The British Government Used An A321 To Fly To Australia
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2022
- At the end of January, the UK’s foreign secretary Liz Truss came under fire for using vast amounts of taxpayer money for a trip to Australia. But it’s not the trip itself that’s causing the ruckus; Rather, it’s the means of transport she took to get there. Truss chartered the government’s private Airbus A321 for the 22,000-mile flight, at an estimated cost of half a million pounds (equivalent to $671,000).
Article link: simpleflying.com/uk-governmen...
Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz.
Video sources:
A321LR Air Transat • Our new Airbus A321neoLR
A321LR first flight • A321LR First Flight fr...
Photo sources:
www.flickr.com/photos/1923337...
www.flickr.com/photos/1923337...
www.flickr.com/photos/1923337...
Simple Flying:
Visit our website where we publish 150-200 news stories per week: simpleflying.com/
Listen to our weekly podcast: simpleflying.com/podcast/
Download our iOS & Android app: simpleflying.com/simple-flyin...
Daily email digest sign up: simpleflying.com/daily-digest/
Check out our second RUclips channel: / @longhaulbysimpleflying
Follow us on social media:
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
Facebook: / simpleflyingnews
Linkedin: / 33222643
#aviation #flight #avgeek #airlines #flying 
Развлечения
“Government official uses government plane for government business.”
Yeah, I can see why that’s a scandal.
Welcome to the level of political discourse here in the UK.
It's shameful.
I imagine this is not specifically outrage about them using it, rather uninformed people learning how expensive such a flight is. That's how it goes with many scandals.
Also, I have to agree that the range really makes this quite absurd.
Unless you're having meetings in the air, you can get all of the comfort you would desire by flying first class on a top tier airline. With this price tag you could easily book the entire first class section.
@@the_bottomfragger If you book with any airline, you’re subject to their schedule. With connecting flights, that could add hours to the trip each way.
@@PaulMcElligott Indeed, like others pointed out, it's not just herself, but her staff, support personnel. There might even be some other government staff in the background doing a lot of legwork with the Australian government's counterparts while on the ground before anything is signed.
Yeah by the media's logic there would be no government planes at all. No trip is justified, long or short - it will always be more expensive than Ryan Air.
Quite honestly, as a german i am always puzzled by the media outrage about something like this trip in the UK. I am used to officials from government, and sometimes opposition, to use the government VIP fleet (operated by the German Airforce) for official business. That is what it is there fore. Currently there is a VIP fleet of two A340, one A350 (out of 3 ordered), three A319 ACJ, one converted A321, three Bombardier Global 5000 and three Global 6000 as well as three Eurocopter AS532. If needed additional capacity is chartered, but that is rarely the case.
That fleet allows government business to be conducted privately, to take along a delegation of press and business leaders on foreign trips and so on. Quite important on an export oriented country.
But the German economy has not been battered by a self-inflicted Brexit with a pandemic to boot has it ?
@@suresh1957 Well, the pandemic has hit all countries. And of course, government transport services is a long term thing and not changed on a whim. In fact, nothing has changed here in Germany except that the first A350 was delivered to the Airforce.
But yes, Brexit, while it has an impact on all EU countries, has a pretty much negligible impact, especially considering all the other stuff going on like the Pandemic, the huge windfall due to the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine etc.
As a German I am flattered to learn that officials don't fly like normal people. What a waste of taxes.
In Italy, our government has access to 4 ACJ319's, a few Falcon 90's and a A340-500, which has been in storage since the previous government fell in 2017.
To conplicate matters, Etihad (the plane and crew was leased by etihad as a part of the infamous Alitalia takeover be Etihad) launched a class action against the government because they wanted to terminate the lease early.
But I can see the why some people may criticise the move to use an A321LR to fly on the other side of the world, whilst the Air force has a fleet of A330s
@@__u__9464 My point as well.
2:17
it's NOT 22000 miles from london to sydney. It's approx half of that distance, therefore
22000 miles would be the length of the entire return journey.
Wouldn't it also be a waste of money to have a government plane and not use it?
Exactly.
@@donaldstanfield8862 the plane is already paid for u. Those are extra costs
Alternative name for this video:
British government used government airplane for the purpose of government business
Hey Mattias, our interest as an aviation site is more that an A321 was used to fly to Australia, rather than the politics of it. - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews You literally end the video posing the question of:
""Should the Foreign Secretary be criticised for flying the governments private A321LR to Australia? Lets us know by leaving a comment."
That is directly a question about the politics, not the aircraft, and Mattias did offer their thoughts on that.
Besides, you can't really separate the politics on this kind of topic to begin with. =p
@@SimpleFlyingNews Well then we are on the same page, because I have no interest in politics. I like aviation, period.
Yet the whole video was basically based on its criticism from the British people, and you even asked us to give our thoughts on the matter. I did that in a way of the alternative headline, basically saying that I don't see any issue with using a government aircraft for the purpose of government business.
And on another serious note. Us giving a comment is only in your gain with all YT-algoritms, so coming with an reply that could sound like you're criticizing us because we did something you asked us to do...well, it doesn't seem like the smartest thing to do.
Anyways, I do like your content :-)
The problem is the media makes it sound like 1 person is using an A321. Reality is with the security detail and staff it is likely around 40 people plus spare flight and cabin crew.
Australia may be friendly territory with minimal security risk but there are stops on the way for fuel that require security, plus it is required to bring enough people for 24/7 coverage on both the security and staffing details.
Flying commercially requiring this many seats is just not practical. Using a smaller aircraft is also not practical, especially when the A321 is already on a government charter status.
You are correct. Unfortunately, we don't know how big her entourage was so we can't really offer informed opinions. If there were 20 people onboard, it would have averaged out to £25,000 per person which is probably competitive with the cost of 20 first class tickets. But, of course, the media would probably complain about government officials not flying economy and needing two days to recover in each direction.
Media always make a simple event into multiple clickbaity discussions, the trip itself is the reasonable option for a department travel from here to there, commercial chartered flight and/or first class just don't simply work for that
If you use the media's logic, there wouldn't be any government aircraft at all. If a large group including a cabinet minister travelling to the other side of the planet doesn't justify a government plane flight, then I struggle to know what does.
@@whatevermightwork Incidentally, most Norwegian ministers usually fly commercial airlines.
@@suresh1957 janteloven.. :)
I'm a ground handler (ramp agent) at Sydney airport and actually saw this aircraft as it taxied from 99A near the corporate jets (DOM6), taxied via Golf, Bravo 4, Bravo and Foxtrot taxiways to depart from RWY 16R. Unfortunately, I couldn't take photos due to what I was doing but I could see it was from Titan airways on FR24, I presumed it was a military callsign. A colleague nearby thought it might have been a sports team as government officials usually travel in private jets also stating that some British sports team had just finished playing in Australia. Anyway, it's interesting to know what actually happened even if it's 18 days later.
Any idea how many people were on board? The media is trying to suggest it was a huge jet all to herself....
@@shelfridges The entire entourage was reportedly 14 people. This is the UK Foreign Secretary after all, so we're not talking about a large, travelling security team. The Australians will have handled almost all of that on the other end.
The rukus was probably caused by a journalist who was refused to board the plane as part of the News detail 😂
Lol
The media tried to cause outrage over the paint job on ZZ336 claiming £900K was spent on the paint when in reality it included cost of coms upgrades and scheduled maintenance
In the US our senior government officials fly on VIP Air Force jets on official business. Perhaps rules are different in the UK but I think it’s not worthy of this much attention or criticism.
The reason this one is getting criticized is the distance, the media in the uk seems to like to turn the conservatives bad these days so they claim basically that just her used the plane and could have flown cheaper on Qantas. What the media hides from people is there were a lot more people there because of her 24/7 security and 24/7 staff.
Nothing controversial about it the avarage Briton doesn't care, the only ones moaning about it are the media and the radical greens.
People are paying less and less attention to the media because of stuff exactly like this. They’re clearly trying to create controversy out of nothing and thankfully most people can see that
@@Elliott2001 ....and the Labour Party on a scalp hunting expedition.
US President fly on board the Boeing 747with Airforce one call sign but iDK about if US vice president or defense or foreign secretaries also using the same aircraft or other ones
When people call legitimate uses of government aircraft as wasteful government spending, it waters down criticism of actual misuse of funds and embezzlement.
Many airlines don't want senior government officials on their commercial flights due to the disruption to the other passengers. There are additional security screening requirements, more likelihood of delays, and often premium passengers have to be removed from the flight or downgraded to give the VIP and their entourage exclusive use of the premium cabin for security reasons. I experienced this as a business class passenger on Thai flying SYD-BKK when the upper deck of an A380 was emptied because a Thai official was travelling.
That is a very good point. What about all the poor sods who booked first-class only to be told all of FC has been taken over by the UK government. How pissed would you be if that happened to you. YOU may also be a VIP, but not a government official.
@@k9killer221 I was pretty peeved to have business class taken over and moved to back row centre of economy. What was even worse was it took 6 months for the airline to refund the difference between the business class fare and the full price economy class fare.
I flew from Nairobi to Heathrow in business class & the Kenyan president was sat about 12 foot from me. They'd removed a few seats around him and he had a curtain around his makeshift VIP area but that was about it. We did have quite long delays as he was last on and first off, at a different terminal. I would have been furious if I'd been bumped to economy though.
@@k9killer221 wow, that’s “great” customer service. I had no idea that customers who pay crazy amounts of money for their seats are treated like this. Last time I check price from Warsaw to NY in business class it was around 3-5 k$ while economy was 500$…
It’s really a non story. It’s part of doing govt business and it looks silly when a foreign secretary official flies on commercial without security detail and having to wait around at airports. Total waste of time.
No, not at all. The point of a Govt aeroplane is to act as a marketing tool for its respective government. Plus, as other commenters have mentioned it's not just 1 person travelling, it's the minister and their cohort.
Right. Wouldn't it be far worse to have an expensive plane and then not use it?
Given Australia's borders are still closed to most foreign travellers (because COVID) at the moment, most airlines have dramatically reduced the number of flights in and out of the country. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there just wasn't the first class capacity available to carry the minister and her entourage if they wanted to fly commercial. Whether or not it's cheaper doesn't matter if flying commercial couldn't fulfil the mission requirements.
Press and political parties in the UK seem to have too little to do. What are such aircraft for, if they aren’t to be used for official trips like these?
Hey, our interest as an aviation site is more that an A321 was used to fly to Australia, rather than the politics of it. - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews In that case - why concentrate on the fact that a POLITICIAN used the flight? That was, in fact, the point of this video. Make your mind up.
Would have made a lot more sense to fly on a G650ER or something similar.. less stops/Less Fuel/less impact
I generally don't have a problem with governments using there own planes but that seem really costly for one trip. Maybe use a small craft and land at smaller airports for cheaper landing fees. There really should be ways to get that cost down.
Saving fuel and food is good.
Or fly Qantas first class with security on board, still much, much cheaper
It seems costly because the £500k figure has never been substantiated. It was the opinion of a single, un-named industry expert who gave the figure to one newspaper here in the UK.
The true and actual cost is unknown/unconfirmed, but everyone is running with the £500k figure
@@kimcelarmycx229 For how many people? Including connections? Does it include the 12hrs waiting time at one of the locations?
Or is it just false equivalence?
@@shelfridges Qantas flies nonstop from London to Perth, Australia using a 787, so it would be a nonstop flight into the destination country. From there a domestic connection, which could be on a privately chartered QantasLink Dash 8 turboprop could take place. This is solely a potential alternative suggestion, and I'm not saying they should have done this, nor do I know how many people would have to travel with her, or the other logistics that would take place
1. I think it's great that we are represented by our planes in other countries
2. How much does Air Force One cost? The US has two identical 747s and loads of smaller planes
3. Germany has 15 official Government planes
4. How can you put senior government officials, and the press that accompany them on a commercial plane? Have some god damn sense, thats such a huge security risk!
5. Why shouldn't a government official use a government plane?
thanks for coming to my rant :)
While it's true that the german airforce runs a pretty big fleet of government planes ministers and event chancellor Merkel had to fall back on commercial aviation a lot due to the notorious unreliabilityof the fleet.
However due to the bad publicity resulting from these incidents the parliament agreed on buying 3 brand new Airbus A350-900 which is pretty cool imo.
How do they calculate to cost of £500k? This aircraft averages 0.45nm/gallon and aviation fuel costs USA$1.08/gallon when cruising. London -Sydney as the crow flies is ~10,500miles, being generous and allow 30,000 for return trip. 30,000miles = 26,000nm, fuel usage 26,000/.45 = 58,000gallons, allow extra 25% for additional fuel for take off and the fuel use would have been ~72,000 gallons at $1.08/gallon = $78k. So fuel cost would have been ~£60k. The monthly leasing fixed cost are payable regardless of whether the aircraft sits in Stansted Airport or is flying, so even if it cost £100k for the crew costs and another £50k for maintenance (both probably generous). The actual cost is more likely to be less than half the number in the media. Assuming and total party size of 30 (including security detail, civil servants and media), tickets in business class would be approx £25k each, total cost £750k. The cheap option is to use th3 government aircraft.
But how would they have flown with Quantas when as started earlier all flights were booked?
Right! And if flying commercial imagine the furore flying Qantas and not BA.
It really doesn't matter so long as the British media get their daily dig at politicians, that's all that matters to them.
@@karlnicholls1784 in that case one would have needed both. I don’t think BA operates to down under at the current moment in time.
@@jace1113 Our MSM didn't make any comments about Joe Biden's visit which required one B747 (Airforce One) one B 757, 2 x C17s and the presidential helicopter
2:17 I know we're a long way from London here in Sydney, but I'm pretty sure it's not 22 thousand miles, since that's not far short of the circumference of the Earth. It's more like 10,500 miles.
He meant the round trip
She's the MP for South West Norfolk. If I were her I'd have that thing on permanent standby to get me from London to Norwich and back every week for constituency visits.
why did uk government bought a321lr if not for government yourneys.
According to the vide they did not buy it. It's a commercial aircraft under a charter arrangement.
Indeed, most people don’t realize the number of people the travel as representatives of the state to meet with foreign heads of state in their own country. And just like corporate travel in private aircraft,
"Private jet" in the exact same context that an RAF Typhoon is also a government operated "private jet"
Utter nonsense that this is even a story.
Wondering if there's an ACJ321XLR with additional 5ACT to fly 8000nm
How so;
101t MTOW - 50.1t OEW - 18.7t main fuel - 10t RCT fuel -11.75t (5 ACT) fuel - 10t interior =...........spare for pax & luggage
>> assuming fuel burn rate; 2.2t/hr
>> enough to fly 18hr$
Kinda interested in how exactly they crewed that trip (I get there’ll be relief crew)
meanwhile, for more important meetings with the local officials in Sidney to discuss the details, her staffs are instructed to do, you know, free of charge zoom or gmeet.
It would also be a waste of taxpayer funds to have a government jet just sitting on the ground not being used. However, first class on SIA would have been a much wiser move for just a 12 hour conference.
What about the dozen other people that went with her and what about the fact there were two meetings in Australia thousands of kilometers apart
I’m also sure that her armed personal protection officers are easier to carry on a charter / private flight compared to a normal commercial flight.
There are around fourteen services with First cabins per day from LHR & LGW all that entail one stop to SYD. Very difficult to believe none of these or if necessary for exclusive use of the F cabin, a mix of BA & QF & EK all via DXB couldn’t have been achieved. And significantly more comfortable and cheaper.
They flew to Australia people not some country that’s around the corner. If they had gone comercial I would have been around €2,000 per person X 40-50 and they can’t take what the security detail needs. Also the plane is equipped with communication that allows her to continue working. Big part of the cost was fuel because they flew to the other side of the world. Flying like that isn’t about financial benefits but about time management and freedom to work on their schedule
I saw this plane landing at Adelaide Airport, if I didn't check flightradar24 I probably wouldn't have been able to film the landing
I think its fine to use this aircraft. As a matter of interest when the A 321 XLR becomes available would it only need two stops to Sydney as there is a cost to each and every landing?
Distance from London to SydneyDistance is 16989 kilometers or 10556 miles or 9173 nautical miles
I may have missed it, but how did the author come up with the cost of the trip? Gas? Landing fees? Govt payroll that would have been paid anyway? Depreciation of the plane?
trade deals may have been discussed, so very much worth it
Imagine they bought a A321LR but can't fly anywhere due to backlash and leaving the plane to rot. Tax money used vs tax money wasted.
Can't they just purchase an Airbus Corporate Jet 330-800neo for long haul flights and place an order for an Airbus 319neo for short & medium haul flights? Makes more sense to me.
They do have an a330 but unlike the a321 it's an actual military jet which is used for air to air refueling
@@danielc3281 Yes so they need to buy a separate ACJ330-800neo in vip configuration. And fewer stops as well and less fuel consumption.
Is nice to see the UK have there A321NeoLR For the Government to fly on for both meetings the A321XLR will go further plus the Government should look into it.
Simple answer: let government act like government or it won't function like government anymore. This is not about wasting taxpayers' money, it's about not looking ridiculous traveling on Quantas.
The British Government Used An A321 To Fly To Australia - Why not, it's the best narrow body aircraft in the sky and a cost saver over the a330. More governments should have them reducing their expenses over using wide bodies with only a handful of passengers.
I think it’s more that because of its ridiculous paint scheme it has to exclusively chartered so it sits around for 90% of the time doing absolutely nothing. It means the actual cost of the flight likely works out at tens of millions.
didn't know that the British Govt has finally upgraded to a fleet of brand new A321-200 Neo LR ACJ . . . actually No. 10, Downing Street could do with a fleet of 3 brand new A350-900 ULR ACJ . . . unit cost €540 Mn - €650 Mn approx including a €260 Mn bespoke cabin interior plus classified airborne defensive aids . . .
british government use a321neo fly to australia
route: from london to sydney via dubai via kuala Lumpur via Adelaide
Well the Brits thought the EU was a waste of money too. Wouldn't give too much credence to what the Brits think is a waste of money.
Do it over zoom like we all have too.
It's funny because in Germany it was the other way around. A few years ago Angela Merkel had to take an Iberia flight to the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, because the governmental aircraft were all unavailable due to technical issues. There was a huge outcry about the inability of the German Air Force to transport their government.
The ongoing unreliability of the A340s even led to the government ordering three A350s. Really interesting how different those matters are viewed upon in different countries :D
Surely a Global Express or Gulstream V could have handled the flight better for less $$$....
In Canada, the Prime Minister and Governor General fly RCAF only for security. They use CC-150 (A310-300) and CC-144 (Challenger 604) aircraft. Does the UK government not have any long range business aircraft like a Challenger or a Global?
Too much drama on the media as usual. They even operated from airports with lower airport charges such as STN and DWC (instead of DXB) for instance to begin with.
Commercial carriers are not secure facilities. It is a security risk when conducting state business in a relatively public space.
I think if they use a smaller plane like G750 or A319 will be less controversial, but still, why not? It’s built for the government anyway
How come the British govt did not acquire a much smaller jet like a Bombardiar business jet that have the ability to fly very long range and are far less expensive to maintain? That i am sure will not cause a fracas with the British people.
Simple reason is because it is not really fit to fly long distance with alot of personel.
There are Biz jets which can fly very long distances (like the Gulfstream G 650, or the Bombardier Global family), but they are also not cheap.
Germany is using Global 5000s and 6000s.
The Global is typically used for a dozen passengers, which can be not enough for some events.
An a 321 is still not that expensive, Germany is using A 350s now for longer distances, they replace older A 340s.
Because it is too small...........
Australia should buy 5 of the XLRs as have them like US air force 2 fleet although we have the Flacon 8X too
OMG, this would make for a perfect Monty Python take. Something like: "Quiet, you grotesque commoner. New aristocracy travels as it wishes. You may only pay for it. Don't do as I do. Do as I say!"
This isn't quite as simple a scenario as some of the comments would have you to believe. As with many things, timing is a factor.
Bear in mind, this comes at a time that the UK Government , and specifically its leadership, is under a rather large amount of scrutiny for certain events that has genuinely angered a good chunk of the public, and the response was somewhat tone-deaf in light of that.
On top of that, the cost of living in the UK has made a notable jump in the past month and is only set to keep going significantly as we hit April.
So its not exactly the best timing to travel half way around the world on a private jet for a couple of days, almost spending as much time overall in the air as on the ground.
There's a fair argument to make about what this trip actually achieved.
Also remember that, 'officially', these are not government owned planes. They belong to Titan Airways.
Other than the VIP cabin, they are fairly standard in terms of equipment. They don't have any fancy defensive measures like the A330 MRTT, extra secure communications equipment, etc.
They weren't exactly acquired in a 'standard' way either. Rather this was tacked on to an existing contract to avoid the need for a competition and minimise scrutiny.
Although they are Titan's planes, because of the livery, they may not be used for anything other than HMG business, and so the government essentially pays Titan to keep the aircraft on the ground as a permeant, on-demand charter.
Even the actual RAF VIP Voyager can at least be used for military applications when not required. Also worth noting that Voyager went through a £10 Million VIP refit year ago for the specific purpose of the government saying it would reduce the need to charter other aircraft. The Cabinet Office also denied even knowing about these A321 neo LR's at one point as well.
That probably sounds like a contradiction, so perhaps you can see some of the need for why such government things need proper scrutiny.
A wonderful response - to a typically "tabloid bombshell" that 'Simple Flying' have probably coined in quite nicely through YT income. Sigh.
I've read through a load of their daily "news" things online, and they always end with something along the lines of "What do you think? Did you ever fly on ? If so, let us know in the comments."
"Simple" = trawl Wikipedia for "facts", get stock or CC licenced photos, and add personal opinions (not experience).
"Flying" = do any of the staff actually possess a passport?
Sigh. Again.
Earning it the Monica Baby Boris Force 1? I work in aviation and have never heard that one, neither have I heard Boris force one. Where do you get your information?
Probably the gutter press.
Looks like a highly effective way for government officials to travel. It's a non-story. Actually, an A330 Voyager would have been better, Probably could've flown it in one jump.
A 787 was flown by Qantas direct from Sydney to London, but I don't think an A330 has the range, even with a light load.
Official Government visit, government jet is justified. However if there were no sensitive government discussions being had on board, flying commercial would have been at least 10 times cheaper overall.
But security and logistics would be very difficult if flying on airliners
@@nextlaunch1 But there are precedents. Government officials fly commercial all the time.
@@sainnt they tend to have a deal with the airline though, when that happens it’s not actually that different to this flight, basically the only difference is that they don’t have a jet painted in government colours.
Should not even have such a plane - go commercial.
I see no problem if a government official uses a government plane to conduct government official business.
What’s the point if of a government aircraft if it’s not for the government to use.
Why it cost so much to fly that distance
UK government would never fly Qantas, they would fly British Airways or charter a 777.
The Australian cricket team chartered a A321 to fly from Perth via Colombo and Dubai to East Midlands back in 2020 for they're tour of England
how many pilots?
I'm sure the government approved video conference service is a lot cheaper 🙄
Really people should look at the cost of going by an Airline when you factor in her Ontarage surely bet there where more than a hundred. What would that of cost First Class Qantas or BA it was £10.000 ten years ago.
The money's already budgeted (which means approved). Spend it!
I would say that using the A321LR wasn’t a bad move given that it led to a more private flight that could be used to do productive work, and also, that’s what a governmental plane is for anyways. However, I will say that it definitely came with a steep price tag. 🇬🇧 🇦🇺
now, if there was any necessity, need, or reason for doing that?🤷♂
My issue is that we need dedicates VIP aircraft, yet because it’s such a pointlessly taboo subject in the UK, we lease through an expensive company rather than buy a dedicated fleet. We have an RAF VIP squadron with aircraft too old and unreliable to do their job. We just need to do what the rest of Europe is doing, buy a fleet of small, medium and large aircraft for VIP roles.
Doesn’t the UK government have an A330 owned for this? This frame is sub-leased from Titan Airways.
@@AEMoreira81 It's an RAF tanker aircraft that doubles over as a VIP aircraft. I think primarily it's available only for the Prime Minister and the Royal Family (so maybe Lis Truss wasn't important enough)
Sadly a Zoom meating would of likely accomplished the same mission. That said the staff required to travel for such a trip would have been less efficient divided on multiple commercial flights.
So, do the Brits not have Zoom for teleconferencing?
If the foreign secretary isn’t allowed to use a government aircraft then who is?
Great idea book me seat next time 😆
Government business + long distance = government plane. I really don’t see the problem.
22000 miles to Sydney???? Nope...not even half that.
Think of the outrage if a commercial flight carrying high profile government ministers was brought down in a terrorist attack.
guess the UK Gulfstream's were all busy that day...
It’s yes from me Liz. 😁
Perhaps we should get Ryanair in, they'd reduce the costs....
22,000 miles? don't you mean km?
nah miles, calculate it by a round trip
I've watched the video, read most of the comments, but ...
This was a "tabloid newspaper" story that (I guess) one of the 'Simple Flying' "staff" in the UK picked up on, and thought;
"Hey - we can pick up on this! Let's add a few facts about an A321 and build on the scandal (#) that everyone in the UK is rioting about"
Then ..
"Hey - we can get even more comments if we publish it on RUclips, get our hits up, and get money from causing comments!"
.... and so it continues.
"simple" - should be suffixed with an "s".
A Teams meeting is much cheaper, but we all know the government does as it pleases.
That’s literally what that jet is for
Why they don’t just invest in an A350-1000 or B787-9
not to defend the government here but how can people be mad about this but say nothing about the thousands of empty flights that are being flown these days just to keep landing slots?
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay the airport the landing fees but not have the jet fly and keep the slot? Or does the airport insist on having a plane land and use up space and add to the wear and tear of the runway? I mean they would still get their money, but have to do the work involved with a plane landing. The airline then gets to keep the plane in one place, not burn a ton of fuel, and all the staffing involved to fly, but only pay a small fraction of the actual cost and keep their precious slot.
What??? Entitled politicians and government officials?? Why…I've never heard of such a thing😳😳
In other news, I used my company car to visit a client the other day
This is a government plane transporting a senior government minister (the foreign secretary) and her entourage on important government business. There is nothing about this narrative that is controversial. Senior government ministers across the globe (G20 economies and many more besides) routinely use government-owned transport for important government business.
Critics need to get real !
Then People from UK need to visit India
How government officials are using the conveys for traveling
We never complained because of government
Sad
Koala Lumpor? 🐨
Why is it necessary to travel as a politician across the world during a pandemic. And why did not only politicians but also member of royal Ffamilies and all kind of celebrities including e.g. famous actors, models, sport stars etc. fly around the world during the pandemic and just ignored all restrictions?
😆😅😂🤣No one was talking about the aircraft, Airbus A321 how good it is for such a flight.🤓
Its a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't to me.
By the MSM's logic there would be no government planes at all. It's always going to be more expensive than Ryan Air....
Are you completely nuts? It’s less than 10,500 miles from London to Sydney…even Round Trip wouldn’t be CLOSE to 24000 miles
consider the route they're flying,
London to Dubai 3390miles
Dubai to Kuala Lumpur 3438 miles
Kuala Lumpur to Adelaide 3554.43 miles
Adelaide to Sydney 721.85 miles
added all toghether is 11104.28 miles
Assuming they take the same route back, the route will be 22208.56 miles
so they did say it right in this video as 22000 miles
Follow the money boys
I can support having government planes because they are important, although the expenditure is quite a lot?
Of course we will never know if the meetings were vitally important or even fruitful