PDA

View Full Version : Blair Force One


mjenkinsblackdog
22nd Feb 2002, 12:58
Tony Blair may be getting a b777 or b767 for his various trips around the world.. .This will cost the tax payer 250000/month.. .What a parasite this man is ,with a crippled health service ,poor education,poor crime control,plus increased taxes to the tax payer.. .Its time he resigned. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Pax101
22nd Feb 2002, 13:06
I'm with you on that one.

I won't be happy until I see him checking in, trying to get through suckurity, and getting strapped into the middle seat in coach with the rest of us real people! (And all without any aides to help him). Maybe then he'll have a chance of getting in touch with the realities of travel today.

Now that's a nice mental image...

(But I don't want to be the guy stuck in the window next to him)

[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: Pax101 ]</p>

Polar_stereographic
22nd Feb 2002, 13:34
Totaly agree.

Just hope he sits next to that other horror in government, Mr Brown. I for one, working in IT pay 52% tax on everything I earn thanks to him. Plus, the industry is in turmoil. I have plenty of ex colleagues, all out of work thanks to the current incumbents scandalous IT policies.

Adios.

PS

flugpants
22nd Feb 2002, 13:35
For the past few years he has been using BA aircraft more often than not for his long haul transport. Since Sep 11 BA have run into even more financial problems, and have even more longhaul equipment sat round on a daily basis.....why doesnt he do the sensible thing and charter one every time he needs it and keep an airline ticking rather than floughting in a private govmt aircraft. Maybe this is why we have been warned about sharp rise in income tax this year.......its not for the NHS at all.....its for the Blair Aircraft Project...tosser!

EX FTE
22nd Feb 2002, 13:35
Errr, are we not getting wrong end of the stick here? I though the story said that the deal was BA would retain badging and livery on the aircraft in return for reducing the costs from what could otherwise be a 250,000 a month lease. There would be some deltas to provision the self protection suite that the Royal 146s have and some other conversions, but I thought the point was that by paying an annual retainer to BA then leasing the aircraft as required the costs would be less.

Notwithstanding that; even if it was the full quarter million a month - do the math -

250,000 a month equates to about 8500 per day. Assuming the aircraft goes to NYC for 3 days, cost is 25500. Now how much is a BA Business return to NYC these day? 2500-ish? So for the price of 10 Business returns, we can have a whole aircraft - seems like a damn good deal to me!!

Also, if the aircraft does a two week tour to OZ back it would cost 125,000-ish. Again, what cost a seat to Oz - 4,000 business? So 29 seats on BA scheduled or the whole aircraft? Again - seems like a deal.

You have seen the numbers of media types that travel when the PM goes anywhere. Fill the damn thing with the newpaper and TV hacks, each paying a grand a head and you soon cover the costs - may even make a wee profit! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Perhaps the real issue should be that he is using an American product. OK, so the RJ is no more and doesnt have long range legs anyway but he could at least go for an RR powered A330 - either as a european aircraft or if you prefer as one that has wings and engines from the UK.

Given that the UK & US politicians still havent renogotiated Bermuda II, I would think that bmi british midland would be happy to charter out one of their spare A330s.

Besides, the cost of a commercial charter is still probably cheaper than buying something and having the RAF run it. Unless of course they were buying something for troop transport / AAR that could be reconfigured appropriately.

Finally, not wishing to take a political stand; even if this lease were set up by Blair, I am certain that sucessor governments would also use it. Everyone likes to whine when its not their toy, but once in charge tunes soon change.

The only exception I can recall is the Canadians - one pary in power bought two A320s for VIP transport. They lost the election and the new government refused to use them as they seemed wasteful!! So they sat there - wasting money!!!

Course thats just my opinion and I could be wrong. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: EX FTE ]</p>

twistedenginestarter
22nd Feb 2002, 13:37
If the Sultan of Brunei takes two 747s everywhere he goes I reckon a single 777 is rather moderate for what is - whether you like it or not - still one of the top-dog nations of the World.

Let's remember we are home the the World's Favourite Airline and the World's Favourite Bulletin Board! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

Lapsus linguae
22nd Feb 2002, 13:40
The webs favourite airline?

Doodles
22nd Feb 2002, 13:44
Why doesn't he stay in Westminster, sort out all the problems we have in this country (yes Tony, there are plenty) and answer to Parliament (Oh yes, but only if all the questions are asked in writing first and filtered thru that other huge waste of British taxpayers money, the PR men & women)instead of spending our money running round the world being diplomatic because the Americans can't.

Friday rant over

TDK mk2
22nd Feb 2002, 14:10
Mr Polar_stereographic:

Poor baby having to pay all that tax because you earn far in excess of your worth as an I.T. contractor. Whilst you can hardly be blamed for taking advantage of grossly inflated contractor rates in this country you can hardly be surprised when Gordo wants a piece of the action and implements the likes of IR35. And if your mates want security they should have taken permenancy when it was on offer or would that have cost them too much??

And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about I spent 8 years on the gravy train in I.T. and I took a 50% paycut to become an F.O. and still live relatively comfortably. Can I ask what your interest in aviation is? Are you saving for your licence as I did??

[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: TDK ]</p>

mjenkinsblackdog
22nd Feb 2002, 14:17
ExFte .. .Get help your deluded.

Polar_stereographic
22nd Feb 2002, 14:20
TDK,

Thanks for the somewhat (and unnecesary) sarcastic reply. It's not the place to start debating IR35, and we have done plenty of that. Suffice to say that one just lives with it. Thank you.

In answer to your question, I hold a fATPL MEIR and about 1350 hours (none instructing). My current contract I cannot get out of until June, so I'm not activly looking for work until later in the year. And yes, I accept the 50% pay cut that will come when I get an FO position, and thanks to IR35, it'll be even less painfull! Does not alter my views of the implementors of it mind you.

PS.

Hotel Charlie
22nd Feb 2002, 14:36
TDK

Im pretty provoced by anybody saying ( or at least indicating ) that 52% incometax is ok just because you make your money from IT. Nobody should have to pay more than 30% tax off their income no matter what thay do. Im not in the IT buisness, but I am as you are, a First Officer and not yet paying more than 37% tax. I will one day again be a Captain, thus be paid a higher wage because of the higher responsibility. Still I will not take home a lot more than today because the goverment has decided that it is unfair that I get more money than my neighbour so they put me in a new taxbracket i.e. 55% tax. Sosialism is just great isnt it and so motivating.

PS beeing Norwegian my skiing is better than my english spelling DS

[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: Hotel Charlie ]</p>

Binary
22nd Feb 2002, 14:50
I am continually amazed at the schoolboy level political comments made on this forum. I just hope it is a tiny minority of the aviation industry. Someone above has given a reasoned case for the justifying the cost and I find myself in complete agreement. Whether or not I voted for Mr Blair is irrelevant to me at least, he is still the leader of an important country that is taking a leading role in the world, has a powerful and successful economy in which we enjoy a high standard of living. The man deserves decent, reliable and secure transport as he goes around the world on our business. So did Thatcher and Major.

Yes there are problems to sort out at home but that is only one aspect of his job and no greater than any other leader has faced in the 30 years that I have been aware of political issues. Lets stick to matters concerning aviation and leave the petty politcal comments for the playground.

mjenkinsblackdog
22nd Feb 2002, 15:21
Sphinx.. .Mr Brown the taxman thinks its a bad plan.. .i think he has more idea than you do regarding silly unnecessary expenses.. .Engage your brain before writing next time Laddie. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

Doodles
22nd Feb 2002, 15:50
All the pictures I can remeber of Mrs. T travelling were in an RAF VC-10 and a BIA 1-11.

Anyway, many of these political issues are aviation related. We (in the UK) are losing ground to our continental friends because of our lack of infrastructure and seeming lack of real interest (not the odd soundbite and focus group excercise) in air transport issues from our "leaders".

P.S. - do we have a Foreign Secretary at the moment?

Binary
22nd Feb 2002, 16:17
mjenkinsblackdog

Never mind what Mr Brown thinks, what do you think? As XE FTE said "do the math". By all means attack it on the basis of a sound economic reason. I just dislike the attacks on the basis of entrenched politics.

By the way my brain is very well engaged and I suspect I'm not your laddie.

mjenkinsblackdog
22nd Feb 2002, 16:24
Sphinx.. .I have already made my views at the beginning.. .Scroll up and wake up.

Binary
22nd Feb 2002, 16:48
I know what your opening statement was, but I'm asking what you think about the cost comparison that has been made. Is it excessive compared with other reasonable options, I suspect not. I just think it's better to argue the facts with evidence than with emotion.

Why the need to insult someone you don't know? Relax we're only having a chat.

StressFree
22nd Feb 2002, 17:39
Doodles,. .'do we have a foreign secretary at the moment?'

Very good question, we seem to have a chap who is so ineffective and wholly useless that I'm amazed he gets away with it. He consistently never fails to disappoint..............

<img src="cool.gif" border="0">

mjenkinsblackdog
22nd Feb 2002, 18:00
Sphinx.. .Mr Blair should be sorting out the problems we have at home first ,before swanning off at the tax payers expense.. .Wouldnt you agree.. .Unless your own of his supporters I suppose.. .Plus its cheaper if he just uses Ba than the cost of his own aircraft.. .His own aircraf requires ,. .1 Parking.. .2 Maintenance.. .3 Crews .. .4.Catering.. .5.Security.. .Need I go on.. .Its far cheaper for him to fly BA or Virgin.

By the way those are the facts so dont get emotional. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

15/15 flex
22nd Feb 2002, 18:31
Ex FTE -

A little awry on the Canadian facts there old chap. Five A310s were purchased to help support the (even then) floundering Canadian Airlines, one of which was refitted for the VIP role. True, the current PM (in opposition at the time) will not fly in it, but it is used for other VIP tasks such as the GG, Royal family etc etc. Plus, it also has 100 regular pax seats so can be used for day-to-day operations when not required for VIP trips.

Binary
22nd Feb 2002, 19:00
mjenkinsblackdog

Last one as I have work to do. I think you're missing the point. The suggestion is that this is an economical solution, read back up the list.

You must have a real downer on the guy to talk about swanning around at tax payers expense. Dont we need to have our leader (whoever you voted for shouldn't matter in a democracy) representing us and our values abroad. Nuff said from me.

mjenkinsblackdog
22nd Feb 2002, 19:07
Sphinx.. .Your right I do have a downer on Tony Liar.. .His incompetent.. .I started this thread laddie ,by saying that it was unacceptable for a B767/B777 for his own personal use.. .I stand by that .. .I suppose your off to the labour conference soon.. .You have your opinion I have mine.. .END OF SUBJECT. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

EX FTE
22nd Feb 2002, 20:18
15 / 15 Flex:. .Many thanks for the info. Always good to have facts. Maybe others on the forum will do the same

. .Sphinx:. .Do you ever get the impression that some people just want to rant on abut their political disappointments and not hold rational aviation related discussions?

mjenkinsblackdog:. .I do think, in agreement with views expressed earlier, that you are getting a tad angry about all this. If you want to make a political point in public on the forum, fair enough. But do help the rest of us by stating that it is just an opinion being expressed by you and that you dont want a reply that in anyway challenges your opinion.

Have a great day!

<img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: EX FTE ]

[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]</p>

jongar
22nd Feb 2002, 22:42
If he has to have a plane of his own itg has to be an airbus - full stop. and yes i think he is a driblin idiot - i swear when he smiles, i think he is legally retarded

foghorn
23rd Feb 2002, 01:45
Uh oh - this thread is just like reading the Daily Mail - I've never seen so many knee-jerk reactions since the physician got out his little hammer at my last class one renewal...

mjenkinsblackdog
23rd Feb 2002, 05:28
Ex Fte.. .This was not about Tony Blair in particular.. .The thread was designed to show what a waste of present government resources at this time on b767/b777 purchase.. .My view would have been the same for Duncan Smith or Kennedy for that matter.. .For your information when Prince Jefri of Brunei was in financial problems .The first thing to go were expensive aircraft.. .Plus he was restricted by an allowance .

IT would be cheaper if ministers were on scheduled services than having their own aircraft.. .As said earlier. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

ZK-NSJ
23rd Feb 2002, 09:50
well liz and phil just arrived here in nz, on a ba777

spud
23rd Feb 2002, 12:41
Blair Force One would be in the best interests of the 'New Labour' Project and so the Grinnin Effin Idiot would see no wrong in choosing to spend other peoples money on it. The Royal Family on the other hand merely serve the Nation and so to spend money on them would be an extravagant indulgance.. .As I said elsewhere on this board, 'It's time for a change of Tone'

Cream Crackered
23rd Feb 2002, 13:10
MJBD

I may be wrong, but reading your postings, I suspect english is not your first language?

If this is the case, why are you so obsessed with british politics?

mjenkinsblackdog
23rd Feb 2002, 14:11
Cream .. .Your wrong. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

MaximumPete
23rd Feb 2002, 14:21
Back to basics ladies/gentlemen the old saying goes:-

If it flies , floats or f*******ts rent it, don't buy it, it's far cheaper!!

. .Any ideas on the paint job? The Blair family on the tail perhaps? They could go for a fleet and name them after the children? Then you'd need a large hold to carry the red carpet and an extra large bar at the front for the VIPs, Macdonalds down the back for the press and charge them for the flight as well as the food.

Speculative MP. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

frazhm
25th Feb 2002, 13:52
Well, well, well the frustrated Tory right are alive and kicking at PPrune!!!!!!! :) :) :) :)

The Blair Force One debate has now been running several weeks under the guises of 3 or 4 threads. No sooner than it is closed then up again it pops.

In previous threads there was rational discussions regarding the merits of such a scheme :- costings, PR value , security (post 9-11), a/c suitabilities etc..... But this thread has descended into pure vindictiveness. It is quite simply an anti government or more precisely anti PM diatribe, with crap spelling/punctuation to boot (Me thinks wasn't a thread recently pulled by one of the moderators because of poor grammar etc..)

As for politics what about lowest mortgages/inflation/unemployment in decades, the only G8 nation to record economic growth over the past two years and economic policies that the French and Germans are closely examining. I know that it may be a little simplistic but that is what the electorate see and are currently enjoying and responding with record levels of popularity!!!

As for a/c the US, France, Germany, Japan and Canada (I'm not sure about Italy) all use modern widebody a/c to deliver their leaders around the globe--- why is this such a problem here?

This is the British disease of always wanting to see others do poorly. Do we still intrinsically loathe success of others?

Wait for the responses of the rabid right!!!!! . . :) :) :) :)

[ 25 February 2002: Message edited by: frazhm ]

[ 25 February 2002: Message edited by: frazhm ]</p>

Unwell_Raptor
25th Feb 2002, 14:00
Spot on frahsm!

It seems that nobody likes the poor man except the electorate.

Why can't people keep the discussion about whether a big rich country needs modern transport for its VIPs? The topic goes ad hominem every time. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

spud
25th Feb 2002, 14:14
The electorate do what their tabloid newspaper tells them to do.

Unwell_Raptor
25th Feb 2002, 14:52
Pity we aren't as democratic as Hong Kong and er...China <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

chippy63
25th Feb 2002, 14:56
Unwell raptor,

Given the way Mr Blair has developed as a control freak, at the expense of other state offices and institutions, it is quite natural that criticism will be ad hominem.

If you're in charge of something, whether it's a country or squadron or a small business or whatever, there is more tolerance towards you if you take care to respect the people and the offices which are there to support you.

The criticism against Mr Blair is the price he pays for ignoring this. Maybe he thinks that it is worthwhile.

This isn't meant to be a political comment, more a suggestion as to why a more low key method of transport may be advisable.

sky9
25th Feb 2002, 16:31
FRAZIM

. .You are not Alistair Campbell are you by any chance?. . <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

ORAC
25th Feb 2002, 17:42
At pain of repeating the obvious, Blair is not the head of State, the Queen is. No other country has a private transport for the Prime Minister or equivalent.

This is compounded by the fact that this is the goverment which, effectively, abolished both the Royal Flight and Britannia as being too expensive.

So it does seem a bit rich.

frazhm
25th Feb 2002, 18:12
Sky9

Aw shucks!!!!! My secret is out!!!

Someone on PPrune who is significantly to the left of Ghengis Khan!!!!. . :) :) :) :) :) :)