REMINDER: In UK English, "a motion was tabled" means that it was put forward for consideration. In USAdian English, the phrase means the exact opposite: "we've given up on it; we're not going to try anymore".
Wherever it lands, there will be disruption. However, Stansted handled the disruption well by merely delaying a few departures and put a few arrivals in the hold so no major issues.
It helps that Stansted is probably the most secure civilian airport in the UK. It's even designated as the airport any hijacked planes would be instructed to land at.
I think it would be better if the leader of the free world landed at a military air base or Stansted, it's not far from London and is the airport where hijack aircraft go so it's easier to keep secure.
I'd say in the future if the AF1 and entourage wants to land at a commercial airport, they are on the hook for any compensation that would be due to passengers, airports and airlines for any other foreseeable disruption. So that'll probably be a couple million at least for Heathrow. Might make an RAF base a more attractive option.
While I don’t know why Heathrow was selected the UK officials are the ones on the hook. They either selected or at least authorized the landing, not the US. It’s not like AF1 just showed up out of nowhere and everything got canceled.
When they used to have to refuel flying from Washington DC to Asia they would refuel at The Air Force Base but they would still clear the air space of commercial traffic.
Unfortunately, Air Force One causes some sort of delay everywhere because all activity stops for taxi, takeoff, and landing. Around the summer of 2012, we were #22 in line to take off from ATL after a thunderstorm delay. Then, everything came to a standstill for about another 45 minutes for Air Force One to taxi and takeoff. I only was going to Tampa and arrived several hours late. ATL is always an adventure!
isn't that on the UK government... it's not like the US called and said... "Hey we're landing at Heathrow.. deal with it!!!" I'm sure they could have landed anywhere they were told to ??
Part of this falls on the authorities at Heathrow. This was a well planned trip. The planning for this trip would have pre planned arrival times. So the airport and British Airways should have been able to minimize the interruption with a little planning. And it's not the US's fault that Heathrow closed a runway "for practice" the day arrival.
Nobody said it was the fault of the US, least of all the motion tabled by the MPs. The UK or any other country hosting the president must accommodate what the president's usual travel pattern demands. The motion was proposing future disruption minimization planning, and not taking potshots at the US or its president.
It reminds me of a couple of years ago when former President Donald Trump had to leave Paris from Orly airport. There was a period of 30 minutes during which there was no departure nor any arrival scheduled. But the President took 30 mn too long to leave the city, so when he arrived at the airport, all the planes previously put on hold were coming in to land, but Air Traffic Control had to keep them away 30 more minutes to stick to the procedure, and programmed departures were delayed, you guessed it, 30 more minutes as well.
I would worry more about how your sovereign is bilking your government every day rather than getting worked up over foreign dignitary landing every 2-3 years.
@@jerrynadler2883 Shut up and pay up, Yankee. The amount of tax money you give to defence companies for bs wars could pay for the sovereigns expenses 10x over 😂
@@alexmcewan7255 way to get off topic, but now that we're criticizing the worst things about each others' countries, how does paying 50% taxes to pay for people on the dole sound? how about the wait at NHS? boy do i love my private hospitals with no lines that i can pay for with less taxes taken out of my paycheck and a tax free HSA.
@@jerrynadler2883 Lmao you want to criticise healthcare now? Private hospitals exist here too if you want one badly enough. At least I dont have to worry about racking up a 6/7 figure debt should I need any life saving treatment. Its quite obvious to see why OP's comment touched a nerve with you, Americans cant stand when other people don't bow down to them or view their country as the peak of society. Anyways, I'm sure you'd be ok with the prime minister or queen blocking up JFK for a few hours...
Even our own royals don't cause that much havoc travelling through the VIP unit at LHR. Why should we tolerate such disruption at our busiest gateway in the UK? There's plenty of RAF and some USAF bases still operating in the UK that are capable of hosting such a fleet of aircraft and with their own military security to boot!
@@mariombrbovic8188 Other dignitaries do arrive there, as do the Royal family - but there's never that amount of chaos and cancellations just to accommodate the President. Why would he cause such commotion when others don't? The Americans have the facilities to accommodate the President and the fleet themselves elsewhere in the UK
That's what I'm saying, it's obviously not the first time, and it's not like the 747 has some unique capabilities so they need to practice. They do it because they can.
I used to run a business on northern Virginia where at the time, presidents Bush and later Obama would go through right outside of my business to get to a community center nearby all the time. The police and secret service would not only close the street in front of my business, but I wasn’t even allowed to open the front door and get out to my own parking lot. The two of them cost me a lot of money as a small business because I list some clients because of being late.
@@SimpleFlyingNews No, Phillip's right. This sort of thing happens frequently. And as much as I disliked W at the time, it's hardly on him alone. If you'd done a story on how frequently it happens or about a world leader who has handled these situations in a much better fashion, that would have been a remarkably better choice.
everyone else pays a big pile of landing feesssssssssssss and other charges for services wanted/needed/required, simply put a price on it. The customer, "Air Force One" can make their choice.
As much as the 747 is undoubtedly an American icon, it might be better if the new Air Force One was a 787-10 or 777-9X for multiple reasons: both are more fuel efficient so they're probably cheaper to operate; both feature the latest technology the industry has to offer; neither are as much as a burden to airports as the 747; and both have better performance.
@@uriahlevi8640 plus the 747 has much larger space for security and other necessary facilities, on top of that the 747 has been around for over 50 years, if there’s any plane that’s easily the most recognizable, it’s the 747
I was in in Orlando when President Trump was arriving there for a speech. The pilots were trying to get depart as soon as possible, because if airforce one landed before we took off, we would be waiting a while to take off. As we were nearing the end of the runway to take off, i saw a us airforce 757 taxiing past us and I was worried we were too late. Our flight ended up being the last one to take off before airforce one landed.
I watched Airforce one at Teesside Airport in 2004. It was awesome. Even with all the security you could get relatively close to watch. The Black Stallions choppers reverberated through your body when they flew by.
They should land somewhere else or follow the traffic and go in holding patern like other planes. I really don't like people who gets prioritised. Same when politicians or high officials use blue lights and police cars to pass through the rush hour traffic. Let them stay in the queue like others so they see what it's like and hopefully make some useful changes. I'm just dreaming here.
Each country's national security concerns usually require the highest ranking officials to be escorted to keep the public away, and kept in constant motion for safety en route to their destination. This keeps their windows of vulnerability short and makes them much more difficult to target for assassinations.
"Forced the cancellation of over 60 flights affecting over 40,000 passengers" - Ah, yes I love seeing those 800 seat Boeing 747-1500s and A380-2000s at heathrow
AF1 flies out of a military field, Andrews, going to and from DC. No reason to not have then fly into a military field everywhere they have one within a reasonable distance.
I was in t5 the day he left and my memory of the day is 2 Qantas 747’s sitting at the end of the south runway for 30 minutes with engines running. This was long before the helicopters arrived. Having said that af1 was rolling in less than 5 minutes.
President Bush landed at LHR because he was going direct to Windsor to meet Liz on his farewell tour. Obviously it was quicker to helicopter to Windsor from LHR than it would be than say, Stansted. Just as Biden visited this year he did exactly the same thing.
This is why for something like Air Force 1 or its Russian equivalent, they need to fly into a long-runway military base if possible. That's why Air Force 1 often lands at Moffett Federal Airfield in Mountain View, CA on visits to the San Francisco Bay Area, which means no major interference with airport operations at the three major commercial airports in the region.
@@1ager Think about it: every time Vladimir Putin does a state visit to outside Russia, a large entourage of planes follows him. That's similar to what happens when the President of the USA travels overseas. Such an entourage of planes will substantially interfere with airport operations unless it's something like a military airfield.
If it lands at a Commercial Airport, the services will be highly effected. If it lands at a Military Airport, it's havoc there as well. The airport should prepared before the landing.
Even if they wanted a long runway, London Gatwick is a way better choice than Heathrow because it doesn’t disrupt as much traffic and it has a runway that is almost 11,000 feet
I was in Las Vegas during the Bush years and was at the airport when the whole place closed down. Everyone had to walk away from the planes ( pilots, baggage handlers, the lot) BECAUSE......and this is ridiculous....the VICE presidents plane was in the airspace...not landing or taking off...it was flying overhead, probably at 40,000 feet. Wow, that's paranoia for you.
What? Either land at an RAF base or at another airport, surely. If not, why is there a need for the airlines to cancel flights? There will just be delays to aircraft movements. Cancelling flights is much more of a logistical and reputational nightmare than delaying flights, passengers would understand especially since the disruption is beyond the airlines’ control.
I understand that the US president's arrival has certain amount of protocol that needs to be accomplished, but for heaven's sake do not fly into London Heathrow. Did the planners chose on the Heathrow on purpose to see how much disruption they can cause
The concern is valid, however you don't get to stop traffic for rehearsals and include that in exaggerating the amount of disruption caused by AF1. Most of the people signing on are just looking for attention. If they were concerned they would pass a requirement the arrival take place elsewhere and use a motorcade. IMO lawmakers have no right to complain.
Wonderful PR tactic by Bush. There’s no excuse for arriving at any busy commercial airport knowing that massive disruption will occur. That’s what military airbases are for.
I get the upset but these procedures are well documented. If there was actual concern over this and not a reactive *audible gasp, I did't realize that this completely documented item happened* Things would have been atleast been motioned to happen.
I read in an aviation magazine years ago that author was flying and AF1 was going to Andrews AFB. He heard AF1 calling on the radio. AF1: Washington Center, AF1. Washington Center: AF1, stand by. AF1: Washington Center, AF1 request lower. Washington Center: AF1, unable.
A second Air Force One is always sent on overseas trips because in the 1970s President Nixon was visiting Russia and he was riding on the Russian leader's plane and it broke down and they had to wait six hours for a replacement jet.
