Talk:Air transport of the British royal family and government

message: This title, whilst not perfect, was arrived at after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Force One and Talk:Air transports of Heads of State. Please discuss any change of name here before making it. Thank you Mark83 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

message: "Executive" is a US term not really used in the UK. "Government" is what is being referred to and would make the article title more accurate. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholly disagree that executive is "a US term not really used in the UK." Mark83 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The phrase "executive of the United Kingdom" is not a commonly-used one. If we mean Her Majesty's Government, then call it that, IMHO. Letdorf (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose changing "executive" to "government" 

message: The expenses of royal air travel seem to be of a great deal of interest, particularly to the British media. The expense account has been posted on their web site for the last four years. Particularly the perceived need for a dedicated jet. The issue with helicopter travel seemed to particularly resonate in the media. I think that people would be interested in where the money goes.Pacomartin (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate you coming to the talk page but you should not really re-add contested content until a consensus is met (refer Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). What may of interest to the British media is not always encyclopedic, a long list of journeys and their cost is not really necessarily. Some of what was added was unreferenced and some of it was opinion. I have no objection to a smaller referenced section discussing the cost and the media reaction but listing the indiviudal costs is not really needed just a link out to the relevant government report whould do. Remember this is an encyclopedia and we also have to give a balanced and neutral view of the information and use only report factual information. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I put the data back in, but I tried to edit it to make it shorter. Since the larger BAE jets used in the squadron are coming to the end of their life, the question of their ultimate replacement is of a great deal of interest. The United Kingdom is one of the few world powers without dedicated aircraft for their head of state and head of government. I thought that the section about "who is using the helicopter" would be of general interest. If your problem is with the numbers then perhaps I should eliminate them.Pacomartin (talk)
I made a concentrated effort to reduce the section to as small as seems practical. It conveys who is doing the travelling and gives a good idea of relative costs without digging into the details as much. The cost of PM air travel is higher than that of the royal family, but I don't know where that is posted.Pacomartin (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Still think you have to much fine detail for an encyclopedic article, I will have a closer look and see what can be done. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, going into great detail about the operations and finances of Royal Family travel arrangements over the last few years (even with reliable sources) probably counts as undue weight in this article. Letdorf (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that this topic is of huge interest in the media, but I will just add the breakdown in the discussion section. If someone else feels it is of general interest, maybe they can add their two cents and they can put it back into the general article. Every other head of state in Europe has a Gulfstream or an Airbus corporate jet for travel. UK is the only major power that seems to rely on this kind of constant chartering. The senior ministers also charter a large number of jets.
*£162,703: Princess Anne went to Central and South America: Scheduled flight plus chartered a jet.
*£735,000: Prince Andrew made 11 trips to countries beyond the range of the military jets using scheduled and charter aircraft.
*£266,125: Prince of Wales made a visit to the Caribbean. Scheduled flight plus chartered a yacht.
*£316,061: Prince of Wales made a formal visit to Uganda and Turkey on a chartered flight.
*£135,200: The Queen visit to Uganda on a charter flight.
*£381,813: The Queen state visit to USA on a charter flight.
*£375,358: Short charters, short scheduled flights, and staff trips.
Pacomartin (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: No MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some additional refs directly from the report rather than the covering website. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I think the point of the itemization back in FY2005 would be to highlight that the considerable expenses of the helicopter are to serve the extended royal family, and not primarily The Queen. The fact that she was only on 3 of the 105 itemized helicopter flights seems important to me. I don't think media criticism would be as sharp if The Queen was flying about in her helicopter. The POTUS routinely uses helicopters to go 10 miles, since it is easier than worrying about ground security for a motorcade. The media criticsm was more against the children, the wives, and the cousins.However you keep deleting this comment.Pacomartin (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears (by bolding) that you are trying to make a WP:POINT but really it is not relevant none of the references say that the royal travel is just for the Queen. It is just another detail that is not encyclopedic. Your conclusion on why itemization was introduced is not reliable sourced just a guess on your part. You need to explain and provide references why only three out of the 105 heli flights being used by the Queen was important. You dont know that the other hundred shorter flights were not undertaken by the Queen which is adding undue weight to what is original research. The conclusion is more likely that the Queen does not use helicopters for longer flights as she prefers the train or a fixed wing flight to a nearer airport first then perhaps a heli flight. The fact she also goes more mob handed than some of the other users is also a factor. So unless you can provide some reliable sources to back up your comments then it can not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pacomartin, it does look like you may be trying to make some kind of point about the expenses incurred by the royal family. I respectfully suggest you read the WP policies WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV. Also, details of rail or sea travel are not really appropriate in this article. Letdorf (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually I think I am doing the opposite of a WP:SOAPBOX. Virtually, every country of even middle income has a full size jet, or a modern ocean crossing business jet for use by senior government officials or monarchs. UK has one of the world's largest economies, and the best known and best travelled monarchs. Yet they have a collection of small aging regional jets operated by the RAF. I was trying to convey in a factual way, what the royal family does to function without dedicated long distance aircraft. The purchase of an American helicopter by The Queen was of a great deal of interest, as was the decision to purchase British helicopters for the new version of Marine One by the POTUS. Since TQHF is a substantial portion of travel costs, I thought that it was worth mentioning who is using the helo (to the extent that this information is released). In previous years, the prince(ss) sometimes flew to a remote city like Beijing, and were followed by the RAF aircraft which had to make at least one or two refueling stops. The RAF jet shuttled them around from point to point. Now they seem to prefer chartering a local smaller fixed wing jet. The question of security also seems to be of some interest. Presuming that a jet charter company does not have the security features of dedicated aircraft, it is possible that the princes are vulnerable to terrorist actions.Pacomartin (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have some interesting points, but editors have to be very careful not to express opinion or editorialize on WP. Also some more citations to back up your assertions would be good. Letdorf (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost data of royal air travel 

message: As far as I know, this is the history of the BAe 146 in RAF service: during 1983-84, two BAe 146-100s, ZD695 (c/n E1004)  and ZD696 (c/n E1005) , designated BAe 146 CC1 (or possibly BAe 146 C1) by the RAF,  were evaluated by 240 OCU for potential use by The Queen's Flight.
Subsequently, in 1986 two VIP-configured BAe 146-100s (sometimes referred to as the BAe 146 Statesman variant, though I suspect the Statesman name was only introduced by BAe for VIP-configured 146s later), ZE700 (c/n E1021)   and ZE701 (c/n E1029)    were procured for TQF.  These were joined by a third VIP BAe 146-100, ZE702 (c/n E1124)   in 1991. All three were designated BAe 146 CC2 in RAF service. ZE702 was subsequently disposed of in 2002, becoming G-CBXY  and later, PK-OSP. ZE700 and 701 continue in service with 32 (TR) Sqn.
So, to summarize, there were two aircraft used for evaluation purposes, a total of three have seen service with TQF and 32 Sqn, and all are -100 variants. Letdorf (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF BAe 146s 

message: This section is written in an editorial and discursive style. In particular there are no citations to explain the relevance of the "motor yacht Leander" or the Piaggio P180 to the subject of this article. As I've said before, WP is not a place to speculate, hypothesize or express  opinions.Letdorf (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a definite improvement. You obviously have a great interest in the general travel arrangements and funding of the Royal Family - have you considered creating a new article which would be a more appropriate place to go into greater detail on these topics? Letdorf (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charter jets and the Environment 

message: I propose the section "Cost of Royal Travel" to be split into a separate article as the size of the section, level of detail and scope of the section would appear to constitute undue weight and recentism. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: Any reason why the article makes no real mention of the government? MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: and government

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/bae146/bae1465.html
*:Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: A provisional list:
* 1936-1962: Air Vice-Marshal Sir Edward Hedley Fielden, GCVO, CB, DFC, AFC (later Senior Air Equerry to the Queen, 1962-1969)
* 1962-1964: Air Commodore Sir Arthur Dennis Mitchell, KBE, CVO, DFC*, AFC
* 1965-1967: Air Commodore John Hubert Lempriere Blount, DFC
* 1968-1982: Air Commodore Sir Archibald Little Winskill, KCVO, CBE, DFC*, AE
* 1982-1989: Air Vice-Marshal Sir John de Milt Severne, KCVO, OBE, AFC
* 1989-1995: Air Commodore The Hon. Sir Timothy Charles Elworthy, KCVO, CBE
Deputy Captains:
* 1956-1959: Air Commodore Sir Arthur Dennis Mitchell, KBE, CVO, DFC*, AFC
* 1960-1962: Air Chief Marshal Sir Thomas Neville Stack, KCB, CVO, CBE, AFC
* 1960-1963: Air Commodore James Wallace, DSO, MVO, DFC, AFC
* ??
* 1969-1972: Air Vice-Marshal Sir Richard Charles Fairfax Peirse, KCVO, CB
* ??
* 1975-1976: Air Vice-Marshal James Donald Spottiswood, CB, CVO, AFC
CO
* 1950-1953: Group Captain Roy Charles Edwin Scott, CBE, MVO, AFC*
* 1953-1956: Group Captain John Evelyn Grindon, CVO, DSO, AFC
* ??
* 1960-1963: Air Vice-Marshall Donald Laurence Attlee, CB, LVO, DL
The sources are Who's Who/Who Was Who, except for Blount (for him, see  and e.g. ) —Noswall59 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain of the King's/Queen's Flight 

message: I propose to merge RAF Voyager (VIP Transport) into Air transport of the British royal family and government. I think that the content in the RAF Voyager (VIP Transport) article can easily be explained in the context of Air transport of the British royal family and government, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging of [RAF Voyager (VIP Transport) will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. 
Furthermore the information is repetitive and we have now have articles on RAF Voyager (VIP Transport), Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and AirTanker Services which is too disparate, potentially confusing and adds to maintenance requirement of articles. Mark83 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the proposal. I think we should keep the article and instead link and refer to the article wherever this is mentioned. Mostly for two reasons: (1) There is significant interest surrounding air transport of heads of states, and the UK PM is no different. This article can provide a wealth of detail (and history as time goes on) whereas the current mentions of the plane are brief at best. (2) Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and AirTanker Services could probably be merged, given they concern the same thing: air-to-air refueling tankers for the UK. However, this particular VIP transport plane is different and will becoming increasingly different as Boris Johnson appears to be keen on making it solely for the purpose of VIP transport. CityPride (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  I respectfully disagree.  On point (1), there is nothing that can't be covered here.  It's not like the article is getting too big. If we did merge and found the content on ZZ336 was getting too large we could split it out in the future. But I just don't see it.  If you look at the article for Boeing VC-25 it is not large at all, and the text covers the large history and bespoke development of a unique aircraft.  That's not the case here. (2) Not opposed to having that conversation, but it is a separate issue. Admittedly I brought it up, but I was making a wider point.Mark83 (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Greg. I see your points as well. One more point I would like to add is that especially after the BoJo repaint, this will truly be a unique plane and will be visible all over the world, and will garner attention (unlike before, when it was indistinguishable among other Voyagers). However, I'll leave it up to you and the rest of the community to decide how to move forward on this. While on a personal nerdy level I would love to see the page stay and grow as more details and history builds, I guess this can happen within the air transport page as well.CityPride (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

text: PS If it is retained, I don't know what the article title should be but not the current one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Merge per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Don't merge. This article is about the various organisations, regiments, squadrons involved in conveying the personages from place to place. The individual aircraft should be given their own articles, just as we did for Boeing_VC-25 and Commando (aircraft). Similarly RAF_Voyager_(VIP_Transport) should retain its own article. It's a specific aircraft - registration number ZZ336 in fact - and as such will have a home base, decor, flight characteristics, livery, and so on. Merging it to this is not a good idea. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of a contracted fleet, if AirTanker desired, the seating etc will be pulled out of  ZZ336  and put into one of the other aircraft.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is true but it still makes ZZ336 unique - given its primary role of being VIP transport for the PM and Royal Family, and given its unique livery (which makes it less suitable for military use - and will definitely attract attention). We have articles for other planes like Japan Air Force One or Air Force 3701, no reason the UK shouldn't have one. Attention on this one specific plane has grown significantly in recent days and weeks. Check this out - they gave the plane an official name: https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/vip-raf-voyager-ready-for-global-role/ CityPride (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The ten Short Belfasts and the Vickers VC-10 in RAF service all had names. GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the Boeing Poseidon MRA1s. Mark83 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between ZZ336 and VC-25s is that the latter are aircraft that are highly customised and unique.  ZZ336 is very ordinary in the sense that it's 1 if 14 with just different seats fitted and now a different livery.  The large amount of content in the VC-25 article will never be replicated in any article on ZZ336 to anything like the same extent, therefore it can be part of the merged article.Mark83 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure the ZZ336 article will be expanded to your satisfaction over time and the "Commando" aircraft article offers proof of that. But the question is not how big the ZZ336 article is, the question os whether it should be merged into this article. This article is obviously an umbrella article that covers many things: various organisations, regiments, squadrons, etc. ZZ336 is a specific aircraft and - as such - should have its own article, for exactly the same reason that the "Commando" aircraft has its own article. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not the best example - the vast majority of that article is notable simply because the aircraft crashed and will hopefully never be replicated in any article about ZZ336. (i.e. I say hopefully because I hope that aircraft has a long and relatively uneventful service history). The article could easily be rewritten/restructured to address your later concerns mentioned above.Mark83 (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This image has been deleted. Mark83 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: User:Engine850 has yet to follow the correct process since I raised the conflict of interest concern, but to be fair it will take a while for anyone to read that policy and enact the requirements.  In the meantime I'll direct everyone to this relevant edit. Mark83 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential conflict of interest

message: I've added the now public information on the new UK government contracted A321. Given previous history here (and to save reading the whole thread above) I'm trying to represent the facts of the contract existence and not whether or not the aircraft is a good idea. I think I've kept of the post factual and avoided any inference of politics but I am entirely open to discussion. Others, of course may wish to take a different approach depending on how the available information develops now that the procurement method is public. Skenu (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A321