Flying into a storm - VIP Transport in the UK

The Prime Minister was attacked this week in print for travelling back from New York using an RAF Voyager aircraft rather than a commercially available airliner. Various travel authors suggested that he could have made the last flight out of New York and still been back in the UK in time for his various duties, rather than flying in his own aircraft.

There is a curiously British sense of discomfort about the idea that providing any form of even vaguely comfortable or sensible travel for VIPs is a good idea. Historically the UK has not prioritised long haul aircraft (the so-called ‘Blair Force One’), and while it could occasionally convert certain RAF passenger aircraft to the role, much travel was done on chartered aircraft.

It was only in the last few years that an RAF A330 was converted to provide a small number of business seats and a very discrete VVIP section (seats, communications and other enhancements) to permit very senior UK Ministers and Royals to travel long haul using the RAF. Even this raised eyebrows, with some negative comments in the press about waste at a time of stretch on the defence budget, even though the overall arrangement saved HMG as a whole a lot of money.

The problem seems to be a sense that some media and the public expect some kind of haircloth approach to travel, without the slightest comfort or convenience in sight, while at the same time happily moaning about what they see as the UK’s diminished place in the world compared to other nations.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

The issue is that when you are trying to arrange travel for the Prime Minister, it rarely makes sense to use the scheduled departure for both practical and operational reasons. Practically, the Prime Minister does not fly alone and will always be accompanied by a delegation of officials, advisors, press officers and security to name but a few.

These people are not here for a jolly, they are deployed to handle the many different roles and tasks that a Prime Ministerial visit can require. This isn’t something which is done by one person on their own.

The other challenge is that Prime Ministerial diaries are flexible things and can (and do) change right up until the very last second. Last week was a good example where a PM move from New York to London was brought forward a day – this requires a lot of rejigging of flight and travel plans, and comes at a high cost when done using civilian airlines.

While it may have been theoretically possible to put the PM on a flight back from New York, this has to assume that there are seats available, and that it was secure from a security perspective to put him in the cabin. This isn’t a cheap option – flight costs from New York to London tomorrow are coming in at £5500 per person for the cheapest possible flight in business class. Had the BA option been taken, it could have incurred a bill well into the tens of thousands for the delegation to return.

What offers better value to the taxpayer as a whole? Is it to take a jet that is flexible and will move when the PM needs it to move, and for which the operating costs are fairly low (£14000 for the flight), or is it better to constantly try to keep seats open on a BA flight and then move them around at huge cost and inconvenience for both the PM and wider passengers.

All it takes is a few people downgraded on the flight to make room for the PM’s  party to create easy negative headlines and poor press for both the carrier and the Government, while the cost to the taxpayer is likely to be far higher than just discretely jumping on a plane when needed.

The wider picture too is that the jet offers flexibility that a commercial schedule cannot provide. If delicate trade or defence talks are approaching a breakthrough, surely it is better to hold the jet for an extra hour, rather than leave in order to get to the airport in time to not miss your flight? What outcome serves the UK better and which offers longer term value for money?

This too is before we consider the wider implications of the sheer size of the delegation that will need to be moved around – by the time you add in all the HMG staff, security, support and press pack, then the number of seats needed on any one flight are considerable. The jet does not fly with the PM alone in glorious isolation.

Providing discrete and effective VIP comms is a role that practically every reasonably sized nation with an air force tries to do. Most countries have VIP transport fleets precisely to move their seniors around in a safe and appropriate manner. The US have the most significant force with the so-called ‘Air Force One’ forming just one part of a large force that covers Presidential and other airlift.

The French have a dedicated force comprising several airbus jets dedicated for VIP transport, while both the Australians and Canadians also have large VIP elements too. A quick glance at Wikipedia highlights an entire entry on VIP aircraft used by dozens of foreign governments. By contrast to most countries the UK is frugal and minimal in its approach to VIP travel.

The UK used to deploy aircraft like the BAE125 in a command support role, providing an aircraft that could take small parties around dispersed areas, often flying direct rather than having to rely on long waits at regional airports.  This was particulary useful in places like the Middle East where the aircraft was used by commanders on a regular basis.

While the BAE146 remains in service in the UK with 32 (The Royal) Squadron, it appears to be on the verge of going out of service. The next challenging decision that the MOD will have to take is how to provide discrete airlift for people like the Royals and senior Ministers on Government business. The case for providing VIP transport exists, but presentationally is a hard sell to make to a public and media that perceives defence spending as being about tanks and bullets, not providing luxury business jets.

The challenge is to explain why travel matters and why it is not a glamorous luxury. For many whose experience of military flying is limited to being stuck in the back of a C17 or jumping out of a perfectly good C130 there is perhaps a natural desire to see senior officials have the same South Cerney and Brize Norton experience as they go through (‘Ladies and Gents, scuse ranks while I call your names out, JOHNSON?’ )

If anything the UK is far more austere in its approach than other nations – for example the US provide personal aircraft with supporting detachments down to at least some 3* level posts where travel is required regularly. This is invaluable for busy seniors who you want in office or talks doing their jobs, not waiting for the next scheduled flight out of an obscure location.

Perhaps the UK has gone too far in reducing its VIP transport capability – the Royal Train seems to perennially attract calls for cutting, despite its low cost, secure accommodation and low emissions. The loss of the Royal Yacht without replacement remains probably the single greatest self inflicted ‘shot in the foot’ of any nation determined to maintain its global profile on the world stage.

The issue boils down to what does the UK public want and expect from its most senior officials, ministers and military officers? Does it want them to be waiting around in an airport waiting for a connecting flight and out of the office, or does it want them doing the job that they are paid handsomely to do? VIP travel is something that is not a luxury, but is an essential part of a job for people who are needed to travel and engage globally in their role. There isn’t an easy answer to this, but perhaps it is worth considering when wondering whether it is better for seniors to fly VIP or to fly commercially.

About travel, this is a good point too to note that Humphrey will be off on his very late summer holidays for the next few weeks and that blogging will be low to non existent depending on events. It will resume at a normal pace in late October.