Brown Blocks Blair Force 1
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Brown Blocks Blair Force 1
Sunday Times: Grounded: Brown blocks take-off of Blair Force One
GORDON BROWN is blocking Downing Street’s efforts to buy a new aircraft, nicknamed “Blair Force One”, which would be used on the prime minister’s official trips. The chancellor made clear at a meeting last week that there would be no new funds to buy the jet and two other aircraft for ministers.
Despite support for the plan from the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence (MoD), Brown is arguing that at a time when public funds are tight, there are bigger priorities than “prestige” prime ministerial travel. If Tony Blair were to get such an aircraft, likely to be a jet with up to 40 seats, it would put him on a par with leaders such as the US president, who has two Air Force One jumbo jets at his disposal. Blair’s plane would be kitted out with beds and sophisticated communications equipment.
A Treasury insider said: “Gordon has thrown a spanner in the works and rejected plans to spend additional money. He has made clear that if this plan is to go ahead, the MoD will have to fund it out of its own budget, which is very tight. We should be proud that we are the only G8 country not to have a dedicated plane for politicians.”
The row comes after Brown was presented with a report, commissioned by Downing Street, on upgrading the fleet of MoD aircraft that are provided for the royal family but shared with ministers. Brown argues that it should be the security of the Queen “and not the prestige of ministers” that should be decisive.
Last week Brown met Sir Peter Gershon, the government’s efficiency adviser, whose report recommends that three new aircraft be put at the disposal of ministers and the royal family. Ministers currently borrow aircraft from 32 Squadron, known as the Queen’s Flight. But the ageing fleet is unable to fly long distances. No 10 has often had to charter commercial jets for long-haul flights, spending £800,000 on overseas travel in the past year. Gershon recommends that Blair and ministers should get their own fleet. This would be “cost neutral” to the taxpayer although it would require a large initial expenditure.
GORDON BROWN is blocking Downing Street’s efforts to buy a new aircraft, nicknamed “Blair Force One”, which would be used on the prime minister’s official trips. The chancellor made clear at a meeting last week that there would be no new funds to buy the jet and two other aircraft for ministers.
Despite support for the plan from the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence (MoD), Brown is arguing that at a time when public funds are tight, there are bigger priorities than “prestige” prime ministerial travel. If Tony Blair were to get such an aircraft, likely to be a jet with up to 40 seats, it would put him on a par with leaders such as the US president, who has two Air Force One jumbo jets at his disposal. Blair’s plane would be kitted out with beds and sophisticated communications equipment.
A Treasury insider said: “Gordon has thrown a spanner in the works and rejected plans to spend additional money. He has made clear that if this plan is to go ahead, the MoD will have to fund it out of its own budget, which is very tight. We should be proud that we are the only G8 country not to have a dedicated plane for politicians.”
The row comes after Brown was presented with a report, commissioned by Downing Street, on upgrading the fleet of MoD aircraft that are provided for the royal family but shared with ministers. Brown argues that it should be the security of the Queen “and not the prestige of ministers” that should be decisive.
Last week Brown met Sir Peter Gershon, the government’s efficiency adviser, whose report recommends that three new aircraft be put at the disposal of ministers and the royal family. Ministers currently borrow aircraft from 32 Squadron, known as the Queen’s Flight. But the ageing fleet is unable to fly long distances. No 10 has often had to charter commercial jets for long-haul flights, spending £800,000 on overseas travel in the past year. Gershon recommends that Blair and ministers should get their own fleet. This would be “cost neutral” to the taxpayer although it would require a large initial expenditure.
If the size and design of the aircraft are going to be based on prestige and influence, then I would not have thought three Cessna's would break the bank.
Maybe a compromise would be to get Blair a job as Cabin Crew on Air Force One.
Just a thought.
Maybe a compromise would be to get Blair a job as Cabin Crew on Air Force One.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A slightly more expanded version of above - from the BBC website:
A prime ministerial air fleet is set to be launched, but Tony Blair is likely to miss the take-off, reports suggest.
Several newspapers say a Downing Street review will recommend the fleet should include a long-haul jumbo modelled on the US president's Air Force One.
But despite being dubbed Blair Force One, the fleet is unlikely to be in use until after Tony Blair leaves office.
Chancellor Gordon Brown has said the Treasury cannot afford to fund the project until 2008.
This means the fleet would not be ready until after the next general election - and Mr Blair has already said he intends to stand down before that election.
Sir Peter Gershon, the government's efficiency adviser, has been asked to examine the most cost effective way of updating the Royal Flight fleet.
The fleet, which ferries the Royal Family and ministers around the globe, is ageing badly.
According to Sunday newspapers, he is likely to recommend a 747 jumbo, a smaller short-haul plane and a helicopter.
Downing Street said Sir Peter's report had not yet been delivered. A spokesman said: "We are not going to pre-empt that."
The Chancellor is said to feel the project's costs should not be a current priority for the Treasury. If the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office do not want to shell out, the venture is set to be put on hold.
A prime ministerial air fleet is set to be launched, but Tony Blair is likely to miss the take-off, reports suggest.
Several newspapers say a Downing Street review will recommend the fleet should include a long-haul jumbo modelled on the US president's Air Force One.
But despite being dubbed Blair Force One, the fleet is unlikely to be in use until after Tony Blair leaves office.
Chancellor Gordon Brown has said the Treasury cannot afford to fund the project until 2008.
This means the fleet would not be ready until after the next general election - and Mr Blair has already said he intends to stand down before that election.
Sir Peter Gershon, the government's efficiency adviser, has been asked to examine the most cost effective way of updating the Royal Flight fleet.
The fleet, which ferries the Royal Family and ministers around the globe, is ageing badly.
According to Sunday newspapers, he is likely to recommend a 747 jumbo, a smaller short-haul plane and a helicopter.
Downing Street said Sir Peter's report had not yet been delivered. A spokesman said: "We are not going to pre-empt that."
The Chancellor is said to feel the project's costs should not be a current priority for the Treasury. If the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office do not want to shell out, the venture is set to be put on hold.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Under The Sea
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who does he think he is!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe having a small fleet of planes that can't fly overseas is a good thing. If ministers cant go anywhere it might keep this country out of further illegal actions.
How many times would the aircraft be used to fly long haul? Is it not cheaper for the ministers to hire a jet.
I would have thought that LEAN agents could do a VSA on this event and work out where the non-value added elements are.
Time these MP's were forced to jump through the same hoops the Front Line has to jump through to get paper clips.
This sounds very much like Tony and his cronies want to feel and look important. Well stuff them I say.
Maybe having a small fleet of planes that can't fly overseas is a good thing. If ministers cant go anywhere it might keep this country out of further illegal actions.
How many times would the aircraft be used to fly long haul? Is it not cheaper for the ministers to hire a jet.
I would have thought that LEAN agents could do a VSA on this event and work out where the non-value added elements are.
Time these MP's were forced to jump through the same hoops the Front Line has to jump through to get paper clips.
This sounds very much like Tony and his cronies want to feel and look important. Well stuff them I say.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Mr Brown succeeds Mr Blair and wins the next election to become PM, I wonder if he will still maintain the same stance, or will the money suddenly become available?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: [loh-key-shuhn] 1. a place of settlement, activity, or residence 2. a place or situation occupied
Age: 52
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If *someone* spent less time running around the globe being important and instead sat at home sorting out some of the mess they've made this would not be an issue... 
Didn't Gordon and Jack come whizzing back for the Terror bill vote? How much did that cost? Thought they could vote by proxy?...or was that the issue....
Didn't Gordon and Jack come whizzing back for the Terror bill vote? How much did that cost? Thought they could vote by proxy?...or was that the issue....
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere Nice
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it work out cheaper for the taxpayer? Would 'Blair Force One' get the updates every time a new piece of kit came out for aircraft protection? Probably and probably at the expense of an aircraft that needs it !
Or is that just me sounding a little too sceptical
Or is that just me sounding a little too sceptical
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it wouldn't work out cheaper for the tax payer which is why it hasn't been done before and fails everytime it is suggested. The Vickers Funbus used to have a Ministerial VIP role but it was deleted when it was clear that the more cost effective option was civilian flights or when it was important to be in control - private charter. Only draw-back is ensuring private charter is equipped with self defence aids when visiting dodgy places.
I travelled in a PM chartered 767 back from a summit. First Class was the PM, some other high priced ministers (oh yes and their wives) and the top echelons of the high priced help. Business class was the rest of the official party - everyone from clerks to CDS! In cattle/coach/economy were the journalists. Each of our operating budgets was charged for our seats (flat rate) and the journos paid for theirs.
All in all it worked well and was a lot less cash than owning and operating an aircraft of our own.
Prestige? I'd rather have a Royal Yacht than a PM's aircraft regardless of who it is!
I travelled in a PM chartered 767 back from a summit. First Class was the PM, some other high priced ministers (oh yes and their wives) and the top echelons of the high priced help. Business class was the rest of the official party - everyone from clerks to CDS! In cattle/coach/economy were the journalists. Each of our operating budgets was charged for our seats (flat rate) and the journos paid for theirs.
All in all it worked well and was a lot less cash than owning and operating an aircraft of our own.
Prestige? I'd rather have a Royal Yacht than a PM's aircraft regardless of who it is!
The GAF are very proud of their 2 VIP-configured A310s. And quite rightly so, they are very well appointed. But for most of the time, the aircraft are used as regular transports; the chancellor's cabin and accompanying staff areas have little impact upon normal operations. Unlike the ageing Victorian railway carriage appearance of the 'VIP' Vickers Funbus role kit - which required considerable re-roling time between trips - that in the A310 is vastly superior. Also, with the A310 it's just a question of a quick checkover before the chancellor needs it. The A310 has such a spacious cabin (as wide as that of an A330/A340 - and wider than a 767 by at least an extra seat width), that keeping the VIP role kit installed is a very small penalty to pay for having a proper Head of State aircraft.
And yes, it does have a shower. Rather a nice one - a bit like the ones you see in good German hotels. And of course there was a socket for a hairdryer....
But then again, all the GAF's A310s are kept in an immaculate state - far, far better than any RAF aircraft I've ever seen.
Personally I think that there should be a UK Royal and Governmental aircraft. The A310 would be good, but they're hard to find. We had the chance some years ago, but MoD blew it with the FSTA PFI bolleaux.
Maybe when (if?) FSTA ever makes it - which is where, I guess, Grumpy Gordon's 2008 timeline comes from - consideration should be given to acquiring a pair of VVIP-configurable ACJs to add to the fleet. Crews could easily be qualified on both aircraft. When not corgi carrying, the aircraft could still carry 48 passengers.
It's good enough for the French! And Thailand...and Qatar...
But the UK has to rent jets off ba.
Frankly, that's pathetic.
And yes, it does have a shower. Rather a nice one - a bit like the ones you see in good German hotels. And of course there was a socket for a hairdryer....
But then again, all the GAF's A310s are kept in an immaculate state - far, far better than any RAF aircraft I've ever seen.
Personally I think that there should be a UK Royal and Governmental aircraft. The A310 would be good, but they're hard to find. We had the chance some years ago, but MoD blew it with the FSTA PFI bolleaux.
Maybe when (if?) FSTA ever makes it - which is where, I guess, Grumpy Gordon's 2008 timeline comes from - consideration should be given to acquiring a pair of VVIP-configurable ACJs to add to the fleet. Crews could easily be qualified on both aircraft. When not corgi carrying, the aircraft could still carry 48 passengers.
It's good enough for the French! And Thailand...and Qatar...
But the UK has to rent jets off ba.
Frankly, that's pathetic.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness to our RAF - we do clock up more air miles than the German Air Force . Our VC-10's might not be immaculate but what other airforce in the world can lay claim to having a Memorial Flight and a transport fleet which is bordering on historic!
As for your comments Impinger - I think when faced with public opinion on what to spend the cash on - armoured Land Rovers and body armour is the winner.
As for your comments Impinger - I think when faced with public opinion on what to spend the cash on - armoured Land Rovers and body armour is the winner.
"I'd rather see the money spent on bombs, bullets, bayonets and boots!2
Rather than £272000 paintings and £1000 per pop office chairs for the Whitehall warriors?
Rather than £272000 paintings and £1000 per pop office chairs for the Whitehall warriors?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: my own little world
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not let them make do with a herc fitted with as many rumbold seats as required. I mean they will have plenty of room to stretch their legs, the role change won't take too long and some have, what looks like, a good DAS.
I have just seen a flaw with this idea. Thanks to lean we are having all sorts of problems generating frames for the current tasking without the added hassle of pandering to to the grinning idiot and his wide mouthed frog, not to mention the other assembled ranks of political idiocy. Perhaps if he asks George nicely he may let him borrow one of his?
I have just seen a flaw with this idea. Thanks to lean we are having all sorts of problems generating frames for the current tasking without the added hassle of pandering to to the grinning idiot and his wide mouthed frog, not to mention the other assembled ranks of political idiocy. Perhaps if he asks George nicely he may let him borrow one of his?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Beags wrote
<<very small penalty to pay for having a proper Head of State>>
but we have a proper Head of State and it was her husband who lobbied back in the 70s for the 146s.
Wonder what he would opt for now?
<<very small penalty to pay for having a proper Head of State>>
but we have a proper Head of State and it was her husband who lobbied back in the 70s for the 146s.
Wonder what he would opt for now?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for a slight off-topic deviation type question thingy...
But does the PM not use the aircraft on 32 Sqn? Or is that strictly for the Royals?
Why does Blair need an Airforce One of any sort anyway, is he just keeping up with our neighbours over the pond??
But does the PM not use the aircraft on 32 Sqn? Or is that strictly for the Royals?
Why does Blair need an Airforce One of any sort anyway, is he just keeping up with our neighbours over the pond??
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Face it, anything smaller than a "744" is going to have trouble taking off if that fat b****** prescott is on board.
Nor would any other type have enough room for all the pies.
Nor would any other type have enough room for all the pies.