Waste of Tax Dollars
 

So why does Dubya need to have three Blackhawks airfreighted all the way from the land of the free, and the home of the brave (sic) to Belfast to take him all of five miles to Hillsborough?

Do we not have helicopters of the required standard here already?

I take it Bliar arrived early so that his poxy little 146 could be turned around and shuffled away out of sight before the arrival of his boss, just in case he split his sides laughing at it!

He can bring as much gear as he likes. Its why the rest of the bloody world has to stop while he arrives that pi55es me off.

We couldn't even get out of the workplace for a couple of hours because the access road was within half a mile of AF1. Same goes for tomorrow, can't do this, can't do that...........

Who's the guest here?

Size isn't everything....

nothing wrong with our Tony's poxy "Fisher-Price Starlifter":p

(okay,okay, so there's LOTS potentially wrong with it....and it's slow and has a sextant mount on an aircraft with 2 FMS's, but...) :(

Cos to be fair to him his Black Hawks are good bits of kit.

Perhaps, for some reason, GWB refused to fly from there in a Chinook!

As the CEO of a multi trillion $ company, dont you think that he deserves a certain level of security??


Mutt.

This MUST be a windup, no one can have the ability to operate a computer and pose this question at the same time. Good one guys, almost had me;)

No, T_r it was not a wind up.

And yes, mutt, he does.

My point was that this country is awash with perfectly adequate machines, and pilots who can operate them.

Why the waste of money flying those blackhawks, and no doubt a few bullet proof cadilacs, across the pond?

Nice one RRAAM, you almost convinced yourself:D

tut tut, pulse.

To be fair to Dubya, all US presidents do this. I remember seeing a formation of Blackhawks back in 1990, low-levelling it from London up to Lakenheath to support a Presidential visit.

Our Queen will use whatever is available in the host country, up to a point. Most other heads of state are the same. It ain't ever going to change.

The reason POTUS uses USMC pilots and helos is simple. Since 1800 there have been four US presidents assasinated and attempst made on two others. Nothing is as secure as your own gear.

T_richard

don't recall any of those prezs being on foreign soil at the time, never mind foreign transport???

True Mark D very true. I think the secret service takes the view that what they own they can "know" is secure. It seems a little expensive but better safe than sorry.

Pulse1,
There's 'funny' and there is 'not funny' I suggest your post falls in the latter category and would like you to remove it, please. See 'Chinook - still hitting back ' for full expanation.
Thank you,
Regards JR

T_Rich, you are right about that. Clinton came here (Southern NZ) a couple of years ago to play golf following the APEC summit in Auckland.

He was to be here two nights; the Secret Service were in residence a full four months beforehand. They booked out several hotels for the duration, checked out the populace, scoured the hills and countryside, flew around in un-numbered black helicopters (like there was someone who didn't know who they were), drove around in really cool chunky big left-hand-drive vehicles, acted tough for the press and had three or four unmarked Gulfstreams parked at Queenstown Airport.

Clinton came (!), he saw, he played golf, and he didn't get shot. So that bit worked, anyway; whether it was entirely necessary is another matter.

Christ alone knows how much the whole exercise cost the US taxpayer.

Blue Wolf

Thats why they call it insurance, When Clinton came to my town for a local fundraiser, they took up residence in the high school. he landed on the football field, did the motocade for two miles, greeted and pinched, back to the HS into the helio and away. My friend on the job made some OT, and everyone was happy.

Oh buy the way we charged NZ for his vist, so the US paid for the trip and balance our budget;) ;) ;) ;)

Judge Rembrandt,

Sorry I didn’t see your post until now as I have been away.

I can assure you that my post was in no way intended to be funny. I am aware of the Chinook thread. If you took the trouble to read it (huge task) you would see that I have, in the early days, used it to try to understand the issues. Having understood, I have been, and will continue to be, a supporter of the campaign to remove the unjust verdicts against the pilots.

Whichever of the well argued theories about the accident you find most plausible, there is no doubt whatsoever that the RAF entrusted 25 passengers to an aircraft of questionable safety and which was unsuitable for the task in the prevailing conditions.

Until the RAF/MoD demonstrate that they have faced up to this failure, and stop hiding behind the possible failure of the pilots who cannot defend themselves, I think it would be reasonable for anyone to question whether they would be safe in their hands. This is definitely not funny.

Pulse1
Sorry if I sounded a little pious. I now see where you are comong from. Fair point.
JR