I was a CDG recently and saw THREE French Government Airbus 330/340s. It could be that France still has a number of overseas departments - or that French presidents also have large egos.

Thanks all. I did wonder about runway length but if they can squeeze a 747 in and out of Cambridge (~6500 feet) I reckoned they could get a lightly loaded A330 in and out of Northolt.

FWIW and AFAIK previous PMs in the post VC-10 era have used chartered BA jets - notably Concorde on one G7 meeting. So of course the French had to use one of theirs too. Or maybe (or perhaps more likely, probably), it was the other way round. In any case it was a great piece of one-up-manship: you may have a dedicated VIP transport, but *mine* is a *lot* faster.

But we are currently alone amongst the large industrial nations in sending our big-wigs abroad in a military jet rather than one painted appropriately. Many would commend this frugality; personally I think that it sends quite the wrong message out to other countries, many of which have a culture where appearances are taken much more seriously than in ours.

One can land an A318 from JFK in to LCY but one cannot get one back out again, it can only get as far as SNN.

Payload isn't just people on board, it is fuel etc.all very well landing a lightly loaded ferry A330/B747 in to Northolt/Cambridge respectively but can they get back out again with any significant fuel load on board?

I dont think the fact that some really small dictatorships (are we one yet) have quite exotic presidential transports is not a reason for us to go the same route. Current arrangements fine and a sensible solution, France of course has a president who is much more akin to the US president than the UK PM and in some ways has even more authority than POTUS so he is likely to have something more exotique although the airframes are sometimes pretty old years wise. The queen is too old for long haultrips any more , Charles and Wills are unlikely to complain over the current arrangement. Must be a bit sad for Queenie though to lose the Royal yacht and the shiny VC10s she had for much of her reign but as we have all found out lately she doesnt actually do anything maybe she was a bit spoiled.
All politicians need their feet kept on the ground and it would do the US no harm at all if POTUS used an old KC135 or a Galaxy if size matters-after all the only real issues of importance on the presidential aircraft are secure as possible comms and a long endurance.
,In fact sometime like a C17 with good short field performance would be a much better choice than AF1

No, but I imagine that Brize Norton was the next stop in any case.

The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. We can afford to give the aircraft a paint job that reflects this.

They have a paint job, three De Havilland's in close formation, add something like a couple of A318's for the long haul stuff and it'll be a full house!


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4c30ba32e7.jpg

I agree that a modest 318 ER would do the trick but HMRC have got used to grabbing cash off the press for being down the back and the press have got used to some illusion of being close to the action by being on board. The photos of the PM (who ever it is this week) chatting in the aisle is now a staple. The politicos love it too - which is another good reason to ditch it.

The RAF have a history of buying second hand with more than the minimum number of engines, VC10's & L1011's to name but two, A340-300's must be as cheap as chips these days!

No point in the use of under-powered very old A340-300's when there are a fair few good condition A340-600's available or even the shorter longer range capability A340-500. At least with these Trent 500 powered versions you can far better performance/range but will add the that the 4 Trent 500 engines will be thirsty.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the 500 is an upgrade of the 300, I've only flown in Swiss and Cathay 300's, it was the size that I was suggesting, I think the 600 would be too large for what may be required.