is to provide tn to the PM (and others).  Government gives us money to accomplish those missions.

And, frankly, if the best advice has been given ("Grey is better because") and the direction comes down to proceed regardless, CAS has two choices:  paint the goddamned plane already, or quit.  Finding the money to paint the aircraft is trivial in a department with roughly $20B per year - lots of fat that could be trimmed (Juno the Army bear and Sonar the Navy dog both come to mind immediately).  Whining and bitching that the military must follow legal orders from above is just plain stupid.


----------



## Pusser (14 Feb 2011)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> I agree. If PMO wants a pretty new plane, let them buy another Airbus out of their budget and give it to the VIP Transport Sqn (412 Sqn I think) to operate. But I'll betcha my pension the CF ends up eating the cost ...



That makes even less sense.  The Airbus in question is already fitted out as a VIP aircraft (even has a shower).  If anything, buy an new Airbus to put into general service to replace the newly painted one.

On another note, I always though the lightning bolt was pretty cool.  If they do end up painting the plane in another colour (and I'm not saying they should) I at least hope the paint scheme chosen reflects that it's still a military aircraft (i.e. lightning bolt and CF roundels) and not some political platform.


----------



## cphansen (14 Feb 2011)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> SherH2A: All those wonderful Canadian journalists must be accommodated too.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Why? Are they a part of the government or the Civil Service who need to be there to do a job for Canada?

No, they are part of a commercial enterprise who make money from being there. I would suggest they should fly commercial. 

If the PMO insists on them being flown by the CF, then let them ride on our normal military aircraft and be subject to the same risks as the CF members.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 Feb 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> That is a red herring the airbuses don't fly into KAF in any case.
> 
> 
> I somehow don't find it strange that we as a G8 nation would want to have a plane painted to represent Canada.  A quick perusal of wikepedia shows that many nations have aircraft painted to showcase and highlight their respective country.  Why should we be any different?



I don't know if you can trust Wikepedia on this one: The entry for Canada says that we operate five Airbus', four of which are Bombardier's Challengers 600 ???

Personally, and regardless of the debate on the usefulness of the colour scheme, I like the current grey plane's camo because it stands out from the others (all nice and white) on the tarmac when they park together and it says: look, I'm flying with my airforce, not some pamby-mamby civvy airline in disguise.

Oh. and dataperson: The PM (and the PMO even less) is not in the chain of command. He can't give the CDS "lawful orders". We work for HM the Queen, which means we get our orders from the GG in counsel. PM may "counsel" her, but she gives the order. It may seem like a distinction without difference, but it legally holds a lot because its the nuance that makes any direction the CDS gets from the PM or MoD non binding unless they specifically go through the GG with a written order to the CDS and which gives him/her the discretion to apply it as he/she interprets without risk of court martial every time there is a disagreement on intent/application of the directive received (such as the recent problems over application of the TB financial directives).


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't know if you can trust Wikepedia on this one: The entry for Canada says that we operate five Airbus', four of which are Bombardier's Challengers 600 ???



We own 5 Airbuses and 6 CC-144 Challengers (Bombardier Challenger 600)


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> RangerBoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't know about PCO, but if it was PMO, if the PM _didn't_ like the idea, I'm guessing we wouldn't have to wait too, too wait long for him to say, "belay his last".


----------



## GGboy (14 Feb 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Don't know about PCO, but if it was PMO, if the PM _didn't_ like the idea, I'm guessing we wouldn't have to wait too, too wait long for him to say, "belay his last".



Which I suspect was the whole idea behind someone feeding the story to the media in the first place ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2011)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> Which I suspect was the whole idea behind someone feeding the story to the media in the first place ...


The primary source of the story is apparently an Access to Information request. How did the reporter know exactly what to ask for?  Good point you raise.....


----------



## dapaterson (14 Feb 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Oh. and dataperson: The PM (and the PMO even less) is not in the chain of command. He can't give the CDS "lawful orders". We work for HM the Queen, which means we get our orders from the GG in counsel. PM may "counsel" her, but she gives the order. It may seem like a distinction without difference, but it legally holds a lot because its the nuance that makes any direction the CDS gets from the PM or MoD non binding unless they specifically go through the GG with a written order to the CDS and which gives him/her the discretion to apply it as he/she interprets without risk of court martial every time there is a disagreement on intent/application of the directive received (such as the recent problems over application of the TB financial directives).



First, it's the "Governor General in Council"; if you're going to be condescending and pedantic, at least try to be correct.

Second, PMO/PCO in this case will direct TB, acting as GGinC, to issue the direction to the CF.  While waiting for the written direction is following proper form, once intent is received it is best to begin planning and preparation.  (Sort of like a warning order).

Finally, the recent "problems over application of the TB financial directives" have everything to do with no TB directives in existence, and nothing to do with disagreement over intent/application.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Feb 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...if you're going to be condescending and pedantic, at least try to be correct.


  :nod:  MilPoints enroute


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 Feb 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> at least try to be correct.



And I would return the favour here: The TB hasn't and does not in any case at all act as GGinC - only the GG can act as GGinC unless Parliament enacts a delegation of power to someone else. The constitution does not provide for it and the Parliament has never adopted a law delegating GGinC powers to the TB. If you go through Chap. 1 of QR&O's (from 1.14 onto 1.25), for instance, you will see Regulations originating from the GGinC, TB and M.N.D. as three different sources of delegated powers. QR&O's are, for instance mostly regulations from the GGinC.

But i'm glad you ultimately changed your vocab in this matter: Your first post dealt with someone in the CF refusing to obey a lawful order (your own words). You are now talking about directives, as am I. Yes the PMO/PCO/TB can give DND (again, not the CF, which gets such directives through DND) directives. And that is my point: if you screw it up as a higher ranked officer or do not agree with the directives, you can be removed or you can quit, but you can't be courtmartialed (the consequence of refusing a "lawful order").


----------



## McG (14 Feb 2011)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> ... white colour scheme would be too visible whenever the passenger jet is sent on troop and cargo missions to risky locales, as happens now when the aircraft is not needed by the prime minister or the Governor General.


I thought the lack a counter-measures system was the reason we do not fly the aircraft into "risky locales" in any case.  If we already will not fly into such locations, then does the colour really matter?


----------



## MP 811 (14 Feb 2011)

We own 5 Airbuses and 6 CC-144 Challengers (Bombardier Challenger 600)
[/quote]

We only have 4 operational CC-150 Polaris left in the fleet.  01 and 02 are normally used for VIP transport, 02 being the standby.  03 is in an air to air refueling configuration and 04 is used as a standard passenger carrying variant.  01 was put on the market awhile ago for sale...........no one was interested.  There's talk of putting it back on the market sometime this year, but who knows.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Feb 2011)

MP 811 said:
			
		

> 03 is in an air to air refueling configuration and 04 is used as a standard passenger carrying variant.



That is incorrect. The tankers are 15004 and 15005.

15004 seen here :
http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=9038&site=casimages&catalog=casimages

15005 seen here :
http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=7875&site=casimages&catalog=casimages


----------



## Haletown (14 Feb 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why are you people getting so upset, and carried away about a friggin' paintjob? Who cares? If it even provides the most minutae of protection, to whoever is flying in it, it's worth it.
> 
> I want no part of a country, or political party, that fights an upcoming election based on the colour of our planes, and anyone that votes on that criteria is a ******' moron and doesn't deserve to be given the pencil to mark the circle.



Amen bro . . . a ridiculous tempest in a paint pot


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2011)

A bit more detail is creeping out, via Postmedia News:


> .... Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for the prime minister, said the aircraft is due for a paint job next year and that the government was "looking at some options."
> 
> MacKay spokesman Jay Paxton added paint jobs are restricted to the regular maintenance cycle, which is every six years.
> 
> ...


I guess until the media decides to share the documents obtained, we'll just have to triangulate based on what's written and said second hand.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2011)

What the Minister said in the House of Commons in response to questions from the Liberals,


> There has been no decision taken with respect to the repainting of transport aircraft. In fact, the repainting of military assets occurs on a regularly scheduled, established maintenance cycle. It is done when the operational tempo will not be affected.  I can assure the hon. member and members present that we would never do anything that would interfere with the operations of the Canadian Forces, or that would negatively impact the forces in any way.


the NDP,


> .... the member should press rewind and watch the tape. The answer is the same. It is not happening.  There is a regularly scheduled maintenance program that occurs when an aircraft is in need of repainting. There has been no decision taken with respect to that.  I can assure the hon. member and members present again, nothing this government will ever do is going to impact negatively on the forces and their operations, their families, the work they do that brings so much pride and purpose to our country. The forces have a great friend in the Conservative Party when it comes to giving them assets.


and the Bloc:


> I repeat that no decision has yet been made about the colour scheme. No decision will be made in this regard that will have any sort of negative impact on Canadian Forces' operations.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Feb 2011)

Another pathetic attempt to manufacture scandal where there is none. Shame on the media, shame on the opposition, and shame on some of us for getting a twist in our knickers.


----------



## MP 811 (16 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That is incorrect. The tankers are 15004 and 15005.



Ok then.....I can assure you though as of last week, 03 was in an air - to air- refuelling configuration, as I did some training on it.  Never saw the 5th but I'm sure you would know more about that than me.

cheers


----------



## TN2IC (16 Feb 2011)

IMO,
       I say we buy the used Warsaw Pact era Helo's from Skylink company in KAF. Always seen the poo pond. And battle harden too. Oh BTW... THEY ARE WHITE!

"In Mother Russia, HIP flies you!"



Regards Comrade,
TN2IC


http://www.skylinkaviation.com/


----------



## aesop081 (17 Feb 2011)

MP 811 said:
			
		

> I'm sure you would know more about that than me.



No need to get snoty. I can read tail numbers so thats what i am going by, as per the pictures i linked in my previous post.


----------



## MP 811 (17 Feb 2011)

lol.........I wasnt getting "snoty" at all......I truly meant you would know more about it then me as your involved with various aircraft platforms.......im not!

plus, I wouldnt have put "cheers" in my post if I was trying to be a smartass!


----------



## aesop081 (17 Feb 2011)

MP 811 said:
			
		

> lol.........I wasnt getting "snoty" at all......



Fair enough, my apologies.

Do you have any pictures of the configuration that 15003 was in when you did that training ?

I ask because i know for a fact that 04 and 05 have been modified for AAR ( i was parked next to both on 2 occasions......and pictures of them are widely available with clear serials on them) and Canada only contracted for 2 to be modified. No official DND site states that a third was modified and i cannot even locate a non-official site that indicates this would have been done. Thus, to me its a case of a) You were not on 15003 or b) The aircraft was in some other configuration.


----------



## captloadie (18 Feb 2011)

I can say that Cdn Aviator is correct in his comments. Having flown on the aircraft in question as crew, and lived through the reconfiguring to the AAR role, it is fairly simple to tell which aircraft have been modified. On the inside, just as you enter the upper cargo area, there will be a refueling console in a locked cabinet, with rails on the floor to install the seats. The last I had heard, 001, 002, and 003 were all still in full pax config and although 004 and 005 were in combi/AAR config, they were only being used in an AAR role. There has been some recent discussions on converting 003 back to a combi configuration, so that we would have one VIP config, one gull pax config, one combi config, and two AAR configs.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Feb 2011)

Of course, given the hours we've put on the fleet in recent years, might it be a better idea to find a "newer" second-hand Airbus, and configure it for the VIP role?  It would relieve some of the pressure on the fleet.


----------



## MP 811 (18 Feb 2011)

I didnt obtain any pictures but I know it was 03...........half the seats, large forward cargo area..plus I was down in the avionics section and walked into the front belly cargo area and saw the big fuel tank.  Sorry I cant be anymore help gents.  Only reason why I know it was 03 is we were suppose to do our work on 01 as most our work will be on that frame anyways, but it wasn't around and 02 was having engine work done.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Feb 2011)

MP 811 said:
			
		

> I didnt obtain any pictures but I know it was 03...........half the seats, large forward cargo area..plus I was down in the avionics section and walked into the front belly cargo area and saw the big fuel tank.



Well, 15003 is not a tanker so it may have been some other configuration. On the CC-150 tankers, IIRC, the additional fuel tanks are mounted in mid-fuselage, sandwiching the main center tank.


----------



## Haletown (18 Feb 2011)

"walked into the front belly cargo area and saw the big fuel tank. "

hmmmmmm    . . . has anyone reported any missing beer at Trenton?  If so we may have discovered how they are getting the goods off base.


----------



## Gramps (18 Feb 2011)

I can say with 100 percent certainty that 03 is not configured as a tanker, I was on it today.


----------



## MP 811 (18 Feb 2011)

can they change the config's in 2 weeks?...........anyways.  I guess it really doesnt matter.  What were we originally talking about with this thread anyways?.............lol


----------



## WingsofFury (10 Mar 2011)

Personally, I think the grey looks amazing in some nice light - no reason to change it at all.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Mar 2011)

just me... said:
			
		

> can they change the config's in 2 weeks



Not on 03.



			
				WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the grey looks amazing in some nice light - no reason to change it at all.



i do like the grey as well. Nice photo.


----------



## WingsofFury (10 Mar 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> i do like the grey as well. Nice photo.



Thanks!


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jul 2011)

More on this - voices from an unnamed "top government official" - linked to the royal visit - highlights mine:


> Will and Kate's visit is adding ammunition to a campaign by the prime minister's office to repaint Canada's military-looking VIP plane.
> 
> Images of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge boarding the "drab" looking grey aircraft are feeding calls from some corners to paint the Airbus A310 — designated as a CC-150 Polaris — in a scheme that would make the country proud.
> 
> ...


Source:  Postmedia News, 4 Jul 11


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Jul 2011)

> Boeing 707 which was painted white with a red line and Government of Canada logo and flag.



Oh yes, because we all know how patriotically inspiring standard bureaucratic branding can be.   :

If we're going to do this, can we at least have an open design competition without some nameless "top government official" narrowing the choices to some weaselly common look and feel blandness?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2011)

> The department was recently tasked with coming up with different possible red and white colour schemes to use on the plane — in a similar style as was used on its precursor, the Boeing 707 which was painted white with a red line and Government of Canada logo and flag.



The last thing we need is another symbol that looks like that great purveyor of corporate greed, crass incompetent management and uncaring, loathsome employees. A company so totally devoid of the GAF factor, Air Canada.

I like Michael's idea. An open competition would cost little in the great scheme of things, could give us a design envied around the world and actually be a bit of fun.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jul 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> If we're going to do this, can we at least have an open design competition without some nameless "top government official" narrowing the choices to some weaselly common look and feel blandness?





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I like Michael's idea. An open competition would cost little in the great scheme of things, could give us a design envied around the world and actually be a bit of fun.


Who would judge?  CF?  Panel of civilians & military?

ANYTHING but MERX, please....


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Jul 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Who would judge?  CF?  Panel of civilians & military?
> 
> ANYTHING but MERX, please....



Let it be judged by all the recipients of the Order of Canada.

List of Companions of the Order of Canada



> Up to 15 Companions are appointed each year, with a limit of 165 living Companions at any given time.  ...  As of June 14, 2010, there were 164 living Companions (including 4 honorary).


----------



## 57Chevy (4 Jul 2011)

Nice array of carefully chosen words and paraphrases aimed at trying to coax the general public into demanding change: 

                                             "the "drab" looking grey aircraft"
                                             "It is drab, it's very military, it's utilitarian"
                                             "it just reflects poorly on the country.
                                             "it's a bit underwhelming,"
                                             "belonging to a third world country"


Nice try but I don't buy it.

Mr. MacKay clearly pointed out that it has been painted in a colour scheme appropriate for its multi-role nature.

The Aircraft looks great just the way it is, and changing it is never actually "cost neutral" anyway.

so, from reply #44: 

           ...press rewind and watch the tape. The answer is the same. It is not happening.

And where the heck is "some corners" located.   ;D


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jul 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Nice array of carefully chosen words and paraphrases aimed at trying to coax the general public into demanding change:
> 
> "the "drab" looking grey aircraft"
> "It is drab, it's very military, it's utilitarian"
> ...



Aircraft do require periodic repainting.  If a change is done when the palne is already shceduled for repainting it would be more or less cost neutral.

However, in this instance, we are seeing increased demand for airlift in non-VIP situations.  Perhaps the CF should be looking to increase the size of its fleet by acquiring some gently used aircraft to augment the Polaris fleet.  Having more tails available might also permit having one or two painted white (or Air Force (Tory?) Blue) and still maintain sufficient numbers in tactical colours.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2011)

For a really high LCF, paint a fake cockpit on the underside...... ;D


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> For a really high LCF, paint a fake cockpit on the underside...... ;D



Nah, can you imagine a CF-18 pilot in command of a Polaris?  I don't think Airbuses are certified for barrel rolls...

On the other hand, we'd get more operational use out of 65 new Airbuses than 65 F-35s...  Just compare the log books of Herc pilots with Hornet pilots...


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> For a really high LCF, paint a fake cockpit on the underside...... ;D



Or maybe paint it AridPat.............just sayin... >


----------



## Gronk (5 Jul 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Nice array of carefully chosen words and paraphrases aimed at trying to coax the general public into demanding change:
> 
> "the "drab" looking grey aircraft"
> "It is drab, it's very military, it's utilitarian"
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Aircraft do require periodic repainting.  If a change is done when the plane is already scheduled for repainting it would be more or less cost neutral.


Funny you should mention that - further along the lines of "only the peons have to follow standardized branding rules", if the Huffington Post is to be believed (highlights mine)....


> After battling with the Department of National Defence over the right to repaint his airbus red and white, The Huffington Post has learned Prime Minister Stephen Harper is getting his way.
> 
> The Prime Minister's grey aircraft, an Airbus A-310, which is designated as a CC-150 Polaris, has been slotted for a fresh paint job in August 2013 and sketches of the new design are currently being tossed around the Department Of National Defence, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office.
> 
> ...


More on the proposed paint scheme for the PM's plane from QMI's David Akin here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Nov 2011)

From Question Period yesterday (PDF)


> _*Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.):*_  Madam Speaker, lots of smug talk about fiscal balance, but we have just learned that the Prime Minister has overruled his own Minister of National Defence and is forcing National Defence to repaint a VIP government aircraft because he does not like its colour. The current fleet of aircraft are painted military grey because they are used in critical military operations. The Prime Minister's vanity paint job will make the plane unsafe for those very military operations. Why is the Prime Minister putting his own vanity above the needs of the military?
> 
> *Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC):*  Madam Speaker, apart from being a complete non sequitur with the member's first question, the accusation made is completely unfounded. These changes would only happen in accordance with the regular maintenance cycle of National Defence and if they are cost neutral. These aircraft are repainted every six years and there is no current plan to change the paint scheme for any airbus aircraft."
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jul 2012)

.... on the back-and-forth between PMO and PCO on what the PM's "RCAF One" should look like, via documents obtained via ATIP (but not shared in their entirety):





> Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s staff has directed in meticulous detail the design of his VIP Airbus, going so far as to instruct defence department officials to include a faded maple leaf on its tail similar to one used on the Conservatives' election campaign bus.
> 
> Records obtained by The Huffington Post Canada under the Access to Information Act show political staffers were intimately involved in requesting and redesigning a new paint job for Harper's grey Polaris CC-150 military aircraft. Officials in the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, typically tasked with managing pressing files of national concern, paid an inordinate amount of attention to design specs, colours and labelling.
> 
> ...


Huffington Post, 26 Juil 12

Some of the options:


----------



## dimsum (27 Jul 2012)

I'm sorry, but the top and bottom pics look like what's on the Spirit class BC Ferries.  I'd have trouble taking anyone seriously pulling up in that!   :blotto:

The middle one looks somewhat like the German VIP planes.  Not great, but not like a flying ad for Via Rail.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jul 2012)

Just disgusting!

To my mind, if Harper wants a white plane: fine we can go along with that (the 707's used to be white). But if he wants "Government of Canada" in big letters, then give the job to the civilians at the Department of Transport. 

This is a military plane and it should be - at all time - identified as such. Thus, It should read "Royal Canadian Air Force" and be in its livery.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Jul 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This is a military plane and it should be - at all time - identified as such. Thus, It should read "Royal Canadian Air Force" and be in its livery.


Other of the world's air forces, operating military VIP transports do not seem to be as disgusted as you.

USAF presidential aircraft






Luftwaffe VIP transport






French AF presidential transport


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jul 2012)

In many peoples minds, a rickety DC 3 is too good for politicians and VIPS ie the GG and they should have to travel with the rest of us, in economy on Scare Canada. :2c:


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2012)

Meh....I don't see a problem with our PM having a distinguishable airplane.....part of the image...


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Meh....I don't see a problem with our PM having a distinguishable airplane.....part of the image...


Neither do I. Some folk are just plain plane mean.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2012)

I'm with CDN Aviator; it seems to be the "accepted thing" at head-of-state/head-of-government level. That being said, I prefer the simpler, more elegant, middle design (Rev 150-002, below). But, like OGBD I think that if the RCAF is going to fly it then it ought to say RCAF somewhere. Additionally, Jim Seggie is right - this is another issue that the government wants to get off the (public) table as soon as possible. Make a decision, today; authorize the money, today; give the orders, today ... next topic.






Do something like this with "Royal Canadian Air Force"/"Aviation royale canadienne" somewhere on the hull.


----------



## medicineman (27 Jul 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Neither do I. Some folk are just plain mean.



Mean isn't the word I'd use Jim...some people just don't get that a head of state or representative of such shouldn't look like Mr Bag O'Shyte The Irish Hobo, when they arrive on international business.  I remember when I did the Airbus orientation for my Airevac course, we actually used the PM's plane - there were what you'd expect on board, like a shower, private office area, areas for staff and press, but it was far from extravagant (was in the Chretien era).  They should look rested, tidy and ready to do what they're there for.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2012)

My votes


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jul 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Neither do I. Some folk are just plain plane mean.



I fixed it for me. ;D

MM agreed.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Do something like this with "Royal Canadian Air Force"/"Aviation royale canadienne" somewhere on the hull.



Right by the valves for the honey tank?


----------



## RangerRay (27 Jul 2012)

Of the three, I like the second the best.  Although, I would prefer something simpler.  No fancy "waves" or logo-ised maple leaves.  Just white, big roundel, CDN flag/coat-of-arms, and "Government of Canada/Gouvernement du Canada" (though I would prefer "Dominion of Canada/Dominion du Canada" ;D ).

The other two are...well, "ugh".


----------



## Pusser (27 Jul 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> In many peoples minds, a rickety DC 3 is too good for politicians and VIPS ie the GG and they should have to travel with the rest of us, in economy on Scare Canada. :2c:



Actually, the DC-3 was a pretty reliable aircraft.


----------



## dogger1936 (27 Jul 2012)

I thought we were going through rough times? Cut's left right and center...but we need a plane painted fancy?

I personally don't understand this government at all anymore.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (27 Jul 2012)

I have no problem with a dedicated aircraft in special livery for use by the PM, GG or others representing our country on the international stage.  I am, however, irritated by the (reported?) efforts of the PM's staff to have that image be a reflection of the current party in power.  If the livery of the aircraft (or of any other government advertising campaign) is to be close in design to existing logos, then legal protection should be enabled that precludes the use of such logos (or similar enough as to be confused) by any political party (or other such organizations).

Wavy lines, representations of majestic mountains (and the majority of Canadians don't actually live in/near the Rockies), stylized maple leafs and catchphrases are trendy advertising gimmicks.  They should have no place on an aircraft representing the "people of Canada".  On the same note, use of "Government of Canada" should also be dumped.  Those using the aircraft are not representing the "government", they are representing the people of the "Dominion of Canada".  Simple, traditional, identifiable and uniquely Canadian - that's all it needs.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I thought we were going through rough times? Cut's left right and center...but we need a plane painted fancy?
> 
> I personally don't understand this government at all anymore.



I know it may be a silly question, the way that Federal financing goes, but which is cheaper; an new paint job or a new plane?   >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jul 2012)

Answer: An old plane with its old paint job.

I mean come on, we are talking Airbus 320 here: The damn thing has another 30 to 40 years of life left in it.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (27 Jul 2012)

My vote.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2012)

CF planes, of all types, get painted on a regular basis for regular upkeep. Sometimes for special occasions like anniversaries, air shows, etc. Then painted back again. No one bitches. Why? Because it just isn't that important in the big scheme.

It's a fucking paint job :


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2012)

The PM should get what the PM want's.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jul 2012)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> On the same note, use of "Government of Canada" should also be dumped.  Those using the aircraft are not representing the "government", they are representing the people of the "Dominion of Canada"


I agree on disallowing similarity to party logos! 

As for text, how about just "Canada" -- makes it easier for the translators.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jul 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> As for text, how about just "Canada" -- makes it easier for the translators.


And when did you start believing all those Plain Language SME's saying less is more and simpler is easier?


----------



## dimsum (27 Jul 2012)

Before we spiral into figuring out if Aggressive Salmon is a better shade than Fuchsia, what was wrong with just changing gray for white in the PM's Airbus again?  It has the "Canada" logo on the side (which stops the "should it be seen as a Gov't of Canada plane or not") and since the inside of the plane is different than the other CC-150s anyway, what's the problem with it permanently being painted white (and whatever colour the words/flag would be)?  

All that to say, the German VIP Airbus is nice.  Direct and to the point. Which I suppose fits with Germany and Germans in general.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I thought we were going through rough times? Cut's left right and center...but we need a plane painted fancy?
> 
> I personally don't understand this government at all anymore.



Airplanes are repainted at certain intervals in their maintenance cycle. What was being proposed is that the next time she goes in, she gets repainted, just as it normally would, just in a new scheme.




			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I mean come on, we are talking Airbus 320 here:



The CC-150 is an Airbus A310, not an A320.


----------



## McG (27 Jul 2012)

Given all our recent turn-back-the-clock exercises, why not look to our own history for some paint ideas?


----------



## dogger1936 (27 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Airplanes are repainted at certain intervals in their maintenance cycle. What was being proposed is that the next time she goes in, she gets repainted, just as it normally would, just in a new scheme.



Roger that. 

Makes more sense that way. It's maybe my severe disappointment with Harper since election that has me picturing a man child wanting to paint a plane.


----------



## Jammer (27 Jul 2012)

Let's keep in mind that all CC-150s are used at one time or another for sustainment/RiP flights, support to national and international commitments and whatever else comes up. To "sex up" on and keep it solely at the behest of the PM is not likely to happen. The most that might happen is during depot level maint it'll probably get the same paint as the VIP challengers so it looks like the boss will have some street cred on the flight line.


----------



## my72jeep (27 Jul 2012)

How about this idea we give *Prime Minister* Harper sole use of a plane more to his status as a leader. a Piper Cub. and he can paint it any way he wants.


Fixed for Etiquette.


----------



## MJP (27 Jul 2012)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> How about this idea we give Harper sole use of a plane more to his statis as a leader. a Piper Cub. and he can paint it any way he wants.



Wow maybe you need to read this excellent post by E.R. Campbell http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106748.0.html


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Jul 2012)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> How about this idea we give *Prime Minister* Harper sole use of a plane more to his status as a leader. a Piper Cub. and he can paint it any way he wants.
> 
> 
> Fixed for Etiquette.



Wow.  It appears that I have finally found a reason to research the ignore function.


----------



## my72jeep (27 Jul 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Wow.  It appears that I have finally found a reason to research the ignore function.


Go right ahead.
We all have the right to say what we want as part of any post as long as we break no site rules. and my comnet shows how much I believe Prime Minister Harper needs his own plane.


----------



## Maxadia (27 Jul 2012)

For anyone who thinks a new paint job with the landscape of Canada pictured (it's not just the Rockies pictured, but the most prominent landscapes) will cost the same as any kind of plain job, get a grip.  Things like that cost more money because....well, they LOOK like they should cost more.  Whoever submits a tender for that will milk it for all it is worth.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Jul 2012)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Go right ahead.
> We all have the right to say what we want as part of any post as long as we break no site rules. and my comnet shows how much I believe Prime Minister Harper needs his own plane.



Trust me - your comnet says it all..


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Jul 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Trust me - your comnet says it all..




 :rofl:

Well played. 


How's WainNam treating you these days?


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jul 2012)

Design Number 2 generally works for me.

The monarchist in me is partial to the Tate and Lyle's on the engine cowls.  

I agree that there should be no party political associations - The stylized maple leaf of the flag is adequate to the cause.  

CANADA as an identifier is adequate.  

The other two designs look like the aborted product of an unholy union between a WW1 RN Dazzle Painter and the Lethbridge Transit authority marketing department.

Quick question:  In the event of necessity how many hours would an aircraft have to be out of service to be repainted in a "proper" subdued colour scheme?

Also - from an aerial identification point of view - what would be the effect of using Flat White, rather than Gloss White?


----------



## my72jeep (28 Jul 2012)

The other two designs look like the aborted product of an unholy union between a WW1 RN Dazzle Painter and the Lethbridge Transit authority marketing department.
 :rofl:
Milpoints inbound.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2013)

Is this the new livery?






Source: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7611588


----------



## Towards_the_gap (6 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this the new livery?



[joke]
*stamps foot in anglo-saxon rage, invokes the ghost of Henry V* Why is the French lettering first???
[/joke]


----------



## GAP (6 Jun 2013)

I like it


----------



## cphansen (6 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> [joke]
> *stamps foot in anglo-saxon rage, invokes the ghost of Henry V* Why is the French lettering first???
> [/joke]



I wondered that myself until I remembered U comes before V in the alphabet.

But it is pretty isn't it?


----------



## Towards_the_gap (6 Jun 2013)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> I wondered that myself until I remembered U comes before V in the alphabet.
> 
> But it is pretty isn't it?



Well that was a sensible, pedestrian explanation! Guess I can put my theory of franco-supremicist plane painters to bed...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this the new livery?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would guess that the paint job was tendered out to a Quebec contractor who did not know that the aircraft was flown by a English unit, as well as did not know that Canadian Armed Forces policy is that the language used by that a unit was to precede the second official language.  But who has to follow the Regulations these days?

Then again, what is painted on the other side of the aircraft?  A reversal?


----------



## dimsum (6 Jun 2013)

It's ridiculous, but I think "Canjet" when I see that plane in its new livery.


----------



## GAP (6 Jun 2013)

Being a bilingual country, does it really matter that the french came first?  :


----------



## observor 69 (6 Jun 2013)

Surprised the PMO didn't go with "GOUVERNMENT DU HARPER /HARPER GOVERNMENT."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jun 2013)

Well, call me supercilious but, to me other than the presence of the roundel (which most ignorant people will not readily associate with the military), nothing on this plane shows it to be part of the Royal Canadian Air Force (heck! That name does not even appear on the plane). It could be from any department of the government and it would look no different.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .... *But who has to follow the Regulations these days?* ....


Oooh, oooh, I know the answer to this one ....


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> milnews.ca said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jun 2013)

>Why is the French lettering first?

It's a practice which promotes brevity.  Many short phrases can be rendered as "[french] [common] [english]".

Example: "Gouvernment du Harper Government".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Jun 2013)

Humph.

I prefer my airplanes, grey, sooty and slightly oil covered (it shows you that there is still some oil left inside the airplane).

Not that I get a vote, but- not a fan of this paint scheme.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Jun 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Why is the French lettering first?
> 
> It's a practice which promotes brevity.  Many short phrases can be rendered as "[french] [common] [english]".
> 
> Example: "Gouvernment du Harper Government".




Definitely an  improvement  over my crude effort.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jun 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Being a bilingual country, does it really matter that the french came first?  :



It is the etiquette that the language spoken by the unit comes first and the second official language comes second.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jun 2013)

I am guessing that the language is reversed on the other side.

Also guessing that the PMO is pissed that they didn't get to do the Big Reveal themselves...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jun 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Humph.
> 
> I prefer my airplanes, grey, sooty and slightly oil covered (it shows you that there is still some oil left inside the airplane).
> 
> Not that I get a vote, but- not a fan of this paint scheme.



+1


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> .... guessing that the PMO is pissed that they didn't get to do the Big Reveal themselves...


 :nod:


----------



## Towards_the_gap (6 Jun 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Being a bilingual country, does it really matter that the french came first?  :



You missed the ' [joke] ' bit didn't ya  ;D


----------



## GAP (6 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> You missed the ' [joke] ' bit didn't ya  ;D



guess I did.....


----------



## Towards_the_gap (6 Jun 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Humph.
> 
> I prefer my airplanes, grey, sooty and slightly oil covered (it shows you that there is still some oil left inside the airplane).
> 
> Not that I get a vote, but- not a fan of this paint scheme.



In a similar vein, I prefer mine green, slightly rattly, with a spinny bit on top and big green ropes hanging from either side.. and leaving oil spots on the apron......

...at least I did. I guess now I prefer em with red lights and sirens. Greener pastures and all.....


----------



## CombatDoc (7 Jun 2013)

While I like the discreet red maple leaf on the ? winglet (aerodynamic thing on end of wing), the Canadian flags on the door and tail look like overkill to me.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jun 2013)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> the Canadian flags on the door and tail look like overkill to me.



Probably a photoop thing, door is open with the stairs in place, PM steps out and usually pictures are taken so he's standing right beside the flag.


----------



## Jed (7 Jun 2013)

Well, since CFB Edmonton is raising the Rainbow flag in support of Gay Pride for the Father's day weekend, I don't see why we can't paint a series of small flags all along the fuselage... ala warrior flag, matis flag, rainbow flag, maybe even the provincial and territories flags.   :evil:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I am guessing that the language is reversed on the other side.


Not according to the attached, from the same source.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (7 Jun 2013)

yes but in that photo the english is nearer the front (bow??) of the plane. ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> yes but in that photo the english is nearer the front (bow??) of the plane. ;D


Good point, even if it's still French first.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jun 2013)

I don't get the blue.  Red, white and blue is the colours of our neighbours.  Why not just red and white?


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jun 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't get the blue.  Red, white and blue is the colours of our neighbours.  Why not just red and white?



Blue is the colour of the Conservative Party........ >


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (7 Jun 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't get the blue.  Red, white and blue is the colours of our neighbours.  Why not just red and white?


RCAF colours perhaps.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Blue is the colour of the Conservative Party........ >


Wondered how long that would take


----------



## Loachman (7 Jun 2013)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> RCAF colours perhaps.



"RCAF colours"?

What are those?

The RCAF painted its transport aircraft white, with red/white/red lightning stripes down each side.

"RCAF colours" were, then, the same as the Liberal party colours.

So far, there's no orange or green...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> .... The RCAF painted its transport aircraft white, with red/white/red lightning stripes down each side ....


Funny you should say that - the Info-Machine (which has caught up with a Fact Sheet - also attached) calls that a "*similar* paint scheme" to the new one.  Here's the old scheme ....





.... and here's the new one:




"Similar"?  Discuss


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jun 2013)

Personally, this is the paint scheme I want:







Especially on the CF-18s...


----------



## Jacky Tar (7 Jun 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny you should say that - the Info-Machine (which has caught up with a Fact Sheet - also attached) calls that a "*similar* paint scheme" to the new one.  Here's the old scheme ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lose the blue from the paint scheme and yes, I'd call it an updated version of the classic RCAF / early CAF Air Transport colours. But the huge amounts of blue just scream "Conservative Party" to me. Blue is not one of our national colours, and the blue used isn't even RCAF blue.

As for the person who commented about the national flag on the vertical stabilizer and the doors as overkill, all RCAF aircraft carry the national flag on the vert. stab. I agree that on the doors as well is probably overdoing it - afterall, there's a honkin' great "GOVERNMENT OF CANADA" label along the sides, as well as RCAF roundels. I don't think anyone is likely to mistake it for the VIP plane from Watusiland.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Jun 2013)

Ah! How I miss steerage seats in the old CC177.

And Jacky Tar: few Canadian civilians (and I dare say even fewer foreigners) associate the roundel with the military, unless it is clearly on a military plane.

And most Canadian civilian airlines have Canadian flags on their planes.

To me, the biggest difference between the old 707's and this scheme on the Airbus is the identifier: The 707 says "Canadian Armed Forces", the current one says "Government of Canada".

As far as I am concerned, if the PM has qualms with being clearly seen   to be traveling under the care of the RCAF, then he should hand the damn job over to the Transport Department.

And what about the times this plane is not used for VIP's? I am no pilot, but ask those who are: How would you like to take someone for a "surprise" visit to a place like KAF in that thing? To me it just screams TARGET !!!!

I am with SeaKingTacco on this one: Keep the camo colours. Period.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2013)

.... from the PMO spokesperson, via Twitter


> NDP and Libs on Airbus: how dare the gov't paint the plane the same colours as the Snowbirds!







versus


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Jun 2013)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And what about the times this plane is not used for VIP's? I am no pilot, but ask those who are: How would you like to take someone for a "surprise" visit to a place like KAF in that thing? To me it just screams TARGET !!!!



Civilian planes fly in and out of Kabul and KAF all the time.  If the threat warning were high enough, than they would fly in a military transport.  I work at Kabul Airport I see planes belonging to foreign governments with various livery all the time.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jun 2013)

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> as well as RCAF roundels.



There is no such thing as an "RCAF roundel".

The roundel is a _*national*_ military aircraft marking.

It was also worn on Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Army aircraft prior to 1968, and those of the various flying organizations afterwards (Maritime Command had Maritime Air Group, Mobile Command had 10 Tactical Air Group, and there was Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command as well, between then and the formation of Air Command in 1975.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jun 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as an "RCAF roundel".
> 
> The roundel is a _*national*_ military aircraft marking.
> 
> It was also worn on Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Army aircraft prior to 1968, and those of the various flying organizations afterwards (Maritime Command had Maritime Air Group, Mobile Command had 10 Tactical Air Group, and there was Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command as well, between then and the formation of Air Command in 1975.



So you're saying that when, in the interest of history, Tac Hel returns to its Army home, Army helicopters will continue to wear the roundel?


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So you're saying that when, in the interest of history, Tac Hel returns to its Army home, Army helicopters will continue to wear the roundel?



They did in the far distant past.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jun 2013)

And still do in the correct parallel universe.

I'm still looking for that wormhole.


----------



## Jacky Tar (7 Jun 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as an "RCAF roundel".
> 
> The roundel is a _*national*_ military aircraft marking.
> 
> It was also worn on Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Army aircraft prior to 1968, and those of the various flying organizations afterwards (Maritime Command had Maritime Air Group, Mobile Command had 10 Tactical Air Group, and there was Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command as well, between then and the formation of Air Command in 1975.



However, since the RCN Fleet Air Arm no longer exists, nor does the Army Aviation Corps, it is only the RCAF that continues to operate military aircraft for Canada. Thus, the RCAF roundel.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jun 2013)

No.

427 Squadron belongs to SOFCOM.

Aircraft assigned to Op Athena came under CEFCOM.

Aircraft assigned to future operations overseas will come under CJOC.

The organization currently known as the RCAF is not a "service". It is an environmental command, formerly known as Air Command, and one of three commands that currently do or could have aircraft assigned. The roundel was not an "Air Command" roundel prior to the renaming.

The only service, currently, is the Canadian Armed Forces.

Regardless, the roundel is still a _*national*_ symbol, rather than a service one.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jun 2013)

My first reaction when I saw the new paint job was Conservative Party of Canada.  The blue and the way it is used seems similar to my mind.  And yes, I f***ing well do mind them blowing an extra $50K on this new paint job when there's belt tightening being done forced upon us Forces wide.


----------



## krustyrl (7 Jun 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My first reaction when I saw the new paint job was Conservative Party of Canada.  The blue and the way it is used seems similar to my mind.  And yes, I f***ing well do mind them blowing an extra $50K on this new paint job when there's belt tightening being done forced upon us Forces wide.



*cough*  VA cutbacks to name one  *cough


----------



## cupper (7 Jun 2013)

And you know what is going to happen the first time it flies into Winnipeg. ;D

(I would have said when the Jets win the cup, but that would just be silly  > )


----------



## Rescue Randy (7 Jun 2013)

Of course, there are a few historic RCAF aircraft with similar colors


----------



## Strike (7 Jun 2013)

Not a fan myself.  I understand how the RCAF, in essence, belongs to the government, but labeling a plane with GoC makes it seem that our primary duty is to fly them around.  Pretty sure that plane is used for a lot of other flights that don't involve politicians.  In fact, that exact plane was used to fly CF members to Lebanon in 2006 if I recall correctly.


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Jun 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My first reaction when I saw the new paint job was Conservative Party of Canada.  The blue and the way it is used seems similar to my mind.  And yes, I f***ing well do mind them blowing an extra $50K on this new paint job when there's belt tightening being done forced upon us Forces wide.



IIRC from way earlier in this thread, the repainting was scheduled for when the plane was going to be repainted anyways, as part of regular on going maintenance.  The PMO's office figured hey since you are going to be repainting, how about changing the colour scheme. Ergo, the $50k was going to be spent regardless.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jun 2013)

No, the $50K is identified as the incremental cost above the normal cost of painting.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No, the $50K is identified as the incremental cost above the normal cost of painting.


Exactly.  And why I'm pissed off.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (8 Jun 2013)

Strike said:
			
		

> Not a fan myself.  I understand how the RCAF, in essence, belongs to the government, but labeling a plane with GoC makes it seem that our primary duty is to fly them around.  Pretty sure that plane is used for a lot of other flights that don't involve politicians.  In fact, that exact plane was used to fly CF members to Lebanon in 2006 if I recall correctly.



I've had friends medevac'd from Landstuhl on the 'PM's Plane'


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Jun 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> 427 Squadron belongs to SOFCOM.
> 
> ...


Understand where you are coming from but, and semantics aside, as an example,  Naval units attached to similar organizations on deployment still fly the "RCN Ensign" and are part of the RCN hence the term "RCAF Roundel". Even the website uses the name.
As for the colours? This has been in the works for some time. Someone already displayed a pic of the Snowbirds and I recall as a little kid seeing them for my first time at the CNE asking my father why they were red, white and blue. In my mind, they were the Thunderbirds in a different airplane...again, 10 year old mind thinking.


----------



## observor 69 (8 Jun 2013)

Someone please provide a good reason why this colour scheme wouldn't be appropriate:


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jun 2013)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Someone please provide a good reason why this colour scheme wouldn't be appropriate:



Not enough blue, apparently...


----------



## GAP (8 Jun 2013)

Uh....that color scheme was initiated by the Liberals, and emphasizes the Liberal colors. So............the Conservatives are not the only ones to play on color.....


----------



## observor 69 (8 Jun 2013)

And now a word from Mr.Mulcair: 
"Mulcair added that if the NDP forms the government in the 2015 election, he would not be painting the plane orange."

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/vip-jet-makeover-is-new-livery-a-tribute-to-canadian-history-or-the-pc-party-1.1316022#ixzz2VddbVTOO


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2013)

In fairness to the critics, red and white are our official national colours, this we have this flag ...







   ... rather than this one ...






    ... which was, I understand, then Prime Minister Pearson's personal choice.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jun 2013)

"Mulcair added that if the NDP forms the government in the 2015 election, he would not be painting the plane orange."

Too bad.  I always liked the old CP colour scheme.


----------



## Jacky Tar (10 Jun 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> 427 Squadron belongs to SOFCOM.
> 
> ...



They're under the operational control of those commands, yes. 443 Sqn is also under the operational command of MARPAC. However, they're all operated by the RCAF. Not the RCN, not the Army.

I don't disagree that it's a national symbol, either. ALL service symbols are national symbols, however that one is used exclusively by the RCAF, just as  the white ensign astern on HMC ships is a national symbol used by the RCN exclusively.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2013)

427 is not OPCON to SOFCOM; it is under full command.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jun 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> 427 is not OPCON to SOFCOM; it is under full command.



According to the CFOO, it belongs to 1 Wing.


----------



## DBA (11 Jun 2013)

Larger image for one of the red/white/blue aircraft color schemes (Boeing CH-113 LABRADOR):






Source: http://www.canadianwings.com/Aircraft/aircraftDetail.php?LABRADOR-170

Myself I like the new color scheme, if you are going to use color vs a drab monochrome paint job may as well update it from a 1970's look as well. An example would be Delta Airlines 1970 vs 2013:


----------



## Strike (11 Jun 2013)

DBA said:
			
		

> Myself I like the new color scheme, if *you're *going to use color vs a drab monochrome paint job may as well update it from a 1970's look as well.



FTFY

However that aircraft does not say GoC on it, but RCAF.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> > 427 is not OPCON to SOFCOM; it is under full command.
> 
> 
> According to the CFOO, it belongs to 1 Wing.


CFOO, schmoo.....I've seen 427 folks wearing the CANSOFCOM badge on their DEU; with the NDHQ focus on names and badges and 1812 pins, I'd assume that the bling wins the debate....




			
				DBA said:
			
		

> ....if you are going to use color vs a drab monochrome paint job....


I'm pretty sure the paint job was in colour, but the film was black & white.   ;D


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Jun 2013)

I saw the new livery up close today at the departure of Chalk 2 of TF 2-13.  It is actually quite stunning.


----------



## dimsum (20 Jun 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I saw the new livery up close today at the departure of Chalk 2 of TF 2-13.  It is actually quite stunning.



Stunning as in "My Eyes!  The goggles, they do nothing!!!" ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Jun 2013)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Stunning as in "My Eyes!  The goggles, they do nothing!!!" ?



Or Stunning as in " this airplane would look even more stunning if it were painted grey, streaked with exhaust and leaking a bit of hydraulic fluid.  Oh yes, and rotor blades would not hurt, either."?


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2013)

The Info-machine makes it official!


> As part of regularly scheduled maintenance, the Canadian Armed Forces has repainted the aircraft primarily used to transport members of the Royal Family, the Governor General, the Prime Minister, and other dignitaries.  Given this aircraft’s special role on the world stage as a symbol of Canada, the requirement to repaint the aircraft presented an opportunity for a paint scheme that better reflects our country.
> 
> This new design includes Canadian symbols like our National Flag, Canada’s Coat of Arms, and the Royal Canadian Air Force logo. The colour scheme and design is more reflective of Canada’s national identity and consistent with aircraft used by allied countries in similar roles ....








My fave bit of adjusting reality from the "news product":


> .... Have the Department of National Defence’s transport aircraft ever been painted like this before?
> 
> Yes, the CC-137 Boeing 707 fleet, the predecessor of the CC-150 Polaris, was painted in a similar paint scheme. http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/707-eng.asp ....


Don't bother clicking on the link alleged to show the old 707 livery - link doesn't work    Here's a compare-and-contrast photo whose link DOES work:


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Nov 2013)

I've flown on that old 707. Love  it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Nov 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I've flown on that old 707. Love  it.



You must have got one of the seats that reclined...


----------



## Loachman (26 Nov 2013)

There was a lot less blue on the 707s. Why do they always have to lie so blatantly?

And, if by "Royal Canadian Air Force logo", they mean the roundels, those are not, and never were, "Royal Canadian Air Force" insignia. They were/are _*national*_ aircraft identification markings. Prior to 1968, RCN and CA aircraft also carried roundels.


----------



## cupper (26 Nov 2013)

Had a couple of rides on the old 707's when going on course in Borden.

Had one odd trip where I as a lowly Cpl, was moved up to the VIP section during the takeoff and landing phases for some unknown reason. 

Not sure if it had anything to do with my regular seat being an emergency exit over the wing or not.

Certainly wasn't for my good looks or sense of humour. ;D


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (28 Nov 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> Had a couple of rides on the old 707's when going on course in Borden.
> 
> Had one odd trip where I as a lowly Cpl, was moved up to the VIP section during the takeoff and landing phases for some unknown reason.
> 
> ...


You sell yourself short.  I have no doubt it was because of your winning personality and effervescent smile.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There was a lot less blue on the 707s. Why do they always have to lie so blatantly?


Lie, message, poh-tay'-to, puh-tah'-to ....


----------

