PDA

View Full Version : More joy at LHR


delta-delta-papa
13th Jun 2008, 05:16
Looks like a longer day at the office !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2119557/George-W-Bush-visit-to-cause-Heathrow-misery.html

radeng
13th Jun 2008, 09:32
Why can't they use a military base and save us poor sods so much trouble? Bearing in mind that I have to fly from LHR on Sunday........if he can't use a mil base, the b*&^%r should stay at home, rather than disrupt our lives.

Beatriz Fontana
13th Jun 2008, 09:34
Will LHR / airlines / passengers be compensated by the US for the inconvenience?

Worth a try... :}

Taildragger67
13th Jun 2008, 09:43
Why can't he drop into Brize, then come across on Marine One (maybe landing in Buck House's back yard)? Or if they need AF1 closer for a quick get-away, then Stansted would seem to fit that bill (or even EGKK).

The fun won't stop at EGLL, of course - the M4 will be cleared as his motorcade troops into town. :*

angels
13th Jun 2008, 10:38
I wonder what the carbon footprint of this travelling circus is?!

As taildragger notes, forget the M4 as well. And you can also forget about normality wherever he goes on this trip. Is there an itinerary so we can avoid where he's going, or is it all top secret?

Sallyann1234
13th Jun 2008, 11:14
The last time said gentleman came to London, his protection helicopters (UH-60's??) were circling over the city ready to shoot down anything approaching his plane.
I would like to know what consideration if any is given to the people living below if such action is required.
Does our government give carte blanche to US forces to shoot at will, regardless of 'collateral damage'?
How many innocent UK citizens' lives are equal to one US president?

PS This is not an anti-US comment. I would ask the same questions regarding any foreign visitor's forces.

radeng
13th Jun 2008, 11:32
Any idea what time he arrives? Hopefully not mid afternoon.......

It must be time that visits of foreign dignitaries are better controlled to reduce disruption.

luoto
13th Jun 2008, 13:45
It is about time that these VVIPs (of all nations) who think it is acceptable to disrupt the population took a reality check.

I can understand things like HMTQ's Trooping the Colour btw but then that is well known in advance and doesn't close down a major international airport.

(I read elsewhere that the White House REFUSED to use North holt or another Mil field... Perhaps LHR should have REFUSED to screw up their schedules..

radeng
13th Jun 2008, 14:05
Mrs Radeng is also flying out of LHR mid afternoon Sunday. Her comment was:
"Why does he even have to come? I can't think of any useful reason."

The blasted government should pay for the delay - out of Labour Party funds - about 1000 per passenger delayed. Then if that bankrupted them, tough wotsit! Go collect some from Bliar who got them into this s*"t! We need a general election......

G-CPTN
13th Jun 2008, 14:06
Who decides to 'accept' a visit of this circus rather than decline and suggest that they go elsewhere?
This is an aviation forum (albeit the underbelly thereof), so, presumably there are those who can answer and explain the economics of delaying so many commercial customers (at considerable expense). Are there payments being made in lieu by GWB's entourage (and, if so, do these get disseminated to the airlines?)?
I cannot believe that the arrival of the President can be beneficial for the business of any airport - I mean it's hardly anything that you can use in favour of attracting airlines to use your facility.

What about other visiting heads of state (such as Saudis)? Do their visits cause similar disruption?


Any idea what time he arrives?"I'm sorry, we cannot reveal that - that is classified information - for reasons of security you understand."

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
13th Jun 2008, 15:25
George W Bush visit to cause Heathrow misery You think YOU have a problem - he's caused misery in an entire country here for the past eight years.

===

Does our government give carte blanche to US forces to shoot at will, regardless of 'collateral damage'?they appeared to do so for China during the recent running of the torch :*

Sallyann1234
13th Jun 2008, 15:42
they appeared to do so for China during the recent running of the torch
If you are referring to the Chinese security staff who bullied protesters out of the way, yes that was disgraceful and should never have been allowed.
But being ready to shoot down an aircraft over a densely populated area is something entirely different.

A military airbase would have been a far better choice, and with several to choose from any potential attacker would have been kept guessing until after the event.

RatherBeFlying
13th Jun 2008, 17:43
It's obvious that Bush is Al Quaeda's best recruiter because it would not be that hard to organise a missile team on the approach paths to wherever Bush is visiting.

Wednesday, the US House ofRepresentatives voted 251-166 to send the 35 Articles of Impeachment introduced on Monday to the House Judiciary Committee -- five years late in my book.

So if Obama's boys won't take him out, there's still a chance of his spending a well deserved retirement with Bliar in a rebuilt Spandau Prison.

G-CPTN
13th Jun 2008, 18:00
it would not be that hard to organise a missile team on the approach paths to wherever Bush is visiting.
Indeed, such has been attempted before at Heathrow I believe. Is it that government surveillance means that this is now 'impossible' or would one of the military bases have been a safer bet?

West Coast
13th Jun 2008, 19:22
But being ready to shoot down an aircraft over a densely populated area is something entirely different.


Any evidence to prove this or simply the helicopters presence enough to prove it?

West Coast
13th Jun 2008, 19:24
So if Obama's boys won't take him out

Ummm, just who are Obama's boys? Last I checked he had two little girls.

A View of the River
13th Jun 2008, 19:30
When Clinton came a few years back, he flew into Mildenhall AFB, and then Marine1 down to London. Too simple I spose :ugh:

brickhistory
13th Jun 2008, 19:33
So, as I'm saying on the concurrent thread of this, our President is coming to your country.

Don't YOU get to decide where he lands?

And if he doesn't like that selection, can't YOU tell him to stay home?

Of course not. It can't be YOUR government's fault. GWB or any President can fly where he wants, when he wants. Kinda like Chuck Norris.


Of course, the mean part of me wants to say that the more likely scenario is that there's no British military field that can handle anything larger than a Hawk nowadays. But that'd be rude.....

andy51
13th Jun 2008, 19:42
I bet they don't send his baggage through Terminal 5.

CityofFlight
13th Jun 2008, 19:52
Don't know how so many live in countries where their gov'ts are so powerless....(if you listen to the whiners tell it) :rolleyes:

brickhistory
13th Jun 2008, 19:54
Seen their emigration rates?

CityofFlight
13th Jun 2008, 19:58
If only there was a selection process to include IQ. :}

Forgot to ask....is today some intl holiday "Blame the US Day". Seems several threads today are on the bandwagon--though a few are overlapping. It all veers to the same topic anyway.

manintheback
13th Jun 2008, 22:00
Maybe I've missed something but will anyone notice the difference between chaos at Heathrow whether or not Dubya is coming to town?

radeng
14th Jun 2008, 11:13
manin the back,

It's more a case of greater chaos at LHR!

Coming in from Nice on Friday night, we had a two hour delay.

I'm not looking forward to tomorrow.......All visiting heads of state etc should either use a mil base (and there are still some that take things bigger than Hawk!) or not bother - or come by sea. Unless they're prepared to arrive with no disruption. I seem to remember that when the Queen visited New Zealand last, she flew first class on a scheduled flight with paying punters down the back.

If it's good enough for Liz, it should be good enough for Dubya!

BRL
14th Jun 2008, 11:32
There are notams for Fairoaks being closed from 1300 to 1530 so I imagine he will be arriving sometime then.