Liz Truss' £500,000 (plus) flight to Aus on private jet. Paid for by UK tax payers.

Baggs

Petera

Baggs

Petera

GrannyGravy13

This is not a private jet it is one of two fully U.K. liveried planes for use by Government officials and the royal family.

It was just not Ms. Truss onboard, she was accompanied by up to 30 Trade Envoys, along with security.

If the U.K. wants to play with the big boys than we have to be seen to be ^a big boy^

Then it should put on its big boy pants and set an example, rather than just copying bad behaviour

They weren't playing. They were conducting government business. The chartered plane (or whatever its title is) means they can discuss things easily and rest more easily and it saves time by not having the usual airport faffing around.

I think people know this really and if it had been politicians of the right colour they would use the same arguments and justifications. And quite right too.

So do you disagree with Liz Truss (2007) or disagree with Liz Truss (2022)?

And your last sentence may give you some succour, but noone else is taken in. It is equivalent to me writing that everyone who is defending this would also have defended it for politicians of any colour.

I would defend important members* of our government, whatever its political colour, using a government plane in this manner. When I argue that I think it's reasonable, I mean it.

*any of "the big four": PM, foreign sec, chancellor, home sec. Possibly others too.

But of course that's not what you wrote. You wrote that other people would defend it, not just you.

Baggs

123kitty

Some of us are being so naive - do we really imagine she had anything to do with choosing how she got to Australia. When my job involved booking travel arrangements for my boss (not in politics) all he wanted to know was what time his taxi would pick him up for the airport, expecting everything to be taken care of.

Good point.

Not really. Someone books my travel, but they also know what I consider appropriate. This is just another version of the 'ambushed by cake' argument.

@trisher, the pilot and co pilot (to complete parachute training obviously) leaving the plane on auto pilot flying a circle over the deepest bit of the Atlantic until it ran out of fuel.

What purpose did the trip take? I thought she’d already negotiated a wonderful trade deal with Australia- you know, the one that benefitted Australia and threatens to ruin many British farmers.

Thank you for that, Baggs

MaizieD

Baggs

Masses of info here (wiki) including this:

"The Voyager refit cost £10million and the government estimated the use of the aircraft would save £775,000 a year versus the cost of charter flights; The new arrangement was expected to cost around £2,000 per flying hour as opposed to £6,700 for long-haul charter.[12] The refit included a secure satellite communications system, missile detection, conference facilities, a changing room, 58 business class seats and 100 economy seats."

So, yeah, it costs a lot. But then flying does. Silly to compare this with holiday flights.

Utterly amazed that we've managed without this all these years yet still managed to be a big player on the international scene.

The world is changing, I think having a missile detection facility is a good thing, especially when senior ministers or senior Royals are onboard.

Secure satellite communications also a necessity in 21st century

Baggs

Masses of info here (wiki) including this:

"The Voyager refit cost £10million and the government estimated the use of the aircraft would save £775,000 a year versus the cost of charter flights; The new arrangement was expected to cost around £2,000 per flying hour as opposed to £6,700 for long-haul charter.[12] The refit included a secure satellite communications system, missile detection, conference facilities, a changing room, 58 business class seats and 100 economy seats."

So, yeah, it costs a lot. But then flying does. Silly to compare this with holiday flights.

Utterly amazed that we've managed without this all these years yet still managed to be a big player on the international scene.

Baggs

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

How did government ministers use to travel before Johnson appropriated 2 planes for his personal travel government use?

Does anyone know?

No idea, but flying into a military airport (business class not first) we were amazed to count upwards of 20 Airbuses all in the livery of their Countries, all delegates/MP’s/leaders attending a conference.

Yes. It's perfectly normal. I think many countries had government planes before UK did.

I'm not interested in what other countries do. I asked what our government members did in the past.

She’s a disgrace

Masses of info here (wiki) including this:

"The Voyager refit cost £10million and the government estimated the use of the aircraft would save £775,000 a year versus the cost of charter flights; The new arrangement was expected to cost around £2,000 per flying hour as opposed to £6,700 for long-haul charter.[12] The refit included a secure satellite communications system, missile detection, conference facilities, a changing room, 58 business class seats and 100 economy seats."

So, yeah, it costs a lot. But then flying does. Silly to compare this with holiday flights.

I'm sure I put two gg in exaggeration.

Possibly the cost of the whole outfit for a year, including when royalty might need it? Pilots and other staff salaries, plane upkeep, fuel, security, etc.

It would certainly be interesting to know whether the half million was actual or an exageration and to know what the money actually includes.

Not sticking up for her here but why on earth would this cost 500k?

All I can find is an aviation source mentioned this amount.

GagaJo

Half.A.Million.

It is beyond contemplation that anyone should feel it's ok to spend tax payer money that way.

Totally agree, nothing else to add

MaisieD
Why not should Liz Truss do what BJ did ?
When last did two wrongs make a right?

GrannyGravy13

It is a fine looking plane, fitting for Royalty and senior politicians whatever their party colours.

Yes - it's a fine looking plane. And at least when it arrives to sign a trade deal, or some other agreement, then the other party involved is likely to be less concerned about honouring the detail of any deal or agreement.

I'm appalled. Particularly as Truss published a paper saying how mp's should travel cheaply, save tax payers money etc. She has no excuse - first class on an ordinary jet would still have given her privacy with her entourage etc. they could always have bought a couple of extra seats to give them space.........

Half a million would help a bit towards the NHS! What I don't understand is the need to raise NI and taxes when we were supposed to be getting the Brexit dividend. And it's a dead cat for BJ's mess over No. 10 events.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

How did government ministers use to travel before Johnson appropriated 2 planes for his personal travel government use?

Does anyone know?

No idea, but flying into a military airport (business class not first) we were amazed to count upwards of 20 Airbuses all in the livery of their Countries, all delegates/MP’s/leaders attending a conference.

Yes. It's perfectly normal. I think many countries had government planes before UK did.

MaizieD

How did government ministers use to travel before Johnson appropriated 2 planes for his personal travel government use?

Does anyone know?

No idea, but flying into a military airport (business class not first) we were amazed to count upwards of 20 Airbuses all in the livery of their Countries, all delegates/MP’s/leaders attending a conference.

It is a fine looking plane, fitting for Royalty and senior politicians whatever their party colours.

How did government ministers use to travel before Johnson appropriated 2 planes for his personal travel government use?

Does anyone know?

We have the government we deserve, I guess. I love to see so many people on this forum have no illusions about the Boris Brigade. PLEASE let's vote en masse for Labour next time. I don't think they're great, unfortunately, but they are the only alternative. If the Tories succeed with their gerrymandering and other tactics they will be in power for ever. I think the priority next election is to STOP the Tories!

123kitty

Some of us are being so naive - do we really imagine she had anything to do with choosing how she got to Australia. When my job involved booking travel arrangements for my boss (not in politics) all he wanted to know was what time his taxi would pick him up for the airport, expecting everything to be taken care of.

Excuse me but it's her responsibility to make it her business to find out how PUBLIC FUNDS are being spent. I and DH worked total of 65 years for public funded institutions and we were forever being reminded to be as thrifty and frugal as we could because it's public money and we were accountable for every half penny(until abolished half pence) of expenditure.ignorance Is NO defence!

Petera

Baggs

Petera

GrannyGravy13

This is not a private jet it is one of two fully U.K. liveried planes for use by Government officials and the royal family.

It was just not Ms. Truss onboard, she was accompanied by up to 30 Trade Envoys, along with security.

If the U.K. wants to play with the big boys than we have to be seen to be ^a big boy^

Then it should put on its big boy pants and set an example, rather than just copying bad behaviour

They weren't playing. They were conducting government business. The chartered plane (or whatever its title is) means they can discuss things easily and rest more easily and it saves time by not having the usual airport faffing around.

I think people know this really and if it had been politicians of the right colour they would use the same arguments and justifications. And quite right too.

So do you disagree with Liz Truss (2007) or disagree with Liz Truss (2022)?

And your last sentence may give you some succour, but noone else is taken in. It is equivalent to me writing that everyone who is defending this would also have defended it for politicians of any colour.

I would defend important members* of our government, whatever its political colour, using a government plane in this manner. When I argue that I think it's reasonable, I mean it.

*any of "the big four": PM, foreign sec, chancellor, home sec. Possibly others too.