Liz Truss.
"Following this nihilistic line of thinking, Ministers should take the bus rather than having chauffeur driven cars"
We'd see an improvement in the Bus Service pretty fast then.
I can remember when Lee Kwan Yew used to fly commercial from S'pore to Jakarta - they reserved the front 3 seats for him, his Secretary and a single Protection Officer - they boarded just before take off and then the plane would drop him off at the Govt. Terminal at Halim before taxying across to the normal terminal at Jakarta - but we got a direct routing so we actually took less time overall.
We'd see an improvement in the Bus Service pretty fast then.
I can remember when Lee Kwan Yew used to fly commercial from S'pore to Jakarta - they reserved the front 3 seats for him, his Secretary and a single Protection Officer - they boarded just before take off and then the plane would drop him off at the Govt. Terminal at Halim before taxying across to the normal terminal at Jakarta - but we got a direct routing so we actually took less time overall.
Originally Posted by ersa
If the UK government are going full gang Green, Then this is a disgrace , pricing people out of cars , planned removal of gas boilers, and basically making it a hypothetical crime of emitting CO2.
Well if you want to go green, at it's fastest, the Cutty Sark managed the crossing from Sydney to London in 73 days, so allowing a two weeks quarantine, a week for the meetings and treatment for scurvy, and then the return passage with a fair wind and calm seas.
It will only take her 167 days, or nigh on as near as damn it, 24 weeks at top speed... Some may say to lose her for that long is a good thing, but at least it will meet with your green credentials.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 28th Jan 2022 at 16:29.
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"The refurbishment of St Pancras railway station in London was apparently £800 million"
yes but that's around for 50-100 years - half a million sounds an awful lot for a trip to me.
yes but that's around for 50-100 years - half a million sounds an awful lot for a trip to me.
I've never understood the reverse snobbery in this country regarding providing dedicated air travel for Govt ministers and the Royal Family - most other countries, certainly the G8 ones, have multiple dedicated VIP aircraft.
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"The refurbishment of St Pancras..........yes but that's around for 50-100 years - half a million sounds an awful lot for a trip to me.
"Ministers will discuss security and defence capability, building on AUKUS, and commit to tackling state and hybrid threats and jointly supporting maritime security.The visit comes in the face of growing aggression from Russia, which is waging to destabilise and threaten its sovereign neighbour Ukraine, and increasing threats in the Indo-Pacific.
It also comes during crucial days for the Tongan relief effort, as the UK works urgently with Australian and New Zealand counterparts to support those affected."*
Sounds pretty important to me.
* both from Gov.UK
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: north or south
Age: 49
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by ETOPS
Too true - just look at the German Government fleet 3 Airbus A350 and 3 A321.
Originally Posted by ETOPS
Too true - just look at the German Government fleet 3 Airbus A350 and 3 A321.
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
So Grangela is outraged that the Foreign Secretary uses a charter, rather than a commercial flight, when travelling
1. To Australia to discuss a highly sensitive tripartite agreement
2. During an ongoing crisis involving an potential European conflict
3. Over a duration of 19 hours
All of which will require discussion with her team and potentially SoS Defence and other Whitehall departments. What could possibly go wrong doing that on a commercial flight........?
It is a sad reflection on the capabilities of the media that no-one has pointed that out.
1. To Australia to discuss a highly sensitive tripartite agreement
2. During an ongoing crisis involving an potential European conflict
3. Over a duration of 19 hours
All of which will require discussion with her team and potentially SoS Defence and other Whitehall departments. What could possibly go wrong doing that on a commercial flight........?
It is a sad reflection on the capabilities of the media that no-one has pointed that out.
Spend much time as either passenger or crew in certain cabins on scheduled flights and you start to see all sorts of interesting info bits of paper/laptop screens…. what’s “commercially sensitive” between friends?…
and then as you say there’s also the issue of discussions, perhaps on sensitive matters, at odd times of day or night..
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Jimlad1,
I know that is being quoted as the length of the overall contract, but if you follow the twitter thread below then the term of the A321 addendum is given as 2 years. Where the full contract can be downloaded I don't know.
I know that is being quoted as the length of the overall contract, but if you follow the twitter thread below then the term of the A321 addendum is given as 2 years. Where the full contract can be downloaded I don't know.
Titans wet lease terms are on their site, whether they had preferential treatment is open to debate, normal Gov stuff I would add 10% 
Terms
https://www.titan-airways.com/commer...ms-conditions/
Terms
https://www.titan-airways.com/commer...ms-conditions/
Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins
Yes, but they are not mired in scandal and probably run an efficient government
Not very conversant with German political machinations are you...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 43
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
Jimlad1,
I know that is being quoted as the length of the overall contract, but if you follow the twitter thread below then the term of the A321 addendum is given as 2 years. Where the full contract can be downloaded I don't know.
https://twitter.com/AndyNetherwood/s...iFyDaB8clQMwCQ
I know that is being quoted as the length of the overall contract, but if you follow the twitter thread below then the term of the A321 addendum is given as 2 years. Where the full contract can be downloaded I don't know.
https://twitter.com/AndyNetherwood/s...iFyDaB8clQMwCQ
When I first saw the story I was wondering if the AUKUS agreement had a clause allowing for the transportation of undesirables from the UK to Christmas Island via Oz but then realized it was a return trip.
The Germans replaced 2 340s with 3 350s to prevent VIP delays. Mind you the 321 has a medevac role.
Even given my contempt for the current shower I am with those who think a country as rich as the UK should have a dedicated state owned VIP transport fleet. My understanding is that Truss, her entourage and security detail would have been spread over multiple flights due to seat shortage. Not surprising due to the low number of flights driven by the strict entry requirements.
<rant>
Given the focus on the cost and not the benefit we have seen sensible use of premium transport largely driven out especially in the public sector. While it is my opinion (unlike some on this forum) that governments are not doing enough to drive down CO2 emissions, its not those travelling for work who are the issue. It's the tourists, especially short haul, who are making the unnecessary trips that they have been led to believe is their right. (Prepares to receive incoming fire.) However, there is a need to make sea and rail transport competitive while 'cleaner' aircraft propulsion systems are developed.
I would be interested in seeing the fuel burn and CO2 emissions of the the 321 v Voyager for the trip - e.g. a comparison of the extra burn due to fuel carried v the burn due to 2 stops etc.
Mind you if Blair & Brown hadn't specified the A330 MRTT Lite, Voyager would have had UARRSI and a boom like la Truss's interlocutors' KC-30s and no need to stop. (excuse for military aviation picture)
Courtesy Australian DoD
No doubt if she had flown on QF (apparently QF to Darwin would have obviated any stops
, no matter the A380's appetite for fuel), as suggested in some quarters, there would have been outrage over paying UK tax payers money to a 'foreign airline' ignoring the fact that IAG is a Spanish domiciled company c.10% owned by QR.
</rant>
The Germans replaced 2 340s with 3 350s to prevent VIP delays. Mind you the 321 has a medevac role.
Even given my contempt for the current shower I am with those who think a country as rich as the UK should have a dedicated state owned VIP transport fleet. My understanding is that Truss, her entourage and security detail would have been spread over multiple flights due to seat shortage. Not surprising due to the low number of flights driven by the strict entry requirements.
<rant>
Given the focus on the cost and not the benefit we have seen sensible use of premium transport largely driven out especially in the public sector. While it is my opinion (unlike some on this forum) that governments are not doing enough to drive down CO2 emissions, its not those travelling for work who are the issue. It's the tourists, especially short haul, who are making the unnecessary trips that they have been led to believe is their right. (Prepares to receive incoming fire.) However, there is a need to make sea and rail transport competitive while 'cleaner' aircraft propulsion systems are developed.
I would be interested in seeing the fuel burn and CO2 emissions of the the 321 v Voyager for the trip - e.g. a comparison of the extra burn due to fuel carried v the burn due to 2 stops etc.
Mind you if Blair & Brown hadn't specified the A330 MRTT Lite, Voyager would have had UARRSI and a boom like la Truss's interlocutors' KC-30s and no need to stop. (excuse for military aviation picture)
Courtesy Australian DoD
No doubt if she had flown on QF (apparently QF to Darwin would have obviated any stops
, no matter the A380's appetite for fuel), as suggested in some quarters, there would have been outrage over paying UK tax payers money to a 'foreign airline' ignoring the fact that IAG is a Spanish domiciled company c.10% owned by QR.</rant>
Last edited by SLXOwft; 28th Jan 2022 at 19:02. Reason: missing r
So UK plc has a corporate jet with a dirty great Union Jack on the tail.
If we aren't going to use it when Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State and entourage have to travel to the Antipodes then, unless I'm missing the point, exactly when are we going to use it?
If we aren't going to use it when Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State and entourage have to travel to the Antipodes then, unless I'm missing the point, exactly when are we going to use it?
Originally Posted by DuncanDoenitz
So UK plc has a corporate jet with a dirty great Union Jack on the tail.If we aren't going to use it when Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State and entourage have to travel to the Antipodes then, unless I'm missing the point, exactly when are we going to use it?
Perhaps we are writing at cross purposes. I think most people aware that the similarly-liveried 330 spends most of its time in the tanking role; the "UK liveried A321LR" they actually used is what I was referring to. I still think "UK plc ... corporate jet with a dirty great Union Jack on the tail" covers it.
Originally Posted by DuncanDoenitz
Perhaps we are writing at cross purposes. I think most people aware that the similarly-liveried 330 spends most of its time in the tanking role; the "UK liveried A321LR" they actually used is what I was referring to. I still think "UK plc ... corporate jet with a dirty great Union Jack on the tail" covers it.
