should the RAF fly the Royals?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: beaconsfield
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
should the RAF fly the Royals?
I am putting together a presentation on wheather the RAF should fly the Royal Family. I know there was a recent decision to get the Royal household to buy a small jet and use charter aircraft and not use 32 (TR) Sqn, but I would like to get the opinion of others.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flight Ops Dept
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes
Yes they shpould, im not a royalist as such, and have also served at Northolt (home of The Royal Sqn) - The forces ultimate alligance is the Crown, we are there to protect it, The RAF is Technically the Queens trainset, so her RAF = Her Planes so why should she and he immediate family not use her planes for their air charter. Theres also the international politics issue aswell and i do believe when she is visiting foreign countries she should fly with the Royal Air Force as they represent our nation our flag.I also assume you are aware that a costy benifit anaysis is usually done for purple airspace & other VIP flights flights to see if civil charter would be a better option. Yes it may be cheaper to scrap the royal flight but it should be seen as a national asset for the above reasons.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the Outside
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes they should - herewith a few reasons for starters:
1. The 'R' in 'RAF' means something - and it's not 'republican'.
2. The 32 (TR) Sqn jets carry 'stuff' that allow them to protect their occupants far more effectively than your average charter G5.
3. While BA may be the national flag carrier, it's a business just like Virgin, BMI etc. How will HMTQ be seen to avoid favouring one business over another?
My penny's worth - enjoy.
1. The 'R' in 'RAF' means something - and it's not 'republican'.
2. The 32 (TR) Sqn jets carry 'stuff' that allow them to protect their occupants far more effectively than your average charter G5.
3. While BA may be the national flag carrier, it's a business just like Virgin, BMI etc. How will HMTQ be seen to avoid favouring one business over another?
My penny's worth - enjoy.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate to disappoint but the RAF do not Fly the Royals anymore. (In Helicopters anyway)
The Queen's Helicopter Flight
The Queen's Helicopter Flight is a private operation and entirely part of the Royal Household. It uses a single Sikorsky S76C+ twin-engined helicopter, registration G-XXEA. TQHF is part of The Queen's Private Secretary's department and is tasked by the Royal Travel Office at Buckingham Palace. The maintenance and hangarage contract for the Queen's helicopter was initially awarded to Air Hanson but has passed to successive companies, presently residing with PremiAir Aircraft Engineering at Blackbushe Airport. Additional tasking over and above that provided by the single S76 is met by commercial charter companies using a variety of types, all flights being managed by TQHF.
R1a
The Queen's Helicopter Flight
The Queen's Helicopter Flight is a private operation and entirely part of the Royal Household. It uses a single Sikorsky S76C+ twin-engined helicopter, registration G-XXEA. TQHF is part of The Queen's Private Secretary's department and is tasked by the Royal Travel Office at Buckingham Palace. The maintenance and hangarage contract for the Queen's helicopter was initially awarded to Air Hanson but has passed to successive companies, presently residing with PremiAir Aircraft Engineering at Blackbushe Airport. Additional tasking over and above that provided by the single S76 is met by commercial charter companies using a variety of types, all flights being managed by TQHF.
R1a
Yes they should, on an outbound ONE WAY trip.
I am not totally anti-royal, but as the EU has effectively replaced the UK Monarchy, there is no need for it.
What power does the Monarch have, if Gordon Brown can get the Lisbon treaty ratified AFTER it has become NULL AND VOID by those wonderful Irish People. This treaty has to go for ROYAL ASSENT. What purpose does that fulfill?. Can HM the Queen refuse to give Royal Assent, and what would be the consequences on the UK parliament.
By giving her assent to this treaty, the Queen is effectively saying "I have no power whatsoever, so why am I needed."
What power does the Monarch have, if Gordon Brown can get the Lisbon treaty ratified AFTER it has become NULL AND VOID by those wonderful Irish People. This treaty has to go for ROYAL ASSENT. What purpose does that fulfill?. Can HM the Queen refuse to give Royal Assent, and what would be the consequences on the UK parliament.
By giving her assent to this treaty, the Queen is effectively saying "I have no power whatsoever, so why am I needed."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the Outside
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMTQ can refuse to give Royal assent - it's happened many times in the past (last time with Queen Anne or Queen Vic?). ISTR that if she knocks it back three times the PM has to dissolve Parliament and call a General Election.
Over to you Ma'am!
Over to you Ma'am!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flight Ops Dept
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 32 (TR) Sqn jets carry 'stuff' that allow them to protect their occupants far more effectively than your average charter G5
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the RAF should fly the Royal Family around when on official duties, they should charter only when on private trips.
Not in the forces, nor a pilot, nor particularly a royalist, but for goodness sake some of the Royal Family are damn good value for money bringing in far more in tourism etc than we pay out.
We are not a republic and I don't ever want to be part of one, as was said earlier the R stands for Royal.
As far as the EU treaty is concerned I think you will find that our constitution does give the Queen the right to refuse to sign the Royal Assent document, at which point it goes back to Parliament.
Not in the forces, nor a pilot, nor particularly a royalist, but for goodness sake some of the Royal Family are damn good value for money bringing in far more in tourism etc than we pay out.
We are not a republic and I don't ever want to be part of one, as was said earlier the R stands for Royal.
As far as the EU treaty is concerned I think you will find that our constitution does give the Queen the right to refuse to sign the Royal Assent document, at which point it goes back to Parliament.
The convention is that HMQ can refuse to give assent, but only in exceptional circumstances (e.g. on presentation of the Gordon Brown President for Life Enabling Act).
She has the power to refuse anything she damn well pleases, but as this would raise constitutional questions regarding royal prerogative/separation of powers, etc it is regarded as being 'form' for her not to do so. If she did, the theory has it, it would inevitably lead to the reduction of the monarch to nothing more than a figurehead.
Only in a case such as the above spurious Act would refusal not create a situation.
However, so skilled have Tony and Gordon been at fouling things up, I have a nagging suspicion that they've actually created a situation in which HMQ could veto a bill, sack the PM, dissolve parliament and end up with her powers enhanced as the result of the subsequent election.
Edit - It's a myth to say we don't have a constitution. We do, it's just not written down. The British constitution is based upon custom, precedent, statute law and its pragmatic (or sometimes not) interpretation.
She has the power to refuse anything she damn well pleases, but as this would raise constitutional questions regarding royal prerogative/separation of powers, etc it is regarded as being 'form' for her not to do so. If she did, the theory has it, it would inevitably lead to the reduction of the monarch to nothing more than a figurehead.
Only in a case such as the above spurious Act would refusal not create a situation.
However, so skilled have Tony and Gordon been at fouling things up, I have a nagging suspicion that they've actually created a situation in which HMQ could veto a bill, sack the PM, dissolve parliament and end up with her powers enhanced as the result of the subsequent election.
Edit - It's a myth to say we don't have a constitution. We do, it's just not written down. The British constitution is based upon custom, precedent, statute law and its pragmatic (or sometimes not) interpretation.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I'll admit, up front, that this is a red rag to a bull to me.
As part of my 22 year service with the RAF, I was privileged to serve with The Queens Flight at Benson, in the late 70's, for 3 years. I was in a non-eng trade.
In those day's we had 3 Andovers (XS789, XS790, XS793) and 2 Wessex (XV732, XV733).
The FW flew the World. The RW flew UK and Western Europe.
Wherever the airframes went, the professionalism that got them to their destinations was second to none.
Notwithstanding the passenger carried, a constant thread throughout the comments made about the flights (from other professionals) was that it was RAF Crews, Engineers and backroom boys who made it happen.
I am convinced that the message as to the professionalism of the RAF, both nationally and internationally, was sent to the World. And the World listened.
The word 'pride', in every English dictionary, should have an RAF Roundel attached to it.
OK, I've left myself wide open. I don't give a damn. I can remember "Kabul Tower, Kittyhawk Four, finals, three greens"
As part of my 22 year service with the RAF, I was privileged to serve with The Queens Flight at Benson, in the late 70's, for 3 years. I was in a non-eng trade.
In those day's we had 3 Andovers (XS789, XS790, XS793) and 2 Wessex (XV732, XV733).
The FW flew the World. The RW flew UK and Western Europe.
Wherever the airframes went, the professionalism that got them to their destinations was second to none.
Notwithstanding the passenger carried, a constant thread throughout the comments made about the flights (from other professionals) was that it was RAF Crews, Engineers and backroom boys who made it happen.
I am convinced that the message as to the professionalism of the RAF, both nationally and internationally, was sent to the World. And the World listened.
The word 'pride', in every English dictionary, should have an RAF Roundel attached to it.
OK, I've left myself wide open. I don't give a damn. I can remember "Kabul Tower, Kittyhawk Four, finals, three greens"
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thirty five years ago when I studied British Constitution the consensus was that the Monarch can refuse to give the Royal Assent to any bill s/he wishes. As a result however, the monarch would, almost certainly, have to abdicate the throne because, by refusing to grant Royal Assent, s/he had effectively gone against the wishes of her subjects.
I've often wondered if, (or maybe when), the commie, pinko liberals manage to force a bill through Parliament that dissolves the Monarchy whether it would be in the Monarch's interest to withhold their assent or not.
I've often wondered if, (or maybe when), the commie, pinko liberals manage to force a bill through Parliament that dissolves the Monarchy whether it would be in the Monarch's interest to withhold their assent or not.
As a result however, the monarch would, almost certainly, have to abdicate the throne because, by refusing to grant Royal Assent, s/he had effectively gone against the wishes of her subjects.
The Euro debacle is being pushed through by what is probably one of the most undemocratic governments ever seen in a democracy. Furthermore, the fact that at the 2005 election Lab received 35.2% of the vote on a turnout of 61.4% means they hardly received a resounding vote of confidence from the majority of the electorate. Indeed, by my very dodgy maths, those figures mean that only ~21.6% of the electorate actually voted for them. Very roughly speaking, that equates to around 9.5 million votes as opposed to 8.75 million for the Tories and just under 6 million for the Lib Dems.
Given those figures - which suggest that even taking into account our voting system, constituency numbers being weighted in favour of the inner cities giving Lab a clear majority in terms on numbers of seats - they were far from the most popular party in terms of actual numbers of votes cast.
So, when it comes to going against the will of HM subjects, one really must ask just who is going against the will of the the people -Brown forcing this travesty through, or HM denying Royal Assent. If I were a betting man, I know which answer I would back!
Last edited by Melchett01; 19th Jun 2008 at 17:11.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am hardly a 'company man' but in my opinion the circle should go all the way around until the 'formation' of a 'TQF' gets somebody promoted.
It should include a suitably large airliner or 2 for international travel with appropriate suppport. Rotary operations should again be military aircraft and crews. All should fly the roundel and have sufficient toys to protect the occupants with 21st century technology. 2 Gulfstream size jets for european travel.
There is hardly an Air Force on earth that does not have a VIP/presidential flight and it is us who should put them to shame not the other way around. Tax payers adore the public presence of its Royal family and in turn should support them in befitting fashion.
Should this ever happen, I would not like to see the fleet abused for private holidays, golf courses or vip wannabes with pulling power. Which sadly is frequently the case.
It should include a suitably large airliner or 2 for international travel with appropriate suppport. Rotary operations should again be military aircraft and crews. All should fly the roundel and have sufficient toys to protect the occupants with 21st century technology. 2 Gulfstream size jets for european travel.
There is hardly an Air Force on earth that does not have a VIP/presidential flight and it is us who should put them to shame not the other way around. Tax payers adore the public presence of its Royal family and in turn should support them in befitting fashion.
Should this ever happen, I would not like to see the fleet abused for private holidays, golf courses or vip wannabes with pulling power. Which sadly is frequently the case.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: RAF Lincolnshire
Age: 24
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
32(R) Sqn to stop flying Royals next year
See recent articles of MOD website:
For one historic RAF Squadron the days of flying royalty and high profile VIPs to exotic destinations will soon come to an end. In the first instalment of our exclusive feature on RAF Northolt's 32 (The Royal) Squadron we look at its unique role in the Royal Air Force and how that role is gradually changing.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...ngePartOne.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...ngePartTwo.htm
Does anyone know why this decision has been made - is it on the grounds of cost alone?
For one historic RAF Squadron the days of flying royalty and high profile VIPs to exotic destinations will soon come to an end. In the first instalment of our exclusive feature on RAF Northolt's 32 (The Royal) Squadron we look at its unique role in the Royal Air Force and how that role is gradually changing.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...ngePartOne.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...ngePartTwo.htm
Does anyone know why this decision has been made - is it on the grounds of cost alone?