Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Ministerial taxi service

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Ministerial taxi service

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11th Apr 2006, 18:51
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ministerial taxi service

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4900580.stm

The profligacy of the trough-snouts truly knows no bounds. The question is: does the RAF pay for this or do the politicians get asked for their own UIN?

The hypocricy of Beckett is particularly noteworthy - environment secretary, my foot!

Ministers' RAF flights revealed

Tony Blair was flown in RAF jets 299 times, at a cost of £467,000, between June 2001 and February 2005, figures have revealed.
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett took 106 RAF flights between 2002 and 2004 the figures show - including many to East Midlands airport near her home.

Officials say the flights are cheaper than buying tickets on commercial airlines and meet ministerial rules.

But the Conservatives said most people would be "astonished" at the news.

Conservative transport spokesman Chris Grayling said: "I think most people will be astonished at the way ministers seem to be using the Queen's Flight as a private taxi service.

"Ministers, including Gordon Brown, have been using it for short hops to Brussels, Margaret Beckett has been using it to drop her home in the East Midlands and the prime minister has been taking it on holiday with him.

"Of course ministers will always need to use official aircraft on occasions but these figures create the sense that the system is being abused."

But a Downing Street spokesman said Tory prime ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major had always used RAF flights for their holidays.

"In fact, Tony Blair is the first prime minister in recent years to use commercial flights, having done so for his holidays since 2000, other than one occasion where security advice was to the contrary."

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said many of Mrs Beckett's meetings in Brussels "often end at unpredictable hours in the middle of the night when there is no alternative transport available".

The spokesman added that "returning to the UK immediately allows attendance at high level meetings early the next morning and represents savings on hotel accommodation".

The environment department spokesman added: "Conscious of the environmental impact of aviation, all ministerial flights during the EU presidency last year were carbon offset as were emissions from all other sources."
JessTheDog is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2006, 19:28
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One word ...

B******S.
threepointonefour is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2006, 19:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Rotherham
Age: 68
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reported just the other day

All 3 parties always end mired in the same sort of sleaze,

Conservatives caught with hand in other woman's knickers

Liberals caught with hand in other man's Y fronts

Labour caught with hand in everyone's pockets, tills, pension funds etc
granmarriott is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2006, 19:39
  #4 (permalink)  
Red On, Green On
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
" all ministerial flights during the EU presidency last year were carbon offset as were emissions from all other sources."
Just what does this mean in real English? What a load of c@ck
airborne_artist is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2006, 19:45
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 64
Posts: 2,278
Received 37 Likes on 15 Posts
It means that instead of taking a fuel burner home, they took it to the meeting instead.
ZH875 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2006, 19:56
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Middle Drawer
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One word ...
B******S.

Ditto times two to the power of ten.

Sometimes, the Bliarites really surpass themeselves with quotes like.

The environment department spokesman added: "Conscious of the environmental impact of aviation, all ministerial flights during the EU presidency last year were carbon offset as were emissions from all other sources."

And,

"Of course ministers will always need to use official aircraft on occasions but these figures create the sense that the system is being abused."

And,

"Of course ministers will always need to use official aircraft on occasions but these figures create the sense that the system is being abused."

Try telling that to the airmen, troops and naval types as well as entitled families ,who have been left stranded at OOA deployments and postings at the expense of corrupt, using, selfish ministers, who then turn around to praise " our hard working troops and their supporting families."

If this is New Labour, Mr Bliar, why doesn't anyone in the forces vote for you?

Because we never did and seeing the spin and rhetoric on JTG's
post, we never will.

The Labour Party.

Education, Education, Education.

More like Corruption, Corruption, Corruption.

Coupled with,

A lot of "anti mil, but we love you really, go and die for our ego" thrown in.

I am not political and although this is a rant, I hope I won't be banned from this site for expressing my anger at the idiots who use and abuse US.

Sorry in advance.

Or have I just become a victim of political correctness at the behest of common sense and feeling.

Talk Wrench
Talk Wrench is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2006, 20:18
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
The environment department spokesman added: "Conscious of the environmental impact of aviation, all ministerial flights during the EU presidency last year were carbon offset as were emissions from all other sources."
Really. Rant on. If this govt wanted to be really environmentally friendly, they would spend less time worrying about aircraft emissions and more time worrying about the damage being caused by all the methane from the bull$$ite they constantly spew forth and all the hot air coming out of Downing Street. No wonder the ice caps have been melting at an ever faster rate since 97.

If they just shut up for once, even for only 5 minutes, that would help the environment no end. And I could remove my ear plugs and stop feeling nauseous. Rant off.

Last edited by Melchett01; 11th Apr 2006 at 21:34.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2006, 20:38
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 594
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Well the NZ Prime Minister with two of her top Ministers, her PA and 2 police types arrived here in my little town in an Air New Zealand Link Beech 1900 along with 13 other fare paying passengers.....no police outside no security, not even the mayor, she mixed with the other punters in the terminal, we don't have seperate arrivals and departures......4 hours later the same thing both on scheduled flights and both arrived/departed within 5 mins of their allocated times......as one of the locals here put it....."we dont put anyone on a pedestal here"........what a nice pleasant change it was...she then visited the local school still with no banners or people screaming "get out of the way PM approaching".........Can you ever see Blair doing that!!!!
Happy days
fergineer is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2006, 21:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talk Wrench,

I could not agree with you more old man, it is an utter disgrace and I am ashamed at the open abuse our politicans abuse our servicemen and women.

Funny how they allrely on the services for 'their' jollies, and yet when it comes to pay review time for you chaps, its a somewhat different opinion they have of you.

Shame on you Bliar and all your corrupt cronies.

The Winco
Winco is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 00:26
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SE490618
Age: 64
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can't see aproblem with this. Its keeping us in a job...and how else are our elected leaders expected to travel?

At least Mr Blair isn't using these flights to go on holiday like the Tories used to.
rafloo is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 02:09
  #11 (permalink)  

I'matightbastard
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They'll be smiling on the other side of their faces when they get bounced by Jerry
Onan the Clumsy is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 04:50
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester
Age: 51
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It annoys me that the defence of this govt is always "they did it too, they did it too" as though it makes it alright. It's an admission of guilt.
PhoenixDaCat is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 06:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RAFLOO

do you really think its keeping us in a job?
It might be keeping one tiny part of one tiny sqn in a job, but for the rest of the RAF, its just a drain on their already depleted and overstreched aircrew and groundcrew.

Let the ba$tards pay out of their own money, or join the queue like the rest of us at Heathrow!

Kind regards
TSM
The Swinging Monkey is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 06:38
  #14 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by airborne_artist
Just what does this mean in real English? What a load of c@ck
It is actually green speak.

"UK emited XXXXXX Tons of carbon in 1999. Now we have emitted XXXXXX-y. My flight to Brussels was equivalent to y-z therefore our emission level of XXXXXX-y+z represents a saving of carbon emission of y-z."

In real speak, we actually wasted z-tons of carbon.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 06:46
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Rafloo, hopefully that WAS tongue in cheek??
He IS using it for holidays!!

Apologies if I am being dull.....
jayteeto is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 07:18
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Officials say the flights are cheaper than buying tickets on commercial airlines...
Oh, really? How much to run a 125/146 - £2000/hr? £3000/hr? Plus landing fees, crew allowances, etc. Cost of a round trip to Brussels and East Midlands anyone [Royal Sqn care to give us the figures]? Then compare the cost of a drive up the M1 [time would be about the same door-to-door].

Conscious of the environmental impact of aviation, all ministerial flights during the EU presidency last year were carbon offset as were emissions from all other sources.
And they'd have saved even more carbon emissions if they has left the Royal ac on the ground and used a scheduled civilian ac instead. Then compare the carbon emissions from a Royal Aircraft with those of a ministerial Jag up the M1.

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said many of Mrs Beckett's meetings in Brussels "often end at unpredictable hours in the middle of the night when there is no alternative transport available". ..."returning to the UK immediately allows attendance at high level meetings early the next morning and represents savings on hotel accommodation".
If they took the same number of holiday days off as the rest of the population, there would be more time for meetings to be scheduled that don't clash with each other - that's called planning, by the way. And don't the EU allowances cover flights and HOTAC?

But I don't know why we're wasting breath or bandwidth on this lot - they are not in the slightest bit interested in public opinion, and will do what they want anyway. That's the trouble with having a government with no standards and a big majority. Centralised rule by fear keeps the back benchers in line.

Jackonico - any of your colleagues want to run an article with the real figures?

So snout in the trough it is then + spin... Bolleaux!
FJJP is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 10:26
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,825
Received 98 Likes on 71 Posts
Doesn't 2-jags use a Jaguar - perhaps not, he wouldn't fit.
chevvron is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 11:08
  #18 (permalink)  
Red On, Green On
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I read an article on-line this am which I now can not find which justified using the Royal Squadron for Ministers on cost grounds. Brown + six hangers-on return to Brussels was priced at £1,300, with Eurostar costing £1,750. I can't believe that MoD is doing its costings/prices correctly if it can own, crew, maintain and fly a 146 for £650/hr. A Bell 206 costs £350/hr, without a pilot!
airborne_artist is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 11:35
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 834
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
1st, an admission, my unit managed to get a Royal Flight 146 as a bit of a reward for the lads post deployment etc etc, so I may be biased....

2nd, working on the basis the Flight would've been maintained, the Pilots paid etc regardless if it was flying or not. Therefore, the only addition cost would've been the fuel used. Now, being a matelot and not a WAFU type, how much would the fuel alone cost?

3rd, I have to say anything like the Royal Flight (and the Royal Yacht) is on a use it or loose it basis. If we only allowed the major Royals to use it, on official business, then how on earth could be justify it? And despite your feelings on the present incumbents, they are respectively the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer (in case you'd forgotten!) of this country - the post itself deserves the use of the Royal Flight.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2006, 11:44
  #20 (permalink)  
Red On, Green On
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
2nd, working on the basis the Flight would've been maintained, the Pilots paid etc regardless if it was flying or not. Therefore, the only addition cost would've been the fuel used. Now, being a matelot and not a WAFU type, how much would the fuel alone cost?
Not true, as many of the components on the a/c are lifed/serviced on an hours basis, so marginal use still = cost, and also brings forward the frequency of majors etc. when the a/c is not available, for which there is a potential cost of an available replacement.
airborne_artist is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.