[Moose4]

I find it kind of surprising that the RAF has the Queen's Flight designated for the UK's titular head of state, but not an aircraft dedicated to the actual executive head of the government. I understand your viewpoint, but with the UK being a nucular(tm GWB) nation, I'm surprised that he doesn't have a dedicated aircraft, for communications purposes if nothing else.

I thought I'd read a while back that the RAF was purchasing a couple of Boeing Business Jets--extended-range 737-700Ws with all the expected touches in the interior--but I may be confusing that with the RAAF. I'm pretty sure the Aussies bought at least one BBJ for long-range travel.

Oh, is the Queen's Flight still using those old Vickers VC-10s?

}:-)4

[snugs]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4905616.stm

This is an interesting article

[snugs]

Here is details of the Royal Squadron which has replaced the Queen's flight.

For long haul they often lease a commercial plane.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2611.asp

[naturalman1975]

Yes, Australia has a number of BBJs, including one that serves as Prime Minister Howard's transport in most circumstances. They can also be made available to other senior people - most recently, former Opposition Leader Kim Beazley was given access to one when his brother died suddenly on the same day he was replaced as leader of the Labor Party. Beazley was given one so he could get back to his family as quickly as possible.

It frankly seems odd to me that John Howard more or less has an official aircraft while Tony Blair does not.