View Full Version : RAF Voyager @ Heathrow
Just wondering why the PM didn't fly into Northolt the other week. My guess is that it was so he could get back to central London as quickly as possible. Any better ideas? I assume that landing at LHR is quite expensive...
Saintsman
30th Sep 2019, 17:41
I think you’ll find that the Voyager is far too big for Northolt.
Georgeablelovehowindia
30th Sep 2019, 17:52
Plus the fact that Northolt is currently closed to fixed wing aircraft for runway resurfacing.
DaveReidUK
30th Sep 2019, 18:37
I assume that landing at LHR is quite expensive...
We taxpayers are, of course, happy to bear the cost. :O
Blossy
30th Sep 2019, 18:46
The Treasury loves happy tax payers!
But another question arises... why did the blond buffoon need an aircraft the size of the Voyager in the first place in order to visit that other blond buffoon on the other side of the Atlantic?
To answer my own question, I suppose really it was required to accommodate an over sized ego.
Well, perhaps.
Anyone know what aircraft May, Dave, Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher and predecessors actually used under similar circumstances?
crewmeal
1st Oct 2019, 05:27
Thatcher used RAF VC-10s. Not sure about the rest of them. (I believe Blair cadged a lift on Airforce one at some stage)
rogerg
1st Oct 2019, 06:16
The Voyager costs the taxpayer nothing, it all goes as "crew training"!!
N707ZS
1st Oct 2019, 06:56
Tony Blair had an adapted BA 777
barry lloyd
1st Oct 2019, 07:38
But another question arises... why did the blond buffoon need an aircraft the size of the Voyager in the first place in order to visit that other blond buffoon on the other side of the Atlantic?
To answer my own question, I suppose really it was required to accommodate an over sized ego.
Well, perhaps.
Anyone know what aircraft May, Dave, Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher and predecessors actually used under similar circumstances?
I believe both Mrs May and Mr Blair used the Voyager on a number of occasions for long-haul flights and no-one batted an eyelid, so why demonise Johnson. Is this a political comment?
Hipennine
1st Oct 2019, 08:23
Aren't the flights full of the posse of journalists that follow the PM's around the world? Who pays their fare?
hunterboy
1st Oct 2019, 08:31
What kind of message does it send that one of the richest, most powerful nations on Earth sends its PM to a conference on a scheduled or cheap charter?
Perhaps we should take it out of the international development budget?
barry lloyd
1st Oct 2019, 08:39
Aren't the flights full of the posse of journalists that follow the PM's around the world? Who pays their fare?
Yes, they are, plus representatives of business and other interests, (NGOs for example), all of whom have to pay for the privilege. It's not a free ride for anyone except the Whitehall contingency. I know because I've been on a couple of them.
pax britanica
1st Oct 2019, 10:21
While I think Boris should be in the Tower (of London not Heathrow ATC) I cannot criticise him for this.
We show remarkable restraint when it comes to air travel for our politicians and using a multipurpose aircraft which might as well ferry them around as opposed to pure training seems unusually sensible to me.
Not sure where we really rank with our strange often invisible economy in reality but we are a long long way down the list when it comes to head of state/ PM transports. way behind nations like Japan Germany China Russia Thailand the Gulf states and all kinds of 'developing ' countries which have dedicated large transports and miles behind the USA and France who have whole fleets of VIP transports .
Whether Boris ego can continue to be restrained if he stays as PM beyond this month who knows , maybe a high time ex BA 777 would do for him and Queenie although i think shes a bit past the long haul stuff these days
Harry Wayfarers
1st Oct 2019, 18:29
Apparently when 'Marine One' shuttles between the White House and Andrews there are actually three choppers airborne, two decoys and one carrying the president. As for the B747's, so called 'Air Force One's', I did read what it costs per hour to operate those, an incredible amount of money for one certain president to take his golfing holiday somewhere close to PIK!
As for Boris, it seems to be a current fad to knock him at every given opportunity, as has already been pointed out the runway at Northolt is too short to take a laden A330, past PM's have utilised the likes of fuel guzzling VC10's (in/out of LHR), seats on Concorde significantly more expensive than travelling subsonic etc., so what if Boris utilised an A330 for the purpose that it is designated and as for the suggestion that, vs crew training, it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, who do you think pays for MoD (Air) Crew Training? :)
PAXboy
1st Oct 2019, 20:32
I have always thought that using RAF Transport was a very good political message to send. The smaller craft of The Queen's Flight are good for Europe and do not need a long haul machine when other suitable machines are already on the govt books.
crewmeal
2nd Oct 2019, 05:17
It's probably a good thing that that there isn't a special jet as such otherwise Airmiles Andy would use it all the time.
back to Boeing
2nd Oct 2019, 11:51
I believe both Mrs May and Mr Blair used the Voyager on a number of occasions for long-haul flights and no-one batted an eyelid, so why demonise Johnson. Is this a political comment?
Doubt Mr Blair would have been flown around in one. The first one wasn’t delivered to the RAF till December 2011
barry lloyd
2nd Oct 2019, 15:36
Doubt Mr Blair would have been flown around in one. The first one wasn’t delivered to the RAF till December 2011
Correct - 'twas Cameron. Mr Blair's attempts to but a couple a couple of business jets was refused.
Plus the fact that Northolt is currently closed to fixed wing aircraft for runway resurfacing.
Ready to close it and sell for housing ???
TCAS FAN
2nd Oct 2019, 19:07
Ready to close it and sell for housing ???
Affirm, just as soon as LHR’s third runway is operational.
Peter47
4th Oct 2019, 09:55
I was a CDG recently and saw THREE French Government Airbus 330/340s. It could be that France still has a number of overseas departments - or that French presidents also have large egos.
Thanks all. I did wonder about runway length but if they can squeeze a 747 in and out of Cambridge (~6500 feet) I reckoned they could get a lightly loaded A330 in and out of Northolt.
FWIW and AFAIK previous PMs in the post VC-10 era have used chartered BA jets - notably Concorde on one G7 meeting. So of course the French had to use one of theirs too. Or maybe (or perhaps more likely, probably), it was the other way round. In any case it was a great piece of one-up-manship: you may have a dedicated VIP transport, but *mine* is a *lot* faster.
But we are currently alone amongst the large industrial nations in sending our big-wigs abroad in a military jet rather than one painted appropriately. Many would commend this frugality; personally I think that it sends quite the wrong message out to other countries, many of which have a culture where appearances are taken much more seriously than in ours.
Harry Wayfarers
5th Oct 2019, 11:42
One can land an A318 from JFK in to LCY but one cannot get one back out again, it can only get as far as SNN.
Payload isn't just people on board, it is fuel etc.all very well landing a lightly loaded ferry A330/B747 in to Northolt/Cambridge respectively but can they get back out again with any significant fuel load on board?
pax britanica
5th Oct 2019, 12:20
I dont think the fact that some really small dictatorships (are we one yet) have quite exotic presidential transports is not a reason for us to go the same route. Current arrangements fine and a sensible solution, France of course has a president who is much more akin to the US president than the UK PM and in some ways has even more authority than POTUS so he is likely to have something more exotique although the airframes are sometimes pretty old years wise. The queen is too old for long haultrips any more , Charles and Wills are unlikely to complain over the current arrangement. Must be a bit sad for Queenie though to lose the Royal yacht and the shiny VC10s she had for much of her reign but as we have all found out lately she doesnt actually do anything maybe she was a bit spoiled.
All politicians need their feet kept on the ground and it would do the US no harm at all if POTUS used an old KC135 or a Galaxy if size matters-after all the only real issues of importance on the presidential aircraft are secure as possible comms and a long endurance.
,In fact sometime like a C17 with good short field performance would be a much better choice than AF1
One can land an A318 from JFK in to LCY but one cannot get one back out again, it can only get as far as SNN.
Payload isn't just people on board, it is fuel etc.all very well landing a lightly loaded ferry A330/B747 in to Northolt/Cambridge respectively but can they get back out again with any significant fuel load on board?
No, but I imagine that Brize Norton was the next stop in any case.
The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. We can afford to give the aircraft a paint job that reflects this.
Harry Wayfarers
5th Oct 2019, 19:24
The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. We can afford to give the aircraft a paint job that reflects this.
They have a paint job, three De Havilland's in close formation, add something like a couple of A318's for the long haul stuff and it'll be a full house!
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/962x618/45dc801f00000578_5035979_image_m_112_1509465715451_7a715c84b 2028ec8af6934868e401e4c30ba32e7.jpg
PAXboy
5th Oct 2019, 21:04
I agree that a modest 318 ER would do the trick but HMRC have got used to grabbing cash off the press for being down the back and the press have got used to some illusion of being close to the action by being on board. The photos of the PM (who ever it is this week) chatting in the aisle is now a staple. The politicos love it too - which is another good reason to ditch it.
Harry Wayfarers
6th Oct 2019, 00:50
I agree that a modest 318 ER would do the trick but HMRC have got used to grabbing cash off the press for being down the back and the press have got used to some illusion of being close to the action by being on board. The photos of the PM (who ever it is this week) chatting in the aisle is now a staple. The politicos love it too - which is another good reason to ditch it.
The RAF have a history of buying second hand with more than the minimum number of engines, VC10's & L1011's to name but two, A340-300's must be as cheap as chips these days!
esscee
6th Oct 2019, 02:34
No point in the use of under-powered very old A340-300's when there are a fair few good condition A340-600's available or even the shorter longer range capability A340-500. At least with these Trent 500 powered versions you can far better performance/range but will add the that the 4 Trent 500 engines will be thirsty.
Harry Wayfarers
6th Oct 2019, 05:41
No point in the use of under-powered very old A340-300's when there are a fair few good condition A340-600's available or even the shorter longer range capability A340-500. At least with these Trent 500 powered versions you can far better performance/range but will add the that the 4 Trent 500 engines will be thirsty.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the 500 is an upgrade of the 300, I've only flown in Swiss and Cathay 300's, it was the size that I was suggesting, I think the 600 would be too large for what may be required.